Problem is, there's no ABS in LFS. 
And if you bother to learn more about your car, you'll learn that even your little econoboxes have quite a few interesting and adjustable parameters OEM.
Like the wheel alignments. And better springs and dampers or rollbars are just a few grand away.
You'll be surprised what the aftermarket can do to dramatically improve suspension performance with just 5000AUD these days.
And if you bother to learn more about your car, you'll learn that even your little econoboxes have quite a few interesting and adjustable parameters OEM.
Like the wheel alignments. And better springs and dampers or rollbars are just a few grand away. You'll be surprised what the aftermarket can do to dramatically improve suspension performance with just 5000AUD these days.
True, and I believe most of us already know things such as the fact that LFS acts on wheels rates instead of actual spring rates, which require knowledge of the motion ratios of each suspension system to calculate the desired wheel rate. Well, it's pretty obvious that there's already a difference between camber settings and the "true" (live) camber.
As for dynamic camber, it's already there. LFS suspensions already have realistic levels of camber recovery anyway. And like real life, lowering a car increases negative camber and vice-versa due to the inherent camber recovery built into the suspension. Note I say camber recovery instead of the the more usual term "camber gain" because IRL, most independant suspensions simply do not display perfect geometry due to a variety of reasons. For instance, one could design perfect camber recovery to the front suspension to keep front tires really square on the road, but that could compromise braking performance by allowing the tires to gain too much negative camber under braking. 
In some cars such as the pendulum rear end porsches, toe in under squat is actually a great thing as it helps keep the rear in check, especially on corner exit. And last time I checked, the Subaru Sti's rear wheels toed in pretty obviously if you lower it with no alignmnet changes, but toes out if lifted. More toe out as the driver enters the turn under trail braking for better turn in, more toe in as weight shifts aft and the rear squats to keep the rear in check for nice and stable exits.
Well, if vehicle dynamics wasn't this complicaed and fascinating, I wouldn't be bothered with all the physics suggestions I've mentioned so far.
As for dynamic camber, it's already there. LFS suspensions already have realistic levels of camber recovery anyway. And like real life, lowering a car increases negative camber and vice-versa due to the inherent camber recovery built into the suspension. Note I say camber recovery instead of the the more usual term "camber gain" because IRL, most independant suspensions simply do not display perfect geometry due to a variety of reasons. For instance, one could design perfect camber recovery to the front suspension to keep front tires really square on the road
, but that could compromise braking performance by allowing the tires to gain too much negative camber under braking. In some cars such as the pendulum rear end porsches, toe in under squat is actually a great thing as it helps keep the rear in check, especially on corner exit. And last time I checked, the Subaru Sti's rear wheels toed in pretty obviously if you lower it with no alignmnet changes, but toes out if lifted. More toe out as the driver enters the turn under trail braking for better turn in, more toe in as weight shifts aft and the rear squats to keep the rear in check for nice and stable exits.
Well, if vehicle dynamics wasn't this complicaed and fascinating, I wouldn't be bothered with all the physics suggestions I've mentioned so far.
Last edited by Jamexing, .
The link with ride height with on angle is dynamic toe and is something that I've mentioned for quite a while. It happens to the front suspensions of many IFS cars simply because the geometry of the steering arm doesn't quite match that of the wishbones or links.
The interlink between ride height and camber is the dynamic camber that brought LFS S2 a HUGE leap ahead of the oversimplified S1 suspension. Dynamic toe as the result of steering arm geometry and toe links from multilinks is just as important and will drastically improve realism when implemented as well as the current camber dynamics. It also happens at the rear suspension for cars with rear toe links.
And yes, Gimpster, your assesement of the oversimplified nature of curent LFS suspension is very true. It's gone a long way, but there's still some way to go. Anti/prodive and anti/prosquat geometry are still unsimulated. Of course there's stuff like suspension subframe and bushing compliance, but that gets really computationally intensive. I just wish they finish the traling arms, dynamic toe and multilinks before we get to beta or S2 final.
Good point, though driving a RL LX style car on the street isn't such a brillaint idea anyway. Of course, there's always the Volvo 240 for a view at the extreme end of OEM steering lock.
In case you're wondering, I wasn't quite 100% in agreement with Lajoosh, but it's rather interesting to observe that someone actually bothers to post something THAT defiant.
And FYI, I've been running LFS since the S1 days so don't tell me about long term racer crap. If anyone cares about LFS from a car physics and setup point of view, I do. Hence all the posts about the related stuff.
And who was the first guy to use such obscene statements as shut up or that kind of crap on a fellow forum member? Me or you trist? Jeez. And the almighty tristan hasn't come up with anything really good anyway besides his same old opinions anyway. And at least I'm bother to emphasize the importance of physics to a sim like LFS. How many new improvement ideas have you come up with in the past month, trist? By last count, I think the number is closer to ZERO.
And who's calling who moron here? Notice that I've not managed to call anyone a moron or tell them to shut up no matter what.
Hey, wait a minute, why do I bother with someone like tristan anyway?
Anyway, I'm happy as long as steering angle doesn't fall below the current level, fine. Any less would make the road cars turn hideously and unrealistically large turning circles. If some want 45 degrees, fine, but I won't agree with anything more. Those crazy angles seen on the 86 posted just now aren't doable without massive alignmnet changes such as scrub radius, fender trims or even cuts and massive changes of steering geometry. The list of mods goes on, but then again most here don't seem to care about all the important and "dull" techincal details.
As far as I'm concerned, gear ratios should defined by numerical fractions and the brake force setting should be removed, since you can't just walk up to your race car and magically readjust maximum brake force. Of course there's the old trick of placing a tennis ball or so under the brake pedal to limit travel and brakeforce, but that's irrelevant. Might as well let racers choose between predefined brake packages for different terrain (e.g. tarmac and rallycross/rally package like RL). Brake proportioning should remain, since a brake bias adjustment is a routine feature of so many track cars.
What escapes me is how this thread is in the "Improvement Suggestions" section of this forum. Anyway, the demo is fine as it is, no need to add or remove anything. As AndroidXP has already said, when was the last time a reduction in demo content and quality actually made people happier and positively encouraged them to buy thewhole thing? And if the demo was an absolute pile of crap to begin with, most LFS racers won't even bother to have a second look.
Hope this much is clear to all.
Hope this much is clear to all.
Lajoosh, I'm no drifter myslef but you're the MAN! Glad when someone here has the courage to defy the elitist asshats that rule this forum. 
I'm so sick and tired of these jerks with their pseudo real arguments and knuckleheaded attitudes to anyone and anything that differs from their point of view. We're (S2 licensed) all paying customers here, so who has the right to get any of use the GET THE **** OFF or SHUT UP? NO ONE, THAT'S WHO!
Power to the underdogs!
I'm so sick and tired of these jerks with their pseudo real arguments and knuckleheaded attitudes to anyone and anything that differs from their point of view. We're (S2 licensed) all paying customers here, so who has the right to get any of use the GET THE **** OFF or SHUT UP? NO ONE, THAT'S WHO!
Power to the underdogs!
The only problem is, castor settings are very much adjustable in real life, only not to such an extreme level as S1. That's what I'm trying to say here, though some still don't seem to get the message at all.
For instance, even a Nissan Patrol can easily have its castor angle adjusted by up to 2-3 degrees with just a set of replacement castor bushes. In fact, these adjustments are pretty routine.
Well, for 2nd generation Pajeros, castor and camber settings are changable with a set of shim plates. Castor can be adjusted by as much as plus or minus 2.5 degrees (5 degrees total adjsutment range) with the use of factory approved shim plates.
I could go on and maybe even add some specs for the Mitsubishi Starion (the car which XR GTT was based on). The fact is, camber and castor are routine parameters that are inspected and possibly readjusted on every alignment check. I'm asking for the option of reasonable adjustments one could easily achieve without drastic alterations to the car's steering system, not the revival of the silly S1 levels of adjustment.
Hope this clearifies the whole point of this thread.
For instance, even a Nissan Patrol can easily have its castor angle adjusted by up to 2-3 degrees with just a set of replacement castor bushes. In fact, these adjustments are pretty routine.
Well, for 2nd generation Pajeros, castor and camber settings are changable with a set of shim plates. Castor can be adjusted by as much as plus or minus 2.5 degrees (5 degrees total adjsutment range) with the use of factory approved shim plates.
I could go on and maybe even add some specs for the Mitsubishi Starion (the car which XR GTT was based on). The fact is, camber and castor are routine parameters that are inspected and possibly readjusted on every alignment check. I'm asking for the option of reasonable adjustments one could easily achieve without drastic alterations to the car's steering system, not the revival of the silly S1 levels of adjustment.
Hope this clearifies the whole point of this thread.
Last edited by Jamexing, .
Restore caster angle settings for road cars
One thing that I've found really odd so far is the lack of castor settings for road cars in LFS. This is odd considering that lack of castor settings doesn't improve realism in the slightest bit.
IRL, the castor settings of every car I've seen so far are adjustable to some degree. Not quite as extreme as the race cars, but still some small but significant changes nonetheless. Otherwise, how are we supposed to correct the alignments of our real cars?
I've just opened a poll on this and I'll like to know the serious and honest opinions of the LFS community.
IRL, the castor settings of every car I've seen so far are adjustable to some degree. Not quite as extreme as the race cars, but still some small but significant changes nonetheless. Otherwise, how are we supposed to correct the alignments of our real cars?
I've just opened a poll on this and I'll like to know the serious and honest opinions of the LFS community.
Last edited by Jamexing, .
If you think BL2 is good, you should really try a few runs in RBR at Monte Carlo. 2 long tarmac straights and a couple of dirt corners with a few jumps and bumps don't make for terribly exciting rallycrossing, unless of course one has no prior rallying experience and think that's sufficiently so.
Better yet, go do the real thing on RL gravel. Then you'll understand why LFS's rallycross leave a LOT to be desired (and why the servers are non-existant/empty).
The only existing rallycross circuits of ANY real good are the fern bay examples, though they are still too tarmac biased. There's simply NOWHERE in LFS to use the knobbly tires at all. The knobblys are supposed to dominate the non tarmac surfaces, but there's no rallycross circuit now that's heavily gravel and dirt biased. Nowhere to prove their worth.
Yes, contrary to popular belief, I DO READ and UNDERSTAND posts. I knew you implied some sort of split, but you weren't too clear about it (aka didn't bother to specify the name and members of each separate class).
Why bother with 2 cars with only the availability of forced induction as a differentiator? Supercharging isn't so poplular in circuit and rally racing for various reasons. Although a direct cupling or even a variable ratio coupled supercharger seems to be a great idea, all those gears and belts and the space and complexity and weight of the whole package make it less than brilliant. You're better off with variable turbine geometry turbos.
Anyway, it simply makes things more unnecessarily complicated in LFS.
Well, IRL, flat shifting with a button clutch with no form of power cut on upshift is a recipe for disaster. That's why drivetrain damage isn't quite so doable as long as button clutches still remain. In that case we're better off choosing between a proper analogue clutch and the autoclutch. All this is irrelevant to the BF1, of course. It's just better to keep things consistant than to poke new thing in before things are ready to support them. Avoids a lot of frustration.
Damage on over revving needs well definbed regions of safe and damaging revs. This would go a long wasy to curbing ridiculous gearbox settings. On engine braking, unless downshifting occurs ridiculously early and ends up overreving the poor thing, there shouldn't be any. I hear so many urban myths about engine braking, but EVERY case of "engine braking related" damage case I've seen so far involves abusive behavior such as banging a car from 4th to 1st. It's also amazing that over 90% of the current driving population simply does not understand the need to blip the engine to the proper revs before letting go of the clutch on downshifts. No wonder the engines get so abused. And premature overhauls do a great job of filling mechanics' pockets. Simply going easier on the throttle whilst going downhill isn't supposed to damage a well maintained engine at all.
As for the physics model, don't overblow it. It's better than at least 99% of what's possibly available, but its far from complete. The aero model is definitely unfinished, and there's no way to reasonably deny that. At least the tire model has been cleaned up a lot, but the suspensions are definitely not finished. Lack of dynamic toe, multilinks, live axles, proper trailing arms, antidive/squat geometry... The list goes on. And all these things have massive bearings on a car's dynamic behavior.
If LFS was just another product meant to be sold like GT4 (aka sorry excuse for a sim), then the current physics is fine as long as some numerical tweaks are made. That's simply not the case, otherwise the developers won't be working on LFS at all right now and simply try to sell it like GTR2 and retire to lives of luxury. We should all be glad that LFS's developer don't quite run such an MO.
Damage on over revving needs well definbed regions of safe and damaging revs. This would go a long wasy to curbing ridiculous gearbox settings. On engine braking, unless downshifting occurs ridiculously early and ends up overreving the poor thing, there shouldn't be any. I hear so many urban myths about engine braking, but EVERY case of "engine braking related" damage case I've seen so far involves abusive behavior such as banging a car from 4th to 1st. It's also amazing that over 90% of the current driving population simply does not understand the need to blip the engine to the proper revs before letting go of the clutch on downshifts. No wonder the engines get so abused. And premature overhauls do a great job of filling mechanics' pockets.
Simply going easier on the throttle whilst going downhill isn't supposed to damage a well maintained engine at all. As for the physics model, don't overblow it. It's better than at least 99% of what's possibly available, but its far from complete. The aero model is definitely unfinished, and there's no way to reasonably deny that. At least the tire model has been cleaned up a lot, but the suspensions are definitely not finished. Lack of dynamic toe, multilinks, live axles, proper trailing arms, antidive/squat geometry... The list goes on. And all these things have massive bearings on a car's dynamic behavior.
If LFS was just another product meant to be sold like GT4 (aka sorry excuse for a sim), then the current physics is fine as long as some numerical tweaks are made. That's simply not the case, otherwise the developers won't be working on LFS at all right now and simply try to sell it like GTR2 and retire to lives of luxury. We should all be glad that LFS's developer don't quite run such an MO.
Last edited by Jamexing, .
Seriously, WHY does the FZR need ay more power and more speed? it's already ridiculously fast for its class. The GTR class is currently just as ridiculously unbalanced as the TBO class, so there's simply no good logic in this, unless you're planning to speed up the other cars somehow to compensate.
And I don't see the point of having TWO 4WD GTR. The RAC GTR is a great idea since LFS completely lacks Mid-engined race cars which ironically are the dominant cars in so many forms of mototsport.
And forget the LX6. Get the LX8, give it 350hp, 700kg of weight, wide slicks and an aero package to match.
The current damage model does leave a lot to be desired, but the fact of the matter is that the physics, graphics and audio need much more attention right now.
Engine damage after collisions could be simplified to the amount of damage of the body for now. For instance, if a front engined car deforms too much to the point that it'll damage/destroy where the radiator/intercooler would reasonably be, it should suffer reduced power, progressive overheating or both. When deformation reaches certain predefined areas of teh engine bay, the engine would be considered destroyed/missing and the car should be rendered immobile. This shouldn't be too taxing on CPU time whilst adding a healthy dose of realism.
As for flying parts, that could wait till the graphics are much improved. And aero damage could wait until the aero model is much improved and close to finalization. Drivetrain damage could wait until problems like clutch implementation are sorted out.
Flying parts that lie around and broken windscreens would be nice, but first things first.
Engine damage after collisions could be simplified to the amount of damage of the body for now. For instance, if a front engined car deforms too much to the point that it'll damage/destroy where the radiator/intercooler would reasonably be, it should suffer reduced power, progressive overheating or both. When deformation reaches certain predefined areas of teh engine bay, the engine would be considered destroyed/missing and the car should be rendered immobile. This shouldn't be too taxing on CPU time whilst adding a healthy dose of realism.
As for flying parts, that could wait till the graphics are much improved. And aero damage could wait until the aero model is much improved and close to finalization. Drivetrain damage could wait until problems like clutch implementation are sorted out.
Flying parts that lie around and broken windscreens would be nice, but first things first.
Speaking of speed sensitive dampers, I've just thought of one one thing:
How about bypass shocks? Those used in off-road racing such as the Baja 1000 off-road racing trucks with as much as 36 inches of travel?
Well, a bypass shock is ubique in that they are position as well as speed sensitive. In essence, its damping behavior is dependant on not only how fast the damper piston moves, but also on the exact position of the piston. This is extremly useful especially for off-road racers taking sand dunes at 100+mph. Softer when the damper is more stretched to allow the wheels and tires to comply to the terrain more quickly, stiffer once the compression of the damper reaches certain thresholds to maintain chassis control.
The simplest bypass shocks 2 stages of action. In reality, sophisticated long travel units can as many as 3 different stiffnesses for 3 different travel regions. Just goes to show how advanced off-road suspension technology is these days.
Just wish the developers would add a proper rallycar in the near future. As for the off-road racers such as Baja and Dakar machines, I just wish they'll add those too somewhere down the line. With those vehicles and the real life dampers I've mentioned here, we can really show how the LFS physics engine really is.
For the time being, I just wish they'll implement speed sensitive and 4-way adjustable dampers in the next incompatible patch.
How about bypass shocks? Those used in off-road racing such as the Baja 1000 off-road racing trucks with as much as 36 inches of travel?
Well, a bypass shock is ubique in that they are position as well as speed sensitive. In essence, its damping behavior is dependant on not only how fast the damper piston moves, but also on the exact position of the piston. This is extremly useful especially for off-road racers taking sand dunes at 100+mph. Softer when the damper is more stretched to allow the wheels and tires to comply to the terrain more quickly, stiffer once the compression of the damper reaches certain thresholds to maintain chassis control.
The simplest bypass shocks 2 stages of action. In reality, sophisticated long travel units can as many as 3 different stiffnesses for 3 different travel regions. Just goes to show how advanced off-road suspension technology is these days.
Just wish the developers would add a proper rallycar in the near future. As for the off-road racers such as Baja and Dakar machines, I just wish they'll add those too somewhere down the line. With those vehicles and the real life dampers I've mentioned here, we can really show how the LFS physics engine really is.
For the time being, I just wish they'll implement speed sensitive and 4-way adjustable dampers in the next incompatible patch.
Anyway, I'm just sick and tired of so many people I see so often with horribly malinformed opinions about 4WDs such as Mitsubishi Pajeros, Nissan Patrols, Toyota Landcruisers etc. They should really get off the tarmac, stop sniffing petrol fumes and enjoy some of natures goodness with a 4WD.
Anyway, I meant outback as in Australian outback. Nice joke though, and it also goes to show that stationwagons are a silly substitute for real 4WDs. Subaru wagons were never known for decent trunk space anyway.
Wet tires use super soft compounds for more grip from their smaller effective contact patche while relying on the water to keep temperatures in check.
And no, a treadless tire in the wet is ALWAYS a bad idea. The real reason slicks hydroplane is beacuse of the film of water that forms between the tire and the tarmac, rendering that sticky compounds useless. Added to that fact that wide racing tires have such low contact pressures, there's simply not enough pressure to effectively have a sufficient area of the contact patch squeeze away the layer of water to achieve sufficient tire contact with the tarmac to maintain acceptable grip. That's why excessively wide tires without sufficiently deep and well designed treads struggle to avoid aquaplaining.
And no, a treadless tire in the wet is ALWAYS a bad idea. The real reason slicks hydroplane is beacuse of the film of water that forms between the tire and the tarmac, rendering that sticky compounds useless. Added to that fact that wide racing tires have such low contact pressures, there's simply not enough pressure to effectively have a sufficient area of the contact patch squeeze away the layer of water to achieve sufficient tire contact with the tarmac to maintain acceptable grip. That's why excessively wide tires without sufficiently deep and well designed treads struggle to avoid aquaplaining.
We are still in LFS S2 Alpha, and there are so much physics/graphics/audio stuff that's incomplete, so why the mad rush for S3?
The real questions now are when will we reach beta stage and S2 final.
The real questions now are when will we reach beta stage and S2 final.
Try surviving 10 minutes of outback corugations with that with a guy with multiple compound fractures in that car (if you could somehow fit him in, stretcher and all).
Better yet, try convincing the outback emergency services to replace their 75 series Landcruisers with that.
illepall Subaru stationwagons don't make good outback touring machines for trails with ANY level of real challenge. Lack of clearance, lack of suspension travel, lack of full size spare, less than rugged underbody, lack of real luggage space, lack of suitable wheels and tires and just general lack of practicality. And try fording that 500mm deep stream with that.
Obsecene? What's an "obscene tech"? Please clearify.
And what's wrong with requesting Torsens in the long run? They are getting remarkably common in so many cars worth owning anyway. Speaking of rare tech, isn't it time that multilink suspension gets a serious consideration in LFS? It's been so common for so long that it would be "obscene" to not include it in a racing SIMULATOR. And there are some existing cars in LFS that could benefit from multilink rears.
First, there's the challenge to find a real car with more than 36 degrees of lock. The when those cars turn out to be quite common (S13s aren't exactly rare or exotic, while RX-7s were Porsche 944 inspired FR cars), there's the excuse of it's "obscene". Well, I have fond memories of Volvo 240s with OBSCENE amouts of OEM steering lock. Hmmm...
A word of advice: go google search for Geoff Pickering's Pajero aka multitime class seven (minmially modified production cars) champion. I won't call a 300+hp, almost 2 tonne Pajero running at 200+kph on the Aussie red dust slow if I were you.
Group 7 cars are basically your production vehicles put through the usual racing mods. Stripped interiors, roll cages and some limited engine and suspension mods (mostly springs and dampers, bushings, etc). The suspension geometry must NOT be altered in any drastic way. And the winning Pajero I was talking about used slightly uprated springs front, OEM rate (but higher quality) springs rear and the usual donner shocks you'll expect a rally Pajero to have. The fronts used the same single shock layout as OEM, but the rears had some limited mods. The rears were double shocked by adding an extra shock mount to each of the rear multilink lower arms and the body's shock mounts. As for the engine, no turbochargers or any forced induction was used. Just a straight through exhaust, race cams, upgraded fuel pumps injectors and so on, no internal mods were allowed under that production class category. What's amazing is that the gearbox was stock and has so far only failed once.
Try doing the dakar rally with ANY of the existing LFS cars. No matter how you set them up, you'll be lucky to finish 10% of the rally raid. 4WDs are for people who understand that the earth is not flat (and have really important things to worry about such as saving stranded, injured and starving people stuck in the outback).
With the vastly improved tire physics currently used, I don't see why not, especially if it's provided with tires significantly wider than all other LX's. Slicks (R2, R3 and R4), of course.
Back in the old patch Q days when the FO8 was almost impossible to launch in 1st gear with the default gearing (strange LACK of longitudinal grip from such wide and spposedly sticky slick tires). Not without resorting to the "handbrake trick", which was basically using the handbrake as a brake based TC and letting the car lauch at full throttle with the handbrake on to control wheelspin. The trick was to let go of it at just the right moment for maximum acceleration.
Neither realistic nor fun. A slick tired, 345hp, 700kg LX8 with limited downforce would have presented a real challenge to the GTRs. Oh wait, they wanted to groom the FZR to completely dominate the GTR scene, not some glorified Lotus 7.
Still can't believe they killed it for the painfully slow UFs.
Hope it's somehow resurrected in the near future.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG