Ok, let me try this again 
Shotglass, now I understand you were talking about the first video and I failed to see that. What looks fishy about that one? Nothing at all, I agree, which is largely why I made the other video to illustrate what the original guy was trying to show with his. The iRacing "never ending spin" thread was talking about low speed spins that were really pretty out of whack and generated a lot of debate. Unfortunately one of the guys made the first video of the rapid spin with the heavy throttle blast as a way to illustrate it, but it was a bad example. Nothing fishy about it as you said. I mistakenly thought you were referring to my video.
The discussion in the thread then turned toward whether the first video showed anything odd or not which missed the point, so I made the other video to show the behavior we were talking about more clearly. Not too long after that they fixed the two main cars with this problem.
Shotglass, now I understand you were talking about the first video and I failed to see that. What looks fishy about that one? Nothing at all, I agree, which is largely why I made the other video to illustrate what the original guy was trying to show with his. The iRacing "never ending spin" thread was talking about low speed spins that were really pretty out of whack and generated a lot of debate. Unfortunately one of the guys made the first video of the rapid spin with the heavy throttle blast as a way to illustrate it, but it was a bad example. Nothing fishy about it as you said. I mistakenly thought you were referring to my video.
The discussion in the thread then turned toward whether the first video showed anything odd or not which missed the point, so I made the other video to show the behavior we were talking about more clearly. Not too long after that they fixed the two main cars with this problem.
Last edited by jtw62074, .
Nothing probably. I was explaining what was fishy in the video since you asked : "precisely what am i supposed to be seeing thats the least bit fishy there?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEv5mf1sK5Q
I just discovered the "show statistics" button on YouTube today, saw that it displayed where the vid was linked to, and followed one of them here. I didn't read the conversation that was going on before that so forgive me if my comments seemed out of place. My intent was just to say something about the video, what it was attempting to show and why. Didn't read enough of this thread I guess, so nevermind...
EDIT: Silly me, you were talking about the other video weren't you? Now I understand.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEv5mf1sK5Q
I just discovered the "show statistics" button on YouTube today, saw that it displayed where the vid was linked to, and followed one of them here. I didn't read the conversation that was going on before that so forgive me if my comments seemed out of place. My intent was just to say something about the video, what it was attempting to show and why. Didn't read enough of this thread I guess, so nevermind...
EDIT: Silly me, you were talking about the other video weren't you? Now I understand.
Last edited by jtw62074, .
That iRacing video with the GT car spinning is mine. iRacing changed this car in a later update so the problem no longer happens. So somebody there perhaps agreed with me.
I got involved in a really long thread on this issue at the iRacing forums. The thing that I was pointing out was that the yaw moment in steady state cornering was pretty strong understeer. As the rear slip angles increased, the understeer moment decreased slightly, then decreased more rapidly at higher slip angles, and eventually reversed directions. I.e, understeer moment turned into oversteer moment which should not generally happen.
The point was that if the rear tires have abundantly more grip in terms of their capacity to produce a larger yaw moment than the front tires do, that shouldn't simply reverse directions at some greater slip angle (the rear tires become less sticky than the fronts at some point?). At the time I made the video, primarily this car and the HPD which had just been released with the NTM suffered from this problem. It was as though the lateral force curves dropped off after the peak on the rear tires far more quickly than they did at the front as slip angle increased, eventually crossing over each other and changing the understeer moment into an oversteer moment.
In the wet with some rubber compounds I wouldn't be surprised to see this happen (I've experienced it in a real car), but not in the dry. They got too crazy with drop off after the force peak and perhaps didn't pay enough attention to how the fronts and rears were proportioned to each other in this regard.
Either that or they did it on purpose to satisfy the "real cars are extremely difficult to slide and if they aren't, it's not realistic" crowd.
Anyway, iRacing fixed it (or at least dramatically improved it) not too long after I made the video in both the FordGT and HPD cars. The HPD is dramatically different now especially.
The name of the thread was "the never ending 20mph spin" or something along those lines, and I talked about yaw moment reversal in pretty good depth in some other threads too.
Last edited by jtw62074, .
What's a trainer port? Is that the power supply thing so you can run it without batteries?
Is the usb adaptor you're using something like ours that lets you use your real radio?
If you like Pro and get into it, by far the best way to use it is with one of these adaptors and your real radio. I use our plastic USB controller which isn't nearly as good. Resolution is a lot lower and it's prone to get the jitters. The USB adaptor makes it feel significantly better.
Vectors are so '90's I've got a brochure sitting here from that car. It was one of the first things Pieter sent me probably in 2000 or early 2001.
Is the usb adaptor you're using something like ours that lets you use your real radio?
If you like Pro and get into it, by far the best way to use it is with one of these adaptors and your real radio. I use our plastic USB controller which isn't nearly as good. Resolution is a lot lower and it's prone to get the jitters. The USB adaptor makes it feel significantly better.
Vectors are so '90's
I've got a brochure sitting here from that car. It was one of the first things Pieter sent me probably in 2000 or early 2001.It supports standard joystick controllers so it might work with anything you want it to (no guarantee though). My G25 shows up in the controller options like you'd expect in other sims, but I wouldn't dream of trying to drive VRC with a regular racing wheel. Typical lapping is going full steering lock one way to full steering lock the other in a fraction of a second over and over. In 2000 when I first got involved on the project I used a regular joystick for awhile and it wasn't half bad. I played LFS with a joystick for a long time too along with GPL and Indycar Racing II.
The keyboard input algorithm in VRC Pro is lousy for our particular application. It has some ramping delay stuff in it that makes it undrivable even if you're just trying to putter around the track at 2kph. In the first VRC we did back in 2004, pressing a key resulted in full steering/throttle/brake immediately. You could tune the limits and with a reasonably good car setup it wasn't half bad. I recall one guy setting a track record with the keyboard. Now though a keyboard is no good.
I think I recall somebody in our forums whose son is using a gamepad to run Pro, but I might be mistaken on that one. With that it'd at least be like a regular 2 stick controller.
A big appeal of VRC to a lot of people is that they can go racing any time they want on tracks around the world in cars they might not own. Much the same as LFS or other sims in that regard. Some of the RC cars we simulate are thousands of dollars in reality. I recall at the 1:8 scale World Championships in Cincinnatti in 2002 being told by the Serpent engineers that their fully prepped cars, engines, etc., cost around $3000, and the $800 engines (at the time) would last something like 10 hours before blowing up in a way that wasn't repairable. When they travel across the globe to do a weekend event they would bring a whole stash of engines with them. So it can be an expensive hobby. (I also remember somebody stealing a bag of their engines from their trailer which would have put them out of the competition had somebody not loaned them their spare engines. Even RC competition can be vicious at the top levels. )
The vast majority of VRC players race RC in reality. We don't generally pick up the casual gamer types out looking for something new. Had I not been hanging around the LFS forums for almost as long as I've been involved in VRC, I wouldn't have bothered posting something here about it. I just remember that there were a few RC guys around here that wanted me to come back and say something when the new version was done, so here I am.
The keyboard input algorithm in VRC Pro is lousy for our particular application. It has some ramping delay stuff in it that makes it undrivable even if you're just trying to putter around the track at 2kph. In the first VRC we did back in 2004, pressing a key resulted in full steering/throttle/brake immediately. You could tune the limits and with a reasonably good car setup it wasn't half bad. I recall one guy setting a track record with the keyboard. Now though a keyboard is no good.
I think I recall somebody in our forums whose son is using a gamepad to run Pro, but I might be mistaken on that one. With that it'd at least be like a regular 2 stick controller.
A big appeal of VRC to a lot of people is that they can go racing any time they want on tracks around the world in cars they might not own. Much the same as LFS or other sims in that regard. Some of the RC cars we simulate are thousands of dollars in reality. I recall at the 1:8 scale World Championships in Cincinnatti in 2002 being told by the Serpent engineers that their fully prepped cars, engines, etc., cost around $3000, and the $800 engines (at the time) would last something like 10 hours before blowing up in a way that wasn't repairable. When they travel across the globe to do a weekend event they would bring a whole stash of engines with them. So it can be an expensive hobby. (I also remember somebody stealing a bag of their engines from their trailer which would have put them out of the competition had somebody not loaned them their spare engines. Even RC competition can be vicious at the top levels. )
The vast majority of VRC players race RC in reality. We don't generally pick up the casual gamer types out looking for something new. Had I not been hanging around the LFS forums for almost as long as I've been involved in VRC, I wouldn't have bothered posting something here about it. I just remember that there were a few RC guys around here that wanted me to come back and say something when the new version was done, so here I am.
Last edited by jtw62074, .
Sure. And those that want to play LFS can play Pole Position instead. To each his own 
Regulation/taxation is the whole reason your gas prices are typically three or four times more expensive than they are in the US in the first place, and why it's significantly more expensive in the US than in some other countries. Get rid of the rules and taxes and watch the prices plummet and fuel consumption increase as more people are able to afford to buy cars and drive.
There's no free lunch. Everyone's "free stuff" is paid for somewhere.
To the OP: I doubt anyone's "standards" have anything to do with this. 75 octane gas is probably cheaper to produce. At prices that are artificially inflated by 100%+ tax rates on one product, perhaps that is the only gas that can be supplied in your country at that price and demand level with your country's rules and regulations. As a result you get cheap, low quality gas.
Corruption isn't likely a factor in this. When people create rules like this to reduce oil consumption or whatever their reasons are, this is an unfortunate consequence policy makers frequently fail to foresee. In short, you can be pretty sure those very rules and regulations are what are causing the problem.
If this sort of thing interests you, you might enjoy this book by economist Thomas Sowell: http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Ec ... nse-Economy/dp/0465002609
There's no free lunch. Everyone's "free stuff" is paid for somewhere.
To the OP: I doubt anyone's "standards" have anything to do with this. 75 octane gas is probably cheaper to produce. At prices that are artificially inflated by 100%+ tax rates on one product, perhaps that is the only gas that can be supplied in your country at that price and demand level with your country's rules and regulations. As a result you get cheap, low quality gas.
Corruption isn't likely a factor in this. When people create rules like this to reduce oil consumption or whatever their reasons are, this is an unfortunate consequence policy makers frequently fail to foresee. In short, you can be pretty sure those very rules and regulations are what are causing the problem.
If this sort of thing interests you, you might enjoy this book by economist Thomas Sowell: http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Ec ... nse-Economy/dp/0465002609
Last edited by jtw62074, .
<double post>
Last edited by jtw62074, .
For those that were put off by the paid demo (lots of people): We've eliminated this and put in a free 30 day trial, so give it a go if you're into RC at all and have a proper controller. Don't expect to play it with the keyboard 
https://www.vrcworld.com/
https://www.vrcworld.com/
I've had a Z800 for a few years now that I think I picked up for around $700-$800. That had built in accelerometers for head tracking (in rotation only, not 6dof, and it didn't work all that great but it was pretty cool anyway). 800x600 res but you wouldn't know it. I didn't believe it at first and had to check the specs again. I could write documents on it and have no trouble seeing it.
Focusing wasn't a problem even with the screens so close to your eyes. The 3D effect is stunning. In one shooter game some guy that was hiding really far away shot a laser at me while I was standing on top of a three story tower. I think I actually ducked by instinct. Totally a different thing than 2D monitors. It's something everybody really ought to try. Flight Simulator actually made me nauseous when flying between sky scrapers. That was a first. I'm not prone to motion sickness.
The only negative was that I kept wanting the screens to be a little bit bigger or closer. Nevermind all that "it's just like a 64 inch screen at this viewing distance" type of talk. Geometrically that's probably correct, but don't let your imagination go too wild on that.
The best comparison I could make was that I was running it on a laptop that had a 17" screen. When I tipped my head back and looked down at the monitor, it was almost exactly the same size as what I was looking at through the Z800. So it's in no way the same type of impression and field of view that you get with triple monitors or even a single 22" monitor. I just kept wishing the screens were a little bigger or closer to the eyes.
I had fun with it for quite some time though, but it's probably been two years since it's been used (probably the only piece of electronics I've owned that's actually gone up in value with time). Personally I think a 3D triple monitor setup or 3D projector would be far more immersive, but if you get a chance to try one of these dual screen VR headsets you really must. It's quite something.
Focusing wasn't a problem even with the screens so close to your eyes. The 3D effect is stunning. In one shooter game some guy that was hiding really far away shot a laser at me while I was standing on top of a three story tower. I think I actually ducked by instinct. Totally a different thing than 2D monitors. It's something everybody really ought to try. Flight Simulator actually made me nauseous when flying between sky scrapers. That was a first. I'm not prone to motion sickness.
The only negative was that I kept wanting the screens to be a little bit bigger or closer. Nevermind all that "it's just like a 64 inch screen at this viewing distance" type of talk. Geometrically that's probably correct, but don't let your imagination go too wild on that.
The best comparison I could make was that I was running it on a laptop that had a 17" screen. When I tipped my head back and looked down at the monitor, it was almost exactly the same size as what I was looking at through the Z800. So it's in no way the same type of impression and field of view that you get with triple monitors or even a single 22" monitor. I just kept wishing the screens were a little bigger or closer to the eyes.
I had fun with it for quite some time though, but it's probably been two years since it's been used (probably the only piece of electronics I've owned that's actually gone up in value with time). Personally I think a 3D triple monitor setup or 3D projector would be far more immersive, but if you get a chance to try one of these dual screen VR headsets you really must. It's quite something.
Last edited by jtw62074, .
Regarding the OP's question:
If we're talking about fuel economy, the thing to look for in all this is BSFC (brake specific fuel consumption). What you can try to do is find a map for your engine like these:
http://ecomodder.com/wiki/inde ... l_Consumption_(BSFC)_Maps
Essentially as you move upwards on the graphs you're increasing throttle. Not exactly on these graphs, but that's the general trend. What you want is to have the smallest number possible so you're using the least amount of fuel per horsepower. Climbing a given hill at a given vehicle speed requires a given amount of power. At that speed you want to pick a gear that plops you at the "right" engine rpm and below full throttle.
From these graphs the lowest BSFC is not at full throttle at any rpm (fairly close though in many cases), nor at part throttle at very low or very high rpm. It's somewhere in the middle. Generally it's going to be somewhere around the torque peak RPM of the engine. So if you need full throttle to get up the hill, downshift until you're well over half throttle.
In the first graph, the Ford 2.0L Zetec, you'd want to run the engine somewhere in that 245 loop between 1500 and 3000 rpm. The next graph for the Geo Metro would do best at around 3000 rpm. The next engine does best at 4000 rpm. So it can vary quite a bit from one engine to the next.
Looking at this from the perspective of engine wear probably yields a similar approach. If climbing a certain hill requires 50hp, choosing a gear that doubles the engine rpm and lets you ease off the throttle to maintain the same power level will cut the engine torque in half. So there might be less strain on part of the drivetrain. Then again, with the engine speed increased you'd increase wear while the reduced torque reduces it. Which one wins? Not sure. Probably there's a trend something like the BSFC curves where if you plotted engine wear as a function of throttle position or torque versus engine speed there's be a range somewhere in the middle rpm where the wear is lowest. That's just a guess on my part though.
I'd be more concerned with fuel consumption probably. If you're doing a good job of fuel consumption you're probably doing a pretty good job of managing the wear too. Keep the engine somewhere around the torque peak and you'll be doing just fine. Don't try to lug it up at full throttle though.
I voted "a few more revs with a bit less throttle," although the correct answer depends on your starting point. It could go either way
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F ... ific_fuel_consumption.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_specific_fuel_consumption
http://www.land-and-sea.com/dyno-tech-talk/using_bsfc.htm
If we're talking about fuel economy, the thing to look for in all this is BSFC (brake specific fuel consumption). What you can try to do is find a map for your engine like these:
http://ecomodder.com/wiki/inde ... l_Consumption_(BSFC)_Maps
Essentially as you move upwards on the graphs you're increasing throttle. Not exactly on these graphs, but that's the general trend. What you want is to have the smallest number possible so you're using the least amount of fuel per horsepower. Climbing a given hill at a given vehicle speed requires a given amount of power. At that speed you want to pick a gear that plops you at the "right" engine rpm and below full throttle.
From these graphs the lowest BSFC is not at full throttle at any rpm (fairly close though in many cases), nor at part throttle at very low or very high rpm. It's somewhere in the middle. Generally it's going to be somewhere around the torque peak RPM of the engine. So if you need full throttle to get up the hill, downshift until you're well over half throttle.
In the first graph, the Ford 2.0L Zetec, you'd want to run the engine somewhere in that 245 loop between 1500 and 3000 rpm. The next graph for the Geo Metro would do best at around 3000 rpm. The next engine does best at 4000 rpm. So it can vary quite a bit from one engine to the next.
Looking at this from the perspective of engine wear probably yields a similar approach. If climbing a certain hill requires 50hp, choosing a gear that doubles the engine rpm and lets you ease off the throttle to maintain the same power level will cut the engine torque in half. So there might be less strain on part of the drivetrain. Then again, with the engine speed increased you'd increase wear while the reduced torque reduces it. Which one wins? Not sure. Probably there's a trend something like the BSFC curves where if you plotted engine wear as a function of throttle position or torque versus engine speed there's be a range somewhere in the middle rpm where the wear is lowest. That's just a guess on my part though.
I'd be more concerned with fuel consumption probably. If you're doing a good job of fuel consumption you're probably doing a pretty good job of managing the wear too. Keep the engine somewhere around the torque peak and you'll be doing just fine. Don't try to lug it up at full throttle though.
I voted "a few more revs with a bit less throttle," although the correct answer depends on your starting point. It could go either way
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F ... ific_fuel_consumption.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_specific_fuel_consumption
http://www.land-and-sea.com/dyno-tech-talk/using_bsfc.htm
Last edited by jtw62074, .
Netkar's not in what I would call beta testing if that's what you mean. It's released and being sold.
I meant beta testing as in 'before there's a release or demo you need beta testing.' Would people pay for that?
Good point. I can see where you're coming from.
Do you think people would pay to beta test? Would that be even worse than charging for a demo?
Do you think people would pay to beta test? Would that be even worse than charging for a demo?
The point he raised was that he wouldn't try it because he had to pay for the demo.
Yes. We've been doing this now for eleven years. This is the fourth version. Total rewrite from the ground up this time around for Pro. Six years on this latest one.. Yikes! That doesn't come cheap for a team of nine people regardless of what silly thing they're working on all throughout it
Yes. We've been doing this now for eleven years. This is the fourth version. Total rewrite from the ground up this time around for Pro. Six years on this latest one.. Yikes! That doesn't come cheap for a team of nine people regardless of what silly thing they're working on all throughout it
Last edited by jtw62074, .
If you had to pay 1 cent to try LFS, you might not be playing it now? Seems like you'd have missed out on something great with such a strict purchasing policy
Pieter Bervoets, the owner of the project that has sunk a couple million bucks into this over the years, sets the prices.
Most expensive sim in the world? I'll take that as a compliment
In all seriousness I don't see how anyone can make that claim without full information, especially if all one has seen is the subscription price on page one and never got any further into it. What about content? Tracks? Cars? Etc..
I've already spent a lot more on iRacing than anyone ever could on VRC.
Anyway, I wasn't really here to try to sell it to anybody new or get in some big debate about pricing and so forth. There have been a lot of people waiting for years for this, so I stopped in to let them know it was done. For those that couldn't care less about it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EYlXay0njE
Pieter Bervoets, the owner of the project that has sunk a couple million bucks into this over the years, sets the prices.
Most expensive sim in the world? I'll take that as a compliment
In all seriousness I don't see how anyone can make that claim without full information, especially if all one has seen is the subscription price on page one and never got any further into it. What about content? Tracks? Cars? Etc..
I've already spent a lot more on iRacing than anyone ever could on VRC.
Anyway, I wasn't really here to try to sell it to anybody new or get in some big debate about pricing and so forth. There have been a lot of people waiting for years for this, so I stopped in to let them know it was done. For those that couldn't care less about it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EYlXay0njE
Last edited by jtw62074, .
Huh? What was that about?
I wrote the physics engine and do all the vehicle dynamics stuff. I have nothing to do with the marketing, web site, pricing, bundling of packages, return policy, etc.. If somebody really wants to know more specifics I can get the info. What seemed relevant and missing was the info that it was possible to earn vEuros in game.
One more thing I forgot to mention: You can earn about 10 virtual Euros per month if you're fairly active which will offset the monthly membership cost considerably. I'm not sure how exactly that works, but it doesn't require you to play 12 hours per day every day or anything like that.
If it saves NASA 101 million per month somewhere else and nets a 1 million per month in savings, you bet!
This forum is so full of useful business advice considering what kind of simulators are in demand and what the pricing should be, I'm shocked I didn't take full advantage of it earlier.
Here's another dumb idea that would obviously never work or get built:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ci1oYqeLQoY
Good thing some of you guys weren't around before there were car simulators too. Somebody who wanted to make one might have listened to the wrong advice and stopped before they started.
Last edited by jtw62074, .
1:5 scale looks fun for sure. I don't know if we'll make those or not though. Probably not for a very long time. Most of the requests for new onroad cars during beta testing were for 1:12 electrics. Everybody seems to be dying for offroad too which will be a major thing to do.
I'm pretty sure we'll do offroad before seriously considering 1:5 scale, so the safest answer to give you on that would probably be a simple "no, we're never doing 1:5 scale"
I'm pretty sure we'll do offroad before seriously considering 1:5 scale, so the safest answer to give you on that would probably be a simple "no, we're never doing 1:5 scale"
I'll admit I do need to give the tires on the 1:10 nitro cars a bit more love to make those better. They're a bit loose with fast steering inputs which is probably what you saw that didn't look right.
1:8 nitro so far seems to get the most "this feels great" types of comments. Here's a video I made with a real car and the sim overlayed on top of each other:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaHbN7XtgUw
This was probably more than six years ago. I've improved it since, although you do have to use different tire diameter splits than in reality in Pro to get it driving really nicely at the moment. I'll get that sorted eventually. I'm not yet 100% happy with all of the cars. The electric cars on carpet tracks appear so far to be the most popular.
We showed this to a room full of race engineers at a conference in Detroit a few years ago during a presentation Doug Milliken and I made on the tire testing we did for the new VRC Pro. It took awhile for any of them to figure out which one was real and which was simulated. That was a fun day.
The vehicle inertias were supplied by Serpent engineers that pulled it out of their design software, so there's no guessing or problems on that end. They sent me pages of stuff right down to the screws and bolts, pretty much.
Tire forces were measured directly on a machine that Milliken and an engineering student built. Think TIRF/Calspan, but a whole lot smaller and not as complicated and expensive
Doug Milliken and I spent quite a few days together doing the actual testing. Good times. So I used real data everywhere that we could get or produce it. We even had quite an expensive wind tunnel testing project done in Holland. Unfortunately that data turned out to be useless without a rolling road, but it was neat to see the report and data anyway. I tried! Having said that, a couple of the cars could use a little massaging to make them better. I'll get to that. It's only day 2 now..
Anyway, give it a spin. If you don't like it, get a refund.
If you kind of like it, but want better handling, tell me what it is you don't like and I'll see what I can do to improve it. We have a physics section in the forums for that.Fun video here with my friend, the founder/owner of Virtual Racing Industries:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du1dCybbttA
That's over a year old and things have changed a bit since, but it may be interesting anyway.
There are some videos of races done during beta testing here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/VRCPromotion
Last edited by jtw62074, .
Glenn: I just realized you were talking about the controller/CD pack, not the USB adaptor (the thing you use with a real transmitter).
My answer's still the same as before though: I don't know.
My answer's still the same as before though: I don't know.
Thank you, Captain Obvious.
I'm thrilled to finally learn after twelve years of writing and selling software that reducing the price of a product has a general tendency to increase the number of sales of that product. I was thinking we should set the price at $100,000,000,000,000,000 per month at a bare minimum so we would all get super rich really fast and buy matching pink Prius's (fabulous!). Plus, how cool would it be to pay off the US national debt single handedly and still have enough money left over to buy everyone in the world a Ferrari and a mansion and their own space shuttle and a live dinosaur? RAaaar!! Man, the ladies I'd get...
I wouldn't forget about the brains and talent behind LFS either. I planned on buying everyone 1000 copies of LFS so those guys get super rich too. Since they wouldn't need or care about money anymore in the slightest, they could develop LFS S3 and just give it away for free to everybody!
Now that you mention it, I guess at that price we'd probably only sell 5 copies or so. That would hardly be worth it. At $1 we'd sell probably about 6 copies. That's a lot better because it's more people buying it. Thanks for setting me straight. I need to start thinking long term.
Alright, alright, that was a bit harsh. I'm just having some fun. Don't take it to heart or too personally. That was a pretty funny comment you made though because it is so obviously true. I just couldn't help myself
Anyway, back to Earth: I'm not sure what type of RC cars you're referring to. Some of the cars these guys run cost $3000 or more fully equipped at the world and European championship levels and spend thousands per year on this hobby. A lot of them do it professionally. Somebody who spends $300 to $800 on an engine that lasts maybe 10 hours doesn't generally flinch at $15/month to race on days when they aren't doing the real thing.
Some people will think the prices are way too high, others won't. Same with every product and service. That's ok and so is voicing an opinion on the matter.
(There are even a few people who think LFS is too expensive. I quickly gave up trying to figure that one out
)Glenn: I don't know what they're going to do with the VRC USB adaptor. They were kicking around the idea of including an adaptor for free with one or more of the packages, but don't know what was decided. I don't think there's even a link there yet at the new site to buy the adaptor at all.
Last edited by jtw62074, .
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG