I've heard of the problem before and I believe, but haven't any experience with it, that there is an HDMI adapter/splitter that will allow you to get the sound output from the 360 and also go to your monitor. I don't have much info sorry, but I hope that the little info I gave helps.
That is Shauns point. But I would take a guess that something with the new year, or something else pretty strange. Yes I did notice, but didn't put much care into it.
That's hilarious. If its possible to do things before birth I wanna find a way to continue doing things after death . . .
/me devotes entire life to doing things after death.
/me devotes entire life to doing things after death.
"Better Physics" - this isn't a request in anyway since is opinion based; what would make better physics.
LFS has modeled cockpits; Dashboard has depth, even some of the road cars had 3D heat controls the last time I checked.
More real cars = big corporations getting paid for a 'name'. I don't think that is required, more car classes - probably.
But the best part of all;
"And several more thinsgs that I forgot right now." - Didn't want them very bad did you?
------
Disclaimer; I'm not saying I wouldn't like to see some of the above in LFS, but graphics I don't think are a deal breaker - why waste computation time on graphics when it could be spent on more physics calculations. Like I said "better physics" isn't describing any sort of idea. At least "tires heat up to quickly" shows your opinion on the tires; though I've never had much of a problem unless sliding around too much; in which case be more smooth and watch the sliding. For me better physics would consist of; more detailed tracks, (AFAIK we will get one "soon"...), brake fade; due to heating up the pads/disks too much, transmission issues when shifting without clutch (hard to balance when keeping auto clutch), track temperature changing in shadows, racing line with more grip than areas with marbles. I could keep going on, but that is how a suggestion is made, actually making the suggestion not just the idea of better physics. For all I know in the above "better physics" to you could mean the ability to take a turn at 90mph and still stay glued to the track. - not saying you mean this, but making a point that "better physics" and suggestions like it do not have real material as its only an opinion of what makes things better.
Well its a bit out of date now, I wish it had windowed mode; or at least 32 bit color support and my native resolution. But it is quite interesting as you can turn tire wear up or down, damage up or down which makes you need to pit a lot more often in some cases. It's a lot more addicting than I first gave it credit; but I don't care for its user interface.
Was this ever open source? I think this would be the *perfect* test bed for my AI testing if I could get access to the code for it. But I doubt it is, I looked all over the site and couldn't find anything.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... 8EysE&feature=related
Check out the bird at 2:14. I found that amusing.
Check out the bird at 2:14. I found that amusing.
I've never tried playing with mods, and it doesn't even run on my new computer. I've given up, but I won't throw it out either.
Own the game, but have never been able to successfully play it more than 5minutes which is a shame because I think it would great fun.
Two thousand AND Nine would be: 2000.9 from the way I was always taught.
This is true to a point and false on another. I know there are enough people that do big jumps and things that don't get the recognition that would be just as capable of doing this specific stunt etc... But popularity, chance for media to get ahold of it, is more important; and thus why he has the spotlight.
Now, to say that I could do that may be lying. Do I have the skills, certainly. Do I have ALL 100% of the balls it takes; probably not when it came to actually hitting the throttle, but I am sure I had enough balls to get myself into the situation.
Regardless, the skill needed is that of a high-school physics degree, ability to hit the throttle, keep the wheel straight and keep a straight head while during this procedure (which is where the 'balls' come in). Also needed a car that can accelerate and maintain calculated launch speed in the amount of runway given.
--------
So back to your quote the difference between him and others is not really that he does this stuff; there are many other people that do it as well whom don't get the fame and are therefor not 'media tagets'
Well if the launch height and landing height are assumed to be the same.
And we know gravity is -9.81m/s/s.
Then we could use physics to work backwards and see the estimated speed of launch knowing that we need to stay airborne for 269feet (81.9912m according to google).
We would also need to know how long he was in the air for - (that or how high he got from the landing/launch point).
My point is that this it the type of thing people do before they setup for something like this; they prove it is possible before attempting it. Which is the big difference between some idiot trying it at home and the people who made it big. (Again, this isn't saying it is easy to complete the task, or that it doesn't require focus of a special type, just that the knowledge that everything will be ok under X circumstances proves it to work.)
And we know gravity is -9.81m/s/s.
Then we could use physics to work backwards and see the estimated speed of launch knowing that we need to stay airborne for 269feet (81.9912m according to google).
We would also need to know how long he was in the air for - (that or how high he got from the landing/launch point).
My point is that this it the type of thing people do before they setup for something like this; they prove it is possible before attempting it. Which is the big difference between some idiot trying it at home and the people who made it big. (Again, this isn't saying it is easy to complete the task, or that it doesn't require focus of a special type, just that the knowledge that everything will be ok under X circumstances proves it to work.)
Music credits are at the end of the video- I didn't exactly memorize, pause or care more to write what it was - sorry for the epic laziness but you know where to look :P
Probably evenly mixed between:
Twenty-Ten (As it is Twenty Hundred, Ten. Like Nineteen-Ninety Nine.
Two-thousand Ten (without the 'and' like the poll has and shouldn't be there)
Twenty-Ten (As it is Twenty Hundred, Ten. Like Nineteen-Ninety Nine.
Two-thousand Ten (without the 'and' like the poll has and shouldn't be there)
No, I used to follow more of this stuff but slowly grew out of it or something. Not saying its not interesting to me still, just not a huge follower of any sort of extreme sports any more.
Also - my comment wasn't about Pastrana either, it was more about jumping distances.
Also - my comment wasn't about Pastrana either, it was more about jumping distances.
Hah, agreed. Did you see all the jetski's fly over to him like immediately? Like someone was going to jump in water if they couldn't swim. (Though that said I don't think it would be easy to swim very long in that suit!)
http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=64307
Yea I started it a little earlier. But anyways mine are still the same;
- Get a job in the programming / game industry.
- Pay off my 'small' student loan ($11K)
- Get some backup savings stored up, since I've spent it all on this years goals.
- Read at least 24 books. Including at least 6 Fiction, 6 Non-fiction
- Write a minimum 1 page story, each week; totalling 52 pieces.
- Try to remember to bump my thread above to see how many people actually tried, or did complete their Goals, Plans or New Years Resolutions for 2010.
I'm not saying it doesn't take balls to do it, or that there is no chance something can go wrong;
But people need to remember this stuff is proven that it works. The risk is quite minimal, if everyone is doing their jobs correctly, and wind conditions are not severe- which they usually shut these things down when the wind is severe. That said, reread my first statement; it still takes balls, and there is still chances stuff go wrong.
Anyways, I agree the run off area was very short.
But people need to remember this stuff is proven that it works. The risk is quite minimal, if everyone is doing their jobs correctly, and wind conditions are not severe- which they usually shut these things down when the wind is severe. That said, reread my first statement; it still takes balls, and there is still chances stuff go wrong.
Anyways, I agree the run off area was very short.
Yes; someone may need to correct me since it has been awhile since I've done it but:
The driver waiting will press the little 't' next to the driver he is teamed with before the pitstop happens. The current driver also needs to press the t or do something before / during the pit. Then after/during the pitstop the drivers are swapped.
The first driver will want to be sure to put the car into neutral, otherwise it will stall when he gets out.
The driver waiting will press the little 't' next to the driver he is teamed with before the pitstop happens. The current driver also needs to press the t or do something before / during the pit. Then after/during the pitstop the drivers are swapped.
The first driver will want to be sure to put the car into neutral, otherwise it will stall when he gets out.
@logittekg25 - For all intent and purposes I am only trying to work on AI; that may require me to make a world where a car can drive, but as said I really don't want to spend my time working with the physics and making a world for the cars.
@w126 - Yes, that was the first way I tried configuring it. I made my program use the arrow keys to move the steering axis; started the steering axis in dead center like my G25 would. Then went into LFS, double checked left and right arrow did nothing, and used them. Watched the axis move. At first turning left/right it would act just as turning the unconfigured wheel. But after I hit each edge of the axis limit the center was now making LFS about 15 degrees or so to the right. I made sure I was inputting the proper center spot according the what I had to work with from PPJoy and I was, I messed around for quite a while, even trying to configure the joystick from the PPJoy side.
@w126 - Yes, that was the first way I tried configuring it. I made my program use the arrow keys to move the steering axis; started the steering axis in dead center like my G25 would. Then went into LFS, double checked left and right arrow did nothing, and used them. Watched the axis move. At first turning left/right it would act just as turning the unconfigured wheel. But after I hit each edge of the axis limit the center was now making LFS about 15 degrees or so to the right. I made sure I was inputting the proper center spot according the what I had to work with from PPJoy and I was, I messed around for quite a while, even trying to configure the joystick from the PPJoy side.
www.simcraft.com
Was the first link on google when I typed: Sim Craft when I checked earlier based on curiosity.
Was the first link on google when I typed: Sim Craft when I checked earlier based on curiosity.
Probably not a bad idea;
But I thought of a few issues it could cause; Mouse users that use the buttons for things. Click on a screen while trying to navigate, that click hits a car, BOOM- text box in face.
I am not saying there are not reasons this could be fixed if the mouse is bound to other things; just pointing out something I noticed.
But I thought of a few issues it could cause; Mouse users that use the buttons for things. Click on a screen while trying to navigate, that click hits a car, BOOM- text box in face.
I am not saying there are not reasons this could be fixed if the mouse is bound to other things; just pointing out something I noticed.
Well AndriodXP there has been 'progress' but also a wall on the coding front.
As can be read in my posts above I decided to try using LFS as a test bed for the AI Project. I made my InSim connection which is ready to receive OutGauge and OutSim information if required. I also did the planning, however I can't control a car from my code. I attempted the /press command, but that releases the key stroke.
After that I decided I wasn't going to look further because it was probably for a reason, though you've probably noticed my thread where I watched the AI drive for 5hrs, actually I've done this a lot lately; not only endurance but different cars, tracks; long races, short races; And all sorts of watching. I've learned a few interesting things, have a few interesting theories and am still playing with different tests in LFS; which made me decide to look for some form a virtual thing where my AI can run LFS controllers in some fashion.
I stumbled upon PPJoy, which was mentioned on page one by someone when virtual control was first brought up. I successfully turned the wheel in LFS using my program. However, it doesn't center the wheel properly. I made sure my values were correct, and they are. But dor some reason LFS interprets ALL of the 'virtual' axis to be offcenter, not just the steering. I tried messing with some configs for PPJoy but still couldn't fix it. I am deciding that LFS is not the place to do this under the constraint of proper control, and probably more problems to come.
I did request that /hold [key] and /release [key] were added to the command system in LFS, as well as /setaxis [axis] [pos]
If those get added I may try implementing this in LFS again, until then I will attempt to look into other things; also with the PPJoy it wouldn't be as shareable as you'd think - not the easiest thing to install and use for the general public.
----------------
On the other hand, I was thinking a bit more about driver response. We have already discussed, and I've placed into my plans to give the driver a response time; maximum speed of control and reaction times etc... But I began wondering, what about driver smoothness; error in control. Sure there is error in guessing where the car is on track, but there is also error with control - not only reaction time, but think of going on a perfectly straight section. It's likely a less experienced player is fighting to keep the car smooth and straight, where-as the experienced player is fine. The only problem I see is adding TOO many places of error. Not necessarily too much error, since that can be dialed in later; but too many sources.
I've also figured out that it will be impossible to use a pure random method on finding the distance to a reference point; because this will likely cause the AI to never drive towards the same point. Sure we want random variance with the guesstimating, but it needs to be based on the previous frame(s) in some form or another. Basically something interesting will have to be developed to keep the value realistic compared to previous frames, but also randomly moving according to the Drivers state and actual distance etc. . .
As can be read in my posts above I decided to try using LFS as a test bed for the AI Project. I made my InSim connection which is ready to receive OutGauge and OutSim information if required. I also did the planning, however I can't control a car from my code. I attempted the /press command, but that releases the key stroke.
After that I decided I wasn't going to look further because it was probably for a reason, though you've probably noticed my thread where I watched the AI drive for 5hrs, actually I've done this a lot lately; not only endurance but different cars, tracks; long races, short races; And all sorts of watching. I've learned a few interesting things, have a few interesting theories and am still playing with different tests in LFS; which made me decide to look for some form a virtual thing where my AI can run LFS controllers in some fashion.
I stumbled upon PPJoy, which was mentioned on page one by someone when virtual control was first brought up. I successfully turned the wheel in LFS using my program. However, it doesn't center the wheel properly. I made sure my values were correct, and they are. But dor some reason LFS interprets ALL of the 'virtual' axis to be offcenter, not just the steering. I tried messing with some configs for PPJoy but still couldn't fix it. I am deciding that LFS is not the place to do this under the constraint of proper control, and probably more problems to come.
I did request that /hold [key] and /release [key] were added to the command system in LFS, as well as /setaxis [axis] [pos]
If those get added I may try implementing this in LFS again, until then I will attempt to look into other things; also with the PPJoy it wouldn't be as shareable as you'd think - not the easiest thing to install and use for the general public.
----------------
On the other hand, I was thinking a bit more about driver response. We have already discussed, and I've placed into my plans to give the driver a response time; maximum speed of control and reaction times etc... But I began wondering, what about driver smoothness; error in control. Sure there is error in guessing where the car is on track, but there is also error with control - not only reaction time, but think of going on a perfectly straight section. It's likely a less experienced player is fighting to keep the car smooth and straight, where-as the experienced player is fine. The only problem I see is adding TOO many places of error. Not necessarily too much error, since that can be dialed in later; but too many sources.
I've also figured out that it will be impossible to use a pure random method on finding the distance to a reference point; because this will likely cause the AI to never drive towards the same point. Sure we want random variance with the guesstimating, but it needs to be based on the previous frame(s) in some form or another. Basically something interesting will have to be developed to keep the value realistic compared to previous frames, but also randomly moving according to the Drivers state and actual distance etc. . .
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG