I saw this advice in GT5 forum...it's from a Shift dev....it worked for me.

Quote from Shift Dev :

My steering wheel feels unresponsive
It is recommend that you set the wheel to 360 degrees of turning lock and 0% speed sensitivity. We also recommend that you do not set the steering lock to anything higher than 450 degrees without then also adjusting the lock settings for your car in the advanced setup screens. Using the Logitech control panel set the steering lock to 360 degrees, then in-game select the appropriate preset for the wheel. Also using the in-game options set the speed sensitivity to 0% and ensure the steering deadzone is set to 0%. We recommend this as a good starting point however you may want to spend some time tweaking these values to better suit your driving style.

I've had this S2 license for some years now. I loved the LFS demo and went and got the full game. But I never play LFS and here is why....

It's intimidating. It seems like those who play LFS are hardcore. So, I get a car and start practicing on some tracks. Then I go online and fine no one is racing that car/track combo at the moment. So I take a look at what they are racing...then I go and practice for a few days and try to get my lap times down to something respectable.

Then next time I check back in they're playing some other car/track combo.

And it's not just tracks but various configurations and even in reverse. *sigh*

Right now I'm enjoying games like Dirt 2, Shift or GT5 P because they're not intimidating. I can just jump in and race and learn as I go. And these games have single player that actually prepares you for online racing.

So where do I start with LFS?

Quote from Kalev EST :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3obxPwn6QE

Wow, that was amazing!!

I would LOVE to be in that car. Talk about SKILZ. I neverd like rally until this game. I think I'll try and watch some events.

Anything to watch in the states?

Why do you guys consider Forza 2 a sim when it has no cockpit view? A cockpit view--simulating the first person view--is one of the most basic elements of any sim. I will never imagine how you anyone uses a wheel while floating above looking at the roof of their car.

I've never played Shift but just watching the videos it appears to be a sim. Just because it's not as good a sim as say LFS, GTR2 or GT5P (Forza is not a sim IMO) doesn't mean it's not a sim.

It has the cockpit view, it has weight shifting, oversteer, understeer, lift-off oversteer and game lap times are near real life laptimes. If game lap times are close to real lap times that suggest the level of grip is close to real life.

To me an arcade game is Outrun or Pole Position or some of those other NFS games.

Quote from duke_toaster :

Nazis never get to power, no genocidal maniac takes control of Germany. No second world war. USSR implodes in the 40s.

Hitler drove WW2, if he wasn't in the equation it wouldn't have happend in all likelyhood.

It's all speculation though.

A second world war was inevitable because of the rise of fascism/nationalism and communism in Europe and Asia. Not to mention lingering animosity from the end of the WWI. And simply put the German military machine was way too developed to just sit there and do nothing. Whoever took control of Germany would have used it. Same with Japan's military machine.

It was only a matter of when.

And finally Germany like Japan lacked the oil they needed to fuel their war machines so invading the Soviet Union, Middle East, and for Japan China and South East Asia was inevitable.

Would the world today be better a worst?

I suspect worst. Here is my scenario...

Without Hitler I believe Germany creates the first atomic bomb. Germany was the center of a scientific renaissance. They were far ahead of the rest of the world in rocket technology and atomic research.

Once Germany had nuclear weapons they would have inevitably launched a war to avenge their defeat in WWI. Instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki we would have Moscow and London (probably two lesser cities in those respective countries).

Europe including Britain would be part of a fascist German empire--The United States of German (U.S.G). Most of the Soviet Union would be annexed for the oil fields. The Soviet Union as we know it would have never existed.

The United States, being out of range of German v2, v3, v4 missles would buy enough time to become the 2nd nuclear power. But without the poached German scientist the U.S. would take longer to develop ballistic missle technology.

Japan would seek an alliance with the U.S.G and dominate Asia ruthlessly. Japan would eventually be the 3rd super power.

So, instead of what we had with Hitler....U.S.A, U.S.S.R and China superpowers we would have had U.S.G , U.S.A and The Japanese Empire superpowers. I believe this is a far worse world than what we have now.

What's your scenario?

Why did you buy stuff for the resort with your own money in the first place? If the resort needed things and the owner didn't provide you with a means of purchasing then don't buy it. That's his problem.

And why didn't you just use the petty cash in the first place?

Try to work it out without going to court.

Quote from Boris Lozac :

What do you think of the upcoming Gran Turismo 5, will they go and make the game a true sim this time, with full on tire simulation, tire graining, warming, flat spots, tire bursts, stuff that we have in LFS?

I think the big difference between GT5P and LFS is damage and rolling. Other than that I don't "feel" much difference.

I don't even count Forza 2 because it has no cockpit view and no logitech wheels. I suspect Forza fans play with a game pad *gasp*

One cool thing is GT5P the tires get dirty when you drive over sand. This makes me think they're going in the right direction.

If by "hardcore" you mean things like tire pressure then I doubt it. Most people, me included, consider those to be tiresome details that get in the way. I'm sure many disagree.

Throw in damage and GT5P becomes a good sim. But I doubt they'll make it a "hardcore" sim.

I didn't know there was crime or junkies in the European socialist utopia.

Doesn't the govenment pay for their drugs? Why do they need to steal?

I understand your anger. I would be really angry too. You should buy one of those alarms that beeps you when your car alarm goes off. They're cheap. My sister's boyfriend has one. And you should never be more than a couple of minutes away from your car.

Your experience convinced me to get one of those alarms too.

Or maybe buy a fake replica cobra and leave it on your car seat when you're away

Strange, I was just about to start a thread asking the same thing. I've owned this game for a long time but I've almost never really played it online after playing the demo online many times.

With the demo it was easy to figure out what car/track you needed to learn. With the full game I feel lost.

I've been mostly playing games like TDU and now GT5P but I really want to give LFS a fair shake to see what people are always raving about.

And how close to the top times do I need to be to race without causing people to crash into me because I'm braking too early?

Quote from Hankstar :

Semi-correct.
Albert was more of a pantheist - one who believe in the interconnectedness of all living things and the universe in which they live. He was closer to Yoda than the Pope. Funny how people like to claim him (and others) as Christian as if he's some kind of trophy, some proof that religious people can be geniuses too, as if saying "hey, he's one of us, we're not all wackos!".

It's not like Einstein (or Leibniz, Descartes, etc..) are trophies. It's just that atheists often take this very condescending you-believe-in-God-because-you-don't-understand-physics attitude.

I'm no where near a physicist but it was my major in college. I know enough about science to know that it is descriptive and not perscriptive. It describes how nature works not why. Why is the domain of metaphysics and religion.

I believe we are intelligent, intentional, conscious, empathic beings because we come from a source (God) who has those attributes. It's not that science hasn't explained them yet. It's that science CANNOT explain these attributes because these attributes are not the domain of science. There is no experiment to measure intentionality or consciousness. Science cannot answer these questions and so we can freely choose explanations which we feel make the most sense to us.

For me, that is God.

Here is another quote from Einstein...

Quote :

I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thoughts. The rest are details. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p.202)

He believed the world was created intelligently not randomly. And I agree.

Last edited by somasleep, Wed, 9 Apr 2008 02:33.

People will try to frame the question as "Is there a God?"
That's like, "Is there a boogyman?" or "Is there a Santa Claus?"
That type of question immediately brings a negative response. Who knows if there is a boogieman or Santa Claus? Where is the proof?
But the question of God is not merely an "is there" question. The question of God relates to what you believe about yourself and human beings.
Do you believe human beings are a bunch of particles animated by physics? Do you really believe that's all there is to human beings?
Do you really believe that beings who write poetry and ponder the existence of God came about by accident? That's quite an accident, don't you think?
If there is no God then nothing you do really matters in the end. If you choose to kill 50 million people or help 50 million people it doesn't really matter because in the end everything turns out the same way. In the end the universe either expands until everything is cold and dead or it collapses again and everything is destroyed. Nothing that happened remains. Who is to say you ever existed?

The question for me is: Are we just particles and physics?

And don't be fooled into thinking that smart people are atheists. Einstein wasn't an atheist. Newton, Liebniz, Descartes weren't atheists.

Edit: I have a pretty decent argument for the existence of God written on another thread. Take a look at it.
http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=758966#post758966

You need exaggerated tire sounds to compensate for the lack of inertial feedback. IRL life you can feel the car and G forces. So you need another way of giving the driver feedback.

Quote from Hankstar :

When you finally decide to explain, backup or expand upon your assertion that free will (or anything else viewed as uniquely human) has or needs a supernatural source - instead of simply asserting that it does, I'll come back to this thread and continue the discussion.

Your question to me was: Why does free will require a supernatural explanation?

I return to my analogy of the puppet show. Two puppets are debating the issue of free will. One Puppet, let's call him Pinocchio, says, "We are not free because everything we do is controlled by a puppet master pulling strings and everything we say comes from the mouth of the puppet master." The other puppet objects saying, "Pinocchio, if what you say is true, then those are not really your words but the words of the puppet master and even my response to you are the words of the puppet master. If what you say is true then what is the point of this conversation?"

From the puppet show we see that the question, "Do we have a free will?" is equivalent to the question, "Who is the actor?" In the case of the puppet show the real actors were not the puppets, the true actor was the puppet master. In our world the question is are we the actors or is nature the true actor and us merely puppets? Having free will means being the actor, being the one who acts, being the one who chooses and being the one who chooses to act.

I can already hear your objection to the analogy. You don't believe puppets and puppet masters reflect the real world.

So, let us imagine a god named Physics, the god of Nature. This all powerful god can place even the smallest lepton, electron, neutron anywhere he likes. Every single particle in the universe is precisely and delicately placed by his omnipotent thumb and index finger at each infinitesimally small interval in time. Every event in the universe is deliberately and precisely orchestrated by him as a one playing the ultimate game of Chinese Checkers. Those things we call "laws of nature" are his strategies. On of his popular strategies is moving particles according to mathematical equations--the law of gravity for example. Sometimes he uses trial and error strategies--like evolution--just to make the game more fun.

So, the question is: In a world controlled by this god of Nature can we have free will? Are we the actors?

Certainly, in such a world there is no free will. We are not the actors. The god of Nature is the actor. We are merely his puppets. His random choices (quantum mechanics) doesn't change this fact in the least.

Having free will means being actors and thus having powers like the God of Nature. It means having the power to direct a few particles within our own brains.

In conclusion, for free will to exist there must exist actors other than nature. It's as simple as that. And anything that is not nature is by definition supernatural. So, I hope I have clearly explained WHY I feel you need something supernatural in order to explain free will. You can deny the existence of free will but then I would reply to you as Pinocchio's friend replied, "If what you say is true then what is the point of this conversation?"

Quote from Hankstar :

You give me a list of things that would conceivably fall into the supernaturally-inspired, like a zombie grandmother, non-burning burning bushes that have delusions of grandeur and, for crying out loud, the fanciful loaves and fishes story and expect that'll sway me. How exactly do these hypothetical, fictional situations give any weight to your argument that free will and humanity require the supernatural? They're completely bloody irrelevant!

You miss the point here. You claimed that it was impossible to physically observe a supernatural event.

Quote from Hankstar :

Last time: tell me WHY (on what basis, how, etc) you think humanity needs the supernatural & WHY free will in particular requires supernatural intervention - or just stop posting. If all you're going to do is say "it just has to" or list hypothetical ghost-story situations (as if they have any bearing on this topic) then there's nothing left for us to discuss.

I simply assumed that the problem of free will was well understood by most. Do we choose or does the state of our brain and environment choose for us? Are our choices determined by prior physical states? Or are they random?

I assumed the "problem of free will" was well understood. My position is not something I invented. It's a well known argument (so I thought).

It's very late here in New York so I can't go into a lengthy explanation right now. I'll try and explain later.

Quote from Hankstar :

Anything supernatural is, logically, unavailable to human perception because we can only perceive that which exists naturally. Logically, using logic to explain that which, logically, we can't even perceive, is the very height of illogical thinking.

I'm sure you must have a relative who has passed away. Now if tomorrow they knocked on your door and had tea with you, would that count as supernatural?

If you saw a burning bush that didn't burn but heard a loud booming voice saying, "I am the Lord your God!" Wouldn't you call that supernatural?

Your claim that the supernatural is unavailable to human perception fails.

If 7 loaves and 2 fish somehow multiply to feed a crowd of 4,000 that would count as supernatural, woudn't? That would be perceivable wouldn't it?

But my claim is not about Biblical miracles. I'm just proving that your claim that the supernatural is unavailable to human perception is false.

If an apple falling from a tree stopped in mid air, that would suggest something supernatural. Of course, you could speculate about natural causes like an invisible alien playing games or a gravitational anamoly but one would be justified in believing it to be supernatural, right?

We directly perceive free will. We experience an ability to act and choose freely. What makes it supernatural is simply our perception that our choices are not bound by what is typically understood as "natural law" (physics, chemistry, biology).


Now if you want an oxymoron then try this: a scientific explanation of free will.

I hope I answered your questions. If I missed something please ask.

Last edited by somasleep, Wed, 2 Apr 2008 05:06.

Quote from Shotglass :

hm i hadnt thought of that angle
therefore free will (if it exists at all) cannot be supernatural

You're a human being. You make choices every day of your life. Why do you need a scientific proof that you have free will?!

I don't have a scientific proof but rather a logical proof. The claim, "I have no free will" is self-contradictory. If the claim is true then the we don't have any freedom to agree or disagree. We can reject the claim because it makes truth unknowable.

Doesn't that make sense?

Maz4200,

My argument is a logical argument and not a Biblical one. I argue that a supernatural aspect is needed to explain human qualities.

Why not just admit that while physics is great for explaining rocks, planets, and stars it doesn't do a good job explaining people?

What is not natural is supernatural.

Assume everything in the universe is governed by natural law.

You are a part of the universe therefore you are governed by natural law.

The matter in your brain is a part of the universe therefore it is governed by natural law.

Your decision to become an atheist is governed by natural law.

My decision to believe in God is governed by natural law.

So, what are we arguing about?

I guess natural law makes us argue.

For the materialist, there is simply no way around this problem no matter how much he protests.

But the atheist can never admit to anything supernatural because that would leave just slightest crack and the entire pantheon of gods would come bursting through.

Quote from Shotglass :

current lack of explanations can never and will never disprove science as the very basis of science is that its theories can change, evolve, or be disproven at any time if something new is discovered

If science explains why you chose to not believe in God then your choice wasn't free was it? It's contradictory to say that one day science will "explain" free will.

Quote from Shotglass :

determinism has been discounted when the randomness of quantum physics and chaos theory came around... keep up

That's true but saying we behave randomly doesn't help. So we make decisions based on a coin flips?

Quote :

Also, the difference between a jury and a criminal is that the criminal used his intelligence to harm others instead of using it for other productive means.

The brain is a neural network. It has memory. It is trained by reward and success. Your brain is trained by your environment. Your environment is controlled by the laws of physics.

You do not have any choice of the brain you were born with and you do not have any choice about the environment your brain was trained in.

Clearly, you have no control over your intelligence so when did the criminal have a choice? Intelligence and free will are completely different things.

Anyway, I think we are at an impass.

Quote from lizardfolk :

Sure, we all have basic tendencies that follow the law of nature. However, materialism never said we had to cooperate with them.

Of course it does. Anything that defies (does not cooperate) with the laws of nature is supernatural by definition.

You are right that if we always behaved according to natural law there would be no free will.

Quote from Woz :

The brain is a chemical based device that drives the body but why does that stop free will?

Because you're saying that your brain behaves according to the laws of chemistry. So, when you make a choice it's because of chemistry. It's not really because one choice is better or more reasonable than another. It's just chemistry.

There was a lawyer who used to argue that his clients shouldn't be held responsible for their crimes because we all behave according to biological and physical laws. So, the only difference between the Jury members and the criminal was luck.

Quote from petercollins :

It seems they have to dumb it down slightly for the masses, but it is a shame, when they've got the amazing graphics and real-life tracks and cars.

I don't think it's dumbed down. Have you played the latest release? I just downloaded the update to the JPN version. I turned ABS off. This game is extremely hard.

If there is anything off about the physics it's not because they were trying to make anything easy.

I sense that they are pushing for ultra realism. They're not pulling any punches.

Oh and the Ferrari F1 is the most beautiful set of polygons I have ever seen.

(I turned down the force feedback to 1 and it feels great)

Quote from Woz :

The brain also runs complex what if scenarios (thought) and has huge array of storage. Whenever you approach a situation it is pulling in all the required info from storage and playing what if to deal with possible problems etc. Your free will is what of those options you decide to act on.

If all matter behaves according to natural law and if human beings are purely material it follows that our choices are also a result of natural laws.

You cannot have free will if everything is matter and all matter behaves according to natural law.

And no, I cannot fly. I cannot violate the laws of gravity. I am not free to fly, but that's not what free WILL is about. I can will to fly. I want to fly. I can even close my eyes and day dream about flying at will. That's what free will is.

The freedom of the human will doesn't fit into the materialistic world view.

So, what do you do? The intellectual who does not want to admit that there are things that cannot be explained will choose to deny free will. However, most human beings do what makes sense, they reject materialism.

They reject the idea that EVERYTHING is material and behaves according to natural law. They believe that human beings have a supernatural aspect that cannot be explained.

My point is not convince anyone that there is a God. If you want to believe you're a giant biological supercomputer then that's fine with me--compute away. I only wanted to show that there are very rational reasons to believe in God.

Quote from Woz :

By your own words and logic you state that god controls us all like puppets. That means all the killing, horror and evil in the world is gods doing. It can't be anything else because we are puppets...

I never said God controls us. Like you, I believe in "free will." But I recognize that free will MUST be supernatural for it to be truly free. If a man's choice to pull a trigger and murder is just the same sort of complex physics that causes a tornado to destroy a home then why get angry? Everything is physics and we are, I guess, observers of murders and tornados--totally helpless to change any of it.

Like you I believe I am a free being. Which necessarily means that there is something about me that is supernatural.

The overwhelming majority of human beings believe that there is something supernatural about man. Call it a soul or a spirit or whatever. So, it makes sense to believe that these supernatural qualities have always existed. It makes sense that we came from something that is very much like us. Something that can make free choices, something conscious--God.

Most people spend so much energy criticizing the idea of God--and there are many valid questions and criticism--but they spend little time questioning materialism.

Of course you can believe that a number of free beings have always existed. But to me the idea of a single free being from wich all other free beings came to be makes more sense.

The alternative is to believe that we are puppets and physics (quantum mechanics, chemistry, biology, chaos theory, etc...) is the puppet master.

...and please don't respond by criticizing the idea of God without first explaining how free beings can exist in a world view without god(s).

But I find that most atheistic intellectuals would rather jump down the rabbit hole by denying that they are free agents. To which I respond, "What is the point of you trying to convince me that we have no free will if I don't have the free will to change my mind and agree with you?"

Quote from wien :

Why does the fact that your feelings are ultimately caused by electrical signals whizzing though your brain make them any less real? You are real. Proven fact. You have feelings. Proven fact. Losing someone close to you hurts. Proven fact. Kissing a girl makes your naughty bits tingle. Proven fact. It's all real. Why does the ultimate cause of all these feeling make any difference whatsoever?

Good question. One puppet says to the other, "Why does the fact that I claim we are both controlled by a puppet master make us any less real?"

The claim the puppet is making is nonsense. You intuitively understand it to be incoherent but explaining why it is incoherent is more difficult.

The problem you intuitively sense is that once the puppet claims his words are controlled by the puppet master he can no longer claim to make any objective statement about the puppet master. Hidden in his claim is the claim that we cannot know anything other than what the puppet master allows us to know. The puppet master can just as easily make him say, "There is no puppet master."

The problem here is you need some kind of dualism. Matter is not enough to explain everything. You need matter and beings who perceive and can make objective judgments about matter. The two cannot be the same without creating an incoherent world view.

It baffles me how rational people can seriously believe that the reason they think, feel, and believe what they do ultimately boils down to physics.

Quote from Woz :

I believe what I can understand and that can be measured and proven. So not God. That said, if a proof was found for God then the scientific would would be forced to accept that. Guess what, no proof yet, not even a shred.

How do you measure how you felt the moment you first kissed a girl? How do you scientifically prove you are in love? What equations of quantum mechanics explain the way a mother with a son in Iraq feels when she sees two somber looking soldiers at her doorstep?

When you insist on only believing only in what can be proven scientifically, then not only does God not exist but human beings don't exist either.

I believe there is a God because I see human beings as first class entities and whatever our source it must be something like us (God) and not unthinking unconscious matter. Materialism basically says that human beings are a type of phenomenon--they are a swarm of particles behaving in complex ways. I and the overwhelming majority of people (including Descartes, Leibniz, and Newton) reject this idea.

We don't believe that you can "explain" human beings completely in terms of physics. Simply, because if you could then there really wouldn't be any human beings but rather this one overarching explanation--particles, physics, randomness or whatever.

As we've made more and more scientific progress and begun explaining more and more physical phenomena some have jumped to the conclusing that EVERYTHING can be explained--including the explainer.

How can you convince me that my belief in God is unreasonble if indeed the ULTIMATE reason for my belief is the laws of physics and the ultimate reason for your belief is the laws of physics. Aren't we both two puppets arguing? You can't convince me through the strength of your arguments anymore than one puppet can convince another.

If everything is the laws of physics then people are just puppets controlled by the same puppet master (natural laws).

Ok, so if life is a puppet show then who is in the audience?