The forces in RAF are oriented alongside car body axes. However, most probably they are all not tyre forces, but the forces between the suspension and the wheels.
There is some discussion of RAF data in this thread http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=4375 .
The order of wheel data is: FL, FR, RL, RR
It seems that iRacing may be perfect for all those people posting here that they would pay more for adding developers to LFS team, wanting real tracks and cars in LFS, saying how much they would pay for real tracks and cars, and which, being bored with LFS content because they've spent so much time with it, being unsatisfied with too slow development pace of LFS...
Mentioning console racing games and their marketing tricks in this context just doesn't make any sense. iRacing's product is based on the engine developed by Papyrus, still very good, even regarded as the best by many.
Their cars and tracks may not appeal to people living outside of north America, but this will probably change with time when they extend their content.
I have just checked the GTR 2 credits. There are well over 20 people listed in it doing 3D modelling and texturing of cars and tracks, not including their bosses etc. They probably worked on that game for about a year and around 80 % of game content was reused from GTR (1) and GT Legends and only improved.
I think this shows that your statement is exaggerated.
But at least some of racesim developers/publishers appreciate their efforts and sometimes reveal new information through them. Some examples: iRacing info in the last issue, Blimey! Games and Virtual Grand Prix 3 in the previous one. This makes AutoSimSport an interesting resource.
You may not like the writing style of some of their authors (this is my feeling too), they may not be all devoted LFS fans, but why there is so much hostility against them here?
But you can still use rigid body equations of motion for wheels but treat them as something simpler for the purpose of collision detection. However, I agree it's possible that wheels are modelled as point masses (particles) with additional one-dimensional rotation.
In LFS the value of wheel moment of intertia is available in CAR_info.bin files. Also the raw vertical load of the wheel (which is part of the force between the car body and the wheel) in RAF files can be negative when the wheel is in the air. Such things may suggest that the wheels are treated as regular rigid bodies in LFS.
I'm not sure, but it seems unlikely they would work with two different engines at the same time. There is interview with Ian Bell in the latest AutoSimSport. He said their Falcon project is separate from Ferrari Project (and arcade Kart Attack). There is no info on Falcon on their website yet, I guess that is because they keep information on game concept and content secret as it's supposed to be something very innovative. In the middle of 2006 they were planning that Falcon would take them 2 years, so it may actually be released before Ferrari Project. Falcon for sure is multi-platform project (PC and consoles) and it has multi-threaded engine, so even if it is heavily based on ISI physics engine they had to take a deeper look at ISI code while porting it to consoles and making sure it works in multi-threaded environment. In the process, they might have been tempted to improve the physics engine significantly.
RK said Richard Burns Rally is one of his favourite games. He prefers rally simulator over racing simulators because he can race in real life all the time but cannot drive in real rallies. In his opinion RBR is the best rally simulator and one of the best motorsport simulators. RK is rally fan, he likes rallying, and RBR allows to some extent to see how it feels to drive a rally car. Rallying and racing are very different and RK grew up on racing tracks, so he continues racing. He drove in Barborka Rally (in Poland, including Karowa Street SS) three years ago, but now he is not allowed to do it again. He treats simulators as fun and relaxing way of spending time. Although the simulators are developing in a good direction, they will never be as good as driving in real life.
I watched some short (7 laps) AI races in 3 slowest cars on all rallycross configurations, with X33 version. They all used default rallycross setups.
- AI make violent turns at the entry to the pits (their path is just strange), as a result they almost lose control and crash sometimes.
- AI in XFG very easily damage their suspension on the jumps. They go into the pits to repair it even when it seems they could continue and finish the short race.
- Suspension damage in XFG, similar to BL2 situation.
- AI in XRG and XFG (less frequently) tend to hit the inside wall of T1.
FE5 and FE5R:
FE6 and FE6R:
- Their behaviour after the race (I've seen it reported before) is probably due to lack of proper garages.
- They sometimes stop after the race but before reaching the pits. I'm not sure if it is caused by running out of fuel. If that's the case then maybe fuel calculations are too optimistic for gravel driving.
- AI are relatively not as quick as they are now on all-tarmac tracks. I guess it's not a bug though.
Wouldn't it be enough for reasonable bike steering to have just 2 additional axes used for body movement (left/right and front/back/sit up), all other controls left the same? The simplest hardware options could be just 4 buttons on the wheel (with settings similar to those used for keyboard car steering) or attaching an analog gamepad to the front of steering wheel. As you can see in the above video people are creative with their hardware usage. Even if far from perfect, if it worked just ok it would be rather rewarding to ride a bike like that.
Interesting problems arise in case of accidents when the driver loses contact with the motorcycle. Ragdoll physics could be used for driver sliding on the road or "controlled" ragdoll physics (with user steering ) when the driver isn't unconscious from the impact. Then after stopping normal motion-captured animations of running back to the motorcycle (user steering again) and rejoining the race if possible. OK, I got carried away, it would be lots of work and require introducing new techniques into the game.
Then three people less (LFS Devs) wouldn't make any difference. Why don't you just leave LFS alone, take the remaining hundreds of people and establish your own project? Oh, wait, there already is a racing simulation with hundreds of developers http://forum.racesimcentral.com/showthread.php?t=125970
Rather then looks, my opinion is more a result of reckoning that the seat does not usually move relative to wheel and pedal base in a real car when cornering, accelerating or braking. On the other hand, finding a car that actually does that (seat moves; not that its constructor wanted it) may be easier near me.
I am looking forward to trying any motion simulator, although getting access to only SimConMOTION seems most likely here. Not sure if it would be any indication of the level of experience provided by the more expensive systems.
You must admit you are a little biased here. For me your product is really strange, an inferior solution (wheel and pedals not moving) still in the price range of FD 301, i.e. not affordable for a hobbyist. At the same time a device similar to yours can be built several times cheaper (SimConMOTION).