Quote from Shotglass :

someone is wrong on the internet

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!! :weeping:

:jawdrop:





:huepfenic :woohoo:


...not that I think there is anything really wrong with the current physics. Exciting news nontheless.

Quote from Bob Smith :

Frankly I find the new discussion far more interesting, educational, and worthy of my time, than the original topic. Next target: 1000km in reverse.

Quote from Mazz4200 :

Yes we use ounces/pounds/stones(14 lbs) and tonnes...but, you'd be hard pressed to buy many things that arn't sold in grams or kilos these days.

But don't you use pounds for money too? I imagine that could be confusing (or maybe not :shrug. ...or do you use the Euro now?

I'm amazed at all this. I was under the (wrong) impression that America used the nonsense imperial system and the rest of the world used metric.

This is good stuff to know.

We use tons and ounces. I assume they are the same as yours. (2000 lb = 1 ton, 16 oz = 1 lb)
I'm surprised. I thought you used grams and meters. Are your speed limits in mph or kph?

Quote from Mazz4200 :

Anyway, what's with all this 1 million Kilo-metre nonsense. A real achievement would be 1 million miles, now that's a real mans measurement

That raises another question: You use miles in the UK? I always thought you were metric, but then I noticed on Top Gear they use miles per hour.

We're going the wrong way! America (and anyone else using imperial) should switch to metric. It's so much easier. Every thing is in 10s. I imagine it would be frustrating and confusing to go from metric to imperial.

I hate to keep changing the subject, but I think this thread lost it long ago.

Why was I not taught this in school?

edit:

Quote from Elderado :

...
58.9% moved away from the subject of congratulating Mr Failure
...

sorry about that.

congrats to Failure for not living up to his name (at least not in LFS, I guess. I have no idea who he is). Maybe someday I will be a Failure, too.

edit:
Although he has failed to show up in this thread...

Last edited by ultrataco, Thu, 20 Aug 2009 01:23.

Quote from Bob Smith :

...long scale billion or a short scale billion...

what? :dunce:

...to google I go.

Quote from Liff :

They've had one for six months or so.

Sorry this is completly off topic, but I've been all over iRacing's site and found nothing about any free trial.

Quote from dadge :

what i am trying to say is, LFS tyre physics are like Man UTD. They may not be top all the time, but they are the are the best overall. shift may be on top now (or close to) but LFS have been top of the game for alot longer and will remain there. I'm not a fanboy, i play all games and LFS has the best physics.
It's that simple really. yes, winning one game is good, but LFS has ticked all of the boxes for so long now that every other racing sim feels less.
But, as log as you don't expect LFS from NFS, you should be OK.

I didn't mean to suggest I think it will be better than LFS. I don't think it will be, but if it's as "hardcore" as they claim, it should be good enough to hold it's own in the world of sim racing.

The "Need For Speed" name will probably prevent most sim racers from paying any attention, except for those like me who like to play NFS anyway.

Quote from Rotareneg :

Ah, so the game will include hoopy casinos? (Hopefully not too obscure...)

sorry, I don't get it.

Quote from dadge :

once it's out, only the people playing it will know.
it's one thing saying you can shit thunder, but it's another thing prooving it.

You're absolutely right, but good sim or not, I'll buy it and (if it's good) probably make a post or two about it. I've been playing NFS since 1997 (it was much more fun back then), and will continue to do so - for fun, not realism. That's what LFS is for.

I suspect SHIFT will either be a suprisingly good sim or a "pretend-sim" like Grid. Either way, I expect it to be an enjoyable game. I'm hoping it turns out as good as they say. If it is that good then GT and Forza-if not LFS- will have some new competition, for a while anyway. The next NFS may go back to arcade, who knows?

Last edited by ultrataco, Sat, 4 Jul 2009 00:00.

Looks like Need For Speed wants in on some of this tire deformation action:
from an interview about SHIFT:

"...by far the most advanced and realistic physics engine of any of the mainstream racing games. ... Things like tire deformation based on g-forces, tire pressures, rubber thickness, which only the most diehard sim fans will notice, but we know it's there.
...
...when the tire sidewalls flex under load in a corner, it minutely changes the shape and location of the tire's contact patch, which in turn changes how the tire grips the tarmac as it strains to keep hold."

So says Ian Bell of Slightly Mad Studios, the people behind SHIFT.

I really doubt it will be better than LFS, but I think it's worth a look. or at least a raised eyebrow.

Quote from The Very End :

Yeah I am talking about that one
The one with EMB serie(s) (spelled?) plug-in as a notepad, and some other files too. Just get's too much "LFS on drugs" feeling to me. Tried the different versions, but they all seems the same to me, probally just my eyes tho

I haven't tried any of them. I know what you mean though. Most games over-do it. (like they over-do that fake HDR bloom.)

Quote from The Very End :

But enough of that, back topic. The problem with the blur effect, at least for me, is that it get's too dark and light, depending on situation. It looks better, but at same time it looks very strange, and not quite how it should. The blur effect is more like taking too many pills too, I just get too dizzy and canot focus for long, eyes starts to hurt too.

Not if it's done right and just barely perceptible. Are you talking about that blur effect someone made for LFS? I never tried that.

Quote from farcar :

See, I don't think so. In real life, your own eyes provide the motion blur effect, and it's really not any different looking at a monitor. Objects in my peripheral vision are still blurred. Not by a graphic effect, but by my own eyes.

Motion blur can provide style to some games, but does not look at all realistic. LFS should look realistic because it's a sim, attempting to replicate real life.

First, I'll say this is not something I'm dying to have. I'm fine with LFS graphics as they are. I just brought it up because someone else did.

I understand what you're saying, but motion in a game is a literally a series of images (frames), which can't blur together. I'm talking about a barely perceptible effect applied mostly to the periphery, just to make it look smoother. As an example, GRID () can have decent blur If you turn it down by editing some file (I don't remember what). It's almost like playing on a CRT. It's not obvious that motion blur is on, but there's a difference if you turn it off.

In the unlikely event this is ever added to LFS, I'm sure it would be adjustable and of course optional. And yes, I'd rather see them working on physics (and new tracks :shy than graphics.

Quote from farcar :

Why is this thread now full of unfunny, spammy posts??

With custom textures, LFS looks great. Like Sil3ntwar said, lighting improvements is all I would ask for.

A lot of DX9-10 features, like motion blur HDRI etc just would not suit LFS and it is much better off without them.

I think a very subtle, realistic motion blur could look good. It would make it smoother (especially for people using LCD monitors), and add to the sense of speed a bit.

On my computer, LFS used to have decent reflections but for some reason the cars lost most of their shine. I've apparently messed up something, but I don't know what. It's not really a big problem, though.

Last edited by ultrataco, Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:02.

Quote from morpha :

MPR is NOT video data, you guys have to understand that. MPR is telemetry data, no visual data at all is stored in MPR files. What LFS does when playing an MPR is simulate the recorded events again, it's not so much a playback as actual re-simulation. There is no way to convert MPR files to video files.

Yes. MPR/SPR are not video formats. This is why replays don't work when LFS gets a physics update. It's also why the files are so small.

Quote from Becky Rose :

Providing a download afterwards of a live show is not a significant issue, the discussion over the "live" versus "delayed" broadcast is regarding not going out live in the first instance in order to produce a higher quality show. Taking time to polish it up and do lots of fancy post effects, like the way the replays fade in and out on the STCC videos and so on.

I think a lot of the fear of going out live is the STCC just being no more than existing live shows, but I think it's fair to expect I wouldn't be interested in doing that anyway.

I don't think an aweful lot can be added to the delayed method of broadcasting that cannot be done live with the right preperation, team, and tools: Removal of mistakes; and there being no risk of failure, are the only things that spring to mind.

oh, I see. Whatever decide you do, I just want to be able to watch the races. You did a fantastic job with the STCC broadcasts last time.

Quote from NotAnIllusion :

From what I understand: If there would be a live broadcast feed, providing it as a downloadable VOD wouldn't be an issue I'd imagine. The issue is in that the demands on resources for such a high-standard live feed are significantly higher than pure post-race production. Becky is talking of physically setting up a home broadcast studio, people actually going on-site to manage it and possibly partnering with real-life business affiliates which brings huge demand to everything being absolutely guaranteed to work and being worth their input.

Maybe they could find someone who can capture the video from the internet while it's being broadcast. I'm sure there's a way to do this (:shrug, and it shouldn't be much (if any) extra work for Becky other than finding someone to do it. This person could also be responsible for uploading it somewhere.

Why can't it be live and recorded? I don't really know how it all works, but will there not be a live feed you can capture, save, and stick on the web somewhere (youtube, torrent, etc)?

Definitely yes, but It's unlikely I could see all the live broadcasts, depending on the time. Even if I could, it would still be nice to be able to save the races. I'm sure others feel the same way. I would think you'd have a larger audience if the races could be downloaded. You could have exclusive content (interviews, qualifying, etc.) for the live show to attract viewers, then make just the races available for download.

I still have the original STCC videos on my computer and re-watch some of them occasionally. I was hoping for more. The STCC was very good racing. I hope this works out.

haha. good job.

(yay rotary! I have a '91 RX-7. It's not quite ready for a trackday yet.)

Quote from el pibe :

if there is a team that is going to win one of the next races, it is ferrari.

Well, I hope somebody wins the next races besides Button. Whether it's Ferrari or Force India or whatever I don't care. I like BrawnGP and Button (and Barichello, too), but some variety would be nice. I'm happy to see Button win the championship, but I'd like to see more winners. It's like 2004 again. (As far as results go anyway. I didn't actually watch F1 in 2004.:shy

Quote from pasibrzuch :

Ok, it wasn't you actually. Someone pushed this topic to 'dead projects' discussion and it was going pretty well

oh, ok.
...............................

I discovered LFS sometime in 2004, but didn't really get into it much then because I didn't have a wheel and it was impossibly hard to just get a lap around blackwood without spinning out using the keyboard/mouse so I gave up.

It sat on my hard drive for a while until I decided to try again some time later and was able to get round without spinning out and lost interest again. Then I got a DFP (for gt4 mostly ). Then in 2006 I finally got S2, mostly for the autocross (which I hardly ever do anymore). (fwiw, I now have a G25. yay clutch! )

Quote from pasibrzuch :

No no no. Please go away with this to Let's get emo, there won't be tommorow thread.

This is positive nostalgia topic.

I was referring to Racing Legends being dead, not LFS. I have no problem with LFS development and I'm not worried about it.

I edited my post:

Quote from ultrataco :

Racing Legends' "latest" news update is dated October 2003. :Kick_Can_
I'd say Racing Legends is pretty much dead.

Independent game development isn't easy, especially complex race sims. (Not that I really know anything about game development of any sort.:shrug

Quote from Storm_Cloud :

Everyone who gets fed up waiting for the next LFS patch should be directed to that site, made to read the forum posts of the sad wraiths who still post there wondering if the game will get finished - and THEN tell them that Racing Legends was their 2nd attempt at writing a game - the first one got no further either.

+1

Their "latest" news update is dated October 2003. :Kick_Can_
I'd say it's pretty much dead.

Independent game development isn't easy, especially complex race sims. (Not that I really know anything about game development of any sort.:shrug