Quote from Bean0 :

Voila...

Very nice, thanks!

Quote from PaulC2K :

Part of the reason they're 'identical' in their stats is probably down to the fact that the class would be based on a series set of rules, they'd have tight restrictions on every important aspect of the cars design.

Well, as I said in my post, I can buy that for weight/power. But there is no way cars with such different bodywork generate the same L/D. All of them generate 0 lift with the body (huh?) and 3000N drag @ 100 m/s. In reality, FZR would likely create the most lift--so it would require more agressive wing settings to compensate with added downforce, increasing drag and slowing it down. XRR looks like it would generate most drag, but least lift.

Not to mention that a series enforcing identical lift/drag ratios (which is pretty ridiculous), should just enforce a single chassis and be done. Even F1 (which is very strictly regulated) has cars with diff. aero, despite having tons of restrictions on wing width, height, position, etc. I understand that it's probably a temporary measure by Scavier to balance cars while the physics is WIP, but that's the thing -- it doesn't balance anything There are threads complaining about FZR since what, 2005?

All I'm saying is there are a lot of subtle ways to balance cars, except for bhp/ton, but sadly we don't see it. Which is sad, since our physics probably allows for much more.

I like the new format a lot. Thanks Victor

The balance is weird to say the least. Aside from the identical horsepower and weight (which one could argue comes from the GT class rules in LFS-land), the GTRs also generate exactly equal downforce and drag, and F/R downforce distribution is also within half a percent. There are a lot of variables to play with to make the cars "balanced" (e.g. FZR could have less high-speed stability), but we don't see much of it. I also don't see how mastering the XRR is easier than FZR . Don't turbo cars require more attention in general since you have to keep the boost pressure high? IMHO FZR is not THAT much harder. Keep in mind that I'm a noob and drive on the level of "quick" AI in patch Y.

As for FZR complaints, why not just cut down its power and torque? Especially torque, even race-spec 3.9 L flat-6 in Daytona prototypes does not develop 500 Nm, more like 430.

Can't believe some people don't know about tearing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_sync

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_tearing

Tearing occurs when video card frames are higher than monitor frames, which will happen in LFS 90% of time (when there aren't many cars on screen). It's incredibly annoying when it happens.

To the OP: LFS has a "maximum FPS" option. Try setting it to 58 and disabling vsync -- some LCDs actually glitch a bit with vsync on.

Quote from Shotglass :

honest oppinion ? the day the devs decide to go down that slippery slope of in game adds and selling emails ill abandon the game and feel ashamed for all the times i recommended this sim to anyone

+1

Quote from Anathema :

The Signalauto Skyline is now out for public use.
Merry X-Mas!

Hotness! TY

Thanks! I just did a 1:17:5x with this set after 3 mins (previously, I got stable 1:19). Gives me hope that I can get into the low 16s - high 15s (gamepad, no wheel ) Good advice on the braking points as well -- I was playing too safe before.

+1 to everybody. This is probably the first thread where everyone agrees

Quote from Gunn :

What people have been trying to say is that in a race car (especially these days with the HANS device around your neck and helmet on your head), it is hard to turn your head much at all. The 90 degree view would be difficult if not impossible to achieve.

Really? See the file I attached. The head is turned more than 45 degrees, probably closer to 60. Coupled with the eye motion, that should give FOV of over 100 degrees, even taking the helmet into account.

Quote :

Furthermore, in an open-wheeler car the view can be further restricted by the cockpit.

Then let the cockpit geometry obscure part of view.

Quote :

However the current spout of complaints make little sense (in most cases) since 90 degree view is still available.
Pushing the two buttons takes only a fraction of a second. While some people use controllers that makes this more difficult, such controllers are ill-suited to LFS in the first place and require some compromise anyway.

Pushing 2 buttons where one suffices is a pain in the ass and bad design. Creating artificial hardships and annoyances does not lead to more realism.

Quote :

The new system solves a very old and annoying problem of not being able to use the side mirrors properly. The 45 degree view is useful in all cars and the 90 degree view still exists too. The rear view has gone and that's no big deal (though I used to use it regularly for a quick peek behind after looking left or right) and will hardly be missed.

I always use the virtual mirror, so I don't need to check the side ones that often. When I look to the side, I actually need to look to the side -- fast -- and I don't need the multiple buttons bullshit. That's why people ask for an OPTION to be put in. If you prefer the 45-90 mode, fine. I'd rather have 75-100, or maybe even try 90-45.

Strangely enough, I have an impression that X30 has more grip. Or maybe all the cars became easier to drive FZR is the only car I managed to spin out, even FO8 is behaving amazingly well. Also, my laptimes are 0.5 sec faster, even though I only use the default setups in X30 versus setupfield ones before. Mind you, I am still bad

And I like the new blackwood very much. GUI changes suck ass though.

^ I like it a lot. Thanks!

Quote from ajp71 :

The FOX is a Tatus Formula Renault, the FO8 a Lola F3000. Even the models, let alone the physics are pretty much identical I'm sure you could narrow it down to an exact chassis year if you wanted to they're that close.

Thanks!

Huh? I wasn't suggesting anything, I was asking. FOX could be "roughly based" on FRenault, or it could be a very close (unlicensed) copy. For all we know, FOX might be 7% a lap faster than FRenault, or it could be 5% slower -- then, miraculously, it ends up in the same class as FBM.

EDIT: Nevermind, read earlier in the thread.

Last edited by Ahriman4891, Mon 10 Dec 2007, 01:37.

Well exactly how close is the FOX to the real-life Formula Renault? FOX could be a bit slower, which would put it in the same class as FBM

Quote from The Very End :

I`ll gues Scawen is sitting with some cookies and a glass of milk, laughing his ass off of all these speculation on this forum

In a real-life Formula BMW, no less!

Quote from DasKlee :

Started as a joke - so don't take it too seriously, but here's my version of S3

PROTOTYPES! HELL YES! Nice track selection as well.

Quote from Primoz :

Was there a new type of gearboxes developed? Never heard of a manuel. Only heard of some guys named Emanuel.

Never heard of Juan Manuel Fangio? Shame, shame... on this forum, of all places

In most cockpit views the dashboard is too small, which is not realistic at all. I have a 20" monitor, and it's still not that comfortable to use, so I use the overlay GUI in all cases (I like sitting far from the screen). Plus, the wheel obstructs the view of the dashboard. IRL, you can move/tilt your head a bit and more importantly, rotate your eyes. In the game, camera vector is fixed.

Quote from tristancliffe :

anything other than the cockpit is a waste, and should be removed completely from LFS ASAP.

When those flexible LCDs become widespread and everyone has a hemisphere screen around their head, I will subscribe to your words. As for now, I usually use the custom view which is roughly the same as cockpit view, but adjusted a bit for lack of peripheral vision. The GUI is already in the game, I'm just suggesting to improve its usability a bit.

Last edited by Ahriman4891, Fri 9 Nov 2007, 15:51.

I searched and did not find anything similar. I was wondering if it's possible to add dark backgrounds to GUI elements, to make them more readable? E.g. I only glance at the speedo occasionally, and that's precisely why I don't want to squint to discern what's going on. The tire temperature indicators already have it, so why not add them to speedo and tach? I don't think it should be hard to do, either. See the screen and note the readability difference (yes, I realize it's a very half-assed photoshop job):

I actually like sliding However, I play with a pad (for now), which probably makes it easier to recover. Occasionally I just do a 360 deg. spin and continue forward :spin: And obviously I'm very very far from "mastering" the MRT. I'd like more Formula SAE cars in LFS, though -- they must be relatively easy to license (probably free as well) and we would have an actual class with real cars.

I really like the MRT -- it's not overwhelmingly powerful, so it's recoverable from most mistakes. However, it's so light that I unlearned curb riding really quickly I think due to its low weight, it's the car that forces you to drive in the most realistic manner with current physics.

Not sure if it was suggested before, but what about mid-1980s style F1 car? Average aerodynamics, turbocharger, ~1000 bhp? (I just watched 1985 Dutch Grand Prix, that's where the crazy idea comes from.)

Quote from z3r0c00l :

We don't have a truly mid-engined car.

Lastly, there's the potential for it to look incredible. I know looks are not everything, but, if they didn't have some input, there wouldn't be any point in making the fz5 look as nice as it does. Nor would PGR4 sell as much as it does if it was using ugly cars, naff braketurn physics aside.

Agreed with both points. I think a truly exotic-looking, mouth-watering car would benefit LFS. BTW, what about a "civil" hypercar and its race-spec version? (think Enzo and FXX). The former could be 550-650 bhp with (optional?) traction control, while the latter is a 650-800 bhp version without driving aids. Harder to master, but faster. They could even be AWD and RWD, just like Lamborghini Murcielago street vs. R-GT versions.

While we are at it, can the limit on texture/setup name length be removed or at least increased?