Hello,

Recently I'm driving more BF1. Gives a real rush, I like that. But..

After Aston National, Redline Racing #3 started running Kyoto GP Long. That's great, but I found out that there are only 3 braking points.
So, I started to compare it to real tracks, average kph on the WR laps. I only took the usual driven tracks.

LFS, from 'slow' to fast:

Real F1, a few tracks:

These times were the fastest laps done in 2006 by the BWM Saubers.
Shame Spa Francorchamps wasn't driven that year.

As you can see, most tracks are a lot slower then the most LFS tracks.

Monza is the fastest track there is currently in F1, yet 3 tracks (from the ones I messured) are way faster in LFS. Silverstone is also conciderate as a fast track, 7 tracks are faster. Only Aston North & Fern Bay Gold seem to have a decent average speed. But they're still pretty fast. Even Indy is slower, with its half oval.

My conclusion is that LFS has a lot of fun corners, but mostly they are just too fast. That's a shame with the downforce cars, you can't driver very close to someone in high speed corners.

So, I think there may be more slower corners. Not only hairpins, but also slower 90 degree turns. The fact that a lot of corners are banked in LFS makes them faster too. Also, most hairpins in LFS are just flat out (with the BF1), or almost flat out. Tracks like Monza, San Marino, Gilles Villeneuve, Nurburgring, Silverstone, Magny-Cours, etc. all have slow hairpins. Maybe It should make the fun bigger. Running over the curbs as fast as you can, flying in the air, but not as extreme as it is now.

Just an idea. This is not another "please more tracks like.. blabla.. in LFS!!" -thread. But just an idea to make it feel a bit more real maybe.

The current tracks are fun btw, so keep them..

Yes a lot of the tracks are too fast in LFS, which I really dislike. I like more variety and plenty more slow/technical sections in a track, but we really don't have much of that with the S2 tracks.

Well Keke Rosberg lapped Silverstone faster than any of those modern tracks over two decades ago and four decades ago Dan Gurney lapped the best looking Grand Prix car of all time round one of the best circuits of all time (Spa) at 148.8 mph (239.5 km/h).

My point is modern F1 tracks are slower (and too slow for big cars) some tight and technical tracks would be good to compliment the fast tracks but not the typical docking of corners and splattering of chicanes to bring the speed down.

i guess we need more corners to use the brakes

I'm not driving the BF at the moment, partially because the tracks do indeed seem a bit too fast for it (Westhill is particularly uninspiring). However, the fact that the Sauber also understeers like buggery through the tight stuff is also keeping me from driving it. I'd welcome some tighter tracks once the grip issues are sorted :up:

Quote from Hankstar :

However, the fact that the Sauber also understeers like buggery through the tight stuff is also keeping me from driving it. I'd welcome some tighter tracks once the grip issues are sorted :up:

That's adjustable within the bounds of the setup, you know. I'm sure you could remove some of that understeer.

At the risk of being flamed, I just tried out rFactor and actually liked it.
If it wasn't for the wheel lag, I'd most likely leave LFS for a while.
The reason for this are tracks and wheel feedback.

First off, the tracks in rF really provide the driver with some challenges. From elevation changes and blind corners to differences in surface shape. This, combined with the slight shake effect, really provides you with a sense of speed as well as environment...2 things LFS is badly missing.
Tracks are also much slower yet feel the correct speed. (210kph feels as fast as it should...heck 150 does as well)

Another thing that LFS needs is proper feedback in regards to wheel slip, surface, kerbs and grass/sand.

This all makes the BF1 in rF so much more fun then LFS.
I think the main issue with LFS currently (aside from some major physics issues) are the tracks. Being so unrealistic in terms of corners and elevation changes is really pulling this game down in my book (racing fun wise)

This post is in no way intended to flame LFS in any shape of form not to promote rF. I've been playing LFS for a long time and plan on sticking with it much longer.
I just think that the devs need a few pointers from other "sims" in order to make LFS one of the best sims around.

I don't know that LFS is so unrealistic track-wise. Try T1 too fast at Brands Hatch in any sim, you'll soon wonder where the ground went ... Nordschleife, Brands, Bathurst, Lime Rock, Laguna Seca and many RL tracks all have dramatic elevation changes and some well-tricky corners (maybe not Lime Rock, but it's quite steep in the back section). I reckon if Laguna Seca didn't exist IRL and you found it in some racing game somewhere, the first time you came to the Corkscrew you'd go "hell no, that just isn't realistic!"

@Bob: thanks, I'll poke around - haven't driven the thing for months, could just be me anyway :up: Might have to fix my broken left paddle too (recently-discovered reason 3 for avoiding the BF1, can't stick-shift in that thing ) ...

Quote from gohfeld23 :

This, combined with the slight shake effect

I think even most rFactor players hates that annoying shake effect. Especially when it has nothing do with the track bumps... it's "scripted" effect, more speed = more shaking.

Quote :

Another thing that LFS needs is proper feedback in regards to wheel slip, surface, kerbs and grass/sand.

Not feeling anything when driving over kerbs is not force feedback's fault, it's just because the kerbs are nearly flat. They should be saw-type like this /\/\/\. Grass/sand is kind of flat too. There's no value for better kerb feel in the force feedback code in LFS (and in other games uses similar FFB system, also rFactor nowadays through plugin called RealFeel), because it's basicly flawless, it just transforms everything what the front wheels feels, if they don't feel anything, you don't feel either.

Quote :

I think the main issue with LFS currently (aside from some major physics issues) are the tracks. Being so unrealistic in terms of corners and elevation changes is really pulling this game down in my book (racing fun wise)

with this I agree.

Quote from Hankstar :

I don't know that LFS is so unrealistic track-wise. Try T1 at Brands Hatch in any sim ... Nordschleife, Brands, Bathurst, Lime Rock, Laguna Seca and many RL tracks all have dramatic elevation changes and some well-tricky corners (maybe not Lime Rock, but it's steep in the back section). I reckon if Laguna Seca didn't exist IRL and you found it in some racing game somewhere, the first time you came to the Corkscrew you'd go "hell no, that just isn't realistic!"

You seem to have misunderstood me.
I'm saying that LFS does NOT have decent elevation changes and blind corners most RL tracks sport.
Hence why they feel very arcade and "flat" to me.

@ Deggis
Well the issue with the kerbs, grass and feedback is an issue of track modeling rather then the code IMO. in RL, if you touch the kerb or a a side gets on grass, you feel it.
Kerbs shake madly at low speeds and make a loud noise at higher speeds as well as harden you wheel (harden might not be the correct term but you get the idea).
While sand will really unbalance your car in RL, due to the slowing nature of it, grass feels slippery but controllable. You also feel it really good on the wheel as it lightens immensely.
However, neither makes you lose it as it's represented in LFS.

Well, good then Yes, LFS tracks could definitely stand to be more interesting on the whole :up: There are a few bits in LFS that are quite nasty, like the drop-off hilly chicane at Aston - actually, that's about it. You're right - probably not enough

Quote from Hankstar :

Well, good then Yes, LFS tracks could definitely stand to be more interesting on the whole :up: There are a few bits in LFS that are quite nasty, like the drop-off hilly chicane at Aston - actually, that's about it. You're right - probably not enough

I love that two part of the track as well as the one before last corner on AS. Those 2 downhill chicanes as well as that mentioned corner made me fall in love with AS initially.
Like you said, we need much more of that.

the ffb is different because it is solely the front wheels being translated to the wheel, as it should be.

Lfs does not use the wheel to try to describe the entire car's current state. If the car is shaking for some reason that the front wheels would not be, then you don't feel it in the wheel.

As for tracks, +1 for tighter stuff.

It seems atm everyone just powerslides through everything to get the fastest time.

i actually think the tracks in lfs are quite poor in general. this is not to say they aren't fun, but they are just too easy, and after you've learned a track and developed a good set for it, it becomes a boring routine of throttle, brake, turn, repeat.

the difference between the tracks in lfs and real life tracks is not necisarily the number of braking zones, but the number of complex sections where you are neither braking nor accelerating, but working like mad to keep the car balanced. as much as we all hate GTR, i've been playing it again lately, and almost every corner is difficult in it's own unique way.

+1 for more braking and more corners !

they will be fast if you only test fast tracks.

try fe club or as cadet

Maybe this track

http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=27572

Did you run these tests with a realistic amount of wind as well? Obviously there's no such thing as No Wind IRL, there'll always be at least some kind of breeze blowing, and that should take a few mph off your average speed.

Also, how accurately modelled is the current LFS aerodynamic system? I've never really noticed all that much. I assume it's fairly well done, but I've no wind tunnel examples to check against

Not only what Dajmin said there about the wind, but also you did not state whether the times listed for real F1 tracks are qualifying records or just fast laps set during racing. Temperature and environment also has quite a bit to do with it as well. A hot and slick track will slow times down and a cooler track and air temperature will speed laps up. LFS's environment is completely static with a set temperature and with WR laps, a set no wind option (can you even set wind in hotlap mode?)

My opinion is to disregard the BF1 entirely when talking about current tracks in LFS. Blackwood, Fern Bay, and South City were designed for S1 when the fastest car available was the FXO, a road car. When S2 came about, we recieved the GTR's and the FO8 as the fastest cars. The S2 tracks, Aston, Kyoto, and Westhill were designed with these cars in mind. When we got the BF1 in the April 06 update, we did not get any new tracks with it. We did get some new Aston configs, but no entirely new tracks. Thus you can not compare LFS tracks with F1 since none of them were designed with the BF1 taken into consideration.

I'm not an alien. There are many times that I can not just keep the throttle floored when lapping a track. To me, they are entirely realistic and not "easy". Kyoto GP Long in the FZR is the biggest example, the entire 2nd section before going under the bridge I'm feathering the throttle though there causing the car to push or rotate as I see fit for making the corners in that section. Through the lower section of FE Gold reverse (I think) for the double apex section is another place where I have to feather the throttle. To much and the car will just push through there, where the car is almost too loose around other sections of the track.

Quote from mrodgers :

Blackwood, Fern Bay, and South City were designed for S1 when the fastest car available was the FXO, a road car.

Wasnt the LX6 in S1 from the beginning?

Your point of course still stands, though.

Quote from zeugnimod :

Wasnt the LX6 in S1 from the beginning?

Your point of course still stands, though.

Whoops.... (I was never S1 licensed, just demo a few months before S2 demo release...)

Quote from Hankstar :

I don't know that LFS is so unrealistic track-wise. Try T1 too fast at Brands Hatch in any sim, you'll soon wonder where the ground went ... Nordschleife, Brands, Bathurst, Lime Rock, Laguna Seca and many RL tracks all have dramatic elevation changes and some well-tricky corners (maybe not Lime Rock, but it's quite steep in the back section). I reckon if Laguna Seca didn't exist IRL and you found it in some racing game somewhere, the first time you came to the Corkscrew you'd go "hell no, that just isn't realistic!"

@Bob: thanks, I'll poke around - haven't driven the thing for months, could just be me anyway :up: Might have to fix my broken left paddle too (recently-discovered reason 3 for avoiding the BF1, can't stick-shift in that thing ) ...

Dont forget that RF is a FULLY Released sim...

LFS is 'ALPHA' (Pre Beta?)

Tracks and physics arent finalized (and neither are cars)!

Why leave LFS over that?

I know about the alpha status, you pick up a few things if you hang around long enough ...

Um, but where did I say I was leaving? Did you see something in my post that I didn't? Dude, where did I even mention rFactor?

He probably wanted to quote me.
Well S2 has been alpha for an extremely long time. At $50+ a pop (price changes every day due to the money market) it's the most expensive alpha any of you have ever used.

All of us have paid for a game that we don't have...just a promise for it.
I believe we have the right to make simple small requests as to what we wish to be done with our money.

As for rF, it's not perfect. No sim/game is and neither will be LFS.
To me it's a simple case of logic. You get more quality cars, more quality tracks and constant community additions. Also, while rF is a fully released game, it's still updated, fixed and changed....all of those things available for free (same as the LFS "Alpha" patches).
Now fact is, I'm not going to give up anything I've paid for. I'll just play both.

As for your comment there, I missed your logic by a mile.

Quote:
Dont forget that RF is a FULLY Released sim...

LFS is 'ALPHA' (Pre Beta?)

Tracks and physics arent finalized (and neither are cars)!

Why leave LFS over that?

In other words, why leave a more expensive alpha game that promises to be something decent sometime between now and forever over a finalized game with more content, realistic tracks and frequent content additions as well as physics changes?

Can you guess where you lost me?