Ah, that old chestnut.
LFS is the only sim where I see this excuse wheeled out regularly, which suggests to me that the problem is not with the user.
Yes but if that's the case, why doesn't the real car have an ARB? It's only a metal bar so it's not exactly compliated to fit one.
I suspect the reason is that the real car doesn't handle anywhere near as badly as the LFS version, which brings me back to my original point. At least I hope it doesn't handle as badly - if it does then the engineers should be fired
There's nothing new there; that's the standard trait of any mid-engined car.
MR2, MGF, Elise etc. all share those traits and yet none of them drive like the RAC does in LFS.
I never thought there was any way the real car was anything like the LFS version and that video above demonstrates that pretty comprehensively I think.
A lack of ARB does not make that much difference. I've driven my car for several weeks without an ARB and I didn't have any insane handling issues.
A lack of ARB does not make that much difference. I've driven my car for several weeks without an ARB and I didn't have any insane handling issues.
Why not try option two, then if it doesn't work out you can find option one. Better to regret what you have done than what you haven't, as the saying goes.
When I was travelling I picked up several crap jobs for peanuts, but had the time of my life.
When I was travelling I picked up several crap jobs for peanuts, but had the time of my life.
It's not that hard. I've got a Hundred Trillion dollar note sitting in front of me right now, and a couple of 50 billion notes at home. You can buy them for a few quid on the Zambian border, or just get them off eBay.
Cunning idea but the money printed at the moment has an expiry date of just a few months. They banking system has collapsed now anyway - they're pretty much all trading with bread and stones.
It's not true though. This Brawn has had a huge amount of development on it by Honda. The moment Honda / Ross Brawn realised 2008 was going to be a disaster they started work on their 2009 car, so it should be a good car.
Jay, I work with content management systems like that on a daily basis. In theory it's a good idea, but in practice it's an insanely complicated solution! 
I totally agree. The community have made a pretty average out-of-the-box game into a very good sim but what rFactor always needed was a consistent way of installing them. I can't believe it was overlooked.
The cars were spotted in Nottingham about 3-4 months ago, so maybe they're working down the country. I was walking when it passed me but unfortunately didn't have time to prepare a suitable pose 
I wonder if they simply go north to south. If so, it's gonna be a good 18 months before it's finished here.
I wonder if they simply go north to south. If so, it's gonna be a good 18 months before it's finished here.
First time I've seen the rF2 screenshots too and they are very disappointing. I never really liked the ISI graphics but there's really no excuse these days with the graphics hardware available. I realise there's probably more development to come but they look barely distinguishable from a very detailed GPL track
You do have to get used to LFS and rFactor but I think that's because of their flaws rather than realism. Very odd things happen in both of them that you simply have to learn to drive around, particularly in LFS (and especially with the RAC!
).nkPro and iRacing don't really have this - once configued they seem about right pretty much straight away. There are far fewer surprises in them. My first few laps in LFS after a long break always consist of comical oversteering and counter-steering, which seems totally at odds with reality.
Try dropping the tyre pressures by 10% or more. The default setups are pretty horrible to drive and any hint of a slide has the back end round before you know it. With the lower pressures it's a lot more fun.
You're basing your argument on emotion and experience rather than the facts.
I always slow down for cyclists and I'm quite happy for severe punishment to be dished out to those who don't. But how will changing the speed limit affect people not giving due regard? They'll still pass on blind bends, they'll still overtake where it's not safe.
The Governments own statistics state that the vast majority of road accidents happen inside the existing speed limit. They also state that most KSIs in this country happen in 30mph zones, where this proposal has no effect. Therefore, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Britain has a problem with people exceeding the speed limit on rural roads. If there are problems, they are elsewhere.
The BBC had a typically balanced debate on the matter this morning. Their guest was somebody who's daughter had been killed on a rural road by a driver who was off her tits and doing over 70mph. What they didn't add is that the poor young girl was walking along an unlit country lane with no footpath in the middle of the night. None of the contributing factors in that scenario had anything whatsoever to do with the speed limit.
I'd be happy to see any one of those issues addressed but no, let's ignore the real issues because "speeding's bad... mmk."
One final point. The statistics (specifically 3,000 deaths per year) include drunk drivers, heart attack victims, mechanical / tyre failure, and any other way people have found to finish themselves off.
Last edited by durbster, .
Don't be silly - there wont be any real Police on the roads.
So where do you draw the line? We could ban cars altogether and save 3,000 people but for what? We could save thousands of these deaths by banning cycling. Great. What a wonderful life we'll all have.
Statistics are this Governments favourite tool but these are misleading. How many of these accidents happened above the speed limit? Well, the Government's own statistics put this figure at less than 5%. Why aren't they doing something about the 95%?
250 has simply been stated because it's impossible to prove or disprove either way. The statistics will change by that much year on year.
"The speed limit" is given dangerously high relevance in road safety. People in Australia drive slower and yet more people die there. People in Germany drive faster and it's about the same. A 60mph speed limit does not stop somebody driving at 50mph into a 30mph corner.
Handing responsibility of road safety over to cameras is not the answer. Filling our cities with cameras has not stopped crime. Covering our roads with them will not stop bad driving. Can a camera stop somebody doing 50mph in thick fog, on icy roads? Will it stop somebody turning right carelessly (by far a bigger cause of accidents)? Will it stop drink and drug drivers? Will it stop tailgating?
How many man hours will be lost? All non-motorway journeys could be lengthened by at least 15%. What will this cost us in terms of productivity?
They've already started introducing it around the country and it makes driving incredibly frustrating already, let alone if they enforce it with more bloody cameras. Stuck behind a lorry doing 40mph but being unable to overtake as quickly as possible in case you push your average above 50mph? How is that safe?
Most importantly, the Government has no justification for forcing this upon us. Britain does not, and has not had a major problem with road safety. Millions of cars covering millions of miles every year and only 3,000 deaths? That's an amazing record compared with the rest of the world. Of course it would be great to get it down but it's not a major issue in this country. It's not for the Government to inconvenience 27 million motorists to possibly save a handful of people.
This is nothing to do with road safety. It's to do with getting a network of cameras on the roads that could conveniently be adjusted to introduce pay per mile driving. Another scheme so idiotic that only the Labour government could have given credit to.
As an alternative suggestion, why not put cameras in our cars that just record your last minute. If you have an accident, there's clear evidence whether you were or weren't driving dangerously. I'd rather have that. At least I can continue enjoying driving and the Government could stay out of my life.
Last edited by durbster, .
I think the BBC have learnt their lesson from when they tried to change the themes to Match of the Day and Eastenders. The changes were only subtle but provoked outrage from loyal viewers because, frankly, it's totally unecessary.
Theme tunes don't have to evolve.
Considering British roads are among the safest in the world this is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Millions of tonnes of metal travelling millions of miles per year at high speed, and only a few accidents. That's an amazing achievement, not a problem.
Speed's not the issue. In Australia people drive much slower than we do and yet their roads are more dangerous.
Speed's not the issue. In Australia people drive much slower than we do and yet their roads are more dangerous.
That was a campaign running in Australia a couple of years back so I think it's from down under. I remember seeing the models in the Cadbury's factory in Tasmania.
Is that an "internet forum fact" or is it based on actual evidence?
Not sure how it can be called pretentious either. It's just a fun film designed to put a smile on people's faces. How could it be less pretentious than that?
Another good review site with example pics from the cameras:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/
http://www.steves-digicams.com/
Me too. I saw it on telly (somehow), and I thought, "this is it, we've reached the stage where computer graphics look real". I think it was just the first game I'd seen with texture mapped 3D, but still
So this is not an official release of the next generation of the Crytek engine, it's just a tweak of the existing one? Looks feckin amazing nonetheless
Some moving shots here:
http://www.cryengine2.com/
Five years I reckon, before we have completely destructable, photo-realistic environments. And once the graphics reach that point, the games will really start...
Nope - it's yet another feature stolen from Opera.
I don't know if I can even be bothered to install another version of Safari. There's more than enough choice of browsers already and Apple software tends to be pretty awful on the whole. The only people I know who use Safari (other than Mac users) are web designers testing on it.
Just out of interest, can anyone remember which cars they had never heard of? I thought things like Caterhams would be recognised throughout the world but wasn't sure about some of the more down to earth ones.
I've got round two in the works anyway so I'll aim to make it a bit less regional
I've got round two in the works anyway so I'll aim to make it a bit less regional
I think there is a need for some form of copyright law but it's currently a hugely complicated solution to a problem that barely exists. The laws are also desparately out of date nowadays and need reviewing.
In John-Lennon-Imagine-World that might work fine, but the reality is that some musicians would actually like to buy food and pay bills. Record companies allow them to do this and make a good living out of it. What you're saying is there should be no professional musicians which seems somewhat contrary to your sentiment.
They didn't make it illegal, it already was illegal. Copyright law has been around for a lot longer than the Internet and so it needs a massive overhaul to bring it into the 21st Century.
Not all music can be performed live
Totally agree, it was a stupid idea and showed whose side Apple are on. I think Apple have announced they're dropping the DRM system though.
Yep. We've basically lost ten years of progress with this whole issue because the music and film industries couldn't see the future through their bank balances. It's frankly astonishing to believe they thought they could fight it.
There's no question they are in it to make money, of course. They are a business just like any other, so I see no problem with that. If an artist signs a crappy contract and gets bled dry then that's their own fault; it's not exclusive to the creative arts industry.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG