I don't know the answer to that because I don't have rFactor, but I think that LFS has far too many sensitive adjustments.
I also learned the hard way that the controller you use has a great effect on the way you adjust the settings. For example, I drive with a joystick but I rarely can use a set designed for a wheel. That invalidates any notion of accuracy or realism, which many racers look for. Realistic and accurate settings should always be the same regardless of what controller you use. But I think that can't be achieved given the variety of controllers in the market.
So I have to design my own sets because I can't use anyone else's. I presume that if the adjustments in LFS weren't so sensitive it would make it easier for me to share sets.
So, "realism" and "accuracy" are words that can be left out of our lingo and still enjoy the game. But I find LFS to be a very interesting and captivating game for all ages.
How can you justify that statement? How can a 240 degree rotation controller have the same input effect as a 900 degree controller? How can a controller with strong FFB ever feel the same as one with weak FFB or no FFB? How can a gamepad control the steering as smoothly and accurately as a wheel?
Thanks for the answers so far. Im concerned about the "realism" involved, in the sense of a physics engine giving us more of it. I do agree with Indiana Jim in the sense that a game doesnt need to offer this "realism" to be fun, but I also think that if a game is labeled as "a simulator" it should offer a fairly good depiction of reality.
That said, my question comes from this. I just bought a Momo racing wheel and Im testing the simulators I can find. So far, I have done extensive testing with LFS and Im beginning to try the rFactor.
After several laps in the two cars available in the demo I came here to the forum to see what people, in general, tought about rFactor and LFS, in regarding to their simulation qualities.
Surprisingly, for me, people is trashing rFactor, but Im not sure about which model is more "realistic". To my hands, both offer some good points and some others that still need work.
I think if you tried to drive a real car with a joystick you'd have a nightmare controlling it. So I'd argue that what you're saying is a +1 to LFS for realism.
Sorry if this is essentially the same point as Gunn, just wanted to put a different angle on it.
On the point of LFS vs. rFactor, try both demos and see what you think (as you have done!). I found with LFS I felt connected and at home, something I never got from GTR/rFactor (although I've only tried them for a bit, with LFS the feeling was instant).
A handful of newly released mods for rFactor have made me change my mind about the quality of the underlying physics modeling in rFactor. After trying most of the mods that were considered to be the cream of the crop and finding the handling of all of them to be, at best, unconvincing and, at worst, outright strange, I was convinced that the root problem was the physics modeling in rFactor itself and dismissed it as deeply flawed.
However, the newly released Caterhams (by Major Parts, cubits and Kangaloosh) and the C6 Corvette (by some1 and Niels), together with the RealFeel force-feedback plugin by TechAde, have changed my mind. The suspension and some other physical parameters in these mods were created using a new tool called carFactory, which takes the real physical properties of the car being modeled and generates the appropriate suspension and physical parameters for the mod. The end result, as shown by the handful of mods that have been designed using carFactory, is a car that handles much more believably. Further, the RealFeel plugin generates force feedback from the forces acting on the steering arm, similar to the way force feedback is generated in LFS. With well-designed suspension, the force feedback is excellent and the cars actually feel like real cars. Throwing a Caterbusa or the C6 around a well-designed track is an absolute delight and the driving experience is, in my opinion, at least as good as LFS.
Unfortunately, the RealFeel plugin highlights how poorly designed most of the mods for rFactor are, and that includes both cars and tracks. Put a well-designed car mod on a poorly designed track and the flaws in the track become very apparent. At this point, there are only a small handful of car and track combinations that really showcase how good rFactor can be. carFactory and RealFeel have raised the bar. I hope that they quickly become accepted standards and that more and more quality mods are released.
It's a bit sad that it has taken over 2 years for good quality, believable mods to be released for rFactor. Much of the blame for this can be laid squarely at ISI's feet since they didn't release proper design tools along with the game. In fact, considering the relatively poor quality of the cars designed by ISI themselves, it's questionable whether their own in-house content developers have access to proper design tools either.
I guess it's not possible to try the Caterham mod without a licensed version of rFactor? I did get an rFactor disc with my G25, I'll have to check if it's a full version.
I have just updated my Rfactor, with Le Mans and Audi R8. I also got the new megane mod, and tried it out yesterday
I really don`t like the way cars "feel" in rfactor, and yes I have got the real feel patch. Every time i come back to Lfs, from Rfactor, it`s like comming home
Rfactor is working your eyes and Gfx, where Lfs is working your cpu and brains
I dont know anything about the modeling engines behind LFS and rFactor. That said I have to tell that when you are driving rFactor it does seem to behave like it should, this is specially true when dealing with inertia and weight transfers.
Note that Im NOT saying that LFS is "inferior" in any way, just different. Driving, for example, the F1 BMW in each of them (LFS and rFactor) its a really different experience, but Im uncertain in that one of them is "definitely more realistic" than the other.
Maybe a good question would be: How can you define "more real"?
I concur with the above stuff... it's mainly the wheel feedback and realistic responses that make Live for Speed believable. I've gotten to the point now where I can actually FEEL my brakes locking up, or my car understeering. With most games you need a visual clue.
Well, if one is such so different from the other.
Surely one of them probably is better (as in more realistic), don't you think?
I'm not saying which one is cause i don't know, but surely one should be more realistic than the other if they're so different.
As people have pointed out, what makes a sim believable is mostly the feedback you get through the steering wheel. For me LFS was the best in that regard even in S1 days. I felt instantly at home with it. With rFactor I didn't at all. The RealFeel plugin has changed that a bit but not quite as drastically as I was hoping. I think part of the reason for that is that I'm still failing to get the right ffb-settings. And this is, imho, a big shortcoming of rFactor. In order to get the ffb to feel the way it's supposed to, you seem to have to fiddle with the ini-settings quite a lot. That shouldn't be necessary.
The problem with finding the right track/car combination for rFactor to feel believable is a similar one. All I basically want to do is race the Nordschleife in rFactor, but sadly the RealFeel plugin doesn't seem to work too well on it. On other tracks and with the proper mod the feeling is actually quite nice, as BuddhaBing pointed out. So I'm more or less out of luck if the Lupo Cup on the Nordschleife is my combo of choice .
Well, as to the OP, which was actually about physics: Who knows how well rFactor/LFS physics actually are in comparison. I'd guess they're both not bad. Each have their ups and downs, but only with LFS do I get an overall consistent believable feeling no matter which car or track I drive.
Te lo contesto en español... o una mucho mejor respuesta... juega GTR2, Y f1 challenge, y sentiras lo mismo que en rFactor... que lastima que lo compares, porque lo unico que seria muy WOW serian las graficas, o demas no
I remember Niels saying that his C6 uses a suspension you wouldn't get into the car (something way too long), so I'm not so sure if there isn't a flaw afterall and it's still nothing more than making up things to get a desired effect...
Yes, Intel Europe approached Scavier, Intel USA made a deal with rFactor...
All I can say is what I feel, and Im intrigued to see why some people feel different about the same issue. One reason that can make fans of any game to feel that other games are "wrong" is that they are simply accustomed to a particular physics engine.
As far as I can tell, the only measure of realism we can get would be making double blind tests. We should pick up people from the street, that meet some criteria (they drive a car, love races and know nothing about PCs simulations for example). Then we should take them to a place in which the computer will start either LFS or rFactor (or some other game) without the researchers knowing if the subject are driving one or the other.
Then a list of questions are answered by the subjects, regarding physics qualities like inertia, weight transfer, feedback to the wheel, continuity of trajectories, etc. etc.
For me, this would be the only way to determine which one feels more "real".
.