I suspect Scawen's set himself an impossible task.
iRacing's Dave K is a qualified engineer, with considerable financial resources, manpower and access to more real world data than anyone else in the consumer sim game. Yet all we've actually seen from him is talk in relation to a more physically based model that would deal better with extreme situations - which probably really just means over the limit driving, bumps and general non-continuities. There's probably only a handful of tyre engineers/material scientists - whatever- on Earth who have the theoretical basis and data to make a good stab at a close theoretical tyre model. That's why everyone uses data and talks of 'dark arts'.
I suspect Scawen would be better off lowering his sights, pushing out another fudged physics as best as he can manage, as everyone always has, and just tweaking it as time goes by and takes his fancy. And people accept it for what it is. They'll continue to complain about this or that aspect of it anyway. If he's really trying to get this 'right', I reckon he'll have nervous breakdown. Assuming that is, that he's not lying on a yacht not having visited the issue once in the last year. Difficult to tell though isn't it.
iRacing's Dave K is a qualified engineer, with considerable financial resources, manpower and access to more real world data than anyone else in the consumer sim game. Yet all we've actually seen from him is talk in relation to a more physically based model that would deal better with extreme situations - which probably really just means over the limit driving, bumps and general non-continuities. There's probably only a handful of tyre engineers/material scientists - whatever- on Earth who have the theoretical basis and data to make a good stab at a close theoretical tyre model. That's why everyone uses data and talks of 'dark arts'.
I suspect Scawen would be better off lowering his sights, pushing out another fudged physics as best as he can manage, as everyone always has, and just tweaking it as time goes by and takes his fancy. And people accept it for what it is. They'll continue to complain about this or that aspect of it anyway. If he's really trying to get this 'right', I reckon he'll have nervous breakdown. Assuming that is, that he's not lying on a yacht not having visited the issue once in the last year. Difficult to tell though isn't it.
Even if an update with peerless physics were released tomorrow, there'd still be the flat, featureless tracks, that for many who've tried iRacing, they won't want to go back to.
If you know you won't, in the end, pay for iRacing, then I'd seriously suggest staying well away from the free demos - it will likely ruin everything else for you. I dislike almost everything about iRacing (still) and tried it just to compare the physics, but the on-track experience of feeling connected to the road, bumps and undulations means I can't see the point of any other sim.
Scavier's decision to keep their precious little hobby to themselves and not use the goodwill and assistance available in the community to spread the workload means it hasn't, and can never keep up, and will get further behind. I wish they'd contract out some tasks. Surely it must be possible to do so without compromising control and ownership of the result?
Maybe I'm bonkers, but there's something so irritating about Scavier's stance, that I refused to pay, yet now I've subscribed to bloody iRacing! It's such a wasted opportunity, LFS. I wish they'd get their arses in gear so I could tell iRacing to f-off. But can't see it happening.
If you know you won't, in the end, pay for iRacing, then I'd seriously suggest staying well away from the free demos - it will likely ruin everything else for you. I dislike almost everything about iRacing (still) and tried it just to compare the physics, but the on-track experience of feeling connected to the road, bumps and undulations means I can't see the point of any other sim.
Scavier's decision to keep their precious little hobby to themselves and not use the goodwill and assistance available in the community to spread the workload means it hasn't, and can never keep up, and will get further behind. I wish they'd contract out some tasks. Surely it must be possible to do so without compromising control and ownership of the result?
Maybe I'm bonkers, but there's something so irritating about Scavier's stance, that I refused to pay, yet now I've subscribed to bloody iRacing! It's such a wasted opportunity, LFS. I wish they'd get their arses in gear so I could tell iRacing to f-off. But can't see it happening.
Yep, I know the right settings thanks. It's not that.
It's not the in-game force level either, which can cause clipping if its too high.
Anyone who likes iRacing FFB with a G25; which Logitech drivers are you using?
To be honest, both iRacing and LFS FFB, whilst giving pulls and snaps, give me no grip information, just a constant resistance. But there are a few posts around where people claim the more recent drivers are like this (no feel). I'm using 5.02, but I'm sure that previously LFS had more with the earlier drivers. I just want to know if it's worth rolling back, baring in mind *properly* uninstalling the things involves manually deleting files from system32 and system32/drivers...apparently.
To be honest, both iRacing and LFS FFB, whilst giving pulls and snaps, give me no grip information, just a constant resistance. But there are a few posts around where people claim the more recent drivers are like this (no feel). I'm using 5.02, but I'm sure that previously LFS had more with the earlier drivers. I just want to know if it's worth rolling back, baring in mind *properly* uninstalling the things involves manually deleting files from system32 and system32/drivers...apparently.
I've only experienced the demos of these, and nKP gave me the biggest kick and when I tried the FBM straight afterwards I thought it felt like arcade-land. But i've never done it in RL.
Surely though, LFS is too easy (manageable over the limit) - anyone could hold a drift at first attempt in the XRG, and that's not real. In fact, I don't think I've ever lost a car in LFS without meeting something that wasn't road. Everything seems too progressive without danger of snapping or getting away completely. Surely iRacing's got that aspect better?
It' s annoying that other sims seem so unsatisfactory after just a month's trial of iRacing.
Question is though: how much of this is just the bumps on tracks that give the sense of speed and immersion? After all, this is apparently what Dave Kaemmer said (from the transcript of the iRacing court case against a Nascar Racing 2003 modder):
"The question that was asked of DK was very simple, "How much of the original NR2003 code remains in the iRacing software?"
DK responded with, "I do not know exactly, but I estimate 65% is unaltered NR2003 code"
Tim R's lawyer asked, "So why do you state as little as 1% to the media and on your own site?"
DK responds with, "We tell the public and media a different number"
Tim R's lawyer asked, "Why would you do that?"
DK responds with, "We do not want our customers to know or they may not buy our product".
http://www.thepits.us/board/vi ... &t=15174&start=15
That said, the cars feel pretty good to me.
But IMO, that quote doesn't inspire confidence nor does it feel good investing in a dishonest, largely money grabbing operation.
But ISI games -dammit- feel like floating on a sheet of ice with not tyre-road contact at all after 1 month of iRacing! And the LFS's developers' precious approach to their sponsored hobby means no realistic chance of tracks of comparable quality before everything is obsolete.
rFactor2? Doubt it.
Question is though: how much of this is just the bumps on tracks that give the sense of speed and immersion? After all, this is apparently what Dave Kaemmer said (from the transcript of the iRacing court case against a Nascar Racing 2003 modder):
"The question that was asked of DK was very simple, "How much of the original NR2003 code remains in the iRacing software?"
DK responded with, "I do not know exactly, but I estimate 65% is unaltered NR2003 code"
Tim R's lawyer asked, "So why do you state as little as 1% to the media and on your own site?"
DK responds with, "We tell the public and media a different number"
Tim R's lawyer asked, "Why would you do that?"
DK responds with, "We do not want our customers to know or they may not buy our product".
http://www.thepits.us/board/vi ... &t=15174&start=15
That said, the cars feel pretty good to me.
But IMO, that quote doesn't inspire confidence nor does it feel good investing in a dishonest, largely money grabbing operation.
But ISI games -dammit- feel like floating on a sheet of ice with not tyre-road contact at all after 1 month of iRacing! And the LFS's developers' precious approach to their sponsored hobby means no realistic chance of tracks of comparable quality before everything is obsolete.
rFactor2? Doubt it.
Voted XP 32 (for all games). But am compelled to state I hate Windows for the grief it causes me and use Mac OS X for everything else conceivable. Thank you. Carry on..
Bunch of amateurs. 
"..many sims"? I thought you were basically all iRacing now?
Bonus question:
So, in not more than 3,000 words, what's wrong with LFS? Or, at least, would you say that over the limit, LFS is too easy/grippy, Iracing is in the middle, and ISI is near impossible i.e. countersteering doesn't work properly?
go on..go on..tell us what you think.
"..many sims"? I thought you were basically all iRacing now?
Bonus question:
So, in not more than 3,000 words, what's wrong with LFS?
Or, at least, would you say that over the limit, LFS is too easy/grippy, Iracing is in the middle, and ISI is near impossible i.e. countersteering doesn't work properly?go on..go on..tell us what you think.
Technically, I think you're referring to DFOV (display field of view).
The thing you alter with the software in a sim, usually called FOV, would be GFOV (geometric field of view). Which according to tons of research - some in driving sims - very much affects accurate perception of speed and distance.
Yep, actually, according to studies I've seen, the "correct" FOV is actually dependent on speed! A high FOV gives the most accurate perception of speed *at low speeds* (which would also be useful because you can see where you're turning in a tight corner!), but a low field of view is best for high speeds. They found on average, 55 deg was best at 60 mph, and 85 deg at 30 mph.
Which raises the question: why don't sims have FOV as a function of speed as an option. Would it be too wierd, or make some people projectile vomit - especially combined with Neils' contraption?
This is the kind of attitude that puts people off.
And btw, you obviously know as much about cricket as you do motor racing.
Any idiot can barge their way up the inside on a computer. In RL your a*se would soon be grass for this behaviour.
To the OP: there is some satisfaction to be gained if you're fast enough, seeing these dimwits self destruct as you reel them back in and they realise you're faster than they are. Funny how often they crash all on their own attempting to avoid the impending humiliation.
I'm doing an Open University course in basket weaving.
Are you sure he does that kinda stuff?
I may well be quick enough for the hotlaps but I'm not registered and anyway wouldn't accept a free one as there are those more deserving and no doubt needing of it. I suspect you'll get some tactically late fast entries for the hotlaps, btw. Bet they're all out there lurking and lapping. Come on noobs, fess up!
Another of my failed attempts at humour on the LFS forum.
I can't believe there's no sequential shift. Wouldn't consider buying one even though I mostly drive with H-shift.
Well, as a pointer, he definitely favours the more ostentatious.....what's the word, camp aesthetic. You definitely can't have too much pink. :lovies3d: I'd also try it out in a few races and see how it er, goes down.
Hope that helps.
Seconded. You do need to make sure though you've no unnecessary lags in your system setup with the ISI slidey-snappy physics - very important! But this mod doesn't feel like normal ISI. It's still a bit hairy, but conversely, I think LFS is probably too manageable - otherwise you wouldn't see all the infeasible curb hopping exploits and powersliding in the hottest laps (from what I can tell from BL anyway).
Don't worry Scawen, it'll never catch on. Oops!
Great news! Next LFS update is an Aboriginal language pack.
Don't understand using red buttons, because the shifter's in the way for me. From RBR (if not using paddles to shift), I decided on the top black button, which allows you to grab the console of the shifter as a physical reference and support while operating button with thumb when wrestling the wheel around tight corners. Stops you falling off your chair too.
Just tried this, and unless there's a placebo effect going on, this really is much better than the rFactorcentral version. Felt more like the front wheels were actually on tarmac rather than ice when things got hairy. It actually responded to steering inputs - ISI shock!
I still don't think they're quite right (still a bit incongruously slippery in places), but generally, car more planted, steerable and recoverable.
Tried the Caterham, and as someone said, that's very docile.
Still, that Greger Huttu seems to have adapted his ISI skills rather well to iRacing physics. And some say it's nearly as good as LFS!
The G25 isn't as fast as a real wheel. Is there an argument for *slightly* less than 900 degrees if using a realistic angle in the setup? Particularly since ISI can be a bit 'sudden'.
There's also the question of LCD "input lag".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Input_lag
There's also the question of LCD "input lag".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Input_lag
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG