I don't think that's what he means. It looks like the steering rack ratio is lower numerically in AC, causing the driver to not have to turn the steering wheel as much for corners. In the first corner, for instance, the real car's steering goes past 180 degrees, while the sim car only goes to about 90.
It's possible that it's simply the way it's being driven, but I kind of doubt it.
I know some absolutely retarded programmers. Like, crazy levels of stupid. Programming is just a language, you don't have to be a genius to speak French.
You're misunderstanding what people mean when they indicate faith is stupid. It has nothing to do with individuals and is only a criticism of the belief. Tom Cruise is a smart dude in general but he has some retarded beliefs. Doing well in programming does not preclude someone from doing or thinking something stupid. I tested into the top 1% among high school students in everything but math and I say and think retarded stuff all the time. Even Christopher Hitchens had some bigoted, sexist views come to light a few months before his death.
I see two major flaws in the logic you're using:
"Human's can't discover everything that is discoverable"
Of course, if it is undiscoverable, then it does not exist, because it has no effect on the universe. Even the things we can't see, like quantum tunneling and entanglement, are both discoverable because of their effects on the universe. If it changes anything, we can discover it. If not, it matters not, because it might as well not exist.
Under M-theory we could even detect other universes through gravimetric measurement.
"Confidence inspiring journals"
Would you prefer it if the first journal was never amended and we continued on in ignorance that our practices were useless or worse, harmful? I must assume you would prefer this because that is what you seem to have done by accepting religion. "God did it. Nothing will change my mind. If we discover this is wrong then my confidence in my current knowledge is shaken."
Let it be shaken. This is good. This is how we learn.
These two premises combined can be very dangerous to bettering our understanding. The prudent thing is reject them. By stating "we cannot discover everything, and when we discover anything it just invalidates old understanding", we become apathetic to self betterment. This is the ultimate tragedy of religion.
Indeed, and it's also important to imagine time as well. Ultra-basic life didn't emerge on earth until 700 million years after the formation. That ultra-basic life remained pretty much the same for another 1.5-2 billion years, when Eukaryotes came in. Most of the development of what we now call animals only happened in the last 500 million years (Cambrian explosion).
Since Eukaryotic life came in, the increased complexity of information allowed a much more rapid evolution than the simple single celled life from before.
Actually there are evolutionary certainties. Evolutionary science is being used to develop air foils, for example. Basically, the engineers develop a set of parameters they are looking for - minimum drag, a certain amount of lift, and building material limitations. They can iterate through a number of successive generations, with the simulator making selections within certain envelopes and maintaining a viable population. Over time, the best examples of that population will begin to show the traits the engineers want. Eventually they will end up with something that fits the original design requirements.
Evolution is not random. Random mutation is a part of it, but only a part. Random mutation tempered by natural selection and environmental pressure makes certain things assured.
Let's say I'm playing with your dice. I have 10 D20s and I'm looking for a roll to end up with a sequence that goes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. If I keep rolling for enough time, it will eventually land on this combination, but I might have to wait a ridiculous time because the probability of landing on this combination with one roll is very low.
But, what if I select ONE die per roll to freeze when it lands on the correct number? For instance, in a roll of 8 2 5 1 16 19 4 11 7 9, I can freeze the 2 and roll 9 dice again.
Sometimes I won't land on a correct number, and I'll have to roll all the same dice again, but the time it takes for me to reach the result is much shorter, and the probability of me landing on the correct number goes up and up as I freeze dice. That is how natural selection works, in a nutshell.
The total quantity across all lithium isotopes is correct. What was in question was the apparent imbalance between lithium-6 and -7. Older analysis showed that ancient stars had lithium-6 content, when they should not, and subsequently not enough lithium-7. The newest results from the Keck doesn't show any lithium-6 and proper levels of lithium-7.
The main assumption of people who tend to think the formation of life is improbable is that it is based on probability. It is not. Given the presence of not uncommon conditions, life is a certainty. It's a physical process, not some dice roll (on a macro scale. Obviously some probability creeps in on the mutagenic scale due to quantum mechanics).
Speaking of uncommon conditions, I recently read a very interesting, very short paper about the occurrence of a universal goldilocks zone with relation to water temperature and the conditions for carbon based life. The idea goes that about 10-17 million years after the collapse of the universal plasma, the mean spatial temperature would have been about 300k, which would have meant a universal goldilocks zone. Every planet, even rogue planets, excepting those already too close to young stars, would have been in more or less prime position to harbor life. It is not much of a stretch at all at that point to consider panspermeation being a relatively common occurrence, with the residents of the involved chunks finding a planet either already in or about to transition to a goldilocks zone. It's also very likely that these rogue planets harbored life well beyond the point when the mean temperature dropped to an uninhabitable degree due to tectonic, heat vent, and other life supporting planetary activity.
Try going into your video card drivers and change max pre-rendered or buffered frames to 1. By default Assetto Corsa asks for the drivers to set the buffer response and the drivers may be defaulted to 3 or more pre rendered frames. Mine was like that and it got easier to control when I changed it. Basically you get faster response.
As someone who has done a lot of instructing work in supercars, I can tell you that the 458 behaves and feels very similar to a mid engined Ferrari... It is certainly not arcade. It is designed to understeer if driven improperly. Remember, these cars are designed for footballers girlfriends to be able to drive safely, while still offering a precision track experience. This is not easy to pull off.
Hell, come out to Sonoma Raceway just north of SF and I'll ****ing coach you. Track day companies usually charge around $300-$400 per day for a 5 or 6 session day (20 mins per session).
You could even rent a Spec Miata race car for it if you wanted (no street rental car is going to be worth it. Maybe a 3 series...)
As far as culture goes, SF is mostly asians and Russians. It's about as foreign to Americans as any other country... Norwegians fit right in. There's a lot of Scandinavians here.
I've never driven on historic tires so I wouldn't know. i would guess that older tires are less predictable, excepting of course bias ply tires which are very progressive and easy to slide.
Road tires are easier... They are designed for 99% of drivers, not the 1% who know what they're doing... They are designed to be progressive and nice and full of feedback, because Joe who has just bought the highest treadwear eco tires he could find for his Mustang has never had a car sideways so he needs all the help he can get.
Holy shit, you really are braindead aren't you? Millions of people have bought GT and Forza over the years, so yeah, lots of people want to drive road cars. Plus you can't just step outside and drive a Ferrari F40 or a Pagani Huayra. ****, even if you do own these cars you can't track them at any time you want - you have to wait for a date, pay the fee, make the trip, share the track, wait for your run group in most circumstances... if you just wanna hop in a brilliant sim with a desirable car, what the hell is wrong with that? And what's wrong with wanting to run a flag to flag race with road cars? They are fun to race, fun to throw around, and offer something different from the on-rails handling offered by most race cars.
And I don't see anything wrong with wanting our own cars in the game. I want my RX-8 in the game quite badly. Almost half my miles in GT5 were spent driving the RX-8, and that will probably be the case again with GT6. We bought our cars because we like them in one form or another and it's understandable that we would like those characteristics in a simulator too.
I think if you haven't tried a Porsche or a Ruf on a track then you should be quiet.
If Kunos can nail (within reason) the feeling of a Porsche dancing on top of the track like they did with the Ferrari, then I fully support a Ruf.
But I voted Mazda, because I want my RX8 in the game. Plus 787b, IMSA GT cars (RX7, RX3), Grand Am RX8, the Legendary RX7 tuner cars, RX7 club racers, the original Cosmo... basically anything with a rotary would be sick.
iRacing is impossible to drift. Asetto Corsa is much, much more natural to me. I can't even slide once in iRacing without lots of luck, but I can hold big slides all day with the E92 in AC.
Entry burnup only happens when the entry is suitably oblique and speedy, like with an orbiting space craft. A simple free-fall or near-free-fall of a small, light object wouldn't cause any undue friction - like a weather balloon module or some crazy person jumping from said weather balloon.
Still, the survivability of a space-bourne organism would be quite high and could probably survive a moderate amount of reentry burn.