Quote from tiagox :

you mean about the videos on youtube in game convencions rigth ?

No that video I referred to is from a Rockingham track day at the circuit itself last year.

I dont understand why its good enough to use it there but not "here"

Quote from edge3147 :

1.4 Improvements, fixes and/or changes made to the game, are to be expected.

With it being labeled as S1 content, I technically have paid for it as I am S2 licensed.

Improvemention, fixes and changes are coming up this or next week. You do follow the test patch thread do you?

Quote from edge3147 :

...I am just suggesting that the devs do a small content update sooner rather than later and build up some fanfare for LFS.

You're not 'suggesting' it, you're beating it to death, and definitely not in a "calm and respectful fashion" either.

Quote from col :

You're not 'suggesting' it, you're beating it to death, and definitely not in a "calm and respectful fashion" either.

As is everyone else, chill out. If you don't like what I have to say, ignore it.

Quote from cargame.nl :

I dont understand why its good enough to use it there but not "here"

Simple, Eric just doesn't give flying duck (I suppose from his interaction with the community)

Quote from cargame.nl :

No that video I referred to is from a Rockingham track day at the circuit itself last year.

I dont understand why its good enough to use it there but not "here"


Improvemention, fixes and changes are coming up this or next week. You do follow the test patch thread do you?

you mean this one ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... 4MoTA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... YvbFs&feature=related

Quote from cargame.nl :

I dont understand why its good enough to use it there but not "here"

I expect that they were obliged by some sort of contractual agreement to have a version ready for use at the circuit in exchange for the rights to use the track in the game.
Anyway, fine details and technical subtleties aren't as important for a simulator at an event compared to a public LFS release where people can spend hundreds of hours honing lines and setups in their own homes. Weaknesses in the physics would not be so obvious.

Quote from col :

I expect that they were obliged by some sort of contractual agreement to have a version ready for use at the circuit in exchange for the rights to use the track in the game.

If that was if fact the case, then I'm sure that reason would have come up sometime in the last few years. This debate over content release has been soooooo long running, it doesn't really lend itself to such a situation.

Zero reason, other than needing to wait for physics has been given. Then Scawen later stated, he's not holding back Eric from content releases.

Quote from col :

Anyway, fine details and technical subtleties aren't as important for a simulator at an event compared to a public LFS release where people can spend hundreds of hours honing lines and setups in their own homes. Weaknesses in the physics would not be so obvious.

The "Content Whiners" are asking for a track release, not real cars. What possible reason is there not to release the track, given the posted videos.

I would say there's much more to this than the community knows. Scawen hasn't really ever been completely frank with the community about LFS development especially around content. He has posted a lot of detail about his work, difficulties and motivational problems etc, but he's conveniently skips around about why the community has been starved of content.

It would be nice to hear from Eric, as this his domain, but he chooses to be a silent participant in these forums. As Scawen is closest with the community it would seems reasonable that he can explain why, in Eric's absence.

Quote from Macfox :

If that was if fact the case, then I'm sure that reason would have come up sometime in the last few years. This debate over content release has been soooooo long running, it doesn't really lend itself to such a situation.

Zero reason, other than needing to wait for physics has been given. Then Scawen later stated, he's not holding back Eric from content releases.



The "Content Whiners" are asking for a track release, not real cars. What possible reason is there not to release the track, given the posted videos.

I would say there's much more to this than the community knows. Scawen hasn't really ever been completely frank with the community about LFS development especially around content. He has posted a lot of detail about his work, difficulties and motivational problems etc, but he's conveniently skips around about why the community has been starved of content.

It would be nice to hear from Eric, as this his domain, but he chooses to be a silent participant in these forums. As Scawen is closest with the community it would seems reasonable that he can explain why, in Eric's absence.

All You Just Said is all right and tranfers what al s2 and s1 drivers think.

Macfox, what ur saying is true. Only sad part is that Scawen nor Eric and Victor cares about yours or anyone elses input/opinon.

Track releases shouldn't be affected by the tyre physics, as it has nothing to do with it.
Not to mention releasing an updated high-res standard for the game, there's plenty of good souls in this community that deserves to be hired to be part of the game developing. But i guess, since they can have it for free, why should they..

LFS wouldn't be anything without it's love-caring community, true facts.

Quote from NovaK :

Only sad part is that Scawen nor Eric and Victor cares about yours or anyone elses input/opinon.

not true...

At least today you don't see anyone going "hurrrr they can't do ANYTHING, even the smallest content release/info post to appease us cuz it takes vital time from development!!11!"

It's ridiculous, going for months at a time without a single word from any developer, being starved of any meaningful content for years. I've been looking at old news and posts for nostalgia's sake, and it's pretty baffling seeing the tyre physics announced in 2009...

I recall having a developer in charge of content, yet everything is put aside just for the development of those physics. Was the almost complete death of the game and playerbase a good exchange for all that development time?

Any other game in another genre would be long forgotten, but racing sims are not common and the playerbase has little choice, so they stick around.

Anyway, yeah, beating a dead horse, but until the horse is resurrected there's nothing else that can be done. Lesson learned though, not buying the S3 license until all the content is released upfront and it's amount is satisfactory.

Quote from Macfox :

...The "Content Whiners" are asking for a track release, not real cars. What possible reason is there not to release the track, given the posted videos.

The reason seems clear to me.

Real cars at a real track in LFS will highlight any areas where the physics are not real enough. If times are way off real world times, then it's not good enough for release.
LFS is about simulation and realism. If you value content over realism, play something else. That goes for the guys who +1'd your post as well. You guys obviously don't get what LFS is about.

You're like a girl that goes out with a guy, then spends the whole time trying to change him into someone else

Quote from col :

You're like a girl that goes out with a guy, then spends the whole time trying to change him into someone else

Just like male/female relationships, the producer/consumer relationship need to have lots of open and supportive communication. We as the consumers have been given a very bland explanation of the status of the tire physics update. Who cares if the report would be filled with technical jargon and data. That's what LFS is about, the technical aspects of racing and the physics of it. Please help us learn more about the very in-depth physics that is involved with this simulation and give us a detailed report. I would love to see some data and other technical information regarding the subject.

Quote from cargame.nl :

It probably is better in general to release small updates from time to time then one larger one and very long silences after that. Always been a success in the booming years of LFS so incompatible patch after incompatible patch doesn't matter much. This test patch release also shows that server admins are generally very fast in following new situations so why wait that long. The power of immediate perfectionism is very strong here, bit too strong.

Can't agree anymore. And that comes from the most popular racer server so that should give credibility to his theory.

Quote from col :

LFS is about simulation and realism. If you value content over realism, play something else.

True.. But what do we now have? Fictional cars (some exceptions), fictional tire physics, unrealistic weather conditions (its daytime 24 hours a day, I don't know any solar system which is capable of doing that) .. And fictional tracks.

I don't see the problem to make at least something non fictional.

Quote from col :

The reason seems clear to me.

Real cars at a real track in LFS will highlight any areas where the physics are not real enough. If times are way off real world times, then it's not good enough for release.
LFS is about simulation and realism. If you value content over realism, play something else. That goes for the guys who +1'd your post as well. You guys obviously don't get what LFS is about.

You're like a girl that goes out with a guy, then spends the whole time trying to change him into someone else

You'd have point if there were real cars. But there isn't. The fact is that you can indefinitely aspire to get a close to real as possible. Scawen could model the tire right down to the quantum level and times could we still way off, because at some point you have to make assumptions/simplify the model to fit within the processing power.

Given you've been around for some time, you too should well know LFS only models a fraction of physical world. There's a plethora of other physical world factors (car/world) that will influence lap times that aren't modelled. Sure friction is a critical component, but it has more to do with how the car behaves in a realistic fashion, rather than than lap times, which will work itself out as the LFS model get more detailed.

BTW Nice fail with the funny analogy. Perhaps draw on you early memories of LFS (rather than your past relationships) and it's quite obvious to see it's LFS that has largely changed, not the community.

While on the topic of physics, these guys (another small team) have achieved some remarkable results using CryEngine as a gfx basis and their own physics middleware. Imagine both teams joining.

http://www.beamng.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JPDtDfxf6w

Quote from edge3147 :

I would love to see some data and other technical information regarding the subject.

Scawen already gave a statement to this request. Basically, if you wanna know, go study it, which is what he did over the last years and there is no point writing an essay about it.

PS.@ Macfox, it sure looks fantastic, but this also looks like it needs a lot of cpu power.

Quote from JazzOn :

PS.@ Macfox, it sure looks fantastic, but this also looks like it needs a lot of cpu power.

From what I can find it was run on a dual core and wasn't using any GPU assisted physics acceleration (PhysX). Not bad really. I think the plan is to make it HW independent.

Quote from Macfox :

You'd have point if there were real cars. But there isn't.

eh?
Formula BMW, BF1, Raceabout, Scirocco and MRT5 are 'real'.
LX4, XRT & UF1000 are clones of real cars with the names changed.

Quote :

Sure friction is a critical component, but it has more to do with how the car behaves in a realistic fashion, rather than than lap times, which will work itself out as the LFS model get more detailed.

Yes, dynamic track surface would be my priority if I was developing LFS.
However, Scawen will have an opinion about how much difference from reality is acceptable within his LFS 'philosophy'. His opinions about design priorities are what has made LFS so good. So why do so many people here think they know better?

Quote :

BTW Nice fail with the funny analogy.

The analogy is to help you understand what I think, not to make you agree.

Quote :

Perhaps draw on you early memories of LFS (rather than your past relationships) and it's quite obvious to see it's LFS that has largely changed, not the community.

LFS hasn't changed much really. Development has inevitably been slowing steadily since the start due to the rule of diminishing returns. The biggest change is the approach to the community, and that is as a reaction to the ridiculous attitude that has developed in the community as it has changed over the years - so many opinionated ego-maniacs who think they know better than the devs, and endlessly spout their 'wisdom' while making their endless demands and threats.

Quote from NovaK :

Track releases shouldn't be affected by the tyre physics, as it has nothing to do with it.

How do you know this? Perhaps there is a relationship between track surface and tyres that Scawen is exploring at this very moment? If you think again, I think you will agree that track surfaces has a great impact on how tyres behave?

Quote from NovaK :

Not to mention releasing an updated high-res standard for the game, there's plenty of good souls in this community that deserves to be hired to be part of the game developing.

Could you please name the bunch that "deserves" to be part of the development team? It would be interesting to hear the motivation for this statement and review their accomplishments in relation to LFS development. Perhaps you should recommend these "souls" on the basis of their tremendous contribution to the internet racing community? :fluffy:

Quote from NovaK :

LFS wouldn't be anything without it's love-caring community, true facts.

LFS would still be LFS, don't see where you're getting at here. Sure, the revenue has helped further development and the public love for the game keeps us all happy with unprecedented exitment. It's like saying a beautiful red apple is nothing without somebody of us eating it. If we choose not to eat it, it's still an apple . Somehow it sounds like you have got it all backwards. We have nothing to do with what LFS is! It has been programmed by 3 brilliant individuals, not us!

Quote from col :

So why do so many people here think they know better?

It's not particularly 'knowing better', it's just that unicorns do not exist. Tire physics in the end is just a part in the whole of car handling / characteristics and I think you cannot simulate it properly with basic hardware.

So you need to make compromises. Something which cannot be discussed, it seems.

Quote from Macfox :

There's a plethora of other physical world factors (car/world) that will influence lap times that aren't modelled. Sure friction is a critical component, but it has more to do with how the car behaves in a realistic fashion, rather than than lap times, which will work itself out as the LFS model get more detailed.

Think about this in a bit more detail:

Take a real car at a real track where a significant number of laps have been driven in different conditions by expert drivers (e.g. scirocco/rockingham), and you can assume that the lap record has been driven at close to ideal conditions - where dirt, heat, weather, track surface variation, humidity etc. are all pretty close to optimum.
LFS without dynamic track conditions, weather and other details, should be producing times very close to this lap record, otherwise there is something wrong that needs fixing.
As these features are added to LFS average lap times should go up, but the lap records should still be very close to the times possible before the realism upgrades.
One could also argue that a driver in the real world should have an advantage due to better seat-of-the-pants feedback that's not available in a sim, and as a result should be able to beat the sim lap record. This effect should easily make up for any slight advantage the 'perfect conditions' of LFS give us.

Quote from cargame.nl :

It's not particularly 'knowing better', it's just that unicorns do not exist. Tire physics in the end is just a part in the whole of car handling / characteristics and I think you cannot simulate it properly with basic hardware.

So you need to make compromises. Something which cannot be discussed, it seems.

Of course design compromises are necessary - as with any engineering project. But I trust Scawen to make better choices about which compromises to make than me, you, or anyone else here. LFS is proof of his ability - I'll be happy to accept alternative opinions if they're backed up with some similar tangible proof of expertise.

It's not about Unicorn hunting, it's about respect where it's due and being mature enough to accept the approach of someone who knows way more than than us about how to build a great racing sim. Sure, he makes mistakes sometimes, every approach to software development has weaknesses, but in this case they are vastly outweighed by the strengths.

Quote from Ingolf :

LFS would still be LFS, don't see where you're getting at here. Sure, the revenue has helped further development and the public love for the game keeps us all happy with unprecedented exitment. It's like saying a beautiful red apple is nothing without somebody of us eating it. If we choose not to eat it, it's still an apple . Somehow it sounds like you have got it all backwards. We have nothing to do with what LFS is! It has been programmed by 3 brilliant individuals, not us!

I guess by that logic they should just give it away for nothing.

Revenue is fundamental LFS and linked explicitly with the community. Concluding the devs could somehow work on this project for 12+ years without it, is quite frankly ridiculous.

Quote from cargame.nl :

It's not particularly 'knowing better', it's just that unicorns do not exist. Tire physics in the end is just a part in the whole of car handling / characteristics and I think you cannot simulate it properly with basic hardware.

So you need to make compromises. Something which cannot be discussed, it seems.

A very good point.