Like BBT said, it is a big opportunity for Scawen and LFS. So many people are pretty pissed off with the claims from iRental and what they actually have given us. The physics in iRacing are just wrong, but I thought that the NTM would fix this when clearly it has come nowhere even close.

If Scawen were to release his NTM before Christmas, I can see hords of iracers coming to LFS. I really cannot see how iracing's fundamental physics problems will be fixed by then.

When LFS's physics are done, I would hope to see content on a much more regular basis and I don't think anyone in the sim racing community would have any issue in paying a bit more to support Scavier.

Think of this, if S3 was released, and Scawen asked us to pay £2 each for him to get a track laser scanned, would you pay it? I certainly would. The fact we don't have to pay a fee to just stay playing the game, the fact that it is a 3 man team and the fact that LFS is more fun, would make this a no brainer IMHO.

Quote from jasonmatthews :

Think of this, if S3 was released, and Scawen asked us to pay £2 each for him to get a track laser scanned, would you pay it? I certainly would. The fact we don't have to pay a fee to just stay playing the game, the fact that it is a 3 man team and the fact that LFS is more fun, would make this a no brainer IMHO.

IMO, I'd have no problem paying even iRacing rates for content in LFS. If there could be a new track and a few cars every 3 months, no one would be happier than me. Real tracks would be great, but even imaginary content with a bit less of the unrealistic chicanes etc would be just fine. Cars especially, pick any real life car, make it good physics wise and slap some body mashed up of 3 separate cars on it and I'm good to go.. no need to have a BMW or whaeva sticker on it.

Yeah I kinda agree, but the difference in track resolution, and bumpyness (is that a word) in the iracing tracks is a big difference IMO. I have no idea if rockingham has the same FFB feel as iracing when going over bumps, but if it does, then unless Eric can somehow put that into the fantasy tracks, I would rather laser scanned. I could be talking out of my ass mind, as like I said, I don't even know if LFS's physics engine takes bumps with the resolution needed.

Another +1 here. Overhyped, underwhelming shit - even if it is where the competition is at, and that dictates everything. Buncha lip service, really shocking ****-up though.

Viva LFS.

Quote from SCA-F1 :

Another +1 here. Overhyped, underwhelming shit - even if it is where the competition is at, and that dictates everything. Buncha lip service, really shocking ****-up though.

Viva LFS.

Who just spent £200+ on iracing content?


Trolling you slightly of course Simon.

I can't afford to buy it, and I've never played it, but even though I enjoy oval racing a little more than road, I don't really have any compliants about LFS other than the lack of racers.

Quote from baSh0r :

Meanwhile on iRacing. The Protest Thread where Tony Gardner posts his pathetic comment is closed.

http://members.iracing.com/jfo ... /225/1500026.page#3631513

Welcome to the dictatorship of iRacing.

Quote from PMD9409 :

Does this really sound like a complicated system for endurance racing/driver swaps?

Could one of you guys with access quote whatever posts you're trying to point out, as you can't read their forums without logging in.

Quote from pik_d :

Could one of you guys with access quote whatever posts you're trying to point out, as you can't read their forums without logging in.

You know how Marius said "Welcome to the dictatorship of iRacing"? Yeah well, they deleted that thread, or at least his link no longer goes to it. My post is in an endurance racing thread, and is talking about a way to implement driver swaps. iRacing said they tried working on it but said it got too complicated and amazing and put it off to the side because of it. That makes sense... how? Anyways, this is what I post:

Quote :

Quote :

Peter Brennan wrote:Well, could it perhaps not be as simple as you might think to implement?

Well looking at the laundry list style explanation that came with the Heat/Tournament feature, many things are possible.


On public racing:
Join race
"What car would you like to select"
Select: HPD / C6R / Ford
"What other drivers will be running this car?"
1 to x blanks depending on series where you type the (iRacing) name of the driver.

The driver that was put into the "name" field is now able to join similar to a spectator, only it is more "locked" like broadcaster status. Once the driver comes into the pits, he presses a hotkey (lets say... Shift+n) and the driver waiting to gets a pop up: "XXX would like for you to take over his car". Press okay and you are now driving his car. Driver swaps should take a bit of extra time IMO.

On hosted session
The host should be able to select the minimum and maximum amount of drivers the "team" or first driver has to select. So if the host puts a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 6, then the first driver to join will see 6 boxes for driver names, and he can fill between 2 and 6 of them. Same system after that as shown above.



-------

Obviously iRacing must be doing something completely different from that, because I don't think the way I explained it can be that hard to implement. We can already join as spectator, there are already broadcasters, and we can also drive as spectators around the real time guest cars. So it can't be that difficult.

When you don't have iR and you can't see the forum, take that as a positive. iRacing forum is just a huge mess. It makes me think LFS Forum is the exceptional forum that everyone should be amazed about.

I have not done any iRacing for months and was now planning on going out on the track again after the revolutionary iR tyre pack. I guess, I won't rent me a car, but pull out my own fully paid FXO and XRT at South City instead .
And, yes, I'd gladly pay another £ or two to support Scawier in their works. Feels good to award teams that deserve it.

Quote from PMD9409 :

You know how Marius said "Welcome to the dictatorship of iRacing"? Yeah well, they deleted that thread, or at least his link no longer goes to it. [...]

Still works for me - here http://members.iracing.com/jfo ... sts/list/225/1500026.page

Quote from Tony Gardner :

Tony Gardner wrote:
We released build on Friday, now going through the feedback and already working on some improvements and moving forward. We understand a few issues in regard to the tires on some cars and overall, as well as some other things to improve and again hard at work on making some adjustments. We also knew going into it that still some things that we still wanted to improve for NTM along with knowing would need to make adjustments based on feedback for NTM but that is always the case for something like this. As soon as we have information about a build to make additional adjustments or add additional cars will communicate that as soon as we know. Good to hear that so many people are enjoying the NTM and build in the meantime

Thanks and Good Racing

Tony

It's basically already the sheer handling of a critical situation, instead of a quick response the community has to wait a whole week for these few lines.

Quote from baSh0r :

Still works for me - here http://members.iracing.com/jfo ... sts/list/225/1500026.page



It's basically already the sheer handling of a critical situation, instead of a quick response the community has to wait a whole week for these few lines.

Thanks, works for me now. Weird, when I clicked it before it went to the forums, like it had been deleted or something.


And yeah that little paragraph he put was just useless.

1. "Thanks to the feedback"

Feedback? Your beta testers didn't do enough of that to realize how wrong everything felt? Did your engineers realize that they had the psi for the Ford GT tires nearly double of what they should be? How about the fact that 0 camber on the LMP is ridiculously quick? Does the car have no roll so the tire is just 100% in contact with the road?

2. Glad that people are enjoying it? Everyone is complaining! DWC drivers on the road side are telling iR to NOT put the NTM on the F1 car so it doesn't destroy it worse than it is now. The DWC oval race tonight was a joke when it comes to realism. Sure it had it "looked" okay, but the qualifying time was 1.5 seconds faster than the time in real life the last time than ran there. And they qualify at night there, and on oval that means faster times. In race trim they were 1 second faster than the real life pole time, and 1.5 seconds faster than real life race times. At the end of their "run" they were still .5 faster than the real life pole time, while being 1 second faster than the starting stint of a real life race time. The times only fell off 0.5 seconds over the course of 55 laps! On an oval, especially Atlanta where they ran tonight, thats a 1.5 to 2 second fall off in real life!



I remember back in iRacing beta in early 2008. iRacing was stating how it wanted to have the best physics in all of sim racing. They said they wanted to progress etc etc. This 2.0 BS was supposed to be that update. That update that they were apparantly working on for over 3 years now. It seems like they were working on it for 3 months.

The weight and inertia of the cars still feel wrong to me. LFS and NKP feel like they have it down pat. rF mods have it good, while a few others have it bad. That Brazilian Stock Car game was really good with the weight of the cars. iRacing is just a disgrace when it comes to it. All the cars can be flicked around and can change direction in a heart beat. A DWC driver in the oval race tonight was running solidly in the top 20. He got ever so loose coming out of turn 4 and corrected the slide for a split second. The car magically got buckets of grip and shot him directly toward the wall. Sorry but that doesn't happen in real life, 3450 pound cars (not including the driver) does not rotate on a dime, and definately not while going 165-175mph on the exit of a turn.


I'm going to go to bed now, I could rant all night. Have been for years now. I'm the American around here, I know what a sh!tty and overhyped American product looks like, this is one of them.

hm from the title i thought this was a self help group for intrepid tristan and flymike
im sorely disappointed by the actual content

+1 on scipy.

I've expected something better for how long he Dave worked on it, but i feel like all money i've spent into it gonna go in vain.
It's the only thing, that has so many racers active though, that kept me there, along with lots of content, but i guess i'll pass now.
If it has so many flaws, i wonder how long they can go away with it. Ford GT was the biggest teaser and it feels like shit, i rather stick to Vette, which noone drives though, 'cause it has OTM, lol...

Now Scawen, don't disappoint us! Good on ya.

Interesting... wondering that how much resources lfs needs tire physics wise or will need ( if Scawen needs to optimise it to the current pc's as somewhere was written )

"GameSpy: You've referred to the NTM as a simulation within a simulation, which implies that there's going to be quite a lot of CPU cycles devoted to it. Does it have any impact on performance?

Dave Kaemmer: It probably has a slight impact. The case is that the physics takes a very few percent of the CPU time and as the CPUs get faster that percentage falls. Most of the CPU is devoted to graphics and audio and all the other bookkeeping. You've got to do some physics for all the other cars that you see and the network stuff and everything, so it's actually a pretty small percentage."


full article:

http://pc.gamespy.com/web-games/iracing/1185000p1.html

Alessandre08 on Jul 30, 2011 04:09 PDT at GameSpy:

Quote :

"I've already tried the NTM it is simply amazing! You feel every bit of bump on your hands, i.e. the effects of a good force feedback racing wheel. Congrats all iRacing staff for this achievement!"

I wonder how many hours Alessandre08 has spent in a real NTM on a racetrack?

Tony Gardner, (iRacing) President:

Quote :

"...although some there [other games] are some great products and fun titles to drive, it is pretty clear we are the most realistic."

That is a very humble opinion, isn't it? Things like this makes me want to not continue buying their product. Just sends the wrong signal to a fellow like me. Where is that shown to be clear? Any scientific publications out there to back it up?
If you claim to be the best, then you are in serious trouble. Sounds like Codemasters in my ears - and in a way it's quite sad. Don't get me wrong, I have enjoyed iRacing but compared to my (tiny) IRL racing experience, it just is not spot on at all. Rather, gamelike - not simulation. (just my opinion)

Hopefully, the competition will inspire Scawen and his loyal companions to show what development is really about.

Already cancelled my re-sub.

I visited their booth at PAX East earlier this year and started asking one of their guys about the tire model, what they were doing about the exaggerated off-throttle oversteer, the weird suspension settings (e.g. minimum damping on the SM = fast), the way the Radical seems to oscillate undamped diagonally, etc. I'm not active on the iR forum, so I figured this was a good opportunity to ask. I just got a "Sorry, I'm just a sales guy, I can't talk about that." Even if they didn't bring a technical guy along, surely they'd brief their sales guys on questions customers might ask? It's not like these are new questions...

Furthermore, on the first day, they had one of their stations, the only motion sim chair system, set up with the SM @ Lime Rock. The rest were all NASCAR. The next two days, the motion sim station was also switched over to NASCAR.

Quote from Forbin :

The rest were all NASCAR. The next two days, the motion sim station was also switched over to NASCAR.

so basically what it was was a chair on a platform that was constantly leaned to the right?

Quote from Shotglass :

so basically what it was was a chair on a platform that was constantly leaned to the right?

If it wasn't illegal an American expert would correct you by saying "left". And then you'd say "but the forces" and that would be it, so let's skip that bit.

Quote from Shotglass :

so basically what it was was a chair on a platform that was constantly leaned to the right?

Pretty much, except people were still spinning out, too. :dunce:

Their reason for switching the motion sim station from a road course with an open-wheeler to an oval with a stock car was, "No one could drive it except you."

Quote from xaotik :

If it wasn't illegal an American expert would correct you by saying "left".

No, Shotglass was correct. Think about it.

Forbin, sorry, but those are really stupid reasons for canceling your sub.

There are plenty of good reasons. Use those!

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

There are plenty of good reasons. Use those!

As president of the committee for Good Reason Preservation I must urge you to refrain from such actions. Good Reasons and Perfectly Good Reasons are a work of art and as such should be cherished, not some petty excuse for the cancellation of pecuniary transactions. You can use NASCAR for those.

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

Forbin, sorry, but those are really stupid reasons for canceling your sub.

There are plenty of good reasons. Use those!

They're merely anecdotes about my experience with iRacing personnel. They are not intended to be well-presented reasons for cancelling. I'm more coldly logical about decisions like that than to use reasons like, "I was unhappy with their pandering to unskilled drivers/NASCAR fans at a gaming con."

Quote from Forbin :

They're merely anecdotes about my experience with iRacing personnel. They are not intended to be well-presented reasons for cancelling. I'm more coldly logical about decisions like that than to use reasons like, "I was unhappy with their pandering to unskilled drivers/NASCAR fans at a gaming con."

Alright then, carry on.

Quote from Forbin :

Their reason for switching the motion sim station from a road course with an open-wheeler to an oval with a stock car was, "No one could drive it except you."

which in fairness is probably true... a little exaggerated but true

Quote :

No, Shotglass was correct. Think about it.

youre so germanic

GO LEFT GO LEFT GO LEFT...... ugh.