RSC and their mods

> This was my complaint or suggestion for improvement to S2. That the
> all out racing cars should have very fast shifters. I want to use
> all 6 gears on a car (or 7 in the case of the Ferrari in F1C 99-02).
>
> I guess I'm a shift fan, here's a video of a lap at Spa with
> F1C99-02 RH2004 season mod (very fast manual shifting being used here):
>
> http://jeffareid.net/cgi-bin/f1cspa.wmv

As a comparson, here's a vid of a fast lap in LFS S2's FO8 car.
Speed ranges from about 50mph in the hairpin (taken in 3rd gear)
to about 160mph (6th gear), yet only 4 gears are used. The shifts
are actaully faster than normal, because auto-lift is turned off,
(damage is also turned off, else the engine would blow up from
from the excess revs between shifts).

http://jeffareid.net/cgi-bin/s2blf8.wmv

> As a comparson, here's a vid of a fast lap in LFS S2's FO8 car.
> Speed ranges from about 50mph in the hairpin (taken in 3rd gear)
> to about 160mph (6th gear), yet only 4 gears are used. The shifts
> are actaully faster than normal, because auto-lift is turned off,
> (damage is also turned off, else the engine would blow up from
> from the excess revs between shifts).
>
> http://jeffareid.net/cgi-bin/s2blf8.wmv

Oops a typo, make that speed range 60mph to near 160mph (158).

>> As a comparson, here's a vid of a fast lap in LFS S2's FO8 car.
>> Speed ranges from about 50mph in the hairpin (taken in 3rd gear)
>> to about 160mph (6th gear), yet only 4 gears are used. The shifts
>> are actaully faster than normal, because auto-lift is turned off,
>> (damage is also turned off, else the engine would blow up from
>> from the excess revs between shifts).
>>
>> http://jeffareid.net/cgi-bin/s2blf8.wmv
>
> Oops a typo, make that speed range 60mph to near 160mph (158).

Stepping through the S2 video, it's taking over about 1/3rd of a
second to speed shift the car, about 300ms, compare this to the
30ms to 50ms of a sequential no lift shifter, and the shift time
is 6 to 10 times longer than it should be.

Sorry that this is getting off topic, but as previously posted, I
think I stirred up things with my LFS posts, and this contributed
to the attention I received by the RSC moderators.

"whooo" > wrote in message
...
> Bruce Kennewell wrote:
>> Copyright; The RIGHT to ownership.
>>
>> "whooo" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Jeff Reid wrote:
>>>You did still hold the copywrite, however.
>>
>>
>>
> sorry, yeah, copyRIGHT

So are you sure you copied that right?

"Jeff Reid" > wrote in message
news:tRtNe.88839$E95.29094@fed1read01...
>> Nothing in the rules at RSC or the agreement when you join gives them
>> permission to publicly attach warning avatars to every post you make.
>> In my experience these are handed out on a "assumed guilty until
>> proven innocent" basis, they aren't fair, and violate their own rule:
>>
>> "4.1 - Any content that is false, abusive, defamatory, or harassing
>> is not permitted."
>>
>> Every warning avatar attached by RSC is "content that is abusive and
>> harassing". In my case they were also "false and defamatory".
>
> Maybe I should start a class action lawsuit to get them to
> stop this behavior ...
>
>
>

Sounds like now they may be guilty of discrimination also.

Sounds pretty stupid to me. They must be a bunch of dickheads - all they
need to do is respond to complaints. Imagine what sort of a no life ****wit
you'd have to be to screen every post on those forums - LOL.

Sounds like a league director that screens entire race replays looking
for incidents instead of waiting for drivers to protest.

"Dave Henrie" > wrote in message
. 97.136...
> "Jeff Reid" > wrote in news:tRtNe.88839$E95.29094
> @fed1read01:
>
>> Maybe I should start a class action lawsuit to get them to
>> stop this behavior ...
>>
>>
>
> maybe you should grow up. RSC provides a huge benefit to the COMMUNITY.
> Your feelings got hurt. Toooooo Bad. RSC is owned and operated by
> somebody who is not you or me. They can do whatever the heck they want.
> If I find something that is incorrect, I challenge it. If I get warned,
> then fine. BFD. I think I've had a warning on there for a year or more.
> I don't even know what it is or what it's for. Who cares?
> If you can show ME that your lawsuit can benefit ME more than all the
> info and dloads provided FREE by RSC then go ahead, Start listing.
> Until such time that YOU can show just what amazing things you can
> contribute to the sim community, I'd strongly recomend you just shut up.
>
> I don't know what your beef with RSC is about, I don't care. I find it
> hugely amusing that you think you have rights on the internet. They are
> uploading kiddie porn, snuff films, terrorist communications, and on and
> on
> and on. And you feel you have a greivance worthy of a court's time? Good
> God man...did they post pictures of your mother and a goat?
>
> I rarely get this crude but I do so for your benefit. Hopefully it will
> get through to you. Come back when you have some hair down there. We'll
> wait the 5 or 6 years.
>

So we can associate RSC with "kiddie porn, snuff films, terrorist
communications, and on and on and on" can we?

It matters not about what RSC may be worth to the sim community. They
are not as allusive as the groups you mention and cannot expect to get away
with discrimination, defamation, etc, etc. If you choose to police and rule
then you can just as easily be policed and ruled. According to you, however,
there is no need to police and rule well and fairly, especially if you have
a little credit for something else.

"Jeff Reid" > wrote in message
news:2nxNe.88862$E95.14850@fed1read01...
>
>> They can do whatever the heck they want.
>
> Apparently not, they claim that they were shut down in the past
> because of a members post. Also, they can't violate laws,
> and they should abide by their own rules.
>

Care to expand on that? - know any details?

"Dave Henrie" > wrote in message
. 97.136...
> "Jeff Reid" > wrote in news:2nxNe.88862$E95.14850
> @fed1read01:
>
>> You cared enough to respond. It should be obviouse that
>> my beef is that that RSC attaches warning avatars to peoples posts,
>> and that quite often, the warnings are undeserved. In my
>> case, the RSC moderators first ignored, then over-reacted to my
>> private emails about receiving and public posting of warning.
>>
>
> No I don't care. I can't imagine what could be so gosh darned important
> that your self-worth is impugned.
>
> I DO know that I myself and hundreds if not thousands of others get
> immense
> benefits from RSC. So they can be as rude as they like. I only know that
> your actions, for whatever reason you feel compelled to undertake, can
> only
> harm me. I'm not defending RSC, I'm not intellectually curious enough to
> even briefly examine the merits of either side.
>
> For pity's sake...it's a freekin' Race Sim site. It's not a publisher of
> scientific thesi.
>
> dave henrie

dave, you seem to fall into the category of "it's only serious or
important when it happens to me".

Pathetic.

I don't give a stuff about what RSC does - If you wish to police then
you need to do it properly. What good you do otherwise is irrelevent!

"whooo" > wrote in message
...
> Jeff Reid wrote:
>>>Did you post under your real name?
>>
>>
>> I used jeffr. My profile includes my real name, and a link to
>> my web page (http://jeffareid.net), which also includes my real
>> name and email address.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Well, I doubt if you would have had much of a case. Was your standing
> reduced in the eyes of right thinking people? Probably not.

Not just defamation anyway - it's becoming discrimination. They seem to
be insisting he agree to being treated illegaly or they'll ban him. The
whole idiotic system is akin to Nazis puting yellow ribbons on the arms of
Jews! All they need to do is issue private warnings and bans - sounds like a
bunch of kids on silly little parts of the learning curve to me. Another
stupid little police state!

"jason moyer" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Jeff Reid wrote:
>
>> Nothing in the rules at RSC or the agreement when you join gives them
>> permission to publicly attach warning avatars to every post you make.
>
> It's a private forum that you chose to participate in voluntarily. The
> administrators and moderators of the site can run it however they see
> fit, and if you don't like it you can either deal with them personally
> or go somewhere else.
>

Simply untrue. Private or not, they cannot break the law.

The question is Jason, how many of your victims are buried in the
backyard?