'Twas a sad day when they patched up that fence. Those red/white barriers too, both such crowd-pleasers.
I still dream about creating a follow up video, showing practical application of the jump during a live race. Those were the times!
* * *
Anyway, my first LFS memory comes from a 2007 mention in a local PC magazine. They worded it something like "three crazy dudes making the most accurate racing simulation". People who wrote for the mag at the time were all serious old skoolers rarely resorting to goofiness so when they did you knew it was good sheit. The rest of the article didn't shy away from making sure to let everyone aware it was a game for select few. As MJ would say: that's all I needed.
As my first real online game I reluctantly started with the fastest demo car available at the time (XRT) like probably everyone else did when they first started, only to come to sobering realization those mag people weren't joking around. By using keyboard of course because in case you were not aware I was pretty gangsta in GTA Vice City and San Andreas. To make matters worse I wasn't (and will never be) a fan of racing games so it took a lot of effort to come to grips with even the basic setup options (I basically only knew fuel capacity and brake balance). What made me stuck around was the most far-out community I couldn't even imagine existing, which took me under their wings after accidental meet in their private server a month after starting, and superb LFS chat system to interact with those mtfs. Besides physics I still claim chat is the best part of the game. Oh and around that time I realized XFG was the best car in the Universe and the rest is history.
The small increase of BC difficultly is not enough to compensate for gain in time over AC. It really is effortless. No balance here. I also didn't see that right away, it took a while.
EDIT: Just read some more posts so I figure to share my input why some BC people get flak over using it. Even though I'm reluctant to go off-topic.
I don't think I ever saw someone complain about slow guy using it, only the fast guys gets it. I even doubt the slow ones are using it for the speed gain in-fact but more for the immersion. Fast guys don't care about them cause they're not in their sphere of influence and the other slow ones using AC probably don't even know or care. And clutch method is hardly deciding factor 'back there'. So I come back to fast persons using it. Noticed two reasons over the years:
1) Purposely ignoring the clear speed advantage it gains and behaving like they dominate the grid. Instead of being humble, make you lap and stfu about it if you really have to go this route. This gets old real fast and naturally causes discontent because it's malignant. I tolerate it coz kids are kids, one day they'll grow. What can you do.
2) At the top of the food chain where one tenth of a second makes a difference of several grid spots, weather they BC'ing coz 'immersion', or it's simply better for them for whatever reason, is so obviously wrong that one should not need words to explain. Not necessarily malignant but very unsportsmanlike.
First group does it in a bad way then rubs it in, the other doesn't rub but may or may not be purposely using it only to gain cheap advantage (if they are genuinely fooling themselves it's about immersion). So you bet your ass you'll get flak over it. Not all of you, just the nasty ones. Weather you're aware you are or not.
Inherently, long time ago, there was nothing wrong with it. More so when the button speed was limited to max 6.00 (10.00 today). AC and BC were more or less balanced back then (ease of use & consistency vs. difficulty & inconsistency).
Today all talks about wanting to use BC as a replacement for overpriced axis gear fall apart because the balance is long gone. As a former long time BC user I can testify that using it today makes winning effortless compared to AC or H-shifter. Absolutely everyone who says they are using it because of realistic feeling or whatever are lying. But it gets worse.
There are two ways to manipulate BC behavior is such a way you can't detect it easily. First is creating a macro that presses gear shift button and clutch simultaneously, negating all of the little difficulty it had over AC to somewhat balance it. The other one is increasing the button rate far beyond maximum 10 (without game going OOS). The more competitive the environment the worse it gets.
Situations with axis clutch used without H-shifter with clutch speeds exceeding that of a button are also present. These are very easy to detect at least.
Simplest and best way to handle this and maintain healthy competition environment is to force AC and allow axis clutch only in conjunction with H-shifter. Ban everything else. Forget the poll. Voting results are worthless when the subject matter is unknown to most.
EDIT: Forgot to mention that AC is currently un-exploitable because of the way it's implemented. Even if you tried to, you'd still be limited to hard-coded limit of AC. To my knowledge it's free of exploits. I believe it's the same for axis & H-shifter combo because I haven't yet spotted any shenanigans with that particular combination. Not 100% sure though, my sample base are only four people all of which are clean. This EDIT amendment is to give more context to the subject.
The latest of interest to you is X10. X version can be found if you search "LFS_S2_ALPHA_X" but the X to X10 patch is more difficult. Search "LFS_PATCH_X_TO_X10" and avoid shady sites. I managed to get a clean link as 9th result, on Saudi site no less.
Far left setting gives best quality even when value says 0.00. Try moving the slider to the right for more FPS. It only affects car detail over distance not the scenery so it won't make a difference when driving solo.
Reporting a "SPEED COMP" gadget BUG mentioned in my previous post. And a couple of suggestions which tie-in to fixing the bug. Relates to updating relevant gadget values when making a new PB.
After the release of updated Blackwood, deleting existing LFSW (and Lazy) PBs, then making new ones some of the gadgets did not update properly. I'll explain using same screenshoot:
For preparation I've deleted both LFSW and Lazy PBs (/o del tb) on BL1-XFG.
- 1st row 1,2,3 DID NOT update after making NEW PB (they were tied to previous 1:32 PB)
- 1st row 2,3 UPDATED AFTER I deleted "XFG_BL1_0_0.spd" AND made new PB
- 1st row 1 remains tied to old 1:32 PB and I don't know how to update it
- 2nd row - sorry I forgot how it was before BUT everything works in this row now
If you take the split speed from the small screenshoot + add 3.05 "SPEED COMP" difference... what you get is currently registered speed from old Blackwood PB (1st row larger screenshoot, taken shortly after the small one). This speed did not get reset after all I mentioned so far. It could affect all the other split speeds on other combos but I can't verify atm.
- /o pb - display Personal Best laptime with splits
(put higher up, right bellow the /o user; fix description)
- rename "tb" to "tpb": /o tpb - display Theoretical PB data (PB/sector/split/speed)
- rename "tb" to "tpb": /o del tpb - delete ALL Theoretical PB data (PB/sector/split/speed)
(deletes the corresponding .spd file, in addition to Lazy PB; maybe you could color the command in red to signify danger)
These are my long-lasting suggestions I never got around to write before. Please put them in order I mentioned, lol. It's slowly killin me how they are now...
I thought about what you said and I agree it would be very useful. Here's my own expanded input on that:
- why not let the 'PB/Session toggle' affect all of these gadgets?
- toggled gadgets should be highlighted with different shade/color under session regime
They all relate and contribute to understanding of where you gain and lose time.
(BTW, there is a long standing BUG with "SPEED COMP" gadget in the screenshoot. More on that in my next post)
I spent some time thinking about 'under-the-hood' implementation of it but before that I think it's best to agree on criteria what is a "session". Would it be determined by qual/race restart, spec/pit, disconnecting, or maybe custom duration (set by user, eg. 24 hours)? It could have it's own command to reset it beforehand manually as well. "/o del sess" for example.
Each of the session info would have to be stored somewhere for the duration of the session. For example, the current PB gadgets info is stored (permanently) in ...\LFSLazy\SplitPredict (and maybe in ...\LFSLazy). So it becomes clear you can't have 6 types of sessions unless you find it acceptable to have 6 more subfolders and many more files. Lets just pick the best one? To me disconnecting criteria makes the most sense; custom (with reset option) after that.
If whichever gets done, the only thing I wouldn't like is another ...\SplitPredict file clutter. So I'd thought about making a hard limit to number of sessions stored. Following session would then overwrite the 1st one. And call the new subfolder ...\SessionPredict or something.
Since I'm not a programmer maybe there is a way to do it by including every type of session with unlimited storing potential, BUUUT without the file clutter. In that case go for it
Q13 gives me Unknown track error and I can't load any Blackwood track. Game goes to main menu screen but there is no background. Other tracks are loading fine. I did install over Q12 (BL worked there).
Really wanted to test new kerb behavior because I know where the nasty parts are.
Update: if I try to load BL replay created with Q12 I get: Could not open file : Blackwood.
If it matters, lgh, vis and wld files are present in wld folder. Tried re-installing Q to Q12 (it worked again) then Q13 again but it gets broken as before.
If you say so
It would be hilarious if this whole line appears in the actual tire update because you got so used to copy-pasting this line (as we are of skimming over it)
Regarding the new curbs, while technically more challenging they are a step backward in terms of safety during race. I am speaking about those three in chicane but it applies to the one in right-hand turn after downhill.
Right now the physics will simply bump the whole car outwards if the curb is caught slightly by side of the tire. It will bump it just enough for two cars driving side-by-side in those areas to touch and the latency will do the rest. If the curb is caught full-on it will slow the car just enough for the one close behind to not be able to respond quickly enough and will hit it. Latency would also make it worse (any contact between two cars for that matter). From my long experience on BL This will happen quite a lot.
There is no real gain or challenge from them. Previously you also had to be very accurate there to get the most out of the corner but without the added risk. If you made a mistake there it would not affect the people around you.
There are reasons why it's not the same as on Rockingham chicane (it works there) but I won't go into it right now. Simply put, the conditions and environment before the two chicanes are vastly different.
What I'd like to see is something similar to what has been there previously but with filled up gap between the curb and that green bump. Mostly to avoid unpredictable physics behavior when side of tire touches curb wall. Maybe Eric made the changes driving on the new but unfinished model (yeah, we remember!), indicating the problem is gone? Exciting thought.
That said, the updates look fantastic. It's my favorite one (BL1) ever since I started demo 10 years ago, with most quirks, (sadly some of them got fixed long time ago, lol) and I am exited to drive the living sheet out of it again!
Are you playing on a laptop? There is "Fn Lock" button that, when pressed, changes how these f1-f12 function keys operate (toggle from normal to controlling system screen brightness, sound, etc). This happened to me few times and I can tell you the first time was maddening until I figured out that I pressed Fn Lock by accident.
Only thing is that - it should affect f1 too as well every other application, not just LFS. It's likely this isn't the cause.
Let it be checked then, and exited. I think people can survive that one exit the first time. But looking at the prompt every time to exit the menu costs much more time than it saves. Besides, what about people who don't use controllers at all and the only ESC is on their keyboard? Doesn't make sense at all for them switch to mouse just to be able to shut down the prompt (or swing the hand to the other side to hit Enter)
There is a new and somewhat redundant confirmation prompt when trying to ESC out of Options->Controls menu. It looks like it is left there from internal testing or something. Definitely gets in the way of quick and minor control adjustment (after changing car for example).
It started to appear sometime after N3 test patch.