Traction Control and Anti-Lock Brakes

[RacingSimFan]

Before you all reach for your torches and pitchforks, let me say I'm suggesting this for the benefit of our good and talented non-wheel racers.

I believe the root of the rather heated debate in the General Discussion forum about Wheel vs. Keyboard/Mouse stems from the issue of car control. Without analog input, keyboard drivers in particular are at a disadvantage with regards to control of the 'torquier' cars like FO8 and FOX.

So what I propose is the simple addition of options for traction control and anti-lock brakes for the 'racing cars' only. The 'road cars' would not have these features as they are less of a handful to manage.

This would not be in any way like the full-blown wuss aids featured in other games that magically make cars more stable and almost arcadish in behavior. The kind of options we loathe with a passion.

This would be a realistic and professional application of 2 common, real-life electronic management devices. And of course, TC and ABS could be disabled by the server admin to provide a more 'honorable' challenge for those that seek it.

But wouldn't it be wonderful if we could help everyone get the most out of the cars and tracks offered in LFS. Hell not even us wheelers can control the FO8 100% of the time. With traction control on that car we could use it on more than just the oval and actually focus more on racing and less on keeping the damn thing pointed in the right direction. And our friends on keyboards and mice could join us as many right now avoid the high-HP cars due to control issues.

Before you all condemn this idea outright, just stop and think for a second. Just maybe instead of dumbing down the competition, we might actually raise it up by doing this.

Just a thought.

[Shotglass]

id prefer my idea of adding a slow and fast input key for throttle and brakes (like the slow and fast steering keys for keyboarders)
that way keyboarders and mouse drivers could speed out of a corner and brake for one with soft throttle/brake inputs without having to tap a button at superhuman speeds (its lfs after all ... not summer games)

[SoloNijN]

Yea, on most cars actually it would be much appriciated.

[Nick_ll]

Being on the topic of car assists, I would like to bring another point of view.
That is something that should be reviewed in LFS I believe. Instead of having things like the assists being actually assists ingame, I believe it would be better to have them as actually car assists, as they are in real life. So rather than a throttle assist, have a real TC and instead of brake assist, have an actual ABS system implemented.
That said, I would like to see those things implemented on a per-car basis. Should a FO8 have ABS, no TC and a sequential gearbox, EVERYONE would drive it sequential with no TC and you would only be left with the option to disengage the ABS.
Should a FXO be available standard with all assists, you could choose which transmission to use and have the option to turn assists off.
On the same line of thoughts, I would see the driving side per-car too. So if the FZ5 is right hand drive, everyone drives it (and probably the FZR too) on the right side.

I believe that would work very well, could maybe even help balancing the classes a bit. For example the FXR could be made the only of the 3 GTR cars available with a sequential tranny, giving it a shifting time advantage that the other 2 cars don't have.

[Tweaker]

I like those ideas Nick, but don't think the actual car assists should take over for the controller assists we have now.... because those are controller assists which are necessary for most people.

But with all the controller assists off, it would be really nice to see what ABS or traction control could do.

I agree with the driver-side position too.

[Woz]

I would like to see TC and the like replace the current aids but I would like these to be realistic so that they make you SLOWER and limit your performance in the same way as they do in real life.

So TC should apply brakes to problem wheels and cut/limit the power from the engine to help with traction. If the result of adding these is to make people faster then they need to be made more aggressive so that people using them are slower.

LFS is about driver skill, not letting a computer drive for you.

[Stellios]

Should a FXO be available standard with all assists, you could choose which transmission to use and have the option to turn assists off.


You are kidding, the FXO and FXR are probably the easiest cars in their catagories to drive.

[marsden1002]

You are kidding, the FXO and FXR are probably the easiest cars in their catagories to drive.

if we can have TC and ABS, let the TC be at different levels ie like a sports mode button so it gives you more freedom. Just an idea

[Bob Smith]

We do have brake and throttle help you know. Brake helps works well, so no need for ABS. Throttle help isn't so great, if that became more of a useful aid we wouldn't need anything like TC. The aid should make it easier to drive but at the same time definately be slower than not using it. Only the very best drivers would be quicker with a good TC system. Especially if once we get rain.

[Ziploc]

The brake assist is 1 channel abs. Not usefull at all. True ABS would be very useful to the late trail braker. Real abs would brake and unbrake the 1 wheel that is locked. The lfs brake assist brakes and unbrakes all 4 wheels.

[JTbo]

I partly agree, in Maserati Trofeo Cup they use ABS and also TC is available to use if drivers prefers to use it, but is possible to turn off, ABS is not possible to turn off.

I think that NetKar had best implementation of TC and ABS, felt even bit like real thing. ABS should not be too hard to code, also TC would be quite easy, just getting it right takes more time.

Also different cars have very different ABS and TC, some are very stupid and simple where some have very good systems. New Ferrari, was it 430? Has very good TC, even advanced driver will be faster with TC on.

But this ABS and TC should be limited to only some cars that would have it in reallife.

[J_Matrix]

I guess that TC and ABS should be made available on faster/racing cars. I mean, even in reality at least traction control is used.. take Fia GT, F1 (even in MotoGp) uses TC's. I think this should not be seen as an aid to leave "less fast" drivers to drive better.. it's just that when you're speaking of very fast cars with many HP's.. it's just impossible to put them all on the ground without spinning or burning tires on the long run.
As marsden1002 said, it could be implemented as a sort of "sport mode" button, maybe with different levels of use, so that the lighter use allow faster pilots to drive as fast as they can, while the stronger TC mode would allow everybody to drive the car, but not as fast as the lighter option.
I say this, just because some cars are quite hard to drive.. expecially the Formula V8. I don't know which new cars will be in S3, but seeing the addings from S1, i'd expect at least a much faster formula in future, faster than F08. What will happen with powers of 680+HPs on a light car? Without any TC i'd guess that they would be critical to be used ;)

[Vain]

Why would we need TC? And especially, why in the fast classes? I mean, everyone can drive the GTRs, FOX and FO8.
Come on, you've got so phaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat wings and still can't keep it on the track?
TC will only move you off the track, because your car drives somewhere you don't want it to.

Vain

[Live for Sideways]

^ Lets pretend he didn't say that.
I'm with shotglass. The main appeal of LFS is how raw it's system is. That's the main secret to how it feels so realistic.
Not that I'm crediting them with being realistic sims, but Forza and GT4 may have the most realistic car handling models around. Big budgets allow big research. The catch is that each of these games has assists built-in to aid the driver. Thing such as ABS and TC (GT4) and speed dependant steering (Forza) allow the use of controllers, these are what you are asking for. You are asking for LFS to stoop to GT4 level.

[Stellios]

In my opinion, if you start introducing all these driver assists, then LFS will be no different a game to others, its part of what keeps LFS unique, and its nice to see drivers having to use skill rather than assists to drive all the time.

Its only a throttle and brake, and as long as you control your pedals you dont realy need ABS etc. As for keyboard users, its a sim, and if you can set fast lap times on a keyboard (TOCA style) then it loses the sim factor.

I know real racers use TC, ABS and all the rest, but its so muh more fun having to drive without all that rubbish.

[wheel4hummer]

Well, the cars in LFS arent cars in RL.

[deggis]

I have always wondered that do most of the keyboard/mouse drivers use brake/throttle assists? I have few times asked about this and they said they don't. I just can't understand how some keyboarders could be so fast with cars like FZR without those assists. Actually I don't know how much those assists even help because I've never tested.

[wheel4hummer]

I use Mouse for steering, everything else is keyboard. No assists here!

[tristancliffe]

Fia GT, F1 (even in MotoGp) uses TC's. I think this should not be seen as an aid to leave "less fast" drivers to drive better.. it's just that when you're speaking of very fast cars with many HP's.. it's just impossible to put them all on the ground without spinning or burning tires on the long run.

Obviously you ignore all of motor racing history when you say that.

Take F1 in the 80's. 1400hp (in qually) turbo engines with little or no lag control. Yet they did 80 laps at a time in them. Just because modern F1 drivers are too pansy to drive without TC (indeed, many of them can't as you can see when they fail) doesn't mean LFS needs to become more pansy too.

[NotAnIllusion]

There is and always has been a feature to change the rate at which keyboard buttons affect analog inputs such as throttle, brake and clutch. Button control rate under the Controls menu is the setting to change. The higher the value, the more digital the response. Similarly, the lower the value, the more analog the response. It applies to all at once, I don't think it is currently possible to set each individually.

Note that if you reduce the BCR and use manual clutch you may experience problems avoiding flatshifting as it takes absolutely ages for the clutch to move the full range.

[modenaf1]

I think ABS and TC and even stability control should be implemented. LFS is a simulator is it not?

In real life many people do have the problem of ABS intervening in an autocross or whatever. ABS can be used as a tool almost, any person and even the controller assist called "brake help" or whatever CAN modulate the brakes on their own. ABS though, can modulate EACH INDIVIDUAL brake.

LFS is about realism right? In a car like the FOX, of course not! Put ABS on that and I'll be pissed. A car like the XF GTi or the GT, FZ350, etc. on cars like that, in real life I bet you they come with ABS and traction controll.

Sure, it takes some of the fun out of it, so just like in real life, have an option called "pull the ABS fuse" and allow the LFSer to disable it, or even allow an option for certain servers to make that mandatory, just like they can make it mandatory what car you drive.

Same with traction and stability controll.

Now, I wouldn't expect the XFGTI to have either of these, but something like the GT Turbo or the FZ350 or whatever. And of COURSE NOT the GTR's.

Do you get where I am going with this? Making this sim as much of a "SIM" as possible.

I also think the torque converter effect should be added as well, get rid of the automatic shifting controller assist. Can't shift your own gears? Tough..you are struck with a REAL automatic. Can't shift your own gears? TOUGH! YOU CAN'T DRIVE THE FO8! And I mean a REAL automatic that upshifts on you when you lift and everything. Have a rental car that is an automatic and you take it to an autocross, does God suddenly make it manual and shift the gears and clutch for you? NO!

Hell, even Need For Speed HOT Pursuit 2 got the torque converter effect down, the cars drove like magic carpets, but at least the automatic was more realistic than LFS.

For those of us who use LFS with the normal cars and in autocrosses and such, I would like to see this get as real as posible. Afterall it is a SIM isn't it?

I can't really see any reason why NOT to implement features that make a SIM more of a SIM.

[modenaf1]

I know real racers use TC, ABS and all the rest, but its so muh more fun having to drive without all that rubbish.

Definitely why I think servers should have the choice of forcing users to use or not use the assists. Just like they can force what cars you drive and don't drive.

[XCNuse]

i dont think they should force you to use them or not use them; it should be a choice.. just like being able to take off ABS and turning off TC in a car.. same thing, so why should someone be forced to use it?

[ajp71]

Sorry I take the view that LFS is a simulation of reality and therefore no extra aids should be added. If you can't control some cars then drive the easier ones.

[Hyperactive]

Then there is the magic question: should one be able to change the setting of a TCS/ABS/ESP? Maybe if we get some 900hp prototype beasts I would be ready to allow these systems into them, but with enough options to make the setting up as realistic and hard as it is in real life.

And if you allow them in LFS the faster people would probably turn them off anyway. ABS is not better than good threshold braking done by good driver and TCS won't teach you the right driving technic. ESP...no

So for realism they should be available for some cars possibly with the option to turn them off.

In the end it is all about what kind of racing the devs want the cars to show. In this sense the NOS, TCS, ESP, ABS, rbyz, hks can some day be installled into your favourite XRT/UF1/FZR :)

[XCNuse]

Sorry I take the view that LFS is a simulation of reality and therefore no extra aids should be added. If you can't control some cars then drive the easier ones.
rofl.. then there SHOULD be ABS and TC...

how many cars have you driven that do not have ABS and TC

[mrodgers]

rofl.. then there SHOULD be ABS and TC...

how many cars have you driven that do not have ABS and TC
I have never driven a car with TC and only one car with ABS. That one nearly got me squashed by a truck. Imagine a steep hill, ice and snow all over it, a trailer truck (18-wheeler) stuck half way up coming my way, a pickup truck in my lane passing it but very slowly, and me hitting my brakes at the top doing like 10-15 mph and the stupid antilock kicking in. The brakes just kept letting go and I couldn't stop. Down the hill I went, totally out of my control. Couldn't do the sensible thing and brake without locking them up myself, the car kept "unbraking". I had no control over trying to slow the car down. The pickup truck just barely got around the rig as I went by. Antilock and traction control are DANGEROUS in real life as people who already don't know how to drive just give more control up to a stupid computer that can't read the situation as it unfolds. I will never buy a vehicle with either in it.

[KeiichiRX7]

On that note, the formula cars and GTR's should have the option to develop your own tcs and other software (of course it would come with plain jane software tht just does the job)

in that way a team could develop thier own control programs just like real teams have to develop thier own

[XCNuse]

..what are you talking about? ABS saves lives.. i would have to estimate that probably 95% of all people that drive have no idea how to work a brake without ABS
TC is different, but i still think that cars in LFS like the GTi and XRGT should have ABS atleast..

i dont know what happened to you mrodgers but sounds like the car needed a checkup.. obviously lol

but think about it this way.. ABS 'let go' for a reason, same reason as in LFS, if you lock up your brakes IRL or in LFS, you will slide MUCH further than you would if you pump the brakes (like you should with a car that does not have ABS) technically ABS saved you.. or so from what you said it sounds like it did, if you locked up your brakes.. you probably wouldnt feel to good
TC i dont know anything about (although i did feel it at use once when going to the airport a long while ago in the suburban, my dad hit a patch of ice and it slide and .. well.. didnt slide as much as it probably would have)

[KeiichiRX7]

Basically legal h4x. Nobody wants that. I don't know about you but I'm interested in racing, not developing the best racing bots.

i suppose those that are as interested in the racing as teh technology behind it are a minority.


And there are those among us that would like to further that technology. in all likelyhood these improved systems would be shared as freely as setups are today. and if you dont wanna use it, youd be free to simply... not use them.

[mrodgers]

Actually it was piece of sh*t cheverolet garbage, the worst cars I've ever driven (wasn't mine). When we got married I tossed that junk and got her a decent car pretty quick. Cheverolet ABS is absolutely horrible (along with everything else they piece together and call a car). In the same situation in any of my vehicles I've had over the years, I would NOT have locked the brakes. I know how to brake and don't need the car to do it for me.

Yea, I kind of agree with you that ABS saves lives. But around here, it's not because of ABS, but because of the idiots on the road not knowing how to drive and needing ABS to help them. I don't call it driving that I see, I call it car guiding, because too many people have no idea what to do in any even minor situation that they could get into with a car. All they know is you turn the steering wheel to turn the car, press the right pedal to go and the left pedal to stop (disregarding those with 3 pedals.)

I'm going to stop now, because the idiots out on the roads really get to me. Like those around here when we get a dusting of snow that isn't even laying on the road and they forget how to drive in the stuff clear through freakin February in freakin north western Pennsylvania. They act like they have never seen snow before. I had to pull off the road going home one day because the first guy was driving so slow, even just letting out the clutch in 1st gear would run me up his tailpipe.

[XCNuse]

yep yep, no disagreements here (except hating the chevy part lol.. i dont really hate any car companies tbh)
but then when you think about that.. thats not really a fault of the car, but rather the people that cant drive so.. ya

[sinbad]

..what are you talking about? ABS saves lives.. i would have to estimate that probably 95% of all people that drive have no idea how to work a brake without ABS
TC is different, but i still think that cars in LFS like the GTi and XRGT should have ABS atleast..


Possibly, but I doubt it. Obviously they aren't the most modern cars. XR styling is mid 90s stuff at the latest, and XF styling isn't much fresher. One would be lucky to find ABS even as an option on cars like these around then.

I think as long as there is a genuine real world basis for including one of these "aids" then nobody can have any complaints. e.g, if they were to acquire rights to a real car that was fitted with it, or to a race series in which they use one of them (like the various Porsche cups which use ABS).

[ajp71]

Possibly, but I doubt it. Obviously they aren't the most modern cars. XR styling is mid 90s stuff at the latest, and XF styling isn't much fresher. One would be lucky to find ABS even as an option on cars like these around then.


Very true more significantly than the styling note they're no twin turbos in LFS.

The real racing series using ABS are only using them because they are 'gentlemens'' series full of people who have no clue how to drive.


We need to recognise the difference between road/race TC -

As for TC/ABS being on real road cars it's the first thing that is stripped out before they are taken racing even at club level, these systems are designed to stop total noobs loosing control of the cars of track days and would be very limiting.

In racing cars TC is often used by professional teams when they are allowed to use it but contary to popular opinion here they don't just use it because they can't drive the cars. It actually makes the cars considerably faster with several million pounds worth of computer feeding the power down in the most efficent way, sounds horrible though and would be hard to impliment a system allowing the engine to fire on less cylinders.

The same goes for the automatic transmission F1 used to use there's no way you could have driven a manual as quickly.

IMO I wouldn't want to see such series being added or aids to help keyboarders, sorry this is a simulation of reality and I'm more than happy with you driving low power FWD hatch backs but if you can drive a 500 bhp single seater then that's just stupid. I think if S3 wants faster cars it should look back to the eighties, big touring cars, turbos and Group C what more could you want :D

[tristancliffe]

Yeah, lets add TC and ABD to improve the simulation of reality. but why don't we have everyone have to build there own car. Have it crash tested & homologated. You'd have to budget for it, you'd have to make a manufacturing plant. Then you'd have to have supply problems now and again, and it would take about 60,000 man hours to finish a car to GTR specs.

Just because it's in reality doesn't mean it should be in LFS, and I believe that the major fun of LFS is learning to control the cars, so it's driver vs driver. If we had girly driver aids then it would just end up Scawen vs Scawen in every race.

[AndroidXP]

..what are you talking about? ABS saves lives.. i would have to estimate that probably 95% of all people that drive have no idea how to work a brake without ABS
Generally, I have to agree, but he was talking about the special case of snow.

I don't know if you live in a snowy area, but ABS + snow is a very bad idea. There exactly what he said happens - the ABS won't let you brake. If you were able to brake and lock up you'd alteast have the chance to stop, due to snow pileup infront of the wheels, but with ABS you can only hope to evade the obstacle somehow, ending your car in a ditch, tree or in some other car.
Basically ABS takes away one option without adding any benefit in that special situation.


Back to the topic of adding such things to LFS: Add all you want, as long as it's not the race-type TC/etc. that actually makes you faster, I have no problem with it. It should be a help for newbies to control the car, but it should never ever be a magic switch to get fast - that would kill LFS.

[ajp71]

What I can't work out is why does LFS have such a large number of mouse/kb users? Other sims don't seem to suffer this sort of problem, even Racer didn't initially support KB.

[ajp71]

rofl.. then there SHOULD be ABS and TC...

how many cars have you driven that do not have ABS and TC

To answer your question at 16 I shouldn't be driving but of the cars I driven I think 2 out of 13 had ABS and none of them had TC (and it may amaze you that only 2 of them were automatic) I think TC/ABS tends to be less common on everyday cars in Europe :shrug:.

[jtr99]

If we had girly driver aids then it would just end up Scawen vs Scawen in every race.

Mmmm... think of the tension. Scawen wins again!

[jtr99]

Scary snow driving ABS story, Mike. But at 10-15mph, why not just slam it back into first and pull the handbrake on? (I like to pull the handbrake on given the slightest excuse, so this may be the idiot side of my brain talking.)

[Hyperactive]

Yea, I kind of agree with you that ABS saves lives. But around here, it's not because of ABS, but because of the idiots on the road not knowing how to drive and needing ABS to help them. I don't call it driving that I see, I call it car guiding, because too many people have no idea what to do in any even minor situation that they could get into with a car. All they know is you turn the steering wheel to turn the car, press the right pedal to go and the left pedal to stop (disregarding those with 3 pedals.)


The reason why ABS is used in cars is because it makes controlling the car easier in surprizing situation, and in such situations the car stop quicker. Corner braking is one of these things. If you need to brake and avoid a collision and the situation comes all of a sudden, ABS (or ESP) may save your life. It is not that the braking is hard, it's because the situation when you need to use brakes comes so quickly and you have very little time to react, so many just panic and push the brakes as hard as they can.

As I said earlier I could easily accept all kinds of TCSs and ABS if there was option to turn them off (they would be slower in road cars) and in racing cars there were setup options to adjust them.

[modenaf1]

i dont think they should force you to use them or not use them; it should be a choice.. just like being able to take off ABS and turning off TC in a car.. same thing, so why should someone be forced to use it?

I should have phrased that better, my bad. What I meant, was have and option like "rip out the ABS fuse." If you have a car with ABS in real life that is definitely a way to temporarilly disable it.

Then have the option for some servers to require that, in other words, make it so you can allow drivers to have a choice, OR make all drivers in your server NOT allowed to use ABS or TCS.

[modenaf1]

Sorry I take the view that LFS is a simulation of reality and therefore no extra aids should be added. If you can't control some cars then drive the easier ones.

Sorry, but I don't think you get what I was saying. ABS and TCS isn't about making it "easier" for someone to drive the Formula V8 or the GTR cars.

ABS, TCS, and automatics with torque converters are real life things that are found in many real life cars similar to the XF GTI, GT Turbo, RB4, etc. LFS is a SIM. If they are available, why not use them?

Now I am not saying ABS for EVERY car. The GTR cars, the F08, the F0X, those cars most likely don't come standard with ABS and TCS in real life. Nor do they come with automatic transmissions. Which is why these cars shouldn't be able to be had with ABS, TCS, or an automatic transmission.


My theory behind this is, lets get real driving aids (ABS, TCS, Automatics that upshift on you at nasty times with torque converters, etc.) but only for the appropriate cars!!!!!! Get rid of the controller assists. LFS can freaking shift your manual transmission for you in a perfectly optimized way! Does that happen in real life? Absolutely not. In real life, you can't shift your gears, you buy a car with an automatic. Want to take that car to an autocross? Tough crap, the LiveForSpeed god's wont turn your car into a manual and shift it for you in real life.

Do you all see where I am getting at? Making LFS as REAL and as much of a SIM as possible.

[XCNuse]

Then have the option for some servers to require that, in other words, make it so you can allow drivers to have a choice, OR make all drivers in your server NOT allowed to use ABS or TCS.
alright, okay that makes more sense lol ;)

[modenaf1]

I have never driven a car with TC and only one car with ABS. That one nearly got me squashed by a truck. Imagine a steep hill, ice and snow all over it, a trailer truck (18-wheeler) stuck half way up coming my way, a pickup truck in my lane passing it but very slowly, and me hitting my brakes at the top doing like 10-15 mph and the stupid antilock kicking in. The brakes just kept letting go and I couldn't stop. Down the hill I went, totally out of my control. Couldn't do the sensible thing and brake without locking them up myself, the car kept "unbraking". I had no control over trying to slow the car down. The pickup truck just barely got around the rig as I went by. Antilock and traction control are DANGEROUS in real life as people who already don't know how to drive just give more control up to a stupid computer that can't read the situation as it unfolds. I will never buy a vehicle with either in it.

Glad to hear you are OK. In real life, if you know how to drive properly, ABS isn't the best in ICE or snow. Some ABS systems are better than others. In my mom's old Taurus wagon, the ABS system keeps the wheels right at incipient lock, on slick conditions in my car that doesn't have ABS, I can't stop much shorter than that Taurus with ABS.

Now there are some other cars, like a few Subaru's I have driven, the ABS is tuned way too much in favor of a stupid driver. In the Taurus you can slide and you can understeer when you hit the ABS because of it being at incipient lockup, but in those Subaru's, the ABS system keeps the brakes well before incipient lock so you can turn the wheel all you wanted and it would just keep releiving brake pressure. These ABS systems made it almost impossible to stop on snow and ice, wasn't even downhill either.

And yes, in snow incipient lockup or even locking the tires is slightly better because it builds up a wedge in front of the tire, you have to know what you are doing though "ZOMG MY STEERING WHEEL IS BROKEN!! IT WONT TURN!" lol :D

Either way, I probably wouldn't drive down a hill as steep as you described ABS or not.


Traction control can help in the snow though, even though allowing wheelspin is more effective, traction control will apply the brakes to the spinning tire and works like a limited slip diff.

If you don't have a limited slip diff your car becomes one wheel drive in the snow, whichever one spins easier gets all the power. A car without a limited slip differential can benefit slightly with TCS because by putting the brakes on the spinning tire it directs some power to the other tire.

[modenaf1]

Quotes you'll never hear on motorsport commentary:

"His use of the traction control system in that corner was amazing"

or

"The anti-lock braking system really made this race more exciting"





Actually I hear it quite a bit. Ever hear of TCS and launch controll on the Formula 1 cars? There was tons about that in the commentary. Either way..I don't think that should be implemented in the FO8, the FO8 isn't really like a full out F1 car, more like a fancy version of the FOX IMO, and THOSE cars, do NOT have ABS or TCS or Launch Control.

Ever watch a GT race or whatever? That is ALL the commentators talk about. "OH OH OH! There goes the Mazda 6 into turn 7 again! That flatspot is getting bigger and bigger making that wheel easier to lock! The Porsche ABS has really been beneficial on this turn keeping the inside tire from locking!"

Either way, it may not make it more exciting, but at least in the "normal" cars in LFS that are everyday cars. Go to an autocross for me and tell me how many cars don't have ABS.

ABS can be beneficial with very agressive trail braking when it is sometimes easy to flatspot the inside rear tire. Modulate it yourself to avoid that lockup and you just took away braking force from the other 3 wheels that were gripping perfectly.

[modenaf1]

To answer your question at 16 I shouldn't be driving but of the cars I driven I think 2 out of 13 had ABS and none of them had TC (and it may amaze you that only 2 of them were automatic) I think TC/ABS tends to be less common on everyday cars in Europe :shrug:.

I guess so, here in the States it is very common. We still have cars that have ABS optional though, the new 2006 Ford Fusion for example.

Also here, 99.9999 percent of rental cars are automatics. Want to rent a Focus for $20 to go autocrossing for a day? Most likely it will have an automatic and ABS. Which can be an advantage in some ways. In an autocross, at low speeds the Torque converter multiplies torque slightly, also an advantage in an autocross is the kickdown to first gear wheras in many manuals you are stuck in 2nd. Sure you can do a clutchless or double clutched rev match into first, but that takes more time than in an Auto, and the gear ratios for first is usually shorter than a relatively tall first gear in an auto which may keep you right in the peak of the powerband throughout the autocross.

[modenaf1]

But was it positive?

I remember the season they reintroduced TC into F1. Irvine got a good start at Monaco and when he was interviewed about it they asked if it was down to him or the launch control. He said "No it wasn't me, it was some anonymous software guy in a trailer somewhere".

Bingo, it wasn't positive, but in that type of racing I can't imagion how such a thing could be. Formula one is already too automated and technical anyway. In my opinion it is more a matter of who has a better reaction time of hitting the brakes at the right time when you are 6 feet from a corner at 180MPH.

To spice up Forumula one they should get rid of TCS, launch control, and the auto-clutch gearboxes. Hell, put a freaking ban on downforce! That ought to get things interesting, but that is a whole different topic than what we are discussing here.

[modenaf1]

Possibly, but I doubt it. Obviously they aren't the most modern cars. XR styling is mid 90s stuff at the latest, and XF styling isn't much fresher. One would be lucky to find ABS even as an option on cars like these around then.

I think as long as there is a genuine real world basis for including one of these "aids" then nobody can have any complaints. e.g, if they were to acquire rights to a real car that was fitted with it, or to a race series in which they use one of them (like the various Porsche cups which use ABS).

The styling shouldn't have anything to do with it IMO, the fact is, the cars that are street cars should have street cars have. The cars that aren't street cars shouldn't have those things. Again, I will use my example with the automatic transmissions, if you can't shift gears, you probably shouldn't be driving an Formula XR in LFS. Since it is a sim, instead of shifting the manual gears for you in the Formula XR, it should make it necessary to drive a streetcar with an automatic instead.

Anyway, I still haven't seen a significant reason why not to include it in LFS. I agree, it isn't the most important thing, I would love to see things like damage become much more realistic first, but I do think ABS, TC, and real automatic transmissions should be included eventually. And definitely in an approriate way, for example, ways to disable ABS and TC (hell, maybe even make you stop the car and have it show you a picture of a fuse box and make you figure out which fuse to rip out) , and be realistic about WHICH CARS have them or not.

[ajp71]

Please stop getting confused between road ABS and racing ABS, just like the TC systems on road cars you seriously do not want ABS, it will be far too restrictive and is one of the first things thrown out by any club racer. Notice how no serious track day cars are offered with ABS or TC?

Back to racing ABS systems it's hard to know what type of GT racing your talking about as certainly some GT cars will have nice aids built in to cope with some fairly brain dead celebrities who like to think of themselves as racing drivers. Proper GT2 cars won't normally have ABS. Didn't seem to slow Group C cars that much.

[sinbad]

The styling shouldn't have anything to do with it IMO, the fact is, the cars that are street cars should have street cars have. The cars that aren't street cars shouldn't have those things.

Road cars like XF and XR from 2006 probably would have ABS, and maybe TC. Road cars like XF and XR from the 80s or 90s probably wouldn't have ABS and almost certainly wouldn't have TC.
Unless you have another source on what period these cars are from, styling is our only clue.

[keiran]

No need for TC and ABS from my point of view. There are plenty of road going racing classes out there that don't allow TC and ABS from what I remember when my Dad did hill climbs. These things should never have been introduced into racing they just make it so much easier for the driver, look at ISI games with all the arcade aids. There are rarely any servers which don't allow these aids.

I have to agree with Sinbad. These cars are fictional, the devs can decide what features they come with or don't. I prefer them being as they are as it adds something extra to a race. You lock up a couple of times or are to harsh on the thorttle then you could struggle with your tyres. This aspect would be removed if we chucked some driving aids in. I always thought that TC and ABS were really extras in this country anyway. We've never owned a car with either TC or ABS.

Keiran

[Hyperactive]

There is the fact that modern racing cars have quite a lot electronics in them today. All kinds of electronid widgets which would have been silly 20 or 30 years ago are big part of racing today.

[ajp71]

Road cars like XF and XR from 2006 probably would have ABS, and maybe TC. Road cars like XF and XR from the 80s or 90s probably wouldn't have ABS and almost certainly wouldn't have TC.
Unless you have another source on what period these cars are from, styling is our only clue.

A much much bigger clue is the lack of modern progressive turbocharging devices.

I'll say it again you do not want road ABS/TC it's the first thing that gets removed when you start preparing a car and never heads out onto the race track.

[pavbrand]

great idea mate traction control for mouse would me it more even with the wheel..

[Matrixi]

If I'd be given an option would I rather have ABS (or TC for that matter) fitted to my car, I would rather not. Having no ABS helps you stop quicker especially on slippery surfaces as long as you practice not to lock the brakes for too long. I've noticed ABS starts "cracking" way too early on snowy surfaces and won't allow you to put the maximum possible traction from the tires to the road.

ABS:s main function isn't to help you stop quicker in a straight line either, it's main goal is to maintain steerability when you slam the brakes in mid corner (god knows why you'd want to do that).

My S13 unfortunately has ABS fitted to it (as do all european models afaik) and I really hate it now that it's winter and roads are covered in snow. Been seriously giving a thought for converting it to non-ABS.

[Vain]

Tried removing the ABS-fuse? When it's spring you can put the fuse back again.

Vain

[tristancliffe]

If I'd be given an option would I rather have ABS (or TC for that matter) fitted to my car, I would rather not. Having no ABS helps you stop quicker especially on slippery surfaces as long as you practice not to lock the brakes for too long. I've noticed ABS starts "cracking" way too early on snowy surfaces and won't allow you to put the maximum possible traction from the tires to the road.

ABS:s main function isn't to help you stop quicker in a straight line either, it's main goal is to maintain steerability when you slam the brakes in mid corner (god knows why you'd want to do that).

My S13 unfortunately has ABS fitted to it (as do all european models afaik) and I really hate it now that it's winter and roads are covered in snow. Been seriously giving a thought for converting it to non-ABS.

You'd never WANT to slam your brakes on mid corner, but if you saw a child standing in the middle of the road, would you REALLY at the time it matters have the presence of mind to cadence brake around them?

The one time I had a similar experience was coming round a blind corner (the same corner my brother had his accident a couple of years beforehand) only to find a queue of cars. Now, this is a quick corner, so I was doing about 65/70, nowhere near the limit. And suddenly I saw the stationary cars. The last car was in the middle of turning around, so was broadside to me. I jumped on the brakes, and locked up all four wheels. There were long black lines for about 50 meters, until something in my head said "cadance". At this rate I wasn't going to get to 30mph, let alone 0, so I'd have probably killed the lady in the broadside car. So I took my foot right off the brake, and started again. And again. And again. I stopped with about 8 inches to spare, and my girlfriend at the time next to me was already in tears. The lady in the other car looked so relieved. I had 'remembered' cadance braking at the last possible second. Who's to say next time you or I will be so lucky...

Edit: I'm still against TC and ABS, but I can see the value in them in certain circumstances, and with certain drivers (the vast majority of them actually). But I'd disable them as soon as I found out how.

[Matrixi]

Tried removing the ABS-fuse? When it's spring you can put the fuse back again.

Vain

I know that would do the trick, but it would also light up the ABS check light and whatnot. I prefer do it the old fashion way and install the non-ABS brake system, propably upgrading brake hoses to steel braided ones too while I'm at it.

[Vain]

The fuse-method has the advantage that you can put the fuse back on whenever you want. And obiously, in day-to-day-driving ABS can be helpfull ;) .

Vain

[tristancliffe]

The fuse method has a disadvantage - it's unlike the fuse operates JUST the ABS. So you might have to have no radio, or no wipers, or no lights whilst you have no ABS. Thats the price of cars and electrics I'm afraid - shared fuses.

[Vain]

I never tried the fuse method because all my cars never had ABS (first one '85 and later a '87), but I guess many cars have their electric system for the ABS secured from most other devices. If I engineered a car I'd rather put in a second fuse than having a short-wired windscreenwiper kill my ABS :) .
This of course depends on the specific car. Either try or get the electrical plan of the car.

Vain

[Matrixi]

The one time I had a similar experience was coming round a blind corner (the same corner my brother had his accident a couple of years beforehand) only to find a queue of cars. Now, this is a quick corner, so I was doing about 65/70, nowhere near the limit. And suddenly I saw the stationary cars. The last car was in the middle of turning around, so was broadside to me. I jumped on the brakes, and locked up all four wheels. There were long black lines for about 50 meters, until something in my head said "cadance". At this rate I wasn't going to get to 30mph, let alone 0, so I'd have probably killed the lady in the broadside car. So I took my foot right off the brake, and started again. And again. And again. I stopped with about 8 inches to spare, and my girlfriend at the time next to me was already in tears. The lady in the other car looked so relieved. I had 'remembered' cadance braking at the last possible second. Who's to say next time you or I will be so lucky...

Last summer I had a close call experience as well, it didn't involve any corners tho. I was driving my sister back home in my ex '87 Corolla, I was cruising about 80-85km/h on a motorway, weather was really bad as it had just stopped raining. All roads were wet and slippery as hell. So there I was minding my own business untill I see a blue Civic come in from a T-intersection, I thought "he has a triangle, he's suppose to watch out for other traffic when joining the motorway, no problemos for me" and to my surprise, the driver DIDN'T watch out for other traffic (me) and drove straight on to the motorway.

It took me a while to understand the situation and slam my foot on the brakes but once I did, the brakes naturally locked up since that old car didn't have ABS and the tires were as wide as pizza cutters and barely had any grip at all. I remember hearing the tires being locked and instinctly I let go off the brakes and slammed them again. I barely managed to miss the Civic, there was less than few meters of space between me and him. I was in quite a shock after that for a little while, since then I've started having lots of margin when people are joining the motorway :)

[Hyperactive]

I just yesterday had a similar experience. I was going to buy some food from local supermarket and I was driving like 40-50kph what was the limit. I noticed a car coming to the next intersection from a gas station and I thought that she doesn't look like stopping (behind a triangle she was).

It was more like a hunch but I lifted my foot off the accelerator and pressed gently brakes just to notice that she pulled in front of me. Managed to to do some threshold braking (even my ABS didn't go on) and there was enough room for her to survive from it. The thing is that the road was dead slippery and if I had driven without braking I would have to use bus now :( But it was a close call. Not scary though :)

[jtr99]

...and my girlfriend at the time next to me was already in tears...

I have no right to intrude, but I couldn't help spotting this bit. Did she become no longer your girlfriend as a result of the incident? :)

[tristancliffe]

No, she just isn't my girlfriend anymore :)

[filur]

If i was writing a computer program that simulated driving different cars, implementing various
peculiarities from real cars such as abs and traction control would seem pretty natural.

Concerning lfs i personally wouldn't really care, if these things were implemented i'd probably just never try them :)

[JeffR]

Not being a racing sim "purist" I have no problem with traction control, to compensate for the lack of forces felt by a real driver in a real car, epecially on the high powered rear wheel drive cars. ABS is OK, but then all of Scawens work on hot / flat spotting would go to waste.

[george_tsiros]

ABS is a technology implemented as an electromechanical device. One could say that it is supposed to simulate cadence braking. Why would i want a simulation (in lfs) of the simulator of braking (abs)?

[JeffR]

I don't see what all the fuss is about regarding assists. I'm not aware of anyong claiming that F-16 fighter pilots are panzy's because the F16 is a fly by wire aircraft with a large number of assists: stability control with sub-millisecond reaction time to keep the aircraft stable; automatic camber control (leading edge and trailing edges automatically adjusted for air speed and g loading); and the 9 g limiter on stick (elevator) inputs. Then there's those panzy radar, laser guided, and heat seeking missles.

Back to on topic, regarding ABS, computerized racing braking systems do more than just cadence braking on all 4 wheels. In the racing classes that allow it, independent computerized braking at each wheel is used for traction control, cornering assist, and braking.

Regarding traction control in general, Champ race cars don't have it, Formula 1 race cars do. The racing isn't any better, the only difference is you have more "incidents" with Champ cars, mostly a selling point for the fans.

[Vain]

We may talk about TC-like assists in F1 cars when we get F1 cars. But until then we don't have a car class where TC or ABS are usually allowed (I'm not sure about F3000, so please correct me if I'm wrong).
The thing is: When you want to take a XRT-like real-life car to racing, you'll need to go through a technical check. And when your car happens to have TC or ABS you won't be allowed to race until you remove both. So why should LFS cars be allowed to have TC or ABS?

Vain

[george_tsiros]

Your analogy of racing vehicles with fighter aircrafts is flawed.

In racing there is a set of rules, to which all willing to participate, must adhere. If in a racing event, driving assists are allowed, they are allowed. If they are not allowed, they are not allowed. It is up to whoever organizes said racing event.

In fighter aircrafts you do what you can to shoot down the opponent. There are no "rules", per se.

I do not wish for driving assists, because (it might just be me) i think they show lack of skill on behalf of the driver. Power steering, traction control, electronic braking, auto shifting... what next? NFS?

Remove ALL assists. Let the pure best driver win.

[B2B@300]

Your analogy of racing vehicles with fighter aircrafts is flawed.

In racing there is a set of rules, to which all willing to participate, must adhere. If in a racing event, driving assists are allowed, they are allowed. If they are not allowed, they are not allowed. It is up to whoever organizes said racing event.

In fighter aircrafts you do what you can to shoot down the opponent. There are no "rules", per se.

I do not wish for driving assists, because (it might just be me) i think they show lack of skill on behalf of the driver. Power steering, traction control, electronic braking, auto shifting... what next? NFS?

Remove ALL assists. Let the pure best driver win.

Well no the same can be said of modern fighter's compared to WW2 aircraft... i.e. dogfighting skills are rarely needed in modern warfare and the seat of pants flying and skill needed to fly WW2 fighters is a totally different realm to modern fighters, purists would argue for WW2 over modern fighters in a sim and would think modern fighter pilots are panzies :razz:, but others would say both are valid :shrug: it's just what floats your boat I guess :shy: I'm more of a purist and prefer no assists :)

[AndroidXP]

George is right, that example was indeed flawed. From what I know, it's impossible to fly modern fighters just by feel, because they are very unstable with the intention to increase their maneuverability. In racing it's about fair driving and sportsmanship, in air combat it's about who comes out alive. You cannot compare that.

[Vain]

....On the demoservers you can. It's about who's not wrecked at the end of the race. :D

Vain

[B2B@300]

:rofl: Will have to give you that one Vain :D

[JeffR]

My only issue is how does a game give a player feedback from what is happening at the rear end of a rear wheel drive car? How do you know how much throttle you can apply?

Why is it that in real life, I can spin both rear tires at take off and can easily keep the car pointed straight, but it's so difficult to do with LFS, expecially in the LX6 which seems to be the worst case rear wheel drive car in LFS?

Champ cars (and the former CART) racing cars often exit the pits with both rear tires spinning, while maneuvering the car out of the pits and onto pit lane; they are able to steer the car with both rear wheels spinning and not lose control, and these cars have no traction control.

In my opinion, if a game has an unrealistic response to rear wheel spin, then traction control assist should be allowed until the problem is fixed.

[tristancliffe]

No, it's simple because you can't feel the forces through your seat. Drive your car suspended above the seat and see if it's as easy? I bet it's not.

Any idiot can control wheelspin in a rear wheel drive car from a standstill, but in LFS you have to use common sense, FFB, visual and aural feedback. Most of the time I manage it. Less frequently in the FO8, but they don't spin the wheel so much from a standstill...

[B2B@300]

My only issue is how does a game give a player feedback from what is happening at the rear end of a rear wheel drive car? How do you know how much throttle you can apply?

Depends on the car - the more powerful it is, try keep wheelspin to the absolute minimium (so alot of modulation) as you will get it anyway. With the less powerful one you can plant your foot more (much less modulation) :shrug: but it's all about throttle modulation, for me it just comes down to experimenting a bit and practise. Like tristian says in a sim you don't have the "seat of pants O'meter" so you have to predict some situations from experience - LFS is very pridictable when you become familiar with it.

[JeffR]

Any idiot can control wheelspin in a rear wheel drive car from a standstillSo why not in LFS?

[tristancliffe]

Because you can't feel the g-forces on your bum or with your inner ear. In real life you feel the sideslip of oversteer WAY WAY WAY before you feel it in the steering, see it with your eyes, or hear it via the tyre noise.

Although LFS's tyre model is partly to blame, but we know that, and we know it'll be improved in the near future. But there is NO sim that will feel right without g-forces. Until there is some way to really simulate the forces on your body (Force Dynamics comes closest, but it's only 1g sustained, perhaps 3 or 4 instantaneously, and the forces are wrong there anyway - when you accelerate in real life the seat pushes into your back, with motion simulators the seat moves away from you - completely the wrong way round but enough to fool you a bit) there's not going to be a solution. Sure you can wrap up the short comings by having traction control, ABS, yaw control, automatic pilot etc, but that's not fixing the problem it's just hiding it under false aids. And besides, I like knowing that it's me that braked perfectly, hit the apex at exactly the right point and speed, controlled the oversteer on the way out and got a pb split time. Having the sim help you isn't gonna make it any more satisfying.

Most people say that sims last a few months on their hard drive at best, simply because it's either too hard or too unrewarding, and LFS doesn't suffer from this. It's easy to go within a few seconds of WR, and each tenth you get quicker really feels like you earnt it - hence you come back for more. Driver aids won't make that any better...

[B2B@300]

So why not in LFS?

TBH I've never really had that much of a problem in LFS :shrug: and it does baffal me a little why some do... maybe post a replay and a setup that you use then we might see what is the problem, although I think it will just come down to excess throttle application :shy: IRL if you want wheel spin with control (as in champ cars leaving the pits) I'm fairly certain they don't just plant their foot to the metal :Looking_a

[JeffR]

I'm fairly certain they don't just plant their foot to the metal If not, it's pretty close to it. They aren't trying to get an optimal launch, they're trying to keep rpms high to prevent a hot engine from stalling. 1st gear is probably set to redline somewhere between 85mph and 100mph depending on the track.

[JeffR]

TBH I've never really had that much of a problem in LFSTry to do a full throttle launch in the FO8, you pick the setup with a reasonably tall first gear (like around 80mph). As previously posted, any idiot can do this in real life, but with LFS's FO8, it's virtually impossible.

[Hankstar]

In the case of the FO8, perhaps once the tyre and aero bugs have been worked out we won't need ABS or TC to drive that twitchy bugger..as for ABS/TC in other cars like the big GTRs it wouldn't trouble me too much, as long as those features were used in comparative RL racing comps.
The FOX doesn't need either imho. I think once the tyres and aero are sorted that car will be even more fun to drive than it is now :nod:

[george_tsiros]

(Force Dynamics comes closest, but it's only 1g sustained,
No. It can not exert sustained acceleration. To feel any kind of acceleration on yourself, you need to MOVE.

There is a device, tho, which messes with your cochlea in your inner ear, by varying pressure, which makes you feel acceleration. Dunno who makes it and if it is going to be released to the public.

[B2B@300]

If not, it's pretty close to it. They aren't trying to get an optimal launch, they're trying to keep rpms high to prevent a hot engine from stalling. 1st gear is probably set to redline somewhere between 85mph and 100mph depending on the track.

Yes but if you just stuck your foot straight to the floor in a F1 car, champ car or any other car with similar power to wieght ratios the RPM will be bouncing off the rev limiter in like 0.01 of a sec :tilt: and I'm pretty sure it would be a handfull to control :razz:

A proper launch technique would be to bring the RPM upto a predetermined level (say 7000 -8000 RPM) and hold it there. When the clutch is dropped continue holding the throttle at that same level (don't floor it) until the tyres get grip and then push the throttle smoothly the rest of the way to the floor :shrug: . I'm by no means an expert in the fo8 or similar cars but that should be a technique that works resaonably well. To some one observing externally that still might seem like the driver is just flooring it, but it is far from it... by throttle modulation I mean varying your throttle amount to maintain a desired RPM

[jtw62074]

Lay on your back with your feet straight up in the air. 1g :)

[george_tsiros]

No.
You are not correct.

[jtw62074]

You are feeling 1g acceleration in that case. And without any motion. :smileypul

[tristancliffe]

Last time I checked gravity is 1g, so therefore lying on your back is 1g (but of course you'll lack the feeling of weight towards the seat).

As for champ cars and FO8#s spinning too easily, sure it's a bit too difficult, but I bet they rarely use full throttle for get aways - they can modulate the throttle much more precisesly against revs and clutch position due to feeling the forces.
I doubt any idiot could floor a F3000/GP2 car and control it all the way to 100mph like people try to do in LFS. But I can jump in a Miata, a Caterham, an Elise, a Diablo SV etc and control sustained full throttle wheelspin for quite a long time, but there comes a point where either a tank-slapper develops or the car just grips and goes. Knowing when the lift and when to countersteer comes mostly with the feeling that is lacking in all sims.

If you want to tell me it takes skill to control wheelspin at road speeds when you're expecting it I can't believe you. Oversteer is a very natural thing to deal with when your ready for it. Just any one in an oversteery go-kart and they drift round corners all day long. Sure they'll spin but only when it catches them out and does something they're not ready for. Countersteering is a natural reaction. Wheelspinning from a standstill on purpose you know you're gonna get a bit of oversteer and you control it without thinking about it.

[george_tsiros]

you guys are both wrong... so very wrong... you do NOT feel acceleration if you do not move. what you DO feel is the pressure from the floor on your back, considering you are lying with your back on the floor.

you do NOT feel acceleration.

[tristancliffe]

Yes you do - gravity is an acceleration, and hence you do feel it. But you ALSO feel the force the floor exerts stopping you from accelerating. One is overall, the other is over the surface of your back.

If you don't feel acceleration lying on your back with your feet in the air, why do your legs get tired?

[JeffR]

Yes but if you just stuck your foot straight to the floor in a F1 car, champ car or any other car with similar power to weight ratios the RPM will be bouncing off the rev limiter in like 0.01 of a sec and I'm pretty sure it would be a handfull to controlA fuel dragster funny car has a much higher power to weight ratio and these are launched at full throttle all the time. If the clutch is set too tight, you get wheel spin, and yet most of the time, the cars don't get sideways. Getting back to CART cars, they sometimes hit the rev-limiter coming out of the pits. These cars can at least be "aimed" with the rear tires spinning, unlike the FO8 of LFS, which is way down on power by comparason, yet much less controllable with the rear tires spinning. Just for show, there are guys who see how long they can spin the wheels on a car, most of them can go through an entire 1/4 mile run with the rear tires spinning, ending up well over 100mph.

[bobvanvliet]

Yes you do - gravity is an acceleration, and hence you do feel it. But you ALSO feel the force the floor exerts stopping you from accelerating. One is overall, the other is over the surface of your back.

If you don't feel acceleration lying on your back with your feet in the air, why do your legs get tired?

I'm sorry, Tristan, but for once you're wrong. You're confusing gravitational acceleration and gravitational force. When you're lying flat on your back nothing is moving and nothing is accelerating (relative to the Earth, the way most movements in everyday life are defined. Of course you're accelerating towards the centers of the Earth, Sun, Galaxy and Universe but let's leave them out of this, shall we? :tilt: :thumb:).

When you're lying still, the sum of all forces (gravitational and normal from the floor) is 0, so acceleration is 0 too. A =F/M. 0/M = 0. :smileypul

[tristancliffe]

But to your inner ear you'll still feel like your accerating. Okay, maybe not on the floor.

Consider the Force Dynamics rig. If it goes vertical, so your are lying on your back your brain can be deceived into thinking your are accelerating at 1g. Same with side to side. Doesn't matter if your moving or not, your ears will still feel the acceleration, even if it doesn't actually exist.

It's the entire basis of motion simulation - tricking your inner ear by moving gravities direction whilst giving you an image of a flat track...

[george_tsiros]

no. the cochlea can understand gravity pull much like a hollow ball with some liquid in it. it does not accelerate, yet it always has the liquid at the bottom. the cochlea does not understand orientation using acceleration.


no, the machine can not trick you into thinking that you are accelerating FORWARD.
if you are in a car and you accelerate, there is a sum of two forces that you feel.
the one is the one force on your bottom from the chair and the other is the back of the seat. summed up, these two are larger than what you will ever feel sitting in a force dynamics seat. It can change the orientation but it can't make you feel acceleration.

when you stand you get tired because the human body has losses, pretty much like all machinery.

Open a physics book, sheesh :(

[george_tsiros]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forces
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_mechanics

(p.s.: i study physics at university)
(p.s.2: i find it amusing hearing such ridiculous claims (http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=79521#post79521) from someone who develops rc simulation programs...)

[Vain]

Come on, you're talking like your a greek oracle trying to produce as much confusion as possible.
What you want to say in clear words:

The force dynamics seat simulates accelerations of exactly 1g (the acceleration of your body). In the real world you feel the downwards acceleration or 1g plus the acceleration the car poses on you, f.e. 0.5g, in the sum sqrt(1g²+0,5g²) = 1.12g which is obiously unequal to the simulated acceleration of the force dynamics seat.

Vain

[george_tsiros]

I am sorry, english is not my native language. it was not my intention to confuse anyone.

what do you mean "simulates accelerations of exactly 1g" ?
how can you simulate an acceleration? i mean... acceleration is defined as the rate of change of velocity: how do you define "simulation" in this case?

the FD seat just tries to trick you into thinking that you are accelerating forward by tilting the seat backwards so that you feel pressure on your back.

that, is not "simulation".

[george_tsiros]

sqrt(1g²+0,5g²) = 1.12g

That is wrong.

there is no 1g downwards.

you are not accelerating downwards.

you are only accelerating forward.

there is only 0.5g forward.

this is getting silly, stop it

[Vain]

Now, when you are made to believe that you are accelerated sideways while actually not being I tend to say that this acceleration is being simulated.

And by the way: For better understanding you can also use the definition of acceleration as being Force per mass. This definition requires no movement and is better suited here.
Defining acceleration as the change of velocity is only valid in free space. So rethink your point of view.

Vain

[george_tsiros]

let us accept for a moment that that formula is correct and that it is correct for the case where you are in a car accelerating forward.
v/ (1g^2 + .5g^2)

let us consider a second case

how would you describe the acceleration experienced by someone FALLING from the sky and at the same time being propelled FORWARD by a small engine he is carrying?

+-->
|
|
v

[george_tsiros]

And by the way: For better understanding you can also use the definition of acceleration as being Force per mass. This definition requires no movement and is better suited here.
Defining acceleration as the change of velocity is only valid in free space. So rethink your point of view.

Vain

You obviously never took proper physics lessons.
I am not going to continue this pointless discussion.

[tristancliffe]

I don't see what you're missing from this discussion George. Perhaps physics isn't for you :shrug:

Lets simplify this.

When you are in a REAL car and accelerate at 1G forwards, the combined accelerations acting on you are gravity (which is an acceleration NOT a force, but CAUSES a force) you experience 1g long and 1g vertically = 1.414g combined at an angle of 45 degrees.

In the Force Dynamics, to simulate that, the car will tip you over at about 50 degrees (if the motion range was sufficient and you'd feel the effects of 1g, which is the most you can 'harness' without actually moving. This tricks your body and your inner ear into believing what you can see on the monitor in front you. It doesn't tip you at 45 degree's because it tries to exaggerate the acceleration force so it stands out more, making you beleive you got more value for your money :p

Rather than bursting into tears because w don't get what you're trying to say, why don't you reason your arguments a touch better. As far as I can see all you're saying over and over that gravity isn't an acceleration, and it is. If you are so clever and all knowing about physics you'll be able to explain to us properly and without doubt where all of us are going wrong.

[george_tsiros]

acceleration does not cause a force.

What "acceleration" is and what causes it, is a long discussion. Same with "force" and "velocity". i am not here to teach you elementary mechanics.

go read a book. kittel/knight mechanics is a good start (the one they teach at Berkeley). it will(hopefuly) give you all the definitions you need.

i've got a scholarship at my university, where i study physics. i ranked 3rd in the entering examinations. telling me that physics isn't for me is preposterous.

[Fetzo]

the argument "my IQ is such high therefore i must be right and you are wrong" is the weakest argument of it all.

i really would like to get a real explaination, why a _simulator_ like force dynamics can not work. :scratchch

i honestly think it is the best way to do it. enlighten me :).

[george_tsiros]

the FORCE that exists between MASSES is called "GRAVITY".

GRAVITY is a FORCE

GRAVITY is not CAUSED by ANYTHING, but by the EXISTENCE of MASS.

you have mass here and mass there and there is GRAVITATIONAL PULL between the two.
WHY, WE DO NOT KNOW.

when you are SITTING on your ASS, the earth PULLS YOU DOWNWARDS.
it exerts a FORCE on you.
the CHAIR on which you SIT exerts an OPPOSITE FORCE on you and thus you STAY STILL.

THE NET SUM OF THE FORCES YOU FEEL IS ZERO
NADA
ZIP
NULL
0

you are NOT ACCELERATING.
you are NOT MOVING. (relative to ground)
you are NOT EXPERIENCING ACCELERATION.
your VELOCITY IS VECTOR 0
your ACCELERATION is ZERO
a=f/m =0 since f_total on you is ZERO. if you consider only the gravitational pull, yes, a=1g but that is WRONG because there is also the force from the CHAIR. otherwise if you write a=1g that means you are accelerating towards the GROUND, THROUGH the chair INTO the ground.

[tristancliffe]

He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool - shun him.
He who knows not, and knows that he knows not, is a child - teach him.
He who knows, and knows not that he knows, is asleep - wake him.
He who knows, and knows that he knows, is a wise man - follow him.

[tristancliffe]

Yes, we all know you're not ACTUALLY accelerating when you sit on a chair. Geez, you need to lighten up. You just don't get the whole point of this discussion do you, and how moving you around and make you feel an acceleration and the resulting force can trick your mind.

Do not apply for a job at Force Dynamics.

Also shouting just makes you look more like a fool (see my previous post)

[george_tsiros]

now, you are in a CAR.

you step on the GAS.

there is TORQUE applied on the WHEELS and the car starts MOVING FORWARD.

until now you were SITTING IN A CHAIR. you were NOT MOVING. you were NOT ACCELERATING. you were STILL.

but now you ACCELERATE FORWARD.

but NOT BECAUSE OF GRAVITY. NO.

the CAR moves FORWARD. the CHAIR which is part of the CAR, PUSHES you FORWARD.

it ACTS a FORCE on your BACK. you FEEL the PRESSURE.
the FORCE is CONSTANTLY on your BACK.
there is NO force to COUNTER that force so you are ACCELERATING FORWARD.

[tristancliffe]

Golly gosh. Yes yes, we know. Can you go now? I know gravity doesn't make a car move down the road...

*sings a nice song to shut him up*

Edit: And please stop shouting (capitals). You make yourself look like a fool. In fact I'd say you were 9 and have just done 'basic physics and shouting for beginners' class with your posting style.

[Fetzo]

but do we as humans really feel the accelaration or the force that produces the acceleration? i tought it's more about the forces that effect us and in that matter _force_ dynamics is quiet right with their idea, or not?

[george_tsiros]

I am not SHOUTING, i am putting EMPHASIS. i could use underline but i am BORED and CAPS LOCK is EASIER.

and, in my book, whoever uses these smartass sayings (he who knows etcetcetc) instead of knowledge, is not a knowledgable person.

[tristancliffe]

No, I was just stressing my opinion that a) your level of physics isn't actually that high. Certainly not much above mine in this topic area and b) you ar acting like a fool.

I don't think you know, but you think you know when perhaps you know not and thus you are fall into the former category above. It's a put down. It's a subtle way of saying you're not worth listening to in that mood. Calm down, have a cup of cocoa and come back in a bit when you've calmed down. Perhaps browse our excellent range of threads, including some fine ones on smoking and car crashes.

Also, there is a great thread on RSC about rFactors physics and gravity. You seem like just the right person to go an annoy them over there. *points*

[george_tsiros]

i really would like to get a real explaination, why a _simulator_ like force dynamics can not work. :scratchch.

Define "work".

Make you feel like you are actually in a car and stepping on the gas? no.
Make you feel bumps on the road? yes.
make you feel lateral acceleration? only for a very short duration. very short. and limited as to how often the same turns (right and right and again right) can be taken.

depending on what you mean by "work" the answer varies from "perfectly" to "not at all"

[george_tsiros]

No, I was just stressing my opinion that a) your level of physics isn't actually that high. Certainly not much above mine in this topic area and b) you ar acting like a fool.

my knowledge of physics is on a level that only my professors can judge. not you. not because you are not clever or able, but judgement comes from someone with greater knowledge.
i am using caps because i see ignorance and unwillingness to accept said ignorance. i tried to give emphasis on certain words.

you said some pretty silly things back there (that gravity is not a force but an acceleration and that it causes a force... wtf?). maybe because you engineers learn these things at a more practical level ignoring the more fine details about definitions and importance of terms.
i do not know how to make you know more. go read a book that talks about rigorous definitions and the importance of knowing what causes what to happen.

[Hyperactive]

I just wanted to say that if you "Lay on your back with your feet straight up in the air" you feel the exactly same force in your back as you do as you are accelerating at 9.81m/s2 in space. But to get such a smooth acceleration...

F = m * a

If m = 100kg and F = 981 N -> g = 9.81m/s2 even if not moving.

:munching_

[tristancliffe]

But gravity isn't, as far as humans know, a force. It is an acceleration. If it were a force a kg of gold and a tonne of gold would fall at the same speed. But as it's an acceleration the force exerted on a body is inversely proportional to said bodies mass.

Since Newton's "Principia Mathematica" it has been known that gravity, wherever it occurs, is an acceleration that imparts force rather than a force that imparts an acceleration.

[B2B@300]

Define "work".

Make you feel like you are actually in a car and stepping on the gas? no.
Make you feel bumps on the road? yes.
make you feel lateral acceleration? only for a very short duration. very short. and limited as to how often the same turns (right and right and again right) can be taken.

depending on what you mean by "work" the answer varies from "perfectly" to "not at all"

Yes well if we are to get the exact feel we all know we need to jump in a real car and go around a real track :shrug: thats very obviously not the aim of a motion simulator :schwitz: A motion simulator is just a device to enable you to be more fully immersed in a simulation that involves motion :scratchch it's aim is not to replicate the said motion :x

[george_tsiros]

Gravity is a force of attraction that acts between bodies that have mass.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity)
If it were a force a kg of gold and a tonne of gold would fall at the same speed.


They do.

force exerted on a body is inversely proportional to said bodies mass

no.
F= G * Mearth * Myou /r^2

Gravitational pull is LINEARLY proportional to BOTH masses.
but because there is also INERTIA in the way, which acts ALSO linearly with mass (mass is the measure of inertia), all masses accelerate towards the earth with the SAME acceleration (friction due to air notwithstanding)

[tristancliffe]

:doh: That was a silly mistake. I know 1kg will fall the same speed as 1 tonne, and I have no idea why I typed that.

I meant to say that if it were a force then the acceleration of 1kg of gold would be less than 1 tonne of gold while freefalling and discounting air resistance. Thats better. Cos they don't accelerate at different rates do they ;)

[Hyperactive]

I was just trying to explain in basic way that if a person weighs 100kg and a force of 981 N is measured (using some kinf of scale), the acceleration is 9.81m/s. In moon it's less and in sun it's more.

It all comes to the fact of newton's laws (http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton3laws.html)

Though this wasn't supposed to be a physics discussion (?) so all this debating about off topic isn't really...going anywhere ;)

:)

EDIT: edited ;)

[Fetzo]

aren't the forces in the force dynamics quiet similar (they aren't obviously not as strong) like the forces affecting us in a real car? aren't the forces we experiencing the values the matter (the we really can feel)?

we aren't really noticing acceleration in a sealed car, do we?

[george_tsiros]

:doh: That was a silly mistake. I know 1kg will fall the same speed as 1 tonne, and I have no idea why I typed that.

I meant to say that if it were a force then the acceleration of 1kg of gold would be less than 1 tonne of gold while freefalling and discounting air resistance. Thats better. Cos they don't accelerate at different rates do they ;)

for fscks sake tristan, READ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Acceleration_due_to_gravity)

[Hyperactive]

aren't the forces in the force dynamics quiet similar (they aren't obviously not as strong) like the forces affecting us in a real car? aren't the forces we experiencing the values the matter (the we really can feel)?

we aren't really noticing acceleration, do we?

What do you mean?

[tristancliffe]

Yeah, seen that all before. Which bit are you picking up on now? That I'm saying G isn't a force? Well it isn't. Yes, you can derive the force from the acceleration, in much the same way that I can speed=distance/time. Just because I know the distance travelled doesn't make distance a speed.

Gravity is an acceleration, NOT a force. I'd have thought you'd have known that.

[bobvanvliet]

:doh: That was a silly mistake. I know 1kg will fall the same speed as 1 tonne, and I have no idea why I typed that.

I meant to say that if it were a force then the acceleration of 1kg of gold would be less than 1 tonne of gold while freefalling and discounting air resistance. Thats better. Cos they don't accelerate at different rates do they ;)

Uhm, you're repeating the exact same thing here Tristan. Wrong again.

I have you in high regard, but you're kinda goofing up here ;)

Edit: To sum up: gravity is a force per unit of weight. Thus, 1kg has 9,81 N working on it while 1000kg has 9810N working on it. As you said, this results in the exact same acceleration of 9,81 m/s/s.

Let's just all agree on this one shall we? -> F=m*a :shrug:

Edit2: I suggest you open a physics book or ask a prof, tristan. Gravity is a force. Acceleration only happens when nothing is countering it (i.e. when something's in the air).

[B2B@300]

aren't the forces in the force dynamics quiet similar (they aren't obviously not as strong) like the forces affecting us in a real car? aren't the forces we experiencing the values the matter (the we really can feel)?

we aren't really noticing acceleration in a sealed car, do we?

Yes the forces are similar enough to make us believe the computer simulation is real - and that is enough :) But it by no means simulates all the forces well. Just as the computer simulation itself cannot simulate all aspects, we just don't have enough PC on our desktops.

[Hyperactive]

Heh, last 3 pages contain nothing about traction control nor ABS :D

About human inner ear and acceleration: http://www.hhmi.org/cgi-bin/askascientist/highlight.pl?kw=&file=answers%2Fneuroscience%2Fans_005.html

[B2B@300]

Gravity is an acceleration, NOT a force. I'd have thought you'd have known that.

What came first the chicken or the egg :scratchch

[tristancliffe]

Not it's not the same thing.

Originally I stated (by mistake) that two objects of dissimilar mass would fall at the same rate if gravity was a force. But in fact if gravity was a force then the lower mass would fall slower.

Acceleration of a kg when imparted with a constant force is less than the acceleration of a tonne when imparted by the same force. So bigger objects would fall faster. But as gravity is an acceleration (caused by, we believe, the warping of spacetime by the presence of masses) the bodies actually fall at the same rate, and feel a different force. As the force is different in the same gravitation conditions then gravity must be an acceleration and not a force.

I just got muddled somehow in the first post prior to my :doh:.

B2B - the egg, and I know a joke to prove it :D But just because you can find one thing from something doesn't make that something the same as the other. Just because you can easily find the force acting on a body due to gravity doesn't make gravity a force.

Gravity is a constant right? It's the same all over the surface of the earth, so constant in that regard, not constant universally. So if gravity was a force, then every object would feel the same force no matter what it's mass is. But it isn't a force, it's an acceleration, and thus different masses 'feel' a different force.

Edit again: I know that gravity can be considered a 'force per unit weight', which is the same thing as an acceleration just written differently. Like speed can be written as 'change in distance per unit time'. That doesn't make speed a distance or a time, just like gravity isn't a force or a mass.
Obviously our understands are, in effect, the same, but George is completely missing the point we were trying to make, and totally fails to see why explaination. Not because he's wrong, but because he's been taught differently I suppose. We all know how bodies react to gravity, and how the forces resolve from gravities attraction, but still I maintain that does not make gravity a force but an acceleration. When you express gravity you write x m/s/s. Never ever do you write x N, because that's not valid.

Btw, I've given up writing millions of posts, so I am just going to edit this one. If you don't see it and think I've run away then you're mistaken. And at the end of day I maintain that the force dynamics seat could, if it could tip you up vertically, provide you with the sensation of 1G acceleration longitudinally, or laterally if it was tipped 90 degrees to the side. Greater accelerations can only occur through the movement of the rig throughout it's range, so a peak of 4 or 5G might be possible for a fraction of time, with 1G sustained in any direction. And even then the force acting on your back as you accelerate is wrong, because the seat moves away from you rather than presses into you, but it's sufficient to trick you into believing.

[george_tsiros]

Uhm, you're repeating the exact same thing here Tristan. Wrong again.

I have you in high regard, but you're kinda goofing up here ;)

Edit: To sum up: gravity is a force per unit of weight. Thus, 1kg has 9,81 N working on it while 1000kg has 9810N working on it. As you said, this results in the exact same acceleration of 9,81 m/s/s.

Let's just all agree on this one shall we? -> F=m*a :shrug:

Edit2: I suggest you open a physics book or ask a prof, tristan. Gravity is a force. Acceleration only happens when nothing is countering it (i.e. when something's in the air).

THANK YOU GOD IN HEAVEN, THANK YOU!

[Fetzo]

What do you mean?

it means that my english skills are definately not good enough for this discussion :P.

i think B2B@300 understood what i meant.

what i wanted to say: if we had no windows in our car and would have a constant acceleration of 1 g we wouldn't notice a difference from lying on the floor.

but i guess you already gave that example :P.


i am confused now and stick to reading this stuff :).

[AndroidXP]

Well, you'll never feel the forces of the real thing in a force dynamics because in reality you always have 1G pulling you downwards (disregarding bumps/crests) and the accelleration forces added to that (as tristan already said). In the force dynamics as soon as you simulate any accelleration force (tilting the seat backwards) the force pulling "down" decreases as it's used for pulling "back" now.

But I really doubt there's any difference between sitting in a seat lying on the back on earth and being accellerated forward with 1G in a seat in space. :shrug:

[george_tsiros]

yes there will be.
if you are on a shuttle, your back turned towards the ground, and the shuttle accelerates upwards, you would feel as if your body weighs twice as much.

[george_tsiros]

what i wanted to say: if we had no windows in our car and would have a constant acceleration of 1 g we wouldn't notice a difference from lying on the floor.
if you mean 1g forward, then yes you would very very well tell the difference even if you were deaf AND blind.

[Fetzo]

@android
yes that's right. because the sum of the forces you are experiencing in a force-dynamics seat cannot exceed the 1G + some forces from rotation movements. yep i get that.

thats why i said "they are similar" but "not as strong". in fact accelerating in a force-dynamics must feel like accelerating over a hill or something similar because you are lift off your seat. there is definately some force missing there.

@george:

got it.

[bobvanvliet]

THANK YOU GOD IN HEAVEN, THANK YOU!

Well, I just finished an introductory Dynamics course here at the university, people here made the same logic error.

But I really doubt there's any difference between sitting in a seat lying on the back on earth and being accellerated forward with 1G in a seat in space.
There is some. The 9,81m/s/s acceleration would require a 9,81m force to be applied to you by the seat. The same force the ground here on Earth applies to you. This principle is why wheeled space-stations such as in 2001 can have artificial gravity.

Edit: Dang! I think this thread is setting a new record for posts per hour! ;)

[george_tsiros]

Well, I just finished an introductory Dynamics course here at the university, people here made the same logic error.

Just wait till you get to rigid body mechanics... and the strobe... kekekeke PWNT

what do you study?
dammit, i need sleep :(

[bobvanvliet]

It included rigid body dynamics (up to a point, of course). The course was preceded by a courses in statics and calculating stress, strain and deflection of materials and stuff.

I study Industrial Design Engineering at the Delft University of Technology. Not much of a technical study, though. Just enough to get some respect from actual engineers :tilt: (with emphasis on some).

[B2B@300]

Also doesn't the force of attraction between two objects have something to do with the masses of both objects? All objects have mass and therefore have a "gravitational force" albiet small in relation to the earths, but that would explain the difference in force produced by different wieght objects no?

Two magnets attract, how are they attracted? By a force or an acceleration?

:D just pondering, ignor me :tilt:

[Fetzo]

despite the facts figured out in this thread, i am sure the force dynamics produces a great feel of immersion. maybe the first minutes will feel a little odd, but i think the driver will adjust.

i drove the big outrun arcade when i was ten and i thought i would nearly fall out of the machine in fast corners :D. i think human senses can be tricked very easily :P.

[AndroidXP]

yes there will be.
if you are on a shuttle, your back turned towards the ground, and the shuttle accelerates upwards, you would feel as if your body weighs twice as much.
Thats why I said in space, and not on earth. Also, since when do cars accellerate upwards?

[herki]

Define "work".

Make you feel like you are actually in a car and stepping on the gas? no.
Make you feel bumps on the road? yes.
make you feel lateral acceleration? only for a very short duration. very short. and limited as to how often the same turns (right and right and again right) can be taken.

depending on what you mean by "work" the answer varies from "perfectly" to "not at all"

can't quite agree with you there: you're right in the point, that you won't feel to much accelaration, but a force (grav. Force). They use it to make you believe you feel accelaration, just like in a real car, where i don't think you feel the accelaration but instead the resulting force.
so the chair should actually work.

[B2B@300]

A fuel dragster funny car has a much higher power to weight ratio and these are launched at full throttle all the time. If the clutch is set too tight, you get wheel spin, and yet most of the time, the cars don't get sideways. Getting back to CART cars, they sometimes hit the rev-limiter coming out of the pits. These cars can at least be "aimed" with the rear tires spinning, unlike the FO8 of LFS, which is way down on power by comparason, yet much less controllable with the rear tires spinning. Just for show, there are guys who see how long they can spin the wheels on a car, most of them can go through an entire 1/4 mile run with the rear tires spinning, ending up well over 100mph.

:scratchch Hmn could it be that in LFS the rotational force of the motor reving is too strong, which then causes the cars to spin? Do they always spin in the same direction when trying to take off on a flat smooth surface?

[JeffR]

Define "work".Reading through this thread.

[JeffR]

Hmn could it be that in LFS the rotational force of the motor reving is too strong, which then causes the cars to spin? Do they always spin in the same direction when trying to take off on a flat smooth surface?Because of the engine's torque, one tire will get more downforce than the other. Viewed from the rear, most engines rotate counter-clockwise, with the resulting torque creating a bit more downforce on the left rear, which causes a slight yaw to the right. However since both tires are spinning fast, grip and forces are low, and it's not very much of a yaw. (LFS yaws the cars left). Do a websearch for "burnout contest videos" and you'll see some good examples of control with both rear tires spinning at high speed. LFS doesn't model this.

[JeffR]

gravityGravity is a field. The amount of force it generates on an object is proportional to the mass of the object, so the rate of acceleration for an object of any mass is the same if no other forces like aerodynamics are involved.

[jtw62074]

Good grief, this thread went crazy.

My point was that you can not tell the difference between these two situations:

1) Stuck in a box strapped to a chair tilted back 90 degrees.

2) Being in 0 gravity while accelerating forward at 9.81 m/s^2.

Is gravity a force or acceleration? In the context of this discussion, who cares? :D The point is you can't discern between acceleration from being pinned to the Earth from an actual, literal acceleration in a direction straight "up." I think they taught us that in 9th grade. Enjoy your university studies :D

If you tilt the chair back 45 degrees you feel exactly the same as you would if you were horizontal in a gravity field of 70% Earth's strength while accelerating forward at 70% of 9.81 m/s^2. My point was you do not need movement to feel as though you are accelerating. You just need to be pressed up against some huge thing like the Earth to feel it.

And no, lying on your back with your feet straight up in the air will not feel like you're in a car accelerating at 1g because the "downward" component of the acceleration is now gone. I didn't say you would. However, you most certainly do feel exactly an acceleration of 1g "forward" in that you are facing upwards. You are not moving in this situation. Therefore, you do not require movement (an "actual" acceleration) to feel acceleration.

I can't believe I'm having this discussion and that point is being totally missed by someone so educated in physics. :Looking_a

[tristancliffe]

That ^ is what I was trying to say to start with, in a round about kind of way. This is (partly) why Todd is making a very cool driving sim, and I am making renders and hot air. The other main aspect is that he can code and I can't, but even if I could I doubbt I could do what he does.

Well said. I did get carried away on stressing whether g is a force or an accel, but I'm done talking about that.

[GregorV]

Ok, allow me to chip in a few. Since titles are being thrown about in this thread, let me state for the record that I have a Ph.D. in physics, and I work in theoretical physics.

It was one of the great mysteries of classical physics as to why apples fall as fast as cars off a cliff (in vacuum, and forgetting there were no cars at the time). While the Newton's gravity formula shows that such behaviour is indeed the case, it is a mere postulate without any explanation. The fact as to why the mass entering the forumula for gravitational force and the one entering the acceleration formula (F=m*a) are the same (the so called gravitational and inertial mass equivalence) was unexplained.

Enter a bright young lad named Einstein. He observed the same as what we are arguing now, namely that one really can't sense properly whether it's the effects of gravity one is feeling or if it is acceleration. He actually had the light bulb moment upon realizing that free falling is basically the same as being weightless. A bit of mathematics later (well, that was the crucial, hard and time consuming part) and he was able to show that starting with the ideas of special relativity and, importantly, equivalence between gravity and acceleration one can explain the gravitational force (as per Newton) and also go beyond that, predicting phenomena that have subsequently been tested to be true. Gravity is interpreted as being due to curvature of spacetime. This theory goes by the name of general theory of relativity and is still largely baffling even the smartest physicists, as noone knows yet how to merge it with quantum stuff.

While the whole discussion is really semantics and somewhat metaphysical (theories taken at face value are there just to predict stuff, giving them more meaning borders on religion), the simple fact that such a simple premise that Einstein took can yield so much more insight than previously imaginable, shows that there is some merit to the idea that, indeed, gravity is acceleration. More precisely, standing still in a gravitational field is the same as accelerating upwards with no field present.

So Todd, your hunch was a rather good one all along, seeing it lead to great ideas in the past. Of course, you had it easier, as Einstein didn't have high performance cars to drive and check those effects more easily ;). See you in Vienna soon!

[Hyperactive]

Now let's discuss about TSC and ABS, m'kay? :)

[filur]

http://www.weebl.jolt.co.uk/comics/tv.swf

Stay zen guys.

[herki]

Now let's discuss about TSC and ABS, m'kay? :)

okay, don't have them in Real Life(tm), don't need them in LFS. I actually don't want them in LFS (at least in the race cars), because I don't know any race series, that uses ABS, and only the formula 1 with TCS (and they will ban it soon :tilt: )

please don't flame me :shy:

[Vain]

I'm not going to flame you. I'm going to support your view.
ABS sucks, TC sucks, I don't want LFS to suck. That easy.

Vain

[sinbad]

okay, don't have them in Real Life(tm), don't need them in LFS. I actually don't want them in LFS (at least in the race cars), because I don't know any race series, that uses ABS, and only the formula 1 with TCS (and they will ban it soon :tilt: )

please don't flame me :shy:

Fair enough. I certainly don't want them to be included purely as driving assists.

But: There are lots of cars that use these things IRL. Certain race series' use them, or variations of them, too. For instance, many (if not all) Porsche Cup series' use cars still equipped with ABS.
If any further real cars/racing cars that are included in LFS are IRL equipped with these "assists" then I would not be averse to these things being simulated also.

[Dygear]

All of this is comming from a mouser.

I have learnt to be able to deal with the on/off nature of the throttle, and the brake in LFS, as both can be cured with a good setup, and a good driver. It really comes down to this. Do you want the new guys to be able to race with the big guys? Make the learning curve not so steep. I think that if you race with ABS and TC then your not racing to your full potential. But at the same time, I would also love to see TC, has it will help me learn new tracks faster, and show me what is really capable out of the car from the get go. The same is ture with ABS it will show you have fast you can go around turns, how late you can break. What your laps times can be. But all of this are just shortcuts. It might take longer to get the best time, but you will still get your best time. I lap tracks like Blackwood only a second off the World Record. Its not to hard for mousers to learn how to race, if they take the time to do it.

[JeffR]

only the formula 1 with TCS

Some of the race series that allow traction control:

FIA - F1
FIA - GT1
ACO - LMP1, LMP2, GT1
IRL - (driver adjustable)
ALMS - GT1
Pro Formula Mazda (think Indy lights car)
Dutch Supercar Challenge (power/weight ratio determines class, otherwise no restrictions)

[JeffR]

No traction control - It might take longer to get the best time, but you will still get your best time.Best lap times will always be better with a good traction control system. Modern traction control systems allow for optimal slippage of the tires instead of just stopping the slippage. The ones that use individual wheel braking and engine management (power control) do the best job, but aren't allowed in all the racing classes that allow traction control. Many classes restrict traction control to engine management, but these still allow for controlled slippage, something that no driver can do consistently, especially for the duration of a full race.

I suggest you do a web search for "traction control race" to get more info on this. Real life drivers aren't ashamed to use traction control, as their goal is the fastest and also safest lap times.

Champ car (formerly CART - mostly road courses now) and NASCAR (almost all ovals) are the main high end race classes that don't allow traction control, along with the controversy of which teams are using "hidden traction control".

[KiDCoDEa]

See you in Vienna soon!

Sausages or RL public showing?

Thanks for insightful post.

[JeffR]

equivalence between gravity and acceleration It should be explained that this equivalence relies on an imaginary constant strength gravitational field, one that could be produced by an infinitely large flat plane.

In real life, gravitation fields are effectively generated by point sources, and diminish in strength the further away from the source you get. For a real world point source, the strength diminishes with the square of the distance. For an imaginary infinitely long line source, it diminishes with the distance (not distance squared), and for an imaginary infinitely large plane, it remains constant.

In real life, you can tell the difference between gravity and acceleration by checking to see if the force varies with position. If it varies, then there is some component of gravity involved.

[B2B@300]

Because of the engine's torque, one tire will get more downforce than the other. Viewed from the rear, most engines rotate counter-clockwise, with the resulting torque creating a bit more downforce on the left rear, which causes a slight yaw to the right. However since both tires are spinning fast, grip and forces are low, and it's not very much of a yaw. (LFS yaws the cars left). Do a websearch for "burnout contest videos" and you'll see some good examples of control with both rear tires spinning at high speed. LFS doesn't model this.

Ok so we can draw from that, that it is most likely the tyre modeling issue, and Scawen is working on that now... while there is any issue with tyre modeling, I'd have to assume that simulating any form of traction control would also have potential to operate in unexpected ways, and once the tyre modeling issues are sorted out there is less need for traction control :shrug: :D

[george_tsiros]

Ok, allow me to chip in a few. Since titles are being thrown about in this thread, let me state for the record that I have a Ph.D. in physics, and I work in theoretical physics.shows that there is some merit to the idea that, indeed, gravity is acceleration. More precisely, standing still in a gravitational field is the same as accelerating upwards with no field present.

You have a phd and you say these things? You remind me of a postgrad here who insist that the pronounciation is "armstrong" and not "angstrom".
If you stand still in a grav field, you are not accelerating. There is gravitational pull on you, but you are not accelerating.
when you are not in a grav field and you are accelerating, yes, you are accelerating because there is something pushing you forward. In this case you feel the pressure on your back, in the same way you feel the pressure onyour feet when you are standing on earth. But that course of thinking does not mean that gravity is the same as acceleration.

Gravity is one thing. It is the name of one of the four fundamental forces in nature. Weak interaction, Strong interaction and electromagnetism being the other three.
Acceleration OF gravity is another thing. Have you ever heard saying "electromagnetism" is an acceleration? no. it is a force. But you can indeed accelerate DUE to electromagnetic forces.

Tristan, the argument that gravity is acceleration because we write 1g=9.8m/s^2 is silly, because in that case, 1g is not exactly "gravity" but "acceleration due to gravity". F=m*a -> Gravity = mass * acceleration_due_to_gravity (but NOT "gravity")
.

It is the most common logical fallacy. "energy causes force therefore energy is force". no.

[george_tsiros]

It should be explained that this equivalence relies on an imaginary constant strength gravitational field, one that could be produced by an infinitely large flat plane.

In real life, gravitation fields are effectively generated by point sources, and diminish in strength the further away from the source you get. For a real world point source, the strength diminishes with the square of the distance. For an imaginary infinitely long line source, it diminishes with the distance (not distance squared), and for an imaginary infinitely large plane, it remains constant.

In real life, you can tell the difference between gravity and acceleration by checking to see if the force varies with position. If it varies, then there is some component of gravity involved.

There is no equivalence. None. No equivalence. Gravity is a forcefield. A phenomenon where if you put something of mass (either still or moving, photons) in its area, there is force happening on that mass. Gravity is a force. Acceleration is the phenomenon where the velocity vector changes with time.

Saying that gravity IS acceleration or that it is similar in any way is VERY WRONG.

Look at you right now. are you accelerating? NO. you are NOT accelerating. your velocity is ZERO and it STAYS zero. if gravity was acceleration then since you are not accelerating, gravity would stop to exist. but gravity STILL exists. you still feel your weight, because you feel the ground underneath you. but you are not accelerating.

for fscks sake, open a book, open your eyes and open your mind.

[jtw62074]

Amazing... The gentleman you're arguing with indeed has his Ph.D in physics (chaos theory) and is an author of the following papers. I believe the first one is his Ph.D thesis, but could be mistaken.:

"Faster than Lyapunov decays of classical Loschmidt echo"

"Classical Loschmidt echo in chaotic many-body systems"

Somehow I'm not surprised he currently teaches physics at a university in Slovenia. Ah well, perhaps you can teach him a few new things about gravitational acceleration versus gravitational force anyway while clearing up any misconceptions he might have about General Relativity :pillepall

Either way, have fun :D

[george_tsiros]

i don't care.

we are not talking about GR here. we are talking about simple concepts, motion, forces and acceleration.

[jtw62074]

Suit yourself :)

Edit:

Ok, I had to come back and amuse myself.

Here's what was said that got me into this discussion:

Tristan: (Force Dynamics comes closest, but it's only 1g sustained,

You: No. It can not exert sustained acceleration. To feel any kind of acceleration on yourself, you need to MOVE.

I said it wasn't necessary to move. Just pop your feet up in the air and you will feel exactly as though you were accelerating at 1g. I meant "forward," but didn't say so. I figured everyone would understand that, and they did, with the exception of yourself :D

You don't have to move at all to feel an acceleration. If you're stationary in a gravitational field you feel exactly as though you are accelerating. You are right now, "feeling an acceleration" straight upwards. Are you literally accelerating? Outside the context of 4D space where most of us spend our intellectual time, no. I agree. Your position isn't changing so you aren't accelerating. Nobody is arguing that.

However, you are indeed "feeling as though you were accelerating" at 1g. (Is it ok if people use the term "feel an acceleration" there? According to GR that's just fine because it really winds up working out just like that. You'll learn that later in school hopefully.) I.e., if there were no gravity and you were pushed upwards at 1g, it would feel exactly the same as if you were sitting on Earth, not accelerating at all. And in the latter case, there is no movement. So the statement you made in reference to a motion platform that sits at an angle to give the impression of forward/rearward/sideways sustained acceleration:

"It can not exert sustained acceleration."

Is sort of correct if taken literally word for word, although if you want to split hairs you don't "exert" an acceleration so the statement is meaningless. But I wasn't going to be anal and pick apart your sentence. I understood what you meant and just carried on.

Anyway, the next statement you made:

"To feel any kind of acceleration on yourself, you need to MOVE."

Is categorically false for the reasons given. Remember, the verb there is "feel." I.e., "to feel as though one is accelerating," not to literally be accelerating.

What's most amusing to me about this whole thread is that the people that know nothing about physics at all, or know less than you or I or Dr. V. over there might, understood this immediately. :D

"To accelerate you need to move"

Yes.

"To feel any kind of acceleration on yourself, you need to MOVE."

Nope. I am feeling exactly as though I were accelerating straight up at 1g in the absence of gravity right now and I'm not moving anywhere.

The tilting motion platforms are a snazzy idea because they can make you feel as though you were sustaining an acceleration of some kind in the direction of interest.

[tristancliffe]

Tee Hee. But I think we might need to let him be Todd, cos his head will explode.

[jtw62074]

<poof> :)

[AndroidXP]

Moral of the story, being anal about a definition does not help the disussion :thumb:

[GregorV]

George,

first of all, knock it off with insults. Second, be mindful of the phrase, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." I am in awe almost every day as to the things I still yet have to learn about, and not for one second have any Faustian beliefs that I already know all the knowledge in the world. Choose to do otherwise at your own academic peril.

It is no way to argue that we are not talking about GR here. It is slightly metaphysical concepts we are debating (as an apple will always fall with 1g regardless of whether we assume gravity is an acceleration or a force) and to build any sort of philosophy on science one needs to look at its most fundamental theories. Just as concepts of determinism shatter when employing quantum mechanics (whereas in Newtonian physics the future is in principle exactly determined from the exact starting conditions, barring concepts of chaos), general relativity turns our concept of gravity, space and time on their head.

In general relativity, the space shuttle is said not to be in accelerated motion in orbit around the Earth, but that it is rather following a straight line through curved spacetime. As such it is locally not experiencing any acceleration. It is conceptually much simpler to describe motion that way, even if it is counterintuitive. If such a description also helps understand other phenomena like the peculiarities of the trajectory of Mercury, then the theory is surely to be considered more fundamental than the one preceeding it. Occam's razor will get you anytime.

And gravity is NOT just like one of the other fundamental interactions. All the other interactions take spacetime as the underlying concept which they are formulated upon. Gravity on the other hand is responsible for the very behaviour of spacetime. Attempts to write down (quantum) gravity as a similar field theory to other interactions did not yield any tangible results so far, although they produced a lot of interesting mathematics on the side (string theory). It is precisely because gravity is unlike anything else that this remains one of the large open problems of theoretical physics.

Kidcodea, actually, I am going to Vienna to assa..... err discuss things with Todd as he ... knows ... too ... much.

Todd, nah, those are just my latest papers, I almost forget what I did in my Ph.D. thesis ;).

[george_tsiros]

i do not have a phd. i do not have a master's degree. i do not have a BSc. i am still a pregraduate. i have not studied general relativity, only special relativity.
i did not insult anyone. but it is insulting to say that gravity is acceleration.

[colcob]

Wow, this thread is fun. I tend to the view that the fundamental essence of what gravity is isnt exactly germane to the discussion, but I think its NOT an acceleration that causes a force, but it is probably either a force that causes and acceleration, or even a field that causes a force that causes an acceleration, but whatever.
What we are talking about is perception, so I'm going to take issue with something the esteemed mr. Tseros said:

when you are SITTING on your ASS, the earth PULLS YOU DOWNWARDS.
it exerts a FORCE on you.
the CHAIR on which you SIT exerts an OPPOSITE FORCE on you and thus you STAY STILL.

THE NET SUM OF THE FORCES YOU FEEL IS ZERO
NADA
ZIP
NULL
0

you are NOT ACCELERATING.
you are NOT MOVING. (relative to ground)
you are NOT EXPERIENCING ACCELERATION.
your VELOCITY IS VECTOR 0
your ACCELERATION is ZERO
a=f/m =0 since f_total on you is ZERO. if you consider only the gravitational pull, yes, a=1g but that is WRONG because there is also the force from the CHAIR. otherwise if you write a=1g that means you are accelerating towards the GROUND, THROUGH the chair INTO the ground.

Okay then, try this one:

You are floating in space a billion miles from the nearest object of any mass.
THE NET SUM OF THE FORCES YOU FEEL IS ZERO
NADA
ZIP
NULL
0
you are NOT ACCELERATING.
you are NOT MOVING.
you are NOT EXPERIENCING ACCELERATION.
your VELOCITY IS VECTOR 0
your ACCELERATION is ZERO
a=f/m =0 since f_total on you is ZERO

Now are you telling me that a human being with their eyes shut cant tell the difference between sitting on a chair and floating in space?

You seem to believe that a human being is a point object of infintestimal size. The net sum of forces when sitting in a chair is zero, but the force diagram is of a big reaction force poking us up the ass, and then trillions of little downward forces on every particle of our body setting up moments and shears in our muscles, bones, nerve ending etc. all of which are sensed by us.
So the way force dymanics et al work is to just use the 1g force provided by gravity to set up a body force diagram very similar to that experienced during the events being simulated. I cant really understand what all the confusion is about to be honest.

[colcob]

Ooh, and here's the clincher folks
From wikipedia... Equivalence_principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle)
...Albert Einstein's assertion that the gravitational "force" as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is actually the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference...
That is, remaining at rest in a uniform gravitational field is physically equivalent to experiencing an acceleration (e.g. being at rest with respect to the Earth, while under the influence of its gravitational field, is an accelerated state of motion).

So y'know, if Einstein said that being accelerated and standing on earth are equivalent, perhaps we should all just accept it and get on with our lives :)

[george_tsiros]

einstein didn't say only correct things, you know... he said some pretty stupid things as well... just because einstein said something doesn't mean it is correct.

The first rule in all this is that there is no "authority"

wow... being accelerated and standing is the same... wicked...

[B2B@300]

i do not have a phd. i do not have a master's degree. i do not have a BSc. i am still a pregraduate. i have not studied general relativity, only special relativity.
i did not insult anyone. but it is insulting to say that gravity is acceleration.

I think all GregorV is trying to instill in you is to keep an open mind and just because something is taken as fact now doesn't mean it will be always fact :scratchch throughout history "what we know" has been turned on its head many times by new discoveries... and there is nothing to say there want be another such discovery :) when individuals have a closed mind and say it must be this way and no other way! it limits their ability to discover new possibilities :shy:

No you didn't insult anyone, but on the other hand you were not willing to see something from someone else's perspective... you never know looking through others eyes just may enable you to see something you have never seen before :shrug: doesn't mean the way they see it is correct either but may still enable you to see things differently thus shedding new light on a subject, we are all learning and never will stop.

You remind me of young engineers that venture out and take up there first positions in the real wourld, they often get themselves in all sorts of bother because they insist their way can not be ever the wrong way! They soon learn that the lowly tradesman that has 20 years real life experience sometimes know more than he gives them credit for :scratchch Whats in a text book and what happens in real life sometimes doesn't match up.

[george_tsiros]

Lots of things have been rethought and discovered to be wrong, but there are some things that unless up becomes down, black becomes white, and pigs not only fly but engage f15s in dogfights and WIN, they will remain so. Go read feynman's "Character of Physical Law".

[GregorV]

i did not insult anyone. but it is insulting to say that gravity is acceleration.

Excuse me, but questioning the value of my Ph.D. and comparing me to people who you seem not to have much regard for is an insult. Not an insult that I would be particularly affected by, mind you, it is simply that this is not the level of conversation I accept.

And debating scientific concepts that may or may not have any merit is not an insult; it is the very essence of science. I will withdraw myself from this discussion here (it is OT anyway), but I would be quite glad if, after you obtain your degree, which I am sure you will have no trouble obtaining as you appear rather smart, you think back upon this discussion and see if your opinions are still as clearcut.

[Hyperactive]

Well, I think you are all missing the point. Of course I have not and I am willing to share it with you. (:D) Human ear can not detect acceleration, it can detect the change in acceleration. Search google about how human inner ear works. How we feel balance etc...

Of course human can feel the difference between 6 Gs and 0.5 Gs, even if the situation is "static". The major things about feeling the acceleration are a) inner ear detects the change in acceleration, b) you notice that your arms are heavier, lighter, pull into different direction etc. and c) eye sight, noticing movement around yourself.

Why:
I have played Gran Turismo on playstation for many years before my LFS "season" so I really must know how things work. Because I study at uni I must know anything. Therefore you know less and physics are thefore not you thing. Me > you. That includes physical size as well ;)

I am right and you are wrong :talktohan

[jtr99]

Go read feynman's "Character of Physical Law".

I have. You might benefit from reading some of these:



@Book{chalmers82,
author = {A. F. Chalmers},
title = {What Is This Thing Called Science?},
publisher = {Open University Press},
year = {1982},
address = {Milton Keynes, UK},
edition = {Second}
}


@Article{quine51,
author = {W. V. O. Quine},
title = {Two Dogmas of Empiricism},
journal = {Philosophical Review},
year = 1951,
volume = 60,
number = 1,
pages = {20-43}
}

@Book{hume55,
author = {D. Hume},
title = {An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding},
publisher = {Bobbs-Merrill},
year = {1748 / 1955},
editor = {C. W. Hendel},
address = {New York}
}


@BOOK{vanFraassen80,
AUTHOR = {B. C. van Fraassen},
ADDRESS = {Oxford},
PUBLISHER = {Oxford University Press},
TITLE = {The Scientific Image},
YEAR = {1980}
}

@Book{popper68,
author = {K. R. Popper},
title = {The Logic of Scientific Discovery},
publisher = {Hutchinson},
year = {1968},
address = {London},
edition = {Revised}
}
@Book{popper72,
author = {K. R. Popper},
title = {Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of
Scientific Knowledge},
publisher = {Routledge},
year = {1972},
address = {London},
edition = {Fourth}
}

@Book{lakatos76,
author = {I. Lakatos},
editor = {J. Worrall and Elie Zahar},
title = {Proofs and Refutations},
publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
year = 1976,
address = {Cambridge}
}

@Book{feyerabend88,
author = {P. K. Feyerabend},
title = {Against Method},
publisher = {Verso},
year = 1988,
address = {London},
edition = {Revised}
}




If I could make a further suggestion, you might also find that your intellectual debates are more fruitful if you keep them more civil.

[JeffR]

For the off topic stuff about physics, the following forum is probably the best source of information for all things physics related:

http://www.physicsforums.com/

Most theories state that gravity has 3 effects, it slows down the passage of time, it curves space, and it's an attractive force between objects. In my opinion, all 3 of these qualites are independent, versus the opinion that there the curvature of space is responsible for the attractive force. Now I could accept the opposite, that the strength of a gravitational field that creates the attractive force, also curves space, but I still would feel that these are different properties of gravity.

[JeffR]

Getting back on topic here:

Do a websearch for "burnout contest videos" and you'll see some good examples of control with both rear tires spinning at high speed. LFS doesn't model this.Ok so we can draw from that, that it is most likely the tyre modeling issue, and Scawen is working on that now... while there is any issue with tyre modeling, I'd have to assume that simulating any form of traction control would also have potential to operate in unexpected ways, and once the tyre modeling issues are sorted out there is less need for traction controlEven with an open differential (zero locking factor), with just one wheel spinning, a car doesn't yaw very much, if any, at launch. With both wheels spinning, the amount of lateral grip is reduced greatly, so it doesn't take a lot of force to yaw the car, but in real life it's not next to impossible to keep a car pointed straight with the rear wheels spinning. I don't know if this is a tire model, differential model, or torque / downforce issue in LFS.

[tristancliffe]

I don't know if this is a tire model, differential model, or torque / downforce issue in LFS.

Or the lack of feeling in your seat/bum. You keep forgetting that, and it's a HUGE part of feeling oversteer. I don't know why you won't except it as a valid reason. Perhaps it's because it doesn't happen in other sims? Has it occured to you that other sims might be fudging things to make the easier and appear more realistic? Don't get me wrong, I think part of the problem IS tyres, diffs and something weird, but onlyy 50% at most.

[JeffR]

controlling tire spin at launchOr the lack of feeling in your seat/bum. You keep forgetting that, and it's a HUGE part of feeling oversteer.My post wasn't about oversteer, it was about launching with both rear wheels spinning. Unlike a oversteer situation, the car isn't turning (at least it shouldn't be), it's just going straight, with a minimal of side forces on the rear tires. It's doable in real life, even with very high powered cars, but not on LFS's FO8.

[Vain]

Still, in a real life you feel when your car is trying to break out, but in LFS you can't feel this because no forces act on your body.

Vain

[colcob]

Slightly random thought. Todd has posted in the past, both here and on RSC, about the limitations in current tyre models when combining lateral and longitudinal grip.
If memory serves, its something to do with how if you have a lot of longitudinal slip, ie your using all your long. grip, current models give you less lateral grip than you'd have in real life.
Maybe. I cant quite remember what he said, but anyway supposing my paraphrase above is accurate, then it kind of makes sense that when you do a burnout in LFS (or many other sims) the tyre model doesnt give you any lateral grip and this increases the probability of the back end stepping out. Whereas in reality, even with a lot of longitundinal slip, you still get some lateral grip.

Blah, its just a theory, hopefully todd will come back and clear it all up :)

[JeffR]

So getting back on topic, in my opinion, if there's a bug in the physics, then I would prefer having traction control as an option to mask the bug, until the bug is fixed.

[jtr99]

Slightly random thought. Todd has posted in the past, both here and on RSC, about the limitations in current tyre models when combining lateral and longitudinal grip.
If memory serves, its something to do with how if you have a lot of longitudinal slip, ie your using all your long. grip, current models give you less lateral grip than you'd have in real life.

So does that mean that rather than a traction circle, the true picture would be more like a traction octagon or similar? In other words, in practice there is no way to get 100% longitudinal and 0% latitudinal grip out of a tyre?

[jtw62074]

Colcob, your memory is right. Indeed that's what can happen in a tire model very easily. My own all suffered from that problem until only a few months ago when it suddenly dawned on me how to fix it (including the Virtual RC Racing model).

jtr, you still wind up with a traction circle, it's just that things won't really converge properly on it. Also, while driving well inside the traction circle, things need to be right too, otherwise the car can feel like it very suddenly loses grip at some point.

[jtr99]

Thanks, Todd. Your model sounds interesting -- are there details anywhere?

[jtw62074]

No way :)

[B2B@300]

No way :)

Well the way I see it, traction circle theory is merely a way for drivers to better understand how a car handles and is not a good way to model lateral and longitudinal grip as it is too simplistic. :shy:

As you stated even when longitudinal grip is beyond its limit there should still be some lateral grip and how tyres behave in different states (i.e. well within there limits, at or near their limits and just over there limits) make it quite difficult to get all the variables just right. :Looking_a

In my mind it would seem necessary to treat each “different state” with a different set of variables which will describe the traction in that phase and of course treat each tyre separately and preferably each segment on the tyre, but you would have to draw the line somewhere as the CPU overhead would become ridiculously high. :schwitz:

:razz: If you want tell us we have to try and guess! :tilt:

[modenaf1]

Please stop getting confused between road ABS and racing ABS, just like the TC systems on road cars you seriously do not want ABS, it will be far too restrictive and is one of the first things thrown out by any club racer. Notice how no serious track day cars are offered with ABS or TC?

True, but would you call the XF GTi, the RB4, the GT, GT Turbo, etc. "serious track day" cars? I would call the GTR's serious track day cars though.



Back to racing ABS systems it's hard to know what type of GT racing your talking about as certainly some GT cars will have nice aids built in to cope with some fairly brain dead celebrities who like to think of themselves as racing drivers. Proper GT2 cars won't normally have ABS. Didn't seem to slow Group C cars that much.

True, I was just using it as an example that there are ABS systems used. I am just pushing for street cars in LFS to have ABS and some with allot of power, like the GT Turbo to have traction control. And a realistic automatic transmission with a torque converter and fuel saving upshifts as well.

Why do I push for this? Because I think it is much more realistic than having "Brake help" "throttle help" "automatic shifting." LFS already has crude forms of automatic transmissions, ABS, and traction control, the only thing is, they are unrealistic and just about anyone can drive the F08 and GTR's with these systems.

If a celebrity is on the track in a Porsche 911, sure they might get ABS and call themselves a race car driver, but at least a robot doesn't operate the clutch and change the gears for them like it does in LiveForSpeed.

I am a real simulator junkie though...I love LFS, but I think it would only get better if they threw out the unrealistic driver assists that can be used on any car in favor of more realistic systems that real cars have.

[modenaf1]

ABS sucks, TC sucks, I don't want LFS to suck. That easy.



ARGH...right now LFS freaking changes the gears in your manual transmission for you, IN THE F08!!! It already has crude traction control systems and traction control!

Implementing ABS, Traction Control, and REAL automatic transmissions on THE APPROPRIATE CARS ONLY would make this a very realistic sim, and of course get rid of the crude systems we have already that modify control inputs that can be used on all cars. The driver can disable these systems on that specific car that MIGHT have those features, and or servers can only allow the use of NO DRIVER AID systems like ABS TC and automatic transmissions. Hell, a server can say which cars you can't use, it should be able to say which driver aids you can't use too.


I am almost starting to get the feeling that people think I want to implement perfect ABS and traction control on the F08 and force people to use it.....

[modenaf1]

BTW, this thread is a mess and absolutely massive, who thinks we should start a new one?

[tristancliffe]

Nope, no need for a new one.

And since when does the FO8 change gear for you on manual? But I still think no to ABS or Traction Control.

[Hankstar]

No need for a new one, especially if ppl are going to keep triple posting :p

No from me to ABS or traction control in LFS. I think driving the more powerful beasts in LFS might be a little less dangerous once the tyres get looked at...

[modenaf1]

Nope, no need for a new one.

And since when does the FO8 change gear for you on manual? But I still think no to ABS or Traction Control.

All cars in LFS can change your manual gears and clutch for you. All cars in LFS can have a crude form of ABS. All cars in LFS can have a crude form of traction control. How? Just enable the shit in your driver assists.

What I meant by manual, is that it is still a manual transmission, with perfect manual shift points, and a clutch, but LFS has the ability to change it for you.


I honestly think if you need these assists, then you should use them like in a real car. In real life if you can't change your gears, you go buy a Buick Lesabre with a automatic transmission. I doubt that person will be able to drive a Formula 1 car. In LFS though, just enable it in the settings and these systems help you out, no matter what the car.



Maybe I should rephrase my view on this whole thing.

Instead of saying "ADD ABS and traction controll and automatics," how about I say:

"REMOVE the assists from the real race cars and fit them only to appropriate race cars, give servers the ability to disallow these assists, and on the few cars that remain, make them more realistic. Instead of it shifting manual gears with a clutch perfectly, make it behave like a REAL automatic, REAL ABS, REAL TC"

[modenaf1]

No need for a new one, especially if ppl are going to keep triple posting :p

No from me to ABS or traction control in LFS. I think driving the more powerful beasts in LFS might be a little less dangerous once the tyres get looked at...

I know, my posts have been a bit excessive, but it is probably just as irritating if I clump it all into one massive post that takes up the whole page.

True, the tires are something. I think there actually should be quite a few things implemented or changed first before making the assists worthy of being in a "simulation" game.

I think all tires can break too easilly. I made the exact setup of my own car using LFS tweak and my own custom setup. In my car with the steering wheel turned all the way, on an off camber slope, and slippery cement, I don't have enough torque to peel out even if I floorboard it and pop the clutch, LFS makes it insanely easy to do a 60 foot burnout in an inline-4 car that really isn't that powerful and can only top out at 100mph.

[Hankstar]

Fair enough, but I think most people prefer one big post to 2 or 3 medium-sized ones...

(just thought I'd slot one in before you tripled again :D)

[JeffR]

I honestly think if you need these assists, then you should use them like in a real car. In real life if you can't change your gears, you go buy a Buick Lesabre with a automatic transmission. I doubt that person will be able to drive a Formula 1 car.

turn your automatic into a manual with a clutch and operate it flawlessly for you.Note that until this last season, Formula 1 cars had computer controlled automatic shifting of their sequential gear boxes. Now they use the equivalent of XTRAC no lift sequential shifters, which change gears in 30ms to 50ms, and worth about 1 or 2 seconds per lap over a normal manually shifted tranny.

Formula 1's still have traction control, but it's limited to engine / ECU only. Other race classes allow invidual wheel braking to assist with traction control. IRL drivers can adjust the traction control while on board. Note that racing traction control systems allows some slippage for optimal cornering, something that a driver might be able to do for a qualifying lap, but not for an entire race.

[Becky Rose]

I cannot think of a racing series anywhere in the world that allows anti-lock brakes, as far as I know ABS systems are banned in every motor sport series the globe over.

Traction control is another matter, there may be some argument for allowing it on some road cars and on F1's.

To be frank I struggled to control the F1 pulling away from the line on my steering wheel until I upgraded my computer, you need a computer capable of running the game at a high framerate (especially at the race start) in order to pull away without loosing it too wheelspin.

Before saying keyboard players need traction control i'd personally like to know the opinion of a keyboard player who has a system which handles the game at 50/60fps when looking at a full grid of cars ahead, before I formed an opnion on whether it's really necessary.

Not that my own opinion counts for much anyway ;).

[Hankstar]

FYI - FO8 not F1. OK? :)

[NotAnIllusion]

F1 is now V8 so why not :p

[Rappa Z]

Using traction control and anti-lock is gay. That is why i bought the game. Its a challenge like real racing, after all its a SIMULATOR.

Also the FO8's are way too INDY car like. We need the high teck 2006-2007 racers.:)

[Hankstar]

@NotAnIllusion: coz it's NOT! :D FO8s don't have 750hp and they barely hit 300kph...

Rappa Z, I thought straight people invented trac control and ABS :tilt:

[modenaf1]

Using traction control and anti-lock is gay. That is why i bought the game. Its a challenge like real racing, after all its a SIMULATOR.


ARGHAGRHRH!!!

1.) VBulletin is complete shit forum software and I have lost so many god damn posts "invalid thread specified." Here is the third ****ing time I am typing this post and it is significantly shorter and unfortunatly probably makes less sense. GRRRR! I am copy pasteing this one!!!


2.) Some of you like Rappa Z are not reading what the **** I am saying and keep giving out this BS excuse that "traction control and anti-lock is gay" (Speaking of which, even though traction control and anti-lock both utilize wheel speed sensors, they are different systems, thus making them heterosexual, if it was maybe anti-lock and anti-lock, they are the same system, THEN they would in essence be homosexual ;) )


Ok back to the point, you people make it out as if traction control and ABS will ****ing destroy LFS and turn it into need for speed. NO!!!!!!


If you would read some of my posts what I am suggesting DOES turn these systems into something that makes LFS more challenging and realistic.

Right now LFS will shift manual gears for you, perfectly. Even in cars like the GTR's and the F08!!! Adding REALISTIC assists ON THE APPROPRIATE CARS ONLY and doing away with the magic carpet bullshit WE ALREADY HAVE NOW, can only make LFS more of a simulator! More of a challenge!

As Rappa Z says: "after all its a SIMULATOR."

"after all its a SIMULATOR. " - Rappa Z
"after all its a SIMULATOR. " - Rappa Z
"after all its a SIMULATOR. " - Rappa Z

And I suppose you want to keep it a simulator by keeping the current assists that turn the F08 and the GTR's in a magic carpet eh? Rappa Z?


Here is what I am basically saying, what I said before, repeated so you all aren't under the false impression I am trying to make LFS "less challenging" and more like Need For SPeed.


Instead of saying "ADD ABS and traction controll and automatics," how about I say:

"REMOVE the assists from the real race cars and fit them only to appropriate race cars, give servers the ability to disallow these assists, and on the few cars that remain, make them more realistic. Instead of it shifting manual gears with a clutch perfectly, make it behave like a REAL automatic, REAL ABS, REAL TC"

Maybe I will repeat it a few times so people don't keep missing it and getting a false impression!


Instead of saying "ADD ABS and traction controll and automatics," how about I say:

"REMOVE the assists from the real race cars and fit them only to appropriate race cars, give servers the ability to disallow these assists, and on the few cars that remain, make them more realistic. Instead of it shifting manual gears with a clutch perfectly, make it behave like a REAL automatic, REAL ABS, REAL TC"


Instead of saying "ADD ABS and traction controll and automatics," how about I say:

"REMOVE the assists from the real race cars and fit them only to appropriate race cars, give servers the ability to disallow these assists, and on the few cars that remain, make them more realistic. Instead of it shifting manual gears with a clutch perfectly, make it behave like a REAL automatic, REAL ABS, REAL TC"

Instead of saying "ADD ABS and traction controll and automatics," how about I say:

"REMOVE the assists from the real race cars and fit them only to appropriate race cars, give servers the ability to disallow these assists, and on the few cars that remain, make them more realistic. Instead of it shifting manual gears with a clutch perfectly, make it behave like a REAL automatic, REAL ABS, REAL TC"

Instead of saying "ADD ABS and traction controll and automatics," how about I say:

"REMOVE the assists from the real race cars and fit them only to appropriate race cars, give servers the ability to disallow these assists, and on the few cars that remain, make them more realistic. Instead of it shifting manual gears with a clutch perfectly, make it behave like a REAL automatic, REAL ABS, REAL TC"

[modenaf1]

Rappa Z, I thought straight people invented trac control and ABS :tilt:
Who knows, they could have been gay, but I don't really care, just as long as the TC and ABS in the car behind me don't start ****ing each other when I decide to slow for a stop sign. ;) :D

[Ball Bearing Turbo]

LOL

Just so you know I agree with you modenaf1.

Especially about the proper auto in the appropriate cars.

The problem is that ABS/TC would make certain aspects of LFS easier. I guess I just put it out of my head that certain helps are already in there. Personally (this should start a war:) I would like to see them gone. It says right on the LFS site: "blah blah blah YOU have to do the driving" (paraphrase). It never occured to me until I read this thread that the faster players could be using driver aids. I think you should have to learn how to control the car in all ways and not be able to "over drive" the car just because of driver aids, which no matter how you look at it, is the end result. Finesse should be mandatory, and the aids take away the necessity of it to some degree no matter what. Keep LFS as visceral as can be.

[filur]

magic carpet bullshit

Wow, this was a very original (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22magic+carpet+bullshit%22) description of, well, anything. :)

[Hankstar]

modena, might I suggest you try some decaf?

Your previous post/rant was mostly an annoying waste of space and won't win you many fans, regardless of how valid your points are. And everyone has difficulties with bb software sometimes, try not to take it personally and go off half-cocked.

FTR I understand what you're saying, BTW.

[JeffR]

I cannot think of a racing series anywhere in the world that allows anti-lock brakes, as far as I know ABS systems are banned in every motor sport series the globe over.Technically not ABS, but some racing classes allow computerized braking control. Unlike an ABS system the computerized braking control systems, allow some slippage for optimal grip. In addition, some traction control systems use individual wheel braking in addition to ecu engine control.

You wanted an example, so here's one. The Dutch Supercar Challenge series has no restrictions at all except power/weight ratios which determines the class. Active suspensions, independent braking and traction control on all 4 wheels, XTRAC no lift sequential shifters.

[Ball Bearing Turbo]

Wow, this was a very original (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22magic+carpet+bullshit%22) description of, well, anything. :)

:uglyhamme

[AleksejBASOwarrior]

Before you all reach for your torches and pitchforks, let me say I'm suggesting this for the benefit of our good and talented non-wheel racers.

I believe the root of the rather heated debate in the General Discussion forum about Wheel vs. Keyboard/Mouse stems from the issue of car control. Without analog input, keyboard drivers in particular are at a disadvantage with regards to control of the 'torquier' cars like FO8 and FOX.

So what I propose is the simple addition of options for traction control and anti-lock brakes for the 'racing cars' only. The 'road cars' would not have these features as they are less of a handful to manage.

This would not be in any way like the full-blown wuss aids featured in other games that magically make cars more stable and almost arcadish in behavior. The kind of options we loathe with a passion.

This would be a realistic and professional application of 2 common, real-life electronic management devices. And of course, TC and ABS could be disabled by the server admin to provide a more 'honorable' challenge for those that seek it.

But wouldn't it be wonderful if we could help everyone get the most out of the cars and tracks offered in LFS. Hell not even us wheelers can control the FO8 100% of the time. With traction control on that car we could use it on more than just the oval and actually focus more on racing and less on keeping the damn thing pointed in the right direction. And our friends on keyboards and mice could join us as many right now avoid the high-HP cars due to control issues.

Before you all condemn this idea outright, just stop and think for a second. Just maybe instead of dumbing down the competition, we might actually raise it up by doing this.

Just a thought.


Come on people....

There is Need For Speed, for one who think that wants to "drive" with keeboard, or something.....:scratchch

Why dont U buy wheel?:shrug:

[CodieMorgan]

The only car that neads TC is BF1.. because realisticly IT USES TC!


How many drivers can handle BF1 without TC?(besides that ugly red ferrari driver).


Otherwise. NO AIDS unless the perticular car absalutly requires it! (or unless the track becomes SOPPINGWET or COVERED IN ICE!!!!!!!) <-- lol


EDIT: Perhaps only add aids for Keyboarders!

[CodieMorgan]

Come on people....

There is Need For Speed, for one who think that wants to "drive" with keeboard, or something.....:scratchch

Why dont U buy wheel?:shrug:

Thats mean.. we want to race as real ass affordably we can!

Im a mouser. I hate NFS / Driver1/2/ Gran Tourismo /ScudRace / Colin McRae / Blank Sushie!


If I had money for a wheel... id get one...

dont forget about poor people!

[ajp71]

How many drivers can handle BF1 without TC?


Most people. I can and I'm certainly not a terribly quick or good driver. Am I as confident with the throttle or as quick without it is another matter.


If I had money for a wheel... id get one...

An acceptable second hand FF wheel can be had off ebay for less than half the price of LFS ;)