I think that have the ability to change our fuel mapping would great for long distance races as it would increase the strategy involved in the races. I dont mind if the values are presets (ie set by the devs) or something we can tune ourselves.
i have same opinion on this with the cam adjustment.. small or large... i still think its an unadvantage for people that have no idea what they are doing
plus.. i dont think it would matter, cause on long distances.. im sure there would be required pitstops anyway, so you'd have to pit .. anyway..
People that have no idea can use the stock map, or cherrypick one off of someone else.
Perhaps you think we should drop setups completely, because they give those without a knowledge of chassis dynamics an "unadvantage"?
You've obviously been rendered clueless by watching American forms of "racing" that artificially level the field.
In real racing, pitstops aren't required by rule, but by circumstance. If you burn less fuel, you spend less time fueling in the pit, spend more time driving around the track with a lighter car, wear out your tires at a slower pace, or any combination of the above.
Even if a stop is required, the comments about carrying less around for faster laptimes and less tirewear are still valid.
Bizarrely, you think "push to pass" is a good idea, which is just another way of changing the amount of fuel the motor burns and produces energy with.
Its exactly the same concept, except "push to pass" doesn't require any knowledge at all, and only makes sense for turbocharged vehicles that can make loads more power for a short period, something not generally possible in NA applications.
Remember Papy's Indycar 2? Variable turbo boost knob, or was it microsoft kart? Dial in extra HP for a few laps at higher speed, or overtake someone, but only good stragegically if the race length means 2 or 3 pitstops minimum, to impose a reasonable pit-stop time penalty on those running with boost at 10 all the time.
Would be good to have if some risk of engine damage/overheating was also involved.
I'll humor you, while i'm not sure 'unadvantage' is even a word, it
would mean NOT having an advantage. What he's saying is that
LFS already has a lot of technical stuff and that adding more is only
pleasing the uber-hardcore simmers while a lot of others don't care
or understand and will be penalised for this. It could easily get 1337ist.
Yes. That's EXACTLY what he's saying is the 'pointless' part, and i agree.
Ok, let me turn my intelligent discussion meter down a few notches here.
There's no need to throw out the baby with the bath water. YOU are the
one saying we should throw out the setups, don't dumb this down.
Ok, now i can't go lower than 1 on my meter, so thats where i am.
This comment is as unintelligent as the message it tries to express.
Please don't be a d!k by insulting whole continents for no reason. Oh yeah,
i forgot, the reason is because one guy said something you disagree with,
all americans are idiots because some of them race in a way you disagree
with, what a reason. Btw, i'm canadian, for you people not too good in
geography, that's in america. In other words, i AM an american. Like i
read somewhere, it's not OUR fault they can't find a name for their
country, hehe (note: i tease them, but i'm not insulting them.)
The fact that some american racing chose to respect the fans, a concept
F1 has obviously no clue of, and offer them a closer more personal feel
is something that has no relation with this post imo. No oil on the fire please.
Bizarrely, you will explain this to yourself in the next sentence...
There. How you can not understand something, yet explain it perfectly after
is beyond me. You just explained how the difference with push-to-pass is that
it (P2P) doesn't require any knowledge THEREFORE it's available for everyone
to use PROPERLY. There's no setup for it, it just works. Hey, if you want a
button with 'HiPower FuelMap', THEN we'd have something to compare with
Why are you taking any of this personally anyways ?! It's a suggestion.
You suggested, the devs will/have read it and that's the important part,
no ? We have a right to express our opinion also. The fact that we are
having a discussion here is obviously a point that's being missed. No one
is attacking you so there's no need to attack others. If i'm misunderstanding
your intentions myself, then i'm sorry, but your post came out as very harsh
and angry. Chill. There will be many people to disagree with in your lifetime
better get used to it now Who knows, we might learn something from
each other.
By implying that performance altering settings changes put people at a disadvantage, one is also implying that the existing settings that do such are likewise a disadvantage to those who don't care to understand.
I'm glad it is that way. Keeps the kids away.
Perhaps you could drop your self importance for a moment and notice my location. Yup. Right here in uhmerryca.
"Respecting the fans" is a pleasant way of stating "sham showboat racing" and hardcore racing fans will never appreciate it.
Being that I am forced to endure hours of NASCAR coverage on Speed each week, I find it rather annoying when guys like XCNuse show up and no longer have the capability to comprehend racing in an unmolested format.
Since the majority of LFS patrons are likely bigtime race fans, and a majority are not from North America, I highly doubt anyone thinks a "green white checker" finish is appropriate for LFS. "Push to pass" is inappropriate for similar reasons. It has nothing to do with racing, and everything to do with selling television coverage.
If the car simulated should have the capability to change maps on the fly, then an implementation should consider that.
I'm not taking it personally. I just vehemently oppose turning LFS into an arcade game, or a simulation of "racing" in the modern North American tradition, which isn't racing at all.
Call me crazy, but I had a lot more fun watching the Canadian GP last summer than I did watching the NASCAR "race" at the Glen. I'd rather see a contest of unmitigated racing than a show of fancy rules leading to "close" racing. I'd prefer my simulation approximates the former, as I'm sure much of the rest of the world does as well.
Hehe, ok. Glad to see you explaining youself to me a bit. I didn't mean to
sound so edgy, but your post really showed some aggression and now you
have explained why. In a way, we are very similar
How does TristanCliffe say it ?
"I might bite sometimes, but i still wove you guys"
Obviously, i'm not defending 'dumbing things down so the dumbest people can
understand'. I'm simply trying to see both sides. I used to think like you but
i've since moved to a more neutral opinion as i find many good things
about both sides. LFS is a 'game'. You guys can call it what you want,
that kid next door still thinks it's a cool game and i'm not using it to tune my
real car either. Maybe to help me test out some crazy things a bit, but as
good as the physics are, it isn't real life.
So, my question is: what 'sim' aspect can be sacrificed at the expense of
playability? LFS isn't the most popular game i play, FAR from the 1000s of
HL2 servers, or even the 300-400 i can find at 4am for BF2, in fact,
it's hard to find a decent server at most times for me. Even less 3-4 to chose
from. I'd be willing to have more people to play with if it means simplifying
some things to make LFS more accessible. I have been messing with setups
for 3 years and i've even made a freaking app to get MORE settings. I just
feel at this point that as long as every settings isn't PERFECTLY¹ simulated,
it's just another bug in the bowl and can only make the output even more
wrong. There are a few very important issues i'd like solved like those damn
tires/grip. I'd trade 90% of the settings for a more realistic tire code.
I've mentionned all those cam/fuelmap things a while back on RSC as
at that time i felt it was a good way of providing SOME modding while
still being realistic. I still think it would be nice, just not now.
thats cause tristan is a puritan.. he doesnt believe in details; puritans only want the strait cold hard facts..
anyways back on topic; i have to agree with fonny; he proves his point, but at the same time, it sounds the same to me as my push to pass thread, because basically its in one form or the other doing the same thing (basically)
dont really have to much of a disagreement.. much less an agreement, so im not to sure about this whole thing
Don't get me wrong here, I would love to have everything user adjustable, from engine construction, cam timing, valve sizes, cam profiles, static ignition timing, ignition advance, fuel mapping, piston crown profiles etc etc...
However, 2 basic questions arise, that despite my Purist outlook, must be examined:
1. Will it make LFS so inaccessible to people (other than those gifted with extra large (and filled) craniums? Yes, I think it would. We have, admittedly fairly complex and free, car setups. But most people can grasp the basic's of these very easily. I don't think the car setup (as in suspension/transmission) should be upgraded much if at all. If anything (sorry Bob) I'm in favour of having limited gear ratio selections, at least for the road cars. Formula cars are more likely to have specially manufactured gear ratios, and hence be available in any ratio.
2. Does it actually add anything worthwhile to LFS? Again, I don't think, overall, it would. It would be nice to have these (or some of them) simple because Scawen can, but will it make the racing much more fun? I doubt it. I don't think there are that many races where the competition is close enough or consistent enough to benefit from cam timing/fuel mapping adjustments, let alone customised engines. Also, we get back to the argument where everyone will use the same 'engine setup' for any given track. This doesn't happen with suspension setups so much because we all have slightly different driving styles, but the camtiming/fuelmapping/etc is much less related to individual driving styles, and more related to track characteristics.
As always, I'm sure many people here won't agree with me, but I hope (but doubt) that you have a little insight into my method of thinking for this matter...
I think some preset fuel mappings would add a strategic element, would be even simpler to understand and use than many of the existing settings are for some people, and would enrich LFS from a point of racing realism.
I don't care if some of the potential market is being shunned and I don't care if people are frightened off by complex systems. I don't mind if it's too hard for some people to drive, or overtake or if creating setups is out of their range of understanding. People come, people go, LFS continues to evolve and gain momentum. I think in many years time we will look back upon LFS as the project that tore a million arcade racers away from the disney derby and converted them into true race sim enthusiasts. :eclipseeh
LFS seems to be the only sim that takes itself seriously. That's all I want it to do. Fuel mapping is not all-important, but would not seem at all out of place in any real sim.
(note: i tease them, but i'm not insulting them.)
Who knows, we might learn something from