Quad for the win. Wide dual will look good when they're square.
Only if you assume that a long discussion/debate/argument cannot be relevant.
This is not an information directory, it's a discussion board. That's the appeal of the forum - people can come in and voice their opinion and debate topics. Never limit the amount of debate - it discourages further participation - only limit the inappropriate behavior.
Unless someone is being harmed, there's no reason to lock the thread. If people want to argue, let them. Don't like it? Don't read the thread. They'll stop eventually. They always do.
On other forums I visit there have been debate/flame/argument threads that went on for 50 pages and more... Guess what? Eventually they died. Telling people that everything has already been said is pointless. When everything has been said, people will stop talking on their own. No need to control that. It controls itself.
Control only needed when there are flames, spam, porn, racism, or anything else that's not actually allowed according to the rules.
I think you're presented with forum rules when you sign up and you have to accept them to continue. At least that's how it used to be.
I understand the frustration with repeated questions, but sometimes the search doesn't turn anything up because the wording is different. Also sometimes it's not a bad idea to let new people discuss an old topic. There will always be some fresh opinions. So unless the server is running out of space, I don't see much harm in repeating topics.
If it's just a commonly asked question, someone should simply post a link to the thread where it's been answered, and that all. Banning someone for failing to do a search would seem a bit of an overkill, imo. Same with locking a thread.
Someone else may think it's not stupid, and a fine thread all around. Who's to say you're right and they're not. Opinions shouldn't cause thread closure. Only rule-breaking should.
Well, whether the thread is crap or not is a matter of opinion. Some may thinks it's crap, some may think it's not. If people don't enjoy a thread, they won't post in it, and it will die off without harming anyone. It's kind of like natural selection. When you lock a thread that you think is crap, you're imposing your opinion onto others.
To avoid that, forum rules are created. If a rule is broken, it's not a matter of opinion, and therefore it's rational to close the thread and/or ban the rule breaker.
When you're simply closing something because you don't like it, you're imposing your opinion onto others, and it discourages people from discussing things, since when opinions are in play and not a specific rule-set, it's hard to guess what's ok and what's not ok to say.
Objects flying by give you the sense of speed.
The track may feel narrower based on your driving, but it doesn't physically look narrower, so your sense of speed isn't affected.
The reason F1 gives you a better sense of speed not because it's bigger, but because it's close to the ground.
The track may feel narrower based on your driving, but it doesn't physically look narrower, so your sense of speed isn't affected.
The reason F1 gives you a better sense of speed not because it's bigger, but because it's close to the ground.
I'm sorry, what? You lost me there. 
If you look at some of the closed threads, you'll see that they weren't closed because of retards.
Quoting:
"I will close this thread because it's boring"
"OK, I will close this thread now. Simply because all that needs to be said, has been said."
Or sometimes it's just a link to an answer.
I don't think those threads need locking, simply because they would die soon anyway.
Locking should only happen when there's a serious rule-breaking, flame war, or spam. I don't think I've encountered any of that in the locked threads I've read.
What makes the track seem narrower or wider is where your POV is in relation to the track, and not the size of the car you're in. Especially not it's length.
Around 90 usually. But I'm starting to go narrower lately, because even though large FOV offers better feel of speed, narrow FOV offers larger view of detail in front.
Which doesn't really have anything to do with what I'm talking about.
I don't, though. I agree completely with everything I said.
Don't lock threads. What's the worst that could happen? Most threads get locked after the conflict has been resolved already, anyway. Just let them die.
Consider that in real life you have other clues. Wind noise, vibration, true depth perception, larger FOV, and g-forces. To compensate for that you either have to speed up the cars and scale the physics model (probably not do-able), or make narrower tracks with side detail and/or walls (very do-able).
Yeah, in real life you have cars in other lanes, road markings and all sorts of junk on the side of the road - pedestrians, parking meters, signs, lamp posts, windows, doors, rubbish bins, homeless people, etc... And it's all very close.
That's the point I'm trying to make. The speeds in the game seem correct, as far as pure numbers go, but since most tracks are so very wide and offer very little stationary reference, driving feels slower than it is. Hence why I propose narrower tracks.
Yeah, I wouldn't mind a new narrow track. No need to touch the existing ones.
And Dean Evans has +7 against opponents in the same car. He's almost level 60. Also, if you look closely, you can see him pick up a turbo power-up on the main straight. Happens very fast, you have to watch closely.
Ya, all I'm saying is that since LFS has number of slower cars, some narrower tracks would be favorable. Right now it seems like the game tracks are mostly geared towards faster cars, which makes driving in slower cars feel even slower than it actually is.
Are you saying that when you're looking at the road from outside your car the road seems wider? And if so, then it contradicts your previous paragraph about how "Part of the issue might be that you, like me, see most of the racing on TV or from the stands. That makes tracks look more narrow than they are."
So do the tracks look narrower from inside the car or outside of the car? I'm afraid I'm not following...
Yes, they may have a large footprint, but usually when you say a car is huge it means it’s also tall, like a semi or an SUV. As I already said, F1 car size does nothing to make the track seem narrower, because they're so low to the ground. An F1 car could be a mile long, but your view of the track would still be the same as if it were no longer than a lawnmower.
What I'm saying is that the width of the tracks in the game affects the perception of speed, even more so than in real life. A lot of wide tracks, with a couple of medium ones (Fern Bay and South City). South City still has a lot of four-lane-street sections, which are fairly wide.
I think another narrower, tighter track would feel right speed wise. Something more along the lines of this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... &search=lotus%20elise
Well, driving UF around the oval is unrealistic as well, even though you have the option to do so. Not all tracks should be meant for Formula cars. A narrow converted-two-lane-road track would be more realistic for slower cars, and most importantly it would give you a good sensation of speed.
The cars are not that small, they're regular size. I'm sure the track would look narrower from inside a Hummer or a Suburban, but who the hell races those? BF1 isn't that big, either. Formula cars offer a good sense of speed because they're very low to the ground, not because they're big. If anything, the track looks wider from inside Formula cars, because they're so low.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG