Quote from joshdifabio :

Just to add some fuel to the Glock fire - he actually could have pitted for wets at the start of the penultimate lap and kept P4 .

I might be mistaken, but if I remember right, Glock was behind Kovalainen, before the rain at the end of the race... So, by keeping the dry tires and not loosing time in the pits, he in reality gained one place, finishing 6th instead of 7th.

A video showing Jaime Alguersuari, 2008 British F3 International Series Champion, driving a F1 Toro Rosso around the track:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XWky2-lAkY

With a little bit more organization and advertising, these broadcasts can really be interesting for a lot of people. The quality of racing is good, the quality of the stream also, and the comentary like it was on the last hour really works well too. Michael does a very good job in comentating and having someone like Ben, that knows the league really well, ads up to a great result.

Quote from Mustafur :

Awesome track!

but i can't help but think when the tarmac runoffs are added it will lose its awesomeness.

Still the track seems very similar to brazil with the elevation changes and all.

That a look at this video, a lap with Armindo Araujo, a portuguese driver from the PWRC (video in portuguese): http://autosport.aeiou.pt/gen. ... mp;fokey=as.stories/59339

Quote from duke_toaster :

Not really a racing sim, but Total Immersion Racing is rather forgotten. Interestingly a Mr S Roberts is credited as "car physics advice/discussion".

I also have that game. It came with a box of breakfast cereals...
It had some interesting features like AI "emotions" and a engineer that would help you set up your car. It wasn´t great, but a pretty decent singleplayer racing game. And, yes, Scawen was part of the development team of this game: http://www.mobygames.com/devel ... t/view/developerId,36680/

There´s 2 that I remember that you might want to check out. They´re still being developed and updated, but can´t really tell how good they are now, because I didn´t test any of them for a long time...

http://vdrift.net/
http://torcs.sourceforge.net/

Another one that I just remembered. From what I remember it was pretty decent, but like the other two, never played the latest releases, so can´t tell how good it is right now...

http://www.wheelspinstudios.com/drivingspeed2/index.html

Last edited by chunkyracer, Tue 28 Oct 2008, 09:53.

I agree with MP3 Astra. Online racing is not the same as real racing, and connection problems is something that is specific to online racing and should be handled for what it is, and not finding something in real racing to compare it to. If LFS implements better damage, and more mechanical failures, then, if your car stops, your race is over, but for me, that has nothing to do with what you're discussing here.

Quote from Dajmin :

I think disconnection should count as a mechanical failure, ending the race for that player (or team in endurance events). We don't have random engine death so I think that works as a realistic alternative. If you suffer from this kind of problem enough that it's a real issue, you probably shouldn't be playing online games anyway.

If that would happen it would be the end of endurance racing in LFS. In the major endurance leagues you have people from all over the world connected to the same server, so connection problems, be it on the client side or problems with the server will always happen.

Quote from Storm_Cloud :

Why can't the server just recored the number of completed laps and the returning disconnecter picks up his car from the pits with all the same damage, fuel etc as he had at the end of the last completed lap. It is probably too difficult to code all the different scenarios around driver takeovers, so the guy driving the last completed lap should return, even if he is handing over the car on the next lap.

I see a problem with that. If a driver disconects he could be having problems with his Internet conection, or for example a electricity failure that prevents him to rejoin the server. In that case a disconection would mean race over for his team, so that can´t be an ideal solution...

Quote from dougie-lampkin :

Sounds like a brilliant idea, +1 from me

The only thing I can see wrong is that at the moment, AI physics are calculated client-side by whoever "owns" the AI (i.e., whoever types "/ai AI 1"). For this to work, they would need to be calculated server-side, which could cause difficulties for those running large amounts of LFS servers off the one box, especially if it isn't very up-to-date hardware wise.

That´s why I think than better that having some kind of AI driving the car, we could have a table of average lap times acording to tracks and cars, and depending on the sector the disconetion happens, after a set amount of time the car is put on an empty pit box for a normal pitstop, refueling, changing tires and repairing damage acording to what was set in the F12 menu. It would have to have the T button turned on, so the driver that connects can take over the car. The only problem would be how the make sure that only drivers of the same team can takeover the car...

Being on a team that races in endurance leagues like MOE or IGTC, having some kind of solution to minimize disconection problems, would be very welcome. It can really turn your race upside down, because some times trackers aren´t working properly, and you´re left racing completely blind without knowing your exact position on the race, and not knowing who you´re racing for position, wich can lead to wrong decisions that can harm your race even more or causing troubles to other teams, without intention. Don´t have any idea how hard a system like the one you propose would be to implement, but maybe it could be even simpler than that. The car that disconnects could simply be put in the pits after a predetermined amount of time, depending on the sector of the track you were in, and the car you´re using. The problem with this is that sometimes it´s not the same driver that disconnets, that joins the server to continue the race, so when the car is put on the pits, it would have the option of taking over the car turned on. This way the lap count would not be reset, and the car would have the same amount of damage it had before, and the damage would be repaired depending on what option was set in the F12 menu. This could also resolve the advantage of the disconetion, that is, if you have engine problems that can not be repaired in the pits, you would keep that damage instead of starting with a brand new car.

Just a little mix between Monza and Estoril...
In black the main layout and in blue a secondary, shorter layout.

Quote from Mazz4200 :

I know i'm a bit late but, for the life of me i can't get number 5

Pull the circle and it will reveal the key... You just have to be fast enough to click in it before it gets covered again...

Quote from Equinox :

Someone give me a clear explaination for room 10 !!

I get the big "cluster" but cant click on it !! Help !

Sarge.

There´s an answer to that before on this thread:

http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=921710#post921710

http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=921715#post921715

Quote from tristancliffe :

Edit That sounds like a reasonale viewpoint Sinbad. It is a close call, and certainly not 100% black and white. I sit on one side of the fence, you on the other, but there isn't a vast amount of distance between us (on either side of the fence). But I do get annoyed about those that won't even accept anything in favour of Lewis' punishment - those that suggest he gained no advantage whatsoever from cutting the corner, which is what the penalty was given for.

For me, the biggest problem isn´t there. Ferrari didn´t make any protest about this situation. Acording to a link posted before, even Stefano Domenicali thinks that it was racing. And Kimi didn´t lost this race because of this situation. He lost it because he couldn´t keep his car on the track with that conditions. He even regain first place when Rosberg came into the track, and then spun the car, and finally lost control and crashed into the wall. So, what was the need, to penalise Hamilton in a situation that even you admit it´s "not 100% black and white", and create a "fake" result to this race, that doesn´t translate what happened on the track. I don´t have any preferences for a particular team or driver, but I enjoy seeing races decided on the track, and not by some after race decision. And what I saw on those laps was 2 drivers figthing, under some very difficult conditions, trying to win a race. For Hamilton a 2nd place behind Kimi was a good result. He would win points over Massa, and see Kimi get closer to Massa, not giving the chance to Ferrari choose at this point wich driver would fight for the championship. Instead of doing that he tried to win the race. That should be praised, not penalised.

Quote from Mustafur :

the Massa, kubica thing in japan last year was all forced cuttings.

they were 100% unavoidable were as hamiltons was in somewhat.

but Hamiltons Penalty is mainy due to the fact he didn't give kimi adequate chance to get pass after cutting, not the cut itself.

I hope that you can define what is, acording to F1 regulations, "adequate chance to get pass after cutting", because I didn´t see anyone posting any part of the rules that states what that is, and the decisions in the past on this kind of situation are, to say the least, pretty inconsistent and ambiguous...

Quote from diablo21 :

That pic shows nothing..

I don´t agree... One thing I don´t understand is that people say that Kimi had the right to the line to that right turn since he was on the inside, altough Hamilton, as that pic shows, was ahead under braking. So, following the same logic and since the other turn on that chicane is to the left shouldn´t be Hamilton to have the right to that corner since his car car was much more side by side with Kimi than at the previous corner...
I would understand that point if this was a chicane like the ones we have in LFS, that you can just cut it and make it just one turn, but that is not the case here.

Don´t think this video has been posted before (only onboard from Hamilton and Kimi): http://www.dailymotion.com/vid ... magcom-hamiltonkimi_sport

Quote from Ian.H :

You mean the fact LFS operate as a commercial venture and happily accept people's money, yet work like a half-arsed, lazy, open-source college project?

Maybe if we start to look at LFS as a comercial product, more than "the game we play", it will be easier to understand the choices made in terms of development...
People complain about the time spent on the Asian Translations, but like others already said, that means a huge market that can open for LFS. Besides that we all know that there's a great number of people that use LFS for drifting, and where is Drifting more popular?? Correct me if I´m wrong, but I would say in Asia.
Regarding Patch Z, problably, they could´ve waited a little longer to release all the new interiors at once, but the fact is that the V1 Championship is going to launch this Sunday http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=847110#post847110, which could mean a lot of new people trying the demo. So, updating only the interiors of the cars based on the XFG and XRG (demo cars), means that they will have a better demo to try, and maybe some more licenses sold. Besides that they updated also the interiors of the FOX and F08, wich are other single-seaters apart from the FBM that will be used for V1...
Is this more important than damage and collision improvements or other updates that most of us are allways complaining about?? In terms of bussiness, definitely YES.
So, do I think that the choices made were the best for LFS? I really think so...
Were they the ones that would be better for what I want from LFS? No, surely not...

Quote from Technique :

Exactly, it would be an option - it's not forcing anyone to do anything. My guess is that anyone who hosts a server that intends it to be used for "racing" would want this feature.

Hosts that want people going down the track backwards and crashing people in pit lane can turn this option off.

Hosts that want their server used for "racing" can kick or ban the drivers that they think are not "safe"... If they cannot be on the server they can allow for others to vote and keep the server "safe"...
So, sorry, but I still don´t see the point why this sould be a "built-in" system in LFS.

I don´t really see what LFS would gain in having a feature like that. I don´t like drifting or see the point in cruise servers, but who am I to say to others what they should do with their game. If I want to meet with some friends and just go around the track the wrong way or crashing each other down the pit lane, why shouldn´t I??? If I want to the race in a ladder system like the one in IRacing, I can join CTRA. If what I want is "real" racing I can join a league or even organize my own with the cars that I want to race and not those I´m "allowed" to race. That´s one of the great things about LFS, the freedom to use it the way I want, and not the way I'm told...
So, for a feature like that to work, it had to be an option, but if it was an option it would mean nothing since the safety rating would only be for "some", and for that it´s better for someone to create some kind of system to use on their servers.

Quote from The Moose :

For those people that enjoy proper league racing,(one qual, one race, one chance. Like reality ) endurance racing, practising together on a server with team mates, (the social aspect of sim racing is very important to me)all that sort of stuff, iRacing doesn't cut it. Yet. I have no doubt it will, sooner rather than later.

I agree with you, but I´m not so sure that IRacing will open their system that way. After all, if they do it, in what are they diferent of what you we have now, and how can they justify the price they´re asking??

Quote from Danke :

And all but four of the cars in the parking lot of the LFS Cafe are imaginary. At the iracing cafe, for some reason, there are only Solstices. (or is that Solstii?)

You´re wrong... There's another car at the IRacing Cafe... It looks like an old car, but I'm not quite sure because it just keeps going round and round the cafe...

Quote from Mille Sabords :

I can see Irental taking a part of the higly dedicated racers from LFS but the rest of the public will likely be unaffected. This sounds bad for LFS leagues, the impact on pick up races should however be minor.

I think, that, at least, for now, IRacing won´t have that much impact on LFS leagues. In LFS you have a great choice in terms of racing, choosing the one that suits you most, be it short races or even team oriented endurance races. In IRacing everything is pre-formatted, almost like the offline carreer mode you see in many games.

Quote from SamH :

For the GTR2, Race and rF market, there's bound to be some genuine appeal to iR, despite the cost, because as far as most of that market will know, iR is the first in the field. I really think that iR's chances of dominating online racing with their deliberately small grids (pay more, race with more..) and expensive additional content, rolling service charges etc, are going to be significantly dependent on the continuing market ignorance of alternatives - the most significant of which, I think, is LFS.

As long as a lot of that market is a "bunch of frustated shumacher's wanna be", I don´t really think that LFS will be an alternative, because of the lack in "real" content. For a lot of people, the most important thing they want of a sim, is to pretend they´re driving the "x" car, around the"y" track and getting their ego's up, thinking they can drive faster than "z" driver. For them, even if they try it, LFS will not be good enough.

After being in the same team as Roca for the past year, I can only say that it would be hard to find a better choice for your team. Despite his young age , he has become a very mature driver, that can easily race against the best of the best in LFS.
So, congratulations to F1rst and to Roca, and I sincerely hope he will achieve great results in your team, because he really deserves it!!