Perhaps ther needs to be a distinction between the LFS community and the LFSForum/LFS IRC community. The oldies here are probably analogous to an old boys club in the eyes of the younger community members, and often I wonder what they think...
Other than that bit of pondering, you're generally spot on I think Becky
I must say DarkTimes, your work with pyinsim is inspiring and solely you are making me warm to the idea of developing in python. The simplicity of your API is fantastic 
LFS_External has support for Outgauge, and pyinsim has recently had it added. Other than that I don't believe that there are any others which have been talked about here. Which language were you specifcally after a lib for? If there isn't one available it shouldn't be difficult to knock up as the Outgauge protocol is very, very simple - a single packet which you listen for - effectively.
Extreme? Genuinely if you think we're extreme then I seriously need to suggest that you visit other forums on the internet. If you genuinely are refering to our moderation here then that makes me sad and I'd happily talk to you/anyone via PM who wants to point out certain things..
Don't forget that moderators don't just moderate here. We also take part in the conversation. I would be very happy if we could leave the moderator hat at the door of a thread, so to speak, and that everyone would learn that just because we're commenting doesn't mean we're doing so as a moderator
At the end of the day everything you said could be true. However, the dev team want to develop LFS in their own way, and have repeatedly stated that they want to continue in this manner. I'm not convinced that another thread is going to help. But, whilst it's civil
Under the user control panel > attachments you are able to delete any uploads that you have made. This will obviously free up some space for further uploads.
Slightly unruly at times, but I'm not sure that I'd call it a mess outside of the test patch forum (which mods rarely clean for various reasons) where people are unable to follow simple rules. The mods are being tougher than in the past at present, and hopefully this is starting to be felt outside of the test patch forum - in a good way.
Erm, if you genuinely believe that's how things would go, then I'd be very surprised. History dictates that any little bit of information gets picked to bits, and then the silliness starts. Just look at any of the recent released information for LFS. Now step out of the world of LFS and into the world of any other closed software company that doesn't have a community manager (such as the battlefield heroes team, for instance). Unless the product is nearing a state of completion, or available as a test version, the information wagon doesn't leave the station. The same can be said for a number of open source projects where lead developers working on a new component for X stay quiet, until an initial release is ready, and then they make a big splash on the mailing list/website. Since LFS isn't being developed in the normal way, marketing and distributing information cannot work in the same way as other products.
I agree, it would be nice. However, even if more information was available, this would be exactly what would happen. Go back through the archives and see what happens every time a little bit of information is leaked from the developers - regardless of whether or not there are time frames, feature promises, or otherwise.
People thrive on gossip, and effectively anything that the developers mention would be treated as such. However, because of how the dev team works you'd likely see news updates which either make no sense (i.e. why is developer X doing Y when developer Q is doing P?), or which mean nothing to the average player.
Perhaps this will help you appreciate the predicament that the development team are in.
I'd absolutely love to point you to the other 3 or 4 threads that we had in the last few months on this alone, but quite frankly I suspect it won't do a damn bit to help explain if it isn't clear now.
Equally I'm also sure that if I don't close this thread I'll get shit for it from the community and the thread will spiral out of control. Again. Yet if I do close it, then I'm having the last post and someone will whine.
On the subject of the insim packets reference, do you have any objection to a single sentence, plain english, description for each? I know from my point of view it would've been seriously helpful in the past.
For instance, I was thinking about something like this:
For instance, I was thinking about something like this:
[[IS_MSO]]: Sent from LFS, detailing all system and user messages.The number of people that look at the programmers forum is fairly small. You could get more coverage if you make a thread in the unofficial addons subforum. Failing that a mod can always split this thread up a tad and place the relevant sections into the right places. Let us know if you want that.
As usual DarkTimes, great thought and I commend your efforts so far May I offer one line from Field of Dreams - "build it and they will come".
I believe that the general thinking was to split up the non-racing and racing content as much as possible. However I can't see a reason not to split it all up further. After all - it's a wiki and restructing is simple
If I start seeing stuff change I'll happily join in and transfer any remaining notes that I have into the manual as and when I can.
The structure is fairly logical, although I'd be hestitant to split up the packets per page as there simply isn't a lot of stuff to be written about each. Perhaps a logical grouping might be more relevant. It would certainly be easier to grok the API quickly and then link problematic areas to their own, more in depth, page.
May I offer one line from Field of Dreams - "build it and they will come".I believe that the general thinking was to split up the non-racing and racing content as much as possible. However I can't see a reason not to split it all up further. After all - it's a wiki and restructing is simple
If I start seeing stuff change I'll happily join in and transfer any remaining notes that I have into the manual as and when I can.
The structure is fairly logical, although I'd be hestitant to split up the packets per page as there simply isn't a lot of stuff to be written about each. Perhaps a logical grouping might be more relevant. It would certainly be easier to grok the API quickly and then link problematic areas to their own, more in depth, page.
Both you and the person who lent you their licence would most likely be banned if caught.
Apparently I was being too subtle. The reason I'd posted the link to their forums is because that's where the most logical place is to find the answer.
Think of it as a "let me ****ing google for that you" link, but slightly more polite.
I do forget that being subtle doesn't work around here though.
I've merged thw two threads into one in the Improvement Suggestions subforum.
Then why post a thread with the knowledge that it's going to get locked. If you know this fact then you must be aware that the thread will be locked for a specific reason.
In this instance it's because of either:
1. The thread is going to attract idiots and end in a massive argument
2. The answer is already known
Every time the developers do this they get lambasted because they give a hint and then for whatever reason cannot deliver within the hinted timeframe. If you were in their situation would be bother giving hints? I know I wouldn't.
Whilst the moderators don't know anything more than anyone else, I can but point you at the following threads and posts which should address your concerns:
* [MERGED] Scirocco enquiry threads
* Scawen's response to "Let ... l there won't be S3"
2 words; scrap yard.
Depending on what you've got, and assuming we're talking about an actual car, not a G25/other device, then a local scrap yard might have a car like yours, with a decent interior. Guaranteed to fit if its the right model and relatively cheap.
Can I just reiterate that the only way to get the developers attention would be via https://www.lfs.net/?page=mailus. Right now Vic isn't really doing much with LFS due to various reasons, so if you've tried contacting him that wasn't the way to go and it would explain why you've not heard any answer.
As interesting as the debate is between full, partial and no disclosure (genuinely, I enjoy debating the topic), I'm afraid to say that doing it here isn't the best course of action.
The community as a whole, including mods, doesn't really have any other method to contact the developers so I'm not sure that we can go any further than we already have with this thread.
Given the alarming direction that this thread is going I'm going to close it for now. I truly hope that you fully read my response, especially the top bit about Vic and contacting the developers. They can find your information here and in any other correspondence you've sent.
muhaa, if you want it reopened then give me a shout.
This program is no longer publically available for LFS, and if it was to be found anywhere, I suspect it would no longer work with the more recent versions of LFS due to changes to LFS.
JogDive, if you work on it again and want to reopen this thread please contact one of the moderators.
JogDive, if you work on it again and want to reopen this thread please contact one of the moderators.
Assuming you're not just using cygwin (or something similar), there was an issue many moons ago with reinit'ing a server under wine where the socket wasn't being "released" (very high level view of the problem). It had disappeared with newer versions of wine, when I was still hosting servers, but I'd be willing to bet that it's this that's affecting you now. The only advice I can offer right now is to kill the server and restart it rather than using /reinit Alternatively it might be worth looking at the version of wine you're running and any available updates/bugfixes for it, especially if you're running an older version.
Alternatively it might be worth looking at the version of wine you're running and any available updates/bugfixes for it, especially if you're running an older version.This is the exact reason why I had closed the thread. It was mentioned earlier on in this one that the mod who closed it should've just cleaned up the off topic posts.
Sorry, but given the number of them and given how the thread had turned into a wanking fest, I didn't feel like wasting my time. If you want to waste your own time posting bollocks and troll then do so. Just don't expect anyone else to waste their time cleaning up your crap so a thread can actually get back on topic. Or more than likely, descend into a petty argument over what OS you take to bed at night, and why everyone should be doing the same.
For the record, had the OP wanted the thread cleaned and then reopened then I would've done so.
Assuming it's a legit licence, you've not logged in with the same details that you use on LFS.net.
Go into Multiplayer > Start, and set the IP in there to auto. Now close and restart LFS. Your scripts should work, assuming that was the issue.
Bored with this thread now.
Depends on what OS. For Windows you get the CLI as part of the download from PHP.net (included as php.exe). For other OS' you'll either have to let us know what you run or refer to it's documentation.
Dygear has written a fantastic little library that takes care of the whole InSim protocol for you and allows you to get on with just writing your program - You can find details on it here http://www.lfsforum.net/showth ... 13&highlight=phpinsim.
If you want to write your own sockets and protocol logic then the InSim.txt file in Docs/Insim.txt should be more than enough to get you started. There's also a lot of information in the programmers corner.
If you want to write your own sockets and protocol logic then the InSim.txt file in Docs/Insim.txt should be more than enough to get you started. There's also a lot of information in the programmers corner.
Can you explain the problem a little more?
What version of LFS is he using (found across the bottom center of the screen)
What do you mean by "won't allow S1 or S2 servers to unlock"? Do you mean that he can't connect to any servers at all? He can't see any servers other than demo?
What version of LFS is he using (found across the bottom center of the screen)
What do you mean by "won't allow S1 or S2 servers to unlock"? Do you mean that he can't connect to any servers at all? He can't see any servers other than demo?
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG