I usually had some standard FOV of 90°. When I tried with TrackIR, it confused me more than it helped.

But then I thought about the real FOV in front of my 1680x1050 22" display and effects like underestimated turns, due to smaller angles. This would imply smaller FOVs, like 40° for my display. I tried TrackIR again, this time combined with a small FOV and voila, it works like charm -- absolutely intuitive.

Depends on what you call 'awesome'. Some people tend to expect more quantity (not only tyre physics and what was already mentioned, but also other updates) as time goes by. They underestimate the time it can take to get a specific problem (like the tyre one) right. Since you do not directly see the math and the work that has been done, it's 'just' the tyre physics update.

If 'awesome' means a better than the already awesome tyre physics, I agree!

Last edited by smurfer, Tue 28 Sep 2010, 07:20.

Maybe this article could clarify some aspects:

OSNews, Win 7 kernel

smurfer, still using wine...

Since we use Linux at work and I use it at home while not playing games that much, there are not many reasons left for me (I edited my post above accordingly ).
But for others there may be of course plenty of reasons; everyone should use, what (s)he likes.

Hi there,

finally got my XBox 360 controller (don't hit me, I like it) running under Linux, so everything is fine using wine (apart from shadows :shrug. No reason for me to stick with Win 7 any longer...

Bye, smurfer

edit: emphasized that it is just a personal opinion

Last edited by smurfer, Tue 17 Nov 2009, 09:38.

Hi,

although their is no real solution given: I think it's the same problem mentioned here:
http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=61930

Bye, smurfer

I think the Rockingham track or any other real life track is good for development. If you want to measure your algorithm, be it pattern recognition, video/audio coding or anything else where you use models to reproduce a certain real life system, you need a reference, i.e. ground truth data.

It's the same for physics simulations: There's a certain ground truth, lets say for maximum speed of a car with given parameters. But there's much more to it than just the maximum speed. Having a ground truth for car and track is a good way to optimize physics to approximate reality. Not perfectly as there are other differences, but at least better than without this additional data.

I don't really care about driving on a real life or a fictional track. Some of the posters wrote it before: I'm not about to "try this at home" or even compare my driving to reality. But as it was also said in the producers note: it's a real benefit for develoment.

Bye, smurfer

Hi,

I read a few sample posts of this thread and... wow, I really didn't know that there is so much about these stages, alphas and alleged promises.

I've been following LFS' development for a long time. Even though I do not really race -- I'm just very much into physics and simulations -- I thought it was time to buy a license. But I never thought about any promises. They develop a quality product and I buy it. They go on, I buy it if I like it. Simple as this.

All this complaining about "only" one new car reminds me of DCS: Black Shark, a combat helicopter simulation. Even though the developers support the software with new features while working on the next module, some people complain: I want a gun when leaving the helicopter... come on, it's not a shooter.
"It's only one helicopter, too expensive... " Yes, it's only one helicopter, but one single of the various systems is more complex than a whole other game. Expensive is what the drinks are on the weekend, and all I have afterwards is a headache.

I'm really looking forward to every new development. Scirocco and Rockingham?! -- Sounds great!

Cheers, smurfer