That's because a) the virtual world is being recreated on the screen by a virtual camera and b) most game developers fancy themselves as film-makers
Disallowing the use of brakes completely would be a good way to add variety to the somewhat repetitive and tedious lessons as they are currently. The most difficult thing when you first try a simulator is judging speed. 'No brakes' lap times are a good way to get used to judging your entry speed.
(I realise this has nothing to do with drift lessons as such, but I'm now deaf to the futile LFS drift/race debate)
Obviously - I was just saying that the adult way to deal with this is to engage the posters when they post, rather than adding to the clutter with garbage like this thread, posted in the wrong place, and doing nothing more than reiterating familiar mantras.
1) Agreed - my bad wording, you and I both know that seeing is not the same as perception
2) Don't make me repeat myself.... Oh, ok, you're going to make me repeat myself.... I have no argument with your outline of depth perception, but with the idea that image and reality are interchangeable.
Last edited by nihil, .
Reason : lousy typing
I don't? Well, that's true, because I have no argument with your bluffers guide to stereoscopic imaging, but you seem smug enough to be worth baiting for a while...
My problem was really with Tristan's suggestion that image and reality are equivalent to the degree that it makes no difference. I agree that:
is a workable way of reproducing the way we see, at the same time, this doesn't make image and reality interchangeable.
It is still a framed 'image', except now the framing device becomes the limited amount of information that the image can contain. While, theoretically, the real world is finite in its content too, it will be a long, long time before any mechanical image is able to replicate the resolution of reality.
Perception is a rather different and more involved process than just the mechanics of seeing.
Without turning this into a philosophically vacuous "what is real?" type thing, no you don't.
What you see on a monitor is two dimensional. The monitor itself is palpably different - you can walk around it and see its back, you can see its sides. The image on the screen has none of these extra attributes.
If I move my head, what I see of the monitor changes, but the image on the monitor does not necessarily change in the same way. The image may be skewed a little, but it will reveal nothing more than it did before I moved my head.
Last edited by nihil, .
Reason : typo
Having a bad day, so excuse my brusqueness, but its a car game... kids are going to be attracted to it, they aren't going to search for topics, they are going to ask the same questions over and over. That's what kids do.
Get over it everybody.
Veer off topic?! Thats more like some snap oversteer you've got there, mate....
""Our primary concern with the Car of Yesterday was safety," said NASCAR competition director Robin Pemberton. "The fans hate that shit. We had to keep that in mind when we went back to the drawing board, so we took away anything that increased grip, improved handling, or prevented a stock car from experiencing a sudden and total loss of control. NASCAR isn't about the cars, it's about the drivers. And the Car of Yesterday keeps the driver involved with the vehicle, whether he's just driving it or, ideally, crashing it."
:ices_rofl
Perhaps this should also be posted in the F1 TC thread....
:ices_rofl
Perhaps this should also be posted in the F1 TC thread....
The way simmers talk about 'reality' is almost quaint in its naivety. The idea that there is a right and true way to represent reality is overwhelmingly dominant, and frankly I find it infantile.
The perfect simulation would be indistinguishable from the 'real', but such perfection is (within current technological abilities) nothing more than utopian fantasy. Representation requires compromise and fudging; it requires improvisation and, ffs, it requires creativity.
LFS is a fiction that attempts to get close to the real, but its a fact of being a fiction that it will never be real.
Why is this in the improvement suggestions forum? Its more a howl of anguish than a constructive suggestion.
Sounds like a certain kind of 'democracy'.
I didn't have a problem with the gearing, but then I'm only just getting into the quicker half of a 1.46 at the moment (don't drive SO very much). I was happy with the set generally - yes, I prefer the car a bit looser usually, but certainly didn't find myself cursing this set up.
The FXO I liked too - felt a bit more 'alive' than some of the 'point and shoot' set ups that I've tried from Inferno. But again, not much experience with the car, si I don't really know what it should be doing anyway... Quite happy with it.
Oh... new FXO set... didn't see that...
The XFG I haven't tried yet, but I'm betting I'll find it weird. But that's because I find FWD weird in LFS anyway. Nothing to do with anything you've done....
OK, so it doesn't matter which one is true - both imply that the event is staged purely for Iranian domestic consumption. A way to unify a nation that is really quite split at the moment.
I had it in my head that the deal must be between America/Britain and Iran, but this makes more sense. A very dangerous way to go about it though... there is a sense of desperation in the tactic. All or nothing.
Last edited by nihil, .
One thing has been bugging me throughout this business... And I admit I haven't been following it closely, so please chastise me if there is already a plain answer to this... But why did Iran take these hostages?
Its a quite transparently theatrical event, so must be a form of bargaining. Iran has created a lever, most likely for a quite specific 'request', for want of a better word. But I can't fathom what deal is being forged, what negotiation is happening (the negotiation over the hostages freedom, guilt, and innocence, is purely for public consumption, I am sure)
Would solve your problem....
TZR! What are you talking about? Great bike! Ok, not great, but still.... I had one and had so much fun on it.
Got nothing at the moment [deeply vexed and frustrated emoticon]
Last edited by nihil, .
Realism for me is in the driving and the competition. Pictures on the screen are just info telling me where things are, how they are reacting. If I were to meet someone driving naked on a real-life track, it would not bother me in the least. Their business, not mine.
That said, I can see how this would matter to someone making movies. But I can't honestly say I have ever seen such skins on line yet (though I know now that they exist). So I can't honestly say its a big deal.
We® would not allow that to happen, since We® have vested interests in the stability of those countries.
Does this actually matter for anything other than a broadcasted league race, where such things would be self-policed anyway?
I'm not sure if the OP was actually talking about a lag crash. Its something I've noticed a few times - brushing another car can result in highly exagerated reactions. Someone lightly tapped my rear the other night and it sent me spinning - we were both sat looking at each other by the side of the road thinking "What went on there?!" Not a disappearing car thing at all...
LOL - I've never seen one and really don't care how a cartoon driver looks in his car. My presumption is that its as editable as any other skin and its up the car 'owner's' preference.
LOL - he's smooth in the any weather condition, but the rain suits him. I'll bet he's hoping for another Hungaroring!
Please name a country on Earth that doesn't have a history of violence. Humans are violent by nature, especially when they gather into 'nations', and even more so when those nations pray to fairygodfather deities.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG