57k triangles for now, modelling is complete, it will probably still require minor shading corrections and adding logos, but I think the video is already enough.

I didn’t have the opportunity to post yesterday, I worked another 2 days (8 hours) on modelling the mod. Already 48k triangles.

Federal Penitentiary Service: Navalny is dead.
As might be expected.

Every day it takes 4 hours. So it 12 hours of progress for now. Almost finished with the body, only small parts left such as headlight parts and nameplates. Tomorrow I'll start working on the interior.

4 more hours working on Porsche

Last edited by Aleksandr_124rus, Tue, 13 Feb 2024 18:02.

I started making Porsche - https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/107152-Porsche-718-Cayman

The winner of the poll, the Porsche 718 cayman will be made by me. As I promised I will do the stock version first and after that GT4 vers.

I've already spent 4 hours making the model. The progress now is -




This time I'm trying to use polygons more sparingly and it took me about 9k triangles for the whole body without parts. But of course further detailing will be required.

Speedmodeling

My vote was for Aston Martin but it looks like people are more interested in a Porsche, so I will start making one soon.

Quote from Quored :

От стока на сколько примерно расширение? такое ощущение что там вообще расширение не делали, у форсберга и то шире машина выглядит

Ну я тоже сначала думал что расширения нет, но судя по тестам, всё таки есть. Несколько сантиметров, сложно сказать точно. Да и поменять могли.

I'm finishing the body kit, but i'm thinking of making another version of the mod in which I will use this body kit. There are 2 reasons for this.
1 - This body kit is made without widening the body, unlike this version.
2 - The style of Gocha accelerate in the middle angle and catch up with their competitors due to this, and this version of the mod is handled in full lock.

But I can probably also redo this body kit for this version too.

Last edited by Aleksandr_124rus, Sat, 10 Feb 2024 09:55.

Quote from Ayoub2016 :

Different RPM reading between LFS UI and in-car engine speed

I fixed it, but my tachometer numbers placed a bit different from the texture, so it is still misaligned, but now the revs that are close to the cutoff are more correct. But if you pay attention to the 2,000 rpm, they are in different places.

So Forward Auto in their new video have showed their new Nissan Z body kit from different angles and even partially showed the livery. Well on the basis of this can already make a new version of the body kit for drift Nissan Z, and update the skin. Since I was inspired to create this mod version because the Gocha team is going to do this project soon all this will be in my mod!

Edit: Because the number of possible configurations has been increased to 8, I will probably also make some other body kits in the future.

Last edited by Aleksandr_124rus, Mon, 5 Feb 2024 13:31.

Quote from SamH :

Sorry, I misunderstood. That was me misreading, not you miscommunicating, on the subject of the death penalty.

I had imagined some form of social credit score, where a human has intrinsic value but where that intrinsic value can be offset by extrinsic or instrumental actions or behaviours - a murderer being extrinsically detrimental to their society, to the extent that the net worth of the culprit justified them being handed down the death penalty. This is not an argument you've made, or that I would make, but I have seen it be made.

It's an interesting example, but if we think about it it's not much different from the state of affairs today. It's just that we don't have literal numbers for social credit, (and that's not true for all countries) But it doesn't make much difference. In today's society it is understood that for some actions you can give up your freedom or even your life in some societies, whether we have social credit or not.

That is why all societies have the institution of prison and many societies have the institution of death penalty. Because freedom and life can have its limitations despite the idialogy. Why? Because both of these concepts have no super value that nothing can override. Society intuitively understands that for some actions it is possible to give up these two values. And this has been the case throughout the history of mankind. Even faithful Christians who advocated for the unconditional value of human life denied it through crusades, inquisitions, preventive wars, and wars of conquest against pagans and other small religions. It's sad but this is the reality of things, mankind has been killing each other and depriving each other of freedom for all of history, and since that is still the case today, I have no reason to believe it will ever change as long as we call each other human beings.

Eventually humanity more or less came to the defence of innocent life, which is good. But in my opinion humanity is still not much different from the version of ourselves where murder was considered the norm. We're still just as hypocritical about human life. Which is what this thread is about.

Quote from SamH :

Indeed the idea collapses where political or ideological differences between communities, nations or cultures become insurmountable. War is sometimes inevitable. Nevertheless, whether or not it is easy, I believe the best solution is always a diplomatic one fundamentally because of the intrinsic value of a human life. My starting position is always to value not just a life but also its liberty. A life in servitude or serfdom is not much of a life at all, and is by definition valued least in a society where the notion is allowed to permeate.

Totally agree with what you said. An innocent human has an intrinsic value that must be protected. But in my opinion what you are saying is in conflict with the original topic of this thread, because you seem to have started an arguing with my argument but have not presented a strong counter argument, I see that you are still looking for your position. And it is right to consider different arguments to get closer to your true position. But as I see it, your position that life has intrinsic value is much stronger than the question of when it begins. If you are not sure about this question, why not be reassured and take the very beginning? After all, we're talking about the most important value we can have.

Quote from SamH :

We are living in a time when attempts are being made (too successfully) to normalise post-normalism. The notion of reality itself is being undermined with the ludicrous idea that more than one reality can exist, with each individual experiencing their own unique reality, and in those realities that truth exists on a spectrum or that truth can be what you want it to be.

By this route, truth becomes devalued and unimportant or insignificant, because the objective truth is usurped by the subjective belief-as-truth. Into this world, the insignificant "reality" that "Jeffrey Epstein killed Priogozhin" is born. It's rather Orwellian. If you can self-select your reality, and you can be convinced to embrace authoritarianism, ultimately you will accept a reality of authority's choosing without questioning it. Or if you do question it, with whom can you argue? Since everyone else's reality is their own, there is no mechanism to coalesce and rise up together against an authoritatively asserted "truth". Political narrative becomes "truth", and everything that deviates from it becomes "misinformation".

Or.. I could be wrong

I completely agree with your analysis of this situation. Indeed, the situation in many countries resembles oceania. Many people in Russia have lived very similar lives to Winston. In many ways, the world of Orwell's dystopia is embodied in Russia, but there are echoes of it in other countries as well.

That's why I have minarchist views. The state tends to expand, increase its powers and keep its power as much as possible. Thus the state always tends to be authoritarian. Good are those models of society that have adopted institutions that oppose state leviathan. Such as the separation of powers. Protection of rights and freedoms. Free carry of weapons. A system of checks and balances. Decentralisation, which implies federalisation and strong municipal power. And all the other things that make government small and weak. But it is important that these institutions are not just on paper, but really work.

Quote from SamH :

I understand your position, I think, but perhaps need clarity on one thing. If a human is to be judged by its extrinsic value, what extrinsic value has a zygote? Or a fetus? Or even a newborn baby? What have they contributed to the world, that imbues them with a value that they deserve any concern, consideration or protection?

I never said a human had extrinsic value. I said that human has fundamental intrinsic value, although he can have extrinsic value, but it is only applicable to other people besides oneself, (because it is unlikely that a person can be extrinsically valuable to himself) and it really depends on the context.

Let me briefly explain the meaning of this extrinsic\intrinsic dichotomy. Every person has things that he or she values extrinsically, such as money. But why do we need money? Because it can be used to buy something (i.e. money is valuable not in itself, but for something else, so money have extrinsic value). For example, you can buy a house. But why do we need a house? And here we can answer for example, to be warm and dry. (i.e. again the house is not valuable in itself so house have extrinsic value) And so on down the chain.

Everyone has a chain of extrinsic values, but the last link of this chain is what is intrinsically valuable. For example, in the case of being warm and dry at home, it is necessary for safety (and safety is already valuable in itself, i.e. intrinsically) People have many different intrinsically valuable concepts, such as happiness, love, honour, etc. and these things are not necessary for anything else, they are important in by themselves. But there is a fundamental intrinsic value that endows all other intrinsic values with the possibility of having value, and that is human life. Because without human life all other intrinsic values would have no meaning. As I said earlier, I believe that a human begins with a zygote, and from that moment a human has fundamental intrinsic value.

Quote from SamH :

Perhaps predictably, I favour diplomacy over war. Every war starts with a failure in diplomacy and ends with an act of diplomacy. A civilian death is a war crime by default, IMO. I accept war as a reality of the world in which we live, but I don't endorse its commission.

I accept that a paid soldier is gambling with his/her own life, but that it must be their own choice. I believe that individuals have a right to defend (or not) their home and nation, but I don't support conscription. I believe fundamentally in John Stuart Mill's "harm princiI could agree with this if it were not for the fact that it will be more difficult for leaders of societies with similar ideas to survive in the face of conflicts and wars. Or they will have to make strong concessions, which many people may not like and this may cause protests.

I could agree with this if it were not for the fact that it will be more difficult for leaders of societies with similar ideas to survive in the face of conflicts and wars. Or they will have to make strong concessions, which many people may not like and this may cause protests.

Quote from SamH :

I think you can determine alive or dead scientifically (quantitative). I think murder falls to a societal determination (qualitative) though, and might be determined manslaughter in some circumstances, or righteous self defence in others etc - these having a criminal implication and a crime being statutory - i.e. established in or constrained by law - the circumstances completely separated from yet informed by science, for example via an autopsy.

Well, yes, in fact, it is precisely because murder is defined by society that we have this situation with abortion. But in turn, society is susceptible to policy change through propaganda, both within a single country and across multiple countries through idialogue mainstream change. And now it is practically convenient for a large percentage of society to have abortions, and there is a clear interest for a large group of society to define it. Imagine what would happen in society if homicidal rapist maniacs defined what is murder. And for example, that if the victim was raped during a murder, it's not murder, but an extreme sextual act. It doesn't work that way now because there are very few homicidal maniacs in society. As with anything other than abortion.

Abortion is unique here because it is the only case where most of society considers it normal, simply because a certain group of people are labelled as not human for various reasons. There are a lot of different and sometimes contradictory versions why is that. It reminds me that if something bad happens related to Russia, the Russian propaganda has a huge number of different versions that often contradict themselves. (for example, they say that Priogozhin was shot down by an American or British missile from an fighter jet, then they say that it was a Ukrainian missile launcher, then they say that he drunkenly blew himself up with a grenade in an aeroplane) They do this to confuse people and take their eyes off from the most obvious version.

Even here we can see the inconsistency of this position because no one has consistent and clear answer as to why people are labelled as non-human, and in particular because of this we have different maximum possible time limits for abortion in different countries, but probably not because there are different answers, but because they don't care about the baby and they care more or less about the mother's life. Although, to be fair, we have similar examples in history when a certain group of people were labelled as non-human and could be killed for this reason, but unlike the Jews and other people in the crimes of the Nazis, unborn people have no voice to stand up for themselves. But for some reason it's considered normal.

Quote from SamH :

It's been my experience that, whether I hold a strong opinion on a topic or not, someone will always turn up to correct me and prove me wrong eventually, in whole or in part. On quantitative subjects this has the effect of sharpening and expanding my knowledge and understanding, while on qualitative subjects it's added to my knowledge and understanding but also made me more open to differing viewpoints. True vs false is so much easier to refine and simplify than right vs wrong.

This is an extremely positive and open to learning stance. It is a shame that not so many people are as open minded as you are. I really enjoy the dialogue with you. Even though some of our positions don't align. We can find a common ground for constructive dialogue.

Quote from SamH :

On the face of it, this might appear to run contrary to my acceptance of Alfie Evans' fate, but I've reasoned it out internally over time. Alfie was brain-dead.

Today, in probably the vast majority of instances we have the ability to sustain "life" medically when the brain dies. I accept that, when the brain is dead, the person has died. There is no medical or ethical justification for mechanically sustaining an individual's constituent organs after this point, except for the purpose of harvesting them when needed to save the life of another (non-brain-dead) person. The process of grieving is necessary for the well-being of those left behind.

I'm not sure Alfie's brain was declared brain dead by the doctors. Because in our country, in this case, doctors declare a person dead. Death comes not from cardiac failure or respiratory failure, but from brain death.

Quote from SamH :

I'm opposed to the death penalty and always have been. Either there is intrinsic value to life, from which a society's statutes of individual liberty are derived, or life is not intrinsically valuable. I feel that the notion of a death penalty undermines the credibility of a society that otherwise claims to care about its members.
....
If someone had ever presented me with what I found to be a compelling argument in favour of the death penalty, I'd be open to changing my mind. So far in 50 years nobody has. Yet. Honestly, I don't think it'd be possible to convince me but, as I say, even my strongest views are open to being challenged.

I think if you have an axiomatic position that human life is self-valuable and its value cannot change, then your position on death penalty cannot change because against the death penalty is the only relevant position here.

I just don't have that position because I believe that a human determines his own value by certain actions. Otherwise, what do you say to a suicidal person who wants to die for rational reasons. (For example, a lonely, infirm, immobile old man who is in extreme pain all the time.) That he shouldn't kill himself because his life has intrinsic value? You realise it would make no sense to him at that moment. I believe that a person has the right to live as he want (as long as it doesn't disturb other people) and to die as he want (As long as it's dictated by real rationality and not a momentary emotion.) Although, I can make rational arguments against suicide.

I can also ask you how do you feel about death in wars? How do you feel about mobilising people?
Society in general has a morally normal attitude towards deaths in wars if these deaths are for the defence of one's family, one's home, one's town, one's country.

Quote from Facu23 :

i voted for the vantage. pablosky said wrong, we not having near furute plans for makin a gt4 ver for it, so if you want the physics for the old one, dm me. car was deleted due to rr3 model

I see, then I'm just as much considering doing a Mercedes or Aston Martin as before. But thats is unfortunately, I wish someone other than me would do GT4 mods. I like the GT4 racing series idialogy because the performance is about stock cars with minor aerodynamic tweaks. These races seem underrated to me. The cars are closer to their road legal counterparts than most other GT racing classes.

Just in case I will clarify that those of your comments with which I agree, I do not comment, so as not to take extra space and time to write\read mutual consent. And that goes for all of my past comments.

Quote from SamH :

Therefore, since the question is not scientifically derived, neither can be the answer. Abortion is a right/wrong, not a true/false question. Science can inform some aspects, but no more than that.

I don't think I completely agree with that. I mean, I agree that abortion is a moral issue. And we are dealing with the ethical side of this issue if we are trying to eliminate contradictions in public morality. But the question that abortion is murder might well be scientifically justified if we had objective science, simply because the zygote's its a organism that has the same species as its parents. (Homo sapiens) But even science today is largely based on political context. And what constitutes murder depends on the interpretation of jurisprudence and legislators. So it's not going to happen anytime soon.

And I don't really want to see any kind of prohibition on this issue. That in itself can cause serious harm if it's done abruptly enough. For example, abortion was forbidden in the Soviet Union, and many women died trying to have abortions on their own. There have been known cases where hangers and other unsanitised tools have been used. In an ideal scenario, the trend for having children should be from the bottom of society. But in modern societies it is rather the opposite. And besides, many people are raising the alarm that the birth index is far from 2 and the population of civilised countries is decreasing. Who would have thought? What's the reason, can anyone figure out?

Quote from SamH :

Obviously I am not.

I'm saying that the point at which "murder" is determined with regard to a "human being" is not universally established, on either the matter of murder or on the matter of a human being, but that the sentience of a zygote/fetus/infant is no better as an alternative either.

That is certainly true, I was just trying to get your personal opinion on the matter.
So I seem to be a little confused and I've confused you. English is not my first language and I sometimes have misunderstandings. As I understand that you do not have strong arguments on this issue because you are still searching for your position on this issue. That's quite commendable. Many people either don't think about this topic at all, or just repeat mainstream theses without argumentation simply because they haven't thought about them. Such as the person above you.

Quote from SamH :

If it seems ridiculous to require a death certificate for a miscarriage at any stage in development - even if it appears to be just a monthly cycle - then perhaps this determination isn't the best option.

I find the normalisation of death ridiculous. A piece of paper compared to that is just a flower. And for every sane woman, a miscarriage is a personal tragedy. Although I guess it's possible to simplify things like that. For example, to create reports in some application that will monitor your health. After all, the miscarriage rate is clearly related to this and can be useful for the doctor to better understand the health of the patient. And now such things are kept secret from everyone, including doctors, which only worsens the situation.

Quote from SamH :

If you are pro-life, what difference would it have made if the diagnosis had been made at any other time, whether sooner or later? Murder is murder, right? Even frivolous murder.

Yeah, murder is bad no matter when it happens. Whether it's in the mother's body in an abortion attempt or after birth. It is pro-choice usually advocated that when the baby came out of the vagina then magical power endows it with the status of a human being. It doesn't even begin to make sense, but they don't care.

Quote from SamH :

The case of Alfie was very interesting from a sociological POV, more than from a medical standpoint. Alfie was born in the UK, where the NHS (i.e. the British taxpayer) is responsible for the care and associated costs, not only of Alfie but also with responsibilities towards Alfie's parents - including a duty of care for their mental health and well-being, appropriate grief counselling etc.

There was great outrage in the US, where Americans asserted how cruel the NHS was for making the decision to end life support. In the US, of course, the tens of $thousands in monthly hospital care costs would be born by the Evans family - even the best US health insurance is finite in these circumstances - and I firmly believe Alfie would not have survived as long as he did if he'd been born in the US. Money seems to have an uncanny ability to focus the mind, even on life/death matters. As heartbroken as a parent might be, that life support on/off switch looms large when faced with potential economic ruin, even when it's your very own infant brain-dead child.

I agree with the people who think it's very cruel. The insurance system of these countries is something. But in our country, people are just being charged 30% of their salary. And they think medical care is free in Russia. It's good to be ignorant. Although in our country, many surgeries or dentistry, for example, are not covered by insurance. It's hard to say which system is better. There are advantages and disadvantages to both.

Quote from SamH :

Sorry, I forgot to answer your question: Yes, ultimately I felt that the decision to remove life support was the correct decision. I fully accept the Evans family's desire to keep the lights on but there was absolutely no possibility of Alfie ever being more than brain dead, and there was no way the Evans family could afford the care that would have been required. As hard as it is to let someone go, it's necessary. I've lost both my parents at this point and it's been a very hard journey. It's not fair but it's life, and everybody has to live/suffer through it eventually.

By the way, I'm interested to know from what positions you advocate for the lives of people who will be executed by the state. And isn't there a contradiction with the Alfie case. Why are you in favour of life in one case but against it in another? (By the way, I am in favour of executions only in civilised countries where the law is respected, because if executions are introduced in our country nothing good will come out of it.)

My position is that human life has value in itself. If we consider the dichotomy between extrinsic and Intrinsic value, human life is fundamentally Intrinsically valuable. But that doesn't mean that human life has invaluable in itself. It's the individual who determines his or her own value. He can go out and kill a man and be killed in return. Or just commit suicide. In this ways he defines his own value.

In addition, it is possible to formulate a rational argument in favour of the protection of life. It goes something like this -
If I am a human being, it is not advantageous for me to be in a society where it is morally normal to kill people from the point of view of the probability of my survival. The less people are killed, the less likely I am to be killed. Therefore, it makes sense to advocate as much as possible for the protection of human life.

Last edited by Aleksandr_124rus, Tue, 30 Jan 2024 18:28.

Quote from k_badam :

What about mclaren artura? 570s is old

I've chosen exactly the cars that are currently competing in GT4 racing series.

Quote from xpablousky :

As Argentina Turismo guys are working on Merc gt3 and gt4, and also made some progress with the aston martin gt4, i would love to see the mustang

This is good to know. I wouldn't want to make mods that will already exist or are planned for publication if they are of good enough quality. It would also be nice if these mods were competitive and balanced with my N.400S GT4 so that they could be chosen at the same competitions.

Last edited by Aleksandr_124rus, Mon, 29 Jan 2024 18:55.

I have a desire to make more mods for racing series GT4. But for now I will start with the stock version. Selected 5 cars that participate in gt4. I propose a vote. I more or less do not care what exactly it will be a car. But if the votes are divided more or less torn I leave the choice to myself.

ASTON MARTIN VANTAGE
PORSCHE 718 CAYMAN RS CS
FORD MUSTANG
MERCEDES-AMG
MCLAREN 570S

oops deleted the wrong post - reposting it.

Quote from UnknownMaster21 :

You'll know it, once you think it through even more deeper, to reach standards about your philosophy and ethical vision.

I've write several times that I don't understand you on various issues. And I got this strange response.
Sorry, but the way you formulate thoughts for some reason to me brings up associations with AI generated answers And I can't shake that feeling. Just keep it simple, what you're trying to say.

Quote from UnknownMaster21 :

First of all... no... that is not how you define a human in this subject.

I don't understand what you mean. I did not define the human in the comment to which you are responding. I deliberately gave the wrong definition of mother to demonstrate how not to do it.
In the first post I write -

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

P2. A human zygote (and then blastocyst, fuetus, embryo, infant and any stage of the human being) is a human being (Homo sapiens)

Which should make it clear that I am quite satisfied with the generally accepted biological concept of Human (Homo sapiens)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human And that's the definition I use.

Here is quote from the section on Human Life cycle -
Most human reproduction takes place by internal fertilization via sexual intercourse, but can also occur through assisted reproductive technology procedures.

But I'm not making an argument from the definition. Because I also realise that Wikipedia articles can also be more or less biased by contemporary political agendas.

Quote from UnknownMaster21 :

Second: There is indirect thought between on this topic and thing which defines a human about what makes a choice, as a choice, in our lives.

Tertiary aspect is that while we are set in certain conditions, requirements and definitions, each for individually, that is not however what makes us as a human.


What my point is, is to go further and deeper thought about what and why, certain actions are taken for each part in this discussion.

After all, there is a reason why you even started a forum topic, which contains a subject about abortions. Another reason definitely is to enhance your vision about what and why people have, their thoughts set on this, regardless of any reason.

I don't see the connection you're talking about.
But I can tell you why I started this thread. There are several reasons.

Firstly, I just like philisophy and ethical issues. And this particular issue is one of the most frequently discussed. But the discussions I've heard tend to lack arguments. I've tried to present them.

Secondly, as I said before about politics, the world swings left and right like a pendulum in the course of history. The extremes of that pendulum are always disastrous. Now is the moment when the pendulum swings to the left again, even if not as much as before, but it is still a fact. And I'm just pointing it out. As a consequence of this swing to the left, new mainstream currents are emerging, such as the increase in abortions and their justification. But I'm in favour of balance. And I don't want people to think in terms of mainstream political agendas. But unfortunately it's probably something of an impossibility.

Third, I just came up with an interesting deductive argument that would be interesting to discuss. But unfortunately I ran into problems here because I didn't realise how few people understand what a deductive argument is and what logic and argumentation theory is in general. And unfortunately many people just use emotions and insults instead. As a separate issue it would be nice if people could understand these things a little better.

But I still don't see how it relates to the topic we're talking about.

Quote from UnknownMaster21 :

The issue is not about your answer, as your answer is also correct, but it is not the correct... umm... "calculation statement". I did read whole thing and it contains all required variables to give a certain answer, but that is not proper way to tackle it in brain chemical level.

I don't get it at all. I must have some problem understanding your comments. What answer? And how it can be correct and not the correct at the same time? And I didn't understand what was written next at all.

Quote from UnknownMaster21 :

How you would like to define a human, as a human?

Well, you don't have a definition. Repeating the same word doesn't give it a definition. Besides, a definition cannot contain the word on which the definition is given. For example - "A mother is a female creature that looks like a mother."
Because it creates a referential loop that leads to more confusion. And the definition should have necessary and sufficient criteria for this notion. The concepts of necessary and sufficient conditions help us to understand and explain different kinds of connections between concepts and how different states of affairs are related to each other.Here is an article on this topic.

One of the best mods i've seen