The thing is, the gear ratios actualy make up the difference between 6.5 and 7. the gears I tested actualy work at 6.5k.
The shift light is sort of adjustable, but it's done with the gears. So it still comes on when more power is available, but for my setup thats at 6.5.
The car actualy accelerates faster with the 6.5k setup than I'v ever seen it at any of my 7k settups. But then again, my 7k setups are all real ratios from race transmissions, I didn't use any self calculated ones for my proper setups.
I preffer that method over tinkering with the trans because I like to spend my time adjusting everything else and driving.
Edit: the shift light isn't adjustable at all, it comes on at 7k regardless of what you do, even if there is more power in the next gear before 7k.
GRC just shows that it should, but it doesn't.
The shift light is sort of adjustable, but it's done with the gears. So it still comes on when more power is available, but for my setup thats at 6.5.
The car actualy accelerates faster with the 6.5k setup than I'v ever seen it at any of my 7k settups. But then again, my 7k setups are all real ratios from race transmissions, I didn't use any self calculated ones for my proper setups.
I preffer that method over tinkering with the trans because I like to spend my time adjusting everything else and driving.
Edit: the shift light isn't adjustable at all, it comes on at 7k regardless of what you do, even if there is more power in the next gear before 7k.
GRC just shows that it should, but it doesn't.
Last edited by DragonCommando, .
Ok after alot of tinkering I'v found a shift point for the XRT. I balanced the gears so that the top speed is still the same but you shift at 6.5k and it stays within the power range of the engine.
My main problem sometimes is that I overlook some of the aspects of a problem.
The torque curve of the XRT falls off at 6.5k not 6k, thats what I had wrong, along with overlooking gear entry RPMs.
The best way I find of getting the best performance out of a car is by keeping it within its optimal power range as much as posible. I think I did a good job on my last calculations since going to 7 now doesn't make any difference in acceleration.
My main problem sometimes is that I overlook some of the aspects of a problem.
The torque curve of the XRT falls off at 6.5k not 6k, thats what I had wrong, along with overlooking gear entry RPMs.
The best way I find of getting the best performance out of a car is by keeping it within its optimal power range as much as posible. I think I did a good job on my last calculations since going to 7 now doesn't make any difference in acceleration.
Last edited by DragonCommando, .
As far as I know it would require a fue changes to the code, and not much more. But than again, I'm a novice programer. I played with the DX9 sdk a while back and from what I learned from it, it shoulden't be to hard.
I don't usualy use it (hence the fact that it's not on my computer with LFS)
I used it just to see what one of my ratio sets would do one day.
Big edit: according to GRC, shifting at 6 reduces acceleration even though the speed of the rear wheels is the same.
not sure how that works.
In regards to what GRC says, The XRT doesn't benefit from shifting at 6k.
I was sure it did.
So I apologize for stepping on peoples toes. I'm used to other sims where you can squeeze the engine abit and get better resaults.
apparantly, LFS models the engines a bit more realisticly than I knew.
I still can't understand why my car was faster when I shifted at 6k before.
Even bigger edit!: I overlooked something, I'll have to run the calculations again. (my dad reminded me that it matters where your RPM ends up after shifting, thus I have to re-do my calculations)
I used it just to see what one of my ratio sets would do one day.
Big edit: according to GRC, shifting at 6 reduces acceleration even though the speed of the rear wheels is the same.
not sure how that works.In regards to what GRC says, The XRT doesn't benefit from shifting at 6k.
I was sure it did.
So I apologize for stepping on peoples toes. I'm used to other sims where you can squeeze the engine abit and get better resaults.
apparantly, LFS models the engines a bit more realisticly than I knew.
I still can't understand why my car was faster when I shifted at 6k before.
Even bigger edit!: I overlooked something, I'll have to run the calculations again. (my dad reminded me that it matters where your RPM ends up after shifting, thus I have to re-do my calculations)
Last edited by DragonCommando, .
The curves are shown on the main page of LFS Gear Ratio Calculator, then on the Gearing page it shows wheel torque VS wheel RPM.
The blue curve on the main screen is the torque curve.
The blue curve on the main screen is the torque curve.
Everything you just said is what I was trying to say.
The shift light comes on if the next gear provides more torque, if you adjust your gears so that the shift point is closer to the point at which torque from the engine starts to realy fall off, then you get the most power out of the engine and the most possible power going to the rear wheels.
From what I can see, the torque from the XRT's engine starts to drop off around 6k rpm, so going up to 7k you are just riding the fall off. (which isn't always a bad thing, but I seem to get more speed out of the car if I set up to shift closer to 6k than 7k)
I use GRC to do the calculations and from what I can see, top speed increases if you set it to shift closer to 6k.
If anyone can get a V-max speed of higher than 233km/h I'd love to see the ratios for it and try it out to see the shift points.
on a final note: the shift light, as far as I can remember, Does come on at 6k for me. But I'm not on my main computer to check right now.
The shift light comes on if the next gear provides more torque, if you adjust your gears so that the shift point is closer to the point at which torque from the engine starts to realy fall off, then you get the most power out of the engine and the most possible power going to the rear wheels.
From what I can see, the torque from the XRT's engine starts to drop off around 6k rpm, so going up to 7k you are just riding the fall off. (which isn't always a bad thing, but I seem to get more speed out of the car if I set up to shift closer to 6k than 7k)
I use GRC to do the calculations and from what I can see, top speed increases if you set it to shift closer to 6k.
If anyone can get a V-max speed of higher than 233km/h I'd love to see the ratios for it and try it out to see the shift points.
on a final note: the shift light, as far as I can remember, Does come on at 6k for me. But I'm not on my main computer to check right now.
Last edited by DragonCommando, .
The torque of an engine doesn't peak at peak RPM so you don't have to set your gears to shift at red line. I'v adjusted my gearing so I shift at 6k and I still hit the same top speed that I do when it shifted at 7k
You'll notice that the shift light doesn't always come on at red line, it comes on when the sim thinks its a good time to shift. I had mine coming on at 8k once.
I do know what I'm talking about so please don't make comments like that.
You'll notice that the shift light doesn't always come on at red line, it comes on when the sim thinks its a good time to shift. I had mine coming on at 8k once.
I do know what I'm talking about so please don't make comments like that.
Other guages don't swap sides but fuel does?
I think this needs to be improved.
I noticed in the XRT that the tach and speedo don't swap when you go to left side drive (they shouldent) but the fuel guage swaps sides and covers the lower part of the tach. Is this a bug, and is there anything I can do about it?
The reason I ask now is that I noticed it was fine for people who drive on right side, and me being in canada I drive on the left side.
Also, I think it would be cool if we could adjust the Red color on the tach to. just another suggestion
I noticed in the XRT that the tach and speedo don't swap when you go to left side drive (they shouldent) but the fuel guage swaps sides and covers the lower part of the tach. Is this a bug, and is there anything I can do about it?
The reason I ask now is that I noticed it was fine for people who drive on right side, and me being in canada I drive on the left side.
Also, I think it would be cool if we could adjust the Red color on the tach to. just another suggestion
If you shift correctly with the XRT, you can shift at 6k and still get the same speed out of it. Last time I checked I got a higher speed at the end of the back straight by shifting at 6k. This is probably due to the Torque dropping at or around that area even though the shift light comes on at 7k
I would love to be able to customize the tach and speedo in LFS, I just don't know which .DDS file controlls the alpha and color for it.
@wark
I never said they watched the Speedo in GP1, I said they use an analog one so they can take a glance at it when they have to. Its alot easier to take a glance and see your speed with an analog than a digital because all you need to know is where the needle is. If you know the car the needle position gives you the speed anyway.
I race with virtual dials turned off, I just glance at the needle and I know how fast I'm going. However, I CAN read the numbers if I have to, because I run at a high resolution.
I would love to be able to customize the tach and speedo in LFS, I just don't know which .DDS file controlls the alpha and color for it.
@wark
I never said they watched the Speedo in GP1, I said they use an analog one so they can take a glance at it when they have to. Its alot easier to take a glance and see your speed with an analog than a digital because all you need to know is where the needle is. If you know the car the needle position gives you the speed anyway.
I race with virtual dials turned off, I just glance at the needle and I know how fast I'm going. However, I CAN read the numbers if I have to, because I run at a high resolution.
@ wark
I can almost garantee that GP1 drivers look at there speedo more often than you would belive.
My dad used to race, He told me that a digital is absolutly usless for road racing, its analog or forget it.
I can almost garantee that GP1 drivers look at there speedo more often than you would belive.
My dad used to race, He told me that a digital is absolutly usless for road racing, its analog or forget it.
I use a combination of needle positions and engine sound to determine my speed and the correct gear for a corner. However sometimes it's good to just use the speedo and look at the last position it was in and try to make it through the corner with the needle a little higher next time. (for better lap times)
@ wark:
F1 cars have a digital speed reading on the wheel mounted display, its just there for cornering speed checks during practice or something, a good F1 driver probably doesn't even look at it very often. But remember F1 has alot of gears (compared to a road car), and most of the low ones are set per-corner, so that means that they just have to be in the right gear.
On a road car you might come into a corner differently (better or not) and you might want an idea of your general speed.
On the highway you have time to read a number, on a race track all you need and should take the time for is usualy a general idea of how fast you are going.
No matter how good you are, you always need some form of general speed display at one point or another.
@ wark:
F1 cars have a digital speed reading on the wheel mounted display, its just there for cornering speed checks during practice or something, a good F1 driver probably doesn't even look at it very often. But remember F1 has alot of gears (compared to a road car), and most of the low ones are set per-corner, so that means that they just have to be in the right gear.
On a road car you might come into a corner differently (better or not) and you might want an idea of your general speed.
On the highway you have time to read a number, on a race track all you need and should take the time for is usualy a general idea of how fast you are going.
No matter how good you are, you always need some form of general speed display at one point or another.
The question is not what you use on your daily driver.
What do the Pros use.
The answer.... Analog (with the exeption of F1 for previously said reason)
Digitals mean you actualy have to READ the number, where as an analog lets you look at it and go "ok the needle is there, that means I must be going this fast"
less time reading, and a bit less accurate. but that means you have more time to think about that next guy you have to pass.
What do the Pros use.
The answer.... Analog (with the exeption of F1 for previously said reason)
Digitals mean you actualy have to READ the number, where as an analog lets you look at it and go "ok the needle is there, that means I must be going this fast"
less time reading, and a bit less accurate. but that means you have more time to think about that next guy you have to pass.
My point here would be that, if you have an analog speedo, you can roughly judge how fast you are going without reading the number, with a digital you have to watch the number more because it is well... just a number. Thats why no road racing car has a digital unless you talk about those track ricers. (most of them don't even get digitals)
Just look at Nascar and GP1, neither use Digitals as standard equipment
The only reason F1 uses digital is because there is no dash, everything is on the steering wheel.
I would love a drum speedo but that's just stylistic preference.
(drums use a horizontaly positioned drum instead of a needle, the plastic cover has a line representing the "needle" and the drum simply rotates to show the change in speed)
Just look at Nascar and GP1, neither use Digitals as standard equipment
The only reason F1 uses digital is because there is no dash, everything is on the steering wheel.
I would love a drum speedo but that's just stylistic preference.
(drums use a horizontaly positioned drum instead of a needle, the plastic cover has a line representing the "needle" and the drum simply rotates to show the change in speed)
My All-in-wonder 9000 (AGP4) got 60+ FPS consistantly on Multipalyer with V2 at 1600x1200!. but then I downloaded the high ress blackwood textures and my texture usage went up from an est. 32.4mb (everything on max)
to an est. 63.6mb and the in the end I am now running at 1280x1024 with just as high a frame rate! (no FSAA in LFS but I didn't need it at 1600x1200 anyway, and I was to lazy to set up a profile for LFS)
BUT my system specs are as follows:
P4 presscot HT @ 3.2ghz (its a work and play computer)
512mb pc3200 ram (was 1gb, but I had a ram failure )
onboard surround audio (Simulated 3d sound if running 2 speakers)
AGP4x AIW 9000
to an est. 63.6mb and the in the end I am now running at 1280x1024 with just as high a frame rate! (no FSAA in LFS but I didn't need it at 1600x1200 anyway, and I was to lazy to set up a profile for LFS)
BUT my system specs are as follows:
P4 presscot HT @ 3.2ghz (its a work and play computer)
512mb pc3200 ram (was 1gb, but I had a ram failure
)onboard surround audio (Simulated 3d sound if running 2 speakers)
AGP4x AIW 9000
I'v actualy worked on many cars with different configurations. Rear wheel drives, Rear engine rear drives (Fiat mini bus thing from the 70's), front wheel drives. Every one I have worked on measures the speed at the transmission. To measure it at the dif would be a waste of cable, there would also be just that much more cable to get damaged.
Even my dads 89' 280zx measured the speed at the transmission, so measuring it at the dif is pointless, and measuring it at the front wheels is an Idea taken from older motor bikes, where the measuring device is attached to the front drum, and uses it to measure the RPM of the front wheel thus giving you the speed of the bike. (I know this because I took my friends 79' honda dirt bike apart.)
The only car I can think of right now that measured at the non-driven wheels was the Delorean (already mentiond). It measured from the Front left or right wheel, can't remember which side. but it was an RR setup so they decided it was the best way to get the speed. It measured slightly high when steering away from the measured side though, so that doesn't give you any better accuracy than the trans mounted ones.
I may only be 18 but I'm a grease monkey and love my cars.
The number of Speedos I'v ripped out of cars in enough to know what I'm talking about.
Even my dads 89' 280zx measured the speed at the transmission, so measuring it at the dif is pointless, and measuring it at the front wheels is an Idea taken from older motor bikes, where the measuring device is attached to the front drum, and uses it to measure the RPM of the front wheel thus giving you the speed of the bike. (I know this because I took my friends 79' honda dirt bike apart.)
The only car I can think of right now that measured at the non-driven wheels was the Delorean (already mentiond). It measured from the Front left or right wheel, can't remember which side. but it was an RR setup so they decided it was the best way to get the speed. It measured slightly high when steering away from the measured side though, so that doesn't give you any better accuracy than the trans mounted ones.
I may only be 18 but I'm a grease monkey and love my cars.
The number of Speedos I'v ripped out of cars in enough to know what I'm talking about.
Well I guess it's because I have Steam.exe set to one processor I don't notice it, but Steam has never gone to 99% or crashed on me. It runs like a background task.
And I have ALOT of stuff running sometimes.
And I have ALOT of stuff running sometimes.
If you want blurred effects, look for the hacked DX8 DLL file for LFS.
It has motion blur effects that are quite good if you tweak it yourself.
Problem is, it'll reduce your FPS garanteed.
http://www.kegetys.net/lfs/
I'll repeat as posted there, it is a test. NOT for regular use!
I guess that means screen shots only.
It has motion blur effects that are quite good if you tweak it yourself.
Problem is, it'll reduce your FPS garanteed.
http://www.kegetys.net/lfs/
I'll repeat as posted there, it is a test. NOT for regular use!
I guess that means screen shots only.
Why is everyone I talk to so against steam?
Its a very good service, I've never had a problem with it.
I swear, some people have 1 problem with it and they lable it bad.
If I did that I wouldent be playing LFS.
Its a very good service, I've never had a problem with it.
I swear, some people have 1 problem with it and they lable it bad.
If I did that I wouldent be playing LFS.
Personaly, I think DX10 is a waste of time.
funny thing is, though this is a bit off topic, I was at EB games today and found a vista box that says "the best windows for gaming ever!"
I almost LOLed in the store. That has to be the dumbest thing ANY company has ever put on a box.
Then again, I was in an EB games store.
funny thing is, though this is a bit off topic, I was at EB games today and found a vista box that says "the best windows for gaming ever!"
I almost LOLed in the store. That has to be the dumbest thing ANY company has ever put on a box.
Then again, I was in an EB games store.
It hasn't happend since and I basicaly follow the same steps everytime I play. My keyboard is off my desk when I play, I have to actualy pick it up and type, its not on the floor though, its off to the side or up high on my monitor.
Could it have had something to do with the stutter I was getting when it happend? I had some stuttering problems before I upgraded to V2. It only seemed to happen when my hard drive started for some stupid thing XP decided to do randomly. (not related to LFS but seemed to cause a stutter on every game just as my HD kicked in)
This actualy happend a while ago, I thaught nothing of it till I got on the forums the other day and decided to post about it. I would have had a replay but as I said I thaught nothing of it and didn't save.
If it happens again I'll post about it and I'll have a replay next time.
Not sure how a replay will help though.
Could it have had something to do with the stutter I was getting when it happend? I had some stuttering problems before I upgraded to V2. It only seemed to happen when my hard drive started for some stupid thing XP decided to do randomly. (not related to LFS but seemed to cause a stutter on every game just as my HD kicked in)
This actualy happend a while ago, I thaught nothing of it till I got on the forums the other day and decided to post about it. I would have had a replay but as I said I thaught nothing of it and didn't save.
If it happens again I'll post about it and I'll have a replay next time.
Not sure how a replay will help though.
I don't think I can recreate it, it happend randomly and hasn't happend since. I checked to see if I had fuel, but I was still at a quarter tank when it shut down.
I can't reach my keyboard when I'm actualy racing without taking my steering wheel and puting it to the side. its rather anoying but it does mean that there's no chance I could have hit the ignition key when driving around the corner.
I could have shifted up to a gear that was to fast, that might have done it, but it doesn't make sence since the engine isn't supposed to stall.
I could have shifted up to a gear that was to fast, that might have done it, but it doesn't make sence since the engine isn't supposed to stall.
Stalled the XRT?
They said it wasn't posible, it couldent be done! BUT I DID IT I TELL YOU! I STALLED THE XRT!
this is not a joke, I stalled during a race.
I was taking a corner and the RPM started to drop, I was wondering what was going on so I pulled over and hit the brakes.
The engine was actualy off!
It took me like 5 minutes to find the ignition key.
I figured it was E or S or something, It doesn't say anywhere that the start engine key is I.
But ya, people keep saying you can't stall the cars in this sim, why'd mine die then? It started when I hit the key though.
this is not a joke, I stalled during a race.
I was taking a corner and the RPM started to drop, I was wondering what was going on so I pulled over and hit the brakes.
The engine was actualy off!
It took me like 5 minutes to find the ignition key.
I figured it was E or S or something, It doesn't say anywhere that the start engine key is I.
But ya, people keep saying you can't stall the cars in this sim, why'd mine die then? It started when I hit the key though.
Theres where the good idea is, if Scawen made a deal with Valve to market LFS on steam that would more than likely increase sales and posibly get the word out to a VERY large number of people who might be interested.
of course the draw back is, Valve is most definately gona want a percentage of the profit.
so it's all how it would balance itself out, and until S3 its probably not a good Idea. or S2 final at least.
The best move this sim could make right now is to openGL.
Since it's faster (see note below) and has just as much functionality as DX, I'v even seen HDR in opengl (hacked ofcourse).
unfortunately, anyone who actualy uses vista won't be able to play it if that happens because opengl has had its legs cut off in vista.
So now we are back to square one, DX8 or 9.
Aparently alot of game companies HATE DX10 anyway. since it doesn't offer them anything but more code to wright.
Note: On alot of older systems DX caused something I refer to as a memory blanket, not sure if thats the right way to put it though.
This "blanket" was basicaly the fact that DX acted as a layer between your software (game) and hardware, as far as I know this is still how it works. This layer was what alowed alot of windows based games to interact with your hardware and still be monitored by the OS.
On windows NT systems it alowed games to function properly since NT "didn't like" apps interacting with hardware directly and as far as I know that's why opengl didn't work on NT systems.
OpenGL may seem similar to DX but it infact is not, it doesn't have this extra layer, it alows games to use the functions on the hardware without running a check on them first. Where DX would run almost like a filter, GL runs as a direct link.
This information is about all I can remember from what my uncle explained to me about 5 years ago. He told me this when I asked him why my games ran faster in GL than DX.
Since it's faster (see note below) and has just as much functionality as DX, I'v even seen HDR in opengl (hacked ofcourse).
unfortunately, anyone who actualy uses vista won't be able to play it if that happens because opengl has had its legs cut off in vista.
So now we are back to square one, DX8 or 9.
Aparently alot of game companies HATE DX10 anyway. since it doesn't offer them anything but more code to wright.
Note: On alot of older systems DX caused something I refer to as a memory blanket, not sure if thats the right way to put it though.
This "blanket" was basicaly the fact that DX acted as a layer between your software (game) and hardware, as far as I know this is still how it works. This layer was what alowed alot of windows based games to interact with your hardware and still be monitored by the OS.
On windows NT systems it alowed games to function properly since NT "didn't like" apps interacting with hardware directly and as far as I know that's why opengl didn't work on NT systems.
OpenGL may seem similar to DX but it infact is not, it doesn't have this extra layer, it alows games to use the functions on the hardware without running a check on them first. Where DX would run almost like a filter, GL runs as a direct link.
This information is about all I can remember from what my uncle explained to me about 5 years ago. He told me this when I asked him why my games ran faster in GL than DX.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG