So, my suggestion is all of the LFS cars to be added as layout objects, and let us put them as obstacles. IMO, it would be good, because the cars would be a nice way to stop people, instead of barriers that would make them fly away. Also the cars are not small, so they can save a few objects too.

And I don't know if it would be too hard to do, but since cars can already be spawned when people join the race, why not make it similar to that method, but using a button from the AutoX objects list.. Anyway I can't really guess how it could be made.

From that I guess we will need to specify how would the car will be spawned.. I mean hbrake on/off, etc.., or maybe just with their wheels always blocked.

Sorry, if it has been suggested before, but I couldn't seem to find anything like it.

An interesting idea, but remember that a car takes a lot more physics and rendering processing, not to mention memory, so you'll never be able to add 512 cars instead of hay bails, and I'd imagine that for every car you added, you'd be able to have one less person join the server. There's also the issue of the dedicated server, as I don't think it runs the physics, so either it would start having to, or somehow get this offloaded to one of the guests.

+1!!!

Awesome suggestion!

They should also damage

I agree with Bob here - it's an interesting idea. The advantage of having a car that's totally undrivable would be that it wouldn't need to have any engine modelling or anything. If it had wheels, it'd need suspension though, which might be an issue.

Could always just have them as a shell with no wheels so it wouldn't be that much more complex than a tyre wall. Damage modelling might cause a problem though. But at least it'd just be one physics object. Hmmm...

My idea of this is that if there are cars on the track, it would be a logical conclusion that they do receive damage, and have a suspension model. But then, yes, I think Bob is right - we would at least need a limit for the cars on track or to lower the connections each time a car is added(which would actually be kinda sucky).

So, what if some global limit on this is 100, and let the hosts have an option like /maxlytcars=XX, so that they will be able to keep their servers lag free. I guess that 100 is too much, but it comes from the idea that someone might just want to make a temporary server only so he/she can have fun with lots of cars placed or make a training course from cars only, or whatever more they want to do.

It would also be awesome if we could specify if we want the cars with wheels blocked or not, but I don't know how hard that would be from coding side..

Oh, come on, it will need tire physics, also. That will be hard to process. Maybe a simpler tire model (let's say Pacejka) and a simpler suspension model for the dummy cars will solve the problem. Come on, we don't need accurate simulation of dummy cars. I think damage modeling won't be an issue, because it gets triggered only in collision, and in LFS, it gets easily synced online.

My suggestion is, using LFS deformation physics, to add deformable tire walls.

Quote from Ivo Georgiev :

Maybe a simpler tire model (let's say Pacejka)

Pacejka is neither simple, easy to work with, or light on CPU usage. For a dummy car tyre, you could write an incredibly simple tyre model that, from the outside, would look pretty convincing. In fact you might even get away with using basic friction. You could ditch all of the kinematics too and just use the basic sliding pillar style suspension geometry.

If it was going to be a completely powerless object, it wouldn't need a full tyre model. It would be reasonable to assume the wheels were locked in position (brakes seized? Left in gear with handbrake?) and a similar friction level to default cold tyre rubber could be applied to the contact area on the ground. No real tyre model necessary.

Quote from Ivo Georgiev :

My suggestion is, using LFS deformation physics, to add deformable tire walls.

+1 at the moment its just like hitting a brick wall.

(and deformable armco barriers as they move a lot in an accident as well)

Well, Pacejka applied to a rigid cylinder (or doughnut) will be a lot better for the CPU than the default LFS deformable tires. Although I agree that basic friction will be much better.
And if you put dummy cars in real life, you will probably lock their tires. Also, moving tires will be harder in terms of physics and will require some modeling.

Quote from Ivo Georgiev :

Well, Pacejka applied to a rigid cylinder (or doughnut) will be a lot better for the CPU than the default LFS deformable tires.

Ah, that's different. Removing tyre deformation is unrelated to switching from the LFS model to Pacejka. I'd almost count on it being faster, as Pacejka is quite involved. You are right in suggesting that tyre deformation could be dropped for such a vehicle.

I think this is a pretty weird suggestion. Perhaps it'd be better to get the crash physics just fixed sometime instead of adding strange autoX objects. I'd also find it pretty weird driving a layout circuit/track and seeing walls made up of lines of cars.

I think I'll add a poll for this, since most of the lfs users just come, take a look and exit without commenting, but if they see a poll they usually vote.

...just tried to edit the original post, but I can't find a way to add a poll? Is it me, or is it disabled?
If it's disabled then maybe a mod can add a simple poll like: "Do you like this suggestion | Yes/No/Can't decide", and I think I want that public(the poll results I mean).
Nevermind, I don't want a poll anymore.

Quote from broken :

I think I'll add a poll for this, since most of the lfs users just come, take a look and exit without commenting, but if they see a poll they usually vote.

It just means they don't have an opinion. People who don't have opinions still vote on polls though.
Polls are quite useless in improvement suggestions. The end result is almost always 'yes', unless it's something really silly or stupid. The result does not mean anything anyway, the devs don't choose suggestions by poll votes. It's more important to have constructive discussion why this idea is good or bad than to gather tons of people saying 'yes'.

Quote from geeman1 :

It just means they don't have an opinion. People who don't have opinions still vote on polls though.
Polls are quite useless in improvement suggestions. The end result is almost always 'yes', unless it's something really silly or stupid. The result does not mean anything anyway, the devs don't choose suggestions by poll votes. It's more important to have constructive discussion why this idea is good or bad than to gather tons of people saying 'yes'.

Never looked at it that way... Anyway, I think you're right. And now .. Better hurry and edit my post before a mod sees the request.

Cars as lyt objects can have value for the 'driving lessons', as learning how to handbrake-park your car, etc.

Quote from NightEye :

Cars as lyt objects can have value for the 'driving lessons', as learning how to handbrake-park your car, etc.

Sorry, but there is no h-brake parking lesson..., or is there? I, for one never saw such thing.

Quote from NightEye :

Cars as lyt objects can have value for the 'driving lessons', as learning how to handbrake-park your car, etc.

Im learning to drive at the moment. I'll be sure to ask my instructor about that one.

However, Cars as layout objects. If it can be done in a way which doesn't use too much CPU, then it gets a +1 from me.

Quote from broken :

Sorry, but there is no h-brake parking lesson..., or is there? I, for one never saw such thing.

I think he thought, that u learn e-brake parking on your own, not in the driving lessons