Please! EVEN out the GTR class and the tbo class! [Archive]

danowat

5th May 2006, 07:32

Ok, so the FXO is quicker, although not as much as before, why should they be equal in terms of performance anyway?.

All 3, the FXO,XRT, and RB4 are completely different types of car, although in the same class, the FXO will always be faster due to the fact its easier to drive than the XRT, and the RB4 will always be the slowest due to its drivetrain.

IRL all of the 3 cars would be the same, unbalanced due to the above reasons, they shouldnt really be bastardized anymore just in the interests of balancing, its up to either the league organizer to make it a single class, or the driver to get the best out of each car.

Dan,

Fetzo

5th May 2006, 07:59

All 3, the FXO,XRT, and RB4 are completely different types of car, although in the same class, the FXO will always be faster due to the fact its easier to drive than the XRT, and the RB4 will always be the slowest due to its drivetrain.

a car ist faster than another, because it's easier to drive? put 100kg into the fxo and i am sure, that it will still be easier to drive than the xrt, but not faster.

danowat

5th May 2006, 08:07

But my point is WHY, why should the FXO have a weight penalty just because it is easier to drive faster?.

Dan,

Fetzo

5th May 2006, 08:26

it's easier to drive AND it's faster. it would just be nice, if the cars paces are a little more even.
now the fxo is faster on every tarmac-track. it would be nice if there were some tracks where it is slower than it's competitors. just some tracks.

i don't have to explain, why i think that a more balanced class is better, or do i?

LRB_Aly

5th May 2006, 08:28

But my point is WHY, why should the FXO have a weight penalty just because it is easier to drive faster?.

Dan,

And that leads to an improvement suggestion that has already been made: Weight penaltys. Although I'm not a friend of this, it seems that it could be a running option for leagues.

traxxion

5th May 2006, 08:28

+1 for evening out the classes.
It would be nice to have a fair fight with the complete GTR class or TBO class, differences are too big now.

cimermanj

5th May 2006, 08:29

I believe RWD cars should be faster than FWD cars, because they are more challenging to drive and we should be rewarded for keeping it together with faster times. Now we have FXO faster AND easier to drive than XRT. What is the point in driving XRT online then, you always get beaten by FXOs... On a side note: did anybody watch WTCC in Magny Cours last weekend? The two BMWs just smoked FWD cars on start, one getting from 6th to 2nd before even the first corner. Was this just RWD advantage? Ventus

auch_enne

5th May 2006, 08:30

IMHO why make classes if the league are forced to go one car only?

IMHO, balancing out can be done by adding wheight or reducing HP/Torque or a milion other things..

IMHO, this had been a problem since S1.. so a long long time (FXO is atleast)
It was once said they could not balance it out in just some patch since all replays would be lost etc. etc. Well they just released a patch that forced this. I can understand Scawen, Eric and Victor having more on their hands then to test a car balacing HP by HP, Kilo by Kilo, but isn't that a thing beta testers can do?

It just gets me worked up when I corner faster in my rb4 and the xrt who made a mistake still catches me on the straights.. let alone the fxo, fxo is just not in the same class... This is the very problem that after a while got me very dissapointed in S1, please please plz don't let it happen to S2 again.

The idea of classes is very nice, some people like FWD other RWD or AWD. And classes lets all these people come together and enjoy them selfs (the main point of a game/hobby). I love LFS, been here for a long time, planning to stay here for a long time to come. But forcing servers to run RB4&XRT only, or league to go one car only just for the sake of fair competition is not a plus :)

Well, since most responses here think FXO should keep its advantage. And people should not complain I'll stop now, just thought it was taking an awfull long time for an "ancient" class like TBO to be balanced....

SMOKE out!

Thorvertonian

5th May 2006, 08:33

danowat

5th May 2006, 08:39

Ok, looking at the WR charts, you can clearly see that as it stands now both the XRT and RB4 are pretty even, but the FXO is between 1-2 secs a lap faster.
Now, I think that this is down to the fact that the FXO is easier to drive, and easier to drive faster, but if this is what people think needs to happen then the obvious thing to do would be to add a bit more weight to the FXO, although it is already 8kg heavier than pre-patch.

Dan,

spankmeyer

5th May 2006, 08:45

It's bit of a bummer that certain classes are still stuck to one car dominating the rest. We did see some power/weight tweaking in the latest patch, but seems like the new tyre physics pretty much nulled the penalties. Does the FXO still has wider tyres than other TBOs?

Fetzo

5th May 2006, 08:46

before the patch some leagues had the fxo put a passenger into the car and they were still faster. i think it's obvious that 8kg won't do the magic.

extra weights with a server option to force them onto cartypes would be a great addition and imho the solution for this problem.

@danowat: WR holders have no problem at all with the handling of the cars. they are faster with the fxo simply because the car IS faster, not because there is no one who can handle the xrt properly.

Breizh

5th May 2006, 09:54

Server and player-side Ballast systems please...

danowat

5th May 2006, 10:00

Fetzo

5th May 2006, 10:04

ok i agree, it's easier to drive fast in a faster car :) :scratchch

Blowtus

5th May 2006, 10:05

the fxo is easier to drive faster than the uf1 also...
ie, it's a faster car! :)

for all the goodness the devs seem to manage, things like this really feel like a lack of playtesting... frustrating.

JJ72

5th May 2006, 10:27

a heavier engine with higher centre of gravity might be nice for the FXO, 1128kg is really too low for a usual road going FF couple so adding an extra 80kg might also be a good idea.

bal00

5th May 2006, 10:31

I never said it was because drivers can't handle the car properly, its down to the fact that the FXO is easier to drive faster, regardless of driver skill.

Dan,

I'd disagree. The RB4 can be set up to be perfectly neutral on the throttle while the FXO requires more throttle control. If the lap times were down to how easy the cars are to drive, the RB4 would come out on top. Not only is the FXO 5km/h faster on the straights, it also has more grip, giving it the upper hand in (fast) corners.

JJ72

5th May 2006, 10:32

for a side note the Astra Turbo coupe weights 1283kg.

Primoz

5th May 2006, 10:33

Add to that the weight penalties the seat's were carrying....

Andy hat a 45 kg penalty.

JJ72

5th May 2006, 10:34

the RB4 is now about the speed of GTT and it seems to be more grip, which I think is a fine balance.

but as for difficult in handling I think managing the excess weight of RB4 pose some challenge on fast flowing track like aston.

danowat

5th May 2006, 10:44

I'd disagree. The RB4 can be set up to be perfectly neutral on the throttle while the FXO requires more throttle control. If the lap times were down to how easy the cars are to drive, the RB4 would come out on top. Not only is the FXO 5km/h faster on the straights, it also has more grip, giving it the upper hand in (fast) corners.

No, because the RB4 will always have a penalty due to its drivetrain, I don't think the RB4 is inherently "easier" to drive.

Looking at the specs, either the XRT needs to be made lighter, which then will make it faster than the RB4, or the FXO needs to be made (unrealistically) heavier.

Car balancing is a hard thing to accomplish, and there is obviously a reason why they are like this, I doubt its down to poor playtesting, I would say its by design.

Dan,

Fetzo

5th May 2006, 12:01

i don't get why it would be unrealistic if the fxo was as heavy as the xrt.

Vain

5th May 2006, 12:09

Does the FXO still have the widest tyres of all tbo-cars? If so, you've got something to balance.

Vain

danowat

5th May 2006, 12:14

This is one of the problems with "fake" cars, if the cars were all real-life cars then there would be no leg to stand on for balancing :)

Dan,

Blowtus

5th May 2006, 12:34

they could very easily be 'production class' parity modified cars. having parity amongst a purly racing (ie, not building and racing) class makes sense from every perspective...

SamH

5th May 2006, 12:41

The thread launched on GTR classes, and somehow got moved to TBO and/or elsewhere.
[EDIT] Missed TBO in the title. Sorry! [EDIT2] I think I applied sunblock to my brain instead of my skin.. TBO it is.. I don't drive that class.. so GTR....[/Edits]

To the OP: I was racing GTRs last night and observing differences in a limited way.

Before the patch, I was always driving the FXR because, if all else failed, I could hope the FZR in front's tires wouldn't hold out to the end of the race. That made them more "catchable" because in the 7th or 8th lap on Aston Historic, they'd turn into shopping carts. This would happen almost always, except where the FZR driver was exceptionally skilled and could drive fast without frying tires. In THOSE circumstances, I always felt that he DESERVED to beat me (by making the tires survive, he achieved something I couldn't).

I'm afraid to say that on patch U I'm now an FZR driver, and no longer even look at the FXR. I think as more people realise they can make the FZR survive on one set of tires, they'll move over too. I'm now 2 seconds per lap faster in the FZR than I am in the FXR, instead of pre-patch being 3 seconds faster in the FXR than in the FZR (tire watching).. a net shift of 5 seconds to the FZR's benefit.

It would be NICE to see the FZR and FXR evenly matched.. the way you drive each is different, which makes for good viewing when they're head-to-head. With the exception of South City Long, I think the FZR definitely has the advantage. On SO Long, tho, the FXR is still king IMO.

auch_enne

5th May 2006, 12:42

Weight adding is not always the solution IMHO, add some weight in your lx4 tank it the car handles alot better... weight distribution allong the car body has a great effect on handeling.. thus just simply adding weight could actually make a car easyer to control and faster trough and out of turns..

I'm not sure what needs to be done to the TBO class for the cars to be similar on the long run. (balancing is not just a WR/1 lap thing IMHO, but tire/fuel usage should also be taken in to account, the GTR class and endu leagues clearly show this).

guybrush

5th May 2006, 13:11

maby the fxo needs a little more tirewear, it still a ff so fronttires are over used. so brake and cornering and speeding up should hurt the tires more.

i believe in touringcar championships ff cars could be something like 50 kilogram lighter for there inferior drivetrain.

its in the Super 2000 Technical Regulations of the btcc

Front-wheel drive cars must weigh a minimum of 1110kg, rear-wheel drive car a minimum of 1140kg

Resound

5th May 2006, 13:36

I'd say bring the tyre grip back on par with the other TBOs and shift the weight bias forwards with the FXO and for the FZR...it's got MORE torque than the turbo cars! Bring that back to par and maybe make it a good bit peakier. An engine that revs to 9000rpm should be a bit piggish down low, even with VVT

Cue-Ball

5th May 2006, 15:20

I think that the whole idea of evening out the classes needs to be given up on. The only way they'll ever be even is if every car is exactly the same (other than looks). If you think that such-and-such car is a ringer, and the other cars don't stand a chance....don't drive those other cars! Nobody is forcing you to drive them. So, in the end, the only reason to want the classes to be even is because you like the car that's slower. Either learn to like the faster car, or accept the fact that the car you like is a bit slower, but easier to drive.

I'd rather see LFS add race ballast. That way the racing will be fair no matter what cars are being driven.

Cue-Ball

5th May 2006, 16:09

The "don't drive the slower cars" argument is a bit silly. What's the point in having cars that nobody drives?
It seems like everyone wants to even out the classes purely to have different looking cars on the track. What's the point of having multiple cars if they're all the same in the end?

The cars will NEVER be even on all tracks under all circumstances. Attempting to make them so is a fools errand. I agree with you, that having cars nobody drives is foolish. Frankly, instead of trying to make the cars all run even, i'd rather see each car with it's own specialty. Instead of making the XR GTR and the FZ GTR run with the FXO GTR, make the FXO more of a rally car, the FZ more of a sprint car (quick on short races, but hard on tires), and the XR more of an endurance car (easier on tires and fuel, but not as fast). Then, pick the right tool for the job.

If the devs are going to spend time and resources making different cars, then make them DIFFERENT. I'd much rather see 15 cars, all of different classes, than 30 cars that all run exactly even.

Breizh

5th May 2006, 16:27

Ballast.
Server side ballast would allow case-by-case track/car combination balancing.
Servers with badly set ballast would get no traffic.

JJ72

5th May 2006, 16:30

JJ72

5th May 2006, 16:32

just inject some common sense now, nobody is asking the cars to be completely even , that's impossible, we're just aiming to bring the gap down to a more acceptable level.

for me a difference about 3 to 4 tenths is very acceptable

RaVeR

5th May 2006, 16:37

I think the fxr needs a little more top end grunt and it will be fine :thumb::nod:

Cue-Ball

5th May 2006, 16:42

what's the difference between adding ballast and evening the cars out - either way you are trying to be competitive in the car you like. :shrug:

no the GT turbo ain't easier to drive.The difference is that adding ballast actually WORKS. Even if all the cars were exactly the same, or even if everyone was running the same car, without ballast there's no way to even out the field and prevent the best driver from winning every single race in a series.

Cue-Ball

5th May 2006, 16:46

In the case of the TBOs, they wouldn't be the same - there's three different drivetrains there. The GTRs wouldn't all be the same either with the different engine placements and one AWD. I don't mean the same layout. I mean running the same times around the track. There's no good reason to make the cars have different layouts if they don't have the inherent advantages that they do in real life.

I don't really drive the GTRs, but regarding the TBOs: I just don't like driving the FXO, which means I don't race the TBOs. The RB4 has the advantage on rally-x circuits, but there are only three of those, and the XRT has no advantage anywhere.Precisely the reason to abandon the idea of evening out the cars. Make the AWD car great on the rally tracks, make the FWD car lighter and faster down the straights, and make the RWD car easiest on the tires and fastest in the corners (it should be purely by the fact that it's RWD).

JJ72

5th May 2006, 16:54

The difference is that adding ballast actually WORKS. Even if all the cars were exactly the same, or even if everyone was running the same car, without ballast there's no way to even out the field and prevent the best driver from winning every single race in a series.

that's of another subject matter then, though personally I think it's the point of racing that the best driver does win.

JJ72

5th May 2006, 16:56

Precisely the reason to abandon the idea of evening out the cars. Make the AWD car great on the rally tracks, make the FWD car lighter and faster down the straights, and make the RWD car easiest on the tires and fastest in the corners (it should be purely by the fact that it's RWD).

well as the FWD is now faster in the corners I think you do agree it is sensible to slow it down (hence evening out the cars to some extent)

Hallen

5th May 2006, 17:21

My problem with it is that I can drive a good line, not make any mistakes in the XRT, and have a FXO in front of me that slides big time through the corner and takes a poor line, and I can't catch them. They power out of the corner and walk away.
So, not only is it "easier" to drive, but good driving skills compared to poor, does not even out the situation. If one car is driven poorly, another car in the class that is driven very well should be able to beat the poorly driven car. It seems to not be the case right now.

Now, having said that, it could just come down to setups, but I don't think so.

I don't like the FWD cars as much as the RWD cars. I prefer to drive the RWD, but the way it is now, if I want any hope of winning I have to drive the FWD car (in the TBO class).

fangio86

5th May 2006, 17:45

i been reading all post, and i have a feeling. i think that people like Dan, likes FXO and likes to win easy so they dont really have a problem with the TBO, coz if u are serius, u cant say that easly driving makes 2 secs around of diference in a WR.

Personally im racing TBO championship, (LFSLA.NET) in latin-america, the 3 cars are aviable to chose, but FXO ll use passanger (front passanger).

we are more than 40 racers in the league, and guess what.... 4 xrt and 3 RB4. (remember, FXO is goint with passanger). Im XRT driver, im fighting the 4th place in the champ, but the diference is: my best place is 4th, and i`v beated 2 WR`s INRACE!, and all races i go about 2 - 3 dec of WR (best lap). I never had a pole or faster lap, pass a FXO is almost impossible and any mistakes is 3x expensive in XRT, i never crash or go to grass bad in the races and still cant get a podium.
My point is, i allways race my LOVELY RWD but i already know than i cant win the races, being some of the fasters in that track/car and racing against cars with passanger.
My tires die faster, my fuel usage is equal than FXO+passanger, my damage and mistakes are expensive (in time terms).

I hope u get the point, is the way to proof that TBO is unbalanced

here u have the championship data: http://www.igesa.com.ar/admlfs/consultacamp.asp?camp_id=21

i really want a more balanced TBO, wider tires, weight, and less effective FWD system could help, and maybe FIX the differentials problem, be pulled to use locked on XRT is baaaaaaaaad.

****EDIT****
i forgot to say: in last date of championship PB`s where:
FXO+Passanger best time: 1:52:32
XRT Best time: 1:53:37 - XRT WR: 1:53:08

¿u still think that 8k makes a difference?

cya

Carlos H Wrobel

5th May 2006, 18:17

It seems like everyone wants to even out the classes purely to have different looking cars on the track. What's the point of having multiple cars if they're all the same in the end?

duh... coz is better for OUR RACES?!

thisnameistaken already said, they arent the SAME!

Some people like to drive the FXO, some people like to drive the XRT and some people like to drive the RB4! On our league we was close to just delete the FXO from the champ, but to dont mess up with the drivers who like to drive the FXO, we just added the passenger...

The cars will NEVER be even on all tracks under all circumstances. Attempting to make them so is a fools errand. I agree with you, that having cars nobody drives is foolish. Frankly, instead of trying to make the cars all run even, i'd rather see each car with it's own specialty. Instead of making the XR GTR and the FZ GTR run with the FXO GTR, make the FXO more of a rally car, the FZ more of a sprint car (quick on short races, but hard on tires), and the XR more of an endurance car (easier on tires and fuel, but not as fast). Then, pick the right tool for the job.

We dont need the cars perfectly even on all tracks, but:

the FXO gtr dun race rally, gets owned on almost all tracks by other 2 cars

the XRR loose on sprint and long races

FZR is a lot faster on sprint and its faster on long races

whats the point????

OMG, its too hard to see?

Bob Smith

7th May 2006, 17:55

and the RB4 will always be the slowest due to its drivetrain.
Easily solved by giving it more power at the engine, thus after losses it could be equal. ATM it has less power than the GTT to start with, and weighs more, so it's on a loser from the word go.

Hoellsen

7th May 2006, 18:09

The cars will NEVER be even on all tracks under all circumstances. Attempting to make them so is a fools errand.

Correct. And that is quite a nice feat, actually. But right now, we have the FXO in TBO and the FZR in GTR that are the best car on all tracks under all circumstances. And that is what is wrong with the balancing and what should be changed. I'd like to see classes where Car 1 is better on track A, yet Car 2 is better on Track B.

NaCH

7th May 2006, 19:04

hEY! I was readying the entire thread... and I would say that Im 100% with you Carlos..

Btw I raced the Kyto 24h, total of 9 hs on the wheel :pillepall , in a FXR (Team LFSLA.NET)and the FZR were almost 4 secs faster.. imposible to catch.. even for the XRR.
The fuel consumption that was the weak point in the FZR now is not. The same goes to the tyres.

I also race in the same TBO league as Fangio (LFSLA.NET) with the XRT and is almost imposible to win against a FXO with a passanger.
In the Q patch at least I can speculate that the FXO tyres wont last long. But now.. this is gone.

I do like the patch and the new tyres physics, but still the cars are uneven.

Bye!

GT Touring

7th May 2006, 19:09

while i love the XRR, and the FXR (the fxr being easy to drive through the corners more than any and throttle early) it is unbelievable that the FZR after 3 laps bests the other 2 cars by2-3 seconds without my trying. (i was lapping and comparing) the XRR can be tremendously fast, and it is a great car to drive, perhaps it needs a little boost in peak power? or light ness?
the 4wd GTR is superb but again- how can it match or near a lap time to the FZR? should the FZR retain the same width tyres of the FZ50 or is that too handicapping? or should the other GT's get more power (they are turbo after all)
the torque and power curves in the FZR are heaven though- it can pull you out of any wring gear in a bad corner and you can still make up for it. hmmm

spankmeyer

7th May 2006, 20:48

Let's see, we have given much feedback since the first alpha release about the imbalance subject, so hopefully the devs give a rougher tweaking in the next batch of patches.
It's fairly obvious that people who do enjoy driving FZR and FXO are not happy when their cheesy advantage is at stake, but you gotta do sacrifices for the greater good = better in-class car balance.

Rtsbasic

7th May 2006, 23:13

In TBO, the FXO is a lot faster for sure - and easier to drive (I let a friend whose never raced LFS before loose in the FXO on AS NAT, within 1 race he was competitive enough to claim 7th out of 20-odd racers, tried the same with XTT, he didn't finish the race because it takes more pratice to go fast consitantly). But at the min, when you do good with the RB4 or XTT, you have something to be proud of :)

It would be nice if the FXO had a little less grip up front..I have trouble beliving that IRL you can accelerate as hard out of a corner as the FXO can. Of course the only real cars I've pushed up to and beyond their limits haven't been quite as powerful or race-tuned so I don't know if its realistic.

Ball Bearing Turbo

8th May 2006, 01:44

One thing that would REALLY HELP the balance of the GTRs, is if the boost modelling in LFS in general was remotely realistic. See this thread for more:
http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=4324&highlight=boost+modelling+questions

Not having to wait ridiculous amounts of time for either GTR turbo car to build boost would make a sizeable difference to their competitiveness.... This is the truth.

NotAnIllusion

8th May 2006, 01:51

Ball Bearing Turbo

8th May 2006, 04:19

Also, I recently watched a couple of Tooheys 1000 (Bathurst) vids posted elsewhere and unless the turbo-o-meters on those cars didn't go anywhere near the bottom left at all, they took bloody ages to go completely off the boost (which would also mean it's faster to get back to full boost too).

Could you post those vids? Boost is usually dumped VERY fast at zero throttle, but most boost gauges have the vacuum side included as well (LFS Doesnt, and should.... Hint hint.) which affects what you're seeing. THere needs to be no boost when it's not needed or bad things happen, so IMO LFS does that part right. It's just this whole "positive feedback" effect that's backwards in LFS.. Bah, don't get me going.

96 GTS

8th May 2006, 04:38

Could you post those vids? Boost is usually dumped VERY fast at zero throttle, but most boost gauges have the vacuum side included as well (LFS Doesnt, and should.... Hint hint.) which affects what you're seeing. THere needs to be no boost when it's not needed or bad things happen, so IMO LFS does that part right. It's just this whole "positive feedback" effect that's backwards in LFS.. Bah, don't get me going.
I'm guessing those cars had and Anti-Lag system fitted to maintain boost during shifts.

Blowtus

8th May 2006, 05:06

yup, or the drivers were not fully lifting. no other way for any half working system to do that that I'm aware of...

Ball Bearing Turbo

8th May 2006, 05:23

I'm guessing those cars had and Anti-Lag system fitted to maintain boost during shifts.
Good point... There are a variety of systems that do that but I didn't think GTR Cars did that for some reason. I could be out to lunch though.

operator0

8th May 2006, 07:04

In terms of the GTRs, I can agree with you for the most part, although it seems a shame that the XRR would still see very little use apart from in the odd organised endurance event.

I've got over 5000 laps in the XRR. There's a few more of us that race the XRR. Chrinkler, CWMAX and a few others I've forgotten. We don't have problems winning our fair share of races. That being said, I'll admit that the XRR isn't quite as capable as the FZR, but it's so close as to not be a major problem. The TBO class on the other hand....

spankmeyer

8th May 2006, 07:25

I've got over 5000 laps in the XRR. There's a few more of us that race the XRR. Chrinkler, CWMAX and a few others I've forgotten. We don't have problems winning our fair share of races. That being said, I'll admit that the XRR isn't quite as capable as the FZR, but it's so close as to not be a major problem. The TBO class on the other hand....
The silliest thing is, personally, I wouldn't have a problem with FZR and FXO being the fastest cars in their classes if they were hardest to control too. But at the moment FXO is an unspinnable car with cruise control set on 'victory'. GTR class... FXR is the easiest but slowest, XRR hardest and has pretty horrible turbo spool handicap, thus leaving FZR untouchable.

Hoellsen

8th May 2006, 07:48

That being said, I'll admit that the XRR isn't quite as capable as the FZR, but it's so close as to not be a major problem.

Might be that way in the odd public race. In real competition, it doesn't stand a chance.

Carlos H Wrobel

8th May 2006, 15:26

Might be that way in the odd public race. In real competition, it doesn't stand a chance.

true

BWX232

8th May 2006, 17:10

Make the XRR faster for crying out loud. :(

NaCH

8th May 2006, 22:13

I've got over 5000 laps in the XRR. There's a few more of us that race the XRR. Chrinkler, CWMAX and a few others I've forgotten. We don't have problems winning our fair share of races. That being said, I'll admit that the XRR isn't quite as capable as the FZR, but it's so close as to not be a major problem.

Check this link pls.

http://24h.lfs-tracker.de/index.html

Thats the official Standings of the Kyoto 24h ... check the first 6 cars.
Btw check the fastest lap the XRR drivers and the FZR ....

Cue-Ball

8th May 2006, 23:00

Check this link pls.

http://24h.lfs-tracker.de/index.html

Thats the official Standings of the Kyoto 24h ... check the first 6 cars.
Btw check the fastest lap the XRR drivers and the FZR ....While interesting, that doesn't really prove much. There is an *eleven lap* difference between the 1st and 7th place car, all of which are FZRs. So, you can't say that the FZR is far and away better unless the FZRs all finished together, then the XRRs all finished several laps down. While I do agree that the FZR is the "best" GTR car overall, the results of one race at one track are not statistically significant to prove a point.

I'd be interested in knowing how many stops each car made, how many sets of tires each required, how much fuel each used, etc.

I still maintain that the best 'solution' to this supposed problem is to make the cars more different, not more similar.

tinvek

8th May 2006, 23:08

also you need to be a bit more specific about when you want it to be faster

over 1 lap, 20 laps, 2 hours ?

at the end of day a car which is easy to drive can be worth more to you than a car that is fast but "exciting"

Mogar

9th May 2006, 00:47

Well, the main problem I think is that an above average driver can drive with FZR very close to the XRR WR times during a race. So, a driver on a XRR would need to use qualify setups in order to be competitive, and we all know that it's impossible to race with qualify setups.

So, not only XRR drivers will drive a slower car, but a much slower. You need to be on par with WR times in order to be competitive with an just above average driver on FZR.

While I agree that there should be differences between cars, I think that no car should be faster in all tracks as it happens today. It would be more interesting if XRR was faster on, let's say, tracks with long straights, giving it some more horsepower in order to be faster on long straights. Right now, it's not only just as fast as FZR as it lags behind a lot on corner exits, and it's not that faster on corners (if it's faster at all).

spankmeyer

9th May 2006, 06:39

Went online last nite for some GTR action and my Gawd --- didn't remember the situation was this bad. Below is the typical screenplay:

1) Start... FZRs take a big lead every time despite XRR starting from pole. Kind of demoralizing, because XRR driver always ends up in the middle of the pack where there is much higher risk to get wrecked out in T1.
2) T1... Pretty even, thanks to everybody having cold tyres.
3) First slow corner... FZR just smokes XRR when exiting corner. Nada chance to even catch their slipstream.
4) Rest of the track... Just keep looking those mirrors and block, cover and block some more in order to keep your position.

And that's about it, basically. Repeat for number of laps. :shrug:

Hoellsen

9th May 2006, 06:59

I'd be interested in knowing how many stops each car made, how many sets of tires each required, how much fuel each used, etc.

If you had taken a closer look, you'd have seen the number of pitstops. The relevant numbers are that of the 2nd and 6th placed FZR: as little as the best XRR did. I know of the 2nd place FZR that while they did take fresh tires every time (R2s, mind you), they also ran a full tank each time. The XRR might be capable of running longer on one tank, but R2s afaik don't last the full tank on the XRR and R3s might last, but are another second slower than the R2s. So even if you ran the full tank, you'd be beaten on that distance by a one-stopping FZR.

Another stat: In MoE we had a whopping 3 or 4 FZRs, 3 FXRs iirc and the rest was XRRs. Now after the patch we got a signup of 26 cars so far, 2 FXRs (no real change), 4 XRRs (one is in doubt due to a driver injury) and the rest is FZRs. The XRR in doubt and one of the FXRs was only entered because I specifically asked that team to enter an XRR for comparison reasons because I knew they had some of the fastest XRR drivers out there. They were so kind to also enter an FXR.

I bet the 4 XRRs will have a hard time qualifying on the first grid for the 4h and that is not the way it should be. Period.

-wes-

9th May 2006, 15:40

1) Start... FZRs take a big lead every time despite XRR starting from pole. Kind of demoralizing, because XRR driver always ends up in the middle of the pack where there is much higher risk to get wrecked out in T1.
2) T1... Pretty even, thanks to everybody having cold tyres.
3) First slow corner... FZR just smokes XRR when exiting corner. Nada chance to even catch their slipstream.

Story of my lfs life, and yet I cant stop driving the lumbering beast.

Each car should be faster than the others at some of the tracks, I like the idea of the xrr being the speed king with the fzr good at mid-high speed twisty bits.
The fxr is left with short tight tracks where acceleration matters.

After a year of driving my heart out just to be past by a stream of fzrs Im thinking of giving in. And going over to the fzr. :weeping:

Rappa Z

29th August 2006, 19:29

i was just on a server, 1 of the 20 cars was a FXR. You ask about the other 19? They were all a FZR.

Spinjack

29th August 2006, 20:05

Each car should be faster than the others at some of the tracks, I like the idea of the xrr being the speed king with the fzr good at mid-high speed twisty bits.
The fxr is left with short tight tracks where acceleration matters.

This is the way is should be, though it appears that the FZR dominates on all tracks.

XRR Rules!!! :headbang:

silent_wind

29th August 2006, 23:56

im a big fan of the XRT, and it f**** pisses me off to have a ridiculously fast FXO racing with me , plus almost all races are full of that FXO's ! it sucks

Gabkicks

30th August 2006, 00:45

the FZR is incredibly easy to drive compared to the xrr. i can get 1:42's easily with the FZR but it takes alot of work from me to get into the 1:42's with the XRR.

Racer Y

30th August 2006, 05:01

I can't stand the FXO... I like the FXR though. and yeah i've been passed by
FZR users like I was sitting still. I actually just recently started using the FZR.
It kinda ticks me off that with just starting to use it, I'm faster with it than the other two cars.

With TBO class... I wish they'd include the LX-4 and I dunno... maybe just bump the give the RB-4 some more horse power I realize the added weight from the drivetrain should keep it a little slower than the other two, but THAT slow???
But yeah, those two classes are a bit mismatched and could stand some adjusting.

dawesdust_12

30th August 2006, 05:04

the LX4 is actually a good fit to the TBO class, I don't understand why it isn't in there, if you look at lap times, its faster, but much harder to control. the LX4 and the UF1 are the only road cars that have no class, the LX4 could be included, and the UF1 can't really be added to any class.

EDIT: Actually depending on track LX4 and FXO are staggering to be first, so... LX4 --> TBO?!!

marsaz

30th August 2006, 07:12

XRR Power!! o// :D
I love to drive XRR against other GTRs because the cars aren't equal.. And they should never be equal, not in the way they are now tho as the FZR is the fastest in every situation.
It's quite fun to beat FZR with XRR when you know that your car is way slower. But that only happens when you fight a driver with way lower skill.

It is really annoying on the slow corners as FZR blasts away and you are sitting still waiting for that turbo to start spinning:(

Becky Rose

30th August 2006, 07:31

before the patch some leagues had the fxo put a passenger into the car and they were still faster. i think it's obvious that 8kg won't do the magic
Even I wouldn't diet that much! It's 80kg :). You need two in the FXO to bring it down to RB4/XRT level really, although it depends on what track you use to balance them.

The TBO class does need desperate balancing, and the devs are lucky not to take more criticism for this. It is one thing to produce a game that's a pure simulation, and indeed to say that the game is in development, but... It is still allegedly a game, they want money for it, and therefore we should expect gameplay.

The imbalance in the TBO class is severe to the point where, as a TBO league organiser myself, the rules have ended up more complex than trying to build a mental picture of a plate of spagettie. I really do think that car balance is something the devs should spend a little more time on.

I also feel that one of their higher priorities (after solving the cheating) should be an introduction of a success ballast system, an extra slider in the info button panel of the setup screen and a few new command lines so that admins can apply a minimum ballast level to drivers on the server on an individual basis, and perhaps also on a more global 'car selected' basis. This at least would allow the players to rebalance things as we go along.

I understand that balancing the cars is hard, but the current situation with the TBO's is too extreme it's actually quite rediculous.
It may be a sim, but it still needs gameplay.

Flotch

30th August 2006, 07:37

there is no much trouble with the turbo, you just have to accelerate sooner. The big advantage of the FZR is part of the car's structure (more weight on the driving wheel), but more part of having wider tires at the rear and same width tire at the front as the 2 other GTR, resulting in giving it better grip overall (braking, cornering, traction)...add to this hte NA engine wich have a really good response to the gaz, and there you go, you have the better car :thumb: ...
Compared to XRR, the FXR is still a bit too slow, but not too much.
RB4 and XRT are quite competitive, especially when the problem with the diferential/LSD will be solve, I guess like this they can be quite similar overall in therm of laptime...For the FXO, everyone understand that his tires are way too wide to compete the 2 others...even on blackwood it cruches the very light LX4 :D

travbrad

30th August 2006, 10:19

I think the FXO should be changed, but all the others are relatively close. I just dont see why a FWD car of the same "class" would be faster, that doesn't really make sense to me.

Alles

30th August 2006, 10:55

the way i see XRR and FZR is like this:

1. Traction: for sure FZR is better here. For example when accelerating out of the turn (aston national 1st turn after split), if XRR is like 1s ahead and someone with FZR comes from behind he reduces the gap by almost 0,5s and by the end of the straight he allready passed him or he does that just before 180° turn.

2. Braking: FZR is again better. For example FZR can brake about 20-30m later than XRR and can still keep the line and not loosing rear. With XRR thats almost not possible waven if you use Locked-diff (now imagine that with LSD...). As soon as XRR looses turbo when braking it looses rear end, and if you want to maintain revs by shifting down fast u usually loose it abit in 2nd gear resoulting to miss the line.

it would sure be nice to see FZR making min. about 1:40,9 or XRR and FXR 1:40,low

Funnybear

30th August 2006, 11:08

In each class you have examples of different layout cars. The GT class has a rear engined, RWD, NA car; A Turboed, front engined, RWD car and a 4WD, front engined car. What you see on the track is a fair representation of how these different layouts effect the handling of a car.

What might be useful as well as a competition ballast system is if and when we get engine fettling then league races can set BHP limits and turbo popoffs etc. This would give competitions more 'levelling' options. But that would need to be either competition rules or server side rules.

But at the moment the cars are what the cars are. I would like to see an engine management system so that the XRR could increase it's boost etc but introduce this and where do you stop?

But the way the cars are themselves is a great leveller. So some of your league races are becoming one make series. Is that such a bad thing? It's certainly very reflective of RL. It alos means that you have closer more competative racing so what are you worried about? I for one would never drive the XRR properly because the engine is in the wrong place. The FZR for me is the closest there is to a true mid engined sports car so thats the car I drive.

I really see no real issue here. It can be frustrating sometimes if you are lagging behind the FXO's in your XR's but i find that more of a challenge to get my setup right. I know the XRR can be setup to be very close to the FZR and I have had some seriously close races against XRR's. Their corner entry speed really makes a dent in the FZR's exit advantage. I would even put myself above the parapet and say that if more people learned how to setup these cars to their driving style and to take advantage of any car characturistics then that would level the field too . . . .

spankmeyer

30th August 2006, 11:15

Alles

30th August 2006, 12:29

@Funnybear's last paragraph
That's a nice thought and rational thinking, but the gap is just too big at the moment, there's no way around it. Two equal-skilled drivers, one in FZR and one in XRR, will not finish anywhere close unless one makes a mistake. And making mistakes with XRR is a lot easier than messing up with FZR. :shrug:
i agree with you totaly. i can compete in XRR agains the guys that are in FZR making low 1:41 times. but if there comes someone like Biernot that takes FZR i dont have a slightest chance of eaven trailing by 15s in 10 lap race on aston national. So if cars would be leveled to a certain track it should be aston national or any aston except for cadet which there is not souch difference.

Hyperactive

30th August 2006, 13:16

Both XRR and FZR need different approach. I usually drive both and it strikes me quite odd that after I've drive a whole night (tens of races) with the XRR, I can do better times after few laps in FZR. It is just lot faster, period.

We need an rwd NA mid-engine GTR so that we can start complaining how slow the FZR is against it :p

Spinjack

30th August 2006, 14:56

It would be nice to here from the Dev's what they had in mind for these cars.

There are a lot of very intelligent "guesses" in this thread, but knowing for sure might answer a lot of questions. For example; based upon some of the comments in this tread, it sounds like the XRR might have been intented to be a bit more tricky to setup but once set up properly was a fast car. :shrug:

Some feedback from LFS would be good, in any case.

Hoellsen

30th August 2006, 17:21

I know the XRR can be setup to be very close to the FZR

Wrong. Plain and simple. Take a look at league racing.

Gabkicks

30th August 2006, 17:27

Vain

30th August 2006, 17:31

duke_toaster

30th August 2006, 17:35

Primoz

30th August 2006, 18:25

Becky Rose

30th August 2006, 18:41

All these bloody abbreviations, I have an improvement suggestion: Let's give the cars names, dammit!

Fischfix

30th August 2006, 18:45

thats a point, but not making that much wishes to santa woudl be something like:

XRR and FZR (in one group, minor adjustments)
FXR (my favorite) and RBR (in another group because of 4WD)

Fischfix

30th August 2006, 18:49

All these bloody abbreviations, I have an improvement suggestion: Let's give the cars names, dammit!

YOU SPEAK OUT OF MY HEART BECKY! They could do a small competition for each car....

my suggestions:
FXR: Grinder 4000 S
FZR: Swoosh MK1
XRR: Burner 924

Becky Rose

30th August 2006, 19:17

OK let's stick to abbreviations then.

Hyperactive

30th August 2006, 19:24

@Setting up XRR tp beat FZR:
It's rather the other way around. The FZR can be set up to be very close to the XRR, but that'd be stupid to deliberately slow down your own car, by f.e. using a lot too short gearatios.

LFS needs balancing. The GTR class is a joke. The FXO is a joke. Change it. Now. Better yesterday. It should have been done months ago.
By the way I love battles of RB4 vs XRT and RAC vs FZ5. Those are well balanced and each car is superior on it's area.

Vain

Well, looking back it took almost a year to cure that high nose bug. I don't see the balancing of any classes coming any soon :shrug:

The FXO for example is so fast that I see no reason to drive the other 2 unless FXO is disallowed. The XRR is competetive on random online races, but only if the race is a bit longer and there are no fast and steady FZR drivers around. Otherwise I'm toast in the XRR...

But he LRF class feels quite good, though LX6 is the FXO there... EDIT: like it should

AndRand

30th August 2006, 22:59

I don't see the need for evening : the current car class system needs changing as follows.

GTR1: McLaren F1 clone GTR (mid engine, NA, RWD), EB110 clone GTR (mid engine, Turbo, 4WD) and a Lister Storm clone GTR (front engine, NA, RWD).
GTR2: LXR (LX6 based), FZR and Raceabout GTR.
GTR3: XRR, FXR, RBR
GTR4: UFR, XFR, BMW 1 series clone GTR.

This would need more cars I know, but it's the best way to sort it :shrug:
you, sir, are a dreamer...
but i like it, thou i presume no supercars until s3 (thx for layout review ;)), and if any - probably RAR and RBR first.
and indeed, if no new cars or few are planned i ll have still a sig with balancing class - theres no point of having a class with easy to drive dominators.
i can hardly keep up with fzr so theres no fun for me to drive xrr competetively. but i like it in terms of handling more than fzr.

i like the flotch suggestion with tire width - lowering power would have effects on fzrs disadvantage - tire wear.

MoonForce

30th August 2006, 23:12

Personally, the differences in pace within classes doesn't bother me that much. Differences in driver skill are usually a more important factor in determining a race result.

Some of the more skilled drivers (not me) will often opt for the weaker car in a class to challenge themselves.

On the other hand, if you're in a situation where all other drivers are of exactly the same skill,yeah it's a minor annoyance, but just all race the same cars if it bothers you that much. :shrug:

+1

RaVeR

31st August 2006, 00:58

They all have there good and bad points try catching a suicide fxr in south city and westhill in an xxr or fzr still it would be nice for when racing on other tracks for the fxr to have more top speed or just go ahead and put in a gtr version of the rb :shrug::scratchch

BWX232

31st August 2006, 07:22

I'll chime in..

#1 :pillepall
LFS is totally unbalanced.. that is one of the main problems LFS has since it is on-line only racing for the most part.

#2 :pillepall
All the abbreviations are totally ridiculous.. Name the damn things! I raced LFS for a year and I still kept forgetting the short meaningless abbreviations that everything in LFS seems to have.

#2 is just annoying.. :scratchch

#1 is game wrecking. :shrug:

Funnybear

31st August 2006, 09:14

All these bloody abbreviations, I have an improvement suggestion: Let's give the cars names, dammit!

XRR - Madeline.
FXO - Brian.
FZR - Big Bum.

Becky Rose

31st August 2006, 09:23

No no no no no, I hate the abbreviations, but i'll stick to them. I kind of have remembered the names LFS uses, although i'm lost with the GTR's still and LFS World seems to give everything a new name too, but the abbreviations in this thread are just totally out of my depth.

Jamexing

31st August 2006, 10:10

I'm not trying to make this sound hopeless, but the truth is, class balancing is currently neglected and I don't see a change any time soon.:(

Last time I suggested upgrading the powerbands of XR GTT and RB4 and a slight tire upgrade for the RB4, I made 2 intersting observations:

1. Based on votes collected, most agree with my reasonable changes.
2. Some love to shoot me down for criticizing LFS's turbo modelling and SEVERE class balance issues. Some seem to think that the RB4 isn't slow enough! Amazing.

The good news is that most agreed mostly with my proposals, since I've tried hard to make them reasonable and truely balance the TBO class PROPERLY while showcasing the fundamental traits of each chassis and drive configuration.

As for the GTR class, there's one way to massively even out all 3 cars without butchering any one of them:

Matching aero packages. Current aero overly favours rear heavy cars while severely punishing front heavy or relatively mass balanced (XR GTR) cars. It's just too rear biased. If the FXO GTR was given the BF1's aero balance, don't be surprised that things actually start to even out. :)

Funnybear

31st August 2006, 10:30

Thus points could well be very valid. But they are different cars. If you want a fair race then run a single make series.

Yes. The TBO is a slower car and yes the XRR will never get up to speed with the FZR but . . . . . so?

If you want to be competative race an FZR. In real life what car dominates the GT2 classes. Come on, you all know the answer. Every other car is one. Yes, thats it. The Porsche 911. It dominates because it is a good, fast, race car. It's how things are.

And you don't want to be balancing the classes to much now anyway. LFS is far from finished. Once engine management, airo, ground effect and any number of other improvements are implemented then the car attributes will change anyway. You might find that in a few years time that the XRR is the car of choice because of the improvements to the engine makes the XRR the better car to have. Then it will be the FZR drivers that are moaning about how slow the FZR is.

Again, class balancing is wasted effort atm. There is no point untill there is a final product that the cars can be balanced too.

Becky Rose

31st August 2006, 10:42

I disagree Funnybear, whilst I accept LFS is unfinished, at the same time the devs are taking money and giving us a game - but the gameplay is totally messed up to the point where fixing this should be a high priority.

A game without gameplay is a screenshot generator, and that's exactly what Scawen said LFS isn't.

Jamexing

31st August 2006, 10:45

I agree with yopu somewhat Funnybear, though most of my proposals actually require a perfected and relatively finalized version of LFs physics. The aero changes could wait, since aero is cmplicated by nature. But some seroiusly obvious but not THAT complex problems have remained unattended for long enough. In fact, I'll choose realistic turbo modelling and powerbands for all turbo cars over the additon of the BF1, if I had a choice. No real point for inclusing such a massively aero denpendant car with current aero when other issues besides aero desperately need solutions.

Well, at least the BF1 gets our developers something to market with.

RaVeR

31st August 2006, 10:47

Once engine management
where did you hear this :scratchch can't wait to be upping boost then :thumb::nod:

Jamexing

31st August 2006, 10:49

Funnybear

31st August 2006, 10:52

And I will still stand by my single make series point. I'm sure balancing will be addressed but why do it before all attributes have been placed on the cars.

For example. The TBO get balanced but then benefits massivly from any Diff/Clutch/Transmission update. It then outstrips everything. So it needs to be rebalanced.

Untill everything is in place how can you balance the cars effectivily.

Now, saying that. If a ballast system was introduced for competitions and the like then fair enough. Thats server, race rules. Got no beef there.

Its the fundemental changing of a cars attributes just to bring a class into line . . . In real life 4WD is not a track racing standard. Why, because it is slower. The TBO is slower . . . Although in the lower class it is the fastest but that feels right to me . . . . I think.

I dunno. I think whinging over car discrepancies at this stage of development is a bit like saying the house is cold when your still building.

Many more things are to come and the cars will not have a 'final' performance state untill these updates are fully implemented.

Jamexing

31st August 2006, 11:02

4WD slower than 2WD? You must be from the 70's. Last time I checked, a Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution VI outran a Porche Cayman on a twisty road course by 0.3 seconds. The lap times were in the 1:27s. 4WD superiority rears its head even when the car it's on is slightly less powerful and weighs 180lbs more than the MR (mid-engined rear drive) competior.

The real reasons for excluding 4WD form the track is the age old excuese of UNFAIR TECHNOLOGY. Imagine if current F-1 cars could actually USE all their 750hp and not over-rely on TC and aero downforce.

However, I do agree that physics needs finalizing before the really MAJOR changes(sucha as aero) are applied. For now, the least they could do is solve the more obvious and simpler problems such as powerbands and turbo modelling. Once aero is perfected, THEN we can get real serious about class balance. But for now, realistic turbo modelling and powerbands are the least they could do for now. It's just been neglected WAY too long.

Becky Rose

31st August 2006, 11:12

Untill everything is in place how can you balance the cars effectivily.
I do agree generally speaking BUT, the LFS team are taking their time on this game, nothing is happening quickly, so we're stuck with an imbalanced car class month on month, and from what i've read, it's been this way since the beginning a few years back.

Sure they dont want to have to repeat work, but it does not take long to make a few changes to the FXO, 20 minutes work, then include that in the next compatable patch - then let the community say "nah you took too much off, up it a little again for the next patch please".

Instead what we have is the subject being deffered until later and general silence on the issue, and that is frustrating.

Funnybear

31st August 2006, 11:23

I've just been reading the stats on the Website for the GT cars and to be fair The Devs make no bones about the fact the cars are unbalanced. In fact they positivily embrace it.

The FXO is the beginner GT. It ain't going to win races (Their words)

The XRR is better and faster.

But the FZR is better and faster still.

Having read all that I realised that these cars are designed to be this way. Which harks back to my point that they are different cars. Which is the whole point. The FXO was never meant to be competative as it's a stepping stone to the faster GT's.

Which again leads me too that if you want a fair race go one make. I really don't see the problem in doind that and why this percieved unbalanced car thing is such a contested topic . . .

Jamexing

31st August 2006, 11:26

I do agree generally speaking BUT, the LFS team are taking their time on this game, nothing is happening quickly, so we're stuck with an imbalanced car class month on month, and from what i've read, it's been this way since the beginning a few years back.

Sure they dont want to have to repeat work, but it does not take long to make a few changes to the FXO, 20 minutes work, then include that in the next compatable patch - then let the community say "nah you took too much off, up it a little again for the next patch please".

Instead what we have is the subject being deffered until later and general silence on the issue, and that is frustrating.

Totally agree Becky! I just hope no one tries to shoot us 2 down for for stating and meaning the above statements.

Becky Rose

31st August 2006, 11:29

I've just been reading the stats on the Website for the GT cars and to be fair The Devs make no bones about the fact the cars are unbalanced.
But the majority of the community want these cars to be balanced, regardless of their original design intention.

We want to have multiple car types on track at once, because almost all real world racing has that. We want variety in the pack, is diversity a bad thing?

Blowtus

31st August 2006, 11:33

I do agree generally speaking BUT, the LFS team are taking their time on this game, nothing is happening quickly, so we're stuck with an imbalanced car class month on month, and from what i've read, it's been this way since the beginning a few years back.

Sure they dont want to have to repeat work, but it does not take long to make a few changes to the FXO, 20 minutes work, then include that in the next compatable patch - then let the community say "nah you took too much off, up it a little again for the next patch please".

Instead what we have is the subject being deffered until later and general silence on the issue, and that is frustrating.

I'm sure I've agreed with and said very similar in the past, but I'm going to do it again because I too think it's important and easily fixed.

I agree! :D

Funnybear

31st August 2006, 11:37

No. I think diversity is a wonderful thing.

And I'm sure there are great things in store for the LFS racing community but at the moment the cars are fullfilling their design brief.

We don't know whats coming. Maybe we will get another car, maybe Lord Scawen hears out prayers and that in the next patch there will be an update. Maybe he has a very good reason for holding back and not balancing.

Hell. Who are we to question the maker.

Jakg

31st August 2006, 11:37

We want to have multiple car types on track at once, because almost all real world racing has that. We want variety in the pack, is diversity a bad thing?ok here comes the opinion you DIDN'T ask for

TBO:
FXO - First foray into the class, its FWD, and easy, and should be marginally slower than the other cars
RB4 - It's a good 4WD car, but it's easy, make it average speed (btw - i mean finding the average times for the TBO's, this should hit them)
XRT - RWD with a laggy turbo, hard to get right, so marginally quicker

GTR's:
FXR - It's 4WD, and has a turbo, so it's the easiest to drive, it should lap slowest BUT if you get the throttle control right you could just keep up with an FZR driver of the same skill level
FZR - It's RWD, and NA makes all the power available easily, so make it quick, but not the quickest
XRR - It's RWD and has a turbo (and LOTS of torque), if you can nail the turbo and get past the lag you will be quicker than an FZR, but if you can't keep the boost then you'll be quicker in an FZR

None of the cars are balanced perfectly this way BUT there will be diversity as it takes some neat driving to keep the XRR fastest, and it does give rewards if you can BUT if you can't control it you wont drive it

i just hope that makes sense :shy:

Vain

31st August 2006, 11:53

@Funnybear: It isn't about what the devs want. It's what the majority of the players want. And that's obviously balanced classes. My absolutely best race was me in a FZ5 sandwiched between two RACs at As Nat. In every braking zone the RAC behind me tried to make a pass on me, on every straight I tried to get pass the RAC in front of me before the straight runs out. You just can't have such brilliant races in single-car-races. I had several similarly brilliant races in a FZ5 versus RAC league. Driving well balanced cars against each other increases the value of a race a lot.
So, with balanced cars we can have better races. Period.

And adding 80 kg weight to the FXO is a matter of 5 seconds. It would greatly improve balancing, even though the FXO would still come out slightly on top of the other cars. But it'd be bearable. Then one could go so far to say that the FXO is in the same class as the XRT and RB4.

Vain

Blowtus

31st August 2006, 11:57

Hell. Who are we to question the maker.

Why do you bother coming into this section of the forum...?

Fischfix

31st August 2006, 11:59

if this ends up in "visual" variety, why not having 2 or 3 bodies for the XRR chassis. so we have 2 cars which look different, but feel the same. but this will lead to the endless debate about moding ... i know it ... i know it...:x:x:x

tristancliffe

31st August 2006, 12:08

I assume your references to being shot down are at me, though you never have the courage to actually say so.

I have never shot down your arguments. I quite like some of them. The fact that you think comparing to very different cars, and announcing one as better when it only just won irks me I admit, and your refusual to realise that 4WD is only effective with lots and lots of computer control. As a drivetrain it's not as fast, and you need a computer to sort it all out - not what a real driver really wants.

What I do shoot down is that you KEEP mentioning it over and over again. I can see three threads in the 'New Posts' list where you have mentioned it AGAIN. Going on and on about the same thing won't make Scawen do it any quicker. You've stated your points about balancing and turbo modelling, now just let it be. It doesn't need to be mentioned again for 6 months.

Oh, and a tip. Never ever state your own ideas as interesing. Someone else can refer to them as interesting, but you should never do it yourself.

I like you James - you seem to know your stuff, and you've got a few good ideas about LFS floating about between your ears. But please unstick the record now and again.

Funnybear

31st August 2006, 12:24

Why do you bother coming into this section of the forum...?

Because I feel a have valid and current thoughts and ideas about LFS. And I am offereing an alternative opinion to the current topic.

Why do you come here?

Becky Rose

31st August 2006, 12:30

Because he has to moderate you ;) ... !

Funnybear

31st August 2006, 12:53

Back on topic . . . . .

I noticed reading the patch thread that Scawen obvioulsy has some drivetrain updates to implement. My case in point. He mentioned the FXO specifically saying that it will benefit from a sequential box. Now, whether or not this is true and is a definate implementation, my point about LFS not being finished stands. At this moment in time Scawen has very defined benchmarks to work from. He can add in improvements and physics updates and get tried and trusted results from cars that he knows. Start rebalancing to make things more competative and you loose that base line. He has differnent examples of car construction and they provide valuable resources in themselves. It's entirley possible that Scawen is addressing this, as in some ways you are right, because the customer base is crying out for it. But I feel that it would be counter productive.

I don't see anyone complain that there is only one F1 car, or only one Formula V8 or only one Formula Ford. Surely these should have different chassis, different engines. But what would happen if you placed a Ferrari-esk and a Minardi-esk car into the F1 series. Would you still be asking for balancing? I wouldn't have thought so. But by your arguements the Minardi should be balanced to be competative with the Ferrari.

The cars are what the cars are. I am sure that by the time LFS comes to final release the cars will be more than adequatly balanced.

Becky Rose

31st August 2006, 13:30

If Minardi, or more correctly, Torro Rosso, where implemented into the game i'd like to see it correctly balanced beind the BMW/Sauber in performance, but this is a case where we are dealing with real cars.

The TBO class are all fake cars, in the same class, and they're just crying out to be raced together on a level playing field.

If we had multiple F1 marques then it would go without saying the Renault's and Ferrari's should beat the Torro Rosso's and the Midlands.

Funnybear

31st August 2006, 13:37

But it doesn't go without saying that the FZR is the fastest car? And that the FXO just can't cut the mustard?

I know I'm being slighty obstreperous. I too would love to see close racing from a mixed field. But I just don't see the benefit of making adjustements when we just don't know what is coming up in the future.

You could be right. Prehaps balancing is needed but without a Decree Absolute from the Holy Trinity I can't see why it is such a contested topic at this point in development.

It's just not something I see as hugly beneficial at this moment in time.

Becky Rose

31st August 2006, 13:43

It'd be hugely beneficial, because it's all about gameplay. What is a game without gameplay?

And it'd be very easy to do too, if they made gradual changes each patch in response to community consideration they wouldn't even need to playtest any changes. Just knock off a bit of performance here (by whatever means), add some there...

danowat

31st August 2006, 13:46

Why?, just is the question rolling round my head.

Why would there be any point in having 3 visually different cars, that all perform in a similar manner?.

Car "balancing" should'nt be done by the devs, it should be done in the server by means of ballast, its fairer that way, more realistic, as in real life no two make of car perform the same way, allows for a fairer field of racing as the driver isnt being penilized for driving a certain car, he is being penelized for being faster than everyone else, IMO, that is the only true way of evening out the car classes.

People say the FXO is too fast, fair enough, maybe it is, but look at the BTCC, the Seat is quite a bit faster than the rest of the field, they don't turn round to Seat and say, "you must restrict your car", they stick ballast on them there-by bringing the racing closer again.

Ballast is the way to go, it allows for a more finer tuning of balancing, can help even out the difference between the top drivers, and those that arent so good, and doesnt mean the devs keep having to tweak the figures, which lest we forget, were changed AGAIN in the previous non-compatible patch.

Dan,

Hyperactive

31st August 2006, 13:54

@Funnybear: It isn't about what the devs want. It's what the majority of the players want.

...

As said by Scawen "decisions made on LFS aren't made by democrasy". In the end it's all about Scavier what is done to LFS and where it is going.

What surprises me the most is the fact that the GTRs and the TBO have never been balanced in proper way. There has always been threads made about it on forums, and still it has always been left out. I don't know if it has been too busy to concentrate on car balancing but current situation give me the impression that they have pretty much nothing about it. If they even could add the damn ballast thing, where servers could set the weights to each car individually, we could forget the car balancing. But who will put passenger on a FXO for online races and lose positions to other FXOs who don't?

About the 4wd deficency. Imho, the RB4 should defenately be the slowest in top speed and corner entry simply because it weighs the most and has biggest drivetrain losses. After all, it isn't a modern awd car. But it is just plain wrong that the RB4 is always seconds slower than the FXO. XRT should be the fastest because it is the hardest and most challenging of them to drive. While they might never be equal in real life, it really does not need to be like that in a sim. The same thing with the GTRs. The XRR/FZR could be just equal fast, and still have different characteristics. Making equal cars doesn't mean making the cars similar.

I bet the next patch will do pretty much nothing on the car balance issue, but enough moaning and whining on the forum and Scavier might change their opinion about it. Hence, I'll moan in every thread concerning this issue, until I see a fix :)

NotAnIllusion

31st August 2006, 13:59

Perhaps one of the reasons why they haven't been balanced for now is that the physics will change. With drivetrain (diff) updates and other stuff the difference between them could yet again be altered. Instead of having to balance them every time there's an incompatible patch, it could be that it will only be done when LFS advances from Alpha, maybe only when "Final" is released.

Funnybear

31st August 2006, 14:03

Yea moaning will really help.

I am sure Lord Scavier is aware of the issue (If there is an issue) and as you so rightly pointed out by saying that this is more a benign Dictatorship he will introduce balancing as and when he see's fit. There could be any number of reasons why he either hasn't done anything or won't do anything.

I for one though am quite happy racing one make series or the like. If I really was uber competative then I would plum for the fastest car in whichever class I was driving. But I'm not, I can still have the best races even if I'm driving the slowest. each car offers me something different and I'm all the more happier for that.

-edit- bugger. Missed my slot . . .

Hyperactive

31st August 2006, 14:05

tristancliffe

31st August 2006, 14:13

If you balance them for 10 lap races (the vast majority) then they won't be balanced for 2 hour races or 24 hour races. If you balance them for 2 or 24 hour races they won't be balance in 10 lap sprints.

I like the idea of server enforced ballast until such time that the physics are way more complete, by which I mean only mild tweaks in any area are likely.

AndRand

31st August 2006, 14:25

At this moment in time Scawen has very defined benchmarks to work from. He can add in improvements and physics updates and get tried and trusted results from cars that he knows. Start rebalancing to make things more competative and you loose that base line. He has differnent examples of car construction and they provide valuable resources in themselves.
come on...
i think theres really no problem for Scavier, certainly less than any other car "manufacturer", to make tests that will show cars' behavior before and after changes.
And i think balancing cars is the same waste of time as making cars that nobody will race online 'cos theyre slower.

I don't see anyone complain that there is only one F1 car, or only one Formula V8 or only one Formula Ford. Surely these should have different chassis, different engines. But what would happen if you placed a Ferrari-esk and a Minardi-esk car into the F1 series. Would you still be asking for balancing? I wouldn't have thought so. But by your arguements the Minardi should be balanced to be competative with the Ferrari.

i am sure that at Renault they are not only asking.

The cars are what the cars are. I am sure that by the time LFS comes to final release the cars will be more than adequatly balanced.

and thats the point - continuos struggle in real races will not be held in lfs after final release.

I like the idea of server enforced ballast until such time that the physics are way more complete, by which I mean only mild tweaks in any area are likely.
i fully agree with that regarding engine managment

Funnybear

31st August 2006, 14:33

I am trying to search LFSW to get som eonline stats for the different classes. Obviously the majority of the community race FZR at AST/NAT. I have been known to circulate that track myself on a occasion. On Astons open corners and long straights the FZR is the better car for the track. But what about the others.

South City is a bumpy, twisty turny enviroment. Racing on that course the XRR can very compitently hold it's own against the FZR and the FXO is also competative there.

Does anyone know or can show that the FZR is the fastest car on every track. As well as showing that the FXO is the slowest. I'm not after hotlaps. I don't think they are usefull in this excersice. But over a season of races with competent drivers racing a mix of vehicles does the arguement for balancing still hold water?

I'm just throwing this out there. I will continue to try and glean the information myself.

Spinjack

31st August 2006, 17:53

Spinjack

31st August 2006, 18:02

Direct from the LFS website (bolding mine):

FXO - The FXO GTR is a great car for somebody just getting used to the extra power offered by the GTR cars or for somebody who just wants to have some fun in the GTR class, but if you want wins and don't like long races you have to move to one of the rear-wheel drive GTR cars.

XRR - Is the XR GT Turbo not man enough for you? Slicks, wings, silly power and an angry face, this car has had the works done to it. Nobody knows what the LFS tuning division did to the turbocharger to get double the power out of the engine, but it works, and we are forever thankful. It likes to eat FXO GTRs for breakfast, so watch out.

FZR - This is what happens when a not-so-sane person looks at the FZ50 and says "Mmm, nice, but could do with a bit more power." 130bhp more to be exact. Like the XR GTR, it was given slicks, downforce, gorgeous looks and lightened, but just ended up better.

Becky Rose

31st August 2006, 18:50

I can't and wont comment on the GTR's, I feel strongly about TBO balance and only play the GTR's from time to time.
Instead of having to balance them every time there's an incompatible patch, it could be that it will only be done when LFS advances from Alpha, maybe only when "Final" is released.

Nobody would mind if the FXO was NOT that well balanced with the XRT, provided it was always the slower of the two. We'd preffer balance, but at the moment the sole purpose of the XRT is to bulk out the size of the initial download...

I dont really care what the website says about the cars, tbh I dont care about marketing proseif there's one thing i've never listened too its marketting/adverts. Call me a communist if you will, but when somebody starts marketting they're either lying or explaining a shortcoming with spin, they're never telling the truth and they're never dealing with the small print.

Spinjack

31st August 2006, 19:17

I dont really care what the website says about the cars, tbh I dont care about marketing proseif there's one thing i've never listened too its marketting/adverts. Call me a communist if you will, but when somebody starts marketting they're either lying or explaining a shortcoming with spin, they're never telling the truth and they're never dealing with the small print.

:biggrinfl

"Its not a bug, its a feature."

Sticky-Micky

31st August 2006, 22:54

intresting thread

i love the FXR and race this the most, i know i am not the fastest, but i do like racing against the FZR`s at Blackwood GP

if you can hook a ride on the back of a FZR on the long straight you can use the 4wd to a decent advantage in places.

i know the FZR is a faster car, but you also need a better driver to control it, why make the FXR faster? its the easy way into the GTR class.

driving the FXR for me is fun, no brainer, the others take a bit more dedication and thought.

Funnybear

1st September 2006, 09:23

I was having a look at LFSW hotlaps (even though I said I wouldn't) and wasa actually surprised to note that the FXR actually holds a few records over the XRR and the although the FZR is faster it's rarely more than a second faster and on a number of track combo's it's less than that.

So whilst the cars do fall into a 'graduated' series the margins are not as large as some people seem to make out they are. In my eyes the margins are close enough to say that they are pretty much perfectly balanced. I'm going of to check the tbo now . . . .

Jakg

1st September 2006, 10:00

from my experience with the TBO's in the STCC, there are SERIOUS imbalances, just look at the times, i was 0.6 of a second quicker than the WR holder in an RB4 with my FXO!

Blowtus

1st September 2006, 10:05

In my eyes the margins are close enough to say that they are pretty much perfectly balanced.

a second of difference and you try to defend the 'balance' of the cars? :pillepall

Funnybear

2nd September 2006, 00:09

Gabkicks

2nd September 2006, 00:15

it would be nice if the fzr was harder to use than the xrr... it is so much easier to drive with the fzr.

Hyperactive

2nd September 2006, 00:17

I was expecting that.

The FZR is the faster car. Scawen even promotes the fact that it is the faster car. But, In the general racing melee that 1 second difference (And we're including the FXO here) effectily boils down to nothing. It means that you can race the FXO competativly against most FZR drivers. If you can't then you know your up against a truly well setup and raced car.

These cars require work to get the best from them. And I stand by my comment that I will point the fingure at the drivers thant he actual cars for any pronounced discrepancy between cars . . . .

No :)

The texts on the liveforspeed.net site are prolly taken from the lfswiki and (the texts should be changed, they aren't up to date and mentioning S1 things certainly makes them even less valid. Rewrite them, Scawen, Vic or Eric,please :)) generally are based on S1 and first S2 versions.

And about FXR and FZR. After 5 first laps in LFS you're faster in FZR than you're in FXR. There is no such thing as deserved victory, if you're driving FZR and beat few FXRs. Sometimes even passing slower FZR drivers in XRR is painful, because the FZR is just faster and easier to drive. All in all, imho, FZR needs defenately the least work to get it competitive against the other 2 :)

Gabkicks

2nd September 2006, 00:41

i think maybe funnybear just likes the advantage the FZR has and doesnt want it to go away:smileypul

STROBE

2nd September 2006, 01:07

Funnybear, your stance on this issue is somewhat tempered by your repeated comparison of an FXO to an FZR. Yes, an FZR is faster than an FXO. I should bloody hope so. An FZR is also far faster than an FXR, which shouldn't always be the case. It should depend on the track.

But with regards to class balancing in general, there are two sides to the issue:

Side one is that LFS isn't finished yet - there are many more features to be introduced to LFS, for example unique aero characteristics, undertrays, tyre compounds, gearboxes, better differentials, etc. All of these can be used to help balance the classes, and as LFS is in a constant state of development, it wouldn't make sense to fiddle with things now when future developments have the potential to radically change everything.

Side two is that although LFS is a WIP, we're playing it and bankrolling the development of it, and thus we expect the gameplay to be maximised in the short term. This means making the extra effort to balance the cars with the current physics package, in order to maximise people's enjoyment of the game as it stands.

I can see the logic behind side one, but have to agree with side two. The class imbalance is spoiling leagues, and even rendering the in-game TBO/LRF/GTR filters useless, as more servers start to run RB4vsXRT (and no FXO), or XRRvsFXR (with no FZR).

The LRF class is so unpopular that it surely can only be considered a failure compared to the other classes. I keep wanting to drive this class to gain some experience in it but can never find any populated servers running it. The RAC, being a real car, is sort of the benchmark, but the FZ5 is a pig to drive and is outclassed by the LX6 even on the higher speed circuits, which surely isn't right. If the more difficult FZ5 can't outpace the easier LX6 on the higher speed circuits, then what's the point in driving it? Same goes for the XRT vs FXO, and XRR vs FZR.

Please Scavier, balance the classes. Pretty please. Spend more time with the beta testers to find the correct values for each car. Surely that's one of the main advantages of having fictitious cars, that you can tweak the values as you wish? We're all bankrolling the development of S2, and people are trying to run leagues but finding them severely compromised by the dominance of particular cars; public servers suffer the same effect with less long-term consequence but more frustration for those that want to drive more than the FZR or FXO.

In the absence of any imminent physics updates, the class imbalance needs fixing in the short term, imho. Just a statement from Scavier regarding their opinion on this would be a most welcome start. But this issue has always dogged LFS to some extent, so I'm not getting my hopes up. But I'd love to be proved wrong...

Hyperactive

2nd September 2006, 02:06

The LRF class is so unpopular that it surely can only be considered a failure compared to the other classes. I keep wanting to drive this class to gain some experience in it but can never find any populated servers running it. The RAC, being a real car, is sort of the benchmark, but the FZ5 is a pig to drive and is outclassed by the LX6 even on the higher speed circuits, which surely isn't right. If the more difficult FZ5 can't outpace the easier LX6 on the higher speed circuits, then what's the point in driving it? Same goes for the XRT vs FXO, and XRR vs FZR.
The LRF class is so unpopular because it is the hardest class of cars to handle, to get grips with. They are tricky, require smooth throttle and steering inputs to be drivable. And it takes more time to get to know their handlings characteristic, as they bite hard when you make a mistake. But this you know already. :) True, the FZ50 is a pig to drive, but it IS fastest on the faster tracks, like the faster Aston configs. Though, it is the heaviest of them all. The real comparison is between the RA and the FZ50 and this is quite equal couple.

Please Scavier, balance the classes. Pretty please. Spend more time with the beta testers to find the correct values for each car. Surely that's one of the main advantages of having fictitious cars, that you can tweak the values as you wish? We're all bankrolling the development of S2, and people are trying to run leagues but finding them severely compromised by the dominance of particular cars; public servers suffer the same effect with less long-term consequence but more frustration for those that want to drive more than the FZR or FXO.

+1. It just makes me wonder was there any effort at all to balance the big GTRs in the latest patch. The FZR just got faster, though the other two (as mentioned few times before in this thread) are close enough for now. But FZR is too fast. On one lap and on 1000 laps. Of course it is hard to make the class equal but if one car is always seconds faster, something is wrong (or then there is nothing wrong :( ).

dawesdust_12

2nd September 2006, 02:15

if the FZR guzzled gas more and wore tires more, in longer races it'd be more equal, but as of now, with the time it gains on the track, pitstops are nothing.

wheel4hummer

2nd September 2006, 02:44

Well, there should be an RBR, LXR, and RAR then.
FXR + (RBR?) + XRR = GT2
FZR + (LXR?) + (RAR?) = GT1

Blowtus

2nd September 2006, 02:44

Jamexing

2nd September 2006, 04:49

Well, I could easily blow away the "average" (aka not so steady and all over the place) FZR driver with the FXR, but for anyone with a FZR as well tuned and driven as my FXR, I might as well throw in the towel. :(

Well, unless he somehow crashes off without crashing me off too. :D

Gabkicks

2nd September 2006, 04:59

did you clear your lfsworld stats:tilt: ?

Jamexing

2nd September 2006, 05:20

Unfortunately, I tend not to race too much online due to connection and lag issues (I'm running cable modem). It gets boring when you're the only guy on a track most of the time. :( It's pointless to finish a race when you're the only guy on track. Besides, I usually end up running alone in a casual manner. The last race I had was FXR vs FXR, though neither of us bothered to finish due to horrid (at least 250ms) lag. :(

I think the real racing could be in the "private" games, though I haven't a clue of their passwords. If anyone here can direct me to the REAL racing action, I'll be very grateful. :)

Gabkicks

2nd September 2006, 06:25

that makes sense. i've seen a few japanese and aussie servers up recently in the past few months. hopefully more people in those areas will start playing lfs.

i am very much so looking forward to the next patch. i heard there will be visual updates and i wonder if there will be any changes to the specifications of the cars.

Blowtus

2nd September 2006, 06:36

Jamexing, check out the following.

Monday Night Racing - http://www.mondaynightracing.com
(40 racers, sprint racing, reverse grid, not so serious)

Australasion League - http://www.australasianleague.com/
(40-70 racers, endurance racing, hotlap qualify, as serious as Aussie's manage to get)

ARSE Forums (Australian Racing Simulation Enthusiasts) - http://arse.norbtech.com/phpBB/

Funnybear

2nd September 2006, 10:10

all of this is likely very valid on public servers - it doesn't hold up for league racing in the slightest.

Thats fair enough, but in league racing people generally know what they are doing and wouldn't be trying to run an FXR anyway.

The cars we got are the cars we got. You balance the cars in what ever way other than a real world solution, ballast etc., then you have destroyed that car. Balancing anuthing won't make you happy because you are never going to be happy. You may as well (as mentioned somewhere up there) give each car the same chassis and engine and just change the body shell like every other piece of crap out there . . .

If you really are so competetative (Which is the only reason you want the cars balanced) then you will be racing the fastest car anyway. I have said that I don't. For me it's a particular challenge to setup the car of my choice to become competative.

To answer some accusations here I started racing the FZR before I knew it was the fastest car out there . . . For me it had the best layout, RWD, Engine at the back. As and when we get a mid engined layout I shall be mainly driving that. But I remember racing Cropsy in his FXR and he could make that car rotate the track excedingly fast. There are XRR xrivers out there that a mockery out of the FZR and are extremly enjoyable to race. I make no bones about it that I am an FZR racer but I won't use that as a reason to go against balancing.

The physical attributes of these cars are as close to the real thing as we are going to see anytime soon and in a way I include the apparent discrepancies in performance as part of the package.

The website is teh official website for LFS. If the gumpf on there says that the classes are the way they are then . . . . . And I'm going over old ground again . . . . . thats the way they are.

Viper93

2nd September 2006, 10:22

I wouldn't necessarily say that the FZR has the best layout, each has different advantages. The FZR just has a smoother powerband give much more leeway on how you use it giving a major advantage over the XRR and FXR turbo cars, more so than there should be.

Ballast wouldn't kill the cars. They would behave just the same way albeit a bit slower. There are real life leagues out there that use this way of balancing very effectively. They even go so far as give the winner an added weight ballast to bring the ranks even closer. I am not totally sure I agree with this option of hindering the winners but it seems to be working. This is done in the Speed World Challenge series'.

Funnybear

2nd September 2006, 10:42

Hyperactive

2nd September 2006, 12:27

If you really are so competetative (Which is the only reason you want the cars balanced) then you will be racing the fastest car anyway. I have said that I don't. For me it's a particular challenge to setup the car of my choice to become competative.

I have recently been racing on XRR @ KY3 against FXRs and XRRs and I must say that there have been many good and fair fights when the equipment has been equal enough. But once a faster drivers enter with FZR, the close races are somewhat ruined, because he can easily do seconds faster laptimes with the same effort I am running my XRR.

To answer some accusations here I started racing the FZR before I knew it was the fastest car out there . . . For me it had the best layout, RWD, Engine at the back. As and when we get a mid engined layout I shall be mainly driving that. But I remember racing Cropsy in his FXR and he could make that car rotate the track excedingly fast. There are XRR xrivers out there that a mockery out of the FZR and are extremly enjoyable to race. I make no bones about it that I am an FZR racer but I won't use that as a reason to go against balancing.

The thing that you started with the FZR proves nothing :). I started with the FXR because it was the easiest to drive, so I could concentrate on learning the tracks. I didn't know it was the slowest until I checked the wrs. I even stuck to the FXR until I felt more certain with the FZR. It has been said many times in this thread that in random online races each car can win. But in league races the FZR is only way to go. And it is always easier to drive the FZR fast than the other two.

The physical attributes of these cars are as close to the real thing as we are going to see anytime soon and in a way I include the apparent discrepancies in performance as part of the package.

And that's the way it has been for some time now...

Funnybear

2nd September 2006, 13:24

And it looks like it will be like that for a while yet.

Gabkicks

2nd September 2006, 14:53

maybe a more realistic turbo will change things a bit? at least with the gtr class :p

Blowtus

2nd September 2006, 15:18

Thats fair enough, but in league racing people generally know what they are doing and wouldn't be trying to run an FXR anyway.

The cars we got are the cars we got. You balance the cars in what ever way other than a real world solution, ballast etc., then you have destroyed that car.

Why has it destroyed the car? An xrr with a slight power increase is still going to drive very much like an xrr - ie front engined, nicely balanced, not as much grip under acceleration as rear engine. The benefit would be you could run a successful multi-make series or race. You've proposed no benefit for 'unbalanced' car classes other than 'this is the way God / Scavier intended' which is just sycophantic bollocks, imho.

BlakjeKaas

2nd September 2006, 15:35

Yes, please! Still obvious the huge FZR advantage against the XRR, and the advantage of XRR against the FXR! we don't need this! we need fair classes!!
please!!!
that's only on oval, on corners FZR loses (I guess)

Breizh

2nd September 2006, 15:57

Ballast would make a suitable stopgap, player-managed solution to class balancing until the devs see fit to alter the cars' perfomance.

FZR rubber and fuel consumption would only work for so many multiples of the chosen maximum endurance in laps.

With so many variables to balance, it's probably a nightmare to satisfy both a laptime and long distance parity, and fuel/tire consumption diversity.
Again ballast would allow for custom, case-by-case balancing.. Imagine, just for the GTR AS.nat servers, all three GTRs lapping as fast? Not being left standing still at corner exits by FXOs?

Classes would work like they should, and players wanting one-make setups would still have their preference unhindered.

mrodgers

2nd September 2006, 16:15

FWIW, alot depends on driver skill I think. I started S2 in the FZR. Not because it is the fastest, I didn't know back then. I never liked the GT or GTTurbo. I only had S1 for a week before I got S2, and didn't like the FXO. I played mostly with the MRT for that week at South City with the 5-6 others total still on S1 (first week of S2). Therefore, I immediately took to the FZR because I felt the others were just glorified GTT's and FXO's. Didn't even care to try them for a while.

North American Sim Racing League (NASRL) was a group that was into GTR, GTL, and rFactor. While waiting for GTR2, they decided to dabble a little in LFS. Several of us "veteran" LFS'ers joined in for a 6 race season. It was around 60/20/20 split or something new LFS'ers, some who have played LFS a little, and long time veterans. Most of the new guys took the FXR, some new and the folks who have a little experience took the FZR, most of us veterans took the FZR. The big exception was CWMAX who drove the XRR. He wiped us FZR drivers all over the track with his XRR. Dominated everywhere. Us other veterans were myself, Banshee, and TH84, all in FZR's for most of the races. Not a bunch of ultra slow drivers there.

I don't really think the GTR class is very unbalanced. It's just that very skilled drivers like the FZR. They will kick your tail no matter what they drive. It's just the way it goes. I'm always getting my rear end kicked by XRR's and FXR's. I'm also having great door to door races with XRR's and FXR's. And, I also whoop on some XRR's and FXR's. It all depends on the skills of the driver. To someone without the skill, the FZR can be a monster where the FXR floats like a butterfly. It's not the fault of the FZR, but the driver. Put me in an FXR, and I won't compete with anyone. Not because it's slow, it's because I can't drive the AWD compared to RWD. For others it's the opposite, they can't keep a RWD under them compared to a docile AWD. I'm not ultra fast, nor am I ultra slow. I just picked the FZR because in June 2005 (July? I forget) it was the sexiest car and I wanted to drive it. I then continued for a long time to get spanked by EVERYONE no matter what car they drove.

AndRand

3rd September 2006, 16:11

I just picked the FZR because in June 2005 (July? I forget) it was the sexiest car and I wanted to drive it. I then continued for a long time to get spanked by EVERYONE no matter what car they drove.
:D
similar here :D thou i prefer xrr and hardly can get close within 2s of my fzr ride.

one more thought on subject - my 0.02$ rather than discovery: imho the classes should be balanced for 10lapper sprints, with no need for refuel and tire change. WITH the possibilty for leagues to apply balast rules, with admin specifing it for every driver (which was suggested here for sure).

Noccy

3rd September 2006, 17:42

Most servers (both public and league ones) probably run no wind, which makes the FZR stick out as the faster car.
But with high wind i think the cars get evened out alot.
Raced a 50lap race on BL gp last friday, and every FZR driver lost about 2seconds per lap while the FXR drivers seemed to have verry little trouble with the wind.
I even tried driving the FXR after the race and was faster then with the FZR,i hate how the FXR handles and never drive it ; yet i was instantly faster driving it over a few laps compared to my FZR times.
Now i dont know if thats purely due to my shoddy driving ,but the FZR seems to have alot more problems with high wind.

Now imagine high wind AND rain (s3) and i can see the FXR having no competition whatsoever. Then your nicely balanced cars in the dry would end up being even more unbalanced. (if u handicap the FZR today so that its slower)
U wil get all the XRR and FZR drivers whning and making threads about how unbalanced the GTR class is and how its totally unfair ,blablabla

In short i dont think balancing the cars right now would be beneficial to LFS ,as it will unbalance them again as soon as we get new features.
Maybe they can tweak the classes a bit in S2 beta; just before S2 final, but even that isnt going to balance them 100% (unless u want 3 exactly the same cars with different shells?)

duke_toaster

3rd September 2006, 17:45

Well, there should be an RBR, LXR, and RAR then.
FXR + (RBR?) + XRR = GT2
FZR + (LXR?) + (RAR?) = GT1

That's what I said, but I made it futureproof by leaving GT1 for a supercar class.

Also, what about another car to race in the GT3 (W4H)/ GT4 (my system) class?

Funnybear

3rd September 2006, 17:51

Why has it destroyed the car? An xrr with a slight power increase is still going to drive very much like an xrr - ie front engined, nicely balanced, not as much grip under acceleration as rear engine. The benefit would be you could run a successful multi-make series or race. You've proposed no benefit for 'unbalanced' car classes other than 'this is the way God / Scavier intended' which is just sycophantic bollocks, imho.

You know what. I have entered into the spirit of things, had a good look at the subject matter and generally conducted myself as well as I could have. I have given reasoned arguements and gathered information. I may be playing devils advocate, but I have done nothing but try and push the subject matter forward. If all you can resort to, Blowtard, is cras generalizations then it suprises me not that Scavier won't 'bow' to public pressure in the rebalancing issue. In fact I am sure he has already made his feelings known on the matter before and I know he's not prone to repeating himself. I find your repsonse insulting to say the least. I have done nothing but explore the topic and give reasoned, if alternative, views on the subject matter.

And prehaps you need to reasses what it is you want from LFS and what it is giving, and will give in the future, to you.

Becky Rose

3rd September 2006, 18:00

In fact I am sure he has already made his feelings known on the matter before and I know he's not prone to repeating himself
I find this dissapointing, although I havn't personally witnessed it.

Funnybear

3rd September 2006, 18:36

I might be wrong babes. Just a memory stirrs from the depths of history. But I'm sure he has said something on the subject, somewhere, sometime.

Breizh

3rd September 2006, 20:35

Is there any reason not to have ballast in the mean time?

spankmeyer

3rd September 2006, 20:55

Coding it in as a new feature would take time off from other stuff that's on Mr. Scawen's to-do list. Though ballast system, as used in real life racing series, would be a good addition to LFS' arsenal of great features nevertheless. :)

Blowtus

3rd September 2006, 21:00

If all you can resort to, Blowtard, is cras generalizations then it suprises me not that Scavier won't 'bow' to public pressure in the rebalancing issue. In fact I am sure he has already made his feelings known on the matter before and I know he's not prone to repeating himself. I find your repsonse insulting to say the least. I have done nothing but explore the topic and give reasoned, if alternative, views on the subject matter.

Sorry if I got too personal - just felt like you were trying to crap on folk from a great height with your 'this is how it's meant to be, how dare you suggest Scavier hasn't got it entirely right, any difference in lap times is just your driving' type stuff... the number of people who feel strongly about this issue would tend to reassure me that I'm not going crazy when I know that even though I hate driving the fzr, I can still lap signifigantly quicker with it. If Scavier had no interest in class balance then why the slight tweaking of the demo and tbo class through numerous patches previously?

Funnybear

5th September 2006, 18:02

No worries mate. Just thought your post was a bit off the mark.

I'm certainly not trying to shit on you or anything. Just expressing my opinion.

To work with some of you points. Scavier does have an interest in balancing and I'm sure he knows more than anyone where the problems lie in LFS. And as you rightly pointed out, miner adjustments are being made all the time. So it is improving just, it appears, not to some peoples time scales.

I do hold LFS in very high esteem. I think it's one of the best computer based formats out there at the moment. From inception, community involvement, ideology, production and what is effectivly ('cause they already have our money) after sales care . . .

Lfs has it's faults. That is readily apparent. But there is nothing out there that comes close and I for one can't do what the Holy three are doing. So who am I to complain. I just get a bit frustrated with poeple with I want it and I want it now attitude. But sadly that seems to be a fact of life in this consumer generation.

But. We're Cool Blowtus. We're cool.