You are right that this is a bit of a mess at the moment, something we've never considered properly. To fix it, we need to:
1) align the visual objects correctly with the invisible start positions
2) set the cars such that part of the car is aligned with one of the lines

Eric found the dimensions of the grid box and has provided me with an accurate start grid box object.

It's not clear to me what the actual rules are, regarding the positioning in the box. Is it the front of the car needs to be within the white lines, and the yellow line is just a sighting line for drivers (e.g. F1) as they can't see the white lines? Or is there something about aligning the wheels with one of the lines?

I'd be interested to see some evidence about what part of the car should line up exactly with which line, if anyone can find that.

Posted by cuni on LFS Movies thread: https://www.lfs.net/forum/post/2126555#post2126555

A 16 minute history of LFS in Spanish by Jinx / @Littl3Jinx

Last edited by Scawen, Thu 12 Jun 2025, 14:07. Reason : added name of the video's creator

Editor F11:

FIX: wire overlay was not clearly visible especially in 2D views
32 layers are now available + scroll bar and option to show all

Thanks, I see the same (it looks good in F but not F10).

That is probably related to the Z buffer change.

Editor F10:

FIX: Rear caster angle can now be set in the base default setup
FIX: Avoided the jaggies on generated sky texture near the horizon

Quote from Egor K :

In my case the stanchions and the lowers coincided only at one and only one ‘lowest wheel height’ : -115mm, which makes the front too high and to get stance right must set front too soft. By the way, this height is exactly at the intersection of the head angle line and the vertical axle projection.

In my test that seems to be working as intended. Adjusting the "Lowest wheel height" misaligns the fork, but the misalignment is corrected with "Forward" in Suspension settings (at top left of screen).

Quote from Egor K :

Oddly enough, that ‘lowest wheel height’ (-115mm) must be only in the first set. Proper value can be set in the second set without misalignment.

Although it seems odd, this is also intended.
It's something like: the first setup defines the geometry but the second setup works like an adjustment.

Quote from Egor K :

But! If you delete the first set, the second set (which allowed ‘lowest wheel height’ to be freely adjusted) will turn on and fork will immediately fall apart even if no settings are touched

When you delete the base setup, the new base setup defines the geometry, so if its lowest wheel height was different from the deleted base setup, you will then need to adjust the lowest wheel height or the "Forward" value.

Thanks for the report.

It looks as if that has been the case for a long time, I think since before LFS editor was released.

EDIT: Correction, it looks like the change was September/October 2022. I think the setup storage changes were related to multithreading. So it probably did work correctly in the earliest public versions of LFS Editor.

Without much investigation, I don't think it should be like that, but on the other hand I think it doesn't really affect anything much (given the current limitations of LFS suspension physics). I think it was an unintended result of a change around the way the live setup is stored. I'll have a look to see if it can be corrected.

Last edited by Scawen, Thu 5 Jun 2025, 07:32.

Fixes for moving subobjects in Editor F9.

Thanks for the report and test data.

The problem was related to a movable subobject that was made invisible by configuration layers. Any subobjects later in the list would go wrong.

The problem was only in the recent editor and not in the public LFS.

The bug is now fixed in Editor F9. https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/111321

OK, let's figure this out. For some reason the subobject you are trying to move has type "SLIDER" but the internal 'mover' that moves it has type "SPINNER".

But of course the mover should have acquired its type from the subobject it represents. So the question is why is that happening. Could it be you have reached a limit? How many moving subobjects do you have?

EDIT: Incidentally, object type 'spinner' was not working in the latest version of the editor (Test inputs) but I've fixed it now. But that is not related to Tuttu's bug.

Last edited by Scawen, Tue 3 Jun 2025, 13:58.

Thanks for the report. The syncer had not been restarted after a recent server reboot.

You should find it works correctly now.

If it's not a particular mod (or some particular mods) then the only thing to do is wait for the big release of the new graphics version.

In the new version:

Only the "physics" part of the vehicle is created when the player leaves the pits. The graphical model is delayed, and only created (on the graphics thread) when that vehicle comes into view. There may still be a small glitch at that point, but it will be less than in the old (current) version because no textures are loaded at that point. The textures are loaded one at a time over the subsequent frames, instead of loading them all at once.

In short, pit-out glitch is a well known and 'ancient' problem that is worsened by some mods, and I've already dealt with it by various means, for this reason. Unfortunately you still have to wait a while before you get the updates.

That doesn't sound like anything new. It sounds like the pit-out glitch that has always been there, that I have already worked on in my new version of LFS that is not yet public.

I'm not really interested in the normal small glitches that have always been there and I have already worked on.

The original poster reported something new that has been going on, so that explains the thinking in my previous post.

LFS hasn't changed and this has nothing to do with compressed skins. Mods all come with compressed skins and textures, and downloaded skins are also compressed, so switching that option doesn't affect mods.

I believe the most likely explanation is poorly constructed mods. If you can identify a mod that causes a noticeable stutter when it loads, I can have a look to see what is wrong with it. If it's every time it loads, it's probably a poorly optimised model or some other model issue, or maybe audio files (or something wrong with LFS that mod shows up). If the mod only loads slowly the first time since LFS started, it might be related to excessive textures.

You could possibly identify a mod with such an issue by starting LFS fresh and watching an MPR. When you see a glitch, find out who just left the pits and check out their vehicle name that is shown in F11 or F12 menu. If the same issue happens each time with specific mods you could start to prepare a proper report.

I am very busy and will not get involved unless I am given a definite and reproducible example of a mod that causes a glitch when it loads.

Alternatively there could be a problem with your computer or Windows is checking files that are downloaded or something like that. I suppose in this case the problem would only show up the first time a mod is downloaded, rather than every time it is loaded.

It could be that your mods folder has become huge. You could use the cleanup on the mods screen i game to reduce the folder, or you could delete all the mods in the mods folder to see if it helps (I mean once, not every time you start LFS).


EDIT:

1) Please only report a mod that causes a *bad* stutter or glitch, not just slight ones. I can't emphasise enough how busy I am and don't want to go on a wild goose chase.

2) The new version of LFS spreads out mod loading and creation over more frames so ordinary loading glitches should be reduced. But that doesn't stop me taking an interest in mods that cause an extra bad glitch.

Last edited by Scawen, Fri 30 May 2025, 09:12.

It sounds like the sort of issue that could happen with a mod that is not well optimised, resulting in a slow build of the in-game model or loading textures or sound files.

Please could you link to the information that gives rise to your summary points and the 'Rec' references? I only found the 4-page document on the page you linked to but that doesn't have the 'Rec' points and doesn't seem so dramatic.

EDIT: I found the link in the reddit thread: https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/document/download/1105a0ef-535c-44a7-a6d4-a8478fce1d29_en?filename=Recommendations%20of%20the%20HLG%20on%20Access%20to%20Data%20for%20Effective%20Law%20Enforcement_en.pdf

I've got a feeling this will be the future for other games where customers can start their own servers.

Developers will not want to be held responsible for revealing user IP addresses to hosters.

Developers will want to provide more robust help for hosters to identify troublesome players.

Currently I am in favour of an identifier created based on some values from the client computer. And possibly also a country code sent separately though I haven't looked up how to do that yet. I know such functions are available on the web server but our master server is not written in php.

The idea is:
1) Avoid sending guest IP addresses to hosters.
2) Allows hosters to identify if someone uses multiple user names from one computer.
3) Allows hosters to identify if the same user name is used from multiple computers.

As far as I understand, this is why hosters have previously used the IP address, although as already discussed, it is a flawed method. No doubt the identifier I mentioned could be hacked too (by a persistent annoying guest) but I think it would have to be deliberate. IP addresses can change randomly on some connections so to some extent the computer ID should be more reliable.

I wonder if something as simple as a crc32 of some values obtained by LFS from the guest's PC locally would be enough. It would compress a few strings and numbers all into a single 32-bit integer so it would be impossible to reverse to obtain any information about the computer it came from, even if you know the algorithm that created the crc32.

The other thing about using a crc32: as a 32-bit number, it could be processed by the same functions as the current IP address field, by existing legitimate host programs. If could even take the place of the IP address in existing InSim packets, except that of course you cannot use it to identify the user's country.

It is possible that more than 1 computer could produce the same identifier but unlikely as there are over 4.3 billion possible values.

Please let me know if it sounds right, or if I'm missing anything.

Quote from sebaalfa :

And what do you think about it?

I do not reply to every single post. if I did, I would be full time forum support and no time developing. So, just like everyone else, you can make a point then just let me take it in and consider it. I will reply if I need more information.

Quote from sebaalfa :

WHAT IS AN IP ADDRESS FOR THOSE OF US WHO HAVE SERVERS

Do you know, sentences or phrases in capital letters are seen as "SHOUTING" and are usually considered rude?

It doesn't look like you are being calm and reasonable, but instead you seem to be shouting at everyone.

Last edited by Scawen, Sun 18 May 2025, 08:13.

Quote from kristofferandersen :

Why is this a problem all of a sudden?

A host that may have links to a particularly bad LFS user has been reported to us. It's hard to prove the link but it could be someone that you don't really want to know your IP address.

Quote from kristofferandersen :

Its been like this for as long as i can remember.

Something changed - we do the hosting now and can possibly protect our users a bit, instead of freely handing out their IP address whenever they join a host, which I am feeling a little bad about given the situation.

Quote from kristofferandersen :

As a Server Owner, responsibliity is a vital part of that role. Leaking/abusing personal information should have its consequences if anyone were to do so.

Maybe I should pump a lot of iron in the gym and fly around the world beating up baddies? Not going to happen, is it? Sitting here at my desk I can make a cool game but I struggle a bit to make bad guys feel the consequences of their actions.

But I could make a change not to freely hand out personal information of our customers, which is why I've opened this topic.

In case anyone wonders, I don't like this part of my job at all. Internet security and hackers are just the worst thing to have to deal with. This is no fun at all, but sometimes I feel I have a responsibility to our users, so this is why I'm asking if there could be alternative methods to help with the things that IP addresses can slightly help with (or maybe even something better, given that IP address checking is so weak and often fruitless).

Translation of the first part of sebaalfa's first post.

Quote from sebaalfa :

Hello everyone, personally (and as a server owner) I'm not interested in seeing anyone's IP address; on the contrary, it takes time and effort.
Unfortunately, it's a "tool" that helps (35% of the time, in my humble opinion) make server access a little more complicated for
people who aren't welcome for whatever reason.
It's common knowledge that everything can end up in the same void if
those people use other accounts, VPNs, etc.
My suggestion:
Let only LFS staff handle IP address information.
Whether it's for one side or the other, I mean both for the person who does negative things as the owner of a server and for the person who visits them.
My suggestion, I understand, is not very viable, since LFS does not have a legal "department" to judge such behavior when it is reported in a timely manner.

I've removed the remaining posts as it's too far off topic.

Does anyone know what percentage of people have:

1) fixed or static IP (in this case, IP ban forces user to use VPN or alternative connection to get around ban)
2) dynamic IP (in this case, user simply restarts router to get new IP address)

In both cases, an IP ban is weak but in the first case there is at least some inconvenience for the banned user. Against users with dynamic IP, an IP ban is of little or no use.

Trying to verify, with an open mind, if IP bans really are that useful, or if they are more just a bit of misplaced hope to the hoster while a disruptive player simply gets a new IP to use with his spare account.

Last edited by Scawen, Thu 15 May 2025, 22:36.

Quote from RealistAdam :

I am currently doing this through Telegram, but what can be done with a player's IP address?

I don't actually know, but IP address is often referred to as personal information.

From my point of view, there are definitely some people I would not like to have my IP address.

I guess there is possibility of DDoS of a person's home? And maybe there is a hacking possibility depending if someone has left open ports?

Quote from RealistAdam :

In most games, admins have access to this information on public servers.

Is that the case? I did wonder about this. As I think many game developers may do their own hosting, as we do now, I wondered if handing out personal data (IP address) of some customers (client racers) to other customers (hosters) was now a thing of the past, and possibly LFS devs were the only nutters freely handing out this information.

I really don't know how it is in other games, so I'd like to hear more about that.

Quote from mcmustang :

We specialize in getting rid of wrong doers from our server

What does this really mean? Are you talking about people who join and crash into people? You say "safety implications" but do you just mean rammers messing up races? How many times has it been that you can't simply get rid of them by an ordinary user name ban? In my previous post I was questioning how you really used IP addresses to solve such a safety issue. Could you post a brief description of a time you have used IP addresses to eliminate a hooligan or someone who affected server safety?

I'm not being sarcastic or anything, I think I need it illustrated by real examples (no actual user names though).

Quote from mcmustang :

Usage for such feature:
- When people are using multiple accounts
- When people are using VPN
- When people are sharing one account
- When certain IP is sending requests to the server but not connecting (malicious actor)
etc.

Maybe we should take a look at these, consider each point, how valuable it is and if there could be other solutions.

- When people are using multiple accounts
Yes, this can sometimes be detected by linking one IP address with multiple accounts. But users can get around that by changing IP address (dynamic IP or VPN).

- When people are using VPN
I don't know much about this, can VPN usage be identified from the IP address? And if so, what does that matter?

- When people are sharing one account
Right, when you see the same account on multiple IP addresses. But there are perfectly legitimate reasons why that might be the case so I don't think this is much use.

- When certain IP is sending requests to the server but not connecting (malicious actor)
I don't think this is seen these days, because of how the system works, but correct me if I am wrong.

etc.
Feel free to elaborate.