Quote from joen :

dunno but that's how it seems to me.
Same for the tracks, a lot of people mostly drive the short, easy tracks.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you and I think the FO8 is great.

partially it's because "people like it easy" (for quick fun races), but also for another reason: some servers are always there with the same combo...for example take drt at aston national with gtr, or redline racing with fox on blackwood, you knwo they are always there and there are always some skilled racers in...and that virtuos circle make them always full.
knowing that a combo is always there and always full, give you the guarrantee that anytime you can join and time by time you will improve and be competitive...so in few words i think that most people don't want to "waste" their time on a combo that they hardly will find again, so that efforts in learning the circuit and making the setup (or more probably getting from someone else) are lost.

cars like fo8 and tracks like fern black are put in the corner also because of that reason imo...and it's a real shame! especially for fern black: whenever i find a server with it, i join and it's a pure blast whatever car is for.

Quote from MAGGOT :

Yes, but NOS is not used in circuit racing. That is point being made here; LFS is primarily about circuit racing. The drag strips are just a little added bonus. N2O Should not be included in LFS, and as Vic already said, it will not be.

i just tried to bring out the possible good points in having it...i did sorta of devil's advocate ...something that guys who say "plzz gimme some nozzzz!" don't say, i just tried to smooth the discussion wich always end to be a nfsu-guys vs antinfsu-guys, instead of discuss about why we should have, or why we should not have.
cheers

i'm not talking about your file, i'm talking about the other pack posted in this thread, which most people thinks "it's better", but instead it's a fake! it's not a matter of taste, it's that it is not a sound file at all!!! ...and i'm wondering if people really tried it...i'm not critizing people efforts (my respects), i'm critizing people who put fake files! ...am i clear enough now? someone before me already pointed out that was posted a fake, but no one seemed to understand...

Quote from Becky Rose :

Don't shoot the messenger please.

bang...bang! :biggun::bananadea ...just kidding!

as long as we know it is possible and it will be implemented (even thou it's not the very forthcoming thing), i'm happy with this.
i really don't care of the deepest tachnical details of lfs, i just look at the results

peace and love

Quote from DTrott :

What about nitrous oxide like in GT4 where it's adds power just about noticable but nothing rediculous like Need for Speed*.

*I hate NFS:U with a passion; the way people believe they can drive well because they completed NFS and NOS makes blue flames come from the exhaust. (Normally I'm crap at NFS but woop arse at TOca 3).

of course if nos will be added, it should be as realistic as possible, wich means that when your nos tank is empty, you can refill it at pits and with magic drifts/passes that give you bonus wich can crate nos from nothing...

the first one is much less technical and much more boring, the original one let more skilled people to gain some tenths and make "safe but still difficult" passes... -> -1

the second definately +1, but i dont' have the feeling we can get it soon, i cannot say why...it's just a feeling...

Quote from Viper93 :

Finally =) :bowdown:




:tombstone If thats not a thread killer then I dont know what is

devs also said that we never would have a real F1, now we have one...
devs are good to make us surprises...

as i said i don't live for nos, but it can add some strategy on races, so is not that evil...

lot of people saying "nice sounds!"...but i'm wondering if people really tried them, as someone already pointed out, there is one file that is not sound, it is a text file that when put into lfs, it produces of course strange noises that has nothing to do with tyre sounds...so my question is:"how can random noise be better than original sounds?"

Scawen, i think i found the way to reproduce this bug, please read my comments on this bug report -> http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=185362#post185362

it seems to happen when the server is under "some stress", to test it:
- join to the AutoX Compo Test Server (seem to be the most affected server -> see InSim considerations in the liked post)
- let other 15 or 20 be in the server (the more people, the more frequent)
- spectate/join/away commands will trigger this bug after a while
- verify yourself ISP has nothing to do with it


hope it helps, cheers!

I think it's time to revive this thread. Since the appearing of the "AutoX Compo Test Server", i found new useful informations to help scawen dig into this problem and see that it's not an ISP bug.
In the following link there are my considerations about this bug:
http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=174173#post174173
since i experimented this problem on autox server, it is clear this is not an ISP bug accordingly to: LFS network debug, 100% ping succesful, 100% traceroute succesful.
what autox server made me realize is that servers with InSim applications are more prone to this problem, in other words the problem is in lfs somewhere, but InSim seem to stress it more and make it more frequent (the autox server is the worst in this regards).

so, since then i went around lfs servers and test my hypotesis:
- on regular servers (i.e. without InSim applications) it never happened till now...but i remember in the past to be happened

- on servers with InSim applications it is more frequent and the more InSim messages, the more frequent the problem is...

- the problem is triggered by spectate/join actions, i.e. if i connect to a server and i never go to spectate, the problem seem to never arise!!! (<- important!!!)

- my guesses are that when under udp flood some lfs queue of packets overflows and it misses to process some udp from clients...this is is irrilevant for udp position, but missing the udp command for "join to race" causes this problem. Another possibility is that the server is running on a windows pc with unpatched tcp.sys that limits connections, in that case the problem would be of windows, but i don't think it is the case since the lfs network debug clearly shows that udp packets arrive correctly to lfs!!!



so to summarize:
- udp packets arrive to lfs according to lfs network debug, ping and traceroute (-> verified!)

- "invisible car bug" is triggered by spectate/join sequences of actions


- "invisible car bug" is more frequent on servers with InSim applications

Quote from Shotglass :

definately ... and make it look a bit like the tarmac has been there ever since the creation of man

maybe even a bit older than that!

Quote :

a good bit older than aston i would imagine ... i allways got the feel we was a very old track that has be maintained rather well though


(kyoto) very clean and new id say

seems very reasonable...
thanks for your opinion

i agree with you with the need of an high-res megapack, indeed if you look at my project at sourceforge, you will notice a quite ambitious description.
my initial intention was to contact the imo best texture-makers and propose something like that, but first of all it would need an app to select/install/uninstall each mod because each user has different taste and my prefer a mod by mrX instead of that by mrY, also imo it is still early for that: imo only very few textures are worth for the original replacement.
if a megapack has to be done, it must be a professional one: only very professional content and a management app to manage different mods installation/uninstallation/upgrade of each single pack and so on...just to give you an idea: acceptable content should be as professional and very high quality as the aplinestar gloves by boris lozac and very few mods are at such stage til now.
of course everything is imo

Quote from ShannonN :

As long as the track is dark, I'm happy. But you are right when you say Fern Bay should be sandy etc. I'm looking fwd to your version of South City.

I wonder what you will do for that instead of sand? add soot? road grime ? or the occasional sheet of newspaper blowing across track?

Keep up the great work.
ShannonN

when i will reach the "ultimate pefectly realistic" collection of techniques and effects to make all types of tarmac,it would be even simpler to make "dark" versions without making them look too "new".
south city...mmmh, please don't hold your breath for it, it's not healthy!
south city is the track that i hate most (after kyoto oval) even for skinning! it has too much textures, so it the last track on my todo list (giving that it is actually on that list ), prolly i will try only to reproduce the same look as original one, just more detailed.
i hope you dont' hate me for that
cheers

someone may argue that the "realistic excuse" it's really poor since real underground races uses nos...i know you are going to say "but it's illegal!"...legal, or not legal it is REAL! moreover about "underground/ricer races": some are illegal, but also many are legal and preformed on real tracks; years ago vallelunga circuit was opened by the loca authority at friday night for "ricer" races.

i do not understand why some guys get angry at some requests, even if and when nos will be implemented, no one forces you to join nos-enabled races.

again about the "realistic" thing: the way lfs races works it's just like ricer races! ...indeed, few people meet in some places where they know there will be others willing to race, they may even talk a bit before and when they are enough they vote for race-start...there is no official competition or title, there is not even spectators so...please, don't say "it's unrealistic" unless you want to admit publicly you are a liar...guess what? nos requests arises from the fact nos addicted car really exists...they not come from comics!

of course you may say "i don't like nos!" and that's a legitimate, honest and respectable opinion.

i'm not whishing for nos so strongly, but if it will implemented, i will enjoy it! back in the S1 days, there was a NOS mod (so unfortunate few people used it to cheat online) and it was fun even if it was totally unrealistic and available only on demo cars...take it easy guys!

Quote from Shotglass :

turns out my monitor was set kinda dark (god i hate this tft)
anyway the look works for aston

blackwood however lost that rugged club track feel a bit
the newer (darker) patches of tarmac look a tad too new and the older (lighter) ones a good bit too new ... erics textures have larger cracks (yours are more like pinstripes) and most importantly they get lighter round the edges which makes them look like theres a lot of sand on the track and it isnt as perfectly clean as a f1 track (aston)

that's precious info! other guys suggested a more dirt look for blackwood and i absolutely agree, i will put my dust/sand skills at trial when i'll work on fern bay that i think it should be the most sandy/dusty track of lfs.
may i ask you also how do you expect other tracks? e.g. westhill like aston? fern bay very dirt and cracked? kyoto?
thanks for your help
cheers

Quote from Shotglass :

had another go without any post processing from the graphics card and my point still stands ... the fine detail is there and its rather nice to look at and adds to the sense of speed
but theyre lacking some coarse detail like patches of tarmac that are coloured a little darker/lighter ... something that makes the tarmac look like its been in use for a while ... right now its too immaculate for me and looks like the tarmac was just laid a few minutes ago by people who are frighteningly good at it (ie not italian at all )

ok, this is more detailed info you are giving me. please be patient but i will make few more questions just to understand more...
let me say that obviously my intention was to make tarmac that would have looked like used from more than one year, so if i wasn't able to give that impression, i must understand where to improve...
apart from few cracks here and there on aston, the main techniques used to bring "used look" are 2: one layer with tyre marks and one layer with "shadows" with the intention to simulate small elevation changes caused by the underneath terrain that assests over years; those 2 layers are 8% each and in my system putting more would have brought an artificial look (imo) too exaggerated...so my question is: when you are steady, can you clearly see those effects? can you also see the juncture of tarmac? are you running your monitor at highest Kelvin for white spot? from those answers, i should guess if i need to put more percentage of effect layers or i should something more (as it already my intention)...what do you think would bring more realistic look: some dirt, better tyre marks, small cracks, or anything else (please specify)?
lol, this seem more an interrogatory!!!
cheers

PS oh i was almost forgetting few more smilies :rolleyes: :haha: :jester: :throwrose: :balloons: :static:

Last edited by Honey, Mon, 31 Jul 2006 20:23.

Quote from Jakg :

which means? google wont translate it!

i tried to be as much cryptic as you , btw it's old rusty latin: i meant i didn't see the connection between the quote and the post

Quote from Jakg :

i dont!

forgive me but i don't see the "consecutio" there...

Quote from Shotglass :

finally (sort of) found time to test them
imho they look too clean and they stand out a little too much they dont blend into the rest of the textures as good as the original ones

maybe if you disable AA/AF you will see all the details that filtering may smooth out too much.
btw, thanks for the feedback

i think that if we want improvements about skins, there's so many things that would bring much more to quality and variation rather than changing simply format.
first of all rather than png (open format, lossless...but huge!), it would be better to have still jpg, but also the possibility of svg (scalable vector graphics): that format is the best for non-photographic skins because you can do stripes, flames, "triblas", writings and much more, all at the perfect quality...perfect means that since they are "vectors" the images are perfect at any resolution!
also one biggest addition imo, is a skinning like nfsu: 4 layers to mix base skin patterns available within the lfs "installation" that means, much less downloads for skins, much easier and quicker to make cute skins without being a photoshop or gimp geek and without the need to learn how to work with the weird skin mapping -> that's the main reason imo why people steal skins.

i know that nos sounds so "ricer" but nos in a sim like lfs would bring more strategy into races: someone will put more wing and use all nos on straights, some other will use a balanced setup and use nos at exit of important corners, some others will use it to pass all wreckers at t1 and avoid t1 carnage, someone will cause t1 carnage and will be banned..., some others will use nos only to pass or to aviod that follower get advantege of slipstream.
obviously it should be a server side otpion to eneable it or not.
+1

Quote from wheel4hummer :

:spam4:

compared to the rest of the forum, the latter posts should be considered higly technical content for scientific papers --________^

Quote from Electrik Kar :

That doesn't sound like me. All i'm doing is making textures and uploading them to Rapidshare! lol

edit:- Maybe you mean Highsider9
http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=8785

omg i confused you with Electricwolf!!! OMG apologies to both!
that electric thingy confused me...

+1 for kyoto endurance and also the option for servers to offer optimized setups for joiners, not having setups for long tracks is imo the top reason keeping users away from them.

MonkOnAHotTinRoof should be crucified for using .net otherwise i would have voted for him :P

seriously, despite the fact i really hate .net i think people that develops things for lfs deserve respect and making an insim/outsim/outgauge lib/sdk is a great effort, so +1

for second place (almost at 1st) Electirk Kar, because his centralised database for lfs mods is a good thing (he offer storage and bandwidth, wich are not free...).