The pth files have the racing line built into them. I'd love to see these items rebuilt to reflect the racing lines used by the WR holders for each track and car combination. You could then use this as a baseline for comparison as to how the algorithm is doing.

I still don't have access to an IPv6 address space on the Verizon FiOS (Fiber Optic) network. But once I do, I'll start checking it out!

Quote from szaboaz :

I'm thinking, what if the buffer receives more than one packet's bytes within the same cycle of the forever running loop. buffer.position() will never be equal to size then...

If that can happen, the next packet size reading would be in trouble (either missing whole packet or packets, or worse, reading an arbitrary byte from the middle of a packet)...

With TCP / UDP connections, there can be times where you only get a single byte of the packet. For this reason, the first byte of every InSim packet is the size, and all of the packets are less then 256 bytes. So as long as your not getting corrupted packets, you should always know when you have an whole packet to parse.

buttonRequsted(UCID); - For IS_BFN::BFN_REQUEST (Callback)
buttonDelete(UCID, ClickID) - For IS_BFN::BFN_DEL_BTN
buttonClear(UCID); - For IS_BFN::BFN_CLEAR
buttonCreate(UCID, L, T, W, H, Text, Inst = NULL, BStyle = NULL); - For IS_BTN with TypeIn = 0 (Returns ClickID).
buttonTextbox(UCID, L, T, W, H, Text, Inst = NULL, BStyle = NULL); - For IS_BTN with TypeIn > 0 (Returns ClickID).
buttonClick(UCID, ClickID, CFlags); - For IS_BTC (Callback)
buttonType(UCID, ClickID, Text); - For IS_BTT (Callback)

Something like this?


What it really comes down to, can you abstract away ClickID's and still have a meaningful relationship between the buttons?

I know we are gettting slightly off topic, but I just wanted to say that I also compile from source and never had any issues. I run through these commands every time I update.


This always seems to work better, faster then just adding modules at run time.

Quote from Requirements :

Requirements

You will need nothing if the system you are using is one of the recent POSIX-compliant systems because standard C libraries that are supplied in them must provide iconv facility. Otherwise, you have to get the » libiconv library installed in your system.

Quote from Installation :

Installation

This extension is enabled by default, although it may be disabled by compiling with --without-iconv.

After reading these two things, I feel a lot better about it requiring iconv.

It's kinda like a smaller version of the ECMA-48. It's kinda crazy, but in the grand scheme of things, it's a lot better implemented then some of the alternatives.

Also, I did not know about the bug. If you could backport / upstream the fix that would be awesome.

The original version was written by Victor in PHP as well, but in two different functions, I just placed them into a single function call. Also nice work.

Last edited by Dygear, Fri 12 Apr 2013, 05:23.

Quote from Whiskey :

Too obvious to miss this opportunity

So you see my point .

Name spacing prism_packets.php would be an extreme pain in the ass, as it's used EVERYWHERE in the codebase. It's also not that elegant to do ...

... any time you want to use a packet.

Quote from szaboaz :

PS. Just a friendly heads up for another non native English speaker: "Object hitted" is grammatically incorrect, because the past tense and past participle of the verb "hit" is "hit". (You know: hit, hit, hit.)

As a native English speaker, I'm honestly astonished that many of you speak English as well as you all do. I've meet some German people who speak English much better then I do. It's really quite impressive, and I wish that I had taken up another language while I was younger. But I digress.

I can't see an area that would be more appropriate then the programmer forum.

Most of the work done is style changes from the inconsistent style that all of the current devs use to the PSR-1 & PSR-2 standard. The problem I'm seeing is that I can't really see the code changes you've made because their a pretty much all burried in these code changes that happen all over the place. He first outright deleted content in one resulting in 21,817 line commit, then later on he added back 17,360 lines in a commit. These two commits result in 38k lines of code changes, that might not of really changed all of that much. But because of the way it happened, git's engine thinks these are all new lines.

Going over 17k lines is no small feat, but it also massively skews the metrics, and it's making it impossible to find out what really has changed. Pretty much all lines of code are showing up as lines that ZenWare wrote them. Also why were .c9save files committed only to be deleted later on? Also removing .gitignore is a bad step, some of us dev off the same tree we use on our servers and don't want our passwords leaked.

There are problems I have with taking this pull request 'as is'. Those problems really come down to the fact, that with all of the deletions and additions of the same code in different commits (making git forget who really wrote them) it's gonna be really hard to finger the correct person to talk about if we have a problem with the codebase. We'd have to look at these commits, and then track that back again to it's original true author. That's gonna be a pain in the ass.

I love some of the stuff in here. I like that every thing is namespaced and is written to a single spec. That part is really cool. The problem I'm having is the way that it was done as far as git sees it. I also really like that it's name spaced correctly, and that the modules were refactored correctly to something that I had in mind but ever got around to doing. So really good job on the re factoring of that code, that must of been a bitch.

Over all, I like the pull request, but I'm still going to have to go over it fully with a much finer tooth comb then I just did because I can already see some areas where I really can't explain what the code is doing.

Has any one had the chance to review the changes made by T3 & ZenWare? If anyone can give me a quick go - no go with their plugins using their code updates to let me know if it breaks anything.

The Tech Report has been trying to do some awesome things in the way of benchmarking video cards. To put it in very laymens terms, that FPS averages simply don't give the full picture of frame fluidity and to get a true sense you have to go inside the second.

To that end they have requested the following:

Quote from The Tech Report :

It would be very helpful to have an API from the major GPU makers that exposes the true timing of the frame-buffer flips that happen at the display. I don't think we have anything like that now, or at least nothing that yields results as accurate as those produced by FCAT. With such an API, we could collect end-of-pipeline data much easier and use frame captures sparingly, for sanity checks and deeper analysis of images. Second, in a perfect world, game developers would expose an API that reveals the internal simulation timing of the game engine for each frame of animation. That would allow us to do away with grabbing the Present() time via Fraps and end any debate about the accuracy of those numbers. We'd then have the data we need to correlate with precision the beginning and ending of the pipeline and to analyze smoothness—or, well, for someone who's smarter than us about the tricky math of a rate-match problem and the perceptual thresholds for smooth animation to do so.

I think it would be awesome for LFS to provide that second part for them. They even had something interesting to say about frame timing effecting engine timing.

Quote from The Tech Report :

However—and this is a huge caveat—we have some trepidation about declaring even this one particular example a definitive triumph for Fraps-based measurements. You see, like most folks who test gaming performance, we've removed the built-in frame rate cap in Skyrim. We already know that doing so causes some funky timing quirks for things like the game's AI, but it may also modify the game's fundamental timekeeping method for all of its physical simulation work. (The variable we've modified in order to "uncap" Skyrim is called "iPresentInterval", and we've changed it from "1" to "0." You may recall that Fraps measures when the game calls Present(). Hmm.) If our uncapping effort has changed the way time is kept in the game, it may have created the possibility of frame-to-frame timing issues that one would usually not see with the game engine's default timing method. This thought occurred to me on an airplane, on the way out to GDC, so I haven't been able to dig deeper into this issue yet. I definitely think it merits further investigation, and the frame-by-frame playback and analysis possible with the FCAT tool set should be a big help when the time comes.

I find to be extremely insightful to the way the Skyrim engine works and I wonder what effects the LFS engine would have it if could not run at the stated 2kHz.

You can find the article I'm referring to and quoted from here.

http://techreport.com/review/2 ... vidia-frame-capture-tools


You should also catch up on their original article here.

http://techreport.com/review/2 ... look-at-game-benchmarking

Quote from Krayy :

May get around to it if S3 comes out.

I know exactly how you feel.

I don't have mod access out here, one of the other mods can merge this thread or delete it outright.

I moved it for you.

That would be a really cool idea, something I never really considered. I'll see if I can't make the native function myself and put the patch on to the github repo. I'll then send you a link too it on here.

Buy a license, and then we will talk.

Quote from Gougoodthing :

Pedro de la Rosa

OMG, Please someone caption this ...

"Put water on the fire"

You'd have to get the old binary and reverse engineer, unless scawen cares to shed some light on the subject.

I guess if the InSim application was on the same server as the LFS Host then, as long as you knew the file system you could parse the logs and find out who has what IP address.

Looking at the Ted's Notebook videos and seeing the cars moving one thing struck me more then anything else. Anyone else think that these cars are squatted down a bit more? They look like they are closer to the road, or is that an optical illusion from the cars being wider, or the tires changing?

Quote from Victor :

As you mention mixed content and DNSSEC in one sentence, I must ask how do they relate?

No, I thought for a second you were doing some sort of Content Delivery System. Or spreading resources across your sub-domains, but not sending them via SSL. But the error went away after a page refresh so I guess it was just a fluke.

I've been looking into DNSSEC as a cheap solution into SSL certificiates. I like that I don't have to pay anyone to secure my server, it would just work and you'd get the green bar out of it. The problem I'm having is that I need to run my own Name Servers, not something that is a bundle of fun for me.