With modding you do get lots of bad stuff and the good quality stuff is rarer. Everyone who knows rfactor knows the good cars especially are rare. With tracks it gets easier simply because messing up a track badly is almost impossible if the maker has driven his own track. A track is all about geometry, textures and execution. Everyone who has ever done a track for rfactor with btb for example knows that it only really takes time.

But still even if with modding 60% of all the stuff that is released is unusable bad, 20% is okayish and 17% is good and 3% is awesome I'd say it is still absolutely worth it. The good content alone makes it totally worth the effort. Saying modding is not worth it is a bit like saying youtube is bad thing because there is so much bad quality stuff there.

Modding would have saved lfs.

I remember dropping my old sidewinder wheel from 2-3 metres (I was carrying it on top of a cardboard box on top of head in staircase and it fell). Not a scratch. Old microsoft hardware was rock solid.

Well that is very clever interpretation of the new nose regulations although I think the rotating turret does count as movable aerodynamic device.

Quote from BigPeBe :

I know that feel. I drink 1,5 liters of milk every day, so shopping for it is a pain in the ass.

Maybe pay with money next time

Quote from tristancliffe :

I get way more pleasure from knowing that I rotated the car perfectly than because an active diff corrected 122 minor driver mistakes in one corner.

Then surely the most biggest feeling of pleasure is achieved when you have 5 ton truck with wooden tires going upside down into copse at 500mph and you manage to nail the corner perfectly while going through five 20 point checklists, while solving differential equations on paper for the brakes to lift the inside tires 1mm off the ground because the 7 solid rear diffs won't let the thing turn otherwise and then steer the vehicle through the corner at optimal slip angle while doing a barrel roll just because you can. Open diffs are for pussies.

Quote from tristancliffe :

I personally prefer things that make me faster, not that artificially enhance my apparent skill set. I'd much rather brake, corner and accelerate due to my ability than because the car decided it could do better. For general road use, for pretty much everyone, there are obvious safety benefits, but for track use or in simulators then (for me) I'd much rather drive it myself than have a computer decide I've done something wrong and change my input. I derive no pleasure from computer assistance.

And no, I don't consider injection to be a driver aid. It's part of the engine, much like a piston or a cambelt. The driver should control the torque output manually for optimal enjoyment.

Definitely no frustrations about my own opinions, I can assure you of that

So instead of actual measurable technical facts it becomes a question of righteousness and fairness? You say you prefer things that make you faster but at the same time some things are unfair or wrong like traction control, electronic diffs and all other electronic gizmos despite the fact they make you faster? To me it sounds fast or slow actually makes no difference to you. To me seems to be all about some righteous way of how a car should be driven. "Amazing lap time but you drove it wrong".

Personally I enjoy driving cars in sims that have no aero, have no slicks and have no electronics but I would never claim that is the way to drive for optimal enjoyment. My real life track time is basically non-existent but generally I'd prefer to drive a car that helps me keep it on the road instead of having one that will try to kill me once I do a little wrong thing.

Quote from NotAnIllusion :

Easily.

You missed the point in your post where you offer some valid arguments that are worth reading.

So I downloaded the early release. After reading about people having poor fps I went and turned all graphics off. Runs at least 100+fps for me. Butter smooth. But also ugly. Early impressions is that the cars are a bit too fast and have too much grip. At least the default car is a bit too fast for car crashing game. Handling seems fine. Reminds me about gta games. Too bad there is no camera controls. I would have liked to move the camera with mouse while driving with wasd.

Only did 3 "races" and got bored though. It seems fine but needs tons more content and fine tuning. But being alpha I'd expect they add a lot of stuff to this.

Quote from NotAnIllusion :

Dive bomb. More like he barely scraped the Ferrari's tyre while attempting to cross to the inside. Had Räi driven as if he was a racing driver instead of falling asleep in the middle of the track, nothing would have happened.

There is absolutely no way Kimi or anyone could see that. Unless kimi was driving from chase cam there is just no way to see if the guy behind you has put their front wing into your rear tire. How is it Kimi's fault when someone effectively drove into him from behind?

Quote from Bmxtwins :

That Magnussen penalty was the silliest thing I've seen since Jonathon Provost and Matt Kingsbury giving Team Vires a penalty for an incident they didn't cause.

How so? Magnussen was effectively dive bombing. Kimi's rear tire hit with Magnussens front wing. It was stupid move by Magnussen and 100% his fault too. I'm finnish but imho Magnussen drove into the back of Kimi's car and effectively took him out from the race. Magnussen got away almost without penalty (5 seconds longer pitstop, is that even a penalty lol).

I think there is going to be a brawl between AR and VR. To me it seems like VR is more of an enthusiast product. Something that does less but does it a lot better. Like a desktop computer while AR is more of laptop or tablet. Or mobile phone with a camera vs good single purpose digital camera.

AR can also develop into cheap mobile product relatively easily whereas VR like oculus type headsets are more of a product that you use it when you intend to get a VR experience. Movie theaters are obvious example where you will use VR instead of AR. In regards to AR you can have it anywhere and anytime you want.

Where is the killer solution for oculus? I don't know. I don't think it exists yet. But the same thing is of course true for AR but it is a lot easier to imagine all kinds of things you can do with AR because as a tech it is closer to what we can already do now whereas the things you want to do with VR are a lot more specific and focused... what's the word... With AR you can do alot more things but with VR you can do less things better.

I haven't tried oculus myself but I think there is some need for caution here. Virtual headsets still do have some problems that are very hard to solve even with truck loads of money. And when it comes to virtual reality headsets and systems there are alternative ways to do it. I'm not sure if oculus is the best solution. To me it seems oculus is the kind of solution that is for certain group of enthusiasts.

So what are the alternatives? Well there is the wearable tech approach like google glasses. That is going to be the mainstream approach in some form. That is probably closer to facebook's current ecosystem than oculus which atm. has absolutely 0 usability for any social based software. By usability I mean anything you can do with facebook and oculus now.

Then there is the middle ground between oculus and google glasses. CastAR. Something that takes what is around you and then adds the virtual reality to it. Instead of putting a tv right in front of your face and hiding everything else it puts you into the middle of it. Best of both worlds.

CastAR is by far the most interesting of these techs for me because it is essentially the holodeck tech from startrek. Oculus is just tv attached to your face and google glasses is a small tv.

As far as oculus goes I would be surprised if they would only come out with single product in the end. They have to cater for gamers because without gamer specific product they will instantly kill oculus. Current facebook users imho aren't early adopters and any virtual reality based systems still need to be downloaded to your computer. In other words oculus needs a fast graphics card and that will limits is usefulness. Other option is to watch videos in oculus and what's the point in that?

But even if oculus seems to me like a niche product in the end what do I know. People buy tons of tablets. I would have never guessed that becomes popular. I always thought tablets is a stupid gimmick product. A bad notebook. But there are are almost as many tablets sold as notebooks. How the hell did that happen?

Anyways one of the biggest roadblocks for any virtual reality product is money and pr. Facebook can spend as much as it wants. Even when you put the 2 billion dollar number into perspective the valve's (valve=steam) total worth for example is somewhere between 2 and 3 billion. Valve could never compete with facebook when it comes to throwing money at you. When we are talking this huge numbers there are only handful of businesses that could buy oculus. Maybe facebook was the only one that was interested? What did they get for that 2 billion? Not a whole lot imho. Mostly what facebook got was the name and brand of oculus. And couple of years of development and testing. The tech itself is old. VR headsets is not a new thing.

I have external drive but I've lost the power cord for it. The drive is only 500gb so I can only backup less than half what I'd need for full backup. I have two hard drives on my computer so I just make sure I have copies of important stuff on both disk. A poor man's manual raid1 . If one fails the other one still has the data on it. If both disks die at the same time I'm screwed.

I just bought new computer and the parts should be here this week so I need to rethink my backups as my new computer will only have ssd and one hd plus I don't think there is windows 8 version of the backup software I use (yes I'm getting windows 8).

Quote from dawesdust_12 :

All of the PiBoSo sims are good, but he seems to have the same work ethic that Kunos used to have. Create a decent simulator, but then proceed to do 0 work on it to push it past the bare essentials. Then get bored and create a new sim (with no support).

At this point, PiBoSo has a Closed wheel car sim, Kart Sim, Motorbike sim and now a dirt bike sim. Problem being is that none of these have matured past 1 or 2 patches and the online community is non-existent (last I checked at least).

They're nice for what they are, but there seems to be no real "future" plan for any of them.

I don't know how piboso markets his products but there are essentially two kinds of games. Games that get updates after the release and games that don't. Just because piboso's sims aren't in constant development like iracing, pcars, ac or even gt6 doesn't really mean he is just someone who loses interest as soon as the product can be sold. Maybe it is his intent to finish the game when it is released and that's it? Not all games are constantly developed even if that approach is fairly common in the racing sim genre.

Quote from amp88 :

One thing I don't really understand is that during the worst of the recent blown diffuser period (2011) many of the cars sounded absolutely terrible under braking. Much, much worse than the current V6s do at any time. We didn't really hear that many complaints. Imagine if you turned up at a GP and you heard this.

I think that sounds AMAZING. If we had that plus some antilag pops and crackles in the current F1 cars I'd not complain about the sounds at all.

Quote from Rappa Z :

Exactly, people are complaining that it isn't ear splitting, but forget that this is still a V6 turbo with straight pipe exhaust. If they don't think it's loud, then they ought to put a straight pipe on their own car and see how quiet it is.

I think the loudness is important for the people who are at the track because the sound is not just what you hear but also what you feel. As for tv audiences I think the sound is very mediocre. I think indycar even sounds better and the only difference is that indycar doesn't have as complex energy recovery systems (braking doesn't sound like tape recorder on fast rewind) and the main difference is that indycar has 2.2 litre engines while f1 has 1.6l.

In the end the modern f1 cars sound like leaf blowers. As a person who only sees and watches f1 cars on video I don't really give two craps about the decibel levels personally. I don't think the v8s sounded really awesome either onboard but at least it was sound worth hearing from the track side cameras. Now the only thing the track side noise has going for it is the sound of squealing tires and sounds from the audience. The sound of the engines is just bad.

I don't think there is anything that can be done with sounds. The mistake of shitty engines is already made and we are way too deep into it to change anything really. In a way I feel bad about complaining about the bad sounds because the engine sound is just show. It is something superficial and trivial. F1 is for me about the form following the function and in a way I feel like complaining about something that really shouldn't be this important as a pure tv viewer and as a fan of f1.

I'd like the sound be nice about the f1 cars. It's not really a deal breaker for me. The onboards are still not horrible but not exciting either. This is exciting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdd4mzrUX8E
This is exciting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZXBPE64DXs

So the new engine sounds. Not a fan. Doesn't sound as bad as I feared though. Onboard sounds pretty much fine but the trackside cameras sound like crap. Sounds like leaf blower. There are positives though. Hearing the tires lock up is nice as well. It is also nice to hear the sound of the audience in the trackside camers. The cars look trickier to drive as well. Hopefully the teams are not able to adjust the cars to handle too well so we can actually see now when the drivers are pushing and the cars getting sideways out of corners.

I was kinda afraid the fuel saving and I think the race did not show the right picture yet. Lots of safety cars and one extra start certainly helped a lot and teams generally needed to spend a lot less time saving fuel than normally I think. Malaysia should be little easier for fuel consumption and with a safety car there probably won't be an issue with fuel saving.

Amazing drive by the Mangusson and Riciadro.

I'll post some stats about the answers later, kinda busy for the next few days and kinda tired now.

Quote from Hyperactive :

So it is time for the yearly F1 questionnaire 2014 edition!


Answer the questions and the one who gets most answers correct wins the invaluable "lfsforum F1 prediction grandmaster" award! The glorious award has been won previously by:

2012:
No points given

In 2013 season:
Hyperactive
teppo.jr
Iginla


Must post your guesses before the 12th of March (00.00 UTC). All posts after that will be ignored. One point for correct answer, 0 for wrong. Last question is worth 5 points. In case of equal points the who guessed closest to the last question wins.


1. Who will win drivers' world championship:
2. Which team will win constructors' world championship:
3. Who is the last finisher in Australian gp including dnf, retire, disqualified, last to drive over the s/f line:
4. Will 13 or more cars finish the Australina gp race (within 2 laps of the winner) :
5. Who will score more points in 2014. Bottas or Massa:
6. Who will score more points in 2014. Grosjean or Maldonado:
7. Who will score more points in 2014. Räikkönen or Alonso:
8. What is the best race finishing result for Magnussen in 2014:
9. Do you think Ricciardo will win at least one race in 2014:
10. First driver you think will lose his drive during 2013 (miss at least one race):
11. Will Caterham or Marussia score points in 2013:
12. Who will win the pole position on the Sochi qualifying:
13. Out of all sauber, force india, toro rosso and williams WHICH DRIVER will score the most points during the season:
14. Out of Sauber, Force india, Toro rosso and Williams WHICH TEAM scores the most points during 2014 season:
15: Do you think Simona de Silvestro will drive 2014 spec F1 car during 2014 season (free practise, testing or city run or whatever):
16: Winner of Australian gp:
17. Winner of Monaco gp:
18. How many points will the dwc winning driver have at the end of the season:

(I'll post my own predictions later)

Just fyi. Still some time left! After today 00:00utc I won't accept new answers anymore.

Quote from FireMike15 :

You could try pressing the any key.

Quote from Racer X NZ :

And again, what your posting isn't proof. It's only a personal philosophical denial.

If you are going to make a claim it is your job to prove it. Your own belief in reincarnation is nothing else than blind faith regardless of proof that shows 100% non-existence of the thing you happen to believe in. Reincarnation is essentially a very simple idea cavemen came up with to explain something they had no idea what it was. Just like religion or ufos. Can't explain where humans come from, can't explain that blurry dot in the photo. Imagine your own explanation and believe in it.

Quote from Racer X NZ :

And alien life, I'd be careful of using that as an example for too much longer. http://science.time.com/2013/1 ... to-life-in-lake-doughnut/

I thought I couldn't be more clear. When I said aliens I meant flying saucers, abductions and all that stuff. Not life in universe...

Quote from Racer X NZ :

Then I get to say, ' I told you so ' :woohoo:

Ah the typical "I'll get the last word because I'm true believer"

I think the reason F1 has kept the tire sizes it is using is because of costs. If the tires were changed to low profile tires the teams would need to design the suspension parts from scratch. Plus probably other costs as well. Brakes are not really the reason for forcing low profile rims and tires because the brake discs are also heavily restricted by rules. Even if the teams wanted they can't really make the discs lighter, thicker or bigger.

Obviously F1 needs to move to lower profile tires at some point if pirelli decides to leave. There are not many tire companies willing to invest much money into developing such obscure sized tires.

Quote from Racer Y :

Uhhh... reincarnation.
I believe in reincarnation to a point. Actually more like believe in the wildly remote possibility that someone can be the exact copy of someone else.

Ever heard of cloning?

And also:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.fi/20 ... ce-between-human-and.html
Only 5% difference between humans and chimpanzees.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C ... uman_last_common_ancestor

Quote from Racer Y :

Nothing spiritual. Just the chance that two or more people can have the exact same DNA code.
Anyways Racer X? There was this Dahli Lama in the 1950's(?) Anyways, he died.
he told his apostles Matthew Mark Luke and Ringo that he would be reborn as a boy in some village a few hundred miles to the south of them. You're a Buddhist. You probably know this story. He laid out things that were his favorite objects for the reincarnated Dahli Lama to notice them. Well when he died they headed south and found a newborn baby. They studied the kid. after he got old enough, they started to test him on things. They wanted to see if he was the Lama they were looking for. They laid out all this stuff. things that the dahli lama had as favorite items and other stuff they threw in. They noticed the kid was attracted to all the things that belonged to the former Dahli Lama over the other things. They did all sorts of tests. I don't remember any of them, but he passed them with flying colors.
Do you know about this story?
My question is was it really reincarnation? Or was it an elaborate hoax by a dying man to insure a certain blood line to run things? Or part of a conspiracy by concerned monks that didn't want the people to fall apart and go nuts without a spiritual leader?

Maybe the boy just happened to like the same things as the dead guy?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzopPg1lLYc

Pretty amazing how he picks his line between the trees and connects those turns and "straight" bits.