Petrol engines with equally big turbochargers have a lot more torque and twice the amount of hp output of the diesel.
I drive myself an diesel, it drives nice but the equivalent petrol engine with comparable turbo pressure is a serious amount faster see the fowllowing examples( Site is dutch though
)Diesel*:
http://www.autoweek.nl/carbase ... php?id=26212&cache=no
petrol*:
http://www.autoweek.nl/carbase ... php?id=30580&cache=no
*Both cars have usually a higher topspeed than stated in specifications
pk=hp
vermogen=power
koppel=torgue
tpm=rpm=revs per minute
However maximum radius on one tank of diesel is 1400-1500km though so i catch up at the gasstations
Hope this will really clarify for diesel enthusiasts that diesel engines do not have more power than comparable petrol engines and maximum torque is actually very similar. But the petrol engine has a much wider powerband and feels like it has more torgue.
Since this is the topic about cars we wanna see in lfs: Race version of volvo 240 or 740
I agree, espacially the formula one cars up to 2008 have lots of adjustments on aero. I think GTR's also have adjustments for tracks but indeed less than formula one cars.
I don't think lower formula cars similar fox and FO8 have these adjustments. The FOX is so underpowerd it has no use to have a special adjustments for city tracks just as for the FO8.
Only on ovals the package might be different, smaller front and rear wings which are more efficient at high speed but maximum possible downforce generated is a lot less than with regular wings.
What would be also very nice for the bf1, different tyres at each track. The tyres used on monza and monaca are very different, this was even more the case in 2006 with the tyre war that was at that time going on at that time. But their are already other topics about the tyre problems.
I certainly agree to different aero packages, but i think only the bf1 would be really affected. Special aero-package for oval would give topspeed of 20-30km/h higher then its current topspeed. Downforce might not be much more on city tracks, because F1 regulations forbid a bigger and/or higher rear wing.
I don't think lower formula cars similar fox and FO8 have these adjustments. The FOX is so underpowerd it has no use to have a special adjustments for city tracks just as for the FO8.
Only on ovals the package might be different, smaller front and rear wings which are more efficient at high speed but maximum possible downforce generated is a lot less than with regular wings.
What would be also very nice for the bf1, different tyres at each track. The tyres used on monza and monaca are very different, this was even more the case in 2006 with the tyre war that was at that time going on at that time. But their are already other topics about the tyre problems.
I certainly agree to different aero packages, but i think only the bf1 would be really affected. Special aero-package for oval would give topspeed of 20-30km/h higher then its current topspeed. Downforce might not be much more on city tracks, because F1 regulations forbid a bigger and/or higher rear wing.
Don't know, technically certainly possible with infared sensors fitted close to the tyres it should be no problem to get accurate readings.
I just have to agree with some posts before "we" as sim drivers also have to do the work of the engineers and chief of the team. As long as we don't have an fully automatic pitcrew and engineers who can setup the car perfectly adjusted to your driving style, We will need a bit unrealistic amount of information available. Especially because i want to drive and don't have the time to spent hours and hours to analyse collected data of several hours driving. Some people have a live beside lfs... And i'm already very short on time for getting the car to a perfect setup.
2000+hp and as light as possible very long tube-frame. These cars just have to be drivable in straight line...
Most average GT series do have a complete steel frame or monocoque instead of the original chassis and indeed have no resemblance to the original road car. Every time i watch some gt-series of any kind i notice it is a really different car. Just the shape of the outside shell remotely resembles the road car. Take the shell away and you got basicly a formula-class car. Even engines are totally replaced and sometimes moved to an new position in "budget" class gt series.
I think the gtr-cars of lfs are in such gt/gtr-racing class, with chassis/monocoque/tubeframes several times stronger then the orginal road car they were based on.
I am not opposed to the implementation of flexing of cars since it adds realism espacially to the slower road cars, but i doubt if it should be high on the priority list.
Last edited by Bluebird B B, .
You saying the same with the vag 1.8T, petrol or diesel both can nearly always be tuned 20-30% higher then stock as long as they are turbocharged. Even with software tuning regular road-cars don't have problems with loss of boost at high rpm' s. Petrol or diesel, doesn't really matter. Well i said ths, there will always be some manufactures who did fit a turbo-charger just large-enough for the engine....
The turbo's for diesel and petrol have very different loading in terms of temperature, the basic principle how they work are identical though. VTG turbo-chargers are available now too on very limited number petrol-engines, It works great on petrol too, but the higher temperatures makes it much more difficult to design a turbo with vrt for petrol. Porsche was the first manufacturer to do this successfully on a production car. Diesel turbo' s are bit different, because the exhaust gasses have different characteristics, especially the tempature is most different.
Nice in theory, but irl not always true. Nearly all turbo-charged roadcars can be tuned to much higher performance levels. This can only be done because turbo' s are often oversized and overengineerd to make sure it is still reliable in case of poor maintenance by the owner.(although it will still last less long, but the engine/turbo will usually still be able to do over 200.000km). On road cars, it is really the ecu which determines how high a turbo must spool up at any given rpm and throttle position.
My current car it is in the extreme, because volvo used software to create a low power 2.5 diesel(2.4d) and a very nice higer powered 2.5 diesel(d5) with exaclty the same parts on the car to serve different market demands. So i tuned mine to the higher(d5) power version. but if the gearbox would be a lot stronger i could achieve the following by just software; : 130HP->198HP @4000rpm and 280HP -> 435NM@2200rpm. This is only possible because the fitted turbo is much better and overengineerd then needed to make it very reliable and durable. However, since the gearbox will fail within a year with so much power, i can' t make use of the extra headroom
However i did run the the car with this tuning for a week, it was ehm very fast. No youtube movie of volvo d5(tuned or not) could beat my car in terms of accelaration. Since i don' t like buying gearboxes every two years, i had the ecu programmed back to D5 values.So the powerdrop at higher rpm's with turbo-charged road cars is usually not caused by a turbo being too small but for other reasons. Generally, on road cars turbo' s are much better/bigger/stronger then needed and kept a bit down in terms of boost by the ecu. To get 20-30% extra power and torgue you usually don't need to fit a new turbo. The extra boost, if ecu is reprogrammed properly(very important, bad programming will break everything real fast) will not hurt drivability in anyway. The real challenge is, to get to know if all parts in the drive line are able to cope with the extra torgue of the engine.
Last edited by Bluebird B B, .
Most likely overheating. My graphics cars also has such issue's, but never in lfs because lfs does not stress the gpu enough to overheat.
If your budget allows.. upgrade your system
If your cpu is still somewhat up-to-date, there are agp ati 4650 cards available which might be perfect for your system(check first power requirements before buying)Its a bit the other way around, a roll cage is mandatory in nearly any race-series. So if installed, its not more then logical to make use of it to improve the stiffness. Since cars prepped for racing are usually very stiff because of the rollcage, its makes maybe not very important to implement?
Also i doubt formula cars and gtr's have any noticable bodyflex, the monocoque chassis are incredibly strong.
I really dislike windows-os, but i will run into a lot more problems in trying to run windows apps(games lol) on other operating systems then just running an recent microsoft OS. Also because it is nearly always unsupported and for small software developers really a waste of time to support platforms for which the software was not written or intented.
My opinion is, if you run an windows application on linux you are on your own if there are problems.
(this post is not intented to critisi linux, jus annoyed people start complaining: Application build for Operating system X is difficult to get it running on Operating system Y. Well duh!)
Hej Live for speed runs on Ghz computers, the math needed to get the correct rpm with a certain gear ratio will be on average calculated in less than 0.0001 seconds. Its just needs to be correctly coded in lfs.
I did a short search on internet, most likely driver or hardware problem. Did you try other games which are serious hard on hardware with vsync disabled?
Search on google and own experience of overcloking all points towards hardware-problems or serious drivers problems. You'll need to thoroughly check your own system and figure out whats wrong with it.
If i'm correct, real speedlimiters often work on rpm, not the rate at how fast the tyres are working. So in first gear with speedlimiter on, you should not be able to do more then xxxx rpm and for BF1 1xxxx RPM depending on gear-ratio's. It should not be too hard to implement calculations in lfs to limit on rpm.
However, as it is now, i don' t experience it as a bug, since the pitlimiter is an aid for an driver, not an tool designed to save you from speeding when doing an burn-out in pitlane. As an aid, its works very well, although it limits too soon. A real pitlanelimiter is very accurate and will limit at 79-79,5km/h not 77 or 78 as it is in lfs right now.
So it would be nice if the pitlane limiter in lfs would be improved on accuracy, but i don't think it is the most important thing on the list
edit: I' m very happy to see an update again, confirming the lfs-crew is working very hard to get the simulation improved as soon as possible.
Last edited by Bluebird B B, .
I agree, i tested a few laps with a car with abs. I set the brakeforce very high. And for each corner just hit the brakes hard and the abs will do the work for you.
I was just wondering about exactly this topic is avout while trying to find a good setup for a race.
I think we all agree the front-downforce on gtr's is too adjustable right now. Maybe an moderator can move this topic to the improvements-section? The improvement would be: Less adjustable front wing on gtr' s.
Those canards at the front are currently not very effective/realistic, i think they should be free of the rest of the body work. The backside of those canards are connected and blocked by the rest of the bodywork which would make them very ineffective. As it is right now, they should stick out of the sides to look realistic. But not really an issue as most of us care more about realistic handling then looks.
On the other hand, the rear wing and, also the front wings on formula cars, should have finer adjustments possible , but there is already an topic about that somewhere.
I think we all agree the front-downforce on gtr's is too adjustable right now. Maybe an moderator can move this topic to the improvements-section? The improvement would be: Less adjustable front wing on gtr' s.
Those canards at the front are currently not very effective/realistic, i think they should be free of the rest of the body work. The backside of those canards are connected and blocked by the rest of the bodywork which would make them very ineffective. As it is right now, they should stick out of the sides to look realistic. But not really an issue as most of us care more about realistic handling then looks.
On the other hand, the rear wing and, also the front wings on formula cars, should have finer adjustments possible , but there is already an topic about that somewhere.
Agree 100%
If someone manages to damage the rim, changes are at least 80% the suspension will also be seriously damaged. This is often seen in F1 races, rim damage is very rare, but tearing off the entire wheel from the car in a collision or crash is rather common. And those F1 rims are very very light weight.
So rim damage is rather pointless to implement i think.
huh?
Superchargers blowing air directly into a supercharger is pointless, its an much better idea to blow this extra air into the engine which can use it to generate extra power and lots of extra air-volume(exhaust..) to spool the turbocharger even better up and at the same time generating nice low-end torgue for the driver.
There are irl cars with have a small supercharger and a turbocharger. The supercharger is used when the engine is running at low revs. As soon as the rev get over a certain point the turbocharger takes over smoothly. At certain point, the small supercharger will be too small to be of any use. At that point the ecu will bypass the supercharger(electronicaly controlled valves in airintake) and all the work for blowing extra air into the engine is done from that point by the turbocharger.
VW golf 1.4 tfsi (GT) for example is using such system and it works very well. Performance is comparable to a 2.5 liter v6. Fuel usage comparable to an modern 1.8 4 cylinder at cruising speed. Since power essentially comes from burning fuel.. At full throttle the fuel usage will be nearly as high as the fuel usage of a 2.5 v6 at full throttle.
The UK wants to be part of the eu, but with some things UK stays apart of Europe, like left-side driving, strange units and still not using the euro
There is nothing wrong with that, but the UK is not a very good example how things are in the rest of the EU.
I just don't think dual markings should be a priority.
:clapclap::wow::bowdown:
No further comment needed
Actually they do drop in altitude and need to point the aircraft slightly upwards to prevent falling out of the sky. At very huge altitudes, this isn't an issue for modern fighters since they can so easily climb back to the orginal altitude. But at low-level flying, they have indeed to be very carefull when turning the plane on its side. Just as the nose really needs to be pointed upwards to fly level when flying upside down.
I don't know about the F-22 and jsf, it is possible the onboard-computer will automaticly do this compensations for the pilot when flying close to the ground. But somehow i think even that would be dangerous because the computer may start doing something else then the pilots wants to do which usually results into kissing the ground. Any fighter pilots here on the forum?
anyway, i think we all agree a car wont slide down on 90 degree banking in a corner as long the car is moving forward fast enough
Its really the point of view and where you live.
In Europe, only metric units are used. Cars with dual speedometers are very very rare. Usually only USA imports have a dual speedometer. From "our" point of view, dual meters are unrealistic since all cars are European style in lfs. If a USA-style car would be added, that one maybe should have a dual speedo.
However, i think there are more important things than the speedo to be improved or added in lfs
YES That would be great 
, but probably already suggested before?
BF1 is so much more fun without TC and really not that hard. About 50% of time i drive online with bf1 one is with tc of against others with tc on.
, but probably already suggested before?BF1 is so much more fun without TC and really not that hard. About 50% of time i drive online with bf1 one is with tc of against others with tc on.
FO8 here;
bf1 has TC so its no fun at all unless it becomes possible to disallow it from serverside.
The FOX is too underpowered to be real fun. Lots of grip yet it feels sometimes slower then the fbm.
bf1 has TC so its no fun at all unless it becomes possible to disallow it from serverside.
The FOX is too underpowered to be real fun. Lots of grip yet it feels sometimes slower then the fbm.
Be carefull with modern cars, the abs might using some features of the esp, because on a lot of recent cars the esp option is just a software switch with a few extra sensors fitted.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG