I've rebuilt the E12 patch as an installer instead of a self-extracting archive.
Also, as a well tested patch, and now that some hosts are using the improved E12 hosting version, I have put this update on the auto updater system for everyone.
This is experimental, it's a different way of doing things. I'm sure it cannot be done for all test patches but it seems OK right now as this one is well tested.
Also, as a well tested patch, and now that some hosts are using the improved E12 hosting version, I have put this update on the auto updater system for everyone.
This is experimental, it's a different way of doing things. I'm sure it cannot be done for all test patches but it seems OK right now as this one is well tested.
The test patch forum was opened and the thread moved there at the same time that the E12 server became available.
The test patch thread was originally in the mods section because the earlier test patches were primarily about changes related to mods. This is fairly obvious if you look at the change log. https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/106967
So then we didn't really need a whole forum section dedicated to a test patch that was all about mods.
Just recently some updates on the host side have required an updated client version. That point I delayed as much as possible, but now we are near the end of the life cycle of this test patch, so things need to be tested.
It does raise the question about making E12 'official' in the sense that it could be automatically downloaded by E clients using the auto updater. Some people might say that is a no-brainer, in the sense that it would be a good idea to provide more frequent updates like that. Maybe they are right, I'm not sure. We haven't done that before. Official updates have always come with an announcement and a new full version. This method has worked for us for many years. Roughly 20 years, I guess.
Either way, it probably would make more sense to use a better installer instead of the self-extracting archive that has served us quite well up to now. But I understand we are moving into an era where many people own a PC and play games but are confused about simply moving a file into a known location on their computer. This can seem hilarious to those of us who have used PCs since the days of MS-DOS.
But I do understand the convenience of the proper installer and I am looking into that a bit.
The test patch thread was originally in the mods section because the earlier test patches were primarily about changes related to mods. This is fairly obvious if you look at the change log. https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/106967
So then we didn't really need a whole forum section dedicated to a test patch that was all about mods.
Just recently some updates on the host side have required an updated client version. That point I delayed as much as possible, but now we are near the end of the life cycle of this test patch, so things need to be tested.
It does raise the question about making E12 'official' in the sense that it could be automatically downloaded by E clients using the auto updater. Some people might say that is a no-brainer, in the sense that it would be a good idea to provide more frequent updates like that. Maybe they are right, I'm not sure. We haven't done that before. Official updates have always come with an announcement and a new full version. This method has worked for us for many years. Roughly 20 years, I guess.
Either way, it probably would make more sense to use a better installer instead of the self-extracting archive that has served us quite well up to now. But I understand we are moving into an era where many people own a PC and play games but are confused about simply moving a file into a known location on their computer. This can seem hilarious to those of us who have used PCs since the days of MS-DOS.
But I do understand the convenience of the proper installer and I am looking into that a bit.The trouble is, although it's understandable to want to make such a small change for the fun of it, the time of such tweak mods has really passed. Of course you are free to play around with them on your local computer but it is unlikely to make it to publishing on the public system.
Over the last few years, the mods system has gone through many stages, ups and downs and now mods are not published unless they get community support. There are so many good mods now, the community won't really support mods that don't bring something new and interesting.
Over the last few years, the mods system has gone through many stages, ups and downs and now mods are not published unless they get community support. There are so many good mods now, the community won't really support mods that don't bring something new and interesting.
Tutorial videos: https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/95664
I understand that it is not obvious, but it is in the "Test Patch Forum" that is visible from the main page of the forum.
https://www.lfs.net/forum/66-Patch-TEST-Forum
Sometimes when we get near to an official release, hosts move onto an incompatible version for various reasons and people must use the test patch in order to visit those hosts.
E12 is quite a bit better than E and I would like to release an official version soon, there are just a few more things on the list to sort out.
https://www.lfs.net/forum/66-Patch-TEST-Forum
Sometimes when we get near to an official release, hosts move onto an incompatible version for various reasons and people must use the test patch in order to visit those hosts.
E12 is quite a bit better than E and I would like to release an official version soon, there are just a few more things on the list to sort out.
Although I agree that is not ideal, I don't think it has changed in recent times. I tested using 0.7E and the same thing happens, the mouse axis doesn't seem to reach the absolute limit.
But you can solve that by setting the multiplier on Mouse Y to 1.1 which may be a reasonable solution.
But you can solve that by setting the multiplier on Mouse Y to 1.1 which may be a reasonable solution.
I think what you saw was down to 2 different things.
1) You saw damage on his car, but he did not. This could be that on your computer, damage was inflicted on his engine due to differences on your computer calculating the physics, compared with the 'real' case on his computer. Soon, some info came from his computer correcting the engine damage your computer had estimated too high.
2) Later, he and you had engine damage but the other could not see it. This could be due to granularity due to compressed data. Your engine health would have to be worse than 99.8% to be visible on a remote computer. But it only has to be worse than 99.95% to be visible on the local computer.
1) You saw damage on his car, but he did not. This could be that on your computer, damage was inflicted on his engine due to differences on your computer calculating the physics, compared with the 'real' case on his computer. Soon, some info came from his computer correcting the engine damage your computer had estimated too high.
2) Later, he and you had engine damage but the other could not see it. This could be due to granularity due to compressed data. Your engine health would have to be worse than 99.8% to be visible on a remote computer. But it only has to be worse than 99.95% to be visible on the local computer.
As far as I can understand, carreragt339 is not really talking about the actual *mouse control* option (when you click mouse/keyboard). It seems to me that he is talking about the option to use axis-based mouse control (when you click wheel/joystick without a game controller connected) and that he simply would like a deadzone option for axes (and some additional precision on the multiplier). This is a long requested feature particularly for game controllers. I don't think it is in any way related to the standard mouse control option.
It's not a high priority compared with other things but a deadzone option does feature on one of the notes that I am surrounded by.
It's not a high priority compared with other things but a deadzone option does feature on one of the notes that I am surrounded by.
Never heard of that before.
Have you tried restarting the computer?
Have you tried restarting the computer?
I discovered one small bug that could affect performance if the host was busy, so I had to remotely restart the hosts that had already upgraded:
Race Green
Piran Moto DD
RTFR
[AA]
[SVRT]
CESAV.es
Sorry about that, hope it didn't cause too much disruption.
Anyway, the closing down and restart 1 minute later wasn't a bug. It was just me fixing a bug.
EDIT: I think it may have affected [AA] Mod Racing. Sorry about that.
Race Green
Piran Moto DD
RTFR
[AA]
[SVRT]
CESAV.es
Sorry about that, hope it didn't cause too much disruption.
Anyway, the closing down and restart 1 minute later wasn't a bug. It was just me fixing a bug.
EDIT: I think it may have affected [AA] Mod Racing. Sorry about that.
Last edited by Scawen, .
Hi, sorry it has taken so long to get back to you.
This system was written by Victor but he has been very busy at his full time job so I have to take over some of the maintenance he would have done in the past. I'm learning more about the website but there's a lot to take in and I don't know how everything works.
I found the old folder of your host on the Netherlands server. I think that shouldn't really remain when you move your host, so I have deleted it (leaving the one in USA that is still running). Please could you try moving it to the Netherlands again and see if it now works?
Last edited by Scawen, .
No worries, it was nice that I could catch it easily in the replay using a data breakpoint.
You should find this bug is fixed in LFS Host version E12.
I stated that Guests will need E12 in the Host E12 announcement:
https://www.lfs.net/forum/post/2091846#post2091846
https://www.lfs.net/forum/post/2091846#post2091846
Checking the replay, I caught the packet that set the split times to zero.
There are two cases that could cause this packet to be sent.
Admin (or InSim program) typed:
/zero_all
Or:
/setlap USERNAME 0 (for each user name that got set back to zero)
These are the only places in the code that send that packet.
EDIT: further inspection shows it must have been zero_all as no user name was specified.
There are two cases that could cause this packet to be sent.
Admin (or InSim program) typed:
/zero_all
Or:
/setlap USERNAME 0 (for each user name that got set back to zero)
These are the only places in the code that send that packet.
EDIT: further inspection shows it must have been zero_all as no user name was specified.
Last edited by Scawen, .
The /setstops command is now available in host version E12:
https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/108079
https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/108079
Version E12 is now available
Hello hosters.
Host version E12 is now available. You can stop your host and select E12.
NOTE: Guests will need Test Patch E12 or later to join an E12 host!
Changes in E12:
FIX: The 49.7 day bug is fixed (previously, the host got stuck after 49.7 days)
FIX: JOOS on connect when a car, now disallowed, is on track
FIX: Old version could sometimes fail to spectate a blocking car
New command /specdnf specifies number of stopped seconds before DNF
- this is activated when a stopped car blocks a result confirmation
- default value is 12 (was 8 in the past) and range is 0 to 240
New command /setstops USERNAME Y :set user's number of stops to Y
Host version E12 is now available. You can stop your host and select E12.
NOTE: Guests will need Test Patch E12 or later to join an E12 host!
Changes in E12:
FIX: The 49.7 day bug is fixed (previously, the host got stuck after 49.7 days)
FIX: JOOS on connect when a car, now disallowed, is on track
FIX: Old version could sometimes fail to spectate a blocking car
New command /specdnf specifies number of stopped seconds before DNF
- this is activated when a stopped car blocks a result confirmation
- default value is 12 (was 8 in the past) and range is 0 to 240
New command /setstops USERNAME Y :set user's number of stops to Y
You should find this is now fixed, in E12.
You can have more than one space between commands (including if that 'command' is a comment).
https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/106967
You can have more than one space between commands (including if that 'command' is a comment).
https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/106967
Some minor updates in E12:
Cameras:
Small change in calculation of free view camera smoothing
- only intended as preparation for a future change
- slightly more efficient calculation
- should provide identical motion
Multiplayer:
Support for new command to set number of stops completed
- requires updated host not yet publicly available
Commands:
FIX: Multiple commands now allow more than 1 space between commands
Translations:
More updated translations - Thank you translators!
Download: https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/106967
Cameras:
Small change in calculation of free view camera smoothing
- only intended as preparation for a future change
- slightly more efficient calculation
- should provide identical motion
Multiplayer:
Support for new command to set number of stops completed
- requires updated host not yet publicly available
Commands:
FIX: Multiple commands now allow more than 1 space between commands
Translations:
More updated translations - Thank you translators!
Download: https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/106967
You paid for LFS tweaker? 
We don't support memory hack programs.
I will now close this thread.
We don't support memory hack programs.
I will now close this thread.
I see that one of your hosts is configured to allow an IP address to connect to InSim. The other host does not allow that.
I don't know if this will solve the problem but maybe you should make sure there are no IP addresses that are allowed to connect?
I don't know if this will solve the problem but maybe you should make sure there are no IP addresses that are allowed to connect?
It will happen 49.7 days after the host is restarted.
While waiting for the fix (version 0.7F) hosts can check how long their host has been running.
https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/107678-Avoid-the-49-7-day-bug
While waiting for the fix (version 0.7F) hosts can check how long their host has been running.
https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/107678-Avoid-the-49-7-day-bug
I am not sure but think this may happen when you join the server and your load time is long.
So then I agree with turbofan, disconnect and reconnect should fix it (or load the correct track before joining the first time). I don't think restarting the server is relevant.
So then I agree with turbofan, disconnect and reconnect should fix it (or load the correct track before joining the first time). I don't think restarting the server is relevant.
They are there because they can use licensed content free of charge, although there were many ways to extract money from people over there, like VIP packages and payment for "unban" etc.
In the past, the LFS Pro community became more active than the legit community and sales were so low we didn't earn enough money to live on.
But it's not just about my family having to live a frugal lifestyle so we could pay the bills. Worse things than that happened to other people.
I agree this thread should close, it makes me too sad.
In the past, the LFS Pro community became more active than the legit community and sales were so low we didn't earn enough money to live on.
But it's not just about my family having to live a frugal lifestyle so we could pay the bills. Worse things than that happened to other people.
I agree this thread should close, it makes me too sad.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG