Ok, Kyoto has parts outside, Rockingham doesn't, so there's nothing similar? They're ovals, both have almost flat variants inside, both are speedways and not super speedways, both have large pitlane areas... there ARE similarities...
I think sometimes you guys get extreme opinions just to be in the opposite side of the idea...
Just skipping the obvious, you might just go and say they are both laid with tarmac, both mostly grey, and both have left and right turns.
Try driving it in rfactor, the infield is hardly flat, there are a lot of crests and camber, the track overall is a lot slower as well, and it will have the first proper hairpin in LFS.
(I don't know why you even includes "large pitland areas", pretty much explains that similiarity ends with the oval tbh.)
Was looking at the hi-res photo pack and tbh who ever took them needs to know how to make good photos cause there is no visible sign off AA/AF used at all plus the quality is crap for showing off a real track which is a very big deal for lfs, anyone know who took the photo's?
Still, they're similar in a load of aspects, not only in appearance and obvious aspects... You could compare to Laguna Seca, Daytona, La Sarthe, Potrero de los Funes, Westhill, Trial Mountain and Toban, then they wouldn't be similar...
Rockingham will include all layouts except the rally stage. Which means the oval will be included too. Which also means that LFS will finally have a proper oval.
I agree, Kyoto would theoretically be much faster compared to the rock in LFS. Even oval wise the rock would be slower than the kyoto.
If you were comparing the Talladega infield circuit with the Daytona infield circuit then in that it is almost identical. Just because a lot of the Rock is a roval doesn't mean it has to be character less. It's much slower (even oval wise) and it has a lot of elevation and crests. (Unless rFactor is completely inaccurate)
Oopsie, indecently large pic.
