Why not? this car is still in the catalog and they want to sell it
hey wait a minute, I wonder if all this silence before this report was not related to keep secrecy from concurrence. It seems that the tire physics update use milestone calculation methods for a racing simulation. Do the devs have something big hidden behind them?
It is a supposition, but it's probable, so from now i'll stop moan an wait&see
hey wait a minute, I wonder if all this silence before this report was not related to keep secrecy from concurrence. It seems that the tire physics update use milestone calculation methods for a racing simulation. Do the devs have something big hidden behind them?
It is a supposition, but it's probable, so from now i'll stop moan an wait&see
I am now disillusioned. Can we deduce that supporting multi-bodies calculation would take too much CPU resources?
Do you think that this may take part of the tire physics update? (no sarcasm here)
Do you think that this may take part of the tire physics update? (no sarcasm here)
Prepare to be flamed for your insolence 
, LFS supports unsprung mass.
See here
I prefer to wait and see for the tire physics update.
, LFS supports unsprung mass.See here
I prefer to wait and see for the tire physics update.
Last edited by Bogey Jammer, .
Haha, today we have the tire physics issue, tomorrow will be the aerodynamics issue :icon23:
Then the engine + transmission
Then the damage model
Ah I've forgotten the massive graphic engine update
:monkey:
It seems to be the beginning of the pain today.
PS: AI too
Then the engine + transmission
Then the damage model
Ah I've forgotten the massive graphic engine update
:monkey:
It seems to be the beginning of the pain today.
PS: AI too
Last edited by Bogey Jammer, .
I've just read the new and the report, I feel good they are working on something hard, but it is quite not a "progress report", since the mentioned investigation program might have been coded for more than a year already.
We can imagine that this program finished to bring conclusions to the devs about the real tire physics, but there is not any mention of progress of the implementation of the adapted tire physics code into the game. We just know that it is a hard task, and I fear that this real-time-in-game code will be near impossible to accomplish for the devs if I take in account their high expectations they showed us these last two years.
About the delayed release of the new track, it doesn't really matter for my personally, but I think that telling "we decided to wait for the updated tyres because these things from the real world will be best experienced with the most realistic physics system." is ridiculous.
OK for the Scirocco, I would be glad if its release is canceled for ever, but for the track?! What is the connection between new tire physics and the track? why the first is needed for the second? What the devs are afraid of? That we pick up a specimen of one of the realistic cars of the game, a FBM or the BF1, go to the real track, get lap times and assassinate the devs because LFS would not be able to reproduce these real lap times in the current state of the tire physics? :uglyhamme
We can imagine that this program finished to bring conclusions to the devs about the real tire physics, but there is not any mention of progress of the implementation of the adapted tire physics code into the game. We just know that it is a hard task, and I fear that this real-time-in-game code will be near impossible to accomplish for the devs if I take in account their high expectations they showed us these last two years.
About the delayed release of the new track, it doesn't really matter for my personally, but I think that telling "we decided to wait for the updated tyres because these things from the real world will be best experienced with the most realistic physics system." is ridiculous.
OK for the Scirocco, I would be glad if its release is canceled for ever, but for the track?! What is the connection between new tire physics and the track? why the first is needed for the second? What the devs are afraid of? That we pick up a specimen of one of the realistic cars of the game, a FBM or the BF1, go to the real track, get lap times and assassinate the devs because LFS would not be able to reproduce these real lap times in the current state of the tire physics? :uglyhamme
You know what, I agree with Inouva ideas. Defaults interior textures a boring me so why not having a convenient tool to help to upgrade them?
Full rim color options missing is also questionable from the beginning of CMX viewer. Rims colors take part of the skin composition process.
There is always a good reason to ask before telling it is nonsense.
Full rim color options missing is also questionable from the beginning of CMX viewer. Rims colors take part of the skin composition process.
There is always a good reason to ask before telling it is nonsense.
haha, it reminds me this: http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=25381
It was unsuccessful but I'm still proud of it
It was unsuccessful but I'm still proud of it
amen.
It is quite funny to see how people here try to assume the LFS aging problem in place of the devs. Comrades! seriously the LFS (S2) dates from 2004, six years of lifespan (at least) for a racing game is amazing enough. Let it die in peace if it has to die, just let the devs to decide, their objectives regarding LFS are probably completed, I don't have to know what they are anyway... LFS status bores me but threads like this one is boring me more because nothing happened already for a long time from your past devs aggression tentatives. Just enjoy the game like it is now, like you want. Nothing from you all will make the devs to work in a different way from the one (a bad one indeed) they chosen.
Just play it or wait for the next kick-ass sim. Even praying your favorite god is more intelligent than debating the LFS fate. Everything has an end (I love this conclusion)
I don't see any credible progress on these features, I consider there is nothing to wait for. I am prepared to see that absolutely nothing will happen to LFS development one year later when I'll poke my nose here next time (it seems that the dev's communication strategy made the expected effects on me). I will just rofl if it'll be true.
While time passes, hopes became higher, exigency stronger, so the public's error tolerance became thinner. The devs are taking risks. I may call that the Gran Turismo 5 syndrome.
See ya next year folks!
You still need to have some programming skills to do that, and I don't use C++ nor VB.
I begun to use a self-made program in Python but was too much limited. Then I downloaded a memory hacking software, had to learn how to use it from scratch and fortunately managed to read the torque value after 5 minutes. That was easy. But for the acquisition, I used the script feature of this program, and wrote something in a hybrid custom language (again, I had to learn it from zero). All of this is quite awkward to use, and I will not provide help or tutorial to achieve torque acquisition.
Again you still need to program it, and find a way to retrieve current gears setup.
I think those curves would be useful to resurrect the shift light in Z25 
So, is the realism of the current torque curves shapes actually important if we consider that almost nobody had extracted them for 5 years? :nol2:
:nol2:Many things have to be modeled in engine physics to get less smooth curves (thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, pure mechanic, variable admission systems, ignition timing, cam profile and many other parameters). Anyway the common curves published in some general cars documentation are quite simplistic too. And the curves measured by dynometers are highly disputable (based on my observations
)But I admit such engine modeling would be exciting and would introduce us to engine setup !
That is exactly I tried to explain, but this would be more adequate for you in my opinion. Your request deals with excel basics, and should not be discussed here sorry
:doh: I think you are not familiar with computers, you can start to press F1 and read documentation on the net about this one of the most ever documented software...
rad/s is the S.I unit for rotational velocity, and the output unit used by LFS for physics calculation. Moreover you can calculate engine power output directly by multiplying engine velocity in rad/s by torque in N.m., and gives kilowatts, another universal unit that I personally prefer over the commercial hp.
Anyway, I published the data in xls file format, it would be easy to change the formulas as you wish.
Anyway, I published the data in xls file format, it would be easy to change the formulas as you wish.
Yes, possibly, but the main caveat is that I don't really know the caveats. While VHPA was designed mainly for education and is "enter the car settings, I show up the results", mine is same plus "enter what you want, I create the setting" which can be source of problems. I might be satisfied by the possible mistakes, so I don't want to be viewed as a charlatan, even if it already produced effective results for me. But car setups are said to be shaped to the driver, that can explain this.
However, when the program will be mature enough, I'll enjoy to introduce it, and wait for reactions.
However, when the program will be mature enough, I'll enjoy to introduce it, and wait for reactions.
Not sooner nor later but never.
The program is made with my observations, experience and point of view. It 100% fits my needs, so it 10% fits others. Sorry but you can think it is like a personal tooth brush, or a secret weapon.
I've already spent many hours on it, and it evolutes very often, because sometimes I notice some physics interpretation mistakes or get some new needs, not good in these conditions to maintain it public anyway. Moreover I fear negative reception.
So the better I can do is to suggest to start with the excellent Bob Smith's VHPA as a base, and write something yourself fitting yourself if you really want it, but I can't help it.
The program is made with my observations, experience and point of view. It 100% fits my needs, so it 10% fits others. Sorry but you can think it is like a personal tooth brush, or a secret weapon.
I've already spent many hours on it, and it evolutes very often, because sometimes I notice some physics interpretation mistakes or get some new needs, not good in these conditions to maintain it public anyway. Moreover I fear negative reception.
So the better I can do is to suggest to start with the excellent Bob Smith's VHPA as a base, and write something yourself fitting yourself if you really want it, but I can't help it.
Added power curves, see the first post.
Last edited by Bogey Jammer, .
Yes it's probable, even if I measured the torque with full throttle and full boost pressure from red line to low revs.
Because of the moment of inertia of all rotating parts of the car, the torque value I was reading was very sensitive to longitudinal acceleration (illustration here). So I written an acceleration script that could maintain car deceleration to -0.01G and gathered data when the instant acceleration was between -0.01 and 0G. The regulator was not perfect, so was the raw data.
Because of the moment of inertia of all rotating parts of the car, the torque value I was reading was very sensitive to longitudinal acceleration (illustration here). So I written an acceleration script that could maintain car deceleration to -0.01G and gathered data when the instant acceleration was between -0.01 and 0G. The regulator was not perfect, so was the raw data.
MuHahA, that's exactly how I did, and yes I'm sure it is just after the clutch.
Ok, ok I'll update the charts will all things asked above.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG