How do you increase the dead zone?

Can the second server's info be placed to the right of the first server instead of below it? It doesn't look like there is an easy way to do this, unless I have two copies of this script and do two separate php includes.

Would it be possible to a add feature to show the online racers' statuses by putting the following beside (to the right) each online racers' name? http://www.lfsworld.net/isonline.username

Quote from blackbird04217 :

Most broadband connections are ADSL. Asynchronous meaning the upload speed is (on average) 10% what the download is capable of. Meaning upload is about 102.4kbs not 1204kbs up. Give it some credit and got up to 140kbs uploading. at 80kbs for voice alone that is 60% of the upload speed. You're entitled to think that that is quite small, but my opinion using half the upload is considered an impact. Also considered worth it in my opinion, but that has already been said.

Asynchronous DSL simply means that the upload and download bandwidth are not equal. I haven't heard of upload as low as "102.4" kilobits per second (kbps) in a long time. The lowest packages I've seen in the past couple years were 768kbits per second upload. There may be lower speeds available but I doubt many people would choose to have such low bandwidth packages, especially gamers.

We should use our connections as examples though since they are realistic even though they may not be the average or near the average.

I've got 15Mbps download and 3Mbps upload. Converted to kbps: 15360kbps down and 3072kbps up.

What do y'all have?

The point I'm trying to make here is that most LFS players are probably going to have the higher end of available bandwidth packages and with that being said, bandwidth is not a big concern, if a concern at all.

Just some more of my opinion.

Last edited by Nathan D., Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:13.

Quote from bbman :

I don't consider 80 kbit/s additional overhead little, especially not on the upload side... And god forbid more than one person decides to start babbling, that's the older networks out pretty fast... And for what? That I can listen to the insentient ramblings of someone who thinks it's a driving version of second life or the angry rants and insults of yet another ego who thinks a backmarker held him back? No thanks...

80 Kilobits (kbps) is quite small in my opinion based on the fact that most broadband connections will give you at least 1024 kbps up and down. But that's alright. We can disagree on this. I'm sure you have your reasons. I would like to use Counter-Strike as an example though especially since it has such a large network of players. I can't say that I remember a time when people were using voicecomm in Counter-Strike, even 3 or 4 people talking at once, caused someone to lag. And I'm confident Counter-Strike uses more bandwidth than LFS. Of course, we can't directly compare Counter-Strike to LFS since they have no relation other than both being online multiplayers games, but I still feel it's worth mentioning.

Again, it would be optional for you to listen to people or not. I can't confirm though if you'd still use the bandwidth as if you were listening. You definitely wouldn't for upload (since you wouldn't be talking) though.

Quote from March Hare :

Isn't it more like 470 kB/s?
10 per person and 47 connectios?

Or do I have my bits and bytes mixed up again.

Yea, I think so lol . 470kB (Kilobytes) is a substantial amount of bandwidth. Voicecomm wouldn't use anything near this.

Quote from bbman :

If you think transferring voice needs only little bandwith you are badly mistaken...

I consider 5 through 10 Kilobytes/sec per person little. But of course this estimation is based off of previous implementations and applications I've seen. If it's implemented and executed well, it should be somewhere close to my estimation, in my opinion.

Quote from blackbird04217 :

I was finished with this on my last post until you started calling my responses pathetic. As I pointed out, directly where you tried pushing away the notion that increased bandwidth is any form of fact. The words you used meant you did not accept the fact for what it was and instead pushed it away like it wasn't a negative side-effect. And then you go and claim that I am putting words in your mouth; you said them.

Maybe since you've said them you've changed your mind and started thinking about the negative impact of the bandwidth (or any other facts that may be said since or still to come.

I am not instigating anything, just trying to make a point that it is important to listen to the other side when they have valid points. First you weren't letting any 'negative opinion' be heard at all; glad we moved up so you can at least read those. I hope now that you can also accept what people have to say even when it is against what you want.

Also, I did notice you said, "Your arguments as far as the server load and bandwidth go" and I also noticed you added, "are not realistic" which is where you took the argument and nullified it in your head. The fact about bandwidth; that I was making, has to do that it will use more bandwidth than LFS uses now. There is no way around that, if you have more data to send, you use more bandwidth to send it. I didn't give out numbers of how much more bandwidth, I didn't pretend it would make the game suffer I simply said 'more bandwidth'. Which is a very realistic side effect.

As I said, I was done on my last post back until you went calling my responses pathetic when it was based on what you said. This is my final post on this unless of course you want to continue that type of bashing. Whether you have learned to accept others opinions, that will be for the future to tell. But I never once put words in your mouth, 'basically' was probably the wrong word to choose, the more appropriate word would be 'is'. And regardless of the word choice there, it is not twisting your quote around, or changing the words you said.

After rereading the post you say again that it wouldn't affect LFS negatively; the simple fact of more bandwidth is the negative thing about the more bandwidth comment/fact. The comment was never made saying "more bandwidth will be used and therefore LFS will be laggy". That was not the fact,
-------------------------------------------------------
All done for now, please don't go bashing because I haven't been doing any of that to your post. I have stated that you need to open up more and listen to the other sides, but I haven't gone towards an insulting level and nor do I want to go there.

I'm glad you felt the need to further embarrass yourself; this is becoming amusing. I started to quote all my posts and show exactly what I said versus what you comprehended but have decided against that. I didn't intend to get personal but you are posting in a manner that is "over your head." You are misquoting and misrepresenting what I've said. I'll sum it up fairly quickly.

In regard to me allegedly not letting any negative opinion be heard, this is ridiculous and impossible. I simply stated an opinion that I thought negative comments weren't necessary for this suggestion. I never used an imperative sentence. It was simply an opinion of mine which I am entitled to.

Secondly, I never argued that bandwidth would not be increased. Simple as that. You put words in my mouth. Also, another opinion of mine that I stated which you still fail to understand is that I don't believe a nominal bandwidth increase should be considered a negative side-effect. If you can't see, feel or otherwise notice the effect, how is it a negative effect? More importantly, how is it an effect at all (rhetorical)? Again, in my opinion, it would not be noticeable and not degrade the performance of LFS. Since everything must be drawn out for you, I'll start saying "in my opinion" in front of everything I say.

You state that I'm the one who needs to accept others opinions. That makes you a hypocrite <insert smartass comment> in my opinion </end smartass comment>.

Let me know when you're ready to set this aside and get focused back on the topic. I'd like to note that I've attempted to do this a couple times now.

Quote from blackbird04217 :

Really? This is basically not accounting for the negative fact!

And there is no "teams" here, its all opinions, which doesn't help anything.

Your responses are pathetic and are instigating a pointless argument. By you saying "This is basically not accounting for the negative fact!" it admits that you are putting words in my mouth. Notice I said "Your arguments as far as the server load and bandwidth go" which refers to what you previously said without having to retype it out specifically. It's very common in the English language. If you can't remember what you said, re-read your post.

Are we done with this now or are you going to continue this nonsense?

Please someone get us back on topic.

Quote from blackbird04217 :

Because regardless of which side of an argument someone is on they can not pretend that facts do not exist when brought up by the other side. It seems you need better 'listening' skills. You are doing great at ignoring the other side, but my point that I have been trying to make for the last 5 posts or so is that the people against voice communications have a valid point, and you can not pretend that their point is invalid, or unrealistic!

When the point was first brought up that doing this would cause more bandwidth to be used, you mentioned that that is an unrealistic argument. Which it is not unrealistic. This is a negative side-effect to putting voice communications in the game. Where I believe, and likely you and others believe, that the good overcomes this negative - we can not deny the fact that it is something that needs to be thought about.

You have no valid point in saying 90% of LFS'ers use broadband or a good connection that LFS takes < 10%. You realize it is upload limits that games have to be careful about since ISP's do not like large amounts of uploading- most networks are designed for good download speeds, but less upload speeds. Even ignoring the connection itself, pretend for a moment that everyone uses only 0.5% of their connection while playing on a loaded multiplayer server. Add VoIP and it could go up to 1.0% or it could even be well enough to be 0.050001% which is STILL MORE bandwidth.

So the argument: "this will use more bandwidth" is a 100% accurate statement, regardless of connection speed and status!

Do I think the benefits of VoIP in the game are worth the extra bandwidth, yes. But don't pretend that the fact, coming from an opposing side is 'unrealistic' or 'invalid' in any sense. Accept the fact, and listen to what others have to say vs ignoring the idea and blowing it off. Does that help explain where I am trying to come from?

You might really want to re-read my posts AND comprehend them. I never said that stating "this will use more bandwidth" is an invalid argument. In fact, throughout my posts, I continue to agree that it will use more bandwidth. I said that stating "more bandwidth is a negative impact" is invalid due to it being a nominal and an unnoticeable amount.

At this point your wasting my time and we're no longer providing benefit to the suggestion topic. If you want this in LFS, then quit batting for the other team.

Quote from blackbird04217 :

Where I agree with it should be implemented, I don't believe in pretending things are not positive or negative side-effects of something being implemented.

So the;


Needed to be straightened out, because those who use an argument that more bandwidth will be used are 100% correct, and that can be deemed as a negative impact. However, IMO, the positive outweigh the negative. The amount of extra bandwidth was never claimed to be a lot or a little.

- - - - - - - -

So, we do agree. But I will still make sure to listen to the other side as their argument "more bandwidth will be used" is an accurate statement, and needs to be taken into consideration - it is a realistic argument.

We aren't using AOL 4.0 via dialup anymore. This is why your argument is, for the most part, unrealistic. If the implementation of voicecomm uses more bandwidth than LFS currently (which of course it will; this is obvious) but we can't notice that anymore bandwidth is being used because 90% (or more most likely) of us use a broadband connection with plenty of bandwidth to spare and the bandwidth increase from voicecomm would be nominal then how is it a negative impact?

Quote from Ger Roady :

Why not make it to an option, whether you want to use it or not.

Exactly. Having the option available wouldn't cause any negative impact to LFS. It would be completely controllable.

Quote from blackbird04217 :

Making it an option doesn't change the fact that when the server is using Voice Communication that it still requires more bandwidth.

I am all for adding options for the server, and individual player for these types of things. But again whereas, Ger Roady, Nathan D. and I agree it would be convenient to have in-game VoIP - with appropriate options, we can not deny the negative impacts that will come from the addition. Even if we agree that the negative impact is 'worth-it' in our minds.

If you support the suggestion of in-game voicecomm, then why are you even posting these ideas that do not support the suggestion? If you want it, then support it.

Quote from blackbird04217 :

The argument that server bandwidth would be used for voice communications stand.

Regardless of how light LFS is compared to other games, or in comparison to itself. Adding more data to pass over the network increases bandwidth regardless of how you look at it. Will it effect LFS, likely not, but the point of the matter is it still does increase the network traffic.

So that is a valid argument that more bandwidth is required, however for me personally I don't think it would effect much and would like to see it built into LFS, though at the moment I am fine with using Ventrilo or something.

I'm not sure I understand why you state the obvious. We know that it will increase bandwidth but it was clear that I was stating that it would be a very small amount and that it would not affect LFS negatively.

Never the less, I'm glad you agree it should be implemented. Let's quit debating with each other and just agree it should be implemented.

K? K.

Your arguments as far as server load and bandwidth go are not realistic. LFS is an extremely "light" game from what I've seen. Client/server bandwidth is low as well as server load and client load. LFS would not become a "heavy" game with a relatively small implementation such as voicecomm.

Quote from blackbird04217 :

How do you think LFS developers putting an additional feature in a _RACING SIMULATOR_ will be more optimal in bandwidth and/or cpu usage than companies that have been developing _VOICE COMMUNICATION_ software for several years, perfecting the amount of data needed to be sent as well as compression? I am not saying the LFS Developers are not capable of doing good VoN in LFS, but to beat software that has been developed specifically for that reason, I'd say unlikely since they are focusing on LFS, the racing simulator.

Where as I am for the idea, see my first post, you achieve nothing if you look at things one sided, regardless of what you believe is a good idea or not. So shoving everyone else out of the thread that disagrees with the idea of having voice-communication in LFS is very pointless. Let them give their perspective, everyone has the ability to share their opinion.

Who ever said the LFS developers have to recreate VoIP communication? I'm sure they could use an already developed codec as well as whatever other aspects are necessary for the system. I'd rather not get into the technicalities; that should be up to the LFS developers to see if it is practical or not.

Secondly, I don't agree that the lack of an opposing side will cause us (those who are for the idea) to not achieve anything. That actually makes no sense but lets not get off topic. I never requested that people not post their opinion. I simply posted my opinion, which was that I thought this thread would benefit most from those who agree with idea, since it is implied that you disagree if you simply don't post.

OK, so back to those who agree with having voicecomm in LFS. Please let it be known!

Quote from blackbird04217 :

LFS would still need to take up that cpu and bandwidth that teamspeak of ventrilo or similar programs do, so that argument is nullified could even be arguable that the program dedicated to voice communications would be more advanced; using less cpu and bandwidth than something quickly added to the game.

Don't get me wrong, I think its a great idea to have this support built in, but don't pretend it would take less CPU or bandwidth when it _could_ take more.

I highly doubt it would use more CPU/bandwidth than an external app but regardless, do CPU/bandwidth need to be that strictly limited (rhetorical)?

Quote from fab_iceman_67 :

I don't agree ... I anderstand that this voicecomm would be great but in a pub server is always a HUGE crash on first corner and I don't wanna hear all noobs flamming there each other
Ok I can mute them ... But I don't wanna spend my 5 first minuts to muting drivers ...
And if you wanna talk you can use TS/Mumble/skype or watheva you want, those softwares are very light and LFS is light too, if your computer lags ... Change your computer

No need to post these "disagreeing" opinions. Your argument of spending your first 5 minutes muting people is negated, as my post suggests an ALL mute button AND a mute option for just individual players. Also, I actually think the voicecomm will be just as enjoyable/handy in public servers as a private match. Any arguments as far as it being annoying or etc, really have no basis because there will be simple and easy controls to prevent such.

I think this thread will be more beneficial if the "disagreeing" comments are completely left out. If the ones who dislike the idea don't post, that's one less positive post possibility.

Quote from Mr_Lonely :

agree..

Teamspeak/Ventrilo/etc takes up to much cpu for us lowers too so its make the game lagg even more..

an ingame voice communication shouldent take that much more cpu to use ether..


huge +1..

Thank you so much. I'm very glad that you agree.

Anyone else that agrees, please state your opinion here in hopes that it brings this issue to the attention of the developer(s).

I can't believe after all these years an in-game voice communication system hasn't been implemented.

This is a racing simulation. We should ABSOLUTELY have the ability to use microphones, in-game, to communicate with one another. Teamspeak/Ventrilo/etc are great, but requires people to manually join and would be somewhat difficult to get people in the habit of connecting to the Teamspeak server whenever they join a LFS server.

For those of you who are strongly against the idea of having an in-game communication system, your argument is nullified as it would/should be controllable by a config variable (eg: /voicecomm) AND contain an in-game option to mute ALL or just certain people.

With voicecomm, the game would be much improved. Teams could coordinate and have tactics (as far as aggression and etc), regular players could talk without having to stop racing or mess up their race and so much more.

I am so surprised that this has been implemented and actually disappointed.

Please implement this. LFS would really benefit from it, across the board.

I was racing and accidentally changed the language and now since I definitely can't understand the language that it's on now, I can't find how to change back. Please advise.

Quote from boothy :

If you have access to an LFS server then surely all you need to do is look at the IPs in the log file?

/log=X.txt :set message log file

Wow. I swear I looked at the log files (mostly from Airio I guess) but overlooked the actual LFS log file. I think this is all I need. Thanks

Quote from Shadowww :

Uhm, you can use some TCP monitor, and by pausing connections one-by-one and seeing which car starts to lag, you can find out which user has that IP. But I am sure there are more proper ways.

Thanks for the suggestion but I'm looking for something more practical and able to access LFS IPs specifically, not an entire system.

Quote from Bean0 :

Generally anyone can get another IP as well.

The majority of (UK anyway) connections have dynamic IPs, which can change every time you connect to t'interwebnet.

This is true but the ban generally would be longer lasting and hopefully to the point where the user gives up.

So, any ideas on a way LFS can show IPs per user or if someone can make a plugin that could do this?

Yea the reason I post here is because I want the IP to tie to the username for more permanent banning reasons (anyone can just get another username).

Is it possible to view the IPs of the connected players in an LFS server (public server, NOT LAN)? If so, how? If not, can someone please make some sort of plugin so that this is possible for admins to see?

Thanks in advance guys

Is it possible to have a bot (or fake client) in the dedicated server at all times so it always looks like there is 1 player playing (1/14 players)? I know the Aleajecta server has this but I believe it is part of the custom addon they use. Thanks in advance!

Bump. I really want to get a server going but I don't know much about Wine. Please someone help.

Quote from bunder9999 :

i run my servers in NX... it satisfies the need for an X server, and allows me to disconnect from the "screen" if and when i need to.

nathan, the error you're getting is either because your alsa is messed up, or because wine is looking for a midi that might or might not be there... if you have a choice of compiling wine, you can remove midi support.

Could you provide some assistance with this? How can we confirm that wine is looking for a midi, and once confirmed, how can I recompile wine?

By the way, my OS is CentOS 5.2 64bit if that helps.