I understand that GTRs are more exhilerating to drive, though their nature as downforce cars make balancing a very complicated issue indeed. Face it, the other 2 slower GTRs have weight ditributions and downforcr balance that are simply WAY too mismateched. At least the 4WD GTR car in this case does have the best tire package, though it suffers from serious weight ditribution to downforce balance mismatch issues. Oh, it also suffers from crippling lag. Well, it's the LAGGIEST car in LFS . 4WD is the drivetrain that thrives on torquey powerbands. Lack of torque is a SEVERE handicap. It suffers from an even worse case of an ultra narrow powerband tahn the RB4. The irony is, the FZ GTR has the BEST powerband of all the GTRs! It's excellent mid range and high end are ideal for circuit racing. If the current base engine is to be maintained, the FXO GTR must be modified to reduce lag. The least that can be done is to use any of the 2 methods to reduce or eliminate lag:

a)Twin sequential turbos
b)Variable vane turbo chargers

As long as the powerband represents what those 2 factors could do to relieve lag and improve torque curves, the FXO GTR should suffer much less from slow corner exits.

Lets focus on the TBO class where aero is insignificant (no real downforce or significant lift, at least they should be ), so the only significant variables left to tweak are powerbands and tire grip. Slight aero tweaks might be used for tweaking top speeds, though for now I believe the best option is to solve power and mechanical grip issues.

Quote from Jamexing :

Well, it's the LAGGIEST car in LFS .

In fact, the RAC is the laggiest car in LFS by significant margin.

Once the issues with boost modelling are corrected then is the time to talk of ways to improve torque curves, since proper turbocharger modelling will greatly change the behaviour of all applicable vehicles.

http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=4324

I agree with BBT, get the boost modeled correctly and torque number "should" increase, then worry about powerbands. The turbo's in LFS just don't feel right to me.

Yes, you're right, maybe much parts of the problems are due to turbo model. I don't have much experience, but i've got a turbocar (Fiat croma 2000T 150hp with turbo @0.5bar) and it pushes far more harder than TBO class cars which have lot more bhps..

Quote from J_Matrix :

Yes, you're right, maybe much parts of the problems are due to turbo model. I don't have much experience, but i've got a turbocar (Fiat croma 2000T 150hp with turbo @0.5bar) and it pushes far more harder than TBO class cars which have lot more bhps..

Easiest way to cure turbo lag is to replace the engine with a V8 no lag plenty of power and torque and a decent sound, forget open wheel crap, and slotting a bent 8 into the LX series, give us tin top v8s

When I say that I mean make three V8 powered versions of the GTR class to give us a choice and make them very close in performance and handling, it would be great to pit a XRR 8 against the XRR turbo, each would have differences in handling, braking, tyre wear etc.

We don't need more individual car types why not utilize what we have in terms of car shapes and models to save Eric a lot of work and seriously put forward a different comparible engine change without buying an engine in garage thingy?

Just a idea

Seeing as we've lost the AWD plot totally, I think some more variety from 4 bangers in LFS would be great. 3x 6s and 2x 8s doesn't make up for 14x 4s. The LFS sound engine is very versatile, it's a shame we don't get enough variety.

Bob I agree with that for sure. NO reason not to include V6s, V10s, V12s, I5s and whatnot. Would still like to see the turbo modelling evolve, and maybe apply it to the odd V6 or I6.

I agree about the turbo modelling issue. IRL, even the EVO VIII's high pressure turbo (20+psi!) fully spools much faster tha nthe LFS TBO turbos. As if we've got a MASSIVE exhaust wheels and a TINY intake turbines.

By the way, the RAC is surprisingly lag free (for a LFS car). It's powerband is definitely wider than the TBOs and especially the FXO GTR.

Quote from ShannonN :

Easiest way to cure turbo lag is to replace the engine with a V8 no lag plenty of power and torque and a decent sound, forget open wheel crap, and slotting a bent 8 into the LX series, give us tin top v8s

When I say that I mean make three V8 powered versions of the GTR class to give us a choice and make them very close in performance and handling, it would be great to pit a XRR 8 against the XRR turbo, each would have differences in handling, braking, tyre wear etc.

We don't need more individual car types why not utilize what we have in terms of car shapes and models to save Eric a lot of work and seriously put forward a different comparible engine change without buying an engine in garage thingy?

Just a idea

Yep, (sorry Jamexing we're adding some GTR speaking here too), i do believe that current GTR aren't really "GTRs". They have a more comparable class in DTM racecars that, casually, use to have similar bhps but using way more handful V8's (that won't cause turbolags and such).
I Even think (apart certain examples given by many rallycars) that currently a 2000cc with 450hp is quite fragile and a little bit pushed to its limits.. 4I2000s with 450hp sounds more like an extremely tuned-up "normal" roadcar engine. I guess that in reality such an engine should be completely revisoned/remade at each race..

Back to TBO engines they appear to me more "realistic", but as we already stated, the problem may be solved once turbo model gets improved (substituting GTR with v8 engines sounds good, v8s on TBO class it's somewhat interesting but a little bit exaggerated ).

Quote from Bob Smith :

Seeing as we've lost the AWD plot totally, I think some more variety from 4 bangers in LFS would be great. 3x 6s and 2x 8s doesn't make up for 14x 4s. The LFS sound engine is very versatile, it's a shame we don't get enough variety.

You're right. We are still missing inline 5 and 6, v6-10-12 (thankfully we've got 4c and 6c boxer engines that i LOVE ). I anyway think it's impossible that devs are not going to add many more cars in future release (S3 speaking, we miss real "GTR" classes, such as Maserati MC12, as well as LMP classes.. and that's just an example, there are still many things to fill )

Quote from Jamexing :

By the way, the RAC is surprisingly lag free (for a LFS car). It's powerband is definitely wider than the TBOs and especially the FXO GTR.

When I speak of lag, I use the term for the lack of ability to build pressure in a reasonable timeframe.

No car in LFS suffers from this as badly as the RAC, even though it's max boost pressure is relatively low it takes eons plus a day to even think about reaching a boost level anywhere near maximum.

Quote from J_Matrix :

You're right. We are still missing inline 5 and 6, v6-10-12

LX6?

FYI, there is a special version of the Lancer Evolution sold in UK known as the FQ400. 400bhp, nuf said. And yes, its still the same old 2.0L 4G63. Comes with 3 year factory waranty. Will never fail for no good reason as long as you're strict with the regular service (5000km oil and filter changes). Well, it also a fair bit of lag below 4500rpm, though it revs much harder than that FXO GTR engine (7500rpm!). Honestly, I can't believe that such highly tuned 490bhp engines could have such pathetic top end power. No point revving beyond 6500rpm for that engine.

Seriously, I don't mind an extra 10kg of frontal weight on the FXO GTR if it was uprated to 2.5L with the same peak power/torque but a much broader torque curve.

Anyway, this thread is mainly concerned with the RB4 and XRGTT class cars. I just wish there's hope for my suggested changes on the next patch upgrade.

Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :

LX6?

"AHEM" (lol, don't mind me, that thing is something i don't like that much so i forgot about it )

More seriously, I'd like to see more than just 1 car with such an engine (as well as with many other engines we still miss.. as Bob said we've got way too many 4cyls)

@Jamexing: yes, you started this trhead mainly for this, but remind that AWD's are not only TBO class. I'm sorrry if discussion diverted a bit about GTRs, i'd love to race with better TBO class as we already said without nerfing FXO. I anyway guess that in next patch we won't be having great changes in cars, we'll have to wait more updates (and more time i think )

I'm just concentrating on TBO class cars because of less isgnificant variables to deal with.

It's been pretty quite for a while here. Anyway, now to our main plot.

I was wondering how many (serious) LFS players would like the changes that I've suggested for the RB4 and XR GTT for the TBO class cars. Please vote if you agree/disagree with the following tweaks that I've suggested so far:

1. Revised and improved powerbands, especially for mid range and top end power for RB4 and XR GTT. Suggested specs are 250hp@6500 and 330nm@3500, the aim being to achieve a much broader and flatter torque curve. This benefits both the RB4's tractive capabilities and the XRT GTT's throttle steerability as well as their acceleration. Top speed would see a tiny increase, as top speed grows by the cube root of power.

2. A larger, wider and thus, grippier tire package for the RB4. This is to compensate for the fact that the GXO is currently VERY overtired. A small incrase in tire size and grip for the XR GTT would be implemented if required.

3. All other variables remain unchanged.

The aim is to realistically depict the benefits and weaknesses of each drivetrain well and provide for much better performance balance and racing for the TBO class.

PLEASE cast serious votes. Thank you for your honest and serious opinions.

hmmm sounds like somone likes DSM's and just wants the RB4 to be more like an evo

i personaly love the rb4 and i think it needs an upgrade for S2. Wider tires and a little suspention tuning would be just fine. as for modifiying cars, no fun, it would be just like Need for speed, everyone would upgrade to the highest setting making everything the same, but i do belive we should be able to change wheels and have multiple exhaust sounds for each car and being able to switch between them. just like changing the muffler on a real car. everyone must remember and important fact these are not real cars and are not lisenced, they may look like some production cars out and about today but are not! so its pointless to compare them to real cars. i think it would be a great idea to give the entire TBO class a small upgrade, and hell why not the Gti while were at it?

just my 2 cents

Let me stress that there was no SERIOUS suggestion for a modification system in LFS for the TBO class. There is NO intention to suggest a NFS:U mod system. The REAL issue is to upgrade the currently misrepresented cars. And the excuse of showing performance sub par of similiar real life examples is inexcusable. Not having an officially licensed set of cars does NOT mean that poor representations of each drivetrain can go unnoticed.

To be absolutely honest, LFS has actually lost quite a few licensed drivers due to a poorly done TBO class. An overtired FXO FWD car completely obliterating the lap times of RB4 and XR GTT? Isn't this supposed to be the same class? And why cripple the performance of RWD and 4WD with poor powerbands while unfairly favouring the FWD with a powerful and peaky engine which is ideal for it? It just doesn't make sense. And lets just say we've lost a few LFS licensed players because of their negative test game experiences. Most of them complain about relatively poor 4WD(RB4) performance as well and some complain about poor XR GTT powerband problems as well.

The post on p3 #90 are just some reasonable suggestions on correcting the fact that XR GTT and RB4 are currently too slow for their class. Besides, who's going to bother to master the XR GTT if rear wheel dive make for a more challenging drive, only to see that your efforts are in vain as a ridiculously fast FWD (FXO) demolishes your lap/race times with ease? This goes a long way to explaining wht the 4WD and RWD cars in the TBO class are relatively neglected. Even with 50kg of extra weight, the XR GTT shouldn't trail the FXO so badly if the TBO cars are supposed to be one single class.

Last time I checked, the only game to have a FWD car completely OWN all other cars on alomst all tracks is the Initial D Arcade Stage Ver.2(the virtually INVINCIBLE DC2?). Last thing LFS needs is to be compared to some arcade game with pathetic (if any) physics.

My intention has always been o make LFS as realistic as possible and one crucial way to achieve that is to realistically depict peformance. When was the last time you drove a turbo engine as laggy as the RB4's? The RB4 is supposed to be a simulation of Celica GT4 style cars from the 80's. And none of them are known to lag as seriously IRL as their LFS counterpart. Try driving a real Mitsubishi Starion (RL version of XR GTT) and see if it lags anywhere as badly as the XR GTT. The last ultra laggy turbo production cars were from the 70's, when turbos were still relatively new. The 80's was supposed to be the Turbo Boon era, a time when turbo tech surged as quickly as current turbo diesel engine technology.

FYI, the Celica GT4 was practically the equivalent of a Lancer Evolution type vehicle in its day. And I don't remember the real GT4 being as piggy as RB4. Of course it lags a bit more than current EVO's, but it's 80's tech (not your titanium turbine Lancer EVO affair) and the stock turbos are not your typical hairdryer sized "ricer" units. There is simply no good and realistic excuse for the RB4's ultra narrow 1500rpm powerband. The pathetic top end feels as if someone installed a 1 inch crush bent mild steel exhasut system on it. Well, at least the LFS version has MUCH better suspension!

Ultimately, better performance balance within a class can only lead to better racing and more LFS sales.

That's why I'm taking this thread and the polls very seriously.

LFS is supposed to be a SERIOUS simulation after all.

Quote from Jamexing :

That's why I'm taking this thread and the polls very seriously.

Oh yes, yes you are. In my opinion, way too much actually.

We know, and Scawen knows, that the current designated classes are not perfectly balanced. I'm 100% sure he has fixing this somewhere on his todo list, the question is what priority it has, and that's completely his decision. Also, how he is going to fix that, is his decision.

I'm afraid your words are a bit wasted here, because to this thread there's not much else to say than "yes, I agree". You pretty much mentioned any alternative to increasing power to balance the classes, so what else to say? Posting the same solution over and over is not going to make Scawen use it immediately. Maybe he will take some hints of it, maybe he will go the easy way and simply change the power figure. Again, his decision.
This imbalance is a problem in LFS, but LFS has many problems and this is not the biggest one, so please, relax a bit.


In conclusion:
Please, take yourself, this thread and this issue a bit less serious.

Good point. Anyway, keep the quality votes rolling in. I really like to know the honest and sincere opinions of LFS players.

Regarding turbos and spool time: I have limited experience driving turbo cars. My car has a turbo, although it is a small one. It is currently set to produce about 1.4bar of peak boost. The boost comes on really quick if I am at anything over 3000rpm. The boost drop off relatively quickly as the little turbine can't deliver the volume of air it's being asked to. That means the car surges off the line, and pulls pretty evenly as the rpm increase. I have max torque at around 3500rpm. Having that powercurve in the RB4 would be awesome. BTW, my figures are 209hp(6300), 365Nm(3500). Bit weak for the class, but the powerband would feel better, I think.

So basically I'm saying I agree with jamexing, here..

Yep, that's pretty much it for real turbo cars. Your 1.4 bar turbo is actually on thehigh pressure side and rest assured, it's spooling really well. Your observation of great power beyond 3000rpm is pretty much the same for EVOs and Subaru STis as well, just they they rev harder. The lack of power below 3000rpm is perfectly normal for a car of your described specifications. Wish RB4 had such a nice powerband...

Anyway, a well made RB4 would be rally haven, at least until a proper rally pack comes out(hopefully).

Regarding the poll:
I do support changes to the TBO class to balance the cars, but I'd take different action to do so.
1. FXO recieves tyres of the same dimensions as the other two cars. Fair play.
2. RB4 and XRT remain unchanged until the turbo model improves. (Which will change the powerbands.)
3. The FXO recieves additional weight and slightly increased aero drag. The aim is to make the FXO highly effective on straights, but slightly inferior on acceleration and cornering speed. This should emphasize the good handling of the car and make it a competitive but easy to drive car.

Why I suggest the change of concept to the FXO? A car just can't be superior in acceleration, top speed, cornering speed and handling. Currently the car has no downside. Thus it needs a weak spot to balance it. Inferior corner speeds but superior straight line speed would fit the car nicely because it has a very newcomer-friendly handling and should thus have strenghts that support this trait.
Also I don't want to make the TBO class faster than it currently is. These cars are already very fast for cars of their type. For example the FXO is just 3 seconds slower on BL GP than a FZ5. I don't want the classes to get too close.

Vain

@Jamexing: I hope this hasn't been posted already, but did you try my rally stage yet?

(shameless self-plug, I know)

Actually, when you increase aero drag AND weight, you lose both straight line and cornering performance. That's why I didn't suggest such a change. Besides, the 2 other cars are already too slow for any areal driving pleasure. In case, you're wondering, the LFS version of a mini doesn't get my favour. The amount of times I've driven it now can be counted with one hand. It's just TOO SLOOOOW. Can't believe they killed the LX8 for this.

The TBO can use a slight speed up. Currently, the XR GTT and especially RB4 are just a bit too piggy. Better powerband solves both their problems, hence my recommendation. Keep the FXO as fast as it is because I have no intention of making it a pig to drive.

TBO cars are based on road cars with race mods such as faster steering ratios, modified springs and dampers. There're no OTT (Over The Top) mods such as hairdryer sized turbos for 500hp, just all the steering and suspension upgrades one would invest in IRL for a car with racing aspirations. They just lack weight reduction and roll cages to make them race legal. For cars so well built, they are just too slow. IRL, a well tuned 350hp Lancer Evolution has no significant problems keeping up with Porsche 911s on tarmac style rallies.

Oh, thanks for the rally tracks, Android XP. Would try them when I'm free.

Quote from Vain :

Regarding the poll:
I do support changes to the TBO class to balance the cars, but I'd take different action to do so.
1. FXO recieves tyres of the same dimensions as the other two cars. Fair play.
2. RB4 and XRT remain unchanged until the turbo model improves. (Which will change the powerbands.)
3. The FXO recieves additional weight and slightly increased aero drag. The aim is to make the FXO highly effective on straights, but slightly inferior on acceleration and cornering speed. This should emphasize the good handling of the car and make it a competitive but easy to drive car.

Why I suggest the change of concept to the FXO? A car just can't be superior in acceleration, top speed, cornering speed and handling. Currently the car has no downside. Thus it needs a weak spot to balance it. Inferior corner speeds but superior straight line speed would fit the car nicely because it has a very newcomer-friendly handling and should thus have strenghts that support this trait.
Also I don't want to make the TBO class faster than it currently is. These cars are already very fast for cars of their type. For example the FXO is just 3 seconds slower on BL GP than a FZ5. I don't want the classes to get too close.

Vain

Note BL is a relatively short track (less than a minute with BF1!). Note also that FZ25 isn't power or torque limited. It's grip limited, since it doesn't really corner MUCH faster than the TBO cars. So no surprise. Just like RL situations, tire grip (braking and accelerating) are much more important than brute force and straight line speed.

By the way, 3 seconds is a MASSIVE gap by racing standards.