Don't worry, I'm fine. Thanks for your concern though
I got a heads up from a few folks who I was racing with tonight that I was being discussed
I've been taking long breaks from LFS for years now... It's too obsessional - has to be all or nothing, and 'all' cannot be sustained for long when you have so many other priorities and interests....
I also get sick of being handicapped by my ancient PC (athlonXP1800) - since patch X I have to leave just as the server fills up and the racing gets good.
Been getting into plenty of 'discussions' here on the forum though lol.
thanks again
Col
No 'wind chill factor'?
hmm how to reply?... TV cookery style methinks !
here's one I made earlier
Check out the rest of that thread as well - its horrific, but might save you repeating what many others have already said
cheers
Col
here's one I made earlier
Check out the rest of that thread as well - its horrific, but might save you repeating what many others have already said
cheers
Col
Hmm, when I'm racing and I'm involved in an accident, I'm way to busy trying to work out which idiot caused it to notice stuff like eye candy particle FX and suchlike. lol. whatever.
There are so many LFS users now, that you could probably find 'many people' who would like any particular 'improvement' however esoteric or pointless.
There are lots of improvements that I would like to see.
With any piece of software, there have to be compromises, you just cannot have every feature, and some features must take priority over others.
My point in all this is that when you look at the whole picture, it's not difficult to see LFS is good because Scawen has chosen his compromises wisely - often in the face of much criticism, right from the early days. In the long run, most of his decisions have proven to be good.
INDEED
Oh dear.
well done
OK then - You give evidence of another group of devs who have a _closer_ relationship with their users and have an equally large user base.
Yes it is.
(#1)
um.. you just said that it isn't ?
(#2)
(#3)
They made it very clear before you bought it that they didn't know when or even if it would be finished - I guess you were just not listening ?
I assume that I am one of the people being labeled a fanatic.
That is nonsense! I make no attempt at converting anyone to anything. What I do is attempt to refute what others say in public if I disagree with them and I feel strongly about the issue. This isn't to change their minds, many more people read each post than write it!
My responses are for the other readers not the original author - I assume the same is true for the majority of folks who post on internet fora.
(#4 there you go again)
(#5 )
(#6 )
Then why are you attacking it in such an aggressive and poorly reasoned way ?
OK so now it's non-commercial again - can't make up your mind ?
Hmm, you did refer to yourself as stupid 6 times in the course of your post. No-one else has called you stupid, or implied that your are stupid - but you know yourself better than anyone else here does, so I guess we'll just have to take your word combined with the evidence of your post and accept that it's true .
hmm.. so many things, it's difficult to know where to start...
Anyway, see you in two years
Col
Last edited by col, .
Exactly, the plans they have are fluid, publishing them would freeze them and everything would be f****d.
(Remember the few times when they have foolishly given us release dates in the past... mostly it didn't happen, even when they were 'pretty much finished' the new patch.)
True, but having some of the things that have been sugested by many folks here (not you) like additional programmers/designers, a publisher, loads of licensed content etc. would necessitate a much more restrictive process because of the hugely increased financial risks involved - Scawen would have to be the 'boss' fix the 'plans' and set the 'deadlines' ! - I'd rather he did the programming
cheers
Col
Part of the reason they started LFS is exactly because they wouldn't have to have roadmaps and work the the way 'most dev projects' do!
Roadmaps seriously restrict the creative options and flexibility of projects, but for most typical commercial projects they are an unfortunate necessity.
As soon as there is a deadline fixed with a set of target features, Your heading for either a crappy bugridden product pushed out of the door, or deadlines that are missed then new ones that are also missed - unless you have exceptional bosses who are willing to compromise on features and content.
'Most' dev projects do work this way because there are larger teams that have to be coordinated and synchronized.
There are managers with bottom lines who cannot allow creative freedom because of the risks involved.
There are also share holders and/or financial partners and/or publishers who have the project by the nuts so will force it out of the door no matter how crap and unfinished it is (or shelve it).
Avoiding this traditional project setup is what has allowed Scavier to try new approaches to parts of LFS - so we get awesome innovations in the physics engine, LFS world, in-sim, features like these just would not have happened (IMO) if LFS had followed a traditional development strategy.
No guessing needed - I'll tell you exactly what they are working on!
They are working on Live For Speed!
Doing whatever is the most important job that is not yet done and is not blocked by unfinished dependencies.
cheers
Col
hehe, now this is most definitely a case of strong difference of 'opinion' rather than 'attitude'
Anything added 2, 3 or 4 years ago only had to meet the general standard of LFS at that time - as time moves on and LFS slowly improves, any new features that are added have to meet the current standard, meaning they will have to be more realistic, more precise, more complicated than the equivalent feature would have been if added X development iterations ago... by this reasoning, brake dynamics will take longer now than it would have 2 years ago!
You also have to factor in that as existing elements like the tyre model become more complex, new features like brake dynamics often have to be more complex from the start because simple implementations that would have worked with an earlier simpler tyre model (or whatever other subsystem they interact with) often have unacceptable weaknesses that are exposed by the more thorough more 'realistic' current engine.
Half of it is plenty (at least according to my wife it is)
Yep, for many folks Mariokart is 'better', for others Gran Turisimo is 'better', others consider GTR to be 'better'. I would rather play LFS !
If some guy turned up on your doorstep with a bucket and offered you money for urine what would you think?
There's some info about the origins of 'taking the piss' here
http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi ... print_topic;f=83;t=000964
cheers
Col
"we will never surrender"
The opinion and the attitude are not (at least directly) causally linked. Sometimes it seem like they are, because a persons response is usually a combination of opinion and attitude... (so... yes, a crock, but of gold not sh1t
)Totally agree. Its obvious that LFS development has slowed (with caveats*) a lot in the past two years - can't argue with that, I myself only play in short bursts of a few weeks with long gaps inbetween - its been that way for years now.
* (my usual answer)... law of diminishing returns - as the game matures, each man hour will provide a smaller 'amount' of perceived improvement.
Where have I stated that I don't think LFS development has taken a long time ?
It runs both ways... you can say what you think, I can say what I think and 'they' can say what 'they' think. Just because my comprehension of the situation is different from yours doesn't mean you are being undermined. (not that I believe for a minute that you feel so threatened that anything I could say would stop you posting)
I disagree (what a surprise lol)
It could've been of an equivalent quality, but it would not have been the same. (I'm talking about both the game itself and the wider 'LFS Experience')
hmm, I don't remember calling anyone immature and stupid...
Mind you, if you are not asking for changes, or defending the status quo, what is the point in posting on the subject other than to moan and whine like a child about it
we know... lol
:fence:
We will fight them on the beaches (of Fern Bay)
cheers
Col
Last edited by col, .
What a crock !
There is no difference of opinion here - just difference of attitude !
Here are the two sides of the discussion
Side 1:
"Me bored, Me want new stuff, ME WANT NEW STUFF NOW! why not me have? it not fair. you all suck, I'm leaving etc. etc."
Side 2:
"We all want improvements! HOWEVER, there are very good reasons why they take as long as they do. Here are the reasons (many valid reasons follow)"
Side 1:
"Bah, you are all fanboys, you can't take criticism etc. etc. etc. etc."
Side 2:
Pretty much rephrases what they said first time around in the forlorn hope it is absorbed and understood.
Side 3: (usually has joined the party late)
Stop arguing guys - it's just a difference of opinion.
Side 1:
"Yeh Yeh, It's just differences of opinion - I'm laughing at you Side 2 for taking this seriously!"Side 2:
Shakes head slowly in disbelief and dispair.------------------
Of course this is a parody, but it's close to how this discussion often pans out.
I just don't get how folks can obviously enjoy and appreciate LFS, but at the same time criticize the process that has resulted in LFS!
Many of the demanded changes to the process would damage the game and the community - the overall result would be less good.
Nobody is suggesting that it is a perfect project or a perfect development methodology - there is no such thing, but it is proving to be a very good and very successful one.
How you guys have the arrogance to think that you know better when you consider the success of the project and look at the background of the dev team is way beyond me.
If it's going too slow for you, just take a break and play something else. Most folks who are long time LFS players disappear for a while every so often, but they usually come back (heh. I raced macEST last night !) - No game, no matter how good can keep your enthusiasm at a high level for years without a break.
cheers
Col
Last edited by col, .
I guess from the tone of your post you were just being facetious, but here goes anyway
You've been around long enough to know about the LFS dev process... the 'incompatible' updates come in stages along with any physics updates... the compatible stuff came in patch X... so any other stuff I guess has to wait until all the other incompatible stuff currently in development is ready - so no matter how simple or insignificant, incompatible changes cannot be released until the non-simple very significant is ready... (that of course includes any content that may depend on engine code that is not yet in the public release). I imagine that some of the desired updates you refer to will be 'quick to do' - doesn't mean they will be 'quick to public release' though.
I'm sure you will now list a few specific features that have not been included yet that might not be incompatible.... I don't care
cheers
Col
I hope you have your eyesight tested regularly.
Never a truer word was said on these forums !
True, in modern programming self modifying code is rare due to performance issues related to instruction pipelining etc. However, it doesn't matter that the underlying machine code does not change, what is important is the higher level data structures and the relationships between them. It is these that represent the real world concepts that are being modeled, and they can and do change dynamically. For a simple (easy to implement on the most basic of systems) yet profound example just look at Craig Reynolds 'boids'
Isn't it amazing how folks just cannot see that. LFS has been and will continue to be groundbreaking and yet so many casual observers suggest that Scavier just don't work hard enough because there isn't a new groundbreaking sim world re-writing update every few weeks LOL.
===============================
I think there is another issue here that is often ignored that results in longer development times and seemingly less significant improvements.
I guess the easiest way to explain it (I've tried and failed before) is to use an analogy.
When your playing LFS and you decide to try a new car and a new track neither of which you have used before, the first lap you do will be your best - even if its REALLY slow.... this is like the first demo release back in 2002.
After a few laps, you start to get some clean laps and your times drop dramatically.... this is like S1.
Next, you move from clean laps to competitive midfield racing - this takes much longer - maybe 50 or even hundreds of laps depending on your skill.... This is like S2 Alpha
Then you start to get close to really fast times - near alien standard. When you get to this stage, it might take weeks or months of effort and thousands of laps just to shave a few 10ths off your lap times - a casual observer would not notice the difference between your previous record and your new one from a replay.... This is the stage LFS is getting near to - as it gets closer to perfection (still a way to go of course), it takes MUCH more time and effort to make even small steps forward.
--------------------
Another way to look at it is that each time Scawen works on e.g. the tyre physics, he is not just trying to make a different tyre model, he must make a better one - otherwise it cannot be released! For it to be better than the last one, it's probably going to take longer....
It's not good enough to just put the same time and research effort in as before - the results from that level of effort are already in LFS - each new level requires more complex and more precise work than the last - and more eyewateringly brainshreddingly DIFFICULT
Imagine how much time it takes to test and tweak a tyre model with, say, 10 inter-dependent variables until the response is believable.... Quite a while..
But then think about what happens when you update the model so it has 20 inter-dependent variables AND your users EXPECT it to have a MORE believable response - not enough to be as good as the last - must be better....
Maybe 10 times longer ? maybe more...
So to conclude my rant, Each update takes much more work and, as LFS gets closer to the 'reality' it is trying to simulate, any improvement is going to be less obvious and have less impact on the user.... law of diminishing returns etc.
enough
Col
But if there is rubber laid down on the track (when that is implemented), then that section of track would have grip that varied depending on the track temp
------------------------
FWIW, I think that the small differences in temp caused by racing would be insignificant compared with the difference between shaded and sunny parts of the track on a hot summer day ?... the South City combos would change depending on the sun and the time of day - cool
... hotlappers would have to try out different setups for different times before deciding which time of day was fastest for that combo...What would be really cool is if the time of day was not editable. On single player, it was taken from your locality and the system clock, for online games it would be taken from the locality and time of the server. (I guess one day in the future, it would be possible to synchronize not just time of day but weather conditions
)... that would surely add to the immersion factor.)EDIT: hmm maybe that's possible with insim...
Col
Last edited by col, .
WOW, that was a GREAT example of sarcasm !!!
yes - big trucks FTW
imagine one of these in a field of mrt5s !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB_pCmKJr_Y
here's one drifting!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMH8jHleoSg
I want to see LFS lookalikes of the Liebherr T 282 B and the Terex Titan - that would he some racing class
mind you, for that, you're gonna need a bigger track.
:goldfish: :tit:
imagine one of these in a field of mrt5s !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB_pCmKJr_Y
here's one drifting!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMH8jHleoSg
I want to see LFS lookalikes of the Liebherr T 282 B and the Terex Titan - that would he some racing class
mind you, for that, you're gonna need a bigger track.
:goldfish: :tit:
Last edited by col, .
EXACTLY !
I can't believe how many people don't understand this simple fact.
When you are driving, you never look at the muck on the windscreen, you always look through/past it. The most you ever see is a slight blurring (or heavy blurring) of the view. Unfortunately, until your PC can look into your eyes, analyse how the muscles are distorting the lens and react by choosing to focus/blur different depth regions of the image* - in real time - this kind of effect will never be 'realistic' it will just amplify the unrealistic aspects of PC sims (flat screen etc.) compromising immersion.
*A more sensible system would use some sort of binocular type 3d shutter glasses and just look at both eyes working out where their focus converges rather than looking at the lenses.
--------------------
Of course it makes a difference, but with current tech, its not possible to do the effect in a remotely convincing/realistic way, so why bother ?.
The best thing I guess would be to have transparent hazy, very blurred blobs appear and have wipers to remove them, but I'm not sure is would be worth the hassle.
However it's done, most folks will look at it before racing a few laps and go "wow, thats cool!". Then after a few laps they will go "wow that's annoying!" and turn it off for ever more.... (maybe occasionally turning it on briefly to show their mates.)
how else could all 3 devs sit in the same car ?
I think that part of the 'problem' with bumps in LFS is that the physics engine puts some limitations on what contours the bumps can have.
Think about what happens when your car hits a curb with a hard edge - think SO1 pit in-road - it's a lottery whether you are launched into the stratosphere.
Basically, the bumps cannot have hard/sharp edges. They are really smooth sinusoidal undulations, so for them to be noticeable, they have to be quite large - like the ones exiting the SO1 chicane. If bumps could have harder edges, then there could be small bumps that would still be noticeable e.g. a 'lip' at the edge of some fresh tarmac...
I'm not sure how easy this would be for Scawen to implement - it really depends on how his tyre model works, the granularity of the track model, the frequency of the physics updates, (probably most importantly) the complexity of the filter used to smooth the impact of poly edges on the tyres.
It would be great to see improvements in this area.
Another thing that might make an difference to the reaction of the cars to inconsistencies in the track surface is chassis flex. This has been discussed a lot in the past, and Scawen seem to be very interested in including chassis flex modeling, so I think we will see it at some point.
Col
Think about what happens when your car hits a curb with a hard edge - think SO1 pit in-road - it's a lottery whether you are launched into the stratosphere.
Basically, the bumps cannot have hard/sharp edges. They are really smooth sinusoidal undulations, so for them to be noticeable, they have to be quite large - like the ones exiting the SO1 chicane. If bumps could have harder edges, then there could be small bumps that would still be noticeable e.g. a 'lip' at the edge of some fresh tarmac...
I'm not sure how easy this would be for Scawen to implement - it really depends on how his tyre model works, the granularity of the track model, the frequency of the physics updates, (probably most importantly) the complexity of the filter used to smooth the impact of poly edges on the tyres.
It would be great to see improvements in this area.
Another thing that might make an difference to the reaction of the cars to inconsistencies in the track surface is chassis flex. This has been discussed a lot in the past, and Scawen seem to be very interested in including chassis flex modeling, so I think we will see it at some point.
Col
No it isn't - in fact it is very sane and very reasonable.
In that case, lets hear you justify putting footage of their deaths in your video?
What purpose does it serve other than to have more death to shock and titillate ?
Hostel is a fictional story - however explicit and brutal, it is not real, and the viewers know it is not real.
If you're not getting a kick, why make the movie... ?
So, you agree its in poor taste, but it was a lot of work, so that justifies it ?
In that case, don't do it! (or after completing it and realizing it is in poor taste, withdraw it and distance yourself from it rather than trying to defend it.)
That is truly sick - you did it purely to try and win an argument ?!
At least the creators of the other films are honest - seems they have more integrity than you do. I agree with them that it's not possible to "make a crash fatality video "respectful"", although my conclusion would be that in that case, don't make the movie at all - they obviously have a different moral standpoint. At least they are not hypocritical.
fwiw, to suggest that one video is more ethically sound than another purely because of the genre of music that is used is laughable.
You don't need to show footage of people dying to remind us how many people die in sports.
If you were making a film about the changes in safety rules in the sport.... or if you were making a documentary about a particular driver who was involved in a fatal accident, then there may be justification for showing the footage. But if you are really trying to justify showing just a montage of death clips, you are going to have to do a lot better than 'trying to prove to them that you can make a 'respectful' 'crash fatality video'''... I mean for goodness sake, consider the meaning of the word respectful, then repeat the phrase 'crash fatality video'...
Can anyone think of anything less respectful than a crash fatality video ?
not quite sure what that was supposed to mean... anyhow, here's an analogy for you:
The content is the meat, and the 'atmosphere' is the seasoning. No amount of salt and pepper will make rotten meat taste good!
Last edited by col, .
Your watching or not watching does have an effect - by choosing to watch, you are condoning the content - if lots of folks watch a video, there will be loads more similar videos, if nobody watches, the 'genre' will die !
So you wouldn't care if every time one of your relatives searched your (or their) name on the internet, the search results were full of sicko video compilations of fatal crashes ? don't you think they would have suffered enough when it happened that they would rather not go through it over and over again ?
Thats a load of crap - seeing footage of any racing crash will give you some understanding of what happens to a racing car in a crash. Besides the fact that it will give you no idea of how a road car will be affected, it doesn't need to be a crash that involved a fatality - there is not need for that whatsoever!
So why watch it then ? the more you watch it the more it will become available, the more it will be acceptable, and the more folks will get their kicks from it ! JUST SAY NO
Exactly, for the successful drivers, post clips of their achievements, for the rookies and also-rans, post information about their careers, their families etc.
------------------------------------
If you must create a video with footage of fatalities, it should be done with a complete historical context, full (as far as possible) and accurate historical information, and a completely objective 'voice' (and of course warnings about the nature of the content). The idea that a montage of fatal crash clips can be for anything other than grusome titillation seems ridiculous to me. IMO a film about even one fatal accident would have to be at least a few minutes in length to provide enough information to the viewer to be valuable in any sense other than for pure entertainment. If you have multiple incidents, you would be talking about a major undertaking - a few hours, with probably years of work to be able to produce anything approaching a worthy testament to these peoples lives, and the impact their deaths had on their families, their friends their colleagues, and their sport.
Sticking to any one 'tactic' is a bad idea.
You should always try to be fully aware of whats going on in front, behind and to the sides of your car, and react accordingly. Usually, you will be able to predict where the gap will open up, and get through. If that doesn't happen, slow a *little*, so you have some spare grip available, that way, a small nudge or two isn't going to get you out of shape. Also predict the nudges - if you have already started prepare before you are nudged, you're in a better position to save the car than if you try to react after the collision.
Try to be in a position where you can see the inside line in your mirrors - that way you can spot if some idiot thinks he can undertake on the grass and still brake later than the pack... you can then avoid the fool and the suckers he rams (hopefully)
I would suggest that it is marginally safer closer to the inside line for two reasons
#1 if you are on the outside, any accident on your inside puts you in jeopardy whereas if you are on the inside, you can usually avoid problems on the outside.
#2 often the idiot T1 have a go heroes barge on the inside - if you are at or near the inside line, you are more likely to see their approach earlier and have more time to respond (even if its just to make sure of who the culprit was).
Col
You should always try to be fully aware of whats going on in front, behind and to the sides of your car, and react accordingly. Usually, you will be able to predict where the gap will open up, and get through. If that doesn't happen, slow a *little*, so you have some spare grip available, that way, a small nudge or two isn't going to get you out of shape. Also predict the nudges - if you have already started prepare before you are nudged, you're in a better position to save the car than if you try to react after the collision.
Try to be in a position where you can see the inside line in your mirrors - that way you can spot if some idiot thinks he can undertake on the grass and still brake later than the pack... you can then avoid the fool and the suckers he rams (hopefully)
I would suggest that it is marginally safer closer to the inside line for two reasons
#1 if you are on the outside, any accident on your inside puts you in jeopardy whereas if you are on the inside, you can usually avoid problems on the outside.
#2 often the idiot T1 have a go heroes barge on the inside - if you are at or near the inside line, you are more likely to see their approach earlier and have more time to respond (even if its just to make sure of who the culprit was).
Col
I think you have a _very_ narrow view of modern programming.
Sure, if you have to resort to ASM optimization for some web scripting thing or for a simple console tool, then there might be something wrong with your design, but there are so many areas in which there are never enough resources.
What if you are processing a large data set using an algorithm that is NP-complete (and there aren't any more efficient alternative algorithms), then you need all the help you can get, and a "who needs ASM, modern cpus are well fast" attitude just isn't going to get the job done !
What about embedded platforms? there are millions of consumer products out there that all run some sort of software. The more efficient the software is, the cheaper the product can be to manufacture... You gonna code it in java and send a memo to the boss demanding 10 times more ram and a much bigger processor ?
What about handheld devices... gamboy advance/DS are good examples. Not only is the cpu comparatively tiny, and the memory restrictions extreme, you have to factor battery usage into your software design ! the larger percentage of the time the cpu is idle, the longer the battery will last !
It is going to get more and more difficult to hand code in assembly as we move towards truly concurrent architectures (everything gets more difficult as that happens), but assembly will still be valuable to optimize small code sections.
Anyway, I think it's amazing to hear folks who develop 'application software' for PCs or websites generalizing their experience to all of programming
1st, sorry for kinda hijacking this thread
I had another thought related to sim sports being interesting to spectators.
If you look at sports in the wider world, then generally, the sports that have large crowds of spectators are more appealing to the television audience. It as if the real spectators at the event help to connect the TV viewers to the event in a more real way. Look at the way TV sport producers use spectator reaction shots to much - it makes the TV viewer feel like they are part of that group right there at the match/race/game. Its a huge part of the enjoyment - being part of a large group sharing the ups and downs - the glory and the pain. (look at the way politicians and celebrities use this dynamic - just watch baseball to see big name celebs 'connecting' with their public by going to the game)
How can sim sport achieve a similar effect?
For the participants, it would be feasible to have close up reaction shots, that are edited into the action - similarly to how some motor racing have in-car cams pointing at the drivers face, but how could we provide cues to connect the individual 'live' spectators to each other to provide a group experience ? and how can we present that group in the edited race broadcast ?
Those are much more difficult challenges.
I guess we wait until processors and bandwidth are good enough so that we can have Massively Multi-spectator Online Sports (... hmm need to add an H to that MMOSH is better than MMOS IMO lol.) where you could actually see the other spectators sitting in seats - with webcams tracking their real faces and pasting them onto avatars - and mics mixing their chears into the ambient audio...
Maybe thats when sim-sports will start becoming a seriously viable business endevour ?
Col
I had another thought related to sim sports being interesting to spectators.
If you look at sports in the wider world, then generally, the sports that have large crowds of spectators are more appealing to the television audience. It as if the real spectators at the event help to connect the TV viewers to the event in a more real way. Look at the way TV sport producers use spectator reaction shots to much - it makes the TV viewer feel like they are part of that group right there at the match/race/game. Its a huge part of the enjoyment - being part of a large group sharing the ups and downs - the glory and the pain. (look at the way politicians and celebrities use this dynamic - just watch baseball to see big name celebs 'connecting' with their public by going to the game)
How can sim sport achieve a similar effect?
For the participants, it would be feasible to have close up reaction shots, that are edited into the action - similarly to how some motor racing have in-car cams pointing at the drivers face, but how could we provide cues to connect the individual 'live' spectators to each other to provide a group experience ? and how can we present that group in the edited race broadcast ?
Those are much more difficult challenges.
I guess we wait until processors and bandwidth are good enough so that we can have Massively Multi-spectator Online Sports (... hmm need to add an H to that MMOSH is better than MMOS IMO lol.) where you could actually see the other spectators sitting in seats - with webcams tracking their real faces and pasting them onto avatars - and mics mixing their chears into the ambient audio...
Maybe thats when sim-sports will start becoming a seriously viable business endevour ?
Col
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG