i understand, and if that maybe true for my home isp, but for my company isp the internet connection has a minimum bw guarranteed and i mad sure the first test was on our "high priority" gateway so its unlikely that bw saturated at anytime (also holiday time) because on very first test i didnt reserved bw only for lfs.
let's assume some udp loss occurs, for any reason, as soon any lfs packet succeed to reach destination, then car position is updated and this happens every day when you see those guys that lag as a hell...there is huge packet loss, but a new packet updates car position.
the bug i'm talking about make lfs simply stop sending packet "forever"...it is "similar" to the bug that surely happened to any of us, when a server suddenlly lags every car forever until server restart...whilst this now rarely happens, it still happens and it encourages me to believe that is a very subtle problem that still is present either in server and client
the very first on internet, the other on lan
about server or client, you arise a dubt in me, i always assumed it was the client, but i don't remeber my collegue specifically said it was the client, next week i will return to work and ask him if he remembers
i'm in the "ict" area of my company and you cannot believe the absurd stories and the most subtle problems that come out everyday.
my home isp has not the best performance, but is one of the most reliable (in the past used to work at home and had embedded net prototypes working 24/7 flawlessly with hundreds of connections), moreover my connection is "interleaved" and not "fast" so delivery of packets is supposed to be "guarranteed".
i remember i've reported this bug on an already started thread, but it died without conlusions iirc, i always assumed scawen put that on his "to-fix list"
never tried: what's that supposed to do?
(i will try it anyway the next time it happens)
last summer when most was on holidays (and nothing on my schedule) at work i got a clean pc -> it happened again, then i programmed the company routers to guarrantee such pc 100Mb bandwidth ...-> it happened again and from router logs i didnt see any packet from such pc, then -> i installed ethereal on such pc and the next time the bug showed, ethereal logs (according to a collegue of mine who is a geek for such application) revealed that no udp packets where sent by lfs.
so the problem is either lfs alone or some sort of stack overflow lfs causes to windows driver.
tests at work were done with windows xp sp2, but at home i experienced it also with windows xp sp1, never tried other windows flavours
i know what you mean, but i'm not such kind of person and i try solve anything by myself first...as i said it's many month i'm experiencing this problem, there is also an old thread in the bug section related to this, as you can quickly verify here -> http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=115379#post115379 (and the very next reply) an not the only one, it's an hard to recognize bug and it comes at least from patch L.
so fix the very urgent things and take the deserved rest, but please do not forget this bug, because people who experence this, simply don't figure it out and thinks that every s2 licensed racer is a stupid wrecker because everyone's ramming at him.
i'm fine if you not plan to fix it for the near future (and thanks for answering me), but i cannot accept your statement that it's my ISP problem, it not happens only to me, also to people from other countries/ISP...if it's the isp, why exiting lfs and restarting solves the problem? and why it never happened till S2K and started since S2L? why happen also with other isp?, why other udp apps continue working fine without a glitch?
please do not jump at conclusions: if i'm losing time writing here, it's because i already verified it's an lfs problem...
i apologise, but the question period of his post was a new line and seemed a statementent rather than a feature request, it completely changed the sense of the post, i pologise anyway
Scawen, i'm sorry to bother but may i ask if fixing the "invisible car" bug is planned for patch U?
is just to know, i understand you have much pressure right now
as i said i think the lfs deformation for road tires is a bit too much to me, but the real point is not the amount as much HOW...it seems that as soon as the deformation starts, the contact part of the tire seem to fold innerwise making cornering too weird and innatural
yeah you're right! it took several weeks to me to figure it out, actually i didn't, but was another racer that told me he cannot see my car because i just won the race few tenths of a second before him, but he tought he was the first because he couldn't see my car (i was thinking he was a dirty racer because in the last corners he was ramming me)
since this thread seems used to fix the current release from bugs, i post here:
tonight i experienced again (first time since patch S) the "invisible car" bug that was already addressed in the bug section a long ago.
i have patch S still.
just to remind what this bug is about, i summarize:
sometimes at some point when connected to a server my lfs stops sending packets and everyone else no longer see my car (just the "lag" writing and my dot not moving) to me is everything normal (except everyone crash into me because they don't see me) i can win races but if i'm too far from the first racer the server forces me into spectate mode (because it sees me not moving), leaving a server and rejoining (or joining another server) dosent solve, i MUST exit lfs and restart it to make it work again.
i know to happen to other people, even if i don't think is a very popular bug.
i hope it could be fixed once for all, thanks
maybe a thing called "privacy", someone may prefer to not show with his license name (at start i used another nick for that, but then i changed my mind) also because there are some people that watch your hotlaps and ranking to decide if you are entitled to talk
in the attached images you will see basically how tires deform. basically even if sidewalls could theoretically "transimt" a huge amount of the weight of the car, then the outer part of the tire may have an extra load, but the inner part must have a "lift" effect and not the contrary
there is nobody that can pass the first semester of enginering caliming that...i assure you, if you would have studied, you would know what is the conceptual difference, i wonder why every tech article uses pascal instead of N/m2 when talking about gases/fluids and instead uses N/m2 when talkin baout solids in place of pascals...according to you that must be really an amazing coincidence.
please don't get me wrong but a definition is a definition and have a reason behind it
once more you are proving to know how to dig into lfs phisics...
as i wanted to "prove" with the link i posted in a previous post (http://www.rsracing.com/tech-tire.htm) sidewall must first of all displace and the center cannot lift more than the inner part, as you clearly noted the source of the problem may be even only the sidewall streching, maybe devs used the real data from slick to simulate that, but if so it is very wrong imho.
imho for road tires the sidewall streching effect should be very negligible and could be even taken out from the lfs equations
wikipedia is wrong, pressure is a measurement only for gasses/fuilds (in phisics), it may be popular to call a force/area pressure but this by any meaning wrong, as i said pascals have intrinsecally the "metric" (dunno the correct english word for this) of a force per area, but by definition it will never really counted like that (except for special purposes) but rather by pascals which is by definition a fraction of bar wich is by definition the air pressure at sea level (as i said in a previous post).
as you asked: i'm an engineer and i worked bla, bla...that realy doesn't matter since there are enginners, phisicist, etc. that sometimes are damn wrong etc. you don't have to believe me that wikipedia is wrong, but if you have a chance to open a real phisic book you know (after studying a bit ) what pressure is
left and right were referred to the sketches in the post were "left" and "right" were written, otherwise i've referred to outer or inner part of the tire while cornering, that seemed clear ofr everyone except you, i'm sorry if i cannot halde the english language to explain you better, if you have some hint...you're welcome!
the issue is:
1-a car with road tires (xfg more than others) is always cornering on sidewalls no matter how much pressure you inflate and/or how much negative camber you set
2-a car with road tires (xfg more than others) when cornering tend to lift the central and the inner part of the tire, having the central part lift much more even than the inner part (see my ugly "sketches" on a previous post) and that is "against any phisic law"
as someone said, it's still soon to make conclusions: i've managed to be way faster with rb4 on a fe-green server and i easily beated every fxo and gtt, both on qualy and race...still to consider that previously nobody drove rb4, so rb4 experience for setups is still "young"
i'm quite sure thare are improvements in sound also, surely the BF1 emphatizes the wind sound because of very high speeds, but that was already present, surely i think that car sound are improved -> i clearly noticed with FZR: the sound is more rich and "colourful" even if a bit less raw...in conclusion it feels more natural...another for the devs
hi, oviously we all thank scawen, eric and victor for their daily hard work that had and will give us much fun.
scawen told months ago that this patch would have fixed tires and aerodynamic...period! we are all happy for the big surprise of a new real car (BF1) wich is more that he promised...i would love much things inside lfs, but i didn't blame the devs for not including anything, since the announcement was clear -> tire and aero.
what we are trying to understand and put attention on, is that even if (probably because of michelin data) slick tires seems much more realistic (even if it's hard for me to judge since i'm not a slick expert), something with road tires has gone too much unrealistic and smaller cars like xfg make it really evident.
we are not complaining, asking or pretending anything...we are only try to find out the most effective and clear feedback as possible to see if:
1 - there is effectively a big issue in the new tire phisic (i think it's quite evident)
2 - what is actually wrong (to me is only wrong some paramenters of some phisic functions)
3 - summarize and clarify things as much as possible so that in the future if and when the devs think that this have to be fixed they have enough information to know where to start diggin into...
if you read the thread more carefully you will see that we are not blaming devs for anything (except for scawen's bad sarchams ), only trying to do the previously mentioned things.