might crank out the ol q basic and have a **** around, can you do midi with that?

As someone said there is the only the bang per cylinder fire being generated, each bang being timed and cycled to the engine configuration.

So its just the amount of details that need to be implemented which will create a nice natural note. If you think of the cylinder fire as one cycle and then add additional "cycles" to create a more detailed engine noise. For exammple have another cycle that has sound properties to create a somewhat "ticking raspyness" and have it so that it play alongside the original cycle. If you made that to be played at louder and higher pitches as the rpm rises, partilcularily as the engine reaches redline then you would get quite an audible difference in engine harmonics. It would certainly help in hearing how the engine stresses up top. Then additionally perhaps another "cycle" that created a constant low pitch humm to add an exhaust drone type of effect.

Really the possibilities are endless, and in the end you could create quite a detailed and natural sounding engine note. Then eventually adding such things as transmission wurr, and or bearing noises for the wheels. Wow... Im about too.... climax (who said that? )

Last edited by Sketchy, Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:28.

I completely disagree with using prerecorded sounds in LFS. For starters theres a lot of work that would have to go into recording the sounds, and multiple engine samples for different RPM and load, then there is creating the sound engine and setting up parameters for mixing them all together. And thats got to be done for each and every car.

The real time system scawen has created for LFS is probably one of the BEST inovations I have ever seen in video games. Its absolutely brilliant, and I would think, easier to make and maintain.

Having said that, the sound in LFS is shit. But not because its been designed that way and is incapable of doing better, but more because its an interim feature until scawen has time to dedicate to making the sounds more advanced. The system is fantastic, and ill never forget the first time I used LFSTweak on the demo cars to make a WRX replica... WOW!

Does anybody know how i could get started in making a similar system and whats involved, Id love to give it a try.

I must add too that the current damage model is used for suspension geometry damage ONLY. No other part of the cars are actually modelled for damage, With the exception of pre S1 engine over-rev damage.

EDIT: Oh downforce too

Last edited by Sketchy, Fri, 23 Sep 2005 11:50.

Im fairly certain that the story is that bikes was originally intended (or atleast the support for a bike) to be available in LFS from the ground up. I think that LFS coding and the persuit to such high standards has probably taken longer then scawen thought it would, or that during the process so far it was decided that other things needed polishing. As I said I dont expect it, but I really do think we will see a bike In S3 days. Its probably a while off yet though.

Quote from Madman CZ :

hmmm yes interesting but somehow i just dont believe lfs will include a bike... i just cant imagine racing a bike with a wheel unless the devs make somekind of new control system for it.....

I have no doubt that a bike will eventually be included in the avalable vehicles. The game was always intended as a racing simulation, and I have always been under the impression that LFS physics programming supported both more and less then 4 wheels from teh ground up, Which means we could see all sorts of vehicles at some point. This may very well be incorrect, But none the less I still think we will get bikes at some point in LFS Future.

As for the controls, well its always been a tricky one but Im kind of excited as i just realised that the perfect control able to give you the required seperate Lean and Steering inputs is a more common gaming peripheral then a wheel. Take any joystick with twist handle action and voila! The joysticks main 2 axis for weight transfer of rider and the twist handle for steering. I wonder how hard it would be to use?

I do too think it would be cool.

Its been discussed many times that LFS only simulates what the front wheels do and its for realism/simulation purposes. But I think it would be nice to feel some of the other effects more closely. As the steering is the only source of force feedback for most racers with FFB devices then it would be ncie to be able to set it up so you can feel some of these effects better.

Having it customisable in such a way means the game would be able to satisfy both sides of the camp, no matter where you pitch your tent.

Definately atleast on option to change it.

I'd love to have indicator paddles and a Hazard button although I doubt I ever will, but atleast being able to use wheel buttons or mouse buttons would be a nice change from searching for the 8-0 keys.

I agree with nugz a bit on this one. The police chase garbage, No thanks, seriously why? My best possible guess is that some people like the culture of NFSU but those of them who acutally can drive realise they want something vaguely simulation, but sorry bud, LFS is not the game.

As for the free roaming city style track, It would be interesting so you could enjoy driving some of these cars in a cruisey sort of fashion. But more to my liking would be some sort of twisty mountain/country roads. Maybe a track that Is a 10-15K long that starts near the bottom of a mountain and makes its way both up and down. I would like this not because Im with the Initial D style downhill drifting camp (Im not!) but because whenever I really enjoy a drive for real Im always looking for the twisty's... the awesome satisfaction that comes from double clutching on downshift as you brake hard for that tight 40km/h bend just ahead... magical. This I could see in LFS.

Last edited by Sketchy, Fri, 16 Sep 2005 21:31.

Yeah... right...

At least not before they include an 8 Litre 16 cylinder with quad turbos... haha oooh yeah :eclipseeh

heh

http://lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=1149&highlight=iso

thats the link to the video. I think its very early S2 Alpha, it is stated some physics chnages have taken place after this but it still might be off a bit. Its a good watch, the test needs to be done again using current code

Actually to see where diesel engines are really at you only have to look at a few of the sportier production variants and have a look at there figures.

Manufactureers these days can get 100kw plus out of 2.0L Non turbo diesels... or so I thought, I cant remember the car model, but I swear I read it in a magazine and couldn't keep my eye of the fact it was a non turbo diesel.

Quote :

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdmx
Take your IRL car and go to the parking area.

With slicks on my Caterham, it will pull about 1.4g's while cornering, but thisis not the issue, as I think the amount of grip in LFS is fine. It's the reaction to loss of grip that seems to be exaggerated, which could be a differential or suspension issue and not a grip issue.

I'd say your very close to the mark JeffR. Remember the beta physics test video where you could see side by side the reactions of the real car test and the GTi on the autocross layout? It might have been on RSC.

I have always felt, like most, that the physics seemed just wrong, but could never put my finger on it. At first I thought it was the general grip levels but they have been shown to be pretty accurate. Then I saw that video and it cleared it up for me. The easiest way to see and describe where the physics dont add up is in "Direction change"

You will notice direction change is very muddy and imprecise in LFS, as opposed to sharp and responsive on the real car. I have never been able to "chuck" a car in LFS into a corner with confidence the way I can in real life. Now sure, a lot of this has to do with the lack of tactile feedback (Gforces and what not) but its quite obvious from the video that direction change is not only off, its very off. I'd have a stab at it and say weight transfer and distribution arent modeled sharply enough along with a fudged or simplistic tyre model, but you seem to really know waht your talking about Jeff, so I'll leave it in your hands.

Last edited by Sketchy, Fri, 16 Sep 2005 09:57.

yeah those deisels really know how to talk, but can they walk the walk?

Quote from Bob Smith :

The famous quote "there is no substitute for capacity" was talking about torque, not power.

Absolutely right, As torque is the direct force that an engine produces at the flywheel, where as horsepower is a measure of efficiency at "applying" that torque as RPM rises, which is, for the moment at least an area where some of the S2 simulation aspects (regarding engine specifications) are a bit slack, almost as if the figures were a bit of a rush job to get S2 balanced. Now I'm not complaining about that, but it is something that I would like to think scawen has some awareness of and will pay some attention to within the beta process of S2.

Quote from Noccy :

since the FZR is a race prepped car u shouldn't compare the engine to a standard one.

send that bog standard GT3 to a famous engine tuner (guys who prep engines for le mans ; 24hr spa ; ALMS ; ...) and have a look at its torque figure then

Being that the GT3 RSR uses an already race prepped engine, the figures should be atleast comparable, which IMO they aren't anywhere near.

Now I dont have any knowledge in the area of FIA regulations regarding engine tuning, nor any "real" knowledge or experience in engine tuning, but we need to consider the fact that since horsepower is a measure of efficiency in applying torque, its very possible to increase. Using lighter and stronger parts with advanced ignition timing and good tuning, increasing engine horsepower is an almost easy task (atleast with production engines). In many cases its simply a matter of building an engine that can acheive and sustain a higher RPM and adjusting timing (ignition, camshaft/valve timing) so that the engine can continue to rev harder for longer.

Torque production is an entirely different matter, as it is the measure of power that the combustion cycle creates and turns into a revolving force, "efficiency" plays a far smaller role in producing maximum force. There is only so far you can go, and it has been shown that the FZR exceeds what is really possible with todays tech without using special fuel additives (legality in some regulations?) or something along the lines of methanol or nitrous oxide.

So you could send that RSR engine along to an engine tuning specialist and he could (provided he didnt have to stick to any tuning regulations) improve the horsepower by a sizeable amount. I wouldnt say that a 50% increase in horsepower is impossible, but providing the same combustion fuel was used a 50% increase in torque most definately would be

Quote from Nick_ll :

In fact it's not really the max torque output that bothers me but the RPM at which it is available from a NA engine.

This is another very valid point and is another aspect where the engine specs need some more polishing. The powerband seems far too even and flat for such a highly tuned engine. Being one who used to play around with LFS tweak and minimekanic alot, I quite enjoyed modelling engines and seeing what figures I could come up with in game and how they would translate to on road perofrmance. Playing around with powerbandwidth and RPM settings allowed you to make "almost" anything in the real world. For anyone familiar with LFSTweak Pro, apart from minor changes to these values, the GTR class cars and engines (FO8 not so much) look like they have just had the "engine power" value increased, effectively having the equivalent of increasing the compression ratio of then engine. Buts its obvious that the compression ratio for these cars is just set unrealistically.

It all boils down to what are balanced cars to drive around the track (providing some great competition), but its not upto SIM standards, or should I say the standards that LFS is moving towards (it really is a fantastic sim).

Basically, being forced induction, the turbo cars are more often then not going to kick the NA motors in the pants when it comes to torque/weight ratio. Where the NA car would shine is it abilty to rev hard and just keep on ticking. In other words, a remodelled FZR needs to be placed among competition where its horsepower and abilty to be in its power curve is what keeps the car up to pace.

Hi all, being the first s2 car I got to grips with Im a big fan of the FZR. Iwas actracted to the GTR cars mostly and I found my love with this one because I like the mid engined setups.

Having looked at all the figures for the GTR class cars, the FZR stands out to be the quickest, and for good reason, I think it should be.

However, Gazing over the engine specs turned up a perculiarity that i just cant ignore anymore.

The 3.6 Litre produces in excess of 500nm of torque. I believe that this is an unrealistic figure. Now I cant seem to find much information about the subject so I'm not sure if this is a reasonable figure but I dont think it is.

You will notice that on the best side of production spec engines, the big guns often cough at anywhere between 100-105nm per litre of displacement.

Fisrtly I make reference to the Australian V8 Supercar series. I've heard (and it appears to be about right) that the 5 Litre NA V8's used in the series produce around 430-440 lb-fts of torque, which equates to around 580nm, boiling down to around 115nm per litre. Pretty racey stuff.

The second reference I make is to the 1998 Mecredes Benz CLK GTR car which runs a massive 6.9 Litre V12 and Produces around 770nm of torque which rounds down to an easy 111nm per litre of torque.

Now I cant seem to find much info about the subject but from my quick browsings, the 3.6Litre FZR shouldnt be producing anymore then 440nm (120nm/litre x3.65Litre displacement). 500 odd nm seems definately out of the question, thus making the FZR too quick a car. As for the FXR and XRR, well they are turbo so no argument can stand without knowing the boost pressure.

Scawen, was your aim to model the FZR's engine as if it was supercharged? If its just a "tie over" until superchargers are introduced then ok, otherwise I think it needs some rectification. We really needs that supercharger for next patch