Brand Recognition...
..is why this is false (from Pirelli's point of view).
So they go to get new tyres (from Kwik Fit or wherever) and the they get offered a choice of 5 brands of similarly priced tyre. Pirelli are in F1 because they hope the person picks the Pirellis. It must work, too, or else they (and numerous other tyre companies through the decades) wouldn't do it.
If that were true the advertising spend on F1 would be a hell of a lot lower than it is just now. You think large corporations are spending hundreds of millions of dollars collectively each year just to target a few hundred thousand die-hard F1 fans?
You might be able to use the GPIO pins on the Raspberry Pi if you can get your hands on one.
Yeah, they were all totally evident in the Costa Concordia incident.
</sarcasm>
He's saying that it wasn't. Read his second sentence too.
The actual modelling of brake temperature would be a big breakthrough, yes. I posted about this some time ago. However, just making the brake discs glow whenever they're used heavily would be pretty much useless eye candy. Also, even if brake temperature were to be simulated you wouldn't normally see the discs on the road cars in LFS glowing.
Last edited by amp88, .
Anyone else surprised we made it this far without her from my drunk kitchen? 
What a silly idea...count me in.
You guys probably didn't enjoy Bad Taste either! Philistines! 
Films like these are great either despite being very low budget or because of it. Obviously it's understandable that you might not find them to have the same polish, attention to detail, camerawork, script etc as higher budget work, but if you really expect that on a shoestring budget you're asking too much. Well, unless you count Primer.
Films like these are great either despite being very low budget or because of it. Obviously it's understandable that you might not find them to have the same polish, attention to detail, camerawork, script etc as higher budget work, but if you really expect that on a shoestring budget you're asking too much. Well, unless you count Primer.
Do you mean just having more slots available or having more guests? If you just increase the number of available slots but keep the same number of users I can't see that decreasing server performance. If, however, you increase the number of slots and new guests join to fill those slots there will be an increase in resource utilisation as a result of that. The largest increase in demand is likely to be on the internet connection (a quick guide on bandwidth requirements is available here in the LFS Manual). There will also be an increase in the CPU and memory demands, but that shouldn't be significant.
See this thread. Pay particular attention to this post. Did you get the warning that you could be deleting your Program Files folder? You may still be able to recover deleted files (as mentioned in that thread).
Wristcutters: A Love Story
In the same vein as above (no pun intended): Interstate 60: Episodes of the Road
In the same vein as above (no pun intended): Interstate 60: Episodes of the Road
That error normally happens if the port you're trying to use is already in use by another process. Do you already have another LFS server running (using the same port)? If you want to run multiple servers you can edit the config files for each to make sure they're using different ports (e.g. 63392 and 63393).
I don't know how LFS parses the configuration file (in terms of 'special' characters such as the forward slash). If you remove the forward slashes from the host name and it works correctly then you will know that forward slashes in the host name are not a good idea. Let us know if that solves the problem or if it persists afterwards.
Post the contents of your cfg file (in #/CODE tags) so we can see what's wrong. Remember to edit out any personal information (such as the admin password and IP address, if entered).
Adding a delay to the Robot should solve your problem. You can either call robot.delay() manually or you can set the autoDelay for the robot to a given period (via robot.setAutoDelay()). 10ms works OK for me, but I'm sure you can have lots of fun playing around to find the optimal value.
If you run LFS windowed with the above example you can run the example and switch to the LFS window and see the ignition toggle. Obviously there's a ~5 second delay between running the program and the 'i' KeyPress.
package tester;
import java.awt.AWTException;
import java.awt.Robot;
import java.awt.event.KeyEvent;
public class LFSRobotTest {
public static void main(String[] args) {
try {
Robot robot = new Robot();
robot.setAutoDelay(10);
robot.delay(5000);
robot.keyPress(KeyEvent.VK_I);
robot.keyRelease(KeyEvent.VK_I);
} catch (AWTException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
If you run LFS windowed with the above example you can run the example and switch to the LFS window and see the ignition toggle. Obviously there's a ~5 second delay between running the program and the 'i' KeyPress.
Can you post a few more pictures, please? I don't think 1 is enough to accurately convey the horror.
j/k
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG