How should the UF1 with no top have a handling disadvantage?. The car obviously is not a car that has a retractable top, it is just a version WITHOUT a top. So it is fine to realize it is lighter and better handling.
I don't understand how a Ferrari 360 and a 360 Spider would be different either... the Spider version doesn't have any handling disadvantages, just top speed drag... just like LFS. And actually a convertible would have a handling disadvantage from added weight and changed distribution. But a Spider is hardly different at all. And in the UF1's case, it gives the car more p/w ratio since it is so small.
BTW, what is wrong with jumps? Wouldn't it be good to test if every aspect of driving physics is created? In this case, suspension damage, landing impact reactions and such.... If you look at other games and jump a car in them (if possible), not all games land correctly.... some don't even bounce or react in true fashion.
It is funny you speak so lowly of what LFS has when in fact they are useful in every way. Scawen is set out to make a very realistic simulation too... and in my opinion this is the hardest one compared to others. Just played some 'namie' and soon after, played some LFS with the LX and UF1.... geez nK is just far too easy.... just like rFactor, GTR, GTL, etc. LFS is a difficult simulation because it is so detailed in physics, maybe too detailed... but I do know one thing for sure that LFS has things almost spot on that other games don't do quite well. You know when going into a corner and you just let off the gas rapidly and turnin really quick? That is drifting technique, which makes the car easily step out and slide without using power-oversteer or other forced forms. LFS does this a lot, and that is what gets people frustrated I think, and they soon return to their easy simulations. It is perfectly real though, many road cars do this. However, in netKar it is glued to the road, Modena or the Mini. Many other games do this too, and I think that is what makes them so easy. There is a grip factor that most of them have that just make it less challenging and seem 'less' advanced to me. LFS feels different from all other simulations, and who knows if that means it is wrong or right, but I do know that it means LFS is not your ordinary simulation like all the others, and that is why many people are convinced by it, or drawn away from it.
And when playing the two today for about an hour each, the dynamics of LFS wins over how netKar felt, netKar was totally imprecise and easy. It is hard to argue against that
3D buttons? If anything, EA games use menus that are graphics intensive. A 3D menu is something that has animations, special effects, crazy sounds, flashy lights, and when it comes to actual publisher games, their menus actually set some of the requirements on the box! LFS' menus are merely built up of a background image, text drawn raw, sliders drawn raw, and a button texture file... WOW! You probably think LFS uses resources on the menus because it actually has a track and car preloaded, that is why (what you see it doing when loading the game...). Which makes the game super fast when ready to start playing. In a sense, it is no different then how netKar does it except LFS has pretty initial menus and that it does it all in-game, and not externally like netKar.
and i love it for that because unlike netkar you dont have to wait for the car and track to load everytime you want to make a few setup changes ... and you can also directly see how those changes affect the car with lots of detail since the physics are almost completely functional in the garage (id still like to see a bit more of that like bobs suggestion about areo forces acting on the car in the garage ... and maybe a textbox that shows suspension frequencies and damping values)
I'm not sure if 3D menus and no rewind facility is the difference between LFS's 'fun' and NK's 'uncompromising realism'.
I think they'll be very similar actually (as they are trying to simulate the same thing ultimately). But LFS will be better in some areas, and NK in others (I guess). As long as each learns from the other and pushes each other, I think both can co-exist quite happily.
But there is no point saying "oh NKPro is totally brilliant, it'll destroy LFS" until we actually get to play NK. I remember lots of people saying rF would ruin LFS, and so far that doesn't seem to have been the case. Let's not hype up NK too much (the NK forum is for that), and just see what the competition is like. Doubtless a few of us will be converted (is that the right phrase) but lets not argue about which is best like we always do with other games. Everyone has their own opinions. If I prefer LFS to NKPro that doesn't make be Beelzebub, and if you like NKPro after supporting LFS for 2 years that won't suddenly make you evil or wrong. We're all different and out opinions about 'feel' will all be different.
I don't know much, but saying Scawan created LFS for the sake of making a "fun" online racing game is totally inaccurate.
And actually the ramp in autocross didn't appear until S2 after numerous request by the community, NK is a puriest sim no doubt, but there's nothing in LFS that exists without a sound reason just as well.
When you say polygons, that would mean the numbers and text are 3D shapes. Look carefully and they are flat 2D textures You should know that This text I am typing right now is 2D, flat, how intensive on memory can that be? illepall
The dials are flat 2D aswell, how are those intensive? Oh boy, I've typed too much tonight.
to me atm lfs is the purest sim mainly in the sense that you get exactly what its physics engine produces ... nothing less and most importantly nothing more ... afaik there are no higher level processes that bend the laws of lfs' physics until it feels "right" ... you get all the bugs and inadequacies due to incomplete physics (either because of wip coding or "slow" processors)
any second you play the game it feels like you can tell exactly whats going on ... and most of the time whats going on is exactly what should be ... and all those other times it at least happens the same way each and every time ... theres no randomness to what the engine comes up with
until now i havent seen a single game that could compare with lfs in that respect ... expecially not rfactor which just felt wrong every single second (probalby mostly the horrible ff)
namie was pretty good though ... but the f3000 just felt too stable ... it felt too easy to drive ... it just didnt give you the feeling of driving on the edge at all
@ Tweak - Structural rigidity is a major problem with convertables, without the roof the Mini will be flexing like crazy. As for the LFS menus they are not the worst, but IMO they still don't need to be full screen or using flashy graphics, simple window and drop down menus are far easier IMO.
@ Tristan - I don't think NK Pro will kill off LFS yet, it can't simulate road cars as well yet and the net code is fairly non-exsistant.
@ JJ72 - Thats the difference in attitude Stefano would never have allowed ramps regardless of how much they were requested.
I have to make a point here. The Peogeot wrc is based on the convertible model simply because better structural rigidity. Sure there are problems in convertibles and in their design, but...
ajp71 - go play you netKar and enjoy it. It hasn't officially been released and you are already sounding like a fan-boy and not accepting any reasonable arguements against your points.
No, he's right. In a D3D game, all text and seemingly "2D" elements are rendered as a texture on two polygons (2 triagles forming the shape of a rectangle, to be exactly). That's why the text display in LFS, or 3D games in common is relatively slow.
Its not like nK menus save you time thanks to the increased loading times and its not like LFS menus use your memory while you are racing so I think LFS has the best solution.
That may be true, but in this case the roof has been bolted in permanently, and is (as you'd expect) as rigid as any permanent roof.
In by far the majority of cases though, what Ajp says is absolutely correct. The roof is an important part of a car's torsional rigidity. Cars designed as coupes, or hatches/saloons, and then made into convertibles have much less torsional rigidity than their fixed roof siblings, that's why most convertibles actually weigh a bit more than the car they are based on, even after taking into account the motors for the roof, and despite the removal of a major solid panel. To compensate for the lack of stiffness caused by removing the roof, re-enforcement usually has to be added whereever possible.
So if the UF1000 is one car, with a removable roof, then there's no reason it should handle better or worse with or without it (removable roofs aren't structural parts). If it's two different cars though, then, based on real-life examples, the stiffer solid-roofed car should handle better, and would certainly be no heavier than the roofless version, probably lighter.
Is it really worth arguing over what kind of menu they use? :rolleyes:
The important stuff is what happens on track and it's difficult to see how nK won't at least match LFS for that element. It'll be great having a wide selection of decent race sims after so many years of darkness. Namie is a good indicator that the tyre physics and 'feel' of nKPro should be right up there, with a good chance of setting the new standard. In some respects, I believe Namie is already above and beyond anything out there.
Conversely, I doubt it will have as many features as LFS (only single seaters to start with) and the multiplayer is bound to take some time to perfect. Getting people online is also difficult, as a list of empty servers is a real turn-off, so the multiplayer element will inevitably take some time to gather momentum.
The bottom line is that this is great for all of us because it will help to drive the devs of all products on.
I think it looks good. I will probably buy it when it comes out and then use it for a week or two, then after that maybe once a month.... just like every other racing sim thats "the most realistic ever!".
Screenies look cool though! Looking forward to the Formula Ford
Just to be clear: the things I mentioned do not mean that the menus are actually memory intensive or CPU hogging, no. It's just a general remark, that drawing lots and lots of text is slower then you'd think a 3D engine is capable of drawing. That's why I mentioned "relatively slow", it's still in the millisecond range, but when you have to render it each frame, a few more milliseconds can make quite a difference. The problem is really just that there's no native support for something like DrawText() in the current DirectX release, hence the messing around with polygons.
And you know this how? From Namie? A 3 year old development of a freeware version prior to even considering Pro? I'm sure Stefano realises that to get ANYWHERE close to LFS he'll have to make some damn fine netcode. It's why it's called NETkar.
As for simulating road cars, maybe Stefano doesn't want to ensure it's good for road cars, but wants racing cars, at least at first.
only if the uf1 uses a monocoque design ... dunno what the mini has but judging by its age it might have a more classical frame below the car that takes most of the forces and the body is just bolted on top of that as a protection against rain
The mini was a long way ahead of it's time, and uses a monocoque construction very much like a modern cars. In fact, there are very few areas where the mini differs from a modern car. And they are STILL better than BMW's 'Massive'.
I don't see why I can't play both, if there was a thread about LFS on another forum that was arguing that NK has better multiplayer I would argue against because that is simply not true.
What sim feels right is a matter of personal preference NK gives really good FF on my wheel, much more informative than LFS or N2003, I know LFS and N2003 have both been very highly rated in terms of FF, but both don't give very much useful feedback for me. I'm sure on some hardware they both give good feedback.
IMO they oth have faults but NK gives the best feel, it's a personal preference, when I got LFS I didn't stop racing N2003 so I see no reason why I will stop LFS if I get NK. I'm not going to accept that an open car has no handling disadvantage or that stiffness shouldn't be simulated in LFS because that is simply not true.
Also, if Stefano is so hardcore about creating a realistic sim, yet creates a model which only "works" with racecars, then the model is obviously too simple/undetailed/unrealistic. For me namie was OK, in the sense of "it hasn't that crappy feel every ISI engine based game has - OK" but I really can't find the LFS-beating greatness in it.
I don't say nkPro won't be able to beat LFS physics, but judging that from the namie demo is kinda pathetic.
And showing some screens of namie and then going like "oh look, it has MORE *gasp* fps than LFS" is like you're firing up Duke Nukem 3D and then saying: "Haha, Duke3D graphics are much better than HL² because it has more fps". (Not that the difference in graphics between LFS and namie is that extreme, but they aren't in the same class either).
I hate it when this happens on forums. A ridiculous discussion starts about something that has no basis in fact.
For what it's worth, nobody said the model only "works" with race cars and considering nKPro will be moddable, I suspect they will have considered road cars somewhere along the line. On top of that, the outdated Namie is evidence enough that road cars can be simulated on a par with LFS.
You should know that 
