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.

Quote from wheel4hummer :

The LS1 isn't all that big you know. I just don't see the point of a rotary engine. The LS1 is only 200lbs more, more power, more torque, better fuel economy, why are rotarys so good? They arent IMO.

I wasn't saying they were 'so good' - I was saying they have their upsides. They have their downsides too - they're shitful as a passenger car engine and at best 'marginal' in a sportscar role. For more performance oriented, or more steady load, applications, their characteristics are often pretty decent.
I don't understand how you can talk about a difference in engine weight of 'only 200lbs'. That's really a fairly signifigant mass to have both sitting higher and further forward in the engine bay.

Quote from wheel4hummer :

Rotary engines aren't really all that great. I have seen LS1 powered RX7s on the internet, and the LS1 only weighs 200lbs more. So, 200lbs more, but more HP and torque evens it out.

depends on priorities. The great benefit of the wankel is it's packaging - small and reasonably light, can be stuffed in right at the back of the engine bay, better mass distribution = better handling. There is more to building a sportscar than numbers found in a magazine...

why do other users care if a few users crack s2? Surely that should be the devs concern? Anyone enjoying the game to it's fullest has paid for it.

looked like a laugh to me

sticking a car up the outside of someone not on their race line is a great racing tactic imho. Just because you're in front doesn't mean you have full choice of the road - you just get the luxury of continuing your current line unimpeded.

I've always enjoyed it as long as the racing is good and I've driven well. Whether that leaves me in 20th or 1st I don't really mind.

Quote from z3r0c00l :

Additionally - if you want to win races, you have to be both smooth and fast, neither of which are attainable by consulting the Speedometer. Driving should be anticipated control, not reacted responses.

Depends what level of driving you are aiming to achieve. When squeezing the last bit out of the car being able to see my speed is extremely useful to me. You may be fast without doing so - I suspect there are plenty faster that do so.

fair call. Didn't happen on Aussie ones.