Quote from GreyBull [CHA] :

Why the hell do you care anyway?

Because I have written this post many years ago and everything in LFS was new to me then. As for now I'm just getting bored of LFS after 30 minutes of playing. We don't need all the physics stuff if it's too hard to develop. We just need some extra tracks / roads. That's all.

I disagree. After driving on at least 90% of LFS tracks and cars for a long time, I think the new physics will make every single one of them a new challenge for all of us. This will last years with that alone. The open configs have given us new tracks, restrictions have given us new cars and it hasn't made that big of a difference IMHO.

The main point is, when Scawen gets those physics done, then it will take a comparatively tiny amount of time to implement new cars and tracks.

Also, don't forget, they now have the ability to import laser scanned data since they scanned rockingham, and we have been told eric has been working on s3 content for a long time, so if we just wait for the tyre physics, then the rest will follow pretty quickly.

i'm still a little confused as to why rockingham won't have a reverse config.

Quote from bunder9999 :

i'm still a little confused as to why rockingham won't have a reverse config.

where have you seen this, please ? (bad news ...)

Here:

Quote from Flame CZE :

I talked about it with Victor once... and he said Rockingham would not have reversed configs, I don't know about the open configs though, they were not introduced yet at that time.

Maybe they wont be supported "official", i.e. hard-coded like the current reverse configurations for other tracks [maybe its to do with the agreement with Rockingham (if there is any?)]. But still it would be possible to drive via the autocross system - and with the use of Airio track PBs/AIRWs etc.

However, it would be a shame if the autocross and/or open configs were disabled in Rockingham...

Quote from ponczak :

Because I have written this post many years ago and everything in LFS was new to me then. As for now I'm just getting bored of LFS after 30 minutes of playing. We don't need all the physics stuff if it's too hard to develop. We just need some extra tracks / roads. That's all.

I'm split on this comment. On one hand, any time I tried to drive another simulation competitively (like rFactor/iPaying) after the initial buzz of everything new about it and all the features that LFS didn't have (real cars, real tracks, brake heating, water/oil heating, night racing etc) there was always a much larger downside on the physics side when it actually came to driving for several hours in a row.

That being said.. LFS already has much better physics than all of these games (and I'm not getting into another argument which is better and how you can't judge the two, because you can and LFS physics is better), and really what would help is just content and simple expansion features like more wide and fast tracks with more pit boxes, larger number of connections allowed on the server, etc.

As far as rev configs not being available on Rockingham, I don't see this as bad news. Currently there are maybe a fraction of configs in LFS that work in Rev configuration because some of them just weren't planned on being driven in reverse. Sometimes there are curbs on corner exits for a regular configuration, but a similar curb is missing on the entry because it wasn't considered when the track was made. If you want nice and drivable rev configurations, then the tracks as such will look pretty silly because they'd have to aim for a compromise between types of corners.. as some are just pure awesomeness in one direction, but completely undrivable in the other so you would have to have bland corners that wouldn't change too much with direction you go through them.

However, the thing I currently like most about LFS is the freedom. So, while some of the real life tracks would just be rubbish in reverse direction the option should probably be considered. As far as imaginary S3 content goes, yes.. allow the rev configurations but consider putting a curb here and there on both corner entry and exit so it's a bit less sucky than some tracks currently are.

Quote from bunder9999 :

i'm still a little confused as to why rockingham won't have a reverse config.

i'm still a little confused as to why rockingham isn't released yet

Quote from bunder9999 :

i'm still a little confused as to why rockingham won't have a reverse config.

because:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com ... 94332824_6864b99e78_o.jpg

Because we're getting bikes? With slow riders on them?

I don't think the curb pattern should determine whether a track is reversible. For bikes it does, because kneepucks get caught. Not so much an issue for cars.

http://www.roadracingworld.com/news/article/?article=37791

then I get confused about why the curbs aren't flat? I don't have any idea why it has to be "rough"

Quote from ldriver :

i'm still a little confused as to why rockingham isn't released yet

all the content the Devs have ready to be released (Scirocco, Rockingham, that one new car Scawen talked about) will come out once the physics are ready.

I wonder how the current hotlap setups drive with the new physics.

Good OP Scipy, +1 to that.

And:

Quote from PMD9409 :

Scawen, say "Hello" please?

Definitely +1 to that Phil

Scawen pls post just an smiley emote

Quote from UnknownMaster21 :

then I get confused about why the curbs aren't flat? I don't have any idea why it has to be "rough"

Or even sloped radially (high on the grass side, low on the track side).

Quote from Flotch :

where have you seen this, please ? (bad news ...)

I've missed your posts, your avatar is awesome.

Quote from Koa128 :

Scawen pls post just an smiley emote

I'm still waiting.

Quote from Bawbag :

I've missed your posts, your avatar is awesome.

+1. I still wonder what her shirt reads, or maybe that's just an excuse.

Quote from pmd9409 :

+1. I still wonder what her shirt reads, or maybe that's just an excuse.

I thought it was obvious. It's a BSOD.

Hmm I think it's not a regular BSOD message, I guess it's a just bit boob biased

Quote from Koa128 :

Hmm I think it's not a regular BSOD message, I guess it's a just bit boob biased

http://www.google.com/search?q ... &biw=1441&bih=630

sorry...long link.....who cares about the text anyway.....sorry for OT

Quote from Forbin :

I thought it was obvious. It's a BSOD.

Stop ruining my fun! I still don't know the exact text, but anyways, I don't even realize text is there.

Oh and, Scawen, where are youuuuuuu?

Quote from PMD9409 :

Stop ruining my fun! I still don't know the exact text, but anyways, I don't even realize text is there.

Oh and, Scawen, where are youuuuuuu?

He's working hard on the physics. :shhh:

He was busy doing consulting work for iRacing (read: sabotaging their NTM).

With how quiet iRacing has been after their fail (aka not addressing the issue at all, not even once), I think they brought the fail upon themselves.

All Scawen has to post is or "Hello".

Although he is sleeping right now... Vic probably isn't though.

I guess Scawen might be on vacation or so, cause it is summervacation time after all.

But still, +1 to a sign of life from Scawen.

Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :

Has anyone tried the DrivingVanishY parameter? Which way moves the view "up"? In LFS I like to make it so I can just see what I need to see in the cars and the rest is all the track. Thanks.

Shift + [ / ] alters the view pitch if you weren't aware.

I have just read the two last pages, and I do not play Iracing, so I guess I'm out of that discussion, but some off topic rant I am allways good at

First off, why are people waiting from a reply from Scawen? Is it like a sexual fetish or something?

Secondly, we are all knowing that the developement is currently focusing on the tyre physics (in LFS), and I hope that there are at least 2-4 new tracks (with several new configs) that are hidden in the S3 stuff. Either way, time will show on this, my point is that we do not need an reply from him to know if he is allive and working We just have to belive. And if he did not work on it, I don't think he would mention it aswell, so no matter what you do you won't get that info out of him, hence the waiting we just have to accept

Back to Iracing - Seems there is a pretty big discussion going on over the internett about the new physics, LFS forum is not the only place where the rage is going on. Is the improved physics THAT bad?