Let us dispell some myths that are getting propegated far too often in this thread:
Myth 1. Macro clutch gives super human clutch speed. Simply not true, I have shown clearly that a manual clutch shift (G25) is as fast and in the majority of times actually significantly faster than a macro shift. Also I clearly showed that the times the clutch took to depress and release with autoclutch and the macro were actually very close.
Myth 2. Macro clutch is impossibly consistent. From the experiments I did I could plainly see that this is simply not true. The macro clutch was actually quite inconsistent, the times it took to change could vary by more than 30% with the occassional misshift thrown in for good measure. The autoclutch on the other hand was remarkably consistent.
Myth 3. The autoclutch is realistic and the macro clutch is unrealistic. Again simply not true. The macro and button clutch actually more closely mimics a real manual clutch shift than does the autoclutch. The way the autoclutch depresses the clutch is 100% NOT realistic. The autoclutch fails the realism test by a mile
Ok so now we have got those myths out of the way, why is it so eveident that a button clutch shift or macro clutch shift is faster (in lap time) than the autoclutch and fully manual clutch shifter?
Several reasons for this as listed below:
- Under brakes. Over a G25 user who uses clutch pedal the macro shift or button clutch method is faster as the driver can left foot brake while modulating throttle much more easily than the poor old full G25 user. This enables the driver to be far more consistent and even more aggressive in the braking zones. While the autoclutch driver can also do the same as the button clutch or macro shift driver he doesn't get quite the same advantage because of the way the autoclutch depresses the clutch (which is unrealistic) causing the car to become unbalanced more easily making it more difficult to drive at the limit.
- Accelerating. Those that use a full manual clutch will have a clear advantage here as it is definately faster than any of the other methods. Using a button clutch or macro shift method is the runner up in this category with the autoclutch trailing behind miserably, but this is only the case because of the unrealistic nature of the autoclutch. The autoclutch, button clutch and macro shifting methods all result in very similar shift times so if the autoclutch actually more closely resembled the action of a real clutch depress/release cycle it would give near identical performance to the button clutch and macro shift methods. In fact it would probably be faster than the macro clutch due to its higher consistency!
So in conclusion what is the solution to this whole debacle?
- Is it to vilify button clutch and macro shift users? What is possibly constructive about that I ask? It is not the button clutch or macro shifting that is giving the advantage (a majority of opinion saying it is doesn't make it true) - it is that the autoclutch is behaving in an unrealitic manner thus giving them a disavantage over ALL other methods.
- No the best outcome is to see the autoclutch brought into line with how a manual clutch works thus eliminating the disadvantage it has over the other methods. The plus side is that there will be a step forwards in the way cars handle at the limit for autoclutch users.
My opinion of this whole matter is that it is much the same situation we had with the high nose bug. We all had to put up with it's unrealistic nature and the advantage people would get if they used it. Those that treated LFS as a sim refused to take advantage of the bug and those that treated LFS like a game had no problem taking advantage of it as everyone could do it if they wanted. The same is true with the autoclutch except that it is in reverse, the bug gives a disadvantage rather than an advantage.