Quote from CharlieP :

A lot of posts just from the 1 review

I didn't read the review.... I see no point in it for me.

LFS for me is the best experience I've ever had on a computer, it's not the graphics, sound, physics etc that does it for me, it's the whole package. The fun, excitement, frustration, determination.... you can go through many emotions and states whilst racing online

Good post Charlie, summed it up for me.

Quote from Doorman :

Good post Charlie, summed it up for me.

You guys are top notch...
You don't read the review the thread is about but start posting in the thread straight away... illepall

Quote from ysu :

You guys are top notch...
You don't read the review the thread is about but start posting in the thread straight away... illepall

Are you infering that I didn't read the post? Naughty to make such assumptions

make love not war.:grouphug:

Quote from Gabkicks :

make love not war.:grouphug:

Make love to a strine? Well not a male strine anyway! :icon23:

Quote from Doorman :

Make love to a strine? Well not a male strine anyway! :icon23:

Maybe you should meet him for a drink

You both live N of Sydney

Quote from CharlieP :

A lot of posts just from the 1 review

I didn't read the review.... I see no point in it for me.

LFS for me is the best experience I've ever had on a computer, it's not the graphics, sound, physics etc that does it for me, it's the whole package. The fun, excitement, frustration, determination.... you can go through many emotions and states whilst racing online

Even when LFS is finished it won't score as highly as the more mainstream titles if it's still independant. Companies like EA can release complete rubbish and it gets to No. 1... work it out

The only way LFS will become mainstream and get the best reviews and millions of players is to have it published by one of the big boys, who mostly market products that look and sound fantastic but can have the playability of concrete football boots

But LFS can still become the winner (Is it a competition?) ... once the Physics are near-perfect (You can't totally simulate the real thing!) and the graphics and sound are competing with the rest then word of mouth and the fact that it can be downloaded and tried out online in demo mode might be enough.

My main point is this.... If you love LFS, enjoy it!

Great post, totally agree with it...

Yeah along the lines of what CharlieP said I don't think LFS will ever be mainstream and I'm not sure the devs even really want that. They made the game they wanted to make the way they want to make it.
Call me a fanboy but my perspective on LFS is never going to be completely objective, I'll never fully understand some opinions on LFS and how I can feel the exact opposite.

I disagree, there is a huge chance for a racing simulation to become mainstream, and I don't mean mainstream NFS style. It just has to be good enough to step it to that challenge, as imo there is a huge market just waiting for a simulation that blows everyone away.

Quote from RichardTowler :

I disagree, there is a huge chance for a racing simulation to become mainstream, and I don't mean mainstream NFS style. It just has to be good enough to step it to that challenge, as imo there is a huge market just waiting for a simulation that blows everyone away.

for example,

the Gran Turismo series on PS.

I know its not as good, but its as realisitic as it can be (sorta!) on the Playstation. It might be hard for people to play, but its highly popular.

LFS could create and fill this market on the PC. IMO it is one of the easiest games to 'jump in and go'. And with its ease of internet multiplayer there is no reason it cannot become the racing simulation equivalent of World of Warcraft.

IMO

Quote from mrbogeyman :

LFS could create and fill this market on the PC. IMO it is one of the easiest games to 'jump in and go'. And with its ease of internet multiplayer there is no reason it cannot become the racing simulation equivalent of World of Warcraft.

I can't wait to get my hands on a set of slicks that are +2 Traction and +1 Resistance to blowout.

Lightning bolt! Lightning bolt!

well I was thinking of something alittle more advanced, GT4 is just a basic game, although done to a very refined finish and it probally captures the whole essence of racing more than any other title, more so when watching the replays.

But my idea of a racing simulation is to drive a virtual car in a virtual world, not just a 3d model, i hope this will come as pc tech improves.

If you added some of this feel in Gt4 to LFS visually, alot more refined physics, the sounds of GTR, you'd have a pretty decent sim on your hands

Quote from mrbogeyman :

there is no reason it cannot become the racing simulation equivalent of World of Warcraft.

IMO

you are overseeing the marketing aspect here. Licenses for tracks and cars are most important in order to achieve what you said. If you don't believe me, ask random people if they'd rather drive ferrari in hockenheim or fxogtr in aston.

It's similiar to mmorpgs. Make one with a famous setting/story (lotr or star wars) and will sell itself without the need to offer more than others. Blizzard is of course an exception, because they had big hits with wc3 and diablo 1/2 people will buy everything they make.

Quote from Shotglass :

Longish but very useful post.

I agree totally. LFS is the only racing "game" that I feel comfortable drifting in. I'm no drifter by any stretch of the imagination, but it's good fun sometimes when you're bored, but that's beside the point. LFS just feels -right- when you're sideways. The only other game that comes close is GPL, which some people would argue is still king, but again, I digress. People make a big deal about drifting in Gran Turismo, but I can't do it, it just feels too artificial, the cars don't ever seem to actually be driving on the track, I don't know how to describe it any better. The cars in LFS just seem so "planted" like they're actually interacting with the track, instead of just appearing to drive on it. IMO, the best example of this is when the cars get air. In LFS, if you go off a jump on a rallycross track, it just feels very organic, in something like Gran Turismo, you jump and land and say, "whoa, that felt odd..." Again, GPL is the only other sim that feels -right- the way the cars sit on the ground.

I don't really know what I'm saying, so I think I'll stop.

I wouldn't agree on this one. I just can't see simulators never being any kind of main stream products. For example, the main thing making the GTR that popular how it is today is because of three factors, which imho are:
* credibility of simulating the real GTR cars
* driving aids
* it's been "tested" by real drivers

LFS will never be this popular because there won't be arcade mode, semi-realistic mode and ultra realistic mode to choose from. There is only the ultra realistic mode, which sacrifices some playability for realism. And there is some good thinking in this. Which is that if you simulate a real race car perfectly in a sim so that it handles perfectly like the real thing - it will be damn hard to drive. The real race cars give a lot of feedback of what are you doing, like g-forces, all kind of sounds and vibrations. You don't get these in front of your computer.

There are reason why flatspots or realistic damage modelling hasn't been seen in driving games (=racing sims). The main reason is that they make the game too hard for the casual player (there is also the reason that car makers don't want their products seen smashed). The ratio of casual players versus players in total for LFS is much smaller than it is for a game like GTR.

I bet it is fully purposeful that GT4 doesn't have damage modelling. It makes the game too hard for the average 10 year olds. I am not saying a 10 year old can't drive LFS or GTR, I am saying that more 10 year olds expect GT4 for to be a good game in terms of playability (and some for credibility, as they want to drive the reals cars) - not in terms of realism.

Quote from Ardent :

If you don't believe me, ask random people if they'd rather drive ferrari in hockenheim or fxogtr in aston.

I'd take the ferrari at hockenheim. I am not joking. But currently driving the FXR at aston feels better

Quote from 96 GTS :

IMO, the best example of this is when the cars get air. In LFS, if you go off a jump on a rallycross track, it just feels very organic, in something like Gran Turismo, you jump and land and say, "whoa, that felt odd..." Again, GPL is the only other sim that feels -right- the way the cars sit on the ground.

dunno about that ... the cars in lfs dont seem to care much at all whether your foot is on the gas or on the brake pedal in mid air
i havent tried that with any light car with heavy wheels though so im not entirely sure if its just the weight of the car that makes those movements hard to see or if lfs really doesnt simulate it

Quote from Hyperactive :

LFS will never be this popular because there won't be arcade mode, semi-realistic mode and ultra realistic mode to choose from.

but that is you making the wrong asumption that realism is a bad thing and the only way to make a popular game is to be hardcade, and that is where i think people have it wrong

Quote from Shotglass :

dunno about that ... the cars in lfs dont seem to care much at all whether your foot is on the gas or on the brake pedal in mid air
i havent tried that with any light car with heavy wheels though so im not entirely sure if its just the weight of the car that makes those movements hard to see or if lfs really doesnt simulate it

Right now the way the cars fly has more to do with the way the suspension compresses when they go off the jump, but I do think the rotational forces of the wheels are modeled.

the reason that there should be an arcade side of things is because racing with keyboard in LFS is not enjoyable at all; the amount of people who have wheels at their disposal is very small; making LFS only accessible through WHEEL control is simply going to make its target audience smaller.

racing with the mouse feels completely wrong btw

Quote from Hyperactive :

I bet it is fully purposeful that GT4 doesn't have damage modelling. It makes the game too hard for the average 10 year olds.

yes and no
yes its on purpose but the reason is quite simply because manufacturers dont like seeing damage on their cars in games

Quote from Shotglass :

yes and no
yes its on purpose but the reason is quite simply because manufacturers dont like seeing damage on their cars in games

I believe it also had to do with the fact programming damage to the developers standard would of taken too much time and would of taken too much power from the ps2 to do.

i bet even with the PS3 it wont have damage, its all about the manufacturers

Quote from ayrton senna 87 :

i bet even with the PS3 it wont have damage, its all about the manufacturers

90% do not mind car damage, its why virtually every single other car game allows damage but they are so many cars in GT4, it would require every single model to be recreated, as you can't just have a flat 3d model, you have to model the different parts of the car in 3d that fall off or get damage I believe which increases the polygon count no end along with the time needed to add cars.

Quote from RichardTowler :

well I was thinking of something alittle more advanced, GT4 is just a basic game, although done to a very refined finish and it probally captures the whole essence of racing more than any other title, more so when watching the replays.

There's more than one thing GT4 is crap at, but if you had to narrow it down to one major thing which is totally crap in GT4, it would have to be the racing.

All you get with the replays is the same crap racing, but shown in nicely lit graphics with good camera angles. GT4 is about as far from the "essence of racing" as any game could be. It's about time-attacks, track unlocking and car-collecting.

edit:
This applies to multiplayer too, because in their efforts to make it as safe (read:dull) as possible, they gave the cars the collision model from a bumper car fairground ride.