That's INSTANTANEOUS g force, NOT the AVERAGE g-force numbers you see from production car skidpad tests.
Why on earth would you want to put an UNFINISHED racing simulation program on CD and sell it to the mass market? Thankfully the Scavier team does have enough wisdom, intellect and common sense NOT to sell half done jobs for the sake of some VERY artificial release dates. Even when it's a well working, relatively reliable and remarkably stable piece of software.
Hmm, reminds me of a few things about RISK ANALYSIS.
It's simple actually, as the overall risk is simply a product of the risk of hazard occurance and cost of hazard.
For instance, if a one use item that costs 10 dollars and its chance of failure for that one use is 0.2%, the risk is:
Average loss = 0.002*10 = 0.02 dollars
Then there's the cheaper equivalent costs only 5 dollars BUT has a chance of failure of 2%:
Average loss = 0.02*5 = 0.10 dollars
So on average, the "cheaper" item is actually more expensive.
S3 is at least some years away and most if not all computers worth buying these days have mutlicore CPUs, so it is not too far fetched if most of us would have upgraded our computers in that timeframe.
For a guide:
Bob's road car preloads are actually quite close to RL examples I encounter. In practice, anything over 100Nm is considered quite a lot for road cars.
For reference, the optimum preload for a Pajero 2-way clutch LSD is actually 100-110Nm for 31 inch tires (OEM). This is very much on the high end of OEM recommended preload settings. Coupled with its 4 pinion high dynamic locking factor design, no wonder it is one of if not the best performing OEM supplied clutch LSDs of all time. All without loss of LSD center durability and excessive rear tire drag whilst making slow and VERY tight turns.
In LFS, 150Nm of preload is enough to bring RWD behavior much closer to RL RWD behavior. It's also sufficient for putting power to the ground. Personally I don't need anything more than 200Nm on the road cars in LFS. With the race cars and their stickier tires and stiff suspensions allow more preload without as much penalty in understeer.
Bob's road car preloads are actually quite close to RL examples I encounter. In practice, anything over 100Nm is considered quite a lot for road cars.
For reference, the optimum preload for a Pajero 2-way clutch LSD is actually 100-110Nm for 31 inch tires (OEM). This is very much on the high end of OEM recommended preload settings. Coupled with its 4 pinion high dynamic locking factor design, no wonder it is one of if not the best performing OEM supplied clutch LSDs of all time. All without loss of LSD center durability and excessive rear tire drag whilst making slow and VERY tight turns.
In LFS, 150Nm of preload is enough to bring RWD behavior much closer to RL RWD behavior. It's also sufficient for putting power to the ground. Personally I don't need anything more than 200Nm on the road cars in LFS. With the race cars and their stickier tires and stiff suspensions allow more preload without as much penalty in understeer.
Last edited by Jamexing, .
Not to mention toe changes. The front wheels are usually designed to toe out under compression and the rears to in under compression. This changes handling a lot especially in transient situations, allowing agile but still reasonably stable cars. BTW, excessive antdive/squat is actually a really bad idea, as it could easily mess up handling and grip.
Last edited by Jamexing, .
All the wheel damage behavior described so far is that of forged wheels that bend but don't crack/break when overladed. Not really a problem since I would never track a car seriously with those ridiculously heavy, porous and crack/fracture prone gravity cast wheels.
I remember a car chase where a guy stole a Lancer Evolution and went through a spike strip, blowing all 4 tires whilst pursued by cops. He drove at a pretty constant speed of about 250+km/h when the tires were still on the rims. He then literally drove the tires off as police called off the ridiculously fast and dangerous ground chase, instead focusing all efforts on the helicopter chase. He went along on the rims at speeds between 160-180km/h, only to press on and wear them down to the brakes. He pressed on with the brakes on the ground, still going up to about 130km/h. Eventually he wore the brakes down and ground himself to a halt.
Anyway, + infinity, should be included when S3 nears completion AND most of us here actually run multicore computers that can cope with this extra computing demand.
I remember a car chase where a guy stole a Lancer Evolution and went through a spike strip, blowing all 4 tires whilst pursued by cops. He drove at a pretty constant speed of about 250+km/h when the tires were still on the rims. He then literally drove the tires off as police called off the ridiculously fast and dangerous ground chase, instead focusing all efforts on the helicopter chase. He went along on the rims at speeds between 160-180km/h, only to press on and wear them down to the brakes. He pressed on with the brakes on the ground, still going up to about 130km/h. Eventually he wore the brakes down and ground himself to a halt.
Anyway, + infinity, should be included when S3 nears completion AND most of us here actually run multicore computers that can cope with this extra computing demand.
As much as the handicap system has done for balancing the TBOs, the REAL fundamental problem is still more physics based than anything else. Ideally, all TBOs should have their turbo boost behavior and engine powerbands fixed as this in itself would benefit the RWD and 4WD cars particularly well due to their superior traction, reducing the FXO domination syndrome. Power curves should also be better tweaked for each drivetrain. The FXO would be better of with a peaky engine since front tire smoking via excess torque isn't the best of ideas. The XRT should emphasize on smoothness, with good midrange and excellent top end, redlining at 7500rpm and a limiter at 7800rpm to allow some limited over-revving. The RB4 should get a very strong midrange and good (but not exactly XRT level) top end, making power at say 6500rpm instead of a ridiculously low 6000rpm whilst having a 7000rpm or so redline and of course a cutoff at say 7500rpm.
Then the RB4 and XRT could use a slight power increase (if required) to compensate for thier comparatively greater weight than the FXO, bringing power to weight ratios to a more level plane without unnecessarily weighing down the FXO and wrecking havoc with things such as tire wear. We should be trying to level the playing field via improved physics and speeding up the slower cars just enough to keep things reasonably fair.
As for the tire issue, there are 2 ways to deal with this. One is to simply narrow the FXO's tires, but if there's one thing great about the FXO is its ability to go fast consistently without burning front tires ridiculously fast and absolutely crippling it simply because of FWD. This I actually applaud the developers for having the foresight to keep the FWD car enough tire to compete hard and well without ridiculously bad front tire life/wear. The unfortunate problem is that they simply made the RB4 and XRT a bit too slow compared to the FXO. As some here have already observed, the FXO hasn't quite given up its tire advantage despite of increased weight since it still had more tire power mass, leading to superior entry and mid corner speed. These are production car based track vehicles and aren't exactly at risk of going ridiculously fast, so to slow the fast car down solution isn't exactly desirable.
Tires are some of the most complicated things an automotive engineers ever has to face in terms of behavioral complexity and the problem with narrowing the FXO tires is actually quite complicated and could easily end with FXO guys being unfairly punished. Firstly there's the excessive tire wear issue. And contrary to what some would say here, a narrower tire package WILL change handling balance. More understeer and more contact patch pressure could really cripple the FXO to ridiculous levels. Instead, a slight upgrade of the other 2 cars could possibly bring cornering abilities closer to overall equivalence. For instance, the current RB4 has 215mm wide tires at all 4 corners. A slight increase to say 225mm wide tires isn't exactly unrealistic nor unreasonably and would tweak performance closer to FXO levels. Similar idea for the XRT tires too.
Remember, it's temporary balancing. If the physics are closer to completion and car performance tweaked well, we shouldn't need intake restrictors much (if at all) and weight handicaps would be more along the lines of 0-25kg then say the brick like 80kg for the FZR in the GTR class. Remember, the object is reasonably fair racing, not about getting back at the previously over dominant car by crippling it a lot and indulging in revenge.
Finally, if the FXO wasn't slowed down but instead the other 2 cars sped up JUST enough, it would be possible to generate WRs for each car in unrestricted form without the need to reset WRs as the slower cars go a bit faster whilst the FXO remains relatively level. All done with cars that are extremely close weight and power wise to what we actually drive online.
Then the RB4 and XRT could use a slight power increase (if required) to compensate for thier comparatively greater weight than the FXO, bringing power to weight ratios to a more level plane without unnecessarily weighing down the FXO and wrecking havoc with things such as tire wear. We should be trying to level the playing field via improved physics and speeding up the slower cars just enough to keep things reasonably fair.
As for the tire issue, there are 2 ways to deal with this. One is to simply narrow the FXO's tires, but if there's one thing great about the FXO is its ability to go fast consistently without burning front tires ridiculously fast and absolutely crippling it simply because of FWD. This I actually applaud the developers for having the foresight to keep the FWD car enough tire to compete hard and well without ridiculously bad front tire life/wear. The unfortunate problem is that they simply made the RB4 and XRT a bit too slow compared to the FXO. As some here have already observed, the FXO hasn't quite given up its tire advantage despite of increased weight since it still had more tire power mass, leading to superior entry and mid corner speed. These are production car based track vehicles and aren't exactly at risk of going ridiculously fast, so to slow the fast car down solution isn't exactly desirable.
Tires are some of the most complicated things an automotive engineers ever has to face in terms of behavioral complexity and the problem with narrowing the FXO tires is actually quite complicated and could easily end with FXO guys being unfairly punished. Firstly there's the excessive tire wear issue. And contrary to what some would say here, a narrower tire package WILL change handling balance. More understeer and more contact patch pressure could really cripple the FXO to ridiculous levels. Instead, a slight upgrade of the other 2 cars could possibly bring cornering abilities closer to overall equivalence. For instance, the current RB4 has 215mm wide tires at all 4 corners. A slight increase to say 225mm wide tires isn't exactly unrealistic nor unreasonably and would tweak performance closer to FXO levels. Similar idea for the XRT tires too.
Remember, it's temporary balancing. If the physics are closer to completion and car performance tweaked well, we shouldn't need intake restrictors much (if at all) and weight handicaps would be more along the lines of 0-25kg then say the brick like 80kg for the FZR in the GTR class. Remember, the object is reasonably fair racing, not about getting back at the previously over dominant car by crippling it a lot and indulging in revenge.
Finally, if the FXO wasn't slowed down but instead the other 2 cars sped up JUST enough, it would be possible to generate WRs for each car in unrestricted form without the need to reset WRs as the slower cars go a bit faster whilst the FXO remains relatively level. All done with cars that are extremely close weight and power wise to what we actually drive online.
Last edited by Jamexing, .
Thank goodness for a sensible post.
Vomiting on an Olympic logo? Last time I checked the news some old folks actually fainted or suffered heart attacks thanks to that.
What's next? A logo with an image of a bowel movement?
When it rains, it floods. When civilization decays, the rate grow exponentially.
What's next? A logo with an image of a bowel movement?
When it rains, it floods. When civilization decays, the rate grow exponentially.
Last edited by Jamexing, .
Try THIS:
RB4 vs. Land Rover Defender Dakar Rally edition at Blackwood rallycross.
The results will be interesting to say the least.
This is even better:
Same cars as above in the Dakar Rally.
OK, the simple explanation. Since the tires won't generate lateral grip, turn the car and point it in the right direction so that using engine power and traction pull the car towards the inside of a corner aka use traction to make center seeking force.
Happy? Should be.
Same as last time, I actually asked you to explain what's bugging you and it's whine after whine without explanation. Last time I checked I believe there was someone else who explained the exact same concept of driving sideways on ice as I did, yet no one whines. Hmm...
Typical trash culture, when in doubt, blame anyone BUT oneself. As usual,
VANITY + EGO >>>>> LOGIC
I wonder how you would feel if another country sanctions the life out of you and the common people of your country whilst running an oil for whatever programs just to finance your local dictator's palaces. It then has the audacity to accuse you and your people of terrorism when even your dictator himself has never been proved to have any serious plans or attempts to attack the invader's country whilst raining storms of metal (sometimes radioactive) and explosives to your home. Next thing you know they start plundering whatever resources they could get their hands on whilst kicking you and your family out of your homes whilst popping bullets/arresting/torturing/raping/etc you and/or your loved ones.
And you know what? They refuse to pull out no matter the massive human and resource (financial, material, etc) costs to both sides. And still insists that your country is linked to and funds terrorism whilst possessing WMDs even after that dictator has long died a ridiculously brutal and humiliating death (when was the last time someone actually snapped their neck so badly from a hanging?) AND complete failure to produce any proof.
VANITY + EGO >>>>> LOGIC
I wonder how you would feel if another country sanctions the life out of you and the common people of your country whilst running an oil for whatever programs just to finance your local dictator's palaces. It then has the audacity to accuse you and your people of terrorism when even your dictator himself has never been proved to have any serious plans or attempts to attack the invader's country whilst raining storms of metal (sometimes radioactive) and explosives to your home. Next thing you know they start plundering whatever resources they could get their hands on whilst kicking you and your family out of your homes whilst popping bullets/arresting/torturing/raping/etc you and/or your loved ones.
And you know what? They refuse to pull out no matter the massive human and resource (financial, material, etc) costs to both sides. And still insists that your country is linked to and funds terrorism whilst possessing WMDs even after that dictator has long died a ridiculously brutal and humiliating death (when was the last time someone actually snapped their neck so badly from a hanging?) AND complete failure to produce any proof.
It's all about vectoring the forces of desired magnitude in the correct directions. This may seem irrelevant to that thread on ice racing, but the basic physical idea is the same.
What exactly did I say that confuses you? Care to point out?
When I said things OFF grippy surfaces I mean relatively low grip and maybe even loose surfaces like snow and ice.
Let's look at things with imagined graphics. Lets say a tire has a grip force circle that is very much oval, with more grip longitudinally than laterally. Lets say that its longitudinal grip aka traction is so good that it accelerates very well in a straight line to a pretty high speed. Then comes a corner say a 90 degree turn with approximately constant radius. To negotiate this you need to basically apply force that basically turns the momentum in your original entry travel direction into zero whilst accelerating out in the appropriate direction and gain momentum in that direction.
First thing of course you slow down a bit to scrub of some straight line mometum. Then you need to yaw the car in the right direction and set the car up in an angle that ensures maximum acceleration in the right direction whilst still providing enough deceleration to zero your momentum in the direction of origin.
This may all sound confusing and alien to tarmac racers that just crank the steering wheel and let the large lateral grip do the job, but if you think about it and maybe do some experiments on a slippery surface say mud with nice paddle like mud tires that have excellent traction but piss poor lateral grip, then you'll understand.
A bad idea if your lateral grip is very much comparable to your longitudinal grip, like on tarmac racing. It is clear to me now that very few people here have a good idea of things off grippy surfaces are like. Even today tire technology has done a great job of getting traction on loose and slippery surfaces but lateral grip is another matter altogether.
Ice racing in LFS, let's see:
Good news: LFS's physics engine already has the capability to simulate ice very well, just that it was used for development and never actually implemented in the sold program.
On the other hand, the only existing car that has a chance in this form of racing is the RB4. Even with 4wd, your grip on ice will not magically increase, so we'll need studded tires for this to work.
True, ice racing involves lots of sideways action, but that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the tire burning showdrifting kids indulge in these these days. They go sideways only because the it is the optimal way to negotiate curves on snow with the minimum use of time. It's the same with snow in WRC stages too, though not to such an extreme extent.
So WHY is sideways the most efficient way in snow? It's all to go with the grip circle of studded tires on ice. It's all because the longitudinal grip (traction) far exceeds lateral grip, so all that longitudinal grip is better off used by pointing a car at a greater angle than the actual line of travel to use that excess traction into centripetal force, using traction to force the car towards the center of a circle.
Difference between ice racing and showdrifting:
Ice racing: Juts using the most efficient means necessary to get the job done.
Showdrifting: Sideways for the sake of sideways.
Good news: LFS's physics engine already has the capability to simulate ice very well, just that it was used for development and never actually implemented in the sold program.
On the other hand, the only existing car that has a chance in this form of racing is the RB4. Even with 4wd, your grip on ice will not magically increase, so we'll need studded tires for this to work.
True, ice racing involves lots of sideways action, but that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the tire burning showdrifting kids indulge in these these days. They go sideways only because the it is the optimal way to negotiate curves on snow with the minimum use of time. It's the same with snow in WRC stages too, though not to such an extreme extent.
So WHY is sideways the most efficient way in snow? It's all to go with the grip circle of studded tires on ice. It's all because the longitudinal grip (traction) far exceeds lateral grip, so all that longitudinal grip is better off used by pointing a car at a greater angle than the actual line of travel to use that excess traction into centripetal force, using traction to force the car towards the center of a circle.
Difference between ice racing and showdrifting:
Ice racing: Juts using the most efficient means necessary to get the job done.
Showdrifting: Sideways for the sake of sideways.
Last edited by Jamexing, .
Finally, someone with a level head and reasonable opinion.
On the tire shrinkage part, since turbo modeling and powerbands aren't done yet, don't be surprised if we end up with no need for that as the physics gets better. For now, Scawen just needs to get the netcode done (patch X). Who knows, things could be much better in patch Y physics wise.
For the record, that's what YOU said, not me. I quoted your post and left it in ordinary letters while entered a few things of my own using BOLD LETTERS.
All cleared up? Great.
Traction-Ability to turn torque into forward accelerative force with longitudinal grip.
Grip-Traction is part of grip but only the longitudinal plane. Grip encompasses both longitudinal and lateral planes. Lateral grip is ability to generate lateral force.
Now all clear? Good.
Grip-Traction is part of grip but only the longitudinal plane. Grip encompasses both longitudinal and lateral planes. Lateral grip is ability to generate lateral force.
Now all clear? Good.
So, what do you want, another return to show after show of absolute domination by "the unbeatable FXO"? As someone said in this forum before me, it seems that it's always the guys who've lost their unfair advantage from their supposedly unbeatable cars in a given class that whine and whine and whine whilst the rest of us just want realistic physics and performance coupled with fine tuned balancing for given classes and circuits to make racing fun for everyone.
UF1 speed record attempt in 48km/h headwind:
We've got 38km/h...43km/h...45km/h...47km/h.......50km/h! Oh, wait......that's...a dog! my dog just overtook me! :faint2:
I've suggested both things you've mentioned some time before too and frankly, if rallycross has any chance of taking off we will need them both. The really big benefits of these 2 components are the ability to combine excellent response and handling with very good wheel travel and bump compliance. Imagine RB4s with progressive springs and way dampers. Or even better, RB4 rally edition with these 2 components and maximum travel increased to 250mm. There might be hope for rallycross yet.
A little note on coding:
What's the average time needed to create a simple computer OS with just 1 guy? 1 year. What's the average time required to create an OS similar to what I've just stated with 2 guys? 1 hour.
Turns out that on average, the time to completion for writing 1 OS is quite independent to the number of coders. This is no surprise since coders usually suffer from problems like trying to read someone else's incomprehensible code because he wrote the way he likes it, without all the necessary comments to make them readable to any decent programmer, poor communication and organization leading to very difficult or impossible to integrate code due to incompatibilities in logic, methodologies, etc. Not to mention that programmers end up using more time trying to understand and integrate their code and algorithms/logic/etc to someone else's code, then actually coding some new and significant/important stuff.
What's the average time needed to create a simple computer OS with just 1 guy? 1 year. What's the average time required to create an OS similar to what I've just stated with 2 guys? 1 hour.
Turns out that on average, the time to completion for writing 1 OS is quite independent to the number of coders. This is no surprise since coders usually suffer from problems like trying to read someone else's incomprehensible code because he wrote the way he likes it, without all the necessary comments to make them readable to any decent programmer, poor communication and organization leading to very difficult or impossible to integrate code due to incompatibilities in logic, methodologies, etc. Not to mention that programmers end up using more time trying to understand and integrate their code and algorithms/logic/etc to someone else's code, then actually coding some new and significant/important stuff.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG