Will we be any better at this age? :D (youtube clip)
The cars are certainly slow enough for anyone to read the text that's printed on them.. Then again they don't last more than 8 laps so your TV time might be a bit limited.. 
Afaik Todd did the physics, but doesn't ''own'' Virtual RC. Anyway, if you find the price is too high, don't buy it. If you're serious about RC, and consider the chance of practising somewhat realistically on loads of real tracks, perhaps its worth it for those folks..
an RC sim is technically ideal as in 'reality' you don't 'feel' the car or plane, as you're not in it. So compared to a 'real' driving sim with real cars, an RC sim can get a lot closer. For real racing, a PC sim might / can help, but for RC I'm sure it can be a really good training tool.
an RC sim is technically ideal as in 'reality' you don't 'feel' the car or plane, as you're not in it. So compared to a 'real' driving sim with real cars, an RC sim can get a lot closer. For real racing, a PC sim might / can help, but for RC I'm sure it can be a really good training tool.
That system is ok.. I would say you should keep that until you can really afford a new pc. The new Intels or even AMD64 chips are just a lot LOT quicker. Only with such a new CPU will it make sense to get a faster graphics card as well.
Hamilton does have luck on his side. Mclaren somehow stopped breaking down AND are quick. Kovolainen has bad luck, Renault isn't half as drivable and a lot slower as a result. It could've been the other way round. Considering the circumstances, its 'easier' to do well in a Mclaren than it is to do so in a Renault.
Lewis seems to do well, absolutely, but its deffo a lot of good fortune regarding the car this year.
Lewis seems to do well, absolutely, but its deffo a lot of good fortune regarding the car this year.
Its over the top with N2003. You'd have to be really serious about your Nastanks and ovals to buy it. 50 quid isn't extreme, I heard 200 dollar stories!
At those prices its less of a rip-off to try a 'free' version of the game. Thankfully I never got to like NASCAR, and the GTP mod has in some areas got worse physics than ISI so I wouldn't call it value for money even at normal retail prices
At those prices its less of a rip-off to try a 'free' version of the game. Thankfully I never got to like NASCAR, and the GTP mod has in some areas got worse physics than ISI so I wouldn't call it value for money even at normal retail prices
During one on board Massa lap he really seemed to be 'off'.. Shifting randomly, braking too early.. It doesn't help that I find it somewhat of an obnoxious kid though.
The problem with tyre models seems to be that there isn't a lot of correct info available. Car 'dynamics' is all pretty straightforward, Suspensions are tricky but its all forces, angles, distances..
Tyres? Most you can find is very 'basic' info on this, plus of course many of the publicly available grip vs slip curves that show lots of grip drop off. It is quite understandable that a guy making a sim physics engine will use these dubious models and data as a base.
It seems like most of the time they are copied to sims, because programmers assume the data is correct and the models accurate. In fact it just seems to be a case where books have basically copied eachother from lack of good sources instead of really delving deeply into the matter.
I'm sure pro companies like Bosch or Siemens etc have long since developed way better and complex models but they probably like to keep that to themselves, plus for 'sim use' you need a 'simple and effective' model. Industry models tend to be overcomplex, like a ~60 parameter Pacejka model, where you basically can (and will at least a few times
go badly wrong with the input unless you have the $ to actually properly test the tyres.
So I would say it is anything BUT hard to believe that most of today's racing sims have considerable flaws in them, especially when it comes to tyres. Its just a 'grey area' as far as freely available data goes.
The extend of the error is subjective. I would say any sim that can have even a hint of POWERoversteer produced by a front wheel drive 'normal' car (i.e. with tyres at the back and some weight on them) is not a small flaw. Its quite fundamental tyre behaviour.
This is where it becomes subjective. Todd said he reckoned the last LFS physics patch (quite a while a go that was) to be a huge improvement. I would say it was a small step in the right direction; I was and am still left with the general impression that some fairly fundamental things are not good enough yet. I do think that of the currently available sims, LFS does the best job, but the room for improvement is huge.
Scawen does seem aware of the shortcommings, hopefully to the extend that somewhere before S3 final we'll have a much better tyre model. That is also good compared to the ISI competition where the developers just don't really seem to care what reality is.
Currently though, I'd say all sims go wrong somewhere pretty fundamentally when held to the 'realism light'.
Tyres? Most you can find is very 'basic' info on this, plus of course many of the publicly available grip vs slip curves that show lots of grip drop off. It is quite understandable that a guy making a sim physics engine will use these dubious models and data as a base.
It seems like most of the time they are copied to sims, because programmers assume the data is correct and the models accurate. In fact it just seems to be a case where books have basically copied eachother from lack of good sources instead of really delving deeply into the matter.
I'm sure pro companies like Bosch or Siemens etc have long since developed way better and complex models but they probably like to keep that to themselves, plus for 'sim use' you need a 'simple and effective' model. Industry models tend to be overcomplex, like a ~60 parameter Pacejka model, where you basically can (and will at least a few times
go badly wrong with the input unless you have the $ to actually properly test the tyres.So I would say it is anything BUT hard to believe that most of today's racing sims have considerable flaws in them, especially when it comes to tyres. Its just a 'grey area' as far as freely available data goes.
The extend of the error is subjective. I would say any sim that can have even a hint of POWERoversteer produced by a front wheel drive 'normal' car (i.e. with tyres at the back and some weight on them) is not a small flaw. Its quite fundamental tyre behaviour.
This is where it becomes subjective. Todd said he reckoned the last LFS physics patch (quite a while a go that was) to be a huge improvement. I would say it was a small step in the right direction; I was and am still left with the general impression that some fairly fundamental things are not good enough yet. I do think that of the currently available sims, LFS does the best job, but the room for improvement is huge.
Scawen does seem aware of the shortcommings, hopefully to the extend that somewhere before S3 final we'll have a much better tyre model. That is also good compared to the ISI competition where the developers just don't really seem to care what reality is.
Currently though, I'd say all sims go wrong somewhere pretty fundamentally when held to the 'realism light'.
Good stuff!It'll cost the same anyway so why not enjoy S2 now, and S3 when that comes out, which is quite likely to be in the order of 'years', though noone knows for sure of course.. Get s2 now and S3 is likely only to cost you 12 pounds, as by then you'll have forgotten about spending 24 in April 2007.. 
True, I was aiming more at the 'many months of total dissapearing of the dev' syndrome witnessed there.
I'm pretty sure that LFS does what basically no available sim has ever done: making driving if anything slightly too easy. That is quite a feat as anything from ISI and also the GTP mod for N2003* have at least got some tyre data from another planet, most likely connected to a physics engine with some dodgy aspects..
LFS also has its dodgy aspects, but at least it feeds fairly ok data into its engine. It is a long way off, imo, but I really respect it because at least Scawen seems to have found / used / thought up something that is closer to real tyres than just about any other thing we can drive. So for being so brave I respect it. I don't consider LFS to be very realistic, but I consider the 'rest' to be considerably worse.
The step that has still to be made in order for sims to get really really good is pretty large; if a company like iRacing really does pull it off, it can really leave the rest behind at considerable distance.
But I recall even N2003 wasn't as good as it could be. I remember when first racing it a tiny bit, Grant Reeve (papy dev at the time) said he was by far the fastest on road tracks but 'they' refused to alter the differential to something more realistic etc.. Even the most professional guys can and probably will make some wrong decisions.
Scawen deserves a lot of praise as he's been at it for so many years, showing no sign of giving up, and (slowly but surely) improves the realism. You can't say that for most 'small dev teams' (Nkpro, Drivers Republic for example..)
*I don't know about N2003 nascars, didn't really drive em..
LFS also has its dodgy aspects, but at least it feeds fairly ok data into its engine. It is a long way off, imo, but I really respect it because at least Scawen seems to have found / used / thought up something that is closer to real tyres than just about any other thing we can drive. So for being so brave I respect it. I don't consider LFS to be very realistic, but I consider the 'rest' to be considerably worse.
The step that has still to be made in order for sims to get really really good is pretty large; if a company like iRacing really does pull it off, it can really leave the rest behind at considerable distance.
But I recall even N2003 wasn't as good as it could be. I remember when first racing it a tiny bit, Grant Reeve (papy dev at the time) said he was by far the fastest on road tracks but 'they' refused to alter the differential to something more realistic etc.. Even the most professional guys can and probably will make some wrong decisions.
Scawen deserves a lot of praise as he's been at it for so many years, showing no sign of giving up, and (slowly but surely) improves the realism. You can't say that for most 'small dev teams' (Nkpro, Drivers Republic for example..)
*I don't know about N2003 nascars, didn't really drive em..
I'm sorry but in 2007 you can't expect any sort of game to run on a sub 2ghz pc, especially when powered by a 3D card that was midrange when it was introduced somewhere in 2000.
The fact that LFS works at all is testimony to how hardware friendly LFS is. But even then you need a 2ghz cpu with something as basic as a Geforce 4 ti 4200 which was a midrange card mid 2002...
The fact that LFS works at all is testimony to how hardware friendly LFS is. But even then you need a 2ghz cpu with something as basic as a Geforce 4 ti 4200 which was a midrange card mid 2002...
I vote for Doom2 having a high dynamic range.. Last night I played it just like I did on the 486 over a decade ago: Lights off, monitor slightly less bright.. headphones.. That is some scary sh!t! Mostly very dark but some lit areas appear pretty bright then.. What a cool game it still is!
Mostly very dark but some lit areas appear pretty bright then.. What a cool game it still is!Entertaining read..
I find HDR, even when it is actually applied in some way (i.e. unlike you can do to LFS) a bit odd.
One way to actually increase the 'range' would be to play games in a pitch dark room with the image being darkish to make normal light situations comfortable to the eye.. Then 100% white will be a lot more intense to the eyes than it is in normal room light.
I'd say HDR tries to simulate / achief things that it really never can do properly.
I find HDR, even when it is actually applied in some way (i.e. unlike you can do to LFS
) a bit odd.One way to actually increase the 'range' would be to play games in a pitch dark room with the image being darkish to make normal light situations comfortable to the eye.. Then 100% white will be a lot more intense to the eyes than it is in normal room light.
I'd say HDR tries to simulate / achief things that it really never can do properly.
Thanks for the update, the quality of this 'alpha' easily betters 99% of the '1.0' releases in the software world.
I hope Scawen is carefull with the physics update, and considers a different way of 'bumps' than simply getting rid of the SPLINE system..
Good luck with the further developments!
I hope Scawen is carefull with the physics update, and considers a different way of 'bumps' than simply getting rid of the SPLINE system..
Good luck with the further developments!
is it just with LFS or with other race sims as well..
Cases on the floor, with a cat in the room.. yeah thats asking for trouble. The fans should still work very efficiently even at the lowest speed switch, the case is 'over cooled' if anything.
If you can put the case on.. perhaps a drawer cupboard, even if its only 30cm high, it will reduce dust buildup by half probably..
I don't use dust filters because it hinders the fan efficiency so much that the result is:
- higher fan speed
- is MORE dust... (contradicts the use of a filter)
- more noise..
- dust is nasty and will get in the case sooner or later anyway..
Apart from training the cat how to clean the pc, you're probably stuck doing it yourself.. I don't do that more often than once per month though. PC's can take quite a bit of dust unless you're really on the thermal limit.
If you can put the case on.. perhaps a drawer cupboard, even if its only 30cm high, it will reduce dust buildup by half probably..
I don't use dust filters because it hinders the fan efficiency so much that the result is:
- higher fan speed
- is MORE dust... (contradicts the use of a filter)
- more noise..
- dust is nasty and will get in the case sooner or later anyway..
Apart from training the cat how to clean the pc, you're probably stuck doing it yourself..
I don't do that more often than once per month though. PC's can take quite a bit of dust unless you're really on the thermal limit.True Becky, I'm a little scared as too many games tend to go 'hmm need bumps.. hmm polygons!'.. I hope Scawen comes up with a better system. "turning it off" as was said made me believe that the remaining surface would be polygons..
That would be a step back! Why do sim programers seem to think that driving on "concrete slabs" is a good thing? Bumps are important in a race sim but imo its 5x better to NOT use bumps and use a smooth SPline road than driving on the polygons.
What happened to "If something's worth doing its worth doing properly"? Driving the polygons is much much further removed from a real road surface than splined smoothness.
to some extend yes, but Far Cry at highest details 1600x1200 is a 'fairly modern' game, running at higher framerates than TDU does in 640x480. TDU is more shader intensive but the performance seems just not optimized.
I just saw the trailer of the movie they're making.. I much rather see the actors and producers get hurt than this car. What a load of bollocks coming out of Hollywood these days!
I did laugh at his comments though
I did laugh at his comments though
The tyres in the drift mod are bad.. they peak laterally somewhere between 30 and 50 degrees (!!!!) depending on the load on the tyre.
question 0 would also be, what is your processor type and speed?
For each very dumb and scary man there seems to be an equaly scary woman out there, probably in the woods...
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG