There's one way to simulate severe flatspots realistically without destroying the hardware. One is to oscillate the steering mildly, as happens IRL. The other effect is to vibrate the visual display the driver actually sees. In essence, it's looks as if someone is vibrating the monitor, but its not since its the graphics itself that's oscillating vertically.
Believe me, I do. This coming from a guy who drives RL cars with NO ABS.
Unfortunately Tristan, that's where modern car design and technology is heading these days.
E-type aka more looks then performance. Overhyped and underdelivering, like alfas. All looks and not as much go as claimed.
Well, at least a well tuned AE86 has a serious intimidation factor against cars many times its price.
Well, at least a well tuned AE86 has a serious intimidation factor against cars many times its price.
Last edited by Jamexing, .
Staggered setups aren't THAT uncommon these days. Besides, some cars are almost impossible to drive safely without wider rears, e.g. Corvette ZO6 (500+hp!).
Anyway, although the TBO cars are heavily based on road cars, the FXO tires are definitely non-standard. It's got HUGE fenders.
Yes, the OEM Starions or RX-7s had equal sizes all 4, but no one with serious track time in mind wouldn't upgrade to wider tires than OEM ASAP. Many if not all used on racetracks have slightly staggered sets IRL anyway, so it's not unrealistic.
Anyway, although the TBO cars are heavily based on road cars, the FXO tires are definitely non-standard. It's got HUGE fenders.
Yes, the OEM Starions or RX-7s had equal sizes all 4, but no one with serious track time in mind wouldn't upgrade to wider tires than OEM ASAP. Many if not all used on racetracks have slightly staggered sets IRL anyway, so it's not unrealistic.
I don't agree with no pitting as that might be too crippling for FXOs, which by itself is unfair too.
Road normals would reign the FXO in, not the optimal solution, but a good band-aid FTM. At least it'll stop TBO races from turning into invincible FXO affairs.
Road normals would reign the FXO in, not the optimal solution, but a good band-aid FTM. At least it'll stop TBO races from turning into invincible FXO affairs.
Good point, Blowtus.
Good points too, Gimpster. Just keep the FXO as it is and tune up the other 2 cars JUST enough to maintain competitive racing.
Not trying to be repetitive, but it's been years and it's about time they fix the turbo modeliing and powerbands. These 2 things aren't eye-candy or anything that trivial, they're fundamental physics that a sim like LFS is supposed to simulate. We can only hope that Scawen has already fixed the problem in secret and waiting to surprise us with the next patch...
Good points too, Gimpster. Just keep the FXO as it is and tune up the other 2 cars JUST enough to maintain competitive racing.
Not trying to be repetitive, but it's been years and it's about time they fix the turbo modeliing and powerbands. These 2 things aren't eye-candy or anything that trivial, they're fundamental physics that a sim like LFS is supposed to simulate. We can only hope that Scawen has already fixed the problem in secret and waiting to surprise us with the next patch...
Last edited by Jamexing, .
That's one way to slow them down, though we'll end up with FXO drivers complaining about such a ridiculously artificial rule. Unless road supers disappear from the FXO's tire inventory, which in itself isn't entirely fair since road normals are crap at racing temperatures. Well, at least that'll force FXO drivers to watch their front tires like RL FWD racers. 
A reasonable upgrade of the RB4 and XR GTT's tires isn't TOO much to ask for, is it? While FXOs don't suffer excessive front tire wear if driven properly, the poor RB4 suffers overheated tires at all 4 corners of pushed hard enough to have any chance of catching an FXO in a straight race. Frankly, RB4 just needs a slight upgrade to remedy this, no need for ridiculous FXO sized meats. just enough to survivie full speed racing without melting its tires without resorting to 40+psi pressures. This compared with the fact that you can race the FXO at full speed without excess tire wear at only 38psi! Wow.
Something like 225/45/16 isn't ridiculously large for a road car like RB4 used on the track. I bet RL 90s Celica GT4s use 225/45/16s as an optimal upgrade size too. This is nowhere as OTT (over the top) as FXO.
Anyway, what Sp3cTr3 suggested is a great band-aid for now.
A reasonable upgrade of the RB4 and XR GTT's tires isn't TOO much to ask for, is it? While FXOs don't suffer excessive front tire wear if driven properly, the poor RB4 suffers overheated tires at all 4 corners of pushed hard enough to have any chance of catching an FXO in a straight race. Frankly, RB4 just needs a slight upgrade to remedy this, no need for ridiculous FXO sized meats. just enough to survivie full speed racing without melting its tires without resorting to 40+psi pressures. This compared with the fact that you can race the FXO at full speed without excess tire wear at only 38psi! Wow.
Something like 225/45/16 isn't ridiculously large for a road car like RB4 used on the track. I bet RL 90s Celica GT4s use 225/45/16s as an optimal upgrade size too. This is nowhere as OTT (over the top) as FXO.
Anyway, what Sp3cTr3 suggested is a great band-aid for now.
Last edited by Jamexing, .
Why the need for fancy graphics when F9 and F10 provide much more precise lateral and longitudinal g info then those graphical wastes of space? If there's one last thing to ask for , it's a vertical g numerical display too.
The RB4 only LOOKS like the 80's Celica GT4. It's suspension is way superior to that car. The RB4 has a great Mcpherson strut all-round suspension, whereas the 80's GT4 had decent struts up front but absolutely horrid rear trailing links that walked laterally in response to lateral forces.
At least the XR GTT is a very close copy of the Mitsubishi Starion, both appearance and suspension wise. Just hope it gets a powerband close to the RL 80's car. And I agree the that road cars should be given finite gear ratio choices, though 2-way adjustable dampers are perfectly resonable for anyone planning to drive road based cars on the track.
To be rasonable, the FXO is definitely non-standard as it's tires are HUGE and so are its massive fenders. Yes, that the OEM tire package is absolute crap, typical of toyota. Well, my friend's 191hp corolla has horrid 195/55/16s all seasons as OEM, and they struggle to contain 191 horses. Doesn't mean that such a car should be FORCED to wear those horrid boots to a track event. In fact, its optimal size is 215/45/17, something well known to those who tune it.
To level the playing field, let's just increase the RB4s tires as much as what you would realistically do for such a car. Notice that the 90's GT4 had less power but MUCH MORE top speed then the lighter RB4! As I've said, there's something very wrong with the Rb4's aero ATM. 215 to 225 shouldn't be a problem. It's not as if I'm trying to stuff FXO sized meatloafs to the RB4.
At least the XR GTT is a very close copy of the Mitsubishi Starion, both appearance and suspension wise. Just hope it gets a powerband close to the RL 80's car. And I agree the that road cars should be given finite gear ratio choices, though 2-way adjustable dampers are perfectly resonable for anyone planning to drive road based cars on the track.
To be rasonable, the FXO is definitely non-standard as it's tires are HUGE and so are its massive fenders. Yes, that the OEM tire package is absolute crap, typical of toyota. Well, my friend's 191hp corolla has horrid 195/55/16s all seasons as OEM, and they struggle to contain 191 horses. Doesn't mean that such a car should be FORCED to wear those horrid boots to a track event. In fact, its optimal size is 215/45/17, something well known to those who tune it.
To level the playing field, let's just increase the RB4s tires as much as what you would realistically do for such a car. Notice that the 90's GT4 had less power but MUCH MORE top speed then the lighter RB4! As I've said, there's something very wrong with the Rb4's aero ATM. 215 to 225 shouldn't be a problem. It's not as if I'm trying to stuff FXO sized meatloafs to the RB4.
Great, let's kill the RB4 and XR GTT and put them out of their misery. Or we can just open a new class called the FXO class and kill this thread ASAP.
Just wish they make RB4 and XR GTT as good as they realistically should be. Can't believe the RB4 has such puny tires. 215/45/16s? Even my friend's Corrolla comfortably fits 215/45/17s as the optimal size and it's supposedly nowhere close to the RB4's league! Wow. I agree that the TBO class would be much more fun if FXO wasn't slowed down and that all the corrections I suggested in a previous thread of mine (Severe 4WD defeciency in LFS). We're better off fun and realism wise if the RB4 and XR GTT get the powerbands they deserve. They could use slightly better tires. For instance, the RB4 could use a decent set of 225/45/16 for starters instead of the current sorry excuses for RB4 tires. My, even my 80's Mitsubishi needs 205s to ge the most out of the chassis without chassis mods.
Since these improvements don't seem to be coming any soon, we can only dream. BTW, 240 width tires for a car like FXO is just HUMUNGOUS. The FXO's nowhere as large or heavy as a Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution, yet its tires are even WIDER than the Evo (235/45/17)! Just shows how much the developers were trying to overcompensate for FWD deficiencies.
FTM, dropping the FXo's tire size to the current RB4 size should do the trick. A quick band-aid until LFS S2 is closer to completion.
I'm all for competitive racing of different drivetrains and engine layouts within a supposed class, but ATM I'm not entirely happy with slowing any car down too much. IRL, racing has already been strangled by too much rule making and forced mediocrity. FYI, Nascar is already regulating the number of coils, wire diameter, etc specs of their springs! Madness.
My point is, fix the problems of what makes the slow cars unrealistically slow before anything too drastic is done to slow anyone down. Anyone who's driven cars with similar power to weight ratios to XR GTT and RB4 would agree that RL equivalents of such cars are a tad faster. ATM, lets just use optional ballasts for the GTR class while narrowing the tires of the FXO to RB4 widths to level the playing field. After turbo modelling, powerbands and aero are properly done, then we can really balance the cars properly without resorting to artificial means.
My point is, fix the problems of what makes the slow cars unrealistically slow before anything too drastic is done to slow anyone down. Anyone who's driven cars with similar power to weight ratios to XR GTT and RB4 would agree that RL equivalents of such cars are a tad faster. ATM, lets just use optional ballasts for the GTR class while narrowing the tires of the FXO to RB4 widths to level the playing field. After turbo modelling, powerbands and aero are properly done, then we can really balance the cars properly without resorting to artificial means.
Not to mention FXO vs RB4 wheels. The RB4 wheel/tire sizes are 215/45/16 vs 240/40/16 of the FXO. No wonder the FXO corners as if it's running slicks.
That's why we need to speed up the other 2 cars a bit too, since they are just a bit too slow for what they are. But since powerbands don't seem to be getting more realistic very soon, just chop the FXO's tires down to RB4 size and grip levels for the time being. Then the FXOs would be forced to slow down just to avoid melting the front tires in 2-3 laps.
That's why we need to speed up the other 2 cars a bit too, since they are just a bit too slow for what they are. But since powerbands don't seem to be getting more realistic very soon, just chop the FXO's tires down to RB4 size and grip levels for the time being. Then the FXOs would be forced to slow down just to avoid melting the front tires in 2-3 laps.
Last edited by Jamexing, .
Actually, forged wheels used for racing are remarkably lightweight IRL and performance tires aren't THAT heavy either, though they shuld be heavier than the tires of the other 2 TBO cars.
Anyway, even if the FXO saves 5 kilos with a smaller wheel and ture package, the dominant determinant for a car's performance is its tires. Overall, it'll suffer from slower acceleration (classic FWD traction issue), lower cornering speeds (less ultimate grip), poorer braking and classic FWD front tire wear issues. A great way to bring RL FWD problems into perspective, FWD problems the FXO currently lacks. The front tire wear would certainly even things out a bit for the longer races.
Anyway, even if the FXO saves 5 kilos with a smaller wheel and ture package, the dominant determinant for a car's performance is its tires. Overall, it'll suffer from slower acceleration (classic FWD traction issue), lower cornering speeds (less ultimate grip), poorer braking and classic FWD front tire wear issues. A great way to bring RL FWD problems into perspective, FWD problems the FXO currently lacks. The front tire wear would certainly even things out a bit for the longer races.
There's the proper way to do it, then there's the band aid method. Ideally, all tubo modelling and powerband issues should be solved first, then we tweak around with tire width and thus grip to keep things on line.
Or we could simply narrow the tire of the FXO slightly and maybe add just a tad more weight, but never unitil it gets too close or exceeds the weight of the other 2 TBO cars. This would be a sort of ok band aid solution until all the relevant turbo behavior and powerband issues are solved. At least we'll have some parity in the FXO class until all the vital issues with the physics are solved, allowing LFS to more realistically depict the strengths and weaknesses of each drivetrain.
As for the RB4 dominance on the rallycross stages, that's how it's supposed to be IRL anyway, so as a sim, LFS must be no different. Besides, the other 2 cars would realistically and practically have no real business running off-road anyway.
For now, I agree with Flotch's suggestion of narrowing the FXO's tires slightly to reduce the grip slightly AND introduce some front tire wear issues RL FWD cars face. It attenuates the FXO dominance issue without relying on arbritrary addition of weight.
Or we could simply narrow the tire of the FXO slightly and maybe add just a tad more weight, but never unitil it gets too close or exceeds the weight of the other 2 TBO cars. This would be a sort of ok band aid solution until all the relevant turbo behavior and powerband issues are solved. At least we'll have some parity in the FXO class until all the vital issues with the physics are solved, allowing LFS to more realistically depict the strengths and weaknesses of each drivetrain.
As for the RB4 dominance on the rallycross stages, that's how it's supposed to be IRL anyway, so as a sim, LFS must be no different. Besides, the other 2 cars would realistically and practically have no real business running off-road anyway.
For now, I agree with Flotch's suggestion of narrowing the FXO's tires slightly to reduce the grip slightly AND introduce some front tire wear issues RL FWD cars face. It attenuates the FXO dominance issue without relying on arbritrary addition of weight.
Actually, nothing. Both the RB4 and XR GTT could use just a few extra horses. Say 360Nm and 250hp for RB4 for starters. Since turbo modelling isn't set to improve soon as far as we can know, the least that can be done is to crank up the power and torque of the XR GTT. And improve the tires of both the RB4 and XR GTT so they actually stand a chance against the FXO at the corners.
Or, we can have a ballast system as a band aid for the current situation, but then the XR GTT and RB4 are already a bit slow for what they are. ATM, anything is better than pure FXO domination. I know how bad it looks to have passengers in all FXOs in a race, but if that is required to achieve parity, so be it. At least it'll give them SOME incentive to fix up the TBO class.
Or, we can have a ballast system as a band aid for the current situation, but then the XR GTT and RB4 are already a bit slow for what they are. ATM, anything is better than pure FXO domination. I know how bad it looks to have passengers in all FXOs in a race, but if that is required to achieve parity, so be it. At least it'll give them SOME incentive to fix up the TBO class.
For the time being, what we should really focus on is getting all the physics right before slowing the FXO down. An overcompenstaed FWD such as the FXO is only HALF the problem. The other real half problem lies in the fact that the other 2 cars are still a bit too unrealistically slow and "piggy".
Until at least the tirbo modelling and RB4/XR GTT powerband issues are sloved, the best solution we can realistically hope for is to enforce a ballast rule on the FXO to ensure good racing. The good news is that the TBO cars cand each take 4 extra passengers, so one could simply do a series of test runs to discover the optimal ballast to use for the FXO. I reckon that FXOs should only be allowed to race with at LEAST 1 passenger ATM. It's an imperfect solution, but until the physics are all close to completion, it's the best band-aid we have.
I share your sentiments, Becky Rose and Flotch, but FTM, we could at least enforce some limited level of parity by regulating minimum ballasts for FXOs used for proper racing. BTW, nice RB4 WR, Flotch! Nice Driving.
Until at least the tirbo modelling and RB4/XR GTT powerband issues are sloved, the best solution we can realistically hope for is to enforce a ballast rule on the FXO to ensure good racing. The good news is that the TBO cars cand each take 4 extra passengers, so one could simply do a series of test runs to discover the optimal ballast to use for the FXO. I reckon that FXOs should only be allowed to race with at LEAST 1 passenger ATM. It's an imperfect solution, but until the physics are all close to completion, it's the best band-aid we have.
I share your sentiments, Becky Rose and Flotch, but FTM, we could at least enforce some limited level of parity by regulating minimum ballasts for FXOs used for proper racing. BTW, nice RB4 WR, Flotch! Nice Driving.
I agree the TBO class DEPERATELY needs balancing, though this has been mentioned countless times before. Doesn't make it less deserving of mention though.
Though if it were up to me, I'll fix the turbo modelling and RB4/XR GTT powerband issue before attempting to slow the FXO. Just to try to finalize the physics before anything drastic is done to slow the FXO. Besides, the aero in LFS is still in the oversimplified half done stage. Last time I checked, there's at least 1 sim on sale that models pitch and ride height induced aero effects. CFD is a bit too much to ask for without supercomputers, but many RL aero effects are certainly possible to model and implement to a very good approximation in REAL TIME. BTW, it's about time all cars get their own unique aero.
Point is, lets make RB4 and XR GTT as good and fast as they should be before actually slowing the FXO down. BTW, as good as the suspension modelling is, there are just 2 things left to model before it's practically as perfect as it could be: dynamic toe and solid axles
Actually there's one simple way to slow the FXO down for the sake of fair competition. Just add 1 or 2 passengers to all FXOs. Enforce the rule strictly to make sure no one experieces the "Unbeatable FXO" syndrome.
Though if it were up to me, I'll fix the turbo modelling and RB4/XR GTT powerband issue before attempting to slow the FXO. Just to try to finalize the physics before anything drastic is done to slow the FXO. Besides, the aero in LFS is still in the oversimplified half done stage. Last time I checked, there's at least 1 sim on sale that models pitch and ride height induced aero effects. CFD is a bit too much to ask for without supercomputers, but many RL aero effects are certainly possible to model and implement to a very good approximation in REAL TIME. BTW, it's about time all cars get their own unique aero.
Point is, lets make RB4 and XR GTT as good and fast as they should be before actually slowing the FXO down. BTW, as good as the suspension modelling is, there are just 2 things left to model before it's practically as perfect as it could be: dynamic toe and solid axles
Actually there's one simple way to slow the FXO down for the sake of fair competition. Just add 1 or 2 passengers to all FXOs. Enforce the rule strictly to make sure no one experieces the "Unbeatable FXO" syndrome.
Last edited by Jamexing, .
The best pings I get in my area number in the triple digits, with the best no better than 200. That's why anything to increase license sales in my area is VERY welcome.
That's why anything to increase license sales in my area is VERY welcome. All road cars MUST retain their license plates (TBOs, XF GTi, XR GT, LX's). All dedicated race cars MUST have their license plates removed. End of story/thread.
A 240hp dorky looking AE86 riding on the bum of your FZ50 on a twisty track. Stress.....
The AE86 is legendary for many reasons, one being that it's a brilliant sleeper car. It's chassis, though seemingly antiquated in design, has much more handling potential than its 130hp OEM engine. With a strut tower bar, adjustable coilover 2-way adjustable dampers with matching springs and some basic structural stiffening, it could easily handle twice that. Don't ridicule the 5-link rear live axle, it's a proven design that performs remarkably well both on-road and off.
What makes its so stealthy is its low key looks. To your average guy, it looks like a dorky 80's junker. Only to be blown away by a well tuned 4AGE turbo. Like many great japanse performance cars, they are ridiculously conservative in OEM form, but spend a couple of grand and bring out their true potential. Then you'll have a dorky looking car that blows the doors of our Jaguar E-type on anything that resembles a corner. IRL, the original old E-types were dissappointments performance wise anyway. In fact, the claimed 150mph+ top speed was practically unreachable (save a LONG and STRAIGHT downhill run).
As for the S14, it's a relatively modern design and suspension wise it's no slouch. It's remarkably balanced in OEM form (close to 50/50 mass distribution). And it's relatively easy to get 320hp without mortaging your house.
It's not the OEM state that counts. It's the cars POTENTIAL that holds currency with genuine tuners (race and sports performance tuners, not ricers ).
What makes its so stealthy is its low key looks. To your average guy, it looks like a dorky 80's junker. Only to be blown away by a well tuned 4AGE turbo. Like many great japanse performance cars, they are ridiculously conservative in OEM form, but spend a couple of grand and bring out their true potential. Then you'll have a dorky looking car that blows the doors of our Jaguar E-type on anything that resembles a corner. IRL, the original old E-types were dissappointments performance wise anyway. In fact, the claimed 150mph+ top speed was practically unreachable (save a LONG and STRAIGHT downhill run).
As for the S14, it's a relatively modern design and suspension wise it's no slouch. It's remarkably balanced in OEM form (close to 50/50 mass distribution). And it's relatively easy to get 320hp without mortaging your house.
It's not the OEM state that counts. It's the cars POTENTIAL that holds currency with genuine tuners (race and sports performance tuners, not ricers
).
Last edited by Jamexing, .
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG