Quote from jaxx751 :

throwing a car into a corner will put more weight onto the wheels that need it. More weight is more grip. While temporary, you can at least pull some extra Gs.

I can only attribute this to body roll, so this effect would actually be from the fact that the inside tyres haven't unloaded yet, rather than the other side of the transient (assuming sub-critical roll damping) where the overloading of the outside tyres happens. More weight on any one tyre indeed gives more outright grip to that tyre, but the unloaded tyres will lose more than your ovreloaded tyres gain, so on average you have less grip.

Quote from jaxx751 :

Skid pad tests are done with no weight transfer. Think about when you go into a turn, the outside of the car compresses, weight is transferred. When the car settles (in this case, mid turn) it is back to the limit of the tires, and not really affected by weight transfer(assuming that the surface is flat).

I'd prefer to think of that as constant weight transfer, rather than no weight transfer, but as Shotglas points out that's technically correct although perhaps less likely to be interpreted correctly. Maybe that's our problem though.

Quote from jaxx751 :

Basically, skid pad results are lower than what a car can actually attain on a meter.

Transient peaks on a meter are fairly meaningless, IMO.
If the corner in question was also flat, made of the same surface material as the skidpan, and of the same radius, then you should get comparable results. Race tracks are likely to have a surface that gives better traction than a skidpan and corners can be cambered, both improving results, and driving different radii also has an effect due to the differing speed you can take the corner at, and the speed related effects this introduces.

Quote from w126 :

But that only means that the level of weight transfer or load transfer isn't changing. Not that there is no weigh transfer or load transfer, which are not beneficial during turning due to load sensitivity of tyres.

constant weight or load transfer could be beneficial when more grip on outer wheels and lower on inner wheels in turn will cause the inner to slip which can ease narrowing the turn >> therefore having more lateral g, right? I dont know then why short weight transfer is to be more beneficial? Maybe the cause was too understeery ride on skidpad?

Here's a video of what I'm talking about. A constant pull is about .90 max, where throwing the car into the corner means .97+ repeatedly.

http://www.drivetoescape.com/grip.wmv

You probably won't see that much of a delta once the load sensitivity (likely by the sounds of it) is tweaked in the upcoming patch. A main issue in LFS right now is that the outside tires can gain to much grip through excessive load. Combine that with the excessive (as in to easy to initiate) understeer Scawen mentioned, and you have what you see there.

Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :

You probably won't see that much of a delta once the load sensitivity (likely by the sounds of it) is tweaked in the upcoming patch. A main issue in LFS right now is that the outside tires can gain to much grip through excessive load. Combine that with the excessive (as in to easy to initiate) understeer Scawen mentioned, and you have what you see there.

werd

Quote from jaxx751 :

Here's a video of what I'm talking about. A constant pull is about .90 max, where throwing the car into the corner means .97+ repeatedly.

http://www.drivetoescape.com/grip.wmv

This isn't a weight transfer effect. With a car that's understeer in a trimmed condition (constant speed skidpad test such as the first part of the video above) the lateral g is limited by the lateral force the front tires can produce. If they have enough to pull 0.9g while the rears can pull 1.05g (or 2 or 3 or 20g for that matter), the car will do 0.9g on a skidpad. The rear tire slip angles will only climb high enough to maintain that 0.9g. They have 'leftover force' yet to be tapped. If you kick the car sideways a bit to a larger slip angle, the rear tires will make more than that original '0.9g worth' of force.

Translation: Chuck the car into the turn a bit and you'll get more than 0.9g or whatever the skidpad rating is. It's something that can be (and frequently is) analyzed with a yaw moment versus slip angle diagram. This is not a weight transfer effect at all. You will see more weight transfer, yes, but that's because you're pulling more g rather than the other way around.

This is where suspension tuning for the track comes in. By increasing rear roll stiffness, the front '0.9g limit' increases because there is less weight transfer at the front. The rear 1.05g limit decreases. As long as the rear can still pull a bit more than the front, the car is still understeer. Voila, your skidpad numbers increase in a trimmed condition.

I keep checking lfs.net for any news if they released the tire physic patch yet

I'm a big vw fan, but I can care less about the sirocco! Need the extra realism feel!

Quote from jtw62074 :

This isn't a weight transfer effect. With a car that's understeer in a trimmed condition (constant speed skidpad test such as the first part of the video above) the lateral g is limited by the lateral force the front tires can produce. If they have enough to pull 0.9g while the rears can pull 1.05g (or 2 or 3 or 20g for that matter), the car will do 0.9g on a skidpad. The rear tire slip angles will only climb high enough to maintain that 0.9g. They have 'leftover force' yet to be tapped. If you kick the car sideways a bit to a larger slip angle, the rear tires will make more than that original '0.9g worth' of force.

Translation: Chuck the car into the turn a bit and you'll get more than 0.9g or whatever the skidpad rating is. It's something that can be (and frequently is) analyzed with a yaw moment versus slip angle diagram. This is not a weight transfer effect at all. You will see more weight transfer, yes, but that's because you're pulling more g rather than the other way around.

This is where suspension tuning for the track comes in. By increasing rear roll stiffness, the front '0.9g limit' increases because there is less weight transfer at the front. The rear 1.05g limit decreases. As long as the rear can still pull a bit more than the front, the car is still understeer. Voila, your skidpad numbers increase in a trimmed condition.

great explanation. Thanks.

Quote from Flame CZE :

If you watched Scawen's recent work, you would find out that Scawen was fixing the new bugs and was working on multiple screen features and now he's back to work on the tyre physics.

I rather have new physics than multiple screens....

Quote from BoneCrusher :

I rather have new physics than multiple screens....

Maybe that is a requisite from VW or Rockingham owners. Multiple screen feature allows building better play seats in expository sites for promotion. I'm just guessing

Quote from tiagolapa :

Maybe that is a requisite from VW or Rockingham owners. Multiple screen feature allows building better play seats in expository sites for promotion. I'm just guessing

i am affriad you are guessing wrong, scawen is working in his own way, he doesnt like when people are telling him what too do. like most of the things this is something what he wrote down on his list, on "the List".

(in general

Too be ecextly i am not using multie screen (or maybe i need to say, not yet). but i can see the Big / great benefit from this new system. too be honest i think its selfish if you say that its stupid that he made this system. because its some thing that special, no other sim / shouter has got it. and it you ask me that where lfs is all about.

The multi monitor system was an awesome addition.

Quote from geeman1 :

The multi monitor system was an awesome addition.

It was but,
10,2% of lfs drivers has more than 1 screen,
6,7% has more than 3.
1,1% has more than 4
0,2% has more than 5

Quote from aroX123 :

It was but,
10,2% of lfs drivers has more than 1 screen,
6,7% has more than 3.
1,1% has more than 4
0,2% has more than 5

Can you post a link to reference of this?

Quote from Flame CZE :

Can you post a link to reference of this?

no

his point is that u have to be really dedicated to buy more then one monitor for gaming and personally i dont even gonna buy a wheel

Multiple monitors are not only useful for gaming :P, they are great for typical work... like watching two movies at once .

Also they are useful when you use programs like Adobe Photoshop CS4. Having image on separate monitor is really good feature for a designer.

+ monitors are pretty cheap nowadays, for gaming you don't even need IPS panel, $200 22" TN TFT would be enough.

Quote from e.M :

his point is that u have to be really dedicated to buy more then one monitor for gaming and personally i dont even gonna buy a wheel

I have 2 screens and am not so dedicated, i was lucky to get the second screen (21 inch CRT ) for free.

You don't have to have more than one monitor to use multi-monitor functionality.

It does nice job with one monitor too, just add monitors in LFS and experiment with monitor angle. It can offer you fish-eye projection.
You can have the same FOV, but gain better visibility of the dials, or you can extend your FOV without long arms effect. It creates some barrel distortion, but this is better than long arms. And of course stronger videocard is required, because it eats a lot of FPS.

See and compare attached pictures. Parameters of the view are in file names.

Quote from yaper :

You don't have to have more than one monitor to use multi-monitor functionality.

It does nice job with one monitor too, just add monitors in LFS and experiment with monitor angle. It can offer you fish-eye projection.
You can have the same FOV, but gain better visibility of the dials, or you can extend your FOV without long arms effect. It creates some barrel distortion, but this is better than long arms. And of course stronger videocard is required, because it eats a lot of FPS.
See and compare attached pictures. Parameters of the view are in file names.

Wow never thought of that, thanks a lot! Does graphics slow down with these settings?

This is a linear approximation of cylindrical projection, and the latter is often the only way to make a wide panorama. Though I'd prefer a single, true cylindrical projection. But this is good too.

The curved lines like in fish eye are a normal thing, I mean 3 dimensions of a vision sphere around you can't be transformed to be shown in 2D flat monitor. If monitors were curved and you sat in the center, straight lines would have been straight.

Quote from aroX123 :

It was but,
10,2% of lfs drivers has more than 1 screen,
6,7% has more than 3.
1,1% has more than 4
0,2% has more than 5

But, 0.2% of LFS users with the 5 screens are exibition pieces to the 99.9% of people who don't use LFS now. A worthwhile and lucrutive corner of the commercial market. If you make your simulator easy to set up and run on a 'simulator', who are the 'simulators' going to use?

It's niave to think that multiscreen programming is not as important as the tyre pyhsics. It may be that way too you, but not to someone trying to run a business.

Quote from e.M :

his point is that u have to be really dedicated to buy more then one monitor for gaming and personally i dont even gonna buy a wheel

If you're not going to buy a wheel why are you bothered about improved physics? You're never going to be able to use them (or even notice them particularly) properly with a keyboard.

EDIT: ok, that wasn't you that said you'd rather have physics than multiple screens, but I think my point still stands.

Quote from Funnybear :

It's niave to think that multiscreen programming is not as important as the tyre pyhsics.

Tyre physics directly impacts 100% of the existing userbase (including those that cannot be bothered to play anymore but will come back as soon as it is released) + 100% of the potential userbase.

Multiple monitor support? is a very nifty addition but assuming it will sell a lot of LFS licenses in the real world is wishful thinking. Those who had multiple monitors were already using SoftTH probably, so they received a great improvement but it's not like they were stuck using a measly single monitor, poor little darlings.

I'll be very glad if it'll make our dear devs earn some more money, but we've been waiting 15 months already for this delayed patch, and it should not surprise anyone if releasing MMS main consequence is a lot of eyebrows raising.

With Z25 delivered as a transitional update the most reasonable expectation is 0.6A will follow god knows when, it's pretty much clear to anyone (naive people included) they wouldn't have gone through the hassle of releasing it if 0.6A was close.

It almost seems like LFS is stuck in the simracing equivalent of The Groundhog Day, and the only ones who care about producing funny justifications anymore ought to like committing simsuicide day in day out.

I wonder if this change in tyre physics will affect the smoke, hopefully reducing the amount of smoke.
The reason is, because you will usually even see clouds of smoke coming from your tires while you're driving across a straight, while they're only at around a 100°. (While racing for instance)