Hotlaps for open configurations - will they be allowed somewhere in the future (after deletion of all hotlaps due to physics update) or is it meant to stay like this forever?
You will be able to hotlap on an open configuration (with custom timing - a layout with checkpoint(s) and finish line) and save out the replay as well, in case there is a need for that (for a league pre-qualification for example).
But these hotlaps cannot be uploaded to LFS World. There you can only upload hotlaps made on regular configs.
I'm late for the original topic (I'm fine with the proposed solution for the tyre preheating anyway), but I can chime in for the button-clutch problem. Yes, it's a pretty big issue and has ruined HL for me to a large degree. As arco said, physics hasn't been reset for a while so most WRs have become quite non-trivial to beat, and it's very sad to see some alien-like WRs being beaten by BC exploits. Majority of WRs in the last 6-12 months have been with BC. It's not a priority, but I'd really like to see something being done about it by the next time the hotlaps on LFSW are reset, as right now I have zero motivation of putting any sort of significant effort into a lap just to see it beaten with BC.
It's not just BC either, seems like the "root of all evil" is the fact that there are faster ways to shift than AC. Even with clutch pedal + shifter I've heard people are using crazy stuff like setting profiler so they need only press the clutch like 25% and using a button to switch between CL+SH and AC so for downshifting when it doesn't matter they just use AC etc. And you can trick LFSW too, there are BC laps on LFSW that are marked AC, so you can't trust that either any more...
On tracks like Bl GP with GTI/TBO, it's an easy 0.2-0.3s. Let's say I drove XRT on some hypothetical track for a year, 8 hours every day, and ended up with a PB of 2.00.00 (assuming a fixed set, i.e. no set-related laptime improvements) . The progress over the year would be roughly:
<2.01.00 - probably in the first couple of laps since it's XRT, my favourite car since S1 demo
~2.00.50 - 1-2 days
~2.00.30 - probably less than a week
The rest of the year would be spent on the remaining 0.3s which would likely be more luck than skill.
On a 2min track, 0.3s is a good estimate for the BC advantage over AC, so if people can't see where the problem lies if someone is given a free 0.3s advantage, then they're not hotlappers IMHO.
No, it won't make an average joe crushing WRs, nor do I care if average people use it. It's fast people who can make a decent lap into something that will make aliens sweat that I care about.
I don't see where the problem is.. If the goal is to have a world record, imo one should use everything available to him to go faster and this includes tire warming, shifting faster, etc.
If you want to be a "moral pillar" of the community against something that is available to everyone and is not some modification of the LFS.exe itself, why not do the following: if you have a AC world record, and it gets beaten by some BC'er.. just take it back with BC and beat him by another 3 tenths.
If someone is taking a WR by wearing out his tires and gaining even more time, just take it back using the same tactic (just don't be the first one to use it).
Problem solved. There was no problem to begin with.
You're wrong... If there is no BC at all, then there is no problem to begin with. I don't give it that much attention but somewhere in the future this needs to be disallowed. Because this logic you use makes no sense. It needs to be used as a race car simulator, not a shitty button pressing race. I am speaking only about BC here... I don't care about anything else that can be reprocuded in real life. If there is no unrealistic option, people won't have unrealistic WRs. My 2c...
No, I'm not. I wasn't stating a fact, I just wrote an opinion (even wrote imo). Button is available for a reason, as some people don't have a clutch pedal but want to do all of the driving on their own etc.. it's just a side effect that it can be pressed faster than autoclutch (and this is only because a few years ago button control rate was increased from 5 or 6 to 10). Banning something just cause it opens a possibility of making even people with clutch pedals faster isn't fair to the other people, this is why I said if it bothers the hotlappers so much.. just re-take the WR with BC. No one will think less of them.
I for one would think less, and its not fair to believe that everyone else wouldn't be bothered either. Using your logic means that the 2-3 seconds I'm off a world record is not only because I'm slower, but I'm not using any cheats too. Frankly I'm surprised and shocked that you condone what amounts to cheating. Before we had a clutch temp/wear, it was possible to gain an unfair speed increase by letting the engine over rev between shifts. Was this ok too?
The subject was brought up here because there are concerns about it, and this was the first opportunity to talk about it without accusing anyone else directly.
You're talking about manually pressing a button. I can concur to some level that it's ok. But using a 3rd party program to create and tweak macros coupled with LFS settings so that you can shift faster than not just AC, but any human with manually using BC, is where the line is crossed IMO. And there's no additional effort with macros, you drive in the exact same way as with AC.
Great. Because I've done it a couple times...
It should still be fixed from LFS. It used to be that you could drive through barriers on BL GP as well as through pits, and easily cut ~1s off your lap. I could use the same argument that it was open to everyone, but it was still fixed because it just isn't right. Maybe this will too if we complain enough :P
Clutch heating model doesn't stop you from flatshifting.. and yes, it's still ok. In fact, it's usually only the people who never even saw a properly dimensioned and designed race car that think not-lifting-on-upshifts will break EVERYTHING in a car.
To respond to profiler questions and tweaks, again.. it's available to everyone. If someone is beating you ONLY because of using a macro clutch, it takes 2 minutes to set up the same and have your glory day back again.
In fact, why is it ok to drive with an autoclutch? Which regular road car (other than SMG transmissions) uses a single dry clutch on every upshift and operates it independently? Is it just because it levels the playing field? If so, you know the playing field isn't all that level in real life. People look for advantages everywhere, and it's usually the ones that are too stupid to find some that end up complaining how someone else has something with arguments of "unfair" etc.
Imo, I can't wait for the day when a driving simulation would support direct import of car models from CATIA or even more complex software packages that deal with FEM, and the stupid/lazy people are left behind to argue on forums about how it's so unfair that someone else is beating them with x tenths a lap.
Ok it was late and I should have qualified that remark. I meant flatshifting on road cars gave an advantage before the clutch overheating model. Race spec cars have never been in question.
Because an exploit is available to everyone does not make it right. Autoclutch and automatic shift take a finite time to do, and I believe Scawen modelled them this way for a reason. Bypassing the clutch timing via a macro or script is exploiting an oversight he made, and makes a mockery of the "prefect environment" that is supposed to be in place for fair hotlapping.
There is a method that would enable the "perfect hotlap", but this would simply be the ultimate cheat, and I won't even bother to try and expand on it for fear that someone might actually try it. This method is also available to all, and really does go against the spirit of what hotlapping is all about.
I agree with you on a more complex model import, but we have what we have, and we all rely on Scawen to refine it.
My understanding of hotlapping is to compare human against human. I'm always exploring different setups and driving styles to gain those tenths in the knowledge it is my failings that make me slow. To find out that those tenths, or any number thereof, have been gained through exploits does mean it's unfair, and could make someone question if they should even bother trying. Does that make me and others lazy or stupid because we refuse to use cheats? I think you are now just being rude
Hey i have a crazy idea, let's stick to original theme;
and leave the rest for the right time & place.
I know we all feel that we're helping, but we're actually making it worse. Wait for it. Step by step. Be patient.
Let's test our own suggestions/reports when they arrive, ok? (yeah, that's a fukin retorical 1)
I have been tested this clutch "exploit" in many different situations. Fact is you can definitely accelerate faster with manual-clutch...
I take two screenshots from different "clutch systems"
- Track: autocross
- only accelerate on straight without steering
- same shifting-times
- repeated several times to ensure
- show the topspeed @ end of the track:
Again.. you can still flatshift in nearly all road cars in LFS and keep the clutch below red temperatures. Didn't you watch any recent replay of a hotlap?
The last I'll say on the matter here I promise.
[Off Topic]
Gear change timing also changed.
I'm not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse, ill-mannered, or plain arrogant. I did a bit of searching of the forums, and found your name linked to other unsavoury practises, so no wonder you defend this behaviour.
This thread from 2008 discusses the problem, and I'm sure it was discussed way back on RSC, but internet archive wasn't able to capture those pages.
Good trigonometry joke there! Imo, if anyone is being obtuse it's people who get things wrong post after post.. kinda like you do. Referencing things that supposedly stopped something from being an advantage when they did next to nothing about the "problem". I find that very annoying and plain ignorant.
As far as my manners go, if you really had a search through some of my previous posts, you would've noticed that the manner in which these posts were written is a drastic improvement in ways of how I've used to treat people like you.
I tried button clutch for the first time yesterday and instantly wiped 0.2s off my BL1 XFG PB, its way faster and needs to be fixed.
The clutch right now is unrealistic. You can shift faster than would be possible in a normal road car with a standard clutch.
I have thought of a solution, though I don't know how easy it would be to implement: The clutch should have a maximum bite pressure, just like a real clutch and if you exceed that it will just slip. Therefore no matter how fast you engage or disengage the clutch, shifting will be limited by the clutch itself not the button rate.... No more unrealistically fast shifting.
Obtuse: The over revving before the clutch model was introduced, allowed a speed increase without absolutely no penalty. This was done while the gears were neutral, and was a win/win situation. The clutch model fixed it somewhat, and prevented the speed increase. I know you know this, and you still remain obstinate.
Ill-mannered: Your treatment of some forum members is frankly appalling. Treatment of AudiTT earlier in this thread is one such example of your insensitivity. Yes he was off the mark, but English is not his first language, and he relies on translation software to read these forums.
Arrogant: Your ego leads you to believe I read your past posts. You're wrong. I was researching the clutch-button exploit, and came across your name in relation to cheating, that's all. You seem to believe your opinion is correct at all times, and I haven't come across a single instance where you admit to being incorrect - and no I haven't searched.
Let me stroke that ego of yours. Some of your posts are insightful, knowledgeable, and useful. If you could only respond in a similar way as this you might find you don't rub people up the wrong way.
Your post back then infers that the whole drive train needs refinement, and gearbox inertia is one of those refinements which could be made. I thouroghly agree with those observations. There is currently no requirement to double clutch a dog (crash) gearbox with the current model, and similarly synchronous gearboxes do not need the finite time they do in real life to come up to speed where the gears rotations are drastically different. The ultra fast clutch that the exploit enables, bypasses any chance of a missed gear, and making autoclutch quicker is not the solution imo.
Can we please agree to disagree on some matters, and not get personal?
Listen flower, I understand english references well enough to know that obtuse means ur calling me thick/stupid/slow/<insert synonym>.
As far as clutching goes, it makes no ****ing difference weather gears are in neutral, in lower gear or next (higher) gear if the clutch is depressed, since rpm climbs because you're keeping the foot on the throttle. Your thinking on longitudinal G increases because engine picked up some revs and was being pulled back by the clutch on re-engagement also shows a lack of testing and knowledge on your part. While this is true to some extent, the amount of slip that was occurring even before the slip had any affect on temperature wasn't in the optimum range for acceleration. In fact, a much better result is gained when the engine bounces off the revlimiter quickly and is re-engaged with the clutch with less slip - especially since the main advantage of buttonclutch is removal of the full engagement clutch period.
As far as autoclutching goes, just because there are revlimiters in place now and shift lights have been removed from road cars it does not mean you shift at the limiter. In fact you shift at old shift points and engines in road cars still gains a few hundred rpm before being pulled back by the clutch.
Fact is, clutch heating model had little to no effect on making people stop flatshifting. I do appreciate that idiots are punished if they keep the throttle on after a spin going backwards in 3rd gear, or trying to start in said gear.
Flower please, at least find someone worth fighting for if you're gonna stand in defense of idiocy. His language skills were not the problem, it's the fact that every post of his was pure SPAM and no help to anyone that bothered me. I even ignored him for an amount of time that is simply unbelievable by my standards. Other people having to correct his wrong ideas/opinions/suggestions don't help your case at all.
My treatment of people have been increasingly more and more positive, but I do sometimes regress back to my old self. Don't be stupid and you won't have any problems with me. (Let me clarify, if you don't know something and you ask politely for an explanation, I'm the first one to respond with an answer in a positive way, or even recommend literature if you want to know more. BUT, if you are an ignorant arrogant twat who just writes things because they make sense to you but have no basis in reality - then I will insult you to the extent that you might think next time it's just better to not say anything).
It's not my ego that leads me to believe anything, I just happen to be right more of the time. It's your lack of research skills that is impressive, for now you are basically wrong on almost all counts you tried to adress.
While you might mistake this forum for a congeniality contest, I don't. Stupidity is annoying, I respond to it how I like. I might be the most hated person on LFS forum (and enjoy that status a lot), but whenever your protectees find themselves stuck, even after all the insults dealt directly to them, they come crawling to me for help.
Of course you do, because I'm right. Unlike most of the things you've written.
Wrong again.. If you had done any proper testing you would've found timing values where shifts simply stop happening.
Yep, I disagree with you on everything you are wrong about and agree on the things I've said. As far as being personal, you're the one calling people obtuse, ill-mannered and other adjectives, I on the other hand, enjoy arguing because it brings me great pleasure to point out where other people are being stupid or just wrong. However, since it's currently midterms time and I have only slightly better things to do, this is unfortunately my last post to you.
Personally I interpreted his phrase "deliberately obtuse" to mean something entirely different to stupid - more like someone who understands the point perfectly well but holds a different opinion and is determined to feign lack of understanding of the point... A dictionary will let you down on some things; this is one of them.
But back to the actual subject:
Reading this I'm reminded that while hotlapping in an FBM I saw something perverse last year. I hate hate hate lifting in that damn car, so I compared laps in which I used a wheel button mapped to clutch for upshifts against laps where I lifted (and against other LFSW laps where people lifted, using Victor's online analyser). Much to my surprise, the laps where I lifted were quicker - less speed lost on the shifts. I didn't bugger about with a macro or changing button rates so maybe a slow clutch response was the main problem. (This makes what I did rather different to "button clutch" I guess.)
But I had fully expected the clutched shifts to be "quicker" overall. My reasoning was that the engine power was being converted into excess engine speed for just about the whole clutching duration (at least when I didn't hit the limiter) and then, when the clutch was released, some decent fraction of that excess energy should have been converted promptly back into extra vehicle speed via increased torque to the wheels. (I reckon the actual energy split between clutch heating and extra speed would depend on the torque carried by the clutch while slipping - I never got around to attempting to estimate that, but I guess it could be estimated pretty accurately from the replay by using the time taken for the revs to drop back.)[Damn, no, this is crap; the wasted energy (i.e. clutch heating) is purely related to the excess speed ratio; ignore the bit in italics! I am also of course entirely ignoring the variation of engine torque with speed which may be another dumb mistake...]
Aaaanyway, clearly this wasn't the case. So I assumed that either it was cos my clutch was slower (disengaged engine for much longer) than the lift, OR cos the LFS physics isn't being very faithful to reality in this case.
But Scipy seems to be suggesting here that accurate physics wouldn't produce the result I expected, in which case I'm puzzled and would like to know more - e.g. pointer to a post in which this is explained better?
FBM has a motorcycle gearbox, a so called dog-engagement. It's the fastest type of gearbox available (not that's it's easy on the transmission, but it is fastest), google some more about it and it'll be clear to you why clutching with a dog-box is a bad idea.
Short story, when you lift 50 % of the power is still being transmitted to the wheels during the shift because only a small unloading of the transmission is needed for next gear dogs to engage the gear into action. No matter how fast you clutch (and if clutching is let's say BF1 speed or even faster) there is still a complete separation of engine from the gearbox where no power is being transmitted, and on the other hand the period is so small that no significant engine acceleration can be made to give you that little "jerk" on re-engagement.
Ah, that's probably the key bit of missing info, ta
All the same, am still a wee bit puzzled about the "energy accounting" here. In the "quick 50% lift" case, the engine power output is reduced momentarily, but a negligible amount of that power goes to waste during the change. When the clutch is used, the engine+flywheel soaks up all of the (almost unchanging) engine power while the wheels aren't getting it, and if the engine speed hasn't risen much before the clutch is dropped again then the energy wasted in clutch heating should be "very small" (for some value of "very small"). So, hmm.....
I am also of course entirely ignoring the variation of engine torque with speed which may be another dumb mistake...]