"No posting on the "Improvement suggestions" section in the forum "
That, ladies and gentleman, is the sort of attitude that will cost us all too many good racers, not to mention license sales.
That, ladies and gentleman, is the sort of attitude that will cost us all too many good racers, not to mention license sales.
That's something I've been trying to explain to the all licensed S2 guys for quite a while. I know some would love to pick on me for this, but the truth is, rallying is absolutely non-existant in LFS ATM.
If LFS was already selling like hotcakes as it is (i.e. outselling NFS and a host of other arcade jokes), that's sort of passable, but to have some major legitimate areas of motorsport completely neglected is just terribly frustrating to say the least. Even the most rallycar like vehicle in LFS (RB4) doesn't quite have the performance characteristics required of a rallycar. It's powerband is a joke to say the least. Not to mention the lack of ANY proper rallycross or SS (special stage) circuits. Not even ONE proper gravel track! What a waste of a great physics engine. ATM, LFS seems to cater for hardcore circuit guys only. The so called "rallycross" tracks are (a)too tarmac biased (b)almost totally unused (because they're not terribly good anyway).
Motorsports does NOT thrive on tarmac circuit racing alone. Same for LFS. As the forum title says, we are trying to ENCOURAGE, not bash or coerce the demo racers into buying the license. TBH, as a licensed player, I'm happy with all the well made tarmac only circuits, but anythin off tarmac leaves a lot to be desired. And some cars could be made better. I bought the license due to its fundamentally strong physics, but many deserving demo racers could be better encouraged. Imagine if we have just ONE great rally circuit with the proper physics. The imagine how many hardcore (aka game must simulate rallying as good as feasably possible) rally fans we can attract (could be THOUSANDS).
I was actually talking of balance in the sense of over/understeer characteristics overall throughout all possible dynamic situations in a well driven race. Yes, mass balance is one important determinant for a car's overall balance.
Another reason for fundamentally superior balance of he RA is the double wishbone suspension at the front. If you turn on the suspension view in the setup sreen, you'll discover that the RA's front suspension has far better camber recovery than the FZ50's Mcpherson strut setup. Better camber recovery leads to more optimal tire contact angles and thus better overall front grip. Just one reason why RA turns in better than the FZ50.
The RA also has less moment of inertia, thus responds faster to weight corrections for over/understeer conditions. The FZ50 turns like a pendulum. It's harder to get it to turn since more rotational force is required to get it to turn it at a desired rate. But once it starts to turn, it requires just a lot of extra rotational force to eliminate the built up rotational momentum. Although the FZ50's heavy rear does provide massive corner exit traction, but the RA has enough rear weight and tire grip to not suffer from serious traction issues. Currently, it's just hampered by a ridiculously laggy turbo.
As for laptimes, the RA and FZ50 make an interesting pair. The RA is faster around curvy sections, but the FZ50 compensates with superior straight line performance. Any circuit that stresses cornering over outright straightline speed favours the RA and vice-versa, as reflected by the WR times. Interesting racing indeed.
Another reason for fundamentally superior balance of he RA is the double wishbone suspension at the front. If you turn on the suspension view in the setup sreen, you'll discover that the RA's front suspension has far better camber recovery than the FZ50's Mcpherson strut setup. Better camber recovery leads to more optimal tire contact angles and thus better overall front grip. Just one reason why RA turns in better than the FZ50.
The RA also has less moment of inertia, thus responds faster to weight corrections for over/understeer conditions. The FZ50 turns like a pendulum. It's harder to get it to turn since more rotational force is required to get it to turn it at a desired rate. But once it starts to turn, it requires just a lot of extra rotational force to eliminate the built up rotational momentum. Although the FZ50's heavy rear does provide massive corner exit traction, but the RA has enough rear weight and tire grip to not suffer from serious traction issues. Currently, it's just hampered by a ridiculously laggy turbo.
As for laptimes, the RA and FZ50 make an interesting pair. The RA is faster around curvy sections, but the FZ50 compensates with superior straight line performance. Any circuit that stresses cornering over outright straightline speed favours the RA and vice-versa, as reflected by the WR times. Interesting racing indeed.
Last edited by Jamexing, .
I believe I shouldn't need to repeat myself. I stress that I have nothing personal against you, but please read and fully comprehend my post about the FZ50 and the RA, with your even earlier post used as the quote. Besides, 40/60 F/R mass balance is definitely better balanced than the 37/63 of the FZ50 which, incidentally, is almost identical to RL 911s. Granted, the FZ50 does react more slowly and thus just a bit more forgiving, unless you've managed to let the pendulum rear swing out of control. IRL, such rear-engined cars required decades of development to get the most out of a fundamentally imbalanced car. Please don't mistake the RA's low moment of inertia and thus twitchier nature as a fundamental imbalance.
That's what I was talking about.
And yes, the FZ5 is way superior on the straights thanks to that beautiful torque/power band from its NA 6-cylinder boxer engine.Just an unintentional error, Fetzo.
Well balanced? I still have a hard time believing that a well tuned MR car with good double wishbone suspension all round has WORSE balance than a fundamentally imbalanced car with a Mcpherson strut front. Nothing personal, Vain, but maybe your RA could use a bit more tweaking.
The RA has its major masses towards its center, thus enjoys the lowest polar moment of inertia of all LFS cars. There's no way a rear engined car could posses more agility than it. BTW, top speed difference isn't THAT much of an issue on most tracks (except the Oval). The WR times for both a cars are remarkably close for the 2 of them on ALL non-oval courses, considering their immense power and weight differences.
IRL, Porsches are excellent cornering ability, especially the latest top end versions of the 911 (Turbo/Turbo S, GT2 and Gt3). Of course, they have the benefit of an excellent rear multilink setup, something the FZ25 does not have(excellent dynamic toe characteristics) and LFS doesn't simulate YET. I bet the developers are working to plug this missing component of their suspension simulation right now.
That said, setting up and driving the FZ5 does provide a unique experience. I do use it sometime just to play around with its pendulum rear. And yes, trail braking with the FZ5 is massive fun. It's the only way to turn it in with complete control and precision. Just remember to control the tail swing adequately to not turn it to a runaway pendulum. Once enough weight and thus grip is transfered to the heavy back end, enjoy the classic rear-engined exit raction. In fact, the new TC feature is more of a safety blanket than a real necessity, even for a keyboarder. Personally, I don't use it at all. It just slows down your starts and corner exits.
And although the RA and FZ5 make for epic circuit battles, the LX6 should be left out of this discussion. It's a Lotus 7 skeleton car, not a proper roadable sports car.
Last edited by Jamexing, .
Actually, I'll LOVE a gravel mountain pass on LFS. Limitless WRC style fun!
Too bad there are currently no proper rally cars to actually USE such a great course. We'll have to either get a dedicated rallycar such as a Mitsubishi Lancer Evoluion lookalike (and PERFROMS similiarly) or even a mid-engined 4WD Group B moster, or at LEAST do a rally pack version of the RB4 with WAY superior powerband and turbo behavior, longer suspension travel, progressive springs, 4-way adjustable shocks, better tire packages, etc.
Too bad there are currently no proper rally cars to actually USE such a great course. We'll have to either get a dedicated rallycar such as a Mitsubishi Lancer Evoluion lookalike (and PERFROMS similiarly) or even a mid-engined 4WD Group B moster, or at LEAST do a rally pack version of the RB4 with WAY superior powerband and turbo behavior, longer suspension travel, progressive springs, 4-way adjustable shocks, better tire packages, etc.
FZ25, hmmm.....
A Porsche Carrera 2S lookalike. It's arse heavy and its tires aren't quite up to scratch, considering its power and weight. Its cornering speeds aren't THAT much better than the supposedly "inferior" TBO cars.
Honestly, I'll pick the RA over the the FZ25. All the benefits of rear weight bias without the pendulum nature. MR layout offers far superior turn in and agility, something a tail heavy hammer such as the FZ25 can't offer.
The reasons that RL new rear-engined Porsches handle so well are manyfold, but the main reasons include excellent rear multilink suspension (dynamic toe which toes in on compression and toes out on extension, something LFS doesn't quite simulate yet), decades of suspension tuning experience, PSM (Porsch Stability Management), stickier than normal tires, etc.
A Porsche Carrera 2S lookalike. It's arse heavy and its tires aren't quite up to scratch, considering its power and weight. Its cornering speeds aren't THAT much better than the supposedly "inferior" TBO cars.
Honestly, I'll pick the RA over the the FZ25. All the benefits of rear weight bias without the pendulum nature. MR layout offers far superior turn in and agility, something a tail heavy hammer such as the FZ25 can't offer.
The reasons that RL new rear-engined Porsches handle so well are manyfold, but the main reasons include excellent rear multilink suspension (dynamic toe which toes in on compression and toes out on extension, something LFS doesn't quite simulate yet), decades of suspension tuning experience, PSM (Porsch Stability Management), stickier than normal tires, etc.
That's the kind of modification scheme I REALLY want for LFS. RL style, sensible race upgrades to suit each environment. IRL, a racer CANNOT do well with no fundamental knowledge and understanding of car dynamics coupled with a good understanding of the effects and tradeoffs of each mod.
Ricer madness should be relegated to NFS:U sytyle arcadish affairs. A properly implemented race mod system for LFS would only bring more depth to its racing simulation and help showcase how potentially good the LFS physics engine truely is.
Yep, typical show off ricer madness from kids these days.
BTW, I think REAL Race bodykits look beautiful (aerodynamically that is
).I meant BOTH RL and game versions. Try the Subaru H gates - ridiculously light in effort and absolutely NO feel. I've tried truck gearboxes that provide more feedback on which gear I'm in. H gates as good as the Honda's are increasingly rare these days.
Most of my experience is with current 200AUD FFB systems, not your $20,000 units. If it's as good as claimed, please donate to my Force Dynamics fund.
BTW, I enjoy practicing proper clutch control and rev matching IRL.
Last edited by Jamexing, .
No, I'm not saying that KB is more realistic. I'm saying that I simply can't get FFB sets that actually simulate what I feel blasting down a circuit or mountain pass IRL. I just refuse to spend money on sub par systems.
Look, unless excellent 3 pedal and wheel sets become the norm, forget about this anti auto blip and cut madness. And those H-gate game shifters are as Becky Rose said, AWFUL. Heck, they're worse than the real thing.
UNLESS our developers have somehow perfected their own perfect for LFS steering wheel with pedal shift, H-shifter and 3 pedal sets that sell for no more than 150 pounds, forget about this anti-blip/cut madness. The reason I'm still using KB stabilized is precisely due to the lack of GREAT steering sets on the market. All of them feel too arcadish (like a bunch of underdamped springs artificially simulated by an electric motor). And the pedals are just AWFUL compared to RL. Even my 1994 Pajero has much better steering and pedal feel.
Unless a brilliant racecar sim hardware package shows up on the market at a reasonable plus, this suggestion gets -10^99 from me. BTW, I've never really used throttle and brake help in S2.
Case/thread closed.
UNLESS our developers have somehow perfected their own perfect for LFS steering wheel with pedal shift, H-shifter and 3 pedal sets that sell for no more than 150 pounds, forget about this anti-blip/cut madness. The reason I'm still using KB stabilized is precisely due to the lack of GREAT steering sets on the market. All of them feel too arcadish (like a bunch of underdamped springs artificially simulated by an electric motor). And the pedals are just AWFUL compared to RL. Even my 1994 Pajero has much better steering and pedal feel.
Unless a brilliant racecar sim hardware package shows up on the market at a reasonable plus, this suggestion gets -10^99 from me. BTW, I've never really used throttle and brake help in S2.
Case/thread closed.
Currently, credits in LFS are as good as random numbers from Matlab's rand() function (aka USELESS). Paying points for fuel, tires, etc is only going to kill practice time and turn the whole race into a rich man dominats all the time afair (as if I don't get enough of that s**t IRL!).
We could use points to unlock cars like in S1, but it's obvious that that was a very short term idea that didn't work and caused massive frustration. to new licnecees (danmit, I just paid to NOT drive the FZR! ). One could us points as credits for some race performance upgrade system, but I've seen too much opposition to it. Some current adjustments are just too arbitrary and ridiculous. For instance, when was the last time you could adjust maximum brake force directly in Nms? A need to get credits to acquire race worthy brakes would force newcomers and noobs to race against players with like specced cars and AI before taking on anything serious. Goes a long way to improving skill and avoiding random pileups. Though implementation of this plan might be painful for some, it's still much more realistc than some brakeforce adjuster bar.
Just some suggestions.
Unless there's a good modification scheme, otherwise the points sytem gets:
-10^99
from me.
We could use points to unlock cars like in S1, but it's obvious that that was a very short term idea that didn't work and caused massive frustration. to new licnecees (danmit, I just paid to NOT drive the FZR!
). One could us points as credits for some race performance upgrade system, but I've seen too much opposition to it. Some current adjustments are just too arbitrary and ridiculous. For instance, when was the last time you could adjust maximum brake force directly in Nms? A need to get credits to acquire race worthy brakes would force newcomers and noobs to race against players with like specced cars and AI before taking on anything serious. Goes a long way to improving skill and avoiding random pileups. Though implementation of this plan might be painful for some, it's still much more realistc than some brakeforce adjuster bar. Just some suggestions.
Unless there's a good modification scheme, otherwise the points sytem gets:
-10^99
from me.
This may sound odd to you tristancliffe, but TBH I don't like Imprezas as well. It wasn't that long ago (90's) that they understeered like no car has understeered before! Just some star trek humour, but you get the point.
Yes, their current 4WD system make the Lancer Evolution's current 4WD system look like star trek technology. And yes, the current ones are FUGLY. At least the older 90's Imprezas look boring but still somewhat ok.
Oh, please give us some info on that 700hp novelty act anyway. Just for the fun of it.
Just some star trek humour, but you get the point. Yes, their current 4WD system make the Lancer Evolution's current 4WD system look like star trek technology. And yes, the current ones are FUGLY. At least the older 90's Imprezas look boring but still somewhat ok.
Oh, please give us some info on that 700hp novelty act anyway. Just for the fun of it.
Sorry, it's been discussed about and even though I like it, some here are adamantly opposed to any mountaun pass style circuits. Excuses range from "people will drift on it (anti drift sentiment) to "it's illegal racing" even though IRL, mountain passes closed to normal traffic are the staple course of WRC rally stages. 
RA GTR. It's about time a proper MR GTR shows up in LFS.
Unless LFS works with a fully enclosed VR chamber that replicates every motion, acceleration and vibration, it's no substitute for the real thing. Sure simulation helps with practicing without risk, but you'll never get the feedback you get IRL unless someone devises an ultimate VR chamber as I've described.
As for realism, unless a car in LFS is a very close copy of a RL car and setup similiarly to it as well, there's just no way to tell. BTW, how many of us are lucky enough to drive the REAL RA? Unless both are compared back to back, there's just no good proof of realism.
Personally, I prefer RL to sims. I get a MUCH better sense of a car's behavior and it's limits. The steering wheel gains weight as the car progressively understeers, only to lighten as the limit is passed. Unless the steering FFB behavior of the LFS RA is compared directly to the real thing, we just don't know.
BTW, RL driving provides a much better sense of weight shift than a sim program on a PC can ever hope to accomplish.
As for realism, unless a car in LFS is a very close copy of a RL car and setup similiarly to it as well, there's just no way to tell. BTW, how many of us are lucky enough to drive the REAL RA? Unless both are compared back to back, there's just no good proof of realism.
Personally, I prefer RL to sims. I get a MUCH better sense of a car's behavior and it's limits. The steering wheel gains weight as the car progressively understeers, only to lighten as the limit is passed. Unless the steering FFB behavior of the LFS RA is compared directly to the real thing, we just don't know.
BTW, RL driving provides a much better sense of weight shift than a sim program on a PC can ever hope to accomplish.
Or better, a UNIVERSAL TRANSLATER!
Oh, sorry, guys, I thought I'm living in the 24th century now.
To seek new life forms and civilizations, to boldly go where no one has gone before!
Oh, sorry, guys, I thought I'm living in the 24th century now.
To seek new life forms and civilizations, to boldly go where no one has gone before!
FZ84R:
FZ with V8 4.5L twin Turbo/Intercooler and rear-biased (5-40% front torque bias) 4WD. Oh, it has 750hp, FAT powerband (90% max torque at 1500rpm!) and minimal (unadjustable) downforce (just enough to stop it from getting too twitchy at high speeds).
FZ with V8 4.5L twin Turbo/Intercooler and rear-biased (5-40% front torque bias) 4WD. Oh, it has 750hp, FAT powerband (90% max torque at 1500rpm!) and minimal (unadjustable) downforce (just enough to stop it from getting too twitchy at high speeds).
Did I mention CLOSED , TRAFFIC FREE roads for a road race? Like WRC?
So we've got another person who looks down on Professional Rallying and thinks it's a mockery of racing. Might as well ban Albert Park's use as a genuine race venue, since it's a public road.
So we've got another person who looks down on Professional Rallying and thinks it's a mockery of racing. Might as well ban Albert Park's use as a genuine race venue, since it's a public road.
NFS:Porsche Unleashed. That was the best NFS of all time. What followed was all downhill though.
Yes, those are the tracks that LFS actually need, without traffic of course to ensure safe and proper racing.
Yes, those are the tracks that LFS actually need, without traffic of course to ensure safe and proper racing.
The last time I checked, the last attempt to creatre a street racing sim was Legal Street Racing form Activision Value. But as usual, they take a very promising premise and ruined it all, releasing an incomplete game that simply won't run without HORRIBLE lag. It's no LFS, but it's physics had much more promise then NFS:U or anything ATM. Besides, it had the most sophisticated tuning system ever seen on a PC game. You could actually change individual components such as glass panes, body panels and even individual engine parts such as throttle bodies and cylinder heads.
Actually, it deosn't take much computing power to simulate the stupidity of everyday traffic.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG