The only possibility I can see would be heavy moderation. All threads / content would have to be reviewed by a moderator before it would go public. At least that would introduce some kind of checking.
But generally this is something where clear rules of what can be posted here / what is allowed are needed and those need to be respected by the modders. Post the stuff that meets the requirements here and the other stuff can be found as it is now.
Would it be possible to have some kind of terms of agreement for new threads in that section?
So you have to manually click a checkbox before you can upload your content.
Anyway, as already mentioned above, some legal advise might be useful here.
I have never driven a GT3 Porsche in Long Beach, so doing it in a simulator / game is as much fiction to me as driving a XRR in Fern Bay. I don't know if the bump 50 m after turn X is accurate (or maybe the track has been resurfaced?), or how the car would behave in reality.
The appeal to me (LFS and more or less any racing game) has always been close driving and trying to nail that corner.
I suspect that tire physics are nice to drive and physics not going bananas in some cases is the issue here. It has to work under all situations, not just the average ones.
In terms of progress I think Scawen has been busy with the graphical side doing things that Eric might need to improve his workflow / general overhaul (switch to DX10). Also the Day/Night stuff wasn't planned (afaik) but as usual with LFS one thing leads to another and so on. Tires are probably the last thing Scawen will need to do for any kind of public release.
But then again, I'd also be interested in a (little) physics update.
Just to be clear, my comment was I no way intended to be negative (or come across that way). My point was that this experiment ended up becoming a bigger project than probably anticipated. It's something completly unexpected but very much welcome.
LFS has this "here is something that we like for you to enjoy" approach to me and that is something I wouldn't change for the world.
As it came up a few times now. When you talk about CPU loads (or hardware requirements in general) and optimisation / performance considerations, do you have a specific plattform in mind?
Of course having lean and fast code is always a plus, but with the new lighting system (and tire physics) I would guess some people might to upgrade their PC.
I'd like to point out that this forum is the official forum for a product and therefor moderation policies are not really subject to a democratic process.
The devs provide a service here for more than 10 years and so far the only annoyances have come from a very very small group of people who, as far as I'm concerned, act like little kids with no manners. If you have a problem you can discuss it in a sensible way. If you are not able to do that, please stay away.
This is the internet, there are plenty of places where people can discuss stuff of any kind, but don't blame the moderators (or Scawen in this case) for doing the job as they see fit and have the right to. If you don't agree with them or the policies (which have hardly changed since this forum started), then don't be here. Nobody forces you to use this forum.
The UFx has always been the exeption to the cars as it was created by Scawen (IIRC). Generally all non-demo related cars are in need of an upgrade.
But while this is on "the list" of stuff that need's to be done, tracks and physics must be sorted first, so Scawen can stop maintaining two LFS dev versions. Cars are not a requirement for this to happen, therefor it can wait (for the moment). I'm pretty sure the devs are not blind and aware of how the car models look when being compared to the updated tracks.
As Scawen has already stated (multiple times): All tracks need to be updated for the next release. That tracks like Blackwood have been updated multiple times in the past couple of years while others have not, has nothing to do with this.
I also think that it is quite obivious that, while you are working on a track to fix some issues, you might want to look at / fix / update some other stuff as well.
LFS is for the most part a racing game and not a train simulator. Thus having a moving train on a race track seems rather daft. It might be fun for all thr cruisers out there, but then the autocross editor might need a few more train related objects.
However, I foundly remember the LFS football / autoball events from back in the day - I want a scalable ball object!
Obviously I'm not Scawen, but I suspect that this is a step into proper day/night simulation. However shadows are just one thing, you'd need to add lights to all cars and probably some more track objects. Sun is still fixed in LFS as far as I know, so that would have to move around the earth as well.
Also... we do not know what else is on his todo list. All we know is that the list is probably a book by now.
LFS has always had very low hardware requirements (insert obvious calculator joke). But at some point those requirements have to be raised to provide a bit more modern (and looking at those pictures ) graphics. However I'm confident that there will be options that allow some fine tuning.
That is just the way gaming on a PC is and more or less has always been. At least the timespan between buying a modern PC and it being completly outdated has increased a lot in the past decade. An i5 2500k is still a decent machine.
That (annoying) window thing comes from a time when people were using 3rd-party firewall software that would ask you to allow network access for lfs.exe. It could happen that that request didn't actually pop up correctly and thus block LFS from connecting to the master which resulted in people asking why the game was broken.
User-Settings are also a think that weren't really around when LFS was initially released in 2002. It's basicly how games worked back then and has the distinct advantage that you can just copy your LFS folder and save all data at once without having to dive deep into the user folder (and AppData isn't even visible per default) and back a 2nd (3rd, 4th ...) folder as well.
Both concepts have advantages and disadvantages.
I have not tested the LX8, so I won't comment on that one.
However cockpits are another issue. There are plenty of cars in LFS that are desperatly in need of some visual updates: UFx, RB4, FXO, FZR... Those still look like 2006 when S2 was intially released. And while the demo cars got updated (yes, some others as well) the updates for those "nearly finished" cars (2009, I'm too lazy here to search the exact post from Scawen) never arrived.
Maybe for there are some technical reasons (incompatible LFS version?), I don't know. Probably. But since then we also had incompatible track updates for Blackwood, Westhill and Rockingham. I'm not sure why, but updated cockpits were just never mentioned again, which is really a shame, because that is what a customer first sees and what pulls you into a game. And compared to other games LFS is at least 10 years behind in that particular department (sadly).
I haven't given up on those updates yet, considering how stunning Blackwood / Westhill turned out to be, but an update on that front (Hello Eric!) would be very much appreciated.
tl;dr: Other cars are in desperate need of a (new) cockpit too!
So far the people and their reason is unknown. Before we jump to conclusions and point the finger at anyone, we might want to wait for some facts first. And taking the claims of a random person from twitter (or anywhere else) serious doesn't help anyone.
If there is some actual evidence you might want to get in touch with the devs before posting it here.