You think? Is the AC logo on them not a bit of a giveaway?

Quote from BlueFlame :

They can't. Basically the popular mods will be the decent ones, generally speaking. I mean if the mods aren't up to par people will just drive the standard cars anyway so their mod would be uselessly unpopular.

If that was the case, why did rFactor do so well? Out of the thousands of mods only 2 or 3 were even vaguely acceptable. And I didn't even like those 2 or 3.

Unfortunately, an "F1 Mod" made by someone in their bedroom will probably be popular, and anyone who dislikes it will be told "how would you know, you've never driven an F1 car". I think most mods will be terribly inaccurate and could still be popular. Especially if the inaccuracy makes it easier or vastly more difficult. Easier because it's more accessible to apes, and the latter because a lot of people still think difficulty = realism.

Quote from BlueFlame :

In relation to the GFX talk I think alot of games go for the shiny bloom shiny shiny option. Such as gayCARS where the tyres shine like a polished shoe reflecting back the scenery as opposed to a tyre that's actually being used on an actual track which is dull. Whilst tyres may have a certain amount of shine, it's certainly nothing like alot of games portray these days, much like other surfaces, it seems like they try to bring out reflections for objects that didn't exist in the first place.

That's where the problems lie. You could have a very dull game with quite faint reflections and it would look like one of the most real sims (visually) ever made.

That's why I liked LFS's visuals long after that made me a blind fanboy, because although they were comparatively simple, it had a realistic look and sheen to it that few had managed to capture.

They should be force fed more than just a hat.

I can understand exactly why Crashgate couldn't be 100% sure (at first glance), but to say it looks NOTHING like a photo when it IS a real photo is quite silly.

The trouble with modern graphics is the more real they become, the more anything even slightly wrong stands out. Remember F1GP/World Circuit? It didn't look real at all, yet it all looked perfect. PCars/AC/rF2 all look great, but somehow look a lot less perfect.

Quote from Crashgate3 :

Graphics really have now got to the point where I am truly unsure whether that's a photo or a screenshot. It's only the wheels give it away as real I think.

EDIT: and the caustics being reflected onto the road from the doors.

Quote from Shotglass :

and the way the tarmac looks unnatural the way the curbs look flat the way the white line looks etc it looks nothing like a photo

But it is a photo. What do you mean the flat kerbs, white line and unnatural tarmac?

And a Dallara F3 car

Similar arguments to those that ever bothered with GTR, GTR2, iRacing and rFactor in the racing world. And, currently, PCars (but that's in constant flux, so hardly fair or logical to criticise too much at this stage).

Ooops, that was meant to be an edit, not a double post. Oh well.

If you were choosing a flying game based on graphics, surely you wouldn't choose either of them?
If you were choosing a flying simulator based on realism, surely you'd choose X-Plane?
If you were choosing a flying game based on what's available in computer shops and didn't care that it was actually a bit rubbish, surely you'd choose FSX?

Just stop using it. They aren't forcing you to tell them where you are, or to upload your holiday photos. It is entirely voluntary. That's why Facebook privacy debates are so amusing - don't want strangers/your ex/rapists knowing where you live or what your kids look like? Don't put it on the web then!

What do you mean you don't know how hey get away with it? How do you think Facebook pays for itself? They could probably offer an ads free version for money, but who'd pay?

But maybe Hamilton has 2 seconds of fuel on board? Or maybe he's in a Mercedes, and when the time comes he'll be 2 seconds off the pace anyway.

Xenon. It has an X. You must have seen adverts for them.

Quote from sinbad :

Answer: Someone that has mistakenly spent hundreds and hundreds or dorrah on the "best sim out there" and wants to keep it that way.

Indeed.

Quote from BlueFlame :

dat magnesium head. drool.

The cylinder head isn't made from magnesium.

Nobody is calling them physics. It's a placeholder... in place of physics... to presumably test other things like collision boxes, or reflections, or LOD models, or interiors etc.

Up to a point, yes. I try to maximise myself of course. But I don't like to 'cheat'. To me that's using, say, a setup exploit where lower is always faster even though the car is bottoming all the time. I'll set the car up so it isn't bottoming all the time (unless it's a car that is meant to, for example 80s F1 cars with the magnesium skid blocks!). I also try not to use kerbs that would cause damage in real life (not so much of an issue in tintops admittedly), or cut corners where that would result in a penalty in reality.

I'm self policing, rather than exploiting every bug or limitation of a physics engine. Within those [flexible and impossible to perfectly define] parameters I try to go fast.

The FO8 ride height bug, whereby everyone used nose high setups to get the underfloor downforce component adding to acceleration is a case in point. Undoubtedly faster, but completely unrealistic. I wouldn't do that (anymore!)

It's not a sim yet, but it is improving. I have no idea what they consider 'acceptable' or 'perfection', so it may be really good, or it might be a let down for purists. At this stage it's hard to tell.

No

Or it's just a little bug, and instead of 0.1 or 0.01 being used as a variable, then 1.0 is used instead. It is a tech preview after all, and they've not claimed it's bug free.

The visual tyre deformation, I'd wager, isn't included yet. It is a tech preview after all.

Can't wait for all the damage (particularly transmission and engine) to stop some of the silly lap times. Didn't know about the fresh tyre bug - I'll give that a go tomorrow and see how quick fresh tyres make me (0.000001 seconds quicker probably).

Back in the day I was happy to drive LFS like a sim, but over the years I've tended to drive all sims as if they were a bit more real. I'm slower, and I still crash (very very very easy to misjudge stuff in a sim that you'd simply NEVER EVER do in reality), but I get more satisfaction from it. I also don't use unrealistic setups any more, even if I know they're quicker. That would probably change if I ever joined a league though!

I can't even get into the 23s, but I suspect I'm driving too "realistically", rather than taking advantage of the fact it's a simulator. Old (new?) habits die hard!

Tyre temps and the fixed setup play a role in that, as does driving style. Trying rotating the car more with the brakes, and/or taking a later apex.

Two good plugins. One is a FFB graph, and the other is live temps and pressures. Good stuff.

Not made by me. Got them on the official forum.

I'm now at 50% FFB strength in game, with 0.2 filter, and I like it.

I've just edited the FFBgraph plugin, so it's twice as wide (and hence shows twice as much). Slightly easier to see clipping through a complex on the following straight. It's easy to do yourself with notepad - just change every value of 300 to 600 (I think there are 3 instances).

Last edited by tristancliffe, Sat, 23 Feb 2013 21:19.

If that was the case then it would be poor for everyone, not just you.

Good grids, but questionable talent compared to other championships.

Ha ha!

The Maru.... Virgin looks like it has about 100mm of rear ride height! No wonder it's slow...