Yep G25 is fine at 900. I even used my dfp at 900 and never really had to fight it.
Scawen: Sorry for a slight hijack or thread, but as test patch time appeared the ideal time.
I get the feeling is a very minor change, increasing the lock on some cars.
http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=38765
We have had 900 degree wheels for a long time now DFP first andd now the G25. It makes sense that the lower spec road cars have their lock increased to 900 so we can fully use the wheels while still using wheel turn comp to reduce the lock on cars that have less.
I started the poll a little too late in the patch cycle but quick results appear to be UF1, GT, GTi and TBO cars should have 900 lock.
If this is a matter of changing the limit from 720 to 900 for those cars is it something that is possible for this round of patches. If not it can wait but is somethings I feel is worth it in a later patch.
OTHERS: No need to discuss in here. Was just making Scawen aware of the poll. If you want to talk about please use the thread linked above and vote
I get the feeling is a very minor change, increasing the lock on some cars.
http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=38765
We have had 900 degree wheels for a long time now DFP first andd now the G25. It makes sense that the lower spec road cars have their lock increased to 900 so we can fully use the wheels while still using wheel turn comp to reduce the lock on cars that have less.
I started the poll a little too late in the patch cycle but quick results appear to be UF1, GT, GTi and TBO cars should have 900 lock.
If this is a matter of changing the limit from 720 to 900 for those cars is it something that is possible for this round of patches. If not it can wait but is somethings I feel is worth it in a later patch.
OTHERS: No need to discuss in here. Was just making Scawen aware of the poll. If you want to talk about please use the thread linked above and vote
What cars do you drive IRL then. In 20 years I have never driven a road car with that small a lock! Many actually have 1080. Even the BWM Mini Cooper S Works (The Cooper garage race prepared one BTW) is 900 degrees lock.
I think you mean 720 from centre to one extreme lol
Should some of the cars have 900degree steering rotation
We have a round of test patches and this should be a simple change. What do people feel.
The way I see it, we have 900degree wheels and the lower spec cars would have at LEAST 900degree rotation.
MODS: Can you add a "Leave the current rotations" answer. Can't find poll edit
NOTE: This is now on Scawens work stack so vote if you want a say!
http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=705396#post705396
The way I see it, we have 900degree wheels and the lower spec cars would have at LEAST 900degree rotation.
MODS: Can you add a "Leave the current rotations" answer. Can't find poll edit
NOTE: This is now on Scawens work stack so vote if you want a say!
http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=705396#post705396
Last edited by Woz, .
I wish the UF1, GT, GTi at minimum had 900 lock, They would and so would most of the TBO cars IRL
Get a small rug, just big enough so that the chair sits on one part and the pedals on the other. The chair will then hold the rug still in relation to pedals and the pedals ca grip the rug
You HAVE to assign each axis to an action. So in the controls screen clutch throttle and then press the trottle. Repeat for all the controls you want to assign in the game.
It has a race clutch, NOT designed for stop start driving. Its a GTR spec RACE car not a police car
The solution is to use the car for what it has been designed to do?
And when you do that MAKE SURE you give him a REALISTIC setup, not a WR one that on the whole exploit all the holes in LFS.
If you put him in a car with locked or high locking diff that is stiff as hell it WILL NOT feel "realistic" because again he will have NO reference unless he has driven that sort of car. (Hint most people have ONLY ever driven OPEN diffs BTW, the cheapest and also most forgiving for road use)
I assume you mean get him to drive one of the road cars because I doubt he has ANY F1 seat time to compare!
The reason everyone bitched at patch Y is that all of a sudden ALL the bad techniques sudddenly had a negative effect. The same happened when tyre heat was introduced as people bitched that tyre temps were wrong (They are not perfect but good enough). In the same way loads bitched about the clutch.
For many "change = bad"
If you have this mind set you will FAIL a lot in life. Embrace change and the effects it has on you. Never stop learning!
So you have done 3 driving lessons and have never been close to the limit ever. Glad we have cleared that up.
You have no idea what you are talking about at all do you?
All your 5000 laps with a digital controller have done it teach you to control patch X physics with a keyboard. They have NOT taught you to drive an F1 car.
Now those physics have IMPROVED your techniques have become invalid and you are not happy. Now we really get to the truth!
You 5000 laps expereince are worth NOTHING, you have NO reference to know what a basic road car feels like let alone an F1 car.
All it has let you see is that the physics have CHANGED between X & Y, nothing else. How can you tell which is realistic, you don't even know what realistic actually is!
ALL FOX drivers. Thats a VERY sweaping statement. Very glad you are speaking for me. ALL drivers say that do they, when did you ask us all what we think?
No but saying that an F1 does not handle right after patch X when you have never probably put a normal road car out of shape let alone driven one is one reason.
Then when you are trying to drive a car that IRL takes a VERY special person to push to the limit with a DIGITAL control that does't give you the subtle control and you realise why people REALLY question you.
Have you ever driven a road car? If so what is your experience? If not then what possible point of reference can you possibly have?
HTH
Do you leave the USB connected to the laptop when you do this.
If so just disconnect the usb from the laptop first. Never experenced the issue but always power wheel in before I plug in USB and unplug usb before I un-power
Leaving plugged in without power when putting laptop to sleep could be the cause?
As always it comes down to the WRONG controller and the sim getting more realistic.
Every time there is a patch we get the same. People who drive to the LFS physics engine instead of driving a car. This brings in bad habbits that, once the exploit or bug is fixed, need to be unlearned.
I would say that if you have clocked up 5000 laps on one combo using keyboard you have built up some real BAD habbits. You would have to to compensate for the digital nature of your controller.
No, an F1 car should NOT be easy to drive. Insane power mixed with a tiny edge to grip transition makes it difficult to drive fast and on the edge. Anyone that thinks otherwise is a little dumb to say the least. If it was easy we would all be driving them IRL
I normally avoid the F1 because so few people can actually drive it well that its pointless trying in a pickup environment..
So to recap. F1 not killed by latest patch. Your driving style was incorrect and the previous patch meant this BAD technique was workable. Drive properly and the problem goes away!
Every time there is a patch we get the same. People who drive to the LFS physics engine instead of driving a car. This brings in bad habbits that, once the exploit or bug is fixed, need to be unlearned.
I would say that if you have clocked up 5000 laps on one combo using keyboard you have built up some real BAD habbits. You would have to to compensate for the digital nature of your controller.
No, an F1 car should NOT be easy to drive. Insane power mixed with a tiny edge to grip transition makes it difficult to drive fast and on the edge. Anyone that thinks otherwise is a little dumb to say the least. If it was easy we would all be driving them IRL
I normally avoid the F1 because so few people can actually drive it well that its pointless trying in a pickup environment..
So to recap. F1 not killed by latest patch. Your driving style was incorrect and the previous patch meant this BAD technique was workable. Drive properly and the problem goes away!
You need to work out the bounding rectangle of the garage block and make sure the car is currently in there unless there is an "in garage" message from insim.
But who will have a smug look when we do get rain in LFS
I like to drive as smooth as I can while thinking about the mechanical sympathy of the car. So I dont use made engine braking, mash the gears etc.
Makes me slightly slower than the aliens but then I normally always finish as well.
The other benefit is that each time the realism steps up in LFS I don't have to adjust anything in the way I drive, because I am doing right in the first place and not exploiting holes in physics or damage models etc.
Makes me slightly slower than the aliens but then I normally always finish as well.
The other benefit is that each time the realism steps up in LFS I don't have to adjust anything in the way I drive, because I am doing right in the first place and not exploiting holes in physics or damage models etc.
look up actlabs, they make stand alone pedals
F1 drivers have HUGE G forces acting on their body to let them know EXACTLY what the car is doing. In LFS and other sims you have to use other queues which are lagged so you need to learn to feed power with very subtle control
Yep. Buy 1 or 2 cheap wheels that you know are supported and use their electronics.
I guess thats it. I went through months where I felt it slowed me down etc. It's only when you have them in place and you start on a big ish refactor or add a new feature that you understand it can make coding faster because you don't spend 3 weeks later down the line looking for that nasty bug
Having the ability to dive in and change knowing you have not buggered anything existing in a subtle way. The sort of thing where you change a common library object that is used in loads of places throughout your code. Where the change breaks that one path you didnt bother to test as it was thought to be unrelated
With unit testing you are making sure the function does what it is meant to do. If you refactor those tests might still be valid in which case you relocate them because they still represent functionality you need. If not you dump them because they no longer serve a purpose.
You do not need to re-test the units lower in the call stack, just that they are called when expected from within your function. The unit tests for the lower level code that built the results object mean that has already been tested.
If you had a function that say did this
public class MyMaths
{
public MyClass PerformCalculation(bool selector, int amount)
{
if (selector)
{
return BasicMaths();
}
else
{
return ComplexMaths();
}
}
}
you only need a test like this
[Test]
public void TestPerformCalculation()
{
MyMaths obj = new MyMaths()
Assert.AreEqual(11, obj.PerformCalculation(false, 10).SomeProperty, "Basic maths should result in 11!");
Assert.AreEqual(12, obj.PerformCalculation(true, 10).SomeProperty, "Complex maths should result in 12!");
}
This is because you already have tests for the call to BasicMaths() and ComplexMaths() that make sure the methods perform as you expect so all the test for PerformCalculation() needs to do is validate that the correct method is called when you expect.
If the method you are testing requires construction of complex object structures you can use interfaces to replace the need to build up large object structures with mocks that return known values just so you can test the paths through your code.
What unit tests also do is change the way you structure code. You start cutting up the code and restructure it so that testing becomes easier, so that each method is more focused and single minded. It stops you writing those long complex functions that have 100's of paths through them because testing them requires 100s of tests. You start think in far more generic patterns.
The only real complexity then is in the real guts logic and when you look at that you soon realise most of that can be pulled apart into building blocks. The sort of stuff I am working on is complex multi currency accounting at present as even this chunks into small blocks.
Unit testing is white box testing, not black box. A mistake I made early on and which did result in too much work.
Currently I am working on the web services and business logic side of things hence the strict coverage. I have created a framework that automatically tests all properties and validates use of attributes correctly and reports on test coverage etc.
I know what you mean on GUI. I get the feeling something like the Data/View/Presenter pattern will allow simple unit testing all the way up to just below the GUI. This pattern moves all logic out of the form so that only code that populates and manages control interaction remains in the form, the stuff that is hard to test.
Also changing your techniques to use dependency injection allows use of mocks and the like which makes object build up and tear down easier in your test
Actually I find its the vital time to work with tests. The other side of the "extreme programming" (I hate that term
lol) is that you refactor, refactor, refactor and the tests around your objects are what gives you the ability to do this and know you have not broken anything subtle when you do.I have to say, 8+ months in and up to about 80% coverage (We started with some older code we are retro fitting tests for) and the benefits show. Less bugs, easier to refactor etc.
I did fight it for a while but now the project has reached the 200+ objects size it has made life and code management ar easier
unit testing
Just out of interest really. About the middle of last year at work we decided to start strick full coverage unit testting on all code. A learning process that changes how you code even about how you think about code.
8+ months later and I am now over the initial fights against it and would never consider cutting code without related unit test code in place. It has saved us so much time, heartache and pain in tracking down bugs that would otherwise only surface and slap you in the face after the code was in the hands of a customer.
Just wondered what other people have played with unit test system like nUnit and what they though of the techniques and did it also effect how you thought about code.
8+ months later and I am now over the initial fights against it and would never consider cutting code without related unit test code in place. It has saved us so much time, heartache and pain in tracking down bugs that would otherwise only surface and slap you in the face after the code was in the hands of a customer.
Just wondered what other people have played with unit test system like nUnit and what they though of the techniques and did it also effect how you thought about code.
Last edited by Woz, .
One thing about coding to learn is code organisation. No idea what you book is like on OO techniques and how to break apart a problem but here is an example based around you quiz with some possible objects that would be required.
1) Question object. This will hold the question id and question text along with an array/collection of possible answer texts. It will also need something to tell it which is the right answer, an index into the answer array or something similar.
2) Question list. This would hold your list of questions in your quiz and would serve up the questions in a pre-determined or random order.
3) User answer object. Would hold the question id and answer given by the user to the question.
4) Answers list. Hold a list of the answers given by the user.
5) Marking object. This would take the question list and answer list and mark each answer as correct or incorrect and give the overall score..
You form now would have all the structures it would require to run and score a test. All the form should care about is display of the next question and filling in the results in the answer list. It would then pass responsibility to the marking object to score everything.
There are other ways to break and different design patterns that can be used but this should help get your thinking on the right track.
I would say focus on this sort of stuff before the form. It will also force you to run code in a debugger which will let you see and poke the code to see how it responds, something that will teach you a lot.
1) Question object. This will hold the question id and question text along with an array/collection of possible answer texts. It will also need something to tell it which is the right answer, an index into the answer array or something similar.
2) Question list. This would hold your list of questions in your quiz and would serve up the questions in a pre-determined or random order.
3) User answer object. Would hold the question id and answer given by the user to the question.
4) Answers list. Hold a list of the answers given by the user.
5) Marking object. This would take the question list and answer list and mark each answer as correct or incorrect and give the overall score..
You form now would have all the structures it would require to run and score a test. All the form should care about is display of the next question and filling in the results in the answer list. It would then pass responsibility to the marking object to score everything.
There are other ways to break and different design patterns that can be used but this should help get your thinking on the right track.
I would say focus on this sort of stuff before the form. It will also force you to run code in a debugger which will let you see and poke the code to see how it responds, something that will teach you a lot.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG