Driving Simulator

[Weasley123]

Wouldn't it be cool for the developers of LFS to make a similar game to LFS (using the LFS code) with the same road cars but the settings are motorways and the rules are those what apply for driving on the road than driving on a track. The setups on the cars are therefore suited for road driving than track driving.

I would pay for that anyday, just gotta save money for LFS first :P

[Jakg]

If you mean to use it for learning to drive - then no, it'd be utterly useless. It's just not the same - you can't learn to fish on a computer and the same applies for LFS.

[VoiD]

I have to disagree.

With a proper Wheel/3-pedal-setup, manual clutch and H-shifter on a narrow autocross-layout it should be possible to learn the simple basics.

Like manoeuvre cars, reversing, (reverse) parking, overtaking, not to crash when looking arround, do some phonecalls whilst driving, fiddle with the radio etc... :D

[swingkid]

here in the Netherlands are driving schools who use a simulator for the basic skills so you don't have to take that much road lessons

[ColeusRattus]

I have to disagree.

With a proper Wheel/3-pedal-setup, manual clutch and H-shifter on a narrow autocross-layout it should be possible to learn the simple basics.

Like manoeuvre cars, reversing, (reverse) parking, overtaking, not to crash when looking arround, do some phonecalls whilst driving, fiddle with the radio etc... :D

Not at all. LfS can't teach you how to drive a real car. What simulations can do though, and what theay actually do already, is teach the basics about what to beserve, what to watch and how the rules and regulations work.

But for driving a car, I think it's best to learn with the real thing.

[Michalxo]

I think it's a very good simulator for this, BUT only for learning how to control car and basics with g25, so I agree with Void. Anyway, you need more cars and MANY crossways to teach/learn properly.. and more sensitive clutch and gas.
Anyway, I use it to refresh the basics to my GF and she likes it too. Feels natural, but not natural enough to be the simulation which driving schools should use..

[bunder9999]

*cough* cruise server *cough*

[IKke5165]

here in the Netherlands are driving schools who use a simulator for the basic skills so you don't have to take that much road lessons

I've driven in one of those and your waaaaay better of with lfs and a g25 or simular to get any sort of "feeling" for the car. The driving simulator has like 10 positions in its steering wheel so it isn't smooth and more bs like that, just very low quality.

And maybe cruise servers are a answer to your search, LTC has a demo cruise server but there aren't any added object in the map, you'll have to get s2 for that. :thumb:

[JJ72]

I have to disagree.

With a proper Wheel/3-pedal-setup, manual clutch and H-shifter on a narrow autocross-layout it should be possible to learn the simple basics.

Like manoeuvre cars, reversing, (reverse) parking, overtaking, not to crash when looking arround, do some phonecalls whilst driving, fiddle with the radio etc... :D

Unless you have a 360 degree projector screen.

How you look in real life, in a real car is just so much different, the perception of 3 dimension space as well.

Manoeuvring cars isn't the main thing about real world driving anyway, it's much more about situational awareness and proper road manners.

[Crashgate3]

Unless you have a 360 degree projector screen.
I have to disagree.

With a proper Wheel/3-pedal-setup, manual clutch and H-shifter on a narrow autocross-layout it should be possible to learn the simple basics.

Like manoeuvre cars, reversing, (reverse) parking, overtaking, not to crash when looking arround,

That can somehow also display 3D depth, and can sense the position of your head and adjust accordingly. And a full-motion frame to sit in.

Or...... you could buy, say, a car. And drive it around. For a fraction of the cost.

[Woz]

Slap LFS on a 6DOF motion platform and use head tracker VR goggles and you might be getting closer imho.

As others have said though, LFS can teach the basics such as how to spot dangerous situations and basic control techniques.

For anything more and you have the trouble that won't understand the forces that act on your body and what they are telling you, vital queues in driving. When you have driven in real life you know what you should feel and can overlay them on LFS.

When I drive LFS I constantly evaluate in my head the circle of grip for each tyre and the weight shifts I believe I have instigated with my control inputs. That coupled with FF (G25) allow me to get a feel of what the car is up to.

All this is not something a non-driver can do and why it would be hard to translate into real world when they get behind the wheel.

Sims can teach you but motion is the key. I did 10 years working on flight sims (The type used to train commercial and military pilots) to know a good sim with good "feedback" can teach you a great deal :)

[CSU1]

If you mean to use it for learning to drive - then no, it'd be utterly useless. It's just not the same - you can't learn to fish on a computer and the same applies for LFS.

...what a ruddy knob like statement to make:D

I'd love to try to explain to the eurofighter trainee pilots = "Okay lads, the training curriculum we provide is fairly hands-on. Take this £66.7 million Eurofighter for your first spin - and remember! If you don't know what the buttons or levers do, don't press it"

Fresh fish are no different to simulated ones. The fun is in the game/catch:shrug:

Realism is a nonesential factor in sport.

[Keling]

...
Manoeuvring cars isn't the main thing about real world driving anyway, it's much more about situational awareness and proper road manners.
+1 for this.

I believe what the OP wanna see is technically possible. But that's A LOT of work, not only a city mod and road going physics. You have to simulate other drivers/riders/pedestrians' road behaviors, which is not as easy as many may imagine.

[VoiD]

I was fully aware of the limitations. :D Nothing is better to get teached on the real thing...

But to learn the basic motion sequences it should be enough. There´s a wheel for the hands, some pedals for the feets and a fancy stick (for what?). And don´t forget all the switches and knobs.

Lets say for the up- and down-shifts. What pedal to lift, what pedal to press and when, or is it to enough to fiddle with the gearstick...?
"R"..? ...hey that´s cool, must be the "Race"-gear... or was it "Rally", "Reverse"..?
Braking: without or without clutch (and when)...?

Speed: driving in what gear for what speed in what situation/turns...

I guess you know what I mean...:razz:

[Jakg]

...what a ruddy knob like statement to make:D

I'd love to try to explain to the eurofighter trainee pilots = "Okay lads, the training curriculum we provide is fairly hands-on. Take this £66.7 million Eurofighter for your first spin - and remember! If you don't know what the buttons or levers do, don't press it"

Fresh fish are no different to simulated ones. The fun is in the game/catch:shrug:

Realism is a nonesential factor in sport.Flying is not the same as driving, though - driving a car isn't hard, it's the way you drive on the road, around other cars, looking, using road signs and techinque thats important.

[ColeusRattus]

...what a ruddy knob like statement to make:D

I'd love to try to explain to the eurofighter trainee pilots = "Okay lads, the training curriculum we provide is fairly hands-on. Take this £66.7 million Eurofighter for your first spin - and remember! If you don't know what the buttons or levers do, don't press it"

Fresh fish are no different to simulated ones. The fun is in the game/catch:shrug:

Realism is a nonesential factor in sport.

You do know that these simulators are primarily used to teach people how to operate the systems of a plane, and NOT to teach them how to fly, do you?

JakGs point is perfectly valid.

[Crashgate3]

Flying is not the same as driving, though - driving a car isn't hard


Comparedto driving, flying a plane isn't hard either - a small plane like a Cessna (about the same size and 'equivalence' to a car) is lot easier to fly than it is to drive a car (yes I have done both).

[dev]

Comparedto driving, flying a plane isn't hard either - a small plane like a Cessna (about the same size and 'equivalence' to a car) is lot easier to fly than it is to drive a car (yes I have done both).
Confirmed...

[Jakg]

Comparedto driving, flying a plane isn't hard either - a small plane like a Cessna (about the same size and 'equivalence' to a car) is lot easier to fly than it is to drive a car (yes I have done both).A cessna is not a Eurofighter though...

[Luke.S]

actually the typhoon is supposed to be easy to fly as the computer does most of the work

[SidiousX]

The fly-by-wire does the flying for you, there's like no fatigue involved...

[Woz]

You do know that these simulators are primarily used to teach people how to operate the systems of a plane, and NOT to teach them how to fly, do you?

I must point out something here.

A pilot can pass certification in a Level D (Zero hour grade) simulator for say a 737 without ever setting foot in a 737 then go directly to a real plane and legally fly it in a commercial setting!

So while they are not used to primarily teach flying they are used to bring a pilot up to speed on what it feels like to fly these things and how they react in the air etc.

http://www.link-miles.co.uk/BigPic3.asp?PicName=shgr7xzzjpg This pic for example is of a Harrier GR7 sim the company I worked for produced. The ball on the legs contained a harrier cockpit in the middle. The visuals were projected to the inside of the ball to give 360deg visuals, mostly peripheral vison but sharp visual where the pilot looked. Head tracking in the pilot helmet. The entire thing could move with serious G forces.

I clocked up 100s of hours in 737 and 747 sims in my time there so I could "test my software" :) Never got to fly the military stuff as was in the commercial devision.

Even 20 years ago when I worked on this stuff the tech was right up there. Don't confuse instrument and procedural trainers with the real big boy toys simulators :) 20 years ago 10million UKP would buy you a very nice toy indeed :)

Trying to take off in a 737 in one of these things where an engine that fails as you rotate while the cockpit fills with smoke because of a simulated electrical fire with motion running is flipping scary to say the least :)

[Mazz4200]

http://www.link-miles.co.uk/BigPic3.asp?PicName=shgr7xzzjpg This pic for example is of a Harrier GR7 sim
I wouldn't mind seeing that picture, but there's something wrong with the link.

[Luke.S]

any luck with this?

http://www.link-miles.co.uk/BigPic3.asp?PicName=shgr7xzzjpg

just look here it is the big ball

http://www.link-miles.co.uk/PicLib.asp#

[Mazz4200]

any luck with this?

http://www.link-miles.co.uk/BigPic3.asp?PicName=shgr7xzzjpg

just look here it is the big ball

http://www.link-miles.co.uk/PicLib.asp#
Ahh thanks for that.

Odd thing though, the first link came up blank at first, but opening the second link (which was fine) made the first link (including the one in Woz's post) work. :shrug:

[Woz]

I am sure I have a photo taken from inside a 737 sim with the visual running somewhere. I will try and dig out and scan if people are interested. I also have some good pics of a 737 and 747 I was on the site team to install.

I believe aircraft are far easier to simulate at high quality than cars because the lift, drag, thrust interactions of aircraft are well understood.

With a car you have 4 small points of contact that define how the car interacts with the world and they are not as well understood. They are also far more subtle as you have differences in surface, loose gravel, dust and much to simulate and layered on top are all the heat, wear, cool cycles etc.

In contrast an aircraft just interacts with air (apart from take off and landing) and on the whole that is easier to simulate, even effects like microbursts and windsheer and the like.

I did manage to loop a 747 :) Took it to 35000 feet then pointed striaght down. At 10000 feet started to pull back (Needed feet on the cockpit to pull back) and over she went. Would prob rip the wings off IRL but we didnt need to simulate wing fall off stress even for Level D :)

[Crashgate3]

A cessna is not a Eurofighter though...

And a family hatchback is not an F1 car, which is the kind of thing the original post was going on about :razz:


When I used to be in Air Cadets, I spent a day on the full motion E-3D Sentry simulator at RAF Waddington, which was amazing fun. At one point we did a landing with the runway covered in ice, and ended up with the aircraft sliding down the runway with the nose pointing at 90 degrees to the direction of motion :D

[GeForz]

where is the "improvement suggestion" in this thread? ^^

[Weasley123]

where is the "improvement suggestion" in this thread? ^^

Clearly in the first post.

Something similar to what I was thinking is simply to add a motorway ring road as a map on the game which could act as a cruise server.

[spiderbait90]

A cessna is not a Eurofighter though...

Compare like with like.

Driving a Proton (or similar hatchback) may be easy, but an F1 car, probably not so much.

Flying a Cessna (or similar aircraft) may be easy, but a Eurofighter, probably not so much.

[Gekkibi]

Flying a Cessna (or similar aircraft) may be easy, but a Eurofighter, probably not so much.

Partially untrue. It is true that eurofighter is unstable airplane where Cessna is stable. However, due to the fact that it is completely fly-by-wire with all kind of jimbo-jambos (YD, RS, SAS, etc) it is more like flying a flight simulator than flying an airplane.

Oops, that was little bit too off-topic... Please continue! :D ( </offtopic> )

[spiderbait90]

So what you are saying, is that the Eurofighter is the 'Proton Wira of the Skies'. :shrug:

I'd rather it wasn't. :schwitz:

[Gekkibi]

So what you are saying, is that the Eurofighter is the 'Proton Wira of the Skies'. :shrug:

I'd rather it wasn't. :schwitz:

Never seen Proton Wira, so I don't know.

However, all modern military and commercial airplanes have fly-by-wire. That means that pilot don't control ailerons etc directly via cable wires. It is just like flying a flight simulator: You just tell the computer to do the maneuvers (To be honest, it isn't that simple... Pilot controls SAS (Stability augmentation system) that controls the airplane. SAS does diagnose and re-corrects the input. Of course aircrafts also has AFCS (Automatic flight control system), which is part of FCS with SAS. And lets not forget FMS and... Well, you got the idea...)

[Woz]

Compare like with like.

Driving a Proton (or similar hatchback) may be easy, but an F1 car, probably not so much.

Flying a Cessna (or similar aircraft) may be easy, but a Eurofighter, probably not so much.

Eurofighter is like an arcade game. It is not stable in the air and actually inpossible to fly without the mass of electronics and computers between the controls and the flight surfaces. These take all the inputs and decides what it thinks the pilot has asked for and does it.

Makes it harder to stuff up tbh. But then you want all that so you have more time to worry about situational awareness instead of flying when in combat!

[Woz]

oops, you got in before me :)

Airbus planes for example have 3 computers sourced from 3 different companies (All who worked off the same spec). The 3 computers look at every input and decide via majority vote about what they allow etc.

[Weasley123]

*facepalm*

Is it too hard to stay on topic or what?

[majod]

it would be damn boring to keep 50kph...with gtr cars you even dont have to shift to second gear...it would be just boring, lfs havent reached the "sense of speed" yet, so you have to go at leat 150kph to feel youre driving fast...in a real car its just maybe 80kph, you can hear the wind, car noise, everything moving much faster than on screen...
roads are too flat without details

[palandri]

Compare like with like.

Driving a Proton (or similar hatchback) may be easy, but an F1 car, probably not so much.

Flying a Cessna (or similar aircraft) may be easy, but a Eurofighter, probably not so much.

Now that you say it, it reminds me of trying to play Falcon 4.0 and failing miserably hard. ( It is a super simulator of the F/A-18 ). But i can do fine in IL-2 Sturmovik 1946.

[Forbin]

Now that you say it, it reminds me of trying to play Falcon 4.0 and failing miserably hard. ( It is a super simulator of the F/A-18 ). But i can do fine in IL-2 Sturmovik 1946.

F-16 is the Falcon (single-engine, single rudder, very tiny, generally more popular with the US Air Force). F/A-18 is the Hornet (twin-engine, twin rudder, slightly larger, generally more popular with the US Navy).

[palandri]

Oops, my mistake then, its a F-16 simulator.

[Crashgate3]

Eurofighter is like an arcade game. It is not stable in the air and actually inpossible to fly without the mass of electronics and computers between the controls and the flight surfaces. These take all the inputs and decides what it thinks the pilot has asked for and does it.

Makes it harder to stuff up tbh. But then you want all that so you have more time to worry about situational awareness instead of flying when in combat!

The reason the eurofighter is Fly-By-Wire and so unstable isn't to make it easier to fly, letting the pilot get on with fighting (although that's partially the reason). The main reason is to make it unbelievably agile.

The eurofighter and a few other modern agile fighters are deliberately made so unstable that their natural reaction is to instantly swap ends and spin out of control. Think the Raceabout with a masively oversteery setup with maximum outwards toe on the rear wheels. The result is that it it's impossible for a human to fly them unaided. Not just hard, but impossible.

The computer however, can react fast enough with tiny trimming of the control surfaces to keep it flying in a straight line (again, using the RAC in the above example, it's like the AI making tiny adjustments to the counter-steer to keep it in control). The massive advantage is that you are able to change direction *insanely* fast by harnessing this tendency to swap ends, and having the flight computers cancel the effect just when you want it.

[VoiD]

*facepalm*

Is it too hard to stay on topic or what?

Yep...

[Forbin]

A home computer is not a tool sufficiently conducive to learning complex reactions to the chaotic environment that is the public road system.

[Breizh]

But it does serve well to teach someone the basics of the car they'll be driving. Like those girls who, somehow, "don't get" how to steer one pair of the four wheels to parallel park a car.