I have had a XRT at W.O.T for about 4 minutes now, and the engine hasnt heated up AT ALL. IMO the engine should heat up when its been running at WOT for a while.
Engine heat
Engine temperatures aren't coded yet. Being that we have a (rather static) dial, it would indicated the devs are working on it. 
According to that I would like to have technical failures like engine-blowups, gear change problems and something like that. The frequenzy of the failures should be ajusttable from the server site.
Either the technical failures should be realistic or not existant. Random technical failures don't add anything to the "competition" between racers, because they are random.
The gearbox may fail when a driving team decides to flatshift in a 24h endurance-race, but it should never fail "randomly". LFS is about competition, not luck. Or am I wrong?
Vain
The gearbox may fail when a driving team decides to flatshift in a 24h endurance-race, but it should never fail "randomly". LFS is about competition, not luck. Or am I wrong?
Vain
You're right 
.
.Mechanical human made machines DO fail "randomly". I just woke up and I'm too tired to come up with a suggestion, but I'm sure that when the devs do something they do it properly
I 3000% Agree, the only tecnical failures can be are the ones derived of bad use, like burn tires, or brake fading for example . i think preserve damage from Qualify to Race could be a good thing.
Actually technical failures can be "random" IRL. Especially when the car is pushed to the limits (racing). I don't think that any real life racer intentionally pushes the car over the limits and it breaks. There is always bigger chance of technical failure when driving faster. So maybe this could be implemented so that how hard you are pushing the car to limits the bigger the chance of random failure.
In real life the engine or clutch or whatever of a car can fail in the first lap. That is indeed realistic.
But it isn't fun at all. Going out in the first lap because some random-number generator said that you won't have a good race today is nothing but frustrating, because you aren't the one to blame. You did everything right, yet you aren't allowed to finish the race. On the other hand the first position is then (partially) decided by the random number generator. I think both is not in LFS's sake.
When a racer pushes his car beyond the limits he may raise the chance that his car fails if he does so over some time. That way the racer decides wether to take the risk or not.
So the behaviour I want is not completely random. If the driver behaves a failing engine should stay impossible. If the racer doesn't behave there is a chance of a failing engine, that slowly increases.
You see the logic behind action and reaction? That is what I want. I don't want to punish unguilty drivers.
Vain
But it isn't fun at all. Going out in the first lap because some random-number generator said that you won't have a good race today is nothing but frustrating, because you aren't the one to blame. You did everything right, yet you aren't allowed to finish the race. On the other hand the first position is then (partially) decided by the random number generator. I think both is not in LFS's sake.
When a racer pushes his car beyond the limits he may raise the chance that his car fails if he does so over some time. That way the racer decides wether to take the risk or not.
So the behaviour I want is not completely random. If the driver behaves a failing engine should stay impossible. If the racer doesn't behave there is a chance of a failing engine, that slowly increases.
You see the logic behind action and reaction? That is what I want. I don't want to punish unguilty drivers.
Vain
Totally agree. Random failures do not exist in real life. If a part breaks when another "identical part" does not, when used in the exactly the same way, it's because the parts were NOT identical.
Yes parts and tyres do fail, but only because of misuse and manufacturing flaws. If something happens to the car they can see what caused it, they don't just go ahhh well it's random and we were unlucky. Same with punctures. No puncture is random, you get a puncture because you drove over something sharp.
If you want to enjoy the forced dnfs of engine blowups and the like now, in the same way as they'll be done if it's random, you don't need all that stuff coding in. Just put all your names into a hat before the race, and the names that are pulled out will not finish. It's that simple, and that silly, and adds nothing to the experience.
I agree with Sinbad!
I think West Racing or whatever it was called, was going to have failures caused by driving style. Drive over kerbs a lot, and something will brake more than if you stayed on the grey stuff. iirc you would also have to change worn components as and when, but I'm not sure how good an idea that last bit is - if the parts are free it's just a hassle, if the parts cost credits then it's too much of a disadvatage to the beginner.
So I say any failures should be due to driving style/lines etc. Some should be carried over from qual to race, others should be 'repaired'. Punctures should only occur with debris - perhaps the server remembers where accidents have occured, and says the next 50m is a high likelihood for punctures, decreasing as cars drive by?
I think West Racing or whatever it was called, was going to have failures caused by driving style. Drive over kerbs a lot, and something will brake more than if you stayed on the grey stuff. iirc you would also have to change worn components as and when, but I'm not sure how good an idea that last bit is - if the parts are free it's just a hassle, if the parts cost credits then it's too much of a disadvatage to the beginner.
So I say any failures should be due to driving style/lines etc. Some should be carried over from qual to race, others should be 'repaired'. Punctures should only occur with debris - perhaps the server remembers where accidents have occured, and says the next 50m is a high likelihood for punctures, decreasing as cars drive by?
How are you going to simulate this? By RANDOMLY making some of the cars have bad parts that break down?
Technical failures can only be simulated by making them random. As I said "random" failures are part of real life racing so they should be part of a simulation too.
Yes I agree that it can really suck if your car suddenly breaks down with no apparent reason. But so it does in real life too. So maybe LFS should have random technical failures, but all cars should be part of a good racing team to minimize the failures. But still it's a part of simulation racing that your car can have technical failure all of a sudden.
And btw realistic technical failures = random technical failures
Lets assume we are talking about the coilpack on each car. Driving style, going over bumps etc will not much difference to it's life, and therefore doesn't influence failure much. So any failure of that part can be considered random. Is that what you mean?
If so, I think that type of failure, i.e. beyond any control of the racer, should NOT be in LFS until we have a separate 'Hardcore' simulation mode. As it is, LFS is a game first, and is therefore designed to be fun. Random failures do not equal fun.
If (when?) LFS gets a hardcore mode (no F-key information, just pit stop requests, no map/split time info (except what's displayed in cockpit) etc, then we should 'simulate' these seemingly random failures.
X-Plane allows you to set component failures either 'Randomly', by 'x number of cycles', or 'after x minutes'. This means you can be flying along and get a random failure, or setup scenarios where by, say, a wheel nut fails at a specific time. Not only does this mean lessons/challenges can be generated, but it will also enable cool movies/screenshots to be made.
Just to clarify, if there ever is separate Normal and Hardcore modes, we should all use the same physics, and therefore can still race against each other. Just as long as Normal doesn't include driver aids that improve your lap times. Or maybe the type is a server option!
If so, I think that type of failure, i.e. beyond any control of the racer, should NOT be in LFS until we have a separate 'Hardcore' simulation mode. As it is, LFS is a game first, and is therefore designed to be fun. Random failures do not equal fun.
If (when?) LFS gets a hardcore mode (no F-key information, just pit stop requests, no map/split time info (except what's displayed in cockpit) etc, then we should 'simulate' these seemingly random failures.
X-Plane allows you to set component failures either 'Randomly', by 'x number of cycles', or 'after x minutes'. This means you can be flying along and get a random failure, or setup scenarios where by, say, a wheel nut fails at a specific time. Not only does this mean lessons/challenges can be generated, but it will also enable cool movies/screenshots to be made.
Just to clarify, if there ever is separate Normal and Hardcore modes, we should all use the same physics, and therefore can still race against each other. Just as long as Normal doesn't include driver aids that improve your lap times. Or maybe the type is a server option!
Did i really just see tristan post that!?
Lol!
I disagree. Nothing randomly selects which cars will fail to finish a race in real-life. There is always a cause, and a human influence at many stages.
Realistic technical failures does not = cpu god randomly pointing a finger for no reason.
CPU GOD with that old British national lottery golden hand voice: "It's Yoouu! Geeman's failed to finish because oooh I don't know.......he sprung a random oil leak for no reason in particular and his engine seized on ooh, let's say lap 34 of 50. I know it's only lap 3 now, but I thought I'd let you all know now and save him the trouble of continuing in vain"
Oh the realism.
Indeed. I don't want a "randomly piss off the driver"-feature.
Vain
Vain
Actually I would not mind if my car breaks down in the last lap of a 100 lap race totally at random. Sure I'll be pissed.. but then I start to prepare for the next race and hope for the better. All that matters is that failures happen at a realistic rate.
Maybe I just am a Hardcore Simulation Racer.
Maybe I just am a Hardcore Simulation Racer.
Maybe I'm not, maybe I am, I don't know.
Don't get me wrong though, I want failures. They do happen in real-life. I just really really don't want the cheap, lazy, half-assed, random failures which blight so many other titles. If it has to be done that way, I'd rather it wasn't done. Many things, people, teammates affect the chances of a car making it to the finish, not just a hat with the names in.
On a similar note, why not have random mistakes by the pit-crew like we saw in A1 gp this weekend?
Because without the human element it would just seem empty and meaningless and unfair.
If the devs programmed in a "real-pit-crew" mode/option so that real team-mates online are the ones screwing up and costing me 30 seconds then I would welcome it. Sure they might not be actually touching the wheels, and they might be doing things with the mouse completely unlike what a real pit crew would do, but it would still be far more realistic that way.
If an option for your team preparing a car, or part of it, were implemented, and the standard of preparation affected your chances of finishing, then even if the action of preparing it were different to actually preparing a car, it would be better than a name being drawn from the hat by the cpu.
(That would be hardcore sim racing in my opinion).
Sinbad, I think your definition of random is slightly different to mine (and geeman's).
Of course there is a reason for every failure, but the way you analyse manufacturing defects is through statistics, hence you can define the probability of a part failing in normal use without it having been abused by the driver. Those are the sort of 'random' failures people are talking about.
I don't want to see this in LFS because it would make the game pointlessly irritating. I really would like to see driver-influenced failures though.
Of course there is a reason for every failure, but the way you analyse manufacturing defects is through statistics, hence you can define the probability of a part failing in normal use without it having been abused by the driver. Those are the sort of 'random' failures people are talking about.
I don't want to see this in LFS because it would make the game pointlessly irritating. I really would like to see driver-influenced failures though.
i love it when there's two simultaneous threads on failures at the same time.
speedfreak227
speedfreak227
I'm interested to know who's going to be your pit crew ?
I just can't get excited about the idea of spinning my mouse in circles to undo the wheel nut, and then the other way to do it up again, after changing the wheel....
or maybe it's just me
Although Panel beating might be more up my street, right click to dent a panel and left click to pull it !!!
I just don't think 'Virtual Mechanic' would take off.......
You have to admit it would be 'different' to have a driver, and his team mates act as mechanics. I don't think anyone else has done that yet, have they?
Well I could see a system whereby no component will 'randomly' fail without some driver influenced damage being inflicted upon it. But ONCE some damage has been caused, the probability of certain types of failure becomes activated. Then the actual probability of total failure is influenced by how seriously damaged it is.
Ie. You would not expect a perfectly undamaged wishbone to just snap randomly, but if you've inflicted 10% damage on it, maybe there is a small chance that it would just fail. And if you've bent the thing halfway up to the body work, then there is a pretty high chance that it might completely fail on the next kerb.
Because at the moment, even once you've damaged your car, that damage is static, whereas in reality damage can become either degenerative or catastrophic, depending on the type of component (ie a carbon fibre wishbone is either completely intact and functional, or completely broken, whereas an engine can have degrees of brokenness, and once damaged can get worse by itself).
Ie. You would not expect a perfectly undamaged wishbone to just snap randomly, but if you've inflicted 10% damage on it, maybe there is a small chance that it would just fail. And if you've bent the thing halfway up to the body work, then there is a pretty high chance that it might completely fail on the next kerb.
Because at the moment, even once you've damaged your car, that damage is static, whereas in reality damage can become either degenerative or catastrophic, depending on the type of component (ie a carbon fibre wishbone is either completely intact and functional, or completely broken, whereas an engine can have degrees of brokenness, and once damaged can get worse by itself).
You have to take the probability of a clutch being defective.
1
2
Engine heat
(49 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG