And also the track thumbnails with the name are pretty old I think (Blackwood is the most significant).
on the 3rd image, where it says:
"iRacing is the most accurate racing simulator available." I felt this sting on my heart.
Must be toilet paper.
And this one ?
One my PLZ Friend find this at 2.15 a.m ...
One my PLZ Friend find this at 2.15 a.m ...
It's probably server for Nascar experiment by Bob Smith.
Absolutely right.
VW even sold these "hats" for TP in their car shops with the "Jetta" logo on them.
I just saw LFS in a Discovery Channel programm 
It was just a half a second or something but it was clearly but it was clearly the BF1 going under the bridge before the pit entrance at Blackwood It was a programm about future cars or something
It was just a half a second or something but it was clearly but it was clearly the BF1 going under the bridge before the pit entrance at Blackwood It was a programm about future cars or something I spotted that one a couple years ago when the show was first aired. 
Article is about iRacing (phtyi) but LFS got a mention, in New York Times no less!
Direct link to the LFS FBM segment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3LIaxX1PHE#t=11m3s
i dint like it personally
They complained about the virtual gauges - how did they imagined it to look like when the real gauges are on the steering wheel?
"...you can't turn it (the bouncing dashboard) off"
These two slackers are experts in the matter of racing-sims, that's for sure
Physics got 16.5/20 
Am I playing the wrong game?
Am I playing the wrong game?
No, they are.
I have it on, shall we say, "good authority" that the FBM physics and behaviour ARE good. I don't think it's even debatable. Real-life Formula BMW drivers would know, and I'm happy to take them at their word.
With due respect to Shaun and Darin, their regard of the FBM's physics must be taken in the context of sim racers not as Formula BMW drivers, and if their experience of the FBM left them cold then that's their experience. We know what we know.
But we also know that the load sensitivity of the tyres is likely flawed and that the FBM currently doesn't simulate the monoshock front suspension correctly (it's approximated with the strong front ARB, but the setup doesn't restrict you from removing that).
Just throwing that in here, I haven't actually watched the videos or anything
Just throwing that in here, I haven't actually watched the videos or anything
Thankyou.
Kind of a poor review to be honest, I had expected more content, not just rating on 'standard setup', 'skins' and that dashboard thingy.
Yeah, we know what we know. And we surely know better than the 75 overall score.
Yeah, we know what we know. And we surely know better than the 75 overall score.
My understanding is that the physics and handling attributes of the FBM, where they're falling short, are more than just a little masked by the fact that the driver is sitting in a motionless simulator, rather than a car, holding a G25 wheel and pressing travel-actuated pedals rather than real ones. But I would imagine that this would be the case for almost any simulator. Though we know that the simulation isn't perfect (I doubt anyone will ever achieve that), it's been met with broad approval. That works for me
That brings up the age-old issue of "what does the real race driver actually know?" again, though. Now obviously I don't know your sources, but ideally they should have a very extensive sim background coupled with the track experience. A racedriver who has no experience with sims whatsoever has a very hard time actually judging the accuracy of a sim since he has no reference of what to expect or what is possible and how to relate to what happens on the screen to real world behaviour. Someone like that might be baffled just by having a car behave not completely arcadish, even if the physics were deeply flawed.
That said, I now watched the LFS segment and those ratings do seem kinda pulled out of thin air. Since they didn't use custom setups, the FBM should behave quite close to the real thing (it's mainly user setups that remove the front ARB for much better handling that 'ruin' the realism). I think they were simply bored by the sounds which makes the ride much less 'exciting' and that somehow influenced the physics score, or they had a crash physics explosion or something similar non-related cause a negative impact. About the gauges jumping around... no comment.
That said, I now watched the LFS segment and those ratings do seem kinda pulled out of thin air. Since they didn't use custom setups, the FBM should behave quite close to the real thing (it's mainly user setups that remove the front ARB for much better handling that 'ruin' the realism). I think they were simply bored by the sounds which makes the ride much less 'exciting' and that somehow influenced the physics score, or they had a crash physics explosion or something similar non-related cause a negative impact. About the gauges jumping around... no comment.
the bald guy trying to act surprised everytime his master speaks is really funny.
"ohhh...OOUHHH..."
otherwise pretty lame show.
but they revisited the lotus in iracing after users made some points about the lame testing criteria:
Baldie: "Sound is bad... the volume is way to low, bad car."
Users: "Crank it up, there´s a volume slider in the menu!"
Baldie: "Awesome - this car rocks!"
Maybe someone could help them with that bouncing cockpit as well...
How the hell did RFactor cars beat it..
Any car on Rfactor accept the Legends are pretty dam terrible compared to LFS
Any car on Rfactor accept the Legends are pretty dam terrible compared to LFS
I just noticed from victors post of a review in 2005 that they can't even spell Erics surname right lmfao!
LFS in the news
(741 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG