I would like to point out that changing the AI Skill Level changes the skill level of AI cars that you add _after_ changing that effect. At least, I believe I am remembering that correctly; I will go try it. But I remember being able to add multiple AI drivers with different skill levels by doing what I described.
EDIT: Seems I am wrong, and the AI Skill Level applies to all AI, previously added or not.
EDIT: Seems I am wrong, and the AI Skill Level applies to all AI, previously added or not.
Last edited by blackbird04217, .
I kinda see where you are aiming to go, and that might plausibly work - but like you said it would ignore tire temp - and any other dynamic changes; wind, drafting/downforce -etc.
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. Although some dynamics, at least the general rules, will need to be added to to the AI as general knowledge, but not needed to know values at all. Like we all know that getting behind another car, slip streaming, is a useful tactic - and we know why it works, as a general rule.
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. Although some dynamics, at least the general rules, will need to be added to to the AI as general knowledge, but not needed to know values at all. Like we all know that getting behind another car, slip streaming, is a useful tactic - and we know why it works, as a general rule.
I don't know how this topic derailed from G-Forces to this but I would have seen the derailment from G-Forces to the G-Spot or something else silly...
That said, there is nothing common sense about that statement, he is making an opinion, or a completely absurd statement that is meaningless; Hannah Montana and Racing have less to do than Apples and Oranges (which are at least both fruits or even food for that matter). But this statement has no fact or meaning - therefor commonsense really can't apply. Least I think so. Now if he mentioned something like: "Racing is pointless, cars are driving around and getting nowhere just wasting our resources" That actually contains some common sense that racing involves using resources; oil/gas etc... But the other side could then argue back that racing advances automotive (and other industries) technologies, and provides entertainment. The debate can go on, but facts need to be used to back things up; How useless is Hannah Montana? Not very. There are millions of fans that are; entertained and addicted/stuck on watching/listening to her media outlets. That is not meaningless, meaningless to me - yes, because I am not a fan of that entertainment.
I meant to, and thought I had posted an update awhile ago - unfortunately not an update of progress.
For the time being I think the AIRS project has gone as far as it can go with LFS. Certainly I could get the AI doing better laptimes in LFS but I can not get any form of grip value for the AI to know if the car is slipping. I've thought about playing around with OutSim, using the angular velocity and acceleration vectors to see if I could come up with a good approximation, but honestly with the time it would take to do that I could likely make a small, flat world with some basic physics for a car to drive around.
So the next step of the process is going to take awhile, but I plan on making my own world, some simplistic physics, and get the AIRS project working with that.
If someone can come up with a way to accurately detect that each of tires are Under, Near, At or Over the Limit of traction using InSim/OutSim/OutGauge interfaces, then please describe how and if it is accurate enough then I will implement that and continue using LFS as the testbed for the AIRS project.
For the time being I think the AIRS project has gone as far as it can go with LFS. Certainly I could get the AI doing better laptimes in LFS but I can not get any form of grip value for the AI to know if the car is slipping. I've thought about playing around with OutSim, using the angular velocity and acceleration vectors to see if I could come up with a good approximation, but honestly with the time it would take to do that I could likely make a small, flat world with some basic physics for a car to drive around.
So the next step of the process is going to take awhile, but I plan on making my own world, some simplistic physics, and get the AIRS project working with that.
If someone can come up with a way to accurately detect that each of tires are Under, Near, At or Over the Limit of traction using InSim/OutSim/OutGauge interfaces, then please describe how and if it is accurate enough then I will implement that and continue using LFS as the testbed for the AIRS project.
Because LFS is their hobby, enjoyment and it is their choice not to want anyone else developing it with/for them.
Because when you talk about something that is < 1 foot you don't typically use the phrase "It is 0.16667th of a foot long" instead you would say "It is two inches long."
DirectX has nothing to using 1 or 2 or 4 cores. Sure in the last couple years buying a single core CPU has been outdated. but many people that LFS targets do not have computers within that time. Rewriting to allow multi-core cpu advantage could be easy, or it could be extremely hard; it all depends on the way programming was designed. Considering LFS started before multi-core computers really started hitting the market I'd be surprised if multi-core support slid in without any issues.
In time Scavier will naturally progress their simulation and upgrade when they deem necessary, to newer versions of DirectX and to allow use of multi-core CPUs. But it all takes time.
In time Scavier will naturally progress their simulation and upgrade when they deem necessary, to newer versions of DirectX and to allow use of multi-core CPUs. But it all takes time.
I believe he is asking other drivers . . . Making a replica is not always that easy, especially when it is not there. This may be easier when FlameCZE's Layout Database project becomes more popular.
Switching to DX9 won't improve FPS. The DirectX 8 calls are boiling down to what the DX9 calls would be at the driver level.
Just a small note from my experience and view on upgrading/building a PC. It would be better to up the cost a little now, than to build a PC that is already behind current technology. You said you don't play games primarily because your current computer is not good enough, with that thought I would recommend spending the little more now. I'm not saying doubling your budget is okay, or anything like that - perhaps waiting an additional month to save a little bit more for the parts; that is the sort of thing I recommend.
I am not mentioning anything specific about the actual components to build your system, but if you have RAM type A and RAM type B which is better for just a little more costly than type A - then in my opinion it wouldn't be smart to save the money. You need to remember you are upgrading for a reason, don't make it so you will need to upgrade again soon. Of course within limits of some sort of budget, you don't need the best of the best but still I think you see what I mean.
I am not mentioning anything specific about the actual components to build your system, but if you have RAM type A and RAM type B which is better for just a little more costly than type A - then in my opinion it wouldn't be smart to save the money. You need to remember you are upgrading for a reason, don't make it so you will need to upgrade again soon. Of course within limits of some sort of budget, you don't need the best of the best but still I think you see what I mean.
That is what I was talking about with it is easier to relate / compare with the imperial system. But that is also because we grew up relating to that system. If from day one I was taught to measure myself in centimeters, then I would have a pretty damn good idea of how far something is in cm, m or km... But I didn't so I have to figure it out but process of knowing that 1yd is near 1m in length and then follow through comparing that way.
About the beer in pints, well that is still part of the same thing. We buy milk in gallons and gas in gallons. And some drinks come in quarts/liters which are close enough to compare (although again not exact). So if we had always bought, measured and used liters there would be no issue comparing/relating the sizes. This is getting slightly off the original topic. i just pointed out that I hadn't known distances (or other things for that matter) were measured using the same system that is common on this side of the puddle - and I didn't realize this from the sake of being mocked by others how superior the metric system is. Which it isn't superior in anyway until it comes to simplifying the math, and even then as long as you know 12in are in 1foot you can use math to convert for you...
Perhaps using OutSim, or the MCI packets through InSim would suit you better? Other than those options that is all that is available directly through the LFS interfaces/protocols.
I never said imperial was worse, but it does make mathematics more complicated; 100cm = 0.1m but 100in != .1 1.0 10.0 or any other clean number of another imperial unit be feet, yards or whatever. 100cm is also 0.0001km another, still clean example of moving the decimal point. (I believe I moved it correctly :P). I wasnt recommending changing that either, but I was surprised to learn that distances are in miles in the UK - dunno, I just never knew that and had always assumed it was all done with the metric system.
Forgive my blatant ignorance in this post as I've only been on this side of the puddle - but why would the UK measure distances in miles while everything else is metric? Why would you not keep the simplicity of meters, and kilometers... Damn, and here I though the United States was idiotic for choosing a, very odd system for measure. 12in = 1foot, 3feet = 1yrd. WTF? I mean, when you grow up using it there is no problem - until you get into physics and then conversions are just plain stupid compared to the lovely metric system based on 10, imagine that - a system based off the number system that we use! Far too much sense there. But then to go a step further and combine metric volume with imperial distance - WTF??? You just blew my mind...
On the other hand, even though the math is easier and cleaner with the metric system, I can't exactly relate to the numbers. I am still working on it, and I know some of the exact conversion multipliers - but I am talking about being able to judge things without converting. For instance I know a 2 story building is somewhere around 18 to 20 feet tall. But without manually thinking about it I couldn't guess how tall it is in meters. (I can compare 18 feet = 6 yards which roughly equals 6 meters...) Ahh well /rant.
On the other hand, even though the math is easier and cleaner with the metric system, I can't exactly relate to the numbers. I am still working on it, and I know some of the exact conversion multipliers - but I am talking about being able to judge things without converting. For instance I know a 2 story building is somewhere around 18 to 20 feet tall. But without manually thinking about it I couldn't guess how tall it is in meters. (I can compare 18 feet = 6 yards which roughly equals 6 meters...) Ahh well /rant.
I am not sure if you can save it, but can't you just say "test" during a replay and hop into the car with the car's set?
InSim is different than OutSim and OutGauge.
You do not need anything except the LFS Demo, so no the full version is not a requirement. Again, the port and IP are specific to the application you; coded or have.
To enable and use InSim you must type "/insim ##" without quotes and where ## is the port that InSim will be using to connect. Outgauge does not need InSim to be connected, or running so I doubt that if you are using OutGauge that you would receive messages saying InSim is not started.
Good luck.
You do not need anything except the LFS Demo, so no the full version is not a requirement. Again, the port and IP are specific to the application you; coded or have.
To enable and use InSim you must type "/insim ##" without quotes and where ## is the port that InSim will be using to connect. Outgauge does not need InSim to be connected, or running so I doubt that if you are using OutGauge that you would receive messages saying InSim is not started.
Good luck.
It's adult night at the ball pit! :P
-I was making a quote from someone (nameless) on my team forums . . .
-I was making a quote from someone (nameless) on my team forums . . .
Not too bad, but if you would have kept the LFS camera at near the same location of you real life camera and left if there - then the comparison would have been better. Then you could use a time multiplier for LFS now and then to keep them synchronized, so that if the LFS car got behind by a second you would run LFS a little faster. Although parts of it did look pretty close, it was just too hard to compare when the camera kept changing in LFS.
My bike, the day I bought it! Can't wait for a few more months when summer comes around so I can ride it.
Not to derail the topic, but...
That's the thing about evolution, if humans were constantly under negative g's from some strange way things worked, maybe if we flew like a bird?, then over the course of a (very) long time we would become less effected from the effects of negative gs. The brain/skull and blood vessels would (again slowly over a long time) change to handle the required situations...
But that is for another topic, so I let this end.
That's the thing about evolution, if humans were constantly under negative g's from some strange way things worked, maybe if we flew like a bird?, then over the course of a (very) long time we would become less effected from the effects of negative gs. The brain/skull and blood vessels would (again slowly over a long time) change to handle the required situations...
But that is for another topic, so I let this end.
I didn't mean loading/unloading on the fly, I was talking more for when you leave a track and come back. So, you were closer with the previous assumption of textures spanning the track, and you are completely correct, it would be large textures - depending on resolution. I didn't exactly mention negative side effects, just a thought. For a track like Fern Bay Club, Aston Cadet/Club and so on I think this would be reasonable, but certainly for tracks like Aston Grand Prix there would be a considerable surface area to cover. The other good thing though, is the memory for the texture could be something like 4bits, or at the highest of 8bits. The skid mark texture really only needs an alpha channel. Which would save considerable amounts of memory - so I do believe this is a plausible idea. Remember it would only span the track portion of the environment, certainly still a large area, no doubt. Also some texture streaming techniques could do this, requiring a bit of work and thought - certainty.
I know it would work on my card, but I am also quite sure it wouldn't work on the low-end cards that LFS supports at this time.
I know it would work on my card, but I am also quite sure it wouldn't work on the low-end cards that LFS supports at this time.
In cfg.txt:
Mode 0 - Inactive
Mode 1 - During playing
Mode 2 - Playing and Replays
Delay is in Milliseconds. 1000 = 1 second, 100 = 1 tenth of a second etc.
IP and PORT should connect to where your application is running, likely 127.0.0.1 (on your own computer), with some port number that you would need to look up based on the application.
ID is optional.
Mode 0 - Inactive
Mode 1 - During playing
Mode 2 - Playing and Replays
Delay is in Milliseconds. 1000 = 1 second, 100 = 1 tenth of a second etc.
IP and PORT should connect to where your application is running, likely 127.0.0.1 (on your own computer), with some port number that you would need to look up based on the application.
ID is optional.
I would say a bit that evolution would have a bit to do why we can handle more G's pressing up against our body, (positive Gs) than which we can handle of forces pulling our bodies down (negative Gs). I mean, consider first that we are constantly under 1G pull, and typically that is downward. When we walk, run, jump or fall we get more than 1G (positive) of force. It is rare when we actually get negative Gs in anything besides man-made vehicles, which in terms of time have been around for a very small slice of time compared to how long humans have been around...
The could 'bake' the skid marks into an additional texture layer over the track. And save/reload these textures. Which would add more video memory to the requirements, but it would be consistent, not adding to the rendering time, and not growing in size.
The main problem with rubber that stays on track permanently is the fact that eventually all, or most, of the track will be rubber marks and they wouldn't disappear. Even in real life the rubber marks fade and disappear with use/wear.
The main problem with rubber that stays on track permanently is the fact that eventually all, or most, of the track will be rubber marks and they wouldn't disappear. Even in real life the rubber marks fade and disappear with use/wear.
That is too funny, I just came here to post that 5g lateral + 4g down (or whatever it was) is not a possible way to come to 9g. The force needs to be normalized, which gives the value 6.4 (I think, I didn't check Marsaz's math and I was going to do it here until someone kinda beat me to it).
Though now I continue to watch the rest of the videos, as I am only partway through the first and had to correct people that it isn't 9g's because of 5g+4g, even if it seems so at first glance.
Though now I continue to watch the rest of the videos, as I am only partway through the first and had to correct people that it isn't 9g's because of 5g+4g, even if it seems so at first glance.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG