Quote from harjun :

All TVs are made in LG or Samsung factories anyway... just rebranded.

Rubbish, pure and simple.

Quote from Turbo Dad :

Was looking to pick up a bargain in the sales , but nothing jumping out at me.
£100 off here and there ,but no substantial discount

Anyone seen any good deals while browsing ?

Depends, what do you call a good deal? absolute cheapest? or best price for the best TV at that size? Also, you looking for LCD or Plasma (personally I'd go Plasma).

Quote from Bose321 :

42" with such a 'small' resolution? Won't that be ugly?

Depends on how far you sit from your TV and how good your eyes are. Even at 42" you are not going to be able to tell the difference between 720 and 1080 unless you sit closer than 8.5ft (2.6m), you simply cant resolve the difference with your eyes, (and that is at the limit of possible human resolution - most people dont have anywhere near that good eyesite).

There is a lot of crap talked about the need for 1080 but for many people the resolution just isn't required for the size of TV they intend to get and where they intend to view it from.

On top of which there are so many other factors that affect the picture quality apart from resolution that there are actually many 1080 TVs out there that look worse than 720 ones, (although 720 TVs are getting pretty hard to find these days).

Take a look at these:

http://www.hometheatermag.com/gearworks/0105viewvrez/
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/Article/How-Far-Should-I-Sit.php
http://www.dtvforum.info/index ... ic=9241&hl=resolution

Look below, pick a screen size and note how close you need to be to a 720 screen (dotted purple) in order to get max detail then look at how close you need to be to a 1080 screen of the same size to get max detail. The distance in between is where a 1080 will be better than a 720 but only by an amount that is relative to how close you are to the "max detail" line for 1080. eg if you sit 8.5ft away from a 42" screen you're just not going to see the difference despite you actually being able to see "better" than 720 at that distance.

Last edited by gezmoor, Wed 7 Jan 2009, 12:55.

Quote from ColeusRattus :

Also, while I see the point in not restricting it (at least with a hands free kit), that point is somewhat utopian. Sadly, most people who inhabit this earth are complete idiots, and giving them a possibility to harm themselves (actually, not that bad an idea) OR myself (very alarming) leads to one thing: they're gonna cause harm, and lot's of. So it boils down to either having an annoying yet purposefull restriction, or a considerable amount of idiots killing themselves and others.

Sad but true.

Quote from GrIp DrIvEr :

and, what if it was their spouse? or a best friend? or thier boss?

As humans we survived for hundreds of years without the need to be instantly contactable at all times. We didn't need it then, and we don't need it now. I can't think of a single scenario where it is imperative that you must talk to someone when they call, (if it's a real life endangering emergency then the person should be calling the emergency services anyway not you). People can wait.

Quote from GrIp DrIvEr :

i say you can talk on the phone while driving, but not text. if your talking on the phone and your still paying attention to the road, then that might be okay.

Depends on the content of the call. If you're stressed out by the conversation , (eg it's an urgent work call or you're having an argument with your partner), then your full attention will not be on the act of driving.

I have a very simple view on this. A car is a potentially lethal weapon. When you're driving one you should be doing one thing and one thing only and that's concentrating on driving.

Personally I would go as far as removing all sat navs, radios, CDs etc etc from cars, reduce the sound insulation so that you can hear the tyres on the road more clearly and generally make cars less comfortable places to be in so that everything is focused on driving while you're in one.

But then I'm an ex Motorcyclist so I have first hand experience of just how unobservant and removed from concentrating on driving the vast majority of car drivers are. On a motorcycle not concentrating whilst riding can get you killed, (nearly always by a car driver :really. Modern cars are far to much like sitting in your living room watching the road via your tv screen IMO, it makes people overly complacent and drive overly agressively because they feel invulnerable. If I had my way I would do everything possible to take away that feeling of invulnerability from car drivers.

Quote from BlueFlame :

The Porsche marque is based around the 911, almost every model they've ever made for the road is a 911 like the 959 as perfect example. It's a 959 but it's still a 911, the only road cars not specifically based on the 911 are possibly the 924, 926, 928 944 and 914. Obviously you have the 356 aswell, but since this was made before the 911, you can't really include it, eventhough it's platform is very similar to that of the earliest of the 911 bread, the 901 which the name was changed because Peugeot started whining that they had the rights to car names/numbers of three digits with a zero in the middle.

So in this case, Porsche is synonymous with 911 and when you mention either 911 or Porsche one or other gets mentioned (and I don't mean in the obvious sense)

Fair point.

Quote from Crashgate3 :

I hate the idea of countries. I can see they're necessary from a purely administrative point of view, but in my opinion, they're just another way for people to divide themselves up into 'us' and 'them', in which it doesn't really matter what happens to 'them' because in a part of people's minds (albeit a small, tucked-away part for most people) they 'don't really count'.

I say i'm 'British' but that's just in reference to which side of an arbitrary imaginary line I was born. I don't reall feel any impulse to be patriotic in any way, to be honest I feel a little bit embarrassed about being British.

I agree, at least mostly. I think nations are a completely arbitary human construct and nationalism on the whole is more divisive than uniting. Having said that though, I don't usually feel embarrassed about being British. Britain has given a lot to the world, (as have many other nations of course).

Quote from Bladerunner :

Nah...more appropriate would be: "I'm going Slightly Mad" !


(anything except Cwm Rhondda, anyway!)

Nope "God save the queen", Sex Pistols version

Good link Bean0, especially the further link to the often misunderstood definition of Country. Hence my choice of icon. I live in the Country called the UK of GB & NI so that is the flag I choose.

Actually I consider myself to be a European as much as British, because of my part European roots. So I for one wouldn't mind having an EU flag option.

I actually think the R8 looks better in the flesh. But it is a big car, the pictures don't give a true indication of it's size, especially next to a 911.

Blue,

I don't disagree that it's a great car, hell it should be for £70k !! but I actually feel the opposite to you about interiors. Intereriors are where you spend your time. To be honest if I had a choice between two identically performing cars and one looked like a turkey on the outside but had a beautiful interior and the other was a work of art on the outside but 80's Renault on the inside I would take the former every day. An extreme example I know but I don't spend my time in a car looking at it's reflection in shop windows thinking how good it looks, (not saying that you do either!). I want the interior to look good and have a feel of quality.

Though to be honest for the price of an R8 I expect both and unfortunately I'm no fan of the current trend of using Aluminium inside cars. Aluminium has always had a cheap look/feel to me and I just can't persuade myself to feel any different about it.

I know full well that the 911 isn't a perfect car, but I'm also well aware that it's a better car than I could ever be driver and I just love the look from the outside and especially the interiors, (in the post 2000 cars anyway, the older car have cheap looking instrument panels).

Ps when I say the 911 has heritage, I mean the 911 itself, not Porsche the marque.

Quote from pacesetter :

Doesnt matter, i dont think they will win races, (sorry for the ignorance)

Who knows. Bruno Senna is a very talented driver. Only time will tell.

Quote from BlueFlame :

R8 has perfect weight distribution compared to the 911, it's 4WD. It has a bigger engine. It's more powerful. It looks better. I don't care that 13year old chavs have this poster up on their wall of an R8, I liked Audi's before the R8 and the R8 is the most beautiful thing I've ever seen.

a) No such thing as perfect weight distribution.
b) 4WD isn't always better.
c) Bigger engine isn't always better.
d) errr.. it is? compared to which 911?? (anyway it needs it, its 4WD - twice the transmission losses).
e) Neither do I actually. But I care if a car has LED lights, I think they look naff, (and the interior is horribly laid out and garrish with too much aluminium all over the place).
d) I like Audis too, and agreed the R8 is a lovely looking car from the outside otherwise.

In a shoot out on a track, (with decent drivers - ie ignore any Top Gear tests!), it's a close call between an R8 and even a 911 Carrera 4S. All the GT models wipe the floor with the R8 on a track.

But anyway all that's moot, I just prefer the look of the 911. Plus it's got heritage, it's a 100% reliable car even for daily transport, better fuel economy, smaller so easier to find parking, and it's at least got some lugage space. How both cars behave at the limit is irrelevant to me as I'd never be driving either anywhere near it.

Quote from chavm481 :

BMW's always look nice..

illepall

Quote from Klutch :

Because Bov's serve absolutely no purpose, right?
Car companies just put them on cars just for the fun of it?


Idiot.

Well that depends on if you're stupid enough to use an atmospheric dump valve, when the manufacturer specified a recirculating one, just to get as "cool" sound when you lift off or change gear when they always result in messed up fuel mixtures and worse performance.

There are no producton road cars that I can think of that use atmospheric dump valves these days. So yes, atmospheric valves are of no purpose what-so-ever in that sense.

Quote from white92talontsi :

plus the aston martin doesnt sound that good too me, sounds like a high strung crotch rocket.

Which is what a properly tuned engine should sound like. Not like a bucket of bolts being rattled about.

Add the build quality, the interior luxury and the fact it goes around corners and won't fall apart in 3 years and in comparison the Aston is far better VFM than any modern plastic american muscle car. I wouldn't waste 20p let alone 20k on a modern american muscle car. Older versions however those are a different matter, at least they've got some historical interest.

ps when you first said cobra I was assuming you meant a real cobra as in a Shelby AC Cobra circa 1960's. Now that is a proper muscle car !

Quote from BlueFlame :

Audi R8 > I can't see why someone like gezmoor would prefer a 911 to an R8, when clearly, the R8 is better.

Easy really

a) R8 is a namby car with chavy LED lights
b) R8 is physically way too large.
c) R8 doesn't have the Kudos of a 911, even if it may technically be a better car, which is debateable - which one comes out best in tests very much depends on the particular 911 model, (R8 can't match any of the GT models), and who exactly is driving them,.

Here's mine

Quote from Tomba(FIN) :

1. BMW e60 M5
2. BMW e63 M6
3. BMW e92 M3
4. BMW e82 135i
5. BMW e90 (2009 model)

OK I'm sorry.. but that's just sad.

I seriously can't believe people are voting for cars from the same manufacturer as their Top 5 "want to own" cars, (even if they've really owned them !!).

I would love to own the following (in no particular order)

1. Aston Martin DB9 or Maserati GranTourismo S (can't decide)
2. Porsche 911 Carrera S
3. Triumph TR6
4. Lotus Exige Cup 260
5. 2008 Honda Fireblade

Last edited by gezmoor, Tue 30 Dec 2008, 19:19.

Quote from brt900 :

how nice is this,http://www.conceptcarz.com/vehicle/z16256/ABT-Scirocco.aspx

Too fusst for my tastes. There's no good reason to have all that overcomplicated aero on a car that will only do 150 tops. Keep the dams, splitter etc simple and stylish IMO.

This looks much better: http://www.vwtuningmag.com/volkswagen-scirocco-bodykit/

Brakes are the one thing that are completely unrealistic in driving sims. Even if you do become adept at modulating your brakes to avoid lock up in LFS you're not relying on the same inputs to sense lock up as you would be in real life. In real life even relatively crap brakes give you some feedback through the pedal. In sims feedback is non existant.

I would dearly love to have a realistic braking system available used in all sim pedals, (I don't believe it would be that hard just requires a pressure sensitive rather than position sensitive type potentiometer), then we'd clearly be able to tell the users who are drivers IRL IMO.

Hmm.. Why not a car that is a GT Coupe, Supercar and Track Day machine all in one??

What else but a.....

http://www.edmunds.com/media/r ... che.911.carrera.s.340.jpg

Quote from kaynd :

You are right. In fact I am not worried that much. It’s just me, bringing out my bad character when I feel helpless knowing that there is no point arguing about some matters because of the ignorance I see, reading many responses in forums generally.

[edit]


here we go... if you are able to change just one spring... even that rated as "hard" in case you do not want to know the stiffness...
Then you are able to put some cheap adjusting bolts that fit in most McPherson strut suspensions and give you usualy a room of +/-1.5 to +/- 3 degrees camber adjustment with absolute accuracy...
There are even some sport oriented cars (nothing exotic) where you have that adjustment ability by factory.

I think you're missing the point of a lot of the posts and making unjustafiable character assesments on the part of the posters.

I haven't seen anyone state that they would like limited set ups because they "just can't be bothered with it".

People keep going on about how you can buy after market parts. Yes that's true, but what percentage of the population actually do? and how realistic is it to work on the assumption that those parts should be available on all cars?? where do you draw the line? some of the adjustments that are available after market are either bespoke or very expensive and therefore not truely available in a "mass market" sense. The vast majority of sensibly priced after market parts have very limited adjustability. So even "race" spec suspsension systems available on the market do not have such things as infinitely adjustable rebound/compression damping, or ride height or spring settings. Generally speaking you go out and buy a config and then your stuck with it, (baring limited damping and ride height adjustments on the most expensive coil overs).

All people are really expressing is that LFS should be made more realistic with regards to the adjustability available on the various cars in the sim. With adjustability being dependant on the car type and the level likely to be found on a typical real car of the same type. If the tin tops in LFS are meant to be "tuned" versions of road cars then obviously they should have the kind of adjustability that would be available on mass market after market parts. In reality this essentially just means a few after market suspension options as only the extremely dedicated modder will go as far as clutch changes let alone gearbox changes !

IMO the Tin Tops should potentially fit in to three categories, depending on the actual car:

Stock - Little or no adjustability - essentially a real (or based on real) road going version of a car.

Track Day - Adjustability limited to choices of mass produced after market suspension/brake/road tyre alternatives.

WRC/Touring Car/GT - Full cup version of the car with more power, less weight, race tyres/brakes/suspension/spoilers/splitters with all the realistic level of adjustability that comes with such a car.

Single Seaters of course would have the kind of adjustments available on the typical race series type they are emulating.

Quote from ajp71 :

What is your point the light weight cars, probably on smaller tyres and probably on brakes that aren't intended to be used cold stopped half a second faster than the overweight saloon. The only thing seriously impressive about that list is the Veyron, but it did have the assistance of enormous tyres and brakes and its air brake. Even the WRC car stops considerably quicker than the overweight gadget filled road cars, despite the fact that its brakes and tyres would have been absolutley hopeless cold.

Why are you assuming the brakes/tyres are cold?

Quote from Becky Rose :

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=R_3ggAfldfg

OMG.. sorry but that's so funny.. Loved the bit about turning around getting ready to smack the little guy only to see the two huge body guards. You really should rework that story though in to how you nearly got picked up by the lead singer of Iron Maiden !

Quote from Becky Rose :

I love Iron Maiden, I think they are a truly great band musically, and I say that despite having been punched by the lead singer, who's vocals are awesome.

But they're not a metal band, they're heavy rock. It's very good rock, maybe even the best, but it's no more metal than "Gothic Metal" is metal, except that Gothic Metal at least has metal in the name, despite not being metal....

Ahh gotta love pidgeon holes. Just what the music executives prescribed for us :P

They are metal. It's just the the new kids like to think they are producing something new so continually insist on re-inventing the genre and that includes renaming the sub genre that older bands belong to, (something that really gets on my damn nerves :really.

There is absolutely no doubt that historically Iron Maiden are a Heavy Metal band. In fact they were practically the first band to be called a Metal band. Just because the genre has moved on and gotten a lot more "heavy" doesn't entitle people to recategorise original Metal bands as mere heavy rock. AC/DC are heavy rock, not Iron Maiden.

ps - how on earth did you manage to get punched by Bruce?? by all accounts he's a really nice guy