And some of the forum members are demo racers.
I think he was referring to public servers. In which he is correct, there is nobody racing with LRFs on public servers.
The physics have changed a lot. With few tests I have done with Tweak I would say that car like LX8 should be driveable with the current physics.
I have kind of changed my mind on this. If this is a 5 minute job (like it probably is), I see no reason to not add this. I am really not 'for' this idea, but I am not 'against' it either anymore.
Altough I must say that it won't probably be as benefical as you 'HC' people seem to think. But it won't probably affect many people either.
Maybe there will be some servers that some people can't join, but they will probably be some minor servers which didn't have a huge user base in the first place. Major servers with big user bases won't probably switch in fear of losing a portion of racers, and if they do some other server will pop in to their place without the 'HC' mode.
If a major server goes 'HC' and they somehow manage to keep the userbase, that would be just great. It won't probably "bring lots of new racers", but I guess it would make some people happy. Hell, I might even come and race there myself.
I do predict that this would end up like all those LX-servers people sometimes seem to try. Everyone goes on about how great those cars are, but when someone actually sets up a server like that, there are not that many players and nobody wants to drive around alone.
Altough I must say that it won't probably be as benefical as you 'HC' people seem to think. But it won't probably affect many people either.
Maybe there will be some servers that some people can't join, but they will probably be some minor servers which didn't have a huge user base in the first place. Major servers with big user bases won't probably switch in fear of losing a portion of racers, and if they do some other server will pop in to their place without the 'HC' mode.
If a major server goes 'HC' and they somehow manage to keep the userbase, that would be just great. It won't probably "bring lots of new racers", but I guess it would make some people happy. Hell, I might even come and race there myself.
I do predict that this would end up like all those LX-servers people sometimes seem to try. Everyone goes on about how great those cars are, but when someone actually sets up a server like that, there are not that many players and nobody wants to drive around alone.
No, it really is quite impossible to detect macros from inside LFS. Only way it could be done is by checking what background programs the user is running while playing, but the problem with that is that there are tons of macro programs out there. Most people don't like programs sniffing their PC either. Besides I am sure Scawen has made Insim give out as much info about users controller settings as LFS internally sees, so that people can make these kind of plugins if they so want. This seems to be a simple thing to do too. Maybe Insim doesn't update the controller settings on every split or lap, that is something you should maybe request if it doesn't.
What I am trying to say is that:
1. If a major server would turn 'HC', it would take a lot away from people who can't race without an auto-clutch. Which is why it would be tempting to use macros.
2. If a minor server would go 'HC', it would still be a minor server. That wouldn't take away nothing from majority of people, but it wouldn't make that server very popular either. There would only be few players playing and all those 'HC' racers would still not be happy because the lack of players.
3. It is already possible to do this with Insim and it would probably be equally effective than having it as an internal part of LFS.
PS. In Forzas case things are very different. Everyone can play in the HC mode in Forza, because it works with the normal controller everyone has.
Last edited by geeman1, .
It's rather impossible to reliably to check if user is using an actual physical clutch pedal or a macro. From LFS' point of view pressing a clutch pedal and macro using the clutch looks exactly the same. It doesn't matter if it's hardcoded in to LFS or if it's a Insim app.
But would big and well known servers implement these limitations? If they did wouldn't it piss off a bunch of people who couldn't play anymore? Wouldn't those pissed off people then be tempted to use macros to "hack" their way in? Or would those server's userbase reduce to 2 drivers per week? Which would in turn make this whole thing pointless.
Why can't these hardcore simmers just have race between themselves and agree not to use any unrealistic options? Or how about one of them makes an Insim plugin that checks if a user has auto-clutch on (or some other option) and boots them off the server if they do?
That must be the most overused line ever in the improvement suggestions area. Literally every other suggestion says that it would increase the amount of online racers...
I use a clutch and I know it's a disadvantage, but I still think this is a bad idea.
Your moms car has an open diff. Which means that the tires can spin freely, hence no slipping. Many setups in LFS use locked diff or close to locked, which makes them behave very very differently from your moms car.
Also what tristan said. The tyre model kind of breaks down at low speeds so even a little bit too much gas can also make the tires spin.
That's how locked diff works. Both tyres are locked to turn at the same speed and while turning (even at low speeds) one tyre has to slide.
Actually the tyre sounds are too loud already. Especially in the race cars you probably wouldn't be able to hear the tyres at all.
They are a bit too loud on purpose though, to give you a bit more feel.
They are a bit too loud on purpose though, to give you a bit more feel.
Act Labs distributes them in the US.
http://www.act-labs.com/scripts/proddetails.asp?Pid=947
I have that Act Labs version my self and it's really good. The pedals are very solid. Only minor complaint is that the pedals are totally smooth (except the holes) so if you use them with only socks on you mind find them a bit slippery.
Last edited by geeman1, .
You are forgetting about AMD. Hyperthreading is only a Intel thing. Also Hyperthreading only offers around 10% (iirc) advantage over a traditional single core processor.
Multithreading requires more code to control all the threads. There is more polling between threads required too, other threads have to ask in what state certain thread is and only get the data if the thread is in the right state. This is why with multithreading you need to structure the code in a different way than with only one thread. Ideally you want the threads to work as independently as possible. How long switching to multithreading would take depends on how LFS is structured.
In my opinion this should be quite high on the todo-list. Multi-core CPUs are pretty much the norm already and making the switch will become harder as more features are added on.
It took only one month before you decided to start Internet flame wars
And no, LFS is probably not going to be ported to Mac. Probably the biggest reason being that you would need to maintain two versions and seeing as the development is quite slow already, that doesn't seem a very good option.
Dyno would be equally pointless. As mcintyrej said, you can already see the power and torque.
What's the point? You would test the top speed once and then the track would be forgotten.
I did your whole post (and the others too).
I only quoted a small relevant part because I wanted to address a common misconception that many people seem to have. My post wasn't only targeted at you or this thread, but in general.
Why not? It's not like you can totally forget about the time that it takes to create a certain functionality. You have to always take in to consideration if the time spent doing something is worth it. Besides this section for the forum is not just for people to throw all kinds of ideas in to the air and leave them there. It's about also discussing about the ideas and to see what other people think. These threads really don't make any ultimate decision about should these things really be done or not anyway, but if a dev comes to a thread like this it's probably important that they can see opinions from both sides. The devs can probably think for themselves and discard opinions that are not true in their own mind.
It's foolish to think that you can throw an idea out there and then tell people not to have negative opinions about it. It just doesn't work like that.
Wouldn't work. LFS can't know how what you want to view.
The most that could be done is to add a built-in feature to record to a movie-file when viewing a replay, but as Tristan said, there are already many great programs that can do that, so it would be waste of Scawen's time.
The most that could be done is to add a built-in feature to record to a movie-file when viewing a replay, but as Tristan said, there are already many great programs that can do that, so it would be waste of Scawen's time.
That is what has been asked ten million billion times already. Just read the Big Scirocco thread and find out the answer is that no one except the devs know and they are not telling.
Repeating the same thing over and over again is pointless. That's why the Scirocco thread got closed and subsequent posts/threads merged in to it.
Last edited by geeman1, .
Your definition is programmed faulty. 
No one programs faulty on purpose. Bugs just happen when the programmer doesn't notice all the things some piece of code changes. Just like in this case.
Besides I don't think it is that hard to fix really.
No one programs faulty on purpose. Bugs just happen when the programmer doesn't notice all the things some piece of code changes. Just like in this case.
Besides I don't think it is that hard to fix really.
That shouldn't happen, that's why it's a bug. It should only slow down the simulation, not everything else too.
It's more like a bug. Actually I think this should be reported in the bug reports section of the forum instead of here.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG