Wikipedia disagrees. Though on other sites I've seen that it can indicate "a slow moving vehicle," but I think that refers more to a slow moving foreign / non-racecar on the track.
Anyway, programatically determining which flag to show isn't nearly as easy as it sounds; a yellow flag to indicate some form of danger ahead (be it someone offtrack or a car moving slower than race pace for whatever reason) is quite acceptable as a compromise. In the case of this bug the check as to what is "slower than race pace" was simply too sensitive / wrong in that specific area of the track.
As far as I know the only thing LFS does on the HD during a race is periodically (every time 4096 bytes of replay data have accumulated) write the temp_spr.spr, respectively its mpr counterpart.
Now, what would happen if somehow those 4KB are piling up quicker than the HD can write? My guess is that LFS would grind to a halt until the writing can catch up again, since I doubt LFS has any checks in regard to how long writing this data takes. If the file is somehow blocked or LFS' file handle forcefully removed, then as I've seen LFS just stops writing the file and later claims that "Replay was not being recorded," which is fine behaviour in that regard, so an outright file block doesn't seem to be the problem.
The question now is, what causes the HD to be slower than LFS requires? I can see two possibilities:
Now, what would happen if somehow those 4KB are piling up quicker than the HD can write? My guess is that LFS would grind to a halt until the writing can catch up again, since I doubt LFS has any checks in regard to how long writing this data takes. If the file is somehow blocked or LFS' file handle forcefully removed, then as I've seen LFS just stops writing the file and later claims that "Replay was not being recorded," which is fine behaviour in that regard, so an outright file block doesn't seem to be the problem.
The question now is, what causes the HD to be slower than LFS requires? I can see two possibilities:
- External influence. The HD is fragmented / broken / used by another program / whatever and needs to do other stuff to fix the situation and become fast enough again.
.
- Something in LFS causes massive amounts of replay data to be generated. Maybe the steer jittering resulting from an engaged ABS somehow plays into this? It happening as mentioned for example in Blackwood T1 could be caused by lots of people braking at that point. Or maybe it's simply a bug (in the ABS code?) that causes the data flood.
- A combination of the above.
You should heed your own advice then and simply ignore this thread.
Niels' mods are very worth being checked out and could surely open the eyes of some close-minded "rFactor = shit" folks we have around here. If you have a problem with this thread then report it and let the mods do their job and decide what to do, but don't spam/derail this thread just because you don't like the subject.
Don't fret, everyone makes a mistake once in a while.
I mean, congratulations!
(Who needs sleep anyway?)
I mean, congratulations!
(Who needs sleep anyway?)
Says the cock :rolleyes:
@Gener_AL (UK): I think you're "missing the point" here 
Even if we magically had this feature in all cards from now on, what would be the point? To make use of this the first thing you need is highly complex physics to make the change worthwhile. At the current development speed LFS doesn't even add basic features that would be no issue CPU wise, what makes you think LFS will have enough substance to make this change necessary at any point? Maybe if they were to simulate individual pebbles on a gravel road...
IMO GPU physics were intended for one thing only, namely optional physics based GFX effects. Eyecandy. Making it do more doesn't really make sense. What's there left for the CPU to do then? Multicore support makes sense and it's a reasonable expectation to have this implemented in the future. GPU physics... not.
- This is a serious "what if" issue you bring up here.
- I'd say good market saturation to consider dropping non-physics-accelerated GPU support would be at least 5+ years from now on, not mid 2011 (I think you implied that, regarding the vertex shader remark).
- Speaking of vertex shaders, consider that AFAIK the first cards supporting it (GF3 IIRC) were released in 2001, and I believe LFS still supports cards without HVS. Just the option to turn off HVS manually was removed in patch X or so.
Even if we magically had this feature in all cards from now on, what would be the point? To make use of this the first thing you need is highly complex physics to make the change worthwhile. At the current development speed LFS doesn't even add basic features that would be no issue CPU wise, what makes you think LFS will have enough substance to make this change necessary at any point? Maybe if they were to simulate individual pebbles on a gravel road...
IMO GPU physics were intended for one thing only, namely optional physics based GFX effects. Eyecandy. Making it do more doesn't really make sense. What's there left for the CPU to do then? Multicore support makes sense and it's a reasonable expectation to have this implemented in the future. GPU physics... not.
Why would they? The physics calculations now take about 5% CPU time - most slowdown is caused by the calculations the CPU has to make for the graphics. If you fast-forward in a single player replay, LFS uses all CPU just for physics, and it easily manages to do that faster than realtime even with loads of AI cars.
Also this would be a major major task. It would make much more sense to make LFS multicore compatible than making a copy of the physics engine that probably needs to be considerably altered to even run on the graphics card. Don't forget that you then have to maintain two physics engines, one for the people with such a card and the other for ones without. The benefits are practically zero.
Also this would be a major major task. It would make much more sense to make LFS multicore compatible than making a copy of the physics engine that probably needs to be considerably altered to even run on the graphics card. Don't forget that you then have to maintain two physics engines, one for the people with such a card and the other for ones without. The benefits are practically zero.
Last edited by AndroidXP, .
What if people who have no idea what they're talking about would simply shut up for once?
DirectX is just an API to access graphics card (or other hardware) functions - the bug that has been reported countless times is located in the shadow code of LFS' 3D engine. Since that code is custom written nobody but Scawen can find out why it happens, but probably it's just something like LFS selecting the topmost drivable surface for the given car's X,Y coordinates instead of the topmost drivable surface with a lower Z value than the car has (= below the car). Depending on the actual implementation it might be easy to fix, or it might not, in any case it's a really low priority thing.
A feature, not a bug 
In previous versions the clutch started biting immediately after you released the clutch pedal a tiny bit, which wasn't very realistic (brand new cars might be similar, but even on them it's not as extreme as it was in LFS) and forced many people to use DXTweak to manipulate the pedal range to simulate this properly. In patch Z this has been fixed.
Now if you for whatever reason want to make the clutch bite immediately, you'll now have to fiddle around with DXTweak to make it so a fully depressed pedal only reports as 2/3 to 3/4 depressed in game.
In previous versions the clutch started biting immediately after you released the clutch pedal a tiny bit, which wasn't very realistic (brand new cars might be similar, but even on them it's not as extreme as it was in LFS) and forced many people to use DXTweak to manipulate the pedal range to simulate this properly. In patch Z this has been fixed.
Now if you for whatever reason want to make the clutch bite immediately, you'll now have to fiddle around with DXTweak to make it so a fully depressed pedal only reports as 2/3 to 3/4 depressed in game.
Just 18 more mph and you'd have been golden, if a little displaced.
So in other words Lynce, you were spamming and trolling this forum by intentionally pretending to be ignorant of the rules to see if anybody likes you? Or if "famous" people are treated differently?
Classy move, really... you're a bit full of yourself, aren't you? This is not your personal social studies playground, you know.
Classy move, really... you're a bit full of yourself, aren't you? This is not your personal social studies playground, you know.
At least this thread points out the mentally challenged from the grown-ups. I hope one day your sense of action and consequence develops enough to make you realise how stupid excessive speeding is, preferably before you end up in an accident killing or crippling others.
I've never seen so much broken English and stupidity condensed in a single thread before.
^ Too much information there.
How much off-topicness is acceptable for a thread is up to the mod who decides whether to close the thread or not, I don't see what the big problem is here? If you don't agree with the closure then you're SOL.
How much off-topicness is acceptable for a thread is up to the mod who decides whether to close the thread or not, I don't see what the big problem is here? If you don't agree with the closure then you're SOL.
And of course as an moderator you have an endless amount of time to philosophize about pros and cons of closing a (shitty) thread. Maybe we should implement a poll for every mod decision so you can influence the result with what you deem the perfect decision and can live happily thereafter with your democratic result. Wait, did I mention democracy? I totally forgot that this doesn't apply in the slightest to this forum.
Seriously, if there is a problem with a mod's decision then it is in the end up to Victor to sort it out. If he or the other mods don't have a problem with it, then that's that, end of discussion. No amount of what-ifs and should-haves are going to change anything, so you can keep your backseat modding to yourself. It's always easy yapping from the cheap rows analysing someone else's doing after the fact.
Seriously, if there is a problem with a mod's decision then it is in the end up to Victor to sort it out. If he or the other mods don't have a problem with it, then that's that, end of discussion. No amount of what-ifs and should-haves are going to change anything, so you can keep your backseat modding to yourself. It's always easy yapping from the cheap rows analysing someone else's doing after the fact.
The question mark and period key seem to be sticky. You really ought to clean your keyboard from time to time...
Headlights? For a formula car? Rrriiiight.... 
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG