Apparantly, they're not our yet, and for the DFP you'll probably have to wait till the wingmanteam comes up with something.

Please, guys, let's keep to the ground. LFS is not 'generations' ahead of all other sims. And stating that everything else is just a game is a little exaggerated, imho. There are a lot of things missing that other sims have in one way or the other (weather, changing track conditions like rubber build up or temperatures, false starts, night racing, to just name the most important features I feel are necessary for a complete sim). That said, LFS is still the one and only sim for me, as it simply gives me the best overall feeling when driving. But still, I can see where the OP is coming from. If I had been asked two years ago where LFS would be in the year 2007 I probably would have said that it will be well ahead of where it is now (sorry about that clumsy sentence, I hope you get what I mean). So in that respect LFS has gotten a little old to me. It has not gotten old to me in the sense that it is still a bunch of fun when racing online, which is of course the most important factor. So I can live with the short comings, as I know that LFS is work in progress, and I'm certain that the features mentioned above will be there some time in the future (I just wish they would be here sooner than they probably will be).

Funny, I was thinking the same an hour ago when I drove the RB4 (also a car I usually don't drive). It always was one of the better sounding cars in LFS, but now I found myself shifting up without looking just because it sounded like I had to. I mean, I tend to do that in cars I drive fairly often, but the RB4 is almost new to me. So, no, it's not just you, it's at least also me .

Quote from George Kuyumji :

But I'm tired of buying new Plastic Pedals and Wheels every year or two, so as soon as they start to get worn out and fall apart I will buy some Professionell Simulation Pedals like from FREX or VPP. They dont break down in a lifetime and are of much better quality and material. I would prefer the FREX Pedals as of now, with the Sim Clutch + Feature that simulates a Clutch Feeling, while VPP also has great pedals with Clutch feel, but FREX will come out in the following weeks with a new Pressure-Sensitive FF Brake Pedal that can simulate locked wheels or ABS Brake Pedal behaviour.

You might want to have a look at the CST-set also. The brake operates on a load cell and apparently a clutch update for real feel is in the works right now.

Maybe the G25 pedals will be replaceable? Probably not, but who knows.

Well, keep us updated on the cst's, will you? I found out about them only recently and they look damn fine. Also the brake operating on a load cell just sounds so tempting ... Unfortunately, I probably don't have the skills to build something like that (and buying even a two pedal set at 299$ is just a little too much for me. Especially since shipping to europe is quite expensive).

I wouldn't bother with a formula force GP or whatever the successor is called (formula force ex/fx?), as the dfp is not that much more expensive but a lot better quality and it has 900°. I only use 540°, though, but it's much more precise especially in tight corners.

If the guy in front shows up as orange on the mini-map he's behind and thus blue-flagged.

oops, totally overlooked that notice . Thx for the hint.

Too bad, my silver license will have to wait a little loger I guess ...

Title says it all. I wanted to pick up my silver license today (only 8% left ) and I can't find a single STCC server .

(you're probably already trying to fix it, but I'm impatient ).

Edit: nevermind, I suppose the answer to my question is in the "what's up" thread ...

And even the STCC server is not an actual league, so you should probably get S2 and join OLFSL (link). OLFSL is perfect for starters imho AND for dedicated fast drivers - there's something in it for everybody .

For the sake of realism, I think it's not a bad idea to get rid of the gear indicator in cars that wouldn't have it IRL either. I do too sometimes forget what gear I'm in (very seldomly, though), but that's just my bad, then. And G25 users are already sometimes complaining that we who do not use clutch and shifter can't really misshift. Without the indicator there would actually be a slight chance for misshifting, just like IRL.

I didn't mean to say that you didn't think about your proposed layout, but I can see that it came across that way. Sorry about that. I just used it as an example. But even if your idea is not bad, I still can imagine that the devs thought about it and maybe ditched it because they felt it's not harmonic or whatever. Maybe they didn't, though, and think, wow, that's a great idea, let's add As south. But there's still the question of how many layouts we need in a certain setting when at the same time many layouts that are already there are not even used. And I don't think it's because the layouts are bad/boring/too long/too short or whatever.

And about diluting (maybe dispersing is the better word?): I was saying that, if we want to add something that will disperse the community further it should be something that's worth the price. And a different layout in an old setting is not imho. Let's instead use more of what we have, is what I'd vote for

Quote from KeiichiRX7 :

actually my proposed layout creates two new corners, both at the transitions from the club-cadet courses.

and your point is already disproven by the existance of AS GT, which aside 3 turns is identical to AS GP. they turned right at the junction instead of left and the rest of the course is the same

Ok, so it's two new turns. That doesn not change my argument. And please try to understand the point I'm making a little more fully: The fact that there are already tracks in LFS which just combine two different layouts certainly does not disprove the point I was making. More the contrary

And again: Where do you stop? I'm sure there are plenty of possible layouts that are not in the game. So should all of those be created? I personnally don't think so, as they add little and dilute the community further (a point that I didn't feel the need to repeat in my previous post as it had already been mentioned). So, if the community is to be diluted further, I think it needs more than one new turn.

Edit: make that TWO new turns.

Well, when I find the time to race, I always race at STCC1b or STCC1a atm, because I like the fact that the tracks are rotating (and the extra motivation of the license system). However, the occ servers are not really the way to go for me, as I found out some time ago, because they're just a little too much for me. I can handle racing on tracks I don't know in cars I know well, but I'm afraid I'm not good enough for racing on tracks I don't know in cars I don't know. And I think that's true for many people of the community.

To rephrase danowat's earlier assumption:

It's not really an ego massaging thing. It's more like: People stick to what they are reasonably good at (or can get reasonably good at in a reasonable amount of time), rather than spending a whole lot of time just to be not total crap at something else. Interesting? Not really. Quite understandable if you look at it from the perspective of a person that doesn't have time to play LFS 24/7, I'd say.

I feel that one point has been missed in this discussion so far (or maybe that's only the way I see it :shrug:

I don't think it's that helpful to think about this in track-numbers. Sure it would be possible to create quite a few additional layouts to the existing ones on settings like AS, FE or SO. No doubt about that. But the proposed layout is a good example why it is not necessary, as it effectively adds one single corner to LFS. All the other turns are already there, just on different layouts. So it wouldn't add a whole new racing experience to LFS. Plus: The devs have probably thought about this way, I would imagine: What layouts could we create that add something new to LFS? Which layout in the same setting would provide a track with different characteristics over the already existing ones? Maybe they ruled out the proposed layout simply because it's not a track with new characterstics, but instead a combination of two tracks with different characteristics?

Just my humble opinion.

Edit: uhm, I guess the point has been raised somewhat inbetween Keiichi's last post and mine, but I was a little late with posting

Quote from Dajmin :

Potential Sponsor #1: That's exactly our target audience. Please, take some logos and a sack of cash.

Problem is, this is not gonna happen (yet), I'm afraid, because it's not worth the effort for the potential sponsor (see Ian's posts for further explanation).

Quote from Viper93 :

Well they do do content reviews by themselves. They more asking for articles about the community and whats happening in the game that could only be seen from "inside"

If that's what they're looking for, and the respective article would be marked as an "inside"-view, that's a different story, of course. Sorry, if I missed that point.

Quote from BuddhaBing :

... including their staff.

Does Car & Driver rely on their readership to submit articles about, say, Mercedes-Benz while their in-house staff write article after endless article about every other manufacturer in the market? Does F1 Magazine call on their readership to submit articles about Renault F1 while packing their magazine full of fluff pieces about all the other teams? No, of course not; the idea is ludicrous.

The fact that AutoSimSport does not cover LFS is entirely a conscious decision on their part. They have staff writers; they have editorial staff. If they truly wanted to provide LFS coverage, they would devote staff resources to doing so. They haven't. Read into that what you will.

I absolutely agree with this. No matter if ASS is free or not, if they want to be a journalistic product (which is certainly the impression they try to convey), they can't rely on articles about a certain product written by "fanboys" (no pun intended) of that particular product. They need articles written by unbiased sim-experts. And given the fact that they see themselves as sim-experts, I really don't see a reason why at least one person of their staff shouldn't be able to have a closer look into LFS. Just my humble opinion, of course.

Quote from varjsa-9 :

Well, I've never been such a talent in gfx... And for now, we can't use them anyway.

Why can't we use them? If it's a technical problem, I'm sure SamH could help out. He did the ones for STCC and should know all that has to be done to make it work. Or are there other problems?

@russraine: they're for putting them in your sig like this:

Hi there!

I'm havin a little annoying problem here. Until recently, when I clicked on a set-file link over at inferno.hu, the set-file was neatly copied over to the settings folder in LFS. For some reason, it doesn't work anymore. I tried to associate set-files with LFS again via windows-explorer etc. but my windows doesn't even let me choose LFS as program to open the file (I clicked browse, located LFS.exe and clicked "open" but nothing happens). I also tried to use LFS:file associator and all the files are registered properly, but the set files are still not automatically copied.

Anybody have an idea what's going wrong there?

Thx,

Linsen

Quote from Nard :

Weeeee! The only suggestion of mine that's losing is Fern Thicket I loved that name

And all your other suggestions are winning? You should surely become an ad writer, then -- or are you one?

All my suggestions are loosing. Even the one I had the highest hopes about is only a distant second atm (probably should have gone for "barrel roll "instead of "somersault" :tilt.

Anyway, will be interesting to see which of the names will acutally stick (and if they will become official names in the future).

So that's why! I never knew that. Thx for the info

Hi there,

I searched the forum for this particular problem, but I couldn't find anything.

I just noticed that, after an impact (straight on into a tire barrier), my ffb was suddenly much lower than before the impact. According to F10 suspension was still in perfect condition, but ffb was probably half as strong as before. So increasing it via "." helped somewhat.

I'm using a DFP, but thinking about it, I seem to remember that I sometimes had the same problem with my Formula Force GP.

Anybody having the same problems and maybe a fix?

Thx,

Linsen

Scawen noted rewinding of replays as a compatible request right here (look at the very bottom of his first post).

Quote from lummz :

But the strange thing is that Logitech think that the product may be defective.

Problem is, they obviously don't know what they're talking about.

This thread over at the wingmanteam-website pretty much explains what Bob said (only from the opposite point of view): Wingmanteam