Thanks, Franky, for confirmation. In that case everything is correct and updates using the TC admin panel at 500servers should work reliably.
In fact it doesn't respond to many commands due to the error. This is caused by wrong (old) library included in the first published 2.4.0 version. If you can update the application yourself, just please download it again using direct link in my signature below, make sure the one DLL file is of April 16th, and overwrite your existing one (of April 8th, I believe). Everything should work then. Sorry for the mistake, I corrected it about 2 days ago. In case you've updated using 500servers update option, please let me know, I'd have to send new file to Franky...
I think the FBM server is doing pretty good. A month or two ago I removed many limads, because there was such a high number of forced actions: kicks/bans and race restarts. As the situation stands now I think it is still one of the most popular FBM demo servers around, so probably the racing there isn't as horrid as Stig suggests...
But it is true beginners could have a hard time there, and if they're constantly causing troubles they are usually kicked or even banned for a short time. That is a necessary measure - though we'd like to support newbies, sometimes inability to control the car cannot be tolerated, because it spoils racing for so many other people.
Stig, when you're able to get into the Airio stats (which requires lap time of 1:16.50 or something like that, still 3 seconds below your best), try racing there again. Currently you are unable to control the car (I watched you for a while, you crash on average twice in every lap) and any talk about horrid racing there is meaningless. Also general talk about demo people unable to race reasonably sounds rather funny...
Sorry for being maybe a bit harsh, but I have big troubles accepting a "verdict" from a person with such poor stats. Of course lap time isn't everything, but there are limits to what lap time allows for some possibility of actual racing, and 1:20 isn't such time...
But it is true beginners could have a hard time there, and if they're constantly causing troubles they are usually kicked or even banned for a short time. That is a necessary measure - though we'd like to support newbies, sometimes inability to control the car cannot be tolerated, because it spoils racing for so many other people.
Stig, when you're able to get into the Airio stats (which requires lap time of 1:16.50 or something like that, still 3 seconds below your best), try racing there again. Currently you are unable to control the car (I watched you for a while, you crash on average twice in every lap) and any talk about horrid racing there is meaningless. Also general talk about demo people unable to race reasonably sounds rather funny...
Sorry for being maybe a bit harsh, but I have big troubles accepting a "verdict" from a person with such poor stats. Of course lap time isn't everything, but there are limits to what lap time allows for some possibility of actual racing, and 1:20 isn't such time...
Last edited by EQ Worry, .
Airio 2.4.0
Oh yes, I had to change the message a bit, because it was too long and also car type was required. You may put it back by overwriting default Airio definition in MSG files. This new message is not included in the files yet, I'll be doing this update soon. Just use e.g. BlueFlagShort=Give way to in EN file...
Airio 2.4.0 is available. It corrects all known/reported bugs and imperfections, extends AVG info, improves and stores LFSEI data (!exs), adds two more safety rating events, extends summary info about currently connected people (!pls and !plx), and adds total points as a possible grid sorting option.
This version is supposed to stay as the most recent now for some time, before substantial update is available. Soon I'll be contacting user messages translators asking them to add new lines, so that localizations are complete once again. Check the downloads page sometimes.
Hm, I do not quite see how could /restart and voting lead to different results, but it is good it works for you. 
One small note: All the config changes (and I mean all) in CFG, TCD, SRV can be very simply applied by using !rld admin command. Airio restart is practically never needed, because !rld will do all the necessary work.
One small note: All the config changes (and I mean all) in CFG, TCD, SRV can be very simply applied by using !rld admin command. Airio restart is practically never needed, because !rld will do all the necessary work.Indeed it is.
But in my view WR+5% is not a good lap at all, it is simply a lap, and there's no reason to raise SR based on such a lap above the standard raise applied on every lap finished. And sure it is easier to go off the track than to make a good lap, but I believe it was the whole point of this additional option. My general suggestion, reflected in default settings, is to keep good lap at WR+2% and give a small SR raise for that. Also apply a small decrease for all visits ouside the track except the 1st one in race.Default (customizable) relative SR weights: Lap finished = 50, Race finished = 100, Yellow flag caused = -100, Good lap in race = 20, Going off the track in race = -20.
Indeed it is the one, 200 means 2 percent (above WR). Any better lap time will in race increase SR by the configured weight. What is wrong with using the same value of a good lap for two (or more) purposes? I think it is logical. Admin defines a good lap and that definition is used to set good lap points and good lap safery rating increases.
Yes, it means CheckRacePath, sorry for the misleading name. I believe you've set everything correctly and it should work. Some things that may cause problems: The check works only during a race (not e.g. in qualification), it checks only cars that are one or more laps ahead of the returning car (not in the same lap), and it actives when the joining car is seen as leaving the pitlane. The last condition could be actually limiting on some tracks, where there is a very small gap between end of pitlane and start of proper race path. Before Airio receives pitlane leave event, the car may already be on race path and no check is done. However the check should always work on track with separated pitlane, such as the BL1/2 tracks.
Indeed I was thinking the same and I'll do this in the upcoming 2.4.0.
Very generally speaking, giving precedence to higher ranked people seems to me somehow demotivating considering new people. Highly ranked people in front means they'll be getting yet more points and for a newcomer the situation may be unbearable. But maybe you'd like to use reversed ranks?
Anyway, I'll see if this is reasonably implementable, maybe with the three other major kinds of points (champ, playing, driving).1) I'll probably slightly adjust the hotlap index, allowing laps up to 2% better than WR, starting at WR+4%, then 3, 2, 1, and ending at 0.5% or better lap time (currently it is 3, 2, 1, 0.5, 0.1%). The downside is that Airios older than 2.4.0 will display slightly different averall index value. I'll try to do such changes that small adjustments in the future will not depend on Airio versions used.
2) Indeed it is a good lap as defined in the TCD file. By default that value is WR+2% and it seems to be reasonable. But of course it can be adjusted globally or for individual track/car combos and set either as percentage or absolute value.
2) Indeed it is a good lap as defined in the TCD file. By default that value is WR+2% and it seems to be reasonable. But of course it can be adjusted globally or for individual track/car combos and set either as percentage or absolute value.
In that case it could be that one of your near-WR lap times went too much below WR, is seen as gained by cheating or heavy drafting, and as such is ignored completely.
Something like this would not be easy to implement. First you'd need to know what cars are enabled. And that is a problem, it is not readily available info. (An option could be to manually specify available cars in config.) Then a cycle through all these cars would have to run, simulating race joins and seeing when that would and would not be possible. Still, no doubt it would be great enhancement and I'll try to work on it. For now pls use the optional custom additional text that can appear on each spectate for different reasons.
Yup, good ideas! Also relatively easy to add, which is also important
Yellow flag is caused just once regardless of number of cars behind you. Also there is a configurable delay factor ignoring new yellow flag raises, by default set as FlagDelay=15. You can raise it to give people more time to recover from yellow condition.
I did not "fix" the index, I just asked you to type !exr (experience refresh). This command shows your last known EI and then asks LFSW for update, displaying current EI a few seconds later. And, exactly as pik_d says, it may happen that e.g. offline (uploaded) hotlap data are not downloaded (maybe because one of the LFSW keys configured is used elsewhere, occasionally blocking the Airio request), and then your EI would seemingly go down. Refresh usually helps.
People at LFS Spain are using average times to separate drivers into categories for the main Monday event. (If I'm not mistaken.) Average times are a good choice for this purpose, because they mostly eliminates lucky/drafted lap times.
Hehe, I know panels sometime looks good, but they carry with themselves all kinds of troubles. First, they need their own buttons and in Airio I'm basically out of LFS available button ID numbers. True, I could optimize the ID usage so that two buttons that can never appear at the same time share one ID, but such changes would require extra care and time and I cannot do this currently. Then there is the panel position. People have different ideas about the places where panels should be shown. Best way of course is to make panel position (maybe even size) customization possible and stored in personal profile, but again I do not have time now to make this available, it involves many changes.
But all the talk about information people need to see about average laps in essence boils down to just three rather simple things: total number of laps required by AVG, you current lap in that count, and time of the current lap needed for AVG improvement. Times from previous laps are really unimportant, people need to see what lap time they must do now to improve.
Also the question of when some bad lap falls out of the current AVG lap frame can be answered easily. Whenever it becomes clear you cannot improve your AVG (because lap time required is way below your current PB lap time), the info shown in one of the timing buttons will be A1/3 meaning you're on 1st lap of three total. The 2nd button could show lap time needed to improve your average, in this situation it will be your current AVG time - 0.01. But of course you're only on lap 1 of 3, so the time shown is in fact average needed in the next three laps.
Heh, maybe it sounds complicated at first, but I believe it shows all relevant info and (what is also important) it could be relatively easy to implement it, meaning we can have it in one or two weeks (hopefully). If you then see the info given is really insufficient, we may try some improvements.
I understand, but creating such a panel is rather complicated, because potentially it may contain any number of past laps. So I do not think that is the way to go. But I see some info about average lap time is necessary. My first thought was to include that info somehow into the timing buttons. I think you essentially need to know just two things:
1) On what (possible) average best lap you are. You could see say A2/3, after making one complete lap while 3 are necessary for AB, or A3/3 on every other lap, because you are in a potentially AB improving lap.
2) What (average) lap time you need in this lap to improve your AB. When A2/3 is shown the lap time will be average of the 2 remaining laps, when A3/3 the lap time will be simply current lap time.
I believe these two are the essential data, somehow color-coded and displayed only if reasonable, say if time required is max 1% under your current PB, not more. These can (optionally) replace possible lap time and current speed included in the timing buttons (top of the screen) and will be updated on every lap finish. How does that sound? (Sorry, I'm trying to keep things simple.
)Yes, sounds nice and useful. To honor other commnd names, I'd probably call it !players or !pls, because it is more detailed data about connected people.
Indeed, that is why LFS EI was created in the 1st place. Of course all depends on the particular server admins and the way they choose to do things, but both IHR and cargame are currently using EI to enable faster cars based on rank (points) OR past experience (EI).
Latest Airio (2.3.9) can even assign initial safety rating based on EI, meaning e.g. people with experience of 700 can drive GT2 and all slower cars (GTL, TBO, STD, ...) straight away and they also get say 80% of safety rating on 1st connect. But SR is another limiting factor and if it goes down car classes may become unavailable regardless of EI.
Yup, despite the title (and initial post) this thread is surprisingly calm and serious and may even lead somewhere.
I like the "credits for repairs" idea too. If only LFS reported damages it could be fun developing such a system, either server-based or "global", implemented using some InSim app or (maybe) LFS World...
What a thread... 
Just a few comments from me:
1) Why not ban people causing crashes in T1? Problem is you get crashed in T1, you say "idi*ts", but that is so simple! But who in fact is the idi*t responsible? When you check replay (which obviously no one ever bothers), in 75 percents (or even more) of cases there's no one specific to blame, it is simply small lags or small mistakes leading to HUGE crashes because of LFS collision detection.
2) InSims like Airio can help to get rid of laggy cars, but what would need to be changed is the collision system itself. Here I completely agree with cargame.nl and others - new car/track/physics may be nice, but collision detection needs substantial correction NOW. Cars flying 60 meters high when before hitting a barrier they were moving at 30 kmph? Huh! That says it all.
3) LFS EI (experience index) and SR (safety rating) as implemented in Airio have their flaws, no doubt about that. But on average they work surprisingly well taking the limited-usability data they need to rely on. EI uses LFSW data only and Franky is right winning your category on a multiclass server doesn't mean you've won a race in LFSW stats. But there's nothing I can do about that. On the other hand such a win is one minute part of the overall index and it really does not influence much. Same with SR. No doubt people can be taken out by others (resulting in SR drop), but average SR value of decent drivers will be much higher than of the careless ones.
4) Best LFS racing is without any InSim. Well, no doubt for some people. But insims are actually adding things to LFS that you have in real races - timing data, points, etc. Also such systems could make server administration much easier with things like easy recall/ban of recently disconnected people or custom banning system that let you see who is banned by whom and for how long. Server admins usually find such things (and many others) rather useful.
5) LFSEI is to a large extent an experimental thing. Because it is based purely on LFSW data the best thing possible would be when it is calculated and available right at the LFSW. If Victor wants to add such a thing, I'd gladly submit/discuss the way it is calculated (and which looks very reasonably). But recently I was sending some other ideas to both main developers (direct support of some restricted cars like GT2s or UFBs, both in game and stats, time-limited demo but with REV BL tracks, completely open sites for custom tracks) and I got no response. So...
Just a few comments from me:1) Why not ban people causing crashes in T1? Problem is you get crashed in T1, you say "idi*ts", but that is so simple! But who in fact is the idi*t responsible? When you check replay (which obviously no one ever bothers), in 75 percents (or even more) of cases there's no one specific to blame, it is simply small lags or small mistakes leading to HUGE crashes because of LFS collision detection.
2) InSims like Airio can help to get rid of laggy cars, but what would need to be changed is the collision system itself. Here I completely agree with cargame.nl and others - new car/track/physics may be nice, but collision detection needs substantial correction NOW. Cars flying 60 meters high when before hitting a barrier they were moving at 30 kmph? Huh! That says it all.
3) LFS EI (experience index) and SR (safety rating) as implemented in Airio have their flaws, no doubt about that. But on average they work surprisingly well taking the limited-usability data they need to rely on. EI uses LFSW data only and Franky is right winning your category on a multiclass server doesn't mean you've won a race in LFSW stats. But there's nothing I can do about that. On the other hand such a win is one minute part of the overall index and it really does not influence much. Same with SR. No doubt people can be taken out by others (resulting in SR drop), but average SR value of decent drivers will be much higher than of the careless ones.
4) Best LFS racing is without any InSim. Well, no doubt for some people. But insims are actually adding things to LFS that you have in real races - timing data, points, etc. Also such systems could make server administration much easier with things like easy recall/ban of recently disconnected people or custom banning system that let you see who is banned by whom and for how long. Server admins usually find such things (and many others) rather useful.
5) LFSEI is to a large extent an experimental thing. Because it is based purely on LFSW data the best thing possible would be when it is calculated and available right at the LFSW. If Victor wants to add such a thing, I'd gladly submit/discuss the way it is calculated (and which looks very reasonably). But recently I was sending some other ideas to both main developers (direct support of some restricted cars like GT2s or UFBs, both in game and stats, time-limited demo but with REV BL tracks, completely open sites for custom tracks) and I got no response. So...
Last edited by EQ Worry, .
Reason : Removed useless rant...
The LFS Experience Index is intended primarily to allow LFS veterans to pick up any car on (Airio FULL/PROS) multiclass servers, because there were valid complaints about having to start repeatedly with slow cars whenever a new server becomes popular. There is currently only one server using EI to actually prohibit any racing for LFS newbies. The limit is set to 200 there (Intermediate level) and it is the nature of LFSEI to grow fast from the start. I think getting from 0 to 200 will not take more than a week of one or two hours a day racing on other servers. And this ensures new people gain basic understanding of LFS and the racing principles.
I completely agree that too many limits on new people could hurt LFS and I'd hate to see EI used extensively and with high demands. But my private opinion is this will not happen, because server popularity depends on new and average drivers, not on a few veterans with alienish lap times.
Attempts to create servers with too many limitations are failing repeatedly.Great, thanks! This 2nd correction is still numbered 2.3.9a and solves two troubles discovered in the initial 2.3.9 FULL release: 1) Assigning correct safety class (if defined) to new people. 2) Aligning output of !pl, !rn, !lb with control buttons. It does not contain fix of the above reported failing repeated spectating, but that is not a functional bug.
Ah, right, thx for these reports! It is not a serious matter, just a nuisance, but certainly I'll try to have a look at it asap! 
Because this command removes everyone, but does not report drivers as removed (spectated), which leads to all kind of troubles, such as the above reported ones.
Because this command removes everyone, but does not report drivers as removed (spectated), which leads to all kind of troubles, such as the above reported ones.
Very good point! Indeed it is one of the things that were fixed in 2.3.9. Potentially very long output screens such as !rs or !gr or !pi will be split in two with Previous and Following buttons active if necessary.
Initiating safety rating by LFSEI is already implemented in Airio 2.3.9, hopefully available soon for update at 500servers. Note however that this concerns only 1st time connects and once it gets (custom) initial value and 1st change, it will go up or down just like for everyone else. Also note that SR takes precedence and when it drops certain car classes will not be available regardless of rank or EI...
Though it is not on me to defend/explain anyone, I'd like to add a few comments to this interesting notion: "They DARED to ban some good drivers."
Sounds like such people should be protected and called demigods just because they're fast? I'm afraid it doesn't work that way on any public server. I hold great respect to any WR holder, but I would never hesitate to ban him for a time if he's spoiling the server atmosphere. How could that be possible? Read on.
Great driving skills are cool and they're great to use during pro-like private/series racing, but they need to be adjusted (quite a lot) to public servers. Fast people can't expect everyone around handles the car just as well as they do and know where to leave space and when to close a gap. Anyone expecting such professionality from average LFS people will end up crashed, pretty soon every other race.
Very often this leads to abuses of other drivers, swearing, calling admins/server various names, because they're not banning "crashers", and inevitably in the end by getting a ban (short one, hopefully). See the logic? It is not possible to ban average people just because they're not pro-like. And if pro-like people cannot adjust and start shouting, it can have only one conclusion...
I think there's currently only one server requiring the (online) experience points to drive even the slowest cars. I know you run into troubles also on one other server, but that was because of the system little bug (apparent only under the specific settings there), corrected now.
Airio 2.3.9
Airio consolidation version is available, numbered 2.3.9. It does not bring substantial new things but (hopefully) solves all known past bugs (some very well hidden or apparent only under specific circumstances) and inconsistencies (e.g. in the new tabulated output). My suggestion to all 2.3.8 users is to move to 2.3.9 simply by updating EXE/PDB/DLL files. The new version should also be soon available to all 500server clients for simple update.
Nice idea, hopefully available in the next version...
Nice idea, hopefully available in the next version...
I can think of only one explanation for the different !pts and !pi values: Probably you had no PB time stored on the FEx track you were racing on? If there is no PB, there is no place to store the points that add up to the rank. Server PB will not be stored if path check is constantly failing. In that case Airio would display something like "PB was not stored due to failed path check" at the end of each lap. That message means you were seen outside of the proper track (cutting corners too much, losing control somewhere). Path check is similar to HLVC, just not as exact and not as strict.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG