A few here will have trouble believing it's me complimenting LFS, but I am.
Great job on the improved physics and the visuals.
So far I only tried the Sauber and the LX6, using my twin joystick setup with no force feedback, and the cars still handled nicely. The default RACE setup must have been done well.
I don't think this is a case of more grip, but instead more stability. GTLegends cars don't have a lot of grip, but they are much easier to control than similarly powered cars in LFS. I don't know what the issue is, tire physics and/or differential, but the higher powered RWD cars in LFS just seem too unstable. The LX6 seems to be one of the more unstable cars in the game and takes some extreme setup values to tame it.
Technically not ABS, but some racing classes allow computerized braking control. Unlike an ABS system the computerized braking control systems, allow some slippage for optimal grip. In addition, some traction control systems use individual wheel braking in addition to ecu engine control.
You wanted an example, so here's one. The Dutch Supercar Challenge series has no restrictions at all except power/weight ratios which determines the class. Active suspensions, independent braking and traction control on all 4 wheels, XTRAC no lift sequential shifters.
Note that until this last season, Formula 1 cars had computer controlled automatic shifting of their sequential gear boxes. Now they use the equivalent of XTRAC no lift sequential shifters, which change gears in 30ms to 50ms, and worth about 1 or 2 seconds per lap over a normal manually shifted tranny.
Formula 1's still have traction control, but it's limited to engine / ECU only. Other race classes allow invidual wheel braking to assist with traction control. IRL drivers can adjust the traction control while on board. Note that racing traction control systems allows some slippage for optimal cornering, something that a driver might be able to do for a qualifying lap, but not for an entire race.
Ok, not hanging out the rear end, but every car needs some amount of working slip angle to corner. The smallest working slip angles are 2 degrees with IRL cars on ovals. Most high end downforce race cars have a working slip angle of 3 or 4 degrees. Bias ply slicks as used on most non-downforce cars are higher still.
The other issue is that optimal cornering grip is achieved with some tire slippage. Do a web search for "traction control race", and you'll find that most modern traction control systems allow some amount of slippage, instead of just stopping the slippage. Typically the slippage is 8% to 12%. This might be something a driver can do for a short period, like a qualification lap, but not for an entire race, which is why modern traction control systems produce better lap times.
Of course there are a few high end race series that don't use traction control, like USA Champ Cars (formerly CART), and Nascar, but then again, with the ECU's, it's difficult to check for. Nascar tries to monitor engine exhaust sounds to try and detect traction control. Most of the high end race classes do allow traction control, and even "club level" racing, such as Mazda prototype (like Indy lights), or Dutch Supercar Challenge, where the only rules are power to weight ratio limits for each class, otherwise there are no restrictions at all (active suspension, XTRAC sequential shifters, traction control systems that use individual wheel sensor / braking and engine ecu, ... are all allowed).
Anyway, this is a bit off topic. I think the real issue is that it's not possible on a PC to truly simulate the dynamic physics of a tire / contact patch, so some sort of simplification has to be made.
With real life racing, optimal lap times occur with some slippage, which is one issue racing games have a problem with. In addition, in order to drive at the limits, a driver is going to spend a significant amount of time beyond the limits, and the car has to be forgiving enough to allow this.
In a racing game, the cars need to be more forgiving than in real life, or else a player just ends up memorizing control inputs, which is not a good thing, since the goal of any racing simulator should be to simulate a real world racing experience, where you can go reasonably go beyond the limits without incident, even if the physics has to be modified a bit in order to accomplish this.
Windscreens aren't street legal, so that is why I have to use the windshield. I've read that in California, you can't wear a helmet in a car, even though the ratio of head related deaths in cars is higher than the head related deaths on motorcycles (more internal injury related deaths on bikes).
So getting back on topic, in my opinion, if there's a bug in the physics, then I would prefer having traction control as an option to mask the bug, until the bug is fixed.
My post wasn't about oversteer, it was about launching with both rear wheels spinning. Unlike a oversteer situation, the car isn't turning (at least it shouldn't be), it's just going straight, with a minimal of side forces on the rear tires. It's doable in real life, even with very high powered cars, but not on LFS's FO8.
Even with an open differential (zero locking factor), with just one wheel spinning, a car doesn't yaw very much, if any, at launch. With both wheels spinning, the amount of lateral grip is reduced greatly, so it doesn't take a lot of force to yaw the car, but in real life it's not next to impossible to keep a car pointed straight with the rear wheels spinning. I don't know if this is a tire model, differential model, or torque / downforce issue in LFS.
Most theories state that gravity has 3 effects, it slows down the passage of time, it curves space, and it's an attractive force between objects. In my opinion, all 3 of these qualites are independent, versus the opinion that there the curvature of space is responsible for the attractive force. Now I could accept the opposite, that the strength of a gravitational field that creates the attractive force, also curves space, but I still would feel that these are different properties of gravity.
It should be explained that this equivalence relies on an imaginary constant strength gravitational field, one that could be produced by an infinitely large flat plane.
In real life, gravitation fields are effectively generated by point sources, and diminish in strength the further away from the source you get. For a real world point source, the strength diminishes with the square of the distance. For an imaginary infinitely long line source, it diminishes with the distance (not distance squared), and for an imaginary infinitely large plane, it remains constant.
In real life, you can tell the difference between gravity and acceleration by checking to see if the force varies with position. If it varies, then there is some component of gravity involved.
Best lap times will always be better with a good traction control system. Modern traction control systems allow for optimal slippage of the tires instead of just stopping the slippage. The ones that use individual wheel braking and engine management (power control) do the best job, but aren't allowed in all the racing classes that allow traction control. Many classes restrict traction control to engine management, but these still allow for controlled slippage, something that no driver can do consistently, especially for the duration of a full race.
I suggest you do a web search for "traction control race" to get more info on this. Real life drivers aren't ashamed to use traction control, as their goal is the fastest and also safest lap times.
Champ car (formerly CART - mostly road courses now) and NASCAR (almost all ovals) are the main high end race classes that don't allow traction control, along with the controversy of which teams are using "hidden traction control".
Some of the race series that allow traction control:
FIA - F1
FIA - GT1
ACO - LMP1, LMP2, GT1
IRL - (driver adjustable)
ALMS - GT1
Pro Formula Mazda (think Indy lights car)
Dutch Supercar Challenge (power/weight ratio determines class, otherwise no restrictions)
Gravity is a field. The amount of force it generates on an object is proportional to the mass of the object, so the rate of acceleration for an object of any mass is the same if no other forces like aerodynamics are involved.
Because of the engine's torque, one tire will get more downforce than the other. Viewed from the rear, most engines rotate counter-clockwise, with the resulting torque creating a bit more downforce on the left rear, which causes a slight yaw to the right. However since both tires are spinning fast, grip and forces are low, and it's not very much of a yaw. (LFS yaws the cars left). Do a websearch for "burnout contest videos" and you'll see some good examples of control with both rear tires spinning at high speed. LFS doesn't model this.
A fuel dragster funny car has a much higher power to weight ratio and these are launched at full throttle all the time. If the clutch is set too tight, you get wheel spin, and yet most of the time, the cars don't get sideways. Getting back to CART cars, they sometimes hit the rev-limiter coming out of the pits. These cars can at least be "aimed" with the rear tires spinning, unlike the FO8 of LFS, which is way down on power by comparason, yet much less controllable with the rear tires spinning. Just for show, there are guys who see how long they can spin the wheels on a car, most of them can go through an entire 1/4 mile run with the rear tires spinning, ending up well over 100mph.
Try to do a full throttle launch in the FO8, you pick the setup with a reasonably tall first gear (like around 80mph). As previously posted, any idiot can do this in real life, but with LFS's FO8, it's virtually impossible.
If not, it's pretty close to it. They aren't trying to get an optimal launch, they're trying to keep rpms high to prevent a hot engine from stalling. 1st gear is probably set to redline somewhere between 85mph and 100mph depending on the track.
My only issue is how does a game give a player feedback from what is happening at the rear end of a rear wheel drive car? How do you know how much throttle you can apply?
Why is it that in real life, I can spin both rear tires at take off and can easily keep the car pointed straight, but it's so difficult to do with LFS, expecially in the LX6 which seems to be the worst case rear wheel drive car in LFS?
Champ cars (and the former CART) racing cars often exit the pits with both rear tires spinning, while maneuvering the car out of the pits and onto pit lane; they are able to steer the car with both rear wheels spinning and not lose control, and these cars have no traction control.
In my opinion, if a game has an unrealistic response to rear wheel spin, then traction control assist should be allowed until the problem is fixed.
LX6 has less power and is harder to drive, but so would my Caterham if I couldn't feel the forces in the car. The Caterham recovers from oversteer almost on it's own, unlike the LX6, but this could be setup / tire / differential issue. First gear is tall, 62mph at redline, and this is the first car I've owned where I can get lift throttle oversteer (mostly because first gear is tall enough I can be going fast enough for this to happen).
I don't see what all the fuss is about regarding assists. I'm not aware of anyong claiming that F-16 fighter pilots are panzy's because the F16 is a fly by wire aircraft with a large number of assists: stability control with sub-millisecond reaction time to keep the aircraft stable; automatic camber control (leading edge and trailing edges automatically adjusted for air speed and g loading); and the 9 g limiter on stick (elevator) inputs. Then there's those panzy radar, laser guided, and heat seeking missles.
Back to on topic, regarding ABS, computerized racing braking systems do more than just cadence braking on all 4 wheels. In the racing classes that allow it, independent computerized braking at each wheel is used for traction control, cornering assist, and braking.
Regarding traction control in general, Champ race cars don't have it, Formula 1 race cars do. The racing isn't any better, the only difference is you have more "incidents" with Champ cars, mostly a selling point for the fans.
Not being a racing sim "purist" I have no problem with traction control, to compensate for the lack of forces felt by a real driver in a real car, epecially on the high powered rear wheel drive cars. ABS is OK, but then all of Scawens work on hot / flat spotting would go to waste.