Lerts you inspired me. I'll be the first one on the net to post a video showing how to knot your shoelaces together and then demonstrate the awesome trick of applying the floor directly to your forehead. I think that would even surpass your "trick" in usefulness. I'm going to be famous! Sorry for stealing your fame, though.

Nope

That entirely depends on you, just choose what you feel comfortable with.

Why two threads?
http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=49540

(This one is in the correct section, though. So maybe merge the linked thread with this one?)

Quote from The Very End :

There are people like lerts who can't manage to get anything useful out of their mouth.
There are people that rightfully call him out on his idiocy.
There are people who do that by throwing insults and flames.

And then there are people like you, who follow his trail and leave no chance to be the politically correct knight in shining armour, defending his nonsense no matter how ridiculous it gets, all under the guise of "he's harming nobody" and "it's entertaining".

Both of these are your subjective points, not facts. From my point of view he actually dishes out lots of mental harm while at the same time being an insult to our intelligence and to science. He lost his entertainment value (wow, laughing at the mentally challenged) many postings ago and the only thing he adds to the forum is his spam (or thoughts or theories or however you like to call it) and the spam and insults that are a reaction to his. It would most likely be the best for him (and us) if he stopped posting, at least while high and not on his meds, to give him a chance to get off of this harmful mental rollercoaster of getting attention and being insulted but not understanding why.

The problem or solution is that you're continuing to look at a smaller and smaller time frame and are basically slowing down and stopping time right before/as he passes. There's really nothing special about it, other than that it easily confuses you the first time you think about it.

Were you accidentally spectating another car?

Because the network configuration has absolutely no influence on your local car control. If anything it would be a hardware fault or driver conflict, but tbh I think my first suggestion is the most likely one.

It's a choice, not a restriction.

Ehhh, I think the data is inconclusive, even though it suggests a slight preference of the FXR over the XRR

I think Scawen should reprogram the temp gauge to not show FPS but the CPU/GFX card temp instead

Progress:
Hard to express, but if you take the last two digits of PI that gives you the completion percentage.

Release:
Some time after it's done.

No, because LFS uses the underlying hardware configuration as a key to it's locking algorithm. You shouldn't be playing at school anyway

Maybe you just screwed up when extracting/installing LFS? LFS itself definitely does NOT put anything on the desktop.

E: After seeing your picture, you definitely did screw up *sigh*
http://en.lfsmanual.net/wiki/Introduction#Installation

Sheesh, you're a trainwreck.

Huh? Why do you have anything on the desktop? LFS doesn't care what's on your desktop, you of course have to put it in the <LFS>\data\dds folder.

Haha, "Scawen is probably on it." Yeah sure. The good old times

Dunno about Copenhagen, but I can warmly recommend Amsterdam if you're willing to travel a bit farther (but I'm not saying to skip Copenhagen ). If you do, you should plan staying for the whole weekend, though, to get a chance to see its night life. Was there for a week about a month ago; it's a truly beautiful city with an astonishing amount of equally beautiful women. And bicycles. Lots and lots of bicycles. Ever seen a parking garage full of bicycles? Look no farther than in front of the Centraal Station.

So, decreasing the coding efficiency by about a factor of 10 you call a 'solution'?
(I still use that minimalistic notepad kind of approach for HTML and JavaScript coding, though. And I agree that everyone should start learning coding in such a minimalist environment, so they can learn the concept of programming and thinking ahead without being distracted by fancy tools.)

Quote from wien :

Edit to your edit: I don't see how intellisense will react any worse with your_project::math::<list> than Yourproject.Math.<list> (assuming C#)? If it's a public library function intellisense will show it either way.

Would it really be worth totally overthrowing one of the fundamental concepts (functions cannot exist outside of a class) just to get rid of abstract classes with static methods? I guess what it comes down to is what you're used to - at least for me it's not in the slightest counter intuitive. Surely, if you take "object oriented" literally and say that every object must be instantiable (or even comparable to a real world object) then you might be annoyed by "shoehorning common functions into an abstract class", but in respect to what is technically/conceptually possible, the only alternative would be a MathFunctionCollection that you'd have to instantiate every time and then call a method of that, which would be rubbish.

Actually I don't even remember why I even started this argument, as in real world usage that's really a non-issue. Seems more like an argument for the sake of arguing to me now

Nothing has changed, try again next year.

Oh I definitely agree that there must be some compromises to ensure a certain playability, but specifically the F11 options were recently reduced quite a lot to only give full blown race cars the benefits of live adjustments. Adding a (unrealistic) live brake strength adjustment just to make the life of driver-swapping teams easier would be kind of hypocritical in that aspect, wouldn't it?

You're wrong, then

Because I say so


But maybe my perspective is just different on this. I'm working on a web based business application with several 100k lines of code, uncountably many business rules and on average five other programmers who work on the same code. I'd rather have everything nicely grouped together than the intellisense exploding with tons of entries because someone needed a math function in one line of code of a business object that is a few thousand lines big. Having all the BO's functions in there is bad enough (though partial classes do help).

Last edited by AndroidXP, Sat 18 Oct 2008, 15:01.

Well, duh. That's right, but, aren't there much more glaring non-represented differences between the UF1 and BF1 other than how the brake pedal feels? You're still sitting in front of a monitor looking at a moving 2D picture pretending to be a race driver; I reckon simulating the different brake pedal feelings is kinda over the top.

Never heard of a thread wandering off topic?

It went from "F11 brake strength adjustment, discuss" to "Is that even realistic/technically possible?" to "Would real race drivers even need that?" to "No, because brake strength IRL is pressure dependant anyway" to further discussion about that.

Personally I don't want the brakes strength to be adjustable in the F11 menu. Mainly because it would add another unrealistic element (while we should actually try to get rid of these) and it would make people write scripts that adjust the brake strength for each corner, which I don't like.

Last edited by AndroidXP, Sat 18 Oct 2008, 14:47.

^ I don't see the problem? Have one weak outer spring that holds the pedal up, but doesn't touch the load cell and one strong inner spring or rubber block (from the nixim pedal mod, for example) that touches the load cell after a few cm of dead travel. Or anything similarly simple, for that matter. You'd only need force feedback if you want to simulate ABS or brake failure.

That's why it's an abstract class containing static methods

Tbh, I don't see what's bad about this. Sure you can't instantiate "Math", but it serves as a nice way to group common methods together. Would you rather import a certain package/namespace and suddenly have all those functions directly available?