Quote from joen :

I know, it's completely logical to expect racing in a racing sim, but some people feel the need to play silly, RPG like games instead.

(all imo ofcourse)

I was referring to this less than flattering sentence.

I see no problem if someone wants to use a racing sim in a way it wasn't originally meant for. They have a right to do it, and for me the discussion stops here. There's no need to defend a concept as long as drifters and cruisers don't go drifting or cruising on racing servers disrupting races. The same could of course be said of racers. If you dislike something, just steer clear of it.

You should check temperatures, voltages and fans with an utility while using heavy loads. If the problem didn't happen before, try opening your case, check that all fans are working and that the airflow is sufficient. Clean your pc if needed (if you use compressed air stop fans gently while you do it). There are some benchmarks that could help. I would use a gradual approach testing the cpu at full load first while monitoring the system, then the gpu, and then all. Most monitoring utilities that come with motherboards allow you to have an adjustable acoustic alarm for parameters that are going wrong, I'd try to take advantage of that. Check the event viewer too, there might be some hints.

Edit: I'd start with Prime95 as testing utility.

I had the same problem when I installed it to test it with my G25. The wheel was working but there was no force feedback at all. Downloading and installing the latest patch from the official RBR site solved the problem.

Edit: while the clutch is supported and working, only sequential shifting seems to be supported out of the box. I saw a video of a hack consenting to use the H-shifter with RBR on YouTube, but I don't know more about it.

Last edited by Albieg, Fri 9 Mar 2007, 12:22.

Danowat, it's not about taking seriously Wikipedia. It's just that I respect their rules. After all, those are their rules. I try not to wreck in S2 because of rules, you know. Unless wrecking is permitted. So, on Wikipedia, vandalism is vandalism, and nothing more. And it generally backfires.

I see most people don't care, but this isn't funny for me. Re-editing anonymously a Wikipedia page after someone reverted the page to the original state for a tone deemed inappropriate is an act of vandalism and nothing more. It could be considered fun once, but starting an edit war on Wikipedia just for a cheap laugh is silly, not funny.

With editings like that, it will never be.

At the moment, at the end of the trivia section, I can read this sentence:

It's customary for new racers or 'Nooobs!' to introduce themselves by taking out the whole field in turn 1.

It's just my opinion, but a sentence like this cannot be consider encyclopedic. It can be considered humorous and may have some truths in it, but it shouldn't be there.

But there's a hint for an interesting poll: how many forumers have taken out a grid at least once?

I'm used to demo servers where having names on is almost mandatory.

Yes, it works this way. I generally dislike these kind of unlocks, but Scavier has chosen to handle these matters in a nice way.

Edit: however you can't go online with two computers with the same license at the same time. Just lan play.

Last edited by Albieg, Mon 5 Mar 2007, 12:19.

JTBo, you can do what you want in this case:
3.1 You may install S1 or S2 on 2 computers for your own use or to race a friend on a Local Network.

And for snide remarks (this goes out to Davo) I see none from smiddy. I just see his kindness.

Next NEEDED step: Demo authentication.

I bought the G25 a few weeks ago. My settings are:
Force Feedback on, global force feedback strength 101%, all other settings 0%, spring centering on but set to 0% as suggested in other threads, with 40% ffb in LFS (which is far stronger than 40% with Momo black, but I like it this way). There are however some odd behaviours: when the car is still, there is zero force feedback resistance and I have to gain a bit of speed to feel it. Moreover (and on topic ) I can't feel the rumble strips but only when the wheel is centered. When I turn (even gently) on rumble strips, I feel them in an excellent way, and that's exactly the opposite of what Flight is experimenting (if I understand well) . I don't remember whether my Momo Black behaved the same way or not, or if it's normal assuming that a rumble strip should transmit no sideways movement to the wheels, and therefore to the steering wheel, except when the rumble strips are not perpendicular to the wheel axis. I'm also considering the possible presence of a "dead spot" in forces when the wheel is centered. At the moment I'm happy with the G25 all the same, but if there's something wrong in my setup (or considerations), I'd like to know. Thanks.

I agree, it's just a question of personal tastes. I care a bit, but not that much to spend money in audiophile grade equipment, so my hi-fi is quite poor: a Technics amp, two old Pioneer speakers and a Yamaha sub. This is my main setup, which works well also for audio monitoring although I have to care a bit for the mid-high frequency range, which is a bit dampened by the room I'm in (mostly wood, quite rewarding for long listening sessions, very warm and full of subtle harmonics). My setup is generally good for sparse and quiet music, although it can cope well with rock music too. Spatial image is a bit poor, but I trade that off happily for warmth. Most glitch and experimental musicians who come in my room like very much the global feeling they get from the sound.
For my PC I use a pair of Ego-Sys near05 nearfield monitors coupled with a Waveterminal 192X. Ego-Sys stuff generally beats blue M-Audio stuff, but support is poor, so I think my next soundcard - unless Ego-Sys proves me wrong - will be an M-Audio. I'm quite happy about the speakers, excellent for their purpose, although I'd never call them pleasant to the ear. They're not meant for that.

That cheater cheated months ago too, so I guess one strike or two strikes lovers are both served in this case.

the mail server has an MX (Mail Exchanger) type record. The www server has an A (or a CN). Those records are independent. Basically, www would be a third level domain name pointing to a server, while the MX record points to the mail exchanger. So basically you can change the www server record regardless of the mail server.

Quote from ZORER :

When i click the link, it says i don't have enough privilages to rech this page....what is that page???

For sure, it was this:

http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=11651

Proof of concept...

Edit: I don't know if it's the right thing to do, but being publicly called stupid by Arno in another thread just hit a bit on my nerves, so I went back to my replay files to see if there could be a hint of honesty in his rather childish words. I wouldn't have done this usually, but in this case I make an exception, gladly accepting any kind of criticism (if motivated) on this stupid post of mine.

Last edited by Albieg, Mon 19 Feb 2007, 19:41.

Quote from arno :

There is 2 point of views :
- I am a stupid cheater and I thought I will never be catch/ban by overtaking people at amazing speed.
- You are stupid to think that I can cheat so obviously.

I know what to choose

And working in more than one hundred small business environments as system administrator, I know what to choose. SamH's ban file speaks more than words.

No, it's just a cheat you used online. No semantics involved here. Anyway, you can defend yourself how much you like tweaking reality and words as you like. It won't help, it seems.

You should read more carefully what you quote:

In both computer security and encryption, proof of concept refers to a demonstration that in principle shows how a system may be protected or compromised, without the necessity of building a complete working vehicle for that purpose.

Going online with a cheat should be considered "building a complete working vehicle"... somehow apt.

You could run HijackThis (link above) and post here the log (if no confidential information is disclosed and if forum rules allow such a non-lfs related activity in the technical assistance section), or take a look at HijackThis (Info on selected item gives you some hints) and concentrate on Search Pages and suspect Browser Helper Objects and Startup Programs. Also, with Hijackthis, you should check in the misc tools section if the hosts file has been modified: normally the only uncommented line would be the one referring to 127.0.0.1 localhost, by the way if there are some particular (good) reasons the hosts file could be used to resolve something else than that.
As usual I suggest to take care: crippling your machine with HijackThis is nearly impossible, but if you disable things you're not sure about you could easily end up reinstalling some apps or having some trouble. If you're not sure, ask.

Two ways for me: first, trial and error. Just set it higher and do a few laps to test if it works as it should for you.
Second: how much time, to the best of your ability, would be needed to perform two consecutive gearshifts?
I don't think I could do two consecutive shifts in less than 200 ms (well, actually more than that), so I'd use a 100 ms time as a start.

If you set it too high it would recognise a single gear shift in the amount of time specified.

You have several instances of svchost.exe, each one bound to one or more Windows services. If an svchost instance crashes and then restarts, the PID (Process ID) will be different. You have to identify the correct svchost to do that. Either you compare the output of tasklist /svc before and after the crash or you do that with a tool like Process Explorer, but not Task Manager. I'd use Process Explorer instead of tasklist because there are much more information available there to understand what's going on.

The Microsoft Eula is less restrictive than the Sysinternals one, and it appears only one time (per program), exactly as it happened before. By the way the previous versions of Process Explorer DO NOT show the services by svchost.

svchost acts like a wrapper for a number of services, so you should try to track it down to the specific service that needs to close.
Process Explorer by Sysinternals (a spiced up Task Manager) in its latest versions shows, for every svchost.exe, the services that are connected to a specific svchost.exe process (just hover the mouse over the various svchost.exe process names). A comparison between the various svchosts before and after the process has crashed to see what's missing could help you track down the specific service that is causing trouble,
Process Explorer could also help tracking an eventual fake svchost.exe, which in this case won't be signed by Microsoft, (you can verify digitally signed executables). In this case I would take a thorough look at all the processes running on your computer, look at the Event Viewer very closely (and rely upon eventid.net to have a better explanation of errors), check for unneeded software, run an antivirus, check digital signatures, run a few antirootkits (but you must understand how they work and what they tell), starting from Gmer.
You can start getting Process Explorer at www.sysinternals.com.