It's $13 a month, which is a hell of a lot less than I spend in a day in food...
Real physics are a hell of a lot more important to me than real tracks - I will never race on RA for real (as i think it's a terrible, terrible track), and so if bump x is a metre out i don't care - if the car will handle oddly then it IS a big deal...
The first one is. The rest of them probably changed since the scan was done.
To those crying about the pricing, Iracing have so far invested 18 million into the product so the pricing is very neccessary and would be impossible to regain without consistent flow of revenue. Thats the price we have to pay for the next level of simulation. If you dont like it , stick to driving the same old crap forever.
But nothing curently suggests that it's teh next-gen of sim racing. Sounds, while sounding great, are just samples, which no matter how good they sound won't give the same feeling as simulated sounds, there's nothing better than the sound of a car strugling on an uphill, while the sample would sound the same on the uphill and on the flat surface... so, nothing next-gen about the sounds...
Graphics are good, while i can't judge the physics by the videos, Legends on the oval looked pretty realistic, while Radical looked too rFactorish to me... I'll check them out for myself though, at the friends house... since there's no demo (great way to atract customers and pay back 18 mil )
Pretty much all the beta tester comments ive seen say it is a next generation driving experience. I think simulated sounds are the biggest waste of time in simulation history. Who the hell would really notice the difference between samples, and the change in tone up a hill, seriously? How many years has it been and LFS sounds still sound embaressing and like C64?
Based on the designer being a genius and producing the absolute cutting edge simulations for the last 20 years. He has never failed to raise the bar with every release so his track record is proven. Hes the only guy I would have trusted to live up to this hype and from what i hear, he has. I havent heard a single person bashing the driving experience. Some dont like the cost or restrictive system and ratings ect but nothing negative about the driving, which must mean its amazing.
I think you're really selling LFS short here. It's really easy to criticize it since it's something that's been here for a long time, and improvements have been incremental. And quite frankly you're probably just bored of it by now. Step back a bit, and take a broad look at what LFS has accomplished. It's quite a lot.
I notice the sound engine. When I spin out and the engine stalls, the car is in gear and still moving, there's a very noticeable difference in the way the engine sounds when pressing on the throttle, versus off. That's is incredibly cool, and it's this attention to detail that speaks volumes about the quality of the sim. I could just as easily say laser scanning to millimeter precision is of no consequence to the experience when you're stuck inside the cockpit anyway. Of course that's absurd, the devs should pursue all available avenues of "perfection".
LFS doesn't have the sexiness of iRacing, but given their base subscription package, it does offer a whole lot more. LFS physics don't suck. Just remember that, no matter how bored of it you are.
I have a feeling that many folks think Solstice is "boring" because it's American. However, according to this video, the platform is really not bad--the only complaint Tsuchiya had was overly long gears, which as I understand is fixable as soon as your safety rating is a bit up.
I like the LFS sound engine in it's current state. I think sampled sounds are better for iRacing though since they're only modeling real cars. For instance, you can definitely tell the Formula Mazda is a rotary - something I think would be pretty difficult to do with the LFS sound engine.
That's one thing laser scanning should be able to take pretty good care of.. the guesswork involved in modeling something from reality. The result should be pretty much 'right', but it's the resolution you go down to (ie, the money you're able to spend, CPU etc) that will really determine just how right you can be.
Hmm. That screenshot really does look pretty good, although i agree with Jakg on this one. The accuracy of the circuit doesn't really matter very much to me, it's the way the cars feel that is important. You don't want to end up paying $20 a month for a track that is accurate but cars that handle like the majority of rfactors countless mods.
I will definately buy or 'rent' :P the game for a month, try it and make my own opinion of it as you shouldn't let yourself be put of by other's views.
I just had a better look myself. The in-game looks like it's got a higher camera, but if you compare the trackside objects it's actually the real-life shot that has the higher camera. And if you try to match any of the curves from one to the other it just doesn't work at all.
Maybe it's just from a weird angle - hard to tell with those crazy slopes going on - but you're right it doesn't looks very accurate!