I've been driving the RB4 for the past week or so in preparation for the STCC in which I have to drive the RB4. At first I found it to be a pig to drive, but now that I've been driving it, I love it. I do think that it needs to be slightly more competitive, not by bringing the FXO down (its already pretty even with XRT) but by making the RB4 more powerful. It would be a welcomed addition I think from many people to even up the TBO class.
Poll : Do you agree with these changes for the TBO class cars?(Refer to p3 #90 for details:)
Yes
45
No
10
There are pro's and cons to every drivetrain I feel. It would be nice to see the TBO class have all three cars on the same times, watching the FXO pull away is just not right =P Cut the power on the FXO and boost the power on the RB4 to match the XRT.
I see then people complaining about the RB4 unbeatable in the rally events, but it's 4wd, it shouldn't be catchable =)
I see then people complaining about the RB4 unbeatable in the rally events, but it's 4wd, it shouldn't be catchable =)
Finally, some sensible arguments. Yes, IRL 4WDs are unbeatable in rallys. Remember the sheer ownage of all other RWD cars when the AUDI QUATRRO debuted? I miss the Group B era.
Let me clarify that i'm just rying to make LFS as realistic as it could possibly be. To have the RB4 one whole second away from the FXO on the Blackwood WR simply does it no justice.
If XRT had a better power curve instead of the current on-off switch powerband, it needs no more peak power and torque. Smoother power curves guarantee better throttle steering and 4-wheel drifts to make the most of it. For those with aversion to any drifting, consult the great Nuvolari. IRL, tires generate maximum friction coeffiecients at finite slip angles. This can be anything from 2-5 degrees (tire dependnet). Any more would lead to less grip. Even F-1 tires need a small drift angles to operate at their peak. Put simply, a well executed 4-wheel drit exit is the ultimate corner exit. Better top end would equalize it to the FXO in straight line acceleration and speed.
Bring on the REAL 4G63!
Let me clarify that i'm just rying to make LFS as realistic as it could possibly be. To have the RB4 one whole second away from the FXO on the Blackwood WR simply does it no justice.
If XRT had a better power curve instead of the current on-off switch powerband, it needs no more peak power and torque. Smoother power curves guarantee better throttle steering and 4-wheel drifts to make the most of it. For those with aversion to any drifting, consult the great Nuvolari. IRL, tires generate maximum friction coeffiecients at finite slip angles. This can be anything from 2-5 degrees (tire dependnet). Any more would lead to less grip. Even F-1 tires need a small drift angles to operate at their peak. Put simply, a well executed 4-wheel drit exit is the ultimate corner exit. Better top end would equalize it to the FXO in straight line acceleration and speed.
Bring on the REAL 4G63!
The FXO and the XRT are nowhere near competitive. On So1 the FXO is over a second and a half faster on a track that takes less than a minute to complete. The RB4 is even slower than the XRT. It doesn't matter which track you goto the FXO is the fastest by a long shot, the XRT and RB4 are close but the RB4 is a bit slower.
Leveling off the XRT power curve and getting a better top end to the RB4, while decreasing the FXO should even out the class a bit better. Least I think it would.
Leveling off the XRT power curve and getting a better top end to the RB4, while decreasing the FXO should even out the class a bit better. Least I think it would.
Look at SO2, the average FXO driver turns better laps then the RB4 WR, How is that anywhere close to fair?
I'm glad there are some genuinely realistic arguments generated in this thread. Keep the thread strong and hopefully we can petition and maybe convince Scawen to properly represent the 3 turbo cars. Last thing we need is an LFS vs NFS:U comparison. Honda Civics outracing and outdrifting RX-7s, Subaru stis and Lancer Evolutions? Maybe in reverse physics world. Well, at least the FXO can never outdrift the other 2 in LFS. But as one of you mention, a 1 second faster average lap time for the FXO in a less than 1 minute circuit? Alast, no amount of traction,power and chasis balance could overcome those massively oversized FXO tires. Its just physics. No car can overcome the inherent grip limitations of its tires.
Realistically, I'm fine as long as the the XRT and RB4 powercurves are rectified, with a slightly wider and thus, stickier tires for the RB4. The 6 speed is desirable, especiallly on high speed tracks with slow 2nd gear sections (Ashton GP) but with 4G63 powerbands that might be redundant.
By the way, I congratulate the LFS development team on their success at making one of if not the best sims in computer sim history. LFS has a very strong physics core. Its just the specific parameters that need adjusting to realistically represent the 3 turbo cars.
Realistically, I'm fine as long as the the XRT and RB4 powercurves are rectified, with a slightly wider and thus, stickier tires for the RB4. The 6 speed is desirable, especiallly on high speed tracks with slow 2nd gear sections (Ashton GP) but with 4G63 powerbands that might be redundant.
By the way, I congratulate the LFS development team on their success at making one of if not the best sims in computer sim history. LFS has a very strong physics core. Its just the specific parameters that need adjusting to realistically represent the 3 turbo cars.
I'm still convinced that if you got rid of the FXOs magical locked diff that somehow worked on a fixed surface without ripping itself to pieces then the FXO would be a lot slower. Even with an LSD and realistic setup options for a road car it would be able to be caught by the others.
I didn't read the whole thread but I just felt compelled to correct this myth. The contact patch area is entirely dependant on the pressure inside the tyre and the load on the tyre. Tyre width has nothing to do with it. That just changes the shape of the contact patch.
http://www.carbibles.com/tyre_bible.html
Scroll down to "Fat or thin? The question of contact patches and grip."
The reason why wider tyres are better is because they produce the same force at lower slip angles and thus run cooler. This is why you can run them at lower pressures/make them of a softer compound and thus increase your grip. It has nothing to do with contact patch.
I'm not a big fan for the modern fashion of having lots of unnecessary gears. 4 or 5 forward speeds is more than enough for any but the fastest of fast road cars (by fast I mean in a straight line, as opposed to quick meaning A-B around corners).
Also, only nancy boys drive 4WD and girls (Sorry Becky and Tiny etc) drive FWD.
Whilst you might think that the torque curve of the cars is unrealistic, comparing to current, modern engines isn't really appropriate as the cars are clearly not, FZ50 apart, current modern type cars.
As for the lag, I believe LFS has a bit too much, but as I don't like turbocharging I don't mind. In my mind the only cars worth bothering with are real wheel drive and normally aspirated.
But what it will boil down to is the fact that LFS was originally written some time ago, and it's major work to concentrate on a single area to make it totally real. People want new cars, new tracks and more grip all the time, which Scavier have recently provided. Scawen will then concentrate on, say, the AI until thats a lot better, then concentrate on the sound, then concentrate on the turbocharger modelling, then concentrate on the power/torque curve generation etc etc (just examples, this is almost certainly not his intended order/list).
Personally I think that people who complain about the lag or the looks or the sound are missing the whole point of LFS, which is to provide the most realistic, fun and accessible online racing simulation. At the end of the day if we are driving the same/similar cars on the same track with 20 clean racers it doesn't matter if we are driving lawn movers with crappy sounds or a Lamborghini with uber sound, as long as we can have fun. Yes, the devil is in the details, and yes I want all these areas to improve, but they all take time, and all of what is in this thread was, I'd wager, already on Scawen's to do list.
Stop worrying about details (except in the case of balancing the classes, which is a difficult subject, and might need proper scientific analysis to achieve) and start racing!
Also, only nancy boys drive 4WD and girls (Sorry Becky and Tiny etc) drive FWD.
Whilst you might think that the torque curve of the cars is unrealistic, comparing to current, modern engines isn't really appropriate as the cars are clearly not, FZ50 apart, current modern type cars.
As for the lag, I believe LFS has a bit too much, but as I don't like turbocharging I don't mind. In my mind the only cars worth bothering with are real wheel drive and normally aspirated.
But what it will boil down to is the fact that LFS was originally written some time ago, and it's major work to concentrate on a single area to make it totally real. People want new cars, new tracks and more grip all the time, which Scavier have recently provided. Scawen will then concentrate on, say, the AI until thats a lot better, then concentrate on the sound, then concentrate on the turbocharger modelling, then concentrate on the power/torque curve generation etc etc (just examples, this is almost certainly not his intended order/list).
Personally I think that people who complain about the lag or the looks or the sound are missing the whole point of LFS, which is to provide the most realistic, fun and accessible online racing simulation. At the end of the day if we are driving the same/similar cars on the same track with 20 clean racers it doesn't matter if we are driving lawn movers with crappy sounds or a Lamborghini with uber sound, as long as we can have fun. Yes, the devil is in the details, and yes I want all these areas to improve, but they all take time, and all of what is in this thread was, I'd wager, already on Scawen's to do list.
Stop worrying about details (except in the case of balancing the classes, which is a difficult subject, and might need proper scientific analysis to achieve) and start racing!
... dont u mean Holden astra opel just modded it :P
Well, I mean a Vauxhall Astra if you want to quibble. =p
At least Eric Bailey is probably most familiar with those.
Firstly, lets correct the myth that contact area is directly proportional to pressure. That is absolutely untrue, unless tour tyre has no plies, no sidewall belts.... all the RL structures that exist in real tire. There seems to be a belief that tyres behave like your totally elastic rubber balloon. This is very untrue due to the presence of relatively stiff components such as steel plies, etc. Am extreme example is a runflat, where contact area is very unproportional to pressure.
As for greater contact area, that is also a non myth. If tyres behaved like rubber balloons, wider would only equal wider and shorter patch of the same area. But, being not very balloon like as RL tyres are, that is not true. Again, tyres being notoriously disproportional to inflation pressure when it comes to contact area, that is again untrue. Besides, with the stiff sidewall and tread designs of sports tyres as the 3 turbo cars should be using, the pressure to area relationship is very non linear indeed. So IRL, wider tires gnerally mean bigger areas. I'm happy to explian RL tire physics if need be.
As for 4WD is for nancy boys? I'm so hoping that people act reasonably civilized on this thread. I happen to like making full use of 4WD capabilities, on road, on track, off road, rallies, etc. Gee, 4 wheel drifts on rallycross must be for nancy boys.... I didn't know that making use of 4WD technology is nancy boy behaviour.
More to the point. So, all the WRC and 4WD rally drivers must be nancy boys indeed. A list that includes:
1.Tommi Makinen
2.Marcus Gronholm
3.Sebastian Loeb
.....
So, surviving the Paris Dakar Rally (50 celcuis heat, sand dunes, etc) must be for nancy boys too. Lamborghini Murcielagos must be for nancy boys too. So, FWD mini drivers that demolished their larger, overpowered and overweight RWD cousins in rallies must be nancy boys too.
Need I go on?
Please people, realistic and reasonble opinions and comments only. I hope to not escalate to full out flame war, but facts must be clarified.
As for real cars must be RWD and NA... please consult Group B and WRC cars.
As for greater contact area, that is also a non myth. If tyres behaved like rubber balloons, wider would only equal wider and shorter patch of the same area. But, being not very balloon like as RL tyres are, that is not true. Again, tyres being notoriously disproportional to inflation pressure when it comes to contact area, that is again untrue. Besides, with the stiff sidewall and tread designs of sports tyres as the 3 turbo cars should be using, the pressure to area relationship is very non linear indeed. So IRL, wider tires gnerally mean bigger areas. I'm happy to explian RL tire physics if need be.
As for 4WD is for nancy boys? I'm so hoping that people act reasonably civilized on this thread. I happen to like making full use of 4WD capabilities, on road, on track, off road, rallies, etc. Gee, 4 wheel drifts on rallycross must be for nancy boys.... I didn't know that making use of 4WD technology is nancy boy behaviour.
More to the point. So, all the WRC and 4WD rally drivers must be nancy boys indeed. A list that includes:
1.Tommi Makinen
2.Marcus Gronholm
3.Sebastian Loeb
.....
So, surviving the Paris Dakar Rally (50 celcuis heat, sand dunes, etc) must be for nancy boys too. Lamborghini Murcielagos must be for nancy boys too. So, FWD mini drivers that demolished their larger, overpowered and overweight RWD cousins in rallies must be nancy boys too.
Need I go on?
Please people, realistic and reasonble opinions and comments only. I hope to not escalate to full out flame war, but facts must be clarified.
As for real cars must be RWD and NA... please consult Group B and WRC cars.
^^ Tristan's view is that RWD cars are better drivers cars, this is on the whole probably true and down to personal preferance. Of course IRL one goes for the fastest possible options which may include 4WD, TC, ABS and so on.
Thanks ajp71 for a much clearer and reasonable description of RWD opinions. Yes, no car forces drivers to baby the throttle more than an overpowered RWD.
However, there is still the severe misconception that other drivetrains require less skill to master. I am fully aware that FWD and 4WD cars are easier to start with. But to master them is a different thing altogether.
For instance, FWD. The inherent front heaviness and power understeer (LSD or not) forces a driver to master advanced weight shift techniques to cope with the understeer. Left foot braking being one of them. LSDs only reduce, not eliminate power understeer, by proportioning more power to the more loaded outside tire while reducing inner wheelspin. Please don't nerf the FXO by removing its clutch pack LSD. FYI, its VERY easy to acquire and install Torque Biasing (usually Quaife) LSD that are ideal for severely limiting the classic FWD power undrsteer, especially for very popular cars like Honda Civics and Integras. These diffs are ideal for FWD and 4WD front ends. Their unavailability in LFS isn't too important since Clutch based LSDs are extremely effective anyway. For raced tuned FWDs with oversteer off throttle, keeping them precisely on the apex and tracking straight on bumpy circuits certainly require attention. Not too disimiliar from the delicate throttle control required for overpowered RWDs. Keeping the heavily worked front tires happy whilst maintaining sufficient pace isn't exactly noob stuff IRL, though the FXO is well tired enough to avoid that pitfall even at 36psi as long as one doesn't go over 10/10ths. Of course, this assumes a relatively smooth and skilled driver with a well developed setup.
The truth is, many overpowered MRs are setup to understeer heavily, with the Ferrari F50 being a classic example. Its lack of traction control and rear traction (relative to its peaky and massive output) makes a neutral setup undrivable, even for Ferrari's professional test drivers. The F50 was notorious for snap oversteer in its teasting days, until it was finally decided to set it for HEAVY understeer. Older RWD porsches are also set this way to maintain controllability. In fact, older race Porsches are known for inability to turn in all whilst on throttle, though they turned in very well off throttle. A well tuned and balanced powerful RWD should understeer progressively as its limits are approached, understeering heavily if its limits are exceeded. Throttle steerability is crucial for correcting understeer and exiting corners efficiently.
Finally, 4WD. Unfortunately, most drivers would simply think all 2L turbo 4WDs are understeering, laggy and slow pigs, and thanks to the RB4 this unrealistic steoreotype is perpetuated. Yes, they USED to understeer like pigs when they were relatively new, with the older Subarus and Lancer Evolutions being the classic examples. With excellent LSDs, improved suspension technology and tuning, that problem will soon be absolutely consigned to the history. Try the EVO VIII MR. Significant understeer simply doesn't exist in its dictionary(unless you try to drive it the same way you drive a V8 musclecar). Its known for almost neutral mid corner balance through 2nd gear hairpins. And no well setup RWD in existance could turn in as ferociously as the EVO MR. Due to the 4WD traction and exit stability, moderately oversteering setups are vey viable.
The EVO VIII MR can accelerate from 0-60mph in 4.3 seconds despite of its relatively low power to weight ratio (276hp and approx.3050lb). The power of 4WD traction and the 4G63's beautiful powerband. So much for 2L turbos must be laggy. So much for the powerband=unimportant detail argument. Even older 4G63s have very wide powerbands.
No skill? Tell that to Tommi Makinen (4 times WRC champion in Lancer Evolutions). Try 4-wheel drifting the RB4 with its unrealistically narrow powerband. Again, left foot braking and precise weight shifting are absolutely crucial. A Group B 4WD car setup to be almost neutral most of the time is one of the most difficult to drive cars in existance. Throttle control for 4WDs is a very speciallized technique which very few can master. Brutal yet smooth and precise.
A more likely reason for 4WD bashing is its rather unique handling characterisitics that require very different techniques to RWDs to master.
As I've said, 6 speeds for RB4 are superflous but not absolutely necessary as long as its power band is realistically modeled. I like the XRT a lot too, thus my recomendation of a realistic 4G63 powerband. The FWD nature of FXO makes its revvy , peaky and narrow powerband ideal. Low torque down low limits traction issues. Plus its realtively light weight and massive tires, it puts even the XRTs lap times to shame. So much for realistic performance representaion of the 3 drivetrains.
Please understand that I'm very happy as long as the XRT and RB4's powerbands are rectified with a slight increase in RB4 tire size and grip to realistically represent the stengths of RWD and 4WD. Since LFS2 is only in alpha stage (not even beta!), it is not too unreasonable to ask for a corective patch some time in the future. It's far from complete, so lets make the most of LFS before it is finallized. I would never have acqured the S2 license if LFS never had the potential to be the ultimate driving simulation (e.g.NFS:U).
No, we don't have a need for speed. WE LIVE FOR SPEED!
However, there is still the severe misconception that other drivetrains require less skill to master. I am fully aware that FWD and 4WD cars are easier to start with. But to master them is a different thing altogether.
For instance, FWD. The inherent front heaviness and power understeer (LSD or not) forces a driver to master advanced weight shift techniques to cope with the understeer. Left foot braking being one of them. LSDs only reduce, not eliminate power understeer, by proportioning more power to the more loaded outside tire while reducing inner wheelspin. Please don't nerf the FXO by removing its clutch pack LSD. FYI, its VERY easy to acquire and install Torque Biasing (usually Quaife) LSD that are ideal for severely limiting the classic FWD power undrsteer, especially for very popular cars like Honda Civics and Integras. These diffs are ideal for FWD and 4WD front ends. Their unavailability in LFS isn't too important since Clutch based LSDs are extremely effective anyway. For raced tuned FWDs with oversteer off throttle, keeping them precisely on the apex and tracking straight on bumpy circuits certainly require attention. Not too disimiliar from the delicate throttle control required for overpowered RWDs. Keeping the heavily worked front tires happy whilst maintaining sufficient pace isn't exactly noob stuff IRL, though the FXO is well tired enough to avoid that pitfall even at 36psi as long as one doesn't go over 10/10ths. Of course, this assumes a relatively smooth and skilled driver with a well developed setup.
The truth is, many overpowered MRs are setup to understeer heavily, with the Ferrari F50 being a classic example. Its lack of traction control and rear traction (relative to its peaky and massive output) makes a neutral setup undrivable, even for Ferrari's professional test drivers. The F50 was notorious for snap oversteer in its teasting days, until it was finally decided to set it for HEAVY understeer. Older RWD porsches are also set this way to maintain controllability. In fact, older race Porsches are known for inability to turn in all whilst on throttle, though they turned in very well off throttle. A well tuned and balanced powerful RWD should understeer progressively as its limits are approached, understeering heavily if its limits are exceeded. Throttle steerability is crucial for correcting understeer and exiting corners efficiently.
Finally, 4WD. Unfortunately, most drivers would simply think all 2L turbo 4WDs are understeering, laggy and slow pigs, and thanks to the RB4 this unrealistic steoreotype is perpetuated. Yes, they USED to understeer like pigs when they were relatively new, with the older Subarus and Lancer Evolutions being the classic examples. With excellent LSDs, improved suspension technology and tuning, that problem will soon be absolutely consigned to the history. Try the EVO VIII MR. Significant understeer simply doesn't exist in its dictionary(unless you try to drive it the same way you drive a V8 musclecar). Its known for almost neutral mid corner balance through 2nd gear hairpins. And no well setup RWD in existance could turn in as ferociously as the EVO MR. Due to the 4WD traction and exit stability, moderately oversteering setups are vey viable.
The EVO VIII MR can accelerate from 0-60mph in 4.3 seconds despite of its relatively low power to weight ratio (276hp and approx.3050lb). The power of 4WD traction and the 4G63's beautiful powerband. So much for 2L turbos must be laggy. So much for the powerband=unimportant detail argument. Even older 4G63s have very wide powerbands.
No skill? Tell that to Tommi Makinen (4 times WRC champion in Lancer Evolutions). Try 4-wheel drifting the RB4 with its unrealistically narrow powerband. Again, left foot braking and precise weight shifting are absolutely crucial. A Group B 4WD car setup to be almost neutral most of the time is one of the most difficult to drive cars in existance. Throttle control for 4WDs is a very speciallized technique which very few can master. Brutal yet smooth and precise.
A more likely reason for 4WD bashing is its rather unique handling characterisitics that require very different techniques to RWDs to master.
As I've said, 6 speeds for RB4 are superflous but not absolutely necessary as long as its power band is realistically modeled. I like the XRT a lot too, thus my recomendation of a realistic 4G63 powerband. The FWD nature of FXO makes its revvy , peaky and narrow powerband ideal. Low torque down low limits traction issues. Plus its realtively light weight and massive tires, it puts even the XRTs lap times to shame. So much for realistic performance representaion of the 3 drivetrains.
Please understand that I'm very happy as long as the XRT and RB4's powerbands are rectified with a slight increase in RB4 tire size and grip to realistically represent the stengths of RWD and 4WD. Since LFS2 is only in alpha stage (not even beta!), it is not too unreasonable to ask for a corective patch some time in the future. It's far from complete, so lets make the most of LFS before it is finallized. I would never have acqured the S2 license if LFS never had the potential to be the ultimate driving simulation (e.g.NFS:U).
No, we don't have a need for speed. WE LIVE FOR SPEED!
My goodness. A part of belonging to this community is also to understand NOT to take everything said/written as 100% serious. You seem to be a bit overcompensating at defending your opinion. 
Also, do this:
Also, do this:
i only think FXO should get more weight and maybe smaller tire size..
it would be impossible to have the 3 cars always equal on every tracks
but right now FXO is the clear winner...
i also agree that the turbos do have a bit too much lag for the size they should be (2L with around 230-250hp should be a rather small turbo)
so my suggestion
-add weight to fxo to limit its cornering grip / and acceleration
-smaller tires if its still not fair..
-add some power to RB4 till it can match fxo and gtt high speed..
-fix whatever is wrong in the code that makes ANY totally locked diff better than limited diffs...
it would be impossible to have the 3 cars always equal on every tracks
but right now FXO is the clear winner...
i also agree that the turbos do have a bit too much lag for the size they should be (2L with around 230-250hp should be a rather small turbo)
so my suggestion
-add weight to fxo to limit its cornering grip / and acceleration
-smaller tires if its still not fair..
-add some power to RB4 till it can match fxo and gtt high speed..
-fix whatever is wrong in the code that makes ANY totally locked diff better than limited diffs...
I had few time to read the whole post, but if I'm not wrong, here nobody mentioned AUDI's domination in DTM some years ago.
I read much about 4wd cars and I agree in LFS there's a big lack of such kind of cars and they are way too underpowered/unbalanced as many stated here. 4x4 should be a lot more faster than they are now. Actually, only in few tracks it's possible to have a "little" comparison between RB4 and XRT (the FXO it's just another class of car, it's too fast).
There's some match between GTR cars too (take As2 with FXR and XRR, these cars get quite close in timing/racing) but here again the FZR has no comparison due to many factors.. I just hope to see in future more 4wd cars as well as to see them way faster than what they are now. It's just a matter of balance between the classes they race into, otherwise don't create a TBO class or a GTR class if there's so much prestational difference between FZR>XRR&FXR or FXO>XRT&RB4 (and we can easily say that 4wd cars are actually the slowest of the row..)..
I read much about 4wd cars and I agree in LFS there's a big lack of such kind of cars and they are way too underpowered/unbalanced as many stated here. 4x4 should be a lot more faster than they are now. Actually, only in few tracks it's possible to have a "little" comparison between RB4 and XRT (the FXO it's just another class of car, it's too fast).
There's some match between GTR cars too (take As2 with FXR and XRR, these cars get quite close in timing/racing) but here again the FZR has no comparison due to many factors.. I just hope to see in future more 4wd cars as well as to see them way faster than what they are now. It's just a matter of balance between the classes they race into, otherwise don't create a TBO class or a GTR class if there's so much prestational difference between FZR>XRR&FXR or FXO>XRT&RB4 (and we can easily say that 4wd cars are actually the slowest of the row..)..
Exactly one of my points. There is simply no good representation of 4WD in LFS YET(hopefully). I apologize if some of you think some of my posts are excessively lengthy. I'm just trying to be thorough and clear .
The FZ50 is ultra fast. The chief reason is its weight distribution, which happens to be IDEAL for the aero balance we're given. If the FR and 4WD GTRs were given matching aero kits instead of the current generic aero, it would be a MUCH closer race. I still find it hard that such differing bodyshapes had identical aero. Read any aero text and you'll discover that the subtlest changes in shape generate the most significant of changes. For instance, a simple flat endplate design would massively increase L/D ratios for a given aerofoil. Any way, its still alpha so theres hope yet. Well, at least the FZ50 suffers excessive rear tire wear thanks to rear tire overloading (rear heaviness does have a price). Being a relative gas guzler evens things out a bit on Lemans length races.
No, we don't have a need for speed. We LIVE FOR SPEED!
The FZ50 is ultra fast. The chief reason is its weight distribution, which happens to be IDEAL for the aero balance we're given. If the FR and 4WD GTRs were given matching aero kits instead of the current generic aero, it would be a MUCH closer race. I still find it hard that such differing bodyshapes had identical aero. Read any aero text and you'll discover that the subtlest changes in shape generate the most significant of changes. For instance, a simple flat endplate design would massively increase L/D ratios for a given aerofoil. Any way, its still alpha so theres hope yet. Well, at least the FZ50 suffers excessive rear tire wear thanks to rear tire overloading (rear heaviness does have a price). Being a relative gas guzler evens things out a bit on Lemans length races.
No, we don't have a need for speed. We LIVE FOR SPEED!
This statement alone was enough to deter me from reading another single word. So LFS is bashing 4WD cars? Now I've heard everything.
I should have said "misrepresenting" to more precisely convey my true meaning. Anyway, LFS bashing's not the aim of this thread. Its the discussion of the issue at hand (need for better represention of RB4 type cars via better a torque curve and tire package) that counts. Like any genuinely serious driving sim user, I just want the most of what LFS could potentially offer.
If loving LFS for what it intends to achieve (the ULTIMATE racing sim), I plead guilty.
If loving LFS for what it intends to achieve (the ULTIMATE racing sim), I plead guilty.
All I can promise you is that LFS does a better job of 4WD than it does of bandwagons.
At least that little miswording and misunderstanding is out of the way.
Now, some more serious discussions of the theme at hand would be highly desirable.
Now, some more serious discussions of the theme at hand would be highly desirable.
I think the RB4 should always suffer from the additional weight of it's AWD system on straights. That's all good and fair. However, it might be an idea to reduce the drag coefficient of the car to help it along on long straights. The average gain in laptime shouldn't be bigger than 2 tenths. Currently the RB4 is about 4 tenths behind the XRT in WR-times, but the XRT is a lot more prone to errors due to it's drive-train layout and thus the average laptime should be very similar when the WR times are just 2 tenths apart.
Also the XRT should be a rewarding choice. It's harder to learn. If it was inferior to the RB4 and harder to learn no one would choose it anymore and it'd be effectively worthless for LFS.
(As a matter of fact that's the current situation for XRT, because the FXO is easier to learn and superior in all situations except the standing start, but hopefully that'll change.)
Vain
Also the XRT should be a rewarding choice. It's harder to learn. If it was inferior to the RB4 and harder to learn no one would choose it anymore and it'd be effectively worthless for LFS.
(As a matter of fact that's the current situation for XRT, because the FXO is easier to learn and superior in all situations except the standing start, but hopefully that'll change.)
Vain
I dont want to get involved in the science stuff, but I agree that the FXO needs to be made comparable with both the XRT + RB4 on performance.
I said this before, though more clearification would be nice.
What I wish to attain with the RB4 is more realistic power curve, not PEAK power. No, I do not wish for 300+bhp. I'm only asking for a realistic power curve. As I've suggested earlier, something along the lines of 320nm@3500 and 250bhp@6500 with a 7500rpm rev limit would be close to the ideal compromise. And unless significant improvements to peak power are made (say to 320bhp!), top speed will not rise significantly. Top speed is proportional to the square root of power increase(i.e. Original power / Revised power). I do agree that its current weight should be maintained. And more tire too to stop this ridiculous FXO ownage.
I think I should change the thread title a bit and add "XRT defeciency" as well. Anyway, I also wish to improve the XRTs power curve to its realistic 4G63 glory as well. That would make sure that the overall acceleration of the XRT would improve markedly as well. A little more peak power (say 260bp @6500) makes for slightly more top speed as well. As some of us said too, the strengths and weaknesses of all drivetrains must be realistically and fairly represented. The XRT should beat the FXO if it was properly represented.
Here's the order of things if things were as realistically represented as possible:
XRT should top most of the tarmac lap times. The RB4 should top a few of the tarmac tracks as well. This makes sure the XRT has its place in LFS.
Rallycross is where the RB4 should own every other car. Its physics. No car could power out of corners and 4-wheel drift as well the RB4 on low grip surfaces. The better torque curve and hybrid tires should see to that.
As for the FXO. Its present popularity within the TBO class among many LFS players has a LOT to do with its ease to drive. Its ownage of other 2 cars despite of their harder to drive natures is a MASSIVE and unfair bonus.
Well, it doesn't even have front tire wear problems! The exact oppostie of RL FWDs.
Driving RWDs and 4WDs tuned to the max at their peak lap after lap isn't exactly noob level ease. The FXO is just too easy to drive consistantly fast. No doubt, that has a lot to do with its surprising lack of FWD problems. Last time I tried the FXO, it demolished my XRT Blackwood times by more than half as second! A car I don't drive nearly as much as the other 2. If it's THIS easy on a casual personal hotlap with an endurance biased setup, imagine how it'll destroy the XRT and RB4 in a clash between the best drivers of each car. With the RELATIVE ease of pulling out error free laps with the FXO its not even funny.
Still, I believe there is no need to nerf the FXO(just trying to avoid unfairly penalizing those who bother to truely master it). Just compensate by making the other 2 as fast as they should be.
What I wish to attain with the RB4 is more realistic power curve, not PEAK power. No, I do not wish for 300+bhp. I'm only asking for a realistic power curve. As I've suggested earlier, something along the lines of 320nm@3500 and 250bhp@6500 with a 7500rpm rev limit would be close to the ideal compromise. And unless significant improvements to peak power are made (say to 320bhp!), top speed will not rise significantly. Top speed is proportional to the square root of power increase(i.e. Original power / Revised power). I do agree that its current weight should be maintained. And more tire too to stop this ridiculous FXO ownage.
I think I should change the thread title a bit and add "XRT defeciency" as well. Anyway, I also wish to improve the XRTs power curve to its realistic 4G63 glory as well. That would make sure that the overall acceleration of the XRT would improve markedly as well. A little more peak power (say 260bp @6500) makes for slightly more top speed as well.
As some of us said too, the strengths and weaknesses of all drivetrains must be realistically and fairly represented. The XRT should beat the FXO if it was properly represented. Here's the order of things if things were as realistically represented as possible:
XRT should top most of the tarmac lap times. The RB4 should top a few of the tarmac tracks as well. This makes sure the XRT has its place in LFS.
Rallycross is where the RB4 should own every other car. Its physics. No car could power out of corners and 4-wheel drift as well the RB4 on low grip surfaces. The better torque curve and hybrid tires should see to that.
As for the FXO. Its present popularity within the TBO class among many LFS players has a LOT to do with its ease to drive. Its ownage of other 2 cars despite of their harder to drive natures is a MASSIVE and unfair bonus.
Well, it doesn't even have front tire wear problems! The exact oppostie of RL FWDs.Driving RWDs and 4WDs tuned to the max at their peak lap after lap isn't exactly noob level ease. The FXO is just too easy to drive consistantly fast. No doubt, that has a lot to do with its surprising lack of FWD problems. Last time I tried the FXO, it demolished my XRT Blackwood times by more than half as second! A car I don't drive nearly as much as the other 2. If it's THIS easy on a casual personal hotlap with an endurance biased setup, imagine how it'll destroy the XRT and RB4 in a clash between the best drivers of each car. With the RELATIVE ease of pulling out error free laps with the FXO its not even funny.
Still, I believe there is no need to nerf the FXO(just trying to avoid unfairly penalizing those who bother to truely master it). Just compensate by making the other 2 as fast as they should be.
Severe 4WD deficiency in LFS
(138 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG