What do you mean by "can't use it"? Can't join any online servers (can you get on to the web at all?), or cant run your own server?

Quote from felplacerad :

Unless the speed test is lying your upload bandwidth is approximately 500 kb (kilobit). That means that, in theory, you'll only be able to host one server allowing 13 cars on track and one spectator at 4 PPS. At most!

The assumption being that the server will be full. However, it's worth mentioning that most servers are usually not full, if not empty. The concept of overselling isn't a new one

Quote from felplacerad :

All according to this formula:

FWIW that formula might be a little bit out now, but it's roughly right The calculator in-game should yield the same results, in theory...

I can think of several uses of XML that I've seen in production, which have made me cry.. XML serialised into a DB column (rather than creating a new set of columns in the DB) - at every search the entire rowset of the table was returned and each row's XML was parsed and then sorted... Small quantities of XML gzipped and used as a network protocol over UDP, because "UDP had better performance, and XML is.. Like so cool man"?!!

So yes, it can be over used like any tech, and it's usually over used by people who consider technology X to be the bees knees and will refuse to use any other tech even if it's more suitable - as if they're trying to prove a point In my opinion this is much more dangerous than being overzealous with it and not seeing it..

These blind advocates are the emacs users of the world... *waits for the pain*

Quote from JO53PHS :

Was it like a form to fill in? What were the options?

Well.. I selected myself and I only got options about how I should die. The checkout also didnt charge me, although said that it would be collected from myself upon delivery... Seems a bit arse about tit.

Anyway, if I die from an accidental death in a 2-4 weeks then you know why...

Memo - Ksa, if you've having payment issues you need to contact the developers directly here, detailing your LFS.net username that you have tried to buy a licence with and what the issue is exactly: http://www.lfs.net/?page=mailus

Quote from arnau 08 :

hello im ARNAU 08 and one image in spain and vist my s2

You're either logging in with the incorrect details (you must login with the account you actually paid with), or something happened where by your account was revoked for some reason (bank payment got reversed for instance).

The only people who could tell you this would be the developers, who you must contact directly here:
http://www.lfs.net/?page=mailu ... ubject=Account%20Problems

To help them please give them your full name that you signed up with, and what you think your licence name is.

Quote from Dygear :

As they say, it's always the little things.

It's interesting how the MTA dealt with the incorrect To and Bcc headers tbh. My boxes almost exclusively use exim 4 and the broken code behaves properly, where as the one I have running (an old) version of sendmail doesn't play nicely. You have to love tech sometimes

Quote from keiran :

That sorted it, thanks Dygear

I must be having a thick day, I've been staring at this and only just realised that it was down to quotations

:cry: I forgot to change Antony Davidson

Quote from ThaBobsta :

had drift score in chat

That's achieved through InSim and isn't the sort of modification that the others mean atm

Something I have just noticed;

For obvious reasons that's not going to do what you think and should be
and may well be what's causing the problem. It shouldn't override the rcpt to though.. Right now it's the only issue I can see with the code, so I'd fall back to believing something funky is happening with the MTA, so I'd check the logs if that doesnt pan out..

Edit: T-RonX, I've only just noticed your post. Whilst you would be correct in saying that usually textfiles are \n (LF) only under unix-like OS', the SMTP specs dictate that \r\n (CRLF) should be used.

If it's your box take a look in /var/log/mail.log to see whats happening in more detail. The fact that mail() works with plain text means that it should be ok, which implies either you've got sendmail rejecting emails which contain html, or something is going arye. The dead.letter file should also contain more information as to whats going on.

Usually you'll get this is the server isn't configured properly. Usually it's sendmail (there could be other MTAs which I've not used that produce it, but I'm not aware of which, if any, that do) which produces these files, and it will produce them when it doesn't know how to deliver your email.

http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=2326 has a few maps linked

Guide: Running a LFS Server. Hint. If you have a router read the bit on port forwarding. Also check the firewall bits. The guide is orientated around dedi servers, but those are the import bits for both dedicated and non-dedicated.

Also try not to post in massive font. It's considered bad etiquette and doesn't mean someone is more likely to answer your question.

Quote from JasonJ :

Wow. TAA even had a go at it. I must had said something right.

Sorry to piss on your bonfire but this was a little while ago when a thread first appeared on the subject in the hosts subforum

Quote from JasonJ :

It's possilbe you might get rammed or hit a moon barrier and of course, break the acceleration rate.
>> BUT, this acceleration rate is only broken for a short period of time when crashing your car, you wont be going faster and faster and faster for a LONG period of time from hitting a barrier. You should only detect a NOS cheater if their acceration rate is sustained for for example more than 2 or 3 seconds, or if frequently used.

The cheaters then learn to use the exploit in bursts. I'd say it would take about 4 kicks for someone to clever to figure that out. Or what about someone only using the exploit on short straights between corners? The the tool becomes immediately ineffective.

Quote from JasonJ :

It's possible to be pushed along a straight by a BF1 causing your acceleration to be large and sustained for a long period.

Border case. Sorry, but if you're not racing then I don't understand the need for anti-cheat tools on a server. For that reason I'd ignore this situation for a tool like this. I'd argue that a BF1 pushing a UF1 would be very similar to the cheat being used on a UF1, in comparison with a regular UF1 anyway - which would be the baseline in a sensible test.

Catching people blatantly cheating isn't too hard in my opinion (it would be a hell of a lot easier if things like throttle and braking were communicated via InSim, but there's no sense in wishing), if you ignore some of the edge cases and include a best efforts collision system (you'd get false positives, but that's something you'd have to live with), it's those who are being a little sneaky about it which are the real issue (and the dangerous ones imho).

Edit: Sorry if I'm come across as a bit of an arsehole or a know-it-all. I'm pretty knackered and having trouble thinking properly atm

Wooo! Nice work as usual Victor :up:

At least it's not Uwe Boll...

Acceleration is a rate of change, which you can calculate via InSim. The larger the rate of change of velocity (i.e. acceleration) the more likely it is to be caused by a cheat. Now obviously you need to take certain things into account - for instance what might be a good indicator for a cheat, for the XFG, will be totally impractical for the BF1...

I did do some brief testing before I got bored, and it sort of worked for the replay I had of a FBM cheater, but it went a bit weird for other vehicles. The other thing you have to watch out for is reliably detecting crashes and collision bumps, which was fine as long as the person spun. As soon as there was a linear collision the detection got triggered - which means you either need to resort to only logging or kicking, which makes it pointless, or using the position of the user relative to the walls of the track. But this doesn't apply for user placed objects. At that point I got really bored and fed up with pyinsim (purely because it was python).

The only realistic option, in my opinion, would be something that emulates UTpure (going old school there) or punkbuster, and sits at both the client side and at the server side. If there's no constant communication, or detection of a running memory editor, etc. then a kick occurs. But building something like that, which works on top of the LFS stack, is just a lot of effort for what is [currently] only a small issue.

If someone has a better idea, or can spot something that will reasonably work, or some sort of mistake/assumption I've made, then I'm happy to work on the concept with them in conjunction with the barricade (no, not had the time to finish it today so far, yes it's still coming).

Quote from gezmoor :

Well that would be much harder to legislate against obviously. So maybe it does need to be in the EULA. It can certainly be added as a condition of on line access I would suggest. There is nothing to stop the devs expanding the meaning of "unacceptable behaviour" as it already stands for example.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me tbh... *waits for a lawyer to come back tell us otherwise*

Thanks for pointing out the copyright law gezmoor btw - I tend to forget about it

Quote from mad dog :

But why can't the devs ban this cheaters for abuse of the game.
Users sent a replay from cheaters to the devs, they look at it and when it is a cheater they simply delete his name

It's a bit tricky I'd imagine. The only thing that's covered under the EULA is the following;

Quote :

Extreme disruptive or offensive behaviour by a user, towards the developers or members of the community, may result in temporary or permanent suspension of the user's Live for Speed license.

I'm not sure that it could be argued that "cheats" are extremely disruptive

Quote from mad dog :

GRRRR, my post is removed becourse I used the name from the cheater in it is this to protect me or the cheater ?

Whilst I'm still working on a fair system it's a compromise. It was explained earlier in the thread.

The short story is that it ensures that people watch the replay and don't just blindly ban someone from their server. .e.g. SamH could post someone's name and I'd bet that a few people would just instantly do a 999 /ban.

Quote from KiNeSiS :

has is, or are then any plans as of yet? i'll take it up again soon anyway but i really loved the ghost car (taking it in turn with mates to squeeze every 10th of a second out of a track )

Nope, not been updated. I'm not aware of anyone developing a ghost mod either - someone could be and just hasn't made it publically aware though.

Quote from OldBloke :

Am I right in thinking that there's no indication in-game as to whether the server is private or not?

Afraid not By default I don't think the filters are set to show private servers. But if you set it to show them, you see a little "private" next to the host name

Quote from scoobyrbac :

there was thousands of emails on the email I got from the company asking for testers.

Which is an issue within itself, but out of our control tbh. I would've thought that companies would've learnt that you don't mass mail people like this by now