Doesn't look like it works in LFS in-game. If I try to type a command by typing ^s[command name] instead of /[command name] it just makes me type a message ^s[command name] which makes me look like an idiot
- and if I try to assign a command with parameter name and replace the / character in the parameter with ^s, it just reports that parameter is not valid.I also tested it in LFS Host Control Panel in LFS.net. I can change the color of messages Host writes by putting ^0-8 before the text, but if I try to add ^s instead of slash, it will still print out literally "^s" on chat - so ^0-8 doesn't show on the screen but ^s does
Worth mentioning that there is also another bug related to pretty much this: if there is username, AI-driver name, heck probably any name that has the "/" character (or I think even the "\" character), any command that has parameter [name] doesn't work with that name, because LFS thinks you are setting two commands.
I don't think you even need to start your message with a /i or /o command to reproduce this very similar bug. Easy way for Scawen to reproduce this: set your name to "Scawen /LFS Developer". Then try to add a command like /pitlane Scawen /LFS Developer. LFS thinks you're trying to type two commands: /pitlane Scawen and /LFS Developer
Weirdly though, this bug doesn't happen when setting commands in LFS Host Control Panel on LFS.net, only in LFS in-game.
The file size of that outdated zip folder is 34,7 MB - I think in the past you were only able to download either all WRs, or just all WRs from selected track environment. I don't think you were able to download all SPRs at once from LFSWorld.
About displaying them as an archive page: one thing that did come to my mind, is that it should be relatively easy to display LFSW stats/WRs in a website. Victor posted a guide about this: https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/14480
What did I think in LFS Discord, would be that just before the new version is released, one would take a copy of the hotlaps/WRs and display it somewhere as an archive and make sure it stays like that so that the newer version and the data from it wouldn't overwrite the one that archive would have
EDIT: About your other point:
In the previous versions, if older hotlaps were removed, that removal only applied to just one track environment at a time (e.g. walls at South City, new Westhill, new Blackwood). Because of that, I didn't have that much of an interest of having older WRs as an archive.
However, in the new version, as all tracks will be updated, the current hotlaps will become obsolete. The fact that all hotlaps will become obsolete has given me some interest too of having a WR pack as an archive in the future. After all, we do have the older LFS versions and that league megapack torrent - which can be found from the archive page
Last edited by tankslacno, .
You can still use VPN. I found a report about this and someone commented that they changed their location from UK to Ireland and then the images loaded fine for them
EDIT: I tested this with my VPN connected to Sweden and my Imgur images open just fine
Last edited by tankslacno, .
Worth noting is that you can always attach your images, as long as file size for that image is 4 MB or less. You don't always need to show your huge image in your forum post
If you've been using ShareX to take screenshots, you can change your destination of your image uploader at ShareX sidemenu --> Destinations --> Image uploader --> Choose your provider from the list. Imgur is indeed the default destination for image uploads with that software.
If you've been using ShareX to take screenshots, you can change your destination of your image uploader at ShareX sidemenu --> Destinations --> Image uploader --> Choose your provider from the list. Imgur is indeed the default destination for image uploads with that software.
Add 0.6G and 0.6Q versions into the Archive page
Hi!
From this website, you can download few of the older versions of LFS from the Archive: https://www.lfs.net/archive
Most recent one you can download is 0.6V3, which was the last patch before mods were released. It was also the final version that supported downloadable LFS Dedi and LAN.
However, what would I suggest is adding two more versions there: 0.6G and 0.6Q. 0.6G is the last version with old Westhill and 0.6Q is the last version with older Blackwood.
Sometimes people want to watch replays from older versions that included these two track environments. Or maybe they want to organize some classic races using these versions. Not to mention that Megapack League torrent. Since viewing some of the replays that are included in that torrent require a certain version, it would be easier for users if they can easily download the correct version for that particular replay.
Since you can still download these two versions from this website by typing the correct URL, it shouldn't be too difficult to add these two versions to the Archive page.
Here are the links. If you want to have:
- Old Westhill: https://www.lfs.net/file_lfs.php?name=LFS_S2_6G_setup.exe
- Old Blackwood: https://www.lfs.net/file_lfs.php?name=LFS_S3_6Q_setup.exe
Having these two versions being publicly displayed in the Archive page would make much easier to anyone download those versions and experience the older track environments.
Of course, if you want to add the absolute last patch, you could use 0.6G3 and 0.6Q9 which were final test patches before the updated track environments were released. You can upgrade to those versions from 0.6G and 0.6Q respectively and not lose those old track environments!
From this website, you can download few of the older versions of LFS from the Archive: https://www.lfs.net/archive
Most recent one you can download is 0.6V3, which was the last patch before mods were released. It was also the final version that supported downloadable LFS Dedi and LAN.
However, what would I suggest is adding two more versions there: 0.6G and 0.6Q. 0.6G is the last version with old Westhill and 0.6Q is the last version with older Blackwood.
Sometimes people want to watch replays from older versions that included these two track environments. Or maybe they want to organize some classic races using these versions. Not to mention that Megapack League torrent. Since viewing some of the replays that are included in that torrent require a certain version, it would be easier for users if they can easily download the correct version for that particular replay.
Since you can still download these two versions from this website by typing the correct URL, it shouldn't be too difficult to add these two versions to the Archive page.
Here are the links. If you want to have:
- Old Westhill: https://www.lfs.net/file_lfs.php?name=LFS_S2_6G_setup.exe
- Old Blackwood: https://www.lfs.net/file_lfs.php?name=LFS_S3_6Q_setup.exe
Having these two versions being publicly displayed in the Archive page would make much easier to anyone download those versions and experience the older track environments.
Of course, if you want to add the absolute last patch, you could use 0.6G3 and 0.6Q9 which were final test patches before the updated track environments were released. You can upgrade to those versions from 0.6G and 0.6Q respectively and not lose those old track environments!
Last edited by tankslacno, .
I believe LFS can start very fast on your computer. However, I still do face every once in a while that classic "LOCAL : TIMER BOUNDED" error when starting LFS, which results me waiting for about a minute for that game to actually start. If I then accidentally exit the game and it happens again, well, needless to say, it will quickly become tiring. And when searching LFS Forum, that error message and it occuring is quite common.
And also: exit screen doesn't technically disable command processing. For example, you can still try to add yourself with command /join or your AI drivers with command /ai, but it reports that the "Race is full". You can also try to access single player with command /sp, but it reports that "Command is for entry screen only"
So it does process the command itself correctly, it doesn't report nothing and it doesn't report that the command is unknown. Of course it just doesn't do anything, because why it would do anything in the credits screen
Except it has been suggested before due to similar reasons (though with little different way to implement it) and it has also been thought that it's a good suggestion: https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/44825
Furthermore, it may actually be bug in LFS that the /entry command doesn't work on credits screen as intended, because it works normally on all other situations
Return to the Entry Screen from the Credits
Hi!
This is one mildly annoying thing in LFS. When I exit the game to view credits, I have no other choice than to exit the game altogether. There is no way to return to entry screen other than launching the game again.
So, what I'm suggesting that there should be a way to return to entry screen directly from credits. Sometimes I just want to view the credits with no intention of exiting the game altogether. And more often than I like to admit, I've accidentally clicked that exit button when not intending to, which results having to restart the game again and me getting mildly annoyed at myself
I think there are two ways devs could implement this and it should be possible for them to add them both, if needed:
1) Similarly to other screens, there could be a orange exit button located at the bottom left corner which users could click to exit the game (or, in case user is in demo mode, bring them to that screen which tells demo users to buy LFS - clicking that screen exits the game).
And then there should be a green button titled "Return" (or similar) located at the bottom right corner, where user could return to the entry screen by clicking it. After all, to exit the game from menu, you need to exit twice, once for entering the credits and once to exit from the credits screen. Furthermore, this would also help first-time players who may not know you need to click again at the credits screen (and even the third time if user is in DEMO mode) to exit the game.
2) But, I can understand if editing UI would be too time-consuming for Scawen. Therefore, an alternative method would be using /entry command. This command already exists and it normally brings user to the entry screen.
So the alternative method would be that typing /entry at credits screen would actually result user getting to entry screen in-game from the credits and therefore work as intended(?) in the credits screen.
Reason why I'm suggesting that alternative method is because at the moment, player could think they can still return to entry screen from credits by typing that command. But nah, typing that command does still exit the game. Which does leave me wondering, is that even on purpose considering:
- Most, if not all, of the other commands don't work in credits mode!
- /entry does seem to work as intended on all other situations, except when viewing credits
This is one mildly annoying thing in LFS. When I exit the game to view credits, I have no other choice than to exit the game altogether. There is no way to return to entry screen other than launching the game again.
So, what I'm suggesting that there should be a way to return to entry screen directly from credits. Sometimes I just want to view the credits with no intention of exiting the game altogether. And more often than I like to admit, I've accidentally clicked that exit button when not intending to, which results having to restart the game again and me getting mildly annoyed at myself
I think there are two ways devs could implement this and it should be possible for them to add them both, if needed:
1) Similarly to other screens, there could be a orange exit button located at the bottom left corner which users could click to exit the game (or, in case user is in demo mode, bring them to that screen which tells demo users to buy LFS - clicking that screen exits the game).
And then there should be a green button titled "Return" (or similar) located at the bottom right corner, where user could return to the entry screen by clicking it. After all, to exit the game from menu, you need to exit twice, once for entering the credits and once to exit from the credits screen. Furthermore, this would also help first-time players who may not know you need to click again at the credits screen (and even the third time if user is in DEMO mode) to exit the game.
2) But, I can understand if editing UI would be too time-consuming for Scawen. Therefore, an alternative method would be using /entry command. This command already exists and it normally brings user to the entry screen.
So the alternative method would be that typing /entry at credits screen would actually result user getting to entry screen in-game from the credits and therefore work as intended(?) in the credits screen.
Reason why I'm suggesting that alternative method is because at the moment, player could think they can still return to entry screen from credits by typing that command. But nah, typing that command does still exit the game. Which does leave me wondering, is that even on purpose considering:
- Most, if not all, of the other commands don't work in credits mode!
- /entry does seem to work as intended on all other situations, except when viewing credits
Last edited by tankslacno, .
Possibly erroneous message when stopping a host
Hi!
I just wanted to inform about this. Scawen has done a new update for hosts: https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/112424
This update required me to stop and then restart my host on LFS.net. However, when I stop my host, I get this message:
However,the action does still stop the host so this error message looks kinda erroneous. When I go to the host listing I can see it being stopped. This kind of error message doesn't appear when I restart my host.
Attached one screenshot about this. Tested this with Firefox, not sure if it's a browser-related problem yet
I just wanted to inform about this. Scawen has done a new update for hosts: https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/112424
This update required me to stop and then restart my host on LFS.net. However, when I stop my host, I get this message:
However,the action does still stop the host so this error message looks kinda erroneous. When I go to the host listing I can see it being stopped. This kind of error message doesn't appear when I restart my host.
Attached one screenshot about this. Tested this with Firefox, not sure if it's a browser-related problem yet
Thank you very much for this
I tested every single command both as an Admin and as a normal user, and all of them work with no issues at all! I also tested /ujoin and /uai commands with grid being locked and they both work!
Also I think it looks like the /grid command does work also on-track, it doesn't affect just the lobby: I tested the /grid real and /grid ai commands during on-track session, and I can prevent AI drivers / real players joining, even if I'm not in the lobby
And just one minor typo:
Surely you meant "set if AI drivers...", not real players
EDIT: Actually Scawen, one question about this:
I just tested this with reversed starting order with /grid static 3, and I noticed something interesting. Those 3 drivers were sent back to the grid with reversed starting order. Is this on purpose, or should these 3 drivers start at the front and the drivers behind them in a reversed finish order?
EDIT 2: Not sure if the three drivers themselves were in a reversed finish order, but nonetheless, they were behind those other drivers
I tested every single command both as an Admin and as a normal user, and all of them work with no issues at all! I also tested /ujoin and /uai commands with grid being locked and they both work!
Also I think it looks like the /grid command does work also on-track, it doesn't affect just the lobby: I tested the /grid real and /grid ai commands during on-track session, and I can prevent AI drivers / real players joining, even if I'm not in the lobby
And just one minor typo:
Surely you meant "set if AI drivers...", not real players
EDIT: Actually Scawen, one question about this:
I just tested this with reversed starting order with /grid static 3, and I noticed something interesting. Those 3 drivers were sent back to the grid with reversed starting order. Is this on purpose, or should these 3 drivers start at the front and the drivers behind them in a reversed finish order?
EDIT 2: Not sure if the three drivers themselves were in a reversed finish order, but nonetheless, they were behind those other drivers
Last edited by tankslacno, .
Just to clarify: would the /static command work only in lobby, or also during on-track sessions (for example, there is a need for correct wind speed and race must be restarted again)?
In any case, it would probably be essential to highlight the static grid positions (and maybe starting positions as well on the position list), for example with different background color?
I like this idea
However, I think it would probably be good that even if the /grid command has self/lock option selected, admins could still e.g. remove and move players. Another thing I had in mind is that have you thought about adding separate buttons for admins to the UI so they can select the option they want, or should these options only be available by using commands? I'm not sure is there enough space in the UIAlso, I suppose the self option would apply to local AIs as well? Like option "REMOVE SELF" with "Y" would also allow removing local AI drivers, not just yourself?
There's been some discussion about this at the Discord server. Here are couple points mentioned there:
- "it would also help a lot to see who moves who in the lobby screen to avoid grief during organising the start grid"
- "AI should be utilised for the track scenery mod"
- Someone made an early mock-up where they had a lock icon next to the clear grid button at the lobby. It could be good place for that. They used that lock icon from the Upcoming events are for that.
- Also, one thing could help users at the lobby: at the moment, if you are not admin, you can't know who is admin (other than host) at the server when looking the connection list. If you are admin, then you can see that other admins have that different background under their names on the connection list
However, if you watch the replay, then you can see who is admin and who is not. Obviously this doesn't apply to the situation where you are at lobby. It does indeed feel strange that the connection list is different when comparing it between the replay view and the non-admin user view when they've connected to the server.
What is the reason behind this? Why non-admin users have the same background for all the users when looking the connection list? The only thing they can do is ask who the admin is, and even then, it's not 100% guarantee that information is accurate.
- "it would also help a lot to see who moves who in the lobby screen to avoid grief during organising the start grid"
- "AI should be utilised for the track scenery mod"
- Someone made an early mock-up where they had a lock icon next to the clear grid button at the lobby. It could be good place for that. They used that lock icon from the Upcoming events are for that.
- Also, one thing could help users at the lobby: at the moment, if you are not admin, you can't know who is admin (other than host) at the server when looking the connection list. If you are admin, then you can see that other admins have that different background under their names on the connection list
However, if you watch the replay, then you can see who is admin and who is not. Obviously this doesn't apply to the situation where you are at lobby. It does indeed feel strange that the connection list is different when comparing it between the replay view and the non-admin user view when they've connected to the server.
What is the reason behind this? Why non-admin users have the same background for all the users when looking the connection list? The only thing they can do is ask who the admin is, and even then, it's not 100% guarantee that information is accurate.
Last edited by tankslacno, .
That second issue you mentioned is the one that catched my eye the most:
By the way, for now: you can actually already do that: admins can use command /carsguest=[0-32] which sets the maximum amount of cars (real + AI) each guest PC can add to the server. So /grid lock would essentially be same as /carsguest=0, right? That command doesn't remove the already added drivers from the grid
However, two things got into my mind about that issue you mentioned:
1) Is it intentional that you suggest that /grid lock would only apply in the lobby and not when session is ongoing (whether it's practice, qualifying or race)?
2) It also does have another reason why it would be good to get fixed: AI drivers and human players. Your idea to have a command to lock/open the grid is good, but I was wondering Scawen, could it be possible to expand that command by adding two more parameters for that:
The reason is that there may always be troublemakers, who add an AI driver in the lobby, when only humans are allowed. And it also applies vice versa: there may be a situation where only AI drivers should be allowed to join (for example, there is a session for those InSim controlled AI drivers), and some troublemaker adds themselves there, which interrupts the fun/experiment with AI for the others.
This concern just got into my mind that having just lock/open parameters for that /grid command does leave this other issue kinda open. You can only allow everybody, or nobody joining. Even if you open the grid, someone may still mess others by having an AI driver joining (or a human player, if others are using AI drivers)
By the way, for now: you can actually already do that: admins can use command /carsguest=[0-32] which sets the maximum amount of cars (real + AI) each guest PC can add to the server. So /grid lock would essentially be same as /carsguest=0, right? That command doesn't remove the already added drivers from the grid
However, two things got into my mind about that issue you mentioned:
1) Is it intentional that you suggest that /grid lock would only apply in the lobby and not when session is ongoing (whether it's practice, qualifying or race)?
2) It also does have another reason why it would be good to get fixed: AI drivers and human players. Your idea to have a command to lock/open the grid is good, but I was wondering Scawen, could it be possible to expand that command by adding two more parameters for that:
The reason is that there may always be troublemakers, who add an AI driver in the lobby, when only humans are allowed. And it also applies vice versa: there may be a situation where only AI drivers should be allowed to join (for example, there is a session for those InSim controlled AI drivers), and some troublemaker adds themselves there, which interrupts the fun/experiment with AI for the others.
This concern just got into my mind that having just lock/open parameters for that /grid command does leave this other issue kinda open. You can only allow everybody, or nobody joining. Even if you open the grid, someone may still mess others by having an AI driver joining (or a human player, if others are using AI drivers)
Last edited by tankslacno, .
https://www.lfs.net/patchInfo/report-dec2024-ky.php
I don't consider that as a problem for you, because when you look at the images of new Kyoto, I think Eric wanted to do very similar job how Indianapolis Motor Speedway does work about drivers pitting there.
How does it work? If you are doing a practice session, or qualifying where one driver at a time does their qualifying laps, drivers normally enter the pitlane using the narrower pit entry. But, during races, I expect all drivers dive into the pit immediately after turn 3, as that part is still as wide as before.
Of course, rules about pit exit may differ from series to another: I expect some series will allow drivers to immediately join back on main track after exiting pit lane, which is much more dangerous. And other series will require drivers driving that narrow pit exit lane before joining the main track, which is obviously much safer.
Hi and welcome back!
For me Windows Defender has also reported it as dangerous. Usually just reporting it as safe and then waiting for sometime will fix the problem. This may happen if the .exe is new and has been downloaded so little times that Windows Defender doesn't know how safe this file really is. This has been especially common problem with test patches. Same thing has happened with Avast on my other computer.
Unfortunately, developers can't really do anything against overzealous antivirus softwares. (Only thing what they could do that I can think of is adding an information somewhere on this website, stating that it may be possible that antivirus softwares may flag the game or the setup, especially if it's test patch, as dangerous, but it's really not. Of course that is just to inform the players, it doesn't prevent it of actually happening)
For me Windows Defender has also reported it as dangerous. Usually just reporting it as safe and then waiting for sometime will fix the problem. This may happen if the .exe is new and has been downloaded so little times that Windows Defender doesn't know how safe this file really is. This has been especially common problem with test patches. Same thing has happened with Avast on my other computer.
Unfortunately, developers can't really do anything against overzealous antivirus softwares. (Only thing what they could do that I can think of is adding an information somewhere on this website, stating that it may be possible that antivirus softwares may flag the game or the setup, especially if it's test patch, as dangerous, but it's really not. Of course that is just to inform the players, it doesn't prevent it of actually happening)
Correct. Steam client started on September 12th, 2003 and the first game you could actually buy digitally on Steam was Half-Life 2 which was released on November 16th, 2004.
At least on August 2003, people were able to at least pre-order your game from RaceSimCentral: https://web.archive.org/web/20030812134618/http://lfs.racesimcentral.com/sublinks.php?page=buyonline (yes the website doesn't want to display everything, but it does display working link to pre-order page)
There is also order page from February 2004: https://web.archive.org/web/20040207150541/http://lfs.racesimcentral.com/content/order.php
Option to block real players / AI drivers from joining the track
With the newest LFS Patch, 0.7G has brought a system which allows AI drivers to be controlled by a local InSim program. This got me thinking, sometimes it may make sense to have only AI drivers on track and prevent real players from joining (these type of scenarios includes AI only races, testing with AI etc.). And also often, it makes sense to make it clear that only real players are allowed to join the track.
Now, you can use different InSims to do this. For example, Airio has an option to block AI drivers, and there is also a PIE (PHP; InSim; Easy) script called JustBots, which you can use to forcefully spectate and prevent real players to join onto the track, allowing only AI drivers on there.
Now, while you can do it via InSims and scripts, I'm suggesting there should be a server option or at least a command, which you could use to block human players or AI drivers joining the track.
For example, when launching a new server, there could be a selectable option: "Allow real / AI drivers on track?" with options [Allow both], [Allow only real players] and [Allow only AI drivers]. The first one should be the default option. I did think about option [none], but I remember there is an option "Max (real + AI) per guest pc", where you can set the minimum setting to 0, which means that guests can watch, but not join the race.
And, even if you set the max real + AI in race setting to 1, which is usually used in servers, it doesn't actually prevent anyone from joining as an AI while all other drivers are human players. Trust me, I've watched AI drivers racing with humans, and it has been carnage! Only way to actually prevent that player with AI from joining is either banning them, or spectating them in case midrace joining is disallowed.
Also, same goes vice-versa. In case there is a situation, where every player must use 1 AI driver on track (for example, to test that InSim-controlling with them), nothing prevents a human player joining the track as a real player and ruining the fun/experiment.
Finally, I'm aware doing this would possibly require making an incompatible patch from developers, but at the moment, it doesn't really matter as the developers are already making a incompatible patch with those new tracks and dynamic light system. This could be added into that patch as one of the updates.
Now, you can use different InSims to do this. For example, Airio has an option to block AI drivers, and there is also a PIE (PHP; InSim; Easy) script called JustBots, which you can use to forcefully spectate and prevent real players to join onto the track, allowing only AI drivers on there.
Now, while you can do it via InSims and scripts, I'm suggesting there should be a server option or at least a command, which you could use to block human players or AI drivers joining the track.
For example, when launching a new server, there could be a selectable option: "Allow real / AI drivers on track?" with options [Allow both], [Allow only real players] and [Allow only AI drivers]. The first one should be the default option. I did think about option [none], but I remember there is an option "Max (real + AI) per guest pc", where you can set the minimum setting to 0, which means that guests can watch, but not join the race.
And, even if you set the max real + AI in race setting to 1, which is usually used in servers, it doesn't actually prevent anyone from joining as an AI while all other drivers are human players. Trust me, I've watched AI drivers racing with humans, and it has been carnage! Only way to actually prevent that player with AI from joining is either banning them, or spectating them in case midrace joining is disallowed.
Also, same goes vice-versa. In case there is a situation, where every player must use 1 AI driver on track (for example, to test that InSim-controlling with them), nothing prevents a human player joining the track as a real player and ruining the fun/experiment.
Finally, I'm aware doing this would possibly require making an incompatible patch from developers, but at the moment, it doesn't really matter as the developers are already making a incompatible patch with those new tracks and dynamic light system. This could be added into that patch as one of the updates.
This is a safe website. You can see your connection is secured by looking the address of this website. It is https://lfs.net, not http://lfs.net - what does this mean is that it has SSL/TLS encryption. And the certificate for that is still valid - and always will be!
It means that all communication between your browser and LFS.net is encrypted and protected. This does includes your passwords, credit card numbers etc.
Without it, all kind of data would be sent as plain text across the internet. In that situation, anyone in between could read it. But because the data is protected, it means that before data leaves your browser, it will be encrypted. It means that even if someone would interrupt it (which is much more unlikely to happen with HTTPS than with HTTP), only thing they can see is random nonsense that no one could ever figure it out what it really is.
And, all credit card payments with this site are processed by Elavon which is one of the most secure and trusted processors of card transactions in the world. Over 2 million customers in many, many countries use it. And it processes more than 6 billion transactions around the world per year. And needless to say, that too has SSL/TLS encryption.
Last edited by tankslacno, .
One thing: if 18 pounds is too much, can you buy S1 for 6 pounds at first? And then upgrade to S3 (or S2 at first, if necessary). You'll spend the same amount of money, but at least with this method, you don't have to spare 18 pounds at once. Instead you'll only have to spare 6 pounds on three different occasions and you can choose the time when you want to buy another license upgrade.
Okay, I managed to get it working on Chrome. Here's what I did, and I followed that first answer displayed there: https://superuser.com/questions/1400200/chrome-persistently-redirecting-to-https-for-http-site
Now, http://competition.lfs.net does indeed lead me to that page on Chrome and doesn't redirect
Oh, and by the way, Ctrl+H doesn't clear cache, but you can clear cache of lfs.net when you manage the site settings for the browser
EDIT: And I also just installed Firefox and it works for me on both normal and private modes. However, I just installed it so it doesn't have any cache. Could there be some shared HTTPS redirect cache on these pages?
Now, http://competition.lfs.net does indeed lead me to that page on Chrome and doesn't redirect
Oh, and by the way, Ctrl+H doesn't clear cache, but you can clear cache of lfs.net when you manage the site settings for the browser
EDIT: And I also just installed Firefox and it works for me on both normal and private modes. However, I just installed it so it doesn't have any cache. Could there be some shared HTTPS redirect cache on these pages?
Last edited by tankslacno, .
Scawen, I did test that on Tor-browser, and when I used the non-secure http-protocol (aka http:// site), it did work correctly for me after the browser gave me a warning that my connection is not secure. However, the very instant I allowed to use HTTPS-connection on this site on browser settings, it redirected me to https://lfs.net
On LFS Discord, Flame reported that the link works for him properly as well, but for all the others, it doesn't work and it redirects instead. We did think about that does the fact that Flame is a moderator and you are admin of the site grants you the access for that page. Could it be possible that the page is restricted and all non-moderator/admin users cannot access it?
In any case, we were able to look the site on web archive. Link to that is here: https://web.archive.org/web/20121019081926/http://competition.lfs.net/
Eric's newest post where he stated that he will do an update for Aston later got me thinking. I would like to get a clarification about this:
Does this new dynamic lightning system force you to release all updated track environments at the same time? Is it even possible to release a patch, where one of the track environments is updated and that particular track environment uses the new dynamic system, while all the other tracks still use the current 2-4 static lightning options for time being?
While it may sound strange, that only one track gets updated for one patch, it wouldn't be unprecedent as in 0.6 timeline, new Westhill was introduced in 0.6H, 0.6K introduced Rockingham, it was updated in 0.6M and 0.6R was when new Blackwood was introduced. Although, all track environments did get a major update at the same time in 0.6B, when those open track configurations were introduced.
And if it's possible to do it like that, it could make sense. It would be easier and less overwhelming for everybody to focus on fixing one track environment at a time as I'm sure that they will almost certainly have some issues in the test patch stage, as Flame already showed out one issue. Heck, the slightly updated Fern Bay probably would be very useful for testing the dynamic lightning system and time multipliers themselves, as Scawen himself has said that Fern Bay is an exception and doesn't require any major updates.
Of course, none of these pros matter, if it is very difficult, if not outright impossible for you to release a patch like this, or if you have always intended to release all the tracks at the same time using this new lightning system. I'm just curious, are you forced to release all at the same time or could you use your own discretion with this
Does this new dynamic lightning system force you to release all updated track environments at the same time? Is it even possible to release a patch, where one of the track environments is updated and that particular track environment uses the new dynamic system, while all the other tracks still use the current 2-4 static lightning options for time being?
While it may sound strange, that only one track gets updated for one patch, it wouldn't be unprecedent as in 0.6 timeline, new Westhill was introduced in 0.6H, 0.6K introduced Rockingham, it was updated in 0.6M and 0.6R was when new Blackwood was introduced. Although, all track environments did get a major update at the same time in 0.6B, when those open track configurations were introduced.
And if it's possible to do it like that, it could make sense. It would be easier and less overwhelming for everybody to focus on fixing one track environment at a time as I'm sure that they will almost certainly have some issues in the test patch stage, as Flame already showed out one issue. Heck, the slightly updated Fern Bay probably would be very useful for testing the dynamic lightning system and time multipliers themselves, as Scawen himself has said that Fern Bay is an exception and doesn't require any major updates.
Of course, none of these pros matter, if it is very difficult, if not outright impossible for you to release a patch like this, or if you have always intended to release all the tracks at the same time using this new lightning system. I'm just curious, are you forced to release all at the same time or could you use your own discretion with this
Last edited by tankslacno, .
I think this has been asked a few times on Discord and here on LFS Forum. About the dynamic lightning: what are your current plans in regards of implementing this into demo content?
Is the same dynamic lightning system still planned, if not already being currently developed, in there as well or will that demo content still have those usual 2-4 static daytime settings? Or does that version have that dynamic lightning as well, but with more limited options (for example, there are less time multipliers available)?
After all, demo is meant to be demonstration of LFS
Is the same dynamic lightning system still planned, if not already being currently developed, in there as well or will that demo content still have those usual 2-4 static daytime settings? Or does that version have that dynamic lightning as well, but with more limited options (for example, there are less time multipliers available)?
After all, demo is meant to be demonstration of LFS
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG