After some more thinking, I've come to the conclusion that MCI packets are useful after all. I wrote:
It turns out that LFS generates the packets at a constant rate (= the rate that is requested in the IS_ISI message). I compared samples from RAF files with MCI packets of the same hotlap, and it appears that LFS reliably creates the packets at that fixed rate. I had assumed that the game engine would only make a "best effort" to produce the requested rate, but it seems that packet generation really is part of its schedule.
So, the arrival may not be at regular intervals, but the creation is. And that is precisely what I need for my purpose.
It turns out that LFS generates the packets at a constant rate (= the rate that is requested in the IS_ISI message). I compared samples from RAF files with MCI packets of the same hotlap, and it appears that LFS reliably creates the packets at that fixed rate. I had assumed that the game engine would only make a "best effort" to produce the requested rate, but it seems that packet generation really is part of its schedule.
So, the arrival may not be at regular intervals, but the creation is. And that is precisely what I need for my purpose.
This is the crash report:
Might be worth adding that LFS was installed under a different user account than the account that I used when I got the crash.
Running MS Vista, BTW.
Version: 1.1.2.0
Date: 6-12-2010 19:09:30
OS: Microsoft Windows NT 6.0.6002 Service Pack 2
Culture: en-US
Exception: NullReferenceException
Message: Object reference not set to an instance of an object.
Source: InSimSniffer
Target: Void GetLfsPathFromRegistry()
Stack Trace: at InSimSniffer.Program.GetLfsPathFromRegistry()
at InSimSniffer.Program.Main(String[] args)
Inner Exception:
Might be worth adding that LFS was installed under a different user account than the account that I used when I got the crash.
Running MS Vista, BTW.
Yep. Either the packets must arrive at regular intervals in the correct order, or they must carry an LFS timestamp.
That seems a likely cause. The page you link to also explains that it's unwise to turn Nagle off, plus that it's not even guaranteed to work. Looks like MCI packets are not going to be of any use for me.
I'll have a try. The data from OutSim and OutGauge combined would provide enough lap data, and I'll have to re-order the packets when they arrive.
Thank you for a quick and helpful reply. Much appreciated.
It crashes immediately. I don't even get to see the main screen.
MCI packet timing problem
I'm trying to grab lap data from InSim, to display in LRA, my replay analyser.
For this I need LFS to send MCI packets, at a fairly high rate (every 100 ms or less). These should give me the car's position and speed. Together with a timestamp, these will enable a basic analysis of the lap.
The problem I have encountered is that the packets arrive at irregular times, sometimes in bursts of 5 or more within the same millisecond. This is in single player, so there's only 1 car per packet.
That means they are useless for my purpose -- there is no timestamp in the packet, so I have to use the time of arrival as the sample time. It looks like LFS is buffering the packets, and sends them only when it has some "spare time". (My PC is very old.)
My question is: would using UDP help for this problem? Until now, I used only TCP.
For this I need LFS to send MCI packets, at a fairly high rate (every 100 ms or less). These should give me the car's position and speed. Together with a timestamp, these will enable a basic analysis of the lap.
The problem I have encountered is that the packets arrive at irregular times, sometimes in bursts of 5 or more within the same millisecond. This is in single player, so there's only 1 car per packet.
That means they are useless for my purpose -- there is no timestamp in the packet, so I have to use the time of arrival as the sample time. It looks like LFS is buffering the packets, and sends them only when it has some "spare time". (My PC is very old.)
My question is: would using UDP help for this problem? Until now, I used only TCP.
This is a great tool, thanks! It really helped me to figure out the InSim traffic, before taking the plunge into InSim programming.
One minor bug: after I moved the location of the LFS installation, InSimSniffer stopped working. It exited with a null pointer exception at startup. (Can send you the details if you want.) Apparently, InSimSniffer assumes that when it finds an LFS registry key, it will also find the LFS install at that location.
Improvement suggestion: Put the filter settings in a different sidebar, so the user doesn't have to switch tabs between filter settings and message list. (Even nicer: apply filter changes immediately, without needing to click "Apply".)
One minor bug: after I moved the location of the LFS installation, InSimSniffer stopped working. It exited with a null pointer exception at startup. (Can send you the details if you want.) Apparently, InSimSniffer assumes that when it finds an LFS registry key, it will also find the LFS install at that location.
Improvement suggestion: Put the filter settings in a different sidebar, so the user doesn't have to switch tabs between filter settings and message list. (Even nicer: apply filter changes immediately, without needing to click "Apply".)
I think you have failed to apply Hanlon's razor.
That is also called democracy: not everyone has the same opinion as you.
The biggest threat to democracy is failure to think critically. You need to be skeptic of what other people tell you.
Conspiracy theorists make a different mistake: they are not critical about their own ways of thinking.
One thing to watch out for is when the allergic reaction gets stronger and stronger each time. Eventually, a life-threatening reaction might occur (anaphylactic shock).
It's been a while since I looked at it, but AFAIK Motec has a proprietary file format, which is not published.
But I'd like to be proved wrong. Motec is a magnificent piece of software, and if it would accept CSV, then we'd only need to write a RAF-to-CSV converter and then use Motec, without needing any LFS-specific analyser.
In the "Legend" pane, right-click on the file you want to export and choose "Export to CSV" from the menu.
Normally, I kill people for money.
But you, you are my friend. I kill you for nothing.
-- Chico Marx
But you, you are my friend. I kill you for nothing.
-- Chico Marx
Wisdom is one of the few things that look bigger when you're further away.
-- Terry Pratchett
-- Terry Pratchett
Mangosteen, passion fruit, raspberries, strawberries, ...
What's such a damn shame about the whole AGW debate is that it has become a political issue. Everybody is taking sides, and I fear that most of them base their decision on which side they trust. Do you trust the scientific authorities or do you mistrust them? Do you believe the skeptics or do you mistrust their motives or abilities?
It's a shame, because it should be a scientific question. The data, models and calculations should be open for discussion, accessible for everyone to read and check. That's how the debate should be held. I hate all these accusations about emails proving cover-ups, or about skeptics being sponsored by large corporations. Let's stick to facts and figures.
But the science does get pretty complicated. Scientific questions usually do. You don't necessarily need a university degree, but you do need to think long and hard.
As to myself, all I know is that I haven't spent enough time studying AGW to have a well-founded opinion about it. I'm undecided. And to me it's a mystery how other people in this thread can be so sure of their views.
So, U4IK ST8, what do you base your certainty on?
The link doesn't work (page not found).
Does that mean that the writing style is good, or that the scientific results are correct? I guess it's the former, since you continue with
..., which would mean you're not able to verify the correctness. AGW is all about statistics. I have an MSc in math, but in a different specialisation. I'm pretty damn sure I can't tell correct results from shoddy work in this area.
Mengele is the prototype of someone who did evil deeds, got away with it and lived happily ever after. That is hard to rhyme with the notion of Karma, which says that you will eventually be punished for the bad things you've done. (Well, unless you also believe in reincarnation. Then you get your punishment in the next life, and it becomes a bit hard to track down whether justice has been done.)
I googled a bit, and found several people complaining about false positives. Apparently, this notification means that NOD32 found patterns in the file that are similar to what viruses have, so it warns that it might be a new variant.
I also ran LRA.exe through the check at virustotal.com, and here are the results. Only NOD32 suspects a virus, all the other virus scanners think the file is OK.
For the explanation of the message from the makers of NOD32: http://www.eset.com/threat-cen ... opedia/glossary/newheurpe
Like Last Thursdayism, you mean? I can't take that seriously. It violates Occam's Razor, and it sounds like a stopgap hypothesis to protect a cherished religious view from nasty facts. I'll admit that it can't be disproved. But it also means the end of our search for knowledge, because any puzzling observation can be explained away by assuming that this treacherous deity is messing with our minds again.
True, but disproving all observable effects does mean that the question of god's existence has become irrelevant for us.
Would Josef Mengele be a valid counterexample?
Atheist.
For a while I thought you could at most be agnostic, because there are some many possible definitions of a god, and many of them are impossible to disprove. Later I realised that I should only look at the factual claims. Definitions that include any factual, testable claims (e.g. the earth was created 6000 years ago, god observes us and actively interferes with the world) have failed with the advance of our knowledge. There's not a shred of evidence.
What remains are definitions like deism, where god is untestable -- the gods of the gaps. You can't disprove that. On the other hand, it doesn't really matter whether those gods exist. Our life isn't any different if they exist or not.
My conclusion was that for all practical purposes, there is no god. I have dropped the hesitation to call myself an atheist.
For a while I thought you could at most be agnostic, because there are some many possible definitions of a god, and many of them are impossible to disprove. Later I realised that I should only look at the factual claims. Definitions that include any factual, testable claims (e.g. the earth was created 6000 years ago, god observes us and actively interferes with the world) have failed with the advance of our knowledge. There's not a shred of evidence.
What remains are definitions like deism, where god is untestable -- the gods of the gaps. You can't disprove that. On the other hand, it doesn't really matter whether those gods exist. Our life isn't any different if they exist or not.
My conclusion was that for all practical purposes, there is no god. I have dropped the hesitation to call myself an atheist.
[A bit late to reply. Been on vacation.]
Does it tell you the name of the virus?
Or does it block he download because there is an executable (.exe) file in the download?
- In hindsight, it's always easy to say they were stupid to ignore the signs. It seems so obvious. But in practice it's hard to spot the case where something is really wrong between the 1000s of normal events that look almost the same.
- Screwups happen in every organisation.
- One bad screwup attracts more media attention than 100 cases that were brilliantly solved.
- If you want to claim that the RCMP does its job badly, then it's the amount of failures that counts, not this one case.
If you fire people after they make one mistake, then you will create CYA behaviour: the cops will put more effort in making sure they can't be blamed than in actually solving the crimes.
Being bad for you is not reason enough. So many things are bad for you, and still legal: hamburgers, rock climbing, apple pie, driving a car...
To get anywhere in this discussion, you need to know how bad exactly the substance is, and how easy it is for a user to control the risk. If the risk is no higher than other, everyday risks, then we have no grounds to make/keep it illegal.
(At least, no rational grounds. Emotions play a big part in the war on drugs. Alcohol is less "scary" than cannabis because it has been part of Western life for many centuries, and thus seems easier to control. But the data shows it's a pretty hard drug.)
Don't bet your money on that.
I am thinking about my children. I want them to grow up in a free society that lets them make their own choices without needless restrictions (like amp88 described), and I want them to grow up to become responsible adults who are able to make those choices. And that includes using cannabis or not. (It excludes using it before they're 18, because they won't be mature enough for a good choice. It also excludes using heroin, because it's way too addictive.)
You're assuming selfishness again. You seem unwilling to accept that others may disagree with you for valid, honourable reasons.
Straw man argument. Nobody here advocates legalisation of cannabis/pot for underage kids.
Haven't seen anyone stating that. Straw man, again.
Ah, now there's a problem where legalisation will surely help!
So you prefer blissful ignorance over an informed decision by an adult?
I never used any of the stuff. I'm in favour of legalisation because the current policies are grossly inconsistent. By any reasonable standard, cannabis is less harmful than alcohol/tobacco, yet only the former is illegal.
You can favour restrictive policies. But at least be consistent: if you rant against cannabis and pot, then you should rage even more against booze.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG