Quote from The Very End :

But isn't the new oval even smaller than Kyoto ring?
IMO a nascar would only be needed if there were bigger ovals.

Who says that stock cars are only fun at full throttle draft battles?

Shorter ovals like Darlington and Lowes Motorspeedway are quite fun as well and adds a new technique for oval racing

Quote from Furiously-Fast :

Stock cars will be fun for the first week, until people realise you can only drive it in circles.

Who says stock cars cant be driven on road courses? Besides it would make both ovals more interesting and it'll be more than just plant your foot down (try the I-SCAR mod to fully understand what i'm talking about)

Quote from Furiously-Fast :

OT: Why is it called 'stock' cars? I'm sure they are modified in some sort!

Stock Cars have also gained a new meaning in motorsports. It also means racing of a purpose built car that is heavily regulated through chassis and engine. I mean the SuperLeague Formula is billed as a "stock" formula but that doesn't make sense in the "traditional" sense of the word.

So...in racing it gains a new meaning

Quote from buck77 :

Updating with XR2 car, with skin kit, car number and drivers names on it...

Updated

Interesting article about what Piquet might bring to NASCAR (for better or for worse). I'm caught on this myself...IDK if this is good or bad for NASCAR

http://www.examiner.com/x-2479 ... S-gains-What-do-you-think

It's interesting to see how people have come to think that Live for Speed is too expensive. LFS is hardly the most expensive game on the market. Take a look at all those MMORPGs that require a monthly fee of $15 and many major ones also require you to pay an upfront retail fee of $50 before the fees start to come in.

Also, if S3 is too expensive for you? Who says you have to buy it? The devs aren't handicapping you if you dont decide to pay for S3. You still keep your S2 license AND you still get free updates.

There is really nothing to complain about. They are putting a price on their time and effort to laser scan a new track and future updates that will no doubt take a lot of work. Is that really so unreasonable?

Ah ha...I'm seeing it now. Thanks for the pictures

Quote from JJ72 :

V8 supercars don't have "tube framed" versions, they use the exact same chassis as the road car with roll cages installed, and most of its panels.

That's why I show you a stickerless pic, cos all that sticker really disguised the line of the car.

I responded too fast. I only saw 1 photo. I'll take a careful look at the other photos now.

Mind posting stickerless pics of the Commodore?

Quote from JJ72 :

Is that the same model that V8 Supercar uses (i mean the EXACT model?) Cause that V8 Supercar looks like a "tube framed" version of this. I know the standard difference between the Falcon and the Commodore. But when it comes to V8 Supercar specs they just look similar to me.

It might be the massive amounts of stickers. But they still look similar.

Quote from JJ72 :

hm, I wouldn't go as far to say you are blind.....but they have different roof lines, different waist lines, different fender design, different front and rear end because they were actually modified from the real car.

The chassis themselves are modified from the stock as well, instead of a spaceframe/tubular chassis build from scratch.

Which can't be said with the Nascars, which is modified from a common template to resemble a real car.

Lets leave NASCAR out of this for a moment, I again looked at screenshots of V8 SuperCars and looked back at the front shot of the pic I just posed.

They just look like...sedans...that's it. I mean aside from the slight variation in headlights and grill. They both look extremely similar. Not similar to the point of indistinguishable. But still extremely similar. If you can get me a comparison photo of the V8 Super Commodore and Falcon. Then I might be able to see it, but I still dont see it as quite different

Quote from PAracer :

Lol. I just thought of something. Why don't we have a thread about broccolli? We could have a few people in favor, then a dozen or so folks rambling on and on about how much they hate the stuff. All of this banter about "NASCAR this, and Nascar that" really the same thing.

For what it's worth, F1 cars look pretty similar to me. Swoopy open wheel cars with wings tacked on. Same with bikes, dragsters, v8 supercars. They all pretty much look the same. Perhaps that's why they're in the same race.

Yes...the mob mentality of this forum is quite dreadful at times.

Quote from amp88 :

Disagree. There are several substantial differences between the FG Falcon and the VE Commodore including the front and rear lights, front grille, front airdam and rear wing.

Hmm, actually I would disagree but if you can prove me wrong I'd welcome it. I've attached pictures of the V8 SuperCars. From the front shot with the massive amounts of stickers the cars look essentially the same for me except for the massive rear wing.

When it comes to the nose, when you remove some of those stickers, the nose have slightly different grills and headlights but that's about it (as far as i can tell). Chassis wise I really cant see anymore different than that.

They still look incredibly similar to me.

Quote from deggis :

I have zero interest in oval racing but I'd be happy with a stock car. Because it means rwd, lotsa power and not so sophisticated handling.

Yeh, who says stock cars have to run exclusively on ovals? I'd even be happy with a Stock Car Brasilish car or a TC car.

Of course, if stock cars isn't what the devs have in mind then the prototype would make me just as happy

Quote from Zay :

Ok this is it, for all of you who think the MRT is a kart,well its NOT A KART!!!!!

Wait...isn't the MRT based off the Formula SAE? (in other words almost an exact fictional duplicate?)

Sure...let's review shall we?

Quote from Forbin :

Could have fooled me...

If this statement was posted by someone else I probably wouldn't have had the interpretation that it was a snide remark.

Quote from Forbin :

Compared to the visual differences in the cars and bikes in other forms of motorsport*, those details are laughably tiny.

*F1, FIA GT, WTCC, WRC, WSBK, MotoGP, the list goes on

Key words that make this post (to me) seem like a derogetory statement. Also the fact that you've listed multiple series that the general consesus seems to be "better" because they have a large variety in chassis and engineering. Did you need to list those series? Of course not, I dont spend 100% of my time watching just NASCAR...but you decide to do it anyway rubbing in the fact that NASCAR is "lower" cause of it's spec like chassis regulation. I've seen that argument used multiple times against NASCAR and even IndyCar (probably from you as well). Nevermind the fact that when it comes to NASCAR, the previous models were more different than Turismo Carretera, ASA and other stock car series. Yet you've ignored the fact that this is a stock car comparison.

Quote from Forbin :

Why are you so quick to get offended over how I think the cars in NASCAR look?

Considering that it came from a highly outspoken critic who shares Tristancliffe and Vinnylegends' hatred of NASCAR, I wouldn't say that assuming your posts as snide remarks are unreasonable. Especially from someone who believes that NASCAR is the absolute bane of motorsports with one of the essential arguments is that NASCAR cars look nothing like their manufacture, nor are their differences big enough to actually mean anything despite having 4 constructors.

Last edited by lizardfolk, Mon, 28 Sep 2009 02:22.

Quote from SidiousX :

I'm not either. The production cars are different, and so are the race cars.

Yes, I know that. But the Fords and the Holdens aren't as different as say the Seats and the Chevys in WTCC. They are very similar in respect to each other.

Last edited by lizardfolk, Sun, 27 Sep 2009 22:26.

Quote from SidiousX :

Ehh, not really, they are highly-modified production cars, their dimensions are modified a bit.

They are similar in relation to each other, I'm not talking about comparing them to their production versions (neither is Forbin)

Quote from SidiousX :

As does formula mazda, star mazda, spec ford, spec miata.... Just ignore him, just another ignorant person that bashes stock car racing.

And dont forget V8 SuperCar where the Fords and the Holdens look incredibly similar (save the stickers). The difference between those two are also "laughably tiny compared to other forms of motorsport". :rolleyes: Ignorance is truly bliss

Quote from Forbin :

Compared to the visual differences in the cars and bikes in other forms of motorsport*, those details are laughably tiny.

*F1, FIA GT, WTCC, WRC, WSBK, MotoGP, the list goes on

And IndyCar still uses the same Dallara chassis...So what? What's your point? The difference in chassis has made a difference in the outcome of NASCAR races before (i'm talking pre-CoT of course). In fact, the ASA stock cars in Trans-Am racing has shown that individual constructors mattered quite a bit on road courses.

Also, take a look at Turismo Carretera. The Argentina stock car. Each constructor has been incredibly different in regards to performance. But can you see a difference that isn't "laughably tiny"? No? Thought so.



Are you done being an immature troll? :rolleyes:

Last edited by lizardfolk, Sun, 27 Sep 2009 18:54.

Quote from Intrepid :

F1 racing has been boring for about 50 years. Watch most of the extended highlights from the BBC's archives they put on their site.

To say F1 'racing' is boring is like saying 1 plus 1 equals 2! If the races surprise you by being boring then you mustn't have a very good memory

So your saying that F1 has been boring since it's birth?

Race was boring, decided to switch off to a replay race of BTCC and I didn't regret it think this will be the last F1 race I will watch. (exception of the Abu Dhabi race just cause I'm curious)...

I watched the video again and again....IDK, maybe Jason Plato in BTCC is making me soft when it comes to contact. Way I see it, it looks exactly like a racing incident.

Brad wasn't by Hamlin's side. But Hamlin did open up room for Brad to pass. Brad, figured he should move into the empty spot. Hamlin didn't think Brad would do that and closed in. Bam.

Typical racing incident imo.

I will admit that I've never liked Hamlin, best example of his dirty driving I can think of right now is the David Reutiman incident where he took out both David and Marcos Ambrose.

And, Hamlin's response to that incident was uncalled for as well. He is quite the prick. But I honestly think that the Dover 200 incident between those two was really a racing incident

Interesting article about Ricky Carmichael. One of the greats in Supercross.

http://www.nascar.com/2009/new ... as.rcarmichael/index.html

Quote from col :

didn't you read my post?
I said MANY, not ALL.
Please stop misrepresenting me.
FWIW, if a hollywood movie uses footage of real death. or events that caused real death, then its hard to justify. I would label films with that sort of content to have questionable taste.
Most of the ones I've seen like that are dodgy jingoistic propaganda anyway.

Schindler's list used real footages of concentration camps and mass graves. And why does it have to be hollywood? Fallujah (director's cut) had footages of actual Israeli and Palestinian soldiers getting killed. I believed Waltz with Bashir had similar footages as well. What about the amazing documentary Taxi to the Dark Side? Real footages of actual torture and death from torture? Oscar documentary...It shouldn't be a question of whether real death footages are used, it should be a question of how it's used. That's what matters.

Quote from col :

F&*k me, there you go putting words in my mouth AGAIN.
Where the hell did I say anything about Waltz with Bashir, Savior, and Saving Private Ryan ?

That was a hypothetical statement, you've obviously missed the point read that again

Quote from col :

Wow, you don't even understand the meaning of a simple word like 'entertain'
Why do I even bother.

WTF, I've said this before and this WILL be the last time I say this again. Just because I hold a different opinion or view doesnt than you suddenly make me a lesser person. The insults are highly unwarranted so I suggest you get off your holier-than-thou complex and stop being a condensencing dick about this.

I obviously didn't intend to offend anyone and I apologize if I did. However, I will stick by my work unless you clearly knock me off my position (which you haven't yet)

Quote from col :

entertain:
1. to hold the attention of pleasantly or agreeably; divert; amuse.

Key word...pleasantly, agreeably, amuse. Being made to cry is not pleasant nor is it agreeable or amusing to the person...

Quote from col :

So If you watch a serious, thought provoking film and come out saying, "that was a great film", then you have been entertained (your attention has been held agreeably).
It seems like you think it has to be comedy or in some way lightweight before its entertainment???

No, but read my previous statement again...Key word...pleasantly, agreeably, amuse. Being made to cry is not pleasant nor is it agreeable or amusing to the person...

Being amused and being emotionally touched are two very different things. The most basic thing we learn here in yank film school. IDK maybe the Europeans have a different idea of this whole thing...but if so, argue your reasoning without being a condensending ass or else there's no point in continuing this.

Quote from col :

No it isn't
That is a weak and inappropriate analogy

W/e, fact is, just because one person has an opinion about something doesn't automatically make their opinion valid just because it is an opinion. Opinion may not be as black and white as facts. But that doesn't mean they cant be either invalid, illinformed, and or misguided (as you no doubt think that about me).

I say again, if one person thinks torture is a form of entertainment...does that all of a sudden magically make torture lighthearted?

Quote from col :

well, that proves that you don't know the full meaning of the word

Or you are applying the word to liberally.

Last edited by lizardfolk, Sat, 26 Sep 2009 22:13.

Hey, was looking on my steam today and noticed this game is going for only $10

Was wondering if it is worth the 10 bucks anyone know?

Based on IGN reviews this game is a bit to hard and "sim" like...dont know if I would like to trust that lol

http://ps2.ign.com/objects/833/833427.html

Last edited by lizardfolk, Fri, 25 Sep 2009 07:06.

Quote from Forbin :

Any perceived shape difference that can be seen in that image between those 2 cars is merely an optical illusion as a result of, as Quicksilver pointed out, the different logos.

See pic attached.

:rolleyes: Anyone can see that the pontiac 2003 Grand Prix has a kickout in the nose compared to the 2003 Ford Taurus. The Taurus is actually rounder and slightly fatter as well. Also notice that the chevy Monte Carlo in the first pic next to the Taurus has a wavy spoiler as well and a slightly larger back

Quote from Forbin :

Could have fooled me...

Does that even look like the same chassis to you?.... :rolleyes:

I will admit that the CoT is near identical between each manufacture and that's kinda lame imho

Quote from col :

No-one is going to stop you watching the videos, just don't pretend that they are educational or that they are not offensive and disrespectful.
There is no death or gore in Schindlers list or any war movies, only simulated death and gore. And in the context of this discussion, that is a crucial distinction.

What about documentaries that show real people getting killed or mangled? I see countless of images of the battleships in Pearl Harbor getting the crap blown out of them (and no doubt killing millions of people with each explosion). What about WW2 and Vietnam documentaries that literally puts in footages of people getting shot.

How about the Holocaust footages that show people being tortured to death and the countless footages of the Jew's starving corpses...

If you consider all those documentaries to be distasteful purely because they used real footage of people's death and suffering than you and I have no more to say to each other.

Quote from col :

Of course, there is also the fact that many war films have questionable morals. Many glorify war and glorify death. Others were made for propaganda and to help persuade young impressionable men to enlist.

I've always agreed with the notion that films such as Saw and Hostel serves absolutely no purpose but to show and glorify torture.

However...if you believe that films such as Waltz with Bashir, Savior, and Saving Private Ryan were films that did nothing and never intended anything more than to glorify deaths and killing then you are seriously misguided about this entire notion.

If you cannot see the difference between Hostel and Saving Private Ryan, then I truly feel sorry for you...

Quote from col :

Films are not entertainament, its called a film.
or
Documentaries are not entertainament, its called a documentary.

Why must films be entertainment? Transformers 2 is entertainment. Breach, Syriana, Primer, and millions of other art films are not entertainment. Doesnt mean they are not great films, but I have yet to meet anyone who was "entertained" by them.

Quote from col :

If people are entertained, its entertainment.

I use to know someone who thought that making sandwiches in a deli was entertaining...so does that make making sandwiches an entertainment?

That's like saying, oh everyone around me supports a dictatorship, so I must support him too.

Quote from col :

The OP is clearly trying to present a tribute (misguided IMO) that also entertains people. This is clear from his posts explaining that he didn't want to use a narrative dialog.

You keep repeating that my tributes are for entertainment. Ok, let me ask you this. Why in the world do you get the notion that this was entire to make people entertained (laugh, cheer, feel happy)?

Quote from col :

Anyway, why the hell can't a tribute be entertaining ?
I've seen plenty of respectful tasteful tributes that are highly entertaining

Maybe you can enlighten me (i.e. point out one that was entertaining). I have never NEVER seen a true tribute of a tragic event that was entertaining. Watching the Arizona get blow the crap out of it in Pearl Harbor was not entertaining. It evoked a tragic emotion in me, but I do not consider that being "entertained"

Likewise, films like "Savior" and "Saving Private Ryan" was touching and heart felt. I dont consider that to be "entertained". In fact, Savior as a film was painful to watch. I ask you to carefully look at the distinction between being entertained and emotionally touched cause in my opinion, there's a very thick line between them.

Quote from TFalke55 :

season finale next season at Rockingham... anyone?

Absolutely. With the kyoto and rockingham you can have two standard config races while having 2 rev oval races (and adding in the 500 if you want).

But 4/6 or 5/5 oval to circuit ratio is very good

I would personally prefer a 5/5 however.

Kyoto Speedweeks 400
Rockingham Reverse 300
Kyoto 500
Clockwise 300
Rockingham Finale

Rest circuits