depth of field is one of the biggest things lacking in most pc graphics - adding it via photoshop is a pretty massive change

Quote from BWX232 :

also- don't put words in my mouth.. I never said anything about hating any race sim. I just said they each have their strong points and weak points.

Fair enough - sorry, I didn't need to be harsh. I did think it was pretty damn funny posting that heavily chopped pic though...

Quote from BWX232 :

not very much PS in that pic.. the game looks basically like that w/o the blurring of the background.

as a bigoted one eyed lfs-disliker, surely you should leave it to *others* to make a fool of your points...?

Quote from z3r0c00l :

I can't find dyno charts for the same car with the VTEC enabled, disabled and normal, plus disabled and always in the wild cam profile. I don't think a conclusion about this is possible untill we find them!

don't you think if more power was possible simply by leaving it in wild cam mode, all the vtec boyz would be disabling the system?

Quote from z3r0c00l :

I have one of those highstrung two stroke motorcycles, and I HATE IT! It's horrible to ride. so yes, you're right there!

If you had VTEC "kicked in" 100% of the time, you'd have more power low down.

Didn't you say yours had a powervalve?? powervalved 2 strokes are the best bike engines around! my ktm380 lifts the front wheel with the engine on the verge of stalling lol.

When folk talk about vtec kicking in, they mean the wild cam profile - worse power down low.

rubbish! powervalves dont make the engine rev higher, they do exactly the same as vtec - allow the engine to be useable down low while tuned for higher peak power. pre powervalve highly strung 2 strokes are pretty nasty things to ride by all reports...

Zerocool - why is vtec bad for performance on the track? Other than the extra complexity? You're not going to tell me that powervalves are bad for track performance too are you?

Quote from Jamexing :

I CAN scientifically prove that cars with fat mid to high range torque tend to be faster especially on the twisty track with megabytes worth of calculations and data, but I simply used RL examples for the sake of clearity and practical context.

Fat mid to high range torque = high peak power. I agree that there is more to a car than peak power, but it's a 'reasonable' and simple indicator for a race engine, whereas a shit indicator for a street engine.

Haha Tristan I'll pay that. mmm old school rally goodness. The sound and sight of a Stratos driven in anger would have been magic... even footage of it gets the spine tingling

zerocool - I'm sure somewhere in this thread, at least once, it's been explained that vtec allows a higher state of tune with more driveability at low rpm? It does work just the same as the 2 stroke powervalve, really.

Quote from Jamexing :

Conclusion:
It's area under the power and torque curves that REALLY count, not peak power alone, in real life driving and racing applications.

man I love the way you can just wade into a thread, throw some cool car names around, and develop a scientific conclusion out of it!

If you're on a race track and never drop below 4000rpm, the area under the curve below 4000 rpm is irrelevant...

Quote from Hyperactive :

Please tell me why anything other than cockpit view is realistic because I can't make even one reason why cockpit shouldn't be the only view a racecar driver needs to drive a car in a sim?

Suppose I had a real cockpit setup here - why would it be less realistic to have my monitor setup in place of the windscreen?

Quote from Viper93 :

Blowtus: I agree with you on that you have to compromise, but peak power means nothing if you only have it there for a 1-2k RPM. To me it does not make sense to create the most power out of an engine if you can create a smooth power curve that has an even and/or smooth amount of power over many RPM's giving you much more flexability on how you drive and setup the car.

Peak power over 1-2k rpms is pretty much everything for a race car... if it drops off sharply to either side it will be nasty to drive, but it can still be driven fast. Unlike if it doesn't have that peak power in the first place, it will be easy to drive and slower.

if you're going to try it, at least do it the favour of running a half decent controller.ini

Quote from Gunn :

I've tried to show you some reasons why people prefer cockpit view, I couldn't give a toss what camera you use, it isn't about you. It isn't about me either, it's about debunking the idiotic notion that people who prefer cockpit view feel elitist or better than you in some way because you don't/won't/can't use it. I've tried to show that the reasons for using cockpit view are logical ones, it has nothing to do with who is better than who, no matter how much you want it to be that way.

If you went some way to acknowledging the rational points from both sides, you'd avoid all this business of 'people looking for fights'...
I still don't understand why the cockpit has to be on the monitor - why not surrounding the monitor? Thinking of the monitor more as a hole to look through, rather than as an exact representation of what the driver in the virtual car would see.

'I use this view because it's more realistic' would seem to be a far more elitist view than 'I use this view because I find it more realistic'

I still don't get it. Suppose I had myself a car chassis / seat / steering wheel etc, and a big screen mounted in place of the windscreen. That would seem a pretty decent setup yeah? You wouldn't want a cockpit view on that, would you?

you have managed to interpret the benefits of vvt completely backwards viper

Also - a level (or as close as possible) torque curve would make no sense, from an engine design perspective. You would be making compromises in peak torque and power to attain this 'level' goal, which would serve no real use since race engines spend the vast majority of their time at high rpm. VVT could be put to use in a race engine for more torque down low, while maintaining torque up high.

Sorry, I guess I just found stuff like "Regardless of field of view capabilities or the impossibility of simulating peripheral vision, being surrounded by a cockpit is always going to provide the more realistic immersion for a simulator." a little... arrogant? I'm more than happy for you to find your view the best - I'm a reasonably intelligent, logical, interested person, and I don't find your chosen view the best. We have a difference of opinion As far as I can see we both have logical and reasonable reasons for our selected views.

Quote from Gunn :

But cockpit view isn't about using your monitor as a windscreen. It is a view from inside the car. Thinking of the monitor as the windscreen surely won't help with immersion or simulation. When you drive your car you don't look at your windscreen, you look at the scene ahead. Your immediate environment (the cockpit) blocks your view in places making an open panorama impossible to achieve. Bumper cam provides an open panorama with no obstruction to the scene ahead.

When I drive a car I can see the scene ahead in far better detail than cockpit view allows. Selecting a view that comes closest to simulating this ability to see the world outside my car gives me the best sense of immersion. When I turn cockpit view on I feel like I'm driving a silly attempt at a simulator - when I have it off I'm much better able to focus on just driving. This is how I personally find it - for you to think you can tell me the view to use for my own best feeling of immersion is laughable.

Quote from Boris Lozac :

But you don't have your own in your room, do you? So i need a pretend one, because it feels like i am in a car..

I have a seat, steering wheel, pedals. Sure, they don't look particularly realistic, but I find the driving experience more realistic having them real and slightly funny looking, instead of looking fantastic and stuck on what I use as my windscreen...
I don't mind that others think differently - but I do think this 'troo hardkaw sim racers only use cockpit view' business is a little funny

I've even moved my monitor a little to the left so I sit in front of the right hand side of it

your own, not a pretend one stuck over the windscreen

Quote from Madman_CZ :

you drive with the bumper cam? illepall

you drive with a real and virtual cockpit? illepall

rfactor has quite an impressive feel of weight and momentum behind it that lfs sometimes lacks. Get badly out of shape and there are just situations you can't recover from, unlike LFS.
Steering feel with standard settings is utterly atrocious - with custom file fiddling it is improved, but still nowhere near as subtle as LFS.

rotary's vibrate pretty strongly at low rpm. Forget the reason - intake pulse not strong enough or some such? Dunno. When mine gets down below 1500rpm it lurches all over the joint.

I don't think there've been many half reasonable 'more content' polls that have shown that people wouldn't want more content...

I must have missed the bit where the discussion went from 'we don't have an rx7 equivalent' to stump pulling rally engies and twin turbo things...??

Quote from Jamexing :

No, the Starion is not an RX-7. It's F/R, but that's as far as similarities go. As for torque, a 13A isn't really a 4G63. The 4G63 is about beautifully smooth and wide powerbands with FAT mid range torque and vey good top end. The 13A has more of a F-1 nature (revver). The FDs had sequential turbos that led to behavior even more "interesting" then the current XR GTT with its inaccurate turbo modelling.

Yes, their masses, mass distributions and peak power were quite similiar, but differences in powerbands make a HUGE difference to how cars handle.

my 13bt fc pulls strongly from 2500rpm onwards... there's no hint of 'f1 nature'. feels like a similar powerband to other mild turbo cars around the 2L mark, but keeps pulling strongly right up to redline rather than dropping off.