At the end of the day it's your grandparent's car therefore their decision.
I very much doubt anyone here has seen yourself or your grandparents drive, so I doubt anyone can make an informed comment.
However, a few questions have occured in my head - 50mph around a corner, but capable of 90mph. What was the speed limit? If you were exceeding it your grand father is in his rights to complain assuming that he's the owner, given that any points will be assigned to him immediately and then altered later at request. This can have adverse affects.
Also bear in mind that as a driver you are prepared for how sharply you are going to drive, etc. and your passengers are not, therefore your reactions to it will be different from theirs.
Also bear in mind the age of your grand father. At this age people tend to have a different perspective on life and how to drive.
If you're looking to persuade him then my suggestion would be to respect his decision for the moment and then ask when you genuinely need to borrow the car. If he thinks you're going to borrow it willy-nilly then the likelihood is going to be much lower.
Also something to consider is perhaps he's trying to protect you from the same mistakes he's made himself.
I very much doubt anyone here has seen yourself or your grandparents drive, so I doubt anyone can make an informed comment.
However, a few questions have occured in my head - 50mph around a corner, but capable of 90mph. What was the speed limit? If you were exceeding it your grand father is in his rights to complain assuming that he's the owner, given that any points will be assigned to him immediately and then altered later at request. This can have adverse affects.
Also bear in mind that as a driver you are prepared for how sharply you are going to drive, etc. and your passengers are not, therefore your reactions to it will be different from theirs.
Also bear in mind the age of your grand father. At this age people tend to have a different perspective on life and how to drive.
If you're looking to persuade him then my suggestion would be to respect his decision for the moment and then ask when you genuinely need to borrow the car. If he thinks you're going to borrow it willy-nilly then the likelihood is going to be much lower.
Also something to consider is perhaps he's trying to protect you from the same mistakes he's made himself.
I've not seen any evidence that it's been written yet. If it has then it's not been publically released.
It can't be done without an insim modification, but then you're not going to be giving people the admin password, but using a completely different mechanism where people login via the insim addon and running commands through that.
Sorry, I didn't mean it harshly, it was just a couple of observations
I apologise if I've caused any offence :oOn topic, I can heartily recommend Dygear's PHP library for querying LFSW, it takes care of everything for you and works very well, and was used in the stats thingy with great success
Once again, I do apologise
I can see a couple of WTFs in the script and so on, but I can tell you that it seems to be working. At present vrtas123 is online at ANTIK LFS Action Drifting, and the script picks him up as such when its run on my test box.
Could be a number of things - connection time outs, etc. from your connection when it tries to talk to the LFSW servers, etc (perhaps Victor has an anti-bashing firewall script setup to prevent lots of multiple requests (I know I do on certain servers I manage at work), which mine is able to circumvent given that it's geographically and network-wise very close to the LFS servers - only Victor could answer that (I've pointed him at this thread)). Assuming that the text file is actually being updated then it won't be an execution timeout being hit, but this is another thing only you guys can check.
However, I'm ignoring the entire problem for a second because what I'm looking at is utterly bonkers in concept (I'm having what can only be described as an exceptionally frustrating day, so please understand I'm not pissed off, but I maybe venting a little bit here, so take how I say things with a pinch of salt).
You're making 48 requests to the LFSW servers to see if 48 individual players are online. With pubstats you make 1. Just one. Uno. Ein. A single request. You don't need to hit each player's pst, you just need to get a host list which includes the list of each player online. This in itself will save processing time, bandwidth, etc. You don't even need to parse what server they're on (but you would get that as an added bonus. You just add the online players to some array then do an in_array() call going through your nick array. If true then they are online, if not they aren't.
In PHP the get_headers implementation uses a HTTP GET, which means more data gets thrown around, which in the long run means you're pulling down more data than you'd get from a hosts pubstats request.
You're circumventing the entire pubstats tarpit.
Look I'm not trying to be purposefully annoying or picky, but the pubstats mechanism exists for a reason.
Could be a number of things - connection time outs, etc. from your connection when it tries to talk to the LFSW servers, etc (perhaps Victor has an anti-bashing firewall script setup to prevent lots of multiple requests (I know I do on certain servers I manage at work), which mine is able to circumvent given that it's geographically and network-wise very close to the LFS servers - only Victor could answer that (I've pointed him at this thread)). Assuming that the text file is actually being updated then it won't be an execution timeout being hit, but this is another thing only you guys can check.
However, I'm ignoring the entire problem for a second because what I'm looking at is utterly bonkers in concept (I'm having what can only be described as an exceptionally frustrating day, so please understand I'm not pissed off, but I maybe venting a little bit here, so take how I say things with a pinch of salt).
You're making 48 requests to the LFSW servers to see if 48 individual players are online. With pubstats you make 1. Just one. Uno. Ein. A single request. You don't need to hit each player's pst, you just need to get a host list which includes the list of each player online. This in itself will save processing time, bandwidth, etc. You don't even need to parse what server they're on (but you would get that as an added bonus. You just add the online players to some array then do an in_array() call going through your nick array. If true then they are online, if not they aren't.
In PHP the get_headers implementation uses a HTTP GET, which means more data gets thrown around, which in the long run means you're pulling down more data than you'd get from a hosts pubstats request.
You're circumventing the entire pubstats tarpit.
Look I'm not trying to be purposefully annoying or picky, but the pubstats mechanism exists for a reason.
So let me get this straight, because you've got a contradiction here. The actual gif looks fine in the browser and is reporting the correct details, but your code detects otherwise? And you're doing this completely with file sizes?
Have you actually checked the file size of the gif when it indicates when he's online, etc.? Incidentally I wouldn't recommend using this method tbh.. For any significant number of players using pubstats is a much more sane idea.
Have you got any caching in your code, or anything like that, which may affect things? Have you tried verifying the gif manually when he's online?
If yes then we'd need to get him online so that others (be it someone else, or Victor) to verify what's happening is replicated at somewhere non-local to your code.
May I suggest you read my above post.
Edit: Let me clarify - I subscribe to the "people are idiots until you prove otherwise" school of thought, so until the little things are checked I fail to believe people when they say that "things don't work".
Just because thats what the example given says doesn't mean that's the actual username they're looking for.. Sometimes it's a very simple mistake which is the cause (such as a typoed username - there could be someone with a very similiar one, etc.).
Yes it is.
It's called life. You can't expect to fall in love and stay in love with one thing forever. People's interests will general change if it's not something they're working on themselves (i.e. they're not passionate about it).
What's the affected user's name? Have you URL encoded the licence name?
A picture says a thousand words, but it sounds like a knackered graphics card tbh.
I'd check by downloading LFS again, trying it in the demo. If that still does it then I'd try a few other games, or similiar apps, and seeing if the same thing happens again.
I'd check by downloading LFS again, trying it in the demo. If that still does it then I'd try a few other games, or similiar apps, and seeing if the same thing happens again.
You cannot enforce or detect that setting from the server, no.
Unlikely. Physics cards demand that you use their libraries, which LFS is not using. Porting across to these libraries seems exceptionally unlikely.
Take a look at this thread joker-gtr;
http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=9572
http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=9572
That's only relevant if you want to turn LFS' world units into meters. In the instance of a static location there is little benefit of doing this.
Edit: That's not to say your comment wasn't helpful shaun, just more likely that a little more explanation was required for the OP for it to make sense...
Custom tools need to be created that modify the models and the vehicle properties. In the case of older LFS versions this was achieved through a number of methods which any coder with even an inkling of how programs work should beable to deduce. There are no tools which are publically permitted here, which describe or reproduce exactly what you've seen on youtube. There have been third party tools available on the forums for download, in the past, to edit vehicle properties, however.
Ok lets put this in perspective. That post was the 12th of April. Dougie open sourced his cruise app on 16th of May. It is now the 20th of June.
Time passes, things change and this is not relevant to the OPs request.
You need to login using the same account details as you use on LFS.net. The two user databases are linked so you can use the same account.
If you're hosting this at home and your "server" is running with a DHCP address it's entirely possible the LAN IP of the "server" has altered. Double check this and your port forwarding settings.
The long and short of it is that if it's a crap PC it's going to perform badly I'm afraid..
If you want to let us know the specs and see if we can help you can get them via doing the following;
1. Start > run
2. Type "dxdiag", click ok
3. Wait until it's finished loading, then click Save All Information
4. Attach the dxdiag.txt file to a post
If you want to let us know the specs and see if we can help you can get them via doing the following;
1. Start > run
2. Type "dxdiag", click ok
3. Wait until it's finished loading, then click Save All Information
4. Attach the dxdiag.txt file to a post
No.. more over it's been explained several times. dougie (rob) however is the person who made the original release. Given that several people have detailed how to fix it (including those who do actually have the tools to compile and package a fix [which for the 5 billioneth time, so people don't ask me again - I don't and will not have anything to do with .NET whatsoever]), I'm not entirely sure why, given that the original code was released under a BSD licence, haven't actually contributed back.
By default the code uses some mad method of calculating the number of compcar structs (consider these to be "sub-insim-packets" if you will), rather than using the actual value given in the MCI packet (NumC). Fixing this will prevent the crash. However, the issue is more complex as doing this, with the current state of code, will merely only allow racers in the same MCI packet to interact with each other. This meaning that if there are only 8 people in the server there are no issues, but if there are 9 then the first 8 cannot interact with the 9th, which comes in the next packet. For this reason a larger fix is required, which is described by elmohellno in this thread;
http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=43933
Mick/Mikjen, without being rude (please don't take this the wrong way, I mean this very kindly - you're clearly a nice chap and mean well) this tool is not yet ready for those who cannot program even a little bit. There is acknowledgement that there are bugs, but it is a better base than was previously available. For this reason, and because it's under a BSD licence, it was moved into the libraries and tools subforum. For these combined reasons you'll find it here not in the Unofficial Addons, which is where you'll find packages ready and that will work out of the box (i.e. LFSLapper).
For all those bleating on that you need dougie to fix it; you don't need him to fix it. It's BSD licence. This means you can make your changes and either contribute them back or release it as a new product, or thirdly fix it in your copy, send him a patch for when he returns from holiday so that it can go into the main source tree (i.e. the "official" dougie version) and also release an updated set of source and/or a precompiled version.
Ensure that the LFS dedi is not running, otherwise it will overwrite this file and changes that you make.
Open cfg.txt. In there you will see a "Ply Name" entry. This will be set to "host" for the dedi server. Change that to whatever you like (as long as it does not exceed 32 characters iirc) and then start the dedi again
Open cfg.txt. In there you will see a "Ply Name" entry. This will be set to "host" for the dedi server. Change that to whatever you like (as long as it does not exceed 32 characters iirc) and then start the dedi again
You don't as the host types are more integrated than before. Please re-read the first few posts.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG