One or two mistakes in email of activating account
I've noticed that when you register onto the site, you get an email where LFS tells you to activate your account by clicking a link. And when you click that link, your account has been created. (If you don't do that in 3 days, your registration attempt will expire)
However, I noticed that email has one, maybe 1,5 mistakes on the right side of it. It has this part:
The Merchandise shop no longer exists. It was shut down a long time ago.
And the second, kind of, mistake is that email tells that only LFS.net and LFSWorld.net sites are safe to use your LFS username and password. Shouldn't there be a mention that LFSManual.net is also a safe website? Since using all the functionalities there requires you entering your LFS username and password to log in.
Now I'm aware of that when you try to log into LFSManual.net, it redirects you to the LFS.net-site where it is asking you to allow LFSManual access. But the LFSManual.net still does have that clickable "login with your lfs account" link.
However, I noticed that email has one, maybe 1,5 mistakes on the right side of it. It has this part:
The Merchandise shop no longer exists. It was shut down a long time ago.
And the second, kind of, mistake is that email tells that only LFS.net and LFSWorld.net sites are safe to use your LFS username and password. Shouldn't there be a mention that LFSManual.net is also a safe website? Since using all the functionalities there requires you entering your LFS username and password to log in.
Now I'm aware of that when you try to log into LFSManual.net, it redirects you to the LFS.net-site where it is asking you to allow LFSManual access. But the LFSManual.net still does have that clickable "login with your lfs account" link.
Scawen, one question about unlock codes: I know they're not one-time type codes, meaning you can use that same code as many times as you want.
However, if I (or in worse case, someone else) request to send an email containing that new unlock code, will the old code that I've already used in-game instantly become obsolete? Or is it that unlock code becomes obsolete only after the new unlock code has been used in-game at least once?
If it's the former, better not to accidentally click that link
In any case, the latter option is definitely safer, because there's always a possibility someone has found out user's LFS password for the site, but doesn't know how to access their email. In case the current unlock code becomes obsolete instantly when someone requests a new one, one can simply annoy other users by requesting new unlock codes and preventing them accessing LFS with their older unlock code.
However, if I (or in worse case, someone else) request to send an email containing that new unlock code, will the old code that I've already used in-game instantly become obsolete? Or is it that unlock code becomes obsolete only after the new unlock code has been used in-game at least once?
If it's the former, better not to accidentally click that link
In any case, the latter option is definitely safer, because there's always a possibility someone has found out user's LFS password for the site, but doesn't know how to access their email. In case the current unlock code becomes obsolete instantly when someone requests a new one, one can simply annoy other users by requesting new unlock codes and preventing them accessing LFS with their older unlock code.Okay thanks! I've updated all four translation pages found from the online translation site (that includes the LFS.net-text). Only change was that I removed the space before the colon from all translation lines that still had it.
And for anyone wondering, is this hard to do on that online translation page? Not really, you can easily just search for " :" which displays all the translation lines, that have that space before colon and then remove that space from them one by one. I assume it is even easier to do with text editors, since you can just use the find and replace function to replace all lines that have " :" with ":".
And for anyone wondering, is this hard to do on that online translation page? Not really, you can easily just search for " :" which displays all the translation lines, that have that space before colon and then remove that space from them one by one. I assume it is even easier to do with text editors, since you can just use the find and replace function to replace all lines that have " :" with ":".
Last edited by tankslacno, .
Victor developed that and the main purpose for it is to retrieve LFSW stats that you can display on your website. You can find more information about it here: https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/14480
A lot of InSims (LFSStat, LFS Lapper, Airio etc.) also have ability to use it as well. Also, LFS Companion had an update this year related to that, so we can assume it is still in commom use. I don't see any reason why it should be deleted, especially as the system itself shouldn't be able to cause any issues for the game or InSims/websites that use it
A lot of InSims (LFSStat, LFS Lapper, Airio etc.) also have ability to use it as well. Also, LFS Companion had an update this year related to that, so we can assume it is still in commom use. I don't see any reason why it should be deleted, especially as the system itself shouldn't be able to cause any issues for the game or InSims/websites that use it
Just a small question, when I did just a couple minor corrections for the game on translation web page of LFS today, I noticed this line:
According to the abbreviation, it means "A format string that specifies how the colon should be used"
I noticed that on Finnish translation, on most lines it is %s: %s - there is no space between the first %s and the colon. However, on some lines it still has that space. That part is very inconsistent when that language is selected in-game.
Question: is that 3h_s_coln_s just a reference for assigned translators? Or can it potentially cause some issues in the future? Is there any reason why there should be a space for both sides of the colon or does it really matter at all? As far as I'm aware of, most, if not all languages (aside from French), don't have a space before colon, though they do have one after it.
If for some reason it's essential to have (or not have) that space before colon, I can do it before you release a new official patch.
According to the abbreviation, it means "A format string that specifies how the colon should be used"
I noticed that on Finnish translation, on most lines it is %s: %s - there is no space between the first %s and the colon. However, on some lines it still has that space. That part is very inconsistent when that language is selected in-game.
Question: is that 3h_s_coln_s just a reference for assigned translators? Or can it potentially cause some issues in the future? Is there any reason why there should be a space for both sides of the colon or does it really matter at all? As far as I'm aware of, most, if not all languages (aside from French), don't have a space before colon, though they do have one after it.
If for some reason it's essential to have (or not have) that space before colon, I can do it before you release a new official patch.
I did test that: when I was already logged in this site, it works fine; it seems that whenever the issue is about unlock code, the URL does have that "?uc=x" (x being number) part at the end of it.
But, when I tried to do click that link in-game when not already logged in to the site, that page URL did have that "?uc=x" at the end of it as intended. But when I then logged in from that page, both that red text as well as that "?uc=x" from the URL disappeared. Instead, it just displays the normal "Personal details" page.
So, it works as intended if you are already logged in, but it doesn't seem to work correctly when you're not already logged in.
But, when I tried to do click that link in-game when not already logged in to the site, that page URL did have that "?uc=x" at the end of it as intended. But when I then logged in from that page, both that red text as well as that "?uc=x" from the URL disappeared. Instead, it just displays the normal "Personal details" page.
So, it works as intended if you are already logged in, but it doesn't seem to work correctly when you're not already logged in.
Thank you for the information. Won't translate that part then.
I guess I should also point this website translation bug out: https://www.lfs.net/account/settings
There is that option "Preferred site language". Even though my choice there is Suomi (Finnish), the site language is displayed as English by default. Only after I choose another language, save changes and then choose that my preferred language again and save changes again, it displays my preferred language in the site.
So the bug is that even if my preferred site language is set to something else than English, it still displays English translation when I'm logged in, and only changing and saving the preferred language twice allows me to see the preferred language of this site.
You can also change language here: https://www.lfs.net/account/details - by choosing the country at the right side of the page. However, when I log out, it resets the language back to English regardless of my preferred site language.
I guess I should also point this website translation bug out: https://www.lfs.net/account/settings
There is that option "Preferred site language". Even though my choice there is Suomi (Finnish), the site language is displayed as English by default. Only after I choose another language, save changes and then choose that my preferred language again and save changes again, it displays my preferred language in the site.
So the bug is that even if my preferred site language is set to something else than English, it still displays English translation when I'm logged in, and only changing and saving the preferred language twice allows me to see the preferred language of this site.
You can also change language here: https://www.lfs.net/account/details - by choosing the country at the right side of the page. However, when I log out, it resets the language back to English regardless of my preferred site language.
Finnish updated, which includes In-Game Text, In-Game Help and LFS.net-text. One thing that got me wondering about is the "Client ID" and "Client Secret" in the API management.
As I'm not aware of how LFS API Management works, does anyone know, if the "CLIENT ID" and "CLIENT SECRET" need to be labeled literally as that in the code of the external application that uses an API? Or can they be labeled something different in the application's code, if it's even necessary at all?
If LFS API requires external application that uses API to have fields literally labeled "CLIENT ID" and "CLIENT SECRET" in its code, I will keep them as those in the translation and don't start to translate them.
As I'm not aware of how LFS API Management works, does anyone know, if the "CLIENT ID" and "CLIENT SECRET" need to be labeled literally as that in the code of the external application that uses an API? Or can they be labeled something different in the application's code, if it's even necessary at all?
If LFS API requires external application that uses API to have fields literally labeled "CLIENT ID" and "CLIENT SECRET" in its code, I will keep them as those in the translation and don't start to translate them.
Question: will this change result a premature update for the LFS game as well?
What got into my mind about this is that those in-game help texts of that game will still mention that soon to be redundant GAME password, and do not mention anything about the new unlock code yet. Those in-game help texts (including English ones) will have to be manually updated by translators and those updates only come to effect into the game when you upload a new (test) patch.
What got into my mind about this is that those in-game help texts of that game will still mention that soon to be redundant GAME password, and do not mention anything about the new unlock code yet. Those in-game help texts (including English ones) will have to be manually updated by translators and those updates only come to effect into the game when you upload a new (test) patch.
Last edited by tankslacno, .
Yes, unfortunately it's not possible. You need to buy another account and sufficient licence for that.
Although, if you don't care about mods: before 0.7A version, it was possible to allow two players on a LAN with one licence. That old version is still available so you could try setting up a LAN game and then connect two computers to one local server with one account. Then you could add AIs using that one computer and watch the race with the other.
Although, if you don't care about mods: before 0.7A version, it was possible to allow two players on a LAN with one licence. That old version is still available so you could try setting up a LAN game and then connect two computers to one local server with one account. Then you could add AIs using that one computer and watch the race with the other.
It's not possible unfortunately as that kind of solution doesn't exist.
If you disconnect LFS client, you lose your AI-drivers from server. And if you want 33+ AI-drivers on server, you need to buy another licence for another user.
Well, technically if you can have access to another computer which can stay on for that whole race, you could do that by simply adding those AIs and then hosting that race on that computer. However you need to make sure you don't need to join to that server with account from another computer (as you can only be online one instance at a time per user).
If you only wish to have up to 32 AI-drivers on a race and have no need to join that server using another LFS instance, you don't need to buy another licence as according to LFS Terms & Conditions rule 3.1, you may install LFS on 2 computers for your own use.
If you disconnect LFS client, you lose your AI-drivers from server. And if you want 33+ AI-drivers on server, you need to buy another licence for another user.
Well, technically if you can have access to another computer which can stay on for that whole race, you could do that by simply adding those AIs and then hosting that race on that computer. However you need to make sure you don't need to join to that server with account from another computer (as you can only be online one instance at a time per user).
If you only wish to have up to 32 AI-drivers on a race and have no need to join that server using another LFS instance, you don't need to buy another licence as according to LFS Terms & Conditions rule 3.1, you may install LFS on 2 computers for your own use.
Question: have you considered that Extended Security Updates (ESU) program, that should become available this fall? With that, you would get security updates to your Windows 10 for one more year. Costs 30 dollars for consumers.
I too have Windows 10, and I quite likely will buy those security updates for one more year before even considering buying a new computer or updating to Windows 11 (if I can even update it as there is a chance that my too old computer doesn't even meet the minimum requirements to update it into Windows 11)
I too have Windows 10, and I quite likely will buy those security updates for one more year before even considering buying a new computer or updating to Windows 11 (if I can even update it as there is a chance that my too old computer doesn't even meet the minimum requirements to update it into Windows 11)
Actually you can force them to pit by doing this:
1) When you want your AI to make a pit stop, type command /p_sg [AI Name]. If you want that AI to make that pit stop on that current lap, you have to do it before it starts last sector of that lap. Otherwise, it will make that pit stop on the next lap
2) Then, during that final sector, before it enters the pit lane area, clear that Stop-Go penalty by typing command /p_clear [AI Name]
3) That AI will still think it's going to do a stop-go penalty, but since that penalty no longer exists, it will actually do a pit stop.
Just two more things to notify though about this method:
- Because AI will think it's a Stop-Go penalty, that pit stop always lasts at least 10 seconds. Even if pit stop has finished in under 10 seconds, that AI will remain in that pit box until 10 seconds has elapsed
- If pit stop lasts more than 10 seconds, AI will start flooring the accelerator pedal, thinking their penalty is over, but they can't move anywhere since they're still doing that stop. This method contains some risks, as some cars (especially XRR) may shut down their engine due to having too low RPM when they finally leave that pit box after stop has been completed.
According to the ivancsx (mod author), the changes in version 11 were following:
That second part of your message got me wondering: so is it possible for mod authors to do small changes for mods without having to regenerate AI paths? Because I've thought that the simple fact of different versions being used between the mod in multiplayer and the one which generated the AI path alone is enough to cause this issue
Okay, I managed to solve this. The reason why this happened is this:
1) I did previously save a single player grid where AI used Cammera JGT version 10
2) I loaded that grid and managed to generate AI path for that car. No issues at all!
3) I entered multiplayer and tried to add AI with that car. However, what I didn't realize is that the newest version of that mod is version 11. That's why, when I added that AI on multiplayer, it deleted that knw file, because I had generated that AI path for version 10, not 11.
- I solved the issue by just adding a new AI in single player and making sure it used the newest version of that particular mod.
So, this issue happens because LFS Grid files don't take this possibility into consideration: the fact that mod may be updated by author after user has saved grid containing AI using that mod. They are always using that version of the mod which was used when grid was saved.
Hi!
So, I have no idea is this an actual bug in LFS itself or is this an issue with one mod in particular.
I've tried to generate AI path for mod CAMMERA JGT (https://www.lfs.net/files/vehmods/79E657) by ivancsx on RO1 track. While it does generate it in single player, the moment I try to add AI in multiplayer after generating it, it tells me that "AI path info must be regenerated" which results them shutting down their engine, similarly how AI behaves on open config layouts. If I then try to return that AI to pitlane or add them again after spectating it, it tells me that it "Could not load AI path info: [knw-file path]"
And, I can make AIs drive that mod in single player with no issues. However, the moment I try to add AI in multiplayer, it deletes that knw file altogether from that [LFS-instance]/data/knw folder. I then have to generate the AI path for that mod in single player again, if I want to have AI drive that mod in that mode.
But here's a thing. During same multiplayer session, I've managed to add AI's using DORITO, IMPREZZIVE and TROENO JGT's and had no problems whatsoever with those mods. And yes, I did think it is a possible bug with this mod in particular, but CAMMERA JGT has worked with AI when using other tracks (at least in BL1, AU3 and AU4) before. So, no idea what has happened there
So, I have no idea is this an actual bug in LFS itself or is this an issue with one mod in particular.
I've tried to generate AI path for mod CAMMERA JGT (https://www.lfs.net/files/vehmods/79E657) by ivancsx on RO1 track. While it does generate it in single player, the moment I try to add AI in multiplayer after generating it, it tells me that "AI path info must be regenerated" which results them shutting down their engine, similarly how AI behaves on open config layouts. If I then try to return that AI to pitlane or add them again after spectating it, it tells me that it "Could not load AI path info: [knw-file path]"
And, I can make AIs drive that mod in single player with no issues. However, the moment I try to add AI in multiplayer, it deletes that knw file altogether from that [LFS-instance]/data/knw folder. I then have to generate the AI path for that mod in single player again, if I want to have AI drive that mod in that mode.
But here's a thing. During same multiplayer session, I've managed to add AI's using DORITO, IMPREZZIVE and TROENO JGT's and had no problems whatsoever with those mods. And yes, I did think it is a possible bug with this mod in particular, but CAMMERA JGT has worked with AI when using other tracks (at least in BL1, AU3 and AU4) before. So, no idea what has happened there
Last edited by tankslacno, .
New admin command: setlap_all
Since 0.6H, we have had a command /setlap USERNAME X. With that, we can set the lap that the user is currently on.
However, with that command, we can only change that lap amount for one driver at the time. Even if you use that "multiple commands in single line" feature, you can only do that change for few drivers at most.
What I suggest is an additional version of that command: /setlap_all X, with X being the lap parameter. That command will set the lap to all drivers on track at once. It will not affect checkpoints being passed.
We already have a command /zero_all which resets all lap counters and checkpoints passed from the race, so I don't think it should be too difficult to add this command.
And by the way, this /zero_all may seem very similar to what /setlap_all 0 or 1 would be, but there is actually one difference. /setlap_all would not affect to checkpoints being passed, while /zero_all resets them.
Examples where this command would be really useful:
1) We do have some races, where race length is set by kilometers/miles. However, in LFS, if your lap amount is over 100, you can only have lap amounts that you can multiply by ten. And in case you don't know, LFS developers cannot easily add a feature which would support 101, 102 etc. lap amounts, because that change would break existing InSim scripts, replay parsers etc., for little gain.
With this command, you could add that lap amount for all drivers at once, so they will actually drive that fixed distance amount! Example: race length is set to 230 kilometers, but you want a 300km race, which would actually be achieved by driving 228 laps. With this command /setlap_all, you could just set parameter to 3, which results all of them actually driving "just" 228 laps, which is that correct distance, instead of 230!
2) Imagine a situation, where we have server problems and most, if not all, drivers time out in the middle of the race. And then it's decided to restart the race and admins want to continue on from where they were left off.
Instead of subtracting from that original lap amount, admins could just set that lap where those server issues occurred for all drivers at once. For lapped cars, admins can then set that correct lap amount afterwards by using command /setlap USERNAME X with X being negative.
Not to mention that there's always a chance you will face some other situation where this command would be needed
However, with that command, we can only change that lap amount for one driver at the time. Even if you use that "multiple commands in single line" feature, you can only do that change for few drivers at most.
What I suggest is an additional version of that command: /setlap_all X, with X being the lap parameter. That command will set the lap to all drivers on track at once. It will not affect checkpoints being passed.
We already have a command /zero_all which resets all lap counters and checkpoints passed from the race, so I don't think it should be too difficult to add this command.
And by the way, this /zero_all may seem very similar to what /setlap_all 0 or 1 would be, but there is actually one difference. /setlap_all would not affect to checkpoints being passed, while /zero_all resets them.
Examples where this command would be really useful:
1) We do have some races, where race length is set by kilometers/miles. However, in LFS, if your lap amount is over 100, you can only have lap amounts that you can multiply by ten. And in case you don't know, LFS developers cannot easily add a feature which would support 101, 102 etc. lap amounts, because that change would break existing InSim scripts, replay parsers etc., for little gain.
With this command, you could add that lap amount for all drivers at once, so they will actually drive that fixed distance amount! Example: race length is set to 230 kilometers, but you want a 300km race, which would actually be achieved by driving 228 laps. With this command /setlap_all, you could just set parameter to 3, which results all of them actually driving "just" 228 laps, which is that correct distance, instead of 230!
2) Imagine a situation, where we have server problems and most, if not all, drivers time out in the middle of the race. And then it's decided to restart the race and admins want to continue on from where they were left off.
Instead of subtracting from that original lap amount, admins could just set that lap where those server issues occurred for all drivers at once. For lapped cars, admins can then set that correct lap amount afterwards by using command /setlap USERNAME X with X being negative.
Not to mention that there's always a chance you will face some other situation where this command would be needed
I just tested this with my season and tried that skin feature with your season. Looks good, though there could be one clarification: skin has to be uploaded beforehand and its name in the text field must begin with "[car abbrevation/mod ID]_" with no file extension included
Or maybe that could be displayed when user tries to sign up provided that Skin-field is present
Suggestion: when admin is adding those required fields for on-site signup, should there be a question where you ask are users/teams allowed/required to upload a skin? And if they choose yes, it will automatically add a field labeled "Skin" there for users to add their skin.
Because if I understood this correctly, that text field must have a label literally named "Skin" in order for that skin feature to work. I just don't want some admin name that field "Colour" which results them wondering why it's not working
Or if it's not possible, then maybe a helpful text indicating you should name that field as "Skin" if you want that skin feature to work.
Because if I understood this correctly, that text field must have a label literally named "Skin" in order for that skin feature to work. I just don't want some admin name that field "Colour" which results them wondering why it's not working
Or if it's not possible, then maybe a helpful text indicating you should name that field as "Skin" if you want that skin feature to work.
I think it should be link to that LFSW skin in that case, as Scawen recently added option to download information about signed up users in CSV-format, but that format doesn't support images being embed in there.
Sounds good I did find two issues, first one is just minor/cosmetic one, but the second one is, let's say, semi-important.
1) The minor one: Right now, if your season is set that users don't need to signup, there is a text "No signup required" in LFS Entry Screen and it's located above that clickable Join-button and server name.
However, if your season is set to "Invite only", you can see in LFS Entry Screen that the Join-button is now non-clickable. However, there is no text above it about signing up. I was wondering, should in these types of seasons there be a text "Event is Invite Only" (or something like that) in that position? Because right now, there is no other indication in LFS Entry Screen, that the event is invite only type of event, other than that non-clickable LFS button
2) The more important one: You can add multiple hosts that will be used in your season, but you cannot:
- Reliably choose the order of them. I understand the first server is the main/primary one, and in case its offline (or, apparently, hidden), LFS Entry Screen chooses the second one in the order. And if that one too is not online, the third one, etc. However, I just tested with this:
https://www.lfs.net/leagues/412/season/1196
I tested this by making this season having five hosts. Even though I added host "LFS BRASIL" (for testing purposes) last and at the bottom of my host list, for some reason, after saving my season settings, this website did put it straight to the top of hosts this season is going to use.
But when I added "Just A Ride" after "Sport Racing Team Finland" and "Sport Racing Team Demo", it did automatically assign it to between those two. After that, I added "Freedom Factory", and it assigned it between "Just a Ride" and that demo server. But when I tried to change order of "Just A Ride" and "Freedom Factory", after saving it, it still kept "Just a Ride" above "Freedom Factory".
So, it seems like the order where these hosts are listed is not reliable. It seems like there's a chance it will change the primary server at random. So choosing order of those hosts used in a season would be quite essential.
- Choose which host(s) used in a season are used in individual rounds.
This is probably not that important, but would be nice to have as we have ability to list multiple hosts in an individual season. Could also be an alternative solution to that more important problem
EDIT: Added two screenshots, one choosing the order I listed those hosts and the other one choosing the actual order in my season page after saving my season settings
I did find two issues, first one is just minor/cosmetic one, but the second one is, let's say, semi-important.1) The minor one: Right now, if your season is set that users don't need to signup, there is a text "No signup required" in LFS Entry Screen and it's located above that clickable Join-button and server name.
However, if your season is set to "Invite only", you can see in LFS Entry Screen that the Join-button is now non-clickable. However, there is no text above it about signing up. I was wondering, should in these types of seasons there be a text "Event is Invite Only" (or something like that) in that position? Because right now, there is no other indication in LFS Entry Screen, that the event is invite only type of event, other than that non-clickable LFS button
2) The more important one: You can add multiple hosts that will be used in your season, but you cannot:
- Reliably choose the order of them. I understand the first server is the main/primary one, and in case its offline (or, apparently, hidden), LFS Entry Screen chooses the second one in the order. And if that one too is not online, the third one, etc. However, I just tested with this:
https://www.lfs.net/leagues/412/season/1196
I tested this by making this season having five hosts. Even though I added host "LFS BRASIL" (for testing purposes) last and at the bottom of my host list, for some reason, after saving my season settings, this website did put it straight to the top of hosts this season is going to use.
But when I added "Just A Ride" after "Sport Racing Team Finland" and "Sport Racing Team Demo", it did automatically assign it to between those two. After that, I added "Freedom Factory", and it assigned it between "Just a Ride" and that demo server. But when I tried to change order of "Just A Ride" and "Freedom Factory", after saving it, it still kept "Just a Ride" above "Freedom Factory".
So, it seems like the order where these hosts are listed is not reliable. It seems like there's a chance it will change the primary server at random. So choosing order of those hosts used in a season would be quite essential.
- Choose which host(s) used in a season are used in individual rounds.
This is probably not that important, but would be nice to have as we have ability to list multiple hosts in an individual season. Could also be an alternative solution to that more important problem
EDIT: Added two screenshots, one choosing the order I listed those hosts and the other one choosing the actual order in my season page after saving my season settings
Last edited by tankslacno, .
This got me thinking about two possible solutions to this:
1) What would be your opinion about having an additional setting "Hidden" or "Private" in league (or season) settings?
It would work like how your league works now. Users can view its page and sign-up, but only if they know the URL for it. It would not appear on calendar, LFS Entry screen (except maybe for signed up users) for the general public
If league is not active, then signing up would not be possible, regardless if league/season is hidden or not
2) Alternatively, one thing you could add to inactive leagues is a cursived and/or greyed out text "Inactive" next to the name of the league. Right now, there is no indication if league is inactive or not when viewing its page.
Hi! Thanks for these updates. There is one thing however that has catched my eye:
- When you are editing league information, there are two fields where you can tell is there an entrance fee and can users win a prize. However, when I select that "Yes"-option for both of them, there is no mention about them anywhere in the league page. There is also no filter to those when viewing list of leagues, even though you can filter leagues by type, region, experience and licence.
Those two options feel like they could be useful, but since they're not displayed anywhere, they kinda feel redundant at the moment.
I was wondering that if user selects yes in those options, could they be allowed to type in text what is the entrance fee/prize for the league and then display those in league information. Or should league admin able to toggle those options when doing a season, rather than a league as different seasons under same league may have different rules regarding those?
- When you are editing league information, there are two fields where you can tell is there an entrance fee and can users win a prize. However, when I select that "Yes"-option for both of them, there is no mention about them anywhere in the league page. There is also no filter to those when viewing list of leagues, even though you can filter leagues by type, region, experience and licence.
Those two options feel like they could be useful, but since they're not displayed anywhere, they kinda feel redundant at the moment.
I was wondering that if user selects yes in those options, could they be allowed to type in text what is the entrance fee/prize for the league and then display those in league information. Or should league admin able to toggle those options when doing a season, rather than a league as different seasons under same league may have different rules regarding those?
Hi!
I found two issues about signing up:
1) When you set your sign up setting either to "No sign-up required" or "Invite only", and then (after saving it), try to edit your season, the page displays that sign up form, even if that option being selected should not show those required sign up details. Just clicking either of those options makes that form disappear. And if you try to save it without clicking that option, it doesn't make that sign up appear, so there's no issue in functionality. Just a minor (cosmetic) issue, not critical at all
2) If that sign up setting is set to "Invite only" and you then look your event at LFS Entry Screen, it doesn't indicate anything that event is invite only. It just has that clickable "Sign up" button, but no indication that event is invite only. Only after clicking that "Sign up"-button, and then looking closely at the Signup-section, you can see it is invite only type of event. I was wondering, should there be a text "Invite only" next to that button or make that "Sign Up"-button not appear at all (or non-clickable)?
I found two issues about signing up:
1) When you set your sign up setting either to "No sign-up required" or "Invite only", and then (after saving it), try to edit your season, the page displays that sign up form, even if that option being selected should not show those required sign up details. Just clicking either of those options makes that form disappear. And if you try to save it without clicking that option, it doesn't make that sign up appear, so there's no issue in functionality. Just a minor (cosmetic) issue, not critical at all
2) If that sign up setting is set to "Invite only" and you then look your event at LFS Entry Screen, it doesn't indicate anything that event is invite only. It just has that clickable "Sign up" button, but no indication that event is invite only. Only after clicking that "Sign up"-button, and then looking closely at the Signup-section, you can see it is invite only type of event. I was wondering, should there be a text "Invite only" next to that button or make that "Sign Up"-button not appear at all (or non-clickable)?
Last edited by tankslacno, .
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG