I'm just concentrating on TBO class cars because of less isgnificant variables to deal with.

FYI, there is a special version of the Lancer Evolution sold in UK known as the FQ400. 400bhp, nuf said. And yes, its still the same old 2.0L 4G63. Comes with 3 year factory waranty. Will never fail for no good reason as long as you're strict with the regular service (5000km oil and filter changes). Well, it also a fair bit of lag below 4500rpm, though it revs much harder than that FXO GTR engine (7500rpm!). Honestly, I can't believe that such highly tuned 490bhp engines could have such pathetic top end power. No point revving beyond 6500rpm for that engine.

Seriously, I don't mind an extra 10kg of frontal weight on the FXO GTR if it was uprated to 2.5L with the same peak power/torque but a much broader torque curve.

Anyway, this thread is mainly concerned with the RB4 and XRGTT class cars. I just wish there's hope for my suggested changes on the next patch upgrade.

I agree about the turbo modelling issue. IRL, even the EVO VIII's high pressure turbo (20+psi!) fully spools much faster tha nthe LFS TBO turbos. As if we've got a MASSIVE exhaust wheels and a TINY intake turbines.

By the way, the RAC is surprisingly lag free (for a LFS car). It's powerband is definitely wider than the TBOs and especially the FXO GTR.

Please keep LFS to a simulation of professsional style LEGAL racing. Last thing we need is a NFS:HP2 clone.

I do agree that some circuits should be slightly bumpier, with the SO and FE tracks being the genuinely suitable candidates.

I understand that GTRs are more exhilerating to drive, though their nature as downforce cars make balancing a very complicated issue indeed. Face it, the other 2 slower GTRs have weight ditributions and downforcr balance that are simply WAY too mismateched. At least the 4WD GTR car in this case does have the best tire package, though it suffers from serious weight ditribution to downforce balance mismatch issues. Oh, it also suffers from crippling lag. Well, it's the LAGGIEST car in LFS . 4WD is the drivetrain that thrives on torquey powerbands. Lack of torque is a SEVERE handicap. It suffers from an even worse case of an ultra narrow powerband tahn the RB4. The irony is, the FZ GTR has the BEST powerband of all the GTRs! It's excellent mid range and high end are ideal for circuit racing. If the current base engine is to be maintained, the FXO GTR must be modified to reduce lag. The least that can be done is to use any of the 2 methods to reduce or eliminate lag:

a)Twin sequential turbos
b)Variable vane turbo chargers

As long as the powerband represents what those 2 factors could do to relieve lag and improve torque curves, the FXO GTR should suffer much less from slow corner exits.

Lets focus on the TBO class where aero is insignificant (no real downforce or significant lift, at least they should be ), so the only significant variables left to tweak are powerbands and tire grip. Slight aero tweaks might be used for tweaking top speeds, though for now I believe the best option is to solve power and mechanical grip issues.

Last edited by Jamexing, Fri, 21 Jul 2006 15:50.

Actually, modern cars can be setup to handle real worldd bumps very well, though this will necessitate the use of multirate springs (i.e use of one stiffer and one softer spring for progressive spring rates) This is absolutely necessary for decent grip and traction and avoid uncessary skipping and crashing and turning races into a complete mess. Another parameter also required and currently unsimulated too is the 4-way damper, which is standard in many modern race cars. The current linear dmpers will only cause skipping and unnecessary crashing and again, generate a complete mess.

The truth is, some of the "fast" setups I see floating around will absolutely bounce the car off your average potholes. Excess softening of linear susupension components only end up with seasick wallowing handling, definitely bad for racing. Try getting a setup for the RB4 for blackwood Rallycross. To survive bumps, you either end up too stiff to avoid ridiculously tall setups or too soft and wallowy setups. This goes a long way to explaining why modern rallycars with decent handling always use multi spring coilovers.

I agree that LFS is currently ironed smooth on all the Tarmac tracks. But to force in realistic bumps (aka BIG AND NASTY) with no mechanism to cope well while generating decent racing speeds safely will only turn LFS into a crashfest.

If you miss the bumps, please run the neglected rallycross circuits (especially blackwood rallycross) and try running through those massive series of bumps without suspension damage without slowing down.

My REAL point is that a test facility such as Nardo is ideal for getting the basic handling (steady state balance and grip, trancient handling,etc) balance of a car right in the first place, so you'll start out with a good baseline to start with. To teak it for each track, just poke around with parameters such as wing angle settings, minor rollbar adjustments, subtle damper tweaks for desrired transient behaviour, etc. This is obviously MUCH better than forcing players to waste hours on trial and error for each circuit with poor baselines to start with. Some might say just download a "fast setup", but you'll never learn too much or improve your understanding of how to setup a car.

Remember, LFS is not your arcady pick up and play daytona style game. True racing simulation entails simulating both driving AND driver adjusted setups. Setup skills are just as important as driving skills and I'm still astonished that so many people still believe that a racer driver's only purpose is to drive as fast as possible.

A driver is defined not only by shear drving skill, but by his ability to tweak his car well. A Nardo style test track is a great way to help generate excellent baselines.

.

Track tests alone won't reveal everything. That's why its still worth doing more standardised tests.

Well, if you create a prefectly balanced setup, it won't be perfect. In fact, it'll be undrivable due to shear lack of ANY stability. As to invalidity of standard tests, tell that to the Lancer Evolution VIII MR. At 0.98g (skidpad) and 70+mph (200ft slalom), it .... guess what, it's brilliant on mountain passes and anything that resembles the twisty nature of the monte carlo rally. In comparison, the McLaren F1 posted 0.86g and 64.5mph (from Road&Track). It's faster on your average high speed F1 style track, but try doing the Japanese mountain passes with it. Truth is, it understeers heavily at any speed that doesn't allow a lot of downforce generation. And guess what, that's exactly what the numbers show.

So much for track tests only mentality. The truth is, both tests are necessary for those who want to thoroughly understand and tweak their cars. Racetracks tend to hide or overamplify some characteristics of your car, that's why standard tests are still necessary to attain a sort of basic balance. If it tests well, it also goes to prove if it is the basic balancr or the driving that is at fault. The problem with track tests only is that cars get overcompromised setups to compensate for some driver deficiency. This will not do the any good t the cars potential lap times.

Seriously, LFS currently has the same problem that a lot of driving games/sims have: lack of a good test track. The Nardo test facility is exactly what LFS needs to solve this once and for all. There's currently no good test area to efficiently test all the basic parameters (slalom, skidpad, acceleration and top speed) of all the cars, especially the faster ones.

For those absolutely inclined to add speed bumps, lets do it seriously and add the riddly washboards, pothholes and broken tarmac surfaces known to exist, especially from my home of origin. Nasty bumps that we deal with will make sure that the current so-called "fast setups" with ridiculous ricer like levels of lowering (causing less than optimal lower arm geometry) wil FEEL THE CRUNCH. Now THAT's a hardcore sim of real world unmaintained city roads.

Seriously, I don't mind a few jokes now and then (LFS is about both serious simulation AND the fun of racing). But it'll be nice if someone could come up with better suggestions to improve the order of things in the TBO calss, which has remained pretty much unchanged over the past few patches.

The valid suggestions that now exist are improvements in XR GTT and RB4 powerbands with slight peak power and torque increases while slightly improving the tire package for RB4 and maybe XRGTT as well if necessary. Any good suggestion to improve realism and balance is suggested, as long as that not involve significantly nerfing FXO. I'm just tired of this FXO>>>XRGTT and RB4 on ALL tarmac circuit order of things. It's just that the other 2 aren't well done enough to show their strengths (especially RB4) while the FXO is unusually devoid of RL FWD issues. Not even front tire wear issues! Wow.

I just happen to believe most major disciplines of motorsports should be as well represented as possible. And yes, that game's a true oval haven.

My point is, none is truely EASY, so don't underestimate oval skills. There was once a race of american oval drivers against WRC drivers on a rally special stage, just for the fun and good show. The WRC camp includes the likes of Marcus gronholm and other European rally drivers. The Americans have your Indycar and Nascar oval guys. All drove WRC style rallycars.

Guess who wins in the end? The "stupid americans that can only turn left". After the race, one eof the european drivers said, with his index finger spinning anto-clockwise:

"I thought americans could only turn left. Surprise, surprise."

So much for the road courses always require more skilled than ovals theory.

Try doing constant 200+mph on a massive oval 1 hour straight with consistantly fast lap times. Then say its easy if one thinks so.

Very funny. 243 x 1.95 = 474hp. Might as well make a new class (LFS equivalent of group B). So much for the dream for realistic depictions of cars within their class...

Again, any good suggestions are welcome.

Honestly, Oval racing is quite decent in LFS, though not sufficiently done. Kyoto Oval only? There are much bigger ovals IRL and some cars even need to lift for the final corner(unless one uses ultra-speciallized staggered setups). This idea of a Nardo Style test track is exactly what LFS needs. Nothing like a slalom, skidpad, acceleration and topspeed run all on the same place all at once. No need to shuffle around different arenas like we do with the autocross just for thoses tests.

So far, there is no place to test the top speed potential of most of the cars. Same for slaloms (transient tests).

Hi guys! New ideas to improve the RB4 and XR GTT would be nice, as long as it doesn't include nerfing the FXO. So far my main suggestions were powerband upgrades for the RB4 and XR GTT and larger, stickier tires for the RB4 and maybe slight tire upgrades fo the XR GTT if required.

Any valid suggestions would be nice, as long as it doesn.t involve something silly (like 100% power upgrades ).

Lets clarify the true nature of ovals.

Yes, they look vastly oversimplified compared to even the simplest road courses. But look again.

IRL, each oval, rioval or any circuit of such nature has its very unique characteristics. Every bump, every imperfection, every nuance... the technicalities are infinite. This is one place where winners and losers are defined by hundredths of a second or mms. The dedication, the discipline, the perfection of the racing line...

So, before ANYONE bashes ovals, think of the above statements.

Here's a great idea:

Lets do a turbo-intercooled diesel version of the RB4. Use the 2.5L diesel used by the VW toureg Paris-Dakar Rally Buggies. 200+hp, 500+nm torque and 4WD traction equal rally monster.

Good point. Been to Albert park a few months ago and ran a few laps on my friends Corolla Sportivo (stiff suspension). Let's just say this road course is amazingly smooth. Of course, from an F1 (aka ULTRA STIFF suspension) point of view little indentations feel like speed bumps.

Speed bumps? Who needs speed bumps when Blackwood rallycross already has a series of bumps big enough to crunch all current LFS car suspensions? Who need speed bumps when a good rally course could offer mucgh more naural and realistic bumps for those of us who like to FEEL THE BUMPS.

Seriously, if you think the road tracks (non specilaized race tracks) are too smooth, don't add some artificial "speed bumps". Lets add washboard road surfaces and potholes like real world roads. That should be a much better suspension test than an artificial speed bump. Where I came from, anything less than quality aftermarket suspension will fade in about 15 minutes at the speed limit. Frequent washboards and random potholes see to it. Now THAT'S a real suspension test.

Excellent physics engine:check
Decent graphics without the need for 1000$ video cards:check
Relatively simplified but hopeful aero simulation:check
Excellent developer and player communication:check
Reasonable price for a full license:check
Realism over arcady "fun":check
............

Well, LFS is fundamentally quite close to completion in many ways. Only essential details like exact car performance need fine tuning. The less essential dressups (better graphics, sound, etc) can wait for S3 as far as I am concerned.

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

I'm glad someone is starting to REALLY understand my true intentions for this thread. We're lucky that LFS puts its players in the thick of its development.

LFS is like top shelf wine... only gets better with the paasage of time.

Well I seemed to have gotten a bit off topic. Lets stick to discussions about the 3 Turbo road cars as well. Well, at least we're lucky that developers are relatively easy to contact. Another reason why I don't play arcady NFS:U. NFS:PU was really nice and remarkably sim for its time but then again it suffered the fate of poor sales. Obviously, most NFS players are too far removed from automotive reality and prefer arcady "fun" above all else.

At least those 2 non-turbo road cars aren't my first choice and they are not TOO far away, like the almost complete ownage of FXO. At least the RB4 has the refuge of rallycross most of the time. Poor "Mitsubishi Starion" (XR GTT), nowhere close to its real life glory. Unfortunately, rallycross remains the most underplayed sector of LFS. So much for 4WD advantages. Well, there's always the next patch.

LFS is still evolving and so far it has only gone better overall. Oh, IRL 4WD and AWD are practically the same. A car only has 4 wheels, so AWD==4WD. Don't fall for the marketing hype of AWD!=4WD.

AWD = All-wheel drive
4WD = 4 wheel drive

As long as the drivetrain sends power to all 4 wheels, its 4WD.

I fully understand your frustration with the amazing FWD FXO. The point of FWD stability is that its easier to pick up (especially for noobs) and its easier to drive consistantly fast without as much attetion as RWD. Of course, since XF and XR don't seriously overpower their tire's tractive capabilities, XRr will never suffer too much from excess rear wheelspin (unless you drive the same way you do in NFS:U ). The XR will be the slightly more difficult choice, but the reward will be ultimate speed. If races grow long, the FWD XF has its consistancy and ease of driving trump card as well(it just takes less concentration to drive and is a bit more forgiving). So overall, both have a hope to win.