One thing that I've found really odd so far is the lack of castor settings for road cars in LFS. This is odd considering that lack of castor settings doesn't improve realism in the slightest bit.
IRL, the castor settings of every car I've seen so far are adjustable to some degree. Not quite as extreme as the race cars, but still some small but significant changes nonetheless. Otherwise, how are we supposed to correct the alignments of our real cars?
I've just opened a poll on this and I'll like to know the serious and honest opinions of the LFS community.
The caster settings along with some other setup options were removed a while back. I get the feeling more will go as well soon as road cars are not as adjustable as race spec cars.
The only problem is, castor settings are very much adjustable in real life, only not to such an extreme level as S1. That's what I'm trying to say here, though some still don't seem to get the message at all.
For instance, even a Nissan Patrol can easily have its castor angle adjusted by up to 2-3 degrees with just a set of replacement castor bushes. In fact, these adjustments are pretty routine.
Well, for 2nd generation Pajeros, castor and camber settings are changable with a set of shim plates. Castor can be adjusted by as much as plus or minus 2.5 degrees (5 degrees total adjsutment range) with the use of factory approved shim plates.
I could go on and maybe even add some specs for the Mitsubishi Starion (the car which XR GTT was based on). The fact is, camber and castor are routine parameters that are inspected and possibly readjusted on every alignment check. I'm asking for the option of reasonable adjustments one could easily achieve without drastic alterations to the car's steering system, not the revival of the silly S1 levels of adjustment.
Hope this clearifies the whole point of this thread.
TO be honest it doesn't matter really - everyone in racing sims always uses as much castor as they can, which is even less realistic than having a degree of adjustability in the first place.
And I've not come across many cars that have adjustable castor, but I don't tend to work on dull modern cars.
I think the way in which cars are setup in LFS is overly simplified, partly because seting up a real car is a diffacult and frustrating process and because I thing its there to hide the fact that there are holes in the suspension physics.
In LFS the one things we see and can adjust are the final mesuable settings not the adjustment points in the suspension geomitry. In addition to that adjusting say the camber or ridehight does not effect toe. This would only be the case in a real life car of the adjustments for camber were made around a piviot point that is at the same relitive location as the steering link which I have never seen as the case on a real car.
My only possible conclusion is that LFS does not have fully interlinked suspension geomity, thus we can not use the adjustment points for setup changes and we do not have suspension geomitry that reacts as it would in a real car. That is why the cars feel not quite right and why some adjustments don't seem to have the rigth effect on handeling.
There is a reason why you do things ina certian order on a real car because some adjustments affect others. Ride hight affects camber which inturn affects toe and ackerman. In LFS only ride hight and camber seem to be interlinked as far as the setup screen goes.
The link with ride height with on angle is dynamic toe and is something that I've mentioned for quite a while. It happens to the front suspensions of many IFS cars simply because the geometry of the steering arm doesn't quite match that of the wishbones or links.
The interlink between ride height and camber is the dynamic camber that brought LFS S2 a HUGE leap ahead of the oversimplified S1 suspension. Dynamic toe as the result of steering arm geometry and toe links from multilinks is just as important and will drastically improve realism when implemented as well as the current camber dynamics. It also happens at the rear suspension for cars with rear toe links.
And yes, Gimpster, your assesement of the oversimplified nature of curent LFS suspension is very true. It's gone a long way, but there's still some way to go. Anti/prodive and anti/prosquat geometry are still unsimulated. Of course there's stuff like suspension subframe and bushing compliance, but that gets really computationally intensive. I just wish they finish the traling arms, dynamic toe and multilinks before we get to beta or S2 final.
Basically in real life when you are changing something you just don't unscrew some bolts, tilt it 1 degree and tighten the screw again, which is pretty much how we do it in LFS. To change something we just change the values itself instead of changing the parameters which control the value. Actually I see it much user friendly as it is now in LFS. Basically because every value comes from somewhere and thus are hardly ever controlled by single setting; bolt, arm or position in a car.
If LFS setup were like real life, you would firstly have totally different setup settings for each car. Instead of changing some value, like camber directly (like it is now in LFS), we would have to modify a lot more parameters, like suspension positions, arm lengths and so on. It would be an overkill for the average setup guy simply because 1. it would be so totally different than anything else 2. it would need more work to get the one part changed without changing too much the other parts 3. it wouldn't really be any better than the current system.
By the way, start LFS and go to the setup menu. Enable the Suspension view and then modify some suspension parameters. Even if LFS might lack some dynamic setup factors (dynamic camber, etc..?) the current suspension setup options seem, at least, to me interlinked. The difference to real life is that when you change some value to something else, LFS modifies the other parameters so that you can get those desired values without trying to tweak 10 parameters to get close because changing one parameter changes the other 9
In the attachment I have visualized the difference between LFS and real life
Aha, now I understand. You've been using the term 'Dynamic Toe' to mean Bump Steer and Bump Toe.
Dynamic Toe would usually be taken as the change in toe due to elasticity and relative movement throughout the suspension system, e.g. rubber bushes or the play in spherical bearings.
Bump Steer/Toe is the change of toe (or steering, depending on which way you look at it) as suspension movement occurs in bump and rebound. Almost every racing car ever has zero bump steer. Many road cars have almost no bump steer. I doubt a car would get onto the market with an appreciable amount of bump steer as it would simply be too dangerous.
If you use the regular terms people will understand you more.
True, and I believe most of us already know things such as the fact that LFS acts on wheels rates instead of actual spring rates, which require knowledge of the motion ratios of each suspension system to calculate the desired wheel rate. Well, it's pretty obvious that there's already a difference between camber settings and the "true" (live) camber.
As for dynamic camber, it's already there. LFS suspensions already have realistic levels of camber recovery anyway. And like real life, lowering a car increases negative camber and vice-versa due to the inherent camber recovery built into the suspension. Note I say camber recovery instead of the the more usual term "camber gain" because IRL, most independant suspensions simply do not display perfect geometry due to a variety of reasons. For instance, one could design perfect camber recovery to the front suspension to keep front tires really square on the road , but that could compromise braking performance by allowing the tires to gain too much negative camber under braking.
In some cars such as the pendulum rear end porsches, toe in under squat is actually a great thing as it helps keep the rear in check, especially on corner exit. And last time I checked, the Subaru Sti's rear wheels toed in pretty obviously if you lower it with no alignmnet changes, but toes out if lifted. More toe out as the driver enters the turn under trail braking for better turn in, more toe in as weight shifts aft and the rear squats to keep the rear in check for nice and stable exits.
Well, if vehicle dynamics wasn't this complicaed and fascinating, I wouldn't be bothered with all the physics suggestions I've mentioned so far.
as far as setups go theres no point in having the change one setting influence all others i for one dont want to jump around between differnt parts of the setup screen all the time to check if my toe settings are still correct
its a very good simplification on how you set your car up ... irl you will also set it to have a certain toe you wont set it up so the steering link has a certain length
plus in lfs you dont have the 3d image of the suspension right before your eyes and if you did it would be 2d model of it ... it would be much harder to get a feel for which arm length results in which setup parameter change
as far as toe changing with spring deflection is concerned the lfs suspension model apears to be stricly two dimensional in the lateral plane
but iirc scawen wanted to add proper trailing arms so he will be forced to switch to a 3d model which will probably also include steering geometry
have you ever looked at the shift-l view ?
all srpings currently attach directly to the end og the suspension arms which for mc phersons is generally completely correct and more or less possible for double wishbones as well
plus is saves a lot of resources and leads to a simpler damage model
and even if scawen were to add another connection point to attach the springs to personally id prefer if the shown values were still wheel rates since its the value youre interested in anyway
I was simply contrasting real world vs idealized LFS universe on the wheel rate stuff.
Multilinks are so common these days and show up in cars form Mazda MP3s to Mitsubishi Lancer Evolutions to Mercedes S Class. If LFS is to continue to be a physics benchmark and provide an example for other racing sims, these things are unavoidable. I bet Scawen might be already working on proper 3D suspension as we speak.
Unless of course you don't mind LFS going the way of NFS. How I have fond memories of older NFS heading to the laws of physics as well as they could in their time. Remember the original NFS that was made with R&T? Or even NFS:PU that utilized 4 point physics (a simplified version of S1 physics in an attempt to err on the side of realism) but went bankrupt as arcadiness increasingly dominated the gaming scene?
I get a feeling that a lot here aren't quite ready for ultra-realistic vehicle physics yet. Just a hunch.
I've been around LFS and racing sims a long time, and you really are the stupidest person I've yet to meet, and you even persist in flaunting your lack of mental beans all over the place.
1. LFS is a quality simulation, but not perfect, and is a WIP. When you realise this you'll understand that the lack of multilink suspension systems does not make it any less of a 'simulation'. For you simulation seems to mean having all real life stuff in it, whereas for most of us it's merely a realistic representation. I doubt you (on keyboard, snig ger [damn auto censoring]) would notice the difference between the sliding pillar type suspension we have now on the back of some cars to multiplink suspension systems anyway.
2. You bet Scawen might be working on it right now?? Based on what? Something one of your turds told you? I'd bet Scawen ISN'T working on them now - there is nothing wrong with the current simulation of suspension apart from lacking a few specific types, so Scawen won't be doing much to it prior to S2 Final. If you are very lucky Scawen might do it, but to suggest he's working on it as a matter of priority (when it ISN'T a matter of priority) is just silly.
You get a hunch people don't want ultra realistic vehicle physics? Again, you are the daftest person I've met in racing sims yet! The whole fecking reason we all play LFS is because it's currently the most realistic racing simulation. We all want every aspect of real life to one day be simulated, with a few carefully chosen concessions made for playability and fun. To even think that 'people' aren't ready for it just marks you out as a fool.
I've told you to shut up until you come up with something useful, but you ignored me. If I ask you again, will you please keep your cake hole (or texty fingers) quiet until you have anything useful to say. Thanks. And no, moaning for the umpteenth time about dynamic toe, multi-link suspension, turbo lag or any of the other things on your stuck record does not count as new. And then you have the habit of posting something, pretending to be high and mighty and clever, but never actually telling us anything useful.
James's Technical Insight into Multilink Suspension: Lots of cars have it, from Mazdas to Evos. Great work mate, know I know why LFS should have multilink suspension, and the pro and cons of it - because some econoboxes have it, whooooo
Geez, when was the last time I called you stupid or "lacking of mental beans" even when I knew you were sometimes quite wrong about something? I was right all along in assuming that you DO have some personal agenda against me. And did you read the just a hunch part? The hunch was based on the fact that some people here are already complaining that the current simulation (great for its given limitations) is already making cars too complicated to set up.
Oh, you forgot to notice that even expensive European luxury and sports cars from Mercedes use multilinks too.
And what's wrong with a paying customer wishing that the product will get better physics wise? Why do I suddenly need to believe you're right just becasye you said so? And what if Scawen is working hard on physics as well as all the other stuff as we speak? Is it wrong to wish so? Well remember the tire modelling enhancements that came with patch S/T/U and the BF1 (the pleasant surprise)? What's wrong with thinking that the developers might have some goodies waiting for us or are already working on it?
Now who's the guy who has the personal agenda here? Improve physics simulation would make a lot of people and especially the physics guys happy (trust me, there are a lot of us who bougfht LFS for the physics) as well. Or do you have something against a lot of my fellow automotive engineering guys too?
Trist, why do I think that your current hostility against me has everything to do with the fact that I've mentioned a few RL machines with multilink suspensions? Oh, sorry I hurt your little feelings for proving you're not absolutely right on the road car bump steer issue.
Kev Becky
Tristan Jamexing
Jakg every male on lfsforum
Vendetta everyone except Jakg
---
Jamexing, no one is saying that your suggestions are bad, they really aren't. What some people find a bit frustrating is that you keep bringing them up all the time (there is basically nothing wrong with that either). What people don't like is that you suggest these things as new ideas, something revolutionary when they actually have been noted and discussed many times already. There are things in LFS which have been quite wrong a long time, like the damage model with flying cars, unrealistic clutch modelling and non-rewindable replays. I rate these higher than adding some new suspension models or improving the turbo modeling (which isn't totally off).
I'm sure that you agree that before you start adding lots of different stuff into LFS you need toi have the basics in good condition. There is no reason to add multilink suspensions or active differentials when the clutchpacks and dampers are so basic.
And it is kind of obvious that stuff like multilink suspensions and stuff like that will be in LFS some day. Turbos, 4 wheel drive drivetrain and such will improve a LFS improves. Don't take this as a rant. I'm not trying to school you.
Wow, you've got quite a sense of humour. Good on you! You do have very good points too.
Well, I've not tried to say that anything suggested in this thread is super revolutionary, though some do get the wrong idea and think otherwise. I apologize if people are getting the wrong idea here.
Active diffs are on the agenda in the long run obviously, but for now I just wish they make the clutch pack better. The only thing that's lacking is the preload, though it's possible that this will be corrected soon. Well, there's already the absurd locked diff anyway (effectively infinite preload).
Well, the real point of this thread is only to discuss the revival of castor settings for the road cars. Something like 2-8 degrees postive castor adjusment range, not the absurd levels we used to have back in S1 (more than 10 degrees negative/positive of castor! Wow).
Why castor? Well, castor is a very interesting variable. Theoretically, the camber gain is good for front end grip. In reality, too much can lead to twitchy handling as the front end tire contact angles change too drastically with steering angle change. In the end, it's the driver that actually decides how much castor he/she can take.
I remember there was already some thread related to flying cars syndrome, though I also remember that me and quite a few here agreed that the only solution is to at least apply some sort of simple damping (energy absorbing) physics.
You didn't, but I did. Maybe I am more willing to say what I think than you?
No, you were wrong to start with. But you complete lack of brains has caused me to create said agenda against you.
The hunch part? The hunch were you stated that people aren't ready for more realism? The bit I mentioned in my post and used as an example of the nonsense your brain sends to your fingers? Yes I read it, and it's complete testicles.
Yes, like I said - econoboxes. Mercs are not good cars anymore, they don't handle well, they aren't reliable, they don't look particularly good anymore (to me), and Mercedes hasn't built a proper sports car for decades. The McLaren doesn't count, but I wouldn't want one of them either. Oh, and Mercedes are incapable of making a seat less than dangerously uncomfy.
Nothing. What is wrong with the same paying customer constantly bemoaning the same things in EVERY thread he replies to. Everything
I'm not saying I'm right, I'm saying your a small minded, fixated idiot at times. Big difference.
Did you even read YOUR OWN POST? You said you were willing to bet that Scawen is working on pointless multilinks RIGHT NOW! Not wishing he was, or saying he might be, but willing to put money on the fact he is. I can assure you, almost without doubt, that he isn't, and is instead working on things to make LFS Alpha go to beta and Final. I don't believe multilinks will be needed to get to Final. Hell, ISI managed to get to final without any physics at all.
Have you forgotten that we've already established that I think you never EVER have anything useful to say on ANY topic anymore. The first dozen of your posts were clear, well informed, and technical. All the others have been copy-pastes of them over and over again.
You use the brackets as though I don't care for physics, thus proving again you are a couple of gaskets short of a set. I've just stated, if you'd read, that I am in it for the physics. I don't care (indeed, actively don't want) real cars in LFS more than necessary because it'll attract the wrong people (people who like GTR because it's got real cars innit).
Oh come on, lets not be silly. You are not an automotive engineer. You are just a guy who likes cars and has an obsession with turbo lag, 4WD and multilink suspension. The simple fact you have not once qualified any of your arguments with a single number (preferring to use car names as examples, but never providing evidence of how something will help LFS) proves to me that you are neither a true engineer, nor affiliated with the automotive industry in any more ways than a grease monkey. So don't kid yourself, you ain't fooling me...
Because you're an idiot. The fact I dislike you is because you are trying to give the impression of being clever and knowledgable about 'cars', yet you are just a fool with a bee in your bonnet about the things you keep repeating. And I don't remember you proving me wrong at all on bump steer. You tried to use the term dynamic toe to mean bump steer, and I merely pointed out that your terminology was wrong. And trust me, I thought you were a fool long before you mentioned multilink suspension or supposedly corrected me.
Nope. Possibly because your cranium lacks the ability to cope with advanced theories such as relative stupidities.
It's a little thing called I don't need to resort to personal insults often, trist.
And the part about Mercs. Seesh, no need to go so wacky! I've got categories of cars that I don't favour too, but at least I give them the benefit of the doubt and see them for what they are, not what one thinks they must be. I don't really like Mercs that much, but they do have their strengths. Need I mention that AUDIs and BMWs use multilinks too? I bet my the great tristan would categorise AUDIs and BMWs as crap in one giant sweep too. I wonder if you're smart enough to know what kind of hornet's nest you're dealing with by insulting lots of AUDI and BMW enthusiasts in one sweep too. When was the last time anyone said multilink reared BMWs handle like crap anyway?
Conclusion: based on tristan's amazing and incomprehensibly brilliant intellect, all cars with multilinks are crappy no quality hacks that handle like crap.
And yes, I do understand stupidity. It's called the guy who can't resist calling all others stupid.
Wow! He's just called me an idiot! Thanks to the great tristan, my knowledge of insults grows at an exponetial rate!
At least we're getting something - you are learning how to insult people, and I know it still applies to you. Good.
Actually, I quite like Audis. Okay, so they can't do corners, and they love understeer, but in terms of style and image I think they do a good job. And there is no doubt that, ride comfort aside, BMW's are great cars. Just a shame every single owner (that I've met or seen, feel free to somehow prove me and just about every other road user wrong) is a complete jerk, and thus I could never ever want one.
And I don't think you'll ever find I said 'multilinks are crap, nor that they handle badly - it's just a good way of controlling wheel movement without the space of double wishbones.
I can resist calling most others stupid. In fact, you are the only one in the last, oooh, year that has come across as quite so dumb. I have more than lots of respect for others like Axus, Gentlefoot, Todd etc who are not only able to describe technical problems and solutions, but back up their theories with proofs and numbers, something you have not done one as far as I can remember.
Why use a different word. You are an idiot and I shall call you as such. If you want I can use amusing alternatives, but the deep meaning remains idiot. I do it not to impress you with my vocabulary, but to make you realise, eventually, maybe, just how foolish you have been making the same points over and over again. Come up with a new one and I'm sure you'll explain and argue (if not prove) it well, but I can't see a new idea coming out of your head anytime soon. And regardless of whether I come up with ideas, or whether I realise that Scawen is aware of it's shortcomings enough for me to keep quiet, the point of my comments is not to say 'I have more ideas than you' but 'you keep writing the same ones over and over again'.
Also, my name is Tristan, not trist. If we are going to result to insults, let's at least do the gentlemanly thing and get each others name right. My best mate might call me Trist (still with a capital), but scum of the forum can stick with my full name. Thanks.
Becky