Ah, but for that you must know the material.. Maybe it does make sense after all 
The Very End's reply is excellent, and a very complete picture of the problem you're experiencing. There is nothing that the design of LFS can do about it, so I don't see why this is in Improvement Suggestions, but I can see why you'd want more local LFS servers to keep the community going over there. So.. Why not start one?
Sam
Sam
I know it's a whole four keystrokes more, but doesn't /cars XFG+XRG work just as well? 
Sam
Sam
R500 is the way forward, see Post #80 for why
Though sometimes I wonder why I bother putting thought into posts when everyone else just reposts what other people have said.. :o
I'm not at all convinced, because remember those slicks are still going to be a lot smaller than the lawn-rollers on the other GTRs. It'd be interesting to see if the lower weight could make up for this in the corners, though. But as for the straights, you're just going to get killed - remember the GTRs only have 445bhp/ton, and the LX4 with 205bhp would make that much power per ton. I'd like to see that keep up with an FZR
A 350bhp 460kg LX4 is making some 760bhp/ton, which is.. Quite a bit more than the current GTRs!
Sam
Though sometimes I wonder why I bother putting thought into posts when everyone else just reposts what other people have said.. :o
I'm not at all convinced, because remember those slicks are still going to be a lot smaller than the lawn-rollers on the other GTRs. It'd be interesting to see if the lower weight could make up for this in the corners, though. But as for the straights, you're just going to get killed - remember the GTRs only have 445bhp/ton, and the LX4 with 205bhp would make that much power per ton. I'd like to see that keep up with an FZR
A 350bhp 460kg LX4 is making some 760bhp/ton, which is.. Quite a bit more than the current GTRs!
Sam
With the same power/weight ratio, I don't think an LX8 GTR would ever keep up with the current GTR cars. It'd be bloody quick off the mark, but its smaller tyres and less aerodynamic shape would make it slower in the corners and slower on the straights too, so it would need a greater power to weight ratio - giving it a bigger kick out of the corners, and helping to make up for the aerodynamic defecit at higher speeds. Unless, of course, we go all single-seater with the downforce and really stick it to the track
It's a bit out of the LX style, though, isn't it? Wings and slicks? Isn't it supposed to be a fun, challenging waste of tyres? Might as well just cut the roof off an FZR otherwise...
Sam
It's a bit out of the LX style, though, isn't it? Wings and slicks? Isn't it supposed to be a fun, challenging waste of tyres? Might as well just cut the roof off an FZR otherwise...
Sam
Hmm, are you watching replays or actually running the simulation? Because sitting in the pits "live" with two windows set up one on top of the other, half the screen each, I get about a quarter of normal frame rate - maximise them both (not fullscreen, but maximised windowed) and we're looking at five or six FPS. Odd..
Sam
Sam
Perhaps I was doing something daft at the time, then, or maybe it was with the old Radeon X300
I'll try it again tomorrow morning and see. Cheers for the heads-up.
Sam
I'll try it again tomorrow morning and see. Cheers for the heads-up.
Sam
I was a very strong yes on this one, although I'm not sure whether or not I'm right - yes to a high-powered (excessive is a good word ) LX, but is the V8 the way to go? Would we rather have something like a Caterham R500, as opposed to a Westfield SEight? The type of car isn't really made for a big, heavy, lazy engine like a V8. Yes, you could go for a race-spec V8 in the Caparo T1 vein, but if we do that we're looking slicks and wings just to keep it under control at pitlane speeds, never mind trying to race it.
*considers*
I reckon a high-strung four-pot - or maybe a straight-six - is going to be much better for it, not least so it sounds spectacular and maintains the urgent, hard-pushing nature of the other two LX cars. I'm thinking high revs, high noise, and high spirits. Yes, Caterham and Ariel have just put out V8s (the same unit for both manufacturers) - but that's two bike engines knocked together, it's a little supercharged 2400cc motor that revs stratospherically, for God's sake, and if we do that we are going to be seriously pushing the envelope. More power (outright as well as per tonne) than the Formula V8?
I don't think we can really get a Levante / Atom 500-a-like in LFS, it's just not terribly reasonable. But three hundred-odd horsepower, pushing road tyres about as far as we can without having to feather the throttle everywhere, why not? Yeah, it's probably going to be hard to drive, but so it bloody should be
Like skstibi, I've been messing around with Tweak, but I made the LX6 up to Caterham R500 specification - 263bhp, 506kg, similar rev range, and the same old tyres - and it feels like it was meant to be like that. It's not snappy, it's not vicious, but it's sideways when you want it to be and evilly quick. Great fun. And the R500 would, by my reckoning, have more grip than the LX6 does anyway - so I think it's a manageable upgrade for LFS.
But hey, if I get overwhelmed by chants of "V8, V8, V8" then I'll sit down and roll with it. Just give us the excessive kit cars, that exist in reality, to play with in LFS
Talk to me
Sam
) LX, but is the V8 the way to go? Would we rather have something like a Caterham R500, as opposed to a Westfield SEight? The type of car isn't really made for a big, heavy, lazy engine like a V8. Yes, you could go for a race-spec V8 in the Caparo T1 vein, but if we do that we're looking slicks and wings just to keep it under control at pitlane speeds, never mind trying to race it.*considers*
I reckon a high-strung four-pot - or maybe a straight-six - is going to be much better for it, not least so it sounds spectacular and maintains the urgent, hard-pushing nature of the other two LX cars. I'm thinking high revs, high noise, and high spirits. Yes, Caterham and Ariel have just put out V8s (the same unit for both manufacturers) - but that's two bike engines knocked together, it's a little supercharged 2400cc motor that revs stratospherically, for God's sake, and if we do that we are going to be seriously pushing the envelope. More power (outright as well as per tonne) than the Formula V8?
I don't think we can really get a Levante / Atom 500-a-like in LFS, it's just not terribly reasonable. But three hundred-odd horsepower, pushing road tyres about as far as we can without having to feather the throttle everywhere, why not? Yeah, it's probably going to be hard to drive, but so it bloody should be
Like skstibi, I've been messing around with Tweak, but I made the LX6 up to Caterham R500 specification - 263bhp, 506kg, similar rev range, and the same old tyres - and it feels like it was meant to be like that. It's not snappy, it's not vicious, but it's sideways when you want it to be and evilly quick. Great fun. And the R500 would, by my reckoning, have more grip than the LX6 does anyway - so I think it's a manageable upgrade for LFS.
But hey, if I get overwhelmed by chants of "V8, V8, V8" then I'll sit down and roll with it. Just give us the excessive kit cars, that exist in reality, to play with in LFS
Talk to me
Sam
Last edited by Dark Elite, .
The other point is that LFS seems to annihilate its frame rates if you run it in two instances at once - as in, I think I remember seeing single-figure frame rates, and the sound got butchered in the process. Perhaps if you have a dual graphics card configuration, this would be helped, but I'm not so sure.
Anyone with hardware other than Q6600 / Asus P5K / nVidia 8600GT tried it?
Sam
Anyone with hardware other than Q6600 / Asus P5K / nVidia 8600GT tried it?
Sam
Last edited by Dark Elite, .
Yes, but what I meant was that turbocharging a five-litre engine would be exceedingly unfair - bear in mind that, even with the same power output, a turbocharged engine is going to be totally effortless, compared to a naturally aspirated engine trying to match the power without any extra capacity. That would mean that the turbocharged engine would be far, far more reliable than its naturally aspirated competitors, and so everyone would use turbos - and 5.5+ litres would therefore be much too much for a 625bhp output.
What I shoulda said was, "Unless they plan to let you turbocharge a five-litre engine"
I deduced that turbocharging isn't allowed because, almost invariably when turbocharging is allowed alongside naturally aspirated cars, you have a much lower capacity restriction for the turbos. As I recall, LMP2 was (dunno about now) up to 5.0 litres for naturally aspirated, but only up to 2.0 litres for turbocharged cars.
Sam
What I shoulda said was, "Unless they plan to let you turbocharge a five-litre engine"
I deduced that turbocharging isn't allowed because, almost invariably when turbocharging is allowed alongside naturally aspirated cars, you have a much lower capacity restriction for the turbos. As I recall, LMP2 was (dunno about now) up to 5.0 litres for naturally aspirated, but only up to 2.0 litres for turbocharged cars.
Sam
Last edited by Dark Elite, .
A little bit of research seems to throw up that the GT1 and 2 classes are about to undergo a bit of a rejig by the FIA, with 2009 as a transition year, and that the regulations will include a common ECU - which will not have a traction control system of any sort.
This implies that traction control is currently allowed, although I did always seem to have this idea that GT1 didn't allow it..
Also, as far as the turbocharging goes, I guess that isn't allowed either:
Unless they plan for you to turbocharge a five-litre engine..
Sam
This implies that traction control is currently allowed, although I did always seem to have this idea that GT1 didn't allow it..
Also, as far as the turbocharging goes, I guess that isn't allowed either:
Unless they plan for you to turbocharge a five-litre engine..
Sam
An interesting idea. Though I don't know if you're allowed to turbocharge an engine as big as three litres in that class, and if you turbocharge the FZR a lot of people will be very unimpressed
I would say a definite no to traction control, though. It isn't even allowed in FIA GT1, is it?
Sam
I would say a definite no to traction control, though. It isn't even allowed in FIA GT1, is it?
Sam
His main suggestion was for the driver number to be entered in the Player menu, in the same place as the playername and number plate is entered, and for this number to appear on the minimap to represent your car - and to appear in the race rankings next to your name.
The thing about it going on the skin was secondary, and in my opinion, not quite the most useful way to spend the developers' time
Sam
The thing about it going on the skin was secondary, and in my opinion, not quite the most useful way to spend the developers' time
Sam
The arrow on the map is chosen because it shows the direction in which the car is facing. Using numbers in this application would cause confusion and lack of clarity, as numbers overlap, spin, or are displayed at a low resolution.
Sam
Sam
As we said, the FZ50's already got a class - LRF, with the LX6 and the RaceAbout - so we came up with the idea of making the RXO even with the LX4, as that's the only classless road car out there.
Unless you want to make it equal to the UF1000, of course
He was talking about the fact that the lights don't actually do anything, they just change the texture of the surface in which the light is located - they don't actually cast light onto the track or other objects.
Sam
Thought so, that's why I decided against tearing it apart
I think Crashgate was talking more about the styling of the FZ50 when he mentioned its Ferrariness, by the way, just as we're on about how the "new" car should be designed. I'm all for moulding together new BMW/Audi/Mercedes parts, but it could be interesting to see what happens, given their diversifying designs these days
Sam
Last edited by Dark Elite, .
Can I ask why you've selected this pristigious model to be in LFS?
Does strike me as something rather pointless, it's just like an XRG, only lower-revving and probably a bit slower. The RXO would have to look different to the FXO anyway, if only so you could tell the difference between them, so I suppose the FXO "not looking RWD" (and I can sorta see your point there) isn't much of an issue.
If it's going to be paired with the LX4, it might as well be its exact opposite, to keep things interesting - ie, big, heavy and powerful - like the FZ50 and the LX6 are now.
Sam
Does strike me as something rather pointless, it's just like an XRG, only lower-revving and probably a bit slower. The RXO would have to look different to the FXO anyway, if only so you could tell the difference between them, so I suppose the FXO "not looking RWD" (and I can sorta see your point there) isn't much of an issue.
If it's going to be paired with the LX4, it might as well be its exact opposite, to keep things interesting - ie, big, heavy and powerful - like the FZ50 and the LX6 are now.
Sam
Nice one!
I'll have to remember that 
Using Tweak only shows us how nice it'd be to have this in the game proper. The only problem is that it wouldn't fit into any classes, being naturally aspirated. Unless, of course, it was made more powerful in order to go into LRF? Then you'd have the rear-engined FZ50, mid-engined RaceAbout, front-engined RXO, and the LX6 - whilst also front-engined and naturally aspirated, like the RXO would be - is still pretty different, on account of weighing buggerall
Or maybe it could be made competitive with the LX4? That needs something to race against
Sam
Hmm.. Interesting point, actually. I mean, you could count GT1-class cars as single seaters - after all, they only have one seat - but as for open-wheel, open-roof cars? I've never seen a driver change executed in one of those. I think it's probably because of the inherent nature of those cars to get destroyed more easily than closed-wheel racers, thus longer races aren't very common. I can't see anyone setting up an open-wheel endurance race, but I could just have missed a whole segment of racing
Sam
- but as for open-wheel, open-roof cars? I've never seen a driver change executed in one of those. I think it's probably because of the inherent nature of those cars to get destroyed more easily than closed-wheel racers, thus longer races aren't very common. I can't see anyone setting up an open-wheel endurance race, but I could just have missed a whole segment of racing Sam
That, I think, depends on what car you're driving and where you're driving it
As for the suggestion - yes, a good one. Although I'd adjust it a bit, and say add time for driver changes in short pitstops. As has been mostly said in bits and pieces, yes, it takes time to change drivers, but if your crew are spending a minute bashing some bodywork off your front tyre then you might as well change over rather than sit there and watch them do it. So I reckon it should be set up such that LFS adds time to your pitstop, up to making it last twenty seconds, when you change drivers.
For most cars, twenty seconds is probably about right. Were you a quick-thinking driver, you'd probably already have your harness released by the time you've stopped (not sure if this is legal or not, actually, but there you go. Seems like a good idea. Anyone know the rules on that?), so you could bail out in less than five seconds. Allowing a couple of seconds for the next person to get their sizing cushion in, another couple for getting themselves in, you're left with ten seconds to adjust and lock the straps in. Sounds doable, especially with the amount of practice you'd have had, but I might be about to get shot down in flames by someone with more experience of this
Of course, if you're in a single-seater it's gonna take longer to get yourself in and out - even more so if you've got a HANS, I guess - so perhaps different timing for each car class would be good. Quick for road cars, a bit slower for GTRs because you've got a rollcage in the way, slower still for single seaters because of pedal box adjustment and steering wheel fitting?
I'm looking for feedback here, guys
hehe
Sam
As for the suggestion - yes, a good one. Although I'd adjust it a bit, and say add time for driver changes in short pitstops. As has been mostly said in bits and pieces, yes, it takes time to change drivers, but if your crew are spending a minute bashing some bodywork off your front tyre then you might as well change over rather than sit there and watch them do it. So I reckon it should be set up such that LFS adds time to your pitstop, up to making it last twenty seconds, when you change drivers.
For most cars, twenty seconds is probably about right. Were you a quick-thinking driver, you'd probably already have your harness released by the time you've stopped (not sure if this is legal or not, actually, but there you go. Seems like a good idea. Anyone know the rules on that?), so you could bail out in less than five seconds. Allowing a couple of seconds for the next person to get their sizing cushion in, another couple for getting themselves in, you're left with ten seconds to adjust and lock the straps in. Sounds doable, especially with the amount of practice you'd have had, but I might be about to get shot down in flames by someone with more experience of this
Of course, if you're in a single-seater it's gonna take longer to get yourself in and out - even more so if you've got a HANS, I guess - so perhaps different timing for each car class would be good. Quick for road cars, a bit slower for GTRs because you've got a rollcage in the way, slower still for single seaters because of pedal box adjustment and steering wheel fitting?
I'm looking for feedback here, guys
heheSam
Frankly, I'd be damn annoyed if my car's handbrake came off as soon as I let go after applying it, but maybe that's just me.
As soon as you select a gear and disengage the clutch, the handbrake comes off anyway. It never causes a problem when moving off, it's been designed not to.
Although this would be a good idea, the best way of modelling a real handbrake.
Sam
As soon as you select a gear and disengage the clutch, the handbrake comes off anyway. It never causes a problem when moving off, it's been designed not to.
Although this would be a good idea, the best way of modelling a real handbrake.
Sam
@sinanju:
It's over, you know...
There isn't one, the plural of Grand Prix is denoted only by the adjective Grand gaining an 's' - so we get Grands Prix
Literally translatable as "bigs prize", but there you go. Come to think of it, given the way F1 is going these days, the alternative meaning of prix - price - is perhaps becoming more appropriate: Formula One Big Prices
Sam
It's over, you know...
There isn't one, the plural of Grand Prix is denoted only by the adjective Grand gaining an 's' - so we get Grands Prix
Literally translatable as "bigs prize", but there you go. Come to think of it, given the way F1 is going these days, the alternative meaning of prix - price - is perhaps becoming more appropriate: Formula One Big Prices
Sam
That was actually exactly what I thought
The only possible problem then is keyboard drivers, though, giving them one more button to be pressing wouldn't be very helpful. Ah well, one more incentive to buy a 'wheel
The extremely obvious difference being that whilst the steering wheel is a constant point of contact for the driver's hands and is always being adjusted, the gearstick is a distant control that requires initial movement before use.
Sam
This is for increasing realism? Nice.
Personally, I don't feel the need for this update, but for those who do, it might be an idea to have a "prepare for gearshift" button assigned. What this would do, when pressed, is move the driver's hand to the gearstick ready for a shift. This effectively gets rid of the lag problem, but we do still have the issue of predicting H-pattern movements. However, as the only gearsticks in the car interiors that are really finished are the sequential GTRs, maybe we needn't worry just yet.
Sam
Very original.
As far as the actual suggestion goes - yeah, I've thought of this myself before, but that last thing I'd do is ask for the readouts we get in LFS to be as appalling as the ones usually used in real life! The one thing that puts me off digital speedos (apart from being decidedly old-school in my thinking on car mechanics) is the fact that they're always ten steps behind. Annoys the hell out of me, and, for that matter, everyone else I can think of.
Formula 1 shows us it's perfectly possible to have a decent digital speedo, so let's just happily assume that's what we've put in our GTRs too. Let's face it, we're hardly going to be throwing out an analogue speedo to replace it with a clunky, laggy digital road-car one, are we?
Sam
As far as the actual suggestion goes - yeah, I've thought of this myself before, but that last thing I'd do is ask for the readouts we get in LFS to be as appalling as the ones usually used in real life! The one thing that puts me off digital speedos (apart from being decidedly old-school in my thinking on car mechanics) is the fact that they're always ten steps behind. Annoys the hell out of me, and, for that matter, everyone else I can think of.
Formula 1 shows us it's perfectly possible to have a decent digital speedo, so let's just happily assume that's what we've put in our GTRs too. Let's face it, we're hardly going to be throwing out an analogue speedo to replace it with a clunky, laggy digital road-car one, are we?
Sam
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG