Back on topic!

Lap of iRacing: Chevrolet Silverado around Barber motorsports park. Elevation changes ftw!

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=nvGp80Nncu0&fmt=18

(It is still processing...
Not by any means a clean lap, actually my first laps around that track. Not to mention that it is always a pleasure to learn a new track only to find liking it. Something (either one) you can't do with LFS no matter how little it costs .)

EDIT: processed

Quote from Hyperactive :

Back on topic!

Lap of iRacing: Chevrolet Silverado around Barber motorsports park. Elevation changes ftw!

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=nvGp80Nncu0&fmt=18

That was actually fun to watch. Love how that thing bounces and rolls and sliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiides. Are you heel-and-toeing there, or is that still being automated? Another thing I like is that the brake bar is never maxed out, which means actual brake modulation. We've been saying for years LFS should have realistic max brake force values, to the dismay of KB-ers, but they should really just get a wheel...

Quote from Mattesa :

That was actually fun to watch. Love how that thing bounces and rolls and sliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiides. Are you heel-and-toeing there, or is that still being automated? Another thing I like is that the brake bar is never maxed out, which means actual brake modulation. We've been saying for years LFS should have realistic max brake force values, to the dismay of KB-ers, but they should really just get a wheel...

No heel and toe, I don't even have 3 pedals. I'm blipping manually though (the fanatec pedals are very tempting).

As for brakes, I'd kinda agree but the perfect biting point versus locking point are quite close in iracing. For 2 pedals it's ok but I couldn't see it working well with 3 pedals and travel sensitive brake, especially if you had to blip manually on dowshifts. Especially when you have tracks where you have to brake on uphills, flats and downhills .

Anyways, the bouncyness is probably because the setup is not very good. It turns well and is ok understeery into corners with nice little oversteer if you throw it in but corner exits are a bit hairy if you miss the line. It's essentially the same setup I used on Sebring, which is extremely bumpy so the setup needed to be really soft.

The truck is imho the best road car in iracing even if it has arbs only on right side (no idea how that actually works). It doesn't insta spin when you use the kerbs like the radical and doesn't bite your arms off if you make a small mistake going into corners like the skippie. And it has powah unlike the solskie. And it isn't anything like the mazda which is prolly the best thing about it .

Quote from NightShift :

Not that anyone could blame you for that - unlike iRacing which you buy once for 24£ and then play how much you want with free updates along the way, LFS is really much more expensive with its annual subscription plan and then add insult to injury, having to buy every car you want to try!

What does that have to do with my point at all? I was talking about the development speed. It's from another planet on iRacing compared to LFS, and has been ever since they went public. That is a fact, and the end of that discussion for me.

For £24 LFS is a great sim, that's for sure.

Quote from Hyperactive :

I don't even have 3 pedals. I'm blipping manually though (the fanatec pedals are very tempting).

Well then you would be if you weren't left foot braking, lol. The blip is the heart of H/T anyway.

Quote from Gabkicks :

But you get 60 iracing dollars spending money each time you (re)subscribe for a year, and there's bonuses for doing really well that will be coming soon, i think.

They did announce an award system a few weeks ago, which is in effect already this season. The top 3 of every division in every series receive a small sum of iR credit to use on future purchases. The news item was posted in this thread, too: http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=979428#post979428

Quote from Liff :

What does that have to do with my point at all? I was talking about the development speed. It's from another planet on iRacing compared to LFS, and has been ever since they went public. That is a fact, and the end of that discussion for me.

I don't think that an attempt to make a direct comparison between the development speeds of LFS and iRacing is really feasible, tbh. If you consider that LFS S2 has been in development since 2003, after S1 was released, and iRacing has been in development since about the same time, using NR2003 as its codebase. On that basis, LFS has delivered more in terms of the volume of content, extensibility and adaptability than iRacing, to date, and made its content publicly available more quickly. I'd be very surprised if even the iRacing devs disagreed on that score.

Where the two go from here is another matter, but nobody can state anything on that matter, with any more credibility or substance than that of pure conjecture. We know that LFS is close to Golden on S2 and that S3 will be some time in coming, if it comes. We're not even sure what form S3 content will take.

We do know, however, that anyone that invests £24 in LFS now will still be able to race their sim a year and a half from now. Anyone that invests $156 in iRacing now will NOT be able to race their sim a year and a half from now.

Quote from Liff :

For £24 LFS is a great sim, that's for sure.

I'll agree wholeheartedly with whoever it was that told you that. Few people who bought LFS licences have ever suggested that it wasn't worth the money they paid.

Quote from SamH :

If you consider that LFS S2 has been in development since 2003, after S1 was released, and iRacing has been in development since about the same time, using NR2003 as its codebase. On that basis, LFS has delivered more in terms of the volume of content, extensibility and adaptability than iRacing, to date, and made its content publicly available more quickly. I'd be very surprised if even the iRacing devs disagreed on that score.

(LFS has actually been in development since 2001, not 2003 iirc) Tbh I find it extremely misleading to make some kind of relative comparison of development based on some odd number of something. LFS has 1 person making code, 1 person making something and 1 person making websites, admining forums and keeping tech things running. Iracing has probably closer to hundred than 3. So lfs has done 30 times as much stuff...? That logic, however, imho does not prove anything because it is the actual absolute amount and quality of content that matters. LFS has lots of cars but on anything else it really isn't anything more. And in the cars' section iracing is coming behind fast. That doesn't mean that lfs didn't do something that suited better for someone but imho iracing is just more, is it about raw numbers or just pure sexual arousement.

Quote from Liff :

What does that have to do with my point at all?

I had a list of basic features which are, to the extent of my knowledge, missing in iRacing and that you conveniently decided not to comment on.

Now we're talking about a sim which has been years and million dollars in the making, and still lacks them.

Either developing iRacing took them a whole lot of time, and thus the developers are snails too, or the inevitable conclusion would be that they lied a lot.

And since we're talking about credibility, 5 years and you didn't find the chance to try the whole LFS, for a sum that is worth a month and a half of a couple cars on a couple tracks, yet you're not missing the choice to play the role of the lawyer for iRacing on LFS' own forum, which I suppose is supported by the money of those who bought the game.

IMO you should thank the devs and mods for graciously allowing you to do so, instead of calling those guys snails I do like snails, anyway

Quote from SamH :

On that basis, LFS has delivered more in terms of the volume of content, extensibility and adaptability than iRacing, to date, and made its content publicly available more quickly. I'd be very surprised if even the iRacing devs disagreed on that score.

I wouldn't say the volumes of content are that different, actually, as the number of tracks in iRacing is pretty large.

Quote :

I'll agree wholeheartedly with whoever it was that told you that. Few people who bought LFS licences have ever suggested that it wasn't worth the money they paid.

Heh, it's pretty apparent from the demo, which at least as far as I know has the exact same quality as the registered product. I regret that I mentioned the cost in that sentence at all, as it makes no difference in the quality of a sim itself.

Quote from Hyperactive :

(LFS has actually been in development since 2001, not 2003 iirc) Tbh I find it extremely misleading to make some kind of relative comparison of development based on some odd number of something.

LFS moved from S1 to developing S2 in 2003, with S1 as a codebase to extend. iRacing is based on NR2003, thus you have two completed sims as codebases to extend at or around 2003. I was making this point. I was also making the same point as you, that you can draw all kinds of lines in the sand as markers for comparison and you'll find the process to be flawed. Two sims, developed in fundamentally different ways, cannot be compared directly. LFS suits people that like LFS, iRacing suits people that go for iRacing. The extent of similarities and comparisons between the two begin and end there.

Quote from NightShift :

I had a list of basic features which are, to the extent of my knowledge, missing in iRacing and that you conveniently decided not to comment on.

I don't know about the clutch, since I don't have one and always use the automatic option. Transmission damage hasn't been implemented, so you can get away with not using the clutch even in cars that normally would require you to do so. Brake lights have been implemented since late July. Other things that you mentioned about the clunky interface, restricted race options etc. I recognize, but at least so far they haven't bothered me that much.

Quote :

And since we're talking about credibility, 5 years and you didn't find the chance to try the whole LFS, for a sum that is worth a month and a half of a couple cars on a couple tracks, yet you're not missing the choice to play the role of the lawyer for iRacing on LFS' own forum, which I suppose is supported by the money of those who bought the game.

The reason why I didn't end up buying LFS was mainly that when S1 was released I didn't have a fast enough computer for it. I played around with the demo a bit, enjoyed the driving and the banter with the racers, but decided to wait for S2 to be released before upgrading my computer. It took two years to release the S2 alpha, much longer than was initially estimated, and my interest had already waned by that point, both in LFS and sim racing in general.

Quote :

IMO you should thank the devs and mods for graciously allowing you to do so, instead of calling those guys snails I do like snails, anyway

Yeah, I've been wondering why they allow to have such an extensive thread on a product that is after all competing with them. However, I didn't mean to imply that the devs are working at a snail pace at all. I'm sure the opposite has always been true, but the team has just been too small, and they have themselves admitted that there's been much more work with the sim than they anticipated.

Quote from SamH :

LFS moved from S1 to developing S2 in 2003, with S1 as a codebase to extend. iRacing is based on NR2003, thus you have two completed sims as codebases to extend at or around 2003. I was making this point. I was also making the same point as you, that you can draw all kinds of lines in the sand as markers for comparison and you'll find the process to be flawed. Two sims, developed in fundamentally different ways, cannot be compared directly. LFS suits people that like LFS, iRacing suits people that go for iRacing. The extent of similarities and comparisons between the two begin and end there.

It['s not that simple actually! If only things were but they aren't!

Quote from Liff :

What does that have to do with my point at all? I was talking about the development speed. It's from another planet on iRacing compared to LFS, and has been ever since they went public. That is a fact, and the end of that discussion for me.

Sorry, but I don´t think that you honestly believe, that the content that was released after IRacing went public was created in the last 6 months... I´m pretty sure most of it was finished or almost finished by that time. But having a subscription model is much better to keep releasing new stuff to keep users motivated and willing to renew their subscriptions. Besides that, since you pay for cars and tracks, releasing things this way, will make people buy it, just because they´re "new", even if they don´t need it for the progress in their IRacing carreer, thus generating a steady flow of income. So, for me, what you call development speed, I call business strategies. To talk about development speed, I think that we need to wait a little longer and see if many of the missing features in IRacing, compared to what exists in other simulators are implemented or not, and if they are able to implement some features that aren´t present in any other sim...

Quote from Liff :

Yeah, I've been wondering why they allow to have such an extensive thread on a product that is after all competing with them.

Scawen has suggested that anyone who is bored waiting for LFS updates should go check out iRacing. That's not something that you'd hear from a developer who perceives iRacing as a threat. I get what he gets.

However, I'm not able to justify the subscription fee to myself because there's just no way in hell I'd rent a software package by the month. The cars and tracks could be top of my wanted list but the subscription model, specifically the model at the END of the subscription, is simply unsurmountable. Times are hard. I can't take on iRacing for the same reason that I'm trying to quit smoking - money.

Logically, the economic downturn will impact iRacing more severely than LFS, for its subscribers. The first thing to go, as you know, are the luxuries. iRacing is an ongoing luxury cost and although there will be die-hard sim racers in there, the grids are likely to be impacted by a lack of casual racer cannon fodder. LFS, being a one-time purchase, will only be negatively impacted by those who can't afford a net connection. Realistically, though, the net connection has moved from a luxury to comfort and is now a perceived necessity item. LFS is also cheaper than other luxuries, such as a night "on the razz", and may potentially see a boom.

We're beginning to hit times where everyone who bought a G25 will be glad they did (some of them, so they can sell it and get some money back), and everybody that didn't when they could have will regret the decision not to do so.

Quote from StableX :

It['s not that simple actually! If only things were but they aren't!

Yes it is. No it isn't. Splain it to me, Lucy.

Quote from chunkyracer :

Sorry, but I don´t think that you honestly believe, that the content that was released after IRacing went public was created in the last 6 months... I´m pretty sure most of it was finished or almost finished by that time. But having a subscription model is much better to keep releasing new stuff to keep users motivated and willing to renew their subscriptions. Besides that, since you pay for cars and tracks, releasing things this way, will make people buy it, just because they´re "new", even if they don´t need it for the progress in their IRacing carreer, thus generating a steady flow of income. So, for me, what you call development speed, I call business strategies. To talk about development speed, I think that we need to wait a little longer and see if many of the missing features in IRacing, compared to what exists in other simulators are implemented or not, and if they are able to implement some features that aren´t present in any other sim...

Absolutely on the mark

Quote from SamH :

I don't think that an attempt to make a direct comparison between the development speeds of LFS and iRacing is really feasible, tbh. If you consider that LFS S2 has been in development since 2003, after S1 was released, and iRacing has been in development since about the same time, using NR2003 as its codebase. On that basis, LFS has delivered more in terms of the volume of content, extensibility and adaptability than iRacing, to date, and made its content publicly available more quickly. I'd be very surprised if even the iRacing devs disagreed on that score.

What you made is a very vague and some kind of relative comparison of how it might seem that LFS has put our more stuff than iracing. I just wanted to say that comparisons are ok but the way you did the actual outcome of such comparison mean nothing because the numbers that go in mean nothing .

Quote from SamH :

LFS moved from S1 to developing S2 in 2003, with S1 as a codebase to extend. iRacing is based on NR2003, thus you have two completed sims as codebases to extend at or around 2003. I was making this point. I was also making the same point as you, that you can draw all kinds of lines in the sand as markers for comparison and you'll find the process to be flawed. Two sims, developed in fundamentally different ways, cannot be compared directly. LFS suits people that like LFS, iRacing suits people that go for iRacing. The extent of similarities and comparisons between the two begin and end there.

On that basis iracing has made a lot more content and stuff available, if you include S1 you must include nr2003 as well .

Quote from SamH :

Logically, the economic downturn will impact iRacing more severely than LFS, for its subscribers. The first thing to go, as you know, are the luxuries. iRacing is an ongoing luxury cost and although there will be die-hard sim racers in there...

...

What iracing is is a hobby just like LFS, racing sims. Even if iracing is much more expensive than LFS it still doesn't make it luxury. Surely when the cost is constant instead of one-off there lies more risks both ways, to the custiomer and to the developer but that's just the differences of the business model, not the defining factor of their destinies.

Quote from Hyperactive :

What you made is a very vague and some kind of relative comparison of how it might seem that LFS has put our more stuff than iracing. I just wanted to say that comparisons are ok but the way you did the actual outcome of such comparison mean nothing because the numbers that go in mean nothing .

Hmm.. perhaps I haven't been expressing myself well. My point is your point. My example was supposed to demonstrate it. Ahh well.

Quote from Hyperactive :

On that basis iracing has made a lot more content and stuff available, if you include S1 you must include nr2003 as well .

Ahh. I didn't realise all NR2003 was available in iRacing at launch, unlike all S1 content being available in S2. My apologies. [/quote]

Quote :

So, for me, what you call development speed, I call business strategies.

I agree with a lot of what you say concerning their business strategy. However, the LFS team surely do more development per employee, but in absolute terms 30-40 specialized members of staff working in small teams can do so much more, and there is no way around it.

Quote :

To talk about development speed, I think that we need to wait a little longer and see if many of the missing features in IRacing, compared to what exists in other simulators are implemented or not, and if they are able to implement some features that aren´t present in any other sim...

On both the sim and service side they had features right from the start that are not present in any other sim. I won't bother to mention the number one selling point anymore. Of the more recently rolled out stuff, I believe the yellow flag system on ovals is in a different league compared to any other sim. That doesn't mean that there aren't obvious omissions, too.

We are not paying extra for the Scirocco.

That is all.

Eric did a good job for someone without lasers.

That is all. For real this time.

Quote from SamH :

Ahh. I didn't realise all NR2003 was available in iRacing at launch, unlike all S1 content being available in S2. My apologies.

Well, since you want to get technical about it, you bought S1 and then bought S2 (figuring you are a long time member) so then you bought NR2003 before iRacing. In other words you would have all the content.

Probably doesn't make sense but the whole conversation is stupid, might as well add to it.

Quote from Mattesa :

We are not paying extra for the Scirocco.

That is all.

Eric did a good job for someone without lasers.

That is all. For real this time.

Hehe, paying for tracks gets easier w/ time... sorta like doing heroine? :shhh:
I mean, for me it is expensive, but it's the cheapest of all of the hobbies i'd like to pursue, photography, martial arts, and real life racing can get pretty expensive, depending on how serious you are. For me, it's worth it. I don't really regret subscribing for a year and buying a few add-on tracks, but I just don't have the time to simrace that much anymore... I need to work on my time management. I dont even really have a life. I'm just gonna try and get my license and safety rating high enough to race the corvette in the near future.

We can have the same conversation over and over again w/ different people making the same pt. Yes, iracing is relying on a bit of common psych for people to stick w/ the service and maybe for others to jump on. If you simrace very often and you want great physics and a good racing experience, then iracing is great. I just to race hours a day, now sometimes i go almost a week without driving at all in any sim.

Quote from Liff :

Transmission damage hasn't been implemented, so you can get away with not using the clutch even in cars that normally would require you to do so.

You're missing my point. It's all about the status of the product when it was released.

To allow shifting in a realistic way, a sim does not need to have a transmission damage model in place (LFS is a proof of this). So why didn't just skip some comestic detail which did not affect realism?

IMO it's one of those revealing mistakes. They just did not put all the time and money they want us to believe, it's just there to avoid making it look like a 'designer' sim with no substance. And it's revealing because shifting without a clutch is a definite lack of substance.

Quote from Liff :

Yeah, I've been wondering why they allow to have such an extensive thread on a product that is after all competing with them.

If you ask me, it makes very much sense to keep your bored customers on your own board, so you don't cut your link with them.

But I wasn't talking about the paying customers which may well have their right to spoke their mind about iRacing, more demo accounts which are in a strict sense no customers, and after 5y without buying a license, cannot be longer considered potential buyers

Quote from NightShift :

You're missing my point. It's all about the status of the product when it was released.

I don't think I missed any point in this case. I simply pointed out a shortcoming in the transmission modeling of iRacing. The issue is of course much more complicated than simply requiring the use of clutch or not (which apparently only one car in iRacing, the Solstice, requires in real life).

Quote :

To allow shifting in a realistic way, a sim does not need to have a transmission damage model in place (LFS is a proof of this). So why didn't just skip some comestic detail which did not affect realism?

I'm not sure if you were sarcastic here or not, but transmission damage would hardly be a cosmetic detail in my opinion, but a part of realistic transmission modeling.

I think you must mean "require shifting in a realistic way" instead of "allow", because of course you can shift in iRacing as realistically as you want. It should support the same clutches and shifters as LFS.

In my opinion both clutch and shifter peripherals are so far removed from how they operate and feel like in real life that requiring "shifting in a realistic way" is far from the truth in any sim on the market. Especially without transmission damage you can get away with pretty ridiculous shifting techniques without using the clutch in LFS, too. When shifting without clutch the demo cars do require that you lift off the gas or raise the revs before the game will engage the gear, but other than that it cannot do much to control what the user does with his pedals or shifter.

Quote :

But I wasn't talking about the paying customers which may well have their right to spoke their mind about iRacing, more demo accounts which are in a strict sense no customers, and after 5y without buying a license, cannot be longer considered potential buyers

Well, posting is allowed for demo accounts, but you probably won't bump into my messages unless you're interested in iRacing affairs. I've hardly been one of the more active members even in this thread until this last flurry of discussion. And I did read the five forum rules before I made my first post.

I don't see iRacing as much of a threat to any racing game. There are perhaps a bit over 6,000 members, some of whom have already left? Pretty small numbers compared to the number of purchasers of other games.

If I recall correctly, iRacing would need something like 30,000 to 40,000 players in order to pay off the initial investment in a reasonable time, like 2 or 3 years. I made at post at RAS where I guestimated that iRacing with it's current subscription oriented business model and pricing would last maybe 3 years, and then some drastic change in the business model would occur.

If anyone could be a threat to racing sims, it's Electronic Arts. They have a huge budget and staff involved with the NFS series, and the current Undercover physics engine has over 400 adjustable physics parameters for each car, according to the Marc DeVillis video interview at the official web site. If true, there's no doubt that they could leverage this engine to make a realistic sim, and they already have quite a few real tracks from ProSTreet, but so far they've chosen not to make a racing sim, as apparently the big bucks are to be made with the arcade type racing games. The Nascar games were console only for the last few year and didn't use this newest physics engine. Basically EA has the resources, but apparently not the desire, to make a quality sim oriented racing game.

Quote from Liff :

On both the sim and service side they had features right from the start that are not present in any other sim. I won't bother to mention the number one selling point anymore. Of the more recently rolled out stuff, I believe the yellow flag system on ovals is in a different league compared to any other sim. That doesn't mean that there aren't obvious omissions, too.

If you consider that a IRacing user, that wants to progress in their carreer in IRacing, will problably spend in one year alone, more or less, 5 times the cost of an S2 license, it´s clear to see that there shouldn't be any kind of chance of comparing the two, or even think IRacing is a competitor to LFS. For me, that´s the biggest challenge that IRacing has to face in the near future. I believe that they may have a good product, but if they want to really grow their userbase, they really need to take it to another level, and that´s not an easy task, even if you have a lot of money to spend or a lot of people to work. Most of the times there´s a real difference in what we can do and what we really do...