Again, what I say with road cars is to ask the question :
In the developpers mind, are they road cars, or are they road legal cars ?
The question may seem pointless, but think about it... Maybe they are old road cars equipped with some aftermarket parts to make them trackday road cars or specced road cars (Spec Miata like, etc) and not the exact replica of the used car you'd buy in a dealer... Untill we know what Scavier exactly has in mind for the definition of what a road car is, we can't make judgement whether the actual setup system is good or bad, and we will have to comply to his decision.
Becaue let's be honest, cars up to road legal specs are what people drive on a daily basis, and are usually not optimized for racing. Just look at the UF1 right now... How many race servers use UF1 only ? I am sure that it is lower than the ratio 1/30 (UF1/total cars). Please do not show me the stats of LFS world, as I have yet to see how many of these UF1 miles have been done in a cruise server. The UF1 is underused, partly because it has a very strictly enforced setup system.
I am not against the limitation of the setup adjustments. And by that I mean changing the increment options to more senseful increments (especially for gears ratio). Also, how about chaning the names of some increments ? For the ARB, speaking of diameter instead of stiffness (but I can understand that the number displayed here is the number used for physics calculation in the model). The changing of names wouldn't have any change on how the ARB behaves, but might limit available increments; Though it would add some "unnecessary" code in the LFS.exe (convert : diameter value --> stiffness value for the calculations).
Overally, I am opposed to a very harsh limitation of setups, simply because it is an excluding suggestion. It excludes a variety of options we have gained up to now. I totally second the idea of a guy that posted some months ago (I can't recall the name, but if he shows up, I give full credit to him for that suggestion). He said that having three levels of setups tuning, with a server side option to select which level to allow :
- Pure stock/Road specs (very few limitations allowed apart from the tire type, pressure and maybe camber and toe, with handicaps possible)
- Specced up cars (a selection of less adjustable parts, like a choice between 5 to 6 spring stiffness, some narrow damping value damping values and the possibility of adjusting the final drive, have ARB, choice of pre setuped differentials, etc).
- Full custom (basically what we get now + more adjustability of the non-adjustable parts of cars like XFG, XRG and UF1 -add supers, change the differential, etc- )
Instead of having only one setup list, we would have three joint to each other. Of course, the race cars would only have the choice between the two latter. (Except for the BF1 who might even only have what we have now).
That done, servers, leagues would choose what type of level of adjustment they wish to apply with their own regulations and conception of racing. Everybody would play with their conception, and everybody with different expectations would be able to play without bitching at each other.
___
However I tend to think that the "limit-setup-options-to-tire-pressure" brigade is in fact a conspiracy by cruisers to influence Scavier so that racing with those non-performant machines gets boring and that racers progressively turn to cruise servers, so that they can get an overpowering majority on the forums
Finally we have some wise Americans! Uncle Benny and jbirdaspect, you both have some good points here.
Close racing comes from skills and setup. I'd say around 80-85% skills and 15-20% setup.
A setup is a tool, it isn't a finality. A good driver uses the best setup for him to maximize his skills, not the other way around.
Just to get an example, take Tweak, take the LX4 and double the engine size (2800 inline 8), you should be around 300-320 hp, which would surely be enough to ensure a good time, with the appropriate gear ratios...
Unless you are already good, you won't be able to come anywhere far from the WR.
Now give that tweak to the WR holder, and he'll beat his time easily... It is such a bullshit to tell that people are fast just because of their car, and it is as well very mean, and a clear sign of a frustrated mind. A sprinter won't remove a whole second out of his time just because he has the best shoes ever... It's the same for racing. It is a sport, some people are more talented than the others and unless you dedicate time to reach their pace, you'll go nowhere.
That said, close racing doesn't mean all the time fast racing. If you go to CTRA 1, you will have some close racing with people that aren't THAT fast (except the podium holder that usually have a gold or platinum license).
If winning is all what matters, or being relatively faster than the others, go to a drift server and start racing. If the two conditions above are what satisfy you the most, then you'll enjoy yourself a lot
Close racing comes from skills and setup. I'd say around 80-85% skills and 15-20% setup.
A setup is a tool, it isn't a finality. A good driver uses the best setup for him to maximize his skills, not the other way around.
Just to get an example, take Tweak, take the LX4 and double the engine size (2800 inline 8), you should be around 300-320 hp, which would surely be enough to ensure a good time, with the appropriate gear ratios...
Unless you are already good, you won't be able to come anywhere far from the WR.
Now give that tweak to the WR holder, and he'll beat his time easily... It is such a bullshit to tell that people are fast just because of their car, and it is as well very mean, and a clear sign of a frustrated mind. A sprinter won't remove a whole second out of his time just because he has the best shoes ever... It's the same for racing. It is a sport, some people are more talented than the others and unless you dedicate time to reach their pace, you'll go nowhere.
That said, close racing doesn't mean all the time fast racing. If you go to CTRA 1, you will have some close racing with people that aren't THAT fast (except the podium holder that usually have a gold or platinum license).
If winning is all what matters, or being relatively faster than the others, go to a drift server and start racing. If the two conditions above are what satisfy you the most, then you'll enjoy yourself a lot
After extensive thinking, I think I now why the WR setups (especially on trakc with high kerbs) use spring stiffness that are around 11% lower that the optimum spring rate regarding the weight of the car... It's to allow stability over kerbs...
For instance, I tend to run on 92 and 89 at rear and front respectively, as it makes me pretty fast on tarmac, but taking a kerb can make me snap out or understeer.
Anyway, I don't like kerb hopping ^^
For instance, I tend to run on 92 and 89 at rear and front respectively, as it makes me pretty fast on tarmac, but taking a kerb can make me snap out or understeer.
Anyway, I don't like kerb hopping ^^
Here's my two cents concerning the debate.
Limiting setup options can be or can not be a good idea. It all depends on the reasons invoked :
- Reason 1) In real life you don't have such precision adjustability for aftermarket parts on road cars. Valid point, makes sense <-- [GOOD REASON].
- Reason 2) People make setups that doesn't make any sense for me, and any attempt of making my own setup result in a fail, so let's limit those options because I want to be as competitive as them. Jealousy, lack of dedication. <-- [BAD REASON]
Apart from racing, one of the thing I really enjoy with LFS is messing with setups and increasing my knowledge about car dynamics. When I work on a setup, it can take me up to monthes to find the perfect settings for me. When I look at some SetupGrid or Inferno setups, I sometimes don't see the point of some of their specific settings. For instance, in a RWD car, Toe In at the front is something I find quite stupid, and when I switched to toe out at the front, my laps improved by around 0.7% of the WR time. (so a range from 0.4 to 1.2 seconds depending on the length of the track). But I'm sure it makes sense for their view of setuping, and that they are more comfortable with it, and that is what matters.
Let's take the example of FWD cars. People say "God, I can't understand why a XFG doesn't suffer from massive understeer at the exits, as it should do...". This is the trick of setuping, because people want to make the cars more balanced overally. Let's take a look at the toe at rear wheels on a FWD race cars IRL. You'll notice they have slight toe out at the rear, in order to prevent that understeer to happen, especially in exits. But is it unrealistic ? Is it unrealistic to dedicate your time when making setups to prevent a FWD car from understeering really bad at the exit? No, it's the job of what a proper setup can do.
What would be unrealistic is if your XFG could spin the real wheels like the XRT, with a tuned setups, which is not the case...
Chopping seconds and positions off your records is something very gratifying in LFS, but there is also a "quest" about making your own setup as fast as it could be, which is also very gratifying as well
A final thing about setups ? The best way to make a setup isn't to follow advices of LFS Manual. LFS Manual is a very good beginner's guide to understanding how a car can behave, but you can only fully grasp the importance of each increment you change while testing them, in respect with what you have learnt about setuping, should it be on LFS manual, race books, etc.
Limiting setup options can be or can not be a good idea. It all depends on the reasons invoked :
- Reason 1) In real life you don't have such precision adjustability for aftermarket parts on road cars. Valid point, makes sense <-- [GOOD REASON].
- Reason 2) People make setups that doesn't make any sense for me, and any attempt of making my own setup result in a fail, so let's limit those options because I want to be as competitive as them. Jealousy, lack of dedication. <-- [BAD REASON]
Apart from racing, one of the thing I really enjoy with LFS is messing with setups and increasing my knowledge about car dynamics. When I work on a setup, it can take me up to monthes to find the perfect settings for me. When I look at some SetupGrid or Inferno setups, I sometimes don't see the point of some of their specific settings. For instance, in a RWD car, Toe In at the front is something I find quite stupid, and when I switched to toe out at the front, my laps improved by around 0.7% of the WR time. (so a range from 0.4 to 1.2 seconds depending on the length of the track). But I'm sure it makes sense for their view of setuping, and that they are more comfortable with it, and that is what matters.
Let's take the example of FWD cars. People say "God, I can't understand why a XFG doesn't suffer from massive understeer at the exits, as it should do...". This is the trick of setuping, because people want to make the cars more balanced overally. Let's take a look at the toe at rear wheels on a FWD race cars IRL. You'll notice they have slight toe out at the rear, in order to prevent that understeer to happen, especially in exits. But is it unrealistic ? Is it unrealistic to dedicate your time when making setups to prevent a FWD car from understeering really bad at the exit? No, it's the job of what a proper setup can do.
What would be unrealistic is if your XFG could spin the real wheels like the XRT, with a tuned setups, which is not the case...
Chopping seconds and positions off your records is something very gratifying in LFS, but there is also a "quest" about making your own setup as fast as it could be, which is also very gratifying as well
A final thing about setups ? The best way to make a setup isn't to follow advices of LFS Manual. LFS Manual is a very good beginner's guide to understanding how a car can behave, but you can only fully grasp the importance of each increment you change while testing them, in respect with what you have learnt about setuping, should it be on LFS manual, race books, etc.
How do you call a Craftsman Series pick-up, a "truck" ? Nascar with real nascar cars is understandable, but Crafsman Series is just made to make pick-up-owners rednecks watch riced up pick-ups on an oval while drinking Busch Light... How can you call watching 40 pick-ups racing in ovals, with only left-handers, with not even a downshift or a lift-off, interesting ?
My cousin used to drive semis for the summer, and one day I was seating next to him... When the trailer is not attached, the engine is so powerful and torquey that we could match some japanese cars (a supra, obivously stock) at redlights...
And if you want any idea of the cornering power of a truck, just watch the movie Duel, it gives a pretty neat idea.
I think people who are not happy with the way things work with LFS shoud check what they have paid for.
They paid for a specific version of LFS at a timedate t=0 with the benefit of free updates to the product. They did not sign a contract where updates are published on a regular basis. You paid, you agreed to the rules, and the rules is that there may be or may not be future patches. Get over that. Scawen was very professional when he gave an "expected date of release" for the Scirocco, and he postponed it in a very manly way.
I can understand that some of the whiners deify Scawen, but, and I'm sorry for you guys, the only persons who are morally allowed to bear a grudge against him from hearing no news during a month are his employer (he has none, the one less problem!) and his wife/children (I don't think I take much risk when I state : you aren't his wife).
So get over it, find a social life, be manly by not whining, meet friends, have a couple of one night stands, ine one word : let the steam off, because Scawen's heart is already taken. (Im sure it will disappoint some of you whiners
)
We are by no way arselickers because we cheer on Scawen and what he does, because we like the product as it is AND as it will be (while you are clearly over-turned toward the future), and because we also know that a happy worker is a more productive worker. Right know, the only people affected and harmed by your disappointment are only you, and because of that you are in no way to coerce him by your disappointment.
On topic : French and American (where I live now) ISPs are a pain in the glutes as well... So I feel you! Congrats for your new home, enjoy your place, work stress-free and profit from your liberties (but please don't forget us ever ^^)
They paid for a specific version of LFS at a timedate t=0 with the benefit of free updates to the product. They did not sign a contract where updates are published on a regular basis. You paid, you agreed to the rules, and the rules is that there may be or may not be future patches. Get over that. Scawen was very professional when he gave an "expected date of release" for the Scirocco, and he postponed it in a very manly way.
I can understand that some of the whiners deify Scawen, but, and I'm sorry for you guys, the only persons who are morally allowed to bear a grudge against him from hearing no news during a month are his employer (he has none, the one less problem!) and his wife/children (I don't think I take much risk when I state : you aren't his wife).
So get over it, find a social life, be manly by not whining, meet friends, have a couple of one night stands, ine one word : let the steam off, because Scawen's heart is already taken. (Im sure it will disappoint some of you whiners
)We are by no way arselickers because we cheer on Scawen and what he does, because we like the product as it is AND as it will be (while you are clearly over-turned toward the future), and because we also know that a happy worker is a more productive worker. Right know, the only people affected and harmed by your disappointment are only you, and because of that you are in no way to coerce him by your disappointment.
On topic : French and American (where I live now) ISPs are a pain in the glutes as well... So I feel you! Congrats for your new home, enjoy your place, work stress-free and profit from your liberties
(but please don't forget us ever ^^)Well I understand what your motives are, and they are pretty respectable.
The only problem is that LFS isn't one community, it's multiple communities (I wouldn't say camps, though ). Because what determines a community are shared idea. People who prefer to use LFS to drive slowly enjoying the sight of the tracks, other want to go fast, others want to drift their machines, so it is understandable that they have different motivations and this different expectations from the game.
There is no way of playing BETTER in absolute criteria than another, because tastes are subjective. However, where the argument takes place is when people want to change what LFS originally suit. Because of its nature, LFS is more suited to find people wishing to have a semi-pro motorsport (drift + race), and I think that since a couple of monthes I did not read any thread about a drift vs grip fight on a thread.
However, the problem with cruising is that it will always be a derivated gameplay from the original idea. Therefore, it can be understood that cruise-oriented features (police cars, sirens, cities, countries, etc) will be impossible to implement EXCEPT if they are something to do with motorsports...
About the demo users, it gets annoying when they ask for some more, and you can understand that...
And the crackers it's pretty obvious as well... A guy who doesn't pay for LFS can spread the software up, resulting in no income for the devs over the long run, resulting in no more cash to maintain the master servers up, and no more cash to improve the game So you can understand why people are pretty upset about it !
The only problem is that LFS isn't one community, it's multiple communities (I wouldn't say camps, though
). Because what determines a community are shared idea. People who prefer to use LFS to drive slowly enjoying the sight of the tracks, other want to go fast, others want to drift their machines, so it is understandable that they have different motivations and this different expectations from the game.There is no way of playing BETTER in absolute criteria than another, because tastes are subjective. However, where the argument takes place is when people want to change what LFS originally suit. Because of its nature, LFS is more suited to find people wishing to have a semi-pro motorsport (drift + race), and I think that since a couple of monthes I did not read any thread about a drift vs grip fight on a thread.
However, the problem with cruising is that it will always be a derivated gameplay from the original idea. Therefore, it can be understood that cruise-oriented features (police cars, sirens, cities, countries, etc) will be impossible to implement EXCEPT if they are something to do with motorsports...
About the demo users, it gets annoying when they ask for some more, and you can understand that...
And the crackers it's pretty obvious as well... A guy who doesn't pay for LFS can spread the software up, resulting in no income for the devs over the long run, resulting in no more cash to maintain the master servers up, and no more cash to improve the game
So you can understand why people are pretty upset about it !broken, I feel you, but I, timpdr and S14, IIRC, did not insult anyone in our posts...
I don't appreciate stupid racers, as much as I don't appreciate kidzorz drifters, as much as I don't appreciate emocruisers.
Most of the crew in cruise servers may or may not be very kind and so on. I don't know, it's been a real while since I joined one (because I find it uninteresting), but I am not referring to those people. I am referring to the ones who want a tow truck, police cars models, sidewalks, real traffic lights etc... Something that will only benefit them, and not the whole community... Such as some drifters asking for supah exhausts and supah spoilerzzzzzz or simply a "drift-only" car...
It might be hard to accept, but since the racers are originally the main target customers of the product, a racer who makes a suggestion has got a larger chance of making it useful for everybody than someone who asks for a special feature related to HIS gameplay. This is why racers/drifters suggestion usually get more credit than cruisers' because they are inclusive (apply to as many people as they can) and not exclusive like most of the cruisers'
@Timpdr : I'm not sure for the CnR servers... last time I recall seeing one was september 2007... Yeah you're right it was better than cruising ! At least the cops there did not want to simulate real-life cop behavior
I don't appreciate stupid racers, as much as I don't appreciate kidzorz drifters, as much as I don't appreciate emocruisers.
Most of the crew in cruise servers may or may not be very kind and so on. I don't know, it's been a real while since I joined one (because I find it uninteresting), but I am not referring to those people. I am referring to the ones who want a tow truck, police cars models, sidewalks, real traffic lights etc... Something that will only benefit them, and not the whole community... Such as some drifters asking for supah exhausts and supah spoilerzzzzzz or simply a "drift-only" car...
It might be hard to accept, but since the racers are originally the main target customers of the product, a racer who makes a suggestion has got a larger chance of making it useful for everybody than someone who asks for a special feature related to HIS gameplay. This is why racers/drifters suggestion usually get more credit than cruisers' because they are inclusive (apply to as many people as they can) and not exclusive like most of the cruisers'
@Timpdr : I'm not sure for the CnR servers... last time I recall seeing one was september 2007... Yeah you're right it was better than cruising ! At least the cops there did not want to simulate real-life cop behavior
Dragging comes from drag-racing ans I think this explains the link between it and motorsports. Drifting is a new motorsport, like gymnastics arrived later than marathon or sprint. Is cruising anything sporty ? Is cruising a motorsport ? No.
I see no racism involved here. Stop comparing the uncomparable, please. It first shows that your argument is limited, then shows you are a j**k to try to influence people with the fear of being apparented to bad people, while they are clearly not.
Next, you're gonna say some of the racers want to send cruisers in concentration camps? Cruisers, since the game WASN'T designed FOR cruising, can understand that their way of playing the game does not suit the customers was intended for. Therefore, they have no justification to act as victims, since one of the condition of only-cruising is that your way of playing the game will always come last in respect with what are the initial objectives of the game.
Also, a difference between cruisers and racers, in this very forum, is that when a racer actually suggest something, it may/will apply to any player and not to racers only (night driving, rain, more tracks, etc). Have you ever seen a Tow-truck Racing Series on a straight highway??
In that sense, IF any 'side' is segregationnist, the cruisers are more likely to be than the racers.
I think looking at the stats of cruising or racing and drifting, I think the vast majority of users spends most of its time on the two latters.
Your statement says it all. What about the famous race servers ? I'm thinking of CTRA1, Redlines, ConeDodgers, FM, etc... They are as active as the cruising servers, and with a quite strong certaintiy, more active.
What they mean by they are the same is that the Insim serve similar purposes in the very same way, while the genesis of the concept is that they are meant to offer a different experience. For example, let's look at ricing. A lot of people put Lexus-type lights on their car "to be different", but they don't realize that the vast majority of street ricers also have the exact same lights.
I agree some racers have a bad mentality on the cruise servers. But you can't deny that the emo-victim roleplay of cruiser gets on nerves, doesn't it ?
Then why don't cruisers let racers alone ? They ask for the same improvement all over the place, in a game that is meant for racing fans. Then what if they get the cruising tracks ? They will want sidewalks and old ladies with dogs walking on them ?
Cruising is not wrong, it's a different way to play a racing game. When cruising gets wrong is when the 'authorities' of the servers enforce rules that are opposite to the essence of Live For Speed.
That was the point of Cops n' Robbers that derived to cruise servers. A cat-mouse game, where the cops actually wanted to get in a chase. Now, in the cruise servers 'cops', 'police forces' are more authoritah-lacking dudes that park and chat all day long while eating donuts, and don't like when they get in a chase. If the 'suspect' is caught, then either he pays or is kicked/banned form the servers. Isn't it really a sign that the people who the server's owner gives his confidence to actually WANT everyone to drive slow?
I think this is the only point we agree on. But please, no flowers, no old ladies with dogs, no crosswalks and no working traffic lights.
I have a better idea for a cruising track...
Why not create a single playable track caled "LFS World", with all the tracks available now be some parts of it... The other part of the "LFS World" would be streetz, highwayz, mountainz roadz, forestaz dirt paths, beachz, seaz... You will havz you onwz houze and have to drivez fromz yourz houzez toz thez venuezz yourselvz and you couldz creatz pathz on the streetz to make itzz a big trackzzzz !! Like NzFzUz2z pnwz !!
U couldz have a wifez and kidz and die and grannyz and teachz themz to drivez lol Alzo becauzzzzzz ze trackz are farz, scavierz couldz stealz codez from MFSzzzz (Microzoftz flightz zimulatorz) to haz airplenz carrying uz and yourz carz aroundz the famouz lfs worldz !! (wez wouldz needz triz and flowerz to makez itz prettiz lololololol)
How does that sound? If this idea IS implemented, I swear I kill myself..
Why not create a single playable track caled "LFS World", with all the tracks available now be some parts of it... The other part of the "LFS World" would be streetz, highwayz, mountainz roadz, forestaz dirt paths, beachz, seaz... You will havz you onwz houze and have to drivez fromz yourz houzez toz thez venuezz yourselvz and you couldz creatz pathz on the streetz to make itzz a big trackzzzz !! Like NzFzUz2z pnwz !!
U couldz have a wifez and kidz and die and grannyz and teachz themz to drivez lol Alzo becauzzzzzz ze trackz are farz, scavierz couldz stealz codez from MFSzzzz (Microzoftz flightz zimulatorz) to haz airplenz carrying uz and yourz carz aroundz the famouz lfs worldz !! (wez wouldz needz triz and flowerz to makez itz prettiz lololololol)
How does that sound? If this idea IS implemented, I swear I kill myself..
Nightshift is right.
Let's say you have 720 degree rotation for racing in the FZ5, then you want to switch to the FZR, then the "stop" will only occur past 720°, not 540°.
What would be good is an option which makes LFS change the Logitech profiler lock value. With this, no more annoying alt-tabbing each time you change a car
Let's say you have 720 degree rotation for racing in the FZ5, then you want to switch to the FZR, then the "stop" will only occur past 720°, not 540°.
What would be good is an option which makes LFS change the Logitech profiler lock value. With this, no more annoying alt-tabbing each time you change a car
So far so good guys !
Thanks duke_toaster dans TagForce for your contributions. @TagForce I think we summed up the main concerns and problems an editor system would raise. I did not think of money when building the criteria up, but it is a very interesting point that I hope will get thought about here.
Could you be a bit more specific ? Are you speaking of how to choose/manage a team of mod tester and approvers or are you on the baby analogy ?
Thanks duke_toaster dans TagForce for your contributions. @TagForce I think we summed up the main concerns and problems an editor system would raise. I did not think of money when building the criteria up, but it is a very interesting point that I hope will get thought about here.
Could you be a bit more specific ? Are you speaking of how to choose/manage a team of mod tester and approvers or are you on the baby analogy ?
Because I think the Scirocco was not the main issue of the delay.
Scawen clearly stated that the first-blueprint of the 0.6A patch did not include all the work that had been acheived since Patch Z.
Since it's been some time already since we had the last 0.6A test patch, and since Scavier is usually faster when correcting them, we can SUPPOSE that they decided to wait for the release and include the "amount of work that has been done since Patch Z".
Tristan, you are the multiquote master.
@ the OP :
What controller do you use ? Right now I am using my laptop's touch pad (sadly my G25 did not want to come along with me to the US
) and I still use the cockpit view even if I can't feel the FFB (when a FFB touchpad will be developed, tell meI'll buy one ! ). You can have an idea about the G-forces with the camera motion (if you keep it low, otherwise it hurts your brain ).
Since I used the touchpad, it has been like force training my eyes to "see" the behavior of the car. For example, I can now if one of my wheel is locked underbraking because the visual sense of speed would show so. Same for the understeer/oversteer, simply because I can figure out at which "rate" the car is turning. If the view doesn't move enough, I understeer, and the difference between a "neutral" rate tells me how bad it is. Same for oversteer.
If you feel more comfortable with the chase view, it is not a big deal. However, I find it very uncomfortable to drive with (I can't see the effects of my inputs). If I could suggest, for the in-car cam, some settings that will help you "see" clearer (it's the ones I use and I find it easier to sense the speed and the forces).
For all cars :
- Field of View to 110°
- Inclination to -5° (so that the middle of your screen is the horizon).
- Force motion, to about a third on each axis, except vertical G where is it half of the other values (so that I can still see something when driving on some kerbs).
Depending on the car :
- Put the Y axis value as close to the wheel as you can (to avoid cockpit distorsion), as long as you can still see the dials, and eventually lower the Z axis value so that you can see most of those (using virtual dials might not be a bad idea, since you will have to look down to see them, as in a real car).
Good luck !
@ the OP :
What controller do you use ? Right now I am using my laptop's touch pad (sadly my G25 did not want to come along with me to the US
) and I still use the cockpit view even if I can't feel the FFB (when a FFB touchpad will be developed, tell meI'll buy one ! ). You can have an idea about the G-forces with the camera motion (if you keep it low, otherwise it hurts your brain ).Since I used the touchpad, it has been like force training my eyes to "see" the behavior of the car. For example, I can now if one of my wheel is locked underbraking because the visual sense of speed would show so. Same for the understeer/oversteer, simply because I can figure out at which "rate" the car is turning. If the view doesn't move enough, I understeer, and the difference between a "neutral" rate tells me how bad it is. Same for oversteer.
If you feel more comfortable with the chase view, it is not a big deal. However, I find it very uncomfortable to drive with (I can't see the effects of my inputs). If I could suggest, for the in-car cam, some settings that will help you "see" clearer (it's the ones I use and I find it easier to sense the speed and the forces).
For all cars :
- Field of View to 110°
- Inclination to -5° (so that the middle of your screen is the horizon).
- Force motion, to about a third on each axis, except vertical G where is it half of the other values (so that I can still see something when driving on some kerbs).
Depending on the car :
- Put the Y axis value as close to the wheel as you can (to avoid cockpit distorsion), as long as you can still see the dials, and eventually lower the Z axis value so that you can see most of those (using virtual dials might not be a bad idea, since you will have to look down to see them, as in a real car).
Good luck !
Thanks evilpimp and TVE for your interesting contributions!
I summed your ideas in the first post, so that to prevent people from plagiating them (Please tell me in any modifications to your idea should be made so that I can update them).
Thanks again guys, and keep proposing
EDIT : Did not see your post TagForce, nice analogy with the football team I added your concern with real-life licensing issues in the first post, if you do mind, please tell me and I will remove it.
I summed your ideas in the first post, so that to prevent people from plagiating them
(Please tell me in any modifications to your idea should be made so that I can update them).Thanks again guys, and keep proposing
EDIT : Did not see your post TagForce, nice analogy with the football team
I added your concern with real-life licensing issues in the first post, if you do mind, please tell me and I will remove it.First guy to miss the point of that topic... It gets promising after two posts !
The point of this thread is not to discuss whether editors are a better alternative, because we are, as a hypothesis, assuming that there will be some at some point of the time. So this was to have several alternatives on how editors can be implemented, which might help the developpers in case they need it and removing part of the thinking burden they have to go through.
Your post makes no sense at all for two reasons :
- A software is very different from a baby, in case you did not notice. Thus, if I were mean, I would suggest that you do not compare living being to computers as you might sound to be a geek. But since I'm not
- Increasing the number of developpers (community content IS an increase of the number of developpers) has been shown to increase overall productivity given a fixed amount of technical level. This is called "specialization". Secondly yes, increasing the number of people working on a project might not lead to relatively higher output, but that is after a certain size of organization. And at 3 people if each produce 1 unit, adding one more people will certainly increase the output by more than 1 unit. This is the marginal productivity of labour, that is increasing until a certain point where the MPL decreases untill being as close to zero as possible, because of the maximum capacity of the capital/technical factor.
Back on topic.
[Deliberation Commitee]Future editors for LFS
Hi everyone !
Each of you knows that team Scavier stated a while ago that community content "if allowed, won't be there until S3". As time flows by, Scavier must know more and more that community content will be in an undertermined future one of the main feature for LFS's survival.
Indeed, through opinions shared on this forum concerning the rate of progress, I am sure that the team knows that to keep up the pace with a broader competition (iRacing, rFactor, nKPro...) they will have either to increase the number of programmers, modellers or allow our large community to include 'homemade' contents.
Since the tripartite organization, really supported by team Scavier, is an organization pattern which purposes and outputs are understandable and efficient (less people so a better quality control, which is the main aspect of Live For Speed), there are two alternatives left : allow independent teams to work on sub-projects (which I doubt will be used again since the failure of the RallyPack project) or allow users to create personal content, via editors provided by the Scavier team itself.
The point of this thread is not to weighs the pros and cons of having a community edition system (please check the thread : http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=52896). The point of this thread is to submit different ways an editor system could be implemented while respecting the general idea of what Live For Speed is.
(Please keep this in mind as I don't want this topic to be a war between pro and anti editors points of view, and I will ask the moderation team to remove flame spam if needed).
So, the question is, in your opinion : Can you think of a system of editors for Live For Speed, upon a series of criteria? (Those criteria being :
- What should the editors be allowed to create? (Cars, tracks, IA patterns, UI menus, classes, car parts, minor physics upgrades?)
- To which extent the editors would help the user in the process of creation? (only helping to incorporate custom made models, by adding some physical values to them, or assisting the user in the process of designing like Bob's track builder, and a simple creation editor for cars with a choice between type of parts and easy modelling like BeSpoke?)
- How would other users get the created content? (mandatory download each time you connect a server, or a new category in LFSWorld with links for the downloads)
- What means of control should there be to ensure the quality of the content is sufficiently high and that it respects the spirit of Live For Speed? (either a review by Scavier itself, a review by a list of designated people, designated either by the devs or by the community, or a peer-reviewed system?)
)
Please note that the criteria list is not yet defined, and I hope that within this thread people will provide other intersting criterias that we could add to this list. Please remember as well that the list of ideas to match the criterias are not 'options', they are just here to give a more precise idea of what criteria is dealing with what.
I started this topic with the intent of a mature discussion, so I, the mods, and other posters will surely appreciate it it stayed so.
Good deliberation !
Summary of the ideas posted so far (please tell me if the summary I did misses a point of your thought ) :
- evilpimp : "Improved AutoX editor" - A very large square of asphalt with the ability of drawing lines and curves (borders of the track), adding elements such as curbs and grass (presumably with all the existing feature of the layout builder). Supposedly working on a single, new, built on purpose area. Post : http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=1055378#post1055378
- The Very End : "Tool to create cars and tracks from scratch" - A program that could/would be released ASAP by the devs allowing users with knowledge in programming and modelling, which outputs would be limited to offline gameplay. Possibility of online support if the work or part of it is approved by the devs themselves. Post : http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=1055461#post1055461
- TagForce : "Concerns about licensing issues" - Any real life content (cars, venues, etc) would face licensing issues if it had to be approved by the developpers, which jeopardize their inclusion without strict conditions about the licenses. Post : http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=1055542#post1055542 + Mods can not change the original files of LFS nor the physics, should be available unlimitedly for offline play and require approval from a dedicated team in order to get playable online. They should be available only on an unofficial site for the online-able mods and not for auto-download each time you join a server. It would require server-side check to ensure the mod is authorized online. The editors may be in a Bob's Track Builder pattern, with the option of modding them/creating new ones. Post : http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=1055973#post1055973
- duke_toaster : "Standardized programs" - Mods would be able to create cars and track and possibly minor changes in the game (AI). The editors would be available in standardized tools : a 3D modeller and a program like VHPA to include physics data to the cars. The mods will be downlodable with the main LFS file and would have two levels of approval : a team of moderators dans designed community people, then a final approval by Scavier. Any real-life content could be made with an authorization from its owner (and the person would photocopying the letter to Scavier). Post : http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=1055950#post1055950
Each of you knows that team Scavier stated a while ago that community content "if allowed, won't be there until S3". As time flows by, Scavier must know more and more that community content will be in an undertermined future one of the main feature for LFS's survival.
Indeed, through opinions shared on this forum concerning the rate of progress, I am sure that the team knows that to keep up the pace with a broader competition (iRacing, rFactor, nKPro...) they will have either to increase the number of programmers, modellers or allow our large community to include 'homemade' contents.
Since the tripartite organization, really supported by team Scavier, is an organization pattern which purposes and outputs are understandable and efficient (less people so a better quality control, which is the main aspect of Live For Speed), there are two alternatives left : allow independent teams to work on sub-projects (which I doubt will be used again since the failure of the RallyPack project) or allow users to create personal content, via editors provided by the Scavier team itself.
The point of this thread is not to weighs the pros and cons of having a community edition system (please check the thread : http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=52896). The point of this thread is to submit different ways an editor system could be implemented while respecting the general idea of what Live For Speed is.
(Please keep this in mind as I don't want this topic to be a war between pro and anti editors points of view, and I will ask the moderation team to remove flame spam if needed).
So, the question is, in your opinion : Can you think of a system of editors for Live For Speed, upon a series of criteria? (Those criteria being :
- What should the editors be allowed to create? (Cars, tracks, IA patterns, UI menus, classes, car parts, minor physics upgrades?)
- To which extent the editors would help the user in the process of creation? (only helping to incorporate custom made models, by adding some physical values to them, or assisting the user in the process of designing like Bob's track builder, and a simple creation editor for cars with a choice between type of parts and easy modelling like BeSpoke?)
- How would other users get the created content? (mandatory download each time you connect a server, or a new category in LFSWorld with links for the downloads)
- What means of control should there be to ensure the quality of the content is sufficiently high and that it respects the spirit of Live For Speed? (either a review by Scavier itself, a review by a list of designated people, designated either by the devs or by the community, or a peer-reviewed system?)
)
Please note that the criteria list is not yet defined, and I hope that within this thread people will provide other intersting criterias that we could add to this list. Please remember as well that the list of ideas to match the criterias are not 'options', they are just here to give a more precise idea of what criteria is dealing with what.
I started this topic with the intent of a mature discussion, so I, the mods, and other posters will surely appreciate it it stayed so.
Good deliberation !
Summary of the ideas posted so far (please tell me if the summary I did misses a point of your thought
) :- evilpimp : "Improved AutoX editor" - A very large square of asphalt with the ability of drawing lines and curves (borders of the track), adding elements such as curbs and grass (presumably with all the existing feature of the layout builder). Supposedly working on a single, new, built on purpose area. Post : http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=1055378#post1055378
- The Very End : "Tool to create cars and tracks from scratch" - A program that could/would be released ASAP by the devs allowing users with knowledge in programming and modelling, which outputs would be limited to offline gameplay. Possibility of online support if the work or part of it is approved by the devs themselves. Post : http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=1055461#post1055461
- TagForce : "Concerns about licensing issues" - Any real life content (cars, venues, etc) would face licensing issues if it had to be approved by the developpers, which jeopardize their inclusion without strict conditions about the licenses. Post : http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=1055542#post1055542 + Mods can not change the original files of LFS nor the physics, should be available unlimitedly for offline play and require approval from a dedicated team in order to get playable online. They should be available only on an unofficial site for the online-able mods and not for auto-download each time you join a server. It would require server-side check to ensure the mod is authorized online. The editors may be in a Bob's Track Builder pattern, with the option of modding them/creating new ones. Post : http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=1055973#post1055973
- duke_toaster : "Standardized programs" - Mods would be able to create cars and track and possibly minor changes in the game (AI). The editors would be available in standardized tools : a 3D modeller and a program like VHPA to include physics data to the cars. The mods will be downlodable with the main LFS file and would have two levels of approval : a team of moderators dans designed community people, then a final approval by Scavier. Any real-life content could be made with an authorization from its owner (and the person would photocopying the letter to Scavier). Post : http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=1055950#post1055950
Last edited by Zen321, .
I don't know what you guys need, but I never found the steering of the LFS to be "light"...
Just take the formula cars, and as you build speed through the track, steering with the aerodynamism gets funky sometimes...
Even with a really oversteery setup for drifting, you can still feel what the car's steering wheel wants to do on its own, and the effect is quite heavy.
I think this is a problem dependent on your wheel and not on LFS. With my G25 @ 100% strength in the profiler and 60-70, it gets intense when the FZR loses rear grip...
What do you mean by LFS is not far behind in the physics dept ?
Not true.
Just the explanation why :
- Your right foot when driving should press the accelerator with the toes, while the heel is at the bottom of the brakes.
- When braking, you switch your toe to the brake pedal
- Heel-toeing as the standard way
- And out of a corner, instead of swapping the toes again, you release the brakes and start pressing with you right heel, then with your toes
- During the straight, you switch back to position way.
This way you are sur to have NO intereference between your brake pedal and your gas pedal. People I know that brake with the left foot while lifting off tend to release the gas-push the brake in a synchronized motion, that reduces slightly the brake power at the beginning (because you are still accelereting). So, the tenth of a second they gain by not moving the foot is balanced by two tenth when they start braking and there is still some gas.
Also : most of the people who use a wheel brake with their left foot, because most ofthe people that have a wheel only have 2 pedals
(I think so)Ah, the yellow flag zone is indeed a brilliant idea, and real life-like since you actually see the marshall wave their flags in the zone the accident have taken place in
I'm not sure for the cars in pitlane, I mean never had problems to see them, but wouldn't mind that
+10 for the yellow flag zone
Seems some people in America pass their driver's license in cahse view
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG