Any chance of LFS ever having tracks like Spa Francorchamps, or Monza, or Suzuka, or Imola? I would love to do an entire "real" F1 season along with the the real F1 season.

Probably a licensing issue, but there might be a way to skirt that issue, by calling the track Spa Champs or Monzy.

This would keep me from looking for alternatives to LFS, which so far cannot even compare to the level of enjoyment I get from LFS.

Oh man, can you imagine Interlagos in LFS? I would be in heaven.

I would be able to die happy knowing that I had enjoyed LFS to the fullest. Well, perhaps thats a bit of an exaggeration.

How about running FZR at Magny-Cour? Cmon! That would be awesome!!!

What do you guys think?

Quote from bass4usall :

calling the track Spa Champs or Monzy

Plus one if we get names like Hungaloling and Internetlagos

And Nordschleife!

And then I woke up.

You mean "Nordeschliefe"?

It cant have the same name as the original. Remember the license issues.

I'm in the minority here, but I don't think real tracks will make LFS better. We'd just moan about how unrealistic the lap times are, either because of LFS physics limitations or, more overpoweringly, how poor the track is. Unless it has every bump, surface change, kerb profile & condition, dusty area etc then it's not going to produce realistic races or driving experiences. It would just cause complaints.

+1 for spa

Quote from tristancliffe :

I'm in the minority here, but I don't think real tracks will make LFS better. We'd just moan about how unrealistic the lap times are, either because of LFS physics limitations or, more overpoweringly, how poor the track is. Unless it has every bump, surface change, kerb profile & condition, dusty area etc then it's not going to produce realistic races or driving experiences. It would just cause complaints.

I agree. I don't see the need for real tracks TBH. Sim=virtual world=virtual tracks.

agreed real life tracks may only show up limitations in either physics or track modeling. in rfactor you have these nice real world tracks and real world cars and you have to wonder why every lap record tor a type of car on a specific track doesnt match the real world.

another reason that people often overlook is that at the moment we have a limited number of tracks which have been modded to a high standard, if that effort had been spread over ( for example) this years F1 tracks then it would have been diluted. if you want more tracks, you have to either accept they will either take a long time to be released, be of a lower quality than what we are used to or accept third party tracks which may or may not be up to our current standards and may contain bugs. additionally if you allow third party tracks you run the danger of loosing what i feel is one of LFS's biggest strengths, namely that the online racing is easily to join, in rfactor there are lots of tracks but you have to have the same track if you want to join a race which can be frustrating when looking for a casual race.

Quote from bass4usall :

Any chance of LFS ever having tracks like...

Ever? Maybe. In the timeframe you probably wish for? Very likely not.

Implementing real tracks is kind of a two edged sword.
+ We finally get a real track, which, accurate or not, might give a nice feeling of racing in a real world place
+ Would probably attract quite a lot of new players
- Once one track is in, the requests won't stop. On the contrary, they'll probably increase until every popular track is implemented
- They'd never be 100% accurate, so they'd always create moaning and complaining of some sort
- Requests for real cars will skyrocket so people can compare real laptimes to ingame ones so they can finally "measure the realism"
- Even without real cars, people will compare laptimes with whatever car comes closest and base physics realism on that

Quote from xaotik :

Plus one if we get names like Hungaloling and Internetlagos

You wanted to say Hungaroring right? (cmon man its my country track)

Quote from AndroidXP :

- They'd never be 100% accurate, so they'd always create moaning and complaining of some sort

This is exaggerated, you don't see it that much on other games. And how is that different to the current situation? The current tracks has faults and people whine about them.

I think this is in general just one of those things that people wants to turn some lack in LFS into a point against other games. People should just cut the bullshit and accept that real tracks will never happen (without modding).


.

Quote from deggis :

This is exaggerated, you don't see it that much on other games.

Wrong actually... I see it in a lot of other games that have real tracks. There are always inaccuracies with 'real' tracks in video games, and thus people always argue if someone was too slow or too fast on a track, and blame the track not being accurate enough. And in my opinion, no simulator will ever give you an accurate depiction, ever! That has been discussed for years in the LFS community though, so 'nuff of that topic.

Anyways,

Just because LFS would have a real track doesn't mean it is bad for it to uncover any physics issues... if any. Kind of boggles my mind why so many people are saying that a real track would reveal the awful truth of LFS... yet so many LFS'ers here constantly strive for realism and always swear by the dev-sword that the devs will keep improving it patch by patch. So... if we had a real track, what makes you think the devs wouldn't improve the physics to try and replicate a realistic experience? To me, saying that you DON'T want a real track is just taking a step backwards in development for a better and more realistic game. If you didn't want a real track, all we'd be left with here is our own fantasy world in which we always use as a weapon against other competitor (quote on quote) "simulations". And continuously you will just have no proof that LFS is realistic in that regard, and you'll sound like idiots (bleh, simulation communities already do when arguing realism anyways).

LFS needs to improve in many areas, and one of them is to have some new tracks (real or not). Which in turn could help towards the next step in physics. But then oh wait, LFS S3 isn't for physics is it, so it goes against 'the plan'. :rolleyes:

Some improvement subjects can be so touchy to people with this game, ffs, I'd do anything to have any new worthwhile features/content right now in LFS. Instead I see people throw away perfectly good ideas more and more now. And the fact that more requests would presumably start flowing by the millions, doesn't mean it is bad either. LFS already has tons of improvement suggestions that would be worthwhile (and some not so worthwhile)... the only question is, when or IF we will ever get any of them. Because now it seems we've seen a significant drop or standstill in content production for LFS. This is probably some-hundredth request thread on 'real tracks'. All we can do is sit here and beg in hopes to get something nice in return. Haven't worked as well as it used to . I guess we could use new request strategies, like house raids, or stalking.

Not really worried about many of the F1 tracks because on the whole they are just a bit dull.

BATHURST is the only real track I want

Quote from Tweaker :

Just because LFS would have a real track doesn't mean it is bad for it to uncover any physics issues...

You have a point there. Indeed it's not bad to discover physics issues, but to be able to seriously measure the physics' accuracy by laptimes you need a) developers who fix the issue by improving the physics, rather than fudging values till the results match up (which we fortunately have), b) accurately modelled real cars (which we don't have) and c) accurately modelled real tracks (which we don't have either).

Physics (and many other parts) need to be improved, I just don't like the very inaccurate method of comparing laptimes to measure the realism. I think many other methods involving common sense, understanding of car dynamics and a lot of testing are a much better way to improve what we have. So what we'd be left with is even more useless bickering and moaning here on the forums, which I'm sure nobody wants. Then again, "more crap on the forum" is a pretty weak argument against an addition of real tracks, so I really don't know what to think. Maybe I'm just bitter

However, I'm appeased by the fact that the devs are an intelligent bunch of guys and that LFS isn't a democracy.

Quote from deggis :

This is exaggerated, you don't see it that much on other games. And how is that different to the current situation? The current tracks has faults and people whine about them.

I think this is in general just one of those things that people wants to turn some lack in LFS into a point against other games. People should just cut the bullshit and accept that real tracks will never happen (without modding).

There is a difference between a bug on a track (e.g. sinking tarmac areas or something) and an inaccuracy.

Aslong as the real tracks have the absolute right banking, right track physics and right everything ( i litrally mean everything) then sure bring out real tracks..



If not, i dont want it..

Quote from aoun :

Aslong as the real tracks have the absolute right banking, right track physics and right everything ( i litrally mean everything) then sure bring out real tracks..



If not, i dont want it..

If you'll forgive my frankness, your opinion is absurd so long as you're playing LFS. You're happy to drive the LFS cars (I assume) even though the physics model doesn't include the "right everything", yet you don't want real tracks unless they do. Inconsistent?

I'd love to see real tracks in LFS, for the simple reason that I find fantasy tracks a little boring. There's something quite pure in a group of people looking at landscape and working with it to produce a racing circuit. Of course, I exclude Hermann Tilke from this as he seems to start from a completely blank canvas and builds hills where he wants them.
Fantasy tracks, where someone sits down and draws them out, just don't have the same appeal for me.

It's the same reason I don't read fiction...there are so many good true stories out there that I find 'made-up' stories boring. All the time I'm reading I think "this is only happening because the author wants it to happen". It's the same with fantasy tracks in LFS...I often think "the only reason I'm turning right here is because Eric thought it would be a good idea". Don't get me wrong, I think Eric has given us a very good set of tracks for LFS, but I still feel there's something missing from them.

Of course I'd want real tracks to be as accurate as possible, but there comes a point where I'm happy to call it 'good enough'.

why is a real track so much better then a fictional one?

Because its there in real life? Because you know the track from watching it alot? I find made up ones just as good, and having real tracks will turn this game off because id feel that its like GTR2 or RF which are the most shit games out..

I can understand both sides of the argument on this one.

Yes there would be loads of complaints (me included) if the real tracks were inaccurate. But, i think we're all chomping at the bit for any new track real or not that any inaccuracies would be forgotten, or at least forgiven after a few weeks.

I think the question is, what would real tracks bring to LFS ?

More revenue ? perhaps, but would that revenue cover the expenditure of a license of a real world track ?
The ability to compare our skills with that of the pro's at said track ? But wouldn't we then need the same cars, the same tyres and the same weather conditions ?
The romance of being able to drive classic tracks such as LeMans, Nurburgring in cars that handle as good as they do in LFS. ? Go get GPL

From my experience of racing real world tracks in sims, some of them are actually a pain in the arse to drive, some are boring and some are simply rubbish.

But, if real tracks were implemented in LFS, i'd have a bit of a whinge at first, but then quickly get over it and enjoy it simply because it's a new place to play.

If the Devs can somehow get a real world track on the cheap or even free then i'd say go for it (we can always lock Tristan in a cupboard) But a real world track at the expense of better AI, weather, damage modeling etc etc or even a real car (please God can i have an Ariel Atom) then i'd say no they're not needed. You all have to admit Eric is one damn fine track builder. Infact his are some of the best sim tracks i've ever driven, and you can actually make a pass on most if not all of then.

I've just been out and bought an Acme Cupboard Lock Breaker, so I'm safe

Of course we're not happy with incomplete physics in LFS - to suggest we are is silly. But physics are something that progresses, whereas track designs tend to be more static.

What would real tracks bring? I don't think they'd bring anything really. The turns on real tracks are only there because the person who designed it put them there. Does it matter if it's Eric or Herman 'I can't design circuits' Tilke?

As for accuracy, I'll refer to tracks I know well. Brands Hatch (sorry for bringing it up again). Paddock Hill has never ever been modelled well in a sim, and is a pretty dull corner as a result. There is something about it that makes it better in real life. The kerbs on the exit are nothing like kerbs anywhere else I've been. On the indy circuit, there is a flat (well, nearly flat) left called Surtees. On the inside kerb there is a little dip. Almost impossible to see on photos, but it's there, and it will pitch you into a spin. I've never ever seen that modelled in a sim. Both of these examples are really basic parts of Brands that get missed off, and completely ruin it. You can't 'learn' Brands from any sim yet. So what's the point of having Brands unless it's to either a) compare to real life times b) compare to real life driving challenges? Because unless it's almost a perfect representation it might as well be Fern Bay Club.

Any new track for LFS will be good. LFS going to be bored imo

Quote from aoun :

why is a real track so much better then a fictional one?

Because its there in real life? Because you know the track from watching it alot? I find made up ones just as good...

I thought I'd explained that...

Quote :

and having real tracks will turn this game off because id feel that its like GTR2 or RF which are the most shit games out..

Err...you've lost me here. LFS with real tracks would still be LFS...

Quote from Mazz4200 :

I think the question is, what would real tracks bring to LFS ?

More revenue ? perhaps, but would that revenue cover the expenditure of a license of a real world track ?

I'm not suggesting that the devs add real tracks to the game, I'd rather see the game opened up to modding when the development is finished. Personally I quite like the rFactor model of "we do the physics, you do the content", though I do understand the problem of uncontrolled add-ons.

Quote :

The romance of being able to drive classic tracks such as LeMans, Nurburgring in cars that handle as good as they do in LFS. ? Go get GPL

I've had GPL since it came out in 1998 and the handling is nothing like LFS. True, we don't have a 1967 F1 car in LFS, but GPL is a bit of a disappointment when I revisit it now.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Of course we're not happy with incomplete physics in LFS - to suggest we are is silly. But physics are something that progresses, whereas track designs tend to be more static.

I wasn't suggesting that you should be happy with the incomplete physics, but I'm sure you'll agree that LFS will never be perfect in the physics department. For it to be 'perfect' you'd have to have a Navier-Stokes based CFD solver coupled to a finite-element solver etc... which isn't going to happen. However, at some point Scawen will decide that it's 'close enough' and I don't think people would avoid LFS just because it didn't calculate the boundary layer separation on the left-front widget.

Quote :

What would real tracks bring? I don't think they'd bring anything really. The turns on real tracks are only there because the person who designed it put them there. Does it matter if it's Eric or Herman 'I can't design circuits' Tilke?

But they are often subject to constraints which aren't there in the simulated world. Look at most of the 'classic' tracks around the world and you can see how the track has been laid out to fit around the geography of the location.

Quote :

As for accuracy...it might as well be Fern Bay Club.

True, but surely there must be some point where it gets close enough? If you agree that LFS cannot achieve perfection from a physics point of view, why is the same not true of real-tracks? There's nothing to stop somebody modelling those things in an LFS version of Brands.

Quote from tristancliffe :

I've just been out and bought an Acme Cupboard Lock Breaker

You mean, you've bought a new hacksaw ?

Quote from tristancliffe :

Does it matter if it's Eric or Herman 'I can't design circuits' Tilke?

Granted Tilke's early tracks where in a word "Sh*te, but, the one in Turkey's up with the best of them. I still think he could learn a thing or two from Eric in designing usable fun tracks with plenty of overtaking places.

Quote from tristancliffe :

On the indy circuit (Brands), there is a flat (well, nearly flat) left called Surtees. On the inside kerb there is a little dip. Almost impossible to see on photos, but it's there, and it will pitch you into a spin.

Thats the kind of thing i'd be complaining about in the sim variant too if i knew about them, but i'd doubt i'd ever get a chance to drive Brands let alone Lemans etc etc to ever know about such subtleties. So from my perspective what i don't know/understand i'd never miss. But from your perspective it's fully understandable why such things would cause irritation. (this is where i resist the temptation to call you names like lucky git and rich b-staard, but the truth is, i'm just jealous )

Quote from StewartFisher :

I've had GPL since it came out in 1998 and the handling is nothing like LFS. True, we don't have a 1967 F1 car in LFS, but GPL is a bit of a disappointment when I revisit it now.

Philistine...

Quote from StewartFisher :

I wasn't suggesting that you should be happy with the incomplete physics, but I'm sure you'll agree that LFS will never be perfect in the physics department. For it to be 'perfect' you'd have to have a Navier-Stokes based CFD solver coupled to a finite-element solver etc...

Insert little smilie with information going way over it's head. Huh ?

Quote from StewartFisher :

If you agree that LFS cannot achieve perfection from a physics point of view, why is the same not true of real-tracks? There's nothing to stop somebody modelling those things in an LFS version of Brands.

Yeah, there is nothing to stop someone modelling tracks to near perfection, but, a) that person have to be so damn anul that he'd be bordering on psychotic, and who would employ someone like that ? b) It would take such a long time, would developers and the public be willing to wait that long ?
c) If it was done by a lone independant modeller how would he have access to the track information, the resources and the time to do it let alone the skill.

What we need is for TC to win the 88 million quid on the lottery this week so he can devote the rest of his life to building us a proper version of Brands Hatch

I'll need to enter the lottery first, and I've managed to avoid doing so for the last 11 years...

But if YOU win £88m I'll be happy to help develop a real life track for simulation at unprecedented detail. And not for all of the 88m either - you can keep some for yourself