Quote from arco :

But I think it's pretty certain that Pecholobo was using it, so I compared their hotlaps on AS1/UF1. If someone is using autoclutch, the graph would be at 100 on each shift.

The LFS hotlap analyser is not accurate enough to see, if you use wsinda's analyser it gives a different picture.

If your using the online HL analyser, it is not good enough to see how the clutch is working as it is only displaying data at 10 Hz that means it diplays data segmented into 0.1 sec increments where as the physics engine and replays a recording in 100 Hz which means 0.01 sec increments.

A fully manual shift with the G25 takes 0.15 sec on averages, macro clutch changes I have observered take 0.16 - 0.25 sec on average and the autoclutch takes 0.2 sec consistently.

The most significant difference is that the autoclutch stays at 100% engagement for a full 0.1 sec where a manual clutch, button clutch and macro shift stays at full engagement for only 0.05 sec which is less than the smallest increment the LFS analyser shows - that is why it appears to not reach 100% in that analyser

So you are making an assumption on wrong data... All the LFSWorld analyser can prove is that they are not using the autoclutch

Quote from Victor :

We only store the 10hz versions.

http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=800783#post800783

Last edited by Glenn67, Wed, 30 Jul 2008 23:42.

Let us dispell some myths that are getting propegated far too often in this thread:

Myth 1. Macro clutch gives super human clutch speed. Simply not true, I have shown clearly that a manual clutch shift (G25) is as fast and in the majority of times actually significantly faster than a macro shift. Also I clearly showed that the times the clutch took to depress and release with autoclutch and the macro were actually very close.

Myth 2. Macro clutch is impossibly consistent. From the experiments I did I could plainly see that this is simply not true. The macro clutch was actually quite inconsistent, the times it took to change could vary by more than 30% with the occassional misshift thrown in for good measure. The autoclutch on the other hand was remarkably consistent.

Myth 3. The autoclutch is realistic and the macro clutch is unrealistic. Again simply not true. The macro and button clutch actually more closely mimics a real manual clutch shift than does the autoclutch. The way the autoclutch depresses the clutch is 100% NOT realistic. The autoclutch fails the realism test by a mile

Ok so now we have got those myths out of the way, why is it so eveident that a button clutch shift or macro clutch shift is faster (in lap time) than the autoclutch and fully manual clutch shifter?

Several reasons for this as listed below:

1. Under brakes. Over a G25 user who uses clutch pedal the macro shift or button clutch method is faster as the driver can left foot brake while modulating throttle much more easily than the poor old full G25 user. This enables the driver to be far more consistent and even more aggressive in the braking zones. While the autoclutch driver can also do the same as the button clutch or macro shift driver he doesn't get quite the same advantage because of the way the autoclutch depresses the clutch (which is unrealistic) causing the car to become unbalanced more easily making it more difficult to drive at the limit.
   
2. Accelerating. Those that use a full manual clutch will have a clear advantage here as it is definately faster than any of the other methods. Using a button clutch or macro shift method is the runner up in this category with the autoclutch trailing behind miserably, but this is only the case because of the unrealistic nature of the autoclutch. The autoclutch, button clutch and macro shifting methods all result in very similar shift times so if the autoclutch actually more closely resembled the action of a real clutch depress/release cycle it would give near identical performance to the button clutch and macro shift methods. In fact it would probably be faster than the macro clutch due to its higher consistency!
   

So in conclusion what is the solution to this whole debacle?

• Is it to vilify button clutch and macro shift users? What is possibly constructive about that I ask? It is not the button clutch or macro shifting that is giving the advantage (a majority of opinion saying it is doesn't make it true) - it is that the autoclutch is behaving in an unrealitic manner thus giving them a disavantage over ALL other methods.
  
• No the best outcome is to see the autoclutch brought into line with how a manual clutch works thus eliminating the disadvantage it has over the other methods. The plus side is that there will be a step forwards in the way cars handle at the limit for autoclutch users.
  

My opinion of this whole matter is that it is much the same situation we had with the high nose bug. We all had to put up with it's unrealistic nature and the advantage people would get if they used it. Those that treated LFS as a sim refused to take advantage of the bug and those that treated LFS like a game had no problem taking advantage of it as everyone could do it if they wanted. The same is true with the autoclutch except that it is in reverse, the bug gives a disadvantage rather than an advantage.

Quote from Töki (HUN) :

I have just watched your as1r - rb replay... don't tell me that you don't use macro....

To all: Deleting the replays using button clutch could be fair.

Forget the macro for a minute, how do you change gears with buttons?

You can hold down the gear up button (doesn't count towards the time it takes to change gear as you can press it well before you need too) then when you are ready you give the clutch button a quick stab.

Walla a gear change faster than a macro can do but it still isn't any faster than using a clutch pedal...

Although the macro is a small part of the problem (being the easiest thing for people to focus on) the main problem is not the macro it is the differences in how the clutch behaves with different methods of changing gears. The clutch pedal and clutch button are far faster because there is a problem with how the autoclutch behaves - no other reason I've proven that as mutch as anyone can without being Scawen imo, if anyone takes the time to read and understand my rather long posts they will see for themselves

I've seen first hand irl that punishment doesn't always create common sense either

Case in example a machine op (real life story) puts his hand in harms way and looses a finger. Any other operator would have the common sense to know it is a stupid place to put their hand and wouldn't. Six months later after said finger has healed and the original machine is modified to stop people without common sense doing stupid things, he comes very close to loosing another finger from almost the same senerio on a different machine He doesn't appear daft or on drugs and there is nothing else to suggest he is stupid. But even loosing a finger the first time around didn't give him common sense I've met more than one individual like this.

I don't know that there is a cure for lack of common sense other than if they fail to show common sense repeatedly that they be ashered out...

How about a random quote from the rules appears everytime you connect to a ctra server?

tbo I rarely race on ctra (I rarely race at all to be even more honest :shy and I have no idea when was the first time I connected to a ctra server. If I was tested on the ctra rules I'm sure I'd pass the common sense ones but less sure I'd pass the specific ones. What I'm saying it is easy not to keep up with them all and have them fresh in your mind. So a random short quote every time you connect might help keep the most important one fresh

Quote from lerts :

well this might be the third time i ever told this, i told to my two sister and to my amazement one had experienced the same, so why not somebody else did around the globe

As a kid I always used to dream I could fly but for some reason I could never get above the tree tops and those pesky powerlines always used to get in the way!

I also remember thinking I could fly when awake one time (tried it from the roof of our house) I can distinctly remember the ground rushing up to meet me

I've had several other unitentional flying incidents since then and most of them resulted in injury

P.s. the one thing I can guarantee about lerts threads is I can identify them without seeing his name

Quote from migf1 :

I agree! I was just referring to the situation as it is right now

That's good too hear I'm kinda hoping this is something that can be fixed quickly, this is pure speculation on my behalf but maybe this is a bug that has krept in when Scawen was working on the sequential gear boxes because I'd be shocked if it was intended behaviour. The pluse side is that for people that use the AC will see improvements in handling and performance

Quote from migf1 :

The only safe way to have all people be 100% convinced that they are ethically valid laps is to be re-uploaded with the AC flag on

Or if the way the autoclutch behaves is corrected so it behaves as you would expect a clutch to behave then the autoclutch will be much more like the button clutch is now and it will all be a somewhat muted discussion as all the AC hotlapers will be able to go faster than they currently can... and using a macro clutch will give only a miniscule advantage while having more risk of bad shifts than the autoclutch so simply want be worth using.

Quote from [DUcK] :

And to add to that Glenn, the manual/macro/button clutch don't have to be 100% engaged to acquire a shift. For example, while auto clutch is at 100%, the macro may only be at 60% but the gear has still engaged.
Blah Blah Blah

You obviously didn't read my posts, but I wouldn't expect a Duck to anyway! So that's ok

You are right about the engagement as well, but something is abit odd there the pic acro posted of a "macro" user with analysis clearly shows only 60% engagement but the gear changes I looked at in Worms replay had 100% engagement. Not sure what going on there, I have some ideas though but would be near on impossible to confirm without alot of work

Quote from RiGun :

Glenn67 you must be doing something wrong, how did you script your macro? In my profiler I configured the macro to be as fast as 50ms, autoclutch must be around 100 ms, that difference is huge if you count all gear changes in a whole lap.

Post an spr so I can compare it to kaynd's and mine please

I've just looked at slow motion replay of Worms AS3 RB4 macro example replay and the results are in line with what we are seeing in the other tests as to the pattern of expected behaviour.

Two Acceleration changes itemised:

1st acceleration shift example
1:13;32 - 1:13;37 climb phase 0.05s
1:13;37 - 1:13;40 sustain phase 0.03s
1:13;40 - 1:13;51 decay phase 0.11s
Total shift time 0.19s

2nd acceleration shift example
1:57:09 - 1:57:14 climb phase 0.05s
1:57:14 - 1:57:16 sustain phase 0.02s
1:57:16 - 1:57:26 decay phase 0.10s
Total shift time 0.17s

1st shift example under braking
1:41:09 - 1:41:14 climb phase 0.05s
1:41:14 - 1:41:22 sustain phase 0.08s
1:41:22 - 1:41:32 decay phase 0.10s
Total shift time 0.23s

2st shift example under braking
1:41:99 - 1:42:04 climb phase 0.05s
1:42:04 - 1:42:10 sustain phase 0.06s
1:42:10 - 1:42:20 decay phase 0.10s
Total shift time 0.21s

Here's the results of analysis of worms AS2 RB4 wr using AC.

Example of shifting under acceleration.
0:47:05 - 0:47:05 climb phase is instant on 0.00s
0:47:05 - 0:47:15 sustain phase 0.10s (longer than you would expect almost like it's compensating for the lack of climb phase)
0:47:15 - 0:47:25 decay phase 0.10s
Total shift time 0.20s

Example of shifting under braking.
1:08:31 - 1:08:31 climb phase 0.00s
1:08:31 - 1:08:40 sustain phase 0.09s
1:08:40 - 1:08:51 decay phase 0.11s
Total shift time 0.20s

From this we can clearly see that the total shift time is pretty close in most cases although it does appear you can get faster shifts with the macro on some occassions approaching similar performance to an actual clutch pedal. We can also see that the autoclutch does not behave as one would expect in that it engages 100% instantly and seems to compensate by staying engaged longer before releasing. This would explain the speed advantages that people are seeing along with how the car feels in transients. I actually think the macro clutch is simulating how the autoclutch should be behaving, will be interested in Scawens views when he sees this.

Last edited by Glenn67, Sun, 20 Jul 2008 16:13.

The way the autoclutch functions does not appear to be consistent with other methods of using the clutch.

Please see the following posts for detailed discussion:

http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=869589#post869589

http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=869939#post869939

This could possibly have big impacts on car handling and performance for autoclutch uses.

Currently this has only been observed in the UFR I have not tried any other cars to definately confirm it's the case across the board.

Thanks for your time

[Edit] I've just done some quick tests in the BF1, FZR and RB4 and the pattern seems to be the same, so possibly the same for all non sequential boxes?...

Last edited by Glenn67, Sun, 20 Jul 2008 15:14.

Further to the above analysis as promised:

I tested a slow run of each autoclutch and button clutch that kaynd posted to double check my results.

The slow autoclutch run - climb, sustain and decay pattern is identical in slow and fast passes on the drag strip. So can deduct that the time differences of each run are due to reaction times and/or spinning tyres.

The slow button clutch run - had consistent climb and decay sections but had longer sustain section. So when pressing the two buttons together there appears there can be some variation in how long it stays at the 100% engaged level. Which adds a new variable into the drag run times.

I know kaynd did this with buttons so I'll set my wheel up and do a few trial runs with a macro to see if the same holds true. I suspect it might as when I did the runs last night with macro it seems to "stick" sometimes.


Ok based on the data I posted above I've made some graphs to illustrate the difference between each type of shifting method so people can visualise it better.

The first graph ManualClutch.GIF is how the fully manual clutch works (i.e. autoclutch = no, clutch = axis, clutch pressed by my foot ) The three different phases are evident and on a quick gear change a shift of 0.15s overal is achievable. You can see that the climb, sustain and decay phases all take 0.05s respectively.

The second graph MacroClutch.GIF is how the clutch works using a macro to press s and c simultaniously. Again the three phases are clearly evident, but you can see in particular that the decay phase takes twice as long as what can be accomplished with a clutch pedal. The climb and sustain phases seem to be very consistent at 0.05s and 0.10s respectively, the sustain phase is the interesting one in that it seems it can vary somewhat - the quickest being 0.05s blowing out to 0.08s in some cases. (will check this further)

The third graph AutoClutch.GIF shows how the autoclutch feature behaves currently. The thing that is so startling about the autoclutch is that the first phase the climb phase is totally absent. It just goes from 0% clutch disengagement to 100% disengagement instantly! So this I believe is a bug. The sustain phase seems to be too long due to the absence of the climb phase. The decay phase is the same as for button clutch.

Some thoughts on the observations:

I think it is a good starting point to use the clutch assigened to an axis and autoclutch turned off as the reference for how the clutch should behave. ManualClutch.GIF

Having the clutch assigned to an axis and using fully manual clutch in LFS is definately the fastest method, which is extremely encouraging because it shows that there are rewards there for those that persue realism.

We can see that the way the button/macro clutch works is infact very similar to the way the clutch pedal works in a fully manual clutch setup. The one main difference you can see is that the decay phase is twice as long making the shifts on average 0.20s approximately 30% slower than a fast fully manual clutch shift.

The most suprising result from my analysis though is that of the autoclutch, which doesn't appear to opperate at all as expected. The climb phase is non-existent which does explain why people feel that the car is more stable under braking with macro as the wieght shift with the autoclutch will be sudden and jerky where with any other method of shifting the wieght shift will be more smooth. Also because the climb phase is missing the sustain phase (time the clutch is drpessed 100%) is much longer than expected thus giving a possible 0.02-0.03s time andvantage (taking into consideration partial engagement with other methods) for each shift when flatshifting to other methods of clutching.

At this point I am confident enough to say that I believe there is a bug in the autoclutch system. How ironic is this? Out of an argument that macros are cheats we may have dicovered the macro is not as bad as it seems and the autoclutch system that most people use has a fault Anyway time to raise a bug report and see where it goes me thinks.

Last edited by Glenn67, Tue, 5 Aug 2008 09:49. Reason : for clarity

Quote from kaynd :

This is not analytical manner, this is just your opinion because you are not able to separate the clear speed advantage from the driver stability

Fair call

In my defence I was very tired and about to go to bed when I saw your post

Ok for some analytical stuff.

Firstly lets establish some terms we can all use so we understand each other.

In each action of the clutch we will break down the action into three components:

1. Climb - the time it takes to fully engage the clutch.
   
2. Sustain - the time the clutch remains fully engaged.
   
3. Decay - the time it takes for the clutch to disengage and to engage the next gear.
   

Firstly I have only analysed the fastest runs one from each category for you and me. I intend later to analyse the slower runs to double check the results - but don't have time right at this moment.

Method of analysis:

view replay in 0.125 step slow motion and record on note ppaer action of clutch for each run for gear changes 2-3 and 3-4.

Analysis 1: your 12:54 run with macro clutch

2-3 gear change

Climb 12:80 - 12:85 = 0.05s
Sustain 12:85 - 12:90 = 0.05
Decay 12:90 - 13:00 = 0.1

Total time to change gear = 0.2s

3-4 gear change

Climb 16:63 - 16:68 = 0.05s
Sustain 16:68 - 16:72 = 0.04
Decay 16:72 - 16:82 = 0.1

Total time to change gear = 0.19s

Analysis 2: my 12:64 run with macro clutch

2-3 gear change

Climb 12:68 - 12:73 = 0.05s
Sustain 12:73 - 12:77 = 0.05
Decay 12:77 - 12:87 = 0.1

Total time to change gear = 0.2s

3-4 gear change

Climb 17:22 - 17:27 = 0.05s
Sustain 17:27 - 17:31 = 0.04
Decay 17:31 - 17:41 = 0.1

Total time to change gear = 0.19s

So both our macro runs match.

Analysis 3: your 12:66 run with auto clutch

2-3 gear change

Climb 12:90 - 12:90 = 0.00s
Sustain 12:90 - 12:99 = 0.09
Decay 12:99 - 13:10 = 0.11

Total time to change gear = 0.2s

3-4 gear change

Climb 17:55 - 17:55 = 0.00s
Sustain 17:55 - 17:65 = 0.1
Decay 17:65 - 17:75 = 0.1

Total time to change gear = 0.2s

Analysis 4: my 12:67 run with autoclutch

2-3 gear change

Climb 12:85 - 12:85 = 0.00s
Sustain 12:85 - 12:94 = 0.09
Decay 12:94 - 13:05 = 0.11

Total time to change gear = 0.2s

3-4 gear change

Climb 17:11 - 17:11 = 0.00s
Sustain 17:11 - 17:20 = 0.09
Decay 17:20 - 17:31 = 0.11

Total time to change gear = 0.2s

Again I rusults concure.

Finally a analysis of manual clutch (g25)

Analysis 5: my 12:59 run with manual clutch

2-3 gear change

Climb 12:71 - 12:76 = 0.05s
Sustain 12:76 - 12:81 = 0.05
Decay 12:81 - 12:87 = 0.06

Total time to change gear = 0.16s

3-4 gear change

Climb 17:02 - 17:07 = 0.05s
Sustain 17:07 - 17:13 = 0.06
Decay 17:13 - 17:18 = 0.05

Total time to change gear = 0.16s

I don't have time to really sit down and analyse these results just at the moment but my initial look at them and I felt quite suprised.

The auto clutch seems to be the one that is least realistic in its behaviour and that could be the reason it is at a disadvantage (auto clutch goes instant on!) this would explain why the car feels more balanced in transitions with a macro/button clutch as well.

So a quick summary:

• Fully manual clutch with G25 is definately faster!
  
• The time it takes for the clutch to act in both button clutch and auto clutch is pretty much the same.
  
• The way the auto clutch behaves is not realistic in the climb phase and so therefore looses out to other methods as it stays fully engaged for a longer period.
  

Quote from kaynd :

spr it or it didn't happen...

Just so you don't think I'm a total idiot

Autoclutch is sequetial style shifting
Manualclutch is clutch on axis (g25) and padel shifters
Macroclutch is c and s assigned to wheel buttons then creating a macro that is assigned to a paddle with buttonrate 10

Interesting thing here is manual clutch is fastest, followed by macro then closely by the autoclutch. Another interesting thing is I find the macro to be less reliable than the autoclutch, the macro seems more prone to miss-shifts for some reason.

And I'm not trying to be contentious by doing this, I'm just trying to approach this in an anylitical manner. The disscusion about button clutch has been around for a long time. And I'm pretty sure Scawen has taken steps to even it out. So the advantages guys are seeing from the button macro might be related to something else - perhaps stablitiy in braking or just merely consistency as has been mentioned.

The more investigation and discussion that is conducted on this though the more likely we might see something done about it.

I did read that before and I do take it on board (I don't disbelieve you), I was just saying I'm not 100% convinced it actually is from the faster clutch action

If it is such an obvious thing many people should be able to replicate it. It is possible it's caused by something else is all I'm saying, like a combination of factors on certain peoples setup (i.e. could be a bug) and that I'd be interested in seeing it investigated further.

Quote from kaynd :

That testing is not so accurate as it sounds, since the "take off" when the lights go green is not anymore automatic, the times on drag strip are depending a lot on reaction times…

And if your are very practised at starts and are tuned in (i.e. not in a daze ) you can actually be suprisingly consistent. My best runs of a serries of 5 will always be within 0.00 - 0.03 range of my possible best.

While it may only be 3 gear changes that is the amount on average between sectors on BL1 for example where I was under the impression myself that 0.1
per sector difference was possible because of a macro. But now I doubt it.


I do vaguely remember Scawen fixing this issue some time ago but are not 100% certain

And as for 0.1 - 0.2 difference in lap time, imo it is quite achievable at the top level. It happens all the time that is why records don't stay static for long periods of time on say BL1 which is hotlaped to death. Most people get stuck in a certain range because their brains are telling them there is no more time to be found on this combo. Now if you set a macro for gear changes and are of the belief that it is faster then I do definately believe that it is possible for that individual to go out and get a new pb or lap record. That is a phenomenon that is well documented in many rl highest level sports.

So at this stage I remain unconviced it actually is any faster. Would be good to hear Scawen comment on the progam side of things, and would be good to do some more tests. I may do some more in other cars tonight for comparison.

Quote from migf1 :

Nope, it's crystal clear! The macro is an automation never intended or supported by the sim itself.

You are right, LFS has a pretty advanced scripting system and if you try to setup a script to press the clutch and change gear at the same time it doesn't allow it. So therefore we can conclude that it is a specifically dissallowed function within LFS and we shouldn't seek to over ride it via an external application as it definately is not in the spirit of the game.

Knowing that it can easily be overriden by recording macros in your wheel software though I would hope that this exploit will be prevented at some future point. The easiest way I suspect would be to limit the clutches button control rate to a more human level.

Hmm... I just did some more investigation and I'm not convinced it actually is any faster.

I did four different types of tests on the drag strip with the UF1 (with a random race set) chose the UF1 as it will give the least wheel spin and suffer the most from lag between gear changes.

Test 1 - paddle gears and auto clutch Best run 1st split 11:21 final time 17:49
Test 2 - used keyboard gear and button clutch seperately and totally manual Best run 1st split 11:23 final 17:52
Test 3 - macro gear/clutch Best run 1st split 11:22 final 11:50
Test 4 - clutch on axis paddle gears Best run 1st split 11:25 Final 17:53
# used button control rate of 10 for all tests.

So it is not conclusive that it is faster, the main advantage of using a macro would be consistency, but then you already get that from using sequential style gear changes so it's a mute point.
I'm guessing the guys that are bettering their lap times with a macro is just because of a placibo effect

Last edited by Glenn67, Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:07. Reason : Further investigation

Quote from Bladerunner :

Point? It should only be considered cheating if it gives an unfair advantage, which the clutch macro DOES!

Yes but it's all a matter of perspective isn't it, if you have a clutch and H pattern setup and are using a realistic amount of wheel rotation/ffb while running in the road cars, and those that you are racing with are using autoclutch, sequential shifting and very low wheel rotation/ffb then you could be forgiven for thinking they have an unfair advantage. So by that rule they are cheating

I think there is a vast difference between calling someone a cheat and something an expliot. In the first case your making a judgement on someone's character in the second case your highlighting a flaw in the game that some people take advantage of. And along that line there are many flaws in the game some of which are socially acceptable to take advantage of and others that are not.

Quote from [DUcK] :

True. Get rid of the button rate then?

No keyboard and mouse uses will still need it, just limit its range of speed, if that is too much a disadvantage for keyboard steering then have it so the clutch button control rate is fixed while steering, brake and throttle are adjustable.

It want stop people from cheating like wheelforhammer already mentioned but it will at least plug up this hole. Currently it is not good because if anyone uses manual clutch (G25 users) they will be under constant suspision of using a macro to gain advantage.

Quote from [DUcK] :

it won't really change your performance, and it's still doing it half manually, since you'd have to press a button to get it to change the bias.

It has the potential to change a race as someone can press 1 button for changing the bias a set amount so there is less likely hood of him making an error over someone esle doing several clicks.

My point again is the macro doesn't give the super fast gear change the button rate option in LFS does...

Quote from richo :

Pushing button A should =Button A, not Button A= Button A+invert+reinvert+milk the cows+polish my shoes+release clutch

So if you make a macro to change the brake bias up or down on the cars that allow it, is that a cheat?

Quote from kaynd :

Buttons instead of proper axis controls are there so you can drive in a way without having a wheel & analog pedals...
That doesn't mean that LFS is not a simulator... you can fit a real car with several servo control systems and drive it with a mouse or keys... it's just not practical in real life.

The problem is not the existence of the button... it's just have to be slower so it doesn't give an unrealistic advantage that also overcomes gearbox restrictions.

Exactly, this exploit/cheat would not exist without LFS clutch button and more specifically the button control rate setting being available for the clutch button.

The speed of this exploit/cheat comes from LFS options the ease of it comes from the logitech profiler, so if you were not able to program the button control rate so high then assigning a macro to press two keys simultaneously would only give the same effect as a normal sequential shifter in game. So therefore it is not the external application giving the advantage here. It is LFS options. Which is why I conclude it is a stretch to label it as a cheat over an exploit.

Where this is not the case with deg of wheel rotation if it were restricted in LFS to say 720 deg you could override it in your logitec software so that you only use 240deg but the game would still see 720deg. So by this definition having a low deg of steering wheel rotation in a road car is potentially more of a cheat than the fast gear changes.

The reason I have posted so much on this is because I really dislike and think it is counter productive to go around and publicly label people cheats for things that haven't been used outside normal manufacturer inetentions. The button control rate is a normal option in LFS, macro's have been arround in computers since the dawn of time and are apart of the logitech profiler program, nobody has gone and hacked LFS or the logitech wheel.

At best it can be seen as unsportsmanlike behaviour (which many take this stance) Now hopefully something will be done in the future to prevent this exploit being a further problem, but that must be done from within LFS.

Lastly I'm probably going to get labeled or at least thought of suspicoiusly as a cheat for so strongly defending - I don't really care, because the people that know me well enough will know I'm not The reason of my posts though is it's so easy to jump on band wagons/raise posies/be a part of a lynch mob and go after the percieved villin.

Hey at least one has said I'm taking note of those cheaters and (effectively) saying their sub human. Well just to be clear again I don't use the gear change macro (really I don't feel any need to) but I am experimenting with low deg of wheel rotation. Which in my view does make me a cheat (so please add me to the list), but I guess because it's accepted that it's a widely used practise that can't possibley be monitored that it is ok

Anyway I think it's healthy to have good discusions about things that effect LFS and for the most part we have had that in this thread, so I congratulate everyone on that point

Nice one Stick with it and I'm sure you will reach your goals and have a whole lot of fun in the process

Quote from Sir moi 407 :

It's easier AND faster

Well so is using auto clutch and sequential shifting easier and faster than using a H pattern gear shifter and clutch pedal

Quote from Sir moi 407 :

That is an external option not an LFS one... What I said is still true

Yes but it doesn't allow you to do it faster than you can do it within LFS, it just allows you to do it easier. Abit like using a wheel is easier than using the mouse to steer. So it somewhat reduces the cheating charge no? As I said before it can best be described as an exploit, and I'd be very suprised if a solution to stop this exploit can't be engineered from within LFS as several have previously suggested. All it would need is to reduce the max button control rate configurable within LFS for the clutch to a more "fair" level and the problem is solved.