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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
- BUMP -
Yea, that took a lot of might to bump this one...
But a good idea would have been to have posted the official results... Anyways. Would there be interest in doing this again?
Yea, that took a lot of might to bump this one...
But a good idea would have been to have posted the official results... Anyways. Would there be interest in doing this again?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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, .
Reason : Spelling / Clarity
If the Alt Gr key is conveniently pressing both Ctrl and Alt for the user it is the way LFS works. It checks if Ctrl is down, if so it does those special lines of code. If not it proceeds to check if Alt is down... Since the Alt Gr key is simulating presses for both Ctrl and Alt it will run the Ctrl code.
I repeat a question from above; do you not have a normal Alt key on the keyboard?
I repeat a question from above; do you not have a normal Alt key on the keyboard?
The whole point of Farmville and games like it is for the social market, spread like a disease. And likely more people have player Farmville than have played the Halflife Series because of the type of market. Does this make the game company better? Who knows, because the quality of the game is an opinion that can change from person to person. But- more casual players, moms, dads, grandparents etc that wouldn't touch 'games' are addicted to things like Farmville. I'm not voting as I don't think it is possible to be the 'best game company' and I'm certainly not sure I believe Valve, Blizzard or Zynga deserve that title...
But because I am curious, what qualities do you guys think are required for a game company to be 'the best'?
Oh, I never saw the screen caps in the first place : / As I would have had to click on them, and convert the .th so I could see the real thing . . . etc - so I would watch the video at the top and then download if I liked- dunno about others.
Enjoying a lot of these layouts, which is kinda odd from me since for the most part I haven't liked a lot of Autocross layouts that have been made. Maybe it's the attention you've paid while making it?
Anyways one suggestion to make things easier for people, probably making things too hard on you though, instead of a link to the post containing the download - add another link next to (video) that is (download) on the first post.
Anyways one suggestion to make things easier for people, probably making things too hard on you though, instead of a link to the post containing the download - add another link next to (video) that is (download) on the first post.
I do now know that Scawen has been doing "jack ****" as you put it. I can't say that he has been as busy as he once was, nor as busy as he hoped / planned. He did tell us he hasn't been doing things at the rate he once had, and he said a lot of the things he is doing takes time and thought. I believe this, and know from my own experiences that you can't just say: "finishNewTirePhysics()" and voila it is all done - especially when you are trying to make it fit with already existing cars. Even if your theory is correct and he/they are doing "jack ****" how would him saying that "jack ****" has happened help anymore than him saying development has been slow and give some reasons (some which are legit in my opinion), even if you feel they aren't good enough? What does that solve? Nothing. So as others have said, play something else - or at the very least lets stop the whining, please.
The patch will be out when it comes out. When it does I'll be sure to give it a try. Until then, I will play LFS on the rare occasion and go about my life normally.
You-Tubes
However I am looking for a particular camera shot of that race from the second half. Maybe I just missed it, but while watching the Speed channel's broadcast of the second race, in the later half they had a shot where the camera was under the chassis aiming at the left front tire, which I would like to have in as high-quality as I can available to watch over and over again . . (For my own reasons - but it was a great shot IMO). Can anyone find that on the WWW? I've had no luck yet.
However I am looking for a particular camera shot of that race from the second half. Maybe I just missed it, but while watching the Speed channel's broadcast of the second race, in the later half they had a shot where the camera was under the chassis aiming at the left front tire, which I would like to have in as high-quality as I can available to watch over and over again . . (For my own reasons - but it was a great shot IMO). Can anyone find that on the WWW? I've had no luck yet.
Already tried that, still no results. As suggested I should call them, maybe next week when the ISP fails for whatever reason. In the 5 months we've had this service we've made over 30 calls. And customer support, well it is a joke to call it support.
portforward.com
And I am going to disagree with the part where it is not difficult, I've done quite a bit of network programming with TCP and UDP protocols, and know some, though not everything about how things work. However, I can _not_ get my connection to forward my port properly, and I've put in plenty of effort trying. I believe it may be ISP related, though I can't prove that.
I don't see how it would have changed on the LFS side of things, the port forwarding would always have been necessary unless the group was on a LAN. I do believe, though I am completely willing, (and wanting), to be corrected: that using a router behind your modem is what causes you to need port forwarding; so that the router knows which computer to send the incoming packets to. It is not hard to follow the directions to enable port forwarding, but I have yet to get them to work for me.
And I am going to disagree with the part where it is not difficult, I've done quite a bit of network programming with TCP and UDP protocols, and know some, though not everything about how things work. However, I can _not_ get my connection to forward my port properly, and I've put in plenty of effort trying. I believe it may be ISP related, though I can't prove that.
I don't see how it would have changed on the LFS side of things, the port forwarding would always have been necessary unless the group was on a LAN. I do believe, though I am completely willing, (and wanting), to be corrected: that using a router behind your modem is what causes you to need port forwarding; so that the router knows which computer to send the incoming packets to. It is not hard to follow the directions to enable port forwarding, but I have yet to get them to work for me.
Artwork Help Needed
I know this is not a forum full of artists, but I know there are a handful here. I am looking for some help on a project I am working on, it is not LFS related, nor is it related to my AIRS project. It is racing related though and you will be able to test a new project before it gets main stream, as well as know you've helped work on it.
I have a couple _vastly_ different styles in mind, so it will need to be discussed in further detail later. The project is in the prototyping stage, and I have a good feeling about it. I've been developing for about 3 weeks, and the project is staying on the quiet side until I know it will be developed to it's full potential; which even in the stage it is at now it is starting to shine.
I need someone who can fit the follow:
- Creating 2D textures for
- Interface, Heads-up Display and Menus
- Track surfaces, and cars from an overhead perspective (for prototyping purposes)
- Desire, Motivation and Dedication to the project.
- Passion for racing, which if you are here that can almost be assumed...
If the project get's where I am picturing it then someone with 3D modeling and texturing experience will be useful.
For any other details PM me, leave questions here, or e-mail me: MyUserName @ yahoo
Thanks.
I have a couple _vastly_ different styles in mind, so it will need to be discussed in further detail later. The project is in the prototyping stage, and I have a good feeling about it. I've been developing for about 3 weeks, and the project is staying on the quiet side until I know it will be developed to it's full potential; which even in the stage it is at now it is starting to shine.
I need someone who can fit the follow:
- Creating 2D textures for
- Interface, Heads-up Display and Menus
- Track surfaces, and cars from an overhead perspective (for prototyping purposes)
- Desire, Motivation and Dedication to the project.
- Passion for racing, which if you are here that can almost be assumed...
If the project get's where I am picturing it then someone with 3D modeling and texturing experience will be useful.
For any other details PM me, leave questions here, or e-mail me: MyUserName @ yahoo
Thanks.
Is the layout available anywhere, looks fun - though I don't get why it is called 'hill climb'. Sure it resembles a tight track, but there isn't a hill . . .
I think you missed this, or misread it:
The idea with retrieving the traction levels of each tire give the AI to know how close they are to the limit _without_ knowing the actual dynamics.
This means I don't want the AI to know about the tire heat or anything like that. Only to get input, sensations etc about the traction of the tires. Which is why I need to go the route of creating my own small racing application. It won't be completely simulation but I will try to incorporate as much as I can. At the minimum I need some, basic, traction/friction model for the tires. It may not include deformations, heat, dirt, tire wear etc... But enough that the tires can break traction and slide around.
I don't know though, I am having some serious issues with motivation on all my projects at the moment. I haven't really coded much for a long while, and it is annoying to me. It isn't the lack of desire either, just something else. Consider it something like writers block - hope that changes soon.
The idea with retrieving the traction levels of each tire give the AI to know how close they are to the limit _without_ knowing the actual dynamics.
This means I don't want the AI to know about the tire heat or anything like that. Only to get input, sensations etc about the traction of the tires. Which is why I need to go the route of creating my own small racing application. It won't be completely simulation but I will try to incorporate as much as I can. At the minimum I need some, basic, traction/friction model for the tires. It may not include deformations, heat, dirt, tire wear etc... But enough that the tires can break traction and slide around.
I don't know though, I am having some serious issues with motivation on all my projects at the moment. I haven't really coded much for a long while, and it is annoying to me. It isn't the lack of desire either, just something else. Consider it something like writers block - hope that changes soon.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG