I think the important thing to remember about F1 engines is that the rev limits we hear about arent actually the ideal shift points, F1 teams always want to set the limit higher if they could without the engine blowing up.
So the engine will probably physically run to 22,000, and the team probably would run it to that if they could, but it wouldnt last more than a lap.
So the engine will probably physically run to 22,000, and the team probably would run it to that if they could, but it wouldnt last more than a lap.
Yay, for my UFR then, looks like we might be able to catch those boring XFR drivers 
I think everybody should just stop anally examining every little bit of physics/simulation and just go and bloody well race. Have fun, its this kind of constant second guessing and speculation about whether something is right or not that is sucking the joy out of the sim racing community.
No offense to you personally Dan
No offense to you personally Dan
I'm fine with the fonts, but I agree about the colour of the BF1 dash.
Ideally, you want the top rev light to stand out in your peripheral vision so you dont have to look down.
At the moment, you still have to look down because the red top rev light just blurs into the red LCD display. I'll bet the real one isnt like that.
Ideally, you want the top rev light to stand out in your peripheral vision so you dont have to look down.
At the moment, you still have to look down because the red top rev light just blurs into the red LCD display. I'll bet the real one isnt like that.
Well, I'm just glad that this version of vBulletin finally has an ignore feature so I never have to read one of Dethred's posts ever again.
Sheesh, even arch lfs-basher BMX32 is loving the new patch.
Sheesh, even arch lfs-basher BMX32 is loving the new patch.
Cor, it didnt take long for the whingers and naysayers to turn up did it.
My first impressions after 30+ laps of Aston are that the BF1 is just extraordinary. The sweepy back section of the long aston circuits is just incredible, you can hardly believe its coming at you that fast.
My first impressions after 30+ laps of Aston are that the BF1 is just extraordinary. The sweepy back section of the long aston circuits is just incredible, you can hardly believe its coming at you that fast.
I must admit, I find the traction control on the BF1 really, really good. You can still spin the car in all kinds of situations if you dont drive it right. If you get the car rotating to much under trail braking, and get on the throttle, even with the TC you can spin it, you can spin it if you hit bumps and dont correct properly or ifyou suddenly change line when the TC is on the limit.
Its a really sophisticated implementation of TC as far as I can tell and certainly makes things more realistic, and more fun.
So nerr.
Its a really sophisticated implementation of TC as far as I can tell and certainly makes things more realistic, and more fun.
So nerr.
I do wonder whether its about time the team dumped this old 'extract the zip yourself' method of installing and just made a simple installer that put the files in the right place.
I know that us old hands are fine with it but its a bit off-putting to new users, of which there will be many more in the months ahead I'm sure.
I know that us old hands are fine with it but its a bit off-putting to new users, of which there will be many more in the months ahead I'm sure.
Anybody played it yet? I've downloaded and read through all the files in the zip, which is about as much as I can do here at work.
Although, come to think of it, I'm feeling a bit poorly, maybe I should go home and have a rest
Although, come to think of it, I'm feeling a bit poorly, maybe I should go home and have a rest
Nah, the central zone where the plank is has to be 50mm below the rest of the underbody work, then the plank in another 10mm below that.
If I recall correctly, the reason traction control and launch control were re-allowed back into F1 was because it was strongly suspected that some teams were using a combination of engine and transmission management electronics to acheive TC and LC by subterfuge.
The systems were so complex and software based that it was impossible for the FIA to detect if this was happening, so to make things fair for poorer teams, or ones who had chosen to play fair, the systems were made legal again.
This is the whole reason why traction control cant be fully banned until standardised ECU's are brought in.
The systems were so complex and software based that it was impossible for the FIA to detect if this was happening, so to make things fair for poorer teams, or ones who had chosen to play fair, the systems were made legal again.
This is the whole reason why traction control cant be fully banned until standardised ECU's are brought in.
I remember watching a program about the Senna crash and it seemed like the basic physics of it were that at the time, the cars got massive downforce from large flat bottoms, but when you bottomed out the front of the undertray, it cut off the airflow accross the whole undertray, momentarily reducing the downforce by a substantial amount.
So what the plank did was force the main bulk of the undertray upwards by quite a lot, so that firstly you got less undertray downforce, but also if the plank bottomed out, it only cut off a little bit of the airflow under the car, and the air could still flow freely under the side areas, maintaining some downforce.
So what the plank did was force the main bulk of the undertray upwards by quite a lot, so that firstly you got less undertray downforce, but also if the plank bottomed out, it only cut off a little bit of the airflow under the car, and the air could still flow freely under the side areas, maintaining some downforce.
Yeah, I'm interested too. Cant promise at the moment, but it sounds like fun.
And definitely try and keep the oval in, driving a car that actually requires braking and throttle control on the oval is actually a lot of fun.
And definitely try and keep the oval in, driving a car that actually requires braking and throttle control on the oval is actually a lot of fun.
Yeah, in GP2 and GP3 (and presumably GP4, havent got it) you could 'inspect plank' when you got back to the pits and it told you how much it had been worn down, so you could tune your ride height.
I think everyone's being a bit optimistic.
Lets be scientific. Average speeds for quali times in F1 2005 typically range around the 210-220 kph mark for standard sorts of circuits with a mix of straights and corners (ie, imola, suzuka, barcelona, nurburgring etc.). Now in 2005 most cars qualified with a stint of fuel on board, so you would expect WR times to be quicker, but 2006 cars have 200 less horsepower so lets work with those numbers.
Blackwood is 3.38 km long, so at an average speed of 220kph it would take 55 seconds.
At silverstone sort of pace, which I think might be hard to acheive (average 230 kph) it would take 53 seconds.
And at Monza pace, which would be impossible (260 kph) it would take 47 seconds.
So my guess is about 53-54 seconds.
Lets be scientific. Average speeds for quali times in F1 2005 typically range around the 210-220 kph mark for standard sorts of circuits with a mix of straights and corners (ie, imola, suzuka, barcelona, nurburgring etc.). Now in 2005 most cars qualified with a stint of fuel on board, so you would expect WR times to be quicker, but 2006 cars have 200 less horsepower so lets work with those numbers.
Blackwood is 3.38 km long, so at an average speed of 220kph it would take 55 seconds.
At silverstone sort of pace, which I think might be hard to acheive (average 230 kph) it would take 53 seconds.
And at Monza pace, which would be impossible (260 kph) it would take 47 seconds.
So my guess is about 53-54 seconds.
Yeah, its a bit of bummer really. If you werent expecting anything, it wouldnt be a problem at all, but it seems a bit wierd to say there will be updates every day, give updates every day, then suddenly stop without explanation.
Still, this last week has given us a little insight into Victor's sadistic tendencies
Still, this last week has given us a little insight into Victor's sadistic tendencies
Sounds like you are thinking of mip-maps, not bump maps. I've seen no evidence to suggest that bump mapping is currently implemented in LFS.
Yeah, well boo hiss. I've been in shitty meetings all day, and have consoled myself with the fact that when they finished at 4 oclock, I would have an exciting update to look forward to.
The number 2 is sadly not really doing it for me.
The number 2 is sadly not really doing it for me.
Nah, it would absolutely murder the poly count. If you imagine that the top surface of the tyre is maybe 3 polys 'wide' at the moment (to allow for a bit of bulge) to make a 4 grooved tyre, you need at least 17 polys for each radial segment.
I believe there is an evening 'weather' for blackwood, but it wasnt in the CMX viewer before.
The thing is that F1 is so close, and so technical these days, that the kind of basic information required to create a reasonable sim model just isnt 'trade secret' enough to be worth that much.
You need the weight distribution (which doesnt vary much between cars anyway), a rough engine torque curve (which again doesnt vary that much between teams, and peak power is worked out by F1 pundits anyway from trap speeds etc.), some suspension geometry which can be interpolated from photographs anyway, some rough tyre data, and some rough aero coefficients.
To get a reasonable sim model, none of the data needs to be accurate to the nth degree, just within the bounds of variation in a typical F1 car, so there is no risk of giving away info to competitors that they would find useful in any way.
The secrets are in how they get their cars to acheive those parameters, not the parameters themselves.
You need the weight distribution (which doesnt vary much between cars anyway), a rough engine torque curve (which again doesnt vary that much between teams, and peak power is worked out by F1 pundits anyway from trap speeds etc.), some suspension geometry which can be interpolated from photographs anyway, some rough tyre data, and some rough aero coefficients.
To get a reasonable sim model, none of the data needs to be accurate to the nth degree, just within the bounds of variation in a typical F1 car, so there is no risk of giving away info to competitors that they would find useful in any way.
The secrets are in how they get their cars to acheive those parameters, not the parameters themselves.
To be fair, he doesnt bash nK, he just points out that their formula fords aren't officially licensed FF's, but non-branded replicas. Just as LFS's FO8 is an non-branded replica of a formula Nippon, or whatever.
Clearly, in the case of the BMW-Sauber F1 car, is a fully licensed up tie-in with Intel and the team, which is presumably the distinctionhe was trying to make.
Clearly, in the case of the BMW-Sauber F1 car, is a fully licensed up tie-in with Intel and the team, which is presumably the distinctionhe was trying to make.
If you go and have another go at reading the 'Pit Lane Experience' page or whatever it was called, it sounds to me like the pit stop challenge is an actual physical thing, like you have to change a wheel on an F1 mockup or something. That is entirely separate to the sentence that describes driving the simulator.
Not exactly. Browsing around that site with my incredibly basic grasp of german and ability to look at pictures, its a simulator tour going round various german cities, featuring F1 cockpits and presumably a version of LFS running on them. Click on events to see the cities and a mockup of the simulator pods.
The prize for the top driver on the simulator tour is an actual BMW M6.
There is also an 'Online Game' which I suspect will be basically a hotlap competition, the prizes for which seem to be Fujitsu Siemens laptops (see the connection again folks).
The prize for the top driver on the simulator tour is an actual BMW M6.
There is also an 'Online Game' which I suspect will be basically a hotlap competition, the prizes for which seem to be Fujitsu Siemens laptops (see the connection again folks).
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG