Quote from Shotglass :

i found pure gold in the related videos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... iKH7w&feature=related

Thats quite funny actually, but you still lost

to the americans

It would have been better if DHL were behind the blitz, then they would at least wait for you to go out before bombing your house.

Quote from 5haz :

It would have been better if DHL were behind the blitz, then they would at least wait for you to go out before bombing your house.

Shame it wasn't the Royal Mail, they'd wait until you're out, then post a card through your door telling you to come and pick it up yourself.

I think this will be the best physics update so far because even maybe scirocco isnt so "hot" car to implement into game, but physics development will be done in comparison to real life car.
everybody remembers arguments which got lost in "if we had real car, we could compare if lfs is realistic or not, blah blah blah....."
Great move devs, take time

Quote from Dalibor79 :

I think this will be the best physics update so far because even maybe scirocco isnt so "hot" car to implement into game, but physics development will be done in comparison to real life car.
everybody remembers arguments which got lost in "if we had real car, we could compare if lfs is realistic or not, blah blah blah....."
Great move devs, take time

Yeah it s a great news and I hope the physics will be even more realistic than the current ones... I hope those will be released soon..

Thanks for the news update, and I'm looking forward to the new tyre physics.

I know and agree that these things take time to refine and perfect, but on the other hand, it can't come soon enough. I don't think I've touched LFS for nearly a year now, because driving around the same old tracks with the same limited physical environment doesn't attract me at all.

I hope (and trust) that the new tyre physics will be great, but by god I hope the update also includes more content (i.e. track(s)) and at least one new game feature (by features I mean things like damage, engine temperature and radiator damage, brake temp, eye candy, and so on).

I think LFS really needs it.

If you think about it having to program in more intricate damage like engine damage and temperatures etc could take a long time but I think alot of users would value that realism in the game. I must admit adding another track every so often would be a big plus

Quote from GTJames :

If you think about it having to program in more intricate damage like engine damage and temperatures etc could take a long time but I think alot of users would value that realism in the game.

You don't have engine damage meter in a car do you?

Quote from Shadowww :

You don't have engine damage meter in a car do you?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intricate

I think to the people requesting multiple new tracks we need to suggest that they try it themselves. I don't mean a full 3D model or anything, because that requires learning. But I guess if they think they can do it then that would work too.

Pen and paper. Simple, right?

A top down view of a track shape showing the track width, kerbs, surfaces, sand traps and any other stuff across the entire track. Then to each side (top, left, right, bottom) the cross-section view showing elevation changes across each section (including potholes and raised kerbs). Then a general picture of the overall environment for the track setting (which must be different from one of the existing ones). Could stick a maximum lap length of about 5km (since any longer than that are used very rarely).

Rules being that while inspiration can be taken from real tracks, copying entire sectors will result in mockery and a permaban from the forum

That'd show them just how easy it is.

Even with relatively easy to use track builders like Sandbox in N2003, immense amounts of motivation, concentration and attention to detail are required to create even a small circuit. I have trouble finishing a 1 mile oval, think about the team which have been creating the Targa Florio circuit for GPL (Using an even harder to use track editor), they've been at it since about 2002 and are still going, thats dedication!

Ideally, I'd love to see a track maker where you simply point and click manipulate terrain and slide objects/surfaces/walls et cetera into place, but to write such a program and make it stable and refined enough for public use would likely take a lot of time and effort, and would also allow complete numbskulls to easily create rubbish tracks, however I believe there would be plenty of diamonds in the shit.

Scawen, You could release a track pack for 6 pounds? Like a half-way to S3 .

Quote from LFSn00b :

á la GeneRally?

Similar but more powerful, I'm thinking more along the lines of the Trainz series of games (no pun intended), where a whole realistic 3d environment can be created quite quickly, and can look very realistic, and some quite stunning scenery can be created if you put a lot of effort into it, but inevitably there are massive variations in quality. A bit like autocross editor but starting with a blank sheet and more powerful, I really don't expect this any time at all though.

They'd look ridiculously samey too. The only real way of making a track look as good as the place it's supposed to represent is LOTS of research and hours upon hours of hard work.


Trust me.

</blatant plug>

back to topic....
dunno if this question was asked(too much posts to browse), im curious if tyre physics update (since its compared to road tyres) will apply to slicks too?
to put it simply, will slicks also benefit from road tyre knowledge, or they are different story?

Quote from Crashgate3 :

They'd look ridiculously samey too. The only real way of making a track look as good as the place it's supposed to represent is LOTS of research and hours upon hours of hard work.

I totally agree. Also I can't help feeling that we may have had new tracks by now but for that fact that lfs took a different direction with new tyre physics. I'm not complaining though, new tyre physics are more important than a new track at the minute in my opinion.

Quote from Dalibor79 :

back to topic....
dunno if this question was asked(too much posts to browse), im curious if tyre physics update (since its compared to road tyres) will apply to slicks too?
to put it simply, will slicks also benefit from road tyre knowledge, or they are different story?

I would think that it is the same physics and the slicks just have more grip. but I could be wrong.

Quote from Crashgate3 :

They'd look ridiculously samey too. The only real way of making a track look as good as the place it's supposed to represent is LOTS of research and hours upon hours of hard work.


Trust me.

</blatant plug>

I have onboard video and datalogging for Cadwell from last year if you want it. It was wet, so the speeds won't help you much, but the datalogging has GPS data tucked away in it if you want to check things over?

@ Tristan

Interesting.. I don't suppose it includes any elevation data? Google Earth is fantastic for getting the overhead shape and widths of the track, so I've got that down pretty much perfectly (within 10 or 20cm anyway), but the really hard part is getting elevations and camber right. Without actually being able to go and measure things, I'm left with poring over people's flickr accounts, youtube videos and listening to fairly subjective views from people who've driven there. I'm sure you know how much even a small camber change can transform a corner.

Everything helps though so yes, I'd definitely like to take you up on those.

Yup, it's got some GPS elevation data, which doesn't look too bad.

I've already got a couple of videos online that you can either watch or download, and I can upload my practice session as well, which was a bit drier and might show you some more.

It can't do any hard to have my data, and I'd love you to make a realistic track. Not many have managed it, even with large budgets and 'laser scanning'.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Yup, it's got some GPS elevation data, which doesn't look too bad.

I've already got a couple of videos online that you can either watch or download, and I can upload my practice session as well, which was a bit drier and might show you some more.

It can't do any hard to have my data, and I'd love you to make a realistic track. Not many have managed it, even with large budgets and 'laser scanning'.

Be careful with GPS elevations, they will be about twice as bad as your horizontal precision is. However, it can be used effectively to determine relative elevation differences. You still must bear in mind that you are dealing with something that produces positions within a 3 meter circle if you are using SBAS.

I've already got 90% of the track how I want it, this will just clear up a few parts that are hard to make out. I'm intending to write something that will let me import the data into 3DSMax where I make my track, so I can see the whole thing at once and just use them to tweak the height where things are obviously wrong.


Anyway, enough thread hijacking, back to the topic

Quote :

I'd love you to make a realistic track. Not many have managed it, even with large budgets and 'laser scanning'.

Why did you put the inverted commas in laser scanning? They should be in 'realistic'. What are you comparing in order to determine the realism of a simulated race track? The way it looks? Arguably fairly unimportant. The way it feels to drive? You need a simulated race car and simulated physics for that test- the track itself is just one component. Or the way it's measured and scaled against its real life reference?

If you drop the way the track looks, the way it feels (will most likely be different from sim to sim) and if we could set aside for the moment variations in surface grip (very important but largely dynamic) then that leaves a simulated track as basically a topological field of data. The reference track is also a topological field, as well as many other things, but put simply if you want to recreate that field then I don't see how laser scanning wouldn't be the best tool for the job? It's a question of resolution, and I've never heard of any track being measured at centimetre resolution with GPS, but it is possible with laser scanning. How then can GPS be more realistic?

any ideas if the new physics will make laps slower or quicker?