XRR - Madeline.
FXO - Brian.
FZR - Big Bum.
XRR - Madeline.
FXO - Brian.
FZR - Big Bum.
No no no no no, I hate the abbreviations, but i'll stick to them. I kind of have remembered the names LFS uses, although i'm lost with the GTR's still and LFS World seems to give everything a new name too, but the abbreviations in this thread are just totally out of my depth.
I'm not trying to make this sound hopeless, but the truth is, class balancing is currently neglected and I don't see a change any time soon.
Last time I suggested upgrading the powerbands of XR GTT and RB4 and a slight tire upgrade for the RB4, I made 2 intersting observations:
1. Based on votes collected, most agree with my reasonable changes.
2. Some love to shoot me down for criticizing LFS's turbo modelling and SEVERE class balance issues. Some seem to think that the RB4 isn't slow enough! Amazing.
The good news is that most agreed mostly with my proposals, since I've tried hard to make them reasonable and truely balance the TBO class PROPERLY while showcasing the fundamental traits of each chassis and drive configuration.
As for the GTR class, there's one way to massively even out all 3 cars without butchering any one of them:
Matching aero packages. Current aero overly favours rear heavy cars while severely punishing front heavy or relatively mass balanced (XR GTR) cars. It's just too rear biased. If the FXO GTR was given the BF1's aero balance, don't be surprised that things actually start to even out.
Last time I suggested upgrading the powerbands of XR GTT and RB4 and a slight tire upgrade for the RB4, I made 2 intersting observations:
1. Based on votes collected, most agree with my reasonable changes.
2. Some love to shoot me down for criticizing LFS's turbo modelling and SEVERE class balance issues. Some seem to think that the RB4 isn't slow enough! Amazing.
The good news is that most agreed mostly with my proposals, since I've tried hard to make them reasonable and truely balance the TBO class PROPERLY while showcasing the fundamental traits of each chassis and drive configuration.
As for the GTR class, there's one way to massively even out all 3 cars without butchering any one of them:
Matching aero packages. Current aero overly favours rear heavy cars while severely punishing front heavy or relatively mass balanced (XR GTR) cars. It's just too rear biased. If the FXO GTR was given the BF1's aero balance, don't be surprised that things actually start to even out.
Thus points could well be very valid. But they are different cars. If you want a fair race then run a single make series.
Yes. The TBO is a slower car and yes the XRR will never get up to speed with the FZR but . . . . . so?
If you want to be competative race an FZR. In real life what car dominates the GT2 classes. Come on, you all know the answer. Every other car is one. Yes, thats it. The Porsche 911. It dominates because it is a good, fast, race car. It's how things are.
And you don't want to be balancing the classes to much now anyway. LFS is far from finished. Once engine management, airo, ground effect and any number of other improvements are implemented then the car attributes will change anyway. You might find that in a few years time that the XRR is the car of choice because of the improvements to the engine makes the XRR the better car to have. Then it will be the FZR drivers that are moaning about how slow the FZR is.
Again, class balancing is wasted effort atm. There is no point untill there is a final product that the cars can be balanced too.
Yes. The TBO is a slower car and yes the XRR will never get up to speed with the FZR but . . . . . so?
If you want to be competative race an FZR. In real life what car dominates the GT2 classes. Come on, you all know the answer. Every other car is one. Yes, thats it. The Porsche 911. It dominates because it is a good, fast, race car. It's how things are.
And you don't want to be balancing the classes to much now anyway. LFS is far from finished. Once engine management, airo, ground effect and any number of other improvements are implemented then the car attributes will change anyway. You might find that in a few years time that the XRR is the car of choice because of the improvements to the engine makes the XRR the better car to have. Then it will be the FZR drivers that are moaning about how slow the FZR is.
Again, class balancing is wasted effort atm. There is no point untill there is a final product that the cars can be balanced too.
I disagree Funnybear, whilst I accept LFS is unfinished, at the same time the devs are taking money and giving us a game - but the gameplay is totally messed up to the point where fixing this should be a high priority.
A game without gameplay is a screenshot generator, and that's exactly what Scawen said LFS isn't.
A game without gameplay is a screenshot generator, and that's exactly what Scawen said LFS isn't.
I agree with yopu somewhat Funnybear, though most of my proposals actually require a perfected and relatively finalized version of LFs physics. The aero changes could wait, since aero is cmplicated by nature. But some seroiusly obvious but not THAT complex problems have remained unattended for long enough. In fact, I'll choose realistic turbo modelling and powerbands for all turbo cars over the additon of the BF1, if I had a choice. No real point for inclusing such a massively aero denpendant car with current aero when other issues besides aero desperately need solutions.
Well, at least the BF1 gets our developers something to market with.
Well, at least the BF1 gets our developers something to market with.
where did you hear this
can't wait to be upping boost then 
I toally agree with you, Becky Rose.
And I will still stand by my single make series point. I'm sure balancing will be addressed but why do it before all attributes have been placed on the cars.
For example. The TBO get balanced but then benefits massivly from any Diff/Clutch/Transmission update. It then outstrips everything. So it needs to be rebalanced.
Untill everything is in place how can you balance the cars effectivily.
Now, saying that. If a ballast system was introduced for competitions and the like then fair enough. Thats server, race rules. Got no beef there.
Its the fundemental changing of a cars attributes just to bring a class into line . . . In real life 4WD is not a track racing standard. Why, because it is slower. The TBO is slower . . . Although in the lower class it is the fastest but that feels right to me . . . . I think.
I dunno. I think whinging over car discrepancies at this stage of development is a bit like saying the house is cold when your still building.
Many more things are to come and the cars will not have a 'final' performance state untill these updates are fully implemented.
For example. The TBO get balanced but then benefits massivly from any Diff/Clutch/Transmission update. It then outstrips everything. So it needs to be rebalanced.
Untill everything is in place how can you balance the cars effectivily.
Now, saying that. If a ballast system was introduced for competitions and the like then fair enough. Thats server, race rules. Got no beef there.
Its the fundemental changing of a cars attributes just to bring a class into line . . . In real life 4WD is not a track racing standard. Why, because it is slower. The TBO is slower . . . Although in the lower class it is the fastest but that feels right to me . . . . I think.
I dunno. I think whinging over car discrepancies at this stage of development is a bit like saying the house is cold when your still building.
Many more things are to come and the cars will not have a 'final' performance state untill these updates are fully implemented.
4WD slower than 2WD? You must be from the 70's. Last time I checked, a Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution VI outran a Porche Cayman on a twisty road course by 0.3 seconds. The lap times were in the 1:27s. 4WD superiority rears its head even when the car it's on is slightly less powerful and weighs 180lbs more than the MR (mid-engined rear drive) competior.
The real reasons for excluding 4WD form the track is the age old excuese of UNFAIR TECHNOLOGY. Imagine if current F-1 cars could actually USE all their 750hp and not over-rely on TC and aero downforce.
However, I do agree that physics needs finalizing before the really MAJOR changes(sucha as aero) are applied. For now, the least they could do is solve the more obvious and simpler problems such as powerbands and turbo modelling. Once aero is perfected, THEN we can get real serious about class balance. But for now, realistic turbo modelling and powerbands are the least they could do for now. It's just been neglected WAY too long.
The real reasons for excluding 4WD form the track is the age old excuese of UNFAIR TECHNOLOGY. Imagine if current F-1 cars could actually USE all their 750hp and not over-rely on TC and aero downforce.
However, I do agree that physics needs finalizing before the really MAJOR changes(sucha as aero) are applied. For now, the least they could do is solve the more obvious and simpler problems such as powerbands and turbo modelling. Once aero is perfected, THEN we can get real serious about class balance. But for now, realistic turbo modelling and powerbands are the least they could do for now. It's just been neglected WAY too long.
I do agree generally speaking BUT, the LFS team are taking their time on this game, nothing is happening quickly, so we're stuck with an imbalanced car class month on month, and from what i've read, it's been this way since the beginning a few years back.
Sure they dont want to have to repeat work, but it does not take long to make a few changes to the FXO, 20 minutes work, then include that in the next compatable patch - then let the community say "nah you took too much off, up it a little again for the next patch please".
Instead what we have is the subject being deffered until later and general silence on the issue, and that is frustrating.
I've just been reading the stats on the Website for the GT cars and to be fair The Devs make no bones about the fact the cars are unbalanced. In fact they positivily embrace it.
The FXO is the beginner GT. It ain't going to win races (Their words)
The XRR is better and faster.
But the FZR is better and faster still.
Having read all that I realised that these cars are designed to be this way. Which harks back to my point that they are different cars. Which is the whole point. The FXO was never meant to be competative as it's a stepping stone to the faster GT's.
Which again leads me too that if you want a fair race go one make. I really don't see the problem in doind that and why this percieved unbalanced car thing is such a contested topic . . .
The FXO is the beginner GT. It ain't going to win races (Their words)
The XRR is better and faster.
But the FZR is better and faster still.
Having read all that I realised that these cars are designed to be this way. Which harks back to my point that they are different cars. Which is the whole point. The FXO was never meant to be competative as it's a stepping stone to the faster GT's.
Which again leads me too that if you want a fair race go one make. I really don't see the problem in doind that and why this percieved unbalanced car thing is such a contested topic . . .
Totally agree Becky! I just hope no one tries to shoot us 2 down for for stating and meaning the above statements.
But the majority of the community want these cars to be balanced, regardless of their original design intention.
We want to have multiple car types on track at once, because almost all real world racing has that. We want variety in the pack, is diversity a bad thing?
I'm sure I've agreed with and said very similar in the past, but I'm going to do it again because I too think it's important and easily fixed.
I agree!
No. I think diversity is a wonderful thing.
And I'm sure there are great things in store for the LFS racing community but at the moment the cars are fullfilling their design brief.
We don't know whats coming. Maybe we will get another car, maybe Lord Scawen hears out prayers and that in the next patch there will be an update. Maybe he has a very good reason for holding back and not balancing.
Hell. Who are we to question the maker.
And I'm sure there are great things in store for the LFS racing community but at the moment the cars are fullfilling their design brief.
We don't know whats coming. Maybe we will get another car, maybe Lord Scawen hears out prayers and that in the next patch there will be an update. Maybe he has a very good reason for holding back and not balancing.
Hell. Who are we to question the maker.
ok here comes the opinion you DIDN'T ask for
TBO:
FXO - First foray into the class, its FWD, and easy, and should be marginally slower than the other cars
RB4 - It's a good 4WD car, but it's easy, make it average speed (btw - i mean finding the average times for the TBO's, this should hit them)
XRT - RWD with a laggy turbo, hard to get right, so marginally quicker
GTR's:
FXR - It's 4WD, and has a turbo, so it's the easiest to drive, it should lap slowest BUT if you get the throttle control right you could just keep up with an FZR driver of the same skill level
FZR - It's RWD, and NA makes all the power available easily, so make it quick, but not the quickest
XRR - It's RWD and has a turbo (and LOTS of torque), if you can nail the turbo and get past the lag you will be quicker than an FZR, but if you can't keep the boost then you'll be quicker in an FZR
None of the cars are balanced perfectly this way BUT there will be diversity as it takes some neat driving to keep the XRR fastest, and it does give rewards if you can BUT if you can't control it you wont drive it
i just hope that makes sense
@Funnybear: It isn't about what the devs want. It's what the majority of the players want. And that's obviously balanced classes. My absolutely best race was me in a FZ5 sandwiched between two RACs at As Nat. In every braking zone the RAC behind me tried to make a pass on me, on every straight I tried to get pass the RAC in front of me before the straight runs out. You just can't have such brilliant races in single-car-races. I had several similarly brilliant races in a FZ5 versus RAC league. Driving well balanced cars against each other increases the value of a race a lot.
So, with balanced cars we can have better races. Period.
And adding 80 kg weight to the FXO is a matter of 5 seconds. It would greatly improve balancing, even though the FXO would still come out slightly on top of the other cars. But it'd be bearable. Then one could go so far to say that the FXO is in the same class as the XRT and RB4.
Vain
So, with balanced cars we can have better races. Period.
And adding 80 kg weight to the FXO is a matter of 5 seconds. It would greatly improve balancing, even though the FXO would still come out slightly on top of the other cars. But it'd be bearable. Then one could go so far to say that the FXO is in the same class as the XRT and RB4.
Vain
Why do you bother coming into this section of the forum...?
if this ends up in "visual" variety, why not having 2 or 3 bodies for the XRR chassis. so we have 2 cars which look different, but feel the same. but this will lead to the endless debate about moding ... i know it ... i know it...
I assume your references to being shot down are at me, though you never have the courage to actually say so.
I have never shot down your arguments. I quite like some of them. The fact that you think comparing to very different cars, and announcing one as better when it only just won irks me I admit, and your refusual to realise that 4WD is only effective with lots and lots of computer control. As a drivetrain it's not as fast, and you need a computer to sort it all out - not what a real driver really wants.
What I do shoot down is that you KEEP mentioning it over and over again. I can see three threads in the 'New Posts' list where you have mentioned it AGAIN. Going on and on about the same thing won't make Scawen do it any quicker. You've stated your points about balancing and turbo modelling, now just let it be. It doesn't need to be mentioned again for 6 months.
Oh, and a tip. Never ever state your own ideas as interesing. Someone else can refer to them as interesting, but you should never do it yourself.
I like you James - you seem to know your stuff, and you've got a few good ideas about LFS floating about between your ears. But please unstick the record now and again.
I have never shot down your arguments. I quite like some of them. The fact that you think comparing to very different cars, and announcing one as better when it only just won irks me I admit, and your refusual to realise that 4WD is only effective with lots and lots of computer control. As a drivetrain it's not as fast, and you need a computer to sort it all out - not what a real driver really wants.
What I do shoot down is that you KEEP mentioning it over and over again. I can see three threads in the 'New Posts' list where you have mentioned it AGAIN. Going on and on about the same thing won't make Scawen do it any quicker. You've stated your points about balancing and turbo modelling, now just let it be. It doesn't need to be mentioned again for 6 months.
Oh, and a tip. Never ever state your own ideas as interesing. Someone else can refer to them as interesting, but you should never do it yourself.
I like you James - you seem to know your stuff, and you've got a few good ideas about LFS floating about between your ears. But please unstick the record now and again.
Because I feel a have valid and current thoughts and ideas about LFS. And I am offereing an alternative opinion to the current topic.
Why do you come here?
Because he has to moderate you 
... !
... !Back on topic . . . . .
I noticed reading the patch thread that Scawen obvioulsy has some drivetrain updates to implement. My case in point. He mentioned the FXO specifically saying that it will benefit from a sequential box. Now, whether or not this is true and is a definate implementation, my point about LFS not being finished stands. At this moment in time Scawen has very defined benchmarks to work from. He can add in improvements and physics updates and get tried and trusted results from cars that he knows. Start rebalancing to make things more competative and you loose that base line. He has differnent examples of car construction and they provide valuable resources in themselves. It's entirley possible that Scawen is addressing this, as in some ways you are right, because the customer base is crying out for it. But I feel that it would be counter productive.
I don't see anyone complain that there is only one F1 car, or only one Formula V8 or only one Formula Ford. Surely these should have different chassis, different engines. But what would happen if you placed a Ferrari-esk and a Minardi-esk car into the F1 series. Would you still be asking for balancing? I wouldn't have thought so. But by your arguements the Minardi should be balanced to be competative with the Ferrari.
The cars are what the cars are. I am sure that by the time LFS comes to final release the cars will be more than adequatly balanced.
I noticed reading the patch thread that Scawen obvioulsy has some drivetrain updates to implement. My case in point. He mentioned the FXO specifically saying that it will benefit from a sequential box. Now, whether or not this is true and is a definate implementation, my point about LFS not being finished stands. At this moment in time Scawen has very defined benchmarks to work from. He can add in improvements and physics updates and get tried and trusted results from cars that he knows. Start rebalancing to make things more competative and you loose that base line. He has differnent examples of car construction and they provide valuable resources in themselves. It's entirley possible that Scawen is addressing this, as in some ways you are right, because the customer base is crying out for it. But I feel that it would be counter productive.
I don't see anyone complain that there is only one F1 car, or only one Formula V8 or only one Formula Ford. Surely these should have different chassis, different engines. But what would happen if you placed a Ferrari-esk and a Minardi-esk car into the F1 series. Would you still be asking for balancing? I wouldn't have thought so. But by your arguements the Minardi should be balanced to be competative with the Ferrari.
The cars are what the cars are. I am sure that by the time LFS comes to final release the cars will be more than adequatly balanced.
If Minardi, or more correctly, Torro Rosso, where implemented into the game i'd like to see it correctly balanced beind the BMW/Sauber in performance, but this is a case where we are dealing with real cars.
The TBO class are all fake cars, in the same class, and they're just crying out to be raced together on a level playing field.
If we had multiple F1 marques then it would go without saying the Renault's and Ferrari's should beat the Torro Rosso's and the Midlands.
The TBO class are all fake cars, in the same class, and they're just crying out to be raced together on a level playing field.
If we had multiple F1 marques then it would go without saying the Renault's and Ferrari's should beat the Torro Rosso's and the Midlands.
Please! EVEN out the GTR class and the tbo class!
(177 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG