Quote from letdown427 :

OK, what I was trying to get across was:

If those graphs are showing the 'pressure' on the tyre. As in, they're displaying the force per unit area being applied to each part of the tyre by the road.

I didn't mean anything to do with the pressure inside the tyre.

Hope that helps a bit.

maybe now i understand your whole question...well the F9 readings i think are the contact area of the tire, in the entire discussion we used those readings to see how the weight (load) of the car distibutes over the tire regions

Quote from tristancliffe :

I can apply pressure with my hands on my desk

*demonstates*

It is a force over an area. Just like a gas exerts a force over an area due to the pressure...

in phisics by definition pressure is only for gases/fluids it has the metric of force/area but its measured in pascal (and it is defined as "the air pressure at sea level"), for gases has no meaning talking about force, only pressure.
about your hands you simply apply a "force per area" (that is also not uniform), but that cannot be called pressure by definition

Hi all,

Flame me if you want after my post but Scawen is just a human after this all GREAT work he made and the only one who work on the game code.
I sometimes dont understand people who say like "it was requested many times but its still not included".
There are other simulation made in past or around the date of LFS and guess how big the development team was and how far the simulation went comparing to LFS...see it?!!
And to be honest there could be programmed thousands of tiny details to the LFS but you would need Super Computer to get decent frame rate.
During the time of LFS development the PC computing power is growing so you can get decent frame rate with every upgrade to the phisic code.

Just see what happend after latest update to the phisic code.The actual frame rate had dropped a bit as some people complained.I guess its for 99percent due to update to the phisic code.

And I understand your pointsabout the issues and missing things but please try to consider more the situation in which is LFS developed.

Quote from DEVIL 007 :

Hi all,

Flame me if you want after my post but Scawen is just a human after this all GREAT work he made and the only one who work on the game code.
I sometimes dont understand people who say like "it was requested many times but its still not included".
There are other simulation made in past or around the date of LFS and guess how big the development team was and how far the simulation went comparing to LFS...see it?!!
And to be honest there could be programmed thousands of tiny details to the LFS but you would need Super Computer to get decent frame rate.
During the time of LFS development the PC computing power is growing so you can get decent frame rate with every upgrade to the phisic code.

Just see what happend after latest update to the phisic code.The actual frame rate had dropped a bit as some people complained.I guess its for 99percent due to update to the phisic code.

And I understand your pointsabout the issues and missing things but please try to consider more the situation in which is LFS developed.

hi, oviously we all thank scawen, eric and victor for their daily hard work that had and will give us much fun.
scawen told months ago that this patch would have fixed tires and aerodynamic...period! we are all happy for the big surprise of a new real car (BF1) wich is more that he promised...i would love much things inside lfs, but i didn't blame the devs for not including anything, since the announcement was clear -> tire and aero.

what we are trying to understand and put attention on, is that even if (probably because of michelin data) slick tires seems much more realistic (even if it's hard for me to judge since i'm not a slick expert), something with road tires has gone too much unrealistic and smaller cars like xfg make it really evident.

we are not complaining, asking or pretending anything...we are only try to find out the most effective and clear feedback as possible to see if:
1 - there is effectively a big issue in the new tire phisic (i think it's quite evident)
2 - what is actually wrong (to me is only wrong some paramenters of some phisic functions)
3 - summarize and clarify things as much as possible so that in the future if and when the devs think that this have to be fixed they have enough information to know where to start diggin into...

if you read the thread more carefully you will see that we are not blaming devs for anything (except for scawen's bad sarchams ), only trying to do the previously mentioned things.

cheers

Quote from Honey :

1 - there is effectively a big issue in the new tire phisic (i think it's quite evident

after 4 pages of your rants, im still waiting, in proper english and in one sentence if you dont mind, for you to tell us all what the problem is.

due to my own male limitations please consider in your reply that left is left and that right is right.

anxiously waiting.

No left is up and right is rear left.

I was just hoping to continue the discussion with a little input as regards a possible explanation for the seemingly odd results Honey is seeing.

Personally, I'm extremely happy with the game, the patch, and everything about it, and I don't feel it's my place to criticise the game's code, as I for one could not hope to reproduce it or create something better.

On that note, I'm out of this discussion, hope you reach a conclusion!

Quote from Honey :

something with road tires has gone too much unrealistic and smaller cars like xfg make it really evident.

1 - there is effectively a big issue in the new tire phisic (i think it's quite evident)
3 - summarize and clarify things as much as possible so that in the future if and when the devs think that this have to be fixed they have enough information to know where to start diggin into...

if you read the thread more carefully you will see that we are not blaming devs for anything (except for scawen's bad sarchams ), only trying to do the previously mentioned things.

cheers

I am just really curious what is so unrealistic.After so many years spend with LFS since very early 0.1demo the handling of XFG(most closest to the real car everybody use) I feel it so realistic in most situations.Its really like I was feeling that I am actually driving something...some mass,I feel the tyres.


Dont get it wrong but actually how much driving experiencies you have?

1-you dont see much into the system of the code so you might reading somne values wrong.I dont say the issue doesnt have to be there.
3-there is always good to get a point for devs.I made the same too but they are also smart people enough.

I didnt not say that anybody was flaming devs but I noticed already by some people even in this thread they said "It was asked and its still not there" .You just cant snap with your fingers and its done.everything need a time.

Quote from KiDCoDEa :

after 4 pages of your rants, im still waiting, in proper english and in one sentence if you dont mind, for you to tell us all what the problem is.

due to my own male limitations please consider in your reply that left is left and that right is right.

anxiously waiting.

i'm not ranting, i'm always calm

left and right were referred to the sketches in the post were "left" and "right" were written, otherwise i've referred to outer or inner part of the tire while cornering, that seemed clear ofr everyone except you, i'm sorry if i cannot halde the english language to explain you better, if you have some hint...you're welcome!

the issue is:

1-a car with road tires (xfg more than others) is always cornering on sidewalls no matter how much pressure you inflate and/or how much negative camber you set

2-a car with road tires (xfg more than others) when cornering tend to lift the central and the inner part of the tire, having the central part lift much more even than the inner part (see my ugly "sketches" on a previous post) and that is "against any phisic law"

kid could you just for once stop flying in other peoples faces just because they critisize lfs ... be my guest and have a go at the guy who started the fubar thread but stop it with people who try to point out flaws and make constructive critisism instead of bashing the sim
and just in case ... this is not my male protection mode your protective behaviour towards lfs annoys me since quite a while

back on topic

so an exam and a bit of thinking about tyres later ive come to believe that my idea of the contact patch folding a little might be correct and that the same thing happens in real life too to some extend not as much as in lfs though (might point to too little stiffness in the contact patch of the tyres)
take this pic for example: http://www.liveforspeed.net/pa ... es/aprilupdate/tires1.jpg looks like the outside sidewall deforms more than the inside which would mean that the contact patch has to either squeeze or fold

looking at pics of tyres deforming in lfs (eg this one: http://www.liveforspeed.net/pa ... es/aprilupdate/tires4.jpg ) one thing that strikes me as odd is that the sidewalls seem to deform in two ways that arent necessarily correct:
1) they appear to tilt to the side instead of deforming and bulging a little which might be caused by the sidewall being modelled as a single straight line (ie two sample points) the effect of which could be that the sidewall is generally too stiff
2) the sidewalls appear to strech out a lot which imho is incorrect or at least too much for rubber with kevlar inlays

Quote from Honey :

in phisics by definition pressure is only for gases/fluids it has the metric of force/area but its measured in pascal (and it is defined as "the air pressure at sea level"), for gases has no meaning talking about force, only pressure.
about your hands you simply apply a "force per area" (that is also not uniform), but that cannot be called pressure by definition

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what your physics background is, but pressure is simply a force divided by the area over which it is applied. There is nothing in physics which states it applied only to gases and fluids, that is simply nonsense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure have a read here to get yourself up to speed.

Also, just to be really anal, a pascal is not atmospheric pressure at sea level, that is a Bar*. A pascal is an SI unit and is therefore 1N/m2. Which is actually really quite a small unit, hence a typical tyre pressure is measured in hundreds of kPa.

While I welcome anyone getting involved in physics debates, I would recommend doing a bit of basic checking with google and wikipedia before attempting to state facts, just to stop yourself looking a bit silly.

*To be even more anal, technically an Atmosphere is atmospheric pressure, but a Bar is a convenient rounding to 100,000 pa, and is only a bit off an Atmosphere.

I think you might be on to something there Shotglass, it does indeed seem that it could be the sidewall stretching.

I made a video of the FXO tyre deformation here > http://video.google.com/videop ... ive+for+speed&pl=true

Google video made the quality poor, but you can see the deformation "in action".

Dan,

With a 'standard atmosphere' being 101325Pa, or 1.01325Bar

Shotglass - I agree the sidewalls shouldn't stretch so much, though the actual deformation (bending) appears to be about right. Perhaps it's relatively simple to change the code so that the amount of bend remains the same but the stretch is reduced to, say, 5% which is closer to what a tyre would actually acheive. As to whether the rubber folds or squashes on the contact patch I'd tend to have said squashing occurs. But honeys pics of the center of the contact patch having less pressure on them (from the road) may mean that Scawen has indeed modelled the folding/curvature that would occur.

Quote from letdown427 :

Wow, I can do that to!

*acquiesces*

But what do the F9 graphs display? Is it the pressure from the force of the air inside the tyre, or from the force of the road pushing on the outside of the tyre?

force of ther road pushing on the outside for sure

Quote from colcob :

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what your physics background is, but pressure is simply a force divided by the area over which it is applied. There is nothing in physics which states it applied only to gases and fluids, that is simply nonsense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure have a read here to get yourself up to speed.

Also, just to be really anal, a pascal is not atmospheric pressure at sea level, that is a Bar*. A pascal is an SI unit and is therefore 1N/m2. Which is actually really quite a small unit, hence a typical tyre pressure is measured in hundreds of kPa.

While I welcome anyone getting involved in physics debates, I would recommend doing a bit of basic checking with google and wikipedia before attempting to state facts, just to stop yourself looking a bit silly.

*To be even more anal, technically an Atmosphere is atmospheric pressure, but a Bar is a convenient rounding to 100,000 pa, and is only a bit off an Atmosphere.

wikipedia is wrong, pressure is a measurement only for gasses/fuilds (in phisics), it may be popular to call a force/area pressure but this by any meaning wrong, as i said pascals have intrinsecally the "metric" (dunno the correct english word for this) of a force per area, but by definition it will never really counted like that (except for special purposes) but rather by pascals which is by definition a fraction of bar wich is by definition the air pressure at sea level (as i said in a previous post).
as you asked: i'm an engineer and i worked bla, bla...that realy doesn't matter since there are enginners, phisicist, etc. that sometimes are damn wrong etc. you don't have to believe me that wikipedia is wrong, but if you have a chance to open a real phisic book you know (after studying a bit ) what pressure is

LOL

I think there's a good chance you, being one of the few people to think pressure only applied to fluids, is wrong. Perhaps you should read up on it

Quote from Shotglass :

kid could you just for once stop flying in other peoples faces just because they critisize lfs ... be my guest and have a go at the guy who started the fubar thread but stop it with people who try to point out flaws and make constructive critisism instead of bashing the sim
and just in case ... this is not my male protection mode your protective behaviour towards lfs annoys me since quite a while

back on topic

so an exam and a bit of thinking about tyres later ive come to believe that my idea of the contact patch folding a little might be correct and that the same thing happens in real life too to some extend not as much as in lfs though (might point to too little stiffness in the contact patch of the tyres)
take this pic for example: http://www.liveforspeed.net/pa ... es/aprilupdate/tires1.jpg looks like the outside sidewall deforms more than the inside which would mean that the contact patch has to either squeeze or fold

looking at pics of tyres deforming in lfs (eg this one: http://www.liveforspeed.net/pa ... es/aprilupdate/tires4.jpg ) one thing that strikes me as odd is that the sidewalls seem to deform in two ways that arent necessarily correct:
1) they appear to tilt to the side instead of deforming and bulging a little which might be caused by the sidewall being modelled as a single straight line (ie two sample points) the effect of which could be that the sidewall is generally too stiff
2) the sidewalls appear to strech out a lot which imho is incorrect or at least too much for rubber with kevlar inlays

once more you are proving to know how to dig into lfs phisics...

as i wanted to "prove" with the link i posted in a previous post (http://www.rsracing.com/tech-tire.htm) sidewall must first of all displace and the center cannot lift more than the inner part, as you clearly noted the source of the problem may be even only the sidewall streching, maybe devs used the real data from slick to simulate that, but if so it is very wrong imho.
imho for road tires the sidewall streching effect should be very negligible and could be even taken out from the lfs equations

Quote from tristancliffe :

may mean that Scawen has indeed modelled the folding/curvature that would occur.

Or that the force applied to the sidewall and flat contact patch isn't so vastly different, and that because there areas are different, that's why the pressure appears to have dropped in the center.

I know I said I was leaving, meh, I returned.

Quote from colcob :

...

sry but your wrong there ... pressure is a variable in thermodynamics and while area loads in mechanics are of the same dimension (N/m^2) theyre not called pressure in analy correct physics semantics
also evidently clear as area loads arent measured in the dimension Pa but in N/m^2

Quote from danowat :

I made a video of the FXO tyre deformation here > http://video.google.com/videop ... ive+for+speed&pl=true

is that an fxo or an fxr ?

Quote from tristancliffe :

Shotglass - I agree the sidewalls shouldn't stretch so much, though the actual deformation (bending) appears to be about right.

not so sure about that to me it looks a lot like they just tilt instead of bending which assuming that the sidewalls are indeed modeled with 2 points (one at the metal and one at the sidewall/contact patch transition) is the effect that model would achieve but also means that it wont be too easy for scawen to change that and that any significant change should cause more cpu load

Quote :

As to whether the rubber folds or squashes on the contact patch I'd tend to have said squashing occurs.

have you got any pics of how exactly the layers of kevlar and metal are put into a radial tyre ? i cant seem to find anything conclusive

Quote :

But honeys pics of the center of the contact patch having less pressure on them (from the road) may mean that Scawen has indeed modelled the folding/curvature that would occur.

except the effect appears to be a tad too extreme at the moment

Quote from tristancliffe :

LOL

I think there's a good chance you, being one of the few people to think pressure only applied to fluids, is wrong. Perhaps you should read up on it

there is nobody that can pass the first semester of enginering caliming that...i assure you, if you would have studied, you would know what is the conceptual difference, i wonder why every tech article uses pascal instead of N/m2 when talking about gases/fluids and instead uses N/m2 when talkin baout solids in place of pascals...according to you that must be really an amazing coincidence.
please don't get me wrong but a definition is a definition and have a reason behind it

Quote from Honey :

there is nobody that can pass the first semester of enginering caliming that...i assure you, if you would have studied, you would know what is the conceptual difference

whoah easy there we dont want this to turn ugly ... afaik tristan studies mechanical engineering ... struck me as odd too that he doesnt know the difference but not reason to have a go at him ... just let it slide that he put that lol there

Quote from Shotglass :

kid could you just for once stop flying in other peoples faces just because they critisize lfs ... be my guest and have a go at the guy who started the fubar thread but stop it with people who try to point out flaws and make constructive critisism instead of bashing the sim
and just in case ... this is not my male protection mode your protective behaviour towards lfs annoys me since quite a while

so does your nordic imperial nun moralism and stupid moronic pedantic behaviour towards others and u never saw me interrupt your forum wisdom uberalles conversations to review your pitful display of common sense. i stick to ideas, maybe u should do the same.

I only read the first page. All I can say is I have had a normal tire at normal pressure come off the rim in real life after some...interesting...cornering. And if you kick my car (which weighs less than 1700 lbs), you can see some massive deformation standing still. I don't think LFS is severe in the least.

Quote from KiDCoDEa :

so does your nordic imperial nun moralism and stupid moronic pedantic behaviour towards others and u never saw me interrupt your forum wisdom uberalles conversations to review your pitful display of common sense. i stick to ideas, maybe u should do the same.

pardon ?
i assume youre refering to the whole nk crack incident but im not sure

Quote from Shotglass :

whoah easy there we dont want this to turn ugly ... afaik tristan studies mechanical engineering ... struck me as odd too that he doesnt know the difference but not reason to have a go at him ... just let it slide that he put that lol there

yeah there are few posts for wich the better answer is "LOL"...and i say all

tristan is sympathic anyway, we cannot say that for anyone