As I wrote, pro problem is the AIRW - new PB ... message was not displayed. Based on this message your AIRW PBs would have been reloaded, just as when you reconnect or type !exr. But why the message was not displayed? From airio.eu server log it seems the correct message was returned, or attempted to be returned. Then a simple /msg should be used in Airio, but somehow this has not happened. I checked the existing code and it seems OK. No communication timeout error or something in the log?

The problem is there's no AIRW - new FX2 PB by... message. That shows that for some reason the lap time was not processed. I do not have logs available on the server that would show every detail. It may be worth to check Airio log and see if there's an error returned...

Hm, the interesting fact is that 1:58.31 is in fact stored in the database for FXR and 23% air restriction. And the log also shows response was returned:

10.09.12 15:54:55 AIRW_crr_PR2 : AS7+FX2 - AIRW - new FX2 PB by cargame.nl: ^71:58.31 (-0:00.79)

But it seems it never reached the server... I will try to dig a bit deeper into it, the AIRW message should be shown. Please search the local logs...

Last edited by EQ Worry, Sun, 12 Sep 2010 17:19.

Indeed! I will correct that when a new version with a few fixes is released...

The interesting thing is that in other TS3 areas the notification is already available. ServerQuery clients can connect and ask to be notified about other people joining and leaving, both server and specific channel(s), and about messages being written, in the lobby or in specific channel(s). This notification scheme works very well. The only addition needed is notification about someone started/stopped talking. No polling necessary, just receiving simple status updates when they happen... If you're in TS3 forum, maybe you could also mention it somewhere. I believe I started a "requested feature" thread asking for this principle to be implemented. Support from more people could do miracles.

Nice, BUT... I'm afraid it is practically impossible to use this info. Aonio would have to query the server and ask for a list of currently connected people basically every second, to be sure the talking event is captured and to provide reasonably up-to-date data. But I do not think this is possible. Can you imagine e.g. five Aonios connected as queries to one TS3 server, each asking for the client info every second? It is simply monstrous waste of the server resources.

Also such TS3 servers would have to be used without anti-spam protection, making them vulnerable to attacks. What would really be cool to have and what I'm waiting for is notification when someone starts and stops talking. Then I'd love to add display of currently talking guy(s) to Aonio. But making 3600 requests for the same data every hour sounds simply insane...

Quote from boothy :

When I joined cargame.nl S2 yesterday, I got a constant stream of something like "ITS_BTN - Invalid Dimensions" Think the server was in the process of choosing a new track...

Ooooooh, yes, I see! Good point! I'll try to correct this omission, somehow... Uhm...

Hehe, actually, I think there were ideas that seem good to me. From don't repair what is not broken (slight majority, it seems), through extend demo by reversed BL tracks (very good idea, mine ), to allow creation of cars and tracks and choose the best to be officially included. Otherwise... uhm...

Quote from John Hilton :

Well i think this is one of my longer threads

Yeah! Well, I sort of lost track long ago... But it was a good intention... Planning a new one?

Quote from Easy_Mike :

Ill try that setup as soon as possible. ... No need to hold the 2.5.0 release as it seams im the only one having a trouble setting it up.

OK.

Quote from cargame.nl :

One final 'undocumented feature' is reported but it doesn't appear in the changelog yet as fixed. I still would like to see !st publicly available by the way.

Uhm, I'm not sure what the undocumented feature is. And right about !st, but maybe I'll add some more overview info there first...

Quote from Easy_Mike :

i change the string to: 25, 28, 22, 2 > 1 > 0 > 0 > -1 > -1 >...

Mike, if you can, please try using the definition for example as:

DynamicIntake=25, 3, 3, 2 > 1 > 0 > 0 > -1 > -1 > -1

That would mean the base intake restriction is 25 and it can go 3% up or 3% down, that is between 22 and 28. I'm not sure if your definition can cause the behavior you experienced, but certainly it is not correct. Basically, the up/down change is relative and not absolute number. If you'll be testing, please let me know how it went. Also sending the Airio log, if it still doesn't work, would be really helpful. You may also find !hcs and !hc commands useful in checking the configuration.

Last edited by EQ Worry, Tue, 7 Sep 2010 11:31.

Quote from Deejayyaj :

"You are now ready to join" < when you're spectating and this message shows.

This is available only in the FULL version.

Quote from Deejayyaj :

"Don't enter track now" <-- message coming out of pitlane when race is started.

This should work in FREE version as well, but you need to install path files (see Airio download page) and also CheckRacePath in SRV must be set to true.

Quote from Deejayyaj :

Is there a way for me to get race results in HTML?

There is an external tool, LFStats i believe, working with replays and doing nice output. Airio has no support for results output.

Quote from cargame.nl :

As soon as I leave current track out of the rotation string, Airio does not know that it needs to rotate anymore. ... Why is there track loading after ending a rotation and during the next track voting?

I hope both these things are already solved in the upcoming Airio 2.5.0.

Quote from Easy_Mike :

... im working with the dynamik intake thingy. and ill try to explain what ive done and whats not working. i might done something wrong or it is a bug. ... 25, 28, 22, 2 > 1 > 0 > 0 > -1 > -1

Hi Mike! I'll try to take a look at this before releasing 2.5.0. When we were testing the feature with R2R some months ago, it seemed to be working OK, so a new test is needed...

Yes, nice... You know, on our demo servers we're do not differentiate between licensed and demo people. But anyway: The first crash was a clear lag crash, cars flying like mad after a little touch. (You know THIS is the thing developers should address, the funny [not really funny] collision detection system, not some obscure tyre physics.) Who's fault was it? Eh, both, I'd say, for not keeping safe distance. But what Vilzuu did then was wrong and for that he got 12 hours ban. Nothing more is necessary, I feel. For now.

Unfortunately vote abuse is always possible. On the other hand 80% or even 90% of votes are correct and they can really help decent people to get rid of problematic guys, so turning off the voting is not an option. Best way to deal with this is to save replay (or go to the MPR folder under LFS and rename temp.mpr, which contains the last race) and post it here. The downside is that usually before any admin has a chance to look at it the ban expires, because it is just 12 hours...

I'm afraid it is not as easy to adjust positions by required pitstops. Aonio relies with race positions on simple data provided by LFS and taking them only as a base and doing recalculations would be no doubt possible, but not simple. And I'm really not sure the output would be improved. As it is not, you have info about people who did a pitstop already, and how many of them. That should be enough info to assess relative race positions... But adjusting positions artificially, I'm really not sure it is a good idea...

@ Okram : OK, I'll see what is possible and will let you know once an updated with this info is ready.

@ Franky : Great, thanks! I will send complete files again when 2.5.0 is released. I plan to add some things that are missing, it should be done in two to four weeks from now.

Thanks for the replay. Certainly, that is an intentional crashing. On the other hand Buga has some history on AA, around 800 laps and Clean status, so I guess it was just a kind of desperation that made him do such things, probably because he was crashed out at the race start by someone else. But certainly he needs to calm down and see it was not right, so I made 7 days ban...

The servers list is generated based on information sent every minute from each running Airio. Information is compiled, summarized, tabularized. May be I could create a procedure there that would make some very simple document/file with server name, Airio version, and perhaps number of connected/racing people, maybe also some state data (not sure). Your script could ask for this file, and parse/process it.

Well, I'd like to see such a feature as well. Unfortunately, to my rather big surprise, the query interface of TS3 servers does not (it seems) support any information concerning currently talking people. It responds to various queries and can notify connected clients about certain events (people joining, writing messages), but the talking side of TS3 is rather neglected in this area. So, concerning Aonio, I'm stuck. I filed a TS3 feature request, we may hope TS developers will take notice and consider it a worthy (hopefully simple as well) addition to the query interface.

But during testing I discovered the written messages work rather well. Connected query client can send messages to channels and individual people, it can respond to messages on server, in channels and also to private messages. It can keep info about all connected TS3 users, and, this is the interesting part, it can respond to their messages. Airio supports IRC now. It can connect to an IRC channel and allow all channel operators to connect to any LFS server as a host, talk, issue commands (like e.g. in Remote). I intend to add support for TS3 as well, in a very similar manner.

In case 5haz ever returns to this thread (sorry again for missing it for so long!), I have a question: Which of the current popular demo servers you see as going the right way? Simply put, which demo servers are better than AA by your standards? Check out the other servers and then compare. Enjoy the "races" for 3 laps (4 minutes, doh), which put a totally new perspective to the old saying "race is not won in the first corner". Oh dear, sure it is. What I mean is simple: To be popular, you cannot be too strict. Average and worse people vote with their feet then and go elsewhere, to more open environment, and the advanced people follow. That's how it works.

Quote from dadge :

i'm taking the only approach a business can take to still be here in the future. ... your problem is that you're looking at LFS as a community when infact it's actually a business. ... don't get caught up on the community side of LFS. at the end of the day, we're only paying customers

Man, doesn't it sound depressing? I concede you may be right, but it would be so sad. You know, I do not believe devs created and were updating LFS for the business side of it, to make money. I still think it was for the fun and good time they had, with incoming money as an after-effect and not primary intention. But of course it may be an idealistic view, the same one that applies to me and Airio development.

But in the long run, you're probably right. If we had active development going on, serious updates appearing every few months, then I'd say it is a business, there could be a fee for the updates and many people would pay gladly, demo could be restricted, because the weight of LFS would reside elsewhere.

But LFS is not business now, in my eyes, because the "busy" side of the matter is gone. I think it only keeps running thanks to the community, especially the demo community, and that's why I think it is so important and worth direct support and boost. LFS today stands strongly on demo.

Final general note: Please understand that with my views and proposals to give more to demo people I'm not trying to enrage anyone. They are just proposals based on what I see and what I think would be good for LFS as a whole. Everyone is perfectly entitled to have his own quite opposite opinions. All I hope for now is that devs will start to be active again and move things somewhere. Because some stirring is needed...

I think we're talking about two different things here. All that I'm suggesting is aimed at keeping and widening the LFS community, getting the "new blood" and bringing back the old one. I believe it is the more important thing today, starting in demo, where changes could be simple yet far-reaching. From this perspective, 75% of demo people is immense force, half the life in current LFS.

If you're saying that 75% of 0 is still 0, you take the pure money approach, and, simply put, I do not believe it will work, especially in the long run. Yes, a few hundred people will get license if forced to, which could make devs happy, but LFS community as a whole would suffer and bear the consequences.

Of course a view of one of the core developers would help, because it should be backed by tangible data. For example, what was the license buy rate and demo/licensed people online numbers before BL1R and BL2R were taken out of demo and after? Did it mean any change of tendency, and in what direction? What is the current tendency? They should know.

Just a few quick thoughts, all completely my error-prone views:

1) You'll not improve LFS user base by limiting demo in any way. Maybe 25% demo people will get a kind of licence, but 75% will simply disappear. Would you be happy if instead of 300/500 ratio of licensed/demo people there is 400/0? Would that be good for the future of LFS?

2) The are many demo people that are not interested in anything else. Price is not a problem, but they have their community and do not look for more (e.g. because of time spent in LFS). Limit demo and the communities will disintegrate.

3) If LFS was in a healthy state with ever expanding content and user base, you could think about limitations. But it is static for a long time now, that's why I'm proposing the opposite to limitations, to create new conditions for growth.

Well, sometimes I feel like devil's advocate, going against the tide... But it is my opinion. Wouldn't it be great if developers had any comment?

Yup, it is not easy to get there, especially on a popular server, where each close car invalidates your lap. Also lags can have negative effect, when you're seen by the server outside the racing path while in fact you're still on the path. Do not take extreme sides.

As the system is now, there's nothing preventing you from using drafting. Maybe drafting check could be implemented into Airio and drafted times ignored as new PBs going to !sb. But then all the PBs would have to be removed and I do not plan doing so. If you can make 1:11, go for it. True, your LFSW lap time would be spoiled, unclean. That's why there's also the AIRW lap time, guaranteed to be clean (no corner cutting, no drafting). See it here: http://stats.airio.eu/BLS.aspx?T=BL1&C=FBM. Be at peace, you're still 0.02 s faster than GCD concerning clean laps.

Yes, I have the message still open here for more detailed check, but I'm not sure anything can be done about it...

Woops, this very interesting thread completely escaped my attention. But what should I say?

To the first post maybe this: 5haz, if you want to see the servers as bad, nothing can stop you from doing so. My task, as I've been repeatedly saying, it a pretty simple one: To run popular demo servers. I have no higher goal. So far every attempt at applying any advanced standards than enforced by the system meant serious troubles. It is a demo world, you can't expect too much from any existing popular open server. Attempts to run "special" servers repeatedly fail for lack of interest among newbies and average drivers, leading to lack of interest from more experienced people. Anyway, AA now has two "Genuine" servers, which constantly run a time lock and minimal safety rating requirement. Both should ensure somehow higher standards, and sometimes those servers are used actually, which is great.

Concerning limads, yes, there were some problems recently, in fact there are almost always problems. The more limads there are, the more problems must be solved, the more often different views clash and disputes arise. That's why I did the cleaning 8 months ago and that's why I removed some other people recently. The ideal of having a bunch of limads doing great job individually and together as well is unreachable. But we have some highly experienced and trusted people now, who should never boast with their powers and who should simply use them effectively. But overall, I still think the less limads there are the smoothly the system actually runs, because it treats everyone the same, absolutely.

For GCDeme and Fatal: Guys... I don't get it. Why are you so obsessed about lap time? Yup, very probably it's been a drafted time. But can I do it? LOL, never. So I respect that time, it is a achievement, but basically that's where it ends, I will sleep tight anyway. And look what's happening here. One is boasting a bit, and another one cannot fail (again?) making comments leading to conflict, which it is. So, what can I tell you? The wiser one will simply drop the subject (maybe did already). Never, please, never let this exchange of unpleasant messages enter the server. Thank you.

Last edited by EQ Worry, Thu, 19 Aug 2010 19:33.