The ability to set a maximum time as well as number of laps would probably be useful for leagues with time constraints.
If it becomes impossible to complete full race distance within the time limit - pace cars/slower than expected lap times etc - the race ends when the time is up.
This comes up occasionally in F1 (2hr limit) and quite often in BTCC support races.
ed: it may already be possible to do this by setting a time limit mid-race via InSim. Smaller time increments for the time limits would still be useful though.
If it becomes impossible to complete full race distance within the time limit - pace cars/slower than expected lap times etc - the race ends when the time is up.
This comes up occasionally in F1 (2hr limit) and quite often in BTCC support races.
ed: it may already be possible to do this by setting a time limit mid-race via InSim. Smaller time increments for the time limits would still be useful though.
S1 isn't as dead as it used to be, now S1 licensees can join any S2 host which is using only S1 content at that time. Before this feature was enabled, CTRA 1 was the only busy S1 server.
What would you suggest to do with the current S1 users? Upgrade them for free, which would annoy the people who paid full price for S2; or restrict them to demo, annoying all the S1 users who can no-longer use their paid for content?
What would you suggest to do with the current S1 users? Upgrade them for free, which would annoy the people who paid full price for S2; or restrict them to demo, annoying all the S1 users who can no-longer use their paid for content?
OutSim outputs Z-axis g-forces. You could use these, along with an InSim button, to display them real-time.
Something, somewhere, is dropping/blocking UDP packets.
It's either a software firewall (Windows and/or third party - check both), hardware firewall/router, your ISP, or something broken in your LFS install. Check all of the above and make a clean install of LFS.
Options > View > Draw driver / wheel > [driver ON wheel ON]
If that doesn't work, make a clean install of LFS
It's either a software firewall (Windows and/or third party - check both), hardware firewall/router, your ISP, or something broken in your LFS install. Check all of the above and make a clean install of LFS.
Options > View > Draw driver / wheel > [driver ON wheel ON]
If that doesn't work, make a clean install of LFS
Not necessarily - It was replaced for S2 by the UFR, as the LX8 and XFR would be alone in their own classes. (See here)
This doesn't mean it won't make an appearance in S3 at some point.
There was a graph posted a few years back with S2 licence numbers over time, with reference to various major patch releases and milestones.
I thought I'd saved a copy of it, but I haven't been able to find it :/
I seem to remember in excess of 100000, but my memory could be deceiving me as usual.
Ed: OK, it was lfs.net member growth, whatever that means. As of jul 2007, it was just over 160000 with a slight exponential increase. Make of that what you will.
I thought I'd saved a copy of it, but I haven't been able to find it :/
I seem to remember in excess of 100000, but my memory could be deceiving me as usual.
Ed: OK, it was lfs.net member growth, whatever that means. As of jul 2007, it was just over 160000 with a slight exponential increase. Make of that what you will.
Last edited by Degats, .
What kind of performance are you getting in LFS? It's possible it is actually using the nVidia one in LFS, just reporting it as the onboard.
The ABS and TC lights work in the same way:
Constantly on, there's an error (ie it's been switched off)
Constantly off, normal.
Flashing, it's active.
Constantly on, there's an error (ie it's been switched off)
Constantly off, normal.
Flashing, it's active.
Wrong.
Up until DX9, backwards compatibility was kept. However, with DX10, it was made deliberately incompatible to optimise it. In Vista and 7, both DX9 and DX10 run simultaneously, although programs will use one or the other. Similarly, DX10+ cards are usually also DX9 compatible to allow for either or both.
Programs have to be written for either DX9 or DX10+. Games that support both usually have different executables and/or libraries for each.
DX11 does have compatibility with DX10 and 10.1 though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F ... _to_Windows_Vista#DirectX
Fair enough - it was affected by control rate when I was testing manual button clutch with a g25 shifter, presumably it doesn't always affect it then...
Bear in mind that the button clutch isn't instant - at the fastest button control rate, it's not far off what you can do with a pedal.
Perhaps reducing the fastest button control rate (which affects all control inputs AFAIK) would achieve the same thing?
Not that that would stop profiler macros or emulated axis, which can actually be instant....
Perhaps reducing the fastest button control rate (which affects all control inputs AFAIK) would achieve the same thing?
Not that that would stop profiler macros or emulated axis, which can actually be instant....
Manual clutch override when you haven't got a clutch pedal or are using sequential?
I find it quite useful when I have to use my joystick or a mouse.
Yep, I think that's probably the problem - nothing you can really do about it I'm afraid 
Check your power settings anyway, they may be making things worse.
Check your power settings anyway, they may be making things worse.
As far as I know, you can't change/remove the FFB keys
run dxdiag, the Device Name on the Display tab will tell you.
My best guess for the low framerate is a combination of:
Not enough RAM (XP might help with this, W7 probably won't)
Rubbish on-board graphics (not even XP will help with this).
Have you tried any other games on it?
Set up a full grid of AIs, pause the game (stops all physics processing) and move the camera so you can see as many cars as possible.
Are you still getting low FPS? If no, it's a CPU issue, if yes, it's a graphics issue.
Are you still getting low FPS? If no, it's a CPU issue, if yes, it's a graphics issue.
No offence intended, but the grammar & punctuation of the English has a fair bit to be desired. I'm not surprised the translators are struggling.
Depends where the LFS server is, how much latency matters with whatever your InSim app does and how stable your connection is long term.
Wouldn't a datacentre relocation usually involve unplugging the servers, packing them in a van and plugging in at the new place?
I know it's possible to do a seamless relocation, but it's much more expensive (you need 2 of everything) and much more complicated to do.
pingtest.net
Connection speed/low ping is irrelevant if the ping time is still bouncing all over the place. Problems in LFS are generally caused by inconsistent ping (which makes position prediction useless) rather than high ping.
Connection speed/low ping is irrelevant if the ping time is still bouncing all over the place. Problems in LFS are generally caused by inconsistent ping (which makes position prediction useless) rather than high ping.
Sounds like it could be overheating.
Servers with a lot of players and a lot of autocross objects (like busy cruise servers) will tax CPU and Graphics more than other servers.
Try cleaning dust out of any heatsinks etc and see if that improves things.
You could also try HWMonitor from CPUID to see how hot things are getting.
Servers with a lot of players and a lot of autocross objects (like busy cruise servers) will tax CPU and Graphics more than other servers.
Try cleaning dust out of any heatsinks etc and see if that improves things.
You could also try HWMonitor from CPUID to see how hot things are getting.
You will also have to upgrade to S3 before you can drive Rockingham after it is released.
That's still not a good thing
Under normal conditions, fuses should never blow.Anywho, make sure you replace it with the exact same type+size of fuse. Don't go sticking a 13A in there
The reproduction of mp3 depends quite a lot on the type of music (and how well it's mastered, but that's another matter).
High symbols sound crap on mp3 regardless of bitrate - it filters and/or distorts the very high frequencies too much. The lower the bitrate, the more noticeable it is, but it is still distinguishable at the higher rates.
Mids/high mids tend to be reproduced fairly well by mp3 >128k, although it goes downhill from there.
As a general rule: 128k absolute minimum. OK for el cheapo speakers.
192k seems to be good for the vast majority of people.
Encoders can make a difference - LAME is supposedly one of the better ones.
Depending on the genre of music, I can tell the difference between mp3 and lossless - yes, in blind tests in as much as I think "why does this sound so nasty?", then look at the bitrate/format and my question is answered.
Regarding speakers, I used to have a set of 5.1 Genius speakers (I forget the model) which sounded pretty good for the power (27.5w RMS). I now have a set of Creative 7.1 speakers, which are noticeably better.
An ex housemate has a set of Z-5500s, which are better, but not worth the extra cost quality wise. They keep the quality up to painful volumes, and the sub is no less than brutal, so probably worth it if you like that sort of thing.
If you have a good amplifier, don't ruin it by using a mini-jack to phono cable and relying on the analog preamp in your sound card. Run digital signal, or you're wasting your money.
The quality of the power cable is completely irrelevant as long as it's not arcing somewhere. If you really care when using an expensive high end system, use a signal rectifier for the AC.
*Disclaimer: I am far from an audiophile, but I have been into fairly regular contact with high quality, high power FOH sound-systems so I know quality when I hear it.
Perhaps I can tell the difference between mp3 more than many other people, because I don't like the compression artefacts and others like the 'smoother' mp3 sound. Who knows.
High symbols sound crap on mp3 regardless of bitrate - it filters and/or distorts the very high frequencies too much. The lower the bitrate, the more noticeable it is, but it is still distinguishable at the higher rates.
Mids/high mids tend to be reproduced fairly well by mp3 >128k, although it goes downhill from there.
As a general rule: 128k absolute minimum. OK for el cheapo speakers.
192k seems to be good for the vast majority of people.
Encoders can make a difference - LAME is supposedly one of the better ones.
Depending on the genre of music, I can tell the difference between mp3 and lossless - yes, in blind tests in as much as I think "why does this sound so nasty?", then look at the bitrate/format and my question is answered.
Regarding speakers, I used to have a set of 5.1 Genius speakers (I forget the model) which sounded pretty good for the power (27.5w RMS). I now have a set of Creative 7.1 speakers, which are noticeably better.
An ex housemate has a set of Z-5500s, which are better, but not worth the extra cost quality wise. They keep the quality up to painful volumes, and the sub is no less than brutal, so probably worth it if you like that sort of thing.
If you have a good amplifier, don't ruin it by using a mini-jack to phono cable and relying on the analog preamp in your sound card. Run digital signal, or you're wasting your money.
The quality of the power cable is completely irrelevant as long as it's not arcing somewhere. If you really care when using an expensive high end system, use a signal rectifier for the AC.
*Disclaimer: I am far from an audiophile, but I have been into fairly regular contact with high quality, high power FOH sound-systems so I know quality when I hear it.
Perhaps I can tell the difference between mp3 more than many other people, because I don't like the compression artefacts and others like the 'smoother' mp3 sound. Who knows.
The multiple of 4 is stated in insim.h and is presumably either because of some networking limitation or just that 4 bytes conveniently fits in 32bits of memory.
I had forgotten that in the original insim.h, the text portion of the button packets is commented out. Presumably then, one way to create the packet would be to extend the struct or append the text somehow before sending? (calloc()/malloc()/realloc() ? )
ed: DarkTimes and Stuff posted while I was writing the above - I'll have a play in a day or two when I get the time
I had forgotten that in the original insim.h, the text portion of the button packets is commented out. Presumably then, one way to create the packet would be to extend the struct or append the text somehow before sending? (calloc()/malloc()/realloc() ? )
ed: DarkTimes and Stuff posted while I was writing the above - I'll have a play in a day or two when I get the time
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG