If you had enough support from the community that the game publishers all wanted a piece of the action, you could provide some sort of competitive contract - each year the publishers would compete to be the STCC sim - that way, you could get around the 'single commercial product' issue without having to use multiple software applications...
I guess at this stage, requiring them to bid would be out of the question, but some sort of open vote in RSC or some equivalent multi sim forum might be adequate ?
It's not really surprising. If the olympic commission let any marginal hobbyists define their own sports without stringent rules, all the existing sports they ratify would be devalued, and the organization would become a laughing stock. If sim racing truly is a 'sport', then it should be easy enough to fulfill their requirements!
I don't think it's viable having the public face of sim-racing spread over multiple sims.
If the different sims all have to be involved (and I agree they do), have a qualifying series for each sim, and have the premier publicly aired series use one sim per season - chosen competitively by some fixed set or rules agreed upon by all 'manufacturers'.
--------------------------
Having said all that, I personally don't think sim racing is going to 'happen' as a spectator sport any time soon.
No-one outside of the community is remotely interested - they think we are a bunch of overgrown obsessed nerdy children ! (I tend to agree
)The only people who are interested who aren't actually sim-racers (includes drifters and cruisers) are hoping to make a buck out of the ones who are.
I've been sim racing on and off since 1999, even when I'm not actively racing, I'm following the news, and keeping up with developments. I watched exactly one of the STCC broadcasts. I though the quality was high, and I was entertained, so why have I only watched one? On TV, there are numerous real racing series and any of them provides a far higher entertainment level. Drivers are putting their lives and careers on the line, manufacturers gamble millions of $$ on the outcome of races that can be decided by a mistake in the pits or a change in the weather, the skill level is extreme and the physical conditions demanding. This is high drama - the highs are exhilarating, the lows are gut wrenching, the participants are gladiators and heroes, all good spectator sports have these features, and they just aren't there in sim racing - they're not there in sim anything.
I don't want to be negative, I think that the STCC and CTRA have done some great things for sim racing, and that Becky and Sam are hero's of this community. However, I'm not being devils advocate here - I really don't think the world is ready for sim racing as a spectator sport, and until there is high risk, melodrama, celebrity and danger involved, I don't think it's ever going to be. Maybe when we get to the stage where 'virtual' skill is valued as highly as real world skill, the situation may improve, but we're never going to get around the fact that sport is all about physical challenge, and what very limited physical challenge there is in sim sport is not visible to the spectators. Maybe close up reaction shots of the racers faces as the get flipped by a physics bug will help (seriously), but thats a long way off I fear.
An example that highlights at least part of this is the Intel Racing Tour. Just having a big prize to win or lose made a huge difference to the spectator appeal at least for me. I was far more interested by the outcome of the intel racing tour than any other sim event that I was not a participant in. Even though there was no replay or 'broadcast' (at least that I was aware of), and that it was only for Germans. The fact that the losers really lost something and the winner really won something - there was real risk that spectators could empathise with.
Anyway, thats enough negativity for now
cheers, and please don't take this post the wrong way.
Col
A good IDE can make a big difference.
example:
Most good programmers know how important choosing good names for variables and object instances is.
If you get it wrong, then later in the project, you either have to spend time and effort going through the codebase updating all the instances to a new more suitable name.... or just leave a bad name in there that causes ambiguity and uncertainty for maintainers (yourself in a few weeks)
To avoid this trouble you can spend quite a while stressing about the naming process.
Eclipse (at least the latest Java version anyway) has some excellent refactoring tools - renaming a variable throughout the codebase is very simple and quick - just a few clicks and type the new name !
These kinds of tools don't just save time, they can change the way you program.
example:
Most good programmers know how important choosing good names for variables and object instances is.
If you get it wrong, then later in the project, you either have to spend time and effort going through the codebase updating all the instances to a new more suitable name.... or just leave a bad name in there that causes ambiguity and uncertainty for maintainers (yourself in a few weeks
)To avoid this trouble you can spend quite a while stressing about the naming process.
Eclipse (at least the latest Java version anyway) has some excellent refactoring tools - renaming a variable throughout the codebase is very simple and quick - just a few clicks and type the new name !
These kinds of tools don't just save time, they can change the way you program.
Why not use a third party app - or write one ?
There are numerous controller converter apps available - most are of the gamepad 2 mouse variety, but there are some aimed at flight sim folks that let you use a mouse as a 'yoke'... and others that provide loads of options (the super powerful ones are usually crippled shareware though).
Please do some searching and try out some of these options before asking for niche functionality in LFS
There are numerous controller converter apps available - most are of the gamepad 2 mouse variety, but there are some aimed at flight sim folks that let you use a mouse as a 'yoke'... and others that provide loads of options (the super powerful ones are usually crippled shareware though).
Please do some searching and try out some of these options before asking for niche functionality in LFS
Like all F1 drivers, he is payed an obscene amount of money to say exactly what they tell him to say. The smile on his face as he discovers LFS tells more than all his words about what he really thinks - mind you, they also pay him to smile 
[quote=Shotglass;495284]...
theres a reason mist unis start with scheme
...
Sometimes I wish I had started with some LISP variant. I have dabbled on and off with it, but never had the time to actually *really* learn it.
I would add my vote to the folks recommending to learn about computer systems and programming in general rather than some specific language. When you have a solid foundation, you can choose a language based on what's best for your next project rather than mashing the project to fit the language you know.
In the end, you probably want to have some fluency in at least one multi-paradigm language, and as has been said, knowledge of assembly will also help a lot (even if you never do any assembly programming other than to learn how)
If I were starting now, I would be taking a very serious look at Ruby and at Python (but then I mostly use C++ and Java, and you know what they say about the grass on the other side).
Good luck and have fun
theres a reason mist unis start with scheme
...
Sometimes I wish I had started with some LISP variant. I have dabbled on and off with it, but never had the time to actually *really* learn it.
I would add my vote to the folks recommending to learn about computer systems and programming in general rather than some specific language. When you have a solid foundation, you can choose a language based on what's best for your next project rather than mashing the project to fit the language you know.
In the end, you probably want to have some fluency in at least one multi-paradigm language, and as has been said, knowledge of assembly will also help a lot (even if you never do any assembly programming other than to learn how)
If I were starting now, I would be taking a very serious look at Ruby and at Python (but then I mostly use C++ and Java, and you know what they say about the grass on the other side).
Good luck and have fun
It would be a bit hatstand to do the AI before the physics updates, but maybe after the incompatible stuff is all done and dusted, Scawen will start another patch blizzard. I think he will probably try and get most of the functionality done first including AI, then use public testing to fix bugs and get some polish on there.
I don't understand all these folks hoping for new track(s).
My understanding is that we will get new content each time a new 'S' number is released. ie. S1 = got some new content, S2 = got some new content... part of the business model is that we pay for new content, and it is added per major release. So I don't expect any significant additions to content until S3.
We might get an easter egg or two if we're lucky. Maybe a new car, or a new track configuration.
I think we will most likely get some reworked improved versions of existing cars/tracks (either/or).
@ the folks wanting regular public test patch releases: I think that is very unlikely. In the last development stage, Scawen was working on 'compatible' components. things that could be updated without having to reset LFS World, stuff that would not prevent folks with earlier development patches from racing folks with the latest one.
Now he is working on game elements that would break compatibility with each patch released. If these updates were released as regular test patches, LFS World would become meaningless and the community would become fractured. It's not going to happen !
My understanding is that we will get new content each time a new 'S' number is released. ie. S1 = got some new content, S2 = got some new content... part of the business model is that we pay for new content, and it is added per major release. So I don't expect any significant additions to content until S3.
We might get an easter egg or two if we're lucky. Maybe a new car, or a new track configuration.
I think we will most likely get some reworked improved versions of existing cars/tracks (either/or).
@ the folks wanting regular public test patch releases: I think that is very unlikely. In the last development stage, Scawen was working on 'compatible' components. things that could be updated without having to reset LFS World, stuff that would not prevent folks with earlier development patches from racing folks with the latest one.
Now he is working on game elements that would break compatibility with each patch released. If these updates were released as regular test patches, LFS World would become meaningless and the community would become fractured. It's not going to happen !
Yep
and you can just imagine the extreme buttmunchery there will be on the forum as complaints flood in and all the self important kiddies start threatening to 'leave' LFS because the changes have ruined it
In saying that, you have officially lost the argument
I guess my humour is a little too subtle
Hey, maybe they should licence the LFS name to someone like EASports or Sony so they make a game of it ?
.....hmm...
Lots of folks think 'real' licenced content would improve LFS.
Some folks want modding because it would make it possible to have 'real' licenced content such as 'real tracks' and more 'real cars'.
Most agree that if modding was to be allowed, there would have to be quality filtering controlled by the devs otherwise LFS would decend into rFactor style chaos.
The devs will not be willing to sanction licenced content for fear of the legal implications.
So - as has been mentioned - any dev sanctioned content would have to be 'fantasy'
So what would be the point of modding ?
-----------------------------
Can anyone come up with a convincing model that would allow suitable quality control over un-licenced 'real' mod content without the devs (or any other sanctioning body) getting into legal difficulties ?
I suppose that if a strict set of metrics were devised, it would be possible to measure the 'quality' of a track without referring to the 'original' it was based on....
However, most of the praise and/or criticism for any mod is concerned with how closely it models the 'original' and where it gets it wrong.... all those comparisons would have to be avoided... souds tricky to me...
Are there any lawyers out there?
Would it be possible for the devs (or some other sanctioning body) to sanction mods based on real world tracks by making some sort of disclaimer... maybe stating that they accepted or denied mods purely based on the quality of the work and that any infringements of intellectual property were the responsibility of the mod authors ?
Col.
Lots of folks think 'real' licenced content would improve LFS.
Some folks want modding because it would make it possible to have 'real' licenced content such as 'real tracks' and more 'real cars'.
Most agree that if modding was to be allowed, there would have to be quality filtering controlled by the devs otherwise LFS would decend into rFactor style chaos.
The devs will not be willing to sanction licenced content for fear of the legal implications.
So - as has been mentioned - any dev sanctioned content would have to be 'fantasy'
So what would be the point of modding ?
-----------------------------
Can anyone come up with a convincing model that would allow suitable quality control over un-licenced 'real' mod content without the devs (or any other sanctioning body) getting into legal difficulties ?
I suppose that if a strict set of metrics were devised, it would be possible to measure the 'quality' of a track without referring to the 'original' it was based on....
However, most of the praise and/or criticism for any mod is concerned with how closely it models the 'original' and where it gets it wrong.... all those comparisons would have to be avoided... souds tricky to me...
Are there any lawyers out there?
Would it be possible for the devs (or some other sanctioning body) to sanction mods based on real world tracks by making some sort of disclaimer... maybe stating that they accepted or denied mods purely based on the quality of the work and that any infringements of intellectual property were the responsibility of the mod authors ?
Col.
Of course it is.
It is already...
It's not "the most realistic real track simulator" or "the most realistic real car simulator", but it is "the most realistic racing simulator".
I downloaded the LFS demo because it was being discussed on rec.autos.simulators, and I wanted to see what the fuss was about....
That was in 2002.
I guess some folks are just slow to catch on
(if you go to google groups and search rec.autos.simulators for "live for speed", some of the early discussion is interesting - comparisons with GPL and Racing Legends (lol). Hehe, some of the 'topics' were already starting up that still continue today - and haven't moved on much either)
That was in 2002.
I guess some folks are just slow to catch on
(if you go to google groups and search rec.autos.simulators for "live for speed", some of the early discussion is interesting - comparisons with GPL and Racing Legends (lol). Hehe, some of the 'topics' were already starting up that still continue today - and haven't moved on much either
)I would expect one or two little additions, but we already have a massive ammount of extra content when comared with S1. What I do think we'll get are a lot of improvements to the existing content.
I'm sure there are many good reasons, but here's a good one that comes to mind immediately.
Incompatible updates to things like damage modeling, rendering, collision detection will require changes to the data formats of the cars and tracks. Some changes will need models to be tweaked and updated. Scawen can give Eric new versions of the modeling tools that generate the new formats at any time, but the content they generate can only be released publicly when the physics/graphics updates that they are tied to are also released. If new versions of tools are made, it makes sense that any other tweakes e.g. graphics engine updates, little optimizations and the like are included at the same time, any or all of these things could require work to be done on all the existing models, so it makes very good sense for public releases of incompatible Patches and releases of new content and/or updates to existing content to be synchronised.
I'm not bothered about S2 'final' one way or the other.
However, some of the elements that are likely to be part of it would be nice to see.
A good example is decent AI.
(assuming that there is enough of an in-sim interface to the AI, it would be possible for stuff like 3rd party career mode type things...)
Others much needed updates include the often complained about collision response, the damage modeling and the aero.
................................
As far as the final release bringing a whole bunch of new people and the existing community being fractured and changing, that has happened more than once already... It's ironic that the OP is worried about this when he was part of one of the previous waves of new folks that caused this to happen (I'm not saying it's a bad thing - it's just one of those inevitable shake ups that happen in any growing community)
Long live LFS
However, some of the elements that are likely to be part of it would be nice to see.
A good example is decent AI.
(assuming that there is enough of an in-sim interface to the AI, it would be possible for stuff like 3rd party career mode type things...)
Others much needed updates include the often complained about collision response, the damage modeling and the aero.
................................
As far as the final release bringing a whole bunch of new people and the existing community being fractured and changing, that has happened more than once already... It's ironic that the OP is worried about this when he was part of one of the previous waves of new folks that caused this to happen (I'm not saying it's a bad thing - it's just one of those inevitable shake ups that happen in any growing community)
Long live LFS
It's not that you're not easing off the brakes enough, or that you're not braking straight for long enough, it's that when you start turning, you're turning too hard - too aggressively. When you turn, turn less and do it smoothly releasing the brakes smoothly at the same time - you have to feel the connection between releasing the brake and turning the car - if you're getting it right, and the setup is good, you will get nice turn-in and hear the tyres scrubbing without squealing all the way through the turn.
Basically all your inputs should be smooth - if you are near the limit(if you aren't you will be slow) and make any sudden extreme control inputs, it is likely that you will lose grip efficiency.
If you are still braking HARD at turn in point, all the weight is over the front of the car, so there is very little grip in the rears, if you then turn putting more pressure on the (outside?) rear, it will break loose... you want to ease your braking before turn in (just long enough for the car to settle), but not too much that you send the weight of the car flying in the other direction
You should google 'traction budget' or 'traction circle' for more useful info about how to 'manage' the car through corners. Also google 'trail braking'
Having looked at the replay, I would say that for the car/track/tyres/setup you are using, you are just stepping over the grip limit at turn in!
Don't turn in quite so much until you have released the brakes a bit more - trail braking is tricky this way, I think you are turning too hard at first and the resulting weight transfer is too violent - when you've don't that, there is no 'fix' later in the corner - so try to be smoother and keep tighter control over the weight transfer towards the end of the straight part of the braking zone and during the initial turn in... if you get that right, you can probably turn in harder keeping more speed and apex faster without losing the rear (its not gonna be easy though
)
You also must use a setup that is designed for your driving style - ie. there's no point in trying to trail brake with a mouse setup.
If you are still braking HARD at turn in point, all the weight is over the front of the car, so there is very little grip in the rears, if you then turn putting more pressure on the (outside?) rear, it will break loose... you want to ease your braking before turn in (just long enough for the car to settle), but not too much that you send the weight of the car flying in the other direction
You should google 'traction budget' or 'traction circle' for more useful info about how to 'manage' the car through corners. Also google 'trail braking'
Having looked at the replay, I would say that for the car/track/tyres/setup you are using, you are just stepping over the grip limit at turn in!
Don't turn in quite so much until you have released the brakes a bit more - trail braking is tricky this way, I think you are turning too hard at first and the resulting weight transfer is too violent - when you've don't that, there is no 'fix' later in the corner - so try to be smoother and keep tighter control over the weight transfer towards the end of the straight part of the braking zone and during the initial turn in... if you get that right, you can probably turn in harder keeping more speed and apex faster without losing the rear (its not gonna be easy though
)You also must use a setup that is designed for your driving style - ie. there's no point in trying to trail brake with a mouse setup.
I agree with the OP - chicanes suck...
I think LFS would be 100% better if all the chicanes were removed. Then the devs could make a new track by stitching all the amputated chicane parts together into one big ol' chicane track - call it 'cutters gulch'... then all you chicane lovers can go there and leave us true racers in peace.
---------~~◄Ξ►3 >º ><
I think LFS would be 100% better if all the chicanes were removed. Then the devs could make a new track by stitching all the amputated chicane parts together into one big ol' chicane track - call it 'cutters gulch'... then all you chicane lovers can go there and leave us true racers in peace.
---------~~◄Ξ►3 >º ><
It would be a challenge, but great fun to try and develop custom AI 'characters' to plug in to LFS !
First instinct is that it would require something like Scawen developed for the current AI (that 'learns' a line iteratively and 'understands' how to control the car using the same inputs we get... )
combined with some specializations and refinements of the Steering Behaviours developed by Craig Reynolds...
(These allow fairly natural group behaviours using understandable and very efficient code)
Would be interesting trying to set up a set of character variables like aggression, concentration, graceUnderPressure, wrecklesness, stamina etc. that could then be tweaked by editing a text file (or via some dialog widgets)
The downside is that Scawen would have to make public some of the internals of the LFS codebase... even if he was happy to do this, there would be some(dunno how much) work involved in 'sanitizing' the code interface - to stop folks being able to do silly things with it....
Still it would be fun if He just incorporated some sort of high level tweakability into the new AI system something like the character variables suggested above.
Col
First instinct is that it would require something like Scawen developed for the current AI (that 'learns' a line iteratively and 'understands' how to control the car using the same inputs we get... )
combined with some specializations and refinements of the Steering Behaviours developed by Craig Reynolds...
(These allow fairly natural group behaviours using understandable and very efficient code)
Would be interesting trying to set up a set of character variables like aggression, concentration, graceUnderPressure, wrecklesness, stamina etc. that could then be tweaked by editing a text file (or via some dialog widgets)
The downside is that Scawen would have to make public some of the internals of the LFS codebase... even if he was happy to do this, there would be some(dunno how much) work involved in 'sanitizing' the code interface - to stop folks being able to do silly things with it
....Still it would be fun if He just incorporated some sort of high level tweakability into the new AI system something like the character variables suggested above.
Col
I'd like Bowser Castle 3... or maybe Ghost Valley 2, that's a classic track...
I have to disagree there
I guess that Scawen has always intended to have a variety of different tyre types (physically different rather than just aesthetically), so when he wrote the code for adding a logo it was a no-brainer to make it selectable - don't want to have to re-write it in the future.
Conversely, he probably doesn't intend to have different alloy compositions for wheels, and the difference in rigidity between different designs is subtle enough that its insignificant for a current PC sim.... so there is no similar reason to have changable rims.
@ the guys who are saying they want to have a purely aesthetic choice of rim, but 'not rice', thats ridiculous !
You guys obviously just wanna pimp up your ricemobiles - just remember, IT WON'T MAKE YOU ANY FASTER !!!
:riceboy:
My guess is it will probably come at some stage - when there is a big update to graphics code most likely... in a few years ?
IMO its not important enough to do until that code needs other work done to it at some point...
cheers
Col
nothing fancy, just a couple of phone camera snaps
http://i100.photobucket.com/al ... 15/col_012/racingonly.jpg
http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m15/col_012/F1car01.jpg
Edit: here's another
http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m15/col_012/tyre.jpg
http://i100.photobucket.com/al ... 15/col_012/racingonly.jpg
http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m15/col_012/F1car01.jpg
Edit: here's another
http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m15/col_012/tyre.jpg
Last edited by col, .
One other thing - don't worry about mega-pixels, the thing to grill the shop guy about and research on the net is processing time !
How quickly can the camera get from switch on to taking the first shot?
What is the pause between pressing the button and the picture being taken (this can be really really important)?
How many shots per second or minute can the camera take ?
Dunno about that specific model...
I went through a photography phase a few years back, and I would suggest a few things:
If you want to do 'creative' photography, you REALLY need to be able to change lenses - and make sure they are good lenses !
You will also want a good compact all in one camera - you will not want to carry a huge bag of lenses etc. everywhere
So by a good compact, make sure it has a good lens with decent rance of optical zoom, and use that until its holding you back, then get a 'real' camera... the compact one will still be really useful...
FWIW, by dad bought a Fuji a few years back that has gaskets for all the controls and screen - it is fully waterproof
(can't remember how many metres), and it looks like a normal cmera... I would go for something similar - then it's even more useful as a second camera if you get more serious...cheers
Col
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG