Just find the item in CFG file (Airio.cfg.txt) and change the value after =. After !rld I think spectating all (!sa) is sufficient to make sure even limads and admins must meet the rank/licence requirements.
We're just finishing some details concerning cooperating of AA with R2R team. Then we'll start full discussion about this series. 
And the idea is only XFG, only XRG and only FBM, all 3 demo cars on BL1, separate races, part of one serie...
And the idea is only XFG, only XRG and only FBM, all 3 demo cars on BL1, separate races, part of one serie...Thanks!
Oops, you're right of course, now I finally solved the problem, an update will be available soon and I think the AVG will function correctly. I'd like to extend multiclass support a bit more (maybe also add the no-flag zones) and then there'll be a new Airio version...
Uhm, a point is a point, it always goes to total as well as champ data (and optionally also to playing/driving), regardless of its origin. Note that "champ" in this sense means simply everyday racing, just limited to one week or one month, with winner maybe announced in welcome messages or on a Web page. If you want to run a real championship, say with special races once a week, you may turn on champ points gathering only for the event and also disable all special points (climber, improvement, good laps) for this special occassion.
Yes, good requirement, I'll write it somewhere near top of my TODO list. I'd also like to add configurable rating decrease on each forced spectating and kick/ban.
The problem is LFS may be reporting pretty weird lap times e.g. in practice and to have reasonable data it is best to simply ignore 1st lap. In race this works well and my tests show it works (after latest updates) even in qualification and practice, so I'm a bit surprised it is still reported as a bug on the LFS Spain servers. Maybe just some updates confusion... I'll do some more tests
There's several problems in these definitions. First, to use licence/rank/rate requirements in SRV you must first define in TCD file what levels will exist. You have no licence times defined, so you cannot use LicenceSpecific. Also rate levels are set in percents * 100. Then, as z-ro says, you use just number of licence/rank/rating, not its name. Also licence cannot be based on two cars the way you have it. Overall, the setup may work with the following changes:
From: Airio.tcd.txt file
LicenceTimesText=Licence1, Licence2, Licence3
LicenceTimesRel=500, 400, 300
# these are % * 100 over current WR
LicenceRanksText=Rank1, Rank2, Rank3
LicenceRanksPoints=0, 175, 500
# these are simply points (total, !ptt)
LicenceRatesText=Class1, Class2, Class3
LicenceRatesLevels=0, 7500, 8500
# where 7500 = 75%
From: Airio.srv.txt file
LicenceSpecific=RB4+FXO|2,XRG RB4+FXO|2,XFG
# 2nd licence (WR+4%) in XRG or XFG required for RB4 and FXO
RankSpecific=FXO+RB4|2
# 2nd rank also required (175 pts)
RatingSpecific=FXO+RB4|2
# Also 2nd rating level required (75%)
There's no need to say what is required for XFG+XRG, these cars are simply always available. Also note that under default config limads and admins are allowed to join regardless of licence/rank/tating requirements. To make everyone equal use AllowJoining=6 in CFG file.
Almost correct, but not quite. I believe the following should work:
And yes, you can use also / commands, however using !len is preferred over /laps because it will set LFS correctly even after racing for minutes instead of laps.
I believe the following should work:RotateTracksFull=AS3|!len 5; !cfg FlagWeight=-100 > BL1R|!len 7; !cfg FlagWeight=-10And yes, you can use also / commands, however using !len is preferred over /laps because it will set LFS correctly even after racing for minutes instead of laps.
Ha! Good! One thing you should change in your setup: Move calling the stats update script from SRV file to CFG file, where it belongs. There's and item for this and also it is logically correct to use CFG, common file, because stats are also common. Furtermore, there'll be no "DB updated succesfully" public message, the text will be only in the LOG file.
Hm, I guess that is around node 522 (see the pictures a few posts above)? Concerning pit exit check, on KY2 it is, unfortunately, almost unusable, because of the way the track turns and the fact that small lags result in virtual straight movement of the car going from pits, right to the racing path. An option could be to use longer delay, say 10 equal to 1 second.
Yes, indeed. It is not 100% reliable due to small lags which result in cars seen by server for a short while on some other place than they really are, but using a bit of tweaking path checks work quite well.
First, you need to copy the files into PTH directory under Airio, use version 1.2 availabe on download page.
Then activate path check using CheckRacePath=true in the appropriate SRV file.
That is basically all, only you can adjust RacePathDelay value setting for how long (in 1/10 seconds) it is ignored being outside proper path. Default value seems to work good though.
There is no need (I think) to change OffPath value for any track in TCD file, if updated path definitions are used.
To check the system works activate for yourself path check info. Do !opt and enable Path Check button (combined with Distance). Then you'll see in chat when you're leaving proper path and getting back. Time of laps with failed path check are ignored, driver is notified about the fact if that would be his PB.
Yes, directly from PTH files, according to specifications...
WOW! I never noticed this... uhm... substantial imprecision of PTH on KY2.
Path file version 1.2 is now available on Airio downloads page correcting this. Appended are pictures of new proper paths.I'm really not sure if Victor is following this thread, but of course he's free to use the updated PTH files e.g. in the cool Remote application.
Right, I see the problem. What you suggest is now implemented in Airio 2.3.6c, using 33rd field in STA.CR file. Default zero is replaced by value corresponding to 1.1.2010 and updated on every record update (e.g. on every lap finish). The statistic files are stored regularly every 5 minutes, when updates held in memory are persisted to disk.
Uhm, I'm afraid you lost me there... 
You cannot create server in game and connect Airio there, that would not work correctly. You need dedicated server for Airio. Also, your problem seems to be with Aonio, so please do not run Airio for now at all. Just start your LFS, connect to some already existing server, type /insim=29999 and try to run Aonio...
Yes, WE1 and WE1R were tracks where Airio path check was failing quite often, simply because parts of the proper track were defined a bit strange in the original PTH file, especially around pit exit. Formerly the only option was to make the proper path wider all around the track to cover this deficiency. But I did not like the solution.
Using basic BabyOnWheels' code that was painting path on LFS maps I created for myself an application that would display developers-supplied path and paint it on a site map. From the picture (see first appended image, original PTH) it is possible to catch places where adjustments may be necessary.
The application also converts PTH file into human-readable and editable format (TXT). I was able to edit the file where necessary and using the same application the file was converted back to PTH in its new form and painted again to check (see second appended image, updated PTH).
This way I was able to update WE1, BL1 and AS3 (plus reversed versions) paths and offer them for download. If you think there are some other tracks with PTH needing revision, let me know.
Uhm... Airio requires dedicated non-graphical LFS server (that means NOT the one you can create in LFS game, graphical one). You run such dedicated server (could be sometimes on your PC or at some provider) and connect Airio to this server. Aonio runs always locally on your PC and it connects to your LFS graphical client, the application you're using to actually race.
Download Aonio again using link in my signature. Overwrite former EXE and DLL files, there is one small change in the library, it may help. Let me know how it went.
Two questions:
1) What is the ClientPortUDP number in Aonio.cfg.txt file?
2) Are you running Aonio on the same PC where your LFS is running?
1) What is the ClientPortUDP number in Aonio.cfg.txt file?
2) Are you running Aonio on the same PC where your LFS is running?
Maybe the best option is to have new defineable type of zone, NoFlagZone, where yellow flags caused are ignored. Such zones could cover LFS areas using incorrect yellow flag data, as you mention.
Well, in TracksRotateFull you can use any command, including the one changing a server parameter. That means when you rotate to BL1R you may add there !cfg FlagWeight=-10 to substantially reduce effect of all yellow flags, and when moving elsewhere you may get back to !cfg FlagWeight=-100 (or maybe simply !rld #, reverting server number # to default state).
Hm, too bad if by default some very old CFG files are installed. Truth is I'm sending only EXE/DLL files to Franky of 500servers, intended for easy update. Best would be if actually NO config files are used, to be sure everyone gets the default ones from available download, goes through them and uploads them once tweaked. I'll contact Franky concerning this matter.
Hm, how does the bug show itself? Does it happen only once every lap, say in the turn after box exit on BL1R? Or is the yellow flag constantly on? Unfortunately neither you nor the other multiclass server are using Remote, so I cannot watch. Remote is good for me, I can spot troubles from this high view.
Concerning lower aggressiveness on some tracks, you can use (I believe) RotateTracksFull instead of RotateTracks in SRV file and specify additional commands to carry out when rotating tracks. One of those commands could be lower weight of caused yellow flag. Adding the option to TCD would be also possible - sometimes it is hard to decide if something belonds to TCD (being track/car dependant) or SRV (dependant on server).
Uhm, I suggest using e.g. FlagWeight=-10 instead... And sorry, I somehow missed that old request.
Hi and sorry for not answering on MSN, I had busy days.
First make sure you're using the latest config files (CFG, TCD, SRV). If so, the core multiclass racing will work by itself, I believe, once you enable the required cars on server. Default Airio config contains all existing car groups and also arranges them to separately evaluated groups. The rest depends on what you want. To limit car categories based on points (rank) you need to define ranks first (in TCD file) and then (in the same file) say what rank level is required for each (or some) car types. Same with licences (lap times) or (safety) rating, all this is in TCD file.When testing the rank requirements are applied make sure you're not connected as admin/limad, because by default the requirements chack are skipped for such people. You can also say in CFG file (AllowJoining=6) that the rank requirements are applied to everyone, even admins.
Last edited by EQ Worry, .
Oh no, that one is Airio command for manually cancelling e.g. race restart vote, it has nothing to do with kick/ban voting. As far as I know there is no way (neither command nor InSim data) to cancel some started kick/ban vote. I already wrote to Scawen that it would be a very helpful addition to LFS, simple vote cancelling. So far I received no response...
First, big thanks for a reasonable response! I mean it.
One would say the more admins there are the better. WRONG! It fails, completely. I saw it on rally server, I saw it on other popular servers too. As they were popular, they gained more members. The members applied different criteria, kicking/banning people inconsistently. People getting a bit annoyed. Then members just rather talked than raced, teased each other. Average people leaving (over the span of several weeks), being just molested by one admin or other, members staying alone, then disappearing too, server dying...
Much better to have five reliable, calm, consistent, active admins, than 30 (as it was on FBM) or almost 100 (as it was on rally) inconsistent and unmanageable, disappearing ones. They actually push the server down. Now note that I do not say you were doing that (!), the simple number and the way the average admin behaves have that effect. I'm trying to put things back to the state where they worked best.
Yes, that is one BIG problem. (Thanks to JoRuss for his exemplary pictures!) My view is that there cannot be a viable PRO server, even one imposing as loose requirement as 1:18 FBM lap time, much less anything stricter. FBM server applies this dynamically for just a few hours a day and it has big impact with many people being spectated/kicked. And even PRO people would rather go to open but full server than to locked almost empty one.
But then they need to adjust. Not everyone is able to control the car as precisely as needed for close overtaking manouvers. PRO drivers simply cannot do such things, they need to slow down and wait for better opportunity. Sadly, many of them do not accept this fact. They do dangerous manouvers that would be successful when dealing with other experienced drivers (or at least ones that know perfectly what is happening around them), but that fail miserably in all other cases, resulting in crash, angry accusations and kicks/bans. Again, see JoRuss' picture, it is a marvelous example.
With FBM server we're trying to strike a ballance. Server needs to be popular among average people to be alive. They are the core of the drivers. The fast ones have their prime time when the server is locked and doesn't allow complete newbies to enter. But always they need to know whom they're trying to overtake and adjust accordingly. Anticipate (you can do that so well
) what the car in front will do and there'll be a clear overtake.
Eh, enough for now. I'm just trying to analyze what I see, reach some conclusions, and act based on them. What one sees is sometimes very different from what one would expect. In the past I did some changes to AA servers that were very much hated by other AA admins and even lead to internal disputes. But, in my view, the changes proved to be good, successful. And as a successful server I see one that is popular, often full. I know of no other criteria, this one tells it all.
One would say the more admins there are the better. WRONG! It fails, completely. I saw it on rally server, I saw it on other popular servers too. As they were popular, they gained more members. The members applied different criteria, kicking/banning people inconsistently. People getting a bit annoyed. Then members just rather talked than raced, teased each other. Average people leaving (over the span of several weeks), being just molested by one admin or other, members staying alone, then disappearing too, server dying...
Much better to have five reliable, calm, consistent, active admins, than 30 (as it was on FBM) or almost 100 (as it was on rally) inconsistent and unmanageable, disappearing ones. They actually push the server down. Now note that I do not say you were doing that (!), the simple number and the way the average admin behaves have that effect. I'm trying to put things back to the state where they worked best.
Yes, that is one BIG problem. (Thanks to JoRuss for his exemplary pictures!) My view is that there cannot be a viable PRO server, even one imposing as loose requirement as 1:18 FBM lap time, much less anything stricter. FBM server applies this dynamically for just a few hours a day and it has big impact with many people being spectated/kicked. And even PRO people would rather go to open but full server than to locked almost empty one.
But then they need to adjust. Not everyone is able to control the car as precisely as needed for close overtaking manouvers. PRO drivers simply cannot do such things, they need to slow down and wait for better opportunity. Sadly, many of them do not accept this fact. They do dangerous manouvers that would be successful when dealing with other experienced drivers (or at least ones that know perfectly what is happening around them), but that fail miserably in all other cases, resulting in crash, angry accusations and kicks/bans. Again, see JoRuss' picture, it is a marvelous example.
With FBM server we're trying to strike a ballance. Server needs to be popular among average people to be alive. They are the core of the drivers. The fast ones have their prime time when the server is locked and doesn't allow complete newbies to enter. But always they need to know whom they're trying to overtake and adjust accordingly. Anticipate (you can do that so well
) what the car in front will do and there'll be a clear overtake.Eh, enough for now. I'm just trying to analyze what I see, reach some conclusions, and act based on them. What one sees is sometimes very different from what one would expect. In the past I did some changes to AA servers that were very much hated by other AA admins and even lead to internal disputes. But, in my view, the changes proved to be good, successful. And as a successful server I see one that is popular, often full. I know of no other criteria, this one tells it all.
It must be marvelous feeling to be so sure of the future, so insightful and all-knowing. I'd love to get that feeling sometimes too, but for me, every day brings new surprises.
Uhm, whenever I was there, and that is quite a lot, under many different names, I saw very reasonable racing. Crashers very exceptional and quickly dealt with, many nice and close races. I love to go there and usually I do not have to use admin rights at all.
I was always around, racing quite a lot, watching even more. Unfortunately I did a very wrong decision, using different usernames, not my own. Dunno which people you can remember: MidlifeCrisis, Aoede, Gully Foyle, Lorelei, Siren and a few others, I've removed them all. But I can assure you I know the situation on all AA servers very well. And believe me, I've seen enough on AA and elsewhere to be able to take decisions such as this latest one, as well as to correct earlier wrong ones if needed.
My views about what are the nails into LFS coffin are pretty much different than yours. I can understand your frustration of losing the limad rights, but your extrapolations into the future I see as purely imaginative and way from reality. I did not remove in fact that many limads, but, sorry for the personal note, you with your overly aggressive responses were always on the brink of being excluded, and now the time has come.
In fact it is exactly the behaviour you've been showing recently that I do not want to see anymore. Think for yourself how many people will actually read as good news your last message: "I'm never coming back." Sorry for this jab, but you gave me a few too.
Nothing personal, it is just that your style was not compatible with what I'd like to see in regard to privileged people on AA. Good luck to you in finding the right servers, both demo and licensed!
PS: I apologize for anything above, that you may see as personal insult. It was not my intention. I do not enjoy disputes and quarrels, I do not want to escalate matters. Yet I like making things clear, and that I tried.
I do not agree with one single point of your message. But of course I may be wrong, time will show. The FBM server was the strongest a few months ago when it had just a few people with extended rights. When more and more people got the rights, situation became messy. One is not happy with the way someone else drives and it creates tensions. Too many kicks for trivial reasons and simple mistakes make average people think twice before returning and be again subject to strangers that have for some reason power over them.
AA philosophy is to be newbie-friendly to maximum possible extent. But many limads were beating this principle, seeing the FBM server as one with pro-status, where new and average people should not be allowed. But that would never work, most people are average drivers and the fast must simply adjust their driving style. Average people make the server alive, not a few 1:12 guys. And it was the average people that were being recently punished and that saw some deterioration of atmosphere.
I saw this all happening recently on our rally server. Loads of people with extended rights punishing new drivers simply because they were learning. Personal disputes, then drops in usage, then prolonged periods with empty server. What I'm trying to achieve, by removing many people with limad rights, is to stop the bad cycle starting now. I would call the move a democratization. With much less privileged guys around I, as an average user, would certainly feel better, not like a child that needs to be protected and also punished.
GTI people on our two other servers can take care of themselves, they can spot and ban crashers very efficiently. There are no admins around and it works the best. I hope the FBM community can grow just as mature. But we're dynamic. If indeed this move proves as wrong, there's nothing easier than to get back to the old track. But my view is, the old track leads to dead end.
But of course I may be wrong, time will show. The FBM server was the strongest a few months ago when it had just a few people with extended rights. When more and more people got the rights, situation became messy. One is not happy with the way someone else drives and it creates tensions. Too many kicks for trivial reasons and simple mistakes make average people think twice before returning and be again subject to strangers that have for some reason power over them.AA philosophy is to be newbie-friendly to maximum possible extent. But many limads were beating this principle, seeing the FBM server as one with pro-status, where new and average people should not be allowed. But that would never work, most people are average drivers and the fast must simply adjust their driving style. Average people make the server alive, not a few 1:12 guys. And it was the average people that were being recently punished and that saw some deterioration of atmosphere.
I saw this all happening recently on our rally server. Loads of people with extended rights punishing new drivers simply because they were learning. Personal disputes, then drops in usage, then prolonged periods with empty server. What I'm trying to achieve, by removing many people with limad rights, is to stop the bad cycle starting now. I would call the move a democratization. With much less privileged guys around I, as an average user, would certainly feel better, not like a child that needs to be protected and also punished.
GTI people on our two other servers can take care of themselves, they can spot and ban crashers very efficiently. There are no admins around and it works the best. I hope the FBM community can grow just as mature. But we're dynamic. If indeed this move proves as wrong, there's nothing easier than to get back to the old track. But my view is, the old track leads to dead end.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG