When I saw this thread I couldn't get a different song out of my head:
"Is it my imagination
Or have I finally found something worth living for?
I was looking for some action
But all I found was cigarettes and alcohol
etc."
hehe - there's your antidote to Kylie
"Is it my imagination
Or have I finally found something worth living for?
I was looking for some action
But all I found was cigarettes and alcohol
etc."
hehe - there's your antidote to Kylie
Most realistic racing simulator ?
NFS owns LFS in this department. NFS is an actual disk in a realistic plastic box on my actual shelf! IT'S REAL, you can't get much more REAL! LFS on the other hand is just a bunch of electrical signals - sure, I could make up some packaging for it, but its still not the same.
Arcade games like WEC Le Mans rule though - with them, you get to sit in a seat in a thing that looks a damn sight more like a race car than my cheapo office chair does.... and WEC Le Mans spins around when you crash - so its way more realistic (assuming you don't have some fancy pants hardware rig - in which case you're cheatin' anyway). And of course these old machines have custom hardware for simulation - no general purpose PC crap with just some 'code', you get actual REAL chips! - there's an extra level of concrete reality of simulator for you !
NFS owns LFS in this department. NFS is an actual disk in a realistic plastic box on my actual shelf! IT'S REAL, you can't get much more REAL! LFS on the other hand is just a bunch of electrical signals - sure, I could make up some packaging for it, but its still not the same.
Arcade games like WEC Le Mans rule though - with them, you get to sit in a seat in a thing that looks a damn sight more like a race car than my cheapo office chair does.... and WEC Le Mans spins around when you crash - so its way more realistic (assuming you don't have some fancy pants hardware rig - in which case you're cheatin' anyway). And of course these old machines have custom hardware for simulation - no general purpose PC crap with just some 'code', you get actual REAL chips! - there's an extra level of concrete reality of simulator for you !
sensory jacket (ooer missus)
hehe, I remember playing it when it was new - good fun at the time, but then screamer rally came out... and soon after that I got a PC powerful enough to run GPL
I agree, no cars or track would be a huge improvement. Instead, we could have just the drivers running around. Maybe have some indoor environments, that would be a nice change... Aha, if we add weapons, we can run around shooting each other - much more fun than hardcore racing... hmm, if we have shooting, we'll need medipacks... and powerups.... secret areas would be a nice touch as well...
Yeah, this would be a great improvement for LFS
No more worrying about tyre physics for Scawen either!
Live For Shooting ?
Obviously they aren't exactly the same thing - sand is sand and water is water.
The point is that by far the biggest and most challenging part of the implementation of any one of these features would be a more general system that would be used for all of them anyway.
With this in mind, you should be able to see that Scawen would want to develop these features as a whole rather than one at a time - this means he is less likely to cause problems for himself at a later time.. e.g. it works for sand, then 3 months later he discovers it doesn't work for water and... oops, the sand needs to be re-coded along with the rest of the system
Thats going to happen with every incompatible update - it always has and always will.
If these features are released one at a time, then there will be negative reactions at each release... at least if they are all released together, the negative whining will only happen once.
As I've explained (IMO) the majority of the work will be code that is shared by all of these features.
I think you are missing the point - implementing one of these dynamic track features will be a huge hit on performance - adding more wont make much difference. It's the change in the way track data must me managed and processed that is most significant
no dynamic track => 1 dynamic feature (e.g.sand) = huge performance hit
1 dynamic feature => 2 or more = very little difference in performance
The way I see it, the only sensible reason for choosing to release some but not other dynamic track features is that the quality is not acceptable - e.g. marbles and sand might work well and look good, but water might just look too unrealistic, in which case the water would be left out until the system was re-designed at some later date.
Personally my hunch is that we won't be seeing dynamic track features for a long time, but when we do, there will be more than one, and they will work well and look good (=subtle). I would guess marbles, grippy racing line, temps, sand/dirt... not so sure about water unless its kept to wet or dry but no puddles and no actual rain.
cheers
Col
I think you're wasting your energy with this argument
The biggest difficulty in implementing rain is the same as for implementing sand on track, marbles, varying track temps etc. so if we get one, we will most likely get the others at the same time !
The Very Difficult Thing™ is to have any kind of variable real-time interactive surfaces on the track - for rain that would mean having puddles, dry lines forming where more cars go etc.... for dirt/sand that would mean cars rejoining leaving a mess that alters the grip characteristics of the track at that point.... for 'marbles' it would again be similar (the calculations to decide where to change the grip characteristics would be different for each, but thats a comparatively trivial problem)
The big difficulty isn't making it look like wet or dirt - that's simple enough - the trick is coping with the huge amount of dynamic data required to manage all these elements during a race - getting this to work without requiring all users to have top end systems will be VERY difficult indeed.
(Then you have the problem of ensuring that all racers on a network have the same dirt/wet in the same places...)
All things considered, this is a big and difficult problem, and when it does eventually get solved (maybe just by waiting for PCs and 'tinternet to get faster), it opens the way not only for dirt, marbles and wet, but for stuff like rally tracks having rutts that change dynamically, and stuff like snow and ice
... So there's no point in saying "don't do rain, do sand instead" - they're really the same thing !
Does gonorrhea-live gold have a better technical support package?
Thats a pretty simplistic response
What often happens is that an experienced fast racer in mid pack at T1 will slow a little to avoid an incident in front of them, while the fools and noobs behind him would rather keep going at full tilt and take pot luck on whether they get through... so the guy who eases off to avoid an accident gets rammed by the *******...
It happens to someone at every T1 on busy servers.
You often see experienced racers join, run a few races, and if they haven't been lucky enough to get a grid spot near the front row by then, they will leave as it gets too frustrating.
One thing I've been noticing more recently is that even if you do get to the front, the level of sportsmanship seems to have dropped a lot - I kept getting shouldered off the track while making fair passes on front runners... that is a much worse problem if it is becoming the standard - I've had more positive experiences on demo servers than on S2 servers recently... sure you get annoying wreckers, but at least the fast guys at the front will race fair !
Maybe this is nothing new and just a symptom of me using non-CTRA servers more since the patch ?
Maybe its just folks not being used to the reduced visibility of the FBM ?
Col
And unfortunately, it doesn't offer real 'modders' anything like they would want or need.
It would not be possible to create truly original content, therefor it would be kinda pointless to spend a lot of time developing what would be quite a complex management system.
Hmm, it seems there's another part of my original suggestion that I will have to explain again - maybe there is a lack of willingness to understand the implications of the suggestion?
The idea is that a future moddable LFS version would have some mechanism by which installation of mods is handled automatically. The only user intervention required would be to click 'OK' or 'cancel'
heres the scenario: When a user tries to join a server that is running a mod, the master server can interrogate the users install to see if they have the correct version of the correct mod for the server they are trying to join. If they don't have *exactly* the correct version, the database WILL have a working link to a VALID download stored on an external server (maintained by the mod provider - not by the LFS team... If at any point anyone tries and fails to download via the link in the database, that mod will be locked until the maintainer sorts the problem).
Heres another scenario - this time from the perspective of setting up a server.
When a user tries to create a server, the master server can interrogate their LFS version and check to see that the mods they are running are registered on the database and are up-to-date. If any of the mods are either not registered, locked, or out of date, the user will be given a message explaining the problem. If it was just an out of date problem, they will be asked if they want to download and install the latest version of the mod (or an updater?).
If you think about this carefully, you will see that it would mean everyone would always be using the 'correct' version of a mod, and that it would be simple to join a server using a mod you don't have.
No going to external websites, no searching for the correct version, no worries or hassles for the end user.
There are no 'external links' visible to the user. What there are are links to external resources that are all managed behind the scenes automatically by the software.
Look at what happens when you use the LFS auto updater - you see a list of mirror servers and choose one - most folks are not downloading the updates from the servers owned by Scavier. It would be a similar process for the mods except that if each mod was only on one server, there would be no mirror list required (might be good to have a choice for pooular mods though)...
The only way you could run a banned, locked, unregistered or out of date mod would be in single player mode or on a LAN.
To suggest that this is 'exactly the same' as saying "go to our website, get the new version of the mod, hope we don't release a new one any time soon" is to miss the point entirely.
cheers
Col
Maybe you read it too quickly
All I'm suggesting would go through the master server would be some sort of encrypted key, and on the occasion that a client doesn't have the required mod, a _short_ test description and a LINK to an EXTERNAL download.
If that would use more bandwidth than you can possibly imagine, then you don't have much of an imagination
( On average, we're talking orders of magnitude less than a single skin download !)
Add to that the fact that most of the activity will be when a new mod version is released or when a new LFS version is released and lots of new users join (and mods need to be updated), and you can see that bandwidth is a non-issue in this system.
Nonsense - there is no more danger in my suggestion than there would be with any 3rd party modding solution. In fact it is more secure, because as soon as any mod is found to contain malware of some kind, it can be banned and action can be taken - in which case far fewer end users will suffer!
having modding 'hardcore' and 'self-contained' is exactly what causes fracturing of the community in other games.... modding becomes a cliqué activity - it tends to be regular experienced users that use the mods/ These are the same people who set up servers and populate them... this causes barriers to new and/or inexperienced users.... exactly what we want to avoid.
(just to clarify, when I talk of modding I mean adding new tracks and cars - not hacking the physics to allow ridiculous horse power or extreme setup options)
Even that would be a much heavier load on the master server than my suggestion - remember a new car is not going to be just a .cmx file - it will also have to contain a whole bunch of data related to physics components like suspension parts, collision data etc. That is always going to be much larger than an encrypted handshake and a link to an external download site.
What about tracks - how are you going to factor those into it?
My understanding is that new tracks are at least as much in demand as cars, and that modders are at least as desperate to be able to work on tracks as on cars.
I'm not convinced by that at all!
If they are to be anonymous, who chooses them?
by what criteria are they chosen ?
who decides which users are 'respected'?
who must they be respected by?
Whats going to stop anonymous persons form exercising petty personal grudges and agendas? Its even more difficult to hold them to account if we don't know who they are!
The majority of community mods are likely to include some unlicenced IP. If they are to be officially sanctioned (by association), how will this be prevented?
Do the panel have to refuse every mod that has unlicenced IP?
If the mod provider states they have a licence, who is going to pay for lawyers to check the legality?
Do you expect the devs to trust anonymous 'respected' volunteers possibly with no legal expertise with their livelyhood?
What if some unlicenced IP slips through because one of the volunteer 'respected' persons messes up - who is going to pay the damages after the lawsuit?
If you don't have a panel and do things in a similar way to youtube , having no selection process, instead using user ratings and content reporting mechanisms, you can sidestep all those issues. Additionally we might get some un-licenced 'real' content that doesn't get locked because the IP owner doesn't see any advantage in preventing its use. Sure some mods using unlicenced content will be removed, but many will not, and doing things this way, the devs are not in such a legally vulnerable position.
How many of the custom 'user' skins in the database have corporate IP all over them and yet have no permission? yep, plenty of them, and yet in practice, there have been no issues. If those skins were officially sanctioned, you can bet that there would be major legal problems. There is nothing significantly different in the case of mods - at least from a legal standpoint - other than that the unlicenced content wouldn't even be stored on official servers.
Last edited by col, .
Having an almighty panel of 'respected' members would cause more trouble than it would solve - if there's one sure fire way to cause splits in a community it's giving that level of power to some members and not others. There's too much room for personal agendas and grudges... how do you choose the panel? a vote? lol
If you can ensure that the installation of mod content can be transparent and robust, and you can include some sort of user rating system, then the cream of the crop would float to the top, and poor mods would soon vanish into the mire - no need for a panel of selectors.
Having selectors also makes the legal position more difficult to manage - are the panel sanctioned by the devs?
If they're not then how can the panel be justified as a mechanism thats part of the official LFS system.
If they are officially sanctioned, then mods they accept are, by association, also officially sanctioned and the devs become liable for IP infringements.
The only way I see a panel of members being a viable option is if the mod system is not part of the official LFS software, and that leaves us with basiacally the same mod 'system' that rFactor has - which is something that the majority here do not want(at least that's my understanding)
This is one of the issues that my idea is specifically designed to avoid! Did you read my original post ?
The idea is that you don't worry about if there is a sever running the mods you have... you look for a busy server and click join. If it's using a mod that you don't have, LFS can automatically download and setup the mod for you - correct version, correct settings.
You never have to worry about getting all the latest mods, you just do what you always did - click on a populated server and let the system do the rest.
If a mod is rubbish, it wont last - people will soon leave the server to find a better one and it will quickly die a natural death.
-------------------------------
I'm personally not that bothered either way about having new content - I don't play LFS 24/7, and theres still plenty of combos that I haven't explored to anything like their full potential.
However, I am interested in this from a systems point of view.
I think the only valid negative issue that has been highlighted so far is related to IP rights.
The problem is that if IP owners can have mods locked and removed by e-mailing the devs, then we may not be able to have community built versions of real cars and tracks - because they will be quickly removed from the system. I guess that's just a wait and see what happens kind of thing - maybe IP holders won't have an issue with it because there's no money money in it for the lawyers. I'm sure if they really were that concerned, then there would have been a load of cease and desist letters sent to modders in the rFactor community? Is that something that has happened?
If the system I suggested in my first post was used, then the devs would NOT be liable!
Are microsoft liable if someone uses windows for illegal purposes?
is an ISP liable if a customer downloads mp3s without a licence?
do youtube.com get sued every time some kid posts copyright material without permission?
If no actual mod data is stored on the central server and the devs don't actively support any mods, then they are not liable - in fact the opposite is true... because they have control of the usable mods, any licence holder that feels strongly enough that a mod is abusing their intellectual property, they can email the devs and have the mod locked or removed... kinda like how things work with youtube. This is something that the IP holders would see as a positive advantage over the likes of rFactors modding setup...
The bandwidth should be very low, the database would only hold stuff like info text and a download URL. The actual download would be from some external server not owned by Scavier - it would be up to the mod maintainer to ensure that the download was always available. If it became unavailable, the mod would be auto-locked.
If mods involved some sort of pay-per-view thing like the hi-res skins do, then there would be the risk of fracturing the community, so IMO that would be a no-no.
If mods involved some sort of pay-per-view thing like the hi-res skins do, then there would be the risk of fracturing the community, so IMO that would be a no-no.
Modding could work for LFS! (idea for distant future)
Had some interesting thoughts that were sparked off by reading some other discussion that mentioned rFactor...
First of all, I am not asking for modding in LFS - it's not time yet (if ever). However, I want to air these thoughts before they fade into oblivion (where they probably belong)
#1 One of the most often requested features for LFS over the years is for modding of cars and tracks to be supported. Scawen suggested back in the dim and distant past that when the final stage of LFS was released they would probably release some design tools to the community so that we could develop our own content.
#2 There are well known and significant negative side-effects that come with opening a sim to modders: controlling quality of content; fracturing of the community; huge complexity for users
#3 Probably the best thing about LFS is the innovation. Stuff like 'instant' online racing, unique features of the physiscs engine and the amazing concept of LFSWorld.
It seems like Scavier are not happy to just do their version of whats already been done. They first analyse existing concepts and then try to find solutions for existing problems.
Putting these things all together got me wondering how Scavier might add modding to LFS and avoid the problems.
I imagine some sort of central mod database and a requirement that all mods must be 'registered'.
For on-line play, LFS would only allow registered mods to be loaded - the master server would be contacted for validation every time a client or server tried to run a modded online game. This would mean only registered mod content could be used. If a mod had been locked of banned, the master server would close or refuse to accept a server trying to use it.
We cannot expect the devs to test and rate every mod, but there would be rules about download availability and some sort of reporting mechanism so that bad mods can be reported and locked/removed.
A user rating system would also be useful - a mod with enough votes and a low rating might cause a warning to be displayed to the user.
What about dealing with the complexity?
A centralized system like this makes it possible to turn the end user nightmare of setting up a massively modded game into a walk in the park!
The ingame server lists could have mod related filtering
Mods would be required to maintain a working download link in the central database or risk being automatically 'locked' (as soon as any players' LFS client fails to download a mod, it can be auto-locked to ensure that it can only be used if everyone has access).
When a player tries to join a server that requires a mod they don't have, or a more recent version than they have, LFS would tell them about the mod/update, with a description, some other info (maybe some sort of user rating) and a file size. Then ask if they want to download the required components.
Streamlining the installation process in this way would make modding way more accessible. It would also help to prevent all the issues of everyone having different versions of a mod, or not being able to find a download.
Sure there are problems with these ideas: potential security issues with third party download links; problems with arbitration for 'unfairly' locked mods.. and others that I've not considered, but it seems like it should be possible to add modding to LFS in the future without all the huge problems that it has caused for other games.
So what are the other problems, and what other features would a central mod server make possible?
(apologies in advance if these ideas already exist in some other game and I'm just an ignorant fool)
cheers
Col
First of all, I am not asking for modding in LFS - it's not time yet (if ever). However, I want to air these thoughts before they fade into oblivion (where they probably belong)
#1 One of the most often requested features for LFS over the years is for modding of cars and tracks to be supported. Scawen suggested back in the dim and distant past that when the final stage of LFS was released they would probably release some design tools to the community so that we could develop our own content.
#2 There are well known and significant negative side-effects that come with opening a sim to modders: controlling quality of content; fracturing of the community; huge complexity for users
#3 Probably the best thing about LFS is the innovation. Stuff like 'instant' online racing, unique features of the physiscs engine and the amazing concept of LFSWorld.
It seems like Scavier are not happy to just do their version of whats already been done. They first analyse existing concepts and then try to find solutions for existing problems.
Putting these things all together got me wondering how Scavier might add modding to LFS and avoid the problems.
I imagine some sort of central mod database and a requirement that all mods must be 'registered'.
For on-line play, LFS would only allow registered mods to be loaded - the master server would be contacted for validation every time a client or server tried to run a modded online game. This would mean only registered mod content could be used. If a mod had been locked of banned, the master server would close or refuse to accept a server trying to use it.
We cannot expect the devs to test and rate every mod, but there would be rules about download availability and some sort of reporting mechanism so that bad mods can be reported and locked/removed.
A user rating system would also be useful - a mod with enough votes and a low rating might cause a warning to be displayed to the user.
What about dealing with the complexity?
A centralized system like this makes it possible to turn the end user nightmare of setting up a massively modded game into a walk in the park!
The ingame server lists could have mod related filtering
Mods would be required to maintain a working download link in the central database or risk being automatically 'locked' (as soon as any players' LFS client fails to download a mod, it can be auto-locked to ensure that it can only be used if everyone has access).
When a player tries to join a server that requires a mod they don't have, or a more recent version than they have, LFS would tell them about the mod/update, with a description, some other info (maybe some sort of user rating) and a file size. Then ask if they want to download the required components.
Streamlining the installation process in this way would make modding way more accessible. It would also help to prevent all the issues of everyone having different versions of a mod, or not being able to find a download.
Sure there are problems with these ideas: potential security issues with third party download links; problems with arbitration for 'unfairly' locked mods.. and others that I've not considered, but it seems like it should be possible to add modding to LFS in the future without all the huge problems that it has caused for other games.
So what are the other problems, and what other features would a central mod server make possible?
(apologies in advance if these ideas already exist in some other game and I'm just an ignorant fool
)cheers
Col
Last edited by col, .
remember names like MATH, Annanguerra(sp?), FRED(who just appeared as if by magic), Jeep, Grrrl (grrrr).... and many more ?
remember when Macest appeared on the scene ?
remember having to set the ARBs the opposite to what they would be IRL ?
remember the 'Elite' servers where you'd better be able to run the time in the server name, or look mighty silly ?
remember when bump drafting in the XFG on blackwood straight was acceptable and the majority could do it without incident ?
remember having to lift off in gear changes to avoid engine damage (what goes around comes around hehe) ?
Remember when nobody looked down on demo users - because thats all there was?
remember driving right on the left of the blackwood straight with two wheels in the dirt to get a fast lap.
Remember when Scawen made the cars skinable ?
remember the original CRC when it really had a purpose and really worked and wasn't always empty
remwmber the first thread asking for the nordschleife ?
remember when Macest appeared on the scene ?
remember having to set the ARBs the opposite to what they would be IRL ?
remember the 'Elite' servers where you'd better be able to run the time in the server name, or look mighty silly ?
remember when bump drafting in the XFG on blackwood straight was acceptable and the majority could do it without incident ?
remember having to lift off in gear changes to avoid engine damage (what goes around comes around hehe) ?
Remember when nobody looked down on demo users - because thats all there was?
remember driving right on the left of the blackwood straight with two wheels in the dirt to get a fast lap.
Remember when Scawen made the cars skinable ?
remember the original CRC when it really had a purpose and really worked and wasn't always empty
remwmber the first thread asking for the nordschleife ?
/me slaps head and groans!
Please read my post - then read it again, maybe you will then understand that I totally agree that even 45º of head turn would be silly!
As I keep stating, the extra visual angle you get from moving your eyeballs and from your extra peripheral vision makes 90º look about right....
ITS NOT ABOUT 90º OF PHYSICAL HEAD TURN
Its about seeing as much at the side of your car in LFS as you would by turning your head a little and using your eyes and peripheral vision in real life.
I can't believe that you really read my post and really didn't get this!
Maybe you are just trolling ?
In what way is 70º or any other arbitrary angle less realistic than 90º?
If your eyeballs were fixed rigidly in your head and could look straight forward, them maybe you would have point, but that's not how looking works....
I just don't get how folks seem to be thinking only about how far you could or would physically turn your head... what about moving your eyes and the extra peripheral vision that you get in real life but don't with a pc monitor ?
It's true that without names over the cars, in some of the open wheelers, 90º doesn't give much advantage over 45º (only for those of us who have internalized the 90º system), but there's so much more to LFS than FBM and BF1.
I have stated and restated my thoughts about visual range and perception - how 90º look gives back what lack of peripheral vision takes away, and yet all those folks who are against re-introducing 90º look don't seem willing to address those ideas - instead we get
"Cant beileve people actually complain over this ? dont you have a dog to walk, or do xmas shopping, or bike to ride ?"
I can't believe people actually make posts like this ? don't you have a relevant point to make, or an opinion of your own? don't you ever react if someone takes away something you like ?
and
"How about if we'd make a compromise for about 60 degrees of sidelook to stop the whining and constant cries of 'BWAAAA I'M QUITTING NOW' only to see their online status at racing some server happily."
I don't remember reading any cries of 'BWAAAA I'M QUITTING NOW' in the threads that include this discussion... maybe you are confusing it with the cut/blip threads? I don't hear much whining either, just reasoned arguments supporting a valid opinion about An lfs feature - in fact you seem to be doing as much whining as anyone else here
So come on folks lets hear some good reasons why instant on-button 90º look is wrong for LFS! (preferably reasons that haven't already been refuted)
Why shouldn't those many drivers who use it be allowed to continue using it (in it's original form not this hobbled two button nonsense)?
What is it about my argument that is hard to understand? or alternatively, why is it not valid?
(you know, the one about a real life 30º head turn giving the same perceptual info as a 90º 'look' in LFS - therefor we should keep instant one-button 90º)
col
Sitting in your chair, turn your head ~30º to the right, now if you look with your eyes as far right as possible, what is the limit of your vision?
yes, (assuming you use a standard monitor and reasonable FOV it's about the same as you get with the 90º look feature!
Sure, IRL you wouldn't turn your head fully 90º unless you were reversing, turning your head 90º lets you see more than 180º (measured from directly forward).
I can see as far to the side IRL without moving my head at all as I can with the 45º look feature!
If LFS is to give a similar visual awareness to real life, then instant 90º via a single button press is so far the best solution.
IMO, the look buttons should be about giving a more realistic visual range and awareness, not about exactly matching the limits of rotation of a human neck.
Col
There's a hint as to why in the logo on the front page is says "Live for Speed online racing simulator"
I'll assume you mean me (I'm in that sort of mood)
I'm not being negative - just observant and objective.
Some of my all time favorite games are console games where you are fed success and progress steadily to an ultimate victory against the big bad boss. Nothing wrong with that type of game.
LFS is just not that kind of game - it's a simple fact of LFS
You need to think more deeply!
There are many different 'race sims' out there, unfortunately you CANNOT use the best bits of all of them in one sim e.g.
*One of the best bits of rFactor is that it is easily modable and there are some great community mods available
*One of the best bits of LFS is that it is not modable and the devs carefully control quality of content.
How can you have both of those features in the same game ?
Come on, please do tell
*one of the best bits of Gran Turisimo is that it has loads of licenced tracks and loads of licenced cars
*one of the best bits of LFS is that they don't spend loads of cash on licences so they can make a realistic hardcore sim that doesn't have to appeal to the mass market to break even
How can you have both of those features in the same game ?
getting the idea now?
(Un)fortunately for me, I've been playing LFS since 2002 (in video game terms that makes it anything but new) and threads suggesting certain features keep re-appearing (usually after a new patch is released, and a load of new players join the community.) The arguments against certain ideas are well honed through repetition, and are accepted by most (though not all) LFS users...
FWIW, you will find that if you do come up with a new idea that is original and intelligent and you present it well, it will receive a good reception here.
If you don't read the stickies and don't research your ideas, then don't complain if they get a less than stellar reception
Don't give up posting though
cheers
Col
That would be completely hopeless in a crowded high speed racing situation - e.g. T1 mayhem - and unfortunately a crowded high speed situation is exactly the place where the look buttons are most important. You need to be able to see to either side for only an instant and then be looking forward again or you will cause accidents !
I'm not sure about 'look at nearest car' - I would have to experience it before judging, but it is certainly missing on of the features that I find 90º look so useful for.
With 90º, you can easily see if the guy/gal beside you has fair overlap or not (and whether you do). With the look at car feature, I would never use it unless it was instant, and in that case, it would be difficult to judge how big an overlap the car has.
Another problem is that it is likely to be disorienting having your view changed in an arbitrary way that depends on the position of another car that you may not even be aware of - I'm pretty sure I would prefer to have a dependable 'look' that always did the same thing. That way it can become an instinctive part of my sensory input rather than a puzzle for my conscious brain
I've said elsewhere that I believe that 90º instant look is a good and fair compromise between fantasy and reality as a way to counteract the lack of peripheral vision when using a standard PC monitor.
When I race, I (used to) tap the look button, I see to the side for maybe 2 or 3 frames, and I'm looking forward again before my brain has even finished 'realizing' if there's another car beside me or not - it's a really intuitive way of getting better spacial awareness.
IMO the guys claiming that you don't ever turn you head 90º in a race car are missing the point! In real life, even with a helmet on and a harness, you should be able to get 180º of visual awareness with minimal head movements maybe 20-30º each way. The 45º look just doesn't do it, and now the 90º look is just way more awkward than it needs to be.
I know it is 'un-realistic', but this is about counteracting one very un-realistic problem (lack of peripheral vision) with an equally unrealistic solution (90º instant look) in order to make the overall experience more realistic.
ok, enough... soapbox anyone ?
Col
I agree, however I think this is missing the real need that the OP is expressing...
I believe that what he really wants is a video game 'everyone can win' type of thing - folks have got used to games where if you put in enough hours, you will always 'win'... they want to be able to say "LFS? you still playing that?, I 'finished' it ages ago - was too easy for me".
The problem with real leagues with real opponents is that most players will never win - only the truly talented will actually win. That doesn't fit in with the modern console game ethos that is so prevalent these days.
LFS is not a console game where success is fed to you via a carefully tweaked learning curve designed so you'll be 'finished' just in time for the next release...
LFS is a virtual sport - you have to set yourself goals and get satisfaction from achieving them just like in real life!
Col
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG