You can pull your way out by steering back and forth, but it takes forever.

15 year old squeakers spiking your ears like on XBox live? No thanks... It wouldn't be a worthwhile addition to the devs bandwidth expenses.

"Mostly good results" with a traceroute? What does that mean? How's the packet loss etc?

If LFS always lags, without exception, then it is more likely your computer itself that's causing it. Try using another computer (that has no spyware, or too many resource hogs or other crap) on the same internet line.

Hehe.. I guess that settles it.

The last Tweak version doesn't work for Demo players.
The version before that has tons of tweaks, which you can all find by searching in the Unofficial mods forum.
LFS version X doesn't have a Tweak made for it yet, and W never had one.

Mazda's three rotor 20B engine makes, in stock form... wait for it... no torque at all:
300HP and 300lb/ft.. Torque-less engines, indeed.

The two rotor 13B-REW can do 255HP (or about 300HP in the last production years it seems) and 195lb/ft in stock form, which is about on par with present LFS cars:

There's already cars in LFS that are pretty wheezy in the low RPM ranges, and no one is complaining about them to the point of questioning if they ought to even be in the game, e.g. the slow turbo GTRs or RAC.
Almost no one complains that the LX4 is slow because of it's high reving qualities either. It's part of its character and makes the carset less bland.

Last edited by Breizh, Mon 18 Jun 2007, 08:32.

Are the drivers installed? Is it calibrated in windows and LFS?

Sorry for the misunderstanding, the problem I'm refering to is an input lag problem.
No custom graphics used. I will have a new box to test this with soon and will report then..

Just updated to X and it is still there, still the same behavior and still the same alt-tab fix.

Other occurences:
http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=18578
http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=20728
And other players online mentionning the same problem, same fix.

Is there a flush/reload memory /command in LFS?

Some things get better as they age... but otherwise there's the LRFs, the F1 and a few others.

Disregard my post. I hadn't actually thought about it, 20kg is nothing..
Not dividing the community is a better rule of thumb than not applying class balancing for 20kg's worth of extra speed in servers not using the full TBO class.

Damned if you do...
Do licensed players really use demo servers that much anyway?

If I were a dev respecting the rule of not negotiating with whines of mass distraction terrorists, the sensible choice would be to give players what they play the game for: more speed.

He has a point, though, whiny or not. What's the use of ballasting the XRT in the Demo servers?

Quote from sinkoman :

Do you understand how many cars we already have that go unused?

That's a player-side problem. Are you saying those cars would be used more if they were nearly identical to each other?
Would a 787 LeMans racer be a garage queen, if added? Would a first gen RX7 80-HP (just making a point, not quoting exact numbers) with antique design not matched to any car class get any use? A new car's popularity would not depend solely on whether it was rotary powered.

Quote :

I'm saying that the only difference you'd see when racing a rotary against a pot in LFS is that the rotary would sound different, and the power bands and torque curves and revs and shit would be different.

Sort of like the difference between the LX4 and TBOs', or the LRFs' power bands and torque curves and revs and shit ? You mean it would make no difference to you if the cars in LFS had their engines permutated?
And supposing it doesn't, in fact, make a difference.. What's the difference to you? You're arguing for less diversity just for the sake of it.

Quote :

And on rotary Circle Jerk? Just read everything Mako and Glyph have posted...

Whooptie doo.. Passionate motorsports enthusiasts sharing common interests, imagine that!

Quote :

I'm not saying I wouldn't like to see a rotary in the game, but i'm saying that we've already got so many cars that don't get used half the time, that I don't think that having a "rotary engine" would be enough reason to add another.

I'll tell you what - add something as different from what we have as (e.g) a rotary mid-engine or an FR muscleish/saloon GT with a big meaty block (features unseen in LFS yet) to the TBO, LRF and/or GTR classes, balanced to fit right into the class balancing, and I'll respect whatever wager you can think of that those cars see as much use as the cars they're meant to compete with; i.e. as much use as the present TBOs, LRFs, and GTRs.
In fact, I'll say that if these two new cars were made to be easy to drive fast, they would revive the LRF class.

Quote :

I already said in this thread that it wouldn't be a bad idea to just change the torque and rev characteristics of one of the existing cars and brand it as a rotary..

That's not how things are done in LFS. Physics aren't fudged like that.

If I understand right, a rotary engine would not be worth adding to LFS because there would be less difference between it and the present LFS cars, than between the present LFS cars themselves?
An easy solution to the lack of rotary torque is to put it in a lightweight car. It worked for the puny LX4 and FOX.. which have little torque themselves, and yet were added to the game. Why are those exempt from the anti-variety rule you guys seem to favor?

There's no elitism or circle jerk or any sort of that stuff sinkoman, the rotary engine is attractive because it would add variety to LFS. This is just a forum for people to type their ideas into and see where those ideas go or don't go. Everyone knows the devs don't take too seriously or pay much attention to this forum, so this isn't meant to be a campaign, just a discussion. That's all.
At the moment the TBO class is all 4 cylinder engines. Is it just a freak happenstance that none of the cars in the class have the same drivetrain?
Same odd variety for the LRF class, except there we have both drivetrain and engine variety. Did the devs make a mistake in not making all the cars more the same rather than differentiate them? Nope.

There are still some redundancies: as mentionned, the TBO's all 4-bangers, all turbos, the GTR class is two thirds Turbo-4cyl's, (the LRF class is great already), there is no exotic sports/supercar (the RAC is borderline but not quite exotic), no big muscleish car, the small GTRs are both FWD (i'd concede this one is debateable), the UF could use a RWD competitor (something like a Fiat500 or an old beetle) as the XFG has in the XRG. Was it a bad idea to match the RWD XRG with the FWD XFG? I think there's no chance of my point not being clear now..
Is LFS supposed to not add any new cars? Nope. Should the new cars be the same, not have character or anything unique about each of them, like the FZ5 has? Nope - the game will only get better with more variety of cars to choose from rather than less.

The only reason I see left for not considering one is if it were a headache to model or if the TBO was considered complete enough with three cars. A fourth car would be easier to fit into the class (performance balancing-wise) than the third car was (the more cars you add, the denser the performance spread), and the TBO class could use something else than a front-engined and/or 4cyl, though.

Tristan do you mean that none of the real engines modeled in LFS have as many problems as the best real rotaries, or that rotaries could never do what they would need to do in LFS?
Are you saying no rotary design was ever manufactured right, or that the design is flawed such that it's not feasible to improve it (without ignoring the laws of physics) to be reliable enough that it could do what would be required of it in LFS?

Quote :

So in other words, you don't want a wankel, but you want the parts of the wankel output that appeal to you. Mostly the noise and ability to rev. Right.

Where did I say that? I meant the rotary would add variety, and that I saw no reason enough to prevent its realistic (considering everything else presently in the game) inclusion in LFS.
IIRC, rotary engines have run and won Le Mans's 24 hours.

Last edited by Breizh, Mon 11 Jun 2007, 00:30.

It's strange that people would oppose a rotary engine in LFS because real rotary engines are not good enough. Any real mechanical part's shortcomings can be fixed in its LFS iteration.
LFS isn't about reproducing real cars down to the name brand or about meticulously matching designs down to the tiniest detail, but about good racing. Variety such as that a rotary engine would add to LFS can only be good.

Dirt under the tires should not be absolutely constant and homogeneous.. nor wind. Not everything is worth more than a seeded bit of randomness code.

A semi-exotic mid-engined rotary for the TBO class, a big muscle-ish V8/V10 saloon/coupe for the LRF class, and GTR versions of both for the 400HP GTR class; the latter sitting right between the FZR, XRR, and FXR in terms of performance/laptimes.

Last edited by Breizh, Tue 5 Jun 2007, 22:19.

Pleased either way so long as the features are realistic.

Surely either a past Tweak coder (redrum or fonnybone) or someone who knows the mechanism like Scawen or (probably) Kegetys could let you in on it.
It's not like you're Kid; then again I don't know how burnt Scawen feels from Kid's leak.

I've seen a programing app that wrote the GUI code from what you visualy made by hand in a separate GUI-building window, but I can't remember what it was. It would let you reverse-engineer the few GUI LFSTweak needs pretty easily.
It might have been a Matlab plugin, but don't take my word for it..

Equilibrioception would only be a problem at low speed. Counter steering would become intuitive enough just as most people make do without seat of the pants efficiently enough. If you've ridden a bike, you know it becomes second nature enough that you are doing everything pretty much instinctively (i.e. you don't have to micromanage your inputs) and nowhere near your brain's maximum overhead. So the lack of seat of the pants (tire traction, overal G, and chassis feedback) and equilibrioception (only critical at low speed) would not be enough to make bikes unfeasible.

A gamepad with enough axes like the XBOX gamepad and a set pedals would be enough to control everything: that'd be 8 axes, or a few more if you've got pressure-sensitive buttons as axes.
Steering (1), Gas(1), Brakes (2), Clutch(1), Lean(2), which leaves one axis free.. It could be given to a something like a subtle body position control, e.g. how stiff or soft your legs are with the pegs, tucking in, etc.
All the other stuff can go on buttons: gear shifts, etc.

There will be things that can't be modeled at this point, such as your knee against the ground (that's a few axes), but everything else is already enough to make bikes at least as fun and realistic as any previous bike game (which is obviously not a negligible potential for fun/market as Tourist Trophy and the like have shown), and definitely at least as fun as cars in LFS.

Bikes'll be both fun anywhere on the learning curve (imagine a big supermotard chasing cars around something like South City) and difficult to master, but very rewarding.

Real race reports give top speeds for qualifying times, and average speeds for the full race lengths.. It's not like anyone asked for top speed to be displayed every single lap. That's what replays are for.

IMO: Arguing things down to the very bottom of the matter, yes - slinging mud, no.
But yeah, whatever gets it done.