Count me in.

If you look on lfsworld, specifically here: http://www.lfsworld.net/?win=h ... ;controller=&country=

You can see the latest hotlap charts. The "ST" field shows what controller was used. The fastest keyboard "ks" time is 1:12.59, and you can watch that replay by clicking it, and opening it with LFS.exe.

Quote from troy :

Is there anyone who would be interested in a tweaked LX6 special round?

I gave this tweak a quick test drive, and I'm in love. A slick shod, high powered LX car would be awesome and easy to add in LFS. Just need some new tracks now.

P.S. I'll be there ON TIME tomorrow.

+1000000

He was a nutcase, but was always entertaining, and faster than anyone on his good days.

Quote from pearcy_2k7 :

Not good enough then?

I won't be upgrading for a long time, im not into computers at all so don't have that big of a desire to upgrade plus im skint atm.

Pecky, ive never blocked you

I'm pretty sure you have no hope with that rig, 1gb of RAM is barely enough let alone 512, and the rest of your system will struggle to run it at minimum IMO. Your best bet would be a new mobo+CPU+RAM+GFX and possible PSU upgrade, which could be as cheap as 200 - 300 quid if you don't go mad.

+1, among many other things we all hope for in the near future.

As you came into the pits on lap 23 you shifted down suddenly from 3rd to first, overevving the engine, which caused permanent engine damage. Always make sure you keep the engine revs below the redline, by not changing down too quickly.

For the few laps I had time to drive, the layout was pretty good fun, one of the better layouts IMO for sure. Unfortunately LFS is very badly optimised for layouts so my PC bogs down to 30 - 40 fps which ruins the connection you have with the car.

The few races after with the LX's, RAC's and FZ's were great though.

Any ideas how to reduce the FPS hit from so many physics objects? It's a CPU bottleneck, not GFX.

Other than the last race and Australia I wouldn't have said they were that far ahead of the rest. Redbull and even Toyota have been making them fight for some of the races. Button may look dominant in the win stats, but I'm still finding most of the races this season very exciting to watch. Red Bull should be strong in Silverstone, so I'm hoping for a good battle between them and the Brawns. This season is NOT the same as 2004 in my eyes, ferrari were leagues ahead that season.

Quote from S14 DRIFT :

As I said there, I don't really care buttttttt...

Quote from S14 DRIFT :

Everybodies a critic.. have a sense of humour... like 4 people comment on my post and you have to pick fault.

How the **** is that funny? Have some respect. You prove far too often how much of inconsiderate dickhead you are sometimes.

Quote from tiagolapa :

Sooo, the special ones dont have to pit stop. Nice league

I recieved a penalty for that which suited the circumstances. It's not something which would ever happen again though if you read into it.

I found it to be an interesting race, and the combo was fun.

FE4 would be OK, but even then there would be many long flat out "boring" sections, compared to AS1. LFS needs a facelift thats all.

Edit: Josh, not cool.

Last edited by DaveWS, Mon, 1 Jun 2009 10:51.

Quote from oldnavy :

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Congrats with the 4th place last weekend man. I'm sure you'll have Kimi next time in Turkey, one of your strong tracks.

Quote from PMD9409 :

Dave was framed by the LFS devs once they found out he had been racing in iRacing.

'Tis true!

It was nice knowing you all. Oh and don't worry, my housemate has me covered for tomorrow in IGTC.

Quote from amp88 :

Start your sentence with a capital letter

End yours with a full stop.

OK thanks for clearing that up then!

If you are still racing after I finish the final pro series round, I will definately join you guys, very demanding combo!

OK, I decided to rearrange the formula I came up with to calculate V, so that H is now the subject:

H = 2 * arctan ((0.5A * tan 0.5V) / 0.5B)

Where:
V = Vertical FOV (degrees)
H = Horizontal FOV
A = Aspect width (e.g. for 16:10, 16)
B = Aspect height

As before.

Using 64.01076642 vertical degrees with 16:10 aspect ratio, I get 90.0 horizontal degrees as it should.

Quote from DaveWS :

I'm pretty sure it's more than just 90 degrees horizontal FOV = (90/16)x10=56.25 , for a 16:10 monitor.

FWIW, it's not as simple as this simply because the monitor does not follow an arc, but it's obviously flat, meaning that the relationship in FOV is not linear, especially at high FOV angles.

Right, no I haven't forgotten about this thread...

So I looked at the formula you derived, and I'm pretty certain there is an error in there, TBH I'm not sure how you derived it, but thanks for trying to help me out. Basically the problem is the vertical FOV becomes smaller with an aspect ratio closer to 1:1 rather than larger as it should.

I spent an hour or so last night trying to figure it out from the basics, thanks for the wikipedia link BTW, and this is the formula I've come up with. I guess it could be simplified, but I can't see how..

V = 2 * arctan (0.5B * (tan 0.5H / 0.5A))

Where:
V = Vertical FOV (degrees)
H = Horizontal FOV
A = Aspect width (e.g. for 16:10, 16)
B = Aspect height

I haven't derived one for the horizontal calculation, since I'm not as interested in that.

Using the above formula with a horizontal FOV of 90 degrees, and an aspect ratio of 16:10, it gives me 64.01076642 vertical degrees.

Quote :

It's a public forum, if you don't like what others think just disregard it and do whatever is that you want.

You could walk down the street and start acting like a complete twat towards people since it's a public place based on that view, so don't give Dan that shit.

I admire your patience and generosity Dan, and despite some of the comments in the thread, I don't think I'm alone on that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aD1kLdXMF0&fmt=18

This car has some grunt, good to see the driver giving it the beans.

Bump.