Or just about any base distro running the Gnome desktop environment.
After scanning the website, it's actually based on slackware
/offtopic
That tells me that there's something wrong somewhere and it's not LFS related.
Anything above 0% packet loss is bad, as is 'jitter' that high.
Either the router is indeed to blame, or something's happening with your ISP, either overloaded or traffic shaping etc.
Anything above 0% packet loss is bad, as is 'jitter' that high.
Either the router is indeed to blame, or something's happening with your ISP, either overloaded or traffic shaping etc.
Looks like you're not getting any position updates until you join the track.
Random guess: perhaps UDP packets aren't being recieved properly by your system.
There's a key combination I hit by accident occasionally that forces TCP for position packets instead of UDP. No idea what it is though. Failing that, check firewall(s)/router settings etc.
Random guess: perhaps UDP packets aren't being recieved properly by your system.
There's a key combination I hit by accident occasionally that forces TCP for position packets instead of UDP. No idea what it is though. Failing that, check firewall(s)/router settings etc.
I have replays for:
race 2 http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?jtkymzjnnjj
race 7 http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?mmnxktzwhdy
race 2 http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?jtkymzjnnjj
race 7 http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?mmnxktzwhdy
Yeah, that's pretty much what I was trying to say. You're only really going to get an accurate perception of speed when GFOV==DFOV and it's large enough to display what you'd see in your periferal vision.
The dynamic alteration of GFOV in games is used quite a lot, and can help when done properly (ie not like when you press the nitros in NFS). Curved/fishbowl GFOV (higher values on the edges of screen than the centre) is used in a few. Motion blur is often used as well (usually badly).
The problem is, all these tricks need to be subtle or the illusion fails completely. It's very hard to get a good balence between subtlety (sp?) while actually making enough difference to prepresent perception properly.
I've yet to find a game that achieves it, and I doubt it's even possible. Proper speed/distance perception is one of those things that only works for the few people who have the right hardware - for everyone else there must be compromise.
Field of View, by definition, is constant.
The 'correct' FOV depends on the overall width of the screen(s) and how far away from them your eyes are.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of people don't have 180+ degrees worth of screen coverage - most of the time, only 25-50 degrees or so.
Using the 'correct' FOV, you will not get an accurate sense of speed at such a small FOV, as you can't see peripheral movement. You also can't see anything of what's next to you for the same reasons. With such setups (low physical FOV) the ingame FOV is always a compromise between accuracy, sense of speed (for racing games anyway) and how much of what's around you you need to see.
In an ideal world, everyone would have at least 160 degrees of screen coverage - ideally 360 degrees - and then the 'correct' FOV can be used properly and you will get an accurate sense of speed.
Unfortunately, that'll probably never happen.
The 'correct' FOV depends on the overall width of the screen(s) and how far away from them your eyes are.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of people don't have 180+ degrees worth of screen coverage - most of the time, only 25-50 degrees or so.
Using the 'correct' FOV, you will not get an accurate sense of speed at such a small FOV, as you can't see peripheral movement. You also can't see anything of what's next to you for the same reasons. With such setups (low physical FOV) the ingame FOV is always a compromise between accuracy, sense of speed (for racing games anyway) and how much of what's around you you need to see.
In an ideal world, everyone would have at least 160 degrees of screen coverage - ideally 360 degrees - and then the 'correct' FOV can be used properly and you will get an accurate sense of speed.
Unfortunately, that'll probably never happen.
If you press shift + f4 in LFS, it will toggle fullscreen/windowed mode.
I've also had no problems with W7 64
For some reason, when dragging the .exe into the Games list, it doesn't include the "start in" path in the shortcut it creates. This means LFS has no idea where all the other files are, so gives an error.
If you right-click LFS.exe, create shortcut, rename the shortcut to whatever you want, then drag the shortcut into the games list, it'll work fine.
I've also had no problems with W7 64
For some reason, when dragging the .exe into the Games list, it doesn't include the "start in" path in the shortcut it creates. This means LFS has no idea where all the other files are, so gives an error.
If you right-click LFS.exe, create shortcut, rename the shortcut to whatever you want, then drag the shortcut into the games list, it'll work fine.
The commands added were to make flipcams useable after a change in the code had broken it.
The new commands are:
/view save
/view reload
To restore functionality, you'll have to edit /data/scripts/fc_reloadview.lfs by putting "/view reload" at the end of the file.
Add "/view save" to the start of every fc_runCam*.lfs file
It should now work as it used to before z17.
(I think that's right)
Last edited by Degats, .
Gui/click misalignment fixed from test 2 
Can't reproduce any of the others in z19 or any of the tests.
HD4890, ccc v9.9, vista64 sp2, clean lfs install for all.
Can't reproduce any of the others in z19 or any of the tests.
HD4890, ccc v9.9, vista64 sp2, clean lfs install for all.
Same here with the UI when loading lfs into fullscreen.
Clickable areas seem to be misaligned about 4px right, 16px down.
Vista x64
ed: 1440x900 if that makes any difference
Clickable areas seem to be misaligned about 4px right, 16px down.
Vista x64
ed: 1440x900 if that makes any difference
You could try:
> Download a demo of a game released in the last couple of years or so and see how it handles it.
> Reinstall LFS (extract the installer to another folder somewhere)
> Reinstall/update drivers
> Check GPU temps (GPU-Z - it can log them to file as well)
> If you've got a more powerful PSU somewhere, try it - dodgy PSUs can cause all manner of weird and wonderful problems.
> Test the RAM (unlikely to be the problem, but you never know)
> Check over your motherboard for any capacitors that look like they've been oozing.
> Download a demo of a game released in the last couple of years or so and see how it handles it.
> Reinstall LFS (extract the installer to another folder somewhere)
> Reinstall/update drivers
> Check GPU temps (GPU-Z - it can log them to file as well)
> If you've got a more powerful PSU somewhere, try it - dodgy PSUs can cause all manner of weird and wonderful problems.
> Test the RAM (unlikely to be the problem, but you never know)
> Check over your motherboard for any capacitors that look like they've been oozing.
Should be in the Improvement Suggestions forum.
As ever, the problem with that is that you've finished changing gear by the time the animation would even reach the shifter as it can't predict when you're going to change gear.
TDU compensates by reaching down when it thinks you're going to change, which can look weird as it's often wrong and reaches down for no reason. Other times when you shift and it's not expecting it, it doesn't move at all.
Personally I'd prefer it not to be there at all as it will always look unnatural, but I'm sure others would disagree with me
/offtopic
Default behaviour is: /press v then /shift v
An alternative behaviour commented out in the script file is /view custom.
Default won't do anything if you're not already in custom view, alternative switches to the new view regardless of current view.
Edit: If you were to add "/reload_view" the only change to flipcams needed would be to add that command to a single script file.
Last edited by Degats, .
Same here with the flipcams problem.
The program appears to be operating properly - message appears, folders in /data are renamed - but the views aren't reloaded/updated from the files.
Edit: maybe LFS no longer reads the views file every time the view changes to custom?
The program appears to be operating properly - message appears, folders in /data are renamed - but the views aren't reloaded/updated from the files.
Edit: maybe LFS no longer reads the views file every time the view changes to custom?
Regarding having the mouse visible, when I need to use the mouse I use it in wheel/xy mode (yes I know I'm a rare breed) rather than mouse mode so I can have better control over throttle/brake.
I find having the mouse visible useful so I can have an idea of my throttle/brake input while paying attention to the road.
I'm probably the only one who thinks this, but thought it was worth a mention
Exactly my thoughts as well
I find having the mouse visible useful so I can have an idea of my throttle/brake input while paying attention to the road.
I'm probably the only one who thinks this, but thought it was worth a mention
Exactly my thoughts as well
Probably
I've never had the profiler window do that while it knows the controller is there, so I can't help you
It does that when the wheel is disconnected and the profiler can no-longer detect it. It may be possible something else has caused it, I dunno.
I've never had any profiler problems in Vista(32 or 64) as long as the profiler window has been loaded at least once in that windows session and no other program/window steals focus from LFS.
Incidentally, as this is a different issue, you should really have made a new thread IMO
I've never had any profiler problems in Vista(32 or 64) as long as the profiler window has been loaded at least once in that windows session and no other program/window steals focus from LFS.
Incidentally, as this is a different issue, you should really have made a new thread IMO
The biggest effect on the flight of a jump is based on what the throttle/brakes are doing just before takeoff and how they affect the weight transfer.
If you accelerate just before take-off, the nose tends to rise. Brake and it'll dip (like in the OP's video). A constant speed or slight acceleration will be more level. How much each of these will actually affect the car depends on the particular ramp, weight distribution and aerodynamics.
Sadly, it's very hard to control jumps off the autocross ramps in LFS as they have next to zero friction. You do have some control on the dirt jumps however.
Throttle changes in-flight will make next to no difference in the kind of cars in lfs with the kinds of speeds possible. May be possible to test it using big wheels in tweak, I dunno.
If you accelerate just before take-off, the nose tends to rise. Brake and it'll dip (like in the OP's video). A constant speed or slight acceleration will be more level. How much each of these will actually affect the car depends on the particular ramp, weight distribution and aerodynamics.
Sadly, it's very hard to control jumps off the autocross ramps in LFS as they have next to zero friction. You do have some control on the dirt jumps however.
Throttle changes in-flight will make next to no difference in the kind of cars in lfs with the kinds of speeds possible. May be possible to test it using big wheels in tweak, I dunno.
Possible solution:
Implement a (reasonable) maximum possible speed/acceleration for the steering imputs - possibly based on the FFB calculations, max reasonable force on the ingame steering wheel etc.
Problem solved for all 'unrealistic' controllers, including wheels with very low rotation.
kthxbai
(probably more trouble/effort than it's worth though)
Implement a (reasonable) maximum possible speed/acceleration for the steering imputs - possibly based on the FFB calculations, max reasonable force on the ingame steering wheel etc.
Problem solved for all 'unrealistic' controllers, including wheels with very low rotation.
kthxbai
(probably more trouble/effort than it's worth though)
A sure sign that it is in fact you that's lagging
If some but not all seem to be lagging, it's generally an idication that their connection to the server is worse than yours. If everyone else seems to be lagging, then it's almost certainly you, not them.
Hopefully back to being constructive...
I very much doubt the FFB model itself will change.
As I understand it, it behaves as a result of forces on the steering wheels etc and as such it should behave differently if the physics change, particularly a change like tyre physics. I didn't have a FFB wheel to compare the last time the tyre model changed, so I can't give you an answer for certain, but I'd be surprised if FFB doesn't feel different as a result of new tyre physics.
I very much doubt the FFB model itself will change.
As I understand it, it behaves as a result of forces on the steering wheels etc and as such it should behave differently if the physics change, particularly a change like tyre physics. I didn't have a FFB wheel to compare the last time the tyre model changed, so I can't give you an answer for certain, but I'd be surprised if FFB doesn't feel different as a result of new tyre physics.
I apologise if i wasn't very clear about the height of the curb - I meant 20-25cm above the road/track level. The angle relative to the track looks to be about 30-40 degrees, which is fairly steep. If it was vertical, the wheel would be ripped off, no question.
Regarding the BMW video, IIRC when rehersing for the DB9 roll stunt in Casino Royale (James Bond) they were only using a ~30cm high ramp (if that) at about 10 degrees or so. To get it to roll, they turned into the ramp hard to generate lateral-G which makes it much easier to roll. The DB9 has a much lower centre of gravity and is lighter than the BMW, but they still managed to get a roll by exploiting latteral-G.
As another similar example, there are a few videos floating around youtube, where road cars have rolled by hitting a normal curb (12cm or so) at low speeds of around 10-15km/h.
A UK TV show - Fifth Gear I believe - rolled a BMW just by sliding it in the right way on a dry skid-pan.
Bearing in mind the lateral-g involved in the FBM in the replay (curb example only, I havn't seen the other one) of about 2g (twice that of what most road cars can manage), the height and angle of the curb and as such the forces involved, the high-ish ride height of the blackwood setup and the fact that you don't get a huge amount of downforce at ~90km/h, I don't think we can easily say categorically that it would be impossible to roll an FBM in the same circumstances in RL. It may or may not be possible, but IMO it could go either way. Had you steered into the slide, it wouldn't have rolled.
I've also just noticed that at exactly the same time you lifted off the power, the speed of the roll dramatically increased. This could have been caused by a change of engine torque on the chassis and/or changes in rear wheelspeed and/or the rear wheel slipping less and gaining grip. Had you kept on the power it might just have not rolled.
I'm not saying the physics involved in LFS are perfect, but I don't think we can conclude for certain that they are significantly wrong in this case either.
Regarding the BMW video, IIRC when rehersing for the DB9 roll stunt in Casino Royale (James Bond) they were only using a ~30cm high ramp (if that) at about 10 degrees or so. To get it to roll, they turned into the ramp hard to generate lateral-G which makes it much easier to roll. The DB9 has a much lower centre of gravity and is lighter than the BMW, but they still managed to get a roll by exploiting latteral-G.
As another similar example, there are a few videos floating around youtube, where road cars have rolled by hitting a normal curb (12cm or so) at low speeds of around 10-15km/h.
A UK TV show - Fifth Gear I believe - rolled a BMW just by sliding it in the right way on a dry skid-pan.
Bearing in mind the lateral-g involved in the FBM in the replay (curb example only, I havn't seen the other one) of about 2g (twice that of what most road cars can manage), the height and angle of the curb and as such the forces involved, the high-ish ride height of the blackwood setup and the fact that you don't get a huge amount of downforce at ~90km/h, I don't think we can easily say categorically that it would be impossible to roll an FBM in the same circumstances in RL. It may or may not be possible, but IMO it could go either way. Had you steered into the slide, it wouldn't have rolled.
I've also just noticed that at exactly the same time you lifted off the power, the speed of the roll dramatically increased. This could have been caused by a change of engine torque on the chassis and/or changes in rear wheelspeed and/or the rear wheel slipping less and gaining grip. Had you kept on the power it might just have not rolled.
I'm not saying the physics involved in LFS are perfect, but I don't think we can conclude for certain that they are significantly wrong in this case either.
Looking from the best angle I can from shift+u, the final corner curb is about 20cm or so at its top. A few real racetracks have similar curbs, so it's not that out of the ordinary.
I've seen SS cars get launched on another's tyre and not sustain any major damage (usually will break something though) and the forces involved there would be higher than bouncing off a curb at a guess, so not sustaining damage on that curb wouldn't be out of the question. At that kind of speed I wouldn't have thought it impossible to roll a car hitting a similar curb in RL, especially with the amount of lateral force going on. I've seen touring cars almost roll on shallower curbs, although it's usually corrected by the driver so they don't actually roll all the way.
As far as loss of downforce and breakable wings are concerned, Scawen has said that breakable wings are in the works for S2 to get out of alpha, so I would assume loss of downforce will go along with that.
I've seen SS cars get launched on another's tyre and not sustain any major damage (usually will break something though) and the forces involved there would be higher than bouncing off a curb at a guess, so not sustaining damage on that curb wouldn't be out of the question. At that kind of speed I wouldn't have thought it impossible to roll a car hitting a similar curb in RL, especially with the amount of lateral force going on. I've seen touring cars almost roll on shallower curbs, although it's usually corrected by the driver so they don't actually roll all the way.
As far as loss of downforce and breakable wings are concerned, Scawen has said that breakable wings are in the works for S2 to get out of alpha, so I would assume loss of downforce will go along with that.
I've seen a fair few reports of crashes similar to this (ie ntdll.dll)
To clarify, several clients can crash at the same time with the same error. The server does not crash or throw any errors as far as I'm aware.
We haven't noticed any patterns that may reproduce it yet.
To clarify, several clients can crash at the same time with the same error. The server does not crash or throw any errors as far as I'm aware.
We haven't noticed any patterns that may reproduce it yet.
Blackwood and the demo cars don't lend themselves brilliantly to lift off oversteer, but it's definitely there.
Setup makes quite a difference, and as I tend to have an oversteery setup in the FWD cars, I often use lift-off oversteer to get round the final left-hander in BL.
Some other tracks and other cars (with the right setup) have more pronounced lift-off oversteer, but it depends on quite a few factors.
Setup makes quite a difference, and as I tend to have an oversteery setup in the FWD cars, I often use lift-off oversteer to get round the final left-hander in BL.
Some other tracks and other cars (with the right setup) have more pronounced lift-off oversteer, but it depends on quite a few factors.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG