Altough as far as I remember that "auto clutch" option has been in the options menu in GTL and GTR2 at least. I guess they forgot it this time.

Quote from sixfour :

You can remove it from the menu as well. I prefer having options in a text file rather than hidden away in the registry or whereever. I guess the isi engine is not for lazy or stupid guys though

I'm talking about the M3 Challenge, and I can't see the option you are talking about. Or is it hid somewhere?

But what are you doing here anyway, all your posts have been anti-LFS so it's not like you were enjoying the game. Are you here to just for fun to provoke people to arguments?

Quote from sixfour :

You can remove it from the menu as well. I prefer having options in a text file rather than hidden away in the registry or whereever. I guess the isi engine is not for lazy or stupid guys though

You'd also prefer calibrating and setting up your wheel through text file?

It's different having some option ONLY in the text file when it could be easily also in the menus. Especially when it's as important as this particular "auto clutch" option is.

Altough like I said, usually ISI based games have had that option also in the menus, as far as I remmeber

Linux fanboys prefer typing 30 lines of text over few mouse clicks too....

I prefer easy to getting started with point of view over fanboyism, even I like Linux more than windows, I just hope they make it so that it is easier to access functions with few clicks.

I think Sixfive's trolling is just tragically too damn hilarious to take it seriously.

Quote from Gunn :

"One cross each, line on the left...."

Who are we crucifying?

PICK ME!

*Me in W4H costume*

Quote from Hyperactive :

With current hardware it is quite possible to get a good realistic sim working well. Take LFS, improve the tires to solve the few issues there, add some damage models to the drivertrain parts, update the 3d-models, maybe a more complex chassis simulation with a basic chassis flex, better aero and a dynamic racing environment (weather etc...). Plus all the small ones...

Would this really be out of question with today's computers?

the problem is that all of these will be fudged curve fitting excercises which have very little to do with what would happen in real life

gpl came out in 98 and i guess it had a pacejka type tyre model running at a rather low update rate
assuming that todds guesses on how lfs' tyres work are correct it took us 10 years to go from a curve fitting excercise to a physics based model running at a properly high frequency (with the entire competition on the sim market still stuck in the gpl era or in fact before that due to broken curves)

so at the end of the day lfs has functional and physics based models for rigid bodies, suspensions and tyres all of which work quite well and imho much better than anything else out there (with the exception of intersections between several rigid bodies) but the truth is that even though the graphics engine cant be that hard on the cpu (or at least it shouldnt be considering its stuck in ~2002) just those bits can bring a single cpu to its knees with more than one car on track

Quote :

What you are suggesting is solutions like RoR which are imho nothing more than extremely cpu-intensive models that don't even simulate much, other than doing something that hasn't been done before without thinking any optimizations. A fem model is not something you want to ever run in realtime without optimizing it. Not even with 80 cores

well yes of course it needs omptimzations but the point is that what ror does is essentially the state of the art tech to simulate complex systems (obviously with much more elements but the idea is the same)

the beauty of this is that you can put a ror model into any arbitrary stress situation and it will behave more or less like youd expect it to in this happy little place i like to call the real world
take a chassis flex model that has been based on some kind of non real time fem sim and curve fitted to it and youll find a myrad of cases in which it will provide silly results

plus the reality is the future in cpus is parallel if you like it or not
amd bought ati for the praellel core know how and intel plans to conquer the problem by the brute force of 80 cores

imagine running a cruve model on a 80 core machine ... one core does the tyres the other one the chassis flex one for aero ... youll quickly run out of curves to stress the cpu with
if you want to make use of the hardware youre pretty much forced to go fem

Quote from Shotglass :

the truth is that even though the graphics engine cant be that hard on the cpu (or at least it shouldnt be considering its stuck in ~2002) just those bits can bring a single cpu to its knees with more than one car on track

But doesn't the fact that we can accelerate the LFS physics x32 tell us that it is in fact the graphics, not the physics, that are eating up the CPU cycles?

Quote from J.B. :

But doesn't the fact that we can accelerate the LFS physics x32 tell us that it is in fact the graphics, not the physics, that are eating up the CPU cycles?

now that you put it that way
honestly i dont know maybe lfs runs on simplified physics with the speedup ... maybe it doesnt (the fact that you can still output raf files at 32x indicates that it doesnt)
i do reckon you probably have a point there and i still believe lfs' graphics engine eats up a coriously large amount of gpu/cpu cycles (compare your framerates on a large starting grid when specing at the fron with at the back)

but either way my point still stands that games like plasma pong and rigs of rods indicate that current cpus are nowhere near ready to simulate physics instead of math (especially if you consider that rors graphics engine already runs on a different core than the physics as it is)

LFS has multiple physics engines, complex and simple. The player and up to two cars infront use the complex physics engine, the rest use a simplified physics engine, things like tyre flex are not calculated in the simple engine, but put a camera close to an AI in the replay and LFS will adapt and start calculating it. It's a very cunning system.

rFactor appears to do a similar thing, for instance i've seen leaders get stuck behind backmarkers when i'm close but get a certain distance from them and the leader magically laps the backmarker.

I'm not sure which engine the AI use in LFS but I suspect the fact we can only have 20 and that runs much slower than 20 human players suggests it's probably using the complex physics for each or some half-way house.

I think also the suggestion that computers are not powerful enough to progress sims is a bit off, my computer can run all the current sims in its stride. Particularly rFactor with it's multiple CPU support. LFS is still running on one core and my machine can have maxed graphics and even at the back of a 32 car grid give me excellent framerates, and since my PC is only 60% of the speed it was a few weeks ago when half of it broke, I think the hardware is still a long way ahead of the software.

I tested it (rfactor version) and made short 1MB clip of it, I think no challenge at all, see the proof

Quote from JTbo :

I tested it (rfactor version) and made short 1MB clip of it, I think no challenge at all, see the proof

That was somewhat anticlimatic.

Quote from JTbo :

I tested it (rfactor version) and made short 1MB clip of it, I think no challenge at all, see the proof

Yeh, still no damage implemented in this conversion...in the other M3challenge a user has tweaked a bit the physics of the m3 , it's much more believable (car isn't too low anymore and other stuff...)

Quote from Fabri91 :

Yeh, still no damage implemented in this conversion...in the other M3challenge a user has tweaked a bit the physics of the m3 , it's much more believable (car isn't too low anymore and other stuff...)

Problem I have is that cars seem to have some sort of airbags in that collision, they just stop, cars should fly or something, right?

If you take two toycars, there is no much of damage, now ram them against each other so they travel freely, clearly they don't just stop, real cars crush but still they gets bit to air and there was lot of speed I used. Something really odd

If real cars crash in each other with the same speed, then teoretically they just stop. I mean they aren't basketballs. Obviously with damage varying from nothing (say 2mph) to total destruction (say 100mph).

obviously, they'd have to be around the same weight as well. How realistic is a 2:12 around Nurburgring gp with an E92 M3?

Dunno, i haven't driven the real track .
In fact, i haven't driven anything in RL .

Quote from Fabri91 :

If real cars crash in each other with the same speed, then teoretically they just stop. I mean they aren't basketballs. Obviously with damage varying from nothing (say 2mph) to total destruction (say 100mph).

In theory nobody does not need to work and we would have flying cars already freely available, also free energy, but sadly things don't work that way.

Cars should not stay glued to ground on such collision, road was not level, that was not perfect head on crash etc. Some forces just ceased to exists there. Even Inertia was fixed among other things, maybe it has something to do with CG height that I did not changed or some collision feelers, can be also some other collision file related bug, haven't checked even close to all things yet. Managed to fix dampers etc, but someone should make suspension geometry again based to RL values to car to be even half driveable, then there is tires of course that stick like velcro.