Although the thermal camera looks cool () and it is what it looks like, aka factual situation, the truth is that even the large difference in heat displayed on the video has negligible effect on grip performance and as such having the same display information in LFS's F9 instead the current one (i'm guessing for most of us had that idea crossed our minds when we saw the video) would be useless. I'm wondering how many think or know the same? It's highly counter-intuitive.
Fun fact: we already have the same display in LFS. As and addition to current F9 info: press F9, then press ctrl+shift and hold. Now you should see the actual surface temps behaving exactly the same as in the video. But it is not the default view. Why? -I'm guessing the same logic that's behind what i said before.
Hmm, sounds like an attractive idea, but I doubt it would ever be as simple as you make it sound.
Quick fixes tend to cause more work in the long run. They also tend to introduce bugs and odd behaviour.
Quick fixes are the sort of botch/hack that are used by teams under deadline pressure, which is why many games are seriously flawed when they come to market. That's one of the reasons why LFS exists - Scavier wanted to escape from that approach to game development.
LUTs are theoretically unusable as you said because they have spaces in coverage but model needs to be at 20kHz (if thats true, it has alot less than 50ms to calculate because others calculations needs to be done also in the meantime) so I doubt he have much time to do some serious math. Still he can use a lot of memory so he can make pretty decent LUTs for the calculation. Also some interpolation can be used.
Maybe Iam wrong but I think that it uses some conditions, precalculations, LUTS and then calculations and conditions to get the result.
This way it can be really fast but it can be only an aproximation of the bench model he uses.
It would be good to know how "slow" bench model currently is.
As i understeand, current bench model is best model Scaven could write, and at this stage he tries to simplify it for best cpu performance.
As i wrote earlier, maybe pushing calculations to GPU would be good idea (if possible).
These models could be very slow. They take all possible parameters maybe some that later wont be calculated as their effect wont be noticeable.
It can take minutes to hours to calculate models that reflect maybe few seconds to lfs because the bench model should be physical based and optimalization isnt much priority.
You cant just use a bench model to run real time and want gpu to calculate it. There can be so much time wasting mathematical operations that arent really noticeable in the result.
You can make similar models in some mathematical programs and the c code implementation is more like mathematics and coding play.
He says in one of the press releases that it takes the bench several seconds to generate one second's data, so a minimum of 400 times slower than required for real-time (3 times slower, 128 times as many wheels to calculate).
It's real pretty an' all, but unless we have a key that maps the colour to temperature, it doesn't really tell us anything we didn't already know.
All it means is that the surface rubber of the tyres cools when wind chill of 100-200mph hits it (the surface of the tyre is also rotating at that speed, so I guess that increases the chill factor?). When the driver hits the brakes, the wind chill stops and the surface is quickly reheated by friction due to braking combined with the heat still stored in the rest of the tyre's mass and heat from the brake disks.
It doesn't tell us how many degrees of cooling or reheating there are, or how deep within the tyre surface the heating and cooling happen.
When you think about it, everything else happens very quickly on an F1 car, so it would be very surprising if the tyre thermals didn't.
I think they obviously chose the scale which would be most dramatic. Clearly the surface isn't at background temperature when it's black, tyres don't lose ALL temperature after every straight.
Probably the only thing of some interest is the way you have a cooler band in the middle of the tyre sometimes, I'm assuming it's due to sidewall deformation?
this is true to a point. Newtonian physics for example give accurate results in almost all cases since these additional "time wasting operations" have almost no effect when the bodies involved are heavy and moving slowly compared to light.
when things are smaller and moving close to the speed of light -- at the limit -- Newtonian physics shows how simple assumptions fail and how important those little time wasting operations really become. (i guess in this case the additional operations are the effects on the bodies by the rest of the universe)
in general, to get to the heart of the behaviour of a real physical system, you don't have to calculate every last motion of every particle, but the smallest effects do still have to be taken into account. we recognise real physics because all these details are there.
the vertical load on the contact patch comes from a combination of sidewall stiffness and air pressure. the air pressure gives the load mostly on the center of the tire.
in this case air pressure was low so the sidewall stiffness gave more vertical load on the sides of the contact patch than in the middle. when slipping, the contact patch develops more friction force where it has more vertical load on it.
Okay but I was talking about specific model of tire that comes from a bench model. It doesnt have all calculations because of speed optimalization. Not because they are unusable but can be optimalizated or the effect is just too low to be counted in. Bench model may be more universal.
@ F1 thermal camera.
Finally! Maybe F1 teams just dont want to have different scale because other teams could make some assumptions?