I suppose it just depends on if the upload takes less than 100 seconds or not. When it worked OK for you, how long did the upload take?

I am trying to understand if one of these may be the case:
1) Your uploads always take a long time, and sometimes that happens to hit the 100 second limit.
Or:
2) Your uploads usually are quite fast but something can go wrong that makes it takes a long time and eventually fail.

Thanks.

What has happened: after continual DDoS attacks recently, we had to get protected by CloudFlare.

So far that seems fine for everything but this upload timeout. I've notified Victor but I think there is no solution he could do quickly.

Obviously this needs a fix but we'll need a bit of time.

Last edited by Scawen, Fri 3 May 2024, 13:19.

No, we do not change user names and we will not start to do so.

OK, I'll close the thread.

Joe, I know you said you'll think a bit more before posting, and that would be great.

Please remember this is a forum, not an instant chat application. So take some time to form your posts well and not always post the first sentence that comes into your head.

This community includes a lot of older people, including younger adults, middle aged people and we even have users in their eighties. So let's try to keep the conversation mature and think before we post.

What size 7z are you trying to upload? Can you give a rough estimate of the time taken between starting the upload, and the timeout error? I read about some different CloudFlare timeouts such as 15 seconds and 100 seconds.

Let's do a thought experiment, OK?

You must know someone with a job, right?

Now imagine going and asking that person to stop that job and work full time doing something that you want them to do for no money at all.

Will they just say "OK, that's fine, I don't really need money anyway" ?

Seriously Joe, if you can't start to spend 5 seconds using your brain before writing forum posts, we will have to give you a long ban. You are going around writing rubbish far too much and it is becoming a distraction.

Joe, are you trolling us? I took the time to answer you seriously, but I feel silly now with your last couple of responses.

If you want a game with more developers, have a look around, there are plenty available.

More developers means more requirements for pay, which means more rushed updates and more following of the current trends. There is higher turnover of staff and more code with no remaining author, more confusion and more charges for customers. In the end the product is expensive to buy or use and then will be abandoned when it becomes impossible to maintain.

That is the result of the usual "more more more" way of running a business.

A lot of people don't understand that LFS is the way it is *BECAUSE* we develop it this way. It's doesn't just happen to be good somehow, despite our ridiculously stupid way of working.

By the way, LFS only exists because Eric and I didn't want to work in a large company any more. So it would be kind of strange to give that up and start trying to run a large company instead of actually doing what we want to do.

Thanks for the info, Victor has restarted it so hopefully it will be OK now.

Please can you describe exactly at which point in the process that goes wrong for you? And what you did before that, on the submission page.

I see various mods have been updated before and after your post. I've just tested a submission on a private test mod and it worked. So I'll need a very specific and exact description from you, to present to Victor.

I notice I introduced a small bug in the submission page - the old 'private' and 'team' access were available to select. I've fixed that now but mentioning in case you tries to select an invalid access mode. Only "custom" and "public" should be available.

EDIT: Also, if it's easy to do, please try submitting the update again. As I know Victor has been adjusting some settings, it's possible that you encountered a problem that has already been fixed.

Last edited by Scawen, Wed 1 May 2024, 07:43.

Thanks, that was an oversight by me in a recent change. It should work now.

I found when entering similar commands in the chat, the problem you describe comes up if there are two spaces before the comment (//).

When I remove the second space it seems to work fine. That seems too sensitive but at least you should be able to fix your problem now.

If you join the E-challenge server with the old version, you just see moving walls. You can never see a car. With the new version, you can see cars driving around.

These are available in test patch E11:

/vlock=car/filter/horizon
/lookf=joystick/axis/steer/mouse_x/mouse_xy
/control=mouse_kb/wheel_js

https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/106967

Test Patch E11:

Cameras:

Layout Square cameras now have 40m height instead of 4m
Reduced jiggling of names above cars at extreme zoom
Improved accuracy of camera rotation at extreme zoom

Commands:

/vlock=car/filter/horizon
/lookf=joystick/axis/steer/mouse_x/mouse_xy
/control=mouse_kb/wheel_js

Download: https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/106967

Thanks, but if you are going to do a list, please make it clear which are higher priority. I'm not hoping for a long list of things to add! I'm really busy trying to get back on track (after releasing a minor update for the public version).

I mean, if I wanted to compare with every available setting, I could do it myself, I guess. I'm more trying to help with your specific issue at this point, so if possible please stick to what's relevant for your use case (or similar).

Remember that every thing I do in the public version, has to be copied into the development version, so it's not a good time for tasks than venture into several different source code files.

Not every setting is available as a command, although ideally that would be the case. I've made a note to see if I can add these. If there are more that you need, feel free to tell me.

Please can you tell me if the results are different if you switch off "Allow regional downloads" in Misc Options?

It is a reasonable suggestion but isn't something I can write quickly and so will be far down the priorities at this point.

But I'm responding to mention that most of this can probably be done by scripts, although you would have to manually run the script.

press space?

Mods are not published if the creator tries use a badge, logo, or name from a real car or manufacturer, unless they have written permission from the manufacturer to use it.

I think it sounds like the AI do not have paths generated, which they cannot do in multiplayer. To fix this, before spawning them in multiplayer, you should generate the paths by starting them in single player.

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

So I have to prove in the article that there are no pros? How? You can't prove...

I think this is a bit silly. The article points out benefits of the car. if you can't be bothered to read it, it's not my responsibility to find it for you.

I'm out.

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

Maybe. But since you're the one claiming, you can demonstrate the pros about the cars talked about in the article out of the context of the cons. And in this case, I agree that I was wrong.

No, you are the one making false claims about an article that you have not bothered to read (by your own admission, and by the fact that you are making false claims about it).

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

But I persistently dislike propaganda. And people in the West tend to be ignorant of it.

It's a well written article, pointing out the problems with excessive car use. It's not propaganda. It's a starting point for discussion, in a world mostly run by governments that are often supporting the car and neglecting (or even dismantling) other forms of transport.

It also points out many positives of cars, but that is not the purpose of the article. It's about the harm done by cars. The fact that the harm done by cars often affects those who cannot own a car, is part of the story.

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

They entire article criticizes cars, and says how bad they are, without pointing out any pros.

You didn't get very far reading the article, then?

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

So there is poor neighbourds and children, and economic inaccessibility.
Oh my god, those poor ones and children, how dare they

Am I really seeing sarcastic comments about people who cannot afford a car, while they are living in a world built around the car?

I suppose your attitude explains a lot. There are a lot of people (who I might suggest are usually "right-wing") who cannot understand 'empathy' although it is actually a fairly normal thing to feel. And if they see someone appearing to care for others they do not know, are baffled and can only assume the person speaking nicely is "virtue signalling" or similar. Well, actually there is such a thing as caring for people (and not only people, but animals and the wider natural world) even when you don't know each person or animal or tree individually.

If we are to be assumed to *only* care about our selves and close family in an immediate sense, then we might as well dig up and burn and pollute everything and destroy the planet. Because why not, the air will still be breathable for our few remaining decades.

But if empathy is a real thing (and guess what, it is) then we might care about other people and future people, and the incredible complexity of the natural world too.

Most people in the world don't have a car, and there are already far too many cars and associated pollution and destruction. If you care about equality, you cannot pretend we can get a car and roads and the supporting industries for everyone to have their own car. There isn't space or enough resources or ability for earth to clean up the mess. So we need to come up with better ways to move people around, in comfort, without hardship. The car isn't the solution, no matter if it's electric.

This article does point out several benefits of the car, but it sensibly and reasonably points out many of the problems that it creates. I guess denial is the expected response from right-wing people who are only concerned with their own personal desires, but are too afraid to look at the bigger picture.