Sto un bastardo fastidioso. Non fa niente. Per divertimento.
Tu non parla troppo complicato, per favore. Sto imparando e parlare Italiano ma molto lentamente.
Horrible, I know. But I'm trying.
S14 DRIFT,
Not sure what you're getting at there. You seem to have a bee under your bonet but are neither agreeing nor disagreeing with anything I've said. Thanks for the random facts though.
P.S. No offence taken.
Not sure what you're getting at there. You seem to have a bee under your bonet but are neither agreeing nor disagreeing with anything I've said. Thanks for the random facts though.
P.S. No offence taken.
That's your opinion.
My opinion is that "the point" of LFS is an attempt at an authentic racing simulator; thus if you're using the keyboard and chase view - regardless of whether you were having fun or not - you missed "the point".
Last edited by Ikaponthus, .
Thanks for that explanation.
I was only thinking of the Le-Mans cars that really do fly like a peice of paper once they get air under them, but you explained that well. BTW, I like your signature.
As far as comparing GT5P goes, I was first and foremost saying that it will not be a simulator, no matter what the makers claim (I am aware they have always called GT a "driving simulator"). I haven't even played GT5, but when you're mass-producing a product that "simulates" 500 cars (or whatever), and it's aimed at the console market, most of which is kids who can't even properly handle their parent's station wagon yet, let alone a pure-bred racing machine... and would be controlling that racing machine with a playstation gamepad ... and winning races! In this case, simple logic suggests they're hardly going to be making a high-fidelity simulator. It would be a huge flop. They might market it as "realistic", but that doesn't make it so.
"Hardcore" driving simulators are, and always will be, a niche market. I think even half the people who play LFS completely miss the point (you probably fit into that category if you think it's a high priority for the devs to release a "sIcKA$$ dRiFt cAr").
I was only thinking of the Le-Mans cars that really do fly like a peice of paper once they get air under them, but you explained that well. BTW, I like your signature.
As far as comparing GT5P goes, I was first and foremost saying that it will not be a simulator, no matter what the makers claim (I am aware they have always called GT a "driving simulator"). I haven't even played GT5, but when you're mass-producing a product that "simulates" 500 cars (or whatever), and it's aimed at the console market, most of which is kids who can't even properly handle their parent's station wagon yet, let alone a pure-bred racing machine... and would be controlling that racing machine with a playstation gamepad ... and winning races! In this case, simple logic suggests they're hardly going to be making a high-fidelity simulator. It would be a huge flop. They might market it as "realistic", but that doesn't make it so.
"Hardcore" driving simulators are, and always will be, a niche market. I think even half the people who play LFS completely miss the point (you probably fit into that category if you think it's a high priority for the devs to release a "sIcKA$$ dRiFt cAr").
First of all, you're misunderstanding wildly.
Secondly, I think if any air did get under an F1 car it probably would fly (haven't watched the youtube video btw). It's wings would act like aeroplane wings. Have you ever seen those Le Mans cars flip when they get a bit of air under them?
Thirdly, don't know about the F1 in LFS. There's no tracks where you can make it get any real kind of "air". I do know that if you drive the wrong way around the Kyoto ring and crash, the physics act very unrealisticly (cars flipping about in the air etc.). Much less realisticly than in if you do the same thing in rFactor or NASCAR Racing 2003 (where the crashes/rolling physics look more-or-less real). Dunno what that says about anything, but meh...
Secondly, I think if any air did get under an F1 car it probably would fly (haven't watched the youtube video btw). It's wings would act like aeroplane wings. Have you ever seen those Le Mans cars flip when they get a bit of air under them?
Thirdly, don't know about the F1 in LFS. There's no tracks where you can make it get any real kind of "air". I do know that if you drive the wrong way around the Kyoto ring and crash, the physics act very unrealisticly (cars flipping about in the air etc.). Much less realisticly than in if you do the same thing in rFactor or NASCAR Racing 2003 (where the crashes/rolling physics look more-or-less real). Dunno what that says about anything, but meh...
Last edited by Ikaponthus, .
You "lol'd"?? wtf does that mean? Whatever mate. Have you ever seen that movie with Vin Diesel? Most realistic racing movie I've ever seen. All LFS needs is more hardcore drifting action, some bad-ass speakers and twinkly lights under the car, then it would be the sweetest, most bAdaSs rAcIng sIm ArOUnd. Yo keep it real dog.
Last edited by Ikaponthus, .
I really get the impression that a lot of the people in this thread don't even have their driver's licence yet. Maybe I'm too old for this. I probably should just dish out for iRacing and go hang with the "hardcore" gang.
Get a clue.
Have you driven any of the other GT games? Any computer program where you can effectively and competitively drive a pure bred racing car with a playstation gamepad is NOT a "simulation". And that includes Live For Speed.
How have you played GT5P yet anyway? I thought it hasn't even been released yet. I'm basing my opinion on all the other Gran Turismo games which are PURE arcade. More like Need For Speed than a proper sim.
Have you driven any of the other GT games? Any computer program where you can effectively and competitively drive a pure bred racing car with a playstation gamepad is NOT a "simulation". And that includes Live For Speed.
How have you played GT5P yet anyway? I thought it hasn't even been released yet. I'm basing my opinion on all the other Gran Turismo games which are PURE arcade. More like Need For Speed than a proper sim.
GT5P and GTR-Evo are not simulators. They're just "games". Not that there's anything wrong with that though, just drawing a line in the sand.
I don't have these problems, even with the stock ISI cars. In fact, I can't agree with you at all. It's the fact that the rear end is controllable and feels "in contact with the road" that I think rFactor is a worthy sim. Compared to most other psuedo-sims where, as you say, the car just spins out once it looses any traction at all.
I guess I'll be the firt to say that the ISI rFactor cars aren't that bad at all.
I don't know what people are going on about. They're much more realistic than the cars in pretty much any other racing "sim" apart from LFS. Certainly more realistic than the cars in GTR2 anyway.
I even think the rFactor stock-cars are more realistic than those in NR2003, with the exception of the damage model. Yeah go and flame away. But "hard" doesn't mean "real". I'm the first to admit the obvious: I've never really driven a NASCAR. But with what experience I do have driving, racing and watching racing (whatever that counts for), I think that the ISI stockcar in rFactor feels more realistic than those in the much vaunted Papyrus sim.
To me LFS intuatively feels the most authentic, but rFactor isn't as far behind as most people seem to think.
I don't know what people are going on about. They're much more realistic than the cars in pretty much any other racing "sim" apart from LFS. Certainly more realistic than the cars in GTR2 anyway.
I even think the rFactor stock-cars are more realistic than those in NR2003, with the exception of the damage model. Yeah go and flame away. But "hard" doesn't mean "real". I'm the first to admit the obvious: I've never really driven a NASCAR. But with what experience I do have driving, racing and watching racing (whatever that counts for), I think that the ISI stockcar in rFactor feels more realistic than those in the much vaunted Papyrus sim.
To me LFS intuatively feels the most authentic, but rFactor isn't as far behind as most people seem to think.
Yeah, you make some interesting points there.
What we're really talking about is trying to get some kind of feedback on G-Forces, which is crucially important while driving, but virtually impossible to simulate on a computer.
I sometimes wonder if there would be any possible way to "simulate" the G-Forces for a driving sim cheaply, but I think it's a pipe dream. I can't imagine any way, short of a full cage with some kind of hydraulic setup, which would just be too expensive for most people, not to mention taking up too much space.
Good post here. I'd like to make a few comments...
... that was kind of the point of the original statement, "nobody can tell for sure" - it's all just a personal opinion.
This is an interesting point and part of the reason I am always pushing for a realistic damage model. The major difference here is that in a sim you are driving with zero-fear. In the real world, you're concerned about damaging the car, not only so you can finish the race, but also because you're concerned about the financial cost about fixing the car. And that's all not mentioning the concern one has for their own personal safety.
In a "sim" like LFS or rFactor, you can practically ping-pong off the walls at 150km/ph with little or no effect on the car and certainly no threat to your personal safety.
Even if you don't make the conscious decision to "slow down" in real life, I'm sure this is the reason why you're not driving on the limits so much. You are reaching your "instinctual limit" for safety before the car is reacing it's limit on the track. In a sim there is no such concerns. Especially a "sim" with a virtually non-existent damage model.
....well that's what I guess is happening anyway....
I don't know about that. I think most proper "sim racers" think more in terms of physics than graphics. Maybe your average 14yo Gran Turismo fan would judge the game by graphics.
I'd be interested to have a go. I've always wondered how a sim-racing game would go if it simulated the visual G-Force effects on the driver's head. Consider it may not be the bonnet moving up, but the drivers head moving down. I'd say that sort of effect would be more usefull simulating lateral forces in the corners. I was concentrating on it the other day, and my head/field of vision moves around more in day-to-day traffic than it does in most racing sims, and this adds loads to the unwanted "driving on ice" feel that most racing sims suffer from (due to a lack of feedback regarding G-Forces). The drivers head would rotate ("tilt" the screen) as well as move laterally left and right, and this movement would be stronger the higher G's are being pulled. It's just an idea, I have no clue if it would really work very well. But it's all about "feedback", in any way possible, which is of course the point you touched on earlier.
PS - yes I am aware that some sims do similate a tiny bit of head movement. But compared to real life, even general commuting to work and back, it's negligible amount and offers no real feeback.
... that was kind of the point of the original statement, "nobody can tell for sure" - it's all just a personal opinion.
This is an interesting point and part of the reason I am always pushing for a realistic damage model. The major difference here is that in a sim you are driving with zero-fear. In the real world, you're concerned about damaging the car, not only so you can finish the race, but also because you're concerned about the financial cost about fixing the car. And that's all not mentioning the concern one has for their own personal safety.
In a "sim" like LFS or rFactor, you can practically ping-pong off the walls at 150km/ph with little or no effect on the car and certainly no threat to your personal safety.
Even if you don't make the conscious decision to "slow down" in real life, I'm sure this is the reason why you're not driving on the limits so much. You are reaching your "instinctual limit" for safety before the car is reacing it's limit on the track. In a sim there is no such concerns. Especially a "sim" with a virtually non-existent damage model.
....well that's what I guess is happening anyway....
I don't know about that. I think most proper "sim racers" think more in terms of physics than graphics. Maybe your average 14yo Gran Turismo fan would judge the game by graphics.
I'd be interested to have a go. I've always wondered how a sim-racing game would go if it simulated the visual G-Force effects on the driver's head. Consider it may not be the bonnet moving up, but the drivers head moving down. I'd say that sort of effect would be more usefull simulating lateral forces in the corners. I was concentrating on it the other day, and my head/field of vision moves around more in day-to-day traffic than it does in most racing sims, and this adds loads to the unwanted "driving on ice" feel that most racing sims suffer from (due to a lack of feedback regarding G-Forces). The drivers head would rotate ("tilt" the screen) as well as move laterally left and right, and this movement would be stronger the higher G's are being pulled. It's just an idea, I have no clue if it would really work very well. But it's all about "feedback", in any way possible, which is of course the point you touched on earlier.
PS - yes I am aware that some sims do similate a tiny bit of head movement. But compared to real life, even general commuting to work and back, it's negligible amount and offers no real feeback.
Last edited by Ikaponthus, .
That's a fair enough point.
I'm sure you can't point out a flaw in my argument. The only defence religious people have is that it's open to "interpretation". Give me a break. It's very clear in what it says. It's in plain black and white. If you think it's open to "interpretation" then you're kidding yourself.
How do you interpret that?
What about this...
Or this one, regarding the fate of a girl who has been raped...
You see, you religious types don't even read the book you pretend to believe in. If that's God's word, I don't want any part of "God". And don't tell me it's "open to interpretation". There's nothing to "interpret" about it.
It's all either God's word, or it's not. If you consider yourself a "moderate" Christian (which, going by your web-page, you clearly do not), then let me ask you one question ... who are you to say which part is God's word and which part is not? Which part of the bible is "right" and which part is "wrong"? How do you know?
If you wonder why I'm so against it all, it's because it's not only brainwashing nonsense, it's also so dangerous. It causes wars and has done for 2000 years.
I'll tell you why agnostics don't accept it: because it's very dangerous and stupid. Did you ever read the bible?
Last edited by Ikaponthus, .
"[T]he sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken. . . . They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. . . . I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. [Emphasis added.] " Matthew 24:29-34
"This generation" refers to Mathew's generation, 2000 years ago. Jesus isn't coming back to destroy the world. He didn't then (when the Bible actually said he would) and he won't any time soon, sorry to disappoint.
Victor: I have to disagree. This kind of cult-belief is dangerous, and the brainwashing starts when some fairly innocent looking thing like this is accepted. People should be able to voice their disapproval. If you don't want people doing that on the forum, fair enough, you're the boss ... but then delete the whole thread. Don't just leave the invite to join the nutty brainwashing racing league and then forbid people to voice their disapproval.
"This generation" refers to Mathew's generation, 2000 years ago. Jesus isn't coming back to destroy the world. He didn't then (when the Bible actually said he would) and he won't any time soon, sorry to disappoint.
Victor: I have to disagree. This kind of cult-belief is dangerous, and the brainwashing starts when some fairly innocent looking thing like this is accepted. People should be able to voice their disapproval. If you don't want people doing that on the forum, fair enough, you're the boss ... but then delete the whole thread. Don't just leave the invite to join the nutty brainwashing racing league and then forbid people to voice their disapproval.
Last edited by Ikaponthus, .
I was "still talking about it" to clear up any misunderstanding, and I stand by what I said.
How's it an unfair comparison? Comparing piloting a bicycle to a Boeing 747 is an unfair comparison. Comparing two supposedly high-fidelity racing sims using identical hardware ... couldn't get much fairer.
Sorry. Had to play the devil's advocate.
I guess this reply goes for FYI Tim_J_23 as well:
Just to be clear, of course I know it's a work in progress, and I knew that when I bought it. Personally I'm happy with the product. No complaints here. I think the devs do an acceptable job and I don't regret the purchase.
What I am saying is that when one purchases a product, be it LFS or anything else you care to imagine, they don't expect the company who produces that product to have the attitude of "yeah well, I'll fix stuff up when I can be bothered", which is what MijnWraak's signature implies, probably unfairly. Like I said earlier, I'm assuming that's taken out of context, so really it's a complete non-issue and you should just relax a little bit.
Besides, I'm sure the developers of the game don't need you to leap to their defence at the slightest critisism.
Last edited by Ikaponthus, .
Well that would be a pretty uncool attitude when you're charging thousands of people no small fee for an unfinished product! However, I will assume the devs act like professionals and that quote has been taken out of context. If it were my business/product, I'd ask you to change your signature because it doesn't look very good.
If the game was free, arse-kissing the devs would be understandable. As it is, I'll call it as I see it, no offence intended.
My 2c.
Last edited by Ikaponthus, .
New cars & tracks or fix/complete what we already have?
It's great that there's a new car on the horizon, however, there's enough cars and tracks already. While I'd love to see more, I'd much prefer to see the polish put on the stuff we already have.
Specificly that means finishing the damage model most importantly, so it not only looks realistic, but acts it as well. Secondly, an update for the cockpits of the rest of the cars would be nice.
The only exception would be the inclusion of a real-life track that is common to other racing simulators, just for comparison purposes. Possibly working with Bob's Track Builder to ensure LFS quality standards of realism...
http://bobstrackbuilder.net/laser_scanning.aspx
Specificly that means finishing the damage model most importantly, so it not only looks realistic, but acts it as well. Secondly, an update for the cockpits of the rest of the cars would be nice.
The only exception would be the inclusion of a real-life track that is common to other racing simulators, just for comparison purposes. Possibly working with Bob's Track Builder to ensure LFS quality standards of realism...
http://bobstrackbuilder.net/laser_scanning.aspx
:headbang: ya bloody bogan.
How about a sim-burnout comp while we're at it? Oh yeah ... I forgot we already have drift "racing"...
To be totally honest, I couldn't imagine driving a racing car with a gamepad either. If you can do it well, you're a better driver than me anyway. Which wouldn't be hard.
That's a pretty massive "only problem"! I'm sure you're aware that when you're racing, the throttle and the brake go a long way to "steering" the car. I almost think of them like rudder pedals on an aeroplane sometimes. I think that independently operating brake and accelerator pedals are just as important, if not more important, than the steering wheel! Not that I'm a very good "sim-driver" or anything. I just can't imagine using a mouse to drive a racing car.
But if you manage then all the power to you! If you can drive well with that, I'd hate to have to race you if you ever got yourself a good wheel/pedal setup!
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG