An Open Letter to Sim Racing Developers

[Becky Rose]

An Open Letter to Sim Racing Developers

A report on the accuracy and short comings of current sim racing titles and recommendations for areas of improvement.

In recent years enhancements in physics have transformed the gaming landscape, we've moved away from arcade games to home gaming with complex simulations with an emphasis on realism.

In regards to sim racing I feel the quest for realism has been grossly misplaced. Simulations are now very detailed realisations of the mechanics of a motor car, with suspension geometry moving and reacting realistically and considerable detail going into areas which effect a vehicles performance. Most noteably the work goes on improving the accuracy of the contact patch simulation (the area where the tyre touches the tarmac).

In terms of vehicle physics the interaction between the tyre and the road is one of the major significant areas for accuracy simulation, along with aerodynamics and engine performance.

However all current simulations focus on the physics of what happens on the cars side of the tyre. All current simulators treat the environment as relatively static.

This has created an atmosphere where recreation of the perfect lap is possible, lap after lap, with clinical precision and monotonous recreation of identical control inputs the perfect lap can be achieved, and there is such a thing in sim racing as the perfect setup - or atleast, close to it.

In real racing such precision is impossible to achieve because the environment is dynamic. The biggest physics factor in real racing is the track surface temperature which not only continually fluctuates throughout a day at a race track, but changes lap to lap, it changes across the width of the track, and it changes as one traverses across the lap.

No current simulation accurately recreates track surface temperature.

Low grip situations are also currently grossly overlooked, whilst some simulations have introduced wet weather driving, the realisation of these weather systems is still rather too crude, as in the dry on a real race track low grip situations still occur with such nuances as marbles on the track, and broken tarmac usually offers more grip when the surface is a little greasy under trees in autumn as the falling sap ebbs away better than on a smooth surface.

In real racing the dynamics of the environment result in drivers continually altering their car setup, such as taking tyre pressure out and adjusting front anti-roll bar torsion near the end of the day.

Trackside objects dissappear from view and are reset, stricken cars removed from the circuit. These are atmospheric killers which in real racing would be dealt with under yellow flag conditions or a safety car.

In short, the current focus on accurate simulation of the car itself is overshadowing the far more important area of environment simulation.

It should not be possible to recreate the same control inputs lap after lap to achieve great lap times. Real racing drivers are continually reacting to changes in the environment. Wind effects cooling rates, more than it effects straightline speed. A seering hot day with a gentle breeze is lap record conditions in real racing, in simulated racing midday without wind is ideal conditions.

There currently is not enough focus on gameplay dynamics, with better handling of environmental repairs (trackside objects and stricken cars) will come a change in driving mentality. With better modelling of environmental conditions will come a change in racing mentality. Both of which will bring sim racers closers to racing drivers.

Go to watch any single class race with cars that have downforce in club racing and you'll notice that lap after lap most gaps between cars remain at a fairly constant distance, even when positions swap. A few cars will pull out a small gap etc, but throughout the field there is a modal gap between the cars (which varies at different parts of the circuit). This occurs because of the effects of downforce. In sim racing field spread is much greater, which highlights that the aerodynamic simulation of the physics currently lags much further behind than the mechanical areas of simulation. With drastic effects on gameplay dynamics.

Currently sim racers focus on the perfect setup and recreating the perfect lap as often as they can. Real racers focus on continually adjusting their setup to chase perfection whilst reacting to the environment. Sim racers experience high field spread and enjoy few consequences in recovering a stricken car, real racers enjoy closer racing.

For sim racing to improve noteably from this point more emphasis must be placed on simulating environmental aspects (in dry conditions, not simply adding rain and a shiny/reflective road surface) and the dynamics of actual gameplay.

We must see the inclusion of better retirement handling - stricken cars sitting out a race by the side of the race track and their competitors bound to the pits, the introduction of a safety car (with automatic and manual control), trackside repairs being handled properly, yellow flags not being waved so wantonly that their effect counts for nothing and people do slow up.

Physics simulation should address current short comings such as aerodynamics and environmental conditions before worrying about competing with other simulations on tyre and suspension geometry which are currently over-simulated and the sole focus of sim racing physics. Too much emphasis has been places on tyres and suspension in the past, whilst not actually realising what racing is all about.

When, as a sim racer, i'm forced to react to the same things that a real racing driver must react too, then I am playing a simulation.

For as long as sim racing focuses on tyre and suspension modelling it is nothing more than a vehicle simulator.

[BurnOut69]

Nicely written. However, while I agree with many of your points, I think its more important to get the car dynamics right first, and only then, the environment, as much as it sucks to see stuff disappearing and perfect weather conditions every time.

Thats the direction LFS is heading for. When? Only Scavier knows :)

[Joe_Keaveney]

Yeah, all very good points.

I'm in agreement, immersion is what sim-racing is all about to me. Do I feel (as far as it is possible) like I am racing for real?

When a car is on it's roof/immobile after an incident, why is there no recovery-truck? When tyres are hit, why do they disappear after a short time?

I agree with Becky for what my opinion is worth. How closely do tyre dynamics need to be explored? The environmental aspects of the simulation are equally important in immersing us in the race, suspending our sense of reality - they should be given equal attention.

[Bob Smith]

I don't think that sim racing developers have been persuing the wrong thing. Without strong driving dynamics, a car will never feel like it should and environmental dynamics won't help that. I do agree though that top end sims have developed the tyre physics to the extent that they shouldn't be the focus anymore, and the perhaps even more difficult areas of aerodynamics and much neglected dynamic environments need to become the focus from now on.

[Gunn]

How closely do tyre dynamics need to be explored?Much more closely, if current sim tyres are anything to go by.

[wsinda]

I agree that a dynamic environment would be the best way to improve immersion, but I feel that the current interface between driver and sim is far too limited.

Suppose LFS could simulate a dynamic track: marbles, oil, weather, rubber buildup, etc. What good would it be if you can hardly see, hear, or feel what it does to the car? I expect most drivers would only spin out more often, and many spins would come unexpected because the driver never saw it coming. That would not increase immersion, it would raise irritation.

The average simracing rig consists of a decent FF wheel, a single 22" monitor and stereo sound. That's it. No force feedback system on the seat, because it's either affordable-but-botched or good-but-bloody-expensive. Pedals: ditto. Directional sound is not available in any sim, and most sims are sample-based. And a 3-monitor setup is considered top-notch, but is still far below the capabilities of your 2 retinas.

Until there are more ways to get feedback from the sim, I think I'll prefer a monotonously perfect track.

[Storm_Cloud]

It's all been suggested before and if it not on LFS's development radar I would be gobsmacked.

Tyre simulation has some way to go yet though, but that can go hand in hand with a more sophisticated environment.

[Becky Rose]

I expect most drivers would only spin out more often
I believe the opossite. Whilst there is such thing as a perfect lap drivers will try to achieve it. With a more dynamic environment you HAVE to drive within the limit, perfection is a variable that moves moment to moment.

The mechanisms which cause a driver to spin already exist, only currently we aim for a knife edge margin of error. With a less consistent environment drivers will have to give a larger margin for error which is infinitely more realistic.

[StableX]

Totally agree with what you are saying Becky but I think you're a little ahead of time on a lot of it. I guess with LFS it's slightly different in that the tracks are not real but with iRacing, for example, it's all to be done in stages. First part is to get accurate representations of the track and then as real as possible dynamics for the cars.

I'd love to see a development where temperatures gradually started to play a larger part of a racing game/sim. I think it will come but for me environment needs to come after the tracks are right and the cars feel right.

I remember when you were still running and managing the CTRA (those were the days!!!) and you had wind set rather high on FE2 and everyone was being blown off the track on the back straight. That was funny!

[Becky Rose]

Much more closely, if current sim tyres are anything to go by.
The accuracy of the physics simulation is only important whilst it is the only aspect that is simulated.

The tyre physics in LFS are more than adequate. Anyone who argues they are not 'perfect' is clearly missing the point. There is no such thing as perfect in motor sports, there's always another thousandth to be found somewhere.

In real racing my car can and will handle totally differently at the start of a stint to the end. Therefore the way the tyres 'feel' is a moot point. The car is a constantly evolving platform, this is more important an aspect to be simulated than how accurate that feel is, given the mechanism by which we interact.

[Hyperactive]

Nice post but imho you are a bit missing the point. First of all, there is still a lot to be done with the tire physics before you can say that they are "good enough". Tires is the single most important aspect of a racing sim and as such they just aren't yet good enough. Even in iracing the tires are very simple at the momenth even if they do best what they do.

I think it is very premature to suggest that the sim devs should take their eyes off the tires and start impelementing changing weather variables, dynamic track conditions and more elaborate engine and damage models. The tires just aren't good enough. What needs to be done is to get developers who want to understand the tires and teh data and are able to make a physics simulation that can handle it well. LFS has very good physics system as far as I can tell and the parts of the simulation that is a bit off is very much wip (heating/wear/longnitudal grip etc.). Just like iracing or nkpro. Even the ISI sims seem to have at least average good physics engine even if the data put in is something a tire engineer wouldn't wipe his... desk.

Imho, now it's the perfect time for LFS to make a stretch in the physics side of things. Better tires and more advanced aero with the bad sides in the tires developed better. As much as I see it, with LFS the destiny rests on few things: better tires and new tracks. What it already has is an active and dedicated community and large userbase with respectable online usage figures.

To make a good racing simulation you need to have excellent tire simulation. A race simulation with average tire simulation won't be anything more than average racing simulator. Dynamic track temperatures are all nice and that but the visible effect is just few percent unless you add moisture or start playing with different tarmac types.

[Timdpr]

The accuracy of the physics simulation is only important whilst it is the only aspect that is simulated.

The tyre physics in LFS are more than adequate. Anyone who argues they are not 'perfect' is clearly missing the point. There is no such thing as perfect in motor sports, there's always another thousandth to be found somewhere.

In real racing my car can and will handle totally differently at the start of a stint to the end. Therefore the way the tyres 'feel' is a moot point. The car is a constantly evolving platform, this is more important an aspect to be simulated than how accurate that feel is, given the mechanism by which we interact.

While developing the tyres will make the game more realistic and enjoyable, developing the environment will do the same things at a much faster rate imho. I agree, this is what needs to be focussed on now. Though I have to agree with wsinda's post (if that isn't too contradictory!) When making a race sim from scratch, you should focus on the car physics first. But we already have very, very good physics. Sure, there is a lot to improve, and this should still be developed pretty heavily, but I think the environment is the way to go right now. But, again, wsinda...I'm torn!

Wait - I've decided! Chuck everything I just said out the window! The environment should be thought about a little more - 'retirement handling' as Becky puts it and a bit of track degradation - but, in the short term, car/tyre physics should be #1 in the 'To develop' list. Also, just to stir things up a little bit: "3rd party track mods".

[bbman]

I very much agree with the OP, sims are way to static to offer a well-rounded recreation of real racing...

HOWEVER, I do believe a good static model is needed first, as the dynamic environment may mask issues that need to be adressed...

[AndroidXP]

I agree that in the end a dynamic environment is needed to properly simulate racing, however a strictly static environment helps greatly in identifying core issues with the physics that would otherwise be masked. Sure, a fully dynamic simulation would help hide some of the most blatant flaws that came to light during the years of hotlapping and searching for every way to exploit the system, but hiding problems instead of fixing them is not the way to go, IMO.

Besides that, that the tyre simulation is "good enough" might be true for other sims (I doubt), but unfortunately not for LFS. It is very good indeed, but still lacking in core aspects such as tyre heating, temperature effects, pressure effects, longitudinal grip, flatspots, etc.

Another thing I'd put before the environment simulation is a proper damage model. The amount of abuse LFS' cars can take is phenomenal and leads to a lot of the far too risky and gung-ho driving behaviour we see in LFS.

[S14 DRIFT]

Nicely written. However, while I agree with many of your points, I think its more important to get the car dynamics right first, and only then, the environment, as much as it sucks to see stuff disappearing and perfect weather conditions every time.

Thats the direction LFS is heading for. When? Only Scavier knows :)

Pretty much agree with him.

However, the requirements hardware wise cannot allow many of these features to be propperly implemented for the majority of home users, because of the amount of processing power required. :shrug: (JUST GUESSING)

[Glenn67]

With a less consistent environment drivers will have to give a larger margin for error which is infinitely more realistic.

I agree fully with having more dynamic driving conditions and that that would bring about more realistic driving practises. I'm sure plenty have heard me whine on about it :D

But as to not spending more time on tyre physics :x I don't believe Scawen is spending much time on tyre physics :shrug: he has only focused on tyres physics once or twice since I've been arround (early 04), so I wouldn't suggest he is spending an inapproproate amount of time on them.

While I agree that the tyre physics are pretty darn good within certain parameters, I do believe they need refining still. Which probably means that over the next few years another couple of month long stints of focusing on the tyre physics again would be a good thing. On the other hand I'd think introducing dynamic track/driving conditions etc would require a much larger effort.

I would hope in the next few years we would see both :)

[The Moose]

Great post Becky. :thumb:

Requesting permission to post this on the nKPro and iRacing sections of RSC.

It should produce some interesting discussion. :)

[Zen321]

Very interesting post Becky. Well thought, well argumented : well done :thumb:

However, I have to agree to those saying a static platform is more important to begin with. Simply for the fact that a dynamic platform, as other stated, can hide physical issues (if a dynamic track was implemented, then developing a perfect tire model would be impossible).
I, personally, think that the devs are thinking about a dynamic environment and will start working on it "soon". The tire model is good for the moment, and with a little more attention, it will be way, way better, to handle even closer to IRL. Then, the next patch is most likely to see those dynamics : change of the wind direction and strenght, dynamic weather, oil on track and track heating.

However, for some aspects, it might need a long adjustment, since, for the track heating for instance, to make it realistic you would have to make it heat with squares with sides as close to 0 as possible, which will be a real pain for older computers :).
But this is what LFS will go toward quite soon, don't worry :)

@ the guy who said LFS' display was bad : Dude, I have a 17" (I mean inches) monitor on my laptop, and with appropriate settings in the views' options, you can acheive a pretty nice effect : increase the FOV to 110, inclination to -5, head moving to G forces, lower the driving position a bit and make the driver stand a bit forward to prevent the cockpit from being distorded and you get a pretty decent view, IMHO :)

[Becky Rose]

Requesting permission to post this on the nKPro and iRacing sections of RSC.
Yes sure, post the linky too please. It's an open letter to all sim race developers which is why I posted it on the LFS forums (seeing as authors of 4 major sims hang out here to some extent...).

Regarding the static environment for development issue. It's a moot point, the programmer can set any environmental condition they please whilst working. Infact testing the car in a greater range of environmental conditions is more likely to achieve a realistic result, in my opinion. However my point was that this area of physics is substantially ahead of the others already, the other 2 critical areas of vehicle simulation lag way behind, and no sims yet have any environment simulation that recreates real racing, though some are less aweful at it than others.

to make it realistic you would have to make it heat with squares with sides as close to 0 as possible,
Actually no LFS' engine already has all the internal workings needed to introduce variable track temperature, using the existing path and picking a small number of points laterally at each node point along it would be more than adequate.

[StableX]

Actually No Lfs' Engine Already Has All The Internal Workings Needed To Introduce Variable Track Temperature, Using The Existing Path And Picking A Small Number Of Points Laterally At Each Node Point Along It Would Be More Than Adequate.

S3?

[Gunn]

The accuracy of the physics simulation is only important whilst it is the only aspect that is simulated.Does that mean that you think the accuracy of the physics becomes unimportant once other things are simulated? I'm having trouble believing that is what you are trying to say.


The tyre physics in LFS are more than adequate. Anyone who argues they are not 'perfect' is clearly missing the point.There is no argument here, the tyre physics in LFS are not yet adequate. Of course they will never be perfect, but a tyre that heats up too fast then deteriorates too fast is not adequate, especially when the alternative choice is a tyre that doesn't ever reach operating temp and therefore never realises a decent level of grip in the first place.

In real racing my car can and will handle totally differently at the start of a stint to the end. Therefore the way the tyres 'feel' is a moot point.On the contrary, the way the tyres feel is the whole point if you want dynamically changing conditions and tyre wear.

But anyway, I think your OP has a 'duh factor' of ten. I can't see anything that you have suggested that any serious sim developer hasn't thought of maybe a thousand times already. Most of the things you have suggested seem to be things that any dev would include in their sim if they had the means to do so, but not neccessarily with the priority that you demand.

[Becky Rose]

But anyway, I think your OP has a 'duh factor' of ten. I can't see anything that you have suggested that any serious sim developer hasn't thought of maybe a thousand times already.
You might think that, but then again no sim developer has created a sim that simulates anything more than a fancy suspension model up to now. It's all about "physics" the buzz word, not about looking at what racing is really about.

For years games have been focusing on ever more detailed suspension and tyre models, but they're not even the biggest factor of racing - they are just the easiest to recreate with standard programming concepts.

What i'm saying, is to think outside the box and stop giving more of the same. Have a rethink of just what the biggest factors of a simulated motor race should be, to capture what racing is about, stop thinking about the car and start thinking about the race track, and the mechanisms of a motor race.

It might seem obvious now, but seriously, show me a race sim that has these things?

the tyre physics in LFS are not yet adequate.
There is more variance in the handle of my car between morning and midday than there is between a hard set of tyres and a soft compound. The ommission of remotely adequate aerodynamic simulation in any race sim has created huge field spreads that dont happen in single formula racing, seriously, go watch some...

Does that mean that you think the accuracy of the physics becomes unimportant once other things are simulated?
No, i'm saying that given our interface is inherrently flawed that the most important aspects to simulate are those which racing drivers must react too in the course of a days racing, not what mechanics happen the other side of an inifinitely variable collection of different control interfaces. I'm saying that to make sim racing a realistic simulation you must create an environment that lives and breathes like a race track, so that sim racing drivers have to make the same decisions as a real racing driver, and reacts to the same things.

When I race for real i'm constantly scanning the track surface. In sim racing the track surface is dead.

Thats not to say that suspension geometry and tyre physics are not important, but it would be possible to make a better simulation with tyre physics far inferior to LFS'. Tyre physics determine if the 'feel' is right, but the 'feel' is something that constantly changes in a real race car, where one change of castor, or a rise of a few degrees in the track surface, creates an utterly different feel anyway. How can we ever have a car that 'feels' right when there is no fixed thing that determines how a race car 'feels'.

[wsinda]

When I race for real i'm constantly scanning the track surface.That is why I argued for a better interface between sim and driver. You need to see small objects on the track: bumps, oil, debris, puddles, etc. The human eye has a small part -- the area of focus -- where you can see in good detail, and the rest is peripheral vision with a wide FOV. Compare that to an LCD monitor, which has constant detail on a smallish FOV, and non-stereoscopic. This difference could become a pain if the ability to see track details becomes crucial. (With nondynamic tracks it's not so important, because you can drive by memory: you don't so much see where the bumps are, you remember them.)

[DrBen]

The human eye has a small part -- the area of focus -- where you can see in good detail, and the rest is peripheral vision with a wide FOV. Compare that to an LCD monitor (...)
Think about putting on a full-face helmet with a pull-down screen. I only once in my life (only recently) sat in a kart going for my fist ever couple of RL-laps and the first impression was: "What's up with my vision/FOV". Luckily I could leave the screen open since it was just a small indoor track. I seriously doubt that anyone wearing such a device will ever get a vision close to what you get in a street car. I think a reasonably modern PC-rig with a large wide-screen display running at 1680x1050 or even 1920x1200 -tuned at the right viewing angle- will give you a much larger fov (in lfs) than what you can experience in RL when wearing a helmet.

(With nondynamic tracks it's not so important, because you can drive by memory: you don't so much see where the bumps are, you remember them.)Isn't this partly the core of racing on a circuit: getting a quick and mostly accurate grasp of the track and actually remembering the potential go's and no-go's so-to-speak?
I say you do have a point there saying the level of difficulty controling a car on an ever-changing surface / dynamicly open piece of track will increase by some margin. But that would apply for all of the players. And that would mean for them to adjust in the most obvious ways:

-> they'd begin to use more all-round capable setups with less limited handling characteristics, thus making it possible to use a different line here and there in order to circumvent occuring inconveniences when racing in a more dynamic environment. Put in simple terms: the number of drivers using hotlap-setups in a race will decrease
-> they'd change their driving style to being more alert to forthcoming dangers & take less risks in on-the-edge dogfights, because racing-lines and track conditions are less predictable. It just might take some time for this change to happen. Cleaner racing - I agre with Becky on this - would be one of it's by-products.
If this projection is correct, then I honestly can't wait for it to hit lfs. It'll be well wroth the time waiting for.

status-quo:
But on the other hand: When I read that the sim-makers really spend too much thought on the car and it's mechanical systems then I can think of a perfectly good reason for this:
It's mostly the teenagers and car-lovers that are attracted to this kind of computer-game/sport up until this day. And of course THEY tend to focus on exactly that: "What does the car do when...?" "How am I going to master this or that car?".

wher to aim at?
What simulating actual motor-racing does or will be doing is going far beyond that. And here I do agree with Becky 100%: If the vehicl dynamics are at a point of refinement that is -judged by itself- this good and at the same time the overall racing feel is this far behind in almost all other aspects: then to take away the focus from the cars might really mean a giant step in the right direction!
That's not to say: "Don't finish the job on the tyres mate, they're good-enough"
To go with this example: Actually I think they are -quite frankly- good enough for Stage 2, now. As perfection is and will always be hard to achieve, stepping away from them for a bit and focusing the attention on other parts of the sim might just be a good idea once in a while.

After all the question is: (might drift off the main topic a little)
With what product will the more driving-focused user stick with? Or is it that this type of simrace does only exist in small numbers and the big money will be with those that just pose to be a driving sim? If so then the future of LFS or any other seriously thought-through sim is in BIG TROUBLE. Because there is no point in working on a product that isn't going to sell at all.
I for one waited with trying the GTR2 game until it became part of the low-budget sell-out mass at our local supermarket. The thing that put me off there was the domonstration version that didn't allow me to try the simulation-mode although it was purely out there to promote a driving-simulation. That's sort of paradox, isn't it? And it is the same story with rFactor. Just that I kind of read the other day that there now is a version out there allowing some mod-content to be tested for a limited time. Great. Just now I really lost interest for far too long in order to aproach that product again. To cut a long story short: I didn't like what I saw/felt/turned-my-wheel-at, so that was that (admittedly it has to do with driving-physics, there)

But then again: all the major magazines and journalists alike rather point at those mainstream-titles with official licenses of car-models, tracks and whole RL racing-leagues. And they do it for a reason: Those at the end of the supply-chain gain public awareness with it. And the more people play, the better they and their products will be recognised by the crowd. And connecting a new product with an "image" that has spread the world before never was a bad idea: called 'Marketing'. And it works because it is easy and thereby cost-effective to satisfy those who do not have too high expectations. Serious driving simply is not for everybody.


When I turn my head again and look at lfs which is still there, taking on this competition, I feel amazed - and immensely lucky at the same time...
...it gives me something I really like: a racing simulation that does what it should better and better, every time I start it. With enough players online that I can have a good race or two when I feel like it. A very straight-forward interface to all its settings that no other program I ever run could offer that even lets me acutally see what I do to the car when tuning its set-up.
Hope it'll survive the competition of that money- crazy i-Racing stuff and the advances of the ever more photo-realistic, "plastic-fantastic" arcade-genre that we are facing these days.

It will be interesting in what way improvements on dynamic environments will have an impact on lfs - when they come. I think one of it's real advantages has always been the small demand of system-specs and resources allowing for almost anybody to join end enjoy lfs online-racing. I can still use my 4y old laptop (P-M 1.4/ati-M11-64M) with lfs. What competing product even comes close?

[Zen321]

Actually no LFS' engine already has all the internal workings needed to introduce variable track temperature, using the existing path and picking a small number of points laterally at each node point along it would be more than adequate.

Yes, but then it would not be *that* realistic. To have the most advanced simulation of track heating, the patches of tracks would have to be as small as possible, otherwise you might find yourself driving in a patch of 50x50cm that is heated well, then take the corner too wide, and put your tire on a patch of 50x50cm that is too cold, resulting in a very shapr loss of traction :shrug:

[ColeusRattus]

Actually, I think a dynamically changing track is needed to refine tyre physics. Because the feel of the car comes from how the tyres interact with the surface they are on, so basically half of what's needed to do reasonable tyre physics is right now pretty much an afterthought.

I also agree that sims on the whole would benefit if there would be more attention put on the "ambience" of motorsports, as becky describes. Allthough I do think that many of those suggested things are not really within the performance range of todays computers.

[wheel4hummer]

Yes, but then it would not be *that* realistic. To have the most advanced simulation of track heating, the patches of tracks would have to be as small as possible, otherwise you might find yourself driving in a patch of 50x50cm that is heated well, then take the corner too wide, and put your tire on a patch of 50x50cm that is too cold, resulting in a very shapr loss of traction :shrug:

Not really. Instead of defining 50cmx50cm patches, there would be points defined. The temperature of the track's side of the contact patch would be calculated by interpolation.

[S14 DRIFT]

If you want all of these things that all of you are suggesting, go buy a car and do track-days. Simulators can only simulate what the computers that they run on can process, and the technology that is availible. If the technology and the processing power for these features was availible, you think we wouldn't have them?

Besides, this is a game, at the end of the day, as is every other sim out there. People keep pushing and pushing for more things that are unrealistic in terms of chances of getting it, so perhaps it's maybe why new sims are not exactly 10 a penny, and why the Dev's of this dear game don't mention anything. :really:

[AndroidXP]

Simulators can only simulate what the computers that they run on can process, and the technology that is available. If the technology and the processing power for these features was available, you think we wouldn't have them?
I think you greatly underestimate the speed of today's standard home CPUs. Maintaining the surface track temperature wouldn't be that big of a deal, processing wise. The current physics calculations aren't limiting the CPU either, otherwise the fast forwarding in single player replays wouldn't be possible (there it's doing the calcs as fast as it can). The graphics are much more of a performance killer than all the physics and environment calculations you can throw at it.

[ColeusRattus]

Also, there is lots of space for improvements which don't require much CPU, like the execution of racing and flag rules. How many poeple in here care about the yellow flag for example?

[S14 DRIFT]

I think you greatly underestimate the speed of today's standard home CPUs. Maintaining the surface track temperature wouldn't be that big of a deal, processing wise. The current physics calculations aren't limiting the CPU either, otherwise the fast forwarding in single player replays wouldn't be possible (there it's doing the calcs as fast as it can). The graphics are much more of a performance killer than all the physics and environment calculations you can throw at it.

As true as your point may be, since you're not playing, do playing replays even use the physics engine? Since it's normally either watching a video of the car, or just a big piece of code that 'drives' the car exactly as you did:shrug:

[tristancliffe]

A replay is a series of driver inputs, so those require the physics engine to translate into vehicle motion. Bearing in mind the replays are NOT a movie, how could they NOT need a physics engine?

[Becky Rose]

There is plenty of capacity for further use of the CPU in LFS in particular, which still only uses 1 CPU core when dual core has been standard for some considerable time.

Not that limitations of hardware are an issue as entry level systems can cut back on eye candy to accomodate increases in basic overhead, and LFS has very low overall system requirements by the hardware standards of the installed userbase anyway.

This is all moot though, as the open letter's purpose was to highlight areas that are not considered for simulation as being what actually defines what a sim racing simulator should be.

[S14 DRIFT]

A replay is a series of driver inputs, so those require the physics engine to translate into vehicle motion. Bearing in mind the replays are NOT a movie, how could they NOT need a physics engine?

Ahh, cheers for explaining :)

[wheel4hummer]

So, the temperature of where the tire is contacting the ground could be calculated like in the attached image. All of the values within a certain distance of the corner of the contact patch would be needed. Using those values, and their distance to the corner of the contact patch, the temperature of that corner would be calculated. Then from those four values the average temperature of the whole part of the road could be calculated. It's enough that there would be a definite difference between the racing line and the outside of the track. In fact, perhaps the dots could be variable. Like, using the ideal line, the dots could be re-arranged in such a way that there is a higher resolution of temperature dots near the ideal line after many people have gone around the track.

[Becky Rose]

A more LFS way would probably be to read the temperature at each of the 3 cross-sections of the tyre, but in principle yes you've got it in one.

For clarity though i'm not just talking about track temperature, but dust/sand and dirt being dragged onto the track, standing water in bumps, sap under overhanging trees, marbles from wearing tyres, small peieces of debris from contact. All these things and more besides are constant evolving factors in the daily life of a race circuit.

[sinbad]

One doesn't truly work without the other. A dynamic track is only as realistic as the physics behind the car/tyres rolling over it, whilst a tyre can never be perfect if its only operation is on a single unchanging surface.
LFS's tyres are good enough for LFS to be fun, but not good enough to be ignored whilst other things are explored. If LFS's tyres can be judged by their most bizarre behaviour, then they aren't very good, and certainly not good enough. Things like the temp/pressure/grip relationship, the way a road tyre behaves on "gravel", the way an abused tyre becomes ultra-high-performance again if you abuse it for long enough.

[DrBen]

For clarity though i'm not just talking about track temperature, but dust/sand and dirt being dragged onto the track
good point there. up until now we only have dirt as a very individual hinderance on the car's tyres -> quite simply a temporary loss of peak-traction capability. The surface itself is utterly static.

However thinking about how limited the potential sources of dirt are on a track I think that there can be something done using a good amount of approximation. We already have visual dust spread when a car's tyre goes slightly off the tarmac. So I suppose the information on where the dust falls down is already there. Now one would have to somehow develop a kind of "real-time dust-capacity per square meter" + the aforementioned temperature for the ground to introduce some new values for grip-limitation on the ground-surface side of things in addition to the tyres.

Oooops: here we go again: unfinished tyre model. So without changing this we don't get the other. You guys got me thinking :D

Plus this would present the need to be communicated throughout the connected clients and the host: so do I sense a major rework in netcode, here? Is it at all possible to achieve sufficient speed at communicating these values when racing online?

Anyway - although just losely connected with LFS - there are some interesting thoughts in this thread.

Disclaimer: no I am in no way a skilled programmer -> so please do not hesitate telling me if I'm way off the point here.

[Becky Rose]

representing dust & dirt on the track in the physics is pretty easy and just involves an indexable list of surface-'particles', these particles being created by a hook into the existing particle system. The surface-particles themself being linked in some way to the node map of the track for portalisation.

It's not the easiest thing to representing it visually with consistency to the physics and keeping it all working to a reasonable performance level on entry level systems (as lists are inherrently infinite by definition), but it is well and truly within Scawens ability to do so.

That's just one possible implementation method, i'm absolutely confident that with more thought than this forum post has taken, and with a mind like Scawens, a better solution could easily be devised, and likely one that would include supporting other forms of debris on the circuit too.

do I sense a major rework in netcode, here? Is it at all possible to achieve sufficient speed at communicating these values when racing online?
Yes it would need communicating as the result effects the physics and therefore must be in sync, but it's just an additional packet type, no biggy really.

[wsinda]

Plus this would present the need to be communicated throughout the connected clients and the host: so do I sense a major rework in netcode, here?Not really. Communicating state changes of the environment is done in many online games. LFS already does it, to some extent: moving track objects like cones and tire stacks. Your car can collide with a loose tire that was moved by another car.

The most difficult part is probably integrating all those influences into a believable physics model.
Is it at all possible to achieve sufficient speed at communicating these values when racing online?In most cases, the changes will be fairly slow: rain, marbles and dust build up and disperse slowly. It may also be feasible to spin out on oil spilled by the car that is right in front of you. The only case that seems too hard (computationally) is hitting flying debris.

[SamH]

It's an interesting opening post. I find I agree with some of it, but not all. Perhaps an open letter to all sim developers isn't really going to make any headway. The currently developed sims are all already rather disparate in their focus.

It's inconceivable, at least to me, that sim developers like iRacing, LFS, ISI et al, have not already considered in their own fields all of the points raised. They have forged ahead with their own lists of priorities and areas of focus. Unlike the receiving market - the consumer - it's very specifically their business, their income and their working passion. Few of us spend 8hrs+ per day pondering the development direction of a given sim but I'm sure that the actual racing sim developers do. And then some.

As to the importance of the tyre/suspension models, I'm afraid I'm with the sim developers. Whether they like it or not (and they possibly are perhaps even irked by it), the fact is that WE (said customers) prioritize tyre, suspension and aero physics as definitive elements in determining a sim's worth. Rightly or wrongly, we will NOT buy a sim (sim, SIM, SIM!!) that doesn't model these things at least well, and at least with these things as points of focus. Sim developers have little/no choice but to maximise on the simulation of these aspects of vehicle physics for the sake of credibility. And like it or not, the racing-sim-buying public give massive worth to these aspects.

So, to gameplay.. well, all sim developers have different ideas about gameplay. All the current sims operate in different ways. Some are primarily offline stuff with online bolt-on, LFS and iRacing are focused on the multiplayer side of sim racing - and even these are fundamentally different orientations to the same goal; rF focuses clearly on the community modding aspects and less on the application of real-world physics simulation. There are already fundamental differences in direction for all the existing sims. An open letter to them all is, tbh, not really going to crater the surface of their businesses or seize their attention, much less stop them in their tracks and make them realise their direction and focus has been wrong. :shrug: Sorry but I just don't see it happening.. they're all far too successful at doing what they're doing to hear a single voice in the consumer crowd :shy:

[Becky Rose]

The point of a forum isnt to get people to listen Sam, the point of a forum is to let people vent whilst not having to listen! Whilst the stated recipient of the open letter is the developers, the anticipated consequences of it are none. :) It's not the first time i've written an open letter, I think you might recall my lambasting of Peter Molyneux and that other guy I forget who in my Sensible Soccer rant... That had no effect either, at least, outside of indi circles.

I do think that a sim which focuses on the simulation of the environment whilst providing acceptable (or better) levels of vehicle simulation will find a healthy place in the market though, and whether existing developers take it on board or we have to wait for the next generation to see any influence of environmental modelling isn't the point. This isn't a direct feature request, simply some opinions expressed on a direction that i'd like to see taken within the genre.

As you know I did ponder writing such a simulation myself some time back, I decided not to go down that route personally as i'm more focused on other things these days. That's not to say that I or some other indi developer couldn't do it in the future though.

I dont state my views just for the sake of it, a sim which gives equal or at least 'adequate' attention to environment simulation is something I would like to see and i'm sure enjoy playing. It is however, in my mind as I envision it, a drastic change of direction in terms of existing sims. I cant even see how to do a lot of the things I would like to achieve myself with the 3D media from any of the current titles.

When I make a game i'm a great believer in investing in the gameplay dynamic and in sparring much attention for small superfluous details. LFS has it's fair share of both, and i'm in no way criticising it.

[kingfag]

The problem with tire physics is that there isn't a good allround model to use. Basically every tire model is based on a solid static ground. Pacejka is very common for example, it performs well on a solid ground, but only if you feed it with a large number of correct tire parameters. One wrong number and the results are horrible. And that's just on static solid ground. Imagine the amount of parameters you'll need to model a tire on different surfaces. And then deformable surfaces...

[wheel4hummer]

Another problem with simulating a surface that acts like a fluid, such as water or even gravel, is that the tread has alot to do with it. Because currently no racing sim that I know of simulates the geometry of the tread. Tire manufacturers must have some way of calculating how to make a tire tread better in rain. But rain is alot different then dry pavement. Gravel/sand is pretty simmilar to water. Except that sand has more mass then water. So it requires more force for the tire tread to push sand/gravel out of the way then it does water. The problem with using a particle system to simulate tires on a wet road, or in a gravel trap, is that the particles would have to be realistically sized. Unfortunately, for a whole track of gravel, a huge amount of 3-dimensional particles would be required. At least then we'd have a deformable surface as well! Even though you'd need about 50 computers with core i7 processors just to get 30fps.

[Becky Rose]

You dont need each physical particle to exist in physics or real-world space. Clustering/clouds are more than sufficient, and the effects of tread can be dealt with in general terms and does not need ultra-detailed modelling, that was the point of my original post.

Effects such as partical exhaust like water spray or dust can be dealt with either with the existing LFS particle system, or perhaps in the future with things like nVidias onboard physics system.

If a sim was to recreate displayed particles of gravel on an individual basis it is possible with todays high end technology, where a displayed particle plays no further part in the physics system and expires they can be created in large quantities locally on each client on an as needed basis for rendering purposes. The physics can then be much more general and deal with spray in more general cloud/cluster terms.

There are lots of ways to go about achieving better environmental simulations, the point however is not what is possible and what isnt, but that the era of the static environment needs to come to an end for sim racing to move forward. Vehicle simulations (especially those with no or little in the way of aerodynamic modelling) can only take sim racing so far and the ramifications on gameplay deficiences from the lack of environmental simulation are huge.

[Toddshooter]

Did any of you catch the interveiw with the dev. of rFactor? He was talking about this very thing in that interveiw. Episode 32 or 31 of Inside Sim Racing. Sorry can't remember which.

[Gnomie]

The problem with tire physics is that there isn't a good allround model to use. Basically every tire model is based on a solid static ground. Pacejka is very common for example, it performs well on a solid ground, but only if you feed it with a large number of correct tire parameters. One wrong number and the results are horrible. And that's just on static solid ground. Imagine the amount of parameters you'll need to model a tire on different surfaces. And then deformable surfaces...

True, the Pajecka formula is a gross oversimplification, but it's only dependent on three variables. The difficult bit is to "compress" the x variables present in real life into three input variables in the formula.

I can't remember where I saw this, but here (http://channel9.msdn.com/posts/Charles/Brian-Beckman-The-Physics-in-Games-Real-Time-Simulation-Explained/) is an interview with a physics guy explaining how physics are done in racing simulations. He focuses on tyre physics. It's a bit long, but the bit about the formula is around 16 minutes in.

This thread has been an interesting read, and I think many good points have been made. My money is on iRacing to get it done before any other sims. They've got the tire physics, car physics and static surfaces right already, and their develpment carries a lot more momentum than LFS (unfortunately). Dynamic surfaces should be a logical next step for iRacing.

Did any of you catch the interveiw with the dev. of rFactor? He was talking about this very thing in that interveiw. Episode 32 or 31 of Inside Sim Racing. Sorry can't remember which.
Yep, that was a good interview. Looks like rFactor 2 is planning to do this too. The future looks bright! :thumb:

[duke_toaster]

Your post is very interesting, but I will pick up on something few people have. Quoted post contains removed parts.

An Open Letter to Sim Racing Developers : A report on the accuracy and short comings of current sim racing titles and recommendations for areas of improvement.

Trackside objects dissappear from view and are reset, stricken cars removed from the circuit. These are atmospheric killers which in real racing would be dealt with under yellow flag conditions or a safety car.

There currently is not enough focus on gameplay dynamics, with better handling of environmental repairs (trackside objects and stricken cars) will come a change in driving mentality. With better modelling of environmental conditions will come a change in racing mentality. Both of which will bring sim racers closers to racing drivers.

We must see the inclusion of better retirement handling - stricken cars sitting out a race by the side of the race track and their competitors bound to the pits, the introduction of a safety car (with automatic and manual control), trackside repairs being handled properly, yellow flags not being waved so wantonly that their effect counts for nothing and people do slow up. When, as a sim racer, i'm forced to react to the same things that a real racing driver must react too, then I am playing a simulation.

For as long as sim racing focuses on tyre and suspension modelling it is nothing more than a vehicle simulator.

LFS could improve a great deal with simulating motorsport better. By simulating motorsport, I'm not reffering to car physics. I'm talking about the rules of motorsport.

LFS would have much better immersion if the flag marshalling would change. I don't think it would require much more of a graphics card hit to have GPL style 2D flaggies on the other side of the barrier. No-one would really notice any 3Dness whilst driving past at a reasonable speed. As far as I know there is also infinate resolution where flags come on. It would be nice to have actual predefined flag points.

There is a second part to this. There are more flags in motorsport than yellow and blue. No simulator I know of uses the white flag (as in the International Sporting Code flagging), and use of the meatball flag would be helpful for online racing to inform drivers that their car is almost destroyed.

In addition, a properly simulated Safety Car would add greatly to the realism, as would red flags, which no sim has had the balls to do. Rolling starts would also be a good option, too

Repairs should be handled better - Richard Burns Rally has a good system, it wouldn't need the time acceleration in LFS apart from between sessions. It's a bit like the Colin McRae Rally 2 system, for those not so au fait with RBR.

Very good post Becky.

[5haz]

+1 To all of that, there are 100s of fine details which may seem insignificant but are very important.

Also things like drivers spinning off and throwing dirt onto the track, standing water puddles and aquaplaning are also important because often these things change every lap.

Dynamic weather also, its very annoying when you go out on a dry setup and it then pisses it down, but you have to bear it, also agree about the marbles being the best place to be when racing in the rain, kerbs are also ultra-mega slippery.

Marshals out in the middle of the track frantically waving their yellow flags at drivers refusing to slow down would be a nice touch. :razz:

Another thing although not ncesseary is sound, when cars pass at first they sound relatively quiet, but then you get a blast of exhaust as they pass and move away, I can't think of a sim that does this properly (well GPL had a stab at it, but it was either no sound or full engine sound.).

[S14 DRIFT]

Well if it were as easy as writing it, why aren't these ideas (which would be nice, but aren't 'needed', since the line has to be drawn between a sim and RL..) in production if it were this easy? It's all very well to sit here and say "yes i want this and that and those as well", but it's not as easy as that. And Becky, being in programming, you should know that better than most :shrug:

I mean come on, nothing's ever good enough for anyone.

Edit : I mean, yes. In the future etc, but people just push and push for more stuff that, ultimatly, doesn't matter. So you run off track and get dirt on your tyres, but oh no that's not good enough - you want dirt on the track. and the list goes on. :shrug:

[zeugnimod]

Edit : I mean, yes. In the future etc, but people just push and push for more stuff that, ultimatly, doesn't matter. So you run off track and get dirt on your tyres, but oh no that's not good enough - you want dirt on the track. and the list goes on. :shrug:

Exactly this does matter for some people. You might not care about it but that doesn't mean that nobody does.

[Becky Rose]

Well if it were as easy as writing it, why aren't these ideas (which would be nice, but aren't 'needed', since the line has to be drawn between a sim and RL..) in production if it were this easy? It's all very well to sit here and say "yes i want this and that and those as well", but it's not as easy as that. And Becky, being in programming, you should know that better than most :shrug:

I mean come on, nothing's ever good enough for anyone.

Edit : I mean, yes. In the future etc, but people just push and push for more stuff that, ultimatly, doesn't matter. So you run off track and get dirt on your tyres, but oh no that's not good enough - you want dirt on the track. and the list goes on. :shrug:
You miss my point S14. Totally miss it. I'm talking about the emphasis of developers when making a race sim. I'm saying LFS is an "Online Racing Simulator" not an "Online Vehicle Simulator". That the aspects discussed above are more important in terms of gameplay dynamics than the accuracy of the tyre simulation - given we have an unrealistic control interface anyway, that all is required from the vehicle is to be 'reasonable'.

As for things being easy, no I didnt say that, but easy/difficult means nothing in programming, all that matters is whether you did it or not. Do it again and it's easy. Developing new concepts is never easy, finding good ways to do things which havnt been done and nobody can offer you an off the shelf solution is a challenge, but it is this very challenge which most programmers relish.

[S14 DRIFT]

Exactly this does matter for some people. You might not care about it but that doesn't mean that nobody does.

I didn't say I don't care about it, only that it doesn't really matter, and it's just being a nitpicker.

And Becky, as I don't quite understand this whole thread..at all really.. are you saying that all these sims put alot of effort into how their cars handle, but not enough into the actual aspects of racing itself? Because if that's not the case, I am stumped as to what you exactly mean. Call it the "just woken up confusion". :razz:

[Becky Rose]

Yeah that's pretty much it, it's regarding the emphasis of simulation. See as much effort as you put into the accuracy of the physics the problem remains that the player environment and control interface at their computer is inherrently unrealistic so the vehicle simulation can never be perfect.

Additionally a simulation which focuses on the realisation of an accurante model for the vehicle does not in any way portray what racing is all about, which is mostly a test of driver versus environment, rather than driver versus machine.

The effect on gameplay is that a simulated motor race does not represent a simulation of a real motor race, and the dynamics which result from that is a simulation which creates a 'sim racing' gameplay ethos, where drivers are encouraged to deliver repetition rather than reacting to their surroundings, as the surroundings are static.

[Electrik Kar]

It's a big hurdle. I think the main reason this kind of dynamic interaction with the environment hasn't been actively pursued yet is that the future has a better chance with this stuff than the present. A rough model of track temperature shouldn't be too hard right now, but as soon as you start to add variable weather and shifting elements like sand, dirt or water on track, I can see that things would start to get pretty complicated pretty fast. If it rains, then you will probably need to calculate for dirt turning into mud, and drying again over time as the rain stops. You will probably need to calculate how heat is absorbed into the track over time during the day, and released slowly in the late afternoon. If it's very hot during the day then maybe the track will still be warm at night. As an extreme example, on one part of the track, there may be water, dirt(mud), sand, rubber and oil variables all interacting together with the tyres themselves. That's complicated! :schwitz:

[TAYLOR-MANIA]

Well i agree with practically all of what's been said here (especially the first post) & i didn't properly read the whole thread, but anyway... i have a question...

How realistic is it of us to expect such environmental changes that's been mentioned? I mean surely these things can't have been overlooked in the quest of making the most realistic racing sim, so why have they been [seemingly] overlooked by all sim developers? Will we ever see such detail i wonder...? :shrug:

[Toddshooter]

Well i agree with practically all of what's been said here (especially the first post) & i didn't properly read the whole thread, but anyway... i have a question...

How realistic is it of us to expect such environmental changes that's been mentioned? I mean surely these things can't have been overlooked in the quest of making the most realistic racing sim, so why have they been [seemingly] overlooked by all sim developers? Will we ever see such detail i wonder...? :shrug:

I imagine they haven't been implimented because it would be a monumental task to code. Shifting weather patterns and track temp changes seem to me to be a very complicated thing. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

[NightShift]

A rough model of track temperature shouldn't be too hard right now,

On a sidenote, this has been my thought for quite some time. We have a wind setting within a limited aero model, so why not introduce a temperature setting too?

If you leave a car sitting in the pits for some time, the tyres will cool down so LFS is already aware of an ambient temperature in its innards.

It would be great on servers with random conditions (e.g. CTRA). During hot 'days', people would be forced to play with tyre pressures or switch to R2 or Road Normal from R1 and Supers, while cold days would require a little more attention because of reduced grip.

As an immediate consequence, drivers would need to be more careful and develop a little flexibility when it comes to track conditions, effectively countering the sealed-set/drive-always-the-same approach which is common now.

In short, it would be a first important step towards a truly dynamic environment, in terms of player development.

[Electrik Kar]

If you leave a car sitting in the pits for some time, the tyres will cool down so LFS is already aware of an ambient temperature in its innards.

Yep- track temp would probably just be a slight variation on the tyre temp model- replacing friction with sun strength. (?)

[TAYLOR-MANIA]

I imagine they haven't been implimented because it would be a monumental task to code. Shifting weather patterns and track temp changes seem to me to be a very complicated thing. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

Yeah i imagine it would be one hell of a challenge to code... but is that really the reason it still hasn't been done yet ?
I find that very difficult to believe myself, that top professional programmers/developers can't even make a simple version of variable surface temperatures relating to changing weathers/times.
It can be done with the appropriate research & work, i'm sure of it...but i could be wrong! :D

Track surface temperature & day/night cycles would really be the first step towards creating a simulated environment, wouldn't it?
So that could be why it can often be regarded of as a relatively easy thing to do.. when actually it probably isn't :shrug:

And another thought... do we really want some of these environmental changes & factors mentioned? Do we really want all the annoyances that come with real racing?

Think about it... tyre marbles off the racing line, tree sap (really?! :really:), recovery trucks interrupting races, oil spillages & debris left on the track... are such disturbances the things we really want to implement into a sim?
Shouldn't we/devs be taking advantage of simulated motor racing & it's benefits by deliberately leaving out these small interrupting factors of real motor racing?

Not only would they be irritating for sim racers (as they are for real racers too i guess) but they're probably a pain in the arse to code for too!

[NightShift]

Yep- track temp would probably just be a slight variation on the tyre temp model- replacing friction with sun strength. (?)

I was thinking of something simpler, just change the ambient temperature which the tyres tend towards and pretend it's a sunny day :)

[wheel4hummer]

Adjustable air temperature would be so awesome. Then we could have a race where the temperature is like 0C and everyone tires would be frigid, and the air would be more dense. Too bad there's no engine heat. Although, couldn't the tire model be used to simulate friction in the engine?

[Hyperactive]

And another thought... do we really want some of these environmental changes & factors mentioned? Do we really want all the annoyances that come with real racing?

Think about it... tyre marbles off the racing line, tree sap (really?! :really:), recovery trucks interrupting races, oil spillages & debris left on the track... are such disturbances the things we really want to implement into a sim?
Shouldn't we/devs be taking advantage of simulated motor racing & it's benefits by deliberately leaving out these small interrupting factors of real motor racing?

Not only would they be irritating for sim racers (as they are for real racers too i guess) but they're probably a pain in the arse to code for too!

With that same logic we should never have rain, variable tire temps and car damage in a sim. It's a bother anyway...?

Personally I think even at current point LFS could make a very simple dynamic track addition just by being able to change the air temperature and weather (full sun or cloudy). With these two variables (plus wind) you could already have more dynamic environment than all the others sims in total. Maybe even throw some racing line into the mix and I bet it would be a welcomed addition into the sim and wouldn't take too much coding since the most of the stuff is probably already there (we have visually different lightning conditions and surely some values are set in the sim to present those fixed ambient temps). It would be small but defenately doable feature even if I'd like to see a tire patch before that.

But then again maybe another ai patch is more important...

[bbman]

Personally I think even at current point LFS could make a very simple dynamic track addition just by being able to change the air temperature and weather (full sun or cloudy). With these two variables (plus wind) you could already have more dynamic environment than all the others sims in total. Maybe even throw some racing line into the mix and I bet it would be a welcomed addition into the sim and wouldn't take too much coding since the most of the stuff is probably already there (we have visually different lightning conditions and surely some values are set in the sim to present those fixed ambient temps). It would be small but defenately doable feature even if I'd like to see a tire patch before that.

I can tell you right now, if you give people control over the weather, the whole feature will be useless... Just take a look at what weather servers are running now...

[Doorman]

For me, all over the above would be marvelous! For the average LFSer I don't think so. The amount of people that come on our server , say 'Oh, wind' and leave doesn't give me much hope for the server that would employ all of this wonderful stuff. :shrug: but it's good to talk. :)

[bbman]

For me, all over the above would be marvelous! For the average LFSer I don't think so. The amount of people that come on our server , say 'Oh, wind' and leave doesn't give me much hope for the server that would employ all of this wonderful stuff. :shrug: but it's good to talk. :)

Just force it... There would be a wave of bitching and whining in the first few weeks (like with reset or the clutch heat) but in the end makes LfS better...

[S14 DRIFT]

Adjustable air temperature would be so awesome. Then we could have a race where the temperature is like 0C and everyone tires would be frigid, and the air would be more dense. Too bad there's no engine heat. Although, couldn't the tire model be used to simulate friction in the engine?


No the tyre model could not be used to simulate friction because when you rev the engine alot, it'll go to like 200 degrees and then explode. It'll overheat during cornering and refuse to cool down on the straight. Park up with the engine running for more than 5 minutes and it'll go to -20 degrees.

[Hyperactive]

I can tell you right now, if you give people control over the weather, the whole feature will be useless... Just take a look at what weather servers are running now...

I'm sure at least few servers would use it and it would be great feature especially for leagues. But as doorman already said, people don't seem to like variables too much. Which is sad, because the reason behind that are the same people won't like proper engine damage, brake fading and more fragile parts on the car...

As for the weather now, it takes an additional click to change it and most won't bother because all that is changed is lightning. I think people would use the different lightning options for tracks more if you were forced to pick one when you are selecting the combo instead of changing the lightning after you have selected a track and waiting it to load.

[dekojester]

Think about it... tyre marbles off the racing line, tree sap (really?! :really:), recovery trucks interrupting races, oil spillages & debris left on the track... are such disturbances the things we really want to implement into a sim?

Not to pick on you Taylor, but because some of the items you mention here are things I want. :-D Marbles and klag will be great, also having oil spills would add to some of the realism. Have kitty litter down to soak it up and then have a few times through it kicking up the dust would be awesome. Recovery trucks would be an awesome thing. Personally, I'd love being able to manually drive and operate the recovery trucks (I reckon it would be cool for the cruise servers, especially.) Another addition along these lines would be a sweeper truck and a jet blower, to blow the klag clean. Especially after league races, the blowers and sweepers could/should go out to clean the track off before the next race. On the oval, it would be good to give the track a bit of a cleaning during a late-race Safety Car during the last 50 or so laps of a 270 lap race.

It would add to the immersion, for me at least, of having 32 slots for the racers still, but an extra 5-7 slots for "Course Vehicles" such as the Safety Car, a Medical Car, Rescue Trucks (http://www.advancedfire.com/res5side.jpg), a sweeper truck (http://crockerequipment.com/images/photos/tymco/sweeper.jpg) and/or a jet blower (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1422/1368417384_99a5043b4f.jpg?v=0) - it would also be cool to have "holes" in the wall where the trucks could park in so they'd be out of harm's way during racing, but could easily pop onto track when needed.

Of course, I would think the vehicles would be most used by leagues, and lightly, if at all during pickup racing, and could possibly be automated in pickup.

I would personally find it cool to have to wait a bit to race because it's pissed down rain so hard that there's a creek on the backstraigt at Blackwood at 200m to the turn, or a stream running down the corkscrew at Aston and the sweepers/dryers have to go out to disperse it before the track is raceable.

I do believe that more emphasis needs to be placed on the environment. More flags needed. the ability to "ignore" a certain amount of laps and deem them as "pace laps" and set laps of say, 135 or 268 or 188 or so.

But then again, I don't race too terribly much, but I love realism. I had wind on for the Kyoto 500, and the lighting set to Cloudy Morning. There were no complaints (that I remember) about the wind, and only a couple people complained about it "being dark" I must say, I love the cloudy afternoon setting at Kyoto, and the Evening setting at SO. Beautiful. So too at Blackwood. I'm a realism freak. I'm all for anything that adds to the realism.

[JO53PHS]

Rescue Trucks (http://www.advancedfire.com/res5side.jpg),

How that hunk of useless bling is supposed to rescue anything is beyond me :tilt:

..a stream running down the corkscrew at Aston and the sweepers/dryers have to go out to disperse it before the track is raceable.

So? You avoid the stream, and if there's a puddle at the bottom, you avoid that too :shrug:

And is it only in America that they have those jet dryers you keep going on about? Because I really don't see the need for them anywhere but the oval.

[dekojester]

How that hunk of useless bling is supposed to rescue anything is beyond me :tilt:



So? You avoid the stream, and if there's a puddle at the bottom, you avoid that too :shrug:

And is it only in America that they have those jet dryers you keep going on about? Because I really don't see the need for them anywhere but the oval.

It's got tools to rescue things. It was the best I could find. I've seen them at road courses here to clear debris and excess standing water. Yes, if a stream of water or a puddle is dangerous (it could be running completely across track and at least what I consider a sane race director would temporarily halt the race to let the stream either clear after a rainstorm finishes, or send a sweeper or jet blower to disperse the puddles or so.

d

[duke_toaster]

Marbles and klag will be great, also having oil spills would add to some of the realism. Have kitty litter down to soak it up and then have a few times through it kicking up the dust would be awesome.

That would only happen when the SC comes out, otherwise it's just a surface flag (of course, not on ovals).

It would add to the immersion, for me at least, of having 32 slots for the racers still, but an extra 5-7 slots for "Course Vehicles" such as the Safety Car, a Medical Car, Rescue Trucks (http://www.advancedfire.com/res5side.jpg), a sweeper truck (http://crockerequipment.com/images/photos/tymco/sweeper.jpg) and/or a jet blower (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1422/1368417384_99a5043b4f.jpg?v=0) - it would also be cool to have "holes" in the wall where the trucks could park in so they'd be out of harm's way during racing, but could easily pop onto track when needed.

Surely all that would be needed is the track SC, medical car, the Land Rovers for used for towing (or the snatch cranes), tilt and slides and possibly an ambulance. Aside from the SC they don't really need to be visible. Snatch cranes are used at F1 level for almost everything, if not it's tilt and slides. In the BTCC it's almost all a matter of towing it with a Landy.

They could simply be invisible as they would be parked off track most of the time. Visibility would be good for PCs that can cope (most)

Of course, I would think the vehicles would be most used by leagues, and lightly, if at all during pickup racing, and could possibly be automated in pickup.

Automation is good, not all leagues have enough people to drive everything. Maybe have them automatically enabled for races over a certain length.

I would personally find it cool to have to wait a bit to race because it's pissed down rain so hard that there's a creek on the backstraigt at Blackwood at 200m to the turn, or a stream running down the corkscrew at Aston and the sweepers/dryers have to go out to disperse it before the track is raceable.

That would be an issue of starting behind the safety car, not use of dryers (except on ovals).

I do believe that more emphasis needs to be placed on the environment. More flags needed. the ability to "ignore" a certain amount of laps and deem them as "pace laps" and set laps of say, 135 or 268 or 188 or so.

Or just a "rolling start" option.

[Becky Rose]

Over here in the UK we just race deko :) If there is a stream on track, and on our under invested club and national tracks you can be sure there is, then it's cleared by the cars ! I have seen track maintenance sweepers in the UK but only at a GP.

[TAYLOR-MANIA]

With that same logic we should never have rain, variable tire temps and car damage in a sim. It's a bother anyway...?

Don't get me wrong, i'd love those things! Variable tyres temps, weather time of day, car damage, surface temps... yes please!
I was just wondering why we don't have them already and why no steps have been taken towards having them :shrug:

Personally I think even at current point LFS could make a very simple dynamic track addition just by being able to change the air temperature and weather (full sun or cloudy). With these two variables (plus wind) you could already have more dynamic environment than all the others sims in total. Maybe even throw some racing line into the mix and I bet it would be a welcomed addition into the sim and wouldn't take too much coding since the most of the stuff is probably already there (we have visually different lightning conditions and surely some values are set in the sim to present those fixed ambient temps). It would be small but definitely doable feature even if I'd like to see a tire patch before that.

But then again maybe another ai patch is more important...

:nod: Yup I totally agree with that.

Taking a realistic outlook on things... aside from the basic environmental elements that are track/air temps & weather, i'm not too sure if we'll ever see the additional enviro factors that's been mentioned... like tree sap for instance!

If the basic enviro elements (air/track temp/weather) still haven't been done, or even attempted, then I just don't think we'll see the other small, interrupting things of real racing.
Sure, the small stuff will go some way to aid immersion & capture the overall atmosphere of real racing, i'm all for that aswell to some degree... but i just don't see it happening really.
I also don't think it would impact the gameplay in a big way either... atleast not as much as other things [away from the environment] would.

I mean there's somethings that real racers have to deal with, no way around it. The weather, the temperatures of track & air, the time of day, they constantly need to adapt to. And i reckon it's reasonable to expect sim racers to do the same.
But then there's other things that real racing drivers could do without...and maybe in this regard, we should embrace the advantages of simulated racing & not capture every single aspect of real racing. You see what i mean?

For what reason we still don't have the fundamental enviro elements of air/track temps & weather/day/night, I honestly do not know. Perhaps the environment has indeed been overlooked by sim devs, in which case we can only hope that the open letter will get noticed!

[Becky Rose]

Tree and leaf sap is important on any circuit with overhanging trees. I've not driven a big track like that (Hockenheim, Spa etc) but i've driven a kart track like it, Turn 1 at Redlodge (JackG's home circuit) is at some times of the year the slippiest bit of tarmac you'll ever come across. It takes real confidence to take it at full pelt because you have to believe the amount of traction you think is there is actually what is there, otherwise you'll loose the back end. It's one of the key challenges of that circuit, and grip levels change throughout the day, making it an interesting and evolving challenge.

[TAYLOR-MANIA]

Oh right, ignore that bit then! Can you tell i've never come across tree sap in a racing situation?! :D

[Becky Rose]

well it originally only arose as an example of low grip, there are lots of situations which can arise in the surface not giving as much grip at other times, more than just temperature. Spills from cars, moisture in the morning, a bump in the track where there was a puddle and the water being gradually drawn out as cars ocassionally go through it. If the track is next to a motocross arena you'll find that offline is very dirty from all the dust kicked up by the motox bikes, there are all sorts of means that a track gives up grip other than temperature, most of them being particular nuances of a given track, which is the point I was making.

In LFS for example, on the exit of that right-left after the main straight is an orchard. How could would it be to have leaves on the circuit on that exit at the start of morning sessions, maybe in the winter the surface there is re-paved and the smoothness allows the dew and sap to cause more slip, but after a seering hot summer the tarmac is cracked and it gives more grip in low-grip situations, but doesnt offer as much in hot weather...

[TAYLOR-MANIA]

Yeah i see what you mean about the low grip situations in dry conditions...
Quite frankly though, that level of detail is just so far from anything we currently have that i really struggle to see it becoming a reality.

Not that I don't wish for such detail, or that it's the wrong path to take, or that it will never happen... but it's such a massive leap (almost revolutionary!) to add such a great deal of depth to the sim racing experience.
It's totally beyond todays sim standards & developing mentality... it seems so far beyond i'd say that it's out of reach right now.

For it to be achieved would require a fairly considerable shift in mentality (and hard work) from developers to even begin paying attention to the most basic of environmental factors.
Until they do focus on & get the basics sorted, the details you're talking about seem rather inaccessible to me. :shrug:

[dekojester]

Over here in the UK we just race deko :) If there is a stream on track, and on our under invested club and national tracks you can be sure there is, then it's cleared by the cars ! I have seen track maintenance sweepers in the UK but only at a GP.

Well, it's LFS and fantasyland still, so we can all pretend that every track and race has oodles of money to blow on this stuff. :-D

Plus, it would give me something to do that I might not suck so much at: Sweeping the track. Much easier that driving the SC at a oneGP race where your SC driver you thought you'd have leaves the server and me having to SC with 0 practice laps on the combo. :schwitz:

I do like things that don't take much practice atm, since I don't have so much time to practice until I get a computer that's not my MacBook to play LFS on. Stupid onboard graphics on all my desktops hindering performance. :really:

But still, +1 for the track variables such as klag and sap and puddles and leaves and dust and whatnot. Then it might even things out a bit as to who's good at dealing with conditions and tweaking to suit.

btw, "klag" is a David Hobbism for those who might not know. Means, "the bits of rubber that get thrown off the tires to the side of the road outside the racing-line."

:-D

[Becky Rose]

btw, "klag" is a David Hobbism for those who might not know. Means, "the bits of rubber that get thrown off the tires to the side of the road outside the racing-line."
You'll find everybody else refers to them by their name, marbles.

[DrBen]

Well i agree with practically all of what's been said here (especially the first post) & i didn't properly read the whole thread, but anyway... i have a question...

How realistic is it of us to expect such environmental changes that's been mentioned? I mean surely these things can't have been overlooked in the quest of making the most realistic racing sim, so why have they been [seemingly] overlooked by all sim developers? Will we ever see such detail i wonder...? :shrug:

I imagine they haven't been implimented because it would be a monumental task to code. Shifting weather patterns and track temp changes seem to me to be a very complicated thing. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

well at least - judging by what has been said in this thread from people with insight in programming - it would be another grand, yet not undoable and thus reasonably achievable thing to start doing.

On a sidenote, this has been my thought for quite some time. We have a wind setting within a limited aero model, so why not introduce a temperature setting too?

If you leave a car sitting in the pits for some time, the tyres will cool down so LFS is already aware of an ambient temperature in its innards.

It would be great on servers with random conditions (e.g. CTRA). During hot 'days', people would be forced to play with tyre pressures or switch to R2 or Road Normal from R1 and Supers, while cold days would require a little more attention because of reduced grip.

As an immediate consequence, drivers would need to be more careful and develop a little flexibility when it comes to track conditions, effectively countering the sealed-set/drive-always-the-same approach which is common now.

In short, it would be a first important step towards a truly dynamic environment, in terms of player development.

I guess that this reflects most of Becky's thoughts from the open letter quite nicely and in order. And actually I feel about the same way. The challenge should be placed further away from finding that "perfect setup" and focus on driving and driving skills a lot more than at today's state.

Yeah i see what you mean about the low grip situations in dry conditions...
Quite frankly though, that level of detail is just so far from anything we currently have that i really struggle to see it becoming a reality.

Not that I don't wish for such detail, or that it's the wrong path to take, or that it will never happen... but it's such a massive leap (almost revolutionary!) to add such a great deal of depth to the sim racing experience.
It's totally beyond todays sim standards & developing mentality... it seems so far beyond i'd say that it's out of reach right now.

For it to be achieved would require a fairly considerable shift in mentality (and hard work) from developers to even begin paying attention to the most basic of environmental factors.
Until they do focus on & get the basics sorted, the details you're talking about seem rather inaccessible to me. :shrug:

I think you're spot-on stating that mentality in development is still so far off these ideas. But I disagree that it is about the projected work one has realised would bee un-doable with today's technology.

It has been mentioned before: the way how a slippery (meant: changing) condition is derived in detail does not matter much. It doesn't have to be a super-computer-exclusive real-time computation but can be pretty much simplified in it's details allowing for standard system with reasonable computing power to cope just well.
In the bottom line it's the resulting influence on the drivers and the whole race that really matters. We want to have these "effects" to "behave" as close to real life as possible in order to give us a racing experience as close to RL as possible.

After all when driving lfs for a longer periode of time there will eventually come a point where you think: "this pace, that the WR-holder puts into a combo is just unreal. If I was to challenge that track-time I would have to depart from a realistic driving-style and just hunt for the flaws in the physics/environment department - just like that other bloke does it."

A dynamic environment would not only change that condition for the better but at the same time have it's effects on online racing as it would then prove impossible to race with a hotlap set as they tend to be a LOT trickier to handle under not-ideal (clear "fast-line") conditions in a race. It would bring the fast hotlappers back closer to the ones focusing on the racing action: it would simply improve online-racing culture to resemble much better to the real thing.

The reason that sim-developers didn't come across a positive decision to try this is - in my eyes - very simple:
MONEY. It would certainly cost the part to develope such a thing. Since sim-racing is still a very young "sport" people buying a sim tended to be short-time-users, as they frequently moved on to the next-in-line "hot-product" after a few months or maybe years. Hence the return on investment would be limited given that the market (IMO with good reason) would simply reject any heavily over-prised product to hit the shelves.

With the introduction of sims like LFS, rFactor or even iRacing this thinking might prove to become a thing of a past. So maybe Becky's "open letter" is just a redundant bit of information that the devs themselves are already "on" as we speak. Or maybe not. How would we know?
However, in my opinion, this certainly is the way to strive for in future attempts. I simply won't buy any new "hot product" anymore just because it may have some nicer graphics or a better sound system. And that's because I have got so fond of actually racing a "Virtual Car" that those aspects, most magazines and review-sites happen to bark about most times, are just heavily irrelevant when adressing the real fun found in racing.

Way to go - yes.
And I believe it will be worth it big-time! As soon as the first one is to achieve a reasonably well-working product giving us all of the above-mentioned, they will have the ability to make some money out of it. It's just that they would be the ones to take the gamble of financing the whole development and the PR first - and against all these glossy magazines which just focus on graphics and such, since you cannot "sreen-shoot" the experience and fun of a real driving-challenge.

My 2 cents
DrBen

[Gimpster]

Becky,

Your words are true. While having the vehicle dynamics nailed is a lofty goal, it's a goal that I fell is unobtainable so long as we are applying them to a static environment. So much of a cars feel has more to do with how the car is reacting to the environment then how the different parts of the car are reacting to each other. How many of the physics updates have been aimed at improving the driving feel of the cars, especially at and just over the limits?

The answer is a lot. Many of the perceived weird feelings in the physics are most likely due to the environment not an incorrect vehicle dynamics model. I would be willing to argue then even back in S1 the physics were close enough to start working on the dynamic aspects of the environment. In the real world which is what sims are trying to simulate, everything in is constant flux. So when we drive our exceptions of how the car is reacting is going to be different then the exact same car in LFS.

In essence every time we tweak the physics to feel more natural we are in fact pushing the physics simulation away from being correct by adding in components that alter the physics to replicate the feeling of driving in a dynamic environment while driving in a static one. In essence it will never be possible to build a correct physics simulation of driving/racing so long as we are building it in a static environment with glass smooth roads, unchanging road surface conditions and unchanging atmospheric conditions.

The environment simulation is the base on which it all needs to be built, without that the rest is just another neat game that feels better then the others. There is currently no sim that has taken this approach. iRacing is closer but it still uses a static environment but at least its tracks surfaces are not like glass, they have character, imperfections and variations in camber/grip. I have yet to see a track surface in LFS that has a crown, uneven surface or difference in grip based on track surface type.

You have a good base but its no where close to where it could be. Keep it up and perhaps it will be what you hope it to be.