... it doesn't take any more time than you want it to. One race per week for 8 out of 12 weeks if you want credit towards content, other than that, it's ready when you are...
iR staff just stated an hour ago that much better damage models (plural) are super high priority right now. Visual, mechanical etc etc.
So hopefully we'll get more details on that soon.
Holy balls, if you don't get that analogy you should sleep before posting.
His point is that the forum is full of proverbial dirt, and that the other poster was saying that the dirt in your house should have a mind of itself and clean itself up instead of being vacuumed etc (a la Mods and admins in the forum).
He does have a point, the forum doesn't belong to the dirt, and the owners are not grooming it like they used to.
I can't believe I wasted 30 seconds explaining this; that would be the fault of locally brewed beer.
That's the only part of your post that may or not be true.
They do tend to take a lot longer than LFS stated to scan one small measly oval track, based on their published records.
It's not a fact of economics and time, unless you're in charge of their economics and time
They still could be lying.
I understand what you're saying, I'm just wondering how/if they've gone to lengths to make sure they're getting max possible accuracy wherever it's important - the surface.
They've said so in the past numerous times, such as:
"Iannarelli, whose professional responsibilities at iRacing.com include sound recording, track building, car scanning and collection of vehicle engineering data, noted that when he and his colleagues complete the build process, the finished virtual version of the track will feature millimeter accuracy. “A lap of the virtual track is exactly the same as a lap of the physical track. When you’re racing at Thompson on our internet service, you’re really racing at Thompson.”
Based on what they've always stated, the delta is much less than 2cm with whatever method(s) they're employing. Maybe they're lying, I don't know, but the tracks feel very, very good.
As you said, the equipment can measure much better than 2cm. Whether it's true or not I don't know, but iR stated accuracy in the mm range at some point in the past.
It is cheaper that's for sure, and it's still a good product that I fire up now & then.
I know right? iRacing is trying to say it's not important, and for the series' they simulate maybe it isn't. I know it would be for a few laps at least, maybe not so much after that. But it sure would be for stock(ish) road cars on longer races on a hot day!
Most of what I have time for these days is doing some TTs. I don't look foward in the schedule, and it's kind of a surprize to see where my favourite cars are running that week... If I know the track well already, fire it up and go to town. If it's new to me, then it's a fun experience heading out the first time and learning it before I can do TTs on it. Just time to get my mind on something else, and the way iRacing does it I actually enjoy the fact that I only have a few choices (if I want to work on my ratings that is)... It's only a few choices of Car X and Track Y and it's a decision I don't waste 10 of the 40 spare minutes I have that day pondering. If I have a real hankering for some combo for some reason, there's always offline practice.
but... wouldn't that be like... racing the same things, not new things, all the time?
I don't know. They interact more, write blogs, show insights into development, and genuinely at least seem to give a rats rear what the community has to say. I'd also venture a guess that a few people don't pump millions of dollars into a product that they don't genuinely beleive in, to create a niche market inside an already obscure niche market, thinking they'll just milk the cash cow with it.... that wouldn't make much business sense
Look at Eric's only real post on the forum... mhmm, big hearts
(yes I know that's not fair, but it's just as fair as the point you just tried to make :razzThat's a good post Phil.
The only point I would contend is that "it's not worth the money" is an argument that's invariably stated like it's based on some untangible foundational truth that doesn't exist. It's never a decent argument to make claims that are highly subjective by nature as though they were facts.
It's equally frustating seeing small interface/logistical features overlooked in iRacing as it is to see physically simple things like brake temperatures missing in LFS (and iRacing for that matter).
It's a bit of a catch 22 I think. You're one of the only people I've ever heard of being "bored by new content". I would generally think that anyone considering iRacing who is new to sim racing, would be put off by having fewer choices of series. Probably tough to balance that with underpopulating them I would guess.
Does sound strange that the split times guy is the same guy as the transmission guy though, lol @ that. But to be honest, I personally couldn't care less if iRacing ever got split times added.
One thing that's always going to get on your nerves by the sounds of it is that iRacing is a developer run sim, not a consumer run sim like LFS. There's always going to be some inherent differences because of that. Endurance racing in iRacing is probably a long way off, if it ever happens at all - it's just not popular enough in general. It happens(happened?) in LFS because the community over some years made it happen. I'd be more than a casual racer if iRacing had true road cars with road tires like LFS does, and I'm not holding my breath for that either.
iRacing is, for me already a better driving experience in general. As far as the other flaws in both sims, of which there are a plethora, I find it unlikely that LFS has much of a chance to overcome a large percentage of them while I'm on the proper side of the grass. iRacing, whilst somewhat questionable in terms of pace given their resources, at least have the resources to advance and do actually communicate with the userbase about their intentions, and do in fact release things regularly other than allowing me to speak to users on planet xinguthyar (and it's moons) in their native language.
The only point I would contend is that "it's not worth the money" is an argument that's invariably stated like it's based on some untangible foundational truth that doesn't exist. It's never a decent argument to make claims that are highly subjective by nature as though they were facts.
It's equally frustating seeing small interface/logistical features overlooked in iRacing as it is to see physically simple things like brake temperatures missing in LFS (and iRacing for that matter).
It's a bit of a catch 22 I think. You're one of the only people I've ever heard of being "bored by new content". I would generally think that anyone considering iRacing who is new to sim racing, would be put off by having fewer choices of series. Probably tough to balance that with underpopulating them I would guess.
Does sound strange that the split times guy is the same guy as the transmission guy though, lol @ that. But to be honest, I personally couldn't care less if iRacing ever got split times added.
One thing that's always going to get on your nerves by the sounds of it is that iRacing is a developer run sim, not a consumer run sim like LFS. There's always going to be some inherent differences because of that. Endurance racing in iRacing is probably a long way off, if it ever happens at all - it's just not popular enough in general. It happens(happened?) in LFS because the community over some years made it happen. I'd be more than a casual racer if iRacing had true road cars with road tires like LFS does, and I'm not holding my breath for that either.
iRacing is, for me already a better driving experience in general. As far as the other flaws in both sims, of which there are a plethora, I find it unlikely that LFS has much of a chance to overcome a large percentage of them while I'm on the proper side of the grass. iRacing, whilst somewhat questionable in terms of pace given their resources, at least have the resources to advance and do actually communicate with the userbase about their intentions, and do in fact release things regularly other than allowing me to speak to users on planet xinguthyar (and it's moons) in their native language.
Last edited by Ball Bearing Turbo, .
It's justified because it's a free market economy. That fact that they're successful and growing means that enough people agree with it to willfully pay for it. "Reasonable" is probably a better word to use though because jusitification means that you're the judge, and therefore isn't a universal point of view. Clearly, it's not justified to you. It is to the growing membership of 20,000.
edit:
It is bizarre to consider how many people on this forum complain about LFS's content - "more tracks, more cars, blah blah"... It would seem that no matter what type of features are added to a sim first, someone will bitch about it. It also deserves mention that the people who scan & model cars and tracks are not the same people working on physics and graphics and so forth. That seems lost a some folks for some reason - iRacing has more than 3 devs.
edit:
It is bizarre to consider how many people on this forum complain about LFS's content - "more tracks, more cars, blah blah"... It would seem that no matter what type of features are added to a sim first, someone will bitch about it. It also deserves mention that the people who scan & model cars and tracks are not the same people working on physics and graphics and so forth. That seems lost a some folks for some reason - iRacing has more than 3 devs.
I've never seen you use four exclamation points in a row before 
Perhaps I should give this update a shot.
Perhaps I should give this update a shot.
Do you guys *really* have to be such dicks? 
No the OP isn't exploding anyone's mind here, but at least he posted something that another individual here could, conceivably, have some sort of interest in - unlike 95% of the rest of the garbage floating about.
No the OP isn't exploding anyone's mind here, but at least he posted something that another individual here could, conceivably, have some sort of interest in - unlike 95% of the rest of the garbage floating about.
I haven't noticed that at this point... Maybe it was a lag issues? Although I am in Canada, I've run into a few situations where I thought for sure it was a collision and yet it wasn't (nothing more than anal puckering happened); OR I just rubbed mine & their's paint off a bit. Therefore I thought it was pretty decent that way; YMMV.
Hmm, I didn't find the FOV in BC2 annoying at all, I thought it was kind of nice? But then I play iRacing at 65 - I like the more realistic sense of speed, and my real eyes are *NOT* transplanted from a fish. Perhaps I'll try BC2 in 2D and see if I find it cumbersome with the low FoV.
Last edited by Ball Bearing Turbo, .
Pretty much.
Sorry I didn't expand; the point was covered in the very next paragraph I wrote as to why. Thought you'd see the flow
With two cars approaching a finish line, the likelyhood of something signficant enough to affect either vehicle enough to be remotely relevant happening inside of 1/360th of a second is extremely low.
Low enough that I can say with practical certainty that under such circumstances, two cars finishing with times of 1:40:01.071 and 1:40:01.079 is, for all intents and relevant purposes, more accurate that stating that both finished with times of 1:40:01.07.
The situation in my explanation is in fact likely to be less prone to error than truncating at 1/100th simply because "that's all we can measure based on the lowest common denominator". You're more likely to have a higher degree of accuracy by letting the timer continue between physical updates than you are by purposely limiting it.
So the inherently inaccurate system may provide more accurate values overall. Gotcha!
(lol, I know what you're saying I just had to do it)
You can say it's a problem all you want, it's not a problem. It's just a very, very minor compromise for a much bigger benefit.
Every time I've used such brevities, I've followed up with why in the same post, and generally immediately after.
Look:
1) Within the realm of the accepted limitations, yes, limiting timing to the resolution of the physics engine will make the timing result 100% accurate to the physics engine no matter what, but it's a very strange assertion to define that as "inherantly accurate"
2) Allowing the timer to run independantly will provide results that are, in fact, more accurate in all but the most ludicrous circumstances. I don't care if you call it inherent accuracy or not, it's more accurate in practical circumstances that anyone gives two poops about.
Last edited by Ball Bearing Turbo, .
Oh I know you're well aware of that, I didn't mean to sound patronising.
Not really.
No it's not, it's only *possibly* inaccurate, and the relatively low possibility of that inaccuracy is overshadowed by the benefit it would provide in situations that really matter. Surely you could come up with extreme situations to show me that it could be inaccurate, but in normal racing conditions it just doesn't matter much, if at all.
But your logic is based on something totally irrelevant. We DON'T have infinite samples. That's why I said that before - not because I didn't think you understood that, but because you're basing your argument on pie in the sky. You can't ignore something that "may have happened" when it's an impossibility for it to mathematically happen given the limiting factors of what the real situation is.
iRacing disagrees with you
. I understand your argument. But picture two cars racing (almost) side by side on the home straight. It's far more beneficial to have more accurate timing than to worry if a 2000km/h gust of wind came from the depths of hell towards one of the cars and alterered it's projected trajectory enough to matter in that (very) tiny fraction of a second.
Last edited by Ball Bearing Turbo, .
Sure, for a movie, but surely the projector suffers even worse from what you term "tv syndrome". The bleed must be insane... how would it look with gaming? Perhaps the ridiculous size combined with 3D would just overshadow and shortcomings though. Had a pop over to the nVidia forum, a lot of folks there seem to enjoy the projector way of doing things.
Like nView? Allowing video to be sent to a different screen than your main? (right, that was removed for "DRM" reasons...)
NO U!
I presume I'd have to build a pitch black room for this to be useful?
No they sure don't. In fact nVidia recently revoked support that used to be there for unlisted 3D capable projectors. Angry users have been fooling the drivers (hacking the EDID iirc) to work with recent releases. Optoma for example had a previously working projector, but since they won't pay nVidia (er, I mean "partner with nVidia", and I know exactly what kind of partnering that is) all of a sudden projectors not on their approved EDID list fail to operate properly without user intervention.
I don't have a projector yet (seems cool, but 800x600 or 1024x768 blown up to Texas size!? How great can that really be?) but I'm 80% certain the answer is no. You need a "supported" projector to use it with 3D vision; of which there are currently only a handful. I'm not sure what the official reasoning is for that. (I know exactly what the real reason is, and per usual it's different than the official one)
That's looking at it like you have infinite sample opportunities. We don't which is the whole point of this conversation. Your statement is self cancelling. It should read "the current (for this 360th/sec) direction and acceleration of the car can only be obtained during an iteration of the physics loop".
LOL!
Interestingly, most graphic artists don't double as writers and other fields of development. So I don't think that resources have to be "diverted" from other (equally, if not more important as you stated) game design areas.
I chuckled at the rest of that post though. Blizzard definitely agrees with you on gameplay, and I think WoW is a fun game and looks decent - but it would be even more fun for me if it wasn't designed to run on an abacus graphics wise. On the other end, Age of Conan looks fantasic and plays like a piece of crap - therefore I don't play it because no amount of uh, eye candy can make up for the gameplay experience being poor.
So I don't disagree with you on that point at all, but the fact remains that the potential for a great experience on a PC is higher because of more inherent processing ability, flexibility, control scheme options and so forth.
As far as bigscreens go, before I went 3D I ran full HD on my television for kicks. I thought it was cool, but no PC game UI lends itself well to those circumstances. That, and despite being full HD, I just could not see things as well or as detailed compared to the PC monitor. I stuck with it a bit just for kicks but it just wasn't as comfortable and was in fact a very noticeable downgrade.
Interestingly, most graphic artists don't double as writers and other fields of development. So I don't think that resources have to be "diverted" from other (equally, if not more important as you stated) game design areas.
I chuckled at the rest of that post though. Blizzard definitely agrees with you on gameplay, and I think WoW is a fun game and looks decent - but it would be even more fun for me if it wasn't designed to run on an abacus graphics wise. On the other end, Age of Conan looks fantasic and plays like a piece of crap - therefore I don't play it because no amount of uh, eye candy can make up for the gameplay experience being poor.
So I don't disagree with you on that point at all, but the fact remains that the potential for a great experience on a PC is higher because of more inherent processing ability, flexibility, control scheme options and so forth.
As far as bigscreens go, before I went 3D I ran full HD on my television for kicks. I thought it was cool, but no PC game UI lends itself well to those circumstances. That, and despite being full HD, I just could not see things as well or as detailed compared to the PC monitor. I stuck with it a bit just for kicks but it just wasn't as comfortable and was in fact a very noticeable downgrade.
No, you said there had to be interpolation - an active attempt at getting something that's not there. The circumstance I described is not that, it's just letting math run it's course
interpolation:
To estimate a value of (a function or series) between two known values.
That would not be happening, and it would be a waste of time to do it (no pun intented)
interpolation:
To estimate a value of (a function or series) between two known values.
That would not be happening, and it would be a waste of time to do it (no pun intented)
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG