Group B 600hp monster + twisty WRC mountain stage == Ultimate LFS

Congratulation, you guys have actually managed to piss both me AND my friends in one full sweep.

If only you guys have any idea how many serious (not your average ricer) people actually LIKE 4WD and turbo cars. As as for your attitude to new potential customers, it's APPALLING. Just because you think 4WD turbo cars are boring means that every ELSE has to find them boring? And I'm accuse for ATTENTION SEEKING and HIGH HORSING...

Slightly dodgy turbos? Gee, even a 4D56 turbo lags less than this. And it's a DIESEL! Wow. I simply have a hard time believing that someone here has actually drive RL 700hp EVOs and STILL think the turbos are just SLIGHTLY off. I dare any of you to find a stock or well tuned EVO that lags AT ALL beyong 3000rpm. I guess your unhealthy hatred towards 4WDs is due to the fact that you might be one of those muscle car purist types. Let's get a 1000hp Mustang in LFS. FUN enough for you?

No, they're NOT missing out. It's you guys who are missing out. LFS will never reach its full poential without fresh blood.

Fine, at this rate, i'll just leave you guys to revel in ignorance. I NEVER post in this thread again, happy?

Can't believe there's still so much hostility to just driving DOWN a moutain. It's as if we live on flat planes with inclines only.

Some WRC stages go both up and down a mountain. So they MUST be driving the wrong way then. Gee, I didn't know that WRC drivers are TOO GAY...

Enough with this downhill is the wrong way crap. Unless of course you're from a 2-D universe.

I agree that the M3 is a great suggestion, so is the LX series and even the AE86. But seeing the fire I've copped jsut from SUGGESTING AE86 RWD candidate, good luck. Maybe there's simply too much stigma associated with the poor car that turned into a classic 20 or so years after its initial production. BTW, I voted FOR a RWD contender.

I still can't believe that some of us here are still stuck in the 70's. Oh yeah, back in the good ole days when 4WDs always understeer like pigs. When turbo was ALWAYS equated with MASSIVE lag and horrific pwerbands. Enough with the 4WD driver = nancy boy argument. Please call Tommi Makinen a nancy boy if you reckon 4WDs are boring. I bet you hate rallying as well.

Wake up! The days of "boring 4WDs" are gone. Last time I checked, a Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution whooped a Porsche Cayman's ass on a street course. By 0.3 seconds, with a car much about half the price, bigger, more practical, less powerful and heavier.

Some people might be content with being completely out of touch with modern automotive technology. Some would say that my arguments on poor turbo spool up characteristics and powerbands are absolutely crap. If only people know how many people I've failed to persuade to get the license just because of this poor turbo car powerband problem. And need I explain how our brand name society works again?

Truth is, unless the performance of RL production cars are represented in LFS, we'll have a hard time expanding our community. Some of my friends completely dimissed buying the license simply because some of its cars don't represent the peformance of their RL counterparts. The argument was always:

"What's a sim if it doesn't simulate RL performace levels? Might as well stick to my (indestructable and amazingly easy to drive cars) GT4..."

The irony is that most of them LOVED the LFS physics engine. I'm rather sick of failing to get some decent local racing buddies because of this excuse. Again, they weren't too concern with the brand names. They just wanted them to PERFORM like their RL.

I'm not really saying that we should just get all the brand names if the developers can't afford them yet. I'm saying keep whatever RL replicas we have and make them perform as well as the real thing. For instance, I still have a hard time believing that IRL, the RA's low pressure (less than 1 bar) turbo takes more than 2 seconds to fully spool up. By the way, all the turbo cars would be much better drives if their turbo spool characteristics are fixed and their powerbands improved in the near future. Well, at least it's as unforgiving as RL MR cars at the limit.

Good examples of RL car replications in LFS are the mini lookalike and the XR GTT. If only the XR GTT's engine and turbo perform like the real life Mitsubishi Starion...

Unfrotunately, it's a sort of a vicious cycle the way things are. To attract more buyers, we need names to attract more licencees. Sorry guys but in this age of image, brand names and fashion over substance, that's how things are. As far as I'm concerned, I don't mind whatever name is used as long as cars perform and handle very close to their RL counterparts. If we do get the required names and car data, at least LFS would cream them in the physics department.

But to get names AND especially their car data (required to properly replicate them), we need major license sales. AKA Catch 22 AKA Chicken and the Egg.

You thought those futuristic possibilities were UGLY? Try the 2008 regs for F-1 wings. 2 Rear winged FUGLINESS.

Anyway, isn't this thread about suggestions for a better TC, not some subjective opinions of car "styling"? Just get back on topic guys.

Last edited by Jamexing, Tue 22 Aug 2006, 13:20.

I've seen tha there is quite a bit of sentiment against the RA. It may not be my favourite car, but to kill one RL car after another will eventually rlegate LFS to non-sim status. Why call it a sim if it has absolutely NO real cars?

And someone here seems to not understand the weight distribution issues I talked about. Unless fuel happens to be located right at the center of gravity of the car, weight distribution variace is inevitable. And the fuel pressurization is meant to eliminate fuel surge and prevent lean-outs. It will NOT magically compensate for weight distribution changes caused by fuel consumption.

Guys, lets just kill the RA and get on with it, since no one seems to like it anyway. As far as I'm concerned, LFS could use a RL production car. A LOTUS EXIGE would fit the bill just fine. But seeing what kinf of sentiment this forum usually shows for ANY suggestion of including RL cars, I guess that's another idea down the drain.

I wish that someday most of us will realise that the best car physics sim in the world means nothing if it doesn't even try to be relevant with RL cars. I hope no-one here will suggest killing the BF1 too.

Guys, for an example of advanced TC much better then the current flatliner the BF1 runs, try this game:

Jacque Villenuarve's Speed Challenge

It's basically a "sim" of what F-1 could be ib the future (nanotech auto-repair, Vr, etc). Granted, its physics model isn't quite as advanced as LFS. It does, however, have the most advanced traction control (in a game) I've seen so far. It's a speed dependant TC that allows different TC slip settings for different speeds, and the TC works at ALL speeds.

BTW, it also features EXCELLENT ABS brakes.

Last edited by Jamexing, Tue 22 Aug 2006, 08:24.

Sinbad, let me clearify what I'm really saying. As far as I am concerned, it doesn't really matter that the Tesla is in or out of LFS. What I'm trying to say is that to exclude all RL EVs from LFS forever is a really bad move. Remember I said that as far as I'm concerned, this could be an S3 level improvement for LFS. And I do agree that there are many more fun conventionally powered (petrol) cars currently available in RL too.

Point is, it doesn't matter that EVs aren't included in LFS right now. Just don't dismiss the inclusion of much better performing EVs in the forseeable future. Don't be surprised if EVs are actually RACED in the forseeable future.

For the record, the latest Lemans winner happens to be a 5.5L twin turbo diesel (AUDI R10). Feel the torque. Who needs 6 gears when your powerband allows you to run 5 STRONGER gears? As far as I'm concerned, its about time LFS simulates a few diesel powered enduro rally racers (like the VW Toureg Dakar version ). Even you can't dismiss the fact that off tarmac racing is practically non-existant on LFS now.

As for killing the RA, I'm sure even you don't agree with this, Sinbad.

I thought LFS was a sim, not a fantasy car island. Let's relegate LFS to irrelevance by completely ignoring modern performance automotive developments. Not to mention failing to SIMULATE real type cars.

Guy's lets open a poll and see how many of us hate the RA enough to kill it. Good bye to one of our hard-earned RL cars...

Guys, I'm all for hardcore mode if practically viable. In fact, I drive in cockpit mode only, because LFS is meant to be a racing simulator. However, unless quality triple pedalled wheel and pedal sets are freely available on the market, its implementation is still questionable at best.

Currently, it's still quite hard to get realistc feeling wheels and pedals. Let's just say that most steering wheels on the market feel like nothing more than underdamped spings. As for 3 pedal sets, I've not seem the mat my local stores yet. I could use 2 pedal sets to use the 2nd set as a clutch, but that is far from ideal.

I know that IRL, there's no such thing as a complete lack of human bias. Well, at least the wiki article I recommended was actually quite balanced, showing both the advantages and the problems of biodiesel.

Hence my encouragemnet to seek as much info on biodiesel as possible to make well informed opinions.

Anyway guys, lets get back on topic. So do we want a high performacne EV on LFS in the near future or as an S3 level upgrade? Personally, I believe that LFS should enhance its sim status by simulating the performance of car types that actually exist.

Not too different from WRC MO, with 30s gap between cars. And yes, it's a much better atmosphere then most of circuit racing today, with F-1 being the pinnacle of arrogance. 200AUD tickets and you still can't see the drivers up close or even get a decent seat.

AKA European FWDs with good performance potential.

Actually, any decent RWd and 4WD car could do well on a hillclimb.

Need I remind you that LFS is a simulation of car physics. What we're suggesting here is something that's actually possible IRL, so your barking up the wrong alley. BTW, racing has always been dangerous.

Need I remind you that the object is not to cause a massive crash, though seriously, that already happens a bit too much online anyway. At least it's restricted to 2 cars only! Moot point.

No, the idea isn't to play chicken on BL. It's about racing on a mountain pass style track with 2 marked lanes.

I'm sick and tired of people who act as if closed loop tarmac circuit racing is the only form of racing worth simulating. Thanks to this prevailing attitude, rallying remains neglected. What a waste of a brilliant physics engine. Current rally cross circuits are too short and boring to be of any real fun anyway. Coupled with the lack of a well done RB4 and some rally cars, this is only going to get worse. Beside, LFS has a remarkable lack of complex corner sequences ATM.

Not much if any advantage, if the course is well designed (e.g slow corner right before the turnaround straights). This mimizes if not eliminates entry speed advantages. Besides, The uphill starting car will get his chance to go faster on his downhill run, so that evens things out, since the downhill starting car would have to go slower on its uphill run too.

Not TOO different fropm the idea I just suggested, but a good one nonetheless.

Ricerguy, your idea seems fun to me. Only problem is the risk of crashing if any driver forgets to hold his lane whilst passing each other. Nothing a good real time car tracking map, skill and attention can't solve.

To make it a fair race, each driver would start at opposite ends of the course (uphill or downhill). The finishing straights for each end would be 4 lanes wide to ensure adequate space for the turnaround. One lap is basically counted as one uphill and downhill combined session.

The winner is determined by whoever has the fastest combined uphill and downhill time.

Or, there's always the option of a one run (uphill or downhill) 1 on 1 battle.

Just a suggestion. I've seen more detailed and scientifically established sources, though I can't remember them (too many) and I highly recommend you find and read them. Remeber, I'm not saying biodiesel is perfect in every way. I'm just saying it has a better potential future than petrol.

Bring on great ocean road from Melbourne Australia. Many kays and corners of fun.

Good idea though, srdsprinter. Or we can just make an emulation of the AE86, race prep it properly so it's a pure tarmac circuit car. BTW, I like the LX cars too.

I'm just saying that if we actually engineer biological organisms such as the oil producing algea I mentioned just now, biodiesel has real potential. FYI, Malaysia is currently suffering from palm oil overproduction and poor palm oil prices. That's one already existant biodiesel source.

As for emmisions, biodiesel has a serious lack of toxic contaminents compared to mineral based fuels, e.g. sulphur. Biodiesel is still hydrocarbon in nature, so its burn characteristics are no mystery to chemists.

Besides, biodiesel has superior lubricuty to petroleum diesel. Its naturally superior detergency keeps diesels clean. In fact, you should replace your oil filter more often than usual (e.g 1000km intervals) on first use of diesel after long term use of petroleum diesel. This is due to the fact that the sludge and all the gunk generated from mineral diesel use gets cleaned off with use. Once the filters stop cloggong up, you can safely return to normal oil filter change intervals while enjoying superior engine cleanliness, both improving performance AND reducing emmsions.

I'm glad that you're showing some interest tristan. I recommend you read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel

Hope you find this highly educational.

Quote from tristancliffe :

The majority of cars in LFS would have little problem passing at Monte Carlo. It's pretty much only the REALLY fast stuff that struggles.

AKA F-1 cars.

What I meant is closer to having multiple rally stages from RBR, e.g. monte carlo tarmac/snow stages. And don't worry, their complicated and variable nature makes sure you can never get bored (unless you train as religiously as MS ). Think 5 minute WRC stages with tens of unique corners based on RL roads, not your average 2 minute circuit lap.

BTW, this is and important upgrade for LFS if it is to widen it's customer base, but for now, it's more of an S3 level suggestion. I'm just saying that the possiblity of good rally stages should not be forgotten.

Guys, lets get back on topic and discuss some serious candidates for our RWD car.