What volvo is that? I used to have 340.
He puts that damn Volvo everywhere. Volvo obsessed people 
illepall 
illepall That is 340 sedan, I did put 2,5l 16valve penta engine in for this drift clip (there is car with such engine irl), but that will have 340&360 with all engines and some more powerful that really do exists.
This mod will be pure realism, well as much as rFactor allows...
Ah, but what I can for it that there is no any other street car mod with even close to real physics for rFactor?
And yes, I have weird fixation with odd old Volvo cars, just beware, it will be in LFS some day, I hope
Nice, I'd like to try it sometimes.
That might very well be possible at some stage, drop me a mail in few weeks from now
Interesting post Android. In one paragraph you're condemming the hate within this thread and in the second paragraph your propagating it.
Doesn't matter, actually I have to agree with al heeley a few posts above.
get the new caterham mod for rFactor, and set the car up properly. That is where the fun is at 
People will always prefer one over the other, it's the same with everything
My e-penis is bigger than all of yours anyway so i win
People will always prefer one over the other, it's the same with everything
My e-penis is bigger than all of yours anyway so i win
That's the thing I've been wondering quite long. When someone makes a mod for rfactor, he has to tweak the physics to get it 'realistic', and therefore all the mods have different kind of physics.
I'm quite certain that if LFS is ever moddable, no-one has (and can't!) touch the physics - you just have to set parametres for suspension geometry (if not mounting points) and tyre properties, etc.
Obvously, correct me if I'm talking nonsense, as I have no experiennce of modding a game.
I'm quite certain that if LFS is ever moddable, no-one has (and can't!) touch the physics - you just have to set parametres for suspension geometry (if not mounting points) and tyre properties, etc.
Obvously, correct me if I'm talking nonsense, as I have no experiennce of modding a game.
I don't see anything in Android's post that propagates hate! He just made a clear comment based on his observations. It was neither derogattory or abusive. But thanks for agreeing with me!
That's how it works in RFactor, too: You can just change different parameters (suspension layout, torque curve, aero layout etc.)...
But it seems to me that you have to use unrealistic values to get a car to behave appropriately in all ISI engine based sims. This is the so called fudge factor
So if you see somewhere something like 'this mod features completely new physics', it refers to the parameters mentioned above...
And I agree, it's a rather stupid term, since there is only one 'physic' in reality, you can't change physics...
Hmm, I don't know what you mean by unrealistic values, but with tires, maybe, however I have not seen many that really understands those tire curves and how real life curves and rfactor curves corresponds to each other as rfactor curves do not contain absolute values as reallife curves do, so there is not enough knownledge and specially that little is not made available for public so that everyone could understand them so no wonder 99% of mods are not realistic.
Put real values and you get real like handling, as well as engine is possible to make it, but you have to find all real values and how many can find and show me spring rate, damper rates, suspension motion ratio etc. values from Peugeot 206 for example? None, there is no such data available at least not from google, to get data you need to get connections make favours, threat, torture and still you miss some bit.
Fantasy cars are much easier to make, you need to decide real like values and do calculations based on that.
I would say that you can make pretty damn good feeling car, very real like, but it will be off, as is car in LFS too, there is too much limitations still.
Also you must remember that even car would act 100% like real, feedback what you get, what you see, hear, feel is going to be off and car won't feel still like real thing, but car that is less real may feel more real because of limited senses that are off more than most of us think.
Oh yes that physics thing, really wondering where that word has came to use, it is parameters of car what is meant when people say physics, quite misleading indeed, but that is standard term I think?
I know that not all needed values are known... I tried to find all needed data for the 350Z in Racer 2 years ago, so I know how hard it is to get all the needed data...
The fudging I talked about is most obvious with the tyres: The controversial NAPP mod for GTR2 (that feels very real according to some individuals) for example used tyre curves with 2 peaks, something that is completely unrealistic as far as I know, but you have to talk to axus or Todd, they are the 'tyre gods' in this forum....
And when you say 'I would say that you can make pretty damn good feeling car, very real like', I have to disagree... This is just my personal opinion, but I haven't found a car in an ISI based sim that behaved 'realistically' (as I would think it should), especially when sliding...
But my e-daddy is bigger than yours, and he has a e-axe and will chop your e-penis right off... so there !! HA
Anyway, I would much rather not have enough time to play a great sim like Live For Speed, than not have enough time to try out a game like rFactor in order to make a fair comparison and come to the honest conclusion that LFS is obviously the best!
cheers, Col
Actually my intention was to say very real like compared to most current rfactor mods, but lost few words I see, lol.
insert correct realworld data values into notepad.exe and it won't turn into a realistic simulator.
rfactor is only better than lfs in one thing, it solved lag totally, in the turbo.
rfactor is only better than lfs in one thing, it solved lag totally, in the turbo.
About the NAP mod, don't forget that its second peak (small as it is) happens BEYOND 90 degrees slip angle.. 90 of course being the peak possible lateral angle you can put a tyre on a surface at....
The scary thing is, some guy went like this (roughly)
"Hmmm don't like GTR2"
"Oooh! tyre files with numbers!"
<changes some numbers>
"woot! going well here!"
<finds 'physics editor' freeware thingy that shows the numbers as graphs>
"Cool stuff!" (followed by tweak / drive / tweak)
"This feels great!"
<goes back to the physics curve program>
"oops! I made a mistake, there are two peaks! I must have found the secret!"
<doesn't realize that with the step size in the tyre file, and the SIN being taken from them to get the actual slip angle, the graph effectively stops being 'noticed' by the sim sometime before this magic second peak is reached>
Ok thats toungue firmly in cheek but if you release something as silly as that and call it advanced, it shows how poor the standards are in Mod City
Edit: Nice one Kid Now of course there will be a licensed CART sim using ISI physics.. without any turbo modelling of course.. Now thats not the worst thing about ISI physics, but it highlights the problem exactly: Modders got used to ISI, they can make nice cars and tracks. One in 10 cars might even sound nice. One in 100 shows serious attempts made to improve the physics, which will fail as the base is simply flawed.
If physics people would get the green light for a CART sim, they would simply not consider ISI as turbo engines are different from regular aspirated engines.. It shows how wrong the state of mind is.
Meanwhile that will be the 5th sim (GTR, GTL, GTR2, WTCC, CART) to be great on paper only to be ruined by ISI's poor physics
/rant
The scary thing is, some guy went like this (roughly)
"Hmmm don't like GTR2"
"Oooh! tyre files with numbers!"
<changes some numbers>
"woot! going well here!"
<finds 'physics editor' freeware thingy that shows the numbers as graphs>
"Cool stuff!" (followed by tweak / drive / tweak)
"This feels great!"
<goes back to the physics curve program>
"oops! I made a mistake, there are two peaks! I must have found the secret!"
<doesn't realize that with the step size in the tyre file, and the SIN being taken from them to get the actual slip angle, the graph effectively stops being 'noticed' by the sim sometime before this magic second peak is reached>
Ok thats toungue firmly in cheek but if you release something as silly as that and call it advanced, it shows how poor the standards are in Mod City
Edit: Nice one Kid
Now of course there will be a licensed CART sim using ISI physics.. without any turbo modelling of course.. Now thats not the worst thing about ISI physics, but it highlights the problem exactly: Modders got used to ISI, they can make nice cars and tracks. One in 10 cars might even sound nice. One in 100 shows serious attempts made to improve the physics, which will fail as the base is simply flawed.If physics people would get the green light for a CART sim, they would simply not consider ISI as turbo engines are different from regular aspirated engines.. It shows how wrong the state of mind is.
Meanwhile that will be the 5th sim (GTR, GTL, GTR2, WTCC, CART) to be great on paper only to be ruined by ISI's poor physics
/rant
Niels, its not the sine of the slip angle. Its confusing and I haven't done this stuff in a while but there's the LatPeak value which defines the linear relationship between the sine of the slip angle at which peak lateral force occurs and load. Then the curve is "stretched" accordingly so that the 1.0 value (peak lateral force) is at the peak slip angle, if that makes any sense.
That was a good one
Shall I attach the vid? I asked someone involved in this project and was told that they could model a turbo but they claim there is no point as they say the `anti-lag` stops the effect anyway
Who dares to go to rscnet.net GTR2 section and say that "sorry boys, your favourite Porsche doesn't have a turbo"?
I could easily do that, but it would not build anything, I think that every sim/game lover should modify their point of view so that they ask what it would build if I say something like that.
I find it quite barbaric how humans still build fences or walls and shout there aggressive comments against others, all time defending own fence and claiming that it is best in world while bashing others fence, just plain barbaric.
We could work together and be constructive actually, but no, I guess that is programmed to genes or something as this can be seen everywhere.
Working together we would not need to work even 3 hours a week with current technology helping, but we don't work together, we think me me me, and more to me, some thing mine only is good, so we end up for working more than 8 hours a day 6 days a week, barbaric I would say.
This same thing can be seen in many posts to this thread, I say it is good to compare and point things out, but praising own preferred title and bashing other without any realism based proof is not moving forward to better realism of race sims, but just barbaric.
Yes, that is how I feel, but I still would take your money
I have been doing a little more specific and focused back to back testing of
the LFS FO8 vs. our rFactor mod car (f-sum-gp, a 500hp open wheel car...so close
to the FO8) vs. a test day on a Rotax Max with MG Yellow tires (a really well designed
modern slick).
I set force feedback very low so as to take away the impression that FF imposes on
the actual physics modeling. rFactor's stock FF, and even when heavily adjusted,
is only good for more cerebral informational feedback (in which case it is better
than LFS), and not so much so for realistic feel (in which case LFS is better). I
am currently focusing on actual handling comparison, not FF, so I turned it down.
Also, note when I say 'LFS does this or that' below I mean LFS FO8 with a setup
I like. I know it is possible there are other cars or setups that invalidate my
observations...but I'm doing what I can. Same goes for rFactor references.
Still, my feel observations certainly seem simulation systemic to me, so I think they
have weight.
Since I am using the MG yellow test as the realistic baseline, which is a totally
different vehicle than 500hp open wheel cars, I have to be careful what I am
comparing. So I decided to focus very narrowly on a couple of data points that
seemed different in earlier tests and would hopefully be as chassis/motor
independent as possible. So I pick very initial turn-in, before significant weight
transfer, and quasi-steady-state drift with the car set...again with little dynamic
weight transfer.
As probably expected, in heavy drift, LFS was far more natural and like the real
vehicle drift. Corrections basically worked as expected, both wheel and throttle.
rFactor was not as bad as I was expecting, but still has something of an unnatural
feel, especially with respect to throttle corrections. They both spun easier than
the kart, but that is to be expected since the kart has a live axle and the cars
have more power/weight.
On initial turn-in, on fresh tires, with that first little bite, rFactor was better. Actually,
on this behavior rFactor is rather impressive. LFS was much 'softer' on turn in
resulting in a more gradual cause and effect than I got on real life new tires.
LFS does not really even have that little 'bite' that the real tires have.
I wore the real life tires down pretty far, which LFS matches really well. My worn
real tires had that same soft turn-in, at least until I wore them to the point of
just pushing like a truck (by which time my neck had nothing left anyway; MG
Yellows last really long for their grip level). As rFactor's tires wear out, the
turn-in continues to match my reality test very nicely, they give up that bite in a
similar way.
These are two very narrow little tests, but it does show, for a particular driver's (me)
expectations with respect to reality, neither sim is completely satisfactory. Doing
this same sort of testing through more of the envelope would require using a
matching vehicle in real life, as weight transfer, power, etc become more integral.
If I do another Formula Renault test I'll try to back to back it with rTrainer and FOX.
As I recall that formula car was much like a kart but with less G loading than the
kart (for those non-karters out there, you'd be shocked how many Gs real racing
karts pull) but mildly variable grip with speed (aero).
the LFS FO8 vs. our rFactor mod car (f-sum-gp, a 500hp open wheel car...so close
to the FO8) vs. a test day on a Rotax Max with MG Yellow tires (a really well designed
modern slick).
I set force feedback very low so as to take away the impression that FF imposes on
the actual physics modeling. rFactor's stock FF, and even when heavily adjusted,
is only good for more cerebral informational feedback (in which case it is better
than LFS), and not so much so for realistic feel (in which case LFS is better). I
am currently focusing on actual handling comparison, not FF, so I turned it down.
Also, note when I say 'LFS does this or that' below I mean LFS FO8 with a setup
I like. I know it is possible there are other cars or setups that invalidate my
observations...but I'm doing what I can. Same goes for rFactor references.
Still, my feel observations certainly seem simulation systemic to me, so I think they
have weight.
Since I am using the MG yellow test as the realistic baseline, which is a totally
different vehicle than 500hp open wheel cars, I have to be careful what I am
comparing. So I decided to focus very narrowly on a couple of data points that
seemed different in earlier tests and would hopefully be as chassis/motor
independent as possible. So I pick very initial turn-in, before significant weight
transfer, and quasi-steady-state drift with the car set...again with little dynamic
weight transfer.
As probably expected, in heavy drift, LFS was far more natural and like the real
vehicle drift. Corrections basically worked as expected, both wheel and throttle.
rFactor was not as bad as I was expecting, but still has something of an unnatural
feel, especially with respect to throttle corrections. They both spun easier than
the kart, but that is to be expected since the kart has a live axle and the cars
have more power/weight.
On initial turn-in, on fresh tires, with that first little bite, rFactor was better. Actually,
on this behavior rFactor is rather impressive. LFS was much 'softer' on turn in
resulting in a more gradual cause and effect than I got on real life new tires.
LFS does not really even have that little 'bite' that the real tires have.
I wore the real life tires down pretty far, which LFS matches really well. My worn
real tires had that same soft turn-in, at least until I wore them to the point of
just pushing like a truck (by which time my neck had nothing left anyway; MG
Yellows last really long for their grip level). As rFactor's tires wear out, the
turn-in continues to match my reality test very nicely, they give up that bite in a
similar way.
These are two very narrow little tests, but it does show, for a particular driver's (me)
expectations with respect to reality, neither sim is completely satisfactory. Doing
this same sort of testing through more of the envelope would require using a
matching vehicle in real life, as weight transfer, power, etc become more integral.
If I do another Formula Renault test I'll try to back to back it with rTrainer and FOX.
As I recall that formula car was much like a kart but with less G loading than the
kart (for those non-karters out there, you'd be shocked how many Gs real racing
karts pull) but mildly variable grip with speed (aero).
afaik kart tyres are rather stiff so they probably develop a lot of grip at low slip angles whereas formula tyres have tall sidewall which should move the peak further outwards (todd axus feel free to correct me on this in case im wrong) so a forumla should have a bit more of a mushy sluggish turn in than a kart
btw lfs tyres arent exactly right in that behaviour atm as sidewall height doesnt seem to have any bearing on the slip curves at all (at least thats what i gathered from androids graphs)
Actually, modern kart tires, Mojos (a lousy RMC spec tire) aside, have a very soft
section between the sidewall itself and the tread section. Also, the sidewalls are
flexible so that their flex does much of the work instead of depending mostly on
slip/scrub. Most of the guys here with recent kart experience can back that up since
karters pretty much all mount and unmount our own tires by hand, so they are
pretty intimate with them.
A kart tire peak and a formula tire peak are at very similar slip angles, and their
falloffs follow very similar curves. They are basicly the same in design principles,
and differ mostly in just form factor.
That bite I'm talking about may very well have something to do with tire flex,
as that stiff tire I mentioned, the Mojo D1, has much less turn in bite. I noticed the
same with endurance tires, which are also very stiff. I won't conjecture on why,
although I have ideas, but it seems there may be a link between flexible carcass
and turn-in bite. The Yokohama GP1, which has a ton of turn-in bite, is a very
gushy bouncy tire (it also has a large rollout for a kart tire), so much so that it
affects driving technique.
Most of this I got talking to Yokohama kart tires developers 2 years ago at the
Black Rock Summer Shootout, where they were trying to launch their GP1 kart
tire (and at which they had major quality control problems, which brought up a
lot of technical tire talk).
At Willow Springs I watched the front tires themselves through the highly loaded
sweepers. It is almost scary how much they deform laterally under load; I actually
thought I had a defective tire at first when I saw that (in this case it was Bridgestone
YHCs).
So maybe what I observed is a shortcoming in the LFS tire model that will indeed
get fixed.
section between the sidewall itself and the tread section. Also, the sidewalls are
flexible so that their flex does much of the work instead of depending mostly on
slip/scrub. Most of the guys here with recent kart experience can back that up since
karters pretty much all mount and unmount our own tires by hand, so they are
pretty intimate with them.
A kart tire peak and a formula tire peak are at very similar slip angles, and their
falloffs follow very similar curves. They are basicly the same in design principles,
and differ mostly in just form factor.
That bite I'm talking about may very well have something to do with tire flex,
as that stiff tire I mentioned, the Mojo D1, has much less turn in bite. I noticed the
same with endurance tires, which are also very stiff. I won't conjecture on why,
although I have ideas, but it seems there may be a link between flexible carcass
and turn-in bite. The Yokohama GP1, which has a ton of turn-in bite, is a very
gushy bouncy tire (it also has a large rollout for a kart tire), so much so that it
affects driving technique.
Most of this I got talking to Yokohama kart tires developers 2 years ago at the
Black Rock Summer Shootout, where they were trying to launch their GP1 kart
tire (and at which they had major quality control problems, which brought up a
lot of technical tire talk).
At Willow Springs I watched the front tires themselves through the highly loaded
sweepers. It is almost scary how much they deform laterally under load; I actually
thought I had a defective tire at first when I saw that (in this case it was Bridgestone
YHCs).
So maybe what I observed is a shortcoming in the LFS tire model that will indeed
get fixed.
Rfactor vs LFS
(1872 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG