It's as real as virtually sticking virtual bread in a virtual toaster and virtually burning your hand..

But seriously, for 99.999% of us that don't have a Gforce machine (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ld6xT5yfbhw), games can only be so real.

Mathematics wise I'm sure one day we will be able to get pretty close, physics according to scientists is explainable through mathematics which is.. not changing.
But as far as being real, you can make a simulation of an egg that drops off a ledge and shatters 99% the same way as a real egg would, but.. it's still not the real thing..

See that virtual barrier is something we may never see in our lifetimes, the Matrix is far away, but who knows.. someone may figure out that barrier at some point and time and games could be as realistic as doing it really.. without killing yourself.

Just thought I'd look at it this way than everyone else pointing out mathematics flaws.

In short: It's still a game behind a screen no matter how you look at it, even if the physics were 100% the same as they are in the real world, it wouldn't be the same.

Quote from Byku :

Try my quick setup , i tried to get California weight with driver and fuel correct, so... skid pad test on road super(semi-slicks in my opinion :P) - 1G
On normal tires(sport tires) - 0,93 max. Doesn't seem that bad .

it pulled 0.94, or 0.93 (i forget) in the real test, with pro drivers. so that is about right!

Quote from tristancliffe :

In my lil' MX-5 I've pulled 1.2G on cold tyres - and that was on the day I fitted our race datalogger into it, so I might have done more on other days when I wasn't logging G.

Okay, it was instantenous G rather than sustained, but still. And that's with rubbish tyres, a worn out 17 year old car, a rubbish driver and a road setup (albeit on a slightly sporty car).

mx-5 is a very light, low center of gravity car.

Quote from Bob Smith :

Scawen is considering that the tyres in LFS have a little too much grip. You must use a road going set with road normal tyres if you are to make comparisons with real cars though.

In terms of realism, being a few % out on tyre grip is quite a minor detail in the big picture of vehicle dynamics, IMO.

i completely agree

well my car pulls over 1g round round abouts and thats without the 888's

most of the time the amount of G's a car pulls is debated by the amount of weight, stiffness of suspension, tires, and center of gravity. if you got an 18 wheeler, and gave it stiff suspension, and decent tires, and made the center of gravity really low, it would probably pull over a G, because the weight is pushing the tires to the ground for more grip.

that is my theory atleast

A lot of people say "I don't like LFS because is like driving on ice", and now you say that have too much grip.

I don't know if have too much grip or not, but it have a problem with the transition to slide-grip it is too slow.

Another thing is that is too easy too oversteer a FWD with a default setup, in RL it is harder (not impossible). So, for me is not perfect, it is not like RL, but it is another very good RL

Here say that a kart (36cv automatic) have 1.95g lateral force, and 0.54g of acceleration, don't say nothing about brake
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBHpR3pX33Q

Quote from Napalm Candy :

Another thing is that is too easy too oversteer a FWD with a default setup, in RL it is harder (not impossible).

There are SOOOOOOOO many FWDs. Just pick the right one.

Quote from Glenn67 :

(i.e. the trailing arm types don't effect dynamic camber how they should, not 100% sure on that but remember descusions about it)

Pure trailing arms do not give dynamic camber, but they do change the longitudinal location of the wheel, and that is not modelled, neither is the way the jacking forces feed through the geometry (both only in the case of the LFS trailing arm suspension, which is really just the old S1 style suspension, i.e. no geometry at all). Semi-trailing arm suspension, in addition to longitudinal movement, also creates lateral movement and dynamic camber, as it is a cross between trailing arm and swing arm geometries.

Quote from logitekg25 :

if you got an 18 wheeler, and gave it stiff suspension, and decent tires, and made the center of gravity really low, it would probably pull over a G, because the weight is pushing the tires to the ground for more grip.

Just to point out, stiffer suspension creates less grip, not more, as the tyre cannot follow all the bumps in the road. A tyre that's off the ground does not produce any force. Stiff suspension is mainly used to control body roll and pitching, as these cause the CoG to move, can play havoc with wheel alignment*, and make the car feel wallowy and slow to react. Hence spring stiffnesses are a compromise, you don't just use the stiffest springs possible.

*For cars with solid axles, like 18 wheelers, wheel alignment is unaffected by body roll.

Quote from logitekg25 :

mx-5 is a very light, low center of gravity car.

Still over a tonne of metal, liquid and flesh, on rubbish tyres (not quite the cheapest I could find, but not far off), being flung around madly. The CoG height does mean a little less weight transfer (well, probably quite a lot), but the point is that 0.9G isn't unreasonable in the XFG, but probably not sustained!

Quote from tristancliffe :

Still over a tonne of metal, liquid and flesh, on rubbish tyres (not quite the cheapest I could find, but not far off), being flung around madly. The CoG height does mean a little less weight transfer (well, probably quite a lot), but the point is that 0.9G isn't unreasonable in the XFG, but probably not sustained!

well, soon i am going to test other cars, because...well...read my signature

I didn't need that pointing out. On this side of the Pond we are able to read other threads (the annoying one when you got money out of an unsuspecting drunk person and don't have the gumption to give him his money back) and read the words under your username.

Besides, as you don't know what is a reasonable amount of G for a hatchback, how do you expect to be able to make any more reasonable conclusions for any of the other cars?

Your such a tool and party pooper Tristan

If I had wanted my money back, I would say so. It's not his fault that I act like an idiot, it's not him you should aim you sence of "humor" or what you like to call it on

My impreza (1425 kg) pulls 1.15 g on normal conditions with the normal tires (potenza re050).
With semislicks (rt-615) i get around 1.3 / 1.4 g's depending on track conditions.
My old mx3 (1125 kg & fwd) pulled 1.1g on normal goodyear f1's.
With those numbers in mind, lfs feels pretty spot on gripwise for my taste.

Are you sure that is a flat normal asphalt skidpad? If by 'nomal' you mean the tires that come with the car, it basically can't pull 1.15.. Reviews rarely see that type of car reach 0.9.. Sure with semi slicks you migt get close..

Perhaps if you tripple stiffen the rear rollbar you could get a bit closer, otherwise I think something is off.. Peak G doesn't count of course, sustained G ... well almost no road car on normal tires reaches 1.15!

Edit: a Z06 corvette for example skidpads between 1 and 1.04 G, but on track you can get 1.25 if there is a bit of banking involved..

Quote from Byku :

Try my quick setup , i tried to get California weight with driver and fuel correct, so... skid pad test on road super(semi-slicks in my opinion :P) - 1G
On normal tires(sport tires) - 0,93 max. Doesn't seem that bad .

Nevertheless setups based on actual data from service manuals are looking too soft as I reckon (as I posted in your thread)

Quote from amp88 :

The tyres the XRG is fitted with are too grippy and the suspension is so indefinitely adjustable it's more like a race car than a bog standard road car. The XRG is not a 'realistic' car, as such. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that the physics/suspension/tyre modelling in LFS is inaccurate, it just means that some of the values and parameters are out.

I think that those options will be more limited with the next patch, since the VW will introduce limited setups and they want to keep everything as realistic ass possible.

I think races will be more fun too, since it's a beginner car. I think all the S1 roadcars should have limited setups.

Quote from marzman :

want to keep everything as realistic as possible.

fixed

If LFS is Sim, why cars is very easy to control ?, my friend with S2 says only BMW Sauber F1 without TC its hard to control.

Quote from NoFear1989 :

If LFS is Sim, why cars is very easy to control ?, my friend with S2 says only BMW Sauber F1 without TC its hard to control.

If you/he doesn't think any car except the BF1 without TC is hard to control you're not/he's not driving quickly enough.

Quote from NoFear1989 :

If LFS is Sim, why cars is very easy to control ?, my friend with S2 says only BMW Sauber F1 without TC its hard to control.

How fast can your friend drive in LFS / RL ?
I don't think LFS feels perfect, but it's good if you want a sim.
Real life cars are not as difficult to be under control (near the limit) as some might imagine. In fact, driving is harder in a sim as you must do all the controlling work with less infomation gained.

Quote from NoFear1989 :

If LFS is Sim, why cars is very easy to control ?, my friend with S2 says only BMW Sauber F1 without TC its hard to control.

Mainly because cars in real life are easy to control. Unless you're a gumby.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Mainly because cars in real life are easy to control. Unless you're a gumby.

Ya. I love it when people start to think a sim is realistic because it's hard. Even racing cars are designed to be easy to control to a point. No good having a fast car if the driver can only get it 2 out of 5 times!

G force is relative to inertia and velocity isn't it?

You should try the redbull air racer planes, pulling ~10g all the time!

It's easy to drive any car under the limit - unless he sets WR's with ease, he's not driving fast enough...

Quote from vane :

G force is relative to inertia and velocity isn't it?

"lateral acceleration" is u^2/r

"lateral force" is m*u^2/r

"g force" isn't exactly a scientific term.

oh well