It's not just the bumps that make a difference though it must be said. The subtle camber changes, little dips and rises in the track surface. It really is very detailed. You have to drive it to appreciate it fully.
I've changed my stance on the tracks the more I've thought about it.
Ok the fact remains that weather a track is modelled absolutely perfectly or not doesn't make a whole lot of difference if your never going to drive there yourself, but the sheer detail in the track surface is certainly unlike anything seen before, and it really does add to the experience. Especially at places like Infinion.
Eastern Creek for rFactor is certainly a class above anything else for that sim, but without the FF quality of iRacing you still cant appreciate how good they really can be.
Moose I find it nice that you pass your impressions of the Sim as neutral as possible even if the wind is blowing heavily against you in this Forum. Alot of people here appear to have the mindset "If its not Live for Speed, it must suck"
Though it's not like this is any different on RSC. You find people like that everywhere, though here it's obviously concentrated on LFS.
Maybe you don't notice it that much because it's more mixed up over there, but you get at least an equal amount of idiots who bash it because it's not rFactor or because "it's based on the old GPL engine! OMG!" (:rolleyes or also on the contrary, idiots who praise it as a revolutionary all-encompassing piece of software touched by the gods because they get a hard-on just thinking about Dave Kaemmer. Neither is reasonable, and given the community size I don't think this forum is any worse than other places.
Damn, those tracks and driving physics seem really interesting. Too bad you can't have 10min test drive before buying because I'd like to know how the driving feels. For me LFS feels very natural but too "perfect and sterile" at the same time, making driving little too predictable. On the otherhand GTR and rFactor don't feel natural and it's like having a big flashing sign saying "IT IS A COMPUTER GAME" on top of your monitor. However, tires feel better than in LFS, especially lateral grip.
...Oh well, I guess I either have to lock my creditcard in a box and trow away the key or get a job.
They may be very different but they also both appear to be the two tops sims atm, at least for me from what I've read and tested (read about iracing, tested LFS). Even if they are so different they both still are racing sims and as such compete for my time and money.
By the looks of things LFS is finally getting a worthy opposition in form of new sim. Even if the competitor is many times more expensive and restricted in its ways it is finally a product that may be able to beat LFS on its most own territories, physics, netcode and community.
After all, it's exactly the same thing with LFS as it is with iracing. It's not just the destination, it's also about the journey itself. You know, it's not just a boxed product that gets done and is then released, new stuff will come as updates as we go!!!111
EDIT: btw, is the SK modified of any use on road tracks?
Very nice review, seems a lot more balanced compared to some others which are generally either only praising or damning it.
Also nice to see a bit more the European side on it, as I think the content so far is simply for the most part too uninteresting for non-American racers. A bit more insight on the physics would've been nice (I'm searching specifically for that, since it doesn't look like there will ever be a free demo), but alas, if the reviewer doesn't have the experience in that regard then better admit it than spout BS.
Personally I couldn't really care less for the cars and tracks to be real - not saying that a little more track detail on LFS' tracks wouldn't be appreciated. I'm mostly interested in the physics and I'll guess I'll wait a bit more till the broad masses have hit the sim and collected enough experience to make a statement, though of course detailed ones, not "they seem fine to me", "they are the best ever" or "they suck".
Haven't seen mention of this - but if they're to simulate the way a "career" works IRL, are they also going to be dishing out prize-money for race wins/podium finishes or are they just simulating the cost of RL racing?
Nope, the SK Modifed is a purpose built oval racer. Very low CG, chassis is offset to the left, huge horsepower and very wide rubber. Some of the early modifieds had the engine mounted offset to the left also, but the SK is modeled after modern modifieds.
The difference is that, when you've bought cars and tracks, if your subscription lapses you can't race even THEM OFFline. That's like buying Photoshop but not being able to use it unless you keep subscribing to Adobe Weekly, @ $2.50/week.
OK, my computer is mainly connected to the internet (certainly not constantly... Damn dodgy connetion ) I'm not making a big deal out of that. I think I've mentioned that exactly once. Sam's correctly addressed the main point in his post above.
"I'd happily pay $100+ for it if i actually got to own a bit of software, and use it online how i wanted too, not having every aspect of my sim racing fun controlled by the developers."
Is that better for you? Can you see what my main issue is now?
Rfactor with ancient converted tracks that are not accurate, physics that are hit and miss and developed in notepad?
Or live for speed with 5 year old dated graphics, and same old fantasy tracks that we have been driving on for years, not to mention utter crap sounds?
Nkpro which is just half a game and rough as hell?
Seems like there isnt much on offer these days certainly nothing new and there wont be unless there is a change in business model for simulations and suscription is finally the chance for sim racers to have a funded cutting edge simulation. We shouldnt let it go to waste because we might never have the opportunity again.
It really is a "lure you in and hold on tight" pricing system. I may be a cynic, but realistically the basic content is not enough to make the subscription worth paying, and then once you've forked out for the content, which you need, you're compelled to keep up the subscription to get value from your content purchase.
So you need more content to make the subscription worth paying, and then you need to keep paying the subscription to make the content worth buying. I can't imagine many people will subscribe for 1 or 3 months to "try it" buy a load of content and then happily just let the subscription lapse and lose the money they bought content with. I think I would come down with a chronic case of "Buyer's remorse" at some point. But then I've tested it, and this is just my opinion based on those few weeks.