Why did Villeneuve have no chance of seeing him? He had mirrors, didn't he? JV had a slow exit from the chicane because he missed it...he should have been expecting people to pass him. These are racing drivers. That means they race, not sit behind people because it might possibly be a bit risky. Unless you're Rubens Barrichello, of course...
You may well be right about the incident in Turkey but from what I heard about the Spa incident, Pizzonia came from nowhere and took him out.
You really should get the CMX viewer from the LFS website...makes skinning a lot easier than looking at the results in-game!
http://www.liveforspeed.net/?page=addons
Look at the wheel torque/wheel speed graph in GRC again and load up any reasonable gear setup. Now try to imagine a smooth curve which maximises the torque at all wheel RPM, assuming that the transmission is infintely variable. This line will not go through the peak torque points in any gear. I'd imagine that it would go through the peak power point in each case.
No, JPG files cannot store transparency information (or layering information) so your image will be flattened when it is saved as a JPG. What you should do is work on your skin using layers and transparencies and save the skin in GIMP format (.xcf). This preserves all the layering and transparency information. Then, when you are ready to view your skin, use 'File...Save a copy' and save the image as a JPG. You'll still get the 'JPG can't handle transparency' error but it won't matter since you'll still have the original layered image saved as an XCF to work with.
No, you have to save the whole session. The replay system in LFS means that it is not possible to cut out one lap from a replay, you have to save the whole thing.
Mass might have a very small effect on the top speed in the sense that a heavier car will put more load on the bearings, increasing rolling resistance.
I think I agree with Bob and Colcob about torque being more important than power for low-speed acceleration but I can't quite convince myself why.
Since engines tend to produce peak torque and peak power at different RPM, which point gives the best acceleration? If a car had constantly-variable transmission, would it be better to hold the engine at peak torque or peak power while accelerating?
I think I agree with Bob and Colcob about torque being more important than power for low-speed acceleration but I can't quite convince myself why.
Since engines tend to produce peak torque and peak power at different RPM, which point gives the best acceleration? If a car had constantly-variable transmission, would it be better to hold the engine at peak torque or peak power while accelerating?
My first finished skin, Rob Collard's MG from this year's BTCC. Quite simple but that suits me since I'm no good at fancy paintjobs 
Didn't bother to put the numbers on because we don't have them in LFS and it seemed a bit pointless...
Didn't bother to put the numbers on because we don't have them in LFS and it seemed a bit pointless...
Last edited by StewartFisher, .
Yeah, you're probably right. I misunderstood the term 'dry-sump'. I don't have any more info on the failures, it was mentioned by the ITV commentary team at this year's Belgian GP. All they said was that the problem was that the oil was causing problems as it rushed to the top of the engine over the top of the crest. Whether that's because the crank was starved of oil or whether the pistons were drowned in it I don't know. Interesting that Honda had the same problem a couple of years earlier though.
I agree in principle, but the forces acting at ground level have nothing to do with weight transfer because they act on the unsprung mass of the car rather than the chassis. The weight distribution changes during acceleration/deceleration because of d'Alembert forces acting through the centre of gravity (F=ma, basically).
So you're saying that any drag forces acting below the CoG height (like the front wing) cause forward weight transfer? Surely the vertical position of the drag force relative to the pitch centre of the car is the key factor?
Forget acceleration for a moment and consider a car moving at constant speed. The drag force is not acting through either axle so the weight supported by each axle must change in response to the drag.
Including the tractive forces at the wheels (required to balance the drag since there is no acceleration) only applies if you're considering the whole car as a free body. When calculating weight transfer you only take the sprung mass of the car as a free body, therefore any forces acting on the unsprung mass do not come into consideration.
When you add acceleration, the weight transfer can now be modeled using d'Alembert forces acting on the CoG of the car where the force is equal to mass times acceleration (good old F=ma). Tractive force at the ground never comes into it, except to calculate what the acceleration of the whole car should be in response to a given applied wheel torque.
Ditto! I'm really not quite sure about the physics of the situation but something seems wrong with your explanation to me.
Renault traced their engine problems at last year's Belgian GP to the negative g-loading at the top of Eau Rouge. As the car crested the hill the negative vertical acceleration caused the oil in the sump to rise and interfere with the pistons, eventually causing failure. Doesn't mean they didn't fix it but it would seem that they don't use a dry sump system.
Sort of, but surely it doesn't matter where the aero forces act relative to the CoG? I haven't thought about it in great detail but surely any force which does not act through one of the axles must be taken into account when calculating load distribution?
I would have tried it myself but 6 unknowns would require 6 sets of RAF data and 6 simultaneous equations...no thanks!
If your car has a 100 litre fuel tank then what's the difference between using litres and percentages?
illepallWhat you're asking for is a change in the refuelling system such that you specify the amount of fuel to add during a pitstop rather than the total fuel load at the end of a pitstop.
Good work again Bob
One thing I've been meaning to ask you about since I 'discovered' it a few days ago is the effect of drag on the load distribution. I was trying to add downforce to a weight distribution spreadsheet I made and tried to calculate the locations of the three downforce points on the FXO GTR.
It's a standard three unknowns requiring three simultaneous equation problem so I used F1PerfView to give me the wheel loads for three levels of downforce all at 125mph. The locations my calculations gave me were completely wrong so I investigated...
I was taking moments about the rear axle to calculate the load distribution which means that ALL forces which have a moment about the rear axle must be included. This includes drag! I was just wondering whether your program takes drag into account when calculating the load distribution?
Oh, and I spotted a mistake in the latest version of the Advanced Setup Guide. You removed all the stuff about downforce affecting suspension frequencies from the 'Suspension' section but not the 'Downforce' section (it's on page 26).
One thing I've been meaning to ask you about since I 'discovered' it a few days ago is the effect of drag on the load distribution. I was trying to add downforce to a weight distribution spreadsheet I made and tried to calculate the locations of the three downforce points on the FXO GTR.
It's a standard three unknowns requiring three simultaneous equation problem so I used F1PerfView to give me the wheel loads for three levels of downforce all at 125mph. The locations my calculations gave me were completely wrong so I investigated...
I was taking moments about the rear axle to calculate the load distribution which means that ALL forces which have a moment about the rear axle must be included. This includes drag! I was just wondering whether your program takes drag into account when calculating the load distribution?
Oh, and I spotted a mistake in the latest version of the Advanced Setup Guide. You removed all the stuff about downforce affecting suspension frequencies from the 'Suspension' section but not the 'Downforce' section (it's on page 26).
Ah, I see...makes sense.
Yeah, I assume that the GTR cars will be given new interiors, just thought I'd try a little fix of my own until then. A large part of the fun of sims to me is fiddling around
Thanks!
Car shape location
I downloaded Bo Kristiansen's texture pack yesterday and was wondering how I could get the updated DDS files for the GTR cars into the game without affecting the road versions. I had a play around in the CMX Viewer and found that I could hex-edit the CMX files to reference a different texture, so I could make the GTR cars use different interior textures to the road cars.
The problem is that I can't find any CMX files in my S2 installation...just VOB files in the \data\veh directory. Does anyone know how to get at the CMX files for S2?
The problem is that I can't find any CMX files in my S2 installation...just VOB files in the \data\veh directory. Does anyone know how to get at the CMX files for S2?
Yeah, in singple player mode car reset will fix all your damage and give you new tyres (but it won't reset your fuel).
In multiplayer mode the reset just puts you back on track.
Yeah, they should have an effect but you wouldn't model them as individual wings, you'd just change the lift/drag coefficients of the whole car body.
Those calculations you did on the comparison with the FO8 rear wing show how effective spoilers are. The real beauty of a spoiler comes in the drag figures though... At 125 mph and 0 degrees AoA (TT with spoiler), the FO8 wing generates 87 Newtons of drag and at 4 degrees AoA (TT without spoiler) it generates 102 N. That's over 17% drag increase, while the typical increase in drag from adding a spoiler is of the order of 5%, usually less.
Those calculations you did on the comparison with the FO8 rear wing show how effective spoilers are. The real beauty of a spoiler comes in the drag figures though... At 125 mph and 0 degrees AoA (TT with spoiler), the FO8 wing generates 87 Newtons of drag and at 4 degrees AoA (TT without spoiler) it generates 102 N. That's over 17% drag increase, while the typical increase in drag from adding a spoiler is of the order of 5%, usually less.
Those things are spoilers rather than wings. They don't generate downforce but they reduce the production of lift (and also increase drag slightly).
Look at the side profile of a car and you'll see it looks roughly like an aerofoil (flat on the bottom, curved on top).
This means that cars generate lift at high speeds which can cause serious handling problems!
Spoilers do exactly what the name suggests, they spoil the airflow over the rear of the car by causing the boundary layer to separate earlier (ie somewhere over the rear window rather than at the edge of the tailgate). This causes a reduction in the size of the low pressure area at the rear of the car and reduces the lift. It does increase the size of the wake, however, so there will be a small increase in drag.
Look at the Audi TT...they had problems with the original design generating too much lift at high speed. If I remember correctly a couple of people in Germany were killed when the rear end lost traction and spun the car at high speed. The designers added the little spoiler on the rear of the car to reduce this lift generation.
Just done a quick search...this link gives some more detailed information:
http://www.caranddriver.com/ar ... _id=4&article_id=3523
The article says that the original TT generated 148 pounds of lift at the rear axle at 125 mph. With the spoiler fitted this is reduced to just 53 pounds of lift.
Look at the side profile of a car and you'll see it looks roughly like an aerofoil (flat on the bottom, curved on top).
This means that cars generate lift at high speeds which can cause serious handling problems!
Spoilers do exactly what the name suggests, they spoil the airflow over the rear of the car by causing the boundary layer to separate earlier (ie somewhere over the rear window rather than at the edge of the tailgate). This causes a reduction in the size of the low pressure area at the rear of the car and reduces the lift. It does increase the size of the wake, however, so there will be a small increase in drag.
Look at the Audi TT...they had problems with the original design generating too much lift at high speed. If I remember correctly a couple of people in Germany were killed when the rear end lost traction and spun the car at high speed. The designers added the little spoiler on the rear of the car to reduce this lift generation.
Just done a quick search...this link gives some more detailed information:
http://www.caranddriver.com/ar ... _id=4&article_id=3523
The article says that the original TT generated 148 pounds of lift at the rear axle at 125 mph. With the spoiler fitted this is reduced to just 53 pounds of lift.
The spring effect just gives you a centering force, doesn't it? I don't use it as the FF in LFS gives me all the centering force I need.
As I said before, the damping setting has no effect at all for me in LFS (using DFP).
As I said before, the damping setting has no effect at all for me in LFS (using DFP).
I seem to remember using a similar option in CounterStrike/Day of Defeat a while back. Useful to silence idiots while letting useful messages through.
I used the bonnet view when I was using mouse/keyboard because for some reason I could never get used to the cockpit view. Now that I have a wheel it's cockpit all the way!
His flag is American...for some reason "could care less" is the way they say it across the Pond. Makes no sense to me either
Obviously sitting on the track is more realistic but why risk ruining someone else's race? People go online to enjoy a nice race, not to practice their vehicle avoidance skills. If I'm on the oval I'll pit as soon as I can after making an attempt to recover the slide/spin.
If I end up on the racing line on a normal track and there are cars near me then I'll pit, otherwise I'll try to get off the line and recover.
I'll try to give him room even if that means letting him past. If he's quicker than you he'll pass anyway. If you're quicker than him then you'll get back past soon enough.
Once you're both back on track it's race on.
As the others said, it depends. In your specific example, driving an FZR you might not have much of a chance in a braking area against an FXR so I'd be cautious about trying anything. I'd probably pull out from behind him and brake as normal and hope that seeing me in his mirrors forces him into another error.
Definately. If I'm faster then I'm going to try to pass, even if I'm a lap behind. I would make sure it was clean though, if there was a small chance of hitting him I'd leave it for later. Some exceptions though...if the guy ahead is in a close battle for position then I wouldn't get mixed up in it.
I get very strong oscillations with my DFP so it's not just a standard wheel thing. If I let go of the wheel when sitting still or driving in a straight line it will start to oscillate on its own about 20 degrees left and right of centre.
I can reduce the problem by turning down the force level in LFS, but I like the force at 100.
I've tried setting the damper strength to 150 in the profiler but that made no difference whatsoever.
It's a simple control loop instability caused by having the gain of the loop too high (hence turning the force down removes the problem). Should be very easy to solve using damping but my damping settings don't seem to work! A more elegant solution could probably be added to the FFB code in LFS by adding proportional control but I'm not a programmer so I don't know if that's feasible.
I can reduce the problem by turning down the force level in LFS, but I like the force at 100.
I've tried setting the damper strength to 150 in the profiler but that made no difference whatsoever.
It's a simple control loop instability caused by having the gain of the loop too high (hence turning the force down removes the problem). Should be very easy to solve using damping but my damping settings don't seem to work! A more elegant solution could probably be added to the FFB code in LFS by adding proportional control but I'm not a programmer so I don't know if that's feasible.
37s in the FOX? Since the WR in the FOX is only 44.74 I assume you mean the FO8?
A few setups here:
http://setupfield.teaminferno. ... ar_id=23&p_version=S2
Basically for the FO8 at KY Oval you need the suspension full stiff, maximum tyre pressure, raise the front ride height above the rear (an exploit but you'll need it to be competitive) and put lots of positive camber on the left wheels.
The fastest I've done without a draft was 187mph, and it's normal for me to hit 186mph on a lap.
Edit: It also seems like both wings set at 2 degrees is the best way.
A few setups here:
http://setupfield.teaminferno. ... ar_id=23&p_version=S2
Basically for the FO8 at KY Oval you need the suspension full stiff, maximum tyre pressure, raise the front ride height above the rear (an exploit but you'll need it to be competitive) and put lots of positive camber on the left wheels.
The fastest I've done without a draft was 187mph, and it's normal for me to hit 186mph on a lap.
Edit: It also seems like both wings set at 2 degrees is the best way.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG