As I see it, the first and most important thing people want is a reasonably full server. I do not say 45 connections, but at least 15, rather 20. Only then people start coming in greater numbers, and there can be nice races, just as we've seen yesterday with GTI. Then come some racing standards together with the current combo.
Al, you say that 75% I mention comes out of nowhere. True, I have no hard data to prove it, but look around at today's LFS. Static servers do not work. I believe it is sad for some, but I also cannot really find it fun to stay on the same track or combo for much more than two hours.
Yesterday, when we raced with GTI, the track rotated twice. I saw nobody complaining. In fact I was proposing to stay on the same track a bit longer, but everyone was looking forward to the next track. Please also go through this discussion. I feel the posts requiring static combos are in great minority (but true, most posts here are from me :razz
.
Currently there are only two classes open on the MultiOpen Racing server, not to make it another CG. This is to appease the hardcore LFSers. But I think we have no chance to see any lasting interest from the LFS community without rotating tracks. Ehhhh...
Al, you say that 75% I mention comes out of nowhere. True, I have no hard data to prove it, but look around at today's LFS. Static servers do not work. I believe it is sad for some, but I also cannot really find it fun to stay on the same track or combo for much more than two hours.
Yesterday, when we raced with GTI, the track rotated twice. I saw nobody complaining. In fact I was proposing to stay on the same track a bit longer, but everyone was looking forward to the next track. Please also go through this discussion. I feel the posts requiring static combos are in great minority (but true, most posts here are from me :razz
.Currently there are only two classes open on the MultiOpen Racing server, not to make it another CG. This is to appease the hardcore LFSers. But I think we have no chance to see any lasting interest from the LFS community without rotating tracks. Ehhhh...
Now in your message the IdentKey is missing, obviously, you need to have one.
If you have it set correctly, but download still does not work, here are the usual problems: 1) The same key is already used in some other application, and some requests are failing. 2) You have 2nd key under the same account used in some other application, again blocking some downloads.
I suggest to delete all your keys in LFSW, create just one completely new, and use it in Airio. This will solve all the problems. Also note that download of all LFSW data can take up to 20 seconds in the FREE version, because of LFSW unpaid service limitations.
Careful, careful! This will on 30th day delete not only total points, but all the total data, including personal records, laps done, dates, etc. !!! BEWARE !!! You probably do not want this. If you want to delete only the total points, I'm afraid there is no direct command available, in current versions it is not possible to remove just parts of the total data. But I see your point, I will try to offer some simple way for this operation... For alternative approaches applicable now, see one of my previous responses...
Hard to say. Quite often the reason is your lap time is not stored on server, but only in LFSW statistics, and these are not being downloaded (at all, or fast enough). Connect, wait a while, then try !pr. If there are no data, I would say LFSW downloads are not enabled or not working properly. Maybe you also have hidden stats...
OK, LOL, not that it matters much, but I updated the item to:
# PROS: Do not send driver/track/car/lap data to AIRW - boolean
# Please set this item to FALSE if you're running a tweaked server
# and use Airio PROS, the only version communicating with AIRW.Yes, you can turn off sending data to AIRW only in the PROS version, and the reason is very prosaic. Only the PROS version can send any data, the FREE and FULL versions have no AIRW functionality.
So, this setting has any meaning only in PROS...Well, yes, why not, I love the GT2 cars, all of them, while I find GTRs too strong for the average driver, me.
Yes, it is possible, rating weights (increase and decrease for certain actions) are configurable per server, while the resulting ratings are shared among the servers. But I did not quite understand your idea how to use this feature.
PS: I already implemented one rating feature mentioned above, that is rating improvements based on track length. Good idea!
Last edited by EQ Worry, .
When this problem was brought to my attention, I was shown some replays that were accepted by Airio at CG. (And again I repeat here, it was my error, not to describe some configuration items properly, no fault from the CG admins.) Some of these replays meant new WRs in a GT2 car. While trying to deal with the problem, I had two options: 1) Announce officially that even the lowest car position update settings are acceptable and leave all the lap times as they are, or 2) make some higher hard-coded requirement, but then remove all the BL and WR lap times. I was considering option 1. But the replays were showing cars completely off the track, and for substantial periods, which in the end seemed unacceptable.
One other thing: I recently noticed some servers disappearing from the Airio overview. For now I'm not sure what is the cause, I'll look into the problem in more detail when time allows...
Hm, yes, yes. I'm still concerned, however, that allowing just 1 class cannot reasonably work in today's LFS state. But it seems 5 classes are waaay too many for lots of people. So maybe 2 classes?
Yes, such functionality is already available. The question is whether it is worth the attempt to run two servers sharing stats. Maybe one with GTI + TBO and the other with GTL + GTR?
Hmmm, OK, I see a real interest in single class races. Since GT2s and GTRs were allowed, raising the available classes to 5, I basically received only negative responses. Even 3 classes seemed too much to many, so I see two options: We can go for just 2 classes, or in fact for just 1 class. I believe many of you veterans would love to see a single class, and though I personally do not feel that could work in the long term, we may try this approach. How do you think this could be organized? If just 1 class is used, I'm afraid there can be no safety rating requirements (at least while just one server is used), so the races, however strong cars are used, must be open to everyone. Still think this may work? If so, we could maybe start with GTIs? Some say they are the best races and I really tend to agree. CTRA Race 1 revival then? (Ehm, forget this last question...)
Guys, it is nice to know your opinion about the CTRA, but it really doesn't matter, don't you see? We're in a different situation.
You could however try to analyze what exactly it was that you liked or didn't like. But a general statement such as "there was a good racing" has no significance unless you say why, in your opinion, there was a good racing. What settings/conditions made the good racing possible? The same for saying "it was popular/crowded". Why, you think? And the same for "it was stupid". What would you change then?
I can see/remember two things that made it different. 1) The Web interface, really extensive, with all kinds of information, both personal and racing. 2) The reporting system, allowing to send replays for later bans, which more or less worked, if you waited for a few days.
You could however try to analyze what exactly it was that you liked or didn't like. But a general statement such as "there was a good racing" has no significance unless you say why, in your opinion, there was a good racing. What settings/conditions made the good racing possible? The same for saying "it was popular/crowded". Why, you think? And the same for "it was stupid". What would you change then?
I can see/remember two things that made it different. 1) The Web interface, really extensive, with all kinds of information, both personal and racing. 2) The reporting system, allowing to send replays for later bans, which more or less worked, if you waited for a few days.
Ah, yes, long track for GTI cars, but really interesting, I think, so it is part of the rotation.
I forgot to mention one thing: As also suggested by some people above, for now next track voting is disabled. If you're opposed to this idea, please raise your voice, but there's really no need to express your views by using such words as "this is idiotic, you are mad" etc. It never helps communication. Note also that if enough people want to switch to another track, they can just vote to end race. For the future, maybe a system allowing track voting, but limiting accessibility of recently selected tracks could be a solution. I'm already working on this Airio extension, using some ideas cleverly implemented by Dave on his CG servers.
PS: Ooops, I forgot to mention one more thing. There are now points given for race results and for series of races (currently 4). The points are by default hidden for each new connection, but you may enable them for yourself. At present there are no points ranges with assigned descriptions, widely known as ranks. They can be added at any time in the future, using the already accumulated points.
I forgot to mention one thing: As also suggested by some people above, for now next track voting is disabled. If you're opposed to this idea, please raise your voice, but there's really no need to express your views by using such words as "this is idiotic, you are mad" etc. It never helps communication.
Note also that if enough people want to switch to another track, they can just vote to end race. For the future, maybe a system allowing track voting, but limiting accessibility of recently selected tracks could be a solution. I'm already working on this Airio extension, using some ideas cleverly implemented by Dave on his CG servers.PS: Ooops, I forgot to mention one more thing. There are now points given for race results and for series of races (currently 4). The points are by default hidden for each new connection, but you may enable them for yourself. At present there are no points ranges with assigned descriptions, widely known as ranks. They can be added at any time in the future, using the already accumulated points.
Last edited by EQ Worry, .
@ BIG team with all kinds of servers : Well, lets say this one initial server is the test case to see if there's any chance in today's LFS to have teams cooperating on one project.
@ CTRA : In its time CTRA was exceptional. The InSim system used there was not so good in todays terms, but the Web interface was really really cool. But it is the past. And in fact out of the 6 racing CTRA servers only 2 were used regularly, STD and FBM. So the principle of separating people on servers by categories failed even then. And they were much better times for LFS, when developers were active (instead of saying once in six months that they are active, sry, but that's how I see it), providing updates every few months, keeping the community interested.
@ AS4 : Hm, in fact this track is not in the rotation, so either it was a different track (AS7) or some higher force changing server setup.
@ CHANGES TO CONFIG : Except day 1 it seems there's not much interest in this experiment, especially from team members and the general racing community. In an attempt to make it more attractive I tried to do some changes as suggested by several people:
1) The GTJ class is replaced by the TBO class. Also the GT2 and GTR classes are now available. That is altogether 10 cars in 5 categories. Hopefully the selection will be more attractive to more people.
2) Because of TBO introduction I changed the server name to simply MultiOpen Racing, not limiting it to the GT cars. If we ever have more servers, they can be e.g. numbered, allowing for easy server switching.
@ CTRA : In its time CTRA was exceptional. The InSim system used there was not so good in todays terms, but the Web interface was really really cool. But it is the past. And in fact out of the 6 racing CTRA servers only 2 were used regularly, STD and FBM. So the principle of separating people on servers by categories failed even then. And they were much better times for LFS, when developers were active (instead of saying once in six months that they are active, sry, but that's how I see it), providing updates every few months, keeping the community interested.
@ AS4 : Hm, in fact this track is not in the rotation, so either it was a different track (AS7) or some higher force changing server setup.
@ CHANGES TO CONFIG : Except day 1 it seems there's not much interest in this experiment, especially from team members and the general racing community. In an attempt to make it more attractive I tried to do some changes as suggested by several people:
1) The GTJ class is replaced by the TBO class. Also the GT2 and GTR classes are now available. That is altogether 10 cars in 5 categories. Hopefully the selection will be more attractive to more people.
2) Because of TBO introduction I changed the server name to simply MultiOpen Racing, not limiting it to the GT cars. If we ever have more servers, they can be e.g. numbered, allowing for easy server switching.
And how does that help us?
Again, thanks for all the responses/ideas! My comments follow:
@ TBOs : Yes, it certainly looks better to have TBOs than those strange GTJs available. I will do the change so that TBO replaces GTJ, with the same requirements.
@ GT2s : Well, indeed they are not available now. It is a concession to people who prefer less car categories on track. Many want to see just 1 category, but I don't think that could work. 3 categories seem like a good compromise. Personally I think even 5 categories is a bearable amount, but not more.
@ single car, rotated types : I really do not think that would work. As I already said many times, average people (which includes me) like to have options. And even advanced people have only certain cars they like. Having a single car (or category) per race is so restricting that it cannot work on any would-be popular server.
@ DuleXY : Thx a lot! Again, server really is not a problem, we all have some unused (much). The main thing is to see if we can have one common server, run by a group of people from different teams, which can discuss things openly and reach some conclusions, accepting necessary compromises.
@ TBOs : Yes, it certainly looks better to have TBOs than those strange GTJs available. I will do the change so that TBO replaces GTJ, with the same requirements.
@ GT2s : Well, indeed they are not available now. It is a concession to people who prefer less car categories on track. Many want to see just 1 category, but I don't think that could work. 3 categories seem like a good compromise. Personally I think even 5 categories is a bearable amount, but not more.
@ single car, rotated types : I really do not think that would work. As I already said many times, average people (which includes me) like to have options. And even advanced people have only certain cars they like. Having a single car (or category) per race is so restricting that it cannot work on any would-be popular server.
@ DuleXY : Thx a lot! Again, server really is not a problem, we all have some unused (much). The main thing is to see if we can have one common server, run by a group of people from different teams, which can discuss things openly and reach some conclusions, accepting necessary compromises.
Thanks!
For now all interested team leaders have virtual admin rights on the server, so I added you as well. I think the real help come in two directions: 1) Trying to shape the server so that it reasonably fulfills your expectations, maybe not in all areas, but at least in the primary ones. 2) Use the server, that means be there and try to do some races, even when the servers isn't much used. That covers all interested people and team leaders: Maybe try to spread the word there's this initiative and encourage people to spend some time there, submitting all their suggestions and complaints.@ Junior GT setups : Well, yes, that is a problem. There are still many many people who have no idea how to set air restriction, so this middle class is basically closed to them. Do you think replacing the GTJ class with TBO would work, would get better results now? I almost tend to think so. Again, we need to be dynamic. If GTJ are useless, we change that. And when/if that works, people may learn about GTJ cars, so the class may reappear. For me, it is the ideal step between GTI and GTL, but...
Yes, I guess some people love to collect points and increase their ranks. Some see no point in that, fortunately they need not to be spammed by point-announcing messages. And no, I hope there's no intention to use points to limit something...
And no, I hope there's no intention to use points to limit something...Ha, quite a few comments and ideas accumulated here, nice, thanks! 
In no way I want to be the one who decides most things for others, that would completely beat the purpose of this attempt. So please always take my views as personal preferences, having about the same weight as the views of other team leaders or active members. (We need more comments from such people. :nod So, now my responses to some valuable comments above:
@ points : It seems a good idea to enable them after all, together with ranks (point ranges). Everyone who doesn't care about points and ranks can always turn off their display, completely. It takes just about 2 clicks in the !opt screen, the selection is remembered and applied on next connect.
@ ranks and other servers : I think it is much too early to think about separating people on servers with raising requirements. Of course it would be nice, but we're not there yet. And this separation did not really work even on CTRA, and they were much better times for LFS.
@ car selection : Problematic thing. I believe there must be choices, but not too many. Maybe best obviously separated by speed, I mean with sufficient differences.
@ racing standards : Well, by this I mean the possibilities to limit certain actions, such as joining late in the race, maybe for its whole second half. Easy to apply, but not now.
@ LFS stats in multiclass : Yes, true, if you race slower cars some of your LFSW stats will never improve. But these are only podium results, and I'm not sure how many people take care about this. True, Airio takes these numbers into account when calculating the Experience Index, but they are only a very small portion of the total number. LFSEI favors variability, giving higher value to people racing at different tracks with different cars. Multiclass servers are in fact ideal to raise your LFSEI. That is, if you care about that number.
@ track voting : I see two options here: 1) Disable voting, so that all tracks go in sequence, as they are prepared. If people really do not like the selected track, they may vote to end race, resulting in the next track in rotation being loaded. 2) Extend voting so that the recently or often used tracks start with a negative vote count, making it much harder to select them. In fact I'm already working on this addition.
@ rotations : My estimate would be that 75% of people currently using LFS are in fact bored after 1 hour or so on one track. Without rotations you don't have, I feel, any chance at running a popular server. By raising the racing standards I also mean that in time we may try to have a bit longer races or longer time between rotations. But not now.
@ track names : You may always type !track or just !tr to see the current track name and abbreviation. I'm not sure if this is displayed also for the upcoming track. But during track voting also both full name and abbreviation is shown.
@ race restarts : Very good point about sometimes too fast voting to restart the race. And it may get worse, if not tackled now, once faster cars are on track. We may prolong the time for which restart voting is not accepted. An interesting new option could be to disable faster restarts by voting once the countdown starts, so that people always know they have 60 seconds and be sure the race will not start earlier.
In no way I want to be the one who decides most things for others, that would completely beat the purpose of this attempt. So please always take my views as personal preferences, having about the same weight as the views of other team leaders or active members. (We need more comments from such people. :nod So, now my responses to some valuable comments above:@ points : It seems a good idea to enable them after all, together with ranks (point ranges). Everyone who doesn't care about points and ranks can always turn off their display, completely. It takes just about 2 clicks in the !opt screen, the selection is remembered and applied on next connect.
@ ranks and other servers : I think it is much too early to think about separating people on servers with raising requirements. Of course it would be nice, but we're not there yet. And this separation did not really work even on CTRA, and they were much better times for LFS.
@ car selection : Problematic thing. I believe there must be choices, but not too many. Maybe best obviously separated by speed, I mean with sufficient differences.
@ racing standards : Well, by this I mean the possibilities to limit certain actions, such as joining late in the race, maybe for its whole second half. Easy to apply, but not now.
@ LFS stats in multiclass : Yes, true, if you race slower cars some of your LFSW stats will never improve. But these are only podium results, and I'm not sure how many people take care about this. True, Airio takes these numbers into account when calculating the Experience Index, but they are only a very small portion of the total number. LFSEI favors variability, giving higher value to people racing at different tracks with different cars. Multiclass servers are in fact ideal to raise your LFSEI. That is, if you care about that number.
@ track voting : I see two options here: 1) Disable voting, so that all tracks go in sequence, as they are prepared. If people really do not like the selected track, they may vote to end race, resulting in the next track in rotation being loaded. 2) Extend voting so that the recently or often used tracks start with a negative vote count, making it much harder to select them. In fact I'm already working on this addition.
@ rotations : My estimate would be that 75% of people currently using LFS are in fact bored after 1 hour or so on one track. Without rotations you don't have, I feel, any chance at running a popular server. By raising the racing standards I also mean that in time we may try to have a bit longer races or longer time between rotations. But not now.
@ track names : You may always type !track or just !tr to see the current track name and abbreviation. I'm not sure if this is displayed also for the upcoming track. But during track voting also both full name and abbreviation is shown.
@ race restarts : Very good point about sometimes too fast voting to restart the race. And it may get worse, if not tackled now, once faster cars are on track. We may prolong the time for which restart voting is not accepted. An interesting new option could be to disable faster restarts by voting once the countdown starts, so that people always know they have 60 seconds and be sure the race will not start earlier.
Yes, and getting everyone into the same boat was the primary reason for removing all the online good clean lap times (which are WRs in custom cars). As explained above, it is not a perfectly exact system, a bit of luck will always play its role, but it is certainly better than it was before.
My insufficient description of one item in one of the Airio configuration files had an undesired effect – for months it was much much easier to make "clean" lap on CG than on any other server using Airio default settings. Unfortunately these clean laps were sometimes obviously wrong (car completely off the track), so thats why the unpopular move.
I'm sorry to make people unhappy or even angry by deleting some of their precious data. On the other hand I'm happy to see these AIRW features are valued additions to LFS racing, because developing them took considerable amount of time and energy.
Ah, thanks for the comments! Actually, I'm not sure about points. As I wrote above, for now there are no points for anything, no ranks. But will this be acceptable? The problem with multiclass racing could be that the people in slower cars have a hard time to know at what position they race and what is their race result. Race points help in this respect. Airio also reports to everyone his current position in his class, using the timing buttons. The ultimate tool could be client-side Aonio with nice overview of the people you're actually racing with on a multiclass server. Anyway, what do you think about points? Yes or no? Keep in mind that even if points/ranks are used anyone will be free to hide all this info, completely.
Yes, and inactive as well. But at 7:30 in the European morning it is kind of impossible to have full server. Check it out again the the afternoon/evening. Events. Eh. Why not, later on. But events usually have relatively short life. At first many people are interested, but then the interest is waning and it all dies on itself...
But at 7:30 in the European morning it is kind of impossible to have full server. Check it out again the the afternoon/evening. Events. Eh. Why not, later on. But events usually have relatively short life. At first many people are interested, but then the interest is waning and it all dies on itself...Not bad 1st day from server startup, not bad at all! Some nice racing with reasonably-sized grids, though mostly in the GTI category only (for now). Time for some feedback from you, tell us please what you like and what you don't!
One thing I noticed: 90% of the drivers there were very experienced people, often closely knowing each other. On one hand this creates a friendly atmosphere, on the other it is not enough to keep any server running. I believe that we need to attract also the average and not-so-well known people, because they are always the masses that make servers populated and popular.
In no way that means the veterans should not go there. It just means that, as I see it, adjusting the server for experienced people never works in the long term (past first several days/weeks). That's why I believe having at least several car categories plus relatively quick track rotations is essential. Average people (count me among those) want choices (cars) and changes (tracks). And average people are the core of LFS public racing today. We may try to steer them towards more serious racing a bit, but there's no chance to make them suddenly love long races and static combos.
So, as I see it, and you're welcome to air your opinion, the primary task is to make the server popular, acceptable for beginners, average, and advanced people, the secondary then to attempt to raise the racing standards. That is the way that could, maybe, work.
One thing I noticed: 90% of the drivers there were very experienced people, often closely knowing each other. On one hand this creates a friendly atmosphere, on the other it is not enough to keep any server running. I believe that we need to attract also the average and not-so-well known people, because they are always the masses that make servers populated and popular.
In no way that means the veterans should not go there. It just means that, as I see it, adjusting the server for experienced people never works in the long term (past first several days/weeks). That's why I believe having at least several car categories plus relatively quick track rotations is essential. Average people (count me among those) want choices (cars) and changes (tracks). And average people are the core of LFS public racing today. We may try to steer them towards more serious racing a bit, but there's no chance to make them suddenly love long races and static combos.
So, as I see it, and you're welcome to air your opinion, the primary task is to make the server popular, acceptable for beginners, average, and advanced people, the secondary then to attempt to raise the racing standards. That is the way that could, maybe, work.
Ya, XFR, sorry...
After seeing the responses above, mostly with interest and ideas, I, as the humble initiator of this experiment, feel obliged to take some real action.
Using the Genuine Racing generous offer I have created a server with some INITIAL configuration that will be hopefully sufficiently suitable for majority of interested people and the racing public as well. Note the word "initial", nothing is fixed, but we have to start somewhere.
The server is, FOR NOW, called MultiOpen GT Racing. Multi for the multi-team effort and also for the multi-class, which it will probably have to be, though limited. Open for the fact that it will be available to everyone. GT for the fact that I believe we should stick to GT cars for now, as the name of this thread suggests. Of course anything is open for discussion among the participating teams. The Racing part of the server name is obvious. I think we want to race and not to fool around.
I have created a new Airio PROS license for the virtual MultiOpen racing community and connected a clean and separate version (no stats) of the latest Airio version there. I also took the courage to prepare complete INITIAL Airio configuration, using many of the above proposed things. I believe the configuration is sufficiently simplistic, yet suitable for the intended purpose.
The configuration contains safety levels, set initially by LFS Experience Index and then updated based on performance on track, as you all probably know. The initial rating will be for any real experienced people set quite high, for example to 62.50% for experience above 300 and to 77.50% for LFSEI above 600 with many other steps.
For now I would propose to stick with 3 slower GT categories. Please remember that we are in a kind of testing phase. We test primarily the ability to reach some consensus considering server setup acceptable to the general racing community. Please note that everyone of us must make some compromises, or this whole idea will be a complete failure right from the start (as some are already suggesting).
For now I have made available the following cars: XFG, XRG, XFR, UFR. They are FOR NOW separated into 3 categores (classes): GTI (XFG+XRG), GTJ (Junior GT, XFR+UFR with air restriction something over 20%), GTL (Light GT, XFR+UFR). GTI cars are always available. For GTJ people need SR of 55%, for GTL a SR of 65% or above. I would hope these ratings will be available to many right from the start and for other they are not so far away.
The safety ratings are grouped and in effect say what highest category may the people use. Examples are GTI Open and GTL Open. There are no points for anything and no ranks. I wonder if this will be an acceptable deviation from the now-widely-accepted standard. Again, your opinions are most welcome and changes certainly possible. There are 6 levels of licenses for good average lap (several continuous laps) times prepared, but again, we may remove this in case the majority considers the feature useless. Personally, I like licenses based on average lap time.
Track rotation is defined, with basically all LFS tracks except the shortest ones. Track voting is available, for now without limiting recently used tracks, which would require Airio update. Laps are set so that the races are somewhere around 10 minutes long. Again, please note that any updates are possible if desired, nobody is trying to force anything upon anyone. But there are things that will work, might work, probably won't work, and certainly won't work. Compromises are necessary.
OK, last thing concerning the server config. All the team leaders expressing here the willingness to try this experiment have virtual admin rights on the server. (Others may be easily added.) That means they can use in essence all LFS commands, just via their Airio equivalents (instead of /msg it is !msg, with slight variations). But this is in fact the major test. Will we all be able to use the power for the good of the project? Good server administrator never solves personal disputes by these powers, exhibits restraints, shows generosity and friendliness, accepts racing incidents, does not escalate disputes, is willing to be an impartial negotiator for others, etc. Also please do not use the available commands for ad-hoc changes to server/Airio config. These need to be discussed first.
Well, OK. Maybe we could give it a try! When you feel good, just jump over to the MultiOpen GT Racing server, take a look around, read what is written, see if it makes sense, make notes about what you like and what you don't. Any constructive comment that takes into account what is in the current state of LFS possible is welcome. See you there!
Using the Genuine Racing generous offer I have created a server with some INITIAL configuration that will be hopefully sufficiently suitable for majority of interested people and the racing public as well. Note the word "initial", nothing is fixed, but we have to start somewhere.
The server is, FOR NOW, called MultiOpen GT Racing. Multi for the multi-team effort and also for the multi-class, which it will probably have to be, though limited. Open for the fact that it will be available to everyone. GT for the fact that I believe we should stick to GT cars for now, as the name of this thread suggests. Of course anything is open for discussion among the participating teams. The Racing part of the server name is obvious. I think we want to race and not to fool around.
I have created a new Airio PROS license for the virtual MultiOpen racing community and connected a clean and separate version (no stats) of the latest Airio version there. I also took the courage to prepare complete INITIAL Airio configuration, using many of the above proposed things. I believe the configuration is sufficiently simplistic, yet suitable for the intended purpose.
The configuration contains safety levels, set initially by LFS Experience Index and then updated based on performance on track, as you all probably know. The initial rating will be for any real experienced people set quite high, for example to 62.50% for experience above 300 and to 77.50% for LFSEI above 600 with many other steps.
For now I would propose to stick with 3 slower GT categories. Please remember that we are in a kind of testing phase. We test primarily the ability to reach some consensus considering server setup acceptable to the general racing community. Please note that everyone of us must make some compromises, or this whole idea will be a complete failure right from the start (as some are already suggesting).
For now I have made available the following cars: XFG, XRG, XFR, UFR. They are FOR NOW separated into 3 categores (classes): GTI (XFG+XRG), GTJ (Junior GT, XFR+UFR with air restriction something over 20%), GTL (Light GT, XFR+UFR). GTI cars are always available. For GTJ people need SR of 55%, for GTL a SR of 65% or above. I would hope these ratings will be available to many right from the start and for other they are not so far away.
The safety ratings are grouped and in effect say what highest category may the people use. Examples are GTI Open and GTL Open. There are no points for anything and no ranks. I wonder if this will be an acceptable deviation from the now-widely-accepted standard. Again, your opinions are most welcome and changes certainly possible. There are 6 levels of licenses for good average lap (several continuous laps) times prepared, but again, we may remove this in case the majority considers the feature useless. Personally, I like licenses based on average lap time.
Track rotation is defined, with basically all LFS tracks except the shortest ones. Track voting is available, for now without limiting recently used tracks, which would require Airio update. Laps are set so that the races are somewhere around 10 minutes long. Again, please note that any updates are possible if desired, nobody is trying to force anything upon anyone. But there are things that will work, might work, probably won't work, and certainly won't work. Compromises are necessary.
OK, last thing concerning the server config. All the team leaders expressing here the willingness to try this experiment have virtual admin rights on the server. (Others may be easily added.) That means they can use in essence all LFS commands, just via their Airio equivalents (instead of /msg it is !msg, with slight variations). But this is in fact the major test. Will we all be able to use the power for the good of the project? Good server administrator never solves personal disputes by these powers, exhibits restraints, shows generosity and friendliness, accepts racing incidents, does not escalate disputes, is willing to be an impartial negotiator for others, etc. Also please do not use the available commands for ad-hoc changes to server/Airio config. These need to be discussed first.
Well, OK. Maybe we could give it a try! When you feel good, just jump over to the MultiOpen GT Racing server, take a look around, read what is written, see if it makes sense, make notes about what you like and what you don't. Any constructive comment that takes into account what is in the current state of LFS possible is welcome.
See you there!
Last edited by EQ Worry, .
Reason : FXR -> XFR
Aonio 1.4.4 adds the option to play a file on every race start. More interesting (for some) is the new possibility to execute LFS/Aonio commands (such as to call prepared LFS scripts) in specific track nodes while driving a certain type of car.
Yes, I think that is a perfectly valid complain, and not the first one along these lines. Believe me, I'm trying to offer these additional functions and features in the best form I can make them. But there are things I cannot influence. These are mainly the data available from server to Airio.
For example there are car positions reported by the server, lets say 10 times a second. Are they exact? No way, they are approximate, projections of expected car positions from last known client data. There are some indications that client data are updated just about 2 times a second, so 8 out of these 10 reported positions are just expectations. But there is nothing else available.
The reported positions are used to check the race path. There is nothing like Airio racing line. For the race path check special files from LFS developers are used. Some of those are slightly adjusted, but always in driver-friendly way, making the proper racing path in fact wider or just correcting some obvious mistakes (such as on KY3 and KY3R).
There are routines running that allow the car to be seen shortly outside the proper path without invalidating the lap – they often help to cover for some small lags, but at the same time they need to be strict enough not to allow obvious cutting. Hard to find a balance.
Overall, sometimes people say that AIRW check for clean laps are stricter than LFSW checks. But they both work with different data. For example I hear LFSW needs to see 2 tyres on track. AIRW needs to see the car center on the track, it cannot reasonably check tyre positions and contact. AIRW cannot check touches of walls/objects, because such events are not reported (pity, it would be a nice addition).
So, the check is strict, yes. Also it cannot be perfectly equal for everyone, lags and luck do play a certain role. There are 2 things you can do to raise your chances for a "clean" lap. 1) Activate for yourself the Path Check display in !opt screen. Then you will see where the lap was actually announced not clean and why. 2) Ask server admins to be sure to use the latest path files. As mentioned, KY3 and other tracks offered slightly incorrect paths which I had to correct.
I understand the frustration. Be assured that I really tried to make equal conditions for everyone, but there are limitations to what is possible. Also, it will be pretty hard to make clean laps on populated servers. Much better would be to try an empty server with Airio PROS allowing all cars and track. We've had this Genuine Hotlapping server running specifically for this purpose, I must check if it is still online, and if not (as it seems), check if we can make it run again.
For example there are car positions reported by the server, lets say 10 times a second. Are they exact? No way, they are approximate, projections of expected car positions from last known client data. There are some indications that client data are updated just about 2 times a second, so 8 out of these 10 reported positions are just expectations. But there is nothing else available.
The reported positions are used to check the race path. There is nothing like Airio racing line. For the race path check special files from LFS developers are used. Some of those are slightly adjusted, but always in driver-friendly way, making the proper racing path in fact wider or just correcting some obvious mistakes (such as on KY3 and KY3R).
There are routines running that allow the car to be seen shortly outside the proper path without invalidating the lap – they often help to cover for some small lags, but at the same time they need to be strict enough not to allow obvious cutting. Hard to find a balance.
Overall, sometimes people say that AIRW check for clean laps are stricter than LFSW checks. But they both work with different data. For example I hear LFSW needs to see 2 tyres on track. AIRW needs to see the car center on the track, it cannot reasonably check tyre positions and contact. AIRW cannot check touches of walls/objects, because such events are not reported (pity, it would be a nice addition).
So, the check is strict, yes. Also it cannot be perfectly equal for everyone, lags and luck do play a certain role. There are 2 things you can do to raise your chances for a "clean" lap. 1) Activate for yourself the Path Check display in !opt screen. Then you will see where the lap was actually announced not clean and why. 2) Ask server admins to be sure to use the latest path files. As mentioned, KY3 and other tracks offered slightly incorrect paths which I had to correct.
I understand the frustration. Be assured that I really tried to make equal conditions for everyone, but there are limitations to what is possible. Also, it will be pretty hard to make clean laps on populated servers. Much better would be to try an empty server with Airio PROS allowing all cars and track. We've had this Genuine Hotlapping server running specifically for this purpose, I must check if it is still online, and if not (as it seems), check if we can make it run again.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG