I have great respect for LH, and am not at all surprised by the results so far - remember this is his SECOND year. Schumacher had how many seasons before he managed a decent result?
Brilliant season last time round, now he needs to gain experience and cool head. Hes the kind of driver that is all nice and smiles off the track, but all "hahaha I passed you, heres teh finger, you monkeh!" kinda guy on track.
In a way, reminds me of Senna. (though senna was more the "no way you are passing ME!" kinda guy.)
Brilliant season last time round, now he needs to gain experience and cool head. Hes the kind of driver that is all nice and smiles off the track, but all "hahaha I passed you, heres teh finger, you monkeh!" kinda guy on track.
In a way, reminds me of Senna. (though senna was more the "no way you are passing ME!" kinda guy.)
Ofc not. Website designing is to computing as driving a car is to designing one.
So its understandable you dont understand anything.
The closest thing to a "program" like the ones you describe is visual studio , which looks like this:
Now, that is sort of like designing a webpage with dreamweaver, but having dreamweaver only create the divs - not the actual html code.
Programmers build webpages powered by notepad. (or better, Gedit. Or more geeky, emacs. Or ultra geeky, VI. Or über geeky, a magnet and a steady hand. Or just silly, butterfiles.)
And yes, it IS that complex/long.
As for the development cycle, the very start is usually by modelling in UML (a language to describe in "scribbles" how a program/database will interact with itself), followed by some code implementation.
The thing with textures/maps comes later - first you do the mathematical representations, the "working core" of it, then feed that working core some values to check if its working properly (say you got the momentum calculation thingy worked out, you give it the values to pretend theres an object moving, then see what it tells you it happens)
.
As part of these tests, you might want to eventually try out a more complex "testing area", and the first interface/map/vehicle is born - just to test.
Say you finished you programming of ALL the equations that will govern the car behaviour when its moving straight. You then make a rudimentary track with no or little grafics just to "see" if it "looks" right. Of course, if you turn, the program would crash, but that woule be for later.
Yes its long. Yes its complex. Yes you can learn it
Go buy a couple of books on C#, Java(a good starting language). Youll only have to read around 2000 pages to know what we are talking about, and some 4000 to start doing some interesting stuff!
So its understandable you dont understand anything.
The closest thing to a "program" like the ones you describe is visual studio , which looks like this:
Now, that is sort of like designing a webpage with dreamweaver, but having dreamweaver only create the divs - not the actual html code.
Programmers build webpages powered by notepad. (or better, Gedit. Or more geeky, emacs. Or ultra geeky, VI. Or über geeky, a magnet and a steady hand. Or just silly, butterfiles.)
And yes, it IS that complex/long.
As for the development cycle, the very start is usually by modelling in UML (a language to describe in "scribbles" how a program/database will interact with itself), followed by some code implementation.
The thing with textures/maps comes later - first you do the mathematical representations, the "working core" of it, then feed that working core some values to check if its working properly (say you got the momentum calculation thingy worked out, you give it the values to pretend theres an object moving, then see what it tells you it happens)
.
As part of these tests, you might want to eventually try out a more complex "testing area", and the first interface/map/vehicle is born - just to test.
Say you finished you programming of ALL the equations that will govern the car behaviour when its moving straight. You then make a rudimentary track with no or little grafics just to "see" if it "looks" right. Of course, if you turn, the program would crash, but that woule be for later.
Yes its long. Yes its complex. Yes you can learn it
Go buy a couple of books on C#, Java(a good starting language). Youll only have to read around 2000 pages to know what we are talking about, and some 4000 to start doing some interesting stuff!
big thanxs kada - but still no go. Error message no the renamed file:
"This application failed to start because inpout32.dll was not found. ...."
I've tried all permutations -> copying the inputx64.dll to the win32 dir then renaming, copying the installdriver.exe file to the x64 dir, doing this last one then renaming, the works.
HOWEVER, i can install the
win32 driver with no problems (and doenst work, either)
"This application failed to start because inpout32.dll was not found. ...."
I've tried all permutations -> copying the inputx64.dll to the win32 dir then renaming, copying the installdriver.exe file to the x64 dir, doing this last one then renaming, the works.
HOWEVER, i can install the
win32 driver with no problems (and doenst work, either)
big thanxs, but your download really isnt helping - using vista 64, and the "x64" dir doesnt have an install for the driver. 
was working perfectly with XP 30secs before I installed vista, on same pc...
What seems to be the problem is the GI cant send data to the lpt port. Tried running it in admin mode, nothin.
Vista says lpt1 has a resource range of 0xB00-0B08 and 0xBC0 - 0xBC8. Next try will be to configure it to 0XB00, 0xB01, 0xB02... and so forth to see if it works with any of them combos.
What seems to be the problem is the GI cant send data to the lpt port. Tried running it in admin mode, nothin.
Vista says lpt1 has a resource range of 0xB00-0B08 and 0xBC0 - 0xBC8. Next try will be to configure it to 0XB00, 0xB01, 0xB02... and so forth to see if it works with any of them combos.
HALP ME!
Got vista63, cant get it to work.
First I had some resource issues (it said the resources werent available for lpt1). fixed that.
LPT1 is on 0xBC00 - and GI.exe is configured for that same port, but it doenst make my display work
Tried running it as admin, too...
Debug mode sucessfully shows that LFS IS sending the gear data to GI.exe - gi just cant send it to the gear indicator hardware.
Got vista63, cant get it to work.
First I had some resource issues (it said the resources werent available for lpt1). fixed that.
LPT1 is on 0xBC00 - and GI.exe is configured for that same port, but it doenst make my display work
Tried running it as admin, too...
Debug mode sucessfully shows that LFS IS sending the gear data to GI.exe - gi just cant send it to the gear indicator hardware.
OR turn off the plane's engine with the backwards converyor, then see that the plane does not move, conveyor moves backwards, wheels move forwards, plane dont move. Start engine, and now to the previous system, you have a new force acting on the plane (the engine, duh). This will make the plane move forward.
Idd Glenn has hit the nail on the head.
The right way to picture this is to imagine the belt is moving FORWARD at the same speed as the plane. The engine pulls the plane along (Im imaganing a cessna proppeler thingy), and the plane moves forward. the belt matches speeds, so the wheels dont turn. BUT the PLANE is moving forward.
If you hit the reverse button on the conveyor, the plane is STILL moving forward, the wheels start spinning really REALLY fast, but the plane WILL be moving forward cause the plane pushes agains the AIR, not the ground. Remember plane wheels are free-spinning, not like car wheels which push agains the ground (and would push the belt backwards).
The right way to picture this is to imagine the belt is moving FORWARD at the same speed as the plane. The engine pulls the plane along (Im imaganing a cessna proppeler thingy), and the plane moves forward. the belt matches speeds, so the wheels dont turn. BUT the PLANE is moving forward.
If you hit the reverse button on the conveyor, the plane is STILL moving forward, the wheels start spinning really REALLY fast, but the plane WILL be moving forward cause the plane pushes agains the AIR, not the ground. Remember plane wheels are free-spinning, not like car wheels which push agains the ground (and would push the belt backwards).
After extensive usage, my batterypowered does around 4hours (a rechargeble 9v "square" battery), and I got mine configed like this:
Where R is a red LED - Y is a yellow one, and G a green one.
Red is my shift light, middle yellow is my "over the redline" light and the right yellow is 3% fuel light.
Green led is Traction Control
BUT after a long time using, I realized I only really used the shift light and the fuel light.
So Im thinking of making one with no 7-seg display. Just a lot of leds.
Problem is, with only 5 leds to use, Im running out of them quickly
I wanted a 6-led array for the rev/shift lights (Green Green Yellow YellowYellow RedShiftLight), and a 7th for the fuel light, and maybe a 8th for the engine-not-running light.
Now, the idea would be to use the main pins for this. I KNOW I can do it, via changing code/figuring out what binary number to send to LPT port to turn on one of the lights, one by one.
But... Im very busy (College, 2 kids, 2 cats, 1 dog, 1 wife...) so I'll be requesting some help
One bug I've had (no bug, actually) is that sometimes when using the rpm1 rpm2 rpm3.... the shift light lit up BEFORE all the rpm lights were on - specially in some cars.
This depends on the gearing on the setup - which makes the shift point being closer/farther away from the rev limiter.
So far, my solution is this:
G G Y Y R R R Y Y G G <-----LED array
Where the 2 Outside Green leds are all tied to the rpm5, the 2 outside Greens on rmp4, the 2 outside Yellows on rpm3, the 2 inside yellows on rpm2, and all the red lights on Shift Light.
(I wont use the rpm2 and rpm1 trigger cause sometimes shift light lights up before it). Superbrights on the red leds (so its the "Shift, goddamnit" kind of indicator), and one low power blue led somewhere for fuel.
If I make this thin enough, I can stick it on top of my g25, so I see it just behind the wheel.
But I only got 3 rpm levels - Id like 5 rpm levels, shift light, and fuel light. - This via making one of the triggers send a number to the main data pins that would light up one of the lights.
R Y Y
___
| |
|___|
| |
|___|
G
Where R is a red LED - Y is a yellow one, and G a green one.
Red is my shift light, middle yellow is my "over the redline" light and the right yellow is 3% fuel light.
Green led is Traction Control
BUT after a long time using, I realized I only really used the shift light and the fuel light.
So Im thinking of making one with no 7-seg display. Just a lot of leds.
Problem is, with only 5 leds to use, Im running out of them quickly
I wanted a 6-led array for the rev/shift lights (Green Green Yellow YellowYellow RedShiftLight), and a 7th for the fuel light, and maybe a 8th for the engine-not-running light.
Now, the idea would be to use the main pins for this. I KNOW I can do it, via changing code/figuring out what binary number to send to LPT port to turn on one of the lights, one by one.
But... Im very busy (College, 2 kids, 2 cats, 1 dog, 1 wife...) so I'll be requesting some help
One bug I've had (no bug, actually) is that sometimes when using the rpm1 rpm2 rpm3.... the shift light lit up BEFORE all the rpm lights were on - specially in some cars.
This depends on the gearing on the setup - which makes the shift point being closer/farther away from the rev limiter.
So far, my solution is this:
G G Y Y R R R Y Y G G <-----LED array
Where the 2 Outside Green leds are all tied to the rpm5, the 2 outside Greens on rmp4, the 2 outside Yellows on rpm3, the 2 inside yellows on rpm2, and all the red lights on Shift Light.
(I wont use the rpm2 and rpm1 trigger cause sometimes shift light lights up before it). Superbrights on the red leds (so its the "Shift, goddamnit" kind of indicator), and one low power blue led somewhere for fuel.
If I make this thin enough, I can stick it on top of my g25, so I see it just behind the wheel.
But I only got 3 rpm levels - Id like 5 rpm levels, shift light, and fuel light. - This via making one of the triggers send a number to the main data pins that would light up one of the lights.
I know a guy that has a 3d-printer.. at HOME. (took an old one from his company) - he uese it as a... Mech Factory.
Ill try to ask him to do one of them cars
Ill try to ask him to do one of them cars
the reason for the few overtakes in malaysia is the track.
I wonder how many of you have tried having a go at that track in your simulators?
Last time I did (EA sports F12003, I think), the track was the current one - a NIGHTMARE of closing-radius corners, where the braking zones are in bends, meaning you either brake softly, or you eat grass.
That makes inside-line underbraking damn near impossible in many bends, especially in the bend leading to the backstraight - that one is problably the WORST braking point I have ever seen - slightly uphill (you cant see much of where you'r going), turning substantially right, and braking.
Just about the only places to really overtake are :
T1, but since it is followed but a pretty hard left, if you dont complete the overtake IN t1, you are on the outside for t2, and get re-overtaken.
T4, a 2nd gear right hander, but it is (relativly close) followed by a 6th gear left hander, so once again, you'r on the outside - all depends on how well you can exit T4
T9 - another 2nd gear left hander, but this one is immediatly followed by (You guessed it) a right hander, meaning that ONCE AGAIN you are on the outside of a long turn, and are royally fecked.
the possible best 2 places to overtake - the bends leading to the backstraight and the main straight are -> a closing radius corner, making underbraking a nightmare and very risky.
A long constant radius corner, meaning that if you try to exit faster and do it nose-to-gearbox, youll get massive understeer on the exit and go eat grass, cow-style.
I hate that track. For godness sakes, a hard braking turn should be followed by a short straight so the cars have a chance to tuck in behind each other, and complete the overtake manouver! See the classics: Monza, Spa, Interlagos...
I wonder how many of you have tried having a go at that track in your simulators?
Last time I did (EA sports F12003, I think), the track was the current one - a NIGHTMARE of closing-radius corners, where the braking zones are in bends, meaning you either brake softly, or you eat grass.
That makes inside-line underbraking damn near impossible in many bends, especially in the bend leading to the backstraight - that one is problably the WORST braking point I have ever seen - slightly uphill (you cant see much of where you'r going), turning substantially right, and braking.
Just about the only places to really overtake are :
T1, but since it is followed but a pretty hard left, if you dont complete the overtake IN t1, you are on the outside for t2, and get re-overtaken.
T4, a 2nd gear right hander, but it is (relativly close) followed by a 6th gear left hander, so once again, you'r on the outside - all depends on how well you can exit T4
T9 - another 2nd gear left hander, but this one is immediatly followed by (You guessed it) a right hander, meaning that ONCE AGAIN you are on the outside of a long turn, and are royally fecked.
the possible best 2 places to overtake - the bends leading to the backstraight and the main straight are -> a closing radius corner, making underbraking a nightmare and very risky.
A long constant radius corner, meaning that if you try to exit faster and do it nose-to-gearbox, youll get massive understeer on the exit and go eat grass, cow-style.
I hate that track. For godness sakes, a hard braking turn should be followed by a short straight so the cars have a chance to tuck in behind each other, and complete the overtake manouver! See the classics: Monza, Spa, Interlagos...
Im absolutly gobsmacked @ trulli's race.
What a great pace from what was once called the "mobile chicanes" of F1
Great work on toyota design this year!
And he was only letting hamilton close @ 2secs/laps cause he was conserving tyres -as soon as he hard "3.6 behind, 3.6 behind", it was pick up the pace time and managed to juuust hold it.
What a great pace from what was once called the "mobile chicanes" of F1
Great work on toyota design this year!
And he was only letting hamilton close @ 2secs/laps cause he was conserving tyres -as soon as he hard "3.6 behind, 3.6 behind", it was pick up the pace time and managed to juuust hold it.
I have an easy way toi explain drafting for the un-initiated:
Imagine a clear day with a 0kph wind. No wind at all.
Now, imagine a car moving at 300kph.
One milimiter in front of the car, the wind is 0kph.
As soon as the car passes, in the same exact spot, the wind is now 100kph, in the direction the car was moving.
(You can see this effect when cars are going in roads with leaves on them - the leaves fly away, following the car).
Now, if you put your car right behind the fast-moving car, instead of having wind coming into your windscreen @ 300kph, since the air is moving in the same direction you are @ 100kph, the wind hitting your windscreen (or car) is only coming @ 200kph. So in fact, you are only getting the drag of a car moving @ 200kph.
(so your engine has an easier time to push the car faster, so you go faster).
All the above numbers have been pulled out of my rear end. Plus, there are other things that add complexity to this: The wheels on the ground keep their 300kph drag, among other things.
But the basic idea is this: a fast-moving object pulls air behind it, and thus, another object close to it will have a lower speed in relation to the wind.
Imagine a clear day with a 0kph wind. No wind at all.
Now, imagine a car moving at 300kph.
One milimiter in front of the car, the wind is 0kph.
As soon as the car passes, in the same exact spot, the wind is now 100kph, in the direction the car was moving.
(You can see this effect when cars are going in roads with leaves on them - the leaves fly away, following the car).
Now, if you put your car right behind the fast-moving car, instead of having wind coming into your windscreen @ 300kph, since the air is moving in the same direction you are @ 100kph, the wind hitting your windscreen (or car) is only coming @ 200kph. So in fact, you are only getting the drag of a car moving @ 200kph.
(so your engine has an easier time to push the car faster, so you go faster).
All the above numbers have been pulled out of my rear end. Plus, there are other things that add complexity to this: The wheels on the ground keep their 300kph drag, among other things.
But the basic idea is this: a fast-moving object pulls air behind it, and thus, another object close to it will have a lower speed in relation to the wind.
Hi,
our skinner is a bit busy to work on some skins so there is a competition for who want to.
To participate : Register on our forum : www.lfs-drift.com , and go to this post: http://www.lfs-drift.com/yabb2 ... b2/YaBB.pl?num=1205813724
All the information is here.
The prize ? A personal webspace (5gig) to each winner.
Thanks.
--- Fixed it for you.
Must be embarassing, a non-english speaking native correcting a native (I just joined the foreing legion of the grammar police.)
our skinner is a bit busy to work on some skins so there is a competition for who want to.
To participate : Register on our forum : www.lfs-drift.com , and go to this post: http://www.lfs-drift.com/yabb2 ... b2/YaBB.pl?num=1205813724
All the information is here.
The prize ? A personal webspace (5gig) to each winner.
Thanks.
--- Fixed it for you.
Must be embarassing, a non-english speaking native correcting a native
(I just joined the foreing legion of the grammar police.)http://www.hdd.pt/download/118 ... n_Alonso_Onboard.avi.html
actually, if you look at this onboard - he was CELEBRATING the overtake and hit his fist in the button, not ripping a tear off.
Look at his right hand -its hilarious.
(to those that dont speak portuguese/spanish, hit the button marked "Continuar ->" on the middle right side, then wait for the countdown in the bottom of the page to go to zero , THEN download (its a rapidshare wannabe-site. Or should I say a slowshare wannabe shite?))
actually, if you look at this onboard - he was CELEBRATING the overtake and hit his fist in the button, not ripping a tear off.
Look at his right hand -its hilarious.
(to those that dont speak portuguese/spanish, hit the button marked "Continuar ->" on the middle right side, then wait for the countdown in the bottom of the page to go to zero , THEN download (its a rapidshare wannabe-site. Or should I say a slowshare wannabe shite?))
simple - its the benny-hill song. Cant believe you didnt recognize it
stang - dual screen is NOTHING compared to a triple screen config. It requires about 3 times more processing than dual screen. Its not just adding one monitor - its rendering an image 1.5X bigger, THEN breaking it up in 3 parts, THEN joining 2 parts together, THEN sending the correct part to the secondary gfx card, THEN putting both sctions on the screen at once.
Dual screen is render one big image, send to monitor, done.
40 fps seem right for those res...
Dual screen is render one big image, send to monitor, done.
40 fps seem right for those res...
A very small movie..
This is not quality based - its more to show what us Portuguese people are doing.
Squid - stuff it, this isnt meant to be the end-all be all of quality, ok?
http://files.filefront.com/round1avi/;9819132;/fileinfo.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlyBROGK3PY
Squid - stuff it, this isnt meant to be the end-all be all of quality, ok?
http://files.filefront.com/round1avi/;9819132;/fileinfo.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlyBROGK3PY
In the red circle: 2g.
Outside the red circle: 2.64g
... with a bf1
Will make one of the right car later
Outside the red circle: 2.64g
... with a bf1
Will make one of the right car later
I own a buttkicker. Its called Claudia and I married her!
Its not locking per se, but more like this:
your doing 200kph. the ground is going backwards 200kph, and your wheels are rotating at 200kph. youo downshift HARD, and let go of the clutch, and now, suddenly, your wheels are going @ 130kph, why YOU are going @ 190... the wheels arent locked, but neither are they gripping.
worse, if this happens when you are braking harshly, the sudden loss in grip in the wheels (in the moment they loose traction due to seddenly loosing 50kph) the brakes make them lock completely.
Gotta test in lfs if by major engine braking the wheels stop compltely, or just spin a lot slower than they should, given your forward velocity.
What would you like to see done first?
So... what would, in your opinion, be better to develop first? (keep in mind its not a "do this and dont do that" - the question is what to do FIRST.
What you need to be faster is simply point your nose to the apex faster than the opposition, and be in a position to floor the accelerator BEFORE the others.
This means (for my style, at least), oversteer on entry, neutral mid, and understeer on exit.
However, if your good, you can get a car to be oversteery in all situations, and via control, do a (very small) drift on entry (to get ya pointed where you need to go), then floor the accelerator toward the apex and away you go.
This means (for my style, at least), oversteer on entry, neutral mid, and understeer on exit.
However, if your good, you can get a car to be oversteery in all situations, and via control, do a (very small) drift on entry (to get ya pointed where you need to go), then floor the accelerator toward the apex and away you go.
I did a road going car as similar as a 1.1i Saxo.
1st gear in idle should make the car move @ 11kph
5th gear in idle should make the car move @ 51kph.
Spread them in the middle - and youll find it much easier to take off.
1st gear in idle should make the car move @ 11kph
5th gear in idle should make the car move @ 51kph.
Spread them in the middle - and youll find it much easier to take off.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG