Also I don't think it's an issue with data. There are several car magazines out there that regularly test the lift on cars.
E.g. according to the german "Sport Auto" the latest M3 generates 102 N of lift at the front respectively 227 N at the rear axle, each at 200 km/h.
Since F_lift = c_lift * density * area * velocity² and the area is given with 2.17 m² c_lift is:
c_lift_front = 102 N / 1.2 kg/m³ * 2.17 m² * (55 m/s)² = 0.013
c_lift_rear = 227N / (the same as above) = 0.028
c_lift_combined = (102 N + 227 N)/(the same as above) = 0.041
Source is here on the fourth page of the tab "Wertung".
They do this test to about every car they test, so there really should be enough data available.

Vain

The difficult thing in AI development isn't aquiring the data, it's about making smart use of it. Even when generic AIs are given more knowledge than the human opponent the human normally still outsmarts the AI's algorithms. The unrealistic availability of data is a way of soft cheating that allows the AI to be more competitive without breaking essential game rules.
Alas, that doesn't get most AIs very far and to even beat an average player they require some sort of rules-breaking cheat (money, sight, acceleration, whatever the genre requires).

This problem is down to the fact that interesting games are not mathematically trivial. In a good game the best solution should be difficult to find, thus making the game challenging. This directly equates to the AI being bad at it and thus uncompetitive.

If you want to go on with this project I suggest to choose a boring and monotonous (trivial) game. In the racing genre e.g. restrict your vehicle simulation to a one-wheeler on a two dimensional track. Humans will be under-challenged but your AI can flex it's awesome data-aquirement algorithms.

Vain

Quote from SamH :

[...] it's now evident that the science that has been performed is not the robust thing we've been led to believe it is[...]

I correct: "it's now evident that some of the science that has been performed is not the robust thing that you believed it was"
A large part of the public didn't react to this new 'scandal' because it wasn't a surprise to them.

Quote from SamH :

So, in the simplest of terms, the whole of the world's eco-strategy is based on what is apparently bad, possibly falsely alarmist, science.

You are extrapolating from one group of scientists to all scientists in the same field.
An analogy: If I said "Gravity exists" based on the way my last cup of coffee tasted that does not invalidate proper scientists who said the same thing based on very profound and correct science.
Sorry for the harsh example, but that point was raised before. Please don't take offense.

Vain

Quote from SamH :

If the truth is that it's impossible to determine if AGW is an actuality, I want to know that because it's important. If GOOD science, conducted properly, determines that AGW is a reality, I want to get behind that science with confidence and determination. I want real science, not a new religion.

That's simple. No, nobody on this planet is or can be sure wether AGW is actually happening or not.

You're not gonna get certainty in science. Everyone is entitled to doubt wether the earth is round or flat, or wether gravity exists or not or wether birds are able to fly due to aerodynamics or solely by the devine command of the hindu god Shiva. Nobody knows for sure.

And you're right: When somebody is certain of something that means he believes in it, just like you can believe in Shiva. From a scientific point of view absolutely nobody should believe in any climate predictions or they enter the realm of religion. However, you don't have to believe in something with absolute certainty in order to be able to make an educated decision of what is best for yourself or society in general.

Vain

Quote from SamH :

Then you, of all people, should be the most offended by the activities of these "pre-eminent" scientists. Scientists do, or should, expect all scientists to be above reproach. Any science conducted in the manner it's been conducted at the UEA CRU should make you, as a scientist irrespective of your own field, absolutely furious with these so-called scientists for dirtying the integrity of science in the broadest sense.

It amazes me that you're not disgusted, that you're so accepting of their transgressions. You're a scientist? Are you sure?

All honest scientists are as outraged about this scandal as all honest civilians are about any act of shoplifting. It happens on a daily basis. The shoplifters are caught, they get their penalty, life goes on.

I'd like to ask you what you want to achieve in this discussion. There seems to be something very close to your heart but I don't know what it is you're trying to convince the world of.

Vain

Quote from mookie427 :

Ignorance. You're basically saying that anyone who hasn't spent ages involved in the science isn't allowed an opinion on the matter. What about the multitude of other people in this thread who share my view and the view of those who've drawn THEIR own conclusions from the CRU emails? Are you prepared to dismiss EVERY person in this thread?

No one is taking your opinion away from you. There are just people who don't agree with it.

I also can't see the historic scandal and the public-media conspiracy. There just isn't anything unusual here.

Vain

Are you struggling with the implementation of the kinematic equations of your problem or are you having troubles getting the equations together properly?
And just in case you never looked at it like above here's a bit of advice that took me about 3 years to work out: Always try to seperate the mathematics/physics problem from the programming problem. Never open your IDE before you know exactly which equations you want to implement.

Vain

And you shouldn't be surprised of that.
Just like I said.

Vain

I'm not surprised that some of those scientists fiddled with their results.
... Just like I'm not surprised that some sceptics fiddled with their results.
... Just like I'm not surprised that everybody on this freaking planet fiddles with whatever they do to put themselves in a better light.
... And neither should you be.

Vain

Which band?

I like my suggestion. You should use it.

Vain

I checked the privisional standings after round 11 on Youtube. Here's a screenshot of the standings in awesome (tm) youtube quality:
I don't remember how round 12 finished though, beside the fact that Victor took the championship.

Vain

Quote from NSX_FReeDoM :

I miss the STCC. It was so much fun to watch!

And it was no less fun to drive.
I'm still looking forward to the opportunity to improve on my last championship result.

Vain

That was... well, strange...
When watching the videos from the article I thought: "Interesting! They actually did improve the artwork! The new version really is better." - Then I noticed that I was looking at Forza 2 the whole time.
Perhaps I just didn't notice the small details they improved because I never played any Forza game. The Forza 2 veterans may be jumping for joy over the improvements, but I just can't see them. As I said, on my first impression Forza 3 looks worse than 2.

However, when I tried the game at the last IAA I didn't consider the graphics to be any possible point of criticism. They're pretty solid and functional.

Vain

Congratulations on getting some sponsorship!

Quote from Jack :

There was no need to go sideways in this arrangement [...]

Was that necessary?

Vain

They should make "The inevitable MSN convo thread: Boredom²"

Aaaanyways... Here is some food for thought from the all-knowing Philophosaurus:



Vain

Just to add to the picture: I am closely (read: daily) following the progress of development and try out every test patch using a gamecontroller, but my wheel is in the basement waiting to be unpacked once the new patch comes out.
I imagin that there's a good chunk of the community that treats LFS similarly.

Vain

Ha, I finally did it! 100.3 meters!
I used to play this on my laptop, but when I tried it on the more powerful desktop PC it was a lot easier. I think the way the feet dangle on the lower legs is fps-dependant.

...Well, whatever, I'm awesome.

Vain

Quote from Local Herald :

Sports
QWOP placed first from the rear in 2009 Paralympics
QWOP in interview after his personal best distance of 23.2 meters in the category of 'IQ below ambient temperature'

LH: First of all, congratulations on your new personal best distance of 23.2 meters.
QWOP: Thanks. It was an honor to represent my country in such a strong manner.
LH: You achieved your national record run in the third try, but got off to a bad start in the first attempt. Tell us more about that.
QWOP: In the first attempt I took the risk and attempted a fast start. Unfortunately my right foot barely missed the ground and I lost balance. That sent me to the ground with only 0.2 meters covered. But it was worth a try.
LH: Definitely. Your second attempt caused some controversy at the track. Tell us your view of what happened.
QWOP: This time I started more slowly and got away better. After having almost 16 meters covered I slowly began losing altitude and reduced velocity. However the judge thought that in doing so I fell, despite it being clear that both my feet were touching the ground, thus demonstrating that I was still erect. Even though I complained harshly the attempt was deemed faulty. That was surely the worst decision of the judges that day.
LH: With only one try left and such controversy behind you, how did you approach the final run?
QWOP: My trainer QWERT talked to me and managed to calm me down. He told me to focus on achieving a good and steady pace. This worked well for the first 15 meters until I jumped too high and landed on my left big toe. It was difficult, but I managed to get my right foot down and continued. Relieved and morally boosted I went past my former personal best of 19.3 meter.
Unfortunately, at the 23 meter mark I made a mistake that, in running-lingo, is referred to as "confusing left and right". Without getting into too much detail here, in running we differ between two legs, called "left" and "right", and these should be used in an alternating manner. If for whatever reason you don't do that keeping your balance becomes very hard. I tried to rescue the run, but ultimately landed straight on my face.
LH: Nevertheless, you set a new national record of 23.2 full meters.
QWOP: Yes, and that makes me very proud. I'd like to thank my trainer again for his great coaching that lead me to this great victory in the name of my country.
LH: Thanks for the interview.
QWOP: You're welcome.

Vain

Sorry for the mac-link. I had a hard time finding english mirrors for version 1.3c because google hates language settings.

Quote from Vain :

P.S.: My highscore so far is level 27.

Make that 28.

Vain

I know I know, "It's 2007, they want their news back..." but anyway:

Two days ago I stumbled about a small and free remake of pong based on a computational fluid simulation. Instead of just using a paddle to deflect a ball that moves through empty space your paddle can now emit a fluid and the ball flows within this fluid. All based on pretty nicely done physics.
The game is visually extremely appealing and has an enormous awe-factor to it.
Watch an example of it here and get the installer here. Remember to crank up the performance settings to get the most out of it.

Vain

P.S.: My highscore so far is level 27.

I frankly have no idea what physical principle the first one tries to use for the calculation. Also I wonder about your second aproach because there is some sort of torque split in the equations.
However I can't make a judgement. I just wanted to point out that I wouldn't start with an equation of torque because you're mixing torques with very different directions. So don't be caught out when saying torque A + B must equal torque C, since they don't necessarily point in the same direction (vectorially speaking).

To me the mathematical discussion becomes easier when talking in terms of power and conservation of energy. The open diff:
1. Conserves energy and doesn't save it. Thus input power must always be output power.
2. Exerts equal torque on both wheels.

E.g., if you were to stop one wheel from moving and then added input power to the diff all of it would have to be transferred to the free wheel. The torque exerted on the free wheel (and thus also on the fixed wheel) would change over time as the wheel spins up, even though input torque remains constant.

Vain

At the IAA in Frankfurt I had a quick go at Forza 3 with the R8 at some fantasy track and the horrible MS wheel. I also got to have a quick run at GT5p with the latest M3 at Fuji with a rather old Logitech DFP.
Before that day I was expecting to buy Forza 3. I even had the console in my shopping basket at an online reseller. This experience however really tilted my opinion. Forza 3 felt, in physics, gameplay and graphics, closer to NFS:Shift than to a simulation. That's nice arcade-fun, but not what I'm looking for.
Considering how few time I invested into setting the games up I won't spell my ultimate judgement just yet, but right now I'm definitely in favour of the PS3.

Vain

P.S.: Dammit! Now I have to wait until GT5 Forever is released before I can start racing...

I'm already waiting for the option to invest my 12 "sterling-marks" in S3.

Releasing S3 with only one car and track may be a response to the way the whole comunity flocked to S2 when it was released - effectively making S1 useless as its userbase became too small. I remember Scawen mentioning that he wasn't pleased with that development.

By the way I do expect some major updates to the old content by the time of S3. But I don't expect S3 before 2011.

Vain

Are you claiming that this was actually two separate races and no fun at all?
(Sorry for the quality, it appears to get worse every time google switches codecs.)
Didn't you drive yourself in the Road Sport Summer Cups? I can't imagine anyone claiming that the format didn't provide some of the best racing possible in LFS.

Vain

Quote from Breizh :

about a dozen good fun and varied road cars.

I'm extremely looking forward to one day have two similarly powered RWDs in TBO class that only differ in detailed points like torque-curve, weight distribution and the suspension geometry.
Really, I'd love to spend weeks and weeks on exactly figuring out how e.g. a longer wheelbase combined with smaller front axle track width influence turn-in behaviour at BL's T5 alone. After 3 weeks of daily analysis I'd then move on to T6. And then I didn't yet get to analyse different geometries for the rear multi-link suspension and didn't figure out yet how different torque curves interact with the Torsen LSD on corner exit (and thus affecting understeer behaviour).

There need to be at least 8 cars in TBO. At least. Plus naturally aspirated variants.

( ... Did you know that apparently there is a stylistic device called "exaggeration"? Cool stuff, isn't it? )

Vain