The online racing simulator
Searching in All forums
(978 results)
NightShift
S2 licensed
Quote from tristancliffe :Anti dive and anti squat do not alter the amount of longitudinal load transfer.

But ride height does, then improved suspensions would allow for lower cars without touching springs or dampers. Of course nobody would stop you from making them even stiffer, thus further reducing weight transfer.

Does anybody have good links about spring preload?
Can't find anything useful and it's been two days googling already.
Last edited by NightShift, . Reason : lorem ipsum
NightShift
S2 licensed
Quote from Amynue :"Actually it's just a minor irritation, which doesn't affect development". So we can play bingo as we are bored to death of waiting for beautiful Scirocco.

Hence, if the next patch comes with an insulting banner directed to you popping up every 5 minutes on your screen, it won't be a problem: just only a minor irritation that doesn't affect functionality, right? illepall
NightShift
S2 licensed
Did you people miss the post in which Scawen said they don't like motivational pictures?

Since they own the game and the forum it seems both wise and respectful to avoid posting them, or should we assume you're doing that on purpose to piss them off?
NightShift
S2 licensed
Quote from Slartibartfast :I have to do it by muscle memory alone. I have no other feedback.

To me LFS is exactly the same. The big difference is the max brake force is customizable in LFS which basically makes keyboard and mouse users potentially as good brakers as wheel users (=utter nonsense)

TBH I prefer the iRacing approach: the software is agnostic so it's only up to you and your controller (as IRL it's only you and your car), and they're trying to make sure nobody finds a way around this.
NightShift
S2 licensed
Quote from Becky Rose :With guns?

/endirony

Nice idea but the romans tried the dagger and we all know how it ended

Quote from Becky Rose :With all debates, make sure you are fighting on home turf. See i'll argue the bible and it's home turf to Christians, that's fine. But i'll argue one of the contradictions not the airy fairy thoughts presented here.

Airy fairy? that stuff was just an example of logical circles religious dogmas put you in - and they work to the intended effect. There are no contradictions in that because it's impossible to get outside its circularity, the only chance is to think out of the box, change the game field, so to speak. Maybe that was what you meant in the first place?

However if a person really believes, even pointing out contradictions won't help that much, you can't change a person's mind by just using logic. There are easier and more effective ways as the church knows well

Quote from Paranoid Android :The facts are all there people, you won't arrive at a conclusion of course, but you'll certainly eliminate religion first.

Take a deep look at how people become over a certain age. You sure are young and don't think too often about your death. For many people there comes an age when they start to think about it and what will be next. That's a moment when they find their lost faith back... and that is just an example. There are many more reasons people go back to religions, most of the times when they are faced with the prospect of death, suffering and other unpleasant things...
Last edited by NightShift, .
NightShift
S2 licensed
Quote from Sueycide_FD :"can i run a full grid of AI please kthx?"

Dual core support would make it much easier, especially for those who want to view replays afterwards. However AIs are regarded as a sort of extra (and indeed they are, but a useful one IMO), I wouldn't hold my breath.
NightShift
S2 licensed
Quote from tristancliffe :Spring preload will stop the chassis from moving initially until the preload is overcome, but then it behaves like it wasn't preloaded - i.e. preloading does not make the spring stiffer.

Of course not, otherwise there would be no point in fitting soft springs to a road car. In my posts, I was talking about the excessive suspension travel that we see in LFS whenever we use realistic values (i.e. taken from real car specs) rather than the bottoming out.

E.g. if you take the FXO and set it up with values (e.g. <30 N/mm), you'll see the front extend to dramatic results as soon as it goes uphill a bit.

My source stated preload limits excessive suspension travel and then went on to say 'on race cars preload isn't used anyway' so it did not explain in detail how this is supposed to work, if you can suggest any good links I'd be grateful
NightShift
S2 licensed
This is for all of you skeptics out there

Quote from Bob Smith :Even road normals give more grip than your typical road tyre, thus giving excess pitching under braking. Scawen is aware of this, and it might get adjusted so that the Scirocco does not unduly suffer from this issue (as the aim is for the fixed setup to be as close to real life as possible).

NightShift
S2 licensed
Quote from Bob Smith :The roll and pitch damping equations came from the spring & damper tech tips series from optimumg.com

Thanks Bob, in one of their pdf about suspensions and dampers they actually say something along the lines of

'some teams use damping values over 100% to control pitch'

BTW I have been reading a book about setups recently and the only mention I found about this was something like 'if the driver reports the car lacks feel and is slow to respond, it is usually overdamping so tone down the damper settings'

So it would seem the answer to my question is, overdamping has a legitimate place in racing, but its usage would probably be much more limited than what we see in LFS.

I have not the chance to check now but the above quotations should be correct in the spirit if not in the actual words.

PS: TBH I was expecting your reply to be a bit longer and more in-depth, but thanks anyway.

PPS:

Quote from Bob Smith :It depends what is causing the car to bottom out.

Care to comment about my point on spring preload?
NightShift
S2 licensed
Quote from JeffR :Except that the timing in these macros are a bit random, making them hard to detect.

I think you missed my point. The button clutch input is 'converted' from a digital value ) to a sort-of analog input when it is passed through the button rate.

In my idea, the clutch would have its own hardcoded button rate that cannot be changed using the button rate slider. It would be tuned to be slower than any other method of clutching.edge

That would get rid of it, IMO.

Quote from JeffR :Slowing down the auto-clutch shift rate would solve the in game assists issue

The auto clutch should be slowed down too, but of course this does not please the people who throw away their H-shifters, set their G25 to unrealistically slow lock values and do whatever amounts to a time gain.

Whenever you exploit a simulator, you're actually making it arcadish, so why play a simulator in the first place?

Bending driving aids to turn a comfort feature made for older/cheaper controllers and turning em into competitive weapons is completely pointless. Defeats the whole idea of a simulator.

But alas I'm basically one the few that thinks it that way, maybe I should just give up on LFS and its communty and go play iRacing.
NightShift
S2 licensed
All I've read so far about LFS indicates that is the case. However when it comes to using data from real sets, my readings suggest the lack of spring preload is to blame for excessive chassis movement - if certain assumptions are not proved false, within a few months we should be able to make meaningful comparisons with reality (or so I hope)
NightShift
S2 licensed
Quote from DragonCommando :they are exploiters that can't seem to grasp the fact that its supposed to take time/skill to do these things.

LFS also allows to exploit the flaws in the modeling. One could ask, what is the difference between exploiting the physics and exploiting the script system? why only allow one and not the other?

AFAICT the devs have never removed any hotlap or banned anyone because of macro shifting, it's basically a grey area.

Don't get me wrong anyway, if it was up to me I'd definitely take actions to make it impossible or simply not rewarding the usage of macro clutches, locked diffs and much more. It simply does not make sense to keep the game in this state just because a true fix takes too much time.

It's quite simple, slowing down the button rate for the clutch will take care of macro shifting altogether, and FWIW (=0) I already asked for that in the suggestions section.
NightShift
S2 licensed
Regarding overdamping in iRacing, it should be possible to check if it is allowed even without resorting to analytic calculations. There are certain track conditions that can be used to highlight the uberslow weight shifting that happens with overdamping. E.g. I remember if you use enough of it, the XRG does weird things on the last chicane on BL1. So it should be just a matter of finding the right combo and stretch of track to make a test.

@ Bob, I've looked at the spreadsheet, very interesting stuff, I'm certainly going to play with the sheet a bit to check my own sets I've tried to follow the logic behind the formulas and it seems consistent to me. BTW can you suggest an online resource explaining where they come from?

Back to topic, basically what people are doing is giving up on proper wheel control to manage the weight shifts instead and obtain the handling they want.

This only works because of shortcomings in LFS' simulation models i.e. tyres and suspensions. The car should be jumping around and losing grip on even the most insignificant flaw of the road, and even if the track was perfectly flat the temps would be insanely high, that is if everything I've read on the subject so far is correct and I understood it well.

Concerning squatting and diving, I take they should be controlled through suspensions geometries instead. So is it correct to assume a better susp sim model would render overdamping much less useful than it is now?

And back to iRacing again, assuming it has working anti-squat/anti-dive geometries, there would be no need to use overdamping in the first place

Has anybody an idea if it really has that?
NightShift
S2 licensed
Quote from JeffR :Some controllers have software that allow macros or scripts to be programmed and activated via button presses.

Just FTR you don't need any special software to make one, which was one of the arguments used by the party supporting the idea macro clutches are not a cheat.
NightShift
S2 licensed
Quote from Byku :Maybe You might disagree, BUT IT IS FUN TO MESS WITH SETTINGS!

Just because I suggested that setup choices should be more realistically limited, that certainly doesn't mean I want them to be crippled or removed altogether.

One thing should be kept in mind at all times: we all want LFS to improve.

(well except the iRacing fanboys that have nothing better to post silly pictures on the LFSforum, since they probably don't have so much fun on their own subscribers-only uber-moderated boards or they just have too much time to wait between a race or the other )
NightShift
S2 licensed
Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :I'm starting to think that LFS bogus setup options are really starting to skew some people's pereptions of what realistic responses are and are not. I would wager that a very small fraction of competitive drivers in LFS use setups that are anywhere near what would be acheiveable (or desireable!) in a comparable vehicle in real life(tm).

Quote from UncleBenny :One of my biggest pet peeves with LFS is how low people set their braking strength so they can just slam on the brakes and not lock up the wheels.

These two are very good points that the LFS devs should keep in consideration to improve their game, I've been trying to discuss them (and many of those bbman made) in several of my own posts and other threads.

LFS needs to improve, get more realistic about the setup choices but this is hardly new. It's one of those recurring issues that get discussed over and over and that the devs never seem to find the time or will to address.

TBH I think there's a good reason for that: it makes LFS more accessible, makes it more quickly rewarding - hence more licenses are sold. I'm pretty sure the number of hard core simmers who switch to iR because of the exploitability of LFS is offset by the number of drifters, cruisers and less finicky racers that are lured in that way.

This is a good strategy because LFS has very few ways to spread other than word of mouth: it also draws in people that are new to simracing without forcing them to spend money on wheels or other dedicated equipment, which is a Good Thing(tm). OTOH it also allows those users to get so many helps (both in the form of setup choices AND driving helps) that they often end up so fast that they never ever think about getting a wheel.

iR is doing exactly the opposite: use traditional marketing techniques and limit the ways drivers can exploit the sim. There's a lot of money behind it, so they can afford to do it that way.

In the long term this could favor iR, especially if they stick to a high development pace and if they decide to drop their prices. LFS would then be forced in the role of the 'kindergarten' (where no serious racing takes place) or the poor man's sim :worried:
NightShift
S2 licensed
I'm sure the next time I'll be the one trying to catch up
NightShift
S2 licensed
Quote from ColeusRattus :STill, I think there's a lot of money to be had to sell just the XRT and South City to those long time demo drifters.

Can't help but wonder if that would really work out.

It's like saying that you feel S1 as a package costs too much money for some people. IMO it's not the wallet which is lacking, but the will to open it...

I'd rather welcome an increase in the frequency of releases of payed content packages, e.g. S2.1 at a fraction of the 12£ (the cost for the complete S2->S3 license upgrade)
NightShift
S2 licensed
They're talking about april's fools in the news too, you'd have to live under a rock not to know. However if the hoax is good enough it will fool you nonetheless, maybe for not more than 5 secs, but long enough to put a smile on your face
NightShift
S2 licensed
Quote from JasonJ :Then they say, "no, I wanted a glass lift that you can see the ciy as you go up and down".

Great analogy, the only problem with it is only Scawen who can say 'I want a galss lift there' as it is constantly reminded us on this thread and elsewhere
Last edited by NightShift, .
NightShift
S2 licensed
name is Ponti, no final 'o' TY
NightShift
S2 licensed
Quote from March Hare :Got my act together for the last few laps and had some chances of catching up to Ponti. But made too many stupid little mistakes. Or jaust wasn't fast enought. Still a new PB and finished 17th.

Fixed the name

During the feature race I was hit in the first lap and then again in fourth and that made me lose several positions. After a couple laps all the feelings and the tension had faded away already, also because of a stupid mistake that meant losing completely sight of the pack.

That would have happened anyway I think as IIRC mine was really the slowest car to cross the finish line in the 2nd race but how it happened left somewhat of a bitter taste in my mouth.

So I was basically racing alone and plodding along for half the race, I was really expecting for you to pop up in my mirrors sooner or later and was indeed quite surprised you didn't.

The sprint race has been more satisfying for me, but as I crossed the finish line I thought 'what? finished already' would be nice to have its length extended to 20-25 minutes while still keeping the feature at 30 mins.
NightShift
S2 licensed
Nice and tidy, I think I'll give this a try soon, ty!
NightShift
S2 licensed
Quote from sinbad :I agree. The Scirocco was, and to a lesser extent now is, a curiosity. I was interested in the set up limitations, and because new stuff for LFS comes along once every 4 decades.

IMO many are waiting for the Scirocco not only for the reasons that you've listed (which IMO are enough to make the VWS not just a curiosity) and for others I won't repeat again.

It's the simplest of reasons: everybody wants a new patch it's been ...what? 8 full months since the last one? 9? it's hardly surprising
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG