Most broadband connections are ADSL. Asynchronous meaning the upload speed is (on average) 10% what the download is capable of. Meaning upload is about 102.4kbs not 1204kbs up. Give it some credit and got up to 140kbs uploading. at 80kbs for voice alone that is 60% of the upload speed. You're entitled to think that that is quite small, but my opinion using half the upload is considered an impact. Also considered worth it in my opinion, but that has already been said.
Happy birthday to . . . nikopoh (37)
-according to LFSForums-
-according to LFSForums-
The fact that I have people supporting personal projects is very motivating and worth smiling about for the day. Other than that not much.
Do remember that in making my own environment I would still separate the AI from the physics. Please don't think that I would allow the AI to have anything besides the "Feeling Sensor" for physics; besides the possibility of getting 'tire wear' information - for pit stop use only.
LFS does present a nice place to show things off, but it presents said challenges. I am leaning towards my own environment, except as stated -the setup time has already been a solid week and I still have a black screen. Of course it would have been a little more than a black screen if I had any idea of how I want to create a track. A flat plane is looking like a good answer, even if it is not graphically beautiful.
LFS does present a nice place to show things off, but it presents said challenges. I am leaning towards my own environment, except as stated -the setup time has already been a solid week and I still have a black screen. Of course it would have been a little more than a black screen if I had any idea of how I want to create a track. A flat plane is looking like a good answer, even if it is not graphically beautiful.
Well time for a small update, believe me when I say small.
Someone who was intrigued by this idea has been sending me PMs supporting and pushing me to do the project. I still stand between a rock and a rather hard place. I would love to do this experimental AI project with LFS for multiple reasons, a large reason being the physics and the fact that the world/environment is already created. I have spent the last several hours messing with the Virtual Joystick Program, and have successfully got a car to drive 'fairly' straight down the dragstrip. By fairly straight I mean there is some variance in the Heading of the car that I get reported through InSim. So I have currently an extremely _hacked_ condition where my car can be driven.
Is this the same from computer to computer? Who knows, is it even the same if I was to restart LFS right now? I don't know that either - I sure hope so since I just now realized I've spent 6 hours on this, I can't believe how much time went by... Anyways, even with the ability to have finally driven a car straight using this virtual controller, I am not set on using LFS as the test bed. I see many areas where the AI should know specific values; exact moment lights turn green, information about the track, tire wear, suspension damage, blown tire etc so that they can use this information to pit properly. Sure that is not entirely needed for the ability to get an AI driver going around the track, bit it is required for where I aim the experimental project to get.
---
Also there has been a lot of progress on my own 'environment' for the AI to be simulated in. The framework is 50% complete, but I've run into the issue of how I want to structure tracks, how to edit tracks etc. I have a very simple idea that is limiting; at least at first, and this will not be a graphical beauty; which I fear the worst from publicity of a non-beautiful but experimental AI project. I have been thinking that a flat plane, could represent the track, with a texture stretched over it to resemble a track; only for the humans benefit. A script file would place the reference points, which for visual representation would be shown via cones; simple and effective. This offers the ability to test a few things besides AI as well. Like for instance how it should be possible to drive by watching the cones alone;
Now with my current physics experience I am confident I can create a car that has some form of horsepower band, has a _simple_ transmission and gearing, is effected by air/rolling resistance (not downforce), and can apply the brakes. However the engine would be sub-par. If the transmission was disengaged (neutral or clutch pressed) then the engine speed would be undetermined. When it comes to turning the car, things get a bit tricky. To make a car on rails is simple and very possible; but I don't think that allows me to test my AI in situations like; driving at the limit, dealing with oversteer/understeer and other such things which are important to what I want to achieve.
---
I also looked into TORCS a bit more, downloaded it and tried it out as a player. I don't really like the physics side of things. I believe it is likely better physics than what I would end up creating in my environment, however I find most of the stuff in there very confusing. Maybe I am just over complicating things - and even if I didn't find it very confusing I do not know if I can create the AI in the experimental ways that I want to - and for that I can't tell if this would be a good test bed. Also looked into RARS more which also looks like it has lost its support a long time ago (2006).
I am really interested in this project, and hopefully more people will keep pushing me to continue with it, however I am quite stuck. I do think my best option is to suck it up and write my own environment; which would at least give my AI the information it needs instead of coming up with loads of hacky solutions, that take much longer in development and are likely to break down with the wind from a breath across the room ...
So I turn to the public, those who have been interested from the beginning; those who filled this thread with tons of great ideas, what are thoughts on a an environment that doesn't look so good, likely doesn't feel great for driving but at least achieves the AI going around tracks in the experimental methods I've come up with? Meaning I would not let the AI effect physics, or really know about the physics (besides the 'feeling sensor'). I want to do this, but I don't want to do it with all the constraints that I seem to be limited to.
Sorry for the wall of text, and thanks for supporting!
Someone who was intrigued by this idea has been sending me PMs supporting and pushing me to do the project. I still stand between a rock and a rather hard place. I would love to do this experimental AI project with LFS for multiple reasons, a large reason being the physics and the fact that the world/environment is already created. I have spent the last several hours messing with the Virtual Joystick Program, and have successfully got a car to drive 'fairly' straight down the dragstrip. By fairly straight I mean there is some variance in the Heading of the car that I get reported through InSim. So I have currently an extremely _hacked_ condition where my car can be driven.
Is this the same from computer to computer? Who knows, is it even the same if I was to restart LFS right now? I don't know that either - I sure hope so since I just now realized I've spent 6 hours on this, I can't believe how much time went by... Anyways, even with the ability to have finally driven a car straight using this virtual controller, I am not set on using LFS as the test bed. I see many areas where the AI should know specific values; exact moment lights turn green, information about the track, tire wear, suspension damage, blown tire etc so that they can use this information to pit properly. Sure that is not entirely needed for the ability to get an AI driver going around the track, bit it is required for where I aim the experimental project to get.
---
Also there has been a lot of progress on my own 'environment' for the AI to be simulated in. The framework is 50% complete, but I've run into the issue of how I want to structure tracks, how to edit tracks etc. I have a very simple idea that is limiting; at least at first, and this will not be a graphical beauty; which I fear the worst from publicity of a non-beautiful but experimental AI project. I have been thinking that a flat plane, could represent the track, with a texture stretched over it to resemble a track; only for the humans benefit. A script file would place the reference points, which for visual representation would be shown via cones; simple and effective. This offers the ability to test a few things besides AI as well. Like for instance how it should be possible to drive by watching the cones alone;
Now with my current physics experience I am confident I can create a car that has some form of horsepower band, has a _simple_ transmission and gearing, is effected by air/rolling resistance (not downforce), and can apply the brakes. However the engine would be sub-par. If the transmission was disengaged (neutral or clutch pressed) then the engine speed would be undetermined. When it comes to turning the car, things get a bit tricky. To make a car on rails is simple and very possible; but I don't think that allows me to test my AI in situations like; driving at the limit, dealing with oversteer/understeer and other such things which are important to what I want to achieve.
---
I also looked into TORCS a bit more, downloaded it and tried it out as a player. I don't really like the physics side of things. I believe it is likely better physics than what I would end up creating in my environment, however I find most of the stuff in there very confusing. Maybe I am just over complicating things - and even if I didn't find it very confusing I do not know if I can create the AI in the experimental ways that I want to - and for that I can't tell if this would be a good test bed. Also looked into RARS more which also looks like it has lost its support a long time ago (2006).
I am really interested in this project, and hopefully more people will keep pushing me to continue with it, however I am quite stuck. I do think my best option is to suck it up and write my own environment; which would at least give my AI the information it needs instead of coming up with loads of hacky solutions, that take much longer in development and are likely to break down with the wind from a breath across the room ...
So I turn to the public, those who have been interested from the beginning; those who filled this thread with tons of great ideas, what are thoughts on a an environment that doesn't look so good, likely doesn't feel great for driving but at least achieves the AI going around tracks in the experimental methods I've come up with? Meaning I would not let the AI effect physics, or really know about the physics (besides the 'feeling sensor'). I want to do this, but I don't want to do it with all the constraints that I seem to be limited to.
Sorry for the wall of text, and thanks for supporting!
I was finished with this on my last post until you started calling my responses pathetic. As I pointed out, directly where you tried pushing away the notion that increased bandwidth is any form of fact. The words you used meant you did not accept the fact for what it was and instead pushed it away like it wasn't a negative side-effect. And then you go and claim that I am putting words in your mouth; you said them.
Maybe since you've said them you've changed your mind and started thinking about the negative impact of the bandwidth (or any other facts that may be said since or still to come.
I am not instigating anything, just trying to make a point that it is important to listen to the other side when they have valid points. First you weren't letting any 'negative opinion' be heard at all; glad we moved up so you can at least read those. I hope now that you can also accept what people have to say even when it is against what you want.
Also, I did notice you said, "Your arguments as far as the server load and bandwidth go" and I also noticed you added, "are not realistic" which is where you took the argument and nullified it in your head. The fact about bandwidth; that I was making, has to do that it will use more bandwidth than LFS uses now. There is no way around that, if you have more data to send, you use more bandwidth to send it. I didn't give out numbers of how much more bandwidth, I didn't pretend it would make the game suffer I simply said 'more bandwidth'. Which is a very realistic side effect.
As I said, I was done on my last post back until you went calling my responses pathetic when it was based on what you said. This is my final post on this unless of course you want to continue that type of bashing. Whether you have learned to accept others opinions, that will be for the future to tell. But I never once put words in your mouth, 'basically' was probably the wrong word to choose, the more appropriate word would be 'is'. And regardless of the word choice there, it is not twisting your quote around, or changing the words you said.
After rereading the post you say again that it wouldn't affect LFS negatively; the simple fact of more bandwidth is the negative thing about the more bandwidth comment/fact. The comment was never made saying "more bandwidth will be used and therefore LFS will be laggy". That was not the fact,
-------------------------------------------------------
All done for now, please don't go bashing because I haven't been doing any of that to your post. I have stated that you need to open up more and listen to the other sides, but I haven't gone towards an insulting level and nor do I want to go there.
Maybe since you've said them you've changed your mind and started thinking about the negative impact of the bandwidth (or any other facts that may be said since or still to come.
I am not instigating anything, just trying to make a point that it is important to listen to the other side when they have valid points. First you weren't letting any 'negative opinion' be heard at all; glad we moved up so you can at least read those. I hope now that you can also accept what people have to say even when it is against what you want.
Also, I did notice you said, "Your arguments as far as the server load and bandwidth go" and I also noticed you added, "are not realistic" which is where you took the argument and nullified it in your head. The fact about bandwidth; that I was making, has to do that it will use more bandwidth than LFS uses now. There is no way around that, if you have more data to send, you use more bandwidth to send it. I didn't give out numbers of how much more bandwidth, I didn't pretend it would make the game suffer I simply said 'more bandwidth'. Which is a very realistic side effect.
As I said, I was done on my last post back until you went calling my responses pathetic when it was based on what you said. This is my final post on this unless of course you want to continue that type of bashing. Whether you have learned to accept others opinions, that will be for the future to tell. But I never once put words in your mouth, 'basically' was probably the wrong word to choose, the more appropriate word would be 'is'. And regardless of the word choice there, it is not twisting your quote around, or changing the words you said.
After rereading the post you say again that it wouldn't affect LFS negatively; the simple fact of more bandwidth is the negative thing about the more bandwidth comment/fact. The comment was never made saying "more bandwidth will be used and therefore LFS will be laggy". That was not the fact,
-------------------------------------------------------
All done for now, please don't go bashing because I haven't been doing any of that to your post. I have stated that you need to open up more and listen to the other sides, but I haven't gone towards an insulting level and nor do I want to go there.
Really? This is basically not accounting for the negative fact!
And there is no "teams" here, its all opinions, which doesn't help anything.
In another thread that started about development speed someone mentioned that LFS was cheap, financially, and that this is the reason the community has a lot of people complaining and people who don't give a crap. Because 'anyone' can buy it without much care. Basically the comment made was implying that by costing more, people would care more about the community and things would be better with less immaturity and other issues - at least, this is how I took the comment, I could be wrong because I only briefly looked in the thread.
I think the thread you were referring to was when a comment was made that LFS is too cheap so that just anyone can buy it without caring about what it means to do so.
I can see where that statement was coming from, there are a lot of people who don't take the simulator seriously. But I don't think it is too cheap. I wouldn't mind giving a little more to the developers if I had it; as is I pay for HQ skins more to keep contributing. Personally I feel LFS is an amazing deal - I've played it for several years and still play it, for $50usd (about what it cost me) I would say LFS is the best entertainment per dollar I have spend on about anything; that likely even includes adding my entire Sim Racing Station that I have built specifically because I play LFS...
That said, if LFS would have been more costly before I had bought the license I do not know if I would have bought the license. I now know otherwise and would be willing to pay more, but back then I do not think I would have felt the same. Not to get into another thread about development speed, but that is a huge reason why I think my entertainment value has, and will continue to rise while playing LFS because it is a constantly changing environment, not many games have that support from their developers. The few that do are generally subscription based, and I have not jumped on board with the 'lets pay $X a month to keep playing a game." LFS is likely the _only_ game I've ever played that I would even consider a monthly subscription, that said I do not wish for that, and I doubt that the developers would take the that route. Money doesn't seem to be their motivation, which I could be wrong about, but LFS has true love in the development. Sure there are other better looking things out there, and there are some other simulators competing in other regards, but nothing compares to the effort and 'feeling' that is put into the projec there.
I can see where that statement was coming from, there are a lot of people who don't take the simulator seriously. But I don't think it is too cheap. I wouldn't mind giving a little more to the developers if I had it; as is I pay for HQ skins more to keep contributing. Personally I feel LFS is an amazing deal - I've played it for several years and still play it, for $50usd (about what it cost me) I would say LFS is the best entertainment per dollar I have spend on about anything; that likely even includes adding my entire Sim Racing Station that I have built specifically because I play LFS...
That said, if LFS would have been more costly before I had bought the license I do not know if I would have bought the license. I now know otherwise and would be willing to pay more, but back then I do not think I would have felt the same. Not to get into another thread about development speed, but that is a huge reason why I think my entertainment value has, and will continue to rise while playing LFS because it is a constantly changing environment, not many games have that support from their developers. The few that do are generally subscription based, and I have not jumped on board with the 'lets pay $X a month to keep playing a game." LFS is likely the _only_ game I've ever played that I would even consider a monthly subscription, that said I do not wish for that, and I doubt that the developers would take the that route. Money doesn't seem to be their motivation, which I could be wrong about, but LFS has true love in the development. Sure there are other better looking things out there, and there are some other simulators competing in other regards, but nothing compares to the effort and 'feeling' that is put into the projec there.
Because regardless of which side of an argument someone is on they can not pretend that facts do not exist when brought up by the other side. It seems you need better 'listening' skills. You are doing great at ignoring the other side, but my point that I have been trying to make for the last 5 posts or so is that the people against voice communications have a valid point, and you can not pretend that their point is invalid, or unrealistic!
When the point was first brought up that doing this would cause more bandwidth to be used, you mentioned that that is an unrealistic argument. Which it is not unrealistic. This is a negative side-effect to putting voice communications in the game. Where I believe, and likely you and others believe, that the good overcomes this negative - we can not deny the fact that it is something that needs to be thought about.
You have no valid point in saying 90% of LFS'ers use broadband or a good connection that LFS takes < 10%. You realize it is upload limits that games have to be careful about since ISP's do not like large amounts of uploading- most networks are designed for good download speeds, but less upload speeds. Even ignoring the connection itself, pretend for a moment that everyone uses only 0.5% of their connection while playing on a loaded multiplayer server. Add VoIP and it could go up to 1.0% or it could even be well enough to be 0.050001% which is STILL MORE bandwidth.
So the argument: "this will use more bandwidth" is a 100% accurate statement, regardless of connection speed and status!
Do I think the benefits of VoIP in the game are worth the extra bandwidth, yes. But don't pretend that the fact, coming from an opposing side is 'unrealistic' or 'invalid' in any sense. Accept the fact, and listen to what others have to say vs ignoring the idea and blowing it off. Does that help explain where I am trying to come from?
When the point was first brought up that doing this would cause more bandwidth to be used, you mentioned that that is an unrealistic argument. Which it is not unrealistic. This is a negative side-effect to putting voice communications in the game. Where I believe, and likely you and others believe, that the good overcomes this negative - we can not deny the fact that it is something that needs to be thought about.
You have no valid point in saying 90% of LFS'ers use broadband or a good connection that LFS takes < 10%. You realize it is upload limits that games have to be careful about since ISP's do not like large amounts of uploading- most networks are designed for good download speeds, but less upload speeds. Even ignoring the connection itself, pretend for a moment that everyone uses only 0.5% of their connection while playing on a loaded multiplayer server. Add VoIP and it could go up to 1.0% or it could even be well enough to be 0.050001% which is STILL MORE bandwidth.
So the argument: "this will use more bandwidth" is a 100% accurate statement, regardless of connection speed and status!
Do I think the benefits of VoIP in the game are worth the extra bandwidth, yes. But don't pretend that the fact, coming from an opposing side is 'unrealistic' or 'invalid' in any sense. Accept the fact, and listen to what others have to say vs ignoring the idea and blowing it off. Does that help explain where I am trying to come from?
Making it an option doesn't change the fact that when the server is using Voice Communication that it still requires more bandwidth.
I am all for adding options for the server, and individual player for these types of things. But again whereas, Ger Roady, Nathan D. and I agree it would be convenient to have in-game VoIP - with appropriate options, we can not deny the negative impacts that will come from the addition. Even if we agree that the negative impact is 'worth-it' in our minds.
I am all for adding options for the server, and individual player for these types of things. But again whereas, Ger Roady, Nathan D. and I agree it would be convenient to have in-game VoIP - with appropriate options, we can not deny the negative impacts that will come from the addition. Even if we agree that the negative impact is 'worth-it' in our minds.
Where I agree with it should be implemented, I don't believe in pretending things are not positive or negative side-effects of something being implemented.
So the;
Needed to be straightened out, because those who use an argument that more bandwidth will be used are 100% correct, and that can be deemed as a negative impact. However, IMO, the positive outweigh the negative. The amount of extra bandwidth was never claimed to be a lot or a little.
- - - - - - - -
So, we do agree. But I will still make sure to listen to the other side as their argument "more bandwidth will be used" is an accurate statement, and needs to be taken into consideration - it is a realistic argument.
So the;
Needed to be straightened out, because those who use an argument that more bandwidth will be used are 100% correct, and that can be deemed as a negative impact. However, IMO, the positive outweigh the negative. The amount of extra bandwidth was never claimed to be a lot or a little.
- - - - - - - -
So, we do agree. But I will still make sure to listen to the other side as their argument "more bandwidth will be used" is an accurate statement, and needs to be taken into consideration - it is a realistic argument.
The argument that server bandwidth would be used for voice communications stand.
Regardless of how light LFS is compared to other games, or in comparison to itself. Adding more data to pass over the network increases bandwidth regardless of how you look at it. Will it effect LFS, likely not, but the point of the matter is it still does increase the network traffic.
So that is a valid argument that more bandwidth is required, however for me personally I don't think it would effect much and would like to see it built into LFS, though at the moment I am fine with using Ventrilo or something.
Regardless of how light LFS is compared to other games, or in comparison to itself. Adding more data to pass over the network increases bandwidth regardless of how you look at it. Will it effect LFS, likely not, but the point of the matter is it still does increase the network traffic.
So that is a valid argument that more bandwidth is required, however for me personally I don't think it would effect much and would like to see it built into LFS, though at the moment I am fine with using Ventrilo or something.
Ahaha ha ha ha. Umm, or not. At least I will be driving. You should take inspiration in my trip and do something like it but after walking 2200+ miles I think you'd say walking is now gone. (TBH I am guilty of going out for a hike since I finished mine, and I hope that I maintain this healthy habit).
Although as far as what BigTime was saying I thinking it would be loads of fun to attend an endurance race with a bunch of you guys! But I also think, like I said above that some form of event would be a good thing for this meet to start with so that there is more than just a karting day or something; due to cost and distance of traveling.
If properly implemented it would mute would have an effect on server load. Also from my understand, which can be wrong, LFS is P2P based. Sure there is some communication with the server for things like chat messages, race restart etc - but the main physics stuff is done P2P which means the server really isn't loaded that much to begin with; although like I said I could be wrong.
Your point is still valid VoIP would increase bandwidth. Just because of the 1 programming developer doesn't mean that once physics are top notched that this type of feature can't be added, so IMO that is an invalid argument, although I agree this shouldn't be high on the priority list.
Rants/Muting is a controversial topic. Of course you will have the idiots in the game fooling around for no good reason, so mute is necessary - in any VoIP system, so that isn't making this special. That said, a team radio is a realistic thing to have, including between two cars (on the same team). Sure, chit-chat is saved until after the race by almost all drivers; but there does need to draw a line between sim vs game. I am all for 100% realism in the driving department, but considering an online community, race restarts every ~5 minutes on casual servers and a few other limitations I think that chit-chat with others is acceptable and making up for other things. In a league event however I think the option should be able to turn it off completely; or even force administration team to be heard; (with non-broadcasting available so the admins can talk to driver a without interrupting the rest.)
Yea, wall of text - sorry.
Your point is still valid VoIP would increase bandwidth. Just because of the 1 programming developer doesn't mean that once physics are top notched that this type of feature can't be added, so IMO that is an invalid argument, although I agree this shouldn't be high on the priority list.
Rants/Muting is a controversial topic. Of course you will have the idiots in the game fooling around for no good reason, so mute is necessary - in any VoIP system, so that isn't making this special. That said, a team radio is a realistic thing to have, including between two cars (on the same team). Sure, chit-chat is saved until after the race by almost all drivers; but there does need to draw a line between sim vs game. I am all for 100% realism in the driving department, but considering an online community, race restarts every ~5 minutes on casual servers and a few other limitations I think that chit-chat with others is acceptable and making up for other things. In a league event however I think the option should be able to turn it off completely; or even force administration team to be heard; (with non-broadcasting available so the admins can talk to driver a without interrupting the rest.)
Yea, wall of text - sorry.
You are pretty much telling people not to post negative / disagreeing opinions.
If the developers put VoIP into LFS they need to recreate it to some degree - even if using codecs and the such.
How do you think LFS developers putting an additional feature in a _RACING SIMULATOR_ will be more optimal in bandwidth and/or cpu usage than companies that have been developing _VOICE COMMUNICATION_ software for several years, perfecting the amount of data needed to be sent as well as compression? I am not saying the LFS Developers are not capable of doing good VoN in LFS, but to beat software that has been developed specifically for that reason, I'd say unlikely since they are focusing on LFS, the racing simulator.
Where as I am for the idea, see my first post, you achieve nothing if you look at things one sided, regardless of what you believe is a good idea or not. So shoving everyone else out of the thread that disagrees with the idea of having voice-communication in LFS is very pointless. Let them give their perspective, everyone has the ability to share their opinion.
LFS would still need to take up that cpu and bandwidth that teamspeak of ventrilo or similar programs do, so that argument is nullified could even be arguable that the program dedicated to voice communications would be more advanced; using less cpu and bandwidth than something quickly added to the game.
Don't get me wrong, I think its a great idea to have this support built in, but don't pretend it would take less CPU or bandwidth when it _could_ take more.
Don't get me wrong, I think its a great idea to have this support built in, but don't pretend it would take less CPU or bandwidth when it _could_ take more.
Okay, I have finished my submission to the project.
I now have a program that can read in a simple script. Whenever a player wants to change the name of their AI without changing 400 file names, just update a small script, and let your computer do the work for you; renaming 400 files in mere seconds!
Hopefully this is enjoyed by many.
I now have a program that can read in a simple script. Whenever a player wants to change the name of their AI without changing 400 file names, just update a small script, and let your computer do the work for you; renaming 400 files in mere seconds!
Hopefully this is enjoyed by many.
Yea he sent me a PM, I am currently downloading the skin pack to see if my idea is useful and possible. I was not able to do it the other day because of some limitations on my internet connection.
His point of mentioning the Indy 500 was because the thought that some people from the community go to the Indy 500, and that it would attract more people to travel to meet with a group where it is a large event, still has to do with racing; Then after the Indy 500 go rent that track for a few hours, if possible, and have a general good time.
I thought you were in New York for college? Hence; New York.
I never said it couldn't be done, but with the greater distances it is more of a challenge and the event has more challenges. It certainly is not impossible, but like the above post it needs to be well organized.
Here's two options which I used in real-life when -learning- to drive a stick. Imaging that, an American that DOES drive a standard, and won't go back to an automatic as long as I can help it.
Technique 1:
Hold brake with right foot.
Press clutch in with left foot.
Select gear, in this case first.
With right foot, while holding brake, press throttle to lift revs - takes practice; is possible.
Release brake on green light, release clutch, control wheel spin with throttle.
Technique 2:
Hold handbrake with hand (requires hand-brake duh)
Press clutch with left foot.
Select gear, again first for this scenario.
Lift the revs by using throttle with, your right foot!
Lights turn green, release handbrake and clutch - controlling wheelspin with throttle.
Technique 3:
Press brake with right foot.
Press clutch with left foot.
Find and Use the clutch 'slip zone' or 'friction zone' which ever you prefer calling it as I've heard it called many things.
Release the brake with right foot.
Hit throttle building revs - carefully monitor the 'friction zone' of the clutch so you don't move.
Lights turn green, release clutch and control wheelspin with throttle.
*Technique 3 may burn you're clutch in LFS - possible real-life as well since I would never use this while lifting revs high for a quick uphill start; though this is the 'proper method' (that I was taught) in daily driving so a clutch should be capable of handling it.
--------------------------
As for removing the Handbrake at the start of a race, I don't have an answer either way. It would need to be tried and if I remember correctly, it was the old way LFS use to behave.
Technique 1:
Hold brake with right foot.
Press clutch in with left foot.
Select gear, in this case first.
With right foot, while holding brake, press throttle to lift revs - takes practice; is possible.
Release brake on green light, release clutch, control wheel spin with throttle.
Technique 2:
Hold handbrake with hand (requires hand-brake duh)
Press clutch with left foot.
Select gear, again first for this scenario.
Lift the revs by using throttle with, your right foot!
Lights turn green, release handbrake and clutch - controlling wheelspin with throttle.
Technique 3:
Press brake with right foot.
Press clutch with left foot.
Find and Use the clutch 'slip zone' or 'friction zone' which ever you prefer calling it as I've heard it called many things.
Release the brake with right foot.
Hit throttle building revs - carefully monitor the 'friction zone' of the clutch so you don't move.
Lights turn green, release clutch and control wheelspin with throttle.
*Technique 3 may burn you're clutch in LFS - possible real-life as well since I would never use this while lifting revs high for a quick uphill start; though this is the 'proper method' (that I was taught) in daily driving so a clutch should be capable of handling it.
--------------------------
As for removing the Handbrake at the start of a race, I don't have an answer either way. It would need to be tried and if I remember correctly, it was the old way LFS use to behave.
And ESP would have solved that to the point where you wouldn't have even counter-steered for the problem - because it would have been solved before it became a problem.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG