Negative - You won't see showers of sparks in any type of collision between two cars except in Movies and VideoGames. Sparks are little pieces of hot metal. To get a shower of sparks you need to scrape off lots of little pieces of metal really fast. Concrete works really well for that; it's rough and all the imperfections in that surface shear off metal that is rubbed against it - if the metal is sheared off fast enough it'll be hot enough to glow for a very short time. Cars are fairly smooth overall and rubbing one car against another doesn't dislodge lots of metal dust =)
Check it out on youtube - there are some really high speed collisions - you won't see any sparks coming from between the cars. The cars and the road/barricades? Of course.
-1
Check it out on youtube - there are some really high speed collisions - you won't see any sparks coming from between the cars. The cars and the road/barricades? Of course.
-1
Ageia had some part of their operation here in St.Louis and they came out to demo the hardware for the LAN Community. My understanding is that there were no licensing costs for developers; Ageia desperately wanted to garner support for their hardware and they gave away, more-or-less, plug and play physics code for development use.
Physics accelerators aren't really applicable to online gaming. There were some pretty excellent mods that took advantage of HL2's revolutionary physics engine but it did point out that synchronizing more than a few 100 moving objects for more than a handful of clients via the internet presented a bandwidth issue. The PhysX card is capable of working with hundreds of thousands or even millions of objects/collisions at once but there's no way to harness that power for elements that effect gameplay over the internet. Synchronizing Position/Orientation as well as vector information for 300,000 objects 10 times each second doesn't work for online gaming and those are the kind of numbers that make it worthwhile to utilize a Physics Accelerator. Objects/Gases/Liquids that are superfluous and don't effect gameplay (Tire smoke which does not have to appear exactly the same to each client and does not need to be synchronized accurately) could take advantage of an accelerator but I doubt you'll see this implemented in LFS.
Don't mind these people. The first time I got in a Helicopter the Instructor was not impressed that I had hundreds of hours in a simulator and no real seat-time. He was a little more impressed when I was given the controls and produced a fairly competent hover. Patterns were a breeze. The next time out, at about 1.5 hours TT and completing many maneuvers better than many 10-20 hour Pilots (20 Hours in an R22 can be $6000 or more) I was asked if I'd ever done any "Autos" (Autorotations.) The simulator stigma is starting to go away as more people enter the industry having first flown sims. The old timers still think doing it the old fashioned way is the only option. Yes - your LFS racing experience does give you an edge. It may also have instilled some bad habits as well so be on the lookout for those. Check each intersection your cross; cross traffic is supposed to stop but it certainly doesn't mean they will. Things like this don't crop up as much in LFS. Situational awareness is key though.
Brilliant.
Obviously there are stupid people all over the world. I agree, the bigoted bull-shit is annoying. And no, I'm not offended only because I'm an American and subject to the prejudice. If people here were forever calling Mexicans lazy I would still say it's unacceptable. Tribalism is the last bastion of the feeble mind. Still, at this point I don’t even raise an eyebrow over it; I just thought I'd remind everyone that there are plenty of targets for bigotry. I wouldn't want anyone to think I was a one trick pony if that was my thing.
Wheel size is irrelevant if you can keep your tire diameter the same with an appropriate profile. But I agree; It's been mentioned a few times that you could just change the calibration of the axis or I guess wood is an option too. If someone wants to go to that much trouble to cheat then I guess they have earned it (as much as a cheating louse can earn something) but currently you have to be a glutton for punishment not to use the system in place and taking it away would mean that 99% of the field is on the up and up.
Play online and experience a much more diverse field. If only we could get all the AI players online...
Yes, the adjustment's we can make to the suspension are a little bit over the top. The ability to adjust transmission gearing ratios in particular, since most transmissions only have 1 or 2 ratio-sets available, is a bit much but it does allow used to model real cars a little easier and the standard ratios are very close to optimal for everything but, perhaps, rally tracks. Final Drive, Damping Force, Spring Rates, Caster & Camber are available in a fairly broad spectrum, although not with the fidelity of control LFS offers of course, and I don't have a problem with the way it's set up now.
I'm not aware of a part you can install in line or on a Master cylinder/booster assembly that allows one to adjust overall braking force - Do you have a link to it? By moving the linkage farther down on a pedal you can increase pedal pressure by reducing your mechanical advantage but this just means you have to press harder.
Yes a proportioning valve can, with a flaring tool, be installed in 10 minutes on virtually any car, Brake Bias is fine the way it is.
We are currently able to tweak braking force to near perfection! I mean very very close; there are a few situations where you might be able to brake faster if you had more braking force on tap but people certainly aren't taking that trade. If you don't think the current setup makes you faster you are kidding yourself.
It makes it less fun because braking is hugely important part of racing and this is a simulation. Yes - without the vestibular (motion sense) input, driving a sim is harder. NFS has plenty of "fun" and forgiving braking to offer. Braking isn't a particularly important part of the NFS franchise. Braking is an important part of LFS - and it should be realistically modeled. For the same reason ABS is outlawed even in many big-money race organizations: Highly assisted wheel to wheel racing is usually boring with less opportunities to overtake. It takes the driver out of the equation. You should be offended that someone thinks you need it.
It makes it less fun because braking is hugely important part of racing and this is a simulation. Yes - without the vestibular (motion sense) input, driving a sim is harder. NFS has plenty of "fun" and forgiving braking to offer. Braking isn't a particularly important part of the NFS franchise. Braking is an important part of LFS - and it should be realistically modeled. For the same reason ABS is outlawed even in many big-money race organizations: Highly assisted wheel to wheel racing is usually boring with less opportunities to overtake. It takes the driver out of the equation. You should be offended that someone thinks you need it.
I can say without a doubt that a 5.0L Ford Mustang, 5.7L Ford Bronco, 3.0L Toyota 4Runner (With Clutch Start Cancel Switch pressed) will fire right up in 1st gear on flat ground.
Yes, it is harder to tell when you are locking up without help of your vestibular system. I usually know if the car is getting squirrelly I probably have a couple locked up. Often I am about to begin a turn-in so if I turn the wheel and go straight I know it's time to let off the pedal a bit.
Also, keep in mind, the brake pedal doesn't really offer any feedback when a wheel locks up - not in any passenger car I've been in. Maybe in a formula?
The upside of this is that yes, it will be harder! Churning out those perfect lap times within a few hundredths of the last one will be harder and mistakes will be made when a driver is overwhelmed or distracted. Just like real life. Driving aids like ABS, Traction Control, and whatever you want to call our highly adjustable brake-force scheme in LFS are good for lap times but not for more interesting racing. Your going to see pressured lead cars lock for a split second mid-turn go slightly wide and lose a place. That's priceless and, I think, shouldn’t be lost to this, possibly unintentional, driving aid.
Also, keep in mind, the brake pedal doesn't really offer any feedback when a wheel locks up - not in any passenger car I've been in. Maybe in a formula?
The upside of this is that yes, it will be harder! Churning out those perfect lap times within a few hundredths of the last one will be harder and mistakes will be made when a driver is overwhelmed or distracted. Just like real life. Driving aids like ABS, Traction Control, and whatever you want to call our highly adjustable brake-force scheme in LFS are good for lap times but not for more interesting racing. Your going to see pressured lead cars lock for a split second mid-turn go slightly wide and lose a place. That's priceless and, I think, shouldn’t be lost to this, possibly unintentional, driving aid.
Last edited by GobLox, .
I would argue that flooring a pedal that is calibrated to give just the right amount of braking force for a warm tire is a big advantage and very nearly everyone utilizes it. I don't recall the last time I had a setup sent to me that had braking force set such that the driver could lockup the tires under normal conditions. When you are going into a corner, avoiding traffic, possibly changing gears and dealing with all the other aspects of driving, it's an advantage to be able to smash a pedal (EDIT: Or button) without thinking any more about it and getting maximum stopping power; which is why they invented ABS and Traction control.
I don't have any animosity to Keyboard players and the thought did not even occur to me until you mentioned it. However, this is a sim; I think it's safe to assume the majority of players use a wheel. As far as realism is concerned this is currently one of the biggest offenders - It's just ridiculous.
You can do that with the button control rate - just like we do for hand-brake and such. Tapping + Control rate = light braking. Being able to press and hold a button such that you get perfect braking everytime is very closely related to the "win" button.
EDIT: I agree that this would suck for Keyboard/Mouse players; BUT! Even if you made it such that adjustable braking force only applied to keyboard-input I bet you'd find that wheel/pedal users would bind a button/key to brake - Perfect braking is absurdly over-powered.
Last edited by GobLox, .
How the hell are you supposed to get your car home from the bar?! :bananadea
I could be wrong but I would be surprised to learn that the pin/tooth that engages the output shaft for park was not still actuated by linkage to the shifter (I'm calling it a shifter still - if It's good enough for the Toyota FSM it's good enough for me =) ) - certainly on older electronic transmissions like AODE, E4OD, A241E(Toyota) some valving and the park mechanism are still handled by shifter linkage. On a 2008 Honda? I have no idea.
My '94 4Runner has a button to disable this system and allow it to be started without pressing the clutch. It resets after the ignition is turned off. Rarely usefull at best.
I agree - It's currently way to easy (and tempting) to setup brake force such that you effectively have Anti-lock brakes. Actually this is the only reason for it being there so far as I can tell.
It seems to me that much the same way cars have a particular displacement engine that can't be changed; the brakes should have a maximum force that cannot be modified. Yeah I know, intake restriction, but restrictors are used in real life to make class divisions more competitive. There is no way to tune braking force in this manner and varying brake temperatures would make it more or less impossible anyhow.
+1 Good call.
It seems to me that much the same way cars have a particular displacement engine that can't be changed; the brakes should have a maximum force that cannot be modified. Yeah I know, intake restriction, but restrictors are used in real life to make class divisions more competitive. There is no way to tune braking force in this manner and varying brake temperatures would make it more or less impossible anyhow.
+1 Good call.
Yes, they appear on all cars in the US after some time in the '80s but I certainly wouldn't go so far as to say it's useless. Everyone makes mistakes (If you don't congratulations) and If I have my 911 parked in front of some econobox It's nice to know that it's a little harder for that driver, who has been distracted somehow, to bump my car. Don't pretend it doesn't happen in Europe; I've seen what happens to cars in Italy. 
If you are okay with the line offline then you should be okay with it for online. People racing that line have nothing on you; they won't be challenging your PBs. The line is bitter sweet; it's easy to start ignoring terrain and very hard to think about a late-apex with that line staring you in the face. Users have to ween themselves off of it. But people don't learn a track alone in the real world. I've never raced the AI and don't plan to. In the real world self preservation on both sides make accidents rare even for people new to the track. We've got standing starts and people desperately searching for tenths of a second. There's no room for someone to be a little cautious around an only vaguely familiar turn like there is in real life. People brake a little early and accidents happen. The racing line makes racing less frustrating for everyone involved and helps get people out onto the servers so we have more people to race with faster!
Why should new people get to learn with it when you didn't have the luxary? That's life. No one said it's always fair. In a community this small you don't want to turn off drivers for any reason; This helps the new people have fun - and the old-salts enjoy the track at the same time.
Why should new people get to learn with it when you didn't have the luxary? That's life. No one said it's always fair. In a community this small you don't want to turn off drivers for any reason; This helps the new people have fun - and the old-salts enjoy the track at the same time.
Car behavior would be very very close to what the other driver see's on their screen - the next update (probably something like 120ms away) will set the car back on course just like it does now - the key is to improve what happens in between as this is critical.
If you think the netcode is good you should shop around and see what the industry has to offer. LFS is fantastic, The physics are excellent, the community is serious about realistic racing, but, online play is state of the art 1998 - This brings back memories of Mechwarrior2. That's not fair and I'm kidding... Nothing could be as bad as Mechwarrior2 Mercenaries Online play. But there's room for improvement.
Collisions are spot on physics wise - don't believe it? Play offline. Hit some walls, cars, produce a massive high speed pile-up; It's all going to look pretty convincing. You won't see any high-flying antics. It falls apart online, I'm fairly certain, for the reasons I went into detail describing. Even with 40ms latencies (which aren't going to happen anytime soon for international users) you will still see some questionable collisions with the current arrangement.
With the accelerations involved in a racing sim; sub 150ms pings can mean, more or less, silky smooth gameplay. Changing the way the server handles velocity interpolation for just collisions would be a great stop-gap - cars would still jerk and stutter around the track but at least a multi-car contact would not result in wildly inaccurate accelerations. I sincerely hope it's looked into sooner than later.
Ha! Awesome, yes I do recall. It was some very close racing, the best kind! I'll see you around for certain if you are on CTRA1 often.
And yes, most of the logos are very low res because they came off of fairly low-res photos of the real car. I figured, at speed, no one can tell =)
And yes, most of the logos are very low res because they came off of fairly low-res photos of the real car. I figured, at speed, no one can tell =)
Writing net-code is hard! But I agree, something needs to be done - collision physics for Online play are comic! Cars end up flying hundreds even thousands of feet on a regular basis. I don't know nearly enough about it but there are a lot of games that are very resilient to network latency and it stands to reason it could be implemented better for LFS. I'd love to see all other development on hiatus until one can rub paint without a solid chance of flying 50 feet into the air.
I believe collision detection is handled server side. This is probably the most easily secured method but if you mix that with the current scheme of cars warping from projected positions to where they were as of last reply from client - you get lagtastic super collisions that send you flying through the air.
I say I believe they are handled server side because even collisions with track elements can send you into the stratosphere. If they were handled by the client, hitting a wall on a remote server would be no different than hitting a wall in single player.
One would think that remote player car updates could be, for lack of a better word, buffered such that representations on the server follow a likely trajectory (Possibly augmented by AI) while the server is waiting on another update from client. If a collision is detected the server should, at the very least, do some interpolation to decide on a correct response rather than assuming your car really did just warp into the wall laterally at 40MPH Which, I take it, is how it appears to the server after your car moves 6 feet to the right of where it was going, based on the last update to the controls, to where it is now on your screen (Since your client had the benefit of receiving updates to the controls 60-100 times, depending on frame rate) in the intervening 100ms!
Last edited by GobLox, .
Reason : oops typo
I'm sure you boss was on a drive-train engineering team there so his opinion does carry a lot of clout
Lovely. I requested Data or Operation Specifics from an E4OD or AODE. I had meant to imply, unsuccessfully it seems, that it should come from a reputable source; Ford specifically. You brought a Random screenshot, from some random program, for some random car that does nothing to prove your point. I didn't say that there has never been a car produced that would not lock the TCC at WOT; That's you, you're saying "never". This is an absurd position to try and defend, of course, as you and your boss are probably not so familiar with every make and model as to make a sound argument. Even more incredible is that you are, apparently, aware that the TCC can be locked to improve performance and, for no apparent reason, believe that this information hasn't reached manufactures where it might find it's way into production cars!
What is apparently lost on you is that I and many, many other 7.3L Owners have performed this simple installation: http://www.forgotton.net/mods/tclock/index.htm
And it turns out, I'm not the only one who noticed this behavior. So my position is based on empirical evidence that I personally collected. I collected it while driving the truck every day for at least one year with a light on my dash that illuminated each time the computer signaled the transmission to Lockup. I think I'm a little more qualified to comment on the behavior of the E4OD than your are you imbecile. Do you think I'm lying? This is just astonishing. Please refrain from tracking down some random post where someone explains that the TCC does not lockup at WOT, obviously there are people who will make uninformed arguments and I'm still not interested in hearsay you collect from any source.
Good, thank you for telling me what my information means. These are diagnostic guidelines. Your right - it doesn't say that it locks up at WOT - What is does say is that there is only one (and no doubt, that will be lost on you or simply ignored because it does not confirm what you know in your heart of hearts to be true.) condition for throttle position that must be met for the TCC lockup diagnostic to be performed: Steady. WOT? oh good, WOT is a steady state, I guess we can perform the test there too. This is actually not enough information to prove my point. Maybe the diagnostic will check these parameters and not lock the TCC and that is the correct result for those parameters. I don't know. I don't care. Thankfully I had all that Empirical evidence to back up my argument; it does a pretty good job of filling in small gaps like that.
Yeah, that's totally what it sounded like - thanks for clearing that up.
Oh man, slow it down with all this technical jargon there, I think you lost me. I forgot all about a Torque Converters tendency to "Kick in." My 10 years of REAL car racing experience, Various engine rebuilds, frame-up restoration of two vehicles (1966 Mustang Coupe & 1978 Ford Bronco), and years of following Enthusiast publications don't afford me much in the way of nomenclature. I had my '94 GT at the local drag-strip (Gateway International) quite a few times and I can say from experience that you can't feel the TCC Lockup from a standing start. Since I had the car at Stall-Speed on the line we can be pretty sure it wasn’t locked then. I never would have guessed that it was locking until I read a large right up on the subject in Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords. Years later I had proof positive that this was common behavior via a small LED on the dash of my '95 F350.
[/quote]
Oh really? They modify the transmission to lockup at WOT? That is a feat considering that the transmission does not play a roll in determining when the TCC locks up other than the physical action. If the signal wire is disconnected the transmission will make no attempt to lock the converter.
As far as your dad's Econoline is concerned - I suppose it's possible the Econoline's do not lock the TCC at WOT, they certainly have a different computer. Or maybe it's that you didn't notice... Just maybe.
Either way - Seek Help. Your inability to even consider the possibility that you may be wrong will be debilitating later in life.
Last edited by GobLox, .
Reason : ha typo
I think the line should stay - people who are unfamiliar with a track at least have a fairly safe suggestion on which way to steer and where to brake. I don't think anyone will be setting any WRs with the line but its use might be saving us some pile-ups in T1.
Last edited by GobLox, .
Reason : Typos
Lol - okay, well I say Pounds = Force and Pounds-Mass = Mass. I'm just as correct as you are in that it's not wrong exactly so much as it is vague. Like telling someone to go get a Drink from the bar. Are you getting Milk Coffee or a Beer? If engineers used "lb" on a schematic people might die. Weren't you the one complaining about the use of Dietary calories as apposed to Kcal on food? You'd think you'd be the first to support my argument.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG