No prob Darktimes, I totally understand what you are saying!
Could you though consider the possibility of adding a merge function in the prog, so we can emualte pools indirectly?
By "merging" I mean the option to merge multiple championship files into one, which will sum up the drivers' and/or teams' points of the smaller files. This way we can emulate pools with the following procedure:
If we have 3 pools in a race, we produce 3 championship files with the 3 different point-systems (30-21 pts, 20-11 pts and 10-1 pts) and we save them as grp01.chf, grp2.chf and grp3.chf. We then load each groups' replay into the corresponding .chf file. Lastly we Merge those 3 chf files and we end up with a new chf file featuring the correct points for all drivers as they had all participated in one single race with a LOT OF people.
Perhaps the term "heats" was a better one. "Pools" is the term OLFSL uses. The whole idea is when a league has to del with a lot of partcipants (60 for example). In such cases, we have the drivers racing in groups (pools, heats): i.e. the 30 best (in the quals) in group-1, the next 30 in group-2 (or we can have 3 groups of 20 drivers).
In OLFSL, competitors in group-1 get more points than those competing in group-2, who in turn get more points than those competing in group-3. and so on.
This way you can organize races with a much larger number of people than the number allowed by the simulator itself.
The problem is that the implementation inside LFS-Point could be quite challenging, especially if we have point overlaps among groups (for example the last 3 of group-1 to get equal or less points than the first 3 in group-2, etc).
On the other hand, groups (pools, heats) is a quite popular method in large leagues and supporting it would really give a boost to LFS Points' popularity and/or usability
Darktimes, once more I'd like to thank you for all the effort and the support you're giving to this excellent program of yours!
It was a bless for us in the GVRteam, since in about 10 days we are about to start a local league here in Greece to the OLFSL standards (in a smaller scale of course). Of course the GVRt UMC (Unofficial Mini Championship) will evolve around LFS Points, which means I will be giving you feedback taken from real time practising.
TBH, the final desicion for organizing this league was taken as soon as I discovered this... gem
The slow-mo is a great idea Tweaker, I will try it to the next one, thanks!
As for the (overbloating) details, you may be right generally speaking, but as I said earlier, this (and the upcoming) guides was made for the GVRteam, where we all share the same setups, we use similar driving techniques and we have specific needs. I just thought the guide would also be helpful to others outside the team, and that's why I posted it publicly.
TBH, all upcoming guides will keep featuring the same info since we are a racing team and even small details count. But I may code the info somehow, perhaps on a fixed spot of the screen like the following...
Dst: B=100m, T=50m ASp: +/- 80 km/h
Dst = Distances
B = Breaking
T = Turn-in
ASp = Apex Speed
... or something like that.
Of cource someone may choose to ignore them
For those who like to watch their speed through their passes, it may helpful to enable the Digital Speedo on the lower part of the screen, as shown in the vid.
Thanks for the kind words guys! I'm really glad you liked the guide
Dear Tweaker, what do you mean "Also distance values that aren't even relevant"; They are not relevant to what?
As for the speed (either turn-in, apex or exit, epsecially the apex speed), it is the best way to understand on the fly whether you made a good pass through the corner or not, regardless setups and/or gear ratios.
Actually, (in your quest for a fast lap) when you watch the replay of a fast guy trying to get hints, the very first things you should focus on are:
b) Braking zones
c) Apexes speed.
If you manage to reproduce them, even roughly (no matter what setup you're using) then at the end of the lap you'll have managed a pretty fast laptime. From that point on it is only a matter of setup and/or driving fine-tuning to further improve both your laptimes and your ability to repeat them. So I would say that speed notations are more important than selected gears
Keep also in mind that at GVRt the track-guide comes with a setup (here I just named it, there I included a link to it), which makes things a bit more easy!
The plan is to have more of these coming, but with our own pace.
PS1. Yesterday I decided to give the combo another go, this time using Duck's setup and I found some of those missing tenths I was talking about in my first post (1.33.880 ). Duck's pb with that setup is almost a sec better (1:32.930).
PS2. Both setups, and many more, are availabe on the excellent Team Inferno site. They only have wr setups there!
I roughly translated to english a track-guide I made for the GVRteam, with the XFG at Blackwood GP.
It shows the basic lines, gear shifts and braking-points for an acceptably fast lap on the track (1:34.000). The lap was done a year ago (November 2006) with patch U, using PartyBoy's setup, when the wr was still 1:33.100 (today it is 1:32.940 I think). There are a few driving mistakes though, especially at K3 and K6, which most probably cost me a couple of tenths.
Even so, I thought it could be helpful to some people, especially newcomers to LFS. Please feel free to comment on it, and most importantly feel free to correct possible faulty guidlines I may give in the video.
DarkTimes, this was a brilliant idea and i found ingenious the user interface you implemented inside the program! It worked like a charm for me, many many thanks!
A great improvement would be to add teams support. For example, in the Player Name you could consider everything enclosed in brackets ('[' and ']') to be the team name (or no team, if no brackets are found) and add another tab with the "Team Standings". This might dictate to rename the current "Championship" tab to "Driver Standings", for clarity reasons!
How does this sound?
PS. And a question, how come Pole Position is getting the value "Uknown" in the exported results? (i've only tested the html exporting). Could it be that I loaded demo mpr files into the prog?
I'm playing Power & Glory for almost a week now and I'm thrilled (btw, it only needs to see the GTL cd/dvd on your drive only once, during installation and that's it... you may even rent it from your local video-club just for installing P&G in GTR2 )
Make no mistake, this is not LFS! So if you expect it to be like LFS you'll be disappointed. But it is as close as LFSish the ISI engine can get (so far). Keeping that in mind you will enjoy the one and only mod RSCNET have opened a separate subforum for, ever!
TBH I have only dealt extensively with the Fiat Abarth Group 5 (1000 cc, form '60s) which I am stuck with... by choice of course! I really love it! I have already put down quite some laps in Monza 2004, in Monaco 1979 and in Watkins Glenn and I have loved every single moment of it!
I haven't really tried other cars, except of a few laps with the Austin Mini Coopers S, the Alfa Romeo GTA and the Lotus Cortina... but not enough to seriously commnet on their physics. They seemed suprisingly good, though, at a first glance.
At the very least for the abarth (and the mini cooper) I recommend the mod to any simmer, especially those who keep an open mind across several popular sims
I hope you don't misunderstand me, but you seem to seriously underestimate the strong points of LFS's competition... which is not a good thing in my point of view. For example, the tyre deformation feature you mentioned in another post as being UNIQUE to LFS, already exists (or existed) in games like Virtual Grand Prix on the Mac, as well as Richard Burns Rallye and X Motor Racing on the PC.
Now don't get me wrong, I happen to be one of the founding members of the GVRteam, which practically is the absolute and only point of reference of LFS in Greece, which means I love, promote and advertise the sim. But this doesn't mean that LFS 's competition is worthless. On the contrary, LFS lacks crucial features already availabe in the competition (unique or not shouldn't and doesn't really matter) some of which would really boost LFS's popularity (real-life tracks for example or changable weather or a more detailed damage model).
The above is not me complaining for the devs, it is just me trying to show that some of your arguing so far (presented as "facts") are not so... valid as you may think
I find the lack of rewinding an lfs replay quite important, and I sure think it is well worth it to invest some time into finding a work-around (even if this means rewinding will work like ff from the start of the file).
Movies is an essential commercial tool for any sim, especially an online sim, and implementing a replay rewinding will surely boost even more the production of excellent movies.
Things are quite simple imho, anyone wanting to further support the devs, should simply donate an amount of his liking.
As for the remote possibilty of having a subscription based S3, I agree with those who argue that the user base will drop dramatically. Actually, I think it would be a commercial suicide.
The argument saying that S1 & S2 uses will remain unchanged is pretty much invalid, since everyone wants the new thing (if it's availabe) but not everyone will be happy to pay monthly for it... it's not the amount of the subscription, it's the policy (attitude) that repells. Sim-racing simply doesnt's work that way all those years. And always there will be at least one free alternative.
Don't forget that LFS is a hell of a simulator, but it also lacks a hell lot of features before it can be characterized "full" (for example, ai, weather changes, night races, real-life tracks, visuals, replay rewinding -lol-, etc). If for example rfactor2 comes up with half of those missing features and offers free online racing with a decent physics engine, then no matter the initial cost, it will tear a subscription-based lfs apart.
I read you solved the other problems, so I just wanted to point out that you should NOT use fields at all. Fields are for interlaced media, such as the TV, with NTSC using lower field first (B field) and PAL upper field first (A field).
Since source recoding and output playback is done on your PC monitor, everything is using progressive scan (and square PAR, that is 1:1 Pixel Aspect Ratio), so do NOT define fields when you encode. Most probably you are using a ready (NTSC) profile and that's why you are getting a (lower) field setting. Don't use ready profiles, customize the settings yourself instead.