Quote from Blackout :

How can you tell me Im wrong about my own connection, I usually get the max download rate from enywere and it's about 104kb/s, those came under 20kb/s so it's guite slow. Honestly, that's one of the most stupid statements I've read in a long time...you know that the speed isn't the same all over the world and not everyone can have 10 meg lines to boost up their virtual penis.

Did you look at the picture of the d/l speed? Sounds like you just want to troll for a fight with your lame and childish insults..

Quote from Blackout :

Also that download is slow, and waste of time

I can only suppose you are angry about being proven wrong so now you want to argue about something else.

Quote from keiran: :

You just had to use the most extreme way possible in showing it, is how I understand Blackout's post. Why not use the Lupos, Meganes etc which Boris was refering to earlier on?

..... Watching from off-board cameras in rF in normal conditions with the usual crop of cars and you see very little suspension/car movement if any. In LFS to show you suspension movement no one had to go use a super soft setup and fly over the jumps on the rallycross (i.e that would be the extreme in LFS), it's clearly visible in any race running at this time of posting.

keiran: - no I did not HAVE to go flying over jumps to show suspension movement, it happens in all cars, even stiffly sprung rTrainers and whatnot, it is just easier to PROVE in a relatively LOW QUALITY movie with a more extreme example, that is why I chose that for the movie.




All you guys who insist rF has no suspension movement simulated graphically, you're all wrong. End of story. You can complain that you don't think it looks realistic, you can complain about the download speed of the movies that are proof, it makes no difference, you are wrong, admit it and move on to all your other complaints..

It only just has suspension movement though. A car jumping like that should have more. Also, there seems to no movement due to weight transfer - I can only assume this isn't modelled at all, as your extreme example would otherwise show it.

But in rF Multiplayer, if there is no movement due to weight transfer, then it's going to look odd. Okay, the wheels might go up and down in a simplistic way over bumps, but if the body stays almost exactly level at all times it'll just look wrong. And as the most visible part of suspension movement online would be via weight transfer movement (i.e. watching the car ahead move on it's suspension as it finds the limit of grip and gives you the opportunity to dive inside). Without it, it is no wonder people say it doesn't exist, because for the most part it doesn't.

rF's suspension simulation is barely existent, and poorly executed, and says a lot about the ultimate simulation potential of the product. When someone works out how to unlock simulator mode let me know. Trying to prove rF is any good by showing some dubious videos of buggy suspension won't cut it with me.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Also, there seems to no movement due to weight transfer - I can only assume this isn't modelled at all, as your extreme example would otherwise show it.

Your assumptions are incorrect. More "misinformed fanboy claims", watch the video.

1:15 to end of rf_susp-buggy-2.avi, among many other examples in that vid and others.


This old quote comes to mind:
"none so blind as those who will not see"



To everyone trying to argue their incorrect assumptions:
Keep in mind I am not a fanboy of either sim, I see them both for what they are.. both have good and bad points. I am just showing the fanboys and spreaders of mis information that they are wrong. kill the messenger if you want, you are still going to be wrong.

BWX, the ISI fanboy troll is still posting that same drivel all over the place [/sarcasm]

For this subject I have nothing to say, because I haven't tried rFactor after the early multiplayer test. Anyway I'd like to nicely ask you boys to keep in the subject, as it's nice to read from aside.

Quote from frokki :

BWX, the ISI fanboy troll is still posting that same drivel all over the place [/sarcasm]

For this subject I have nothing to say, because I haven't tried rFactor after the early multiplayer test.

The difference I provide proof to back up my statements, and I am not a fanboy of any sim.. I don't claim one to be better than the other as many LFS and well as rF fanboys do.

I have an open mind, where the fanboy's mind is closed off with blinders on.

Quote from BWX232 :

Did you look at the picture of the d/l speed? Sounds like you just want to troll for a fight with your lame and childish insults..

Heh? I think you need to calm down with the hissy fits. Please point me to the childish insults?

Talk about blowing things out of proportion

Download speeds weren't good for me, so what? The attitude you had in replying to Blackout was uncalled for/childish/`lame` whatever you call it. I was merely backing up his claim that I also had slow speeds. Had you said it in a normal/`nicer` fashion then I'd have probably not bothered.

Quote :

keiran: - no I did not HAVE to go flying over jumps to show suspension movement, it happens in all cars, even stiffly sprung rTrainers and whatnot, it is just easier to PROVE in a relatively LOW QUALITY movie with a more extreme example, that is why I chose that for the movie.

Read the post carefully as you seem to skiming through it and picking out what you want to see.

In low quality LFS videos you can easily see any of the cars suspension working away along with the weight transfer of the car, even the tyres can be seen flexing on videos hosted by youtube. So why this couldn't be deomonstrated on a far higher quality video like you posted in comparision to YouTube videos seems very odd to me.

there is suspension movent in rfactor, anyone who's played the game... in the ctdp mod it can be seen.... it just doesnt look very good.

if people will comment on things without even seriously checking... things as easy to see as suspension movement... then i wonder what else they havent checked up on before commenting.

Quote from keiran :

Heh? I think you need to calm down with the hissy fits. Please point me to the childish insults?

.

I wasn't talking to you.. I wrote that directly below HIS quote.. did you happen to see that?
Look below for childish remarks. Seems you would rather deflect and "argue about the argument" than bring up any solid proof of your position.

Quote from Blackout :

that's one of the most stupid statements I've read in a long time

Quote from Blackout :

not everyone can have 10 mega lines to boost up their virtual penis

Quote from Blackout :

Also that download is ..... a waste of time

Quote from keiran :

In low quality LFS videos you can easily see any of the cars suspension working away along with the weight transfer of the car, even the tyres can be seen flexing on videos hosted by youtube. So why this couldn't be deomonstrated on a far higher quality video like you posted in comparision to YouTube videos seems very odd to me.

Seems odd to me you are still trying to argue a point you have clearly already lost.

Well, BWX, back to the video I posted, of a video someone else posted, you're missing the point I'm making. Please take a moment to give it some consideration.

There is no suspension movement in that video. Whether the springs are too tight or whatever, it matters not. What I'm most bothered about is the way that the body of the car moves as if there is movement in the suspension, and yet when you look there is none there. Instead, to compensate for the lack of movement in the suspension, the body and wheels become submerged below the ground plane. This is a physical impossibility. It's in conflict with the physics of the real world entirely.

Now, I'll concede that it's arguable that LFS's rubber tyres are overly rubbery AT THIS stage in development, to compensate for the lack of flex in the drivetrain, or flex in the body shell of the car, but the most important difference is that LFS makes these concessions so that LFS remains within REALISTIC physical parameters (by making the tyres flex a little more than they should etc) while rFecktup just bypasses the physical prerequisite we popularly refer to as realism and thus wheels and things can do such impossible things as go places where the ground should be.

I don't care how many examples of suspension flexing in fRaction you crank out, I've seen everything I need to see in that one video to tell me that THAT game doesn't meet MY basic requirements for realism. Conversely, LFS repeatedly demonstrates that it does. Just because I expect more from a sim than you do, regarding realism, does not make me ignorant.

Quote from SamH :

Now, I'll concede that it's arguable that LFS's rubber tyres are overly rubbery AT THIS stage in development, to compensate for the lack of flex in the drivetrain, or flex in the body shell of the car, but the most important difference is that LFS makes these concessions so that LFS remains within REALISTIC physical parameters (by making the tyres flex a little more than they should etc) while rFecktup just bypasses the physical prerequisite we popularly refer to as realism and thus wheels and things can do such impossible things as go places where the ground should be.

I think this is a bit overstatement. How I see LFS' progress is that features get properly implemented instead of adding extra code to "make it feel more real". The tire code in LFS is obviously WIP, but I would be damn surprized to hear from Scawen that the "tire flexing" is overdone to make up for the missing drivetrain flex. I just find it bizarre. There is really no sense to make good tire simulation code, and then add some factors and equations in the tire code to make up for the suspension disabilities. (Of course I'm over simplifying the code) I just don't see LFS working that way

---
I haven't done any modding in rF but could someone who has explain me that does one need to edit some files to create convincing body movement and is this body movement then affected if you put harder springs or looser damper in the car? Is the any relation between the suspension setup and the car suspension movement, or does the gmotor engine just look at some not-physics related text file to "play" these? Or is it just a "effect" or some over simplification to make the cars to look to have realistic body roll, yaw etc, in short, to make it look like the cars have physics? No pun intended, an honest question from a hungry finn.

i have very similar feelings about rfactor as samh. its like... they started with a subpar physics engine and tried to make a great game out of it...

Quote from SamH :

Well, BWX, back to the video I posted, of a video someone else posted, you're missing the point I'm making. Please take a moment to give it some consideration.

There is no suspension movement in that video. Whether the springs are too tight or whatever, it matters not. What I'm most bothered about is the way that the body of the car moves as if there is movement in the suspension, and yet when you look there is none there. Instead, to compensate for the lack of movement in the suspension, the body and wheels become submerged below the ground plane. This is a physical impossibility. It's in conflict with the physics of the real world entirely.

Now, I'll concede that it's arguable that LFS's rubber tyres are overly rubbery AT THIS stage in development, to compensate for the lack of flex in the drivetrain, or flex in the body shell of the car, but the most important difference is that LFS makes these concessions so that LFS remains within REALISTIC physical parameters (by making the tyres flex a little more than they should etc) while rFecktup just bypasses the physical prerequisite we popularly refer to as realism and thus wheels and things can do such impossible things as go places where the ground should be.

I don't care how many examples of suspension flexing in fRaction you crank out, I've seen everything I need to see in that one video to tell me that THAT game doesn't meet MY basic requirements for realism. Conversely, LFS repeatedly demonstrates that it does. Just because I expect more from a sim than you do, regarding realism, does not make me ignorant.

I don't even know what that video you posted is made from. It could be an unfinished mod which doesn't model the suspension correctly. Who knows.


The tires going into the ground, from what I have heard form the ISI devs, is the simple way they simulate the tire squashing, something I have heard them say they are working on as well.

That doesn't have anything to do with the suspension. This is the same thing RBR does, which IMO has better overall physics than LFS. Just because something is not represented graphically does not mean it isn't being calculated into the physics engine.

BTW you were one of the people claiming rFactor did not model suspension graphically, then I prove you wrong, and now your argument is it doesn't do it up to your high standards.

Whatever.. I have proven my point about the graphical representation of the suspension movement in rF and at the same time proving my point about fanboys in general. It's just funny how the LFS fanoy is so critical of any other sim while completely dismissing all of LFS's MANY faults and shortcomings.


should we start talking about how horrible the steering wheel jerks in LFS multiplayer when viewing other client's cars and how smooth rF's graphical representation is? In LFS MP the entire cars jerk around the track warping all over the place while in rF then motion is much more fluid. Does that make rF a better sim? No it doesn't, it means it's different, and does some things better, just like LFS does things better.

Open your eyes people and take the blinders off.

Quote from Hyperactive :

I think this is a bit overstatement. How I see LFS' progress is that features get properly implemented instead of adding extra code to "make it feel more real". The tire code in LFS is obviously WIP, but I would be damn surprized to hear from Scawen that the "tire flexing" is overdone to make up for the missing drivetrain flex. I just find it bizarre. There is really no sense to make good tire simulation code, and then add some factors and equations in the tire code to make up for the suspension disabilities. (Of course I'm over simplifying the code) I just don't see LFS working that way

I'm sure you're right. It's my *assumption* that there's some additional code in LFS and I'm making a leap by suggesting that it's somewhere in the tyre physics calculations, just because it seems the obvious place (i.e. a WIP) to hold it for now. The point I'm making is that such elements of realism are clearly introduced into LFS strictly on the proviso that they don't break real-world physical conditions/considerations

BWX, I'm not coming from the angle of "I'm an LFS fan and therefore I like LFS", I'm 100% coming from the "I like the way LFS works, so sue me" angle. One is a consequence of the other. Make sure you understand which way around it is, or I might call you ignorant.

I don't need to apologise or excuse the fact that I like what LFS is and its approach to simulating racing, and getting tagged "LFS fanboy" has no impact on me at all. So what if I tried and disliked rTractor, at least I tried it. I didn't like it, for all the reasons I've stated. What ya gonna do? MAKE me like it? I don't think so.

BWX it is really annoying when you keep calling people fanboys. Also looking at the video SamH posted there is no suspension movement. Im not saying there is no suspension movement in RF Im saying there is no suspension movement in THAT video.

Nice buggy btw

Quote from BWX232 :

I wasn't talking to you.. I wrote that directly below HIS quote.. did you happen to see that?
Look below for childish remarks. Seems you would rather deflect and "argue about the argument" than bring up any solid proof of your position.



Seems odd to me you are still trying to argue a point you have clearly already lost.

Oopps sorry, miss read that then.

What have I lost?

My point is that rFs suspension `physically` (all be it in a graphical manner) doesn't appear to work from what I've experienced. The car never appears to me to follow the suspension but more the wheels just move up and down in a like pre set manner. Or if it does it obviously doesn't work together in a manner to look convincing.

Just a general thing I've never really understood with rFactor is obviously all the suspension movements etc should be being calculated as the car goes so what makes it so hard to make a half decent graphical representation. To me it would seem harder to make a bodged graphical representation as it obviously must have some link to the physics engine thus making it not look correct. That would surely involve changing the information from the physics engine more than doing a direct graphical representation... I could be talking a load of rubbish it's just an observation I've had for a while when trying rF out and reading peoples explanations on the rF forum.

Quote from SamH :

BWX, I'm not coming from the angle of "I'm an LFS fan and therefore I like LFS", I'm 100% coming from the "I like the way LFS works, so sue me" angle. One is a consequence of the other. Make sure you understand which way around it is, or I might call you ignorant.

I don't need to apologise or excuse the fact that I like what LFS is and its approach to simulating racing, and getting tagged "LFS fanboy" has no impact on me at all. So what if I tried and disliked rTractor, at least I tried it. I didn't like it, for all the reasons I've stated. What ya gonna do? MAKE me like it? I don't think so.

Well when I said the word ignorant, I defined it as well. I said that anyone who doesn't think rF shows suspension movement graphically is ignorant (meaning ignorant of that fact).. It is not an insult letting someone know they are wrong, and I wasn't trying to insult anyone.

Yeah I also like a lot of the things LFS does better than the way rF does certain things, I like the way rF does certain things better too. I'm not trying to convert anyone, what would I gain from that? I am just trying to dispel a few myths and untruths that keep floating around about rFactor that people are spreading around that make rFactor look worse than it actually is.

The only time I get defensive is when I start getting attacked for no reason.. That is just in general.

What's the old saying? Don't kill the messenger.
I like both sims actually.. It is just insulting to the ISI guys when people say rF isn't even a sim.. That's totally ridiculous. I can point to quite a few things about LFS that are more arcade-like than rF's implementation.. Race starts for example... the mysterious way the tires have just as much grip when you smash the throttle as someone next to you carefully controlling their wheelspin, etc, etc..

It's just not all black and white as some people would like to believe.

Quote from keiran :

Oopps sorry, miss read that then.

What have I lost?

My point is that rFs suspension `physically` (all be it in a graphical manner) doesn't appear to work from what I've experienced. .

I don't know how I can make anyone believe it.. but it does. It's not as smooth as LFS and not as high resolution (as many steps represented graphically).. but it does in fact show it.

BTW, I am sure if they wanted to sacrifice some performance, that it could be shown graphically with more resolution. It isn't like the physics engine is not calculating the suspension movement.

I was insulting you? Well, I said your statement was stupid not you, and with that I meant the fact you said it must be because my slow connection, I took it as an insult maybe because inside, my own virtual penis got even smaller because I only have this 1mbit line. And the rest of my post, well, got a bit carried away but my point was that the videos were waste of time because the examples you posted are so extreme. When I think rFaktor it's the one you buy and the F1 car and default stuff and such. If you need a mod buggy to prove there is suspension movement, which is almost a standard in games today, there is something wrong with it. I saw myself that there is something wrong and now I'm sure it's the movement of the body and weight transfer like suggested by few other people already. Im going to drop this conversation because it doesn't lead anywhere and, as I already said (and bwx just barely missed to quote), this thread is waste of time.

:munching_

When will someone say something worthy of locking this thread?
Its so monotonous.

While I will admit that rF does some things better than LFS, I don't feel remotely connected to the car and I don't enjoy it AT ALL. You're not gonna convince me to like it (atleast in its current state) and that's that... so you can stop trying to convert people with all the "open minded" posts, BWX.

On a note about replays in rF, I don't think that the physics engine runs at all during replays (or I should hope that it doesn't, because if it did, then I'm not sure how you can call it a sim)... so judging physics based on replays is inherently backward.

Quote from BWX232 :

BTW, I am sure if they wanted to sacrifice some performance, that it could be shown graphically with more resolution. It isn't like the physics engine is not calculating the suspension movement.

Then its a mere matter of rendering it in the right place at each frame because its already calculated. You have to render it anyway and it would have no hit on performance to render it in the right place. In fact, rendering it in the wrong place (ie. a number of steps before the current physics iteration) would just be a waste or RAM.... unless the physics engine runs at like, 5Hz. Have you ever done any programming?

The hate in this thread is amazing illepall. Even though there are some interesting discussions coming from this thread, I think it should be locked for good. Maybe open a new seperate thread for the collision discussion, as it would be sad to see that one end.

Regarding the suspension movement, I cannot say wether the replays are representative of what happens in the physics engine (I hope not), but the point is, in every rFactor video I've seen the cars look absolutely dead. What conclusions someone might draw from that is a different story - my only one is that the cars look alot more static than they should.

Sadly rFactor even with 'real' type tyre curves still doesn't seem to make much sense when you're over the limit.. That was dissapointing when I tried

Rather than stand accused of locking too many threads and stifling anyone's freedom of speech,. i just wish certain members of the community would be able to keep contributing in a constructive manner to potentially interesting threads like this, rather than them ALWAYS at some point descending into petty personal insults. Such a shame, it reminds me of the schoolboy playground arguments slagging off football teams/bands/choice of girlfreinds/record collections, etc.
"My sim is better than your sim". Yawn, so what? If you enjoy playing it, what right has anyone got trying to change your opinion?
Why is one persons personal opinion more valid than someone elses?
Come on guys! Shape up, lets keep the debate constructinve and if you have nothing constructive to post, then POST NOTHING!

I did read that someone suspected that there is no suspension movement with weight transfer and I have read that drifting is not possible and such.

I would say both of those things are wrong.

My mod is not finished yet and it still needs lot of work to tires for example, but here is video that shows how drifting is very possible and also that it acts somewhat like a car, I did slow down this so you can see everything better, I can put up full speed version too if needed.
Car is bit underpowered for drifting, under 200hp...

10MB video