That C6 you are talking about... do I need the full rFactor to try it?

So, we have different opinions here, and several valuable comments. Let me tak another example from the audiophilia world:

What do you have to measure in order to be able to recreate reality?

One argument against the variables involved is that they are really complex. Sure, some of them wieght more than others, but it is from the interaction among ALL of them that reality is modeled.

In audio they talk about waveforms, THD, DACs and such. In racing simulators about forces, centers of gravity and tyre deformation.

But are we capturing "reality"? To a point, we are just hand picking some variables and ignoring all others. We might even not know yet all the variables involved (just guessing).

Of course there are two other ways to measure if our simulation is realistic in any way, to make predictions with our model and to give it to real people and interpret what they feel.

Have anyone done this? Predictions or extensive testing with several subjects?

Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :

I'm also of the opinion that a sim should be as close to empiracally correct as possible, not necessarily to aim for a subjective "feeling" of an experience, since that will vary from person to person. Much better to aim for an objective behaviour and let your brain do the adjusting IMO. RL experience can be helpful, or it can be detrimental depending on the individual. Provided the person has the knowledge about what's happening and can correlate it with what's represented in a sim, it could be useful. But the average driver without some understanding of the physics of driving, tires, and so forth can't usually provide the best insight.

I agree with you, for a simulator "reality" is the ultimate goal. Still, I'm not sure about what you say regarding drivers and subjective sensations. Are you saying that, in a way, simulation software is like "high end audio"?

You know, there are some kind of people who like to call them selfs audiophiles who swear that they can say which equipment sound closer to real instruments. Funny thing is that every audiophile have their favorite brands, and very very often they trash every other brand around. Yes, even those who are regarded as "highest fidelity available" by other respected (self respected) audiophiles.

Wow I have learned a great deal with this thread. Thanks to all the posters.

Excuse my ignorance but what is a "falloff"? its when the tyre totally losses its grip?

Also, I do understand that representing the complex physics involved in the relation of the tyres and the road are important to talk about a more "realistic" simulation.

But still, I can think that "how does it feel" to drive a car in a simulation can be accomplished by other means. And I say this because, no matter how awful or limited is the physics simulation in rFactor, I can easily "feel" how the weight transfers with the inertia created by certain movements in certain directions. Its difficult to explain, but it "feels" right.

So, is it possible that even with a lousy simulation one can get fairly good results? (even if those results are just for the modeled car, as explained by someone).

To my hands, cars like the GTI in LFS are indeed modeled to give a realistic feeling of driving a car with such characteristics. But faster cars simply doesnt feel "right". In rFactor I have the sensation that, driving for example the F1, the simulation its "better" than the F1 in LFS. What do you all think? have you driven both?

Last edited by Bodhidharmazen, Wed 18 Jul 2007, 20:52.

Quote from BuddhaBing :

Yes, the carFactory developer (Kangaloosh) has stated that he had to kludge a few parameters to get the desired behaviour in-game - which he checks by comparing Motec telemetry generated by the car in-game against his own calculations as to how the car would behave given a set of inputs. This certainly doesn't speak well for the way that rFactor interprets/handles physical input parameters.

Has anyone done a similar thing with LFS?

Gracias Chanoman

All I can say is what I feel, and Im intrigued to see why some people feel different about the same issue. One reason that can make fans of any game to feel that other games are "wrong" is that they are simply accustomed to a particular physics engine.

As far as I can tell, the only measure of realism we can get would be making double blind tests. We should pick up people from the street, that meet some criteria (they drive a car, love races and know nothing about PCs simulations for example). Then we should take them to a place in which the computer will start either LFS or rFactor (or some other game) without the researchers knowing if the subject are driving one or the other.

Then a list of questions are answered by the subjects, regarding physics qualities like inertia, weight transfer, feedback to the wheel, continuity of trajectories, etc. etc.

For me, this would be the only way to determine which one feels more "real".

Quote from Meanie :

Well, if one is such so different from the other.
Surely one of them probably is better (as in more realistic), don't you think?
I'm not saying which one is cause i don't know, but surely one should be more realistic than the other if they're so different.

Not necessarily, both can be equally unrealistic.

Thats kind of my point with the thread. Where does "realism" begins? How can we measure it?

I dont know anything about the modeling engines behind LFS and rFactor. That said I have to tell that when you are driving rFactor it does seem to behave like it should, this is specially true when dealing with inertia and weight transfers.

Note that Im NOT saying that LFS is "inferior" in any way, just different. Driving, for example, the F1 BMW in each of them (LFS and rFactor) its a really different experience, but Im uncertain in that one of them is "definitely more realistic" than the other.

Maybe a good question would be: How can you define "more real"?

Thanks for the answers so far. Im concerned about the "realism" involved, in the sense of a physics engine giving us more of it. I do agree with Indiana Jim in the sense that a game doesnt need to offer this "realism" to be fun, but I also think that if a game is labeled as "a simulator" it should offer a fairly good depiction of reality.

That said, my question comes from this. I just bought a Momo racing wheel and Im testing the simulators I can find. So far, I have done extensive testing with LFS and Im beginning to try the rFactor.

After several laps in the two cars available in the demo I came here to the forum to see what people, in general, tought about rFactor and LFS, in regarding to their simulation qualities.

Surprisingly, for me, people is trashing rFactor, but Im not sure about which model is more "realistic". To my hands, both offer some good points and some others that still need work.

I know this forum belongs to LFS

Still, I have a question.

What makes members think that LFS physics are more accurate than the ones on, say, rFactor?

Thanks.

Quote from XCNuse :

Just so you know, you don't really need the profiler.

Just searched google, problem is, Logitech Profiler doesn't support Vista yet.
http://forums.logitech.com/log ... gaming&message.id=452
^ Official Profiler for Vista work in progress thread

Thanks, that would explain it.

Anyone else having problems with the application? Im using Vista 64, and the menu doesnt even appear. My Momo works, thats not the problem, just the Profiler.

Have anyone tested those on Vista?

Bad news, I just installed another race sim, configured my gamepad, set vista to turn off the monitor at 1 minute, and played for several without a single problem!!!

Went back to the desktop, waited a minute and the screen went off.

Started LFS, played a minute and the screen went off!!

Definitely LFS problem.

Quote from ebola :

Just to add, on my XP machine moving the wheel or pressing any buttons on the wheel (Saitek R440) does not bring the machine out of its screensaver.

So, it is not just Vista. What could it be?

Quote from SamH :

One of the problems for me with this bug, from an LFS perspective, is that it just seems so very obviously a Vista bug rather than LFS. If I move my mouse, Windows detects it and prevents the screensaver kicking in. A wheel is an input device, and logically if it moves then shouldn't Windows detect that, and block the screensaver timer?

Sam Thanks. I was not aware you are a moderator (maybe even a LFS team memeber?), anyway, your input seems correct, what makes me believe that it could be solved by the LFS team is that no other software (or game for that matter) appears to behave like that in Vista.

Today I will run some tests, I will install another simulator and will run it using my gamepad. I will report here my findings.

Quote from Roadie :

I have the same problem now as I just moved to Vista. It is VERY annoying to have your screen saver come on mid race..

Indeed!

LFS team... where are the answers?

Quote from J.B. :

Maybe try to turn off the frame rate limit in LFS to make sure it is wastes enough CPU cycles?

Im not sure it has something to do with CPU cycles, rather, I believe the problem is that Vista doesnt recognize the input of a gamepad/wheel in LFS as an activity generated by the user.

Quote from SamH :

On this basis, I've opted to treat the thread as a bug report, though I have no idea if it's within the LFS or Vista OS remit (or even Logitech/ATI/nVidia) to resolve.

Thanks SamH, yes, it is a bug. I hope its resolved soon.

Quote from Christofire :

In short, it appears that running LFS in full screen is fine, but running it windowed means the screensaver will kick in.

Not in my case, no matter if Im in a window or full screen, the game is not recognized by Vista like a program that should override the entry of screensaver or monitor off.

I have simply disabled this options, but its LFS fault without a doubt. No other program or game behaves in this way. I guess one reason is that it doesnt "install" anything.

Bob thanks for the input.

Shotglass, thats a good idea, the closest so far to actually solve the problem!

Quote from Feffe85 :

First off: Newer monitors dont have to be put in hibernation to extend life, new monitors are made to be on for a really long time..

Second: Just turn that option off, if u aint using a monitor from early 80's that is...

Thanks, but thats debatable. Some sources say that the back light will last only a few years at a decent output intensity. Why risk? Besides my Fp2001 uses about 90w while its on... why on earth shouldn't I be able to use the power settings in Windows to extend its life and save energy? Yes, if Im going to eat, to put an example, of course I turn my monitor off, but there are plenty occasions (say a phone call) in which the monitor is not used and its consuming energy. Thanks again, but that is not a solution.

Quote from Renku :

This is 27th topic of the week and 247th of the month on the same subject. Search!

27? are you sure? I FOUND EXACTLY 3:

http://www.lfsforum.net/search.php?searchid=1161703

Next time.. maybe you could be a little more helpful. Thanks.

Quote from Sazarius :

Naturally, since every other application I have runs perfectly fine under Vista, except for LFS regarding power management, it is obviously a Vista issue and cannot possibly be the way LFS is coded.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Now if there are any coders for LFS who are reading this and have some REAL input, please feel free to add and let me know if there is anything regarding this that can be done. If not, it's understood.

For Hankstar, I expected responses from people who had an actual input on the game development vis-a-vis discussions related to improvements.

I did not expect to be bashed for using power settings on my system nor for my choice of operating system. I guess the fact that I PAID for this sim means jack squat in the grand scheme of things.

I have exactly the same issue, Vista Ultimate too, and the thing is annoying. If ones setup the powermanagement to turn off the monitor is to save energy and extend the life of the monitor. And LFS is the ONLY software that does this, it is not recognized by Vista as a program that DEMANDS the computer to cancel its power management policies.

Im running it with administrative priviledges, and it i still goes black. It is a fault of LFS no matter what you say, again, because NO OTHER PROGRAM, heck NOT ANY OTHER GAME (I have tested) have this problem.

LFS should tell the OS that the input of a gamepad or wheel is as important as an entry on the keyb or mouse. THAT WOULD SOLVE THE PROBLEM.

Im running LFS on Vista Ultimate. I have disabled the screensaver but Vista keeps turning my monitor off when Im in the middle of a race. Somehow, Vista does not recognize LFS as a running program, worst, it doesnt recognize my real time interaction with it

Oh yes, "just disable the turn monitor off". NO, I refuse to change a setting that its there to preserve energy and to extend the life of my monitor.

Somebody suggested to claim administrative rights when running LFS. I did it, it does nothing.

The problem is that LFS doesn't claim its rights when running on Vista. And I hate it.