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.
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?
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.
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.
Whooptie doo.. Passionate motorsports enthusiasts sharing common interests, imagine that!
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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, .
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.
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, .
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.
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..
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.
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.
But yeah, whatever gets it done.
GP500 managed it, so LFS could too.
It would be close enough to make it fun.. more fun than any other game, including big sellers like Tourist Trophy, which would definitely benefit LFS, and probably make enough of a market to tempt at least one big/small/new manufacturer to offer something better than what we have and get the ball rolling again.
It would be close enough to make it fun.. more fun than any other game, including big sellers like Tourist Trophy, which would definitely benefit LFS, and probably make enough of a market to tempt at least one big/small/new manufacturer to offer something better than what we have and get the ball rolling again.
Last edited by Breizh, .
+1
For bragging rights if nothing else.. It's fun.
Although if LFSLapper can do this already, you could probably script it to echo trap/top speeds at the end of sessions. It's another borderline useful/feasible feature that Scavier will end up deciding, next to flags on the final results board.. however cheap to add it may seem.
For bragging rights if nothing else.. It's fun.
Although if LFSLapper can do this already, you could probably script it to echo trap/top speeds at the end of sessions. It's another borderline useful/feasible feature that Scavier will end up deciding, next to flags on the final results board.. however cheap to add it may seem.
Fighting and whining not only fails to advance a solution, it worsens the problem in a number of ways, one of them turning off Scawen's enthusiasm.
I would say this is no different than other problems of its kind, in that you cannot safely decide a formula from such a reduced (just one person, in some people's minds) sample/population.
People who concerned enough with the race could improvise a quick field testing with the available resources to inform them with the info to make the best decision before the 26th. Devising this data gathering would be more productive than arguing who forum-whines best.
There could be (in its final form) a few separate handicap formulas adapted to short, medium, or long (and/or any other sort of race affected I'm not thinking of) races, that (for example) a server admin could choose from, or that the server could retrieve from the master server after the latter has recognized from said server's car/track/length settings which formula applies.
I would say this is no different than other problems of its kind, in that you cannot safely decide a formula from such a reduced (just one person, in some people's minds) sample/population.
People who concerned enough with the race could improvise a quick field testing with the available resources to inform them with the info to make the best decision before the 26th. Devising this data gathering would be more productive than arguing who forum-whines best.
There could be (in its final form) a few separate handicap formulas adapted to short, medium, or long (and/or any other sort of race affected I'm not thinking of) races, that (for example) a server admin could choose from, or that the server could retrieve from the master server after the latter has recognized from said server's car/track/length settings which formula applies.
Just play some other game while LFS gets to the point your pet peeves are fixed... When have Scavier shown they were coasting on LFS' success? What would you do better in their shoes? All the complaining in the world is no help. It is just stating the obvious (Scavier only have so much brain power/time/resources), and/or (depending on how it's said) plain disingenuous.
All I would add is one more developer to the crew, and the hard part as I see it would be for that dev to fit in without counterproductively rocking the boat.
LFS will be done when it's done, no sooner or later. That's what "alpha" means.
All I would add is one more developer to the crew, and the hard part as I see it would be for that dev to fit in without counterproductively rocking the boat.
LFS will be done when it's done, no sooner or later. That's what "alpha" means.
He wants to spread his cult.
What would the difference be, between static tire barricades then and red & white barricades now?
Wouldn't tires tethered to the ground, or a wall, and/or themselves make for even worse hazards, with the present collision model?
We'd have even worse lawsuits !
We'd have even worse lawsuits !
There are background checks and hours of wait, among other things, for someone to get themselves a firearm, but don't let that, or the fact that a tiny percentage of legal owners commit crimes with them, get in the way of a good rimshot..
Except in places where guns are forbidden, such as planes, campuses, etc. Then it's just a turkey shoot for the criminals.
Don't mention the fact that US firearms don't seem to cause much more turmoil than in other countries if you ommit drug/gang/etc neighbourhoods, or the fact that the US is in fact getting more and more of its population (its legislation anyway) agreeing to undiscriminately (more like randomly) restrict gun ownership.. Loads of guns = safer than without them.
Ask any policeman: police forces prevent next to nothing, they almost only show up after the fact.
Yep Scawen, I know and agree with all that, except with that moderating is an annoying task.. I know what you mean by it, but I don't think it's right. Doing your best at something is all that's required for a clear conscience.. Why would you burden your conscience with something someone else did? Any time you spend time thinking about something else than what you want, is an amount of time not spent thinking of what you do want, and getting closer to it.
The only annoyance I would know would be not having clear rules to follow. Not being in your head to know your opinion on any given post doesn't leave many posts to moderate, but in that last thread, a fair number of them were obviously off topic.
Just moving all the posts devoid of bug reports or particularly pertinent suggestions to a separate thread wouldn't be either annoying or complicated; except for you, obviously, if it was done wrong.
It certainly would have helped at least a little, in this case.
Good luck with all that work..
The only annoyance I would know would be not having clear rules to follow. Not being in your head to know your opinion on any given post doesn't leave many posts to moderate, but in that last thread, a fair number of them were obviously off topic.
Just moving all the posts devoid of bug reports or particularly pertinent suggestions to a separate thread wouldn't be either annoying or complicated; except for you, obviously, if it was done wrong.
It certainly would have helped at least a little, in this case.
Good luck with all that work..
Why doesn't someone with mod powers filter those threads to help out Scawen?
The whole gun control debate is so far gone that if you want to debate that, there's plenty of place to see more informed arguments for either side..
One thing I found funny, was news abroad on the event: First, they do a whole "The US is victim of a wave of violence stemmed in free circulation of guns, a problem they are having trouble coping with {huge number of casualties unajusted for the sheer size of the USA's population} [...] Bill Clinton's "Assault weapon ban" [...] "
The thing about that ban (and many other similar laws) is that it wasn't even a comprehensive regulation. The people who wrote it obviously don't even understand guns. This is obvious as soon as you actually learn a few things about guns (say proportionaly as much as you would to properly use a cell phone), and actually read the "assault weapons" ban laws, and other laws like it.
Second, and the irony was pretty funny, right after that news was a report of some prisoners escaping by hijacking a helicopter, using guess what? Guns and a grenade.
I guess outlawing things will always prevent criminals from getting those forbidden items, since criminals aren't ever going to break the law.
News are so biased anywhere you go, it's almost unbelievable sometimes.
Getting rid of guns in the US would make sense if they weren't already there, weren't part of the culture and way of life, and most importantly if they weren't a right by law for a very good reason.
What I find most surprising is that no one took that guy down.. either with a gun or by staying out of his sight or behind cover till an opportunity showed up. Less surprising is the total absence of news report of the number of people saved by guns every year..
One thing I found funny, was news abroad on the event: First, they do a whole "The US is victim of a wave of violence stemmed in free circulation of guns, a problem they are having trouble coping with {huge number of casualties unajusted for the sheer size of the USA's population} [...] Bill Clinton's "Assault weapon ban" [...] "
The thing about that ban (and many other similar laws) is that it wasn't even a comprehensive regulation. The people who wrote it obviously don't even understand guns. This is obvious as soon as you actually learn a few things about guns (say proportionaly as much as you would to properly use a cell phone), and actually read the "assault weapons" ban laws, and other laws like it.
Second, and the irony was pretty funny, right after that news was a report of some prisoners escaping by hijacking a helicopter, using guess what? Guns and a grenade.
I guess outlawing things will always prevent criminals from getting those forbidden items, since criminals aren't ever going to break the law.
News are so biased anywhere you go, it's almost unbelievable sometimes.
Getting rid of guns in the US would make sense if they weren't already there, weren't part of the culture and way of life, and most importantly if they weren't a right by law for a very good reason.
What I find most surprising is that no one took that guy down.. either with a gun or by staying out of his sight or behind cover till an opportunity showed up. Less surprising is the total absence of news report of the number of people saved by guns every year..
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG