If I may suggest something, I believe the big GTR cars should have MORE gear whine. Like a lot more (that it be louder). Also on cars with straight cut gears, the gear whine should probably "skip" when using a high gear ratio (like 1st or 2nd gear) and backing off gas and maybe also skip in a similar manner on hard bumps on the road.

Appart from that I really like the sound of 4 cylinder engines at the moment. Maybe turbo louder?

Well if there is one thing I'm glad to learn in this thread, it's that, considering that patch V is not out yet, and considering the time it will take to code, model and texture those uncompatible features for the patch after V, LFS will not get in the way of any family or friends gatherings this holiday season!

The sad way to see it, is that if we consider the last patch with "meat" added to be the one when the BF1 and single seaters new cockpits arrived, the next patch with "meat" will very likely be around one year later, if not more. And I find it sad because I would have prefered to see new road cars/GTR cockpits instead of the BF1 back when it arrived. I guess I'll start to play LFS more often again when next meat patch comes. Maybe I'll even download test patches again like the good old days!

Just to make things clearer, I'm gonna post here my 2 posts from which we got this reply from Scawen.

Quote from Nick_ll :

Scawen, I don't know if that would be possible or if the U-series patches would be a good place for this, but useful request for you:
Would it be possible to have a packet that says when cars pit in or out? Like entering and exiting the pits area/crossing the line. Not actual pitting. It would be useful (believe me) to have a packet that can tell when a car is driving through the pits. And if it is possible, telling us where it is
Or does that already exist?

Quote from Nick_ll :

Ya I meant an insim packet. And the use of it would of been to tell wether the driver is on a flying lap or if he aborted lap, or if he's on an outlap. The purpose of this would of been to limit the number of flying laps to say 12 per driver, on a qualifying server that is run throughout a week. So that the total flying laps possible is the set number, but drivers can drive as many incomplete laps as they wish by driving through the pit lane when they feel their lap was not good enough.

Ya I meant an insim packet. And the use of it would of been to tell wether the driver is on a flying lap or if he aborted lap, or if he's on an outlap. The purpose of this would of been to limit the number of flying laps to say 12 per driver, on a qualifying server that is run throughout a week. So that the total flying laps possible is the set number, but drivers can drive as many incomplete laps as they wish by driving through the pit lane when they feel their lap was not good enough.

Scawen, I don't know if that would be possible or if the U-series patches would be a good place for this, but useful request for you:
Would it be possible to have a packet that says when cars pit in or out? Like entering and exiting the pits area/crossing the line. Not actual pitting. It would be useful (believe me) to have a packet that can tell when a car is driving through the pits. And if it is possible, telling us where it is
Or does that already exist?

I believe we have the worst here in Montreal, Qc, Canada. We also happen to have one of the best, who's the regular commentator, but he also happens to do Hockey, so when the season starts and our team goes for a match away, he goes away too.
So sometimes at the beginning or the end of the F1 season, when there's still hockey (or it's just started), we get this **** who doesn't know sh!t about F1. It's totally ridiculous I believe he doesn't know which driver is with which team.
Michel Y. Lacroix is his name.
Normally he comments Curling... and should be left at that.

Quote from Memph1s :

I would prefer the BMW M3 GTR 2005 Round the Nürburgring Nordschleife

Someone who understands me!

I'd take that same car around Road America. Or maybe Mont Tremblant for something closer.

Ackerman is more toe-in on the outside wheel afaik. 0 ackerman is 100% parallel. Anti-ackerman, as I understand would be negative value.

That said, I believe ackerman is only used on road cars where it offers actual benefits at low speeds. At racing speeds it's not that useful and I read somewhere it is not used.

Well basically, what Todt said there is "if they do team play, we will also do it next race".
So expect Massa blocking both Renaults if any Ferrari is in front of them.
If only Kimi's car could be reliable for once in the last 2 races it could mix things up a bit.

Quote from Becky Rose :

Changing the wheels in LFS is a simple case of poking one float value for the number of spokes on each wheel. OK that doesn't open up new designs but simply modifies the existing wheel design - but it would be quick for the devs to do.

I would need to check that doing this would not effect the cars performance in any way (it might effect weight), if it does not I will add the feature to a future version LFSC.

For more variety of actual wheel design though would take Eric-input

I believe this is a very bad idea. The tires can and should be generated on the fly, but the wheels could and IMO should be modeled. For a start, that technique used ATM seems to use some sort of "cross section" in the middle of the wheel, which looks both bad and unrealistic. Then I believe the designs possible are relatively limited and I'm not sure it's possible to texture the wheels, which would definitely help in faking a realistic look and masking a lower polycount.
I mean it's ok to do some things in a different way than everyone else, but if it's not broken, don't fix it.

Quote from Jamexing :

Yes, that's exatly it. If you drop something on an ideal (absolutely NO damping) spring, it will simply bounce the object back and energize it with as much kinetic energy as there was potential energy in the deeformed spring. This assumes that there's no air resistance, of course, but the results are still the same: bounce.

What LFS needs is to implement some damping forces to the walls. The worst case in LFS os the walls at the pit area. They seem to be modelled as VERY stiff springs with minimal/no damping. If you've ever tried colliding ANY car into those walls at ANY speed, it'll simply bounce of and spin like mad, even at 10KPH.

When was the last time some car hit a strong and solid brick wall at 10kph and at a 30 degree angle and bounce off spinning like mad?

BTW, +1 for poperly behaving tire walls.

I actually believe it's the car that should absorb most of the impact. This is where energy absorbtion is needed.
The walls as you say just need some damper physics in cases where it applies like tire walls, but the cars need to actually absorb impacts and deform/loose parts.

Woah!
Now I know why it's written on wikipedia that Clarkson has ugly clothes lol
This is interesting tho, I like the instant comparisons between what the 3 drivers think.

Ya but what would happen if there was a deformable tire wall and no energy absorbtion? The wall deforming, coming back and throwing your car away?

For that to work, would it not be needed to first have energy absorbtion implemented?

I thought they called it Viper because it was like the "new" american 2 seater-very-powerful-with-a-lot-of-torque car. Like a new Cobra...and since the Cobra wasn't a Dodge, they needed to find another snake to call it like.
I was under the impression they had called it Viper for that reason.

Hey my Focus has no ABS

Errrm....you guys might want to check Tire Rack...
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/ ... ear=1989&autoModClar=
OE Front: 205/55-16
OE Rear: 225/50-16

Oh and...a Conquest is a Starion.

Maybe the GX had same size front and rear, but that's not a turbo. It would be the XRG...and besides, the starion TSI was something like 197hp apparently and our XRT is 240, so I think it just makes sense with 40 more hp to have it with wider rear tires.

Quote from Gimpster :

I still think putting the three on the same size tires and adjusting the weights or power slightly will go a long way to ballancing the class.

Good points you make, but on this particular one, wouldn't the XRT have wider rear tires than fronts?
I would expect such a car to have 225's rear and something like 205 up front.

I would also like the other guy I don't know the name of (sry) try to fix the powerband issues to see how it makes them things more competitive and maybe fix the longitudinal grip loss of the tires so that spinning on a start actually is slower than full throttle (or is that already fixed?). Then if things are normal we should have the FXO much slower on starts and RB4 quite a bit faster.

But really. 240 width tires on the FXO? That is just ridiculous. Hrrm...the Acura TL has 235 tires and is a fwd...but it's much bigger than what an FXO would be.

Quote from Scawen :

We haven't updated the web page for a long time now.

Here's a photo from about a month ago, when we were in Ireland.

Growing his hair as long as yours?

Oh and I believe his seat hasn't got enough lateral and head support.
Edit: I mean the green one. Not his Recaro. That one's fine, it's even got a HANS device! Man that's advanced stuff!

My first inital and real last name are on my skins. I also use them in league races. In normal pick-up online races I use Nick_ll.

I would expect it to be in degrees too. What surprises me however is that you say recommended basic values are more negative camber at the rear than the front, whereas this is mostly opposed to what I've seen generally.

Even in F1, you can often see on pictures the cars are running more camber on front than rear. I do see the point that it could make the car more stable (??) and so maybe a little easier to drive.

!!!
Rome Meeting to save Imola race!
Why does that not surprise me? And why do I already know the "meeting" will be successful and Imola will be back on the calendar in 2007?

Errm...I looked at the map of Cadwell and was saying I found it didn't have much interesting turns.

Quote from JJ72 :

cadwell.

You omitted the word "sharp" in my post. Long long multi-apex turns are boring IMO. I'm not talking of a track like Blackwood where the challenge is more to keep the momentum. I'm talking about a track, designed by Eric, not a real track, where you actually have to brake, even in the FOX and where the challenge would be to actually keep the car on track on blind opposite banking turns and on sequences, like esses, where you have to reaccelerate uphill during the turns if you want to be fast.

Ya Eric's work is nice, tho I do see room for improvement

Speaking of tracks, I think there are too much straight lines in LFS tracks currently. I'd like to see a track, not that long, say between 4 and 6km, like a normal GP track lenght, but something that makes you sweat. A track where one turn doesn't wait next one, where some turns are sharp downhill opposite banking blind turns, where you have sharp blind uphill turns, sequences that unbalance the car constantly...Without high curbs.