Quote from Tweaker :

You're talking about drifting, which is in any case, exteme amounts of lost grip and/or actual sliding.

If you think the sound is non existant for mere slides and oversteer issues, that is perfectly normal. If a car in LFS were to just be constantly chirping and squeeking from typical swaying with minor amounts of grip, that would be the strangest thing to be heard ever from a car game. So adding a more 'sensitive' squeel sound wouldn't be helpful at all to knowing when your car slides, because 99.9% of the time, such minute slides are recoverable by pure driving nature and instincts, even if you don't feel G-forces.

It is unfortunate that whenever I mention drift angle, some people think of the japanese tire smoking sideways melarchy. It is unfortunate that some people still believe that cars don't drift at all whilst serious race driving. IRL, tires generate maximum grip whilst drifting at slight angles. The ability to sustain this minute drift seperates the Micheal Schumachers from the average pro racer. And I'm just metioning facts. LFS is good, but there is still no substitute for RL feedback. And yes, I observed a surprsing lack of tire noise whilst sliding completely sideways in a RB4 for 50 meters. Amazing.

Last edited by Jamexing, Sat 29 Jul 2006, 05:41.

Fuel limits are brilliant for RL enduros to force fuel efficiency. But in LFS, this is very silly. Imagine if all FZR drivers snail their way around the track instead of driving their best just to save a couple of litres. An excellent RL example is NASCAR, where the ban of tire warmers has forced drivers to resort to blocking tactics after each tire change. So much for better racing.

In reality, tire skid noises vary WIDELY among different specific tires. A good example is the BF Goodrich KDW, which has very obvious skid noise with very small drift angles. As for slick style race tires, it's no surprise that they don't sound much. Slicks have the best tread stability due to their "giant single chunk of rubber" design. None of the tread squirm of treaded tires.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to make us feel the gs like in RL. IRL, we gain a lot of feedback through seat of pants sensations. This is obviously impossible in LFS. The best we have is to add a finite amount of driver lean to help sense the gs.

I agree that skid sounds need improvement. Currently, tire noise is remarkably absent, you actually sense wheelspin and drifts through visual means only (car movements) and steering response.

Well, as long as the torque band improves, 5 gears are just fine. They are just a solution for peakiness. Well, RB4 is not a direct copy of GT4, though the majority of its styling is. At least the RB4 has better suspension. The XR GTT on the other hand is an almost carbon copy of the Mitsubishi Satrion, down to the exact suspension design, engine type and weight distribution. Only the powerband is missing, and the current one does it no justice.

Good point, Nick II. The Stage 1 Gti has a brilliant midrange, which is obviously the main emphasis of the upgrade kit. 240hp and 6500rpm redline is only slightly of the mark for RB4 use. The only tweaks it needs for RB4 use are slightly higher redline (7000rpm) and better high end power. A rise to about 250hp@6500rpm would be ideal as long as the other parameters remain relatively constant. And the current 9000rpm max rev is a bit silly too. Spooling the ridiculously high inertia turbo at 9000rpm... So much for decent engine life. It would be much more realistic if it was rev limited to 7500rpm, but first things first.

Hopefully they would fix or at least significantly reduce the spool times and powerbands for Rb4 and XR GTT soon, but I get your point, Nick II. the current tire physics are brilliant, though this powerband and turbo spooling issue has remained completely neglected.

For now, keep the quality posts and votes rolling in. Lets just hope that they'll actually take this as seriously as they should. All quality posts and votes will be highly appreciated.

Last edited by Jamexing, Sat 29 Jul 2006, 05:27.

Good luck trying to catch that FXO on a 5 lap or greater race (assuming of course, the FXO driver is highly skilled). I only suggested that its powerband be improved to counter the current FXO madness and to compensate for an improved RB4 (if that happens). If you REALLY love this on-off switch behaviour, do yourself a favour and get yourself a Toyota Corolla Sportivo. 1000rpm(6800rpm-7800rpm) powerband on a 8200rpm redline engine. Bet you'll LOVE that. Gee, where's that corner...

Seriously, why discourage XR GTT usage through a pathetic powerband? Why punish those who love to throttle steer properly? Why turn XR GTT racing into a lottery game? Makes no logical sense at all.

Don't get me wrong, I love to drive RWDs. Well, I learnt to drive real cars in an RWD car! Besides, a well tuned XR GTT shouldn't snap oversteer without warning as you've said, even on full turbo boost. Besides, a good torque band would really reward those who have mastered throttle control. Finessing a well tuned RWD car out of a corner is pure bliss.

For those who think that I'm trying to make TBO class cars too fast, please consider the fact that I've not seriously mentioned any absurd changes (e.g 300hp RB4!). There is no way they can threaten the LX or FZ style cars with anything 260hp or below. Not unless you use slicks, which is a non option as far as I'm concerned.

Thanks for the 3 torque curves, atledreier! Goes a long way to show that modern turbo engines are nothing like their ultra-narrow powerband LFS counterparts. The current RB4 powerband is very much like those of very early turbo engines (70's).

Note these were just performance tuned sreet car engines, explaining their relatively low 6000-6500rpm redlines. The volvo powercurves were particularly good, typical of the ultra smooth powerbands of modern European engines. If the RB4's powercurve was anything close to such a shape, imagine how much fun it would be! It only needs better top end punch and a higher redline for RB4 style use.

RB4 with 4G63 equals rally heaven! Love to try such a car on AndroidXP's tracks.

Last edited by Jamexing, Thu 27 Jul 2006, 13:29.

The torque curves are just for the entertainment AND education. It's just for inspiration of how things should be. The turbo modelling problem is definitely serious. So far, the best engine in LFS is the FZ GTR unit. Absoulutely beautiful midrange and high end performance. It's NA.

Let's hope turbo modelling improves on the next patch.

Last edited by Jamexing, Thu 27 Jul 2006, 12:27.

Guys, no offense but please, this is LFS, not NFS:U, so PLEASE no absurd suggestions such as NOS. I completely understand your sentiment, Shannon, though your reaction was a bit extreme to say the least. BUT you do make a great point about this current ricer NOS madness.

I'm glad to see that at least someone in this thread has noticed the fact that all classes are currently too imbalanced for genuinely fun racing amongst different cars of each class. For a refresher, please refer back to p3 #90. As one would notice, I make sensible suggestions only.

Sorry BBT, I know it's getting a bit repetitive, but if you have time could you post a few more turbo engine powerbands? Preferably(not compulsory) 2.0L turboes, just to show what real turbo engine powercurves actually look like. Thanks a lot for your contributions, Ball Bearing Turbo!

750+bhp! Now that's decent horsepower.

Honestly, I miss the old 900+hp engines... guaranteed to make current F-1 cars look pathetic. A 750hp champ car with a high downforce package wiuld be great against the BF-1.

Wish someone comes up with LFSTweak that works for the current LFS, so I could at least do a few tests on different power bands.

A great idea! At least the FXO GTR would actually have a realistic chance of winning a race. Rain on rallycross would be rallying haven...

BL is no comparison to Top Gear's test track. It actually has some very fast sections, so power still counts A LOT. Most of the advantages for the FZ25 are doen to extra power anyway. 200+ kays at the end of the main straight... that's gotta count.

Yes, I do race online, though I don't see too many good races floating around. And FXO doesn't launch too bad at all for FWD. 3 short laps on BL? Wow, that's short.

By the way, nice torque curve BBT! Now that's what RB4 and XR GTT should be. Just that they happen to 2.0L turbos makes the 4G63 with 250hp tune a better candidate if we are to preserve our current engine capacity. For those who absolutely insist on maintaining the current ultra narrow torque bands, please try to drive a Corrolla Sportivo and feel the pain of an unusable powerband (max torque at 6800 and max power at 7800! Exhibits on-off switch behaviour at the 6000rpm VVTLi shift point).

Last edited by Jamexing, Wed 26 Jul 2006, 17:26.

Quote from Vain :

Regarding the poll:
I do support changes to the TBO class to balance the cars, but I'd take different action to do so.
1. FXO recieves tyres of the same dimensions as the other two cars. Fair play.
2. RB4 and XRT remain unchanged until the turbo model improves. (Which will change the powerbands.)
3. The FXO recieves additional weight and slightly increased aero drag. The aim is to make the FXO highly effective on straights, but slightly inferior on acceleration and cornering speed. This should emphasize the good handling of the car and make it a competitive but easy to drive car.

Why I suggest the change of concept to the FXO? A car just can't be superior in acceleration, top speed, cornering speed and handling. Currently the car has no downside. Thus it needs a weak spot to balance it. Inferior corner speeds but superior straight line speed would fit the car nicely because it has a very newcomer-friendly handling and should thus have strenghts that support this trait.
Also I don't want to make the TBO class faster than it currently is. These cars are already very fast for cars of their type. For example the FXO is just 3 seconds slower on BL GP than a FZ5. I don't want the classes to get too close.

Vain

Note BL is a relatively short track (less than a minute with BF1!). Note also that FZ25 isn't power or torque limited. It's grip limited, since it doesn't really corner MUCH faster than the TBO cars. So no surprise. Just like RL situations, tire grip (braking and accelerating) are much more important than brute force and straight line speed.

By the way, 3 seconds is a MASSIVE gap by racing standards.

Quote from XCNuse :

@jamex; lol you cant even buy a civic in the latest NFS'

and its not necesarily the complete opposite, there are a few realistic aspects of them in some cases; but thats not the point, the game is a consumer buy and used to make a ton of money.. which obviously its succeeding quite well

so really.. if LFS wants to succeed, its going to have to at least look similar to GTR at this point (keep in mind, the most realistic game out there is PGR3)
lfs just needs to step up its game in the graphics department in S3

I was talking about NFS:U, not thr latest version.

Well, at least it doesn't suffer as many RANDOM CRASHES as windows!

Getting a ton of eye candy is simply a matter of adding a lot of detail a serious driver might never notice, such as tiny dust particles on your windsecreen. So far, only LFS has gone so close o getting the car physics right. With a strong physics core, one only needs to add a LOT of extra details and force all LFS players to use the most EXPENSIVE graphics cards in existance.

The current NFS series is the exact opposite of LFS. Pure eye candy and no good driving. Yes, they sell massively, but they're marketed to kids and immature teens or adults (in automotive terms that is) who want arcady wall riding crash or pay my way to the top junk. Drifting Honda Civics? In the spirit of a simpson episode:

"Guys, in LFS, we obey the laws of Newtonian mechanics!"

from:

"Lisa, in this house we obey the second law of thermodynamics!"

What LFS really needs now is more exposure to people seeking good simulations of race driving.

Don't worry, as long as it's physics and performance improvements, it can't be bad for LFS. As far as I'm concerned, the eye candy bits can wait for the beta version of LFS IF more fundamental and crucial the perfromance and physics issues are ironed out by the end of the Alpha stage.

Actually, when you increase aero drag AND weight, you lose both straight line and cornering performance. That's why I didn't suggest such a change. Besides, the 2 other cars are already too slow for any areal driving pleasure. In case, you're wondering, the LFS version of a mini doesn't get my favour. The amount of times I've driven it now can be counted with one hand. It's just TOO SLOOOOW. Can't believe they killed the LX8 for this.

The TBO can use a slight speed up. Currently, the XR GTT and especially RB4 are just a bit too piggy. Better powerband solves both their problems, hence my recommendation. Keep the FXO as fast as it is because I have no intention of making it a pig to drive.

TBO cars are based on road cars with race mods such as faster steering ratios, modified springs and dampers. There're no OTT (Over The Top) mods such as hairdryer sized turbos for 500hp, just all the steering and suspension upgrades one would invest in IRL for a car with racing aspirations. They just lack weight reduction and roll cages to make them race legal. For cars so well built, they are just too slow. IRL, a well tuned 350hp Lancer Evolution has no significant problems keeping up with Porsche 911s on tarmac style rallies.

Oh, thanks for the rally tracks, Android XP. Would try them when I'm free.

Last edited by Jamexing, Wed 26 Jul 2006, 15:52.

Its team(driver, mechanics, technicians, engineers...) and technology in F-1.

Champ car is much more yestertech, though by no means low-tech. it is heavily overegulated, typical of American racing types. The machines are closer in performance, so it's more man vs man.

Yep, that's pretty much it for real turbo cars. Your 1.4 bar turbo is actually on thehigh pressure side and rest assured, it's spooling really well. Your observation of great power beyond 3000rpm is pretty much the same for EVOs and Subaru STis as well, just they they rev harder. The lack of power below 3000rpm is perfectly normal for a car of your described specifications. Wish RB4 had such a nice powerband...

Anyway, a well made RB4 would be rally haven, at least until a proper rally pack comes out(hopefully).

I agree. LFS could use a few more good cars. I think a proper rallycar would be nice as well, such as a Group A spec WRC Lancer Evolution from the late 90's. A Pajero Evo would be fun too.

Conclusion: A CART vs F-1 Race is too good to pass up!

Good point. Anyway, keep the quality votes rolling in. I really like to know the honest and sincere opinions of LFS players.

Let me stress that there was no SERIOUS suggestion for a modification system in LFS for the TBO class. There is NO intention to suggest a NFS:U mod system. The REAL issue is to upgrade the currently misrepresented cars. And the excuse of showing performance sub par of similiar real life examples is inexcusable. Not having an officially licensed set of cars does NOT mean that poor representations of each drivetrain can go unnoticed.

To be absolutely honest, LFS has actually lost quite a few licensed drivers due to a poorly done TBO class. An overtired FXO FWD car completely obliterating the lap times of RB4 and XR GTT? Isn't this supposed to be the same class? And why cripple the performance of RWD and 4WD with poor powerbands while unfairly favouring the FWD with a powerful and peaky engine which is ideal for it? It just doesn't make sense. And lets just say we've lost a few LFS licensed players because of their negative test game experiences. Most of them complain about relatively poor 4WD(RB4) performance as well and some complain about poor XR GTT powerband problems as well.

The post on p3 #90 are just some reasonable suggestions on correcting the fact that XR GTT and RB4 are currently too slow for their class. Besides, who's going to bother to master the XR GTT if rear wheel dive make for a more challenging drive, only to see that your efforts are in vain as a ridiculously fast FWD (FXO) demolishes your lap/race times with ease? This goes a long way to explaining wht the 4WD and RWD cars in the TBO class are relatively neglected. Even with 50kg of extra weight, the XR GTT shouldn't trail the FXO so badly if the TBO cars are supposed to be one single class.

Last time I checked, the only game to have a FWD car completely OWN all other cars on alomst all tracks is the Initial D Arcade Stage Ver.2(the virtually INVINCIBLE DC2?). Last thing LFS needs is to be compared to some arcade game with pathetic (if any) physics.

My intention has always been o make LFS as realistic as possible and one crucial way to achieve that is to realistically depict peformance. When was the last time you drove a turbo engine as laggy as the RB4's? The RB4 is supposed to be a simulation of Celica GT4 style cars from the 80's. And none of them are known to lag as seriously IRL as their LFS counterpart. Try driving a real Mitsubishi Starion (RL version of XR GTT) and see if it lags anywhere as badly as the XR GTT. The last ultra laggy turbo production cars were from the 70's, when turbos were still relatively new. The 80's was supposed to be the Turbo Boon era, a time when turbo tech surged as quickly as current turbo diesel engine technology.

FYI, the Celica GT4 was practically the equivalent of a Lancer Evolution type vehicle in its day. And I don't remember the real GT4 being as piggy as RB4. Of course it lags a bit more than current EVO's, but it's 80's tech (not your titanium turbine Lancer EVO affair) and the stock turbos are not your typical hairdryer sized "ricer" units. There is simply no good and realistic excuse for the RB4's ultra narrow 1500rpm powerband. The pathetic top end feels as if someone installed a 1 inch crush bent mild steel exhasut system on it. Well, at least the LFS version has MUCH better suspension!

Ultimately, better performance balance within a class can only lead to better racing and more LFS sales.

That's why I'm taking this thread and the polls very seriously.

LFS is supposed to be a SERIOUS simulation after all.

Last edited by Jamexing, Wed 26 Jul 2006, 07:18.

It's been pretty quite for a while here. Anyway, now to our main plot.

I was wondering how many (serious) LFS players would like the changes that I've suggested for the RB4 and XR GTT for the TBO class cars. Please vote if you agree/disagree with the following tweaks that I've suggested so far:

1. Revised and improved powerbands, especially for mid range and top end power for RB4 and XR GTT. Suggested specs are 250hp@6500 and 330nm@3500, the aim being to achieve a much broader and flatter torque curve. This benefits both the RB4's tractive capabilities and the XRT GTT's throttle steerability as well as their acceleration. Top speed would see a tiny increase, as top speed grows by the cube root of power.

2. A larger, wider and thus, grippier tire package for the RB4. This is to compensate for the fact that the GXO is currently VERY overtired. A small incrase in tire size and grip for the XR GTT would be implemented if required.

3. All other variables remain unchanged.

The aim is to realistically depict the benefits and weaknesses of each drivetrain well and provide for much better performance balance and racing for the TBO class.

PLEASE cast serious votes. Thank you for your honest and serious opinions.

Last edited by Jamexing, Sat 5 Aug 2006, 15:55.