I wonder how many people drive outside the outer boundary fences at Westhill. I spent quite a while on this taking care not remove physics on any areas that you could drive to. I wasn't expecting to find out that people like to drive beyond the outer boundary fences!
There is no physics on objects beyond the map squares system because there is no map square to register them on.
Map squares are a typical optimisation used in games, so you only need to check objects that are registered on nearby map squares, instead of running through huge lists of objects.
Yes, I did switch off the physics on some "out of bounds" surfaces at Westhill as they were increasing the size of the map squares system. It was related to the map because my task at the time was to restrict the physical area to the actual area we want to have mapped. That is important because the map only has a limited area available on the screen, and we don't want the map to appear too small.
It also has the side effect of making the map squares smaller which can have a performance benefit (though I have not tested this specifically).
I know what you mean but that area is really meant to be "scenery".
Some other requests I still considering. Some requests, including the drift maximum lock increase, would cause an incompatibility issue. I do expect to release an incompatible version in the near future, so it looks like that should be possible, up to 45 degrees (no new tracks, cars or tyre physics in the incompatible version).
I haven't used a Pacejka Magic formula model but any model based on slip as inputs will have that problem that it doesn't work near zero speed. In LFS at very low speed it changes to a separate static model that is sufficient for low speed movement. The static model tracks a ground point representing the centre of the contact patch, that tries to move along the ground in the direction the wheel is pointing. A spring force is applied between that point and where it would be without any friction. Something like that.
I can't get heavily into that at this time, though I am following the drifting discussion.
If I do a change during this update it can only be the steering angle limit increase. Because I have too much work to finish that must not be delayed. A couple of questions:
- I notice people do not mention the GTR cars. Are they not used much for drifting?
- Does anyone have any facts about the limits in real cars when front wheel drive is involved?
Thanks, I have found out the reason and fixed this. The shadows are now affected by fog in the same way as they were in version Q. Even that is not quite correct, as you can see if you put a car in a building's shadow then move far away. But it is much less noticeable than in Q3.
About your quote:
This is something different. For example see the attached image and compare the UF's shadow on the ramp, with how it appears on the ground.
I don't know if this can be done without messing up all the hotlaps for those cars. But as it seems so popular, I can look into it. If it would mess up the hotlaps then I won't do it, an increase in steering range would have to wait for the new tyre physics, which I have been working on.
But, to help me, can you tell me exactly which cars need more steering angle to help with drift and how much that extra angle should be? It really must remain within the realms of "realistic" and I guess that means it should not include any cars with front drive.
There is more to come. Explanation below.
At the moment the shadows do not affect transparency, and I didn't do anything to change that. It's a good point and I haven't even thought about that! I think with all the other things I am working on, the shadows on alpha surfaces will not be changed in this update.
The problem with skid marks on concrete is if the concrete object disappears, we could have floating skid marks. I haven't yet worked out a system to solve this. Though I haven't put much time into it. I suppose it's possible by registering every bit of skid on an object, so they can vanish if the object is deleted... again, probably not in this update.
I've been diverted onto some updates on the tyre physics, because I needed to send Eric an update with new editor functions, but the new tyre physics were in an "intermediate" state. Now I've brought them to a driveable state, I can update Eric's dev version and I can get back to some patch things.
But I don't want to try and say what else will be in the patch.
Yeah, normally the test patch threads are more lively and I keep adding more updates. This time, the shadows were tested, no serious bugs exist and then I've been diverted onto other things and there was also two weeks with the kids at home.
I'm back to work now so hopefully there should be more to test soon!
It's worth upgrading to S3 if you think that amount of money is worth it to drive on an accurate laser scanned version of the real Rockingham race track. If not, then it's not worth it, and you should stick with S2 until we release more S3 content.
I sometimes wonder if people think they need S3 in order to be up to date and find anyone online... but that is not the case at all. You only need S3 to go to Rockingham. S2 is fine for all other purposes and is the best value for money at the moment.
In order to get more licensed people online, we have now reduced the LFS prices for lower earning countries. There are quite a few licenses being bought now, so I hope that that will work. The best thing to do is get online. There are too many people around saying they want to go online but there aren't enough people online. I think you can see the solution here!