I think that's a bad idea. We already have the "too many clicks" thing specifically to prevent people from spamming a server with join requests. If you were able to have the program constantly request a join you'd hammer the bandwidth on the server without even ever joining it.
I think you're probably right about the intervals, but I suspect beta is further off than most of us think. I guess it all depends on how much stuff is planned for S2 and how much is being put off to S3. I have a feeling that we may not see engine temps, brake overheating, radiator damage, etc, etc, etc. for quite a long time. To my knowledge there is no list of what will be in S2, other than the few things Scawen has said definitely will be (most of which are in your list).
You're the second person to say this and it's simply not true. Incompatible does not necessarily mean "physics changes". For instance, to make it so clients cannot Shift+S on a league server requires an incompatible patch. These types of changes require an incompatible patch but would have absolutely no effect whatsoever on the cars, setups, physics, etc. The only disrupt ion to leagues would be that everyone will need the patch, which they can now get automatically. Or the league could simply stay with the current release and not install the new test patch.
Most of the incompatible changes that we have been told are definitely on the way are not physics related at all, such as improved AI, false starts, server settings, etc. Many of them don't require any research, they only require time to complete the work.
I think that all depends on what the changes are. The changes that seem to get noticed the most are big graphical changes (like the new menu system) or additional stuff (like the BF1 and new Aston layouts). Even so, the smaller stuff has received a lot of praise too. Things like renaming replays and setups are fairly small features that aren't "in your face" but can still have a big impact on enjoyment. I think that the majority of the changes that Scawen has said are in the oven are a lot more major than adding a clock or renaming some buttons - even though those are both features that I asked for and which have made a BIG difference in the overall polish of the game.
So far we're reasonably sure that we'll see GTR interiors, better clutch modeling (and hopefully stalling), the ability to jump the start, better server controls (no Shift-S), etc. Most of these things are very big, very prominent features that I don't think anyone is going to fail to notice.
I think quite a few of us would most definitely disagree with you on this. LFS is the best sim on the market, but it still has some pretty large flaws. If it didn't this thread would be moot as we wouldn't need any further patches or features.
You really think so? I always thought quite the opposite. Getting a new feature every few weeks makes me constantly want to come back for more and gives me an immediate improvement without having to wait a long time for the next big patch. It seems like interest has been at an all time high over the last few months, and during that time we had over 30 test patches.
I find your perspective interesting. Thanks for the response.
Are there any such leagues? The leagues I've seen award points based on finishing position, then move on to the next race. I think it's important to note that even if a patch is incompatible that doesn't necessarily mean that the lap times would change. For instance, preventing Shift-S requires an incompatible patch but makes no change to the cars, physics, tracks, etc.
Also, it seems like leagues are the primary beneficiary of many of the updates that are coming down the pike as many of the requested improvements are to help leagues balance cars, even out the racing, and add realism. I would think that leagues would want the new changes even more than the average player.
I don't think that would happen, no matter how often test patches were released. The physics might change as far as how the sim performs calculations on a changed car model, but I highly doubt that the driving feel would change significantly from one patch to the next. Most of the stuff that Scawen has said are coming do not change physics at all, they change server options, transmission behavior, etc. I'd wager that 90% of what we'll see in the next Big Patch has nothing to do with physics, but is incompatible for other reasons.
That's my thought as well. There may be other factors for not releasing incompatible patches, but as far as I'm concerned hotlaps aren't one of them.
People who want to ruin others races don't need false starts to do so. This is why we have a ban system and registered usernames.
There are "noobs" in every other racing game too, and those games seem to manage just fine. Those of us who want this feature shouldn't have to go without because of the possibility that a few bad apples might not be able to hack it.
To paraphrase a great quote by a great man: "Those that would give up a little realism for cleaner racing will soon find they have neither".
Last edited by Cue-Ball, .
Compatible vs. Incompatible patches
I've been thinking a lot about how future patches will work. Specifically, I'm curious because most of the future changes are going to require a patch that's incompatible with Patch V.
So, the reasons for not releasing incompatible patches more often is because of the resetting of hotlaps and the possibility of dividing the community. We know that hotlaps are going to get reset multiple times between now and v1.0 anyway, so this would not seem to be a big deal. Especially since the game is still in Alpha and we should expect big changes. Now that LFS has auto-update I don't see that a test patch would really divide the community either. So, neither of these reasons makes much sense to me.
We all know that a LOT of changes are still coming for LFS (car models, clutch improvements, false starts, physics changes, etc.). I think that it would be preferable to release new features as they're ready instead of waiting for One Big Patch. That way we get improvements more quickly and features are able to be more thoroughly tested and tweaked before they're made "final" in a milestone patch.
So I'm just curious, would you rather wait, say, 6 months to get 12 new features or would you rather get 2 new features each month for the next 6 months, knowing that each one would reset your LFSW hotlaps and would cause a minor disruption in online racing as servers and racers upgrade to the new patch?
Note: I'm not suggesting that anything said here will change the way the devs do things. This is simply for my own curiosity and to see how other forum members feel about the patch process.
So, the reasons for not releasing incompatible patches more often is because of the resetting of hotlaps and the possibility of dividing the community. We know that hotlaps are going to get reset multiple times between now and v1.0 anyway, so this would not seem to be a big deal. Especially since the game is still in Alpha and we should expect big changes. Now that LFS has auto-update I don't see that a test patch would really divide the community either. So, neither of these reasons makes much sense to me.
We all know that a LOT of changes are still coming for LFS (car models, clutch improvements, false starts, physics changes, etc.). I think that it would be preferable to release new features as they're ready instead of waiting for One Big Patch. That way we get improvements more quickly and features are able to be more thoroughly tested and tweaked before they're made "final" in a milestone patch.
So I'm just curious, would you rather wait, say, 6 months to get 12 new features or would you rather get 2 new features each month for the next 6 months, knowing that each one would reset your LFSW hotlaps and would cause a minor disruption in online racing as servers and racers upgrade to the new patch?
Note: I'm not suggesting that anything said here will change the way the devs do things. This is simply for my own curiosity and to see how other forum members feel about the patch process.
I just wanted to post this to make sure there's no confusion:
False starts are definitely coming and I would expect them in the next incompatible patch. Though, that could take quite a long time as Scawen's list seems to be quite long.
False starts are definitely coming and I would expect them in the next incompatible patch. Though, that could take quite a long time as Scawen's list seems to be quite long.
Was this in response to me? If so, I still don't see any advantage to anyone with your suggestion. We can already prevent people from joining mid-race. How is preventing people from joining the server and being able to spectate an improvement?
So YOU'RE the one!
WOW! I'd never seen that video before but it BLEW ME AWAY! Not to berate anyone else's work but the camera work and video editing in that movie are simply the best I've ever seen in a LFS vid. Period. Half of the time I was thinking "Wow. That looks like real footage" and half of the time I was thinking "How the hell did he get THAT shot!?". Simply awesome.
I don't see any advantage in this over the current system of allowing a connection but not allowing join during mid-race. In fact, your suggestion would seem like a huge step backwards as you would only be able to join the server during very short intervals.
That would be a HUGE undertaking and probably would not accomplish our goal anyway. Even if it did, it certainly wouldn't be the most straight forward way to achieve results.
All that is needed is for InSim to report the type of clutch being used and the type of shifter being used, similar to the way it reports keyboard/mouse/wheel and auto-cut, auto-blip, etc. now. If Scawen would put this small thing into LFS the rest could easily be done on the server end using an InSim app. It would just be nice if all of these settings were able to be controlled by the server without the need for an external app. Scawen is already going to put in controls for Shift-S, car reset, etc. so I would think it could be done at the same time with relatively little effort.
Editing is not a problem. I had to edit that first video a bit using VirtualDub. The problem is that a 1GB memory card fills up at a rate of about 100MB/minute so I don't have a whole lot of time to sit down and be ready to race once the camera starts recording.
Thanks for the comments, guys. For those that are interested, here's my setup:
P4 2.4Ghz hyperthreaded proc.
1.5GB RAM
slow-ass 40GB 5400RPM hard drive.
Logitech G25 wheel, pedals, and shifter.
InFocus Screenplay 5000 projector running 1280x720 (720p widescreen ) with a ~57" diagonal image.
Ford Mustang Cobra leather seat on a base made of plywood (this will be replaced with some sort of race frame eventually).
I had some cheapo speakers running for the movie so that the camera would pick up the engine noise. Normally I use headphones with a mic. The projector is mounted on the ceiling and is ~7 feet from the screen. The screen is mounted right in front of the steering wheel. The video was taken with my Canon PowerShot SD400 camera in movie mode and was attached to the seatbelt bracket on the seat using one of those flexible tripods.
I can probably take some more videos of other tracks or other cars but I dunno if I can capture online racing. Because of the way I have to start the camera it's really easy to start a single player race against the AI and then un-pause after I start the camera. I'd have to figure something else out to do that for an online race or I'd just end up filling up the memory card with me in the garage or sitting on the starting line.
P4 2.4Ghz hyperthreaded proc.
1.5GB RAM
slow-ass 40GB 5400RPM hard drive.
Logitech G25 wheel, pedals, and shifter.
InFocus Screenplay 5000 projector running 1280x720 (720p widescreen ) with a ~57" diagonal image.
Ford Mustang Cobra leather seat on a base made of plywood (this will be replaced with some sort of race frame eventually).
I had some cheapo speakers running for the movie so that the camera would pick up the engine noise. Normally I use headphones with a mic. The projector is mounted on the ceiling and is ~7 feet from the screen. The screen is mounted right in front of the steering wheel. The video was taken with my Canon PowerShot SD400 camera in movie mode and was attached to the seatbelt bracket on the seat using one of those flexible tripods.
I can probably take some more videos of other tracks or other cars but I dunno if I can capture online racing. Because of the way I have to start the camera it's really easy to start a single player race against the AI and then un-pause after I start the camera. I'd have to figure something else out to do that for an online race or I'd just end up filling up the memory card with me in the garage or sitting on the starting line.
The auto update system doesn't force you to download any of the patches, test or release. It offers you the option to download them. So, I'm guessing that test patches will show up on the auto downloader but will be marked as such so that you don't download it if you don't want to. Or, perhaps Scawen put in some sort of flag so that only flagged patches (major releases) trigger the auto-updater in the future?
I had no idea you could do that! Thanks for the tip!
You probably shouldn't be using the full 900* rotation. The most that any car in LFS uses is 720* so most people set the Wingman software to limit the wheel to 720* then set LFS to use 720* (mine is actually at 718 since I can't get it to be exactly 720). If you do this then all cars will use the proper lock-to-lock. 180* cars will only require turning the wheel 180*, 270* cars will only require turning 270*, and so on. Also make sure you have the "fake" forces turned off in the Wingman software.
-1
Most countries have a very low limit on the number of characters you can put on a plate and so it should be in LFS. If you can't come up with something clever in 6 or so digits then just leave it blank or use your username. In addition, license plates on the race cars need to be done away with completely.
Most countries have a very low limit on the number of characters you can put on a plate and so it should be in LFS. If you can't come up with something clever in 6 or so digits then just leave it blank or use your username. In addition, license plates on the race cars need to be done away with completely.
I voted for the LX4, the XRT, or the FZ5. I think those three would be challenging yet still fun around Aston. Not really that interested in the GTRs as much and not interested in the Formula cars at all. Though it may not matter as I'm not sure I could even make the race since I'm on US Pacific time. 
I agree with you here. Aids should be slower than doing everything yourself manually. But I highly doubt you'll ever get most people to go for that since they will complain that they are now at an unfair disadvantage (balancing auto-anything to be similar to doing it manually is pretty much impossible). For this reason I think it's easier to just separate the two groups and allow them to run against similar opponents, should they choose to do so.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG