The online racing simulator
LFS Programmer Forum Restriction
Hello gentlemen,

I'd like to suggest, if possible, to put restrictions on LFS Programmer Forum. The reason is simple: many crackers come there to ask for help for InSim programming. Many of them dont have any milleage, driving time or anything else than forum posts asking for help.

So, my suggestion is to lock this section for only licensed accounts (S1 to S3) and real demo accounts (with certain driven distance, for example).

Unfortunately some players forget to check the player's account (what includes me) when they are demo. Due this, we help a lot these crakers to run their InSims on their cracked communities, and it helps them to increase.

Anyway, I hope Victor enjoy this idea and can do something related.
Quote from Skinzinho :The reason is simple: many crackers come there to ask for help for InSim programming.

You assume they are crackers. If they ask questions about insim,it doesnt make them crackers. I know few people with demo accounts who run demo servers (And yes,they have low drive distance ~~50km).

Deleting posts and blocking users start when they expose themself for cracking (demo account and licenced tracks? )
Quote from Skinzinho :
Anyway, I hope Victor enjoy this idea and can do something related.

I hope so too, I think it's an excellent suggestion.

But my feeling is that this section is rarely been read by devs.
Quote from neonmateo :You assume they are crackers. If they ask questions about insim,it doesnt make them crackers. I know few people with demo accounts who run demo servers (And yes,they have low drive distance ~~50km).

Deleting posts and blocking users start when they expose themself for cracking (demo account and licenced tracks? )

There's a difference between Demo and Crackers. As I said in my post, I mentioned "Real Demo". If you have friends with less than 50Km who created detailed InSims, ok, tell them to drive a bit more.

In fact, saying "oh, player's who never joined a server or drove for a considerable distance can run their servers and we must help them..." is the same to encourage crackers to still creating posts here asking for help.
I understand where you are coming from but imposing this sort of global restriction is IMHO not a very good solution. If we introduce this in the Programmers' section, one might suggest that we add similar restrictions to other sections of the forum. Also, what should the driven distance be for a person to be allowed to access the Programmers' section? What would stop the crackers from running a phoney server where they could easily amass the required kms? Putting together a non-trivial InSim application is indefinitely more difficult than driving around in circles for an hour. There are a few mods available on this very forum that could even automate this to a great extent.

IMHO I think that we as a community have been doing a pretty good job at keeping the crackers away from the cake. Yeah, it is annoying to bust yet another leecher but the human common sense can tell a cracker from a fair demoer far better than a series of restrictions.
What sections you mean that should have this same kind of block?

The distance will be defined by devs. They have access to geeneral player stats. And yes, restrictions will not cause the ending of these communities, but can make them have much less quality comparing to official servers.

I started this suggestion due a help request for a cracked cruise InSim. Let me ask you a couple questions.

Supposing you like cruise servers, which one do you prefer: a very detailed InSim with a lot of functions or that old T-Ronx cruise InSim?

Or, considering drifters, which one is the best: a server with scoreboard, twin options and so on, or a server only with the layout?

Most of the mods available on this forum are examples. You wont find something like Driftscorer, TC, CLC, BRCruise InSim here. But you can get help to make something similar.

Impose restrictions in this way will only affect demo racers who does not have any stats or have very low stats. Lastly, the common sense is not working on programmer's forum. You can see new posts almost every day from players with no stats being greedily answered by other players.
Hi.

I don't know what to think about this, some demo users can be really into insim programming and have plenty of knowledge around it. I'm sure this can be tested for a certain period.

S1 users and up would of course have full access to the programmer forum.
But this posting restriction thingy would have to be applied to the entire forum (demo users can still ask about programming in offtopic etc.).

This restriction system now makes it that demo users aren't able to post at all then. I'm gonna give a -1 for this one. Its not gonna work, unless @Victor got a better solution for this.

Following.
I fully agree that the programming area is only for users who have paid a license and not for users who enjoy the game without having contributed to the developers, since they do their best so that we can have fun in the game and are Constantly working to improve the simulator
I understand and agree with your points guys, but IMO a total block of demo users wouldn't be good. There are some of them who are fair and keep alive demo servers.
Quote from Comomillo :I understand and agree with your points guys, but IMO a total block of demo users wouldn't be good. There are some of them who are fair and keep alive demo servers.

I never said about total block of demo players. I think you stopped to read in the middle and came to write something. I will repeat, just in case someone else say the same thing: there's a difference between blocking new/no stats accounts and a "real demo account".

The accounts that should be blocked are accounts with no stats (no milleage, no activity, no something). Demo players who are active on the community or plays online will have full access to the forum. This is just a way to do not give the information in a easy way.
No. I've read all the entire posts and my comment was indeed linked to Popughini's post just before mine.

FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG