Possibly erroneous message when stopping a host
Hi!
I just wanted to inform about this. Scawen has done a new update for hosts: https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/112424
This update required me to stop and then restart my host on LFS.net. However, when I stop my host, I get this message:
However,the action does still stop the host so this error message looks kinda erroneous. When I go to the host listing I can see it being stopped. This kind of error message doesn't appear when I restart my host.
Attached one screenshot about this. Tested this with Firefox, not sure if it's a browser-related problem yet
I just wanted to inform about this. Scawen has done a new update for hosts: https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/112424
This update required me to stop and then restart my host on LFS.net. However, when I stop my host, I get this message:
However,the action does still stop the host so this error message looks kinda erroneous. When I go to the host listing I can see it being stopped. This kind of error message doesn't appear when I restart my host.
Attached one screenshot about this. Tested this with Firefox, not sure if it's a browser-related problem yet
Thank you very much for this 
I tested every single command both as an Admin and as a normal user, and all of them work with no issues at all! I also tested /ujoin and /uai commands with grid being locked and they both work!
Also I think it looks like the /grid command does work also on-track, it doesn't affect just the lobby: I tested the /grid real and /grid ai commands during on-track session, and I can prevent AI drivers / real players joining, even if I'm not in the lobby
And just one minor typo:
Surely you meant "set if AI drivers...", not real players
EDIT: Actually Scawen, one question about this:
I just tested this with reversed starting order with /grid static 3, and I noticed something interesting. Those 3 drivers were sent back to the grid with reversed starting order. Is this on purpose, or should these 3 drivers start at the front and the drivers behind them in a reversed finish order?
EDIT 2: Not sure if the three drivers themselves were in a reversed finish order, but nonetheless, they were behind those other drivers
I tested every single command both as an Admin and as a normal user, and all of them work with no issues at all! I also tested /ujoin and /uai commands with grid being locked and they both work!
Also I think it looks like the /grid command does work also on-track, it doesn't affect just the lobby: I tested the /grid real and /grid ai commands during on-track session, and I can prevent AI drivers / real players joining, even if I'm not in the lobby
And just one minor typo:
Surely you meant "set if AI drivers...", not real players
EDIT: Actually Scawen, one question about this:
I just tested this with reversed starting order with /grid static 3, and I noticed something interesting. Those 3 drivers were sent back to the grid with reversed starting order. Is this on purpose, or should these 3 drivers start at the front and the drivers behind them in a reversed finish order?
EDIT 2: Not sure if the three drivers themselves were in a reversed finish order, but nonetheless, they were behind those other drivers
Last edited by tankslacno, .
Just to clarify: would the /static command work only in lobby, or also during on-track sessions (for example, there is a need for correct wind speed and race must be restarted again)?
In any case, it would probably be essential to highlight the static grid positions (and maybe starting positions as well on the position list), for example with different background color?
I like this idea
However, I think it would probably be good that even if the /grid command has self/lock option selected, admins could still e.g. remove and move players. Another thing I had in mind is that have you thought about adding separate buttons for admins to the UI so they can select the option they want, or should these options only be available by using commands? I'm not sure is there enough space in the UIAlso, I suppose the self option would apply to local AIs as well? Like option "REMOVE SELF" with "Y" would also allow removing local AI drivers, not just yourself?
There's been some discussion about this at the Discord server. Here are couple points mentioned there:
- "it would also help a lot to see who moves who in the lobby screen to avoid grief during organising the start grid"
- "AI should be utilised for the track scenery mod"
- Someone made an early mock-up where they had a lock icon next to the clear grid button at the lobby. It could be good place for that. They used that lock icon from the Upcoming events are for that.
- Also, one thing could help users at the lobby: at the moment, if you are not admin, you can't know who is admin (other than host) at the server when looking the connection list. If you are admin, then you can see that other admins have that different background under their names on the connection list
However, if you watch the replay, then you can see who is admin and who is not. Obviously this doesn't apply to the situation where you are at lobby. It does indeed feel strange that the connection list is different when comparing it between the replay view and the non-admin user view when they've connected to the server.
What is the reason behind this? Why non-admin users have the same background for all the users when looking the connection list? The only thing they can do is ask who the admin is, and even then, it's not 100% guarantee that information is accurate.
- "it would also help a lot to see who moves who in the lobby screen to avoid grief during organising the start grid"
- "AI should be utilised for the track scenery mod"
- Someone made an early mock-up where they had a lock icon next to the clear grid button at the lobby. It could be good place for that. They used that lock icon from the Upcoming events are for that.
- Also, one thing could help users at the lobby: at the moment, if you are not admin, you can't know who is admin (other than host) at the server when looking the connection list. If you are admin, then you can see that other admins have that different background under their names on the connection list
However, if you watch the replay, then you can see who is admin and who is not. Obviously this doesn't apply to the situation where you are at lobby. It does indeed feel strange that the connection list is different when comparing it between the replay view and the non-admin user view when they've connected to the server.
What is the reason behind this? Why non-admin users have the same background for all the users when looking the connection list? The only thing they can do is ask who the admin is, and even then, it's not 100% guarantee that information is accurate.
Last edited by tankslacno, .
That second issue you mentioned is the one that catched my eye the most:
By the way, for now: you can actually already do that: admins can use command /carsguest=[0-32] which sets the maximum amount of cars (real + AI) each guest PC can add to the server. So /grid lock would essentially be same as /carsguest=0, right? That command doesn't remove the already added drivers from the grid
However, two things got into my mind about that issue you mentioned:
1) Is it intentional that you suggest that /grid lock would only apply in the lobby and not when session is ongoing (whether it's practice, qualifying or race)?
2) It also does have another reason why it would be good to get fixed: AI drivers and human players. Your idea to have a command to lock/open the grid is good, but I was wondering Scawen, could it be possible to expand that command by adding two more parameters for that:
The reason is that there may always be troublemakers, who add an AI driver in the lobby, when only humans are allowed. And it also applies vice versa: there may be a situation where only AI drivers should be allowed to join (for example, there is a session for those InSim controlled AI drivers), and some troublemaker adds themselves there, which interrupts the fun/experiment with AI for the others.
This concern just got into my mind that having just lock/open parameters for that /grid command does leave this other issue kinda open. You can only allow everybody, or nobody joining. Even if you open the grid, someone may still mess others by having an AI driver joining (or a human player, if others are using AI drivers)
By the way, for now: you can actually already do that: admins can use command /carsguest=[0-32] which sets the maximum amount of cars (real + AI) each guest PC can add to the server. So /grid lock would essentially be same as /carsguest=0, right? That command doesn't remove the already added drivers from the grid
However, two things got into my mind about that issue you mentioned:
1) Is it intentional that you suggest that /grid lock would only apply in the lobby and not when session is ongoing (whether it's practice, qualifying or race)?
2) It also does have another reason why it would be good to get fixed: AI drivers and human players. Your idea to have a command to lock/open the grid is good, but I was wondering Scawen, could it be possible to expand that command by adding two more parameters for that:
The reason is that there may always be troublemakers, who add an AI driver in the lobby, when only humans are allowed. And it also applies vice versa: there may be a situation where only AI drivers should be allowed to join (for example, there is a session for those InSim controlled AI drivers), and some troublemaker adds themselves there, which interrupts the fun/experiment with AI for the others.
This concern just got into my mind that having just lock/open parameters for that /grid command does leave this other issue kinda open. You can only allow everybody, or nobody joining. Even if you open the grid, someone may still mess others by having an AI driver joining (or a human player, if others are using AI drivers)
Last edited by tankslacno, .
https://www.lfs.net/patchInfo/report-dec2024-ky.php
I don't consider that as a problem for you, because when you look at the images of new Kyoto, I think Eric wanted to do very similar job how Indianapolis Motor Speedway does work about drivers pitting there.
How does it work? If you are doing a practice session, or qualifying where one driver at a time does their qualifying laps, drivers normally enter the pitlane using the narrower pit entry. But, during races, I expect all drivers dive into the pit immediately after turn 3, as that part is still as wide as before.
Of course, rules about pit exit may differ from series to another: I expect some series will allow drivers to immediately join back on main track after exiting pit lane, which is much more dangerous. And other series will require drivers driving that narrow pit exit lane before joining the main track, which is obviously much safer.
Hi and welcome back!
For me Windows Defender has also reported it as dangerous. Usually just reporting it as safe and then waiting for sometime will fix the problem. This may happen if the .exe is new and has been downloaded so little times that Windows Defender doesn't know how safe this file really is. This has been especially common problem with test patches. Same thing has happened with Avast on my other computer.
Unfortunately, developers can't really do anything against overzealous antivirus softwares. (Only thing what they could do that I can think of is adding an information somewhere on this website, stating that it may be possible that antivirus softwares may flag the game or the setup, especially if it's test patch, as dangerous, but it's really not. Of course that is just to inform the players, it doesn't prevent it of actually happening)
For me Windows Defender has also reported it as dangerous. Usually just reporting it as safe and then waiting for sometime will fix the problem. This may happen if the .exe is new and has been downloaded so little times that Windows Defender doesn't know how safe this file really is. This has been especially common problem with test patches. Same thing has happened with Avast on my other computer.
Unfortunately, developers can't really do anything against overzealous antivirus softwares. (Only thing what they could do that I can think of is adding an information somewhere on this website, stating that it may be possible that antivirus softwares may flag the game or the setup, especially if it's test patch, as dangerous, but it's really not. Of course that is just to inform the players, it doesn't prevent it of actually happening)
Correct. Steam client started on September 12th, 2003 and the first game you could actually buy digitally on Steam was Half-Life 2 which was released on November 16th, 2004.
At least on August 2003, people were able to at least pre-order your game from RaceSimCentral: https://web.archive.org/web/20030812134618/http://lfs.racesimcentral.com/sublinks.php?page=buyonline (yes the website doesn't want to display everything, but it does display working link to pre-order page)
There is also order page from February 2004: https://web.archive.org/web/20040207150541/http://lfs.racesimcentral.com/content/order.php
Option to block real players / AI drivers from joining the track
With the newest LFS Patch, 0.7G has brought a system which allows AI drivers to be controlled by a local InSim program. This got me thinking, sometimes it may make sense to have only AI drivers on track and prevent real players from joining (these type of scenarios includes AI only races, testing with AI etc.). And also often, it makes sense to make it clear that only real players are allowed to join the track.
Now, you can use different InSims to do this. For example, Airio has an option to block AI drivers, and there is also a PIE (PHP; InSim; Easy) script called JustBots, which you can use to forcefully spectate and prevent real players to join onto the track, allowing only AI drivers on there.
Now, while you can do it via InSims and scripts, I'm suggesting there should be a server option or at least a command, which you could use to block human players or AI drivers joining the track.
For example, when launching a new server, there could be a selectable option: "Allow real / AI drivers on track?" with options [Allow both], [Allow only real players] and [Allow only AI drivers]. The first one should be the default option. I did think about option [none], but I remember there is an option "Max (real + AI) per guest pc", where you can set the minimum setting to 0, which means that guests can watch, but not join the race.
And, even if you set the max real + AI in race setting to 1, which is usually used in servers, it doesn't actually prevent anyone from joining as an AI while all other drivers are human players. Trust me, I've watched AI drivers racing with humans, and it has been carnage! Only way to actually prevent that player with AI from joining is either banning them, or spectating them in case midrace joining is disallowed.
Also, same goes vice-versa. In case there is a situation, where every player must use 1 AI driver on track (for example, to test that InSim-controlling with them), nothing prevents a human player joining the track as a real player and ruining the fun/experiment.
Finally, I'm aware doing this would possibly require making an incompatible patch from developers, but at the moment, it doesn't really matter as the developers are already making a incompatible patch with those new tracks and dynamic light system. This could be added into that patch as one of the updates.
Now, you can use different InSims to do this. For example, Airio has an option to block AI drivers, and there is also a PIE (PHP; InSim; Easy) script called JustBots, which you can use to forcefully spectate and prevent real players to join onto the track, allowing only AI drivers on there.
Now, while you can do it via InSims and scripts, I'm suggesting there should be a server option or at least a command, which you could use to block human players or AI drivers joining the track.
For example, when launching a new server, there could be a selectable option: "Allow real / AI drivers on track?" with options [Allow both], [Allow only real players] and [Allow only AI drivers]. The first one should be the default option. I did think about option [none], but I remember there is an option "Max (real + AI) per guest pc", where you can set the minimum setting to 0, which means that guests can watch, but not join the race.
And, even if you set the max real + AI in race setting to 1, which is usually used in servers, it doesn't actually prevent anyone from joining as an AI while all other drivers are human players. Trust me, I've watched AI drivers racing with humans, and it has been carnage! Only way to actually prevent that player with AI from joining is either banning them, or spectating them in case midrace joining is disallowed.
Also, same goes vice-versa. In case there is a situation, where every player must use 1 AI driver on track (for example, to test that InSim-controlling with them), nothing prevents a human player joining the track as a real player and ruining the fun/experiment.
Finally, I'm aware doing this would possibly require making an incompatible patch from developers, but at the moment, it doesn't really matter as the developers are already making a incompatible patch with those new tracks and dynamic light system. This could be added into that patch as one of the updates.
This is a safe website. You can see your connection is secured by looking the address of this website. It is https://lfs.net, not http://lfs.net - what does this mean is that it has SSL/TLS encryption. And the certificate for that is still valid - and always will be!
It means that all communication between your browser and LFS.net is encrypted and protected. This does includes your passwords, credit card numbers etc.
Without it, all kind of data would be sent as plain text across the internet. In that situation, anyone in between could read it. But because the data is protected, it means that before data leaves your browser, it will be encrypted. It means that even if someone would interrupt it (which is much more unlikely to happen with HTTPS than with HTTP), only thing they can see is random nonsense that no one could ever figure it out what it really is.
And, all credit card payments with this site are processed by Elavon which is one of the most secure and trusted processors of card transactions in the world. Over 2 million customers in many, many countries use it. And it processes more than 6 billion transactions around the world per year. And needless to say, that too has SSL/TLS encryption.
Last edited by tankslacno, .
One thing: if 18 pounds is too much, can you buy S1 for 6 pounds at first? And then upgrade to S3 (or S2 at first, if necessary). You'll spend the same amount of money, but at least with this method, you don't have to spare 18 pounds at once. Instead you'll only have to spare 6 pounds on three different occasions and you can choose the time when you want to buy another license upgrade.
Okay, I managed to get it working on Chrome. Here's what I did, and I followed that first answer displayed there: https://superuser.com/questions/1400200/chrome-persistently-redirecting-to-https-for-http-site
Now, http://competition.lfs.net does indeed lead me to that page on Chrome and doesn't redirect
Oh, and by the way, Ctrl+H doesn't clear cache, but you can clear cache of lfs.net when you manage the site settings for the browser
EDIT: And I also just installed Firefox and it works for me on both normal and private modes. However, I just installed it so it doesn't have any cache. Could there be some shared HTTPS redirect cache on these pages?
Now, http://competition.lfs.net does indeed lead me to that page on Chrome and doesn't redirect
Oh, and by the way, Ctrl+H doesn't clear cache, but you can clear cache of lfs.net when you manage the site settings for the browser
EDIT: And I also just installed Firefox and it works for me on both normal and private modes. However, I just installed it so it doesn't have any cache. Could there be some shared HTTPS redirect cache on these pages?
Last edited by tankslacno, .
Scawen, I did test that on Tor-browser, and when I used the non-secure http-protocol (aka http:// site), it did work correctly for me after the browser gave me a warning that my connection is not secure. However, the very instant I allowed to use HTTPS-connection on this site on browser settings, it redirected me to https://lfs.net
On LFS Discord, Flame reported that the link works for him properly as well, but for all the others, it doesn't work and it redirects instead. We did think about that does the fact that Flame is a moderator and you are admin of the site grants you the access for that page. Could it be possible that the page is restricted and all non-moderator/admin users cannot access it?
In any case, we were able to look the site on web archive. Link to that is here: https://web.archive.org/web/20121019081926/http://competition.lfs.net/
Eric's newest post where he stated that he will do an update for Aston later got me thinking. I would like to get a clarification about this:
Does this new dynamic lightning system force you to release all updated track environments at the same time? Is it even possible to release a patch, where one of the track environments is updated and that particular track environment uses the new dynamic system, while all the other tracks still use the current 2-4 static lightning options for time being?
While it may sound strange, that only one track gets updated for one patch, it wouldn't be unprecedent as in 0.6 timeline, new Westhill was introduced in 0.6H, 0.6K introduced Rockingham, it was updated in 0.6M and 0.6R was when new Blackwood was introduced. Although, all track environments did get a major update at the same time in 0.6B, when those open track configurations were introduced.
And if it's possible to do it like that, it could make sense. It would be easier and less overwhelming for everybody to focus on fixing one track environment at a time as I'm sure that they will almost certainly have some issues in the test patch stage, as Flame already showed out one issue. Heck, the slightly updated Fern Bay probably would be very useful for testing the dynamic lightning system and time multipliers themselves, as Scawen himself has said that Fern Bay is an exception and doesn't require any major updates.
Of course, none of these pros matter, if it is very difficult, if not outright impossible for you to release a patch like this, or if you have always intended to release all the tracks at the same time using this new lightning system. I'm just curious, are you forced to release all at the same time or could you use your own discretion with this
Does this new dynamic lightning system force you to release all updated track environments at the same time? Is it even possible to release a patch, where one of the track environments is updated and that particular track environment uses the new dynamic system, while all the other tracks still use the current 2-4 static lightning options for time being?
While it may sound strange, that only one track gets updated for one patch, it wouldn't be unprecedent as in 0.6 timeline, new Westhill was introduced in 0.6H, 0.6K introduced Rockingham, it was updated in 0.6M and 0.6R was when new Blackwood was introduced. Although, all track environments did get a major update at the same time in 0.6B, when those open track configurations were introduced.
And if it's possible to do it like that, it could make sense. It would be easier and less overwhelming for everybody to focus on fixing one track environment at a time as I'm sure that they will almost certainly have some issues in the test patch stage, as Flame already showed out one issue. Heck, the slightly updated Fern Bay probably would be very useful for testing the dynamic lightning system and time multipliers themselves, as Scawen himself has said that Fern Bay is an exception and doesn't require any major updates.
Of course, none of these pros matter, if it is very difficult, if not outright impossible for you to release a patch like this, or if you have always intended to release all the tracks at the same time using this new lightning system. I'm just curious, are you forced to release all at the same time or could you use your own discretion with this
Last edited by tankslacno, .
I think this has been asked a few times on Discord and here on LFS Forum. About the dynamic lightning: what are your current plans in regards of implementing this into demo content?
Is the same dynamic lightning system still planned, if not already being currently developed, in there as well or will that demo content still have those usual 2-4 static daytime settings? Or does that version have that dynamic lightning as well, but with more limited options (for example, there are less time multipliers available)?
After all, demo is meant to be demonstration of LFS
Is the same dynamic lightning system still planned, if not already being currently developed, in there as well or will that demo content still have those usual 2-4 static daytime settings? Or does that version have that dynamic lightning as well, but with more limited options (for example, there are less time multipliers available)?
After all, demo is meant to be demonstration of LFS
Nah, you have always been able to name AIs at Options -> Game
Eric just happened to name his AI-drivers like that. He also had AI 22 and AI 24 in those videos. Those AIs used the default AI name
I assume those UK tracks are all tracks except Fern Bay (which is in Jamaica) and Kyoto Ring (which is in Japan) and therefore use UTC time (or UTC+1 on daylight saving time)?
We know that:
- Blackwood, South City, Aston and Rockingham (I'd be worried if it wasn't
) are confirmed to be located on the UK- Westhill technically isn't explicitly mentioned as UK track on the website/manual, but it has left-hand traffic, so... well, Australia, New Zealand and some other countries also have that
- Autocross and Layout Square can technically be anywhere, but I can't really figure out any other country where they would be located other than UK
Thanks for the explanation!
Haven't seen that issue happening on any track configuration (that has pits) ever before. Strange that it has happened on that particular track configurationAnd I just realized, of course I can still force those AI drivers to make a pit stop, I just have to react faster as I have less time to clear that stop-go penalty from them
Upon seeing that South City video, I'm curious that will there be any new track configurations/closed circuits on that track environment
Also Scawen, I would like to ask this question:
Is the pit lane transition point where? Is it that point where that pit entry lane (that solid or dashes lane) starts?
I'm trying to figure out when exactly should I force my AI to make a pit stop. In case you don't know: at the moment, you can force AI drivers to make a pit stop by giving them a stop-go penalty before they start their last sector and then when they are driving that last sector, clear that penalty before they enter pitlane area
Will there be another way to force them to make a pit stop? I just have that concern that making strategic pit stops for AI may become unnecessarily harder. Is there a reason for this change?
Also Scawen, I would like to ask this question:
Is the pit lane transition point where? Is it that point where that pit entry lane (that solid or dashes lane) starts?
I'm trying to figure out when exactly should I force my AI to make a pit stop. In case you don't know: at the moment, you can force AI drivers to make a pit stop by giving them a stop-go penalty before they start their last sector and then when they are driving that last sector, clear that penalty before they enter pitlane area
Will there be another way to force them to make a pit stop? I just have that concern that making strategic pit stops for AI may become unnecessarily harder. Is there a reason for this change?
Also, I don't even know if this would work, but what you could try is that on Blackwood RallyCross (BL3), at the end of the first sand/mud section, you could try adding ramps and other Autocross objects to make a U-turn that would end up at the beginning of that aforementioned section. It would be kinda a dirt oval, though that track would probably only be about 50% of sand/mud
However, like I said, I can't guarantee this would work or if LFS would even allow it.
However, like I said, I can't guarantee this would work or if LFS would even allow it.
Unfortunately there's not a dirt oval available as a track configuration. Few years ago, Scawen did state he is interested of updating Layout Square so that either:
1) There would be a selectable track configuration which would have a dirt area and probably a 1km walled square area as well. Or:
2) One of the track configurations would be a dirt area instead of tarmac in one of those squares between the 4 roundabouts. In this case, you could drive to there from area that is still tarmac. Scawen even made a very early prototype of it.
If that does indeed happen in the future, you could add a dirt oval there. I too would be excited, if Scawen indeed does continue doing that prototype and therefore adds a dirt and maybe that 1km walled square area into Layout Square.
Source, you can find some posts from him on page 1 there about this: https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/95714
However, Rony (Eclipsed) has done an AWS 2025 race on Westhill "Dirt" oval. It doesn't have any actual mud/sand, but it's driven 100% on grass. That is probably the closest you can get of having a dirt oval. You can download it from here: https://www.lfs.net/forum/post/2114363#post2114363 - just download the .mpr replay, open it and save the layout in Shift+U mode.
1) There would be a selectable track configuration which would have a dirt area and probably a 1km walled square area as well. Or:
2) One of the track configurations would be a dirt area instead of tarmac in one of those squares between the 4 roundabouts. In this case, you could drive to there from area that is still tarmac. Scawen even made a very early prototype of it.
If that does indeed happen in the future, you could add a dirt oval there. I too would be excited, if Scawen indeed does continue doing that prototype and therefore adds a dirt and maybe that 1km walled square area into Layout Square.
Source, you can find some posts from him on page 1 there about this: https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/95714
However, Rony (Eclipsed) has done an AWS 2025 race on Westhill "Dirt" oval. It doesn't have any actual mud/sand, but it's driven 100% on grass. That is probably the closest you can get of having a dirt oval. You can download it from here: https://www.lfs.net/forum/post/2114363#post2114363 - just download the .mpr replay, open it and save the layout in Shift+U mode.
Just noticed that the information about this new patch, which can be found from this link, isn't listed as part of official LFS news and therefore isn't mentioned at the front page: https://www.lfs.net/patchInfo/patch_7g.php
Also, I assume the LFS hosts can still continue to use the version 0.7F with this version?
Also, I assume the LFS hosts can still continue to use the version 0.7F with this version?
Shopping page has wrong information
Hi!
So, I noticed that this Shopping page (https://www.lfs.net/shop) has wrong, but also different information depending are you logged in or not.
So, when you're not logged in, it does indicate that buying S3 will only give you one new track. But when you are logged in, it does correctly tell you, that it gives you two new tracks and ability to use vehicle mods.
I've attached two photos about this, one displaying the page when I'm not logged in and another showing how the page looks when I'm logged in. And I've also tested this with different devices and also in private mode just to make sure the reason wasn't just in browser's cache. But the results were same!
Additionally, not really a bug but I'm just curious of that page indicating you can rent an LFS host starting from £0.42/month. That is £5.04 in one year. Is that just showcasing very cheap host prices or is there other reason why it has that £0.42 per month instead of £5 per year? It just got into my mind as you can't pay for 15 slot hosts other than yearly.
So, I noticed that this Shopping page (https://www.lfs.net/shop) has wrong, but also different information depending are you logged in or not.
So, when you're not logged in, it does indicate that buying S3 will only give you one new track. But when you are logged in, it does correctly tell you, that it gives you two new tracks and ability to use vehicle mods.
I've attached two photos about this, one displaying the page when I'm not logged in and another showing how the page looks when I'm logged in. And I've also tested this with different devices and also in private mode just to make sure the reason wasn't just in browser's cache. But the results were same!
Additionally, not really a bug but I'm just curious of that page indicating you can rent an LFS host starting from £0.42/month. That is £5.04 in one year. Is that just showcasing very cheap host prices or is there other reason why it has that £0.42 per month instead of £5 per year? It just got into my mind as you can't pay for 15 slot hosts other than yearly.
One or two mistakes in email of activating account
I've noticed that when you register onto the site, you get an email where LFS tells you to activate your account by clicking a link. And when you click that link, your account has been created. (If you don't do that in 3 days, your registration attempt will expire)
However, I noticed that email has one, maybe 1,5 mistakes on the right side of it. It has this part:
The Merchandise shop no longer exists. It was shut down a long time ago.
And the second, kind of, mistake is that email tells that only LFS.net and LFSWorld.net sites are safe to use your LFS username and password. Shouldn't there be a mention that LFSManual.net is also a safe website? Since using all the functionalities there requires you entering your LFS username and password to log in.
Now I'm aware of that when you try to log into LFSManual.net, it redirects you to the LFS.net-site where it is asking you to allow LFSManual access. But the LFSManual.net still does have that clickable "login with your lfs account" link.
However, I noticed that email has one, maybe 1,5 mistakes on the right side of it. It has this part:
The Merchandise shop no longer exists. It was shut down a long time ago.
And the second, kind of, mistake is that email tells that only LFS.net and LFSWorld.net sites are safe to use your LFS username and password. Shouldn't there be a mention that LFSManual.net is also a safe website? Since using all the functionalities there requires you entering your LFS username and password to log in.
Now I'm aware of that when you try to log into LFSManual.net, it redirects you to the LFS.net-site where it is asking you to allow LFSManual access. But the LFSManual.net still does have that clickable "login with your lfs account" link.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG