Like you said gone a bit over my head. I've never got on with abstractions used in high level languages. Do these things essentially boil down to variable registers? As far as languages are concerned I'm far more comfortable at a lower level talking about registers, flags etc. But even then I don't really have the will to get in to it in any depth.
I see what you're saying though. Automatic memory management makes you pick up lazy programming habits, which then work against you when it comes to managing other resources, (eg graphics memory, i/o ports etc), right?
It's not a very complicated concept. Basically it boils down to keeping track of changes made so that you have an audit trail to find what was changed, when it was changed, and by whom. It also covers keeping back up versions of any document, software created along the way so that changes can be (relatively) quickly and easily reverted back to the way they were if new versions turn out not to be any good for what ever reason. It's also used extensively in project and programme management, (as well as SLA and Contract management etc).
I have to admit I know little about programming. It never interested me so I took no interest in class - (you try staying awake trying to learn programming in Fortran77 !! :razz
- but isn't C++ a language that requires manual memory management? Just makes me wonder how many of those 6 million characters are taken up dealing with allocating and freeing memory. I thought people were moving away from such languages to ones that do automatic memory managment, as they are more code "efficient". But like I said, I'm no programmer.
- but isn't C++ a language that requires manual memory management? Just makes me wonder how many of those 6 million characters are taken up dealing with allocating and freeing memory. I thought people were moving away from such languages to ones that do automatic memory managment, as they are more code "efficient". But like I said, I'm no programmer.Scawen,
With the utmost respect, I am purely pointing out the care that needs to be taken by someone in your position so as not to find yourself in sticky situations. As I stated there are several ways in which one can inadvertently enter themselves in to binding contracts. Concepts of "free" in one persons mind may well not be considered so under certain circumstances by a judge for example.
On a personal level I am happy with what I paid for, but I know enough about contract law to know it's never as black and white as it would appear and urge caution with regards to things said on public forums etc.
A point Tiff Needel once made in Top Gear, (I think!
). Racing is all about keeping momentum up, even at F1 power to weight ratios.Huh? Just a response, (in general not specifically to scawen et al), to that statment.
You pay someone for something. They owe you. Simple. The payments made by all the license holders of LFS are keeping the devs in a living, (at least in part). You really honestly believe that if someone is funding your house, food, childrens schools etc you owe them nothing in return??
As individuals, all the license holders may have paid a relatively small amount of money, (not small for everyone though), and the game may well be "in development" but statments of "as is" just don't cut it as a get out when there is clearly a promise of development. In life, and in business especially, if you make a promise to people, (especially those that have paid money to help you meet that promise), those people have a right to expect a reasonable effort on your part to meet that promise. In fact on a legal basis they can very well demand it. A contract can be established in many ways and a promise to develop a product with the money that is paid for that reason is just as contractually binding should it be made on a forum as it would be if it were on paper with signatories and witnesses etc.
Legally speaking to take money off people on the promise (read contractual obligation) of product development and then not to develop said product is tantamount to fraud. Which in case anyone isn't clear about it is a criminal offense.
Now, I am no way implying that the LFS devs are doing any such thing, but let's just put this naieve argument that because we've paid peanuts and LFS is "in development" and sold "as is" that the devs don't owe their paying customers anything. In fact it is exactly because it's "in development" and not a finished product that they do ! They've taken the money to develop LFS so now they are obligated (legaly and moraly) to develop it.
hmm ok... I've just retested it.. seems ok now. I must have been doing something wrong initially.
The new interiors look much better (for the ones I've seen so far). The XFG and XRG look much more like road cars now, which is what they are. XFG seem to handle more like a road car too, (though that could be my imagination). I must admit though that the "air bag" on the new wheels does look a little odd. But I'm guessing its' not supposed to be an air bag?? given the era of the car.
I'm not able to use any buttons on my wheel. For some reason LFS is not picking up the mappings used in the wheel profiler. I've had this issue since Y19. Patch Y worked just fine. Z doesn't. 
Why? LFS is a race simulator .. hence the use of the term "speed" in the game name. It's intended to replicate driving cars fast. Ricing is purely a visual thing. Nothing to do with performance in any way, so why should a performance biased audience not have a negative attitude towards things that are irrelevant to performance. Coming here and asking for visual mods capability in a game which is modelled 100% to replicate performance issues is like going on a forum for the game "guitar hero's" and asking for a mod to be able to play a recorder in the game.
Problem with that affect is that the quality of FFB available in current wheels just isn't good enough to accurately reproduce the "tingle" you get through the wheel in real life in some cars. Otherwise a frequency related minor vibration through the wheel would certainly add something to the realism of racing sims. What's actually required is not vibration through the FFB motor(s) but a separate motor causing vibration up through the wheel stem.
So would I, it would be very odd otherwise... just as odd as having deformed wings but no affect on down force as is currently the case !
What I meant was, given that the modelling of the wings actually falling off is some way a way. I would much rather the devs just updated the physics modelling to approximately match the graphics aero damage that currently already exsits in the game on single seaters. I would much rather see that now, than wait for it to be implemented with what I believe is essentially a graphical improvement, (ie the wing actually detatching). It doesn't have to be accurate aero modelling just a rough approximation of loss relative to the kind of damage incurred. eg half bent front wing = 50% loss of down force etc. Just that in itself would be a huge step forward in realism for the single seaters IMHO.
Good news..
Just a note about wings falling off. I would much prefer to see partial to full loss of aero downforce due to damage to wings before the ability of the wing to actually fall off, (unless this would be part of the physics changes needed to allow wings falling off to be modelled).
Just a note about wings falling off. I would much prefer to see partial to full loss of aero downforce due to damage to wings before the ability of the wing to actually fall off, (unless this would be part of the physics changes needed to allow wings falling off to be modelled).
I just remembered an article I read of a motor journalist getting the opportunity to ride what was then the new Cagiva 500cc race bike. He had about 5 laps on it and after taking the first lap very slowly he gradually built up the pace over the next 3 laps and actually stated that the bike was incredibly easy to ride, (at speeds that were way above what any production 1000cc bike would have managed), but when on the last lap he then actually tried to keeping the throttle open full past 3/4 revs to the red line the bike came up so quick it nearly headbutted him off the back, he rolled off the throttle got the front down by which time he was already past his previous brake marker going much faster than he had till then. Hitting the brakes in near panic nearly threw him over the front but killed his speed so that he made the corner doing 20mph more than he had previously. It was at that point that he realised just how talented 500cc racers were at the time.
Well I've never driven anything even a fraction as fast, (car wise anyway), so I'll accept your greater experience in that respect. But I would say that what you say would only be true for those that can over come the "fear" factor. You may say it's not that scary but for the average joe I would expect it to be an extremely scary experience. I was thinking more along those lines when I stated 60 seconds really.
I think intrepid has a very valid point. I knew a guy who used to race 600s in low level club races. His racing costs were around £6-7,000 a year (back in the early nineties that is) and he used to have to make tyres last several races to acheive that low buget level. No surprises that he was from a relatively well to do family and was a lawer. Motor racing costs at every level, and in terms of the average salary it costs way too much for 99% of people to even consider getting involved in, (even just for fun).
However, there is one other thing to consider to the argument and that is will. Are Schumacher/Senna, Maradonna/Pele, Usain Bolt, Valentino Rossi etc all the best ever? Well all that can be said for certain is that they are (were) the best of a select few that even cared to get involved in their respective sports never mind the even smaller pool that had the true opportunities required other than tallent that you need to get to the top of the game to even be compared. Is 9.72 the fastest any human can run 100m ? who knows what joe blogs or fred smith might have acheived if they had decided to take up sprinting as a sport. Not all the fastest running kids in the playground are interested at being the fastest running kid on the track, most have other priorities. The probability that there are better drivers/footballers/sprinters etc out there than the ones we currently call "the best" is 100%. It's a certainty. They just never got involved.
However, there is one other thing to consider to the argument and that is will. Are Schumacher/Senna, Maradonna/Pele, Usain Bolt, Valentino Rossi etc all the best ever? Well all that can be said for certain is that they are (were) the best of a select few that even cared to get involved in their respective sports never mind the even smaller pool that had the true opportunities required other than tallent that you need to get to the top of the game to even be compared. Is 9.72 the fastest any human can run 100m ? who knows what joe blogs or fred smith might have acheived if they had decided to take up sprinting as a sport. Not all the fastest running kids in the playground are interested at being the fastest running kid on the track, most have other priorities. The probability that there are better drivers/footballers/sprinters etc out there than the ones we currently call "the best" is 100%. It's a certainty. They just never got involved.
It was quite a while ago now but I remember a comment by someone in F1 (can't recall whom - might have been murray walker). That the difference between the pole sitter and the guy sitting at the back of the grid (around 6.5-7 seconds in those days) was 5 seconds car and 1.5-2 seconds driver. In the grand scheme of things being 2 seconds a lap off the fastest driver in the fastest cars in the world, (that go around tracks that is), is an irrelevant difference. Put any one of us here in one of those cars and I'm betting we wouldn't be within 60 seconds.
24,000 S2 licences sold. Even if we assume their all upgrades at £12 a go that's £288,000 revenue over 3 years or £96,000 a year (averaged). That's enough for an income of £25k pa each (which is essentially the national average). Leaving £21k per year left over to put back in to funding LFS. Dedicated hosting isn't that expensive, example cost is around £2.8k per year, (that's for a 2.66Ghz core duo machine, 3GB ram, 1TB storage, 10mb/s dedicated pipe and unlimited bandwidth usage).
If they're half upgrades and half new sales then the revenue is up to £432,000 or £144,000 pa - could pay themselves £40k pa and still have £24k pa to reinvest in LFS !!
Yes I know it most likely hasn't been that even a cashflow situation but with those kinds of numbers you have to be pretty poor at cash management to not come out sitting pretty no matter how the cash flow has varied over the 3 year period.
Except copyright and intellectual property rights issues of course ...
The height of my wheel in LFS isn't of concern to me, I never look at it (or the one on screen) anyway. I was merely stating the difference between the positioning of steering wheels/dash/seat in a real car compared to a normal pc screen/desk/office seat set up.
If ever proof was needed of the inadequacies of democracy the LFS voting to ban/kick system is it.
People just vote whenever a vote is started:
a) as above out of pig minded stupid ignorance
or
b) can anyone say "clique" ?
Unfortunately these do exist on LFS and the only thing to do about it is steer clear of these servers. Not always possible I accept, but not much else to do usually.
Glad you got a second chance (everyone deserves one IMO even if they did wreck on purpose first time around), and good to hear another server removing the pointless vote option.
It's not. I have an nVidia card and I have the same problem as you. After applying AA it stays on even when I set it to "off" in game. Even worse it sets the AA in my other install of LFS (Patch Y) which doesn't even have AA settings.
Quick question are you running Vista or XP??
Scawen,
I tried what you suggested and renamed LFS.exe to LFS2.exe and when I run LFS with a changed executable name the AA is now gone.
Would appear that the issue is related to either the drivers or the OS remembering the applications settings and not reverting them.
Err yeah but... Then the seat in a car is much lower than any office chair you would use to play LFS, especially in anything except a van !
Get in your car and look at exactly where the wheel is in relation to your body. I'm betting it's around chest height. Unless, like I said you drive a van or are really tall.
Ok let me rephrase what I mean. Contact is inevitable in close racing. But the majority of that contact is harmless in real life. It doesn't put people off their lines, doesn't force them to stay out wide and not be able to turn in etc. It's unintentional, and when it's made the drivers make efforts to back off and/or separate. The difference is that in LFS many people purposely nudge others to unsettle their cars just going in to a corner and there by are able to pass for example. Or they just plain use the other car to make the corner at a speed they would never be able to if they weren't "resting" on the other car. Or they dive up the inside knowing full well that they are going to ram the car ahead when it turns in, but doing it just right that they get through unscathed. Those are just a few examples of the kind of racing "techniques" I've seen used regularly in LFS that just wouldn't be tolerated in real racing.
Another example from F1, I can't recall the drivers but it was a tight right and one of the drivers had managed top pull up on the left of the driver in front going down the straight approaching the corner. They both went in to the right hander pretty much side by side, (3/4 car overlap with the ouside driver just nudging ahead), but the inside driver was defending the line and so the outside driver braked to avoid a collision when he realised he was going to be squeezed out by the outside curb of the corner. He actually braked and allowed the inside driver through. In other words his over taking attempt wasn't sucessful and he fell in behind to try again later on.
Now in LFS I garuentee that 90% of players in the same position as the guy on the outside would just attempt to drive over the curb or just plain collide with the inside car. That's the difference, I practically never see people back off to avoid colisions in LFS. Especially in situations where they think they can get through by hitting the other driver.
Simple fact is that in real racing it is the responsibilty of the driver behind to pass cleanly. It is NOT the responsibility of the driver ahead to make space for the driver behind to pass cleanly. The driver ahead is fully entitled to stick to their line and it's just tough if that means you can't pass. If there is going to be a collision it is the driver behinds responsibility to back off and avoid the collision not the defending drivers. The only real exception being a late braking charge up the inside where the defending driver should not turn in if it's going to cause a colision, if it isn't going to cause a collision and the overtaking driver can stop in time then the defending driver is entitled to block the move. The important point to note in such a situation is that the overtaking driver can NOT dive in so late and fast that it will cause a collision unless the defending driver doesn't attempt the corner at all, ie goes straight or has to stop completely etc.
Last edited by gezmoor, .
Nothing to do with the LFS collision bug. If that was a replay of an average Tintop race in LFS it would be considered a very clean one, and that would be on tarmac too !! I think that video just goes so serve the point that LFS races are in general anything but clean, and just how far from reality so called "clean racing" in LFS is a lot of the time. I don't think i've driven one single race in LFS where someone hasn't at least nudged me. In LFS contact seems to be considered the norm. In real racing it is anything but.
Mmmm rare steak and grilled sardines.. damn you it's lunch time such conversations shouldn't be allowed at this time of day !!
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG