There could be other scenarios, like if the setup is on a read-only media. In general, I'd think it should be considered an LFS issue, as it's LFS itself which imports the file and expects the result to be writable (apparently) but doesn't take steps to ensure it.
Indeed, no one could argue that expectations were created, even if an official release date was never given (but it was pretty clear at some stages that new release should arrive in the range of weeks or at least months).
I do honestly believe that they did intend to release the stuff back then, and since then, and probably they still do.
However, life cannot always go as planned, stuff changes priorities, resources change, etc. They still keep the servers alive without any stream of income which I'm aware of, and I still think they want to release new stuff. I'd certainly like that as well.
Will it ever happen? maybe yes, maybe not. That's how it is right now. As long as the servers are still alive, and people can enjoy them (though personally I haven't raced for more than a year, but still visit the forum once in a while), no one is forced to stay. Bitching about it won't help anyone, and won't change anything - it's been done enough over the past few years.
I do hope new stuff will be released at some stage, however. LFS is IMO still one of the better and more unique simulators out there.
Got it, thanks. If I want to still use older replays (some go pretty long back), can I still have the older lfs.exe file at the same folder as the new? or would I have to keeps the pre/post z35 installs in different folders?
Oops, must have misread that one, my apologies. Anyway, I do follow your progress updates, and I find them quite interesting
Scawen, if I understand correctly, your next patch would be an incompatible one? with the incompatibility mostly due to some layout stuff and custom objects? What exactly is the nature of this incompatibility? Replays? WRs? It seems the recent collision changes, while affecting physics to a degree, do not break compatibility, which is nice.
Is this patch going to be promoted as an official update eventually? If yes, would that be smart to break backward compatibility for reasons other than a physics update or meaningful tracks updates?
Scawen, while you're at minor layout/objects issues, could some tires barriers become "non movable"? either as a concrete barrier, or still as tires, but just don't let them scatter when hit?
The specific barrier I had in mind is the last tires barrier before the main straight at the exit of AS3 chicane.
The thing is that this specific chicane is already notorious because you have to commit to your line to be fast through it, but the smallest of miscalculation, and the tires get hit, and everyone following you is having to cope with sometimes impossible situations of tires all over the road, when you're at 180KPH with very little margin to maneuver around them, if at all.
This specific barrier, because it's tendency to scatter the tires, and it's location, mostly hurts the drivers following the one who hit the tires, and it's even more annoying when the one who hit the barrier is a backmarker driving just in front of your nose.
So, if these tires can be "connected" together, and to the wall while you're at it, I think it'll improve the situation at this chicane greatly...
Perhaps the solution, if allowing vote-ban, is to make it only last a day or so? Later an admin can review the ban (hopefully with auo-saved replay after such successful vote-ban) and decide if the act requires a longer ban?
Actually, I've read some more about D3D in Virtualbox. It seem they actually incorporated the wineD3D solution I mentioned earlier, but in a sort of unofficial way.
After windows in installed, one still needs to install the official DirectX, but then, instead of installing wineD3D, copy the same files (possibly slightly more adapted to virtualbox) from their guest-additions CD image to the system32 folder.
Using this solution, I also got around 20-60+(!!) FPS and without graphical glitches, but at lowest visual settings and low-res graphics. Most of the time it's on 30-50 FPS. It's better, but still around 3x-10x slower than LFS running native on the same system.
This probably requires a topic of it's own, but it seems a bit complex to me. Why the ICS, 2nd VM(LAN) and 2nd XP(LAN)?
Again, I'm not a network guru, but I think you can probably do with a VM most of the things that you can do with a dedicated machine on your network. Especially if you have a dedicated NIC for the VM, but possibly with bridged connection as well.
Beyond that, I usually try not creating a too complex setup, so my advice at such cased would be limited
I'm definitely not a network guru, but I think it's incorrect. The VM can take control over a specific NIC if you assign it to, and use it as it's own, or even "piggyback" your main/single NIC in a bridged connection (the VM software installs special driver into the host), at which case the router (if you have one) actually sees 2 different NICs, each with it's own MAC address, assigns each it's own IP etc, which practically results in the VM being an autonomous network entity as far as the rest of the network is concerned.
You define the maximum amount of RAM the VM uses. It can use much less than the max. The CPU is shared when needed, so imagine running the additional application on your host machine, it'll be similar. Overheads can be relatively low, depending on your CPU features.
You don't need to pay for a license these days. The latest free VMware Player lets you create and manage VMs, but apparently lacks some enterprise features, although it's perfectly enough for home/testing scenarios.
However, I don't like VMware. I've used it in the past, but recent versions of Virtualbox are as good as vmware for me, and [arguably] better in their host integration (seamless/unity modes). And vbox is OSS, so VBox it is for me.
I do believe VMware has better hardware acceleration though, but I didn't try it with LFS.
Virtualbox: Version 3.1.2
Guest: Windows 7 Ultimate 32
Although Win7 should include DirectX by default, IIRC LFS wouldn't run, and so I've downloaded and installed the latest DirectX 9.x.
LFS would now run, but way too slow (1 fps or less). I guess it Does Direct3D in pure software due to missing proper [virtual] hardware drivers.
Virtualbox does support (if enabled) 3D acceleration via OpenGL. So OpenGL commands on the guest are redirected to the Host hardware acceleration layer. As such, OpenGL games (such as Half-Life 1) run perfectly well on this setup and in full speed (60FPS), but not so with DirectX games.
Here comes the Wine project for help. It has a translation layer that converts Direct3D to OpenGL commands, and they have precompiled binaries for windows too. If installed on this setup (guest), it then redirects the guest Direct3D commands to the guest OpenGL, which translates into the Host's OpenGL hardware accelerated layer using Virtualbox own translation layer. So it works.
I got around 10 FPS in cockpit view of an open wheeler, and around 20 FPS in wheels view. Some world textures are a bit messed, but not too bad. I didn't try to play though, just connected to an online server and watched for a while.
E.g., low HP cars tend to need a smoother line to keep corner speed because they don't have much acceleration to use on corner exit. OTOH, strong cars often use later apex, or "square the corner" lines because they're hard to control in full-throttle during a turn. With these cars you can brake later and stronger, point the car at the exit and then floor the gas for a relatively straight line acceleration. Many times it would be faster for those cars.
Generally speaking, the correct line is the one at which you can floor the throttle the earliest and keep it there till the next turn, and not necessarily a fixed function of the track geometry. Although similar for most cars, it can be slightly different according to the characteristics of the car.
That being said, the slight variations of the line is something you adapt to over time as your experience grows with various cars. For beginners though, and especially ones who are clueless about race lines, the '4' line can be of great assistance IMO, especially when they have a BLUE FLAG sign and they need to keep off the racing line
Fair enough. I do understand and appreciate your efforts in listening to users and managing bugs, I'm a developer/maintainer of several projects too and so I happen to be in a similar position often.
I understand it's tedious to see bugs re-submitted, especially by the same eager user (the latter could probably be eliminated with my previous suggestion), but people still like feedback, even minimal, and so I also offer a possible solution:
Do you think it would be possible to keep a locked thread listing your current *public* checklist/buglist regarding the currently discussed release (and possibly open bugs/issues from previous releases too)? This way people wouldn't have to wade through hundreds of posts (as was in Z15 and others) before they post a bug, and I imagine it would also help reduce resubmissions in general and will make everyone happier.. less posts, more order, etc...
Even better, if you use a bug tracking system, you can occasionally export such report (possibly manually removing entries not for public consumption) and thus you wouldn't even have to manage this locked thread manually.. export, copy, done. Or even do so automatically periodically..