Quote from Becky Rose :

I'm usually mistaken for atheist, but i'm not. I'm agnostic.

Worse however, I have a strong urge to destroy this thread on the grounds that it might be seen by young and impressionable children.

I dont smoke infront of kids, why should I let them breath in religion?

Sorry, but that really IS my belief.

Nothing wrong with kids knowing about religion... Just don't force one kind on them... Make sure they know they're all bad.

I'm an atheist, except for Space Bat, but he's been proven to exist, and religion is based on faith, not knowledge.

Quote from theirishnoob :

im a part time catholic ( like most everyone ) praying that my plane makes it to the airport....


train makes it down the line etc.

Well, at least you can be sure that your life makes it till your death...

I'm a member of the Silent Convent of the Great Extraatmospherical Nocturnal Echolocating Winged Rodent...

Also known as Space Battee.

Does that count?

Quote from ColeusRattus :

On na sidenote: why are there these two extremes of inexperienced posters? The ones that open up new threads on already discussed topics, even though they are on the first forum page too, AND those who ressurect old threads that were burried in the depths of time a long time ago?

Named the two types of inexperienced users wrong...

Those that listen, and those that don't...

Those that don't listen start new threads, because they simply don't listen to the experienced users that keep saying "use the damn search!"...

Those that listen bump old threads back up because when they search for it on the forums, they get old threads in their results...

We just have to figure out which we hate more... New pointless threads, or pointless thread bumping.

Quote from Crady :

Well in my opinion this is a USB Video Card with quite low performance I guess...

But theoretically you should be able to connect as much Displays as you want like this - each Display one Diamond USB Video Card.

Then the setup should work like the tripple head...

Each video card will have its own canvas... That means that games will default to a single screen, and some will not work on multiple.

Triple Head 2Go creates one really large canvas that spans 3 screens. Windows will think it's a single card/monitor.

100% in 35.3... Too easy.

Space Bat is my new God. Screw the flying spaghetti monster. Space Bat is the only true deity there is...

Hallowed is the Space Bat.

Quote from JohnUK89 :

Wrong. Oh so wrong.Those 650 or so MPs don't actually have to listen to what the people think. They're MEANT to, but due to the way party politics works over here it is rare to see it. More often than not it's the ruling party's stance on the issue that eventually gets put into Law, not that of (even the majority of) the people. And of course, since the Police etc are upholders of said law there's very little you can do to stop it, I'm afraid. (Short of electing someone else, but that won't happen for a while yet)

Only solution:
Civil disobedience, followed by civil war and the forcible removal of the government.

Or, we start an internet2.

And tomorrow there will be a news item titled "Todt moves to BrawnGP"...

Either that, or he'll be the next head honcho of the FIA, and the whole Ferrari Internation Assistance namecalling starts all over again.

Intrepid... Source?

oi oi oi oi OI OI Oi oi oi oioi oi

Quote from Shadowww :

There are tyres

Take another good look... The tires disappear in the final render. On some angles they indeed seem to be there.

No damage model, no tires, no dust, no physics apart from gravity...

But it looks amazing :P

Quote from Riel :

Indeed.

In a racing sim allowing bumpdrafting qualifies to me as 'stupid'

But it's hard to check if no-one is bumpdrafting. In reallife I don't think your front wing will last too long.

I usually don't BD in open wheel sims... However, sometimes it is preferable over regular slingshooting over and over, even in real life. In real life your front wing can't cope with it, in LFS it can.

Same goes for kerbjumping. In real life your suspension would fail after 3 turns, in LFS you can do it without problems.

I see no difference in bumpdrafting and, for instance, kerbjumping. They're both making use of the physics system to gain speed.

So why is one of them considered 'cheating' by so many, and the other is looked upon as 'incredible driving'?

Quote from DieKolkrabe :

I also did that ealier, paid another £35, disc corrupted, took it back, got refund for that.

@Bladey, PM me if you know a good way to use your method

I'm sorry, but I'm starting to think more in terms of "harddisk corrupted" or "Windows corrupted" rather than download or disc corrupted if both the official download AND the official disc turn out to be corrupted.

Quote from Intrepid :

Bernie seems to think aerodynamics are some myth magiced up by the teams and drivers to explain why they can't race. Does he think some of them have just spent the last 10+ years of their life trying to get into F1 to then decide to just 'chillax' in 2nd and be happy to collect points!!

He prolly does... And what's best about this is that that won't change a bit...
With 10 laps to go and the leader is 15+ seconds away, they will still chill in 2nd and may even get passed without a battle for 3rd, because the one position that matters now is wayyyy out of reach. So who cares?

Now, if Bernie is wrong, and drivers want to win regardless, this system will not change anything either, because they'll fight for each position regardless because they want to win...

Either way, this system changes nothing it was designed to change. It can only change it for the worse.

Quote from Intrepid :

which is totally irrelevant as the drivers drove to the system in place and would have taken a different approach and thus makes this analysis null and void. I wish the media wouldn't harp on about it as if it were somehow fact!

If I decided that a win was now punishable by 5 months in jail we would see different champions of the past too

I agree with you... Partly...

It's not totally irrelevant, as it shows that in over 20% of the seasons consistency has proven to be more important than raw speed. Yes, the tactics and strategy would've been a bit different if they had this system in place, but that doesn't change the fact that consistency has given someone a world title in 20% of the seasons. That's 20% of the overall content of the sport that the FIA single handedly destroyed in a single day. It's good if they change rules to emphasize different parts of racing, but to annihilate an important aspect of 59 years of F1 in a single decision? That's bloody ridiculous, and not good for business.

Quote from Intrepid :

I suspect you may be just playing devil's advocate because I don't believe you could sit and watch this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfPM77TsGaA (I get f*cking goosebumps watching that sh1t) - and suggest for one moment that either of those two riders would have been happy to be placed second. The points percentages are THE SAME AS THE NOW EX-F1 POINTS SYSTEM yet they FOUGHT ALL THE WAAAAYYYY!

It's turning F1, if it wasn't already, into WWF1

Today's F1 drivers aren't capable of fighting the way they did in the old days, besides that this rule has taken away any incentive there was to repeat the 79 French GP where Arnoux and Villeneuve fought like madmen for 2nd place (won't get you anything besides a couple of points which are useless for the WDC now)...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kl2tIFxSEGA

I had a look at F1 history...

So far, there have been 59 seasons, from 1950 through 2008.
Of those 59 seasons, over 20% (more than 1 in 5) would've seen a different Champion with the current rules. I know you really can't compare them, since the strategy changes with different point schemes. I just thought it was rather funny that nobody complained about the guys that became champion in any of these years (apart from the usual dislike of the driver):

12 times, out of the 59 seasons run so far would've seen a different WDC.

Here they are:
1958: Mike Hawthorn (1), Would be: Sterling Moss (4)
1964: John Surtees (2), Would be: Graham Hill (3)
1967: Denny Hulme (2), Would be: Jim Clark (4)
1977: Niki Lauda (3), Would be: Mario Andretti (4)
1979: Jody Scheckter (3), Would be: Alan Jones (4)
1982: Keke Rosberg (1), Would be: Didier Pironi (2)
1983: Nelson Piquet (3), Would be: Alain Prost (4)
1984: Niki Lauda (5), Would be: Alain Prost (7)
1986: Alain Prost (4), Would be: Nigel Mansell (5)
1987: Nelson Piquet (3), Would be: Nigel Mansell (6)
1989: Alain Prost (4), Would be: Ayrton Senna (6)
2008: Lewis Hamilton (5), Would be: Felipe Massa (6)

Notice please that in the glory years of F1 in terms of equalness of the cars (1980s) and fights on track 6 out of 10 winners would've been different. 1982 would have had 5 drivers equal in race wins. Keke Rosberg, who won the Championship with 44 points, would've ended in 6th place. Didier Pironi would've won the championship with 39 points, beating John Watson by more 3rd places or less retirements (depending on the rule they plan on using), because both had 39 points, 2 wins, and 2 second places. John Watson had only 1 3rd place finish, while Pironi had 2. Pironi did not start 6 races, but retired in 1. Watson did not start 1 race but retired 4 times.

edit: The other 3 drivers equal in wins were Alain Prost, Niki Lauda, and Rene Arnoux.

Last edited by TagForce, Tue, 17 Mar 2009 23:34.

Quote from Bean0 :

I just had a look at previous seasons results.
The only season (going back as far as 1990) where going by number of wins rather than points would change the outcome was last year.

I had a longer look...

12 times, out of the 59 seasons run so far would've seen a different WDC.

Here they are:
1958: Mike Hawthorn (1), Would be: Sterling Moss (4)
1964: John Surtees (2), Would be: Graham Hill (3)
1967: Denny Hulme (2), Would be: Jim Clark (4)
1977: Niki Lauda (3), Would be: Mario Andretti (4)
1979: Jody Scheckter (3), Would be: Alan Jones (4)
1982: Keke Rosberg (1), Would be: Didier Pironi (2)
1983: Nelson Piquet (3), Would be: Alain Prost (4)
1984: Niki Lauda (5), Would be: Alain Prost (7)
1986: Alain Prost (4), Would be: Nigel Mansell (5)
1987: Nelson Piquet (3), Would be: Nigel Mansell (6)
1989: Alain Prost (4), Would be: Ayrton Senna (6)
2008: Lewis Hamilton (5), Would be: Felipe Massa (6)

Quote from Intrepid :

The thing is the FIA have done a survey and I suspect the majority of people said

"the champion should be the one with the most wins"

They've actually done what the fans wanted even if the people they questioned didn't have an understanding of the implications of such a ruling

Actually, I think they did a survey on the medals... And over 90% of the people said 'NO'... So they drop the medals, and come up with something that is exactly the same, yet without calling it a medal.

Quote from Dajmin :

Well in theory that's what censorship IS, but it's not what the idea was designed for.

Actually, this is exactly what it was designed for. It's simply not what our governments want to have us believe it'll be used for.

In the end, if there is a way to gain more power, the ones in power will utilize it. Censorship is perfect for the task. What the public doesn't know, the public won't hold against you.

Quote from james12s :

i have mixed feelings about this, on one hand it seems a little stupid but on the other i think it could be great to watch because there will no longer be the case where drivers dont have to win or thinking of the championship as it is often called, this will therefore mean more overtaking and im sure there will be some great battles, ill probably make my decision as to weather it was a good idea or not after the first few races

In theory, yes, it should make for more overtaking...
But how often have you seen two cars near the end of a race in a position to fight over the race win? It may have a bigger impact to win instead of finishing 2nd, but in the end, there won't often be two cars within battle distance from eachother in the final lap.

I see a lot of LFS T1 syndromes happening in F1 this season, though. Should be funny as hell.

Quote from Lateralus :

It won't change much. The fast drivers will still be at the front. The fast cars will still be at the front.

He has a point when he said that it's incredibly lame for a title contender to mince around trying to finish in 5th place. It's a much better show if he were to drive for the win.

To all you crybabies who will probably threaten to quit watching F1 because of this - good. Go. F1 will survive without you.

The problem is that title contenders were willing to fight over that 5th position. Now, they wouldn't care less about finishing 2nd or not finishing at all.

F1 won't survive at all if they keep this up.

Quote from boosterfire :

Hey, at least we avoided the medals. How lame would that have been! My first reaction to this was: "Ok... so?" I don't get why this is supposed to be good.

The problem I see with this new system is that a racer could basically win, say, 10 races, then DNF all the others and still win the championship over someone who'd have won less races, but successfully finished all of them. Agreed, this is probably not gonna happen, but still, if it did, it would basically reward unreliabilty of the car over constant performance. This is a 17 long champ (or so), you need to reward those who are constantly good throughout the season.

If I was McLaren I would definitely make it happen if it was in my power. Simply only race as long as you have a chance of winning the race. As soon as it seems it's not going to happen pack it up and go home.