I dunno. The thought didn't occur to me until recently. But just what is harder to make in this game? A track? or a car?

Well in fictional terms, they are both difficult to make because of the design trial and error process.

Real cars and tracks are easier and quicker to make because they've already been designed by someone else. All the artist has to do is copy what they see.

Tracks take much longer to make than cars wether they're fictional or not.

Hope that helps.

indeed tracks looks like to take time to be well done
Maybe Racer Y was including the physics part into the time taken into account when asking about the global time to spend on each (but as far as I understand how LFS seems to behave, the physics are not typical for each car, but something a bit more global ... but again, its only imo)

Hope Fern Bay is going well dear Eric

Quote from Flotch :

indeed tracks looks like to take time to be well done
Maybe Racer Y was including the physics part into the time taken into account when asking about the global time to spend on each (but as far as I understand how LFS seems to behave, the physics are not typical for each car, but something a bit more global ... but again, its only imo)

Hope Fern Bay is going well dear Eric

Yeah. I'm including everything from tire wear to tree lines. I mean in the most basic terms, it would be the track. All it would have to be was a simple circle. The car would be harder cause you'd have to make something to go around that circle. What i'm thinking of is more along the lines of comparing making South City to the formula v8. And Fern Bay? I hope they don't get rid of the quarter pipe.

Without taking into account the layout design, the amount of assets you have to model just to get close to modern standard make it a never ending project.

Environment design/building is definitively one of those area where you'd better work with a big team.

Quote from lfsrm :

Without taking into account the layout design, the amount of assets you have to model just to get close to modern standard make it a never ending project.

Environment design/building is definitively one of those area where you'd better work with a big team.

"Environment design/building is definitively one of those area where you'd better work with a big team." Uh I'm involved in these things all the time at a certain level. I'm currently involved with a "big team"project. And it's a total cluster. And you could say the same thing about coding the car - this guy figuring out the torque and that one the window tint. I dunno. I'm inclined to think track too. But the intricacies of the car?I have no real clue whatsoever as to how they make either one.

Quote from Racer Y :

"Environment design/building is definitively one of those area where you'd better work with a big team." Uh I'm involved in these things all the time at a certain level. I'm currently involved with a "big team"project. And it's a total cluster. And you could say the same thing about coding the car - this guy figuring out the torque and that one the window tint. I dunno. I'm inclined to think track too. But the intricacies of the car?I have no real clue whatsoever as to how they make either one.

I mean it's better if you have ten artists building assets at the same time than one, unless you are not constrained by deadlines, it doesn't have the same complex management as other area like core programming, which is a nightmare to coordinate.

I do agree about cars physics, it's generally a one person work if we only take into account the simracing genra, but it's totally possible to find persons who understand your work and know how to apply numbers ( well some actual physics devs started as modders ), I mean if you want to make a 200 cars racing sim you definitively don't want to work alone applying and testing data for all those cars.

Quote from lfsrm :

I mean it's better if you have ten artists building assets at the same time than one, unless you are not constrained by deadlines, it doesn't have the same complex management as other area like core programming, which is a nightmare to coordinate.

I do agree about cars physics, it's generally a one person work if we only take into account the simracing genra, but it's totally possible to find persons who understand your work and know how to apply numbers ( well some actual physics devs started as modders ), I mean if you want to make a 200 cars racing sim you definitively don't want to work alone applying and testing data for all those cars.

"I mean it's better if you have ten artists building assets at the same time than one, unless you are not constrained by deadlines,..."
Deadlines. That's the key there. Well that and who the ten artists involved are We're currently dealing with a project manager that seems to think they are exempt from deadlines.....
But I pretty much meant as in this particular game. One person. One track/car And every little everything involved in making of both..... Still leaning towards track though. Like with the track... you make turn one coming off a fairly long straight. You're gonna want to make that turn a decent radius. too tight and they waste half of the straight braking. too wide? well there are area limitations. That's along with knowing the limitations of rise on inclines and stuff like that. Then the car. All that goes into code in all the braking, roll over/understeer, downforce and so forth to be able to take that turn. Not to mention what goes into making all that look pretty, with determining the trees and wheels for either.

Quote from THE WIZARD DK :

Eric actually said a bit simular once :



i would have thought fictional tracks were easier to make .
because you design it yourself ,hence can decide whatever.
i didnt know you too were on black & white. now i do.
but as i never really seen this post before ,
maybe an update to marshalls in LFS with animation could be suggested?
go left (or right), he raises the arm as cars pass by, and lowers it while no cars in some distance from them?
that would also bring a little more life to tracks environments.
could go further even, to ambulance staff, lorry/truck staff etc.caravan people with a coffee table sitting watching the race.
and crowds could rise up and down with arms when passing by and sit down again when no cars around.
oh my. that sort of turned into a suggestion somehow. lfs player hacker tool, could maybe be updated by you aswell?
things mentioned here , i think people would take to them in a good way tbh.
maybe i should make that in suggestions, but i guess it will be noticed here.
take your time Eric. i for one am sure the time taken also makes it worth it. well thats my general idea with anything really. quality over quantity.

EDIT:
Landmass flatness. in some areas of LFS it seems to be out of scale with some things. (not that its important as such) , but it is visible with some things. example could be tirestacks. one tire would go to the knee of marshal , when on tire wall side flat on ground. ofc some tires are made this big, but if looking at uf1 tires, compared. theres actually a very visible difference in scale.another example i noticed is the wood fence in westhill.im aware its a barrier to closed areas,but they are as tall or maybe even taller than a car which seems unlikely irl. heres what i mean :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxhxL1LzKww

With real tracks you just go and laser scan them and that is the majority of the hard part done, the rest is laying textures

So the consensus is tracks are the hard part. I know one thing, I'd hate to have to make either one though. Even if it is just laser scanning a real race track. one thing I didn't take into account Not just designing the track, but designing how the track handles the effects of the cars. That's gotta suck figuring out the graphic for which car for skidmarks happening at once in corners.

OT: And here I am again browsing the LFS Forums every other month and suddenly seeing a quoted Post from Eric addressing me.

OK.... One of the reasons I came up with this question to begin with is because of a project I'm working on with my oldest grandkid. She's hooked on youtube videos with hot wheel car racing. Actually, they really are pretty cool. So we're trying to build a track from scratch. I went overboard with it of course and now have little formulas I use to determine where to cut the card board to get the correct angle and diameter for the cars to turn on.. Figuring all this out is a pain in the @ss and a lot of trial and error. Transitioning from a flat straight to a banked section is the pain of the moment. But it gives me some sort of clue as to what goes on when making say Westhill. But seeing that all I have for a car is a simple hotwheel, I try to gear the track to the limitations of the car. But I began to wonder what it must be like to figure out how to make a car work best on a track(s). It can't just be putting four wheels on a chassis with a pretty body in comparison. I dunno. Maybe the more complex the vehicle, the more complex the track...

Not sure what your angle is for comparing Hotwheels (on-rails-like?) tracks with sim development. Out of the two, a car is almost certainly easier to make than a track. The physics are already there and I'm guessing the technical aspect is much like certain tweak programs, only more in depth (suspension type and geometry, downforce). But the game even adjusts certain aspects automatically, like engine sound or the rev counter.

Quote from Racer Y :

But I began to wonder what it must be like to figure out how to make a car work best on a track(s).

That sounds like a setup issue, what do you mean?

Quote from 5tag :

That sounds like a setup issue, what do you mean?

yeah. It kinda does, but no I meant things like determining wheel base. and there's all those moving parts you have to take into account. Not to mention other stuff like determining downforce. In my case the track is way harder than making a car for it. oh and to be clear, this is a "fat track" we're making. one where there isn't a divider going down the middle of the track. so it's double the headache. The "cars" themselves are simple. I just know, that if I were to try and make a "working" car to run on this track it would be a nightmare. At least for me.

I still don't get the connection you wanted to draw here. LFS is a racing simulation. It simulates realistic tracks and cars. The wheel base, drivetrain layout etc. are inspired by real life counterparts, and some are even licensed copies. So the devs don't have to "re-invent the wheel", they look at the real thing and figure out how to build that in a program - just different enough as not to violate intellectual property law.

Now about the Hotwheels... those already exist, right? You don't have to make them, not at all. You can't even change wheel base etc.

What I'd like to see is a Hotwheels track in LFS, where you can complete a lap or point-to-point race without any steering input.

Quote from Racer Y :

Like with the track... you make turn one coming off a fairly long straight. You're gonna want to make that turn a decent radius. too tight and they waste half of the straight braking. too wide? well there are area limitations. That's along with knowing the limitations of rise on inclines and stuff like that.

This particular bit is a matter of perspective. If you're designing a stretch of public road, you want to make that as safe, pleasant and smooth as possible. However for a race track, you could come up with all kinds of weird shapes and inclines, and leave it to the drivers to figure out the fastest, most efficient ways to navigate them. Of course modern tracks avoid ridiculous sections (look at Hockenheim or Spa through the decades), and a fictional yet realistic sim tries to reflect the historic context. But essentially you could sell every track design flaw as part of the challenge.

Quote from 5tag :

I still don't get the connection you wanted to draw here. LFS is a racing simulation. It simulates realistic tracks and cars. The wheel base, drivetrain layout etc. are inspired by real life counterparts, and some are even licensed copies. So the devs don't have to "re-invent the wheel", they look at the real thing and figure out how to build that in a program - just different enough as not to violate intellectual property law.

Now about the Hotwheels... those already exist, right? You don't have to make them, not at all. You can't even change wheel base etc.

What I'd like to see is a Hotwheels track in LFS, where you can complete a lap or point-to-point race without any steering input.



This particular bit is a matter of perspective. If you're designing a stretch of public road, you want to make that as safe, pleasant and smooth as possible. However for a race track, you could come up with all kinds of weird shapes and inclines, and leave it to the drivers to figure out the fastest, most efficient ways to navigate them. Of course modern tracks avoid ridiculous sections (look at Hockenheim or Spa through the decades), and a fictional yet realistic sim tries to reflect the historic context. But essentially you could sell every track design flaw as part of the challenge.

Actually we were thinking of stealing cars from lfs and printing the bodies.... We looked into printing the track pieces, but the time it takes to print one little section, I can make a whole 180 degree banked turn out of a couple a pieces of cardboard in a fraction of the time. But we're gonna scrap the cardboard and use coroplast instead - corrugated plastic like what they make cheap yard signs out of.

"But essentially you could sell every track design flaw as part of the challenge."
That's where there's a difference. You have a flaw in our track and you'll have cars flying off the track or losing momentum.