With the latest X-5s, off-road ability is no longer THAT terrible of an issue (improved 4WD and TC systems). The real limits to the X-5s off-road performance are lack of clearance, tavel, low range and most crucially, unsuitable tires.

X-5 sized all-terrain tires are available these days thanks to cooper tires (for most OEM sizes last time I checked), which has done a good job of minimizing the tire issue. However, clearance and suspension travel issues remain. And those plastic bits sticking off the bumpers of the 4.8i model don't help either.

But seriously, it's still better than a CR-V and RAV4 since it has enough torque to not get bogged in sticky mud even with no low range. It's full time AWD is still much superior to the reactive systems of the current soft-roaders. As long as you remember to swap to all-terrain tires, you shouldn't have too many problems with gravel, sand and some mud.

Oh, here's one A/T tire for the X5 from general tire:

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/ ... ng=WR&speed_rating=YR

Anyway, its still no Land Rover, Landcruiser or Pajero.

Last edited by Jamexing, Mon 30 Oct 2006, 11:12.

Quote from Takumi_Project.d :

The generosity of the demo is something which made the game attractive to me in the first place.

Demo's which limit time or amount of plays make you feel like the developers are trying to force you into a quick sale.

LFS on the other hand, they've said "here's a track and a few cars, go for it! - and if you want more, you're welcome to buy"

If LFS had it's time over, I would probably vote the demo should be XFG+XRG only right from the beginning, even those cars alone combined with the track and unlimited use is damn generous in comparison to other demos.

However as it is now, its unfeasible to suddenly take the XRT out, its taking something away which was available before. People wouldn't move to the latest version, instead remaining on the last demo that featured the XRT

People do live full time in the demo, I myself played it for about a year I think, before I suddenly decided to buy a license. I had the money, sure, but somehow it was too difficult, until my parents let me use their credit card.

I guess that brings us back to another problem - if LFS cost 15pounds for S1 and 30pounds for S2 - available boxed in game stores meaning people can buy with cash, I am sure alot more demo users would go out and buy it. It's just the whole "online thing" of using the credit card or money orders, where people put up the stone wall (ie. "I haven't got enough money!!") or just throw it in the "too hard basket"...

.... and then go for another 3lap race at blackwood

Very true. This happens to so many people, especially the younger ones.

Personally, I got the license because the demo was remarkably good and showed the potential of LFS as a sim. The incorporation of both FWDs and RWDs do a great job of demonstrating the potential of the physics.

In the long run, a good demo does a better job of getting loyal customers and fans than any coercive means.

Quote from SuperMassive :

well, i brought the licsense 4 days ago i think and it was simply because i was fed up of driving

1. the slowest car on earth (other than the UF1000 which is actually so slow its fun) around 5 laps swearing at crashers

2. driving a car that no one uses

3. driving a car that when you turn understeers and when you accelerate out powers itself

plus blackwood gets really boring after the 1,000,000,000 lap (exageration)

so altho yeah for a while people are just gonna use the demo version i reckon they shouldnt add/take anything from it, its the worst three cars mixed with a track that gets very boring.... so in a way its enough to drive you to buy a liscense

Wow! At least someone's figured this out.

Quote from Adamboston :

get some water crossings too in it proper rally cross then

Why not just toughen up the course a bit more (more/larger bumps and more corners) and add some real 4WDs for some off-road racing then? Oh wait, we need proper rallycars and rally raid (Paris Dakar Rally) style cars first for that to work.

Quote from Bob Smith :

I agree, there's no need for offensive language on servers. Perhaps it will help people express themselves using more eloquent language.

Agreed. As if we don't get enough 4 letter crap almost everywhere these days. And incessantly swearing kids these days could REALLY use some English lessons.

+1

Quote from Bob Smith :

Not sure how you mean there, been to Le Mans a few times, the cars seems absolutely on edge going round the track. Especially the Vipers, squirming all over the place.

For instance, if you brake just 10 meters earlier for a corner than absolutely necessary, you can save a LOT of brake wear with relatively little loss of lap time. For instance, the AUDI R10s had speed to spare, so to go faster overall it's better to go a bit below its limits. This saves fuel, wear and tear while covering distances more quickly simply because of less pit time. And given that drivers drive such long stints (up to 3 hours in some cases), it's no surprise that some cars end up squirming around or going off inadvertantlly.

The only reason to push cars to the absolute envelope is for situations such as need of superior position or that you're is simply too far behind everyone else. If cars were pushed 100% all of the time, they might not even last the distance. Goes a long way to explaining why many simply don't finish.

Quote from Woz :

Must be why 1960s F1 (GPL) never caught on then as that was light 400bhp monsters on tiny rubbish tires and no downforce

The way I view things is that while it might not be the best solution to the problem having a car where a mistake with your right foot and you are toast is just great. The absolute focus you need to drive it is huge.

So then a race becomes do you follow the stig lap one and short shift or do you try lap 2 and push to get that extra bit of speed.

As you say, you have to finish to win. I have placed well in long races because I drive at race pace from the off. I lose pace against everyone that runs at hotlap pace for a few laps and then I pass them sat in the kitty litter with cooked tires.

This is the appeal of cars that are bonkers, more of a challenge.

Don't worry, mid engined cars are always going to force drivers focus at the limit. It's what you get when a car rotates on the slightest touch of the steering. Good news is that the lack of rotational momentum for a given turn rate also makes it easier and quicker to get it running straight again, if you're paying attention.

In REAL enduros like Lemans, you don't run 100% of 100%. You run 100% of 80% of the cars absolute limit. A small touch of mechanical empathy goes a long way to improving relaibility.

I had no intention of really wanting to put a wing to the RA since it's quite fine as it is (even for kb!). Of course, those who like a small touch of extra stability can wish for one. The truth is , it's mid-engined design has a massive LACK of rotational inertia, that's why it feels more unstable than it really is. It's definitely a bit twitchy, but that's just because it reacts so quickly. It's actually a very balanced car under power, especially on corner exits (downforce cars excluded of course), much better than the FZs that basically lift the front end and plough through. And the RA has just enough power to do very well, not the stupidly overpowered abomination known as the CCX.

The AUDI TT I was talking about was so bad in terms of rear axle lift even a slight crosswind could send you down the mountain. And no, you don't need stupid driving to achieve that. Just a little gust of sidewind at autobahn speeds(on the autobahn of course). If you hate visible spoilers, it's a non issue, since so many cars have retractable spoilers that pop up at preset speeds anyway so it won't affect the vaunted kerbside looks some here treasure more than their lives.

And to win (or do a great lap in the stig's case), you must finish (aka NOT go terribly off). In case you're wondering, the stig had to short shift the car to push it to its handling envelope. More power than usable is simply a terrible idea. You add all that weight and hardware and trouble to achieve massive power that can almost NEVER be used even on the drag strip. All the while ruining handling balance with the extra weight (stronger and heavier drivetrain), using up more petrol to achieve NO significant performance advantage in any realistic situation (road or track). Seriously, THAT much excess power is only good for nothing more than silly burnouts, doughnuts and all kinds of silly tire shredding melarchy. No matter how hard one tries, the laws of physics dictate that a car can never exceed the performance evnvelope of its tires.

Well, as oversteery and unstable as the old porsches were, they really aren't that bad if you understand how they handle and do a couple of minor tweeks (tire pressures, alignment settings, etc). They are rather slow reacting thanks to their massive polar moment of inertia. If you're good at weight shifting you can easily cope with its handling. Good setups go a long way too. And don't try to rotate it more than necessary, it simply doesn't work.

Oh if you want the purest supercar experience, try the McLAren F1. No power steering/brake booster/ABS/TC/SC. Brilliant, smooth power in a package that actually handles it very well.

Last edited by Jamexing, Sat 28 Oct 2006, 07:21.

LFS has the best setup parameter input system of any sim I've seen so far. Just right click on the chosen parameter and type in your chosen number. Can't get easier or more ideal than this.

Quote from Gentlefoot :

I've never seen these shims - where are they located?

The shims I'm talking about apply to cars with double wishbones up front.

The camber and caster are adjusted by the number and the positioning of the shim plates. For instance, to increase negative camber with no castor change, simply add more shim plates front and back. To increase positive caster, simply add a shim plae to the rear. The whole idea is to move the positioning of the upper wishbone around.

Last edited by Jamexing, Fri 27 Oct 2006, 16:40.

The basic idea here isn't wrong, just needs some refinements. For instance, the tilt angles should be less extreme so you don't feel as if the world has suddenly tilted around. And how much the head turns left or right should be somewhat correlated with the steering angle as well, since IRL we tend to naturally steer towards where we look at and want to turn to. This allows us to look where we want to look whilst driving.

Quote from Bob Smith :

Yep, but no car has body lift in LFS yet, so spoilers (like on FXO) are purely visual atm.
i.e. it's not lift that causes any handling issues with the RaceAbout

True and I've been aware of that for a long time, but good point anyway. It shows that aero still very simplistic and by the way the current downforce cars are, it even more obviously laid out.

I believe I've explained this already, but more caster isn't always better. Sure it does have the advantage of improving self centering and helping to plant the front tire more evenly onto the ground. But it also adds steering effort and too much of it could cause result in a twitchy car. IRL, large amounts of castor would require power steering since the the steering effort required over a long race is simply excessive. As the saying goes in racecar engineering circles:

"Yes, your front end geometry plants the tires like crazy, but what for if no-one can drive it for more than 15 minutes without calling it a pig?"

Again, there are cases where less caster is a good thing. For instance, drifters don't need much self centering or feel. In fact, it makes the car a bit more predictable whilst the steering is turned as the tire to road contact angles don't change as drastically. Lower steering effort helps them to turn the steering faster too.

What I'm suggesting here is to restore levels of adjustments that you could achieve,such as with some OEM or aftermarket shim plates. This would allow drivers to make subtle tweaks to caster to suit the application and their driving. And I definitely do not approve of crazy adjustments such a from 5 degrees to 15 degrees (like in the S1 days).

So in the end, it's not simply a manner of just setting caster to max. It just isn't that simple.

Last edited by Jamexing, Fri 27 Oct 2006, 12:45.

It's actually a good idea, since it tries to simulate what a driver does IRL anyway.

+1

Quote from Woz :

NOOOO. Please no downforce on the RA This is what makes the car a pure joy.

The RA does not have a wing IRL but then you push the car harder and have slower feedback than IRL as well.

You obviously missed my point. My suggestion was to add a subtle wing to the car that one would realistically do to eliminate rear axle lift and add some TINY downforce at high speeds (such as 160+kph) for a touch of stability. And also to show that high speed capability + significant rear end lift (fundamentally bad body aero design) = inevitable disaster. Hence the old AUDI TTs. If the car had practically no lift or minute amounts of downforce, it obviously doesn't need a spoiler.

The Koenisegg CCX is a completely different story though. Well, if the stig (Top Gear's Test Driver) could crash it on the track, then it's definitely ridiculously overpowered for its available rear grip. It's a car so unstable without rear downforce at the absolute limit that elite drivers guys would struggle with it.

Of course, if the real RA has no spoiler, then we shouldn't have one too.

Quote from Hyperactive :

But it really isn't about making the car totally different with proper/bad setup. The RA feels like RA whatever you do to it.It still has that driving on the edge of knife feeling whatever you do to it, sure it can be adjusted to more user friendlier but imho it doesn't change its true character. Which is basically a pushy, snappy car with great slow speed handling abilities and almost completely missing high speed stability abilities.

As the cars are in 99% of cases set up as race cars, they usually end up feeling like race cars but imho there is defenately the distinctive feel in every one of them which makes everyone enough different. I'm sure that some real cars "can be made to wallow all over the place or have concrete suspension and get air over pebbles" if you put some effort into it. And even faitly similar cars, like XRG, XRT and LX4, LX6 feel different enough, each with their own characterics.

The RA reminds me of the Koenisegg CCX. Always needed more downforce at high speed. Just wish they add just a touch of rear downforce to it at the nex tphysics update, because currently even though it is still drivable (even with kb!), it's definitely too unstable at high speeds to be truely road legal. Remeber the unstable AUDI TTs that crash thanks to a less than well-behaved rear end?

Thing is, adjustability is a great thing for LFS. That goes a long way to eliminating the need to add new cars that belong to the same category.

Quote from Hyperactive :

But I guess it boils down to being adult and being able to handle hard topics without the need of insults. Basically it is letting some things posted on some forum to get under your skin if you need insults to make a point. Getting personal is hardly ever necessary if you are still talking about the original subject.

Hyperactive, I actually agree with you on this 100%.

Quote from Hyperactive :

Yes, it was quite hard to launch on 1st gear but with proper throttle control you could do it, and it was pretty nice once you got it right. It defenately wasn't impossible. But using the handbrake as a TC system? I'm sure using keyboard as controls certainly doesn't help.

Well, I did try launching it with seering and pedal setup (albeit a prmitive 2 pedalled one), and yes, if you squeeze the thtotle the right way it could be done. However, the handbrake method is:

1. Amazingly easy;
2. Very effective.

You could replicate almost perfect launches with machine like precision (given default or lower gearing of course). It practically guarantees nice launches. The real trick is to get the handbrake release timing and actuation level right. This is basically human TC.

Reminds me of the old trick us off-roaders use to improve effectiveness of the rear LSD when needed (not very often if the LSD is a good one).

Quote from xaotik :

Well, I would assume that making a change to such a steering angle would also imply all the changes they'd have to do to accommodate - unless racecar designers and mechanics are total idiots.

No, they are definitely not.

It's a little thing called I don't need to resort to personal insults often, trist.

And the part about Mercs. Seesh, no need to go so wacky! I've got categories of cars that I don't favour too, but at least I give them the benefit of the doubt and see them for what they are, not what one thinks they must be. I don't really like Mercs that much, but they do have their strengths. Need I mention that AUDIs and BMWs use multilinks too? I bet my the great tristan would categorise AUDIs and BMWs as crap in one giant sweep too. I wonder if you're smart enough to know what kind of hornet's nest you're dealing with by insulting lots of AUDI and BMW enthusiasts in one sweep too. When was the last time anyone said multilink reared BMWs handle like crap anyway?

Conclusion: based on tristan's amazing and incomprehensibly brilliant intellect, all cars with multilinks are crappy no quality hacks that handle like crap.

And yes, I do understand stupidity. It's called the guy who can't resist calling all others stupid.

Wow! He's just called me an idiot! Thanks to the great tristan, my knowledge of insults grows at an exponetial rate!

Quote from Hyperactive :

Kev Becky
Tristan Jamexing
Jakg every male on lfsforum
Vendetta everyone except Jakg


---
Jamexing, no one is saying that your suggestions are bad, they really aren't. What some people find a bit frustrating is that you keep bringing them up all the time (there is basically nothing wrong with that either). What people don't like is that you suggest these things as new ideas, something revolutionary when they actually have been noted and discussed many times already. There are things in LFS which have been quite wrong a long time, like the damage model with flying cars, unrealistic clutch modelling and non-rewindable replays. I rate these higher than adding some new suspension models or improving the turbo modeling (which isn't totally off).

I'm sure that you agree that before you start adding lots of different stuff into LFS you need to have the basics in good condition. There is no reason to add multilink suspensions or active differentials when the clutchpacks and dampers are so basic.

And it is kind of obvious that stuff like multilink suspensions and stuff like that will be in LFS some day. Turbos, 4 wheel drive drivetrain and such will improve a LFS improves. Don't take this as a rant. I'm not trying to school you.

Wow, you've got quite a sense of humour. Good on you! You do have very good points too.

Well, I've not tried to say that anything suggested in this thread is super revolutionary, though some do get the wrong idea and think otherwise. I apologize if people are getting the wrong idea here.

Active diffs are on the agenda in the long run obviously, but for now I just wish they make the clutch pack better. The only thing that's lacking is the preload, though it's possible that this will be corrected soon. Well, there's already the absurd locked diff anyway (effectively infinite preload).

Well, the real point of this thread is only to discuss the revival of castor settings for the road cars. Something like 2-8 degrees postive castor adjusment range, not the absurd levels we used to have back in S1 (more than 10 degrees negative/positive of castor! Wow).

Why castor? Well, castor is a very interesting variable. Theoretically, the camber gain is good for front end grip. In reality, too much can lead to twitchy handling as the front end tire contact angles change too drastically with steering angle change. In the end, it's the driver that actually decides how much castor he/she can take.

I remember there was already some thread related to flying cars syndrome, though I also remember that me and quite a few here agreed that the only solution is to at least apply some sort of simple damping (energy absorbing) physics.

Last edited by Jamexing, Thu 26 Oct 2006, 11:53.

Quote from xaotik :

Yeah, I get what you're saying - but what I mean is that it won't make you faster, even if someone catches a crazy angled drift (by whatever means - either due to skill, ridiculously large max lock angle, a natural 20 on his Luck roll) by the time he's back to racing speed it'll be too late.

For someone to actually use 45 degrees max lock then it means that they'll be anticipating multiple huge drifts in their driving, which essentially means that in racing they won't be competitive. (or that they'll be doing parallel parking in very busy areas)

Also, IRL racing it's possible that such steering systems aren't used because they likely weigh more (?) and they don't provide any benefit but only for drivers that make mistakes continuously - and that is debatable too. Not to mention, as said above, it would be twitchy as hell.

Practically, the real reasons are as simple as lack of fender/wheel well space.

Try getting those 280mm wide slicks to turn 45 degrees without any rub.

All this applies to close wheeled cars, of course.

Quote from tristancliffe :

I've been around LFS and racing sims a long time, and you really are the stupidest person I've yet to meet, and you even persist in flaunting your lack of mental beans all over the place.

1. LFS is a quality simulation, but not perfect, and is a WIP. When you realise this you'll understand that the lack of multilink suspension systems does not make it any less of a 'simulation'. For you simulation seems to mean having all real life stuff in it, whereas for most of us it's merely a realistic representation. I doubt you (on keyboard, snig ger [damn auto censoring]) would notice the difference between the sliding pillar type suspension we have now on the back of some cars to multiplink suspension systems anyway.

2. You bet Scawen might be working on it right now?? Based on what? Something one of your turds told you? I'd bet Scawen ISN'T working on them now - there is nothing wrong with the current simulation of suspension apart from lacking a few specific types, so Scawen won't be doing much to it prior to S2 Final. If you are very lucky Scawen might do it, but to suggest he's working on it as a matter of priority (when it ISN'T a matter of priority) is just silly.

You get a hunch people don't want ultra realistic vehicle physics? Again, you are the daftest person I've met in racing sims yet! The whole fecking reason we all play LFS is because it's currently the most realistic racing simulation. We all want every aspect of real life to one day be simulated, with a few carefully chosen concessions made for playability and fun. To even think that 'people' aren't ready for it just marks you out as a fool.

I've told you to shut up until you come up with something useful, but you ignored me. If I ask you again, will you please keep your cake hole (or texty fingers) quiet until you have anything useful to say. Thanks. And no, moaning for the umpteenth time about dynamic toe, multi-link suspension, turbo lag or any of the other things on your stuck record does not count as new. And then you have the habit of posting something, pretending to be high and mighty and clever, but never actually telling us anything useful.

James's Technical Insight into Multilink Suspension: Lots of cars have it, from Mazdas to Evos. Great work mate, know I know why LFS should have multilink suspension, and the pro and cons of it - because some econoboxes have it, whooooo

Geez, when was the last time I called you stupid or "lacking of mental beans" even when I knew you were sometimes quite wrong about something? I was right all along in assuming that you DO have some personal agenda against me. And did you read the just a hunch part? The hunch was based on the fact that some people here are already complaining that the current simulation (great for its given limitations) is already making cars too complicated to set up.

Oh, you forgot to notice that even expensive European luxury and sports cars from Mercedes use multilinks too.

And what's wrong with a paying customer wishing that the product will get better physics wise? Why do I suddenly need to believe you're right just becasye you said so? And what if Scawen is working hard on physics as well as all the other stuff as we speak? Is it wrong to wish so? Well remember the tire modelling enhancements that came with patch S/T/U and the BF1 (the pleasant surprise)? What's wrong with thinking that the developers might have some goodies waiting for us or are already working on it?

Now who's the guy who has the personal agenda here? Improve physics simulation would make a lot of people and especially the physics guys happy (trust me, there are a lot of us who bougfht LFS for the physics) as well. Or do you have something against a lot of my fellow automotive engineering guys too?

Trist, why do I think that your current hostility against me has everything to do with the fact that I've mentioned a few RL machines with multilink suspensions? Oh, sorry I hurt your little feelings for proving you're not absolutely right on the road car bump steer issue.

And have I called anyone a fool here? Seesh.

Last edited by Jamexing, Thu 26 Oct 2006, 09:11.

Quote from Shotglass :

as far as setups go theres no point in having the change one setting influence all others i for one dont want to jump around between differnt parts of the setup screen all the time to check if my toe settings are still correct
its a very good simplification on how you set your car up ... irl you will also set it to have a certain toe you wont set it up so the steering link has a certain length
plus in lfs you dont have the 3d image of the suspension right before your eyes and if you did it would be 2d model of it ... it would be much harder to get a feel for which arm length results in which setup parameter change

as far as toe changing with spring deflection is concerned the lfs suspension model apears to be stricly two dimensional in the lateral plane
but iirc scawen wanted to add proper trailing arms so he will be forced to switch to a 3d model which will probably also include steering geometry



have you ever looked at the shift-l view ?
all srpings currently attach directly to the end og the suspension arms which for mc phersons is generally completely correct and more or less possible for double wishbones as well
plus is saves a lot of resources and leads to a simpler damage model

and even if scawen were to add another connection point to attach the springs to personally id prefer if the shown values were still wheel rates since its the value youre interested in anyway

I was simply contrasting real world vs idealized LFS universe on the wheel rate stuff.

Multilinks are so common these days and show up in cars form Mazda MP3s to Mitsubishi Lancer Evolutions to Mercedes S Class. If LFS is to continue to be a physics benchmark and provide an example for other racing sims, these things are unavoidable. I bet Scawen might be already working on proper 3D suspension as we speak.

Unless of course you don't mind LFS going the way of NFS. How I have fond memories of older NFS heading to the laws of physics as well as they could in their time. Remember the original NFS that was made with R&T? Or even NFS:PU that utilized 4 point physics (a simplified version of S1 physics in an attempt to err on the side of realism) but went bankrupt as arcadiness increasingly dominated the gaming scene?

I get a feeling that a lot here aren't quite ready for ultra-realistic vehicle physics yet. Just a hunch.

Last edited by Jamexing, Thu 26 Oct 2006, 07:33.

When was the last time this happened:

Gamer tires demo. Demo was crap.

Oh, wait, I know , lets get the real thing!

If someone actually bought a game because the demo was crap, please feel free to downgrade the demo to who knows what.