The online racing simulator
Test Patch Z30 (NOW Z34 - old content / old physics / many updates)
(1455 posts, closed, started )
Scawen, thanks for the report!
Scawen, those reports are awesome, but my advice... don't answer .
Quote from Scawen :Does anyone begin to realise the problem with me giving progress reports?...

Yes, but thanks anyways! And I don't have any questions
Quote from Scawen :Does anyone begin to realise the problem with me giving progress reports? I try to make them clear and full of information. Then some people begin to pick apart every half of every sentence or individual words to see if there is hidden meaning within. And then my replies to those questions about my report begin to be taken apart in turn themselves, in case they mean that the roof will fall down upon our heads.

Guys, there isn't any bad news in today's progress report, only improvements and good things to come in the new patch. Nothing will be disabled or removed or deleted.

Well, im sorry to being as retard, but as you said, things and plans would be changed, at least plans. That makes always rethinking for those things.

if so, then all things should be fine and nothing should be worry about at all
Scawen, please ignore them.
Quote from Byku :Scawen, those reports are awesome, but my advice... don't answer .

This.
Quote from Scawen :Does anyone begin to realise the problem with me giving progress reports? I try to make them clear and full of information. Then some people begin to pick apart every half of every sentence or individual words to see if there is hidden meaning within. And then my replies to those questions about my report begin to be taken apart in turn themselves, in case they mean that the roof will fall down upon our heads.

Guys, there isn't any bad news in today's progress report, only improvements and good things to come in the new patch. Nothing will be disabled or removed or deleted.

Quote from Scawen :End of "Scawen question time" for today.

Thanks
Scawen: I didn't mean to make it seem as the object system changes negatively affected LFS. It's a good benefit to LFS for sure. It jsut does have a bit of repercussions with recent layouts.
Quote from dawesdust_12 :Scawen: I didn't mean to make it seem as the object system changes negatively affected LFS. It's a good benefit to LFS for sure. It jsut does have a bit of repercussions with recent layouts.

If only they would be more easily discovered by new users than pressing some "secret-key-combination". I've already had to explain to some users how exactly they can use the new tracks since they were not that easy to find out.

Granted, they are not the brightest bulbs in the pack, nor they read the-21-weekly-FAQ-questions-already-covered-by-the-patch-release-post-and-successive-user-posts to Scawen
Quote from Krane :If only they would be more easily discovered by new users than pressing some "secret-key-combination". I've already had to explain to some users how exactly they can use the new tracks since they were not that easy to find out.

Yes, I agree with you. I was wondering too, there could be a text somewhere saying "press Ctrl to show open configurations" or something.
A quick question on Add/remove autox in the upcoming incompatible.

Will it include the ability to add/remove checkpoints on the track that become checkpoints that must be passed through in a race?

I would like to implement a dynamic checkpoint race where the race is X checkpoints long. A new checkpoints being added when as drivers pass through old checkpoints.

http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=74405
Quote from Flame CZE :Yes, I agree with you. I was wondering too, there could be a text somewhere saying "press Ctrl to show open configurations" or something.

I was thinking on by default show all the layouts available for the current $config + add default option of the (non-existent $LFS\data\layout\*.lyt) vanilla-layout on the of the list of available layouts that is already selected without any secret-key -presses. And beside that another layout (non-existent *.lyt) that would be the "open"-version of the current-config?
Quote from Scawen :And then my replies to those questions about my report begin to be taken apart in turn themselves, in case they mean that the roof will fall down upon our heads.

Hhhmm, well, this is a strange community. Lots of different cultures, ages and so on. But most people are actually quite OK. If you post something don't feel that personal offended right away by the initial reactions. I didn't expect another report that soon but the communication strategy the last two months is really good and satisfying.

The last postings do clarify a lot. I also had hidden questions about these upcoming incompatible patch(es) and the timeframe for an official patch release after that. All is clear now, even the worried bit about ramps in South City... So.. Great..
hi scawen just like to say your doing a great job and thanks,,
all the best
Hi' Scaven.

I know you are busy now corrected the patch, etc. but whether it could be able to own or together with the layout to create the optimum driving line? It would be very helpful.
Quote from dawesdust_12 :Scawen: I didn't mean to make it seem as the object system changes negatively affected LFS. It's a good benefit to LFS for sure. It jsut does have a bit of repercussions with recent layouts.

I'm not sure what you mean. Nearly all layouts already made, old or recent, will still load into the new version correctly and need no editing. What are the repercussions of improving the system and providing more objects?

The only exception I can think of is layouts made on the old "Autocross" track area with the "Banner AD1/2/3" objects. They are the old only objects in LFS that I can't provide a good substitute for. I decided to include the two ADBANNER objects from Blackwood because they are used in the training lesson layouts, but I didn't want to include the other 3 similar but different sized banners from Autocross to be available at all tracks.

So, an old layout from AU that contained Banner AD1/2/3 will load but without the banners. Other than that, all objects should still be available at all tracks, though there will be a few substitutions - the hexagonal based cones found at some tracks will be replaced (automatically) with a similar square cone and all the tyres will be replaced with new tyre stack objects of the same colour and similar size (radius might be up to 3cm smaller and some of the heights of tyre stacks are different because the new tyres have more realistic dimensions).
Quote from Woz :A quick question on Add/remove autox in the upcoming incompatible.

Will it include the ability to add/remove checkpoints on the track that become checkpoints that must be passed through in a race?

I would like to implement a dynamic checkpoint race where the race is X checkpoints long. A new checkpoints being added when as drivers pass through old checkpoints.

http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=74405

Does it work at the moment? I mean, not by InSim of course, but if an admin moves a checkpoint? A quick look in the code suggests that it should work, because if an autocross checkpoint or finish line arrives in a packet, the checkpoints are worked out again.

The basic idea of the InSim control is to replicate what an admin can do manually in the editor. So if that works now, then it should work when it is done from an InSim packet.

It would be helpful if you could test that out for me and see if it works already (but manually). If it does, then I don't have to do anything special to support what you are talking about.
hi
I found a LX4 3d modeling bug
If someone hit the LX4 backend u get something like this.(see attachment)

i know its hard to fix and its not something to worry about it , i just thought to report it here.
Attached images
lx4bug.jpg
Quote from Bass-Driver :hi
I found a LX4 3d modeling bug
If someone hit the LX4 backend u get something like this.(see attachment)

i know its hard to fix and its not something to worry about it , i just thought to report it here.

that's always been like that.
Quote from Bass-Driver :hi
I found a LX4 3d modeling bug
If someone hit the LX4 backend u get something like this.(see attachment)

i know its hard to fix and its not something to worry about it , i just thought to report it here.

And the rear wheels can still spin and have grip whilst not attached to the car visually :P
Quote from Scawen :Does it work at the moment? I mean, not by InSim of course, but if an admin moves a checkpoint? A quick look in the code suggests that it should work, because if an autocross checkpoint or finish line arrives in a packet, the checkpoints are worked out again.

The basic idea of the InSim control is to replicate what an admin can do manually in the editor. So if that works now, then it should work when it is done from an InSim packet.

It would be helpful if you could test that out for me and see if it works already (but manually). If it does, then I don't have to do anything special to support what you are talking about.

I will check out tonight when I get a space block of time and let you know
Quote from Bass-Driver :hi
I found a LX4 3d modeling bug
If someone hit the LX4 backend u get something like this.(see attachment)

i know its hard to fix and its not something to worry about it , i just thought to report it here.

The same happens with all car in lfs, they dont have a steer column
I need help. Is there any way that I revert from Z34 back to Z28????
Sure, justfollow the instructions before installing the testpatch.-
If you didn't you can just redownload the game from the lfs page and overwrite the lfs.exe
oh yeah, thanks I forgot I got it backed up
This thread is closed

Test Patch Z30 (NOW Z34 - old content / old physics / many updates)
(1455 posts, closed, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG