I am not familiar with wubi. I kind of read about a windows.exe - hack that does all sorts of things - but when it told you it would install it in a file on one of your ntfs-partitions then I assume it will do exactly that.

quote from wikipedia:

Quote :

It is not a virtual machine, but rather, it creates a stand-alone installation within a loopmounted device, also known as a disk image, like Topologilinux does. It is not a Linux distribution of its own, but rather an installer for Ubuntu.[1]
Users interested in directly installing to a dedicated partition, like a standard Ubuntu install does, without needing a CD should use UNetbootin instead.[3]

So you see: it will create a file of a certain size (a few GB), then format THAT FILE as like as it was an actual hard-drive and then install a bootable kernel-image pointing to that file-system by the means of a "loop"-mount. So your usually invisible Windows-boot-manager will offer you the option to boot Ubuntu from there instead of proceeding with the normal Windows-startup the whole way through. That will get obvious the moment after you restart your machine for the first time after the WUBI has finished the installation-process.

A very safe and sound option if you ask me. Although it will not run as performant as a so-called "native" installation. So don't expect any wonders on system performance. AND DON'T DELETE THE FILE FROM WITHIN WINDOWS IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE TO PLAY WITH IT.

On a side-note:
I see you've got about 53 Gigs of free, unallocated space.

You should make that your extended partition and then reboot into the Install-CD of the distribution of your choice. If that means Ubuntu, make that the most-recent stable version (8.10) of the Live-DVD to ensure that you don't end up with (yet) unsupported (too fresh of the shelf) hardware. You can then start a setup-wizard from within the Live-system that also includes a partitioner (AFAIR). Early versions didn't really support partitioning from the graphical live-system's installer but I THINK the newer ones do. Since I have been directly upgrading my system for the last couple of releases I really didn't get to see for myself, so you might want to re-check that before. Might be that you still need the "alternate-install"-Disk for manual partitioning.

JUST MAKE SURE YOU DON'T RUSH ANYTHING. Clicking "O.K." without reading what a dialogue's information is saying isn't always the right choice when using a Linux.

Other than that: Have fun!

PS.: use a proper network-connection to install the system, something with an attached and functioning ethernet-cable, not any WIFI-stuff

Quote from sam93 :

What are the advantages that Linux has over Windows exactly. I have heard that Linux is a lot better than Windows but I do not yet have the knowledge of what Linux can do to know why it is better. Could someone please tell me what are the advantages and disadvantages if you don't mind.

...if you prefer a little more letters to tell you why:

Windows has evolved from a simple name of a graphical user interface covering the most common file-operations under (MS)DOS, then was used as a name for a graphical application layer building upon DOS, then used for an integrated operating system, still based on DOS but with the graphical part now representing the "standard shell" (read: Windows 95, 98, 98SE, Millennium), then being used as the name for an all-new operating system designed to be network-capable rather than only network-aware and based on an entirely new "new-technology" native-32bit-system-kernel, thus they attached the two letters "NT" to it which - quite frankly - laid out the foundation for all the versions that are still in wide-spread use today.

Nowerdays Windows - as used in actual tounge - refers to a whole so-called "platform", including software object-code libraries, multimedia-layers and so forth, the Direct-X package being one of the more relevant to home-PC-users such as gamers.

Linux (or better say GNU/Linux) has nothing to do with any of those. It is in itself a "Unix"-Clone, relying heavily on the GNU-foundation's /-networks system tools that were modelled after what was once an operating system developed and owned by some nerds at AT&T (?). However, Unix-rights went from one owner to another quite a few times, resulting in an endless quarrel who would be the final legitimate owner of the thing. It was, although a commercial product, mostly an open-source one, meaning when it was further and further developed, people could actually have a peek at all it's core source-code. Hence all the relevant APIs and such were "open knowledge". That's not to say they were "public domain" or anything.

So that was the reason why the GNU-people could actually copy the behaviour of all the basic tools needed - and finally make them compatible (read: interchangeable) with the original system-kernels. They were up to recode all that stuff because they wanted a truly open development platform targeted at all people that was free to change up to it's core. Now all they needed was a piece of free (as in spirit) software that made it actually run without the need of an original system-kernel: That's were Linus Torvalds filled in the gap with his home-brew "Linux"-kernel.

Nowadays though, people just say "Linux" when referring to a whole unit consisting of system-kernel, system-tools (and even tend to include the usual widespread software packages into the equation) -- which all-together make up "a distribution", in short "distro".
Sounds amazing? Well it is. But the most amazing stuff is: it is not Windows. It has a little different way of how you use it. And each distro will have it's own go at how they present the package to the main user or administrator. What they all have in common, however, is that the productive software packages they include is mostly free software designed by the same people, just delivered in a slightly different fashion to fit the specific management tools, that the distributors decide to use on their distros. So users of any of them they can mostly (read: up to app. 95%) interchange user-generated data and work on/with that, as long as all people involved keep their systems reasonably up-to-date (or alternatively at the same development-level).

As for the sources: Anyone can adapt pieces of software made to fit one distro, to install and run on another. AND it is (mostly, as I said) all "free" software which means you can alter your installation and even a/the specific program itself - and if you whish just make a different install disc with the altered software and distribute your own, derived distro. Only some commercial distributors still use their own closed-source and non-free software-tools (mostly user-friendly installation-wizards and further subsystem-management-tools) that build upon their systems. So naturally, those specific tools&programs would be excluded from any sub-alteration, sub-redistribution (and then, that stuff is usually not supplied in an open-source fashion, read: "binary-only").

If you want to find out more, just browse some of the better-known websites/forums or -that would be my suggestion- get yourself a good all-round introductory book from your local bookshop's shelf. O'Reilly has some very good ones, so does Addison-Wesley. AND MANY OTHERS, too. That should lower the threshold of finally getting into the subject for a good deal. I would highly recommend to at least read a small bit before you go and install anything on your primary computer. Although most modern distributions handle most systems painlessly, there is always the chance of running into problems you didn't even know they even existed - when you are a complete newbie that hasn't got great computer skills AND KNOWLEDGE in the first place.

Overall conclusion: Linux is a different approach to a network-capable, multi-tasking & multi-user (-capable) operating system that is not only limited to PCs but all sorts of likewise functioning modern (and sometimes older out-of-production) hardware. Most-likely 5 out of 10 NAT-type internet-router-devices run a simplyfied version of it with a small web-server providing a browser-based set-up tool on a down-sized piece of hardware vastly different to any intel-PC in design and/or architecture. Since it is all available in source you can get it to run on virtually anything.

Well at least some guys can. At least I can't.

I am simply just an average user who likes using it. Ubuntu for me, too, after some years of SuSE, Debian and stuff. It actually runs better on my old laptop than the supplied Windows ever did. But I still dual-boot for reasons like Live for Speed. Sometimes you just can't get away from it

Last edited by DrBen, Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:22.

Quote from NightShift :

IMO we should focus more on the difference between gated shifters in seq mode, since it is the most widely used setting. In seq mode there's the benefit of never having to face a misshift, so it would make sense to slow it down a little.

However, I have little hope of this being fixed, as the button clutch cheat would need to be sorted out first.

That's right from the "I want more realism and am using an h-shifter with the 3rd-pedal-view". And it's the exact same reason I use auto-clutch and the flappy-pedals most of the time, when I am in a race. Most (if not all) of the tracks in lfs are built for speed. Handling in sharp bends under treacherous road-conditions is mostly not designed into the simulation's grounds as of yet. And that's the only time I am experiencing the advantage of being able to shift gears directly (e.g. from 6th to 2nd or sth.). Playing with the car's weight and handling is where a proper manual really shines. On other occasions it is doomed to slow your reaction time down and to bring a disatvantage to the car's handling (especially at high speeds) since automated clutch is king (looking at the fact you can keep both hands on the steering wheel).
Drifting also profites from full-manual mode. But that's about it. When there are no more and much more difficult and norrow, bending tracks to come to lfs, then sticking to status-quo will indeed be the best solution.
Just look at all those cheapos - like me - sometimes using mouse-steer or sporting one of the simpler "two-pedal and no h-shift" - wheels in lfs. You would definitely exclude these fellow racers when dissing the automated clutch mode.

All-in-all I am happy that at least throttle-cut & -blip is no longer available to the most "sunday-drivers" around. That steepened the learning-curve with the benefit for them, especially, to gain some proper racing-experience right from the start with little chance to get it very wrong. Or in simpler terms: One chance to educate "false lerners" less. A good thing IMHO.

BAK TO TOPIC
For a real Auto-transmission, These driver-aids would have to be re-implemented (shwitched-on, again) 'cause never mind how smooth a real automatic transmission is on drive-shifts, it will most-likely never be as quick as a sequential or manual gearbox when operated with some skill. Thereby racing with an auto would prove pretty much useless. Thing is: in the 1980s, which most LFS-cars' real-world models are coming from, those transmissions AFAIR didn't have the refinement found in some of today's Auto-driven luxury (and mostly very heavy) exotics. So that might be some counting reason not to opt for a full auto, at all.

Seems I have totally posted in the wrong thread. I actually wasn't aware that all the discussion was centred around blue-movies and who would have the group-approved right to download them first

Do us all a favour: keep your grey-zone discussions to your private space. Oh - and just for the possibility you consider this part of the official LFS-forum your private space -
I am out of here.
Seems most of my words pretty much annoyed you guys, anyway.

I'm a little sorry for what's happening though. Never thought of the ctra-initiative to burst into flames like it appears after reading these past comments. So collecting points up to platinum - as well as striving for a reasonably clean racing-style - seemingly all of that was for plain nought. Screw myself!

Have a nice 2009!

"DSG" is literally written out as "Direktschaltgetriebe" which is neither an old-school automatic nor comparable to LFS's "automated-gears" option.
It uses two clutches combined in the gearbox, on fitted to 1st,3rd,5th,(optional 7th) (and reverse?) plus one for the 2nd,4th,6th. So when changing gears, the next to come is already alligned inside the box before the actual - direct - change even occurs. That's why it is so fast.
The downside is that most of these systems built into standard road-cars are not suitable for stunt-driving manoeuvres since they lack an override-third-pedal that e.g. WRC-cars have with their customized, partly-automated sequential gearboxes.

So yes, in a way you drive those double-clutch systems similarily to an auto - if they are tuned to perform as such. And no: in certain situations a full manual will still perform better.

Quote from Takumi_lfs :

Hey, the DSG transmission is one of the fastest automatic transmission.

My cousin owns a Skoda Octavia with 160hp.

On S mode (Sport mode) it shifts very quickly at the redline spot.

That's usually an issue with one of the following:

a) dust building up and being collected right in front of the optical sensors of the mouse ('cause often these are installed in little moulds which are perfectly suited as to substitute for "vacuum cleaners")

b) You have a non-optimal mouse-driver setup. Try to disable ALL "acceleration" options for the movement of the mouse. This has to be done in the windows-settings for each and every system-user sperately!!

After doing that,
I doubt you will have any greater issues other than the dust-problem. Have been using a rather old cable-mouse ( Logitech mouseman dual-optical) for years and actually without the mouse-steering facilitated in LFS I would never ever have gone down the road to buy myself a S2-license plus a wheel (or in fact, 3 wheels consequutively by now).

But of course, there is always the possibility of your mouse being plain rubbish or the underlying pad / or desk surface-material not matching the mouse's optical system so brillantly.

I guess If it is this scary to be an full-on admin at ctra then why not think about some evolutional changes to the reporting-system?

My theoretical take would be kind of a "peer-review" technique in which vastly clean racers themselves get to say their verdict on cases, maybe 2-3 advanced license-holders with a reasonably clean race-license should just have their take on one and the same issue: average verdict decides whether or not somebody "bites the dust".

One could make this obligatory to all the advanced racers who still race on the servers regularly. One could provide the individual choice to skip the judging process (combined with the deduction of let's say the amount of points you get for a clean third place finish in a mid-sized car).

The model in my mind works as following:
The ctra-system already monitors all the drivers' movements on the system's servers. So why not make up a dynamic list consisting of those with the cleanest and highest (both combined!) personal files and make these take part in a multi-peered review process (as explained above). Those reports marked with ("seriously urgent") would then be sent to 3-4 ppl from that list at a time. If one or two of the selected decide not to do it(because of time-issues, personal reasons, etc.), they just get re-enrolled to the bottom(end) of the list (list-members for review are always to be taken from the top).
Thereby those who use the system more frequently will get most of the "severe cases"-workload (that a full-time admin would just be "overqualified" to judge upon), actually releaving the full admins of the less difficult-to-judge cases and getting them to do work only on the more sensitive ones (like beginners who just missinterpreted some rules, those with language-issues, etc.).

This way those receiving the most out of CTRA will get the chance to "give" something back in return without ruining the experience of all the newbies and such. One could anonymize the process by going with chiffre-numbers. Each and every "part-time-judge" would get a number 1..4 (1..n) just attached to the ID of the filed report with the option to communicate with one-another, if there ever is a need to actually discuss a specific matter of the case.

Well, how does this sound? A partly-automated facility for reviews with actual user-participation?

Oh and just for the record: I thought this up because I HATE TO HEAR ABOUT ADMINS LOSING THEIR OWN FUN IN LFS just because something good like ctra turned out to be such a huge success!

I serieously believe that large-scale operations (and ctra by now can be safely considered larger-scale) should handle matters with suitable methods, for crying out loud!

Keep up the good work guys
&
make sure your fun will come back!!!

Cheers
DrBen

Last edited by DrBen, Sun, 11 Jan 2009 08:44.

Quote from Riel :

True.
Sometimes geometry damages is NOT seen at suspension bars! I have seen several times, that car behaves very weird, but nothing to see at f10.

Actually I think there's tons of space in F11 to give a short summary on what grade of alteration the chassis-geometry has reached. Maybe together with a user-friendly "box-assist advice" like "better come in soon" OR "you can keep on battling, not too serious" OR "Not even a real scratch, keep your eyes on the road!"

... or something like that. Wouldn't take too much of coding, I guess

Well, if you don't care about the profiler and just do the stuff manually - like me - you can set every steering-angle whilst preserving all FF.

It will just look odd when the wheel and hands/arms-animation will not turn further than 720/540/450/270 (depending on the car-model) degrees of rotation. You can disable the animation when driving in cockpit, though.

I personally just stick to the exact same amount of rotation as is animated in LFS. Given that there do exist but few cars like the Mitsubishi EVOs 4x4 Group-N-spec Basic-Rally Cars in the real world-- (which do sport an exact 720° steering-rotation) -- I think it is a fairly reasonable choice to stick to this setting for the tin-top road-cars. It also works pretty well on the less-expensive consumer-wheels like Logitech (G25, DF-GT) which do not provide quite the peak-velocity in simulated FF-caster-steer that real-world "A->B"-roadcars offer with steering-lock about 900-1080 degrees (when equiped with power-steering, at all).

So it really is a matter of "pick you own choice". Just try it out and decide what's best for you, yourself.

Your average happy G25 owner

Quote from 5haz :

Rfactor is good once you take a year or two to set it up properly, LFS is good right out of the box.

Hi, it's nice to read some reasonably sorted-out statement, anyway...

Quote :

Have you ever tried Neils Corvette mod and the HistoriX mod, clearly not. Trying a demo for 5 minutes doesn't really give you a good impression of Rfactor,

While that may be right I just cannot hold back and write this simple comment:
Why then do the rfactor-developers even send out a demo-version, if it doesn't provide an honest chance to get into the feeling and to specifically discover the sim-potential of that "game"??

The answer I give myself on that one is just this: They are already happy enough with their sales-figures, so they do not care to give the experienced sim-racer a good enough "hook" so he/she'll get's drawn in and effortlessly/instantly takes a bite.
So, sadly, I'll have to say: "no - thank you."

--> And yes, I tried the demo like 2/3 times with some time in-between and it never improved in that department, at all. Let alone the user-interface which is just plain counter-intuitive compared to LFS! Wasn't any fun for me right from the first intro-screen!

Quote :

Anyway, Rfactor 2 is supposedly in development, and they better have sorted out the physics.

Well, I'll be happy to give it's demo a chance when it's ready (and at that time one of my computers still proofs fast enough for it).

As for i-Racing: Money talks. Enough said.

...or maybe not: I recon it would have been quite easy for the lfs-guys to achieve a stable S-2 at the end of 2006 if they had been given that kind of speculative investment as loan that i-racing has already used up for their development and licensing costs. I don't whish them any bad luck but for me I say:
"no - thank you." An (online) demo with their physics would be the least to expect when wanting all of my little spare money!

on a side note: it's late here and I just got a glimpse at about half of the first page of this thread, so please don't slap me for not reflecting on anything further on and/or directly above my message.

just read SamH's announcement --> YAY!
hail the staff!

Thanks for giving in to our suggestions!

once again:
happy new year to you all.

and PLEASE don't confuse the different driving aids, again:

read the first 2 pages & understand what's presented there.
ABS does nothing more than to prevent overbraking, thus preserving you traction on all 4 wheels under full brake-load so that you could still steer (and actually make it around an obstacle if there was any). And sure enough nothing less. AND YES it does it "in reverse", as well since it functions independently from any gears (although it won't cut in at walking-pace! 6 km/h minimum speed on my car, as stated in the manual)

What you Interjmt and BlueFlame are going on about is NOT 'ABS', but the more advanced stability management systems present in newer cars. They might (in their individual implementation) integrate with the ABS-function to assure best results - but they are originally designed for another purpose and thereby named seperately. I guess that's all what it was: a name-confusion of all things

Last edited by DrBen, Thu, 1 Jan 2009 17:40.

Quote from John5200 :

i dont think so... if it would be faster, why does EVERY racing series use secuential / h-shifter
@ the old quote, its still a racing simulator, not a cruising simulator so we dont need grandma shifting

The reason is simple:

when racing, you really do not want any computer to interfere with you yousing your engine and car-balance to it's full potential.

I drive a very ancient auto-transmission in RL, 4 speeds, not paddles or anything. For the kind of car and for the style of driving (RL, A-->B) it's o.k.
It just happened to turn out that way, so don't assume for a minute that I don't know how to drive a manual

Naturally for keeping the control over your car on the edge of what's physicly possible this old auto-box is no way a sufficiently capable transmission.


Newer posh cars however have the option of manually (only!) initiated instant gear-changes and fullfill that claim - depending on make and model - more or less to the driver's satisfaction.
The VW double-clutch system (and all other makes that adapted this method) are again another usable alternative. However: I'm not quite sure they offer the same instant "disengaging all force-transmission" that a simple clutch-press or auto-trans-lift-off offer you. To my understaning on a dual-clutch system you'll allways be stuck "in gear" hence you will lose a little bit of flexibility on the handling front.

The other thing I dislike about auto-boxes is the fact that you (the driver) are likely to develop a bad habit of a too relaxed seating-position. the right foot handles all the action, the left one is left alone, hence body-tension will eventually decline on the whole left side, mostly after just a few minutes of seat time, when covering larger distances. That's why I trained myself not to lose too much body-tension when driving: re-positioning myself every couple of minutes checking for maximum safe&sound manouverability of all of my arms&legs related to driving.
The oddly big brake-pedal on most auto-cars, too, is something I sometimes find very much annoying.

Plus: there are good & bad auto-boxes. Those that are good usually make up a good match to the car's engine in terms of shifting-points and flexibility of shift-patterns regarding load, road-angle (steepness), weight, delivered torque. A bad auto-box will change gear at the slightest alteration of accelerator-travel. A good one will not do that too often and offer a reasonable amount of tolerance to allow a torquey engine to not be revved up unnecessarily and be used to it's full potential even on lower revs.

But that's all another story when racing: here you want maximum control & maximum efficiency. And especially the latter is the killer-argument that will allways make you run away from any traditional automatic transmission. And what's the point in simulating an approx. 10% smoother changing modern auto-box in manual-shift mode (which is the only suitable option when racing) when there is this "auto-clutch" feature in lfs and the majority of the smaller high-volume RL-models sooner or later will all be converted for one of those dual-clutch atomated boxes (as an option) for buyers that want to do without a third pedal?

That said: I'm not against a simulated auto box. Cruisers will like it I guess. It's just that I can really do without in lfs, since my focus is on controllability and efficiency. Neither of which is going to be provided by the addition of an auto-box. However, simulating an auto-box wouldn't require much of work for devs except finding some good shift-patterns for each of the cars and therefor fitting gear-ratios, of course.

Thanks again for your help in clarifying this.
So my aim to introduce some rationality into this "discussion" finally met it's purpose.

On another note: Since engine-management is done mostly elctectronically nowerdays I imagine those other kinds of traction control implementations are soon do "die out" given the widely adapted use of stability management systems on new cars (Most not-too cheap new cars have them installed as standard on the german market). Would not make too much sense economically if any such cars didn't have a "drive-by-wire" accelerator - and therefor I expect all the variety-models based on a common drive-train and featuring TC to use a similar aproach, as well, as to keep dev-costs down a bit.
Am I wrong here? I'm no mechanic of any sorts, so that's why I'm guessing as well. Although sports cars might be a whole different story

Quote :

Because its a waste of time & scawen has a thousand more important things to do than worry about weather abs works in reverse.

Sorry for interrupting: has Scawen - once - denied that his implementation was meant to be universal? Because if it is, a fail when in reverse would be considered as a BUG.

In RL ABS is a system that funtions independantly from any driver-input. It detects two or more wheels doing vastly different speeds under brake-pressure - regardless of the direction - thus triggers some electro-pneumatic devices in the braking-system. Simple as that. Now it might not be engeneered to give best results in reverse though, but then again why should it be supposed to do such. I think it will work conveniantly well though, even in reverse.

The other thing that bugs me is the wild misinterpretation of driving assistence-systems:

ABS = Anti-Blockier-System / anti-lock braking system
--> it basically effects all wheels in a similar way since it is modulating the brake force the driver pushes onto the middle pedal. All 4 wheels have sensors on them that track rotation.

Traction-Control: a simple electronic gas-pedal with an intelligent "nanny" between it and the engine/fuel-pump stuff: it will disengage throttle when the driven axxis signals slip through the difference in ABS-sensor readings.

ESP = electronic stability (menagement) program
Now that combines all of the above (/builds upon them) and introduces electronic components inside the braking-system, some yaw-, steering and whatnot-sensors on top of all that, a "dsp" with some sort of predefined reaction paths (programs) and is connected to some kind of computational device which will help you regain a stable "in-lane"-kind of driving-state again, with no slip on any wheel:: by triggering each wheel's brake independantly and -if needed- simutaniously on it's own accord, even when there is NO DRIVER-INPUT on the brakes, what-so-ever.

Maybe the english language has now taken the term "traction control" as a substitute for the rather dull sounding "ESP" - that I don't quite know. JC from TopGear uses that term in this way, though - so might be a given fact.

Have fun!

PS.: I'd prefer my Scirocco un-tamed. But given the fact that the RL-model will prevent you from turning the ESP completely-off, I just wait and see what the Dev-s come up with in 2009

Cheers
DrBen
PS2.: sorry for this hard-to-read post, grammar-wise. It's late, I'm off to my bed!

Last edited by DrBen, Sat, 20 Dec 2008 03:24.

I'm pleasently surprised how many positive posts about multi-class racing I read in the last couple of days.
That seems to be of high value to a quite some people - which is a good thing

I'm all for introducing multi-class racing to Race 2!
Yes, TBO + LRF was tried before & it didn't quite work -

In my understanding that has to do with the car's power-to-weight ratio, which was pretty close. BUT at the same time there were indeed "incompatible handling" - issues that were never overcome. There were simply so many different lines and accel/brake-points for all those cars that it was too much to handle for most racers at silver/gold stage.

Now again, TBO + STD is a very different animal. I think this could work out for the better. And at peak times of day this would clearly mean a releave for Race 1 and the newbies while at the same time give us STD & TBO-lovers a far better competetive environment and a larger variety of tracks to race on.

On another note: If multi-class racing is considered too risky on Race 2 how about a simple interchanging class pattern? One race TBO, the next one STD, and so forth... ?

Me, I'd clearly prefer Race 2 to be multi-class

btw: Merry Christmas!
DrBen

hi,
I'm currently waiting on the Jump'n'bump server - waiting for you!

I just joined the JnB-Server while 3-4 ppl were just getting started driving "The Maze"/LX4.

I then joined in after the race was over - that was as soon as I could do it. It's a fabulous combo that car on that particular layout. But all I could read as I made my way from restart to finish was: "I don't know the way" - and everyone was disconnecting in a hurry.

HEY: I would be glad to show you the way and then race you, cause one night I had the most blessing close-race, full-pack racing known on the whole lfs-ctra-system (i.e. the whole world).

I simply loved it!

Why wouldn't anybody at least try to drive something new (and maybe even fall in love with it, just as I did myself)???

*going into a state of self-despair*

edit: All there is to it: you start on a "hidden straight", just because there is nowhere else on this layout that would accomodate a full grid of racing-cars. Note that this is only the location of the start, NOT THE FINISH. You _never_ go down that particular part of the track when completing the first lap!

After that you jump over the backway, run around a loop, keep left. You are now crossing your previous jump in a right angle facing the fence of the carpark. Try to take the following right-hander by sticking to the fence as close as possible. The reason for this is: it is the beginning of the two-way part of the track, the "extended loop" that is driven "clock-wise". After coming to the other end of the carpark, you decelerate brutally and drift about 240° - you want to meet the entrance to the backway of the same piece of tarmac you have just smashed down - do not fall for the stright-forward start-line! That one, as I already pointed out, will invalidate your lap, if you chose to take it. There is only avery narrow opening back on the "two-way" street-like part of the track.

Next is that nasty little corner with the fence to the right and the ramp to the left. You will want to try and stick as close to the ramp as possible 'cause the way leads left just a few inches off it's end. You swing the car left, and then right again just to take another left hairpin (two consequtive hairpins), rund around another 3/4 circle anti-clockwise and enjoy the jump again (that you already know from the beginning of the round).

You just successfully finished your first round (and a bit) and are now ready to go to try and go around all the upcoming traffic.

Well that's all there is to it: think of it as an expanded '8'-figure with an attached U-turn to its head. Oh, and a another airstrip attached to the jump to get "airborne". Really, not that hard to figure out - there are even some signs painted onto the ground.
I admid: those signs could be easily bigger in size & number; plus fitted to more appropriate spaces ( so that people would actually notice them when going fast in a race)

I think this is the best combo out of the newly introduced ones - easily, and by some length!

Go then and try it out for once. Everyone who loves to throw his/her car about will have some great fun, guaranteed!

Cheers

DrBen



edit: thx for the racing action tonight. Was a blast!
Would be awesome to meet up again: same server, same combo, different day ;-)

Last edited by DrBen, Sat, 20 Dec 2008 02:23.

alright then, I just read that story

now I guess everyone will know how much enthusiasm shines from within me considering single-seaters

Don't let it come to you, too much so...

...I am the fist answering the poll with regard to the shifter unit. I had to have my dealer send in the whole set because of his supply-source that wouldn't accept handling a partial replacement-call with Logitech. Funny warranty issue here in DE.
Lucky me I got a V1.01 of the set back - but only after waiting like 2 months that supposedly was due to the high demand of those wheels back then (2008-04..05).
Don't get me wrong, it's still the best buy I ever did. Only the upcoming fanatec-products do have a chance to compete on features/pricepoint right now.
If I were you - I'd at least consider these, as well. Thinking loudly about the GT3-RS-version here...
...most forward-point for one of those is the replaceable shifter-set (you can get that seperately, since it is not part of all their "bundled" wheel sets).

Oh and just to make sure you'll not misunderstand my warning about the shifter-unit: I tend to treat all of my stuff with at least a reasonable amount of care. I do not throw stuff against the wall and I am fully capable of realising what things are made of before applying any specific task or even force to them.

have fun

Last edited by DrBen, Wed, 10 Dec 2008 18:05.

spot-on!

how about some totally unrealistic brake-lights for the not-yet-enlightened single-seaters then? Might improve my "temptedness" to actually go racing in them more often

Quote from Stynax :

I've got a ~$200 budget, so I could either get G25, or DFP, with something else. :P Right now i'm leaning towards G25, but i'm not entirely sure yet. Thanks.

fanatec top-of-the-line P-turbo wheel (only one available, right now)

+ | belt-driven, biggest wheel diameter, seperate shifters, 900°-mode
- | price, limited experience by fellow lfs-racers as of yet
o | the optional clubsport-pedals sure look like something superiour

Logitech wheels:
Momo Racing Force (black)
+ | nice hands-on finish to it, 6 buttons at centre of wheel, cheap street-prices, excelent pedal-shifts in reach
- | only 240° of rotation, slow/restricting ffb-motor (but with good overall-feel to it), cheap-looking sequential stick-shifter, known-to somtimes break pedal-unit, no clutch-pedal

Driving Force Pro
+ | 900°-mode (first of it's kind), lots of buttons, PS2/3 compatible, cheap street-price (preferable to the momo-black)
- | same cheap pedals as the momo-black, less well-located pedal-shifters, slow ffb (same as momo-black?), no clutch-pedal, already out of production --> see the "GT"

Driving Force GT
+ | 900°-mode, lots of buttons, PS2/3-compatible, relatively quicker ffb than momo-black or DFP, price-point/value for money, sequential side-shifter, sequential pedal shift present.
- | relatively new to the market, limited experience of fellow lfs-users, seems to sport the same old plastic pedal-unit known to give up unter advanced use / no clutch-pedal

G25
+ | 900°-mode with 2 very sharp and reasonably fast ffb-motors, nice leather finish on wheel and gearstick, 6+1-speed gearstick with sequential-mode, sturdy pedals with clutch-pedals, cheaper to buy than P-turbo wheel, excelent steel-pedal shifters, PS2/3 compatible (but who would need this kind of wheel for arcarde-style racing?)
- | gear-shifter might break under advanced use (build quality / construction not on par with the rest), lots of buttons - but harder to reach which renders them moderately useless, a pain to frequently mount on a normal desk because of the unique wiring strategy


If it was my pick of the bunch today (I am G25-owner already) I would probably go for

-> the DF-GT if money is key
(or still wait for the Porsche Carrera wheel for about the same price) - eventually opting for sturdy aftermarket pedals

--> go for the G25 if the Porsche-Turbo one is out of my reach but DF-GT is too cheap / unavailable for me.

--> take the G25 if I thought I would really be getting into things and wanted to try a "safe bet" at things

I'd completely dismiss any chances on the Momo-black (but, hey -> I had that as my 2nd wheel before getting the G25// it is in no way bad, but it's technology is completely outdated given the price-tag!)

-> the new Porsche-Turbo wheel with the optional clubsport pedals if money is of no concern.


PEW, got more complicated than anticipated.
However: If there would come a shortage of money and only cheaper stuff is left on the radar: go for a decent value Thrustmaster wheel as they are almost the same quality as the old black Momo / but with less to go wrong - pedal units! (those have got an actual bearing for the pedals, for once - so if something brakes they indeed are easier to repair! If that will be your choice examine the pedal-shifters fist, reason being: My first wheel, an early "Ferrari Enzo"-Model had too stiff springs providing the counter-force for the extremely thin and light shifter pedals, one of that broke cleanly in half during up-shift that way. The ffb was decent, though.

Greets
DrBen

Last edited by DrBen, Tue, 9 Dec 2008 17:53.

When having the option of a ' roughly-indexed throttle/brake axis' you'd lose the ability to press gas&brake at the same time though - obliterating the idea of left-foot-braking.

That said: you can still have some fast lap times with a mouse - just the control of the higher-powered cars will be limited to some degree. But even the lx6 is possible to keep in check when all you want is to hotlap. Racing is another story... ...as to prevail in the slower cars, that's not a big deal. But keep a safety margin doing so, and you will be more comfortable and regarded less hostile by other racers (at large).
Having the experience with mouse-steer that I used for quite a long time - I really felt lucky putting my knowledge about steering-speed & accuracy to some good use when finally switching to a ffb-wheel.

bottom line: know your limits.

And prior to mastering the lx6 comes learning & mastering the lx4 - which in my opinion handles even better than it's 'larger' brother

Quote from z-ro 8 :

how about this; it's ok for s14 to mid-race join and pass, but the passee has the right to perform a PIT manuever on s14 s he goes by....

just kidding.

Quote from S14 DRIFT :

HAHHAHA

It happens already, don't need to ask them to do it.

Quote from March Hare :

As the guy who mostly gets passed I think that is a good way to handle it. There is nothing more pressuring than a much faster car at your rear bumper.

Furthermore I think it's less damaging to your time to be passed by a faster car than being tailgated by one. And having to wonder whether his braking points are very different from mine. Yes I can report him after he wipes me out but I don't get any points for that.

If there is a significant difference in speed I tend to indicate for him to pass me. Besides if I let him through I get to learn from his line

Quote from Becky Rose :

As a mid race joiner you should NOT be getting close enough to apply pressure on a car that is racing. You are allowed out on the circuit to practice, but you should find clear track to do so.

If you come up on a slower car, unless it is a lower class (where you are allowed to pass on a straight where doing so does not interfere with their progress into the next corner), you must hold back - and by hold back I dont meen maintain a gap of half a second. If they are checking their rear view to look at the gap back to you then you are too close.

You are NOT permitted to effect the race, you are there to practice. If you feel that the driver in the race is impeding your practice then pull over and find clear track / drive through the pitlane.

Do NOT, I repeat do NOT, interfere with people who are racing. You are not racing. That is a clear distinction and you should bear it in mind.

CTRA-section mod -> this might be some job for you. Just make it happen, will you?

Cheers
DrBen

Quote from Doorman :

Quote from [B :

obsolum[/B] ](...)DON'T THINK ABOUT THE POINTS OR EVEN YOUR STATISTICS!! (...)
Just enjoy the (real) racing

Listen to the man, for he speaks with straight arrow...er..tongue.

I'l second that...
...and still If anyone feels a need of points-competition then feel free to focus on the yellow-flag count: for this is the single aspect of your ctra-license that has the ability to go up (bad) as well as down (good). I just recently got to focus on it more eagerly - and thus far I got from above te mean mark to exactly-average. So still some challenge left for me to win

Last edited by DrBen, Tue, 9 Dec 2008 17:10.