And where does this little gem of wisdom come?
Dont pull numbers out yer arse, ok?
Go out there, do a 1 corner drift, measure temps, then come back.
Your whole 2 posts can be summarized like this:
"I know that tires heat up and cool down in real life, so in lfs it is obvious they do so unrealisticaly."
If arguments like these are to be even considered for discussion, I got a more insteresting one:
"Damage in LFS is waaaayyy too strong, I mean I never crashed a car, and I think the damage is too much in lfs. I crashed at 200kph and my whole front was damaged!"
lol same. there should be a detailed summarized updated list of controls like ctrl + shift, i had one ages ago wen i first joined and printed it but it's long gone now, I'm pretty sure ctrl + shift wasn't on there i used to have it next to my p.c. wen i played demo
if you guys just wanna bash on me thats fine
but LFS is not have one of the best tire simulation comparer to the other sims out there.
and real cars' tires doesnt smoke for a long periods of time driving on the straight after drifting like LFS does
iam asking for ways of improvement not people talking smack
1) Where did I bash you?
2) If you meant the others, why did you quote me?
3) I don't say LFS has the best tyre simulation ever, I know it doesn't have it out of various reasons. All I asked is how you acquired this very specific tidbit of knowledge that "a tyre" has "probably more than 100°C" after "one corner" of "drifting." I put these in quotes because they are very, VERY broad statements to make about something so complex to simulate as a tyre. If all of LFS was developed by such rough guidelines and feels and half knowledge, it would be no better than any half-assed rFactor mod. Evidence like research papers or even self documented measurements are the key here, not some random babblings about how "X is wrong and should be Y, because I say so."
I remember that experimental tyre temperature chart was shown in F1 training or qualifying session showing that temperatures change much more rapidly than in LFS (like +10/15 celsius on one single braking).
didnt mean to say that u bashed me, just didnt feel like quoting everyone who talked.
this is just something i realized and wanted to point out from the game, not to write a essay about tire simulation.
That's going to be surface temperature, not the core temperature which LFS shows by default.
Doesn't show anything but surface temperatures when stopped in the pits, so we don't really know what's going on and far more importantly doesn't model sidewall deformation that has to play a very big part in any car, especially very stiff cars with high sidewalls that rely on tire deformation rather than conventional suspension systems (ie. F1 cars).
Using your logic what makes nK better? The fact it uses real data from Avon (which is freely available over the interweb)?
It's a wiki article. I sure wouldn't use it as a source of information for any serious debate.
As far as I knew LFS doesn't model tyre wall deformation.
I must admit though, that if other sims can base their tyre modelling on what appears to be scientifically obtained empirical data I don't see why LFS can't. Also, if it is true, (not saying it is), that the physics in LFS is based purely on the "gut feel" of someone driving cars and comparing it with how the in sim vehicles act I would have to say it's claim (or anyone that does claim) that it has the most accurate physics is extremely tenous.
That's not the same thing as tyre wall deformation though. I know that tyre load is modeled, (but how exactly that affects the handling I don't know). But as far as I know, the actual tyre walls stiffness and resistance to deformation etc isn't modeled.
Also, just because something appears to be happening graphically doesn't mean that any actual phsysics calculations are being made. At least not in the sense of actual vehicle dynamics modeling.
In fact I would be very interested to see a list of what exactly is modeled in the vehicle dynamics physics of LFS, and how each model is used to affect others. For example, tyre load is obviously calculated. But how is it used? what further calculations are the results of tyre load input in to?? If it's nothing, then in and of itself it's pretty meaningless.
i cant think of anything in lfs' graphics that doesnt come directly from the underlying physics
as for tyre wall deformation... if you use unrealistic inputs (moving the steering wheel rapidly from lock to lock with the mouse) you can make the cars body move while the contact patch stays put => bounding box moves around => tyre deformation is part of the physics calculations
it is and it changes quite drastically with tyre pressure
im guessing here but judging by the way lfs drives the underlying model seems to be simple rigid body dynamics with everything else working around it... which is the main reason that makes lfs feel so much better than any other sim out there
mostly it goes into whichever formula calculates the lateral and logitudinal tyre forces and of course it should feed back into the suspension calculations
I don't doubt that all of the above is probably true. But how do you know this to be the case?? Has any of it ever been stated by the developers or is it just assumption because of the way the cars in LFS appear to handle?
I'd still like to see a comprehensive list of exactly how they've modelled the physics and the dependencies between the various models. Purely out of curiosity, (having had a scientific education - specifically physics), i'd be interested to know how it's all been put together. I can't see how it could be commercially sensitive either as it should all be pretty obvious science/engineering principles, unless they're doing stuff that's not known/understood in the world of vehicle dynamics/physics, (highly unlikely). One can't claim intellectual property rights over the way the world works. Anyway, I'm not asking for formulae.