Quote from baSh0r :

Stop getting biased and create your own view on this.

Quote from baSh0r :

Anyway if you don't like it, I don't care, it's my view and i don't care for such bullshit and people beeing emo.

Touche Sir, Touche.

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

Following the failure of the LMP to gather much interest in MoE circles

I guess one is meant to read this: The LMP prototype was so horrible it's almost absurd.

LfsTweak meets MOE, I would expect this kind of action on demo servers. Just doesn't fit to a series, that used to be the most prestigious endurance series in LFS.

Also, has the use of a modified .exe been approved by the devs? I still remember when a certain person modified the game to have a McLaren F1 and as far as i can recall, the devs weren't very happy with the situation.
Another scenario: God forbid should a new patch be released and the modified exe become unusable. The current method of modifying will no longer work and a work-around cannot be deviced in the near future. You stop the series and declare a winner as the results stand at that moment? Or perhaps have some sort of reclassing done midseason with everybody having the ability to pick their cars and perhaps even classes again? That especially if the number of classes had to be cut down.

All that just doen't sound one bit like a professionally run series.

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

The loss to the series is a lot smaller fields and a lot less interesting racing.

With multiple classes we have a larger number of competitive teams and a more challenging racing environment (lapping, being lapped).

As things were the last season, there was more than enough drama with lapping. Especially in case of drivers that don't have much racing intelligence, both classes considered. If you reckon it's interesting to see shit hit the fan when cars try to lap each other, I guess it might be so for the entertainment purposes. I sure had fun watching the ridiculous action at IGTC with just one class. Does MOE want to be that series where very inexperienced racers can just hop onboard for the sake of having bigger numbers? That's not how it used to be. It was something special to take part in MOE, an achievement to be proud of. The standard for being accepted into the series was somewhat high, or that's how I recall it.

As i feel the pain of my non-100Mbit racing comrades, I think it would be a wise idea to split the stream into 1-4h parts to make downloading a more bearable experience. Other than that props to the staff.

Attention, we might be recruiting honorary members to keep the legacy alive. Our recruiters are on the move and will be coming to a city near you. Here's one of our recruiters at work: link
It is of utmost importance you come well prepared.

Render by mogster, much appreciated.

This post is being written with mixed feelings. At the same time it's a glorious launch of a new team and - well - a wistful farewell.

Fist Raisin Team was built on the foundation of great Finnish motorsport legacy. Our relentless faith in the deepest essence of raisins was always our strength. We believe raisin is not about being the thid or the scond, only the fist will be remembered. Our heritage has inspired individuals worldwide. Entire corporations, such as our main sponsor Sun Maid, rely on our motto: "When in doubt, go Raisin!"

Building a successful team takes finesse. The team was assembled with utmost urgency and was in action for two weeks. Instead of gathering every possible creature with limbs for controlling a car, we chose to form a compact core group which ended up to be

• P. Lehto - plehto
  
• A. Tuokko - Profi
  
• JJ Nylander - Oxygene
  

Some say they have three legs, and that they habit the upper atmosphere - all we know is, they (are) always fist on the line.

We are very humble and down to earth. Still it's worth mentioning that we have been victorious in every single race that we participated and this isn't subject to change. On the track we have been rivaled by many, some unnamed parties have even imitated our team's appearance in order to be as skillful and cunning.

On a sad note, dominance has numbed our senses; winning just isn't the same anymore. Therefore we are forced to withdraw from racing and give others the opportunity to win races once again.

Fist Raisin Team is out but here's a video to relieve the pain of parting.
Video (If you are german, click here)

Last edited by plehto, Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:39.

Quote from janipewter :

What a ridiculous argument this is.
On a dry asphalt road you'll stop faster with locked wheels. On a very wet asphalt road you'll stop faster with ABS. On ice you will stop faster with ABS. On very loose gravel, snow, mud etc, you will stop faster with locked wheels, and on these particular surfaces it will take what seems like a lifetime to stop with ABS.

And the ridiculousness goes on. Dry and wet asphalt behave somewhat the same regarding slip ratio - braking force. The optimum is achieved with 10-30 % slip and there is a ~30% reduction in braking force with a locked tyre. This is reflected in a finnish test, where using non-studded winter tyres braking distance on dry asphalt increased from 32 m on ABS to 45 m on locked tyres.
On loose surfaces and ice, a locked tyre will yield a shorter braking distance. On loose surfaces partly due to the tyre digging into the ground. Also in test conditions threshold braking on ice demonstrated significant gains over a locked tyre(191 m - 230 m). It is worth mentioning that in emergency braking situations nobody will be able to perform threshold braking to it's full potential.
www.autoshop101.com/forms/brake09.pdf Here you go, page 3.

All of these test results are from straight line braking. While cornering ABS benefits from being able to control each brake individually to achieve the system's desired slip ratio. With conventional brakes, no matter who the driver is, you will be unable to do this due to different loads on each tyre and having only one pedal, d'uh

Quote :

Yes ABS does work in reverse. But I don't see the need for it to. If you find yourself in a situation where you are going backwards fast enough to warrant the use of ABS then you've severly messed up somewhere, and in such a situation, locked wheels would probably help you more than ABS. Remember, ABS helps you brake and steer. If you're going backwards at 50mph, why on earth would you need to steer? You'd want to stop as fast as possible, and if you're in a spin, ABS will not help.

I give you props for your logic 'ABS helps to steer'->'You don't need to steer while reversing fast'->'ABS will not help'. However that isnt the reality. There might be some buddhist thinking behind not needing to steer while reversing, but I'm not familiar with that religion.

The reason why ABS would be needed on reverse is simple. Due to brake bias of the car, which in traditional systems is achieved with a pressure regulator for the rear brakes, you will not get much brake force to the rear tyres that act as front tyres. You'll also lock up the fronts, causing tyres to loose their lateral traction and make you prone to spin. With ABS brakes more brake pressure can be applied to the rear brakes. This in combination with the front brakes not locking up (while reversing) will yield in a much shorter braking distance with much greater stability. Which, by the way, happens to be one of the key benefits of ABS: you will maintain directional stability even when one side of the car is on ice and the other on asphalt.

Oh and just my favorite quote to end this post:

Quote from janipewter :

Since most of you have no idea what you are talking about, I will clear some things up.

Last edited by plehto, Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:58.

Quote from Bawbag :

Or pwns himself then double pwns himself with the added DT for the action which pwnt him in the first place.

That must be a figment of your imagination, Niki wouldn't do such a thing!

Quote from three_jump :

The attempted of a passing maneuver is close to a divebomb for the #41 car as the attempted their pass from a long distance.

You were not close enough.

Protest denied.

I'm not in any way involved with the team, but this just seems absurd.
This decision is contradicting moe rules:

• Blue flags must be respected in a timely manner.
  

• A driver under a blue flag should NOT behave erratically, or in any way that would confuse the lapping car.
  

• A driver under a blue flag SHOULD keep to his line and give way when the lapping car presents an overtaking maneuver.
  

• Repeated blocking under blue flag may result in a DT penalty
  

With any common sense, if you are being lapped the car behind you is considerably faster. Therefore in these situations driving your own pace until the other car is touching your bumper just isn't going to work. Especially when speed difference isn't greater than 0.5-1s per lap, overtaking is very difficult. Losing downforce prevents you from closing the gap. From what i've gathered the gap was within this margin and therefore it seems obvious to me the car infront should lift and let the faster car pass. Even more so as there's plenty of room to do so on the straight.
The very definition of blue flag is to signal the driver that he has to let a faster car coming from behind pass. How does keeping your own pace for multiple laps and completely disregarding the car behind comply with this? Not a very 'timely fashion' in my oppinion.

Even if #41 gives room to #39 when coming out of pits, as they should, doesnt mean #39 can ignore a blue flag. Also after the minor collision at T1, #41 drives the gap down in a lap or two. After that blue flag is shown pretty much constantly from laps 141 to 149 to the #39 car. For last 3 laps all #39 could see from the rearview mirror was Petri's angry eyes staring at him.
Does your decision mean drivers can ignore blue flags and only let other cars pass when they see fit?

Last edited by plehto, Sun, 8 Nov 2009 14:40.

I vote that lfs physics should be rewritten by people that think red is correct. Truly ingenious thinking that could change the world, you would make Columbus proud. Dare to think differently.

Quote from v1rg0 :

The bulk of that data is irrelevant. I took best part of 1s off my pace often in the last 3 stints by taking it easy. Damage for all teams increased throughout. I know Roque's stats are going to be skewed by the fact he drove a heavily damaged car etc. The "real gaps" don't really represent anything meaningful either as a result.

Wonderful things happen when you cherry pick data. Excluding bad laptimes caused by driver error and the possible time lost for repairs during the pitstop renders these "statistics" null and void.

Ok I'll break my promise just this once.
You are again quoting me out of context, this is how it should go

Quote :

I said the conditions where abs is at disadvantage in braking distance are not relevant to lfs or this discussion. Hence why it has the off-topic quote as it's not related to anything in lfs.
*insert winter tyre results from the offtopic quote here*

I'm sure you can find a way to quote a part of this post as well to prove something wrong. And yes, I did not think about gravel or grass at that time, as i don't find grass to have enough traction or gravel physics to be adequate for racing.

Also if VW required abs to be modeled for the scirocco, just like TC for BMW F1, why does it need to be added to all the road cars?

Quote from vari :

This is a test patch thread that has a new implementation called ABS. How is it exactly offtopic to make comparisons to the real device that it's simulating?

I don't think that the intention of this tread is just to discuss what and whatnot should be in but rather how well the changes work, or both.

When you say that a test should be made with one new car I have to disagree as it's known to change from vehicle to vehicle (unless of course it's those specific cars we have in the game). And the fact that you post figures about winter tyres is somewhat amusing since LFS doesn't have those. (Even though ABS seems to outperform on tarmac)

You also mention the fact that the cars were used (in the report I posted). I would probably concentrate more on the fact that they were using more than 10 year old
ABS systems probably making them less effective compared to what we have today.

I don't think that it makes much difference that they used old cars and brake components when it comes to the balance between ABS and non ABS braking. If anything, it's likely to make ABS less effective in my opinion but that isn't a fact, just a gut feeling.

And finally, should ABS be in the game? In my opinion yes because it's a simulator afterall.

You are putting words in my mouth or failing to understand what i wrote.
At no point did i say we shouldn't make comparision to the real life counterpart. I said the conditions where abs is at disadvantage in braking distance are not relevant to lfs or this discussion. Hence why it has the off-topic quote as it's not related to anything in lfs.
Also at any point i did not comment on how abs affects braking distance in real life on tarmac and equivalent hard surfaces, or the validity of the results in the research you posted. I did not say abs shouldn't shorten braking distances in lfs, but if such an option is provided at it's current state you will gain considerable advantage in terms of braking distance, controllability and lack of flatspots.

Furthermore i did not say the test should use one new car, but a single vehicle. The point is the test environment has to be controlled. With used second or even third owner cars(read: cars with x kilometers driven, not old e.g. from year 1990) you cannot ensure any of that. You can play the guessing game on how it might or might not have affected the results, but the fact is results achieved like this arent reliable.
Also an abs system has some sort of diagnostic that'll let you know if there's something wrong with the system, without abs you have no idea until you virtually have no brake pads left.

Once again, I did not doubt that with abs you can and will achieve shorter braking distances in a number of conditions. Nor did I say that the results are completely wrong, but that they are not reliable or exact. Therefore I wouldn't quote them as facts.
If you want to continue your war on me, trying to disprove everything i say with invalid arguments, be my guest. You can also continue your mission on proving abs shortens braking distance, which i don't deny it does, but I will not be replying to any further messages.

Quote from Vain :

Can we get some technical data on the LFS-ABS?
E.g. can someone make a braking test on flat asphalt and read out the braking force? That way we can analyse how the LFS-ABS works and compare it to real life systems.
I've personally worked a bit with the internals of a very recent ABS system and I'd like to see how well LFS implements it.

Vain

I already did some testing, they are in my previous post: http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=1005928#post1005928

Last edited by plehto, Sun, 14 Dec 2008 13:54.

Quote from vari :

Since it's unclear which surface types you mean I tried to find some facts. I wouldn't make generalisations perhaps implying that it should be so in LFS.

This report was made ten years ago. Attached is the summary.

Yes, I didn't mention any specific conditions because it didn't have any relevance to lfs or to this conversation. I was simply pointing out the principle behind abs design, while understanding it doesn't shorten your braking distance in all conditions. The discussion shouldn't be about abs benefits on different surfaces, that's offtopic. The focus should be on whether we need abs in the game at all and if so, is the current abs operation in patch z4 what we want see in the final patch. Do we really want to make this game about road safety or should racing be the priority?

Quote from offtopic :

Tekniikan Maailma 7/2005, page 150, found the following in their tests:
Test car VW Golf 1.6 FSI '05, using Continental ContiVikingContact 3 and Nokian Hakkapeliitta 4(studded)
With studded winter tyres on asphalt, snow and ice braking distances are as follows:
locked: 47m, 57m, 230m
threshold braking(no abs): 38m, 62m, 191m
threshold braking(abs): 40m, 66m, 221m
abs: 35m, 68m, 237m

With non-studded winter tyres results were:
locked: 45m, 53m, 255m
threshold braking(no abs): 37m, 59m, 295m
abs: 32m, 64m, 404m

On loose surfaces results would be similar.

I also went through that test you posted, the methods how the test was performed are very questionable.
A few things that bothered me:
3.1 Test Vehicles
"Eight test vehicles were purchased or leased from central ohio automobile dealerships. Seven were obtained from used car lots, and one from a dealership's pool car fleet."
"The tires on each test vehicle were steel belted radials. Each set was inspected and found to be in acceptable condition and of the sizes specified by manufacturers."
"The brakepads, rotors, drums and shoes were tested in 'as is' condition unless it was necessary to replace them(e.g., one vehicle's rear brake pads wre worn past their wear limits)"

Car manufacturers or models aren't mentioned either, just the model year.
Call me a sceptic, but a test conducted with multiple cars and their tires and brake components tested 'as is' isn't very scientific. Just the tires and how old/worn they are can make a big difference, especially in wet conditions. Multiple other things could have altered the results: suspension geometry, wear of brake components to name a few.

A proper test would use a single vehicle and disclose it's make, tyres used and other relevant data regarding the test. A controlled test environment includes the vehicle and all components related to it.

Last edited by plehto, Sun, 14 Dec 2008 12:03.

Quote from D_Thrasher :

I think the ABS is a great inclusion personally. Road cars in real life have it, so why not the road cars in LFS? Leaving it out would make the sim *less* realistic. And of course, it's likely to make laps faster; the whole point of ABS is that it shortens braking distances and helps maintain control.

Yes, road cars do have abs for safety reasons. But abs is prohibited in almost all racing. So choose your poison, which realism is the one we want to go after? A super safe volvo or a race car, i know which one is my choise. Take the mainstreaming approach and you'll have a console game in your hands. Not really challenging, easy to learn, loss of interest in a couple of months.
Also the idea of abs is to maintain steering, not to shorten braking distances. In many cases braking distance with abs is longer compared to locked tyres.

The suggestion of making abs response rate slower and making the brake pressure release greater/longer sound like viable options. As said in my previous post, right now it takes ~0.02s for the system to release brake pressure making the abs system work at around 50Hz. From googling i found results varying from 15 up to 20Hz.

Last edited by plehto, Sun, 14 Dec 2008 02:19.

I deeply hope there will be a server side option to force abs on/off. If you don't use it while others do, you are giving up a huge advantage. I haven't tested complete laps, but i did a braking test.
Car used was xrg, brake force at maximum(1840Nm) with and without abs, 810Nm without abs(typical for current setups).

Findings:
With abs you can trail brake as deep into the corner as you want, not having to worry about flatspots whatsoever. On top you will maintain perfect controllability over the car. Also as the back to front weight shift has been done already and deceleration is somewhat constant, car's behavior remains very predictable and stable.
Abs also reacts very quickly, around ~0.02s from the moment of abs engaging to disengaging. At 153km/h abs allows wheel speed to drop to 106km/h before taking action. At 73 km/h the same figure is 55km/h. I don't know what kind of speed differences real abs systems allow, so can't comment on this.

To compare braking distance i did a 160-0 brake test with xrg and analyzed the rafs with f1perfview. Results and graph are attached.
It can quickly be seen that with abs you achieve far greater avarage deceleration from 160-60 km/h, the difference is nearly 9%. As a result braking distance is shortened by 10 meters and it takes 0.25 seconds less to do so. This combined with being able to brake deeper into the corner with zero risk of flatspotting, you really can't be competitive without abs.
Keeping in mind this was with road_normal tyres, I'm fairly sure the differences would be even greater with road_super.

In essence the abs takes away from the challenge of driving these cars. It becomes dull and boring when you can get that perfect braking everytime without flatspots. The challenge and fun of trailbraking deep into the corner and keeping the car balanced while doing so is what motivates and rewards drivers. Learning driving techniques and mastering them is what should make a driver faster, not a button to enable abs.
Also now it really doesn't make a difference whether you drive with keyboard, mouse or wheel. Each of them can be equally fast, mouse probably being the fastest on the low power road cars.

I am not trying to say abs cannot be this effective, but driving aids should make it easier to drive around the circuit, not faster. In the older versions brake help eliminated some of the lock-ups, but it certainly didn't shorten your braking distances or make your laptimes quicker. LFS is supposed to be a pc simulator, but seeing how easy these cars are becoming to control it's ready to be ported into a console game.
Also i would like to know which road car racing series, or any racing series for that matter, allow the use of abs.

Last edited by plehto, Sat, 13 Dec 2008 21:40.

Quote from ColeusRattus :

Well, I for on don't think it's inappropriate to adress people directly with a "you" in here. But seeing that you are from finnland, I understand that notion. Having been in Tampere a few weeks ago, you're one of the most reserved people I have ever encountered. It's almost spooky (unless you meet a drunk finn...)

Point was that replying without a quote and using 'you' doesn't really define who you are answering to, especially as my first post wasnt directed at you.

Quote from ColeusRattus :

Perhaps it's time for you to move on to something else then. Also, I can't really agree to you. Of course everyone in here knows that the physics are still flawed, but as far as I can recall, most of the patches did more the the physics than to the look of the game. Additionally, the better and more complex the system is, the longer it takes to considerably improve it.

Assuming you are referring to me with "you", which really isnt adequate in forums.
You don't need to remember anything, just check the changelogs for patch z and y from lfs.net. It quickly becomes apparent that most of the changes to physics have been minor tweaks, excluding clutch heat, tyre heat and gearboxes.

Quote from ColeusRattus :

Fact: people who utter assumptions as "facts" are retarded.

Touche sir, touche.

I suggest you don't reply to this message, or any other for that matter, if your input isnt something else than "go play some other game" or "you're a demo racer, you're wrong".

Quote from Uximura :

Fact: "At some point" people lose interest and get interested by other products.

Fact: "At some point" sends the ball so far ahead in time you'll forget why or who had thrown it years before in case you happen to find it years later.

Fact: LFS has again the opportunity to compare itself with real world car (common one this time, the scirocco) and again the solution presented is half-baked like so many in LFS these recent years. Not even suspension geometry/type is of same nature. Fantasy la-la land continues.

Fact: The excuse over these years for half-baked, has been that after months of idling you work your butt-off for a month to make an artificial (self imposed or not) deadline. "there is no time for that" becomes the easy and handy excuse. Since GC there was no time to code a proper suspension for it? Shouldn't it have been a priority?

Fact: Confort is an enemy of will.

Fact: LFS will remain the sim that could but rarely is.

Well said, although we cannot know for certain how much work has been done.
Over the last year lfs hasn't received anything major. Some textures and minor tweaks which really isn't much. Including the modifications to how the tyres heat up which pretty much eliminated the use of the softest compound for the fastest cars.

What lfs needs is changes to the way it feels, not the way it looks. To mention a few things in need of improvement: realistic slip curves for slicks, undertray downforce, downforce relative to yaw(assuming this isnt modeled). Also the unbalanced classes, big gtr's especially, make for really dull endurance racing.
A new car won't change the issues that lie beneath. But I'll wait and give this patch a chance to impress. All I can say is that waiting 6 months for a new patch just to be disappointed is getting old.

Thanks!
This was an opportunity i just couldn't pass.
Looking forward to racing at westhill.

In my oppinion the decision admins made is the only correct one. If time differences from race one were added after the whole ordeal was over, nothing that took place on the track would reflect the results.
Imagine battling for position for the last 30 minutes of the race and making a pass on the last lap. But all of sudden a joker is pulled: "Sorry mate, we had -20s on you". In that case i can only imagine first gt2 making a quote on some other real life rule to 'proove' they won fair and square.

Taking rules from a specific racing series does nothing to proove admins decision wrong. For one none of this information was available to the admins at the time of the event. Secondly moe does not follow an official rule book, rules are made specifically for this league by admins. And like in this case, admins had to make a ruling. Very much like a jury in a Formula1 race. A quick decision has to be made during the race, the results are rarely changed afterwards.

Do you see a protest being made in ALMS when a safety car/red flag is issued and a team loses a gap close to one lap? Especially as in ALMS it doesn't really matter which one it is, the marshals take their sweet time

Replay is only the last hour or so. If anybody has the complete race please upload.

Ballast?

Bawbag, i dont think we can compare the two leagues directly as they are run by different people and a different set of rules.

Quote from baSh0r :

thank you very very much for that information, that saved my life

New lineup:

Teaminferno GT2 UFR:

M. Golombeck (bash0r)
R. Mooney (bawbag)

Nothing personal to any of the individuals involved, but allowing this is quite absurd. I understand somebody might not be able to race, but it most certainly shouldn't be allowed to replace that person with a ringer from an other team.
Especially as the replacement is one of the fastest drivers around, considerably faster than any driver the team could've fielded from within their own ranks.

If this goes unpunished, we'll just have a bunch of moe drivers driving the last race. Therefore i think disqualifying GT2 car #03 is the right course of action.

Only the drivers signed up for the season should be allowed to race. Exceptions can be made if the team has members who joined after the sign-up.

Remember the 15kg ballast for fzr