Finally guys, let's get back on topic. This topic is about the need for at least one Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution style car. However, I believe there are actually 2 possible solutions for such an ask.

First is to simply make an upgraded full rally version of the RB4, 300bhp, 1250kg weight, roll cage, progressive springs... All the goodies.

Or there could simply make a Lancer Evolution lookalike (can't use genuine names due to copyright issues) with very similiar performance to the real thing.

Either way is fine.

To be absolutely blunt, I'm VERY sick about 2 things here. One is the constant "off topicness". The other is the tendency to get shot down if anyone makes an honest complaint about car peformance.

There's no way to prove it yet, but our fellow AUDI S2 might well be truthful. Think about it, LFS sells 2 (or more?) licenses per license payment. I'm not surprised if many people are sharing 1 license between 2 PCs. There's nothing illegal about that, is it!

Unless we can prove someone's a cracker, no baseless accusations should ever be thrown. It's about time people act more friendly and civilized.

And again I'm sick and tired of being shot down every time I make a statement about car performance or turbo modelling issues. If this perpetuates, consider me a lost future S3 customer.

I agree LFS needs a few supercars with RL performance. Besides the usual LFS tuning options(suspension, tires,brakes,etc), there should be no other mods.

My point exactly. I'm no business major, but I know what potential customers hate to hear. Lets stick to AUDI S2's topic. A more encouraging attitude to our community benefits all and hurts none.

Well, he's just posting his opinoins! Give him a break, it doesn't sound like he's done anything illegal.

I am forced to stress about the lack of truely good 4WDs (at least Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution level performance). But the RB4 doesn't need 276hp to be a real joy to drive . All it needs is slightly more power and a much better orque curve, which hopefully would be rectified with better turbo modelling. I completely understand why AUDI S2 RB4 feels more piggy than its specs suggest thanks again to the torque curve.

Besides, a true rallycar and a couple of tracks to use them won't hurt either.

Last edited by Jamexing, Sun 6 Aug 2006, 04:55.

I'm glad that someone here besides me in the LFS world actually NOTICED that LFS currently lacks good representations of modern 4WD cars/rallycars. The RB4 is certainly too underdone at this time. With more than a second per lap gap between the FXO, it is definitely too piggy to show the tractive and torque handling abilities of 4WD. It's current powerband is too weak at the top and WAY too weak at midrange to showcase on of 4WD's chief strengths: strong corner exit. Please refer to the "Severe 4WD defeciency in LFS" thread for some interesting and detailed discussions.

Anyway, besides 4WD, another major group that's absolutely absent ATM is the Mid-Engined(MR) GT race car. This is at odds with current racecar desogn, where th grid is filled with MR cars (Ferrari 360/430, Lamborghini Diablo, AUDI R10,...).

Conclusion: I agree that LFS needs more REALLY good cars. I've personally nothing against FWD, but FWD is already overdone at this point and the other drivetrain layouts need to be much better done. Well, at least there's BF1 for MR speed thrills.

Last edited by Jamexing, Fri 4 Aug 2006, 17:05.

Unfrotunately, without looking and touching the tire you said about myself, it's rather hard to draw any conclusions. I assume that you felt a vibration through your steering that gets faster with increasing speed, since frequency of tire rotation increases with speed. I also assumed that you weren't just feeling road surface induced vibration if it is as extreme as you claim. And you don't need a go kart direct steering system to feel the vibrations. In road cars, the flat spot would be particularly obvious at certain speeds due to resonance, though the exact frequency is very case dependant.

Well, IRL, flat spot induced vibrations tend to show up very well even for road cars. The reason flatpots are obvious is the fact that they cause tires to get out of round, so a flat spoted car basically sxperiences a constant rise and fall cycle that's speed dependent.

Last edited by Jamexing, Wed 2 Aug 2006, 09:36.

I understand your point, Becky Rose. However, RL sensorless analysis methods are currently impossible to implement in LFS, so F9 remains a required fearture. Well, even the notoriously low tech NASCARS running TPMS, both for setup and safety reasons(imagine blowouts at 200mph! NOT FUN). Besides, anyone with any genuine aspirations (and budgets) for racetrack success would definitely spend on all useful sensors allowed by the racing rules.

Conclusion: F9 removal gets -infinity from me.

And Becky, there are all sorts of sensorless and effective RL tire analysis methods that will take us too much time and trouble to explain.

A silly idea. These days, you can get telemetry for just about anything from tire temps to oil pressure to suspension travel... Annyone who follows cutting edge motorsport tech knows. And deleting F9? Welcome to the dark ages where everything was done with trial and error. If you don't like it, there's no obligation to turn it on!

Well, even the average weekend racer could get a set of infrared detectors to guage tire surface pressures these days. TPMS is soon to be compulsory in at least some parts of the USA. To eliminate live telemetry in LFS is like returning to horsedrawn wagons.

Last edited by Jamexing, Wed 2 Aug 2006, 06:25.

Well, bars happens to be units correlated with a standard atmospheric pressure(barometric atmospheres). However, from a technical point of view, pressure ratios offer the best method for comparsion.

Here's my take:

Add a very long off road circuit, Paris Dakar Rally Style terrain. Offer the choice of vehicles that range from schlesser buggies to Mitsubishi Pajero Evolutions. That would be SERIOUS RALLY FUN!

That isn't true. It really depends on where you live. Where I am, psi is as widespread as bar and kPA, although for automotive tire use, psi offers the most convenient numbers.

2 players on split screen + 6AI cars = MAJOR LAG

Unless you run 4GHz processors and the BIGGEST graphics cards you can get.

Ahh, the INVINCIBLE FXO SYNDROME again.

For now, I believe that the best course of action is to focus on fixing the undersized Rb4 tire problem. Once turbo spool and other turbo related physics are fixed, then we can tweak the powerbands even better. Nevertheless, my initially suggested powerband stands as a rough target.

Last edited by Jamexing, Sat 5 Aug 2006, 05:30.

Splitscreens are nice if your physics model is as pimitive as NFS:U, but not LFS. Good physics are too computationally intensive.

Hello guys sorry for reviving an aging tread, but 38 + 8 = 46, a small sample size indeed. Wish there are more quality votes so we can have a better look at the larger picture.

Last edited by Jamexing, Mon 31 Jul 2006, 12:21.

For once we agree Tristan.

At least you get my point. Fair enough. I just forgot to state that I'm stating practicalities. And yes, I meant Header == Exhaust Manifold. And I meant seperate Manifolds for each bank.

Example: Pajero V6's are 2 manifold designs that are converged to on larger main exit pipe. Again it's just more conveninet packaging for this case.

Of course you could converge 2 banks of a V-12 to 1 MASSIVE header, but why? Practically, the packaging and weight distribution concerns alone make that silly.

Siamesing is actually quite common for reasons that range from better emmsions control to better exhaust sound. The newest Vipers have siamesed pipes that are again diverged to 2 side pipes for better sound. Conclusion? The V-10 still runs 2 headers.

I4's only need one well matched exhaust pipe and thus, one exhaust tip. If it's a V or flat configuration, then we need at least one exhaust pipe per bank. Otherwise, multiple exhausts are just wastes of space and weight and thus, an illogical choice.

True, sounds do vary widely as a result of tire construction, tread pattern, tread compound, etc. But those tires simulated in LFS are either normal sport tires for "normals"(high performance summer) or summer only ultra high performance, max performance or extreme summer tires, represneted by road supres. Not your average and DANGEROUSLY QUIET all seasons that drift with almost no warning(silent drift).

Try pushing a set of Yokohama Advan Neovas or Goodyear Deagle F-1 DS-3 tires around Albert park and you'll all comprehend my point with crystal clarity.

Just went online and again it's either:

1.Lack of good races(end up driving alone)
2.Too much lag(I use cable!)
3.There MIGHT be good races, though they all seem to be private sessions.

Well, at least the scrubbing noise whilst at optimum slip is brilliant. The real problem is when drift angles get extreme(>optimum). I'm not saying there's no noise. I'm saying that it's surpisingly soft and mild, none of the sceech that one would hear with RL treaded tires.

And as I've said before, race slicks are surprisingly screech free due to their monoblock nature (one giant tread block), which guarantees maximum contact patch stability and thus relative lack of vibration from grip slip cycles. When they do let go, they tend to do so suddenly with minimal noise again due to the nature of their contact patches.

It's been a while, and there's been quite a bit of talk on turbo behaviour and powerbands. It is pretty certain that turbo modelling problems are at the heart of the issue, since the NA cars in LFS have beautiful powerbands. All we can hope for now is that they'll try to fix the problem soon.

Now on to the tire problem. The RB4 driver of today faces 2 major problems that make any race against the FXO of decent length completely uncompetitive. The RB4's relatively skinny tires handicap its ultimate grip, making it impossible to lap anywhere near as quickly as the FXO. The second problem is also a result of undersized tires. To have ANY chance of keeping up with the FXO, one is forced to drive its wheels off, which means using the tires' full potential constantly. Imagine doing this over a 10 lap race at Aston GP. To survive constant peak ussage, one is forced to use 40+psi pressures, slowing the car down EVEN MORE. Or one could run tire pressures that generate good grip such 36psi (setup dependant to a point, of course), only to suffer from greasy oerheated tires as the race progresses. Or one could slow down and abandon all chances of winning.

To have any chance against an well driven FXO, one must push both the RB4 and XR GTT amazingly hard. But to do so only kills tires in the long run. Hence my recommendation for a slight tire upgrade for both cars so none of the TBO cars suffer from serious tire issues.

No, we do not have a need for speed. We LIVE FOR SPEED!

Last edited by Jamexing, Sat 29 Jul 2006, 08:10.