+1 because I can't possibly see this as being time consuming to implement. It's simply a matter of playing certain sounds based on what is being done to the car...
All I know is, if you try to drive the RB4 normally (e.g. repeated stop and go) the clutch overheats after just a few stops. Dunno if that's normal or not, but I wouldn't think so.
I've been fooling with this "game" for months. That's NOTHING. Some of the stuff people make is absolutely absurd...
I dunno why, but this had me cracking up...
... in class. Damn you.
Yeah, but it's not that easy. You can't just "make" an engine that puts out 1000 hp. It has to do that without a setup that means it only runs a few thousand miles between overhauls. People take Supras up to 1500 hp with comparatively little cost, but they are NOT anywhere near reliable. The Veyron is supposed to be as reliable as any other car. Then you've got to design a gearbox that will be JUST as reliable while withstanding that power... and a 4wd system that can also withstand the power. And brakes that can be used over and over without needing to be replaced often. These are things that the Porsche cannot do - and are a big part of the Veyron's cost.
Then again, Bugatti also had to actually DEVELOP that stuff. Now that it exists, another company might be able to borrow that tech - which would save a lot of development costs. Either way though, it will still probably cost just as much considering that they'd have to produce it for 1/5 the cost just to BREAK EVEN if they sold it for the SAME as the Veyron.
Yeah, it was never meant to be a profitable vehicle. It was just an engineering showpiece to "reintroduce the brand" and get the Bugatti name out into the world again before they start making cars.
And yeah - probably wouldn't get one in blue... there are many better color choices:
EDIT: Jesus I just realized how ridiculously huge the brakes are...!
I think the best track would be something including a little bit of each of these:
etc, etc, etc...
etc, etc, etc...
Ahahaha, gotcha!
I honestly don't see that happening anytime soon. As I'm sure you know, it ACTUALLY cost Bugatti something like 5 times what they sold them for to develop the Veyron. Nothing will ever match that car in the near future for anything much less what it cost now... and probably more.
Oh whoopse, yeah I meant it the other way round. Well personally I think the Veyron looks fantastic.
Anyway, I guess it obviously comes down to personal taste. For example, I would never want a Phantom. That is TOO luxurious. I would be driving anyway, and there's no reason to get a Phantom if you're not going to sit in the back. The Porsche would be a track car ONLY. Thing is though, I would want to get a car that I could drive on the track AND road AND be comfortable in AND still be able to have some fun on the way to work if I wanted... and so for me, the Bugatti fits the bill perfectly.
And forget fuel costs - if you can afford a Bugatti, you can afford the fuel, even if it DOES end up at $25/gallon someday, lol.
Didn't read nearly all of this thread, but all I'll say is:
1. I don't consider this car better than the Veyron. This is a stripped out car with no airbags, no side-impact bars, no crumple zones, ONE side-view mirror, etc...
...this is a full-on high-speed one-trick pony compared to the Veyron, which is almost as good of a daily driver as it is a 253 mph hypercar.
2. sam93, I agree COMPLETELY with you that this is an ugly car... but how in the hell can you actually say that it's uglier than the Veyron. In fact, how can you possibly even say that the Veyron is ugly at ALL!?
3. sam93, you say the Veyron is easy to drive only because of the computer equipment. I have read multiple reviews (and seen the Fifth Gear review) stating that even with the traction control OFF, the car is very manageable because it has a wonderfully balanced chassis. So the computers may help, but a lot of it is down to the fact that it's a GREAT car.
4. sam93, you say you'd have the Porsche because it's "faster," but would you really prefer a bare-bones car over a full luxury car just for the 1mph difference? The Veyron is TWICE AS FAST as the Porsche to 60 mph... you'd have to get to 150 or higher before the Porsche would pull ahead. I'm willing to bet that the Porsche would handle better on the track, but considering the fact that the Veyron can put so much more power down at lower speeds, I'm sure it'd put up a good fight.
5. Actually I'm done now.
1. I don't consider this car better than the Veyron. This is a stripped out car with no airbags, no side-impact bars, no crumple zones, ONE side-view mirror, etc...
...this is a full-on high-speed one-trick pony compared to the Veyron, which is almost as good of a daily driver as it is a 253 mph hypercar.
2. sam93, I agree COMPLETELY with you that this is an ugly car... but how in the hell can you actually say that it's uglier than the Veyron. In fact, how can you possibly even say that the Veyron is ugly at ALL!?
3. sam93, you say the Veyron is easy to drive only because of the computer equipment. I have read multiple reviews (and seen the Fifth Gear review) stating that even with the traction control OFF, the car is very manageable because it has a wonderfully balanced chassis. So the computers may help, but a lot of it is down to the fact that it's a GREAT car.
4. sam93, you say you'd have the Porsche because it's "faster," but would you really prefer a bare-bones car over a full luxury car just for the 1mph difference? The Veyron is TWICE AS FAST as the Porsche to 60 mph... you'd have to get to 150 or higher before the Porsche would pull ahead. I'm willing to bet that the Porsche would handle better on the track, but considering the fact that the Veyron can put so much more power down at lower speeds, I'm sure it'd put up a good fight.
5. Actually I'm done now.
The Illusionist
Iron Man
Ratatouille
Wall-E
The Dark Knight
All great movies...
Iron Man
Ratatouille
Wall-E
The Dark Knight
All great movies...
All I know is a friend finally let me try to shift an actual car yesterday... his Scion tC with intake and like practically slick wheels.
I swear when I was done the transmission was all over the parking lot. With those tires if I didn't engage smoothly (which was 92% of the time) they didn't slip, they just GRIPPED and the whole car LURCHED so violently.
Should have tried going into reverse at 10 mph... lol.
I swear when I was done the transmission was all over the parking lot. With those tires if I didn't engage smoothly (which was 92% of the time) they didn't slip, they just GRIPPED and the whole car LURCHED so violently.
Should have tried going into reverse at 10 mph... lol.
Yeah - I was thinking of getting NOD32... we'll have to see.
Yeah... it's been a fun morning.
I can't believe I've been using LFS without these...
...absolutely incredible. My friend put it perfectly: A lot more depth to the sounds. It actually sounds like a REAL car.
...absolutely incredible. My friend put it perfectly: A lot more depth to the sounds. It actually sounds like a REAL car.
Flying a plane is really NOT that hard. You make it sound as though it's a miracle they were even able to steer the planes at all. ANYONE can fly a plane.
If they told me that the hijackers hadn't had ANY flying lessons. I could still believe that they flew the planes.
If they told me that the hijackers hadn't had ANY flying lessons. I could still believe that they flew the planes.
I think that if anything, this terrorist attack was simply a jumping-off point for the Bush administration to go after the guy who attempted to kill his father. I don't think they PLANNED 9/11 so that they would have an excuse. Why can't the explanation be that they simply happened to have a good excuse at the time? Why MUST the argument be that they CREATED the excuse?
Oh, oooook. So we just did this such that our B-2s wouldn't look stupid sitting on the runway?
You make it sound like shooting down a passenger jet is simply a matter of... shooting it down. It's not. They had no way of knowing where it was headed, and, at the time, there were more considerations than just blasting the thing out of the air. If the US did that every time a civilian aircraft mistakenly flew through restricted airspace... well air travel wouldn't be as safe as it is today.
...let's say you are given the right by the town to SHOOT AND KILL anyone who walks onto your property. The first time you actually do it, you are still guaranteed to have cops come and investigators and you'll be sued by the family for wrongful murder without a cause...
...it's not that easy when it comes time to "press the little red button" so to speak.
Besides - I don't know about you, but if I were the president, I'd be very, VERY intent in capturing the bad guys on at least ONE of those planes... which means trying to talk them down rather than blowing them up.
YAY!!!! LOGIC!!!! REASON!!!! IT DOES EXIST!!!!
(btw Boris, I am seriously not being sarcastic. Bravo for not stubbornly sticking to your guns 'till the end of time. You are the first conspirator on this thread, I think, to actually admit that you might be wrong. I'm NOT saying you ARE wrong... merely pointing out to everyone else, that you are intelligent enough to admit that your explanation MIGHT be incorrect.)
Ok... time for some proofs of things.
Well, by your logic, the collapse of Terminal 2E at ... Charles De Gaulle Airport should come under great suspicion. It also spontaneously collapsed!
Here's some detail into one example.
And here's a video of it happening.
Again, there are a few things you are missing. First off, the other steel framed buildings you talk about hadn't been hit at 500mph by an airplane full of fuel. That does make a small difference. Second, and I've said this before, OTHER STEEL FRAMED BUILDINGS ARE NOT BUILT LIKE THE WTC, SO YOU CAN'T COMPARE WHAT HAPPENS. Most other buildings are a solid grid of I-Beams. It takes a hell of a lot of destruction to take one of those down (that's why Graphene is the strongest material on earth... at a molecular level, it is a lot like a steel building. A massive grid-like network of bonds.
I am dismissing them. Sorry. I know you could just as easily dismiss me, but there ARE lots of people out there who are supposedly "qualified" for their job who turn out to be nuts. I have proof of that too!
Well, by your logic, the collapse of Terminal 2E at ... Charles De Gaulle Airport should come under great suspicion. It also spontaneously collapsed!
Here's some detail into one example.
And here's a video of it happening.
Again, there are a few things you are missing. First off, the other steel framed buildings you talk about hadn't been hit at 500mph by an airplane full of fuel. That does make a small difference. Second, and I've said this before, OTHER STEEL FRAMED BUILDINGS ARE NOT BUILT LIKE THE WTC, SO YOU CAN'T COMPARE WHAT HAPPENS. Most other buildings are a solid grid of I-Beams. It takes a hell of a lot of destruction to take one of those down (that's why Graphene is the strongest material on earth... at a molecular level, it is a lot like a steel building. A massive grid-like network of bonds.
I am dismissing them. Sorry. I know you could just as easily dismiss me, but there ARE lots of people out there who are supposedly "qualified" for their job who turn out to be nuts. I have proof of that too!
Last edited by Stang70Fastback, .
No, you wouldn't see the building slowly lean or anything. The fact that you say that is proof that you simply don't understand how load-bearing structures cope with abnormal stress. What happens as parts start to fail, is others take the added load. They don't get compressed, or flex when that happens - usually - and as a result, the structure doesn't show signs of what is going on. A great example would be, again, an airplane.
Metal fatigue is a term given to the wear and tear that metal undergoes during routine aircraft operation. Vibrations from lift and everything else that an aircraft encounters translate into microscopic cracks in the metal (picture bending a paper clip back and forth repeatedly). Gradually, what is happening to, say, the wing of the airplane is that, at a molecular level, the support structure is breaking down. Eventually, you get to the point where the pilot tries to do something that he's done many times prior, and the wing snaps off, and the plane crashes. Why don't they ground the plane and replace the wing before this happens? Because it takes an extensive amount of testing to see what the wear level is. You can't simply look at the wing and notice it is sagging. The same goes for these buildings. Does that help?
When I talk about the trusses failing one by one, I am not talking about the moment the building collapsed. I am talking about the time leading up to the collapse. Let me break it down (35 minutes 'till test... lol - free time!)
1. Fire erupts on floors of building.
2. Fire dies down but is still hot enough to continue to gradually heat the metal supports (trusses, I-Beams, box-beams, etc...)
3. Metal trusses which help support the floor AND hold the outer-shell in place start to sag under heat.
4. Some trusses are exposed to more heat than others. Eventually, one of them fails after sagging low enough to snap the bolt holding it up.
5. As other places reach this same state, they too start to fail. Gradually the internal support structure of the building is collapsing, transferring it's load to other trusses.
6. When enough of the trusses have failed, the structure no longer has the rigidity to support its own weight. The outer wall, no longer held in place by enough trusses to support the load it is bearing, folds.
7. At this point, the remaining trusses and all else SNAPS under the monstrous loads that are transferred in that split second. This is when the building starts to collapse.
8. By the time the upper 15-20 stories of building falls the 10 or so feet down to the floor underneath, the weight that the impacted floor has to support is EXPONENTIALLY greater than the static force exerted on it when the building was stationary. As a result, ALL TRUSSES and everything simply snap under the weight. Remember that the floors underneath were held up by the outer wall. Now that the outer wall has been compromised, the structure has enough trouble holding each floor up on its own, much less the force of 20 stories crashing down on it.
Anyway test time! C u all in 2 hours!
1. Fire erupts on floors of building.
2. Fire dies down but is still hot enough to continue to gradually heat the metal supports (trusses, I-Beams, box-beams, etc...)
3. Metal trusses which help support the floor AND hold the outer-shell in place start to sag under heat.
4. Some trusses are exposed to more heat than others. Eventually, one of them fails after sagging low enough to snap the bolt holding it up.
5. As other places reach this same state, they too start to fail. Gradually the internal support structure of the building is collapsing, transferring it's load to other trusses.
6. When enough of the trusses have failed, the structure no longer has the rigidity to support its own weight. The outer wall, no longer held in place by enough trusses to support the load it is bearing, folds.
7. At this point, the remaining trusses and all else SNAPS under the monstrous loads that are transferred in that split second. This is when the building starts to collapse.
8. By the time the upper 15-20 stories of building falls the 10 or so feet down to the floor underneath, the weight that the impacted floor has to support is EXPONENTIALLY greater than the static force exerted on it when the building was stationary. As a result, ALL TRUSSES and everything simply snap under the weight. Remember that the floors underneath were held up by the outer wall. Now that the outer wall has been compromised, the structure has enough trouble holding each floor up on its own, much less the force of 20 stories crashing down on it.
Anyway test time! C u all in 2 hours!
Ohhhh my god. I PROMISE that I will completely destroy your response after my physics test...
...that is all
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG