Lol.
He loves Vettel so much he want's it to be 2013 forever
He loves Vettel so much he want's it to be 2013 forever
You are wrong!
Please don't spread false statements to bash people who have a legitimate grievance against Apple.
I have a 13'' macbook from 2007. It runs Snow leopard fine, and could run Lion as I've upgraded the memory - shame Lion is now not available on the (cr)App store. This computer is powerful enough to run Mavericks, but it's not compatible because Apple stopped supporting the 32Bit EFI that their earlier 64bit systems used. So you could have bought a shit-hot macbook pro in early 2007 (or much later if buying from a retail establishment), and it might still be able to run rings around current entry level systems, but it won't work because Apple have dropped support.
Only 2009 and later 13'' macbooks can run Mavericks. The reason for incompatibility is because Apple won't provide 32 bit versions of some drivers. They would much rather we gave them money by buying new hardware than they spent money by supporting our perfectly good existing hardware that we paid them good money for in good faith.
I will buy a real computer again soon, and start playing LFS again.
If you have a fairly new mac, the latest os x upgrade is free, if your mac is older, the latest os x update is the price of a new mac = $plenty
My mac runs everything I need it for. Unfortunately, some recent updates for software I use won't install, because the OS I'm using (snow Leopard) isn't supported any more by Apple, so the third parties don't/can't support it either.
Even if I could run the OS versions between Snow Leopard and Maverick, Apple make it VERY hard to buy or download them legally.
Switching to releasing OS upgrades for free is a clever tactic from Apple. More user that can will switch to the latest OS, and fewer will complain when Apple shorten the life cycle further. So long term, Apple can squeeze us even more, what they lose through not charging for OS updates, they will gain back many times by coercing users into upgrading their hardware more often.
Clearly no where near as well versed as you, but then, we have the brains, the looks, and less arrogance, so that kind of evens things up
In reality, the shortening of development cycles, particularly of operating systems is less about the ease of deployment and more about artificially speeding up obsolescence.
Back in the ninety's, you could build a new PC every six months and it would be able to do things that were not possible on the previous one - not slower or more hassle - completely impractical, or totally impossible. A 3 year old PC was an antique. In those days, the speed of developments in hardware and software, and their direct effect on the functionality and usability of PC's drove the market and ensured that consumers kept updating.
These days there is very little you can do on a new PC that you can't do on a five year old one. Sure the new one can encode mpegs a little faster and cope better with multiple tabs of wep pages full of damn full motion adverts, but for most things you really don't need to keep buying new hardware or software.
So, in order to drive the market and keep people upgrading, the manufacturers artificially shorten the OS life cycle. They then limit support for older hardware in their OSes, and also cut off support to all but the most recent few OS iterations. Third party developers can't afford to maintain versions of their applications for more than a couple of OS versions, and cannot provide support for OSes that are no longer supported by the OS developer. This means that to keep up to date with the latest versions of the apps they use, consumers are forced to update their hardware and OS way more often than should be necessary.
I think not being part of that commercial environment reflects very well on LFS.
Anyhow, you are missing the point that LFS is a result of Scawen and friends wanting to escape from this corporate approach to development with all it's deadline crunching, compromise, Marketing BS and programmer burn-out.
Nonsense. Tyre physics is one thing, environment simulation is another. Both are important, neither makes the other moot.
I totally agree that a dynamic environment would be a huge step forwards for LFS. However, the fact that unrealistic tyre physics leads to unrealistic setup and unrealistic driving techniques wouldn't change if you added a dynamic environment. You would be fixing a bunch of different problems.
Nothing obviously. Read my post - I said it makes it less realistic. Kind of a problem for a game that is all about simulating a realistic racing/driving experience.
This is very important, and one of the main reasons why Scawen needs to update the tyre physics. Any real-time simulator will have weaknesses in the physics model, and after time, the players inevitably find and exploit them - competitive racing becomes less and less realistic as a result.
To me this is a much bigger deal than graphics or sound when it comes to immersion factor and believability of LFS.
@S.E.T.H
There are only two possible outcomes here, you might as well choose and be done with it:
#1 You accept that you are wrong, that there is no unfair advantage to using force mode. LFS continues to have forces view. Everyone slowly forgets the two comedy threads on the subject, your hypocrisy and that you imply that most of us are cheats. You become a valuable member of the community, and you start enjoying LFS. Your stress levels go back to normal. Life is good.
#2 You refuse to accept the truth and continue to hammer away with your crazy conspiracy theory. LFS continues to have forces view. You become so much of a laughing stock that nobody here ever takes you seriously again. Your anger means you cannot fully enjoy LFS. Your stress levels are constantly high. You feel bitter and that everyone is against you. It's just not fair.
good luck choosing
There are only two possible outcomes here, you might as well choose and be done with it:
#1 You accept that you are wrong, that there is no unfair advantage to using force mode. LFS continues to have forces view. Everyone slowly forgets the two comedy threads on the subject, your hypocrisy and that you imply that most of us are cheats. You become a valuable member of the community, and you start enjoying LFS. Your stress levels go back to normal. Life is good.
#2 You refuse to accept the truth and continue to hammer away with your crazy conspiracy theory. LFS continues to have forces view. You become so much of a laughing stock that nobody here ever takes you seriously again. Your anger means you cannot fully enjoy LFS. Your stress levels are constantly high. You feel bitter and that everyone is against you. It's just not fair.
good luck choosing
Last edited by col, .
Yep, like most games LFS has some little built-in tricks, 'easter eggs' and unlockable cheat modes.
examples: setting the correct combination of car colour, wheel colour and helmet colour gets you an extra 10 bhp. Posting at least ten times per day on the forum causes the draft you get from other cars to increase by 30%. Changing your ingame nick to 'ConspiracyTheorySucker' means that during collisions, it's the other cars that launch into orbit not you.
I'm sure there are others that I've not found... anyone?
BTW, don't forget to wear your helmet!
It doesn't really matter how fast the nerve impulses travel. Our brains work as massive prediction engines. We notice things when they don't behave as we subconsciously predicted. All the nerve impulse speed limit does is cause a lag in when we notice that there is a problem - it doesn't stop us from noticing.
Fortunately, because our prediction process is flexible and dynamic, we can cope with quite a big lag/latency, we adjust to it and it becomes undetectable. The real problem is when the lag varies in an unpredictable way.
e.g. A steady 60ms latency is much less noticeable than one varying randomly between 10ms and 40ms - that totally messes with our ability to predict and react to things before they happen.
Maybe that's why some folks can't abide lag and others claim that lag is impossible to detect - one guy could be experiencing variable lag while the other sees stable steady lag.
If you're not intending to read replies, don't post.
As far as your 'idea' goes:
Anyone can start an Open-source project. If it was such a great way of developing racing simulations, there would be awesome open-source sims out there, and closed development projects like LFS and iRacing would be long gone.
The fact is that this has not happened proves that open-source is not a good way to develop racing sims. If you don't agree, why are you here? why are you not working on and playing with an open-source racing sim right now?
:bannana_g:guitarist:rock_band:headbang::headbang::guitarist:guitarist:drink:
Profit share is irrelevant in this context, the questions was about whether LFS development is on hold. There's been no official answer. The fact that one of the three developers has very recently joined another development team as an employee clearly is relevant.
And why is it creepy? It took maybe 1.5 minutes with google to find that out, not exactly a job for Jim Rockford
Col
Last edited by col, .
Hmm, so your version of 'free speech' is the one where you can say whatever you like, but I'm not allowed to?
Maybe I prefer the versions of 'free speech' where I can say what I like with impunity, but you have to 'relax' and 'stop attacking people like you do' ?
:rolleyes:
Last edited by col, .
Nope, he's not dead, quite the opposite - he's been tweeting a lot about mountain-biking.
That is a great idea.
Everyone who is angry about the slow pace of development and thinks Scawen should work the way they would like should stop playing LFS and stop posting in - or even visiting - the forum... starting...... NOW.
Total BS, What you did was not 'conversation', it was just a feeble attempt to turn a thread with value into another pointless 'lets attack the devs' slagging fest.
The whole point of this thread is to ask a simple question without complaining. You're WAY off topic.
I'm well aware that Vic develops the website and not the core game (I've been here since the days when the forum was on racesimcentral, it would be pretty difficult not to be aware of the devs individual roles).
The reason I posted the link to i3D is because IMO there's a big difference between 'working on other projects' while waiting for the physics, and becoming an employee of another company. AFAIK this is a new development, and I wonder if it changes things. Of course it's possible that Vic is just working part time for i3D and has a 'return to LFS' clause in his contract.... who knows
If you read Fordman's post properly, you would see that he isn't tired or bored, and he does seem to be enjoying KFS for what it is - he's recently been one of the more active racers and been hosting races. He is not asking 'when' or complaining, or telling Scawen how to do his job, or threatening to leave...
He's asking if LFS is still being actively developed.
(I guess this might be because he's itching to work on some more event hosting ideas, but knows this would be a waste of time and effort if the development of LFS is on hold.)
If anyone deserves an answer to this question it would be someone like Fordman who has been involved since the start, and has always been respectful to the devs, and supporting of the game.
IIRC, the loading/splash screen for one of the early versions of the game featured a car with FORDMAN on the registration plate ?!
It would be good to know what's up. I sincerely hope everything is OK with Scawen and family, and with Vic, Eric and Geraldine. That everyone is in good health, and there hasn't been some sort of crisis.
I know it's none of our business one way or the other, so I'll just say - Keep on rocking Scavier.
It's real pretty an' all, but unless we have a key that maps the colour to temperature, it doesn't really tell us anything we didn't already know.
All it means is that the surface rubber of the tyres cools when wind chill of 100-200mph hits it (the surface of the tyre is also rotating at that speed, so I guess that increases the chill factor?). When the driver hits the brakes, the wind chill stops and the surface is quickly reheated by friction due to braking combined with the heat still stored in the rest of the tyre's mass and heat from the brake disks.
It doesn't tell us how many degrees of cooling or reheating there are, or how deep within the tyre surface the heating and cooling happen.
When you think about it, everything else happens very quickly on an F1 car, so it would be very surprising if the tyre thermals didn't.
Hmm, sounds like an attractive idea, but I doubt it would ever be as simple as you make it sound.
Quick fixes tend to cause more work in the long run. They also tend to introduce bugs and odd behaviour.
Quick fixes are the sort of botch/hack that are used by teams under deadline pressure, which is why many games are seriously flawed when they come to market. That's one of the reasons why LFS exists - Scavier wanted to escape from that approach to game development.
I doubt that. I think there are three objectives Scawen has for the new model. When they are all satisfied, he will release it.
#1 realistic setups: A big problem with the existing model is that realistic car setup values don't give correct behaviour. That means that restricting setups to realistic stock values in real cars e.g. Scirocco gave unrealistic handling, and made traction control(?) not work.
#2 consistency: The model must behave 'well enough' in all situations. The original update that was supposed to be released ages ago was found to have an unacceptable behaviour in some 'corner case' of inputs vs tyre physical state. That's why it was pulled. e.g. There's no point in having a sim that feels great unless you hit the brakes at 40.2kph with front wheels turned at some specific angle in which case it bounces like a vimto advert... or the tyres melt etc...
#3 improvement: It must be a clear improvement over the previous model, otherwise the result would be a massive cluster-f@ck amongst the forum haters, and serious jeopardy for the future of LFS. And there's the rub - It would be difficult enough to make a new model as good as the old one but with realistic setups and better consistency. To create one that also has a noticeably more natural and realistic feel is a major challenge.
Cool, I didn't think about the use of convolution for driving sim (I've implemented convolution for digital audio processing in NI Reaktor). Seems like that might be a good approach for simulating chasses flex. Maybe not so good for tyre physics though as convolution processing with an impulse response is an inherently linear process.
Another downside is that zero latency convolution is an expensive process even when using FFT approach.
hehe, brain slows down, but wisdom increases, and intuition improves throughout middle age
Last edited by col, .
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG