Sinbad, let me clearify what I'm really saying. As far as I am concerned, it doesn't really matter that the Tesla is in or out of LFS. What I'm trying to say is that to exclude all RL EVs from LFS forever is a really bad move. Remember I said that as far as I'm concerned, this could be an S3 level improvement for LFS. And I do agree that there are many more fun conventionally powered (petrol) cars currently available in RL too.

Point is, it doesn't matter that EVs aren't included in LFS right now. Just don't dismiss the inclusion of much better performing EVs in the forseeable future. Don't be surprised if EVs are actually RACED in the forseeable future.

For the record, the latest Lemans winner happens to be a 5.5L twin turbo diesel (AUDI R10). Feel the torque. Who needs 6 gears when your powerband allows you to run 5 STRONGER gears? As far as I'm concerned, its about time LFS simulates a few diesel powered enduro rally racers (like the VW Toureg Dakar version ). Even you can't dismiss the fact that off tarmac racing is practically non-existant on LFS now.

As for killing the RA, I'm sure even you don't agree with this, Sinbad.

How many servers do you see that run the RA on it's own. Yes there's servers that run all cars (still you hardly see anyone driving the RA in them servers) but how many servers do you see running just the RA or the RA and a couple of other cars. None very much. No one drives it.

Quote from Jamexing :

... no weight distribution vriance coaused by fuel use ...

That's not an issue in F1 cars as they put the fule under pressure to keep it in one place. You could also do it in a road car, but I don't know if there are any safety implementations.

I've seen tha there is quite a bit of sentiment against the RA. It may not be my favourite car, but to kill one RL car after another will eventually rlegate LFS to non-sim status. Why call it a sim if it has absolutely NO real cars?

And someone here seems to not understand the weight distribution issues I talked about. Unless fuel happens to be located right at the center of gravity of the car, weight distribution variace is inevitable. And the fuel pressurization is meant to eliminate fuel surge and prevent lean-outs. It will NOT magically compensate for weight distribution changes caused by fuel consumption.

Guys, lets just kill the RA and get on with it, since no one seems to like it anyway. As far as I'm concerned, LFS could use a RL production car. A LOTUS EXIGE would fit the bill just fine. But seeing what kinf of sentiment this forum usually shows for ANY suggestion of including RL cars, I guess that's another idea down the drain.

I wish that someday most of us will realise that the best car physics sim in the world means nothing if it doesn't even try to be relevant with RL cars. I hope no-one here will suggest killing the BF1 too.

Quote from Jamexing :

I've seen tha there is quite a bit of sentiment against the RA. It may not be my favourite car, but to kill one RL car after another will eventually rlegate LFS to non-sim status. Why call it a sim if it has absolutely NO real cars?

Why is a name so important? All of the cars in lfs are much more like real cars than anything in nfs, gran turismo, etc. All those cars have going for them is a name and a shell.

The BF1 is a good car, ditto with the MRT5. Don't kill them. Since the devs got an agreement with BMW and Intel to use the BF1 maybe we could, in future years, get another BMW. The M1 would be good to have.

Right, so because LFS has the best physics, a good range of cars that mimic real life cars, avoids the massive costs normally involved with licencing real cars, and stives to improve itself at every opportunity, it isn't a sim because it doesn't have real cars.

Right...

I suppose about now you'll make a 3000 word post about how the RB4 has to be exactly like an Impreza to be credible. Or that turbos are modelled wrong.

If you want real cars in LFS James, then go out there, and arrange the deals, present them to the devs and see what they say. Real cars aren't important at all. If you want real cars go and play the other games that have them (GT, rFactor), all of which have poor physics, very few online users (if any), and argue that their game must be best because it's got a Trabant in it.

Why does LFS NEED real cars? It's not front engined front wheel drive, front engined rear wheel drive, mid/rear engined rear wheel drive, front engined four wheel drive, normally aspirated, forced induction (with the bugs you love to mention repeatedly)..... Don't kill the RA - it's a great car, and required practice to make the most of it. If you want your boring 4WD cars, phone up Subaru and arrange it. Done. That way LFS gets the cars, and you foot the £350,000 licencing fee.

Why call it a sim with no real cars? The fact that it simulates cars seems like a good reason to me.

Quote from Jamexing :

But seeing what kinf of sentiment this forum usually shows for ANY suggestion of including RL cars, I guess that's another idea down the drain.

I wish that someday most of us will realise that the best car physics sim in the world means nothing if it doesn't even try to be relevant with RL cars.

Jamexing, I can tell you enthusiastic about LFS, and that's admirable, we all applaud anybody that visits these forums with that attitude.

I must say, however, that I find it most annoying when you conjure up opposing arguments. How can you say that there is a negative sentiment in this forum towards the idea of including RL cars? What is that based on?

Over the years there have been hundreds of threads concerning possible future inclusions of RL cars. Not to mention the excitement generated around here when the devs announced the MRT5, RAC, and then BF1. So don't say people don't like the idea of seeing RL cars in LFS.

People that have been here for any length of time are realistic, though. As Tristan says, it is NOT as simple as suggesting it, arguing to defend the validity of your suggestion, the devs reading the thread, they decide your idea is awesome, and hey presto it's in the game. I wish it were.

So don't expect much more than a "yeah I guess that might be nice" reaction if you suggest that the devs include a RL car, because the chances are that it will NEVER happen.

Agreed, real tracks are nice, real cars less important. However with only real tracks, LFS would be too similar to all the other race sims out there. So "fantasy" tracks (I prefer the term fictional anyway) are just great.

The the RaceAbout is great, handles very nicely now.

I'm not really saying that we should just get all the brand names if the developers can't afford them yet. I'm saying keep whatever RL replicas we have and make them perform as well as the real thing. For instance, I still have a hard time believing that IRL, the RA's low pressure (less than 1 bar) turbo takes more than 2 seconds to fully spool up. By the way, all the turbo cars would be much better drives if their turbo spool characteristics are fixed and their powerbands improved in the near future. Well, at least it's as unforgiving as RL MR cars at the limit.

Good examples of RL car replications in LFS are the mini lookalike and the XR GTT. If only the XR GTT's engine and turbo perform like the real life Mitsubishi Starion...

Unfrotunately, it's a sort of a vicious cycle the way things are. To attract more buyers, we need names to attract more licencees. Sorry guys but in this age of image, brand names and fashion over substance, that's how things are. As far as I'm concerned, I don't mind whatever name is used as long as cars perform and handle very close to their RL counterparts. If we do get the required names and car data, at least LFS would cream them in the physics department.

But to get names AND especially their car data (required to properly replicate them), we need major license sales. AKA Catch 22 AKA Chicken and the Egg.

I think that an Electric Viechle would be good in LFS. Tesla Roadster and a Sinclair C5!!!! The latter for AS Grand Prix, of course.

Quote from wheel4hummer :

But something printed in a journal is a more reputable source than wikipedia. Isn't it?

Quote from Bob Smith :

Once a journal is published, it's there for all to see.
If somebody types rubbish into wikipedia, some comes along and corrects it.
I'd rather use the mighty wiki myself.

Sorry for continuing with the off-topic strand, but I'm with Bob: I would rather have a properly hammered-out wiki entry than a typical journal article. Some journals have better refereeing processes than others, but no journals allow thousands of people input to an article. I think a wiki entry that's really gone through the wringer has the same many-eyes benefits as a long scientific exchange conducted using journal articles over a period of years.

(Of course, to a large extent this is apples vs. oranges, as Wikipedia is aimed at being an encyclopedia of established knowledge and not a place for publishing original research, whereas cutting-edge journals are exactly the opposite.)

Quote from duke_toaster :

I think that an Electric Viechle would be good in LFS. Tesla Roadster and a Sinclair C5!!!! The latter for AS Grand Prix, of course.

I used to think Hank had the monopoly on fantastically boring combos (UF1 at the Oval) but I believe you may have outdone him here.

I still can't believe that some of us here are still stuck in the 70's. Oh yeah, back in the good ole days when 4WDs always understeer like pigs. When turbo was ALWAYS equated with MASSIVE lag and horrific pwerbands. Enough with the 4WD driver = nancy boy argument. Please call Tommi Makinen a nancy boy if you reckon 4WDs are boring. I bet you hate rallying as well.

Wake up! The days of "boring 4WDs" are gone. Last time I checked, a Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution whooped a Porsche Cayman's ass on a street course. By 0.3 seconds, with a car much about half the price, bigger, more practical, less powerful and heavier.

Some people might be content with being completely out of touch with modern automotive technology. Some would say that my arguments on poor turbo spool up characteristics and powerbands are absolutely crap. If only people know how many people I've failed to persuade to get the license just because of this poor turbo car powerband problem. And need I explain how our brand name society works again?

Truth is, unless the performance of RL production cars are represented in LFS, we'll have a hard time expanding our community. Some of my friends completely dimissed buying the license simply because some of its cars don't represent the peformance of their RL counterparts. The argument was always:

"What's a sim if it doesn't simulate RL performace levels? Might as well stick to my (indestructable and amazingly easy to drive cars) GT4..."

The irony is that most of them LOVED the LFS physics engine. I'm rather sick of failing to get some decent local racing buddies because of this excuse. Again, they weren't too concern with the brand names. They just wanted them to PERFORM like their RL.

I've driven Evos and 700hp Imprezas - BORING. I've driven Delta Integrales. Boring. I've driven Auto Quattros (and modern Audis with the 'Quattro' 4WD system). Boring. It's not all understeer. But it's not oversteer. Sure, you can go round corners quite quickly, but they are boring. The only way to liven them up is with a turbo so that it feels quicker than it really is due to turbo lag.

And I've done quite a bit of work with Turbos with quite little lag, but I still can't bring myself to actually like them. oh, and beating a 14 tonne car by 0.3 seconds IS NOT WHOOPING, it's only just eaking ahead. BIG difference.

No one is saying your posts about power bands or torque modelling is wrong. It's just that EVERY SINGLE THREAD YOU POST IN YOU MENTION IT TWELVE TIMES. It's really starting to bug me. You've made you're point about how LFS is only worth 9p until we get 5022 real cars in it with perfect turbo modelling and torque curves that are within 0.02% of the real cars. We get that you want that.

I don't care how many people you know that are short sighted enough to think that a driving sim has to have real cars. It's not us missing out. It's not really Scavier that is missing out. It's them. They are the ones that are fools, not Scavier for not being able or wanting to have millions of pounds spent getting boring road cars.

The cars do, other than the slightly dodgy turbo modelling, behave pretty damn close to how a real life car would with that sort of arrangement. I don't care anymore about your essays about turbo modelling. That is not the point here. I don't want LFS to be filled with pointless cars like the Tesla, that will fail to win the hearts of all but 2 motorists, never make it into serious production, and not help the environment in any way, shape or form along the way. So please get off your high horse James (if that is your name) as people keep telling you, and just get along. Go with the flow. Contribute to the game somehow - maybe get in touch with car manufacturers, or make a little program that Scawen can look at to improve turbo modelling easily. Whining about the same things over and over again just makes people get annoyed with you.


Sorry for the rant guys, and I mean nothing personal by it James. But you're repeated opinion on this matter is becoming tiresome. Just like mine on Ovals (which you'll notice I haven't mentioned for a couple of weeks at Harry's request).

Quote from Jamexing :

If only people know how many people I've failed to persuade to get the license just because of this poor turbo car powerband problem.

I call BS on this. I can accept that you are obsessed with the turbo / powerband issue, as you have made it abundantly clear. But it is quite hard for me to picture a wide circle of friends who are equally upset about this rather narrow technical point and have refused to buy LFS because of exactly and only this reason.

Perhaps you are exaggerating a little for effect, James?

As Tristan and Sinbad have said much more eloquently than I can, your posts are not factually wrong and your enthusiasm is welcomed, but your tone is not winning you supporters here.

Congratulation, you guys have actually managed to piss both me AND my friends in one full sweep.

If only you guys have any idea how many serious (not your average ricer) people actually LIKE 4WD and turbo cars. As as for your attitude to new potential customers, it's APPALLING. Just because you think 4WD turbo cars are boring means that every ELSE has to find them boring? And I'm accuse for ATTENTION SEEKING and HIGH HORSING...

Slightly dodgy turbos? Gee, even a 4D56 turbo lags less than this. And it's a DIESEL! Wow. I simply have a hard time believing that someone here has actually drive RL 700hp EVOs and STILL think the turbos are just SLIGHTLY off. I dare any of you to find a stock or well tuned EVO that lags AT ALL beyong 3000rpm. I guess your unhealthy hatred towards 4WDs is due to the fact that you might be one of those muscle car purist types. Let's get a 1000hp Mustang in LFS. FUN enough for you?

No, they're NOT missing out. It's you guys who are missing out. LFS will never reach its full poential without fresh blood.

Fine, at this rate, i'll just leave you guys to revel in ignorance. I NEVER post in this thread again, happy?

You don't have to say 'you guys' when making obvious statements about me. I don't mind being named in a conversation I am part of. No need to be shy, I won't get cross

I don't expect everyone else to find the boring, but I do, especially when 4WD lovers drone on and on and on about powercurves and turbo modelling in every thread they come to.

Yes, the turbo modelling is only slightly off. It generates boost in mostly the right conditions, just suffers from terrible lag programs. Not a big thing to fix I'd imagine but hardly a priority. And no, I don't have a large amount of time for Mustangs. I much prefer cars with less than 200hp and a decent chassic (something a Mustang or an Evo cannot provide).

Yes, they are missing out. LFS is reaching it's full potential quite happily. Along the way we'll get new cars, some real some less real. And we'll get improvements to the turbos and the sounds and the tyres and the.... You see - LFS isn't about the here and now, it's about the involvement, the experience and the evolution of the product occuring not only under your nose, but quite often due to direct community contact. How great is that. When was the last time you heard any dev from any other released sim racing game say so much as a hiho to their community. If you don't think that this is a major part of LFS then you have missed the boat. rFactor, GTL, GTR2 et al are waiting for you with their real cars, real tracks and complete lack of everything else. whoooo!

There isn't any ignorance either James. Because you've told us hundreds of times about how crap LFS without Evos or the cars YOU want, and how shit Scawen must be because he can't be bothered to update the turbo model. Just because we're tired of your same old argument, does that make us or anyone else ignorant.

Tip: Get some thicker skin, especially whilst you share a forum with me. I'm nice, and I genuinely mean nothing personal by it, but I don't go easy on people when I don't think they deserve it. You seem more emotionally involved than most though.

LFS is not about cars or figures James, it's about racing. Your friends obviously failed to see that and focussed on the cars and the specs and not in the racing, which is offcourse the wrong way to approach LFS.

Quote from Jamexing :

Congratulation, you guys have actually managed to piss both me AND my friends in one full sweep.

if these are the same friends that wont buy S2 because of the "apaling" turbo model, i can't say that's a shame

Maybe the turbo's could do with tweaks, but the XRT is from the 80's, plus it does make it take slightly more skill to drive it...

As blackout said, specs arent important, its the racing that counts

My biggest dissatisfaction with the current turbo model is, that every seems to use the same turbo. What I'd really like to see is a insane lag on the GTR-turbos and a much more sudden kicking in of the turbo, it feels somehow to smooth for me atm
Just take a look at cars like the Audi Quattro S1, or see it quite a bit exaggerated, the Suzuki Escudo Pikes Peak.

It's built by Lotus here in norfolk, so being a nosey so and so, I've been stopping for a quick peek at the factory every now and then on my way home (there's a lovely little spot at the far end of the test track ) I've spotted a car I think might be it, making a very odd noise for a sports car (sounds like a supercharged fridge!) It was of course covered with masking panels so it was an ugly thing but it was going like stink!

I'll see if I can get a good picture of it next time i see it, but i'm likely to get thrown off the embankment if i get spotted by the goons (it's happened before, but it makes me want to see what they don't want me to )

Quote from petrichor :

http://www.teslamotors.com/

It would be easy, since you could take the raceabout, tweak the body, beef up the engine, and take out the engine sounds.

Just tweak the body? I take it you have 0 experience in 3d modelling at all?


Go learn something then come back and try and say "just tweak something" again.

Quote from Becky Rose :

That's a nice car, but there's no price tag on the site and it doesn't look like they have any non-US distributors yet, in fact, it doesn't look like they have many US distributors yet.

AFAIK, $350k in the U.S.

Quote from Spinjack :

AFAIK, $350k in the U.S.

Wooo, god damn, I'd by a McLaren SLR for that ammout of money.