Well, that's Moscow centre.

Looks like it's on the big fence near the river:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f= ... 0.020814&t=k&z=16
The st. Basil's cathedral is to left-top, the biggest Spassk tower is just opposite of it. I don't know what is there, in the fence boundaries, never been to.

I think they may have even put real cars, they must cost like snacks, compared to the rental payments. There a 10-storey building, with 10,000 m^2 total area can cost 1 billion bucks. Costs are astronomic there. I guess, someone who's got propery that close to Kremlin can afford a space touristic flight ("just" for $28 mln, IIRC )

p.s. I can't go and check it, I live in 3000 km from Moscow.

Last edited by detail, Thu 3 Apr 2008, 17:39.

I think, LFS has the means to control (to kick, ban, restrict entance), but mostly lacks a feedback mechanism. Somebody can ban you at any time, but few people know if you are a good person or a sh**hog, and you need to misbehave VERY MUCH (and in the same hosts) to really get a bad reputation. That's why we often see the desperate complaints on wreckers in the main forum.

Two things should be done to get a reasonable improvement:

1. Support of teams and associations (of teams) in LFS code (so that team and association membership would be accessible in-game). This would let drivers or teams unite in associations like CRC. LFS should also support entrance restrictions by team and association membership. Being a member of an association with a good reputation can guarantee to others that your intentions are good (This also means that a good association will need to care of their members behaviour and perform clean-ups).

This is better than team tags in names (which can be faked) and an additional restriction mechanism.

2. A CTRA-like mechanism to submit reports to host admin, to the driver's team and association. This is the feedback that LFS lack so far.

This way
- bad behaviour doesn't make you famous
- you don't need to score 100 points daily to have good reputation, just become a member of an association individually or via your team
- only those who care of the order will be in charge of it
- any bad behaviour (including report spamming) is seen by people, so violating a voting mechanism is impossible
- reputation is saved in the good name of a team/association
- there can be several levels of coordination: team, association of teams and inter-association coordination (This means that team is in responsible for a particular person and makes decisions on him/her, an association takes responsibility for teams, and their leaders decide between them which association is good or bad)

Technically few should be done:
1) showing team membership in-game
2) probably association membership
3) reporting mechanism (just select a driver, race and write a complaint, the message goes to host admin and team)

So, not many "artificial" things to do, the most job will be done by racers and admins.

Last edited by detail, Fri 28 Mar 2008, 06:48.

0.1N, January 2003.

Dustin: You mean non-zero negative mipBias? I've tried both 0 and very negative mip bias (that's visible on the screenshots) and these dashes were visible in both cases.

I'll try to reinstall drivers, maybe that would work. Though, they are the first drivers on this machine.

Before when I turned on AF with driver settings, in LFS and in RBR I saw these artefacts: dashes across roads. Now they are in LFS. I can't test if they were there in patch Y, but definitely they are here now, and I can't remove them at all: even with no AA/AF and minimal (most negative) mip bias, they are still there on the roads.

Scawen, this is Russian flag in colours closer to real (ffffff 2861ac c52d2c)

I have an issue with welcome texts. Diacritic characters of European languages show like cyrillic, because the text is written in single-byte characters. Host owners see their welcome.txt in their codepage (French, Italian, Swedish), but my local LFS takes that text as cp1251 and Cyrillic. I see "piщ" instead of "più", "fцr" instead of "für" and so on. Other users must also have the same problem.

BTW, what happens if someone makes a multibyte welcome.txt?

IMO, it´s better to detect codepage (or decode unicode txt) and tag the welcome message on host.

Quote from Stefani24 :

?????????
wth does this mean
and @poster above:
im happy when i get 30 fps

The colours are too bright, while in reality they aren't like the brightest red and blue. I wanted to send to Scawen a new version, but lost myself in AF tests and forgot.

I've set AA=4x, AF=8x, GF7600GS, driver version 6.14.11.6375, WinXP 64.

The interior of the other XF GTi in multiplayer is all WHITE. My own looks normal.

[Edit] Not always. Can't reproduce. The track was FE, weather=day.

Last edited by detail, Tue 18 Mar 2008, 19:39.

BTW, now when the ground objects looks better, the sky is notably low-res.

Quote from [d9] :

hi, i noticed other thing - with mouse steer i feel little delay in control (similar as with analogue steer smooth set to high values), increases with higher AF level i think (fps not affected, i run at 50fps limitter). anyone can reproduce this, maybe also with wheel steer?

I also drive with mouse and after Y13 felt the same. But looks like it was because the steering non-linearity had changed from 0.3 to 0.8 after I updated to Y13.

So far, on my computer AF turns off in LFS when I
- alt-tab
- change resolution
- switch to windowed mode
Every time I have to go to options, turn AF off and then turn it back on. Even forcing AF in NVidia CP doesn't resolve this problem.

BTW, I used AF through nVidia settings before, but now when it works natively, graphics looks MUUUUCH smoother.

Last edited by detail, Sat 15 Mar 2008, 17:46.

Quote from d3m0n :

Hi there,
Actually it seems as it doesn't work for me. Or I'm too blind to see a diffrence.

It doesn't work, there is really no difference. Maybe you've turned off AF in nVidia CP?

AF works fine for me.

nVidia GeForce 7600 GS (256 MB), WinXP 64, driver version 6.14.11.6375 (04.10.2007)

I've noticed that if mip bias is close to 0, some small details dissapear, like leaves and fences. High mip bias causes much pixel blinking. I'm curios, what level of settings is the best between these.


Shift+F4 and back removes AF.

Last edited by detail, Sat 15 Mar 2008, 12:34.

Fascinating topic, guys.

The flying simulator in the video is X-Plane, BTW. You always see the sky through the ground if you turn off "reset on hard crash" and then crash into the ground.

In X-Plane you already can make this kind of multi-monitor setup. You can use several PCs, the others will run XP in display-only mode that will receive the data via network. Or you can turn on cubic projection, even on 1 monitor (not much useful). I've tried it, at least I can say it works.

Actually, that was my question few years ago when I saw a Matrox device for 3 monitors. It's not only natural to have a cylindrical projection, but also there is no waste of graphics card power, because in a single-plane projection, most of the FOV is in the center 1/3, the rest 2/3 are occupied by few degrees on the sides.

Last edited by detail, Thu 13 Mar 2008, 19:21.

Quote from Jakg :

"never meet your heroes" is an English expression - it means never meet your heroes as it's going to be a let-down (as you assume they will be something perfect and incredible when their JUST a person or a car or whatever)

Thanks, now it makes sense.

Quote from mcintyrej :

That cars a case of never meet your heroes.

Can you write in English, please?

Yes, the car is nice, and hard to control.

-1 for new cars. Unless they are total hits, something unique. I'd prefer Lamborgini Countach LP400S rather than Murcelago.

The render looks nice. I hope the real track will be as good. I also wonder if the current facilities are that bad.

I've read about the road that connects to the track, but I also see another thing. IMO, the reason why Bernie always pushes Silverstone and other european tracks is that Formula 1 is like a financial pyramid. There is a demand for Grand prix-es from different countries, may are ready to invest and pay the fee for holding a GP, and all this leaves the tracks below the margin. AFAIR, Malaysia track has been sold, maybe not once. Turkey track was near the margin before it was fined by Mosley, and then Bernie took it over. Spa track lost the GP, because the revenue can't cover all the expenses.

So when there are emirates and Asian countries which want to waste money by making on their home GPs, F1's appetites increase constantly. In Europe where tracks are private, less and less can bear the same burden of expenditures on a GP (Spa Francochamps and Magny Cours IIRC quit F1 for financial reasons) while Quatar, thanks to oil prices, can donate money for a unprofitable undertaking, just for prestige. Malaysia and China initially did the same thanks to their economic growth.

Last edited by detail, Thu 6 Mar 2008, 18:44.

@filur: because to send a packet, i need only to pack(...) and send, and to receive a packet I need to socket_read, unpack, decode into my structures, then call a function. I've written a very lightweight app and didn't make length check and other routines that could be common for both outgoing and incoming packets.

@Dygear: I understood you very well, it didn't confuse me. What I talk about is the repetition of names in the following expression:

I meant that you better design MSO::send to work like this:

They could also put the barriers right near the track so that a car hit the barrier at smaller angle.

Just found this video with so many crashes in that series. Are crashes really so frequent there?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw2c2NWxs1w

Yes, you can call a class method in PHP:

myClass::myMethod(...)

Here what I'm curious about is: does it make sense to make a class without making its instances, instead of just having standalone functions?

NotAnIllusion: why make an object in this example? I guess after you send it, it is disposable.

When somebody uses objects for a template class, it is needed to avoid carrying all the bunch of variables in parameters. But here you don't re-pass them anywhere.

send_MSO($conn, $uclid, $plid, MSO_USER, $msg)!

Ok, I see a sense to create classes for incoming packets, but why do that for those outgoing? (Don't take me wrong, I don't want to be a pain in the a**. I'm not a good programmer, so take these questions not like rhethoric, but like my curiosity )

Last edited by detail, Thu 28 Feb 2008, 17:11.

Funny. Again the same story.

IF THIS IS REAL, I think the only common thing with the production car will be the bodywork, for homologation. The rest will be bought and composed in Europe by European engineers/workers. Yukos and then Russian Age Racing used Porsches and Ferraris. This will also be a European car, just with different bodywork (tho, it must be much more expensive to build it).

I wonder if it really is AvtoVAZ's (Lada manufacturer) project. They have financial problems, are overstocked with it's cars and can't sell out.

Though, I still can't belive it is a true thing. Especially, if they promise a diesel engine.

Dygear, let me criticise some of your code. I support your efforts, even though I was (and maybe will continue) making my own class.

Here is your code for message sending:

In this code you repeat MSO so many times. Maybe do something about that? The 2nd option isn't that ugly, but still you repeat some names. The 3rd way is almost the same as 2nd, just written a bit differently: you m,oved array parsing from constructor to send method.

Think of it: any time you send a message to a connection, you need to supply all the 3 parameters: UCID, message text and message type. You need to remember them exactly and to put them in the right place: in case of an associative array you have to give them proper indexes. In case of a special method you need to supply them in a proper order. This is the same in it's essence. But what is easier to code: this

$MCO = new MCO(array("UCID" => $UCID, "PLID" => $PLID, "Message" => $myMessageText));

(BTW, you'll need to keep and pass global variables for the connection, right? That's why I made my plugins as objects that have links to the connection class and $connection resourse Id)

or this (let it be, as you prefer, a call of class method):

MSO::send($UCID, $PLID, $myMessageText);

As you see, the code is still readable, unless you step away from naming conventions and write something like

MSO::send($sdkjslkj, $saadasda, $mmmmmm);

In my opinion, there is no need to type the array keys to remind to yourself another time what parameters are supplied. You just have keep your variables names neat and also, anyway there is the function definition there in the code. If you don't know what parameters to supply, go there and read it. No need to repeat partso of the function definition in the code, right?

I'm not a guru in programming, but I've tried the "nice" style like that in option 1, and it appeared to be too labour-intensive to code. With years I've got an idea that the less you repeat pieces of code, the better.

Of course, it is my opinion, you may choose whatever way you prefer.

Last edited by detail, Thu 28 Feb 2008, 15:58.

Quote from Dygear :

However, with the individual functions, there is really no good way to then take that into a plugin systems.

Why? Have you seen my solution in my php class?