I'll try to simplify what should be the order of things for the TBO class. The RB4 should be approximately 0.5 second faster per minute on average than the FXO. It should dominate the rallycross to accurately depict 4WD superiority for rally events.

The XRT should be approximately 0.3-0.4 second faster per lap than RB4 on average, with slightly graeter advantage for the higher speed tracks to accurately show the suitability of RWD for high speed circuits. Its lower weight and lesser drivetrain losses should be displayed with its dominance of high speed tracks. However, for shorter and more technical circuits, the RB4 should have a slight edge (0.2-0.3 seconds faster as a rough guide). This showcases the differing advantages and disadvantages of both layouts.

The FXO is already unusually devoid of typical FWD problems such as excessive front tire wear, so its not too disfranchised. The relative ease to drive it consistantly fast should make up for its slightly slower ultimate performance, especially for endurance races.

Please post some valid comments and opinions about this. I thank anyone who posts a serious and reasonable opinion on this.

Everybody knows what we need them to race like. It's just a question of how to achieve it.

I've just emailed the deveopers about my ideas on power band and tire size(grip) enhancements for the RB4 and XRT. However, I suggested that the FXO ramains as it to avoid the same downward fate of the XF, which is now depowered to a pig like level of slowness. I miss the exciting to drive XF from the older vesions of LFS2 alpha. If any more performance issues occur, we can simply tweak the performance parameters of the XRT and RB4 until the proper balance for the TBO class is reached. We've not even reached beta, so this shouldn't be a real problem. Hopefully, they'll tweak the balnce to near perfection once S2 is finished. If left untouched, things would simply remain as they are.

Quote from Jamexing :

as it to avoid the same downward fate of the XF, which is now depowered to a pig like level of slowness. I miss the exciting to drive XF from the older vesions of LFS2 alpha.

Just FYI, first the XFG was even slower than now, with the XRG beating it quite regularely. Then in S2A (or was it in a patch?), the HP of the XFG got increased, to what you know as the "exciting XF from older versions". But the devs kinda overcompensated and added too much, turning the tides around, so the XFG was now dominant.
The latest patch just tried to correct that error again, putting it on the middle ground between the original and its fastest incarnation.

You have to realise, especially over such a long period of development, you cannot always make the *other* cars in a class faster to balance them, because by only doing so you'd end up with completely different cars than you first intended after a while.

Honestly, none of those 2 are anywhere fast enough to challenge the turbo road cars, so that is a relative non-issue. The gap between a the LX6 and GTR cars to the TBO cars is still massive, so is again a non-issue. There is no danger of a clash bertween the classes at all at this point. If i remember correctly, the XF lost a massive 10hp. Another overcompensation indeed. Don't make the XF ridiculously fast. Just fast enough to have some decent fun. The XR just feels too lazy at the moment, so a slight speedup wouldn't threaten the proper order of things. I believed we would be much closer to ideal balance if the XF power was adjusted in smaller increments (say 5hp) instead of the almost 10%. Don't worry, those 2 aren't anywhere near the turbo cars.

As for XRT and RB4, a 250hp Rb4 and 260hp XRT would't come close to the LX6 interms of sheer laptime anyway.

I was not speaking of class mixing here

The point was not to "make the XFG fast to be fun" or "slow to be not fun", but rather it was to balance the XFG/XRG class, so both choices would yield an somewhat equal chance of winning.

That's why its worth the bother to tweak the cars until they are reasonably balanced. Being an excellent sim that LFS strives to be, realism should always be the first priority, so cars of the same class but radically different drivetrains should NEVER be too equal. Its LFS, not NASCAR after all. The same arguments I lend to the turbo road cars apply here. To be realistically fair, XRT shuld have a SLIGHT overall edge on tarmac whilst the FF should have the edge on mixed surfaces (Rallycross) to show the stability benefits of FWD.

Absolute equality won't bring better racing. It'll just degenerate to boredom and mediocrity in the end. Why master RWD and FWD if both their strengths don't shine through?

Quote :

...whilst the FF should have the edge on mixed surfaces (Rallycross) to show the stability benefits of FWD....

you know that there are that few RWD rallycross cars because in most classes you need homoligated cars? there are just no homoligated RWD cars! except the little BMW (which isn't a good choice).

in classes where non-homoligated cars are allowed RWDs are as competetive as FWDs.

try the XRT and after that the FXO at blackwood rx. you will see that the fxo is far more stable, but with some experience (and a fair weight/power ratio) a XRT Driver definately can beat the FXO.

unfortunately the unfair advantage of the FXO is known since the first good setups in S1. unfortunately the devs chose to ignore this.

I fully understand your frustration with the amazing FWD FXO. The point of FWD stability is that its easier to pick up (especially for noobs) and its easier to drive consistantly fast without as much attetion as RWD. Of course, since XF and XR don't seriously overpower their tire's tractive capabilities, XRr will never suffer too much from excess rear wheelspin (unless you drive the same way you do in NFS:U ). The XR will be the slightly more difficult choice, but the reward will be ultimate speed. If races grow long, the FWD XF has its consistancy and ease of driving trump card as well(it just takes less concentration to drive and is a bit more forgiving). So overall, both have a hope to win.

honestly i don't know what you are talking about. the XR and the XF seem to be quiet balanced right now. you are mixing everything here.

are you talking about hardtrack or rallycross? in rallycross the XR will never be able to beat the XF, because of it's weight.

on hardtracks both cars are noobproof to drive and equally fast.

Please don't talk about "the XF" or "the XR", because there are no such cars in LFS. There're the XFG, XRG, XRT, XFR and XRR in LFS. So please call them by their abbrevation or name. That will avoid confusion.

Vain

The point here is that devs think to mantain radical differences between cars in the same class (and it's quite obvious that 4WD is different from FWD and from RWD).. but my point here is that a player should be in condition to choose freely a car of the same class and have equal possibilities to lap/race/win/have fun with the car chosen. Actually when you enter a TBO server you get owned by FXOs as well as into a GTR server you get owned by FZRs.
If devs (which have MY ABSOLUTE RESPECT AND GRATITUDE -don't think i hate them or anything similar ) plan to keep current balance i would like more to have a each car classified apart from another one and not sum them up as they are now.. Anyway as someone else stated here, we're still on alpha stage, so things may change a lot in future..

Quote from Vain :

Please don't talk about "the XF" or "the XR", because there are no such cars in LFS. There're the XFG, XRG, XRT, XFR and XRR in LFS. So please call them by their abbrevation or name. That will avoid confusion.

Vain

sorry about that. i forgot that there are new racers (like you) who aren't used to the original names of the cars.

Well I seemed to have gotten a bit off topic. Lets stick to discussions about the 3 Turbo road cars as well. Well, at least we're lucky that developers are relatively easy to contact. Another reason why I don't play arcady NFS:U. NFS:PU was really nice and remarkably sim for its time but then again it suffered the fate of poor sales. Obviously, most NFS players are too far removed from automotive reality and prefer arcady "fun" above all else.

At least those 2 non-turbo road cars aren't my first choice and they are not TOO far away, like the almost complete ownage of FXO. At least the RB4 has the refuge of rallycross most of the time. Poor "Mitsubishi Starion" (XR GTT), nowhere close to its real life glory. Unfortunately, rallycross remains the most underplayed sector of LFS. So much for 4WD advantages. Well, there's always the next patch.

LFS is still evolving and so far it has only gone better overall. Oh, IRL 4WD and AWD are practically the same. A car only has 4 wheels, so AWD==4WD. Don't fall for the marketing hype of AWD!=4WD.

AWD = All-wheel drive
4WD = 4 wheel drive

As long as the drivetrain sends power to all 4 wheels, its 4WD.

I can't think of any good reason not to have, for the sake of fair competition, a few (3 as it is) classes with at least a few different cars in each as opposed to something like 10 different one-make classes, if the classes as they are now will eventually be properly evened out.
An old VW beetle or Fiat 500 RR would complement the UF nicely and make all 3 classes diverse affairs.

Slowing down faster cars in case of inequality is not as fun as speeding up the slower ones.. like Jamexing said, don't nerf the FXO, beef up the other two just enough.

The FXO's locked diff not ripping itself to pieces is just like undertray vacuum not being modeled yet, because it's a relatively small improvement at a large cost in development time, like Tristan says.

5 gears is plenty for the TBOs, where else are you going to put 5-ratio gearboxes? It's a corny limitation of RL road-oriented production cars that's specific of this level (in terms of LFS' car classes) of overall perfomance. They're not homologation specials.

I don't think posts about class balance or tire physics accuracy, or 4WD deficiency need to be restricted in length, so long as there's something to discuss: it's free distributed brainstorming for Scawen and co.

If TBO balancing is as simple an issue as it seems to be, the devs probably have a good reason not to apply a fix already.

I'm glad someone is starting to REALLY understand my true intentions for this thread. We're lucky that LFS puts its players in the thick of its development.

LFS is like top shelf wine... only gets better with the paasage of time.

Yep, there're only a few games made like this, nice and slow, by surefooted devs with a fair share of common sense as opposed to publishing Co. bitches spitting out quantity over quality
(if you'll pardon my french)

Excellent physics engine:check
Decent graphics without the need for 1000$ video cards:check
Relatively simplified but hopeful aero simulation:check
Excellent developer and player communication:check
Reasonable price for a full license:check
Realism over arcady "fun":check
............

Well, LFS is fundamentally quite close to completion in many ways. Only essential details like exact car performance need fine tuning. The less essential dressups (better graphics, sound, etc) can wait for S3 as far as I am concerned.

No, we don not have a need for speed. We LIVE FOR SPEED!

Hi guys! New ideas to improve the RB4 and XR GTT would be nice, as long as it doesn't include nerfing the FXO. So far my main suggestions were powerband upgrades for the RB4 and XR GTT and larger, stickier tires for the RB4 and maybe slight tire upgrades fo the XR GTT if required.

Any valid suggestions would be nice, as long as it doesn.t involve something silly (like 100% power upgrades ).

I'd suggest a 95% power upgrade.

Very funny. 243 x 1.95 = 474hp. Might as well make a new class (LFS equivalent of group B). So much for the dream for realistic depictions of cars within their class...

Again, any good suggestions are welcome.

LOL

Pretty certain he was just being silly my friend, this forum isn't 100% serious (thankfully)

Well no, it's 95% serious.

Seriously, I don't mind a few jokes now and then (LFS is about both serious simulation AND the fun of racing). But it'll be nice if someone could come up with better suggestions to improve the order of things in the TBO calss, which has remained pretty much unchanged over the past few patches.

The valid suggestions that now exist are improvements in XR GTT and RB4 powerbands with slight peak power and torque increases while slightly improving the tire package for RB4 and maybe XRGTT as well if necessary. Any good suggestion to improve realism and balance is suggested, as long as that not involve significantly nerfing FXO. I'm just tired of this FXO>>>XRGTT and RB4 on ALL tarmac circuit order of things. It's just that the other 2 aren't well done enough to show their strengths (especially RB4) while the FXO is unusually devoid of RL FWD issues. Not even front tire wear issues! Wow.

Certainly i don't want to see FXO or (I'm more concerned about GTRs too) FZR nerfed.. As I already said all cars should have equal (or at least near) potential, you may find one car expecially useful on certain tracks and slower on other ones, but you can't take 5 to 12 km/h of gap on the straight, you'll never keep up an FZR with an FXR with such differences.. I guess the suggestions already pointed out may help a lot in improving these cars to reach (or get nearer) to the FXO.