Nice translation, I thought this was the general idea, but thank you for helping us understand better
I've got a suggestion for the poster : DONT GO IN SAND TRAPS.
And NO, we don't need tow cables, because the very vast majority of us spends the very vast majority of its time racing/driving/drifting on the road, but not stuck on sand traps !!!
Yeah, sorry about not quoting it, I wrote the thread in a hurry, but I actually like the idea of the heights lines
Don't get me wrong, I love the Dodge Viper.
However, I said that (refer to the post above in the page about the twin turbo Viper) and not the viper in general.
I assumed it would understeer heavily bad, because poweroversteering in a 1200Nm torquish car would be common.
In the GT series in France, there are lots of Saleen and Vipers that match Aston Martin, Ferraris or Lamborghinis.
But they don't have 1000bhp and 1200Nm of crankshaft torque as the post I was criticizing
Don't get me wrong, I prefer american cars over French cars
Contest : Invent your own track !
Hi everybody !
Tired of seeing the suggestion thread board spoiled with not fully-thought suggestions, I decided to offer you the possibility of making your own track !
Let's be sure, you won't be able to include it in LFS now, but creating it well might help it be included in the game.
Let me clarify some things : the questions you might be asking yourself is "If the devs don't want to include new tracks in LFS, why should I bore myself "designing it" instead of just giving the idea about one kind of track, because the result will be the same". This statement is FALSE.
The more details you give about your track, the better chance it will have to be included in the game or to serve as an inspiration source for Eric. The way to do it is simple. You just have to fill the form, which will help giving as much details as you can to give the most precise idea of the track. You are not required to fill all of the fields if you don't feel like, but some are mandatory (in bold ) to be registered in the contest.
I will list all of them below and will start a new thread with a poll in a couple of weeks when we have enough diversity to allow the community to show which they prefer (and wish to be included in LFS).
So, here are the details you need to give us to enter the contest :
REMEMBER ! Only genuinely new tracks will be accepted as part of the contest. New layouts on existing venues, such as "Westhill 1950's", no matter how good they are, don't fit into this category !
The more you think about your track, the better chances it has to be elected by the community/selected by the devs !
Good luck everyone, and please come with interesting tracks for all the community ! Please be original, especially about the scenery, to help create a better experience than the one we already have !
I will update periodically this topic when I have new suggestions !
Sincerely yours,
Zen321
List of submitted tracks
- Sidious X - Noname circuit : http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=945266#post945266
- Flame_CZE - Colago Race track : http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=946055#post946055
- Jimmy Lemon - Chantelham Speedway : http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=946055#post946055
- chunkyracer - Estonza : http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=946787#post946787
- Profet - Vanilla Park : http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=948489#post948489
Tired of seeing the suggestion thread board spoiled with not fully-thought suggestions, I decided to offer you the possibility of making your own track !
Let's be sure, you won't be able to include it in LFS now, but creating it well might help it be included in the game.
Let me clarify some things : the questions you might be asking yourself is "If the devs don't want to include new tracks in LFS, why should I bore myself "designing it" instead of just giving the idea about one kind of track, because the result will be the same". This statement is FALSE.
The more details you give about your track, the better chance it will have to be included in the game or to serve as an inspiration source for Eric. The way to do it is simple. You just have to fill the form, which will help giving as much details as you can to give the most precise idea of the track. You are not required to fill all of the fields if you don't feel like, but some are mandatory (in bold ) to be registered in the contest.
I will list all of them below and will start a new thread with a poll in a couple of weeks when we have enough diversity to allow the community to show which they prefer (and wish to be included in LFS).
So, here are the details you need to give us to enter the contest :
REMEMBER ! Only genuinely new tracks will be accepted as part of the contest. New layouts on existing venues, such as "Westhill 1950's", no matter how good they are, don't fit into this category !
The more you think about your track, the better chances it has to be elected by the community/selected by the devs !
Good luck everyone, and please come with interesting tracks for all the community ! Please be original, especially about the scenery, to help create a better experience than the one we already have !
I will update periodically this topic when I have new suggestions !
Sincerely yours,
Zen321
List of submitted tracks
- Sidious X - Noname circuit : http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=945266#post945266
- Flame_CZE - Colago Race track : http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=946055#post946055
- Jimmy Lemon - Chantelham Speedway : http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=946055#post946055
- chunkyracer - Estonza : http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=946787#post946787
- Profet - Vanilla Park : http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=948489#post948489
Last edited by Zen321, .
Correction, we would see one of these
PS : Just kidding, please don't get offended
+1, could be interesting.
Not for all the tracks, but maybe for a specific RallyX new venue.
Why not also put a shorter way in a corner on the track (A long joker and a short one), which you can only take once, or risk a Stop-Go penalty for taking it another time.
I saw it on a Rallyx track in a forest where passing was very dangerous. It was put there for some more actions.
Not for all the tracks, but maybe for a specific RallyX new venue.
Why not also put a shorter way in a corner on the track (A long joker and a short one), which you can only take once, or risk a Stop-Go penalty for taking it another time.
I saw it on a Rallyx track in a forest where passing was very dangerous. It was put there for some more actions.
Well basically, the differentials aren't the main problem. The problem has got something to do with the tire grip model as I've heard. There is some lateral grip value that isn't the way it should be IRL, so it gives more grip when cornering, and with the locked diff, you can put your power down to the ground easier with this.
Body fluid in your Fanatec might explain the loss of FFB due to shortcircuiting...
I'm off ...
Plus the track manager should really change their procedures, all seats have the number "1"
Such a mess for booking a seat...
What about not arguing on just one modification of Westhill, but add scania's and ozark ?
This would make Westhill follow the same basic layout but either with a normal, fast, and slow version of it which would make it suitable for most of the cars we have here. Also add a small oval somewhere (the tunnel in the corner is a good idea, imho), and you will have a multiplatform venue that suits all the cars we have !
This would make Westhill follow the same basic layout but either with a normal, fast, and slow version of it which would make it suitable for most of the cars we have here. Also add a small oval somewhere (the tunnel in the corner is a good idea, imho), and you will have a multiplatform venue that suits all the cars we have !
Please try to prove that LFS is wrong before stating the physics are shit.
My grand father, who used to do some track racing when he was younger (he now is 79), gave a test spin to my XRG to prove that a simulator will never be even 1% close to reality.
After two laps on FE Gold, he managed to get 1 second close to my PB. The only thing he had to say was that visual outputs from the game were not good. Not meaning the quality of the graphics, but about the FOV and the sense of speed.
So please, get your skills better BEFORE you try trolling a game which does not lack any of your mentionned points. If you think that you can take an hairpin at 130 kph with a road car on road tires, please, go ahead, try it IRL and tell us whether GRID (where it's possible) or LFS (where you'll end up in the wall, or the sandtrap) is the most realistic, if you are still alive.
I would also like you to start an apology thread to the devs that let you gracisouly try their game for free when you will have realized all the things you said were not true. (except for the graphics, but this doesn't matters :P)
My grand father, who used to do some track racing when he was younger (he now is 79), gave a test spin to my XRG to prove that a simulator will never be even 1% close to reality.
After two laps on FE Gold, he managed to get 1 second close to my PB. The only thing he had to say was that visual outputs from the game were not good. Not meaning the quality of the graphics, but about the FOV and the sense of speed.
So please, get your skills better BEFORE you try trolling a game which does not lack any of your mentionned points. If you think that you can take an hairpin at 130 kph with a road car on road tires, please, go ahead, try it IRL and tell us whether GRID (where it's possible) or LFS (where you'll end up in the wall, or the sandtrap) is the most realistic, if you are still alive.
I would also like you to start an apology thread to the devs that let you gracisouly try their game for free when you will have realized all the things you said were not true. (except for the graphics, but this doesn't matters :P)
Just my two-cents, but I couldn't sleep last night speaking of this ?
Before thinking about whether the BF1's engine could work upside down, we should wonder about the downforce produced.
I don't know the exact amount of downforce produced, but I've heard readind those pages that at 161 mph, the BF1 can produce enough downforce to equal.
So basically, when driving on the roof at 161 mph, the downforce created will be equal to the weight, with the force going upwards. The only problem is that is the downforce equals, the sum of the forces exerted on the BF1 will be equal to zero (value of weight + value of downforce -which is negative- = 0).
This won't make the BF1 able to stand on the roof, because if the weight is zero, the force exerted on the tires will be equal to zero, as if the tires had nothing on them to keep them stick to the ground (even they will be weightless). Which means that at 161 mph, the tires won't have enough grip to keep pushing the car forward, so the speed will reduce drastically (because of the excessive air resistance needed to create the downforce).
The result will be the car falling down on the ground, upside-down, resulting in the death of the driver, and the loss of a 20 million car... (omfg)
So, the car, in order to stay on the ground would need at least to create as much downforce as two times his weight (to make the tires have a grip on the ceiling). And in order to be driven like normally on the ground, they would need to create downforce equals to three times its weight.
How to do this ? Two options : Speed, or more wing angle.
In both case, a more powerful engine is needed. It seems obvious for the first option. For the second, more wing will create more air resistance, so a more powerful engine is needed to give the same performance with an increased air resistance.
OR, third option : getting Alonso, Hamilton, Massa and Kubica drive steady at 140, 150, 160 and 170 mph in the tunnel so that the driver of that BF1 will take their slipstream so counteract the air resistance and accelerate faster :P
Before thinking about whether the BF1's engine could work upside down, we should wonder about the downforce produced.
I don't know the exact amount of downforce produced, but I've heard readind those pages that at 161 mph, the BF1 can produce enough downforce to equal.
So basically, when driving on the roof at 161 mph, the downforce created will be equal to the weight, with the force going upwards. The only problem is that is the downforce equals, the sum of the forces exerted on the BF1 will be equal to zero (value of weight + value of downforce -which is negative- = 0).
This won't make the BF1 able to stand on the roof, because if the weight is zero, the force exerted on the tires will be equal to zero, as if the tires had nothing on them to keep them stick to the ground (even they will be weightless). Which means that at 161 mph, the tires won't have enough grip to keep pushing the car forward, so the speed will reduce drastically (because of the excessive air resistance needed to create the downforce).
The result will be the car falling down on the ground, upside-down, resulting in the death of the driver, and the loss of a 20 million car... (omfg)
So, the car, in order to stay on the ground would need at least to create as much downforce as two times his weight (to make the tires have a grip on the ceiling). And in order to be driven like normally on the ground, they would need to create downforce equals to three times its weight.
How to do this ? Two options : Speed, or more wing angle.
In both case, a more powerful engine is needed. It seems obvious for the first option. For the second, more wing will create more air resistance, so a more powerful engine is needed to give the same performance with an increased air resistance.
OR, third option : getting Alonso, Hamilton, Massa and Kubica drive steady at 140, 150, 160 and 170 mph in the tunnel so that the driver of that BF1 will take their slipstream so counteract the air resistance and accelerate faster :P
Turn everything to default, no need for a ricerish exhaust tone
+10 for me as it is very immersive.
And not that hard to code I bet (I said, I bet). Just have to record a drill sound for changing tires and looping or strecht it untill the end of the tire change.
And not that hard to code I bet (I said, I bet
). Just have to record a drill sound for changing tires and looping or strecht it untill the end of the tire change.I like the idea.
However, most tracks are "cleaned" after events, so there still is rubber on the asphalt, but not as much as during a race. What could be done, using your multipliers is that you have a low multiplier at the beginning (showing the cleaning of the area), then progressively people let "rubber" on the track (increasing the multiplier). Which means that if people do not take the racing line, they still lay rubber down that can be used by other people.
However, most tracks are "cleaned" after events, so there still is rubber on the asphalt, but not as much as during a race. What could be done, using your multipliers is that you have a low multiplier at the beginning (showing the cleaning of the area), then progressively people let "rubber" on the track (increasing the multiplier). Which means that if people do not take the racing line, they still lay rubber down that can be used by other people.
Off topic but not really...
The question is : What gravitates around the Earth...
Which isn't the Sun, it's the Moon... (Not around what does the Earth gravitates...) You would have been a french millionaire before Galileo existed, obviously
WOOT !
Retorical approach of the phrase meant to emphasize on proving the other's assumption is false.
A says : this is irrealistic.
If B says : "it isn't irrealistic" this has more impact than saying "it is realistic". Which turns his statement into an opposition of A's statement instead of just assuming a totally different idea (which would turn the debate into : I'm right / No I AM right instead of I'm right / no you're wrong).
720° isn't irrealistic for the cars we have here.
It is true that most road cars have around 1080° from lock to lock, but they also have more than 36° of wheel lock (what we have now in the road cars).
So basically, 720° is realistic since they went from 42° (900°) wheel lock to 36° by putting some blockers to prevent the cars from having a too high wheel lock value. Pretty much like the XRR which has only 540° of steering lock because its wheel lock is 24°, which is a derivate from the XRT.
So maybe if there was more wheel lock available, then I think having 900° lock will be useful. I tried racing with 900° instead of 720° and my setup that was really really reponsive on 720° seemed sluggish here, just because it took longer steering wheel rotation to perform the same wheel rotation.
So 720° here isn't irrealistic.
It is true that most road cars have around 1080° from lock to lock, but they also have more than 36° of wheel lock (what we have now in the road cars).
So basically, 720° is realistic since they went from 42° (900°) wheel lock to 36° by putting some blockers to prevent the cars from having a too high wheel lock value. Pretty much like the XRR which has only 540° of steering lock because its wheel lock is 24°, which is a derivate from the XRT.
So maybe if there was more wheel lock available, then I think having 900° lock will be useful. I tried racing with 900° instead of 720° and my setup that was really really reponsive on 720° seemed sluggish here, just because it took longer steering wheel rotation to perform the same wheel rotation.
So 720° here isn't irrealistic.
I also want a "sky" brush so that I can make no ground under the road and drive in clouds lololorz Because I managed to turn the FZR in a turboreactor-powered car in LFSTweak with negative downforz so dat it can fly lololrz It's like a podracorz in Storworz loloz
...
?
...
Just kidding ! Nice suggestions here, it would be great that the Autocross is revamped with real barriers, more choice of surfaces, more choice of objects so that we can build proper layouts to race and have a different experience on
True where you're behind the guy, false when you are actually side by side while taking the inside.
I don't care whom responsibility it is to brake to avoid the accident and argue for the remaining laps while spectating and arguing with the other. Simply, the horn helps to prevent this kind of situation and prevents both cars to be totalled at the entrance of a corner.
I would rather have the horn that, even unrealistic on certain cars, can help to remove some of the games defects than being crashed 1 race out of 2 ans argue whether it was my fault or not.
In CTRA (1), the horn helps a lot to prevent accident, especially when you're in someone's blindspot.
That Dodge Viper would be useless...
Huge boost form the startline, big burnouts, tires orange after launch, huge speed into corner 1 which results in 2 situations :
1 - Best one : Brake 150m before very one and not be able to get the psi high enough to pass them before corner 2.
2 - Worst case : "Undasteeeeeeeer, baby hell yeah :headbang: ". And *poc* you're dead.
Huge boost form the startline, big burnouts, tires orange after launch, huge speed into corner 1 which results in 2 situations :
1 - Best one : Brake 150m before very one and not be able to get the psi high enough to pass them before corner 2.
2 - Worst case : "Undasteeeeeeeer, baby hell yeah :headbang: ". And *poc* you're dead.
I, personally, think that enhancing your car knowledge is part of the game experience.
I've been messing with setups since I got the game, and it took me around 4 to 5 monthes to figure out how to build a good setup (A.k.a. which suits me). A base setup wouldn't really work for people, because as alland44 said, there are too many little preferences. For instance, lots of WR setups tend to have a general slight understeer, while I prefer slight oversteer. And even with such a set, I can't do good times, because they are tuned for another style.
Also, when you mess up with something, it affects the overall handling and behavior so you might need messing up with something else, no to screw the stability of your car. For instance, i changed my gearbox once to a pattern I liked better, but as the gears where different, the torque applied to the wheels made them spun with my suspension settings, so I had to tune it again to get the same effect.
I think the good point to start with is either Race_S or Hardtrack, depends on how you like to drive, copy them, they behave quite good, but don't expect too much of them Tweak some bits to bits, to see how it affects the handling, and you wil end up with a set that is very close to what you expected.
I've been messing with setups since I got the game, and it took me around 4 to 5 monthes to figure out how to build a good setup (A.k.a. which suits me). A base setup wouldn't really work for people, because as alland44 said, there are too many little preferences. For instance, lots of WR setups tend to have a general slight understeer, while I prefer slight oversteer. And even with such a set, I can't do good times, because they are tuned for another style.
Also, when you mess up with something, it affects the overall handling and behavior so you might need messing up with something else, no to screw the stability of your car. For instance, i changed my gearbox once to a pattern I liked better, but as the gears where different, the torque applied to the wheels made them spun with my suspension settings, so I had to tune it again to get the same effect.
I think the good point to start with is either Race_S or Hardtrack, depends on how you like to drive, copy them, they behave quite good, but don't expect too much of them
Tweak some bits to bits, to see how it affects the handling, and you wil end up with a set that is very close to what you expected.@wsinda : Yeah that would be a good idea, and quite easy to implement since it is very clsoe to what MPR are. SPR are an autocalculation of LFS's physics. MPR are "just" some saved coordinates (position, speed, damage, angle) of what happened online. That's why when you look at your MPR you can sometime feel like : "I didn't do this" or "Wait, I passed him earlier in the corner" (especially when the server has got a hellotta to pack). To prove this, just collide to a wall in MP after 3 or 4 laps and watch it a 0.125x or x0.25 and you will see that your car undergoes the deformation just a fraction of second BEFORE actually hitting the wall.
So yeah, a program that could convert SPR into a coordinate-like replay like MPR are would be:
1) Easy to do
2) Fun to watch ^^
So yeah, a program that could convert SPR into a coordinate-like replay like MPR are would be:
1) Easy to do
2) Fun to watch ^^
I disagree, i can remember this video (http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=F9xM-UM-vhw) where a Dodge Charger does the same time (even better) than a Gallardo's in a tight AutoX. The Dodge Chargers, as everyone know, aren't famed for their agility, so this makes me think that with an appropriate setup and driver they could fit in a class somewhere.
IMHO, not in the LRF class, just because it would be so similar with the FZ5 (except it would be FR). Heavy-Arse car, exit-oriented, extra-slow-in-->fast out.
It would be very good if a new class was created. But again, check how popular the LX4 is... So either :
1) Make it fit the LX4 class, by making it heavier (1.7tons), but with around 260bhp.
2) Create a class of N/A racing car where the AMC would fit perfectly and add to it two other cars. Could be a retro-style class with some old 300SL for instance.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG