Come on guys.. It's a porsche. A rear-engined flat-6, with the specific character that's made the porsche 911 type a staple of sunday B-road addicts and motorsports.. A 'front engined fz' wouldn't be an fz, not anymore than by name. It'd be more like a Maranello or something.
Short bus huh? From the start:
1) LFS has a small enough car-set that a duplicate car different only by its engine would be redundant, a waste of development resources..
2) Even more so if the engine doesn't even fit the car
3) Because the rotary is a light and compact engine, best fitting to a lightweight frame.. It doesn't have enough torque to work in the FZ setup, which would have to be really different to still have the dynamics it has (rear weight bias and throttle behavior synergy). So it would be a wasted opportunity to have a rotary in a fitting platform, rather than bootstrapped to a mismatch.
4) And there's no maintenance modeling in LFS. So oil doesn't even warrant mention.
Why not put a viper engine in the back of the FZ, just because it "can rev high, sound beautifu, and perform differently than a Inline or V" ?
On topic: A 4WD and/or turbo FZ would be fun.. But not as fun as a new model.. And where would a 4/T-FZ fit anyway? It'd be a pretty tight fit, borderline redundant. The only use worth the expense in dev resources would be to bring the FZ range (FZ5+FZT/FZ4wd) up to LX6 pace on the tracks we're it's presently left in the dust. Why not just have an altogether new car? We still don't have a big sports sedan, or muscle car, or prototype, or exotic supercar (700-800hp road legal sorta stuff), or a number of other types as listed in past threads dealing with this..
Last edited by Breizh, .
There's not much sense in putting a light and compact engine like a rotary in almost anything else. Not only would it be redundant to put it in a frame like the FZ's, it wouldn't be as fun.
An LFS rotary engine should go in a nimble roadster or pure sports car like the RX7.
The intent with this would be to not have to go back and forth between graphics editor and skin viewer. If you want something to have a specific shape or location on the skin, you open this hypothetical tool, put a few reference pixels in a few spots, and skin from there... I thought there could be an extra layer not in jpg, seen in overlay, and that saves the pixel dots you made in a 1024x1024 (or whatever you're skinning in) texture for you to then overlay over your skin.
Is that simple enough in itself to do in a separate tool? I don't have any programming experience, but I'm going to do a programming degree starting in a few months.. It's not so necessary for LFS, but another game I play has historical skins that take forever to map rivets and panel lines to. If it's feasible and the base algorithmics were non-specific enough, I'd do one for LFS too.
Hitscan placement of bullet hole (for example) textures seem pretty common in games nowadays, so I'm guessing it's feasible.... But I've had this idea ever since the first games where you could use custom skins (Viper Racing maybe). It just seems a lot more intuitive to paint straight on the car.
Is that simple enough in itself to do in a separate tool? I don't have any programming experience, but I'm going to do a programming degree starting in a few months.. It's not so necessary for LFS, but another game I play has historical skins that take forever to map rivets and panel lines to. If it's feasible and the base algorithmics were non-specific enough, I'd do one for LFS too.
Hitscan placement of bullet hole (for example) textures seem pretty common in games nowadays, so I'm guessing it's feasible.... But I've had this idea ever since the first games where you could use custom skins (Viper Racing maybe). It just seems a lot more intuitive to paint straight on the car.
Last edited by Breizh, .
Drawing in the skin viewer
How complicated would it be to write a module of sorts for the skin viewer, that'd allow you to place/erase single pixels on the skin texture?
Thanks.
Thanks.
Gezmoor
Some wreckers and cheaters will learn their mistakes and merit a license. Your scheme doesn't account for this.
It's not just reality, or we'd be modeling drag caused by bugs hitting the windshield. What we're after is the things worth modeling, in a cost effective measure.
Hearing each distinct tire's grip, as sound is supposed to substitute for real life's seat of the pants feeling, is a detail worth modeling in LFS.
Hearing each distinct tire's grip, as sound is supposed to substitute for real life's seat of the pants feeling, is a detail worth modeling in LFS.
Out of sight, out of mind
Yes Mirtsu, let's all have valuable things for free! Let's have your parents work for no monetary profit!
I don't know about noisy racecars buffering everything else to nothingness, but if we got extra tire sound volume for realism's sake, we ought to have 4/4.1 surround to differentiate each tire's feedback.
XRR if you don't know how to modulate throttle.
FZR if you don't know how to manage weight transfer.
FXR if you don't know how to control the rear end's momentum.
FZR if you don't know how to manage weight transfer.
FXR if you don't know how to control the rear end's momentum.
I don't understand how customizing your own car is strange. Most cars could have it done by just sawing around the tach perimeter, and sticking it sideways back into the hole. Even in a Veyron I'd do it, (can't recall at the moment) if the tach wasn't oriented like I wanted it to be.. I'd do it cleanly, but I'd still do it. I reckon most people would do it to their crappy little UF1 too.
Why have it only on cars with a digital speedo?
Totaly customizable is something I'd suggest, if I hadn't read Scawen say he wasn't hot about adding options for the sake of it; i.e. the simpler the better. It's probable that the alternate rotation most people will want is the redline at 1-oc.
Why have it only on cars with a digital speedo?
Totaly customizable is something I'd suggest, if I hadn't read Scawen say he wasn't hot about adding options for the sake of it; i.e. the simpler the better. It's probable that the alternate rotation most people will want is the redline at 1-oc.
It does look like that. The new temperature (and/or fuel?) symbol in the dashboard instruments showed up with the extended characters, so the other characters (RPM, etc) are likely rendered the same way.
It'd be cool to have though, we wouldn't even have to glance at the tach anymore. It could be part of the car specific 'view' options, like a "1 o-clock tachometer redline" checkbox or something.
It'd be cool to have though, we wouldn't even have to glance at the tach anymore. It could be part of the car specific 'view' options, like a "1 o-clock tachometer redline" checkbox or something.
Suggestion #90726 - custom tacho rotation
Could we have an option to flick the tachometers in the cars around a bit so that redline is at 1 oclock? It could even have the numbers not adjusted like we actualy had grabbed the tach and tilted it ourselves!
A thread debating the legalities of Scawen's development choices for LFS, right behind his last child's birth.
Classy.
Classy.
cf. Tourist Trophy considerable sales, GP500's hardcore following even years after release, SBK's success, and netbike's (or whatever it's called..) anticipated release..
Give LFS bikes the same great physics and transparent feedback as the cars have, and you'll only need to push a small snowball down the slope for it to get a lot of people's attention.
Wouldn't that make bicycles (motor or not) turn uphill when rolling across an incline?
Yeah frokki, and game controler companies will rush to make these without there being any game that requires them, nor the market demanding them.
I was.. Yeah "leaning on the rear to stop the rear locking" is pretty funny, but that's not enough to say the rear brake is rarely used.
Even by average riders
All it takes is a bit of understanding and discipline.
Anyway, I think LFS getting bikes, even with as much automation as Tourist Trophy had, with LFS' phsyics, would make for a ton of fun. It would be the best bike racing sim of all, by far. This would mean a lot of new players, whether or not they're segregated the same way any other carset (bikeset in this case) is already, by the server filtering system. This influx of players and renewed market interest in virtual bikes and bike controlers would make better bike controlers (which we don't have yet) more feasible.
It has to start somewhere.. If all it takes is one click to not see servers you don't care for (cruise/drift now, bikes then), it's really not so hard to accept, is it?
Even by average riders
All it takes is a bit of understanding and discipline.Anyway, I think LFS getting bikes, even with as much automation as Tourist Trophy had, with LFS' phsyics, would make for a ton of fun. It would be the best bike racing sim of all, by far. This would mean a lot of new players, whether or not they're segregated the same way any other carset (bikeset in this case) is already, by the server filtering system. This influx of players and renewed market interest in virtual bikes and bike controlers would make better bike controlers (which we don't have yet) more feasible.
It has to start somewhere.. If all it takes is one click to not see servers you don't care for (cruise/drift now, bikes then), it's really not so hard to accept, is it?
Last edited by Breizh, .
Just splitting hairs..
Danowat, don't wanna split hairs, but you do get to use the rear brake in fast riding. I'm a bit hosed, but off the top of my head, quite a few pro racers say they use the back brake to counter the front getting up on their way out of corners. Telling Nicky Hayden the rear brake is useless is probably not the best way to start a conversation... And we do act like Haydens in cars already, trailbraking into turns and flogging the cars in LFS for all they're worth. Maybe not as well as pro racer prodigies would, but with no restraint in using any and all control inputs as binning it in reality would entail, if we did it wrong.
I haven't ridden much, but it's not rocket science.. Maybe you need quite a lot of innate talent/experience to exploit it, but it's obvious that using the rear brake will be more useful than the front in at least a few circumstances.. E.G. I know as a kid, riding a bike down steep slopes, I'd lock up the rear if the front slipped out, so that the bike would sort of equalize both wheels into a slide, and I'd have an easier time getting back into gripping. This was on sandy tarmac, but I think it's analogous enough.
As for arguing that bikes in LFS wouldn't be true to the game's spirit, because they aren't modeled so that the player has 100% of the controls at his disposition as they would be in reality, and in a car, as we have in LFS.. It sounds more like a cop-out than a good reason to keep bikes out of the game.
Like Sinbad says, some automation wouldn't lessen the fun and realism of riding a bike (hard) in LFS, not by much more than a negligible amout. Of course, if too many things are automated, it starts feeling really synthetic and very bland, no fun at all. The real question is whether any controler on the market now, or feasible by anyone with some ingenuity and entrepreneurship, could provide an interface intuitive and transparent enough, in combination with just the right amount of automation, to make controling a bike (with some degree of automation, by clever algorithms as Tourist Trophy had, for example) as fun and realisticaly bound to the range of possible inputs in real life.
I haven't ridden much, but it's not rocket science.. Maybe you need quite a lot of innate talent/experience to exploit it, but it's obvious that using the rear brake will be more useful than the front in at least a few circumstances.. E.G. I know as a kid, riding a bike down steep slopes, I'd lock up the rear if the front slipped out, so that the bike would sort of equalize both wheels into a slide, and I'd have an easier time getting back into gripping. This was on sandy tarmac, but I think it's analogous enough.
As for arguing that bikes in LFS wouldn't be true to the game's spirit, because they aren't modeled so that the player has 100% of the controls at his disposition as they would be in reality, and in a car, as we have in LFS.. It sounds more like a cop-out than a good reason to keep bikes out of the game.
Like Sinbad says, some automation wouldn't lessen the fun and realism of riding a bike (hard) in LFS, not by much more than a negligible amout. Of course, if too many things are automated, it starts feeling really synthetic and very bland, no fun at all. The real question is whether any controler on the market now, or feasible by anyone with some ingenuity and entrepreneurship, could provide an interface intuitive and transparent enough, in combination with just the right amount of automation, to make controling a bike (with some degree of automation, by clever algorithms as Tourist Trophy had, for example) as fun and realisticaly bound to the range of possible inputs in real life.
Last edited by Breizh, .
You mean threads started by a user with a low karma rating would automaticaly have a star rating to match? You think even fools don't have moments of lucidity?
This whole thing is bogus. It doesn't matter who says what, only whether it stands up to reason or not.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG