On the LFS-Lazy tool and various the on-screen displays:
Beside LFS-Lazy there exists other software.
LFS Companion by kristofferandersen:
https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/97129-LFS-Companion
Detect&Monitor by Tomfuel:
https://www.lfs.net/forum/post/2004269#post2004269
(also has spotter/radar)
Both tools have just recently begun development, so if you give early feedback now then maybe your ideas will be implemented there.
Beside LFS-Lazy there exists other software.
LFS Companion by kristofferandersen:
https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/97129-LFS-Companion
Detect&Monitor by Tomfuel:
https://www.lfs.net/forum/post/2004269#post2004269
(also has spotter/radar)
Both tools have just recently begun development, so if you give early feedback now then maybe your ideas will be implemented there.
That skin-sharing site still has legal terms of use, it is required to have them.
https://www.tradingpaints.com/page/Terms
I assume you mean this mod:https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/100105-DORITO-FD7
But it is not the only one.
I remember this one: https://www.lfs.net/forum/post/2001326 It was initially published despite the video showing retopology.
Perhaps that made others think, that this approach was okay?
https://www.lfs.net/forum/post/2010556#post2010556
(in my opinion, should not have been published either)
https://www.lfs.net/forum/post/2013694#post2013694
"I used another model as a reference, so yes retopology."
Here is another WIP thread:
https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/100144-FK9-FWD-hatchback
...and so on. I see no use to post in every single thread.
I think not every modder does it in bad faith.
Some might honestly think that retopology is okay because "nothing of the original mesh remains" or "every polygon is changed compared to the original."
Most people never to think about licenses and in in theory it might sound like a clever idea. It might need an official post to explain it.
Maybe also explain what kind of WIP pictures work as proof.
Because I can also delete parts of a model and post them in reversed order.
But it is not the only one.
I remember this one: https://www.lfs.net/forum/post/2001326 It was initially published despite the video showing retopology.
Perhaps that made others think, that this approach was okay?
https://www.lfs.net/forum/post/2010556#post2010556
(in my opinion, should not have been published either)
https://www.lfs.net/forum/post/2013694#post2013694
"I used another model as a reference, so yes retopology."
Here is another WIP thread:
https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/100144-FK9-FWD-hatchback
...and so on. I see no use to post in every single thread.
I think not every modder does it in bad faith.
Some might honestly think that retopology is okay because "nothing of the original mesh remains" or "every polygon is changed compared to the original."
Most people never to think about licenses and in in theory it might sound like a clever idea. It might need an official post to explain it.
Maybe also explain what kind of WIP pictures work as proof.
Because I can also delete parts of a model and post them in reversed order.
(This post was originally a reply in this thread: https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/100120)
The biggest delay in publishing seems to be checking the source of the 3D model.
How can normal users make qualified votes on the legal aspect?
On the 3D-file sharing sites, it seems there are mostly two kinds of models:
1) models ripped from other games.
2) models ripped from other games but nobody has yet figured it out.
Afterall, comparing 3D meshes is time-consuming. Some cars are featured in dozen of games.
I have a feeling that there is only a handful of users who actually check anything at all, rest just presses "thumbs up."
For example there is now a new mod with text:
Overnight it already has 6x "thumbs up" for legal.
I do not want to single out that one mod/user, but really how is such text good enough for reviewers to check anything?
And who kind of review did the people do, who voted on it?
The best way to speed up the process would be if modders show how they created the 3D model.
It is easy to take screenshots and it is also not hard to record timelapse videos.
Then, there need to be more clear rules what is legal.
For example "retopology":
A ripped model is loaded into 3D-software and then the new model is created by tracing the polygons of the original model.
It might be somewhat legal if the original model is very low-poly and only used for its basic shape and the modeler turns it into a highly detailed model.
However, in the cases that I have seen,the new model is identical to the original, except for tiny irrelevant differences.
A few such mods are already published.
However, I am pretty sure this violates the terms of usage of any game.
The editing does not make the new model legal, and from technical side it is not needed either. The original ripped model would be usable as-is.
The only purpose is to hide that the model is ripped.
But then why upload a video of that? It makes no sense.
Maybe some people vote because they think: "Oh, there is a video of the creation process. That must mean that the mod is original work."
If I sneak a camera into a cinema and upload the recording then that is still illegal. Even if I make small edits like cropping out areas of the movie or mirroring it.
All that is just to make detection harder (for example by youtube algorithm)
The biggest delay in publishing seems to be checking the source of the 3D model.
How can normal users make qualified votes on the legal aspect?
On the 3D-file sharing sites, it seems there are mostly two kinds of models:
1) models ripped from other games.
2) models ripped from other games but nobody has yet figured it out.
Afterall, comparing 3D meshes is time-consuming. Some cars are featured in dozen of games.
I have a feeling that there is only a handful of users who actually check anything at all, rest just presses "thumbs up."
For example there is now a new mod with text:
Overnight it already has 6x "thumbs up" for legal.
I do not want to single out that one mod/user, but really how is such text good enough for reviewers to check anything?
And who kind of review did the people do, who voted on it?
The best way to speed up the process would be if modders show how they created the 3D model.
It is easy to take screenshots and it is also not hard to record timelapse videos.
Then, there need to be more clear rules what is legal.
For example "retopology":
A ripped model is loaded into 3D-software and then the new model is created by tracing the polygons of the original model.
It might be somewhat legal if the original model is very low-poly and only used for its basic shape and the modeler turns it into a highly detailed model.
However, in the cases that I have seen,the new model is identical to the original, except for tiny irrelevant differences.
A few such mods are already published.
However, I am pretty sure this violates the terms of usage of any game.
The editing does not make the new model legal, and from technical side it is not needed either. The original ripped model would be usable as-is.
The only purpose is to hide that the model is ripped.
But then why upload a video of that? It makes no sense.
Maybe some people vote because they think: "Oh, there is a video of the creation process. That must mean that the mod is original work."
If I sneak a camera into a cinema and upload the recording then that is still illegal. Even if I make small edits like cropping out areas of the movie or mirroring it.
All that is just to make detection harder (for example by youtube algorithm)
Last edited by Flame CZE, .
Here are some old LFS sites from web.archive:
https://web.archive.org/web/20021210044956/http://www.bhmotorsports.com/LFS
Try the screenshot gallery. But only half the images work.
very old setup guide with the old S1 menu:
https://web.archive.org/web/20021209191943/http://www.bhmotorsports.com/guide/80
Blackholemotorsports used to be one of THE websites for racing games. Demos, videos, news, mods, etc.
When LFS was published there was also another self-published sim currently in development.."Racing Legends". I think some will remember the hype around the first pictures and then it never went anywhere..
Sadly none of the videos are archived. There was actually a video of LFS running on a VR headset already 20 years ago.
Happy Birthday!
The airfield track looks great and good choice of setting.
There is an option to display your split times. Or do you mean something else?
Generally I think insim exists exactly for such more detailed customization and display stuff.
The airfield track looks great and good choice of setting.
There is an option to display your split times. Or do you mean something else?
Generally I think insim exists exactly for such more detailed customization and display stuff.
the first generated images looked quite strange and mushy 
but now I see where this is going.
interesting approach
but now I see where this is going.interesting approach
That makes no sense.
Currently those mods have a good rep, judging from the comments and ratings.
I think people will understand if an LFS update should break some old mods, in whatever far away future.
If it happens then there will probably be ways to mark them as outdated. (like a comment and removing their "approved" status) They would not get a bad rep, players will simply remember them as mods that are no long compatible.
Deleting perfectly functional mods now is real the worst way to deal with that and surest way to get a bad rep, because nobody will understand that decision.
First, sorry for the inconvenience. This is maybe my worst program ever. 
Over the years multiple people have contacted me with problems and I could only help like maybe half of them.
If cones get ignored, there is likely something silly in the svg file.
If you attach the svg file I can take a look.
In hindsight, going with svg files was a bad plan. I knew that svg files are complex but I did not foresee how messed up all image-editors sometimes save the files. svg can include scaling, rotation, shifted origins and all kind of stuff that my program can not deal with. Often editors create files that look the same but internally are completly different. In Inkscape, even just opening a file, adding one dot/cone does sometimes mess up the whole coordinate system for all other elements. It makes debugging very tiresome.
compiling:
I also had problems with that on my new computer. Actually I think it was linker problems.
I still like the idea of such editor but at the moment I just do not have the time for it.
I would likely try creating the graphical editor-part in Lua but there is no insim lib for that. Then the editor would create a list of LFS-coordinates as txt-file and another script would send those to LFS.
If someone wants to cooperate on that, message me.
Over the years multiple people have contacted me with problems and I could only help like maybe half of them.
If cones get ignored, there is likely something silly in the svg file.
If you attach the svg file I can take a look.
In hindsight, going with svg files was a bad plan. I knew that svg files are complex but I did not foresee how messed up all image-editors sometimes save the files. svg can include scaling, rotation, shifted origins and all kind of stuff that my program can not deal with. Often editors create files that look the same but internally are completly different. In Inkscape, even just opening a file, adding one dot/cone does sometimes mess up the whole coordinate system for all other elements. It makes debugging very tiresome.
compiling:
I also had problems with that on my new computer. Actually I think it was linker problems.
I still like the idea of such editor but at the moment I just do not have the time for it.
I would likely try creating the graphical editor-part in Lua but there is no insim lib for that. Then the editor would create a list of LFS-coordinates as txt-file and another script would send those to LFS.
If someone wants to cooperate on that, message me.
Without going into specifique details:
I think it is not so important how excactly a situation is judged.
It justs needs to be consistent. Even simple things like "When is a car considered to be off the track?" are not easily answered. Some say all wheels must be on the track, others say two wheels are enough.
Sometimes the curbs are seen as part of the track, sometimes not.
It is similiar with overlap, turning in, defensive moves etc.
Almost any interpretation of the rules is okay.
But most important is that the rules are always interpretated the same. All situations should be judged by the same standard.
I think it is not so important how excactly a situation is judged.
It justs needs to be consistent. Even simple things like "When is a car considered to be off the track?" are not easily answered. Some say all wheels must be on the track, others say two wheels are enough.
Sometimes the curbs are seen as part of the track, sometimes not.
It is similiar with overlap, turning in, defensive moves etc.
Almost any interpretation of the rules is okay.
But most important is that the rules are always interpretated the same. All situations should be judged by the same standard.
Scawen, do you still have plans for this lesson editor?
I think what it needs the most is an easy way to share the lesson-files with others.
Currently it would requires users to download and unpack zip-archive and open the lessons in editor. That is okay for testing but I fear that is too complicated for normal players.
Also it only allows to select original LFS cars.
I think what it needs the most is an easy way to share the lesson-files with others.
Currently it would requires users to download and unpack zip-archive and open the lessons in editor. That is okay for testing but I fear that is too complicated for normal players.
Also it only allows to select original LFS cars.
for those wondering what this car is about and how it is meant to be driven:
good mod idea, fits well with LFS autocross system.
things I would like to see fixed:
1) LOD2 still has the rearlights from original UF1000
2) the frame of the windscreen is partly invisible from the inside (at the top)
3) remove side mirrors (they are almost always removed to avoid knocking over poles with them. but sometimes there is an interior mirror)
maybe add a rear rollbar? It is quite common I think.
tires are maybe a bit big for the wheel arches.
good mod idea, fits well with LFS autocross system.
things I would like to see fixed:
1) LOD2 still has the rearlights from original UF1000
2) the frame of the windscreen is partly invisible from the inside (at the top)
3) remove side mirrors (they are almost always removed to avoid knocking over poles with them. but sometimes there is an interior mirror)
maybe add a rear rollbar? It is quite common I think.
tires are maybe a bit big for the wheel arches.
that would not work, someone posted here that the model was taken from Forza:
https://www.lfs.net/forum/post/2003788#post2003788
@timdecnodder
did you delete your Schanke cars over that?
ah yes. I completly forgot about the textcommands. 
thanks!
thanks!what happend to that skin? (the orange/black/white one)
currently the mod comes with ~5 skins but all are basic color. (4x white with different rims and 1x blue)
You can add it to your "Favorites" list by clicking the star-icon in the car's picture. (not the rating stars but underneath those)
hotkey to switch between VR-3D and 2D?
Is there a way to quickly switch between the 3D-mode of a VR-headset and normal 2D-screen?
A way that does not require to click through the options menu.
I thought there was a button-combo for that but we did not find it.
We were testing mods, so there was lots of clicking through the menu, changing tracks, joining servers etc.
The person with the headset was driving and second person was setting up the races etc.
Using the menus in VR works okay but with a mouse and screen it is bit faster. The problem is that the menu is still rendered in "VR-style" 3D on the screen, so it is sometimes a bit tricky for the non-driver to use the menu if the driver does not hold their head still.
A way that does not require to click through the options menu.
I thought there was a button-combo for that but we did not find it.
We were testing mods, so there was lots of clicking through the menu, changing tracks, joining servers etc.
The person with the headset was driving and second person was setting up the races etc.
Using the menus in VR works okay but with a mouse and screen it is bit faster. The problem is that the menu is still rendered in "VR-style" 3D on the screen, so it is sometimes a bit tricky for the non-driver to use the menu if the driver does not hold their head still.
Upload the mod, for testing it does not need to be approved/public.
What does it say in chat at race start? Those lines:
Does it say XFR or name of your mod?
I do not remember any other post about AI running out of fuel, despite that many different mods exist now.
But maybe you found a combination that confuses the AI.
What does it say in chat at race start? Those lines:
Does it say XFR or name of your mod?
I do not remember any other post about AI running out of fuel, despite that many different mods exist now.
But maybe you found a combination that confuses the AI.
If you are remaking everything, do you still want the old version published?
https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/98566-SUTADAI-TARIAS-2000
If not, maybe close it.
Also be sure to keep in-progress pictures of the modeling, so there will be no doubt about the origin of the mod!
So far it looks good
https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/98566-SUTADAI-TARIAS-2000
If not, maybe close it.
Also be sure to keep in-progress pictures of the modeling, so there will be no doubt about the origin of the mod!
So far it looks good
what happend with the leader at the last lap? 56min in the yt video
Nice. The one in Topgear did no have a reverse gear. However I read on wikipedia that they also made versions with reverse gear. I think in LFS reverse would be useful
What mod is that?
It seems many mods have bad LODs compared to the standard cars.
It seems many mods have bad LODs compared to the standard cars.
With the "new" ingame viewer it is easy to toggle between LOD 1,2,3. At LOD2 the whole engine is removed..that seems to be too drastic. Maybe at LOD2 the engine should be a grey block or something.
Also does the mod miss skin mapping? The generated templates are empty except for some nonsense scribble in one corner.
Maybe it is just me but the view from the cockpit seems very limited.
The wide A-pillars block the view quite a bit.
The wide A-pillars block the view quite a bit.
Thanks for explaining and the youtube links.
The rear of your vehicle currently looks like this:
There is a double wishbone suspension. Each wheel can move indepedent from the other wheel.
That means the axle is not a solid piece, there needs to be a coupling that allows the axle to "bend" at (at least two) points where the two green circles are. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant-velocity_joint )
The problem: At the position where the joint needs to be, is also the chain drive.
The chaindrive would need to be more towards the middle but then it would collide with the chasis. The chain can not be more towards the outside because that part of the axle does not line up with the engine. (not parallel)
In your model the chain also clips into the suspension bars.
So how do these vehicles do it?
I looked at several photos and it seems:
All vehicles with side-mounted engines do not use double wishbone suspension. There use something simpler:
(from your video)
green: solid axle without joints/couplings.
red: chaindrive
blue: single brake disk. one brake for both wheels. This works because there is no differential gear.
yellow: coils for suspension. I think the whole axle can only swing up/down - like in a motorcycle.
But it can not even "twist", or not much: I do not see how the chaindrive would work if the axle does not always stay parallel to the chasis.
another picture:
A few cars do use double wishbones, but they all seem to combine it with a rear mounted engine.
That way the chaindrive can be in the middle. Basically like the MRT5.
pictures from http://formula5metro.com.ar
The rear of your vehicle currently looks like this:
There is a double wishbone suspension. Each wheel can move indepedent from the other wheel.
That means the axle is not a solid piece, there needs to be a coupling that allows the axle to "bend" at (at least two) points where the two green circles are. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant-velocity_joint )
The problem: At the position where the joint needs to be, is also the chain drive.
The chaindrive would need to be more towards the middle but then it would collide with the chasis. The chain can not be more towards the outside because that part of the axle does not line up with the engine. (not parallel)
In your model the chain also clips into the suspension bars.
So how do these vehicles do it?
I looked at several photos and it seems:
All vehicles with side-mounted engines do not use double wishbone suspension. There use something simpler:
(from your video)
green: solid axle without joints/couplings.
red: chaindrive
blue: single brake disk. one brake for both wheels. This works because there is no differential gear.
yellow: coils for suspension. I think the whole axle can only swing up/down - like in a motorcycle.
But it can not even "twist", or not much: I do not see how the chaindrive would work if the axle does not always stay parallel to the chasis.
another picture:
A few cars do use double wishbones, but they all seem to combine it with a rear mounted engine.
That way the chaindrive can be in the middle. Basically like the MRT5.
pictures from http://formula5metro.com.ar
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG