Quote from SamH :

Yep, "under review" means that a report is assigned to an admin, or is being passed between admins.

I can imagine a situation where a report towards the end of a long race is constantly thrown from one admin to the next

But, even though I haven't reported anyone recently, thanks for keeping us informed - I won't press the button unless it's something really serious now, to give you guys a chance to catch up

Sam

I'm in agreement with Duke on this one.

Windspeed always used to be measured in knots, and I have still seen it quoted in knots for flying and gliding (where everything else is always knots anyway), but far more common here these days is miles per hour, and everywhere else seems to use metres per second. Perhaps I've not been paying much attention to European things, but I don't think I've seen it quoted in kilometres per hour. Making the default the most common one, which does seem to be m/s, seems about right.

Although having it as a choice could cause a few inconveniences as far as talking about it is concerned, seeing as we're only told the windspeed once in the whole race, and so quick conversions would be tricky.

I reckon the reason ScaViEr has given us very inspecific wind settings is that it's a bloody inspecific thing in the real world, and that's at the best of times. At least our wind doesn't change every five minutes. But more than that, if we had easy-to-tweak wind levels, rigging up a high wind ideal for fast laps would be a bit too simple.

Sam

As far as I know, 'Under Review' means the report in question has been assigned to an admin and is awaiting review from that admin. So, I guess you've both had reports assigned to the same admin, and that admin has a bit of a backlog going on. I remember having a couple of Under Reviews for a week or so too.

Doesn't sound like an error in the system, anyway.

Sam

I think he was referring more to the rest of the post, I have no idea what the hell he's on about either!

Quote :

have it blue for water

Not that helpful if you have cold tyres

The issue would be that you already have an indicator on that part of the tyres, what if you have wet and dirty tyres? Could get a bit hard to distinguish what's what.

Sam

You know what, I was thinking exactly the same thing, because doing it at Blackwood came into my mind first. It'd be fun on the start-finish 'straight' there!

Sam

Actually, single-seater drivers often do wave other cars through if the situation arises, but this is because they don't have indicators to convey messages. If you're in a tintop, use your indicators to show your intentions to the guy behind you, but I do think a waving animation for single-seaters only would be nice.

And you could press left and right together for a victory celebration too

Sam

Last edited by Dark Elite, Mon 7 Jan 2008, 17:57.

You know, I was thinking exactly the same thing.

In fact, he sounds like a speedhacker asking for a full-on ban, but that's just a matter of opinion.

Sam

Sam

No, nothing is actually final, but there is definitely that prospect. I think the proposal was actually for P2 cars to be closed as well, but how likely that is I'm not sure. Probably not very, although the P1 plans seem pretty certain.

Something that could have saved a lot of thread space...

Quote from OP :

either im dumb or im blind but i cant actually see Le Man Car in that list

Quote from Suggested Improvements Log :

... Prototypes

The latter. A Le Mans car, in your view, means a Le Mans Prototype, often abbreviated to LMP. And that's on the list under 'hard to judge general opinion'.

Sam

CTRA's X-System does indeed have an automatic fuel calculator which uses both online fuel use databases and, I think, the CTRA's own database, for every track and car on the system.

So, inSim it is, then

Sam

This also has the issue of popular skin packs needing to be in the racer's own LFSW skin upload folder if they want to use them online, apart from the team skin problems.

There's a really easy way around this... Change the name of the skin you want to upload

Sam

Quote from R. Kolz :

This is post 1 of this thread.
Scawen included the FXR ( FXO GTR ). The WIKI posts are obviously outdated or most of us must have misunderstood Scawens very first post.

My immediate thought about that is that Scawen doesn't want the FXR to be left too far behind, and so taking the 20kg of ballast out is to match up with the XRR and FZR also losing ballast - in effect, trying to keep the balance between the FXR and the other two more or less equal to how it was before.

Quote from PaulC2K :

IMO there shouldnt be a 'learner' car in any class [...] currently its a case of do you want to come last or race with people.

I do agree with you here, and personally I don't think that the fastest (although I wouldn't want to call it 'main', as a lot of people prefer TBOs) class should be burdened with a car for new drivers. Basically, it seems that the quicker drivers are having a third car taken away from them by the needs of the slower drivers. But, as I said, this does come from the main LFS website, the one not open to public editing:

Quote from http://www.lfs.net/?page=contents& :

The FXO GTR is a great car for somebody just getting used to the extra power offered by the GTR cars or for somebody who just wants to have some fun in the GTR class, but if you want wins and don't like long races you have to move to one of the rear-wheel drive GTR cars.

Whether this description outdated or not, I don't know (the statistics are), which is why Scawen filling us in on his intentions for the GTR class could save a lot of pointless debate.

Sam

Last edited by Dark Elite, Sat 29 Dec 2007, 12:18.

Quote from dougie-lampkin :

we need changes such as reduced engine size and reduced horsepower to really make a difference

We might get a smaller, higher-strung engine to lower the torque, but lower power isn't going to happen - if the power limit for the series these cars are designed around is 490bhp, all of the cars are sure as hell going to have 490bhp, or close enough to make no difference.

Quote from PaulC2K :

Infact, im comparing qualifing type laps, what the FZR & FXR *can* do, ignoring the fact that to get to 37 laps the FXR needs to bolt on harder tyres making it only slower.

Just a quick note, the FXR that was using R4/R3s in that race was obviously using 0/1 throttle and braking, which means you could probably get the car to cope with R3/R3s over 20 laps or so.

The rest of your post, particularly the scenario with the FXR/FZR race, seems quite accurate. However, it is worth bearing in mind that the FXR is not supposed to be able to compete with the FZR, or indeed the XRR, and is designed as an easier introduction to the power and speed of the GTR class, so that new GTR drivers can cope with the cars in a race situation more easily. The FXR is not meant to be as fast as the other GTRs, and so arguing over class balancing to make the FXR and FZR even is somewhat pointless. Balancing the FZR with the XRR is the point Scawen wants to get at, I think, and the gearbox is the way forward in this one.

So, has anyone run comparisons between the XRR and FZR? Unfortunately I have next to no experience in the XRR myself.

Just to back up what I've said about the FXR:

Quote from Wiki :

The FXO GTR is the easiest of the GTR cars to drive, thanks to its stable handling and four-wheel drive. Unfortunately it's also the slowest over a single lap. In the hands of a skilled driver it can usually beat most comers, but even the best FXO GTR driver can't catch a well-driven FZ50 GTR or XR GTR in a sprint race. In endurance races the playing field is leveled somewhat, as the FXO GTR is easier on its tires than the other two GTR cars and has superior fuel economy. Ultimately the FXO GTR is a great car for somebody just getting used to the extra power offered by the GTR cars or for somebody who just wants to have some fun in the GTR class, but if you want wins and don't like long races you have to move to one of the rear-wheel drive GTR cars.

Quote from Wiki :

It [The XRR] likes to eat FXO GTRs for breakfast, so watch out.

The second quote, and much of the first, can be found on the main LFS site as well as the Wiki

Sam

Last edited by Dark Elite, Fri 28 Dec 2007, 12:42.

I get the feeling that this close matching between the aerodynamics of the cars is to make balancing them a more simple task, with fewer variables.

It may change, but then again, it's a possibility that the cars were designed with a ficticious series in mind which dicates the lift/drag ratios the car should have with zero wing angle, by making the three cars use different undertrays to compensate for the differences in their bodies' aerodynamic properties - so the very close aerodynamics might be here to stay.

As for tyres on these cars, having run a 20-lap race at AS6, I found that - with my driving style - the FZR was perfectly capable of regulating an R3/R3 tyre setup to an optimum temperature while still going noticeably faster than an FXR which needed an R4/R3 configuration to keep the fronts cool enough to last the race. Having said that, the FXR was being raced by a keyboard driver, so all this really tells us is that the FZR is wearing tyres quite evenly and not at all harshly. In short, the combination of weight distribution and drive to the front is making the FXR far harder on front tyres than the FZR.

It's still debatable whether or not the lower fuel range of the FZR makes up for this - the FZR is getting through roughly 135% of the fuel the FXR does over a given distance, making the FXR's fuel range at AS6 37 laps against the FZR's 27. Personally, I reckon the FZR's fuel consumption is helping to pull it back in line with the other cars in longer races due to the increased pitstops, and in shorter ones due to the increased weight. There's a more subtle balancing method for you

Sam

Really? I've never had any trouble one-handedly adjusting settings on the straights, or even in long corners. If you're using a keyboard, it should be even easier on the straights, because you don't have force feedback pulling your car around to worry about

Sam

Not sure about this 'water' stuff, though, it sounds distinctly non-intoxicating

Sam

If you can think of a keyboard designation or wheel bind for every one of those, then let's have 'em in the game

It's an excellent resource, though, thanks for that link

Sam

Please stop spamming your own thread in a plea for attention, this will not gain you popularity or responses.

Sam

Well, quite.

Sam

I'm in agreement with JTbo, the clutch is a bit strong in most cars - particularly the LX6.

But to take a general view on the clutch thing, what controller are you using, kABLiuks? Anyway:

At least ninety per cent (72% of statistics are made up on the spur of the moment, including both of those) of LFS drivers don't have a variable clutch with which to control the car, and so their clutch input is either on or off. If you take a 'normal' road car up to 6000rpm in reality and then sidestep the clutch - which is what you're doing, without a variable clutch input - it is going to hate you for it. Just as changing gear without releasing the throttle: have you ever seen anyone do this in real life, except as a one-off mistake? That's because it has a tendancy to annihilate clutches.

Another point is that LFS is not simulating clutch wear, just clutch temperature. So if you stop, or drive easier, to let it cool down again, you're no worse off. It's not meant to simulate permanent clutch damage, just heating, and if you're trying to tell me that your clutch doesn't heat up considerably when you sidestep the pedal at full throttle, I'd like to hear what car you drive

Sam

Quote from TheBandit_92 :

I Agree with you on everything exept for the Uf1 thing. The original Daihatsu Trevis has a rev limiter. I do not own one but i have driven one. Its easy to go wrong on this, the UF1 looks so old but its actually a pretty new car.

I didn't say the UF1 shouldn't have a rev limiter, I said that it might not be able to reach its limiter

Sam

Quote from Not Sure :

so its like this then:

if the clutch slips a little all the time because of minor overheating -> more friction -> heat -> more slip

so when clutch heats beyond a certain %, it is doomed pretty much

If you drive everywhere flat-out, yes. But if you moderate the throttle so that you don't overload the clutch (or use it less often, if you don't have variable throttle control), the clutch will cool back down again.
Having experienced a few knackered clutches in my time, it seems to model what happens with an overheating or worn-out clutch pretty well.

Quote from atledreier :

I don't think that's the case. I haven't been in a car that doesn't have a rev limiter. You rarely hit it because most cars run out of breath way before you rach redline.

True: very, very few modern cars don't have rev limiters. In fact, I can't think of a road car you can buy in the UK today that doesn't have a rev limiter. You can almost always reach it in at least the first three gears, though - rev limiters are mostly set quite low these days, to avoid damage from excessive thrashing. The exceptions, I guess, are smaller-engined cars such as the Ford Ka - which didn't want to get too near its rev limiter when I tried

Plenty of older, cheaper cars don't have limiters, with an early Nineties Ford Fiesta coming to mind. Certainly all of the cars in LFS now should have rev limiters, though, and all of them... With the possible exception of the UF1... should be able to reach them.

Sam

Last edited by Dark Elite, Sun 16 Dec 2007, 11:26.

Quote :

I really hoped that the new clutch thing would provide an advantage to people with a clutch pedal, but as the clutch gets too hot after a few laps (no matter how fast you jump off the clutch or bury it), it turns out to be a hinderance, especially as you only need to come off the gas a little using the auto method in order to flip the next gear in, and the clutch heat never changes.
Not at all sure why the bar for the clutch heat is so long, once it's a 10th of the way filled, the clutch is already hot enough that gears engage slugglishly, and much more than that and the clutch is apparently completely fried.
I've not tested it with all the cars, just the new one, which I would expect to have a racing clutch anyway, and therefore be pretty resistant to heat, and capable of taking much abuse. It's not like I ride the clutch at all, although after a few laps, it feels like I've been sat at traffic lights on a steep incline, riding the clutch for 5 minutes because I didn't want to use the handbrake.

You have, then, tested the clutch heating simulation solely in a car which you had never driven without it, and a car that also happens to have a very weak clutch. Not to mention a sequential gearbox, so what you're using the clutch pedal all the time for is beyond me... That doesn't seem a very fair test, and, having driven all of the cars with the clutch heating simulation, I don't think it's as inaccurate as everyone seems to be saying.

The reason the clutch temperature bar is 'long' - actually, I think it's quite short, but it needs to fit in the F9/10 menus - is that the clutch isn't simply 'working' or 'not working'. Once the bar has filled enough to be coloured red, the clutch starts slipping, and then proceeds to slip more and more easily until the bar is completely filled, at which point the clutch is completely incapable of engaging. It's a dynamic system, which runs from very little effect at the point at which the bar goes red, right up to an immobilising effect when the bar is full. If anything, the bar should be a bit bigger, so we have more idea how much heat the clutch can deal with before it starts to let go.

Sam

Quote from PaulC2K :

Personally i find some of the enforced changes in the name of realism pathetic while its considered acceptable for people to play the game using a mouse or keyboard... thats realistic. You cant have a H shifter in your XRR, but you can drive around using Q,A < & > no problem. Some things you just wonder what the harm is in leaving them in there.

The big thing you're missing here (although I do support the view, in principle, that keyboard/mouse drivers are undermining the realism of the game, as are non-FFB wheel users) is cost. It doesn't cost anything to us for the developers to make the game as realistic as they can, but it does cost money for racers to have 'wheels. The developers can't force us to pay for realistic controllers, but they can make the game as close to true racing as possible for those who do want to pay for 'wheels.
Making the game unusable without a 'wheel would remove a huge amount of people coming into S2. I for one bought my DFP purely because of LFS, but there's not a chance I would have done so if I couldn't have tried the game out first, and nor would I have bought it without being able to try S2 first. The 'issue' of keyboard/mouse drivers does seem, I'm afraid, unsolveable.

Quote from MaximUK :

If you look at AS National public races you will find 70%+ of the field (and usually more) will be FXR's. Even though the FZR, when driven well, is clearly faster. In league races I am sure the mix is very different where the drivers tend to be more interested in outright speed compared to ease of driving.

I am not sure you can ever address this so if you balance, or at least close their lap times towards each other, public races will probably become 90%+ FXR. If you give the RWD an advantage enough to see them used more in public races, league races will become all FZR.

Before we can really balance them we would need to agree on what type of races we were trying to achieve the balance in. I don't think we could ever get agreement on this. Won't it will come down to making the imbalances within tolerable margins more than any real balance. In my mind the goal is to make sure you never see one car dominate the grid.

I'm in agreement with this. Over a longer race (in X10), the FZR seems to be used very little, because it punishes mistakes more than an FXR or, to an extent, XRR would. I think it being rear-engined, and thus inherently more dangerous to drive than the other GTRs, does make up for its extra speed. Yes, it can be used in a hotlap scenario, by a mediocre driver, to get better laps than a fast FXR driver - but that's not to say the average FZR driver could get that laptime over and over again.

As I see it, the FXR (in X10) is slower because it is easier and more forgiving, and the XRR is slower than the FZR because it is more manageable. Both of the latter are quicker than the FXR because both are a lot harder to drive consistently. This sort of setup seemed to reward those who took the time to learn the FZR fully, while allowing less experienced drivers to run alongside them in FXRs. Now, with the FZR's handicaps, there's the possibility of those FXR drivers being able to beat more practiced FZR drivers, which doesn't seem to be the way it should work.

Actually, if any class balancing is to be done in GTR from X10, I reckon it should be making the XRR slightly faster. It's a lot harder to drive than the FXR, but doesn't seem to be sufficiently quicker to make up for it.

And now I wait to be contradicted

Sam

Quote :

To be honest I'd rather drive an overweight (or less powerful engine) FZR with sequential gearbox (with ignition cut) than the H-gate with no extra weight. The FZR is now much trickier to drive than the other 2 GTR:s, and the reward as I see it is too low.

For endurance racing the FZR is going to be a bitch, as the other two are nearly fool-proof, when you drive normally.

I agree entirely... I have to say having the FZR running a different gearbox to keep a class balanced seems to defeat the point somewhat - as it's clearly not in the same class any more. It would be interesting to have a poll and see how the numbers of people preferring weight balancing to gearbox crippling, but I'm pretty sure most people prefer the weight option.

Having an H-pattern gearbox in the FZR feels so unrealistic that I will probably resort to setting it to automatically clutch itself, which is a pity. A car like that would be extremely unlikely to use an H-pattern, and in the same class as sequential dogboxes? Much as I don't like to criticise, one must in the pursuit of perfection, and this just feels wrong.

The odds just seem stacked against the FZR now - lower rev limiter, slower gearbox, and to top it off the turbo lag in the other two is vastly reduced too.

Sam

Last edited by Dark Elite, Mon 10 Dec 2007, 21:27.