Yes that happens here. I try to stop whenever I see someone that has intent to cross the road. It is just in your habits really. If you follow the car in front - likely you'll be guilty of not stopping. I do this for cars trying to enter a busy street as well. I mean, I won't let every car in front of me, but if there is a line of traffic and someone is trying to enter, how is 30 feet going to make you late? Should have left earlier...

I think the problem comes from everyone being in such a damn hurry these days - to be honest it annoys the crap out of me. Almost everything I've done I've been on time, or 5 minutes early. Rarely have I been late, though it has happened, and will likely happen in the future. But that is my impression on traffic and driving these days.

So yes, I know your annoyances, and I've been the person in the crosswalk as well - and from the point of view, it is challenging to know if a car is slowing down to let you cross, or if they are slowing down to change cd's - pesonally, I don't like to take the chance until I have eye to eye contact with the driver, and see it is safe to cross. That car has a lot more solid mass than I do.

Quote from DerRouge :

I'm no computer science major, but what if you made a modification to the timing function which only recorded in 10^-3 sec increments when it was deemed necessary as per scenario (e.g., during qualification, if the program estimates that the final difference in drivers' recorded times will be less than some threshold (say, 0.02sec) begin recording in thousandths. Of course, this potentially lag-inducing procedure would only be initiated in the last 0.03sec, or so, before crossing the finish line. If lag were to result, the time interval over which it occurs would be too short to be of any consequence to driver experience/technique).

Anyway, that's my two cents on the problem--no idea if it's feasible. Like I said, I'm not really a programmer.

While it seems like a good idea initially, I am sorry but it is a terrible idea in practice. I'll (hopefully) explain why.

First, the lag that gets caused, even breifly can - and inevitably WILL effect the player. There are times when I've forgotten to shut an IMer program off, and someone IM's me locking my computer up, causing LFS to lag for a single moment, yet I totally miss a turn because of it. Also, and the worse part about doing this, there is an issue that you have to play catchup. I will try to explain, but it is a technical issue with timing.

Say you simulate 0.01s every 'update'. This doesn't necessarily mean you simulate 0.01s every frame. Some frames you might not run the simulate portion, others you might run it 2 or 3 times. Which isn't terribly noticable. However once you get behind, and the framerate drops it gets exponentially harder for the computer to catch up. There are some ways around this - and LFS may have some protection already but it is a problem to consider. Another bad thing is the car could behave odd for that small time slice when nearing a split, finish line etc for your more accurate timing.

I am not quite convinced that computing the exact time, by using the results of the acceleration through-out the simulated time is inaccurate. (in LFS's case 0.01s). As I said above I agree it could be slightly less accurate if the car could accelerate during that hundredth of a second, but if it could do that the simulation loop would need to run faster anyways, giving more precision. Slightly off my reason for posting . . .

I've seen single-seaters battling it out side by side on that corner, yes you have to pay attention to the dirty air, but I think some improvements in the aerodynamics model of LFS could help a lot in that regard. I like the corner as is, especially in reverse with the LX6... <3

But really, challenging corners is what makes racing fun, least for me. There are other elements of fun as well, but well thought out tactics sometimes need to come into play with corners like that one.

It has likely been suggested before, though I still give it a thumbs up. Would have been great to have during my testing of my AI project, as I needed to reconfigure my controls each time I wanted to play the game, or work on the AI project... This annoyance lead me to stop working on the project, at least for the time being.

Quote from Andreas B :

well....please don't do that on a server I'm racing...

The person in the video needs to learn how to use that controller first, but I would say it likely has more potential than a mouse/keyboard user - if done properly.

Quote from Hahmo :

WHAT does a HOTLAP mean.

Could mean different things considering it is a term typically put together during practice/qualifying events to mean a driver is on a flying lap that counts for their time. Versus and Outlap / Inlap where the driver has left the pits to join track or is leaving the track to enter the pits...

In all seriousness it was probably understood that you need to upload a hotlapping replay, I just want to point out that "HOTLAP" does not automatically refer to the mode in LFS.

Quote from Töki (HUN) :

I would be the happiest guy on the forum then.

Quote from Udris1992 :

he he me to

Only one of you can be the happiest. As the word suggests, no on else could be happier...

The only thing holding me back is my internet, otherwise I'd have posted a lot more when this was being considered earlier in 2010. Stupid satellite...

What the hell did Vettel do that was dangerous? He had been ahead and was already in the fast lane of the pits whilst Hamilton was not. . . Still retarded it wasn't sorted during the race.

Quote from Trev084 :

It is a racing simulator, Why would you play it with a mouse and keyboard, Have you got a mouse stuck to the gearstick and a keyboard to the wheel in your car, ****in homo.

Yes it is a racing simulator, well done! But the fact of the matter is people, for whatever reason; cost, availability etc DO play LFS with a mouse and keyboard. Personally I do not, I have a nice setup, but don't pretend for a moment that people don't. If you want wheel exclusive racing move over to iRacing. I don't understand why your immature name calling and comments need to come into play when I made a valid point. Certainly a wheel is more immersive to the player than a mouse/keyboard; that is obvious to anyone.

Quote from Trev084 :

Wow you have been a member long...
Half the time I couldn't be half assed to play the PC, Who the hell plays with a mouse/keyboard these days anyway?

How would you casualise it by putting it on a 360?

As far as mouse/keyboard any person who plays serious FPS games (on PC) will play with a mouse/keyboard. If you look at my comment you will see I was talking about FPS games when I made that. As far as LFS players, few use the mouse/keyboard - but there still are people that do. Real-time Strategy players also use mouse/keyboard.

As for casualizing on the 360, it will happen regardless if it should or not. Which is why it won't go on the 360... Because 90% of the users would have the XBox 360 Gamepad, which LFS is uncontrollably hard when using a gamepad. I am not saying without time, and practice that a player can't learn to drive with it; they certainly can. But the game would get trashed for being too hard.

Look at Darkest of Days, a game I helped develop. On PC things were fine, a ways into the project the grand idea to add it to the Xbox 360 was made, and then things like gamepad aiming required larger hit boxes and other things to make it playable, and the reviews still suck for the 360 because it isn't casualized enough. You can argue that people would want to play it because it is a simulation, but you are wrong. Sorry to say it that way, but the sim racing community is quite small in comparison to the arcade racing, or general gaming communities.

Quote from John5200 :

Whats the difference between G25 on PS or G25 on PC

The difference is 99% of console games are casualized to death just to get published. You could say the same about a FPS - what is so different from playing with mouse/kb on PC and XBOX 360? The fact is 90% of console users have a game pad. And most would be upset to buy a game and find out how difficult it is.

You can pretend there is a difference, but there is a reason the sim racing, or any simulation genre, is 'stuck' to PC; PC users don't expect casualized games.

Quote from logitekg25 :

i would recomend searching, but i remember my demo days, i had no idea stuff like this and it seems to not be on the forums.

i had these extreme noob questions, and i searched the forum and nothing, and i knew i would get flamed if i made a new thread.....so i made a thread dedicated to noob questions, but i got flamed for that -_-

i tried

What are you saying that for? He did search - that wasn't even a useful post, although neither is this. I'm just tired of hearing "search search search" then "dinosaur thread bumped" from the same people, but it is worse when the guy _actually_ searched and is getting called out for not doing so! What the hell man?

Ahh I see, I've been thinking about doing an overlay system for a while, I just don't know the DLL injection technique. I mean, I get the idea of it, but I don't know how to technically pull it off.

Are you using DirectX injection or a small window over a windowed version of LFS? Or something different from either of those?

Quote from Whitmore :

In these days of LCD monitors, I set my game resolution to the monitor's native resolution when I first install the game, and then I never touch it again. It's pretty simple

I have three main ways to race, LFS supports this extremely well.

1) Full Screen, 1 monitor: 1680x1050
2) Windowed, 1 monitor: about 3/4 of my monitor. 1200x???
3) Full Screen, 3 monitors; 5040x1050

I tend to switch between them depending on my needs at that moment. If I am casually lapping for no need but relief, I will go on 1 monitor, to allow chatting to happen. I can decide immediately if a response can wait. If I am watching replays, or the LFS Ai in the background, which I do more often than you'd think; then I go for the windowed mode. If I am actually racing, hotlapping or in something that counts I jump to full screen 3 monitors to eliminate distractions, but more importantly; increase immersion. Which is likely the most important aspect of escape for me.

That said it took me ages to find the 1680x1050 resolution setting in NetKar Pro. Typically the list is sorted with the larger resolutions on the bottom, but this wasn't the case. 1200x??? was at the bottom - which was quite annoying (until I finally found my native resolution). Since I am just testing NetKar at the moment I can handle it on a single screen. But I wouldn't buy it without proper support for three monitors, and I won't be buying it until physics are greatly improved...

The oversteer comment made by Mattesa above is completely how I feel. i've read, and understand the physics of weight transfer, so Pier nodoyuna has some truth to what he is saying, however, slamming the throttle on and then modulating should not help when oversteering. As Mattesa pointed out, carefully keeping the throttle on will move the weight to the rear and help reduce the spin. (In RWD car, and oversteer from balance issues; like hitting the brakes too hard, releasing the throttle too quickly).

I don't need to publicly complain about the simulation. It has some strong points, which in my opinion don't count for much. The great thing is it is still in development so things will constantly be getting better.

Okay, so at first I thought he was going to be using a stationary bike, but that setup on rollers certainly makes for more amazement. The balance is about the same as riding a bike at speed though - which is pretty easy even with no hands. Not sure I'd combine playing games and still continue to call that easy - none the less pretty neat!

Off the top of my head I can't recall many games the actually go through the trouble with allowing the device properties to change, while remaining in game - like LFS does. Things like changing certain texture options, screen resolution, and some other specific settings require textures to be reloaded, or at least resent to the graphics card. MOST games and applications do not do this, they typically require a restart. This restart is not a requirement as you can see, LFS handles this without restarting, but it would add more work to the developers to keep it cleaning doing so.

I strive for the level of quality that Scawen, Victor and Eric have with their project. It amazes me how simple, yet very very effective it is.

There is very little wrong with usability in the sense of the UI. However, in LFS you can change graphical options, and see the results immediately. I understand this is no easy task from the coding side, I've had issues myself here. However it is possible, and more user friendly when the user can change any option, and immediately see the results without needing to restart, load a track/level and get to a point where they can compare the results... Likely by that time they forgot the previous visuals.

iRacing was a pain, I never got it setup in 3 monitors because of this style of UI. It is too much of a hassle to reload the entire game and track just to see if it is working yet. Only to find out you need to restart again. Granted, the loading process for NetKar has been a little better, though it is still the annoying process, and I have yet to try setting up my three monitors there - just since I haven't really played it for more than two hours.

Is there anything directly wrong with the UI? No, you can setup the audio, visual and control options quite well - although some visual options (my native screen resolution) does not exist and is a flaw with that part of the UI. Though it is usable, easy to understand. It is just a pain in the butt.

So I agree, there is very little wrong with the actual interface, besides the fact that it is outside the game and it requires several steps to get launched. This comes with one positive, it makes you feel more like you are about to go to the track for a weekend / test day, but it comes at an inconvenience of quickly hopping in a car, or setting things up to perform exactly how you want. I mean, think of it this way: On track going around turn-1 and you realize the engine noise is too loud. You need to leave just to change the sound settings. Come back and now its too quiet. Immediate feedback while changing options is good, at the cost of development time and preparation.

You're right it did seem to fix it... Strange, it took me a moment to really figure out what the '887' meant when I setup the wheel. It shouldn't ask the user to turn the wheel 90* because looking at my wheel it was at perfect 90* and registered 887. After I moved the number to 900, as it should be, it worked a helluva lot better. By far the most playable NteKar Pro version I've tried.

Still quite annoyed about the stupid interface, leaving the game/track and reloading it constantly while trying to get setup. And it doesn't support my native resolution, so it seems it doesn't poll DirectX for available resolution sizes. (1680x1050 or tripled to 5040x1050 w/ SoftTH) I've been looking at the _many_ .ini's inside cfg and can't seem to find out how to set it up that way either.

It is more playable than it had been in the past, but still has a ways to go in my opinion.

Well, I haven't touched NetLar Pro for a long time, but I find that it is still as annoying as it always has been - sure the G25 has 900* of rotation, but if the car does not have 900* of rotation it should automatically compensate for that, LFS does this fine, I didn't notice a problem when I tried out iRacing for a month, and rFactor adjusts as well, however to make a simple turn in NetKar I need to turn the G25 207* left or right. I've played with all settings, and they don't have an effect that I can actually see.

On the other hand, the FFB issue has been worked out, which I am glad to see. In previous versions the wheel would jerk from side to side making it impossible to play in the first place.

Quote from logitekg25 :

tell me if its worth it anybody......might download, probably not though haha

Nobody can tell you if it is worth it. Your personal needs/usefulness with it would likely be quite different than the rest. Do you use a portion in any previous version of MS Office? (Word, PowerPoint, Excel, etc), or do you use a substitute, such as OpenOffice, to meet your needs? If so than trying the beta may be useful for you. If you don't use things like it, then it may not be worth it to you.

I kinda understand where your going, although I do not agree that it is any less accurate- It is more accurate, and not just in precision, even based on a 100mhz engine.

I go back to this argument, though worded slightly different;

Car A, crosses the finish line at X.011 (Real-Time).
Car B, crosses the finish line at X.019 (Real-Time).

Car A finished before Car B, and this would be 100% accurate.

A simulation engine, running at 100mhz, would detect this 1 of 2 ways, either both cars get a time of X.01 or both cars get a time of X.02. It depends on how the simulation is checking previous versus next positions... However, for sake of argument we will pretend this engine is set up for X.01, truncating the remaining time.

Each car now finished at X.01. (Simulated Time). With my segment check you can get the exact time the user crossed the line, not only more precise. The only accuracy you are 'losing' is due to acceleration / braking forces within that 0.01s that occurred. You could even include this with an avg acceleration over the frame - which would make it perfect to the engine capabilities.

My point here, is that how is considering both cars to be X.01 more accurate than detecting the exact time X.011 and X.019? As long as the engine is _always_ doing the same thing, and it computes the same time every where, which it should do automatically - then I do not understand how truncating each time to 0.01 is more accurate in any regards.

What I do understand is the slight loss of accuracy from not interpolating the acceleration. This is even possible with a little more effort and thought, though I don't think that is needed to achieve higher accuracy than we currently have. I do agree that I do not want some randomly created, higher precision values. But the calculation would always run the same, for everyone, and would be part of the engine. I would like to hear why your thinking that 0.01 is more accurate than (a correct implementation of) the interpolated time calculation.

Afterall, if the simulation engine is running at 100mhz, the car/object will move linearly during each given time step.

Although I am sure you are fine using the LYTe, I can say you won't be able to use it in LFS. The LFS demo does not allow layout files. If you upgrade to S1, you will have access to this feature, more cars and more tracks. Then you would go about saving them in LFS/data/layouts/

@amp88 - You are both right, and wrong with the accuracy issues. You can use a little linear algebra to figure out the exact time from StartTime, to EndTime (in LFS's case X.01 and X.02) that a car crossed a split/finish line. By knowing the position they were at during time (X.01) and the position they are now at during time (X.02) just calculate a where it crosses the plane/line of an important timing section; split / finish.

About the accuracy, you are right you won't be 100% accurate, but you likely will be more accurate than the way it is currently done, which is LFS checking the position of the car at time (X.01) and time (X.02) but NOT checking _where_ during that time the car actually crossed the finish line. You are correct, this will lose some accuracy because this interpolated time value will not include acceleration changes over that small time slice. But, it could be argued that even without that, it is still more accurate since a car that finished immediately before X.02 could tie with a car that finished immediately after X.01.

I don't know if what I said made sense, but I hope it did. I am not pulling stuff from no where, and I actually do understand what is going on. Just a few lines of code would be required for the more accurate, (in my opinion, even lacking the acceleration changes), timer that would interpolate the position of the car until the moment it crossed the start/finish line or a split for that matter.

Last edited by blackbird04217, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 18:26. Reason : Spelling / Clarity