Quote from BlakjeKaas :

What is the difference between the pic from 2010 and the one from last week?

gotta look closer than those tiny thumbnails you posted.

Here's a detail of the rubber mesh from the earlier version. You can see that there is no thickness to the rubber


Now, here's the latest version.

See how the mesh shows that there is thickness to the rubber. This means that the latest model is significantly more complex (and potentially more accurate and realistic) than the earlier one.

cheers

Col

Last edited by col, Sat 31 Dec 2011, 16:23.

@Joe91
Scawen explains a bit about tyre dynamics, and also an outline of his implementation approach here.

I don't think he uses a Pacejka variant as is being suggested in this thread. I think that LFS feels so good when compared with other sims because it has a unique tyre model that is developed specifically to feel good when driven in a sim, rather than one that is tailored towards an academic or industrial context.

Scawen has admitted that if he had known how long it would take, they would have done things differently (here), but unfortunately, when you're breaking new ground, you will discover new unexpected problems - it goes with the territory.

I'm sure that no matter how frustrated any of us are about how long it's taking, Scawen is way more frustrated. Anyhow, I for one am looking forward to driving it when it's finally done.

Col

Last edited by col, Sat 31 Dec 2011, 15:02.

Quote from Chupacabras84 :

Well yes but its still feels pretty different from real deal...
For example when your car stand still and you spin the wheel you wont feel any resistance which is there in RL.

Which is a limitation of the tyre model - so tyre model needs improvement, not 'force feedback'

Quote :

when you going trough the sand you can turn the wheel as easy as on the road or grass (normally you would need a lot of force to turn wheels that are buried deep in the sand, or when you hit the sandtrap at speed you would feel it trough your steering wheel)

Which is due to LFS not modelling depth/viscosity of road surfaces - nothing to do with 'force feedback' code.

LFS is a simulation. Canned effects are a bad thing which is why LFS avoids them. If you want canned effects that make it more difficult to drive, and allow the programmers to hide the weaknesses in their physics, go play something else

Merry Christmas guys.

Have a great time, and good luck for the new year.

Thanks for supporting the LFS community by keeping the master server and the forum up and running continuously, and thanks for the work you are doing on the SIM.

Hope Santa was good to you

Col

Quote from Kristi :

Well, all of you guys are so bored of LFS. I just see what we lost with CTRA drawing out from the game. It gave everyday racing a new meaning Missing it a lot still. Imo, it would get a lot of people back to LFS. Too bad some of these newcomers will never know how good it was.

Agreed. CTRA was fantastic, it took the game to a new level. LFS needs something similar again. It's not likely to happen though, LFS is so niché that I doubt anyone could make enough money from a CTRA style venture to make it worthwhile long term. Too much time and effort to do it for free - particularly with all the whiners and moaners that there are in LFS.

Last edited by col, Thu 15 Dec 2011, 20:16.

Quote from BlueFlame :

Anything mechanically attatched to something is a component of it.

That's true, however it doesn't follow that to be a component, something must be mechanically attached, ball-bearings for example are not mechanically attached, but I would LOL at you if you tried to insist that they are not components.

I would have thought that anything concrete (as opposed to abstract) within the gearbox housing that is taken into consideration during the design stage of the gearbox and has an influence on the design and specifications of other components would be considered a component of the design.
I expect that F1 designers and engineers treat oil like any other component. It will have to work in a defined way within specified tolerances for viscosity, temperature resistance, operational lifetime etc.

Hi Matt.

check this out. A few years ago, this guy built a motion sim from plumbing pipe and car wiper motors, he reckoned it cost a few hundred £. There are probably quite a few similar projects out there now as he posted the plans on his website. You might be able to track them down if you search. Good luck

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Quuqhjnxwq4

Quote from boothy :

The more power you take from government ... more free it gets is the phrase you are looking for I think.

No, you are misunderstanding, or (more likely) intentionally misrepresenting what I said.

The UK government is answerable to the UK people. Murdoch is not. So if you take power away from the government and give it to Murdoch, the people have less of a say, and freedom of choice will be reduced. Simples.

Quote from Mustafur :

but they are the single broadcaster

In defence of your argument, you have just stated as fact that the BBC is the only TV broadcaster in the UK. This is blatant fantasy, you are just making stuff up, so whats the point.

Quote from Mustafur :

yes they are not the single tv channel but they are the single broadcaster

Lol.. can't argue with someone who just makes stuff up.

Quote from Mustafur :

did the private industry put CCTV cameras on every corner street of the uk?

I mean that's free soceity.

Private industry did put up a lot of CCTV cameras, although I'm not sure why that's relevant - either for or against my argument

What point are you trying to make?

Last edited by col, Mon 22 Aug 2011, 19:11.

Quote from Intrepid :

Monopoly is often a word associated with companies like the BBC, which certainly DO have a monopoly on the licence fee and public service broadcasting. Considering C4 and ITV have to adhere to certain public service rules, you'd think they would have benefit from a licence fee? NO they don't. The term 'monopoly' couldn't be MORE apt. The BBC have a monopoly on the licence fee... FACT! Though there shouldn't be a 'media tax' to fund a bias broadcaster in the first place in a free society.

The BBC do not "have a monopoly on the licence fee". For that to be the case, they would need to own and control the licence fee neither of which is the case. They are funded from TV licence revenue, but they are significantly restricted in what they are allowed to broadcast as a result - they do not have ultimate control over this. They do what they are told by the government who actually do control the license fee.

It's no surprise though to see you spouting emotive phrases like "free society" in your defense. What a load of manipulative marketing bull that is. The more power you take from government and institutions like the BBC who are answerable to us, and give it to the likes of Murdoch, the less free it gets (it's never been very free, and is steadily becoming less so). The phrase itself "free society" is an oxymoron anyway.

Quote from sinbad :

The license fee has long been referred to as a monopoly.

Possibly, but by people who are against non-commercial broadcasting. 'Monopoly' is a powerful and emotive term. In this case it is being used incorrectly and unfairly in an attempt to negatively influence peoples attitudes.

I could refer to you as a fish, but that doesn't make it true - even if I keep doing it for years.

Quote :

It's a TV tax that you have to pay to watch any broadcaster, but only goes into the pockets of one.

However, license revenue it is not ultimately controlled by the BBC (as would be required for the 'monopoly' definition). It is controlled by our government. There was a plan a few years ago to partly fund channel4 via the licence fee when they ran into financial difficulties. This was eventually scrapped as they managed to find other ways to deal with these difficulties.
There's no reason in principal why in the future other organisations should not be funded or part funded from licence fee revenue if they could present a good enough case to justify this approach.


========

I really hope Brundle stays with the beeb

Quote from Mustafur :

Tell me then, if someone where to watch tv would BBC be benifitted regardless if that person will watch BBC or not?

No, the BBC benefits when someone owns one or more TVs (assuming they are law abiding and not leaches), not when they watch it. And when the BBC benefits, we (British people) benefit - we are all stakeholders of sorts. So it's all good.

Quote :

They make you pay them in Order to watch tv Aka control you to pay them in order to watch any other broadcaster, now if that isn't a monoply then what is?

According to the Oxford Dictionary: A monopoly is "the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service"

The BBC does not exclusively possess or control the supply of TV or Radio Broadcasting in the UK therefor it does not have a Monopoly. End of story. Doesn't matter how you spin it, it's not a monopoly. Go find another word.

As to your other point, they don't force anyone to pay them anything. However, if you decide to own a TV in the UK, you are obliged to pay a licence fee because it's the law, you don't do that, you get into trouble. It's a pretty widespread approach to funding state broadcasting. It's not ideal, tax would be a better and fairer way.

Quote from Mustafur :

What about the fact that all other broadcasters viewers have already funded the BBC even if there not watching it, that is a massive example of monopolisation.


If BBC was private entity and it bought the entire TV rights for UK so that anyone who even wants to watch TV has to pay them before even switching to a Non BBC channel would be called monopolistion, just because BBC is a Public entity doesn't change the fact one bit.

Like I said, look in a dictionary. 'Monopoly' doesn't apply here.
The BBC doesn't own and control all TV and Radio boradcasting in the UK. There is healthy competition between the BBC and various commercial broadcasting companies.

It's similar to education, health service etc. In the UK, you are free to go to a commercial 'private' vendor for these services, but some of the tax you pay will still be used to fund public health and education services. This benefits society as a whole.
IMO the BBC should be funded through Tax revenue to avoid all the issues that have arrived with the growth of the internet and the diversification of digital media technology.
Then the argument would be clearer and more honest. Instead of:
"is it fair that folks who watch Sky should have to pay for the BBC?"
the question would be:
"Does a broadcasting service that attempts to provide for the viewer rather than for commercial interests benefit our society and it's culture?"
I would say yes, and that it's worth paying for that benefit, even if you pay for and watch Sky. In the same way that it's worth paying towards the the state funded education system even if you send your kids to a private school - you still benefit indirectly (e.g. fewer people will be making up words 'monopolistion' and misusing others in internet discussions )

col

Quote from Mustafur :

How, BBC is a public funded monopoly.....

For the BBC to have a 'monopoly', it would have to be the only supplier of TV broadcasting in the UK. This is obviously not the case.
-----------

If you don't look closely, it might seem that the BBC has an unfair advantage in the market, but it's funding advantage is offset by restrictions and requirements that commercial TV companies do not have to worry about.
-----------

My reason for wanting to keep the BBC is due to the problems I see with advertising funded TV.

Either
#1 we are all subconsciously susceptible to the power of TV advertising
or
#2 Some folks are in some way immune to the influence of advertising - maybe through intellect, education or experience...

if #1 is true, then clearly commercial TV is potentially dangerous as it gives powerful people more power and influence, and provides them with a way to manipulate us to their own gain. It reduces our liberty.

if #2 is true, then commercial TV will tend to develop programming only for those people who are susceptible to advertising. Much of this will entertain everyone, but no programming will be specifically developed for people who are not susceptible - it wouldn't generate enough advertising revenue to be viable.

Personally, I believe the truth is somewhere in-between.

The great thing about the BBC is that neither of these problems exists. This is exactly the point of the BBC. It attempts to provide something for everyone. And it doesn't have to sell product, so scheduling and programming can be more wide ranging, chosen with the viewing public in mind rather than with the sponsor in mind.

Yes, it has it's flaws, but it's way better than the alternative, and definitely worth the license fee.

Long live auntie Beeb !

You made quite a bold assumption that:

Quote from Intrepid :

There is an immeasurable, but yet important, cost of F1 receiving vast amounts of tax payers money to concrete their monopoly of motorsport.

I'm saying you have absolutely no proof whatsoever.


Oh, and I think you need to look 'monopoly' up in the dictionary, because it is not even slightly applicable in this context.

Quote from Intrepid :

You made quite a bold assumption that free-to-air F1 was a defining factor in bringing engineers in. I'm saying you have absolutely no proof whatsoever.

And you have no proof that it wasn't a factor, so I guess it comes down to what sounds more convincing.
To me, Spook's analysis seems well thought out and highly convincing, where as your reply sounds like desperate playground bickering.

Quote :

..This is a loss making venture for Sky. They just want to prove a point.

It has nothing to do with 'proving a point' - you are being extremely naive thinking that Sky have any moral or philosophical motivation other than making money for their shareholders.
This deal is clearly an attempt to increase their subscriber base by buying up a hugely popular license. If they didn't have business projections that showed it to be profitable in the long term, then they wouldn't have gone anywhere near it.

Last edited by col, Mon 1 Aug 2011, 10:31.

This is a saddening piece of news.

I love F1, but there's no way I'm signing up to sky.

To Scavier and the normal folks: Merry Christmas to one and all...

and to the whiners: ...baa, Christmas sucks, you never get the presents you demanded, the weather's shite and no-one understands why you don't buy them decent presents... it's just not fair... right? lol... whine on shitheads

Quote from GenesisX :

...
I understand that snags do occur in programming, but bad communication is really frustrating, and that is the stuff that stimulates rumours. I agree. Short, and slightly informative posts are better than none, and they keep the morale of the forum up. I'd love even to have select people test it out, whatever they have, and have maybe some feedback from them. Just to tell me that I am not wasting time checking the website / forums every two days.

A long time ago, scawen posted a LOT, there was lots of info about what he was working on and about the ideas that he had for possible features. In those days, the community was small and consisted mostly of dedicated enthusiasts.

As LFS grew and more people joined, the responses he got became more and more negative until the point where he decided that he was much better off keeping quiet until he had an actual release ready.

If he says he 'hopes' to have a patch out in 3 weeks and it doesn't happen he gets heaps of crap for it.
If he tells of an idea for a 'possible' feature and it doesn't work out, he gets heaps of crap for it.
If he explains his methods of working, he gets told to do it differently.

Any positive feedback gets drowned out by all the whining and bitching.

=====================

Unfortunately, the tyre physics isn't just about putting in the hours. It's a research project. It depends, not just on hard graft, but on creativity, luck and getting high quality data to work with.
Creating a new model that is significantly better than the existing one could take weeks, or it could take many years.

The fact that it has taken as long as it has is a testament to the quality of the existing model.

Quote from kimd41 :

But they can make a short public TO-DO list. That would show things that are left to be done and we could just send people asking to it....

No they can't as Scawen has explained.

The devs discovered years ago that if they release any details (like a list) of features in development, and then for whatever reason, cancel or change one or more items on the list, all hell breaks loose!
All the forum whiners start kicking off... kiddy idiots throw their toys out of their prams threatening to leave LFS... fools start claiming that they were promised xyz feature that has now been canceled and that the devs are amateurs and LFS will die as a result...

So the result is that intended features are not made public until they are released. If this rule is broken, it is usually for very good reasons e.g. the VWS (and look what ammount of crap that announcement has caused the devs - which just goes to prove them right in not releasing info).

So just wait for the release (or don't - like anyone cares).
And any time you get annoyed about not having info about upcoming LFS features, blame the damn whiners and the idiot complainers on the forum - it's them that caused the present low level of info.

cheers

Col

Quote from John5200 :

http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=1390254#post1390254
and he posts things like that most of the time he talks about how developing lfs is working.

Not sure what your point is ?
Scawen says that his work rate had been slow at that time. That doesn't mean he's not putting in the hours, it means that progress is slow (he explains as much in that same post).

As LFS matures, the laws of diminishing returns kick in. The better LFS gets, the more work is required for even tiny improvements. At the same time, more of the ideas he tries out turn out not to improve the system.
It also gets more complex and much more difficult. Difficult programming is slow and tiring, so work rate is bound to suffer.

Doesn't mean he's not putting in a lot of hours, or that he's stopped trying.

Quote from The Very End :

But, if we take away critism / positiv(ism?) and look on facts, and how things work. If you have one developer that refines and develop tracks, you know it will take time since making track is a lot of work. We also do know the developers don't work the usually 37.5hours each week.

But let's say this, if a developer work mere 1 hour each day, and it's 4 years since last track. That means the developer had over 1400 work hours. Again, I don't know much, but I do know that updating SO and BL possible canot take more time than 1400+ hours.

Ok, since you are talking about 'facts'
How do you *know* how many hours the devs do or don't work?
How do you *know* how many hours it takes to update tracks?
How do you *know* what the devs have been working on that is not yet public?
Where do your get you 'facts' from?
hmmm...
three posibilities as I see it:
1. You are a close friend of one or more of the devs who tells you these facts knowing that you will spill them on the forum.
2. you are a telepath
3. you have a magic ass from which you regularly pull 'facts' which you then use as the basis of your arguments.

cheers

Col

Quote from The Very End :

There is no excuse for the track part, and that you have to agree on. One new track on 3+ years is not good enough, it's a buisness for crying out loud. I am not demaning anything, but as it is now it's LFS - Scawen's work. The physics and codes is his area, but what about the tracks? Why have there been nothing on many years? Does SO updates and BL updates justify 3+ years of work?

There is no excuse for 'the track part' because none is needed.

The next patch is (we hope) going to introduce improvements and bug fixes to various parts of the physics.
It would be crazy to release anything without testing thoroughly with the new physics. Any new track will need to be tested, and existing track will also need to be tested and probably tweaked and updated to fix issues introduced by the new physics.
It is also likely that some changes will need to be made to tracks as part of fixing the 'cars into orbit' collision problems.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the format for track data is changed for the new version, possibly in ways that mean a lot of work for Eric in fixing up existing tracks. Why would the devs build new tracks to work with an old system that they expected to be obsolete? Unfortunately, the physics updates have taken longer than expected due - as explained by Scawen.

Of course, the simplest (and still completely valid) reason is that they don't want to release a new major update (new content) without much needed updates in the physics engine. Without the excitement and media coverage that is generated by new better physics, a new content update will not maximize it's sales potential. The physics updates have taken much longer than expected. That's all there is to it.

Seems to me that you just don't have a deep enough understanding of the development process to see how many possible valid reasons there could be for these delays.