cf Wikipedia edit wars, etc.

Quote from Boris Lozac :

Have they ditched the Catch-up system in GT5p? At least in online races?
I remember driving GT4 with my friends in split screen, no matter how much you loose someone, he's always there behind you.. it did get a while until we noticed that's it's the Catch-up system used in many arcade games, way to go for a "Real" driving simulator..

I'd forgot about that.. That's one of the top few absolute worst features of GT games, by far.

Quote from March Hare :

So let me get this straight.

You want Eric to drop everything and make a long runway instead of the new interiors, a new track, updated old tracks, a new car or something or other?

Who said anything about Eric dropping what he's doing to do this, rather than doing it whenever his schedule allows it? If you had this straight, you'd have understood that making such a long runway is about as simple as making the quarter mile track we have now.

A big airstrip autocross track would be a lot of fun, regardless of whether you like to drift, autocross, race like on Top Gear's track, or just push cars as fast as they'll go along the long runway.
With an infinite (except for some subtle motion effect from the surrounding mountains) track set in the country side like the Utah salt flats, you'd need just the mountain backdrop, a nice salt lake texture, some nice-ish salt dust effects, and viola!

Quote from STROBE :

-1

No, we don't need top speed courses, huge long runways, or anything else similar. What are you going to do with it once you've maxed each car? And how many minutes of entertainment will that provide in exchange for the hours spent building the environment (time that could be spent building proper tracks & environments)?

Better question is "how much entertainment versus the few hours it takes to build such a track?"

+1 for me. It's a minor addition but by virtue of its simplicity, it's worth adding... Personaly, I'd like a salt flats track, not just a straight line of tarmac.
Both would be really cool: one extra large autocross area with rough ground to imitate a large airfield, and an infinite area like the Utah salt flats.. Both would have unique environments. The first could be very green like the Top Gear airstrip, the second would be like the salt flats which is like nothing in LFS so far.
http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=salt%20flats&w=all

I'd take your word for it, but so far all I hear from people who've played games like LFS and do at least a bit of racing with real cars is that GT5 is still sub-par physics-wise.

There's no good reason not to have some better physics in the GT games. All they'd have to do is dumb it down in arcade mode. The mode with the best physics would be more fun than the crappy physics in e.g. GT4. GT4 was actualy worse than GT3 on sim tires. Why they did that is probably the same reasoning that would have made them again neglect physics in GT5 (if they did).

All that money and they still put out bad physics.. There's no excuse for that, not when there's an option for arcade physics in the game.
I guess I'll have to try it myself.

"whatever" is the difference between immersion and tonka toy suspension of disbelief.

Spyshag when I picked up GT4, I expected the physics to have had as much improvement as the graphics. "Real driving simulator" and all.
Instead, it was like playing Mario Kart with nice graphics. By your analogy, it's like choosing between a date with a nice chick and one that's head of the chastity club. Thumbs down to Polyphony for raking in so much cash and still putting out crappy physics.

Huge opening post.... There's only one thing to discuss: the physics. Do they still suck?

Quote from tristancliffe :

Of course it's coded. Just input a diesely torque curve and there you go. But I hope one isn't put in LFS. Let real life suffer the marketting drive that are diesel racing cars, and let LFS stick with proper racing fuel - gasoline

Cough nitromethane cough

Quote from ussbeethoven :

But patch X30 shows it is possible by reducing RB4's weight: it can corner harder and has the best start, but loses to XRT on long straights and burns more fuel. FXO in contrast can corner RB4-like, accelerates a bit faster out of slow corners, burns least petrol and has only slightly less top speed [1]. That's not really fair in terms of balance, for example WR laps are even nearly a second faster on AS3 which should favour XRT as a high-speed track.

[1] There are a few disadvantages, but I already explained them in my first post on the previous page.

Yes, the RB4 and XRT are now balanced enough, the FXO need only be balanced to those two. Balancing the XRT and RB4 to the FXO would probably be more complex.

Quote from danowat :

I'll make no bones about it, for various reasons I am struggling to find the motivation to "play" LFS, now I don't know if this is just a "jaded" cycle that will go away, or it's something thats running deeper, but I want to see if I can get out of the rut.

So basically, I am asking for ways that I can get "back" into LFS, because apart from a handfull of league races here and there, I haven't "played" it with any real conviction for a long time.

Or do I just bite the bullet a have a few months break from LFs to see if the motivation comes back on its own?

Just take a break... LFS'll still be around. More likely improved than not by the time you come back, too.

"à priori tu as affaire à un petit trou du cul d'Anglais qui se croit spirituel et très drôle."
Disingenuous at best..

Would Tune work for him, if he's got S1?

So people can discuss Tune.v2.

Quote from orange101 :

In the new version of live for speed the should get back the turbo car

Why?

Cost: A few seconds' worth of mouse clicks. Benefit: Guarantees no further spread of the exploit by this post.
Cost: More exploits. Benefit: Saves Snake2 the effort of clicking a few times to edit his post.
It's not a better trade-off to wait for someone to eventualy see the replay OOS, and for that someone to know what the OOS means as well as have the interest to report it.

Quote from Snake2 :

Thanks people, O and Toki it was not my intetion to give people ideas, I just thought it was a topic worth bringing up.

Edit your first post.

TVE the guy didn't even bother to look or post in the Unofficial Addons forum.

Quote from hariel-HUN- :

It looks like you don't understand what I was trying to say. So, if you don't press the throttle there is no petrol to burn. For the burning sequence the engine needs air. If air intake restriction is set, on off power the cylinders are still empty, so the air intake restriciton should not effect the engine brake, because the engine don't need any air. Now if resticiton is set, the engine brake is reduced by the ammount of the air intake restriction.

Qoute Wikipedia.org - Engine braking

When a driver downshifts to spin the engine at high angular velocity (or RPM) without pressing on the accelerator pedal, the engine converts energy from the vehicle's speed, which is kinetic energy, into a temperature increase in the fuel-air mixture. These hot gases are exhausted from the vehicle and heat is transferred from engine components to the air.

It's not really clear to me, but it looks like, the engine do not need any air whilst engine braking. But, in LFS it needs. ???

I'm just pointing out that the engine does keep running when you're off the throttle. Otherwise where does all that sound come from?
If there's fuel still being burnt, then having air restrictions would deminish fuel burn even more and thus counter engine friction even less.. Hence greater engine breaking with air restriction.

Quote from wheel4hummer :

Why does intake restriction matter if the throttle is fully closed, anyway?

The engine would be completely silent if there was no burn off throttle. So intake restrictions woudl deminish burn even more.

Less combustion = more inertia?

Quote from duke_toaster :

You need to actually simulate TC to do other cars properly, like the FZ5. All the 911s have TC, and the RB4 quite possibly would have TC if it was a real car, although it doesn't really need it.

I mean F1 TC systems specificaly.

Sounds like the only good reason to update the F1 is to not have to model TC, which is probably about as complex as all of LFS together.

I can help him and I think his coming to the website and asking for info that's right there, on the same page he saw before posting his thread is the real smart ass thing. It doesn't bother me at all, I just point it out to him in a way that is demonstrative enough that he doesn't miss the point.
So in fact I have been helpful, not just to point out his request is found easily enough, but also to point out why it's not likely to get much help at all... because he doesn't need help in the first place.

And before you do some more bleeding heart finger pointing.. I do help when it's worth it, even seemingly negligible stuff.
http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=700254#post700254

Last edited by Breizh, Thu, 7 Feb 2008 03:55.

Quote from aroX123 :

What car is the dp1?
New? xD

http://www.dpcars.net/dp1test/df.htm
Scroll down to 12/01/07.

Need someone to tell me how to type "Tweak" in the Search input field and then click "Search"! I can't figure it out on my own!
And I'm illiterate too, so someone needs to read the Tweak threads for me too.... heeelp!