Quote from Niels Heusinkveld :

The physics dev (actually he has an account at LFSforum!) said the tire grip loss after the peak slip angle was NOT ENOUGH in hardcore mode despite it seemingly being way much already..

So *if* they do a hardcore mode, it'll probably be worse than before..

That might be true, I think the issue was more that it happened way too fast. You were always in this zone of obviously exaggerated sliding, but then you could still do some things at crazy speeds that you shouldn't be able to do.

I still think Scawen should just sell the current tire model (since he's replacing it anyway) for use in TDU2, that'd still be fun.

Nice to see Wyatt Gooden taking the pole at his home track!

Perhaps having the pre-release of Mid Ohio for practice in iRacing helped out there.

Yeah, that game was great for the time - I played it a lot in that suspension view!

LOL @ the fact that TDU2 has brake heat visibly modeled when iRacing and LFS do not.... sad state of affairs imo.

(not that it's expected to be realistic in TDU2; but at least SOMEONE made SOME FECKING ATTEMPT).

Yeah, people will bitch about anything to be honest... It might be all of the above; but it's still just as much (and more) fun as the XFG, XRG, UF1 and company - slow and steady but actually with a lot more character than 2 out of 3 of those pieces of shit in LFS. But it's always fun to mock what you can't master after 2 years isn't it!

IBTL!!!!

(yes that's immature but hey....)

Quote from Xaid0n :

Will they only be free to new members or will they be added as an update to current members?

Everyone gets all of it; save the touring - you only get that if you bought the SK and will still get it free if you do buy the SK.

At least copy pasta all the text

The full text is here
http://www.facebook.com/#!/not ... -for-iracers/407699190479

Quote :

personally im not particularly impressed by anything ever unless it doesn't exist; but when it does exist I'll cease to be impressed by it due to the nature of it's existence

Fixed your quote!!

I'll try the LFS thing and let you know how it handles it tomorrow evening, it's sleep time now... I'll try the same thing in iRacing actually as well.

Quote from Shotglass :

thats some nvidia validation bs again istn it? considering there are no dolby 3d projectors out there yet (or at least none that are even remotely affordable) id say the only proper option to go 3d with projectors is to use 2 of them and polarisers

No the validation issues have to do with bs reasons why current "3d capable" projectors are not really supported; although they used to be (Optoma). Somehow nVidia expects the general public to believe that there's a real reason for it which is insane. Regardless, none of the supported or not projectors will do 1080 in 3D right now. I suspect that's about to change though. Driver hacks may or may not be available get around the EDID limitations though for said "unsupported" projectors however.

I don't think I could get the 3D Vision drivers to work with two individual projectors & polarization; nor would I have the propensity to get glasses that work for that either... that whole methodology seems like voodoo to me.

Quote :

rendering 6 or rather 3 individual frames to me would imply rendering them to different framebuffers or at least allowing them to be rendered with different camera angles

I think I missed something; or else you're intentionally talking over my short head... the whole point of 3D rendering is rendering the same scene from two (slightly) different angles.

No matter how you look at it, each frame has to be drawn twice mathematically which generally cuts frame rates roughly in half. Makes me feel like running SLi is just a necessity and not a cool luxury now :P

Quote :

dunno maybe they consider it to be gimmicky
and its not like there arent 3rd party 3d drivers out there which dont come with artificial restrictions on what hardware youre allowed to use

I don't find it gimmicky that it transforms the gaming experience so dramatically - whether it be in WoW or iRacing or Metro 2033; it's not in the same category any more even with the inherent flaws (using LCD in my case). iz3D and others don't have the support to make it worth while; hell nVidia barely does and it's their own product. Issues notwithstanding, my personal experience is that if I couldn't run 3D i'd just play Wii at this point instead.

Watching the suspension move on other Skip Barber cars around me is amazing, and running up to the corkscrew at Laguna can really put a pit in your stomach when there's a sensation of depth involved.

Anaglyph I assume you mean...

I can't imagine that working too well; although it uses the same z buffer info so it may give you a rough idea what 3D Vision does; albeit with bollocks for colours.

Quote from Shotglass :

first of all id always go full hd
secondly yeah its a lot different for some reason filling a lot of your field of vision isnt the same as achieving that same fov with a much larger screen

Main issue is that no 3D capable projector supports full HD at the moment. I'm aiming for end of year to convert my air hockey & music room to a man cave of 3D proportions; so if a full HD projector is available by then then I might just do that. Problem is I hate submerging myself in the basement with no good reason... but a wall full of 3D imagery probably justifies that :P.

Quote :

actually its just 2 frames which are 3 times as large
and while ati is already busy releasing cards with 12 ouputs and perfecting bezel correction nvidia is still struggling to come up with releaseoworthy drivers

Could be my non-german-engineering brain again but isn't 2x3=6? Rendering 2 frames that are 3 times as large seems like as much work as 6 individual frames to my slightly above peon rated brain; please explain if that's not true. My point was that rendering a game in regular 2D on one screen is somewhat lazy compared to rendering the same game on 3 screens in 3D: 6 frames compared to 1. Whilst I'm not a big fan of nVidia's PR, work ethic, sales ethos or in fact product output the last few years; I still fail to see a 3D solution from ATi - which is disappointing since the tech isn't rocket science.

Quote :

or making your eyes more than parallel

Well that should not be able to happen mathematically... Otherwise there's an issue there. I've seen bugs where this is the case and I have to look away, but only in one loading screen and that's a rare bug. Otherwise it should be straightfoward geometry.

Quote from Shotglass :

imho a projector is always better
that said its probably one of the worst choice for competitive play

I was just thinking of overall image quality... The general consensus seems to be that they look fine, I guess it's not the same thing as running a native 720P display that just happens to be 6 feet wide (or whatever) it's different, and quite immersive.

Quote :

however nvidias triple head solution is clearly a late addition (ati did a stellar job of keeping eyefinity under the rug until the release of their latest chips) that iirc isnt even supported by the current drivers yet (or wasnt until very recently) so im not a big fan of their method or any form of multi card setup for that matter due to microstuttering

I tried the ATi eyefinity setup with three 24" monitors with COD4, it was pretty good... nVidia took a while because they were making it work in 3D - the 3D Vision Surround. Indeed I think the drivers are being updated to officially support it, altough "leaked" drivers are available which support it. Though rendering 6 frames at once is insane so you'd need two rather top end cards to do it.[/quote]

Quote :

also you should keep in mind that any form of 3d and (especially in racing games where nearly everything on screen is far away) should be done using a screen at least several metres (6+ would be ideal iirc) from your eyes so the lens is focused to infinity thus limiting the chance of headaches and fatigue (and several other problems some definite some speculative that come with 3d) due to the eyes lens being focused at a distance matching the perceived depth

I know we sort of had this conversation before... but although I was expecting all sorts of maladies when I switch to 3D gaming, it appears to actually be easier on my eyes for some reason. I find my eyes get much more tired at work doing 2D crap then they do gaming in 3D. I don't have a good hypothesis for why that is, but I feel a lot less eye strain with the 3D. I've never gotten a headache or anything from it either.

I can say that iRacing and LFS work really well with it though. I always thought LFS' mirrors were screwed up but they're definitely in the right place in 3D space..

Last edited by Ball Bearing Turbo, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 21:19.

Ah, now THIS is what I'm talking about.

http://twitpic.com/1xbymf/full

I run iRacing with nVidia 3D, and it's a totally different ballgame - but clearly this is the next step.... Actually I'm not sure if a projector would be better, maybe Shot can advise me there - I just can't imagine it looking that great, despite being massive. Three high res monitors seems nice.

Anyone need a promo code? I haven't given mine away yet.

No wonder Shotglass hates Canadians!

Quote from Intrepid :

For Live For Speed to continue to stay afloat rather than charging a subscription fee like iRacing they have to subsidise the project by doing deals with other companies like VW, Intel, Rockingham etc... Someone is still paying the price!

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that LFS neither pays for or is paid by any of those endeavors.

Quote from Shotglass :

inflation rate of 66%? maybe you should move somwhere other than dreamland

As an object of your wrath, he belongs in Canada...

Quote from PMD9409 :

BBT and I have both mentioned the spreadsheet model instead of emperical,

Just to point out that the spreadsheet approach is the emperical one (it's based on emperical data i.e. actual measured data collected from the cars and the tires that the cars run with), so in some ways that's a great thing. The data they've collected is invaluble. What's even better, is that Kaemmer can develop his new physical model around that data, making it match as close as possible. So it certainly wasn't a waste getting it, and it's been put to good use in the interim with existing methods.

Quote from Shotglass :

both models handle rather silly
one has too much oversteer the other some really weird induced understeer
on the whole from my experience id say the tyre models are equaly bad yet equaly way ahead of the competition

Curious to know which you think has which characteristic, I could think of situations where both of those problems occur in both sims.

Quote from PMD9409 :

On the road side it isn't as noticed surely, but on the oval side you can tell there is a clear problem with the tires.

Well that's a lot of experience you have over me then since I don't run the ovals, though I've though of trying it. Problem is there's a chance I'll like it and then that's a whole other tier content to... rent :P

Quote :

If anything it could just be something on the car they have modeled wrong. But there is no reason to be going into one corner with a setup and have the front end understeer like a dump truck. Then take that same thing to another track and lose the rear end in the tri-oval .

Maybe there is, I don't know. Oval cars have strange setup options, scares me.

Quote :

but I wouldn't claim iR's tires to be anything near superior to any other sim. Hopefully that'll change with the new update.

Even Shotglass disagrees with you and he hates everything! Joking aside, I'm really looking foward to trying DK's physical model. I'm surprized iRacing could even get this far and feel as good as it does using an emperical one (I shudder to think it's a spreadsheet sim, but clearly it's redefined how well one of those "things" can perform with enough actual testing and real data).

Quote :

Oh come on, that's not what I was getting at all and you know that.

I was wondering; but that is how your text read

Quote :

You came into this trying to prove something to someone who doesn't care which wins.

Not really, I came into this in the desperate attempt to have a decent converstation with an intelligent being, since many of those beings have gone on posting strike the last years. If both sims get good updates this year I'll be rejoicing since they offer different experiences overall.

Quote :

LFS had the FBM thing, which had drivers test a FBM I believe (don't think this happened). Also Jay won a VW Scirocco and Husky won a BMW M6 through LFS.

That's true, I forgot about the M6 - that was really cool. My point being though that iR is attempting (and so far succeeding) to really bring people into the world and culture of motorsport, and make inroads to real life competition a possibility. That's pretty cool I think.

Also, yes these post are off topic but the topic is shit anyway so who cares.

Here's my on topic post:
"Who cares if you think LFS is 'dead' you ignorant fruitcakes, stuff your pieholes with cheese for your whine"

Quote from JPeace :

it really does show how good the game is that people will sit and troll, yet they won't leave.

Not really, every forum has that

(I'm not saying LFS is poor btw)

Quote from PMD9409 :

You know what the sad part is? People claim how iRacing is so much better. But its not when you truely break it down.

Content: iR
Physics: LFS
Online fun: LFS
User friendly: LFS
Wide range of ability: LFS

"Online fun" and "User Friendly" are completely subjective, and I'm not sure what "wide range of ability" really means here.

Quote :

The reason I put LFS ahead in physics is very simple. I've been in iRacing since beta and all I can say is that they haven't done one decent step in the physics department that I thought was truely significant.

I'd agree with what you're saying (I was in the first round of invite-onlys), but that's a bizarre way to measure the physics. The cars absolutely feel more authentic (not sure about the downforce cars in either sim mind you) in iRacing, so I could argue that much less change is required.

And although I'd prefer to have visible deformation as well, relating "black blocks" to physics is quite askew. What matters is how they perform - and that's already ahead of LFS.

I agree about the transmission model though, that was the first thing I noticed when I first tried iRacing because it wasn't long after Scawen implemented all of his transmission magic / clutch heating business, so it seemed like a glaring hole and still does. Hopefully iRacing's approach will be in the next build.

Quote :

When the cars don't feel utterly "faked" anymore then I'll race on it frequently, but until then its a screenshot generator, and nothing more.

Transmission model aside, if "black blocks" make the cars feel faked to you... I don't know what to tell you. Would be like saying the LX6 feels faked then since it rides on a grey cylinder for suspension!

Quote from SparkyDave :

if comparing Iracing to LFS, one very important point springs to mind,
LFS= single payment (assuming current model, s3 will be £36 (you pay once and can play forever))
Iracing you have to keep on paying and paying and paying
so over time LFS offers far better value for money

SD.

Well that's probably true, although value is in the eye of the beholder. iRacing and LFS don't really offer the same things and aren't trying to. For example Wyatt Gooden didn't wind up driving a real Jetta in a real series through LFS

Quote from dawesdust_12 :

I need to get back in gear.. I used to gain tonnes of SR.. now my SR is on a plummet. I wanna get my freaking SR up so I can race the freaking Radical.

Just spend a few hours doing titties, you'll be in the Radical no problem.

Perfect, that's my excuse for being slow in iRacing then!

Also, I think it's great that a name I knew around here for the longest time is making inroads IRL via iRacing:
http://www.facebook.com/#!/pag ... en-Racing/109405769098916

Mercury - heh

Do you/they really consider nKP's "tire model" to be practically better than iRacing's current compromise ridden empirical model? That seems a bit of a stretch. Features I could understand...