I'm not claiming that the bumps should be removed. I'm saying that surface compliance should be modelled. In fact, the "muddy" surface on that track should allow for softer impacts than what you'll get from hitting a parking curb. I happen to be regular gravel traveller where I came from and believe me, cars deal with gravel jumps better than tarmac or concrete jumps of identical size. 
Just remember not to land too hard and beach yourself.
Well, I don't take a them quite as hot normally. I'll usually just drive around them. I'm just suggesting one way to make LFS more realistic.
Just remember not to land too hard and beach yourself. Well, I don't take a them quite as hot normally. I'll usually just drive around them. I'm just suggesting one way to make LFS more realistic.
Last edited by Jamexing, .
Last time I did a CFD check, an airflow vector only 5 degrees off dead straight results in as much as 5-15% increase of static pressure at the lower surfaces of the car.
In layman terms, downforce drops by as much as 5-15% depending on the area of the car. Overall loss is along the lines of 7%. The test was done on an Indycar.
Fact is, aero is extremly yaw, pitch and roll sensitive IRL. LFS still doesn't model these factors, that's why it's so weird when the car starts to slide. IRL, cars snap when yawed excessively due to both loss of downforce AND the relativiely twitchy nature of low moment of inertia MR characterisics, coupled with the fact that slicks don't tolerate excessive slip angles very well.
In layman terms, downforce drops by as much as 5-15% depending on the area of the car. Overall loss is along the lines of 7%. The test was done on an Indycar.
Fact is, aero is extremly yaw, pitch and roll sensitive IRL. LFS still doesn't model these factors, that's why it's so weird when the car starts to slide. IRL, cars snap when yawed excessively due to both loss of downforce AND the relativiely twitchy nature of low moment of inertia MR characterisics, coupled with the fact that slicks don't tolerate excessive slip angles very well.
All in all, LFS models non-tarmac surfaces as rigid planes with significantly lower grip than tarmac. So whenever you get yourself on the gravel/mud/grass, you don't get those things. Instead, you get what you'll get from catching your wheels on some thick and stiff ice.
As for the BL bumps I'm talking about, to REALLy hotlap, you DO need to take those "bumps" (more like concrete curbs) at pretty high speeds. If you check the WR replay, you'll see noticable suspension damage if you turn on F10.
Since memorizing the surface condition of an entire rallycross circuit gets memory intensive real quick, I suggest modelling some finite amount of COMPLIANCE onto the mud/gravel/grass surface. Though the surface won't change with each drivethrough, at least the ground would display compliance that RL off-road surfaces do for a given surface contour. ATM, the rallycross non-tarmac sections drives more like slippery concrete than actual off-road surfaces.
As for the BL bumps I'm talking about, to REALLy hotlap, you DO need to take those "bumps" (more like concrete curbs) at pretty high speeds. If you check the WR replay, you'll see noticable suspension damage if you turn on F10.
Since memorizing the surface condition of an entire rallycross circuit gets memory intensive real quick, I suggest modelling some finite amount of COMPLIANCE onto the mud/gravel/grass surface. Though the surface won't change with each drivethrough, at least the ground would display compliance that RL off-road surfaces do for a given surface contour. ATM, the rallycross non-tarmac sections drives more like slippery concrete than actual off-road surfaces.
Actually, the rally tracks are all over the place when it comes to bumps. The nastiest bump sequence must be that of BL rallycross. There's no way to run a hotlap without suspension damage. The only ways to avoid all damage are to:
1.Use ridiculously stiff springs.
2.Ridiculously high ride height.
Both of which significantly reduces grip, traction and stability.
Point is, all the rallycross bumps feel more like concrete barriers than proper gravel, mud or dust/sand.
1.Use ridiculously stiff springs.
2.Ridiculously high ride height.
Both of which significantly reduces grip, traction and stability.
Point is, all the rallycross bumps feel more like concrete barriers than proper gravel, mud or dust/sand.
I completely agree with you about emulating RL performanc and handling without actually using the name. The XR GTT is basically a Mitsubishi Starion, and if it's powerband and turbo behaviour closely resembled the real car, it's practically a carbon copy, without the name. However, last time I suggested this, I copped quite a bit of flak.
Hopefully there's no LFS police to shoot me down this time. 
I agree that incessant swearing must be minimized. However, to ban someone just because one swears for some reason is potentially dangerous and possibly unfair.
For instance, someone who races well somehow has a bad day. Unfortunately he crashes that day on some online race for no fault of his own. In fact, he was basically "body braked" out of the track by some complete idiot who just can't race properly. Anyone would swear their hearts out because of this.
Imagine if a normally well mannered racer was banned permanently just because of 1 swear session due to no fault of his own. That would:
1. Drive him/her into a deeper hole.
2. Cause massive resentment of the server or even LFS itself.
Conclusively, judgement of one's right to stay shouldn't be based on the use of swear words themselves. It's only justifiable to ban someone if one swears pointlessly with remarkable consistancy, like that silly passage somewhere in this thread.
For instance, someone who races well somehow has a bad day. Unfortunately he crashes that day on some online race for no fault of his own. In fact, he was basically "body braked" out of the track by some complete idiot who just can't race properly. Anyone would swear their hearts out because of this.
Imagine if a normally well mannered racer was banned permanently just because of 1 swear session due to no fault of his own. That would:
1. Drive him/her into a deeper hole.
2. Cause massive resentment of the server or even LFS itself.
Conclusively, judgement of one's right to stay shouldn't be based on the use of swear words themselves. It's only justifiable to ban someone if one swears pointlessly with remarkable consistancy, like that silly passage somewhere in this thread.
Actually, it's just the fact that tires don't dig in to provide traction in LFS, since the grass or gravel is infinitely stiff like tarmac. IRL 4wding, it's well known that a large diameter and moderately wide tire grips better overall than stupendously wide but small diameter tires. Factor in the fact that aggressive tread patterns literally dig into the relatively compliant gorund, the tires could practically "pedal" their way through soft ground. The optimal width for any given tire diameter is entirely dependent on the terrain stiffness. For VERY soft mud or sand, wider is always better, since low ground pressure is crucial to avoid excessive sinking. However, your typical beach sand is best done with moderately wide tires at realtively low (~15psi) pressures.
On the other hand, snow requires relatively narrow tires to provide enough pressure for the sipes to dig in. That's why WRC cars use narrow siped tires on the Scandinavian snow stages.
To sum it all up, it's basically a tradeoff between the tire's propensity to dig in for traction with the need to avoid excessive sinking to achieve the optimum tire package. The problem isn't of LFS's tire physics being fundamentally wrong, it's just the lacks of the effects of a compliant ground surfaces on tire grip.
On the other hand, snow requires relatively narrow tires to provide enough pressure for the sipes to dig in. That's why WRC cars use narrow siped tires on the Scandinavian snow stages.
To sum it all up, it's basically a tradeoff between the tire's propensity to dig in for traction with the need to avoid excessive sinking to achieve the optimum tire package. The problem isn't of LFS's tire physics being fundamentally wrong, it's just the lacks of the effects of a compliant ground surfaces on tire grip.
Again, a catch 22. To attact more license sles, we need RL cars and names to attract a larger crowd. But to GET the brands in the first place rewquires the money generated from the scale. Well, welcome to RW economics, guys.
The reason gravel, mud and generally any soft surface feels unrealistic is due ti\o the fact that the ground acts like infinitely stiff springs (like thick frozen ice) even though IRL, mud and grass would readily induce tire sinking. In fact, the fastest way to stop on gravel omud is to practically lock the brakes, forcing them to dig into the round. Take it from a regular gravel traveller.
The only problem is the lack of steerability as you mash the brake pedal. That's why you "breath" the pedal to induce controlled turn in.
The lack of precise off-tarmac physics is one major reason why rallying REMAINS neglacted (practically non-existant actually) in LFS. Lack of any soft ground compliance definitely detracts from realism and wreaks havoc with suspensions as they are bashed MUCH harder than they would with RL jumps and high speed bumps.
The only problem is the lack of steerability as you mash the brake pedal. That's why you "breath" the pedal to induce controlled turn in.
The lack of precise off-tarmac physics is one major reason why rallying REMAINS neglacted (practically non-existant actually) in LFS. Lack of any soft ground compliance definitely detracts from realism and wreaks havoc with suspensions as they are bashed MUCH harder than they would with RL jumps and high speed bumps.
Great Thread! The slip ratio graphs explain my points in a simple manner. Note that race ABS such as that of the Lotus I mentioned is meant to gain maximum braking power and only activates in panic applications for directional control. However, note that if an excellent EBD (Electronic Brakeforce Distribution) system was used in conjunction with an excellent driver or well tuned Race ABS, the stopping distances would be amazingly short. It's simply a matter of making the most of your tires' grip.
Anyway, let's get back on topic.
However, note that if an excellent EBD (Electronic Brakeforce Distribution) system was used in conjunction with an excellent driver or well tuned Race ABS, the stopping distances would be amazingly short. It's simply a matter of making the most of your tires' grip. Anyway, let's get back on topic.
That's what I've been trying to do since I've got here (useful critism). And some still think I'm uttering crap... Hah.
Oh, well calibrated ABS is a boon for track racing, especially when racing gets long and consistancy under driver fatigue REALLY counts. Last time I checked though, the ABS stopping distances tend to consistantly BETTER than non-ABS on TARMAC. However, ABS DOES increase braking distnces if you're on a low traction off-road surface. That's why Mitsubishi Pajeros come with Multi-Mode ABS.
And yes, my chief reasons for getting the S2 license are:
1. Fundamentally good physics.
2. Constant improvements.
Which again explains why I tend to point out flaws that I find too obvious.
Oh, well calibrated ABS is a boon for track racing, especially when racing gets long and consistancy under driver fatigue REALLY counts. Last time I checked though, the ABS stopping distances tend to consistantly BETTER than non-ABS on TARMAC. However, ABS DOES increase braking distnces if you're on a low traction off-road surface. That's why Mitsubishi Pajeros come with Multi-Mode ABS.
And yes, my chief reasons for getting the S2 license are:
1. Fundamentally good physics.
2. Constant improvements.
Which again explains why I tend to point out flaws that I find too obvious.
Last edited by Jamexing, .
Acyually Tristan, a well caliberated ABS will definitely stop FASTER than non-ABS if the driven surface was suited to the ABS settings. A great example is the Lotus Exige's ABS. It's designed for thereshold braking and only really activates on panic applications. It's also well known that Kinetic firction of a tire can be about 30% less than rolling friction.
The ultimate stop is generated only when the tires are slipping a finite amount. That's why an over-active ABS would easily increase braking distances, especially for someone who has no idea how to threshold brake. An extremly skilled trail-braker would or well tuned ABS would generate the best stops.
However, I do agree that the BF1 could use better physics. In fact, I don't drive the downforce cars much because of their incomplete aero physics. Can't believe the aero has NO ptch sensitivity. Maybe Scawen somehow programmed the ULTIMATE active suspension system for all the downforce cars....
The biggest aero issues are definitely in the GTR class. Can't believe 3 massively different body styles have identical Aero! No wonder the XR GTR and FXR are suffering unfairly, since their aero packages are horribly mismateched to their mass distributions.
Another point is the fact that F-1 cars have a 3rd spring/damper setup that connects the spring/damper stes of both sides at the rear suspension. This gives 2 ENORMOUS advantages:
1. Stiff on vertical compression. Reduces pitch sensitivity and squat under aero load. Additional damper also better controls heave motion
2. Forces the inside wheel more to the ground whilst cornering, improving traction.
My point is, unless both aero AND F-1 suspension simulations are completely worked out, don't expect near perfect physics. For best realism, I recommend the non-downforce cars for now.
The ultimate stop is generated only when the tires are slipping a finite amount. That's why an over-active ABS would easily increase braking distances, especially for someone who has no idea how to threshold brake. An extremly skilled trail-braker would or well tuned ABS would generate the best stops.
However, I do agree that the BF1 could use better physics. In fact, I don't drive the downforce cars much because of their incomplete aero physics. Can't believe the aero has NO ptch sensitivity. Maybe Scawen somehow programmed the ULTIMATE active suspension system for all the downforce cars....
The biggest aero issues are definitely in the GTR class. Can't believe 3 massively different body styles have identical Aero! No wonder the XR GTR and FXR are suffering unfairly, since their aero packages are horribly mismateched to their mass distributions.
Another point is the fact that F-1 cars have a 3rd spring/damper setup that connects the spring/damper stes of both sides at the rear suspension. This gives 2 ENORMOUS advantages:
1. Stiff on vertical compression. Reduces pitch sensitivity and squat under aero load. Additional damper also better controls heave motion
2. Forces the inside wheel more to the ground whilst cornering, improving traction.
My point is, unless both aero AND F-1 suspension simulations are completely worked out, don't expect near perfect physics. For best realism, I recommend the non-downforce cars for now.
Voive intercoms are a brilliant idea. Just imagine the tactical possibilities of intra team intercoms allowing team members to coordinate their tactics and strategies in REAL TIME. Genius.
Unfortunately unless a satisfactory way to control motorbikes become available for PC sims, I say forget about motorbikes. As some of you here mentioned, this is only doable if logitech comes up with a motorbike platform to that allows all the usual movements a rider makes IRL. To do this economically is next to impossible.
Besides, even now LFS is still very much unfinished (it's still alpha after all) when it comes to simulating cars. Issues include lack of proper dynamic toe, lack of chassis flex, poor turbo modelling(severe spool up issues, can't believe RA takes 3 seconds to spool up), lack of proper engine and chassis damage, lack of rev limiters, etc. It does have the saving grace of fundamentally superior physics, but it's still an very unfinished piece of work.
The point is, if the above problems aren't solved, motorbikes aren't practically doable. Let's just perfect the current and (possibly) new cars first before engaging our developers in another fundamentally different vehicle.
Besides, even now LFS is still very much unfinished (it's still alpha after all) when it comes to simulating cars. Issues include lack of proper dynamic toe, lack of chassis flex, poor turbo modelling(severe spool up issues, can't believe RA takes 3 seconds to spool up), lack of proper engine and chassis damage, lack of rev limiters, etc. It does have the saving grace of fundamentally superior physics, but it's still an very unfinished piece of work.
The point is, if the above problems aren't solved, motorbikes aren't practically doable. Let's just perfect the current and (possibly) new cars first before engaging our developers in another fundamentally different vehicle.
I agree with more realistic transmission simulation, but unless excellent 3 pedaled wheel sets are available on the market, I say forget it. Unless of course LFS developers decided to create and sell their own LFS style wheel sets.
As for the 2nd to 1st shift issue, it isn't as serious as it seems. I drive a manual 4sp petrol sedan. 1st gear is good for 35kph while second is good for 60kph, but I have no problems shifting 2nd to 1st at any speed below 20kph as long as I match the revs well. Just remember not to rush it (plan the shift in advance). It's a 1980's car.
As for slushboxes, well, let's LFS is a sim and as far as I am concerned, the auto shift option should be removed. Cars MUST be driven as the manual transmission vehicles they are.
But unless clutch pedals become common for wheel sets, auto clutch is still mandatory.
As for the 2nd to 1st shift issue, it isn't as serious as it seems. I drive a manual 4sp petrol sedan. 1st gear is good for 35kph while second is good for 60kph, but I have no problems shifting 2nd to 1st at any speed below 20kph as long as I match the revs well. Just remember not to rush it (plan the shift in advance). It's a 1980's car.
As for slushboxes, well, let's LFS is a sim and as far as I am concerned, the auto shift option should be removed. Cars MUST be driven as the manual transmission vehicles they are.
But unless clutch pedals become common for wheel sets, auto clutch is still mandatory.
There are 4WD rally versions of Starions IRL. It's no surprise that Mitsubishi's Ralliart division engineers chose it, since it's close to ideal (almost 50/50) weight distribution makes it a very agile rallycar.
One can only hope that LFS would include such a type of car someday.
One can only hope that LFS would include such a type of car someday.
Motorbikes are notoriously hard to simulate well, since their motions are as much a function of their chassis as the rider's own body. So in keeping with LFS levels of physics realism, this is unacceptable.
-10^99 from me.
-10^99 from me.
Unfortunately tristan, a trailing arm suspension system is an EXTREMLY rough approximation of live axles.
As primitive as live axles seem form a technical point of view, they are in fact remarkably complex in terms of actual physical behaviour. That is also one of the reasons for cars such as Mitsubishi Pajero to switch to IRS: predictable suspension movement and thus, wheel placement. To simiulate it in LFS, we need to simulate a fixed beem with the wheel postions relative to the axle completely fixed. Of course IRL the uprights do flex a finite amount, but ATM that's just excess complication, since things such as bushing compliance and chassis flex aren't simulated yet.
Despite of the obvious live axle flaws, it does have a few remarkably good properties. For instance, its wheel camber relative to the road remains almost constant whilst both braking and accelerating. This is why they're still favoured by dedicated dragstres. This can be simulated with the trailing link system already in existance.
However, it's when cornering when things get REALLY interesting.
The actual toe changes with suspesion motion depends on the exact design of the axle locaters (trailing links, panhard rod, etc). As for the camber angles, they remain remarkably good and can infact only be bettered with a well designed multilink or double wishbone system. It's just a result of the fact that the entire axle turns in relation to the body whilst remaining relatively flat to the ground. This of course neglects tire deflection, but IRL a properly bent live axle to provide some reasonable amount of toe in and camber can perform amazingly well and maybe better than independents(depends on exact setup, of course). Their real downfall is their unsprung weight and interdependance of 2 wheels. Well, as long as the axle is located well, live axles need not lose to independants. Another complexity is the fact that live axles tend to be stiff on vertical travel but soft on roll. This is why coil-sprung live axles IRL NEED anti-roll bars to control roll. For live axles, the turning "pivot point" is actually closer to the inside corner spring.
It's hard to say all I know about live axles in a forum, but the fact stands that they are a different entity form all current suspension types availble on LFS and need to be simulated as their own unique type to uphold LFS levels of realism. A butch job on physics is perfectly fine on many games, but not LFS.
No, we don't have a Need For Speed. We LIVE FOR SPEED!
As primitive as live axles seem form a technical point of view, they are in fact remarkably complex in terms of actual physical behaviour. That is also one of the reasons for cars such as Mitsubishi Pajero to switch to IRS: predictable suspension movement and thus, wheel placement. To simiulate it in LFS, we need to simulate a fixed beem with the wheel postions relative to the axle completely fixed. Of course IRL the uprights do flex a finite amount, but ATM that's just excess complication, since things such as bushing compliance and chassis flex aren't simulated yet.
Despite of the obvious live axle flaws, it does have a few remarkably good properties. For instance, its wheel camber relative to the road remains almost constant whilst both braking and accelerating. This is why they're still favoured by dedicated dragstres. This can be simulated with the trailing link system already in existance.
However, it's when cornering when things get REALLY interesting.
The actual toe changes with suspesion motion depends on the exact design of the axle locaters (trailing links, panhard rod, etc). As for the camber angles, they remain remarkably good and can infact only be bettered with a well designed multilink or double wishbone system. It's just a result of the fact that the entire axle turns in relation to the body whilst remaining relatively flat to the ground. This of course neglects tire deflection, but IRL a properly bent live axle to provide some reasonable amount of toe in and camber can perform amazingly well and maybe better than independents(depends on exact setup, of course). Their real downfall is their unsprung weight and interdependance of 2 wheels. Well, as long as the axle is located well, live axles need not lose to independants. Another complexity is the fact that live axles tend to be stiff on vertical travel but soft on roll. This is why coil-sprung live axles IRL NEED anti-roll bars to control roll. For live axles, the turning "pivot point" is actually closer to the inside corner spring.
It's hard to say all I know about live axles in a forum, but the fact stands that they are a different entity form all current suspension types availble on LFS and need to be simulated as their own unique type to uphold LFS levels of realism. A butch job on physics is perfectly fine on many games, but not LFS.
No, we don't have a Need For Speed. We LIVE FOR SPEED!
Last edited by Jamexing, .
Nascars are good fun by themsleves. But we've all negelected one thing:
Live axles.
As most of you (if not all) should have noticed, LFS currently has no simulation of dynamic toe, something required for multi-link suspesion and live axles. A live axle is basically a massive axle with a functional differential and drive shafts.
Point is, LFS currently has NO simulation of live axles. Such a suspension type would need to be simulated as a significant tubular mass under the car, with links to stabilize its location relative to the chassis. In essence, we'll need an entirely new physics for a "new" type of suspension.
Live axles.
As most of you (if not all) should have noticed, LFS currently has no simulation of dynamic toe, something required for multi-link suspesion and live axles. A live axle is basically a massive axle with a functional differential and drive shafts.
Point is, LFS currently has NO simulation of live axles. Such a suspension type would need to be simulated as a significant tubular mass under the car, with links to stabilize its location relative to the chassis. In essence, we'll need an entirely new physics for a "new" type of suspension.
Well, let's just say I've seen lots of crazy engine conversions IRL. Rotary powered Subarus, Rotary MX-5s, Even V8 MX-5s.
Functionally, I don't mind a souped up XR GTT at all. It's just the fact that we ALREADY have 2 XR based cars (XR GTT and XRT). Why would anyone bother with a non-downforce ,slick tired XR GTT anyway when you could jump straight into the downforce car? Besides, seeing 3 of the same really gets lame.
Theoretically, a race-prepped 300hp XR GTT would work from a performance point of view. The 490hp version lags like hell as it should, since it requires a hairdryer sized turbo to work anyway. The "road" version lags WAY too much for its power output. Let's hope the turbo for this car works as it realistically should.
Anyway, due to ongoing turbo modelling issues, I suggest we stick to an NA car and avoid the issue altogether.
So, if no new car types are to be allowed, A race-prepped LX series car is the best choice.
Functionally, I don't mind a souped up XR GTT at all. It's just the fact that we ALREADY have 2 XR based cars (XR GTT and XRT). Why would anyone bother with a non-downforce ,slick tired XR GTT anyway when you could jump straight into the downforce car? Besides, seeing 3 of the same really gets lame.
Theoretically, a race-prepped 300hp XR GTT would work from a performance point of view. The 490hp version lags like hell as it should, since it requires a hairdryer sized turbo to work anyway. The "road" version lags WAY too much for its power output. Let's hope the turbo for this car works as it realistically should.
Anyway, due to ongoing turbo modelling issues, I suggest we stick to an NA car and avoid the issue altogether.
So, if no new car types are to be allowed, A race-prepped LX series car is the best choice.
Last edited by Jamexing, .
Honestly, I don't mind a slicked XR GTT with 300hp. Definitely better than those torque steering FWD monsters.
I'm fully aware that the AE86 is live axled IRL. However, if we use its appearance only and add our own suspensions, we'll have our own car that handles even better without copyright issues while still attracting new customers. IRL, there are quite a few race prepped AE86's with IRS (independant rear suspension ) conversions.
Anyway, I like the XR and LX ideas as well. It's just that we'll be filled with cars based on the same basic chassis throughout all racing classes, which gets old eventually. A new suitable car certainly won't hurt.
Definitely better than those torque steering FWD monsters. I'm fully aware that the AE86 is live axled IRL. However, if we use its appearance only and add our own suspensions, we'll have our own car that handles even better without copyright issues while still attracting new customers. IRL, there are quite a few race prepped AE86's with IRS (independant rear suspension ) conversions.
Anyway, I like the XR and LX ideas as well. It's just that we'll be filled with cars based on the same basic chassis throughout all racing classes, which gets old eventually. A new suitable car certainly won't hurt.
Last edited by Jamexing, .
It's kind of comical to have a formula racecar honking its way through the pack. Here comes MICHEAL SCHUMACHER in his Ferrari F2006:
Honk! Honk! Get away, coming through!
Anyway, LFS is suppose to be a SIM. Anything this arcadey gets my boot.
Honk! Honk! Get away, coming through!
Anyway, LFS is suppose to be a SIM. Anything this arcadey gets my boot.
Actually, LFS doesn't need a complete redesign at all. Just a new track with very variable elevations and corner types that one could realistically expect from a twisty mountain path.
The idea of a mountain pass is far from random. It's a break of monotony from the standard fare of dedicated circuits and street tracks with relatively much simpler and more boring corners. Welcome to RW WRC style conditions with complicated and twisty corner sequences and no run off areas.
For ideas, we just need to refer to a few RL roads for design inspiration. No need to worry about licensing issues of name brand tracks.
Now, any more good ideas for our RWD car on our wish list? Keep them rolling in.
The idea of a mountain pass is far from random. It's a break of monotony from the standard fare of dedicated circuits and street tracks with relatively much simpler and more boring corners. Welcome to RW WRC style conditions with complicated and twisty corner sequences and no run off areas.
For ideas, we just need to refer to a few RL roads for design inspiration. No need to worry about licensing issues of name brand tracks.
Now, any more good ideas for our RWD car on our wish list? Keep them rolling in.
Last edited by Jamexing, .
All you need is a circuit that joins 2 sides of a mountain to for a giant complex loop. Problem solved.
Start lapping!
Start lapping!
Actually, physics calculations depend on the exact mathematical models LFS employs, which most of us here don't know. Anyway, multithread is particaularly good for parrallel processing. If its some algorithm that requires massively fast serial processing, they're nothing special.
Actually, all new games on the market are heavily dependant on parralel processing to perform anyway. That's why we need to change those expensive graphics card all so often. If a single core was sufficient, we'll need no 2nd CPU to process graphics.
Point is, LFS will benefit grealy from proper multi-core support, since newer and faster CPUs will all be multicore as the limits of single core tech are already being reached.
Actually, all new games on the market are heavily dependant on parralel processing to perform anyway. That's why we need to change those expensive graphics card all so often. If a single core was sufficient, we'll need no 2nd CPU to process graphics.
Point is, LFS will benefit grealy from proper multi-core support, since newer and faster CPUs will all be multicore as the limits of single core tech are already being reached.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG