I agree that there are numerous advantage to driving with the mouse, faster counter steering because of the lack of ffb is just one, but again, that's nothing impossible with the wheel, just harder.
However, there's also numerous disadvantages as well. Just the fact that you can't modulate your acceleration and braking is an immense problem. That means that you need a set that has less braking potential in race if you don't want to kill your tires by flat spotting them. Also, the fact that you can't modulate your acceleration does prove annoying in certain turns.
Yesterday, my bro and I were doing some laps on SO long with the lx6. We both hadn't driven the car or the track for a long time, and I'm using mouse while he's with a wheel. What became apparent to me is that I had quite a good advantage in certain parts of the circuit because they're very bumpy, and having no force feedback, correcting the car was way easier than it was with a wheel. However, in the very narrow corners, and at the end of the long straights, with a wheel is was possible to brake later and possibly take the corners a bit faster, all due to the lack of modulation of the mouse.
However, there's also numerous disadvantages as well. Just the fact that you can't modulate your acceleration and braking is an immense problem. That means that you need a set that has less braking potential in race if you don't want to kill your tires by flat spotting them. Also, the fact that you can't modulate your acceleration does prove annoying in certain turns.
Yesterday, my bro and I were doing some laps on SO long with the lx6. We both hadn't driven the car or the track for a long time, and I'm using mouse while he's with a wheel. What became apparent to me is that I had quite a good advantage in certain parts of the circuit because they're very bumpy, and having no force feedback, correcting the car was way easier than it was with a wheel. However, in the very narrow corners, and at the end of the long straights, with a wheel is was possible to brake later and possibly take the corners a bit faster, all due to the lack of modulation of the mouse.
I've been using the mouse as controller in LFS for years now. At first, I just didn't have the money to buy a wheel, but now, I've tried my bro's wheel a few times and I just don't want to go through all the learning when changing controller. I'm doing resonably well with the mouse, so I don't intend on changing any time soon 
Rfactor is the example that comes to my kind, and NFS4 would have been hit with the same thing had it been solely based on online gaming.
Mind you, there's nothing bad about good mods that don't look any worse than the officials meshes, it's just that the proportion of good stuff would be very very low, thus making the game totally awful. Besides, you have to remember that to connect on a server X that would be fitted with Y mods, you'd need all the said mods - exactly all of them - else you'd get an OOS.
Mind you, there's nothing bad about good mods that don't look any worse than the officials meshes, it's just that the proportion of good stuff would be very very low, thus making the game totally awful. Besides, you have to remember that to connect on a server X that would be fitted with Y mods, you'd need all the said mods - exactly all of them - else you'd get an OOS.
You know, there are also about 500+ empty servers that aren't cruise, and no one's complaining. Who cares? Does it make your game slower? No. Does it make it longer to load the list? No, because they're empty anyway.
Honestly, TL: DR for the whole thread, but I believe GT5 will be worth playing just for the graphics, and the physics will probably be good enough to be enjoyable. For instance, the behavior of the car will probably not be THAT bad to be considered unrealistic, probably, just as in GT4, way too unpronounced.
I've just checked the GT5 Screenshots, though, and I must say they're really amazing. Anybody still considering LFS to be even close to that is delirious, to say the least ><
I've just checked the GT5 Screenshots, though, and I must say they're really amazing. Anybody still considering LFS to be even close to that is delirious, to say the least ><
I think they real issue here isn't that "too many cooks spoils the broth", but that it's the way Scavier want to work. I mean, they're only 3, you won't make me believe that a team of, say, 10 programmers, would be counter productive.
What you need to start to see big problems arise must be somewhere like 150, where there's so many people that individual opinion becomes worthless, and they're more or less following what a small group of people decide.
I think when people participating in the creation start to say "omg, we're working on what will be a shit product", you've got a problem. I mean, look at the games out there, some are so terrible; it's impossible that everybody working on it thought it was a masterpiece. However, with 10 people or so, everybody can bring his own ideas, and most importantly comment the 9 other's ideas without it becoming a huge mess (like a forum is).
I really do believe you need a comma after that "yet"! Besides, the rest of the sentence seems flawed. That said, I probably shouldn't taunt the post machine like that
What you need to start to see big problems arise must be somewhere like 150, where there's so many people that individual opinion becomes worthless, and they're more or less following what a small group of people decide.
I think when people participating in the creation start to say "omg, we're working on what will be a shit product", you've got a problem. I mean, look at the games out there, some are so terrible; it's impossible that everybody working on it thought it was a masterpiece. However, with 10 people or so, everybody can bring his own ideas, and most importantly comment the 9 other's ideas without it becoming a huge mess (like a forum is).
I really do believe you need a comma after that "yet"! Besides, the rest of the sentence seems flawed. That said, I probably shouldn't taunt the post machine like that
I dunno about others, but I skin in 2048, then I switch to 1024 because lfsworld asks me to do it. The only reason I skin in 2048, tho, is for me to have my own skins in higher resolution, because... well that's the important bit, I really couldn't be bothered to have that guy's car 50 yards away in higher-awesome resolution...
The problem is that up to a certain point, it all comes together. Fixing the red and white barriers is not something you do in itself; it requires the collision system to be fixed, which requires the damage modelling system to be fixed as well. Both of these are probably enourmous amounts of work for both Scawen and Eric.
However, I do agree that the stuff that makes a simulation "not really a true simulation", like that kind of bugs, stuff that is just way out of reality, should weight a lot in the "to-do list" of the devs...
However, I do agree that the stuff that makes a simulation "not really a true simulation", like that kind of bugs, stuff that is just way out of reality, should weight a lot in the "to-do list" of the devs...
Oh, yes, I don't expect him to put out nearly as much work as 20 person would. The fact is though that plenty of people who work as 3D modelers and related matters agree in saying that Eric is particularity slow. Speak to RMachucaA about it, he'll tell you he's like 10 times faster than Eric. -.0
And of COURSE my statement is exagerated, that's the purpose of it.
I was thinking... Isn't the copyright technically copyrighted to Nicolas Grignon? I mean... he's the one that has designed that logo, technically he's the owner, he's only permitted the devs to use it... (?).
I have mostly lost interest in LFS. Usually, it'll keep me interested for a few weeks until I get bored again and switch games. I do that all the time, maybe because I haven't bought any brand new fresh titles in a while.
I know that we're always going over and over the same things again. We all know what doesn't work in this game. We basically all agree that while the graphics in LFS are good enough for the game to be enjoyable, they aren't good enough for it to attract new customers. We all know that Eric lives in slow motion to the rest of us and should have finished doing dashboards by 2056. We all know that redundant errors of the past (notably colision system, etc) have been pissing us off for too long.
However, there's something I'd like to bring up, if it hasn't been yet. Considering that Scawen works alone on programming, he can only go so fast. That said, with this forum, it's easy to gauge how people are getting pissed off between each patch. Usually, people cheers when there's a new patch, do that for a couple of weeks, get pissed after a few months, and "demand a new patch or they'll quit" after another few months. Scawen working alone, I have a feeling that, up to a certain point, he has to release unfinished content to calm down people in here.
The reason why I bring up this point is this. Yesterday, I tried for the first time the A.I. (that shows much about how important I think it is). It was on KYGP, driving XRRs. So I go out of the pits... I brake... and BAM, the AIs crash into me just as if I wouldn't have been there. Now, that's what I called pretty damn unfinished. That makes me think: "Why on earth has Scawen released such a thing? It's flawed, and not even worthy of playing with it, not as if we'd have used A.I. in the first place, but still!" Maybe... it's not possible to finish the A.I. before there's a new collision system implanted? If so, why on earth did Scawen work on the A.I., a function that basically NOBODY EVER USES over a new collision system, a function that basically is problematic in EVERY RACE EVER?
I can understand that Scawen works the way he wants, and that he's working on something when he feels like it, but that kind of decision, working on something that nobody ever uses for a few months while he could have been doing other productive stuff is leading LFS no where. I think it's generally agreed that LFS will never attract as much people as a pure arcade racing game, then why on earth sabotage your own efforts by making - sorry - stupid decisions?
I know that we're always going over and over the same things again. We all know what doesn't work in this game. We basically all agree that while the graphics in LFS are good enough for the game to be enjoyable, they aren't good enough for it to attract new customers. We all know that Eric lives in slow motion to the rest of us and should have finished doing dashboards by 2056. We all know that redundant errors of the past (notably colision system, etc) have been pissing us off for too long.
However, there's something I'd like to bring up, if it hasn't been yet. Considering that Scawen works alone on programming, he can only go so fast. That said, with this forum, it's easy to gauge how people are getting pissed off between each patch. Usually, people cheers when there's a new patch, do that for a couple of weeks, get pissed after a few months, and "demand a new patch or they'll quit" after another few months. Scawen working alone, I have a feeling that, up to a certain point, he has to release unfinished content to calm down people in here.
The reason why I bring up this point is this. Yesterday, I tried for the first time the A.I. (that shows much about how important I think it is). It was on KYGP, driving XRRs. So I go out of the pits... I brake... and BAM, the AIs crash into me just as if I wouldn't have been there. Now, that's what I called pretty damn unfinished. That makes me think: "Why on earth has Scawen released such a thing? It's flawed, and not even worthy of playing with it, not as if we'd have used A.I. in the first place, but still!" Maybe... it's not possible to finish the A.I. before there's a new collision system implanted? If so, why on earth did Scawen work on the A.I., a function that basically NOBODY EVER USES over a new collision system, a function that basically is problematic in EVERY RACE EVER?
I can understand that Scawen works the way he wants, and that he's working on something when he feels like it, but that kind of decision, working on something that nobody ever uses for a few months while he could have been doing other productive stuff is leading LFS no where. I think it's generally agreed that LFS will never attract as much people as a pure arcade racing game, then why on earth sabotage your own efforts by making - sorry - stupid decisions?
I really don't like the "rankings" this thread seems to build around what people are doing with LFS. The fact is; insim is versatile. This versatility allows people to create differente style of driving, cruising included.
I'd say my cruising/racing ratio is about 80%/20%. Does that make me a "loser"? Does that make me a bad driver? A guy who just likes to go slow and likes having the rewards coming the easy way? Not really. That just means that I prefer the style of play I get from a cruising server, not that I dislike pure racing, I also do that on CTRA servers, just not as much as cruising, because I get rather quickly bored of pure racing.
The reason why there are so many cruise servers and why they're so busy is that people like the extra fun they can get from a cruise server; different goals/quests, etc. It's like a game in a game. I personally enjoy a spot of pure racing from time to time, but else I feel that cruising (at a fast speed, mind you - this non-sense about people following limit speeds on cruising servers is untrue) brings more fun into my life than else.
Now, that'll probably make people just tell me "zomg, just go find another game", but I won't, because I like LFS, because despite it's numerous lacks I still get fun from it, whether it be in a form that the elitists "lfsispureracingsimulatoralltheothersfailllllzommmggg!11" don't like or not.
That's the kind of comment I'm talking about. Now. This is a game. The goal of a GAME is to have FUN. In what exactly is cruising more silly than racing? Technically, both won't give you anything else than fun. Yes, congratulations, you've won a race! So? Is that really any better than escaping the cops on a cruising server? It's in no way different. D'you think it takes more "skillz"? No, it doesn't. Both can be easy, both can be hard. Both are rewarding up to a certain point; that point being where the fun becomes something useful, and that's no where present in any game which only goal is to bring FUN.
And "For kids who can't drive a real car yet"... You know, I could do the same comparision with people racing on LFS saying that you're just people who can't drive around a track in real life so they do it on a computer game. It's exactly the same thing; it's both things you could do in real life, but you do them in a game because it's much more convenient/cheap/whatever. I don't really care whether you like cruising or not, it's just the pejorative non-sense that I dislike, here.
In what pure racing is less of a waste of time than cruising? Your point just doesn't make sense! Technically, any minute you spend on this game is a waste of time, whatever you do. Whether it'd be cruising, racing, drifting, or what not. But you know what? It's not wasted, because it's fun, that's the point.
So, to get back to the title of this topic, NO, LFS is no longer a pure racing simulation, it's a driving simulation, which includes different styles of driving, with the customizing help of insim. Does that really matter? No; in fact, it's a good thing, versatility brings attracts a bigger player base. All this versatility is great, of course, but it doesn't change the fact that people, when they're reading the tests of games, look up the screenshots and see what it looks like before they really read what it's about. Most of us here agree that LFS is highly enjoyable with its current graphics, but that part of a game is probably the most important to 95% of the player base.
I'd say my cruising/racing ratio is about 80%/20%. Does that make me a "loser"? Does that make me a bad driver? A guy who just likes to go slow and likes having the rewards coming the easy way? Not really. That just means that I prefer the style of play I get from a cruising server, not that I dislike pure racing, I also do that on CTRA servers, just not as much as cruising, because I get rather quickly bored of pure racing.
The reason why there are so many cruise servers and why they're so busy is that people like the extra fun they can get from a cruise server; different goals/quests, etc. It's like a game in a game. I personally enjoy a spot of pure racing from time to time, but else I feel that cruising (at a fast speed, mind you - this non-sense about people following limit speeds on cruising servers is untrue) brings more fun into my life than else.
Now, that'll probably make people just tell me "zomg, just go find another game", but I won't, because I like LFS, because despite it's numerous lacks I still get fun from it, whether it be in a form that the elitists "lfsispureracingsimulatoralltheothersfailllllzommmggg!11" don't like or not.
That's the kind of comment I'm talking about. Now. This is a game. The goal of a GAME is to have FUN. In what exactly is cruising more silly than racing? Technically, both won't give you anything else than fun. Yes, congratulations, you've won a race! So? Is that really any better than escaping the cops on a cruising server? It's in no way different. D'you think it takes more "skillz"? No, it doesn't. Both can be easy, both can be hard. Both are rewarding up to a certain point; that point being where the fun becomes something useful, and that's no where present in any game which only goal is to bring FUN.
And "For kids who can't drive a real car yet"... You know, I could do the same comparision with people racing on LFS saying that you're just people who can't drive around a track in real life so they do it on a computer game. It's exactly the same thing; it's both things you could do in real life, but you do them in a game because it's much more convenient/cheap/whatever. I don't really care whether you like cruising or not, it's just the pejorative non-sense that I dislike, here.
In what pure racing is less of a waste of time than cruising? Your point just doesn't make sense! Technically, any minute you spend on this game is a waste of time, whatever you do. Whether it'd be cruising, racing, drifting, or what not. But you know what? It's not wasted, because it's fun, that's the point.
So, to get back to the title of this topic, NO, LFS is no longer a pure racing simulation, it's a driving simulation, which includes different styles of driving, with the customizing help of insim. Does that really matter? No; in fact, it's a good thing, versatility brings attracts a bigger player base. All this versatility is great, of course, but it doesn't change the fact that people, when they're reading the tests of games, look up the screenshots and see what it looks like before they really read what it's about. Most of us here agree that LFS is highly enjoyable with its current graphics, but that part of a game is probably the most important to 95% of the player base.
Last edited by boosterfire, .
No. Because it's called a "demo", which means the developers put anything they see fit in it, and that the goal of it is to make people buy the game. Now that the XRT isn't in the demo anymore, people that want to "driftzorzlollol" will have to buy the game, hence the commercial success of the demo.
Be happy that it's not limited on time or otherwise.
Be happy that it's not limited on time or otherwise.
tbh, I've been using mouse (and keyboard of course) for the past 4 years, and I don't have any problems using this new clutch thingy. I've also tried my brother's wheel a few times and it would take so long to be accustomed that I'll probably just stick with mouse forever
What about adding those little annoying things that greatly lack to LFS? Say, bolts on the wheels?
"How hard can it be?"
"How hard can it be?"
Here's an update to the skin I had previously made, but which I found lacking a bit of stuff on it
You could also been worried that your wheels come off because of the lack of bolt on all cars.
Go figure; which feature you want to fix first?
The one that sucks but that nobody cares about anyway?
Or the one that sucks and that everybody would like to see improved?
Clearly, fixing AI isn't needed.
p.s. I wonder when you guys will start to get bored of waiting.
The one that sucks but that nobody cares about anyway?
Or the one that sucks and that everybody would like to see improved?
Clearly, fixing AI isn't needed.
p.s. I wonder when you guys will start to get bored of waiting.
You'd be surprised, KY GP is one of the best tracks out there
Sound issues with Wireless Headphones
Hi, here's my question. I have wireless headphones that are connected to the USB port on the back of my computer. I play quite a lot of games and surf the internet a lot, and I usually have no problem concerning sound quality - glitches, breaking up sound, etc.
In LFS, however, it seems that the sound breaks up a lot. It seems to be totally inconsistent. The only reason why this could happen, I think, is because of the engine sound, which is pretty much the only kind of sound that is linear and constant. I suspect, however, that it could be something else.
Any ideas?
In LFS, however, it seems that the sound breaks up a lot. It seems to be totally inconsistent. The only reason why this could happen, I think, is because of the engine sound, which is pretty much the only kind of sound that is linear and constant. I suspect, however, that it could be something else.
Any ideas?
Yep, I agree that even I often overlook the very good points about LFS. Just the fact that they're three and don't release crap. I mean, look at other games; big teams, big stuff, they release a patch, it's most likely going to bug (hai Blizzard), and when it bugs, it's an exception caught. In LFS? I've been on LFS for 4 years now and I've never EVER had it crash for no apparent reason. All the bugs that are fixed in each patch, I never see them! As for me, LFS is a completely bug-free game.
On the flip side, there's the communication that suffers from coming from such a small team, they seem to barely have the time (I hope) to give us much information about coming up updates, apart of a few, almost bi-yearly huge announcement and subsequent update. I, however, think that it's a problem common to every game that is developed on a regular - semi-regular basis.
Another interesting point is the fact that unlike other games, indeed ALL other games, the main goal of LFS isn't to make money, it's to make LFS. That has a lot to do with the fact that they're taking their time, and probably a lot to do with the fact that it's so bug-free. Scawen really has been releasing a product that, even if it's lacking a few features, is in whole very playable, and I have a lot of fun playing on CTRA servers. Which, by the way brings the point that InSim is quite incredible. It doesn't give programmers too much loose, as they can't edit what could be considered the core of the game - graphics, main idea, etc - but still give them enough loose to make pretty much awesome things. CTRA is just incredible, I can't stand playing on any other servers now that CTRA is there!
On the flip side, there's the communication that suffers from coming from such a small team, they seem to barely have the time (I hope) to give us much information about coming up updates, apart of a few, almost bi-yearly huge announcement and subsequent update. I, however, think that it's a problem common to every game that is developed on a regular - semi-regular basis.
Another interesting point is the fact that unlike other games, indeed ALL other games, the main goal of LFS isn't to make money, it's to make LFS. That has a lot to do with the fact that they're taking their time, and probably a lot to do with the fact that it's so bug-free. Scawen really has been releasing a product that, even if it's lacking a few features, is in whole very playable, and I have a lot of fun playing on CTRA servers. Which, by the way brings the point that InSim is quite incredible. It doesn't give programmers too much loose, as they can't edit what could be considered the core of the game - graphics, main idea, etc - but still give them enough loose to make pretty much awesome things. CTRA is just incredible, I can't stand playing on any other servers now that CTRA is there!
We're not really talking about state of the art. State of the art is the new stuff coming in using Dx10. LFS is using, what... DX7? 8, maybe? Most definitely not 9.
I agree that it's a simulation and that physics are important, but simulation implies the following: "A program that imitates a physical process or object by causing a computer to respond mathematically to data and changing conditions as though it were the process or object itself."
What it seems a few people think is that LFS should be 99% physics and would be glad to have 1995 graphics along with it. The physical process implied in a simulation isn't only the physics, it's the whole thing, and this is why I can't agree that LFS is what all the fanbois pretend it is. Graphics are as important as the physics. So are the sounds, so are every little part that makes racing what it is. Some are more obvious than others, let's say physics, graphics and sound are the most important things that come with a racing simulation. I don't see how it's good for the game to say: "Well, the physics are good, the graphics aren't, but it's OK, because it's a simulation".
Imagine a second that those games that got awesome graphics but crappy physics were simulations. At the moment, nobody complains that the physics suck because they're arcade games, they're intended to be that way, but what if somebody came up with a fantastically good looking game with poor physics, claiming it to be a simulation (Hmmm... GT4)? Fanbois would say that everything is fine, but I think we agree that 100% of the LFS community - the simulation racer - knows that GT4 is FAR from reality concerning physics. They don't care, because people still buy their game, but I got news for you, people buy games for what they look like before what they feel like. The first impression is really important, and even if people read that LFS is realistic, the reason they don't buy it as much as other games is because it doesn't look as good. If LFS was one of the best looking games out there, with the physics it had, it's pretty damn sure that more people would buy it.
I agree that it's a simulation and that physics are important, but simulation implies the following: "A program that imitates a physical process or object by causing a computer to respond mathematically to data and changing conditions as though it were the process or object itself."
What it seems a few people think is that LFS should be 99% physics and would be glad to have 1995 graphics along with it. The physical process implied in a simulation isn't only the physics, it's the whole thing, and this is why I can't agree that LFS is what all the fanbois pretend it is. Graphics are as important as the physics. So are the sounds, so are every little part that makes racing what it is. Some are more obvious than others, let's say physics, graphics and sound are the most important things that come with a racing simulation. I don't see how it's good for the game to say: "Well, the physics are good, the graphics aren't, but it's OK, because it's a simulation".
Imagine a second that those games that got awesome graphics but crappy physics were simulations. At the moment, nobody complains that the physics suck because they're arcade games, they're intended to be that way, but what if somebody came up with a fantastically good looking game with poor physics, claiming it to be a simulation (Hmmm... GT4)? Fanbois would say that everything is fine, but I think we agree that 100% of the LFS community - the simulation racer - knows that GT4 is FAR from reality concerning physics. They don't care, because people still buy their game, but I got news for you, people buy games for what they look like before what they feel like. The first impression is really important, and even if people read that LFS is realistic, the reason they don't buy it as much as other games is because it doesn't look as good. If LFS was one of the best looking games out there, with the physics it had, it's pretty damn sure that more people would buy it.
/raises hand...
Sorry to interfere in this fanboi meeting, but I'm kind of... interested. Nothing can be changed to make LFS graphics better, this is what you're saying? Or you're saying that there's just a few details that should be changed and it'll be perfect? You guys are acting like beginning of the 20th century scientists, when they thought almost everything had been discovered and that only a few details were still to find to make science compelte. It's weird, usually fanbois said that they didn't care about graphics although they did agree they're not the best, far from it.
It's a complete other type of game, I know, but just take a look at Crysis, or even Assassin's Creed, and tell me that those game are "lolbloom" and that LFS graphics are better, seriously just do that without laughing; good luck. I agree that there's a difference between reality and games applying the "lolbloom" thing, but saying that LFS graphics are close to reality is just delirious. A person right in his mind just can't say that they are, please go back to the "I don't care" thing.
Sorry to interfere in this fanboi meeting, but I'm kind of... interested. Nothing can be changed to make LFS graphics better, this is what you're saying? Or you're saying that there's just a few details that should be changed and it'll be perfect? You guys are acting like beginning of the 20th century scientists, when they thought almost everything had been discovered and that only a few details were still to find to make science compelte. It's weird, usually fanbois said that they didn't care about graphics although they did agree they're not the best, far from it.
It's a complete other type of game, I know, but just take a look at Crysis, or even Assassin's Creed, and tell me that those game are "lolbloom" and that LFS graphics are better, seriously just do that without laughing; good luck. I agree that there's a difference between reality and games applying the "lolbloom" thing, but saying that LFS graphics are close to reality is just delirious. A person right in his mind just can't say that they are, please go back to the "I don't care" thing.
Hmm, this is quite awkward, but who should I believe?
The guy who's actually driven the thing and knows how it should feel, or the bunch of guys who are really convinced that he doesn't know anything about racing - despite being one of the best in the world - and are really convinced he's wrong?
The guy who's actually driven the thing and knows how it should feel, or the bunch of guys who are really convinced that he doesn't know anything about racing - despite being one of the best in the world - and are really convinced he's wrong?
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG