The latest edition is available, there's a bit of a write up of the F1 cars in LFS and RFactor. The G25 gets tested to.
Some more info on NKPro aswell, if you are interested.

http://www.autosimsport.net/

I guess some already saw it, if they read the LFS vs. rFactor thread.

It's a typical ASS (pun intended) review. They merely compare how realistic the setup options are, and then do some dubious tests with the default setup. Somehow they "feel" that both cars offer too much grip, but in the end rFactor is preferred because it offers more grip.

...

Can't say much about that Sauber review, because I haven't tested rF since the multiplayer test, but I was really disappointed after reading the one from GTR2. Reviewer's opinion differed from my opinion so much!

For me, ASS have quite some credibility to claw back following the nKP preview. I didn't think that the BMW Sauber comparison did anything to address that, really. Nothing was related to actual telemetry in the comparison, which made the whole review really rather silly. Because the rFactor Sauber went faster than the LFS Sauber, rFactor was a better sim of the Sauber!? Uhhh..

One thing that I did consider to be a plus, in the comparison, is that they actually set about comparing an Alpha install of LFS directly with a Golden Master install of rFactor. Now, ASS can have no excuse for negating to discuss/cover LFS on the basis that LFS is in an Alpha stage of development.

ASS is a load of crap. All they do is praise everything they get. They need to learn how to criticise. They only good thing is the news they mange to get before anyone else.

Heh, well it's probably better than if I wrote the magazine, I'd probably slate everything I ever saw.

there is no review. there is a bunch of corporate sponsored pr crap and the ignorance driven blind teens who would love to get paid for being such nice pr droids.

I know the guy that wrote the "review", i DON'T think that he wrote that because he wanted to purposely say "rf is better then lfs", infact in certain parts, like the TC one for rf and the suspension one on lfs he found 2 of the problems of both the simulators.

But there are certain things in that review that i don't like at all, for example the testing on the oval instead of circuits like Aston Grand prix, that have lot of fast straights, or the fact of saying that full brake force in lfs is a lot stronger then in rf, instead of saying something like "at 1000 Nm rf car goes from 300 to 0 in X metres, lfs one in Y metres"

However i will speak with him, maybe he will do some correction in future ASS releases

What really makes me laugh is that apparently a car with more downforce achieves a smaller lateral acceleration than one with less downforce according to them. illepall

Clearly they neglected to adjust the springs etc accordingly, and just changed the downforce on a low d/f set to a high value. Then, when they got the test results, no alarm bells went off.

Do both cars have the same quoted power and torque? We know LFS's imperfect torque curve generation means that the Sauber revs to 20,000rpm (which is actually okay now, but at the time was a bit high), but I can't recall how different the rF/LFS curves are...

If a 4 y old, in your living room, looks at you and says u have cancer, would you look at him the same way you would look if he was a doctor with phd, loads of knowledge and practice, in a medical context?
This electronic published rubbish doesnt qualify to even be considered or debatable.

Quote from KiDCoDEa :

If a 4 y old, in your living room, looks at you and says u have cancer, would you look at him the same way you would look if he was a doctor with phd, loads of knowledge and practice, in a medical context?
This electronic published rubbish doesnt qualify to even be considered or debatable.

ROFL thats one way to describe ASS

Just read the BMW Sauber article. What a load of bollocks. He didnt even attempt to do a decent test with both games.

Quote from KiDCoDEa :

If a 4 y old, in your living room, looks at you and says u have cancer, would you look at him the same way you would look if he was a doctor with phd, loads of knowledge and practice, in a medical context?
This electronic published rubbish doesnt qualify to even be considered or debatable.

Interesting analogy

I rarely read the ASS reviews. For one thing there is wayyy too much text, they have too much (although sometimes it seems not much) to say and too much room to say it in. I would have thought a "serious" online sim-racing magazine would make much more use of the available still-image and video media btw, why try to make it look like a very poorly produced "real" magazine"?

But you can print it out and it makes it look like a year 7 school magazine, which is something money cannot buy!

Yes, ASS is pretty much bollox, you just have to read the, god knows how many pages, on the shock horror RSC forums server debacle to see what they are all about.

IMO, there is no way they can redeem themselves after the NKPro review, hehehe, never read such a pile of crap in my life, and now they compare the F1 cars of LFS to rF, I wonder what makes them qualified to make a judgement on the two?.

Still its a good way to waste 10 mins of your life reading the issue.

I REALLY wish someone would do a good simming magazine.

Dan,

the idea itself was really good, it could have been the best possible of comparison of both sims. what is a better basis than having two supposedly identical cars to be compared? (ok, having the same track as well)

however they just did a vague review, instead of going into deep technicalities of both setup and physics.

I tried both BMW-s, I liked the LFS one better, no wonder, LFS physics simulate weight shifting and tyre physics way better and more detailed.

One thing I am sure about is that the two default setups differ in many ways, they could at least have made an effort to adjust the settings to be similar in the restricted way it was possible, of course LFS suspension and differential settings aren't that detailed and also the ECU setting is missing, but the main things like susp stiffness, ride height, tyre pressure, camber, gear ratios and steering options could all have been matched in a pretty good way.
Now wouldn't that have given a much better clue on where the two sims differ?

Shame on ASS for claiming to be a sim magazine and not caring about such basic things.

I had the feeling that the author had not really a clue what he was talking about... mostly saying things like "we believe that..." etc.
Quite weird approach for a magazine that has "Sim" in its name.

Quote from ORION :

I had the feeling that the author had not really a clue what he was talking about... mostly saying things like "we believe that..." etc.
Quite weird approach for a magazine that has "Sim" in its name.

That's better than stating opinion as fact though. I think it's written fairly, and the author is certainly not an unintelligent guy, but the way the test is done and the total subjective nature of the issue of realism makes the article rather pointless on the whole.
(IMO )

I just read that articek and I found there some really strange opinions. Lets go for some quotes:

"...ISI car would be logical choice... it offers more grip...."
and
"...3.5G lateral grip at 183km/h seems, at least to us, to be a litte optimistic..."(rF Sauber offers that optimistic 3.5G instead of LFS 3.0G - does this guy know what is he writing about?)

Also, they blame LFS for absence of brake duct settings - maybe they didnt noticed that LFS doesnt simulates brake-temp at all now. And the same with engine settings, shoudnt we wait with some conclusion until LFS is in S2 FINAL stage?

To sum up, IMHO they compared wrong things in wrong ways. Yes, LFS still has lack of sweets that rF offers, but what about the feeling of the cars when cornering and so? I tried once fR-ish Sauber and I was quite confused, there is almost no feedback you can feel in wheel and so, tyres are like bricks of concrete, the whole car behaves... just too rougly, like it is not on the road at all(just my personal opinion).

eh, it seems everyone who does a review never knew this is still a alpha.

Quote from Rappa Z :

eh, it seems everyone who does a review never knew this is still a beta.

Alpha*

And seing as its a product you can purchase that's been in Alpha for over a year now, I see no reason not to stack it up against what's out there.

I have just read the review to both compare the f1 in lfs and rfactor only one word can make this review true is utter bulls**t, for example does anyone give a crap about what g-force the f1 cars pull in both cars and another is about the about the lfs f1 locking all fours wheel at full speed with max downforce on you can do that in RL but who would want to do it. In my opinion the guy who did the review has gone for all the technical parts of the review which of course no ones cares about people just want to know how the car behaves and what both cars are like to car and what they feel like when pushed to there limits and how the cars feels to drive like how you can tell if it is going to understeer or oversteer

Quote from axus :

Alpha*

And seing as its a product you can purchase that's been in Alpha for over a year now, I see no reason not to stack it up against what's out there.

True. But still "it's unfinished Alpha" is used so often as an excuse for missing features, which is very two-faced.

Read the review. I agree with most of his points. Don't like the thing of lack of options tough. We have enough options to set the car, if we make it even more complicated there would be only 10 or 50 setupmakers in the community, and nobody else would make any setups, because they won't just know what that and that feature is for. Same goes to grip. How is more grip realistic?