Sorry if this is old, I searched and found nothing.

Is the track width in the game realistic? Most tracks get as wide as a four or even five lane freeway, which seems like a bit much for anything other than the oval. I'm guessing it's probably done to allow more room for online races. Yet I think it's the primary cause of the lack of speed sensation. You gauge your speed based on the stationary objects and edges/walls of the track, and since tracks are so wide, those reference markers end up being too far away most of the time and therefore move pretty slow.

I get a pretty good sense of speed if I set up a narrow track in auto-x, so I bet if we had a fairly narrow track (2.5-3 car widths or so), it'd feel like your ripping through it even at low speeds.

Well I would say that your sensations are probably spot on and would be the same for most people; a narrower track at high speed will put hairs on your chest.

However, I would also say that I don't think the circuits in LFS particularly lack the sensation of speed..

Well, track width varies per circuit IRL too, so yes I think it's realistic. Fern Bay is quite narrow.
LFS has to cater for a wide variety of cars, so it's important to have different types of tracks imo.

I think, the variation, we have in LFS, is just right. Aston and Kyoto are supposed to be race tracks, so they are pretty wide, whereas Fern Bay and especially South City with the walls on the sides are rather narrow IMO.

I think the tracks feel pretty realistic. Even tracks that are considered short and narrow (Mid Ohio is a good example) are easily wide enough to run three cars wide. And it seems that tracks these days are getting wider and wider all the time. Most of the old favorites have been widened, smoothed, and had the guardrails moved further away from the track.

From the minimal time I spent in GTR and rFactor, I remember the tracks being a lot narrower for the most part. It didn't feel like you were driving in the middle of a freeway, which is the sensation I get in a lot of areas in LFS.

I agree that the tracks seem quite wide in places; like you say, sometimes it feels as though you're driving down a freeway/motorway instead of a race track. If the tracks were a couple of metres narrower and the railing, fencing and other trackside objects closer to the edge of the track, the sensation of speed would be better. More trackside objects help too: the sensation of speed at Aston, for instance, has been improved by the increased number of trackside objects.

LFS simulates fairly small cars, get in a big car like the BF1 and it seems a lot narrower. Also remember that LFS simulates modern racetracks not some of the fantastically fast older tracks which would be nice to see as well when we get something that is really at home on them lie Group C cars.

Quote from ajp71 :

LFS simulates fairly small cars, get in a big car like the BF1 and it seems a lot narrower. Also remember that LFS simulates modern racetracks not some of the fantastically fast older tracks which would be nice to see as well when we get something that is really at home on them lie Group C cars.

The cars are not that small, they're regular size. I'm sure the track would look narrower from inside a Hummer or a Suburban, but who the hell races those? BF1 isn't that big, either. Formula cars offer a good sense of speed because they're very low to the ground, not because they're big. If anything, the track looks wider from inside Formula cars, because they're so low.

But you would want a formula car to drive it like it's supposed to be driven. At very high speeds and cornering very fast too. Sure you can drive a BF1 or FO8 around Fern Bay, but that's what I would call unrealistic because that would never happen IRL.
Fact is that most modern tracks are quite wide (also because of safety reasons), and LFS has all kinds of cars in it and all should have tracks that suit them.

Well, driving UF around the oval is unrealistic as well, even though you have the option to do so. Not all tracks should be meant for Formula cars. A narrow converted-two-lane-road track would be more realistic for slower cars, and most importantly it would give you a good sensation of speed.

Quote from Whisper :

Not all tracks should be meant for Formula cars.

I'm not saying they should. But you basically say the tracks are too wide. All I'm saying is there should be tracks suited for different cars. Wide tracks are better suited for Formula cars. But tracks like Fern Bay and South City are quite narrow, so I don't really see what's missing.

Quote from Whisper :

BF1 isn't that big, either.

The current F1 cars are huge, you'll be suprised when you see for yourself, not that wide but a very long wheelbase. By big cars I was thinking current F1, Group C, Can Am, Trans Am, Nascar etc. If you look back at historic F1 cars they are tiny in comparison to the current cars.

Yea, some of the older F1 cars amost look like Go-Karts in comparison. :P

To answer your initial question, yes, I think the track widths are realistic. I think Aston is similar to current F1 tracks (for the most part)
Also, if you take the track in Portland for example. It's front straight is very wide because it doubles as a drag strip. The rest of the track is quite narrow. The point is different tracks will have different widths.

Part of the issue might be that you, like me, see most of the racing on TV or from the stands. That makes tracks look more narrow than they are.

Have you ever, gotten out of your car and walked across a major, multi-lane road? Doesn't that road look way bigger when you are on foot than in your car? I think this is a similar effect when watching from the sidelines.

More objects close to the track definitely elevate the sensation of speed. That is true in any situation, the closer the objects, the more you notice the speed.
I wouldn't mind more objects close to the track, but only where they make sense. I don't want to see stuff just to add to the sensation at speed. For me, I end up blocking out every thing but the track, my next turn in or braking point, and the other cars. The stuff on the sidelines I just ignore. It probably does add to the sense of speed, but I pretty much block it out.

Quote from joen :

I'm not saying they should. But you basically say the tracks are too wide. All I'm saying is there should be tracks suited for different cars. Wide tracks are better suited for Formula cars. But tracks like Fern Bay and South City are quite narrow, so I don't really see what's missing.

What I'm saying is that the width of the tracks in the game affects the perception of speed, even more so than in real life. A lot of wide tracks, with a couple of medium ones (Fern Bay and South City). South City still has a lot of four-lane-street sections, which are fairly wide.

I think another narrower, tighter track would feel right speed wise. Something more along the lines of this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... &search=lotus%20elise

Quote from ajp71 :

The current F1 cars are huge, you'll be suprised when you see for yourself, not that wide but a very long wheelbase. By big cars I was thinking current F1, Group C, Can Am, Trans Am, Nascar etc. If you look back at historic F1 cars they are tiny in comparison to the current cars.

Yes, they may have a large footprint, but usually when you say a car is huge it means it’s also tall, like a semi or an SUV. As I already said, F1 car size does nothing to make the track seem narrower, because they're so low to the ground. An F1 car could be a mile long, but your view of the track would still be the same as if it were no longer than a lawnmower.

Quote from Whisper :

What I'm saying is that the width of the tracks in the game affects the perception of speed, even more so than in real life. A lot of wide tracks, with a couple of medium ones (Fern Bay and South City). South City still has a lot of four-lane-street sections, which are fairly wide.

I think another narrower, tighter track would feel right speed wise. Something more along the lines of this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... &search=lotus%20elise

Sure, that would be an exciting track in LFS. Don't get me wrong, it's not that I don't want a narrow track in LFS. The more diverse LFS is, the better imo. And if that could come with a Lotus Elise...:woohoo:
But I perceived your original question to be does LFS gives a good general representation of tracks you would find in real life. And I think it does. Ofcourse it's impossible to have an example of every type of track there is. And compared to most tracks Bathurst is really quite narrow. But that's not a bad thing though.
We'll see, more tracks are likely to follow in LFS

Quote from Hallen :

Have you ever, gotten out of your car and walked across a major, multi-lane road? Doesn't that road look way bigger when you are on foot than in your car? I think this is a similar effect when watching from the sidelines.

Are you saying that when you're looking at the road from outside your car the road seems wider? And if so, then it contradicts your previous paragraph about how "Part of the issue might be that you, like me, see most of the racing on TV or from the stands. That makes tracks look more narrow than they are."

So do the tracks look narrower from inside the car or outside of the car? I'm afraid I'm not following...

Quote from joen :

Sure, that would be an exciting track in LFS. Don't get me wrong, it's not that I don't want a narrow track in LFS. The more diverse LFS is, the better imo. And if that could come with a Lotus Elise...:woohoo:
But I perceived your original question to be does LFS gives a good general representation of tracks you would find in real life. And I think it does. Ofcourse it's impossible to have an example of every type of track there is. And compared to most tracks Bathurst is really quite narrow. But that's not a bad thing though.
We'll see, more tracks are likely to follow in LFS

Ya, all I'm saying is that since LFS has number of slower cars, some narrower tracks would be favorable. Right now it seems like the game tracks are mostly geared towards faster cars, which makes driving in slower cars feel even slower than it actually is.

Quote from Whisper :

I think another narrower, tighter track would feel right speed wise. Something more along the lines of this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... &search=lotus%20elise

So, basically you just want a narrow track so that you feel like you're going faster? I wouldn't mind that myself, but only a new track, not changing any existing tracks.


Geez.. Did Dean Evans have 20 more horsepower than the rest of the field or was everyone else only using half throttle?

Try zooming in and out when driving the FOX it's pretty odd the difference it makes on your perception of track width and speed.

IMO, motion should be fastest to represent high speeds. I see things passing me much more faster when I am in my car, with the same speed. If we don't have physic forces, we need something that points us when to brake (for example), naturally. This is the reason why many noobs have to learn driving "automatically" instead of "naturally". Using track waypoints for example. If you are entering a chicane at 100 Km/h and the sense of speed is 60, you will crash. This is why when I started, I used to watch the speedometer in order to brake, when approaching to some kinds of chicanes and curves.

Quote from MAGGOT :

So, basically you just want a narrow track so that you feel like you're going faster? I wouldn't mind that myself, but only a new track, not changing any existing tracks.


Geez.. Did Dean Evans have 20 more horsepower than the rest of the field or was everyone else only using half throttle?

Yeah, I wouldn't mind a new narrow track. No need to touch the existing ones.

And Dean Evans has +7 against opponents in the same car. He's almost level 60. Also, if you look closely, you can see him pick up a turbo power-up on the main straight. Happens very fast, you have to watch closely.

Quote from BrainBT :

IMO, motion should be fastest to represent high speeds. I see things passing me much more faster when I am in my car, with the same speed. If we don't have physic forces, we need something that points us when to brake (for example), naturally. This is the reason why many noobs have to learn driving "automatically" instead of "naturally". If you are entering a chicane at 100 Km/h and the sense of speed is 60, you will crash. This is why when I started, I used to watch the speedometer in order to brake, instead of "looking around"

Yeah, in real life you have cars in other lanes, road markings and all sorts of junk on the side of the road - pedestrians, parking meters, signs, lamp posts, windows, doors, rubbish bins, homeless people, etc... And it's all very close.

That's the point I'm trying to make. The speeds in the game seem correct, as far as pure numbers go, but since most tracks are so very wide and offer very little stationary reference, driving feels slower than it is. Hence why I propose narrower tracks.