Well, let's try and get some sort of moral out of the story - happy now?
Sam
Sam
World's greatest aerodynamic theorist in the making here 
Sam
Sam
I've always been under the impression - reinforced by the naming rules of manufacturers - that a cabriolet has a folding cloth roof, whether powered or unpowered, and a coupé cabriolet has a folding metal/hard roof, always powered in my knowledge but not necessarily for the name. If someone would like to design a manually operated folding metal roof
"Convertible" is a blanket term for all cars on which the roof can be raised, lowered, or removed (partially or fully); whether manually or automatically. This comes from the ability to "convert" the car from one with a roof to one without a roof, or with a modified roof (for example a T-top).
As I understand it, that is.
Putting more of them in LFS? Only if it's coincidental, like the RAC. Going out of one's way simply to have a type of car which is mostly avoided in racing for safety reasons - the FiA have already laid out guidelines for LMP-class cars to be of closed-cockpit designs, by a year which escapes me at the moment - seems a bit pointless.
For the record, I don't think the UF1000 counts as a convertible, because the only way to remove its roof is to cut it off and replace the rear window with a rollbar... Our option in the pit menu to have the roof on or off doesn't really reflect the speed or ease with which such an operation could be done on the car in reality, it's hardly "convertible" just because we have the option to cut its roof off
Sam
"Convertible" is a blanket term for all cars on which the roof can be raised, lowered, or removed (partially or fully); whether manually or automatically. This comes from the ability to "convert" the car from one with a roof to one without a roof, or with a modified roof (for example a T-top).
As I understand it, that is.
Putting more of them in LFS? Only if it's coincidental, like the RAC. Going out of one's way simply to have a type of car which is mostly avoided in racing for safety reasons - the FiA have already laid out guidelines for LMP-class cars to be of closed-cockpit designs, by a year which escapes me at the moment - seems a bit pointless.
For the record, I don't think the UF1000 counts as a convertible, because the only way to remove its roof is to cut it off and replace the rear window with a rollbar... Our option in the pit menu to have the roof on or off doesn't really reflect the speed or ease with which such an operation could be done on the car in reality, it's hardly "convertible" just because we have the option to cut its roof off
Sam
Last edited by Dark Elite, .
And did you say that? Noooo.
More to the point, Y18 has the same physics as official-release Y.
Sam
More to the point, Y18 has the same physics as official-release Y.
Sam
It seems I'm having to say - far too often - that LFS is not a game. It is a simulator. Therefore no issues whatsoever with its realism can be dismissed because "it's not real", as the aim of LFS is to be as true to life as is possible. That's the only way in which it can achieve its aim of being a replacement for real racing for those who cannot afford or are not physically able to race in real life.
So please don't sit around saying "it doesn't matter because it's only a game".
Sam
So please don't sit around saying "it doesn't matter because it's only a game".
Sam
Should've known, I suppose, that putting this in the FAQ wouldn't stop the countless new threads asking about this, every starter thinking they're the first to notice
Sam
Sam
I did not suggest censoring posts, and will never do so - I merely stated a my belief that making such comments, particularly when they are wholly unnecessary, is unwise. Mostly because, as you say in a rather more derogatory way, the general LFS population fully supports the developing team.
If you had made such a comment about anybody, whatever position they held, when you had no idea about what work they were doing, my response would be exactly the same. Be they an employee of EA working on NFS, or in this case Eric on LFS, I don't think you're really in the right place to make an informed, accurate comment on their working attitude and relative worth.
That's all.
Sam
If you had made such a comment about anybody, whatever position they held, when you had no idea about what work they were doing, my response would be exactly the same. Be they an employee of EA working on NFS, or in this case Eric on LFS, I don't think you're really in the right place to make an informed, accurate comment on their working attitude and relative worth.
That's all.
Sam
Whilst I'm sure that one of the chief developers of the most dedicated, accurate, and commited racing simulator in the world would be very pleased to hear that you think he isn't worth having on the team, personally, I don't believe you should share such an opinion in a public forum.
Sam
Sam
The reason we have comparatively few tracks with a large number of layouts is because it takes a very long time to create a whole new environment, a whole new scenery set, and a whole new place for the physics engine to work in. By contrast, it takes far less time and effort to make variations on the same track in the same place, and so the developers have given us a lot of layout options on the tracks we have to help add variety without massively increasing workload.
Sam
Sam
The real problem, I find, is not new drivers cocking up - do this too badly too often and they're not around for long, and you can easily outpace them anyway - but experienced drivers becoming arrogant and belligerent.
I find, countless times, that the Silver drivers in Race 3 have a nicer attitude than some of the Gold or Platinum racers. This is not a generalisation against higher-licenced drivers, some of the most gentlemanly racers I know hold Platinum licences or even Titanium. What I am saying, though, is that a driver who is being particularly impatient or aggressive seems to be likely to hold a higher licence.
It's not a lack of skill, in most cases quite the reverse, but perhaps an unwillingness to remember that not everybody drives a GTR car, not everybody has done hundreds of laps of the circuit, and therefore not everybody can be as fast. I know how frustrating it is to be stuck behind someone when you know you could be cutting further up the field if they'd just get out of your way, but that doesn't give you licence to make an overly aggressive move or push them too hard and too close.
Sure, we can all make mistakes when following someone, and maybe even take them out as a result. It happens. The problem I find with some more experienced drivers is the apparent belief that because the slower driver was holding them up, it's the slower driver's fault the incident occured. This is probably fuelled by the desire for more points, as they get harder to come by and less meaningful higher up the licence tiers, but it's simply not true.
However, I can never accuse the CTRA admins of any bias due to licence status: the understanding that however many points you have, you can still do stupid things, is definitely there in the report handling process.
Just my thoughts.
Sam
I find, countless times, that the Silver drivers in Race 3 have a nicer attitude than some of the Gold or Platinum racers. This is not a generalisation against higher-licenced drivers, some of the most gentlemanly racers I know hold Platinum licences or even Titanium. What I am saying, though, is that a driver who is being particularly impatient or aggressive seems to be likely to hold a higher licence.
It's not a lack of skill, in most cases quite the reverse, but perhaps an unwillingness to remember that not everybody drives a GTR car, not everybody has done hundreds of laps of the circuit, and therefore not everybody can be as fast. I know how frustrating it is to be stuck behind someone when you know you could be cutting further up the field if they'd just get out of your way, but that doesn't give you licence to make an overly aggressive move or push them too hard and too close.
Sure, we can all make mistakes when following someone, and maybe even take them out as a result. It happens. The problem I find with some more experienced drivers is the apparent belief that because the slower driver was holding them up, it's the slower driver's fault the incident occured. This is probably fuelled by the desire for more points, as they get harder to come by and less meaningful higher up the licence tiers, but it's simply not true.
However, I can never accuse the CTRA admins of any bias due to licence status: the understanding that however many points you have, you can still do stupid things, is definitely there in the report handling process.
Just my thoughts.
Sam
^
Agreed, though, and personally I think more attention should be drawn to the note on conduct in servers on RA.com, or possibly more harsh punishments dealt to those who can't control their tempers.
It's a little more reasonable in real life, when an outburst can just happen, but when you have to actually take the time to type it out and send it, it becomes a bit more premeditated... The reason it happens more online than in reality is because you can't earn yourself a punch in the face over the Internet, whereas you might in the pit lane. I think the CTRA admins should deliver that metaphorical punch in the face where necessary
Sam
Agreed, though, and personally I think more attention should be drawn to the note on conduct in servers on RA.com, or possibly more harsh punishments dealt to those who can't control their tempers.
It's a little more reasonable in real life, when an outburst can just happen, but when you have to actually take the time to type it out and send it, it becomes a bit more premeditated... The reason it happens more online than in reality is because you can't earn yourself a punch in the face over the Internet, whereas you might in the pit lane. I think the CTRA admins should deliver that metaphorical punch in the face where necessary
Sam
Right, cheers Sam 
This really is getting quite annoying now.
Read other threads.
Read people's replies.
Think before posting.
Sam
This really is getting quite annoying now.
Read other threads.
Read people's replies.
Think before posting.
Sam
+1 for option - as Andriod says, compressing can take up valuable CPU time, as I understand it. So you might want to leave them as .BMPs when you're racing, but I agree that .PNG is by far and away the best option most of the time.
Sam
Sam
Mentioning that, Sam, it's nice to see the LRFs as Gold-plus cars now... Right after I get my Gold, you change it. Sod's law, eh?
Although I must say, I get buggerall points in the things now - second out of four class-starters, from pole position, in a perfectly clean 14 laps of Blackwood only getting me 8 points? That was annoying
Sam
Although I must say, I get buggerall points in the things now - second out of four class-starters, from pole position, in a perfectly clean 14 laps of Blackwood only getting me 8 points? That was annoying
Sam
Seems like only yesterday we were at 20,000, eh? 
Congratulations once again, guys. I don't think I need to make a speech on how brilliant you all are and how the CTRA is the best thing since and including sliced bread - you shouldn't need telling that
Next target, twenty million points? I'd better get racing
Sam
Congratulations once again, guys. I don't think I need to make a speech on how brilliant you all are and how the CTRA is the best thing since and including sliced bread - you shouldn't need telling that
Next target, twenty million points? I'd better get racing
Sam
I would suggest you do not publicly insult the work of the developers, in future.
Such a tiny team working on such a massive project needs all the support they can get, and that includes from us. I, for one, will therefore never be disappointed with any updates they can give us. Of course, I always acknowledge the fantastic work that the UKCT put in - and I hope they know that - but that does not detract from the work of the developers. Bear in mind that whilst the CTRA deals with one aspect of LFS - ie, running and tracking races in servers - a smaller team of developers is working on the whole thing.
Sam
Such a tiny team working on such a massive project needs all the support they can get, and that includes from us. I, for one, will therefore never be disappointed with any updates they can give us. Of course, I always acknowledge the fantastic work that the UKCT put in - and I hope they know that - but that does not detract from the work of the developers. Bear in mind that whilst the CTRA deals with one aspect of LFS - ie, running and tracking races in servers - a smaller team of developers is working on the whole thing.
Sam
Personally, I agree - but only if we get silly points for it
But Dru's point about people not wanting to wait around for the start of the next race still stands. I think this would have to go to poll before it was actually decided, to see if people would actually bother with it.
Sam
But Dru's point about people not wanting to wait around for the start of the next race still stands. I think this would have to go to poll before it was actually decided, to see if people would actually bother with it.
Sam
None of my setups use a locked differential, because I aim for maximum realism. Which is also why I only use a force feedback 'wheel when using my S2 licence. I treat LFS as an alternative to real-life racing, whilst my budget does not permit real-life racing, as well as a training aid.
How many experienced, high-level LFS users agree that it is a 'game' as opposed to a simulator? Not sure why I'm asking, really, because I know the answer.
What I'm thinking, in the easiest, non-technical way, is that you don't understand the objective of the LFS developers and you do not understand the purpose of LFS. There you go.
Sam
How many experienced, high-level LFS users agree that it is a 'game' as opposed to a simulator? Not sure why I'm asking, really, because I know the answer.
What I'm thinking, in the easiest, non-technical way, is that you don't understand the objective of the LFS developers and you do not understand the purpose of LFS. There you go.
Sam
Last edited by Dark Elite, .
You're not going to get far on these forums - or indeed in LFS - if you call this a 'game'. It is not. LFS is a racing simulator, and there is a world of difference.
The fact that "ROAD_SUPER" tyres are grippier than "ROAD_NORMAL" is perfectly reasonable - because we can assume that the "SUPER" tyres are softer-compound. Thus they would be faster, and that's why they're more commonly used. This, though, is something that's not defined, we're not given enough detail to actually know the mechanical difference. So we can't argue.
With the diffs, on the other hand, we know exactly what the setting change is doing, and therefore we know when it's inaccurate. Thus, we know when we're exploiting a physics issue, and because this is a simulator and not a game, we use it realistically rather than just to be as fast as we possibly can on a temporarily flawed part of the physics engine.
Sam
The fact that "ROAD_SUPER" tyres are grippier than "ROAD_NORMAL" is perfectly reasonable - because we can assume that the "SUPER" tyres are softer-compound. Thus they would be faster, and that's why they're more commonly used. This, though, is something that's not defined, we're not given enough detail to actually know the mechanical difference. So we can't argue.
With the diffs, on the other hand, we know exactly what the setting change is doing, and therefore we know when it's inaccurate. Thus, we know when we're exploiting a physics issue, and because this is a simulator and not a game, we use it realistically rather than just to be as fast as we possibly can on a temporarily flawed part of the physics engine.
Sam
Last edited by Dark Elite, .
Do you understand the meaning of 'abusing an exploit'?
If, in a simulator (like LFS), a particular setting causes an unrealistically faster result (like the locked diff does), then it is inaccurate. That setting is an exploit of the physics engine. If you choose to use that setting, you're exploiting the physics engine to produce unrealistic results in the aim of being faster.
If you wanted to do that, you could go on GT4 and get a Tommykaira to do 382mph and say it's fine. That's an extreme example, but the idea is the same.
Sam
If, in a simulator (like LFS), a particular setting causes an unrealistically faster result (like the locked diff does), then it is inaccurate. That setting is an exploit of the physics engine. If you choose to use that setting, you're exploiting the physics engine to produce unrealistic results in the aim of being faster.
If you wanted to do that, you could go on GT4 and get a Tommykaira to do 382mph and say it's fine. That's an extreme example, but the idea is the same.
Sam
Yeah, that was my immediate reaction too..
A little more seriously, this happens to me sometimes too - waiting for a minute or so, or closing and re-opening LFS, tends to do the trick. Restarting LFS probably makes no difference at all but it keeps you occupied in the time it takes for the master server to discount you, I suppose
But did this particular issue go on for longer? Because it might be someone a bit weird if it was more than a couple of minutes.
Sam
A little more seriously, this happens to me sometimes too - waiting for a minute or so, or closing and re-opening LFS, tends to do the trick. Restarting LFS probably makes no difference at all but it keeps you occupied in the time it takes for the master server to discount you, I suppose
But did this particular issue go on for longer? Because it might be someone a bit weird if it was more than a couple of minutes.
Sam
Yeah.. It used to get quite a few people, but single-seaters seem to be spreading the user base a lot wider. I never did see it full, though, or even full enough to warrant a second server.
Good point about the longer races. How about the idea of partial points for MRJ drivers in endurance races, then?
Sam
Good point about the longer races. How about the idea of partial points for MRJ drivers in endurance races, then?
Sam
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG