Quote from DragonCommando :

The point of having a locking clutch in the torque converter is to solve the power loss issue with low throttle driving. When you cruise on the highway, you usualy arn't applying enough throttle for the torque converter to run at full capacity. If the clutch locked when you snaped on the throttle it would be like dumping the clutch on a standard car and you would eventualy wear it out. It's not designed to operate like a clutch on a standard car, it just goes ON-OFF, there is no in-between.

As I stated, the TCC only activates when the pump and turbine speeds are running at close to the same speed. And you probably didn't realize that the article I qouted said electronicaly controlled, meaning it's on newer vehicles which have computers to determine when the clutch engages. On older systems it was operated by a valve assembly inside the transmission.

You. Don't. Know. What. You're. Talking. About.

I understand you found various articles on Wikipedia and elsewhere that give you the impression you know everything. I'm going to refrain from commenting on vehicles I know nothing about so that I don't look foolish. What I can tell you is that I have owned various AODE and E4OD equipped vehicles and not only will the PCM lockup the TCC at WOT; TCC Control is not "On" or "Off" for AODE and E40D equipped vehicles. Using Pulse Width Modulation the Transmission Control Unit can effectively modulate how quickly the Lockup clutch transitions to static friction; not exactly like partially engaging a clutch with a Manual transmission but the results are the same. You can bet ford is not the only company that uses PWM - Your article is dead-$#%^-wrong if they mean to imply this information applies to all vehicles. I assume they are generalizing but unfortunately some people will assume this information is beyond reproach.
And no - that's not a snippet from your local interweb. But this is:


Entry Conditions | Minimum | Maximum




Bring back PCM Table Data or Operation Specifics for an AODE or E40D car or truck that proves me wrong if you insist on believing this tripe.

I'd like to end the debate once and for all as to what car the XRG/XRT is based on.

Enjoy: Colin Blower's Mitsubishi Starion! Making the skin was easy - Pictures of the real car overlayed perfectly! There is no other car that matches that B-Pillar so precisely. I should have put the Vent (behind the door on the b-pillar) and some of the seams on the skin but... I was tired =/

Quote from tristancliffe :

which assumes the force of one pound under the influence of the standard acceleration due to gravity (32.174 ft/s/s)

Forces are not influenced by gravity; masses are.

Quote from samjh :

You're talking about weight, which is a measure of force, expressed in Newtons.

Yes, Newtons and pounds are very common measures of force.

Quote from samjh :

Mass is unchanged regardless of gravity, and mass is measured in kilograms using the SI unit (not grams),

That's sort of (exactly) what I said. But wait, Kilogram (1000 grams) is a measure of mass and not the Gram (1 gram)? I'm going to have to get better at making decimal points as there are lots of masses smaller than 1kg.

Quote from samjh :

or in pounds using the Imperial unit.

Feel free to express your mass in pounds but your stoichiometry is going to go to hell if you ever visit the moon.

Quote from tristancliffe :

So, if it's not pounds, what is the Imperial measurement for mass? (bear in mind that pounds is used in Imperial equations where kilograms would be used in metric equations before making your reply, otherwise you might end up sounding silly).

The pound has been standardized such that 1lbm is equal to 453 grams (Note the lack of decimal point... I'm not looking up the exact number.) and if you want to talk about mass expressed in pounds in a Physics class you will want to express it as lbm (Pounds Mass) Otherwise, at least in America where everyone grows up hearing how much they would weigh on Pluto or Jupiter in pounds, people might assume you are talking about pound force. When I hear "pound" I am thinking about the force as measured on the surface of the planet.

Quote from DragonCommando :

If your car locks the TCC at wide open throttle there could be a problem, possibly a heat issue. If you do alot of steady driving on uphill areas it will lock to prevent the transmission from overheating though.

"The torque converter clutch is an electronic clutch that will engage the engine and drivetrain 100 percent. The TCC is made to engage usually only in the top gear when the car is cruising, not accelerating. The lock up converter will disengage when the accelerator is pressed hard enough." - qouted from an article about locking torque converters.

And one from a racing site

"Lock up stock style converters. These are usually 12" converters that have a lock up clutch in them. Modified versions can have a stall speed of 2600-2800 rpm, depending on the construction. The lockup clutch is engaged under light throttle situations (cruise), which allows for greater efficiency, less heat generation and slightly better mpg. When racing, you can lock the clutch under WOT with a switch or with a race chip. This practice will gain about a tenth in the 1/4, but will eventually wear out the clutch."

I'm sure cars have been produced with Lock Up Torque Converters that don't lock at WOT. I think it's safe to say they are in the minority. Something was not wrong with my '95 4.6L Thunderbird, '94 5.0 Mustang, and '95 7.3L F350. These cars, I can personally attest lockup, at WOT. Also I've read more than one Article in Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords regarding AODE builds that mentioned this behavior. Did the old AOD (Not computer controlled) lockup at WOT? I don't know.

I happened across a Wikipedia article once (It has since been corrected I believe) that linked Guess Jeans to Herpes - Wikipedia does not offer answers I would bet a great deal of money on.

The way mods are handled in the Halflife and especially HalfLife2 engine eliminates your "version" concerns. Clients download required content such as Car Models/Textures and Map (Track) data when they connect. This content is cached and is a one-time delay. A few years ago it was common to make the content available on a website which was probably a faster download then via the game server.

Actually this system is so well integrated into Halflife2 that Maps (tracks) and models (Cars) can't really be considered Mods; just different content hosted in the Vanilla-unmodified game environment. The server would have complete control over Vehicles used and Tracks available - the same way they do now.

And yes, people would occasionally jump on the random wacky server out of curiosity. If it's not fun people won't play it. The changes would be an Undertaking but if I was familiar with the code I bet I could hammer out something working in a couple weeks for fun. Unfortunately I'm not capable of reverse engineering anything sans source.

Quote from Gekkibi :

-1

I would make awesome batmobile what outmaneuvers every other car in the game and join server & pwn ppl!!11

And if everyone could make tracks, it means that 99% of them would be total crap.

They sure would! However, modding isn't new to the gaming world. Crap tracks/mods/servers don't get played. Servers that host good mods (The CTRA Servers are so heavily modified that it's a mod in all but name.) Get played. "UberPwner's World of Batmobiles 'n Stuff" Server would be empty. A Server that hosted great content like Laguna Seca and Nuremberg as well as some excellent new cars - would be very busy indeed.

Modding makes so much sense for LFS especially. I can't understand why it's not being done already. Why would you WANT to limit the effort put into the game to two people when so many in the community would gladly donate thousands of man-hours to making a better, more realistic, and enjoyable game.

+1

Quote from DragonCommando :

And locking the torque converter only happens during cruising, during hard acceleration it remains unlocked.

Modern Lockup Torque converters do lock at Wide Open Throttle. Late-model AODE Cars are considerably slower if the Lockup converter does not lock. I installed an LED (That would indicate when the converter was locked whether I did it or the computer did) and a switch to lockup the converter in an F350 Diesel I had until recently. Out in mountains in Utah I was always upset that I had to goose the throttle if I was under 45ish MPH to make the truck lock the converter; which involved the locking mechanism having to pull the RPMs down to match. Instead with the switch I was able to match rpms and the lock it - like it arguable should have done by design. Once it was locked the computer would not unlock until the throttle was released such that the truck was coasting. When the converter locked during WOT It was very obvious with 500 Pound feet of torque on hand, it’s much harder to tell in a passenger car.

... But yes, they do lock at WOT.

Quote from DragonCommando :

The only thing that adding realistic automatics would do is slow down the people who use it to rediculous speeds.
For one thing, an automatic shifts at around 4.5-5k rpm.
And second, the power loss from the torque converter would just kill the acceleration, most noticable would be in the XRG, the thing would drive like a golf cart.

You can't race an Automatic in the SCCA.

With that said, for the most part an automatic transmission isn't a performance death penalty anymore. The Lockup torque converter takes the torque-converter loss out of the picture for the most part. They still weigh more, use power to drive a high pressure pump, and I suspect planetary gear-sets may be less efficient. A 5.0 Mustang I had locked the torque converter almost immediately even from a standing start. It was a tenth, maybe two, slower than a 5 speed car. 15.1 1/4 Mile was about exactly right for a Stock Convertible GT.

Quote from Bob Smith :

I thought it was the other way round? Hence pounds for mass and pounds-force for, you guessed it, force?

Believe it or not the pound is a measure of force - that's why if you go somewhere with “less gravity” it "weighs" less in pounds even though it's mass hasn't changed, just the force of gravity acting on it. The gram is a measurement of mass - a 16 Gram object on earth is a 16 Gram object on the moon.

... since power = (force*distance)/time, It always seemed to me that physics problems that used Pounds rather than Grams were easier =)

Quote from Gekkibi :

Knots are just like miles, gallons, inches and stones: Imperial units. Obsolete and pain-in-the ass when you use physical equations...

There's a reason Knots are used in any situation where wind is of consequence in navigation: 1 Knot = 1 Minute of Longitude/Latitude. It's not obsolete =)

Yes - 1 Horse Power is required to lift 33,000 LBS 1 Foot in 1 minute.... or 1LB 33,000 Feet in 1 Minute. That's how horse power is defined - If you change the Units you have to deal with conversions. The pound is actually a measurement of force, not mass, but here on the surface of the planet the conversions are pretty easy.

Metric Horse power is actually a different unit =/

And Drawbar Horsepower, Brake Horsepower, Net Horsepower, SAE Horsepower... and so on are just different prescriptions for how to make the physical measurements.

And just to clarify, many Higher horsepower Dynamometers use only the Inertia of the drum and calculate torque (Force) and Power ( [Force*Distance]/Time ) even though only the speed of the drum and time is measured. Until a few years ago I had never seen an Eddy Current Dyno that could measure more than 250HP (The kind you find in Emission shop garages mainly) but Dynojet is apparently making some very high capacity Absorption Dynos. When I think Dyno - I think Inertia =)

Quote from tristancliffe :

kCal is another one that annoys me. When someone says their tictacs only have 2 Calories, they actually mean 2000 Calories.

Dietary calorie = 1000 Calories.
If it's describing a food-stuff it's measured in dietary calories and it's correct to say a TicTac contains 2 Calories.

Edit: An inertial dynamometer does not measure force. Force is computed based on how quickly the drum is accelerated. They are very precise at measuring what is applied to the drum but one expects a lower measurement due to parasitic drag of the Dyno itself. Obviously numbers generated on a chassis-dyno will be considerably lower than BHP.

Last edited by GobLox, Thu 10 Jan 2008, 23:58.

Quote from samjh :

To put simply: wider tyres have the effect of increasing the surface area, therefore reducing grip. Sounds odd, eh?

If this were a physics 101 class we would say that increasing surface area has no effect on traction. If we were talking about two pieces of steel, rather than rubber and another surface we'd be, more or less, correct. You cannot use static and kinetic friction alone to model tire traction. Along with a friction coefficient there are also adhesive forces, Momentary bonding, and mechanical keying to deal with. Also rubber's tendency to break away from the rest of the tire if too much force is applied automatically means you need specific amount of surface area to transmit a given force or rubber will be shed on the track.

Rest assured: on pavement wider tires really do mean more traction. You would see wider tires on passenger cars if it were not for Hydroplaning, Snow/Ice, and their cost prohibitive nature.

As far as horsepower goes - the XRT is obviosuly based on the Starion/Conquest. LFS is very optimistic as the Intercooled ESI-R was only rated at 155HP. Supposedly there is some year that was closer to 200 but I'm not familiar with it and I assume it may have been JDM.

Last edited by GobLox, Thu 10 Jan 2008, 19:58.

+1

I'll say it too: The argument that stock cars don't come with 45 degrees of steering lock is for $#%@ as cars also don't come with -4.5 degrees of camber, however, it's available via LFS.

Just add it already.

Hand signals are to be used to let other drivers know which side to pass on in the SCCA; it's common courtesy to wave to passed drivers as well.

They are quite visible in real life.

Quote from JO53PHS :

-1 for burnouts... makes it too NFS like

NFS Prostreet Burnouts are absurd; the mini-game is very nearly a complete departure from reality. But yes - cars can perform burnouts and it should be possible to do as this is a simulation and tire temperature is modeled as well.

Yeah - it occurred to me that we are talking about a track surface with fresh radials. And yes; many of these cars were manuals. For example, I had a 1986 Mitsubishi Starion ESI-R (It sure appears to me that the XRG and XRT are based on the Starion/Conquest.) And yes, even on brushed concrete (And any other surface you can think of - I was a hooligan, more so in that car than in some of the faster ones) you could easily perform a burnout with the factory brake bias on yokohamas. The rear brakes were in working order as I sometimes heard the inside rear-wheel lockup around fast corners.

The traction argument doesn't appear to be sound considering you can perform a burnout by adjusting the bias or stopping the car against a wall. The rear braking force is what doesn't appear to add up - Is it possible the static and kinetic brake friction coefficients aren't modeled properly?

I've always thought it was a bit odd that it's more or less impossible to do a burnout without setting an unrealistic brake bias. I spent a lot of my youth doing burnouts in various vehicles and on many surfaces. I can say from experience that most any RWD vehicle (and to some extent, FWD) can do a ripping good burnout in stock form.

Has this ever been commented on by DEVs?

Quote from Kosmo :

There is also no logic to having the limiter way up there, since there is no point to rev high above max power.

There is plenty of reason to go past Maximum power RPM on the road and the track if the next gear will put you out of the power band. This is most noticeable on grades in lower gears (where the difference between ratios is greater) when exceeding the HPMax mark will reduce power but not so much as taking the next gear. Rev until engine power output is less than or equal to output in the next highest gear for the given speed. And yes; it would be very easy to make a shift-light operate this way with known gear ratios and engine output (considering the math above it about all it takes) but I agree, it doesn't belong in the UFR.

Quote from wark :

I was thinking about how you can't "downshift" from 1st gear into neutral without touching the clutch. But then, I thought, even with the clutch you can't drop into neutral from any other gear directly, save reverse.

One idea would be: When the button is pressed to change the gear, neutral is selected (regardless of clutch input). When the button is released with the clutch in, the next gear is selected. When it is released without touching the clutch, neutral is kept. This better illustrates the physical two-step act of changing gears: Click, click. However, it is still impossible to go fifth->neutral->third (for example).

Either way, it has been mentioned that a realistic way to select neutral (perhaps at the touch of a designated 'neutral button') would be a sensible amendment. That is, without going through all the intermediate gears à la sequential.

I realise that this is generally insignificant when it comes to racing, but it is nevertheless a noticeable realism flaw.

Got any better ideas?

The game fully supports gated shifters; sequential shifting is also simulated properly. I suppose they could add Neutral to the Shifter key/button assignments (bearing in mind that even a small change like this can be an undertaking in such a complex program) but to what end? I'm not sure how this makes paddle shifting more realistic. Want to simulate gated shifting: buy a gated shifter and let the programmers work on things that genuinely need improvement.

But that's just my thinking.

Oh my - I had no idea! LOL

Thanks.

I've never been able to recieve a Setup sent by another player and it's painfull being new to the CTRA BabyR races without this ability. Setups for the UFR are few and far between so I'd really like to get this working. I've tried launching the program as an Administrator; still I am told someone sent me their setup but I have no error message and the setup is not available for use, nor can I find it in the program directory. Anyone seen this before?