Live For Speed - Physics on par with GPL?

Typical, after years of waiting there's finally a sim with physics on par with GPL - and it's being designed by a SMALL development team! OK, so it's hardly flawless, the demo is buggy. The graphics need great improvement, there are problems with some areas of the crash barriers which cause the car to spin across the track like it's being shot out of a cannon and the menu interface looks like it's taken from the 1980 but the physics are astonishing! I haven't had a chance to read any other opinions about this title yet, but I am looking forward to it. It probably won't reach the cult statis of GPL, but it ranks above all the others in the car handling department. Only my two cents, of course...

The physics are very good. I'd say they're right up there with FIAGT V3 and GPL. You're right about the graphics though - they look quite poor. Imagine graphics like Project Gotham Racing with this physics engine. *That* would be something! They need to implement some proper mip-mapping to avoid the shimmering textures in the distance and the car models and lighting need an overhaul. The sad part is, despite these graphical inadequacies, the frame rate is still very, no, incredibly poor. Apparently these guys had a hand in Black & White which also suffered from an attrocious 3D engine. So, I hate to say it, but I think this game has little chance of being a success despite one of the most promising driving and multiplayer models around. Cheers Damien P.S. While I'm complaining, I should mention that the lobby is OK but it ain't no VROC. :( P.P.S I hope I'm wrong about this game being a flop.

"Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:apo15k$3cgts$[email hidden]... > The physics are very good. I'd say they're right up there with FIAGT V3and > GPL. > > You're right about the graphics though - they look quite poor. Imagine > graphics like Project Gotham Racing with this physics engine. *That*would > be something! They need to implement some proper mip-mapping to avoid the > shimmering textures in the distance and the car models and lighting needan > overhaul. The sad part is, despite these graphical inadequacies, theframe > rate is still very, no, incredibly poor. Apparently these guys had a hand > in Black & White which also suffered from an attrocious 3D engine. So, I > hate to say it, but I think this game has little chance of being a success > despite one of the most promising driving and multiplayer models around. Hi!. The graphicsengine gets better and better actually. For example the lights in the tunnel at the straight!. It didnt look like that before. Notice the lights on the dashboard when going thru it. Pretty nice :) The shimmering textures, try options->graphics->mip bias!. The default is -4.00 and you will get the "shimmering textures in the distance". Which i prefer actually. If you set it to lower (higher?) -2.00 for example, the textures in the distance will get more blurry. I dont fear the framerate in the final version.. or atleast i hope it will get better. I remember Racer from Ruud had pretty poor framerates before he optimised it, and we almost got the double fps from before!.

The important thing to note is that the current version is not a demo - its an early beta. The FAQ on the web site states that the sim is 6-12 months away from release. I'd say the developers have put together a simple graphics systems to start with and concentrated on getting the physics right first. That's a very promising way to go about things, at least from our perspective. As for the graphics, check out the screen shot on the new home page. Click on the central image for a hi-res version of the new cars and track. I think that LFS will be a commercial success - especially given the low budget development (2 programmers + an audio specialist). For starters, you just can't beat the goodwill out there - look in the forums. The developers are responding to the wishes of the beta testers and the high level of "testing" by users out there will ensure a very solid product at the end of the day. "Phoenix Knight" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> Typical, after years of waiting there's finally a sim with physics on > par with GPL - and it's being designed by a SMALL development team! > > OK, so it's hardly flawless, the demo is buggy. The graphics need > great improvement, there are problems with some areas of the crash > barriers which cause the car to spin across the track like it's being > shot out of a cannon and the menu interface looks like it's taken from > the 1980 but the physics are astonishing! > > I haven't had a chance to read any other opinions about this title > yet, but I am looking forward to it. > > It probably won't reach the cult statis of GPL, but it ranks above all > the others in the car handling department. Only my two cents, of > course...

@ Damien Smith... You are more proof that games can lose a few fans by the careless inaccurate words of a fringe user. You so obviously haven't followed LFS like some and patched each time. You so obviously have no idea of what they are doing and why as they explain so fully to us in the forum. You so obviously dont know how to set the game up from the Options available. You also sadly so obviously like to talk before knowing. AD

No frame rate issues here. Runs plenty fast for me. -Larry "Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:apo15k$3cgts$[email hidden]... > The physics are very good. I'd say they're right up there with FIAGT V3and > GPL. > > You're right about the graphics though - they look quite poor. Imagine > graphics like Project Gotham Racing with this physics engine. *That*would > be something! They need to implement some proper mip-mapping to avoid the > shimmering textures in the distance and the car models and lighting needan > overhaul. The sad part is, despite these graphical inadequacies, theframe

Quoted text (14 lines)

> rate is still very, no, incredibly poor. Apparently these guys had a hand > in Black & White which also suffered from an attrocious 3D engine. So, I > hate to say it, but I think this game has little chance of being a success > despite one of the most promising driving and multiplayer models around. > > Cheers > Damien > > P.S. While I'm complaining, I should mention that the lobby is OK but it > ain't no VROC. :( > > P.P.S I hope I'm wrong about this game being a flop. > >

Damien Smith wrote: > > P.P.S I hope I'm wrong about this game being a flop. Based on that flimsy evidence, how could you possibly be wrong! ;)

I agree 1000% (yes one thousand!) with your sentiments about getting the physics right first. Based on what's out there, it is readily apparent that good graphics are a lot easier to do than good physics, so more power to them. I also suggested to the Broadsword people that they do the same for SOS '57. Hopefully we can be patient with them, too, if they decide to go that route. Marc "Tim Epstein" <eppy@no)spam.pobox.com> wrote in message news:FvMv9.561$tQ1.8114@newsfep2-gui... > The important thing to note is that the current version is not a demo -its > an early beta. > > The FAQ on the web site states that the sim is 6-12 months away from > release. I'd say the developers have put together a simple graphicssystems > to start with and concentrated on getting the physics right first. That'sa

Quoted text (10 lines)

> very promising way to go about things, at least from our perspective. > > As for the graphics, check out the screen shot on the new home page. Click > on the central image for a hi-res version of the new cars and track. > > I think that LFS will be a commercial success - especially given the low > budget development (2 programmers + an audio specialist). > > For starters, you just can't beat the goodwill out there - look in the > forums. The developers are responding to the wishes of the beta testers

and

Quoted text (23 lines)

> the high level of "testing" by users out there will ensure a very solid > product at the end of the day. > > > "Phoenix Knight" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Typical, after years of waiting there's finally a sim with physics on > > par with GPL - and it's being designed by a SMALL development team! > > > > OK, so it's hardly flawless, the demo is buggy. The graphics need > > great improvement, there are problems with some areas of the crash > > barriers which cause the car to spin across the track like it's being > > shot out of a cannon and the menu interface looks like it's taken from > > the 1980 but the physics are astonishing! > > > > I haven't had a chance to read any other opinions about this title > > yet, but I am looking forward to it. > > > > It probably won't reach the cult statis of GPL, but it ranks above all > > the others in the car handling department. Only my two cents, of > > course... > >

Scawen is planning some big additions to the physics engine for this game. A lot will be updated with this. The graphics will get better, this is only an alpha really. Just to test what they can do. The sound is very good anyway so can only get better. I love the approach the LFS guys have taken. Get somet out there, we can test it, rip it to bits and then give feedback. Just remember this IS only an alpha/beta. When they start hitting version 1.0, then it will get really exciting.

Having written much about how great the LFS physics are, I must now say a few words to the contrary about the physics on the dirt circuit. If you download the replays of the top RallyX time in the RWD GT-R, you'll see the fastest cars taking the same wide lines and neutral handling as on the circuit. That's not how its done fast in real life! In reality, unsealed surfaces offer much more grip to a car oversteering than one in a neutral attitude, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, a sliding car will dig down beneath the "marbles" that make up the surface and find the much grippier hard surface underneath. Secondly, as the car slides, it builds up a wall of dirt in front of the direction of the tyres, aiding the grip even further. However, the dirt circuit appears to be modelled as a more slippery version of the paved circuit. I've been Autocrossing and rally RWD cars for many years in real life, and when I first tried out LFS, I was escatic at the realistic way that I could throw the car sideways into corner on dirt, and balance the car on the throttle. I couldn't figure out for a while while I wasn't getting very fast times doing scandos and driving as I would in real life. I finally realised that whilst the car's dynamic handling was very realistic, this was let down by the modelling of relationship between the tyres and the dirt surface. I've left a message along this line in the physics/handling section of the LFS forum and hope that the developers will be able to sort out this aspect of the physics modelling before the product is released. Tim

The guys from Live for Speed have a HUGE following (it's our 3rd most busy section at RSC !) simply because they have chosen to interact with the community, and 'coz they did the brilliant thing of starting out with something that ran almost perfectly online. Physics are good mmmkay... but online gaming is KING ! Live for Speed: http://forum.racesimcentral.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=205 Broadsword HAVE decided to go the exact same route as Live for Speed.... opening an official forum at RaceSimCentral and letting all us GPL nutcases feel we have a say in the development ;) Spirit of Speed 1957 http://forum.racesimcentral.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=265 Mikkel Marc Collins <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:7rSv9.4436$[email hidden]... > I agree 1000% (yes one thousand!) with your sentiments about getting the > physics right first. Based on what's out there, it is readily apparentthat > good graphics are a lot easier to do than good physics, so more power to > them. I also suggested to the Broadsword people that they do the same for > SOS '57. Hopefully we can be patient with them, too, if they decide to go > that route. > > Marc

"Tim Epstein" <eppy@no)spam.pobox.com> wrote in message news:<FvMv9.561$tQ1.8114@newsfep2-gui>...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> The important thing to note is that the current version is not a demo - its > an early beta. > > The FAQ on the web site states that the sim is 6-12 months away from > release. I'd say the developers have put together a simple graphics systems > to start with and concentrated on getting the physics right first. That's a > very promising way to go about things, at least from our perspective.

[snip] Hear, hear! Having a solid physics and multiplayer core is what will really give LFS legs, and could make it the benchmark tin-top sim of the next 5 yrs. (Hey Goy - *here's* your damn Aussie V8 sim ;)...) Compare this to ISI (or even worse, Geoff C), who never had the greatest multiplayer, and it doesn't seem to be improving as the engine goes through multiple iterations, or the West's (who seem to be having all kinds of fun making 3D models of tubular space frames and suspensions - show me a car, on a track, OK?). Kendt

Damien Smith wrote: > The physics are very good. > > overhaul. The sad part is, despite these graphical inadequacies, the frame > rate is still very, no, incredibly poor. Ok then, let's have Broadsword license this physics engine for Spirit of Speed '57, and just about everybody around here should be happy for the next year or so ;) (The original SOS '37 gfx were pretty darn good but the physics were pretty darn crappy) Regards, Ruud

Yeah I felt this too. I was really enjoying the feel of the rallycross until I started getting my butt whipped by people who appeared to be driving like they were just racing on wet tarmac. Never seen anyone do a proper job of modelling deformable surfaces, it would be great if the LFS crew could pick this one up and run with it. :0) "Tim Epstein" <eppy@no)spam.pobox.com> wrote in message news:N%Uv9.2731$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Having written much about how great the LFS physics are, I must now say a > few words to the contrary about the physics on the dirt circuit. > > If you download the replays of the top RallyX time in the RWD GT-R, you'll > see the fastest cars taking the same wide lines and neutral handling as on > the circuit. That's not how its done fast in real life! > > In reality, unsealed surfaces offer much more grip to a car oversteering > than one in a neutral attitude, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, a

sliding > car will dig down beneath the "marbles" that make up the surface and find > the much grippier hard surface underneath. Secondly, as the car slides, it > builds up a wall of dirt in front of the direction of the tyres, aidingthe > grip even further. > > However, the dirt circuit appears to be modelled as a more slipperyversion > of the paved circuit. > > I've been Autocrossing and rally RWD cars for many years in real life, and > when I first tried out LFS, I was escatic at the realistic way that Icould > throw the car sideways into corner on dirt, and balance the car on the > throttle. I couldn't figure out for a while while I wasn't getting veryfast > times doing scandos and driving as I would in real life. I finallyrealised > that whilst the car's dynamic handling was very realistic, this was letdown > by the modelling of relationship between the tyres and the dirt surface. > > I've left a message along this line in the physics/handling section of the > LFS forum and hope that the developers will be able to sort out thisaspect > of the physics modelling before the product is released. > > Tim > >

> @ Damien Smith... > > You are more proof that games can lose a few fans by the carelessinaccurate > words of a fringe user. You appear to have misinterpreted me. Don't get me wrong, I am one of LFS's biggest fans. I am so desperate to see this game become more than just an 'ordinary looking car game that geeky sim fans get excited about.' > You so obviously haven't followed LFS like some and patched each time. I have applied each patch, and raced each version for countless hours both on and offline. > You so obviously have no idea of what they are doing and why as theyexplain > so fully to us in the forum. I know what they're doing, but I don't think they're aiming high enough. Remember, this game has extraordinary potential. It would be a crying shame if it were released in a state that has it loved by simmers but scoffed at by mainstream gamers. > You so obviously dont know how to set the game up from the Options > available. You mean the mip-mapping thing? Fair enough. But at the end of the day, it looks worse than NFSHP2 and runs at half the frame rate. Judging from what I saw with 'Black & White', I'm concerned that these guys have a 'near enough is good enough' attitude with graphics. > You also sadly so obviously like to talk before knowing. <sigh> That's pretty rich coming from someone telling me that I haven't even patched the game....

Just my little observation here. If they work terribly hard on the Rallycross aspect of the game and take tons of time implementing deformable surfaces and whatever else comes with trying to model rally accurately.. Wouldn't they be spreading themselves a little thin?? Wouldn't you rather them concentrate on a tarmac only game that KILLS. Rather than a pretty darn good tarmac/dirt/gravel game? Y'know? I'd love to see them rock-out on the tarmac physics.. and then maybe a year or two down the road they can release a sequel to the game. A rally only game! Intennnnse! :) I think the graphics engine is better than some give it credit for. I get 25-60FPS consistently on my Radeon 7500 at the default settings (1024x, etc.). The car models look suprisingly good for a pretty low polygon count and the track models look great.. the scenery goes really out (E.G. The highway and road signs outside of the back straight). I do understand that everyone is just wanting to see this game realize it's full potential though.. Mike http://mikebeauchamp.com "Jim Seamus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:mX%v9.2180$[email hidden]... > Yeah I felt this too. I was really enjoying the feel of the rallycrossuntil > I started getting my butt whipped by people who appeared to be drivinglike > they were just racing on wet tarmac. Never seen anyone do a proper job of > modelling deformable surfaces, it would be great if the LFS crew couldpick

Quoted text (8 lines)

> this one up and run with it. > > :0) > > > "Tim Epstein" <eppy@no)spam.pobox.com> wrote in message > news:N%Uv9.2731$[email hidden]... > > Having written much about how great the LFS physics are, I must now say

a > > few words to the contrary about the physics on the dirt circuit. > > > > If you download the replays of the top RallyX time in the RWD GT-R,you'll > > see the fastest cars taking the same wide lines and neutral handling ason > > the circuit. That's not how its done fast in real life! > > > > In reality, unsealed surfaces offer much more grip to a car oversteering > > than one in a neutral attitude, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, a > sliding > > car will dig down beneath the "marbles" that make up the surface andfind > > the much grippier hard surface underneath. Secondly, as the car slides,it

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > builds up a wall of dirt in front of the direction of the tyres, aiding > the > > grip even further. > > > > However, the dirt circuit appears to be modelled as a more slippery > version > > of the paved circuit. > > > > I've been Autocrossing and rally RWD cars for many years in real life,

and

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > when I first tried out LFS, I was escatic at the realistic way that I > could > > throw the car sideways into corner on dirt, and balance the car on the > > throttle. I couldn't figure out for a while while I wasn't getting very > fast > > times doing scandos and driving as I would in real life. I finally > realised > > that whilst the car's dynamic handling was very realistic, this was let > down > > by the modelling of relationship between the tyres and the dirt surface. > > > > I've left a message along this line in the physics/handling section of

the

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > LFS forum and hope that the developers will be able to sort out this > aspect > > of the physics modelling before the product is released. > > > > Tim > > > > > >

> I think the graphics engine is better than some give it credit for. I get > 25-60FPS consistently on my Radeon 7500 at the default settings (1024x, > etc.). The car models look suprisingly good for a pretty low polygon count > and the track models look great.. the scenery goes really out (E.G. The > highway and road signs outside of the back straight). The frame rate is playable, but it doesn't look anywhere near as good as the FIA GT V3 mod yet runs at half the speed. (I get about 100fps in that mod - 35 with a full grid) I know it's only an alpha or test version, but still, it's going to take an act of god to bring the graphics up to the level of that mod. Remember, Gran Turismo 3 maintains 60fps on the PS2 with about 6 or 7 cars on screen..same goes for Rallisport Challenge and Project Gotham on Xbox. The bar has been raised since GPL and mediocre won't cut it anymore...

"Aydee" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<apogt5$svb$[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> @ Damien Smith... > > You are more proof that games can lose a few fans by the careless inaccurate > words of a fringe user. > > You so obviously haven't followed LFS like some and patched each time. > > You so obviously have no idea of what they are doing and why as they explain > so fully to us in the forum. > > You so obviously dont know how to set the game up from the Options > available. > > You also sadly so obviously like to talk before knowing.

What are you on? What did he say that was so careless and inaccurate? Have a break man, everyone's entitled to their own opinions. Or do you want to take this outside. ;-) <g>

"Jim Seamus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:mX%v9.2180$[email hidden]... > Yeah I felt this too. I was really enjoying the feel of the rallycrossuntil > I started getting my butt whipped by people who appeared to be drivinglike > they were just racing on wet tarmac. Never seen anyone do a proper job of > modelling deformable surfaces, it would be great if the LFS crew couldpick > this one up and run with it. The physics theory is out there - http://www.cybernet.co.jp/dads/semi...Interaction.pdf I've sent the link to the authors - and am hoping for a nice Christmas pressy!

> Just my little observation here. If they work terribly hard on the > Rallycross aspect of the game and take tons of time implementingdeformable > surfaces and whatever else comes with trying to model rally accurately.. > Wouldn't they be spreading themselves a little thin?? > > Wouldn't you rather them concentrate on a tarmac only game that KILLS. > Rather than a pretty darn good tarmac/dirt/gravel game? Y'know? From an objective perspective (is that an oxymoron?), there are more followers of circuit racing than rallying/autocross out there, so yes, if it proves very difficult to include implement deformable surface modelling with the resources available, then a tarmac only option would make sense for a first release. However, my personal love is rallying, and there are many out there who now feel the frustration of wanting to be able to drive a rally car naturally. Rally Trophy was getting there, but doesn't have the naturual turn-in or other dynamic physics that are so good in LFS. LFS has most of the solution - surely getting the grip levels right on dirt can't be that hard? (deep breath bit - please don't flame!) Many motorsport experts agree that the rally driver has the greater overall driving skill, when compared to the racing driver. When rallying, you are in fact driving in an extra dimension compared to racing. Whilst the 4 wheel drifts and neutral oversteer skills required of the GPL era certainly come closer to rallying in skill level than the modern racing car, such racing drivers aren't required to master the scandanavian flick, jumps, and radically changing surface grip levels. For instance, how many fast LFS circuit lappers out there can throw the GT-R or Turbo sideways before the hairpin past the start/finish line, balancing the car on opposite lock the entire time, and manage to slide it around the apex of the hairping right hander whilst at more than 90 degrees to the entry straight, and then put the power on early while still going slightly backwards to start pushing the car wide towards the outide of the dirt track, and be able to straighten up the car on full power without over-correcting the slide? I'll give you another example... I started in motorsport with autokhanas - manouvering around poles (witches's hats) on grass, including reversing into "garages". I never got out of 2nd gear, but learnt so much about car control!! - stuff that many racing drivers never master. About 10-15 years ago, I was watching one of warm up events to a F1 GP, where the F1 drivers had to drive a little FWD car around a tight tarmac autokhana circuit. It was amazing to watch, as you could see who had done some rallying in their time and who hadn't! Mansell and Prost were trying to take smooth racing lines and were understeering everywhere. Keke Rosberg (Finnish of course!) jumped in and just lit up the front front tyres and I think had the handbrake jammed on the entire time. The front tyres never seemed to move more than 5 degrees the entire time, as Keke was just driving a never ending series of pendulums. He finished the course in less than half the time of the other racing drivers! When watching any type of circuit racing on a race circuit, it is immediately obvious who has rallying experience. When the cars get really sideways, the people with a rallying background will almost always be able hold the slide and pull out of it perfectly, whilst the racers will try to straighten up too soon, over-correct, and spin out the other way. I grew up in Australia, where the touring cars at Bathurst were the biggest event on the calendar (and still are). Who else can remember the number of times that Dick Johnson would over-correct his big falcon and spin out, whilst Colin Bond (ex rally driver) would hold the most amazing slides and keep racing. So.. at the end of the day I'm rather biased in what I would like from LFS. If they can do the ralllying physics realistically, I look forward to showing a few of the top GPL drivers a thing or two about fast times on dirt. Cheers, Tim

"Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:apo15k$3cgts$[email hidden]:

Quoted text (24 lines)

> The physics are very good. I'd say they're right up there with FIAGT > V3 and GPL. > > You're right about the graphics though - they look quite poor. > Imagine graphics like Project Gotham Racing with this physics engine. > *That* would be something! They need to implement some proper > mip-mapping to avoid the shimmering textures in the distance and the > car models and lighting need an overhaul. The sad part is, despite > these graphical inadequacies, the frame rate is still very, no, > incredibly poor. Apparently these guys had a hand in Black & White > which also suffered from an attrocious 3D engine. So, I hate to say > it, but I think this game has little chance of being a success despite > one of the most promising driving and multiplayer models around. > > Cheers > Damien > > P.S. While I'm complaining, I should mention that the lobby is OK but > it ain't no VROC. :( > > P.P.S I hope I'm wrong about this game being a flop. > > >

I couldn't agree less; I think the graphics are very good. I haven't played every sim of the past year, but they're about the best I've seen. Preferable to those of NFS6 (which I use as an example solely because graphics are its only strong point). You're right about the shimmering on distant objects, though. Frame rates are rather low, but again are higher, on my system, than those of NFS6.

Try running it with only a half decent system and the graphics are excellent. On a top notch pc they are stunning. PC1 XP1700+ 512 DDR 2100 ram GF 4 ti 4200 128mb PC2 XP2600+ 512 DDR 2700 ram Ati 9700 Pro AD

"Mike Beauchamp" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<p13w9.924$[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Just my little observation here. If they work terribly hard on the > Rallycross aspect of the game and take tons of time implementing deformable > surfaces and whatever else comes with trying to model rally accurately.. > Wouldn't they be spreading themselves a little thin?? > > Wouldn't you rather them concentrate on a tarmac only game that KILLS. > Rather than a pretty darn good tarmac/dirt/gravel game? Y'know?

Precisly what I was thinking the first time I loaded LFS and saw the track selection. I'd like to see them spend more time working on the tarmac tracks, and hopefully not resort to any 'reverse' tracks. Driving on a track the other way around does not make it a new track. LFS reminds me a little of the The Need For Speed. The Corvette in TNFS both handles and looks similar to the XR GT. It's the closest comparison I could come up with.