http://www.livescience.com/ani ... 1030_elephant_mirror.html
Most animals don't have a sense of self-awareness like humans and therefore certain elements of suffering are precluded from their ability to percieve them. Humans taken hostage for example can suffer due to the fear of future harm or death, they have a sense of self mortality. Animals don't have this ability because they have no sense of self. They only have a learned response to pain, they can't suffer from pure mental torture like humans can.
Don't misunderstand my position. I think cruelty to animals is abhorent and to my mind it is somewhat indicative of a persons mental capability to be able to be violent towards humans as well, (though I don't believe there is a direct relationship). So I do believe that animals suffer and need to be protected. I just don't believe they are completely equal with humans in this regard. So I will never accept equal punishment for violence towards animals verses violence towards humans.
Would you guys care to expand on those comments, if you wouldn't mind?
In what way would you say it's good? compared to other sims is it something specific or just a gut feel about the way the car drives?
By the way, I am currently giving it a go via the SR8 Trial, but I haven't driven it enough to form much more of an opinion than that it is different from LFS, (haven't really driven other sims to do a fair comparison).
Initial thoughts though are as follows:
So far I'd say it's an interesting comparison with LFS. At first the (tyre) physics do seem to be very similar to ISI Games and very different to LFS, but that was in the SR8 moving to the more road oriented cars brings a completely different feel, with a lot more suspension movement (chasis flex??) going on but without the total lack of grip that goes on in LFS if the suspension is really soft. For example comparing the XRG (non turbo) with the Pontiac Solstice is very revealing. Whereas the XRG handles like a boat and the rear end is all over the place unless you're very careful with the throttle, (with pretty much any set up I've ever tried), the Solstice is far more composed and handles far better with a far more progressive rear end despite being 500lbs heavier and having nearly 40bhp more. I've always questioned the realism of the XRGs handling and the Solstice proves it to me. Feels far more like my real car which has near identical power output and weight, (taking in to consideration the fact my car is FWD of course). So after about an hour messing around on a test track in the cars I'd say iRacing has a (considerably) better car handling model than LFS. It just feels more right to me as a real life car driver. What LFS is definitely better at though is the feedback through the wheel of what the front tyres are doing. But in terms of how the car responds to steering/brake/throttle inputs I'd say iRacing is closer to reality. At least compared to my experience of driving a car purely on the road.
Last edited by gezmoor, .
Because those threads are about iRacing in general. I have specifically asked for user experiences of how the game compares in the fundamental aspect of being a realistic sim from a driving experience perspective. Whilst that information may well be contained in those threads, it's hidden amongst the chaff.
I thought it would be useful to have just one thread without all the argument about iRacings business model etc that concentrates purely on what it's like to drive. After all isn't that what Sims are about, when you get down to it??
To everyone else that has replied constructively, thanks for you're opinions. Please keep them coming.
Personally I think its very worrying that this is what the kids of today want to create. If ever there was an argument that violent games can encourage kids to violent acts this is fairly damning evidence in it's favour. Psychologists will tell you that it's a step in the wrong direction to want to act out such violent acts, towards actually being able to do it for real.
Before anyone jumps on me saying that it's been proven video games don't make kids violent. I'm not saying they do, in isolation. I am saying they are part of the whole problem of desensitisation of our kids towards acts of violence. Desensitisation has been proven as being the first step towards the ability to act violently.
Before anyone jumps on me saying that it's been proven video games don't make kids violent. I'm not saying they do, in isolation. I am saying they are part of the whole problem of desensitisation of our kids towards acts of violence. Desensitisation has been proven as being the first step towards the ability to act violently.
The iRacing driving experience?
Ok First thing to state is.
I only want replies from people that have actually driven in iRacing !!
I'm looking for opinions on the Driving Experience only compared to LFS (and other sims), not about the rest of the iRacing setup.
Just:
How does iRacing feel to drive compared to LFS. How do you think the physics are different/better/worse compared to LFS.
This is an information gaining exersize only so...
Opinons please, (please try and be analytical not just say unhelpful things like xyz is crap or great etc):
I only want replies from people that have actually driven in iRacing !!
I'm looking for opinions on the Driving Experience only compared to LFS (and other sims), not about the rest of the iRacing setup.
Just:
How does iRacing feel to drive compared to LFS. How do you think the physics are different/better/worse compared to LFS.
This is an information gaining exersize only so...
Opinons please, (please try and be analytical not just say unhelpful things like xyz is crap or great etc):
Actually they're not. There is a crucial difference, Self conciousness. Humans, (and a few other apes), have it. Animals don't. They can't suffer to the same extent that human beings can suffer. So giving equality to Animals with Humans is a patently stupid concept. That said, any kind of violent behavior by humans is to be discouraged and that includes towards animals. Just that the punishments should never be on anything like the same levels as violence towards humans.
As has been stated already. It wouldn't be justifiable if he had harmed a human so why would it ever be justifiable because he harmed an animal??
Answer is simple. Buy another license, that'll be your penance for what you did assuming you have changed your ways. If not you'll just get banned again and the cost of the second license will again be your punishment. End of.
Last edited by gezmoor, .
Can you explain where these wires are connected from? You've explained how you've stuck speakers on the ends of two of them and another one has gone in to the input of your guitar amp but what are the other end of these wires connected too? Any chance of a diagram of how it's all wired together and to what??
First thoughts are, you should always at least twist the bare wires together before wrapping in selotape, (not ideal but won't be the cause of any noise). If you have bare wire and speaker tabs (what those metal bits on the backs of the speakers are called) then they should really be soldered together.
I suspect the problem is relating to the output of whatever your driving the wires plugged in to the input of your guitar amp with. You may well be overdriving the input, (given that it's designed for a guitar pickup not an actual driven circuit output stage of a sound card or whatever).
First thoughts are, you should always at least twist the bare wires together before wrapping in selotape, (not ideal but won't be the cause of any noise). If you have bare wire and speaker tabs (what those metal bits on the backs of the speakers are called) then they should really be soldered together.
I suspect the problem is relating to the output of whatever your driving the wires plugged in to the input of your guitar amp with. You may well be overdriving the input, (given that it's designed for a guitar pickup not an actual driven circuit output stage of a sound card or whatever).
Well when you live in a country that has erradicated major injustices, this is the level of "injustice" that ordinary people get indignant about.
You're right, we have lost our perspective in comparison with the lives that people in the world in general have to live. We whine and bitch about a couple of pennies on our beer or cigarettes when others don't even have safe water to drink.
Exactly. No one will ever know. At the end of the day he was convicted on weak evidence that he "caused" the deaths. At least from what the media are saying there was no direct evidence that he wasnt observing the road and his truck just failed to stop in time. They claim he wasn't looking for at least a minute. Based on what? a lap top in the cab beside him that just happend to be turned towards him. After a crash? they can know which way it was facing before?? I think not. Best you can do with that is theorise that he may have been looking at it, but you can't prove that he was. Also they make a claim that the road was straight and visibilty was clear as proof that he wasn't looking. Well actually it was dark, and distance and speed is much harder to judge in the dark, when you only have lights to go on. It's entirely possible that he was looking ahead saw the lights but just misjudged his speed and braking and so hit the car. Also, given that it was a 5 car pile up means that three other vehicles had already collided ahead means there is a chance the car had already rammed itself in to the back of the lorry ahead before he hit it and they were already dead. That and the weak evidence against him says to me that he probably shouldn't have been convicted IMO. But the jury are human after all and they are obviously swayed by the human tragedy involved, there is no way they couldn't be. I'm betting that if no one had died, (or if only one person had suffered a minor injury), he almost certainly would have not been convicted, (probably may have never been charged).
This is where the law really falls down, it's not about objective evidence and cause and effect, it's emotional and irrational and depends very much on the severity of the consequences when it should be a black or white answer to the question. Did he cause their deaths through irresponsible behaviour? Given the evidence I've seen in the media, (ignoring all the emotive chaff about how wonderfull the dead were), i'd say it's an open verdict. Can't be proven beyond reasonable doubt, which leads me to conclude he shouldn't have been convicted as the law requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
All deaths should be life ?? Where do you draw the line? How do you prove culpability? Say someone jumps out to mug you with a knife and you turn and run away, crossing the road in your panic and get killed by a car. Are they to blame? What if you run away down the street, round a corner thinking your being chased (when you're not), in to a building site and fall in to an excavation and break your neck. Are they still to blame? and so on.
No the age of consent is purely to do with emotional and psychological maturity and whether a person has the mental capacity to make an informed desicion about the total implications of having sex, (not just pregnancy). It is for the purposes of child protection as a whole, including from themselves, it is not purely to do with child protection from adults per se. Howerver, that is an obvious consequence of the legislation.
It's a simple case of damage limitation IMO. Yes it would be traumatic for the mother to be. But I believe that's a fair price to pay in comparison with the trauma and anguish that will be experience by the mother and her family and most importantly the unborn child by being brought in to a world that is completely unable to deal with the situation. I just don't believe that any individual has the right to be that selfish.
You're right, with proper care and support the child may well turn out ok. The problem is that proper care and support just doesn't exist in these sitations.
a) The child having the baby is completely incapable to provide it.
b) The parents of that child are also completely incapable of providing it, as evidenced by the fact their own child is pregnant at that age.
c) Care homes are notoriously bad places for children to grow up and have a very bad record of bringing up well adjusted members of society.
Which leaves only one other option under these circumstance. Enforced Fostering. Problem there is the safeguards again aren't good enough to ensure a well brought up and adjusted individual.
I'm all for individual freedoms but there comes a point where it has to be balanced against the right of living in a society which doesn't have mal adjusted adults causing all sorts of problems.
But I come back to my main point and that being it's the unborn child that is the most important issue and kids just have no way of giving that child a fair "chance at life". Better that they don't see that life than have to live a sh*t one, (oh and for the benefit of any Pro-Lifers out there - a womans body terminates a potential life every month of their adult life from puberty to menopause).
Only for Licensed players. Demo Players have dropped off massively in the last year. In fact there was a massive drop about 8 months ago and it's never recovered. Since then the overall trend in numbers has been downward. Not good for the future of the game. It would be ok if the numbers were staying static and licenses were growing as this would indicate that after checking out the demo a proportion were buying the game. However a downward trend in demo users is potentially bad thing. It indicates a dropping off of the number of people even trying the game. Eventually it will lead to a stagnation in new licenses and then the number of license players will stop growing.
Of course the stats only show how many are actually on line, not the total numbers, (I believe), so there could be some variance there, but I suspect the overall trends would be the same if you had access to the actual totals figures.
You got to be kidding me ??
That's just BS.. There is no way that her parents wouldn't have noticed the bump on her a long time before 7 months. Plus, it was exactly the parents I was talking about when I said why on earth wasn't the pregnancy terminated. I think the law is just crazy if it even entertains the idea that a 14/15 year old girl has any rights when it comes to keeping a child. It's below the age of consent. By definition that means she isn't psychologically or emotionally mature enough to make the choice to even consent to sex in LAW, let alone being pregnant and giving birth !!!
Like I said, IMO kids under 16 should have no rights in this matter, (as that is the age that our society has picked, if it wants to amend it lower that's another argument). Pregnancies should be terminated as a matter of course under the age of consent as far as I'm concerned. In fact I think it should be enshrined in law that this happens. They're just kids, they need to be protected from themselves, and pissing their lives up the wall before it's even started is about as important as it gets in terms of protecting them from themselves as far as I'm concerned. To say nothing of the shit life the child is going to have.
Personally I'm amazed that
a) The pregnancy wasn't terminated
or
b) The parents are even considering let them keep it.
They are kids ffs..
Seriously, it's things like this that make me believe everyone should be sterilised at birth and then have to pass psychological/means tests to prove they are capable and able to look after bringing a life in to the world with a minium age of 18 for having the op reversed. Jesus, it's the most important thing a human being can do and the world thinks it's ok for children to be doing it???
a) The pregnancy wasn't terminated
or
b) The parents are even considering let them keep it.
They are kids ffs..
Seriously, it's things like this that make me believe everyone should be sterilised at birth and then have to pass psychological/means tests to prove they are capable and able to look after bringing a life in to the world with a minium age of 18 for having the op reversed. Jesus, it's the most important thing a human being can do and the world thinks it's ok for children to be doing it???
Maybe you should start off by getting your facts right:
"Da Silva, 46, was convicted of six counts of causing death by careless driving at Chester Crown Court."
Careless driving is what you get charged with if you're involved in any accident that the poilce decide to charge you over. So as far as this case goes it is clear that the police etc believe it was essentially an accident that had horrendous consequences. Obviously he wasn't completely blameless but equally obviously from the charge he wasn't completely to blame for their deaths either. Seems like a pretty severe punishment to me for what could have been just a momentary loss of concentration. On the other hand he may have been speeding excessively, (not going to say he deserved it just if he was speeding, that would be hypocritical as practically everybody speeds), and that's why he couldn't stop in time so maybe the punishment was just. Who knows, we weren't there and didn't hear all the evidence. Trial by media is almost certainly unjust.
Thanks, I had a look and you're right. Under the MyAccount section there is a Cancel/Renew option. In there there is a choice to not "Auto-Renew" the subscription. Job done, I'll keep using it until it runs out.
I test rode a couple of GPz500s for a freind of mine when he passed his test. I remember thinking they're weren't at all bad really, certainly an improvement over the typical early/mid 80's sports bikes, even if lower powered.
Back in the early/mid 80's manufacturers seemed to think the way to good handling was just ultra stiff springs with too much damping (don't know if you're familiar with the anti-dive stuff that was all the rage back then). It took the likes of Honda to show that actually it was all about the quality of the damping. Honda brought out the CBR600 which was softer sprung than all the others, but the overall suspension quality was much better and it cleaned up in all the race series for nearly a decade. As well as becoming probably the single biggest selling 600 of all time on the road.
Yes it works, you get a confirmation email immediately. Then a second email with the promotion code in it about 5-10 minutes later.
So far I'd say it's an interesting comparison with LFS. At first the physics do seem to be very similar to ISI Games and very different to LFS, but that was in the SR8 moving to the more road oriented cars brings a completely different feel, with a lot more suspension movement (chasis flex??) going on but without the total lack of grip that goes on in LFS if the suspension is really soft. For example comparing the XRG (non turbo) with the Pontiac Solstice is very revealing. Whereas the XRG handles like a boat and the rear end is all over the place unless you're very careful with the throttle, (with pretty much any set up I've ever tried), the Solstice is far more composed and handles far better with a far more progressive rear end despite being 500lbs heavier and having nearly 40bhp more. I've always questioned the realism of the XRGs handling and the Solstice proves it to me. Feels far more like my real car which has near identical power output and weight, (taking in to consideration the fact my car is FWD of course). So after about an hour messing around on a test track in the cars I'd say iRacing has a (considerably) better car handling model than LFS. It just feels more right to me as a real life car driver. What LFS is definitely better at though is the feedback through the wheel of what the front tyres are doing. But in terms of how the car responds to steering/brake/throttle inputs I'd say iRacing is closer to reality. At least compared to my experience of driving a car purely on the road.
Giving this a go right now, just downloading the updates then I'll be on track testing the car(s). I'm curious to see how much (if any) difference there is in the physics/handling. The graphics im not fussed about, like Bob, I think they're too cartoony rather than realistic.
Just hope I remember to cancel at the end because it's going to have to be damn good to justify spending £15 a month on.
Just hope I remember to cancel at the end because it's going to have to be damn good to justify spending £15 a month on.
It's a good tactic, I use it all the time. Of course you have to do it safely and with consideration (ie don't pull over last minute in front of someone barrelling up the outside/inside). It's not fool proof, there are still some idiots that will try and bully you in to moving out of their way by trying to squeeze up one side. The trick is not to flinch, not even slightly, just pull forward keeping right up the bumper of the car in front (remember we're talking a queue situation) and don't move over even an inch. If you do they'll see it and just keep trying to squeeze you over.
Never ceases to amaze me just how little awareness people seem to have of what's going on around them, particularly behind them. I've lost count of the amount of situations I've seen, that would have been solved by one person just pulling forward 6" to a foot. I'm very aware of what's going on behind me, I think it's a habit I picked up during my motorcycling days. On a motorcycle you're always a bit paranoid about being tail ended by cars or lorrys. Though I expect the occasion just after I got my car license when some guy just lost it under braking coming up behind me as I sat at a set of lights has only made me more aware of people behind. Thankfully I was able to pull forward enough to avoid a collision.
Funny because just the other day I was showing LFS to some freinds (all adult non game players) and they were pretty impressed by the graphics. I think there is obviously a difference in expectation between people that are die hard gamers and the general public.
That said, as I've said before from a purely commercial point of view LFS is going to have to be "competitive" with other games, (in general not just driving games), in all areas, including graphics, to attract big sales. If the devs are ever interested in making any real money at least.
That said, as I've said before from a purely commercial point of view LFS is going to have to be "competitive" with other games, (in general not just driving games), in all areas, including graphics, to attract big sales. If the devs are ever interested in making any real money at least.
Aint that the truth. The 400s were never very popular track day bikes over here, (at least amongst the bunch of Lawyers etc I used to go with :shrug
, but occasionally you'd get someone turn up on a VFR400, (easily the best 400 made), and thrash a lot of the guys on bigger bikes.I did a race school on a FZR400, horrible little bike. Rock hard suspension, wooden brakes. Was like riding a buzzing plank of wood.
You MIGHT be able to get that sucked/pushed out, if you can find a good panel shop. Doesn't look creased except down at the arch so you might be lucky. Worth giving it a shot at least before going for a new wing.
Dunno, but does anyone else think that maybe trying reverse might have been a better idea than just bailing out of the car??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... fE_3Y&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... fE_3Y&feature=related
I started playing the likes of Civilisation, Prince of Persia, Railway Tycoon, (and some Golf game I can't remember the name of), etc back in the days of DOS. Then there were the text only games a long the lines of dungeons and draggons, where you had to find treasure and fight monsters. Amazing how involving they were when the only visuals you had to go on were what you created in your own head.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG