There isn't a release date for S2 Final, let alone S3 - so you may as well just get an S2 licence and enjoy driving it in the meantime. 
Yeah, the government doesn't have anything to do with the almost 70% tax they levy on fuel, it's them damn A-rabs!
Of course it's those Saudi's fault that the UK govt has the cheek to tax the tax on fuel, too.
I'll have to agree on this point - and I was one of those who was openly cautious and dubious about the gearbox changes beforehand, and yet it's been brilliantly implemented imho. Sure, there might be some fine tuning needed in some areas, but the basics are great and create more immersion and challenge. The balance seems good too - a practised three-pedal user can probably change gear fastest of all in the H-gate cars as well as having the finest control (I'm finding it extremely difficult to blip on downchange with the autoclutch, because it's not me that's doing the clutching), but autoclutching is a perfectly viable and competitive alternative for two-pedallers or those learning the new gearbox.
The only problem I have with this patch is the change in view controls, which I can neither fathom out, nor understand why some are defending them...
Not sure what your DFP is shaped like, but on mine the L2 and R2 buttons are the furthest away from the rim - hardly convenient.
Currently they're mapped to traction control and pit limiter for me, as it's the rarely used functions such as those that you can afford to have in the less accessible places on the wheel.I concur - using the POV hat / D-pad is instinctive and natural on the DFP.
I think it'd be great if the look function wasn't made a two-button process, and inherited some of the old functionality. Still having it as a two-step process will rob one controller or another of being able to use it. Assuming that G25 owners use the two red buttons on the wheel to look, G25ers can look a full 90° to each side, but not behind. Us DFPers using the D-pad can only look 45° to each side, but can use the down direction on the D-pad to look straight behind.
None of it seems consistent or logical, especially when considering the old adage - if it aint broke, don't fix it.
The reason the old side view system wasn't broken (although I agree with the new principle of not being able to look behind in race cars or single seaters) was because a full and instant 90° glance to each side is an essential tool to compensate for the fact that a monitor screen has such a limited FOV compared to real life. In reality you have peripheral vision. You might not notice it much, and the human eye can't focus on or determine any details about anything in the peripheral vision, but even a slight turn of your head in reality gives you awareness of a car or movement out of the corner of your eye, equivalent to a full 90° in LFS.
Think about when driving your own car, on the road. If you want to check whether there is a car alongside your driver's door, do you need to twist your neck a full 90°? Of course not, your peripheral vision can do most of the work for you. Obviously a helmet reduces some of that peripheral vision, but it's still there. There is no peripheral vision in LFS (or any other game that is played on a single screen), which is why it's so important for all users of all controllers to be able to configure look controls that allow safe and clean driving online. Otherwise I fear that online public racing is going to get a lot messier in future.
I have to agree. Love the patch. I was cautious about the clutching for us two-pedal guys, and any penalisation, but it's good. The clutch modelling feels good, you can really feel the engine inertia if you get back on the gas too soon after a gearchange or change down a gear whilst cornering on the limit.
But, the changes to the view controls... oh dear. I don't have a G25 with a single big red button on each side of the wheel, I have a DFP which has a POV hat and can't do a double button press to look 90° to each side. The 45° view is useless. Maybe I can fix it in the Logitch profiler or something, but was there really any need for this change? It seems arbitrary, and frustrating.
In a real racing car, I'd have a helluva lot more peripheral vision than a 17" monitor provides me. And besides, in an XFG I can only look 45° with a button press to the side which allegedly is too generous for racing seats, but an equal button press allows me to crane my neck around to look straight out the back window? Hardly seems to make sense.
Just bring back the choice of a 90° side view please.
And what does that say in English?
Sell it and buy an intelligent vBulletin plugin that can block repetitive and tiresome barbed comments about LFS not having a whole army of developers.
None. I played S1 on someone else's computer for the first time, and got my own licence straight away without even bothering using the demo version on my own computer.
S1 only lasted me a few months before I got tired of the limited cars and tracks, so I didn't really touch LFS from late 2003/early 2004 to mid-2005 when S2 was out. But since S2 was released I've pretty much been clocking up the miles every month.
S1 only lasted me a few months before I got tired of the limited cars and tracks, so I didn't really touch LFS from late 2003/early 2004 to mid-2005 when S2 was out. But since S2 was released I've pretty much been clocking up the miles every month.
No it's not. The accelerator pedal spring on my old MS Sidewinder wheel just snapped, totally unexpectedly, a while ago. And although my first DFP went up the creek due to some power failure inside the wheel, we've all read about the problems the DFP pedals can have. My second DFP (provided under warranty - excellent service from Logitech) has noticeably better feeling pedals, presumably just a better batch as both sets were rev. B.
Umm, actually I think you'll find I'm generally on the side of realism. The pro-FCV argument had merit in that it was simply an issue of viewpoint and realism, not a question of controller hardware or expenditure to acquire said hardware. As mentioned, I expect some slight penalisation for having some automatic help with my pedal-less clutch and so on, but if the cost of having some help due to not having a G25 goes too far then it's not an improvement, just a pain in the arse.
Well, that's reassuring. I'm generally pretty gentle with the controls, and I keep the FFB strength on the low end of medium. Naturally if I had a pair of ECCI pedals I wouldn't think twice about all the lifting - I've tried the lifting before and enjoyed the extra involvement, but went back to auto throttle cut simply out of concern at the wear rate of the springs and pots being increased (at least) dozenfold.
Very true, I agree. It's a difficult balance for Scawen to strike, and I guess that whatever he does with the controls will upset some people. The fact that LFS can be played on such a wide range of PC hardware, from an early Pentium IV to the Core2Duo, is one of the reasons LFS is so popular. Many people wouldn't be playing it if they were forced to use the latest and greatest hardware. I don't see why it should be any different when it comes to controller hardware.
My foot is capable, but I doubt my plastic pedals will appreciate it. A pair of plastic Logitech DFP pedals has nowhere near the durability of a real car pedal, and releasing and pressing the pedal fully as quickly as possible on every gear change will reduce the lifespan dramatically. I agree with what I saw Kev post somewhere - by all means give a slight advantage to those with the full 3-pedal & h-gate setups (afterall they should be rewarded for doing more work), but don't castrate those of us with two pedals who would rather not replace them every year and who have to rely on sequential paddle shifters and a button clutch.
I'm already alarmed by the rumour of the car stalling when you spin unless you manually put the clutch in. Fine, if you have a third pedal - after all it's instinct to dip your left foot and press the clutch. But how am I going to keep the clutch in by holding a button on a twirling, shaking wheel? Hopefully, such rumours will prove to be unfounded and there will continue to be concessions for those without the latest and greatest controller hardware.
Not personally as I'm not particularly interested in more route variations, but what we need is some new fresh tarmac to drive on: new environments.
Still looking forward to the refinements to South City and Blackwood though.
Ah, right, cheers.
Eric's made the kerbs realistic then. Holy crap. I've been on and off this forum all day, and somehow I missed this until now.
Looks great. The AI doesn't interest me, and the lack of GTR interiors is a disappointment, but the addition of a new single seater looks to be great. I'm more pleased to read/watch about Scawen getting some single seater experience, and judging by the Avon tyre bridge at Blackwood, some input from a tyre company too? Great stuff. I'll be interested to see how the clutch is modelled and how it will affect/penalise those of us without a clutch pedal. I was particularly concerned by the mention of having to lift on cars that don't engage the clutch to change gear. I always drive with throttle cut on - not because I'm lazy, but because a pair of plastic Logitech pedals is nowhere near as strong as a real life car pedal, and can probably do without being battered up and down on every single gear change.
Nice to see Eric involved too, pity he doesn't stop by the forum once in a while. Leo looks cute walking around and nearly sitting on the front wing.
Regarding the tracks, what exactly has changed at the Blackwood chicane? I saw the comparison pics on the previous page, but the perspectives are different and using some reference points, it looks as though precious little has changed at the chicane. Can anyone detail exactly what is different?
Looks great. The AI doesn't interest me, and the lack of GTR interiors is a disappointment, but the addition of a new single seater looks to be great. I'm more pleased to read/watch about Scawen getting some single seater experience, and judging by the Avon tyre bridge at Blackwood, some input from a tyre company too? Great stuff. I'll be interested to see how the clutch is modelled and how it will affect/penalise those of us without a clutch pedal. I was particularly concerned by the mention of having to lift on cars that don't engage the clutch to change gear. I always drive with throttle cut on - not because I'm lazy, but because a pair of plastic Logitech pedals is nowhere near as strong as a real life car pedal, and can probably do without being battered up and down on every single gear change.
Nice to see Eric involved too, pity he doesn't stop by the forum once in a while. Leo looks cute walking around and nearly sitting on the front wing.
Regarding the tracks, what exactly has changed at the Blackwood chicane? I saw the comparison pics on the previous page, but the perspectives are different and using some reference points, it looks as though precious little has changed at the chicane. Can anyone detail exactly what is different?
I don't know if it's the same for Nikons, but Sony/Minolta cameras automatically map out any bad/hot/stuck/dead pixels at the end of every month. Of course the trick to making the camera do it when you want it is to set the date to the end of the month, switch it off and back on again, and hey presto, any bad pixels will usually be gone. If Nikons can do this as well, it's well worth a go. Image sensors are, I presume, much like LCD monitors, in that a certain fault rate of individual pixels is to be expected.
I have the terrible urge to flame and berate someone in this topic so viciously that it would probably get me banned from here for quite some time.
Then again, I suspect that anyone with even two braincells and a milligram of common sense realises that the posts in question speak for themselves, and no further comment is needed. Except perhaps this one...
What, night vision eyes? Or headlamps powerful enough to illuminate a reasonable reaction+stopping distance at 120mph? Tell me, what kind of an alternator do you need to power headlamps like that? Is there any power left over get the car to 120? Or are you in fact just hopelessly trying to justify a moronic, illegal and easily lethal activity because your life is so pointless and aimless that you need to get an adrenaline fix from blasting up to stupid speeds in the dark with no hope of stopping in time for the unexpected because you're too stupid/selfish/inbred (delete as appropriate) to do the decent thing and drive at the limit on a racetrack?
You seem to be struggling with a simple little concept here. You never drive at the limit on a public road. Doesn't matter whether it's for 10 seconds, 10 minutes, or 10 hours. It's still flat out, it's still racing, it's still leaving no room for the unexpected.
Suppose you're just cruising home one night, or you have your girlfriend/wife/gay lover/friend/relative with you after a nice meal or a night out. You swing round the onramp and join the freeway, accelerating though 50, 60 mph. Then suddenly there's a blinding glare in your mirror and before you can react you've been piled into by someone travelling on the limit at more than twice your speed, and you get shunted into a tree or bridge pillar at over 90mph. And you're dead, through no fault of your own.
Is this what you're trying to justify?
Then again, I suspect that anyone with even two braincells and a milligram of common sense realises that the posts in question speak for themselves, and no further comment is needed. Except perhaps this one...
What, night vision eyes? Or headlamps powerful enough to illuminate a reasonable reaction+stopping distance at 120mph? Tell me, what kind of an alternator do you need to power headlamps like that? Is there any power left over get the car to 120? Or are you in fact just hopelessly trying to justify a moronic, illegal and easily lethal activity because your life is so pointless and aimless that you need to get an adrenaline fix from blasting up to stupid speeds in the dark with no hope of stopping in time for the unexpected because you're too stupid/selfish/inbred (delete as appropriate) to do the decent thing and drive at the limit on a racetrack?
You seem to be struggling with a simple little concept here. You never drive at the limit on a public road. Doesn't matter whether it's for 10 seconds, 10 minutes, or 10 hours. It's still flat out, it's still racing, it's still leaving no room for the unexpected.
Suppose you're just cruising home one night, or you have your girlfriend/wife/gay lover/friend/relative with you after a nice meal or a night out. You swing round the onramp and join the freeway, accelerating though 50, 60 mph. Then suddenly there's a blinding glare in your mirror and before you can react you've been piled into by someone travelling on the limit at more than twice your speed, and you get shunted into a tree or bridge pillar at over 90mph. And you're dead, through no fault of your own.
Is this what you're trying to justify?
errr... earth to Dennisjnr... slight difference between a controlled racetrack environment and presuming that there's nobody on a quiet stretch of public road. 
illepall
Nah, you're just pretty much plain wrong.
illepallNah, you're just pretty much plain wrong.
Then get a better job, or save up, until you can race responsibly.
Otherwise, boohoo, cry me a river, and f**k off until you get a brain and figure out that ANY kind of racing on a public highway is a recipe for death. I can't afford to go racing, so I do it in LFS instead. I don't care if it's 3am on a rural road, how do you know that a farmer won't pull out of a side road in his old pickup after tending to his crops or animals all day and night? You don't. How do you know there isn't a broken down car over the brow of that hill? You don't.
How do you know you're not going to take an innocent somebody's life?
You don't.
Grow up.
I did my stint of GTR @ AS3 back in 2005, when the physics meant that a 1:43 was alien speed. And now I never want to do that combo ever again, even the prospect of it makes me yawn/disconnect and want to drive something that isn't flat out for 93%* of the lap.
[size]* An approximate figure, verified by nobody.[/size]
Heh, congrats, enjoy it!
I myself have to keep fighting off naughty thoughts of upgrading (or even thinking about upgrading) to an A700 which I simply can't afford at the moment.That's not a strong article. A strong article would be the one below, written by, err, myself, just now.
I think my version is much fairer, too.
What, from the back?
Congrats guys, HR is really growing at the moment.
Why the hell would anyone want that? Or am I the only one who keeps my sunvisor down 95% of the time? I keep it down in sunny weather (obviously), but I prefer to block out the view of the sky in general and especially streetlamps at night, so I can't be distracted or blinded by anything above.
C'mon Sam, we all know you've fiddled with the database and given yourself a few thousand points. :shhh: Cheating little s**t.
Congrats Sam, well done!
Congrats Sam, well done!
I can't help you with your specific case, but wanted to add that I recently upgraded to the 163.71 drivers (coming from the 93.71 drivers) and LFS looks worse on my GeForce 5900 with plenty jaggies. I too noticed that it had been added to the list of recognised games in the nVidia control panel, but it ignored any settings I asked it to use. So I manually added lfs.exe to the list, as I used to do with the old drivers, and it still ignores my AA and AF settings, meaning I get none.
nvidia = wankers. I'll be rolling back to the older drivers when I get the time.
nvidia = wankers. I'll be rolling back to the older drivers when I get the time.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG