Quote from Kdovi :

Nice target time

I checked your laps in the DB because I first thought I is a software bug, but you really made that direct hit

Quote from creativesurgeon :

Oooops!

Hmm...
This error page looks like a squid proxy error page. Is it possible that outgoing connections to port 8080 are blocked by squid or the firewall?
Because the tracker is embedded in the site using a frame and the tracker is running on port 8080:
http://liveforspeed.at:8080/tr ... nup_id=489&cut=410000

It's on my todo list do move the tracker also to the default http port 80, but haven't had time yet.

Quote from Kdovi :

Hi,
I'd like to join, but it shows me "You are not authorized to access this page." when I want to signup (I am registered and loged in)

This should be fixed now. Please try it again!

:doh: sorry missed this thread

Blacklion has build a tool where you can fastforward x seconds, and also rewind. The rewind is simple a reload of the replay and than a fastforward.

You can find the Tool in our Forum: http://alphabasis.net/schneefee/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=529
(Note: the forum is german, but the Readme with an description in the zip archive is english)

My Server:
Debian Etch
Kernel 2.6.16
Wine 0.9.20

I run a LFS-Dedi (Patch U, V and W7/W19) since last November without any problems.
(Today I updated to wine 0.9.25 and Patch X)

I currently working on updating jinsim for patch X. It is not finished by now, but you can find a first test release here: http://liveforspeed.at/download/jinsim-0.4.91.zip
In this release all jinsim response and request packets are updated and should now work with lfs patch w24, but only UDP connections are supported right now. I will add the TCP support soon.
JInSim now requieres Java 5.0.

You should also look into the Changes file and also exam the examples, because I also have done some refactorings.

I don't know if it is a new feature in W21 or a bug. When I press reset during an online race, or a qualifying, the car is repaired and all tires are new. (I was alone online when I tested this)
I did not find any description of this (new) behavior in the changes list.

Thanks, now with W22 it works.
You don't slow my development down, because I'm updating the Java insim libraray JInSim, and there are lots of other things to update and test.

:d

I'm currently working on updating my insim tools, and I encountered a problem. I'm trying to get a IS_CPP from LFS by sending a tiny packet as discribed in the InSim.txt with the following values: type = 3, request info = 1, subtype = 6, but I don't get a response package.
If I send a version request tiny packet (values: type: 3, request info = 1, subtype = 1), than I get the IS_VER packet as answer.

I'm using the W21 patch and all packets are transmitted via UDP. In LFS I have started a single player race with 3 laps and the car is standing on the start finish line.

I try to find an error in my code for some time, but I have no clue.
Has anybody a hint, or is it maybe a LFS bug?

I've read in the german forum a post from Orion and he says that the latest test patch will be used.

Who long will the qualifing session be? 1hour? 2 hours?

Yes, I started to update my stats tool to support patch X. When this is done I will add support for the lfs stats format.

Quote from Scawen :

The current plan is to release patch X in one or two weeks, depending how it goes. Two weeks might be a better or more realistic option because it'll probably take a week just to get the remaining updates finished - nothing really big or interesting for most people, but includes an updated InSim system (which is hopefully only 1 or 2 days' work) and some other compatible and incompatible things on my list of varying importance, and some bugs reported here. I guess we should really have a week of stable testing after the changes are implemented, so that we know version X will be bug free.

found here: http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=397415#post397415

I have a similar problem, because I have to update my tools to manage the austrian championship. This time I'm lucky, because the last race is before patch X is released, when the schedule is right.

A nice feature would be that we can tell LFS which InSim version we want, so that with Patch X also old tools can work.
One other solution could be that multible LFS versions are supported. e.g. in the LFS directory a LFS_W.exe and a LFS_X.exe is located, and when the user connects to a server that runs the W version the LFS_W.exe is started, and vice versa.
But this would only make sense if the InSim changes constantly.

The idea with the buttons is great. I'm was also playing around lately to add a simple interface via insim to send race control messages for admins.
For this it would be create to have a textfield.
I think it would be enough if the chat input window is shown after a button is pressed, and the entered text is also transmitted with the button infos.

Quote from filur :

Latest revision of my stuff,

Fri_13_Apr_2007_17_05_23_+0200.xml

Fri_13_Apr_2007_17_05_23_+0200.png

looks good.

I use Wine 0.9.20 on Debian to run the lfs dedi and all works fine out of the box. I have read that newer versions of Wine needs a X-Server, but I cannot confirm it.

Quote from CLRS530 :

I´m not for most of the last examples because they all have so many useless data. For example the penalty type in every lap entry. How do you get a penalty that such thing is needed.
Also you have pit, flag, take over... Where do you want to go with this.

What useless data? We do not put a penalty tag into the lap tag when no penalty event happen. Only when a penalty, takeover, flag occurs, than a tag is added to the proper lap when the event occurs.

Quote from CLRS530 :

Maybe in a common format there is no space for speed because its also not the easiest thing to implement. But you can´t take out pit, tyres, flag and so on...

As I suggested earlier in the thread, we should put mendatory info in the format, but the speed should be optional. But we should only put infos in the file that are useful. I only think that the top speed is one useful information. As I remember there were more things in filurs example is not available anymore, so I cannot give an example whats useless.

Quote from CLRS530 :

So why do we don´t use my way to use a list of all those infos? In my opinion thats the best way. Easy to implement and the easiest way to parse. I don´t understand why you try hard to get something else.

Maybe not every body is happy with your format.

Quote from the_angry_angel :

Dangerous ground. Make something work for 1 platform and actually do it well, before you attempt more.

Sure, we should concentrate on LFS for now and the information that we can gather with InSim, but we can also keep an open mind.

If we (only) want a XML format of the InSim Events, than make everything like it is discribed in the InSim.txt. e.g.

is than

I don't want that. I want a clean format that one should be able to use without InSim knowledge.

Quote from filur :

Since i want to be able to add extra data for rendering live progress, using namespaces makes alot of sense.

Ok, than namespaces are fine

Quote from Dygear :

I think that the format should read like an XML file that takes ques from insim packets.

Hmm, first I also thought that is should be analog to insim, but now I don't know if it is the right direction. The goal of the common stats format is that different tools can use the same input format. Why not different racing sims. I mean that the naming or values like penalty should not be lfs specific. e.g.:

What do you think?

Quote from filur :

They are namespaces. For example, it's very simple to discard unknown namespaces, thus letting authors embed any kind of data without causing any trouble for a parser (since the parser never even sees data outside of known namespaces).

http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/

Namespaces only make sense if other kind of data is also included in the XML file, and that is not the cause with the stats file format. If you want a valid XML file so that the parser has no problems, than a XML-Schema is the right way.
So we need no namespaces here, it only make things complicated.

As I wrote earlier in this thread I don't like abbreviations. You sometimes use full names in your example, and sometimes use abbreviations.
So always use full names like username instead of uname, or position instead of p.

Also the time should not be formated. XML is mostly read by programs so a unnecessary parsing could be avoided.

If the flag tags have lap numbers, than put them directly into the lap tag. Also the split times. e.g.:

There should only be one result tag, so the result and finish should be merged to avoid duplicated informations.

Quote from Gosser :

Another question: I got 2 computers - If I buy one license, will I be able to have full version S2 on both computers?

Yes. AFAIK you are allowed to play on both computers in the same time in a LAN, but you only can play online with one computer.

Quote from CLRS530 :

I put a lap number into penaltie, pit and take over and no I don´t think it would be good to put it into lap because we have to put an empty element in every lap where you don´t need it.

Why do we need an empty element?

Quote from CLRS530 :

Thats much better structured and you get a better and faster overview.
And why do you want the flags into the lap?

Thats only a counter of flags the player got.
Maybe you can make also a list of it. But I decided that it would be too much and isn´t needed.

I have a driver detail page where every lap of a the race is display and I want to add a flags column that shows when a racer has received a blue or caused a yellow flag.
Here is an example of the current version of a drivers detail page:
http://liveforspeed.at/?q=league/driver/detail/310

If the pit and penalty infos are childs of the lap element, it is also very easy with XPATH to get only a list of all pits of penalty tags.

Quote from CLRS530 :

The splits ad laps and penaties tags. I don´t know if you do this if you could have more entries. This should someone say how know more over XML. filur?

Yes you can have more entries, and you can get the correct tags with XPATH.

Quote from CLRS530 :

EDIT: What do you think over my next "try"?

I think that our XML format is a good starting point, so here are my thoughts:

Do you need the splits tag?

The speed value is for example 10412. Is this 104,12km/h?
Why is the time formated and the speed not?

Whould it be better to put the pit and penalty tags into the lap tags?
e.g.

Make it sense to put the yellow and blue flag also into the laps tag? I know that Insim does not send the lap number, but in my stats tool I put the flags into the current lap when the IS_FLG event is received.

I also suggest that we make mendatory infos and optional infos. For example the result or lap time is mendatory, but the speed should be optional.