Quote from cargame.nl :

* Btw: those "TCP AV : InitTime += 1" messages spamming the chat, is that really necessary during shift-F8 mode? Its a bit distracting during driving and I wonder if somebody knows what its trying to say anyway. I have no idea.
.

AFAIK this is LFS telling you that it had to compensate for a clock speed difference on your computer.

Quote from markie308507 :

Good Morning.

I am running a dedicated server with centos 6 with whm/cpanel installed including there plugin for gaming servers.

I am just wondering if its possible to have LFS Servers running on a linux server and not windows?

Thank You

LFS client and dedicated server both work very well with latest versions of WINE so you should have no problem on that front.

Great, if you decide to implement this solution, would you consider adding a new InSim packet (IS_OVF?) used by LFS to let InSim app know it overfilled the buffer and it should try to send the rest of the data later? InSim libraries programmers would probably appreciate this a lot.

(yay my updated system monitoring widget:tilt

Quote from Degats :

Interestingly, when testing with localhost, the buttons didn't get displayed on screen if the client was already on the server when the InSim connected. When the client joined with InSim already running, the buttons displayed fine, but the text in the chat history went missing - probably to do with the many overlaid buttons.
On the LAN servers, the buttons caused a disconnect whichever connected first.

This is consistent with my findings. I also tried to bomb a WINE server running on a native Linux machine from virtualized Windows 7 box running on the same metal. This also didn't trigger any disconnections so it looks like the problem is only if the host and InSim app run on different machines?

Quote from Degats :

BTW MadCatX, the "Packet count" option in the ButtonBomb is never used in your code, so it sends out 238 buttons every time.

This sounds like my kind of mistake :doh: Anyway, I uploaded a somewhat improved version. It allows you set delays between each packet and between each "salvo". Both delays can be set to 0 for constant packet shower. (feel free to modify and reupload the app)

Quote from Degats :

IIRC, that's correct and is the reason why LFS defaults to a non-protected location.

Sure, I only brought this up because NotAnIllusion suggested that the installer asked for elevated privileges. Although this would allow it to install LFS to protected locations, LFS itself wouldn't work.
This is actually a more complicated matter because the installer should take in account UAC and different user privileges. I guess that the easiest solution is to gracefully fail when the installer doesn't have write access to the selected folder and let the user deal with the consequences of running the installer as admin.

I tested it only briefly, but I came across a little issue. If I install LFS to "\somewhere\LFS", then install it again to "\somewhere\LFS\LFS" and then uninstall the "root" LFS, the nested LFS installation is deleted too. Is this behavior intentional? My point is that it doesn't make much sense to allow these nested installations if they all can be nuked at once.

Quote from NotAnIllusion :

However, there is one annoying issue with this. Installing to any protected folder requires admin rights, and installation fails by default. Similarly uninstalling from a protected folder fails, but it fails silently: Success is reported, menu items are removed, but folders and files remain without notification. I don't ever have to manually select run as admin when un/installing other software to Program Files, so this to me is not expected behaviour.

Solution: Please make the un/installer automatically ask for elevated rights.

I don't use UAC so I'm not entirely sure how it works now, but AFAIK LFS uses the pre-Vista assumption that "Program Files" doesn't need elevated privileges for writing. If this is the case, wouldn't installing LFS into "Program Files" lead to malfunctioning installation anyway unless LFS was run with admin rights?

Quote from amp88 :

Have you tried changing the CMOS battery on the motherboard? It might not get you anywhere, but it's a cheap and easy thing to test.

Just keep in mind that it's necessary to keep the battery out for at least a couple of minutes for this to be effective.

If it's any help, I attached a small DoS-like app which periodically bombards InSim with IS_BTNs at a given interval (in milliseconds). I didn't manage to trigger any problems with this, perhaps you'll have better luck?

EDIT: File removed, see this post.

Last edited by MadCatX, Thu, 1 Nov 2012 18:08.

Quote from cargame.nl :

To be honest I didn't tested all this yet. Only if it still was possible to cheat, which is... I didn't even got an ACK that my mail has been read so for me it doesn't matter much whats going on.

So you didn't test what this patch was supposed to fix but you did test something completely unrelated which is out of the scope of this round of fixes? I'm trying to avoid the word idiot, but it's just...

On topic:
I tried to drop a button bomb of 238 IS_BTNs on B9 hosts running both on Linux and Windows and all was handled fine. Do you do anything more advanced that this to reproduce the problem?

Rather than Sapphire I'd blame your MB's BIOS for this. There is not much you can do, but I'd check if there is a BIOS update available for your MB. If there isn't one or if it doesn't solve the problem, try running this in command prompt with admin rights(!)

and reboot. This will force Windows 7 to use just HPET counter to keep track of time. If this helps, report a bug to your MB's manufacturer.

Quote from col :

I have a question for you:

What if you have many hundreds of pounds/dollars worth of games on steam, and then due to an error on their part, steam decides you have broken the user agreement and stops your account.
Is there a fair appeals system using third party arbitration backed up by law that protects you rights as a consumer, or is it just up to steam whether to re-instate you?
(Remember, if there is no legislation in your country to protect you, you could lose ALL your games that you paid hard earned money for.)

It's an honest question, who/what defends your consumer rights if there is problem with your steam account?

This is actually a very interesting argument, especially when you put it in perspective with the latest round of bans in Diablo III (allegedly caused by Warden misdetecting WINE as a cheating tool) and how it was handled by Blizzard. Long story short: In this particular case they didn't even explain on what grounds were the bans issues, they just told the users they were "cheating." How did they find out and what was the nature of the cheating nobody knows. The only official "statement" made by one of their admins said that "Using WINE won't get you banned, cheating will." pretty much sums up their "we don't give a rats ass" attitude towards their customers. When the affected users started nagging Blizz techsupp, they simply told them to GTFO and get another account (=buy the game again).

The problem is that you're pretty much powerless against such decisions. It's up to you to prove your innocence which itself is a problem and even if you have persuasive evidence that you've done nothing wrong, <your distribution platform>'s techsupp don't really have to care. Unless they start loosing customers on a massive scale over this, they're much better off ignoring this kind of complains.

It's not like Valve, Blizzard, Apple etc. are a bunch of devious douchebags, I'm just saying that they're your best friends until you want your money back and one should keep that in mind when paying for stuff that never actually becomes your property.

Quote from NeOn_sp :

On dedi host, if you press the X for windows close, and keep it pushed for a while ( 10-15 seconds ), then release the button in non X button, LFS say: HOST -> Timer bounded.

This is OK, it's been explained in the previous test patches.

Quote from Vojta7 :

Wine 1.5 wasn't in Kubuntu's repositories, so I installed it, but the problem persists. What do you mean by "Did you set up some DLL overrides in winecfg that might be causing trouble?"?

In winecfg on the "Libraries" tab you can instruct WINE to use native Windows DLLs instead of builtin WINE replacements of those libraries. It is usually better to not use the native DLLs, but sometimes it's necessary to get a particular piece of software working.
Ubuntu PPA with latest builds of WINE can be found here:
https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-wine/+archive/ppa

On my machine with WINE 1.5.16 and 3.6 kernel LFS works splendidly.

I have no problems installing LFS with WINE 1.5.16. Are you sure you're using the latest WINE? Did you set up some DLL overrides in winecfg that might be causing trouble? Apart from updating to the latest available version of WINE, try renaming your ~/.wine directory and try to install LFS again with a clean WINE configuration.

Quote from Speed Senna :

Hi, i want to customize led settings. How could I open the .cfg file?

In any plain text editor you like, Windows Notepad is one obvious choice.

Quote from mbutcher :

Do you expect people to take you seriously?

LAWLZ! How does one kidnap a website? (Even if you actually mean "hijacked" or "stolen", I still wonder how that could be done )

Quote from CheerioDM :

http://www.ea.com/most-wanted
Can't wait to pick it up!
I like how they never run out of ideas.

Sorry, but was this sarcasm? EA have run out of ideas since Underground 2. This is the fifth NFS where cops are the topic of the day and it looks exactly like the first MW. They've got to stop this rush to get a new version out every year before Xmas and try to make NFS fun to play again, like NFS V or the first Underground was. Every year I feel more and more sorry for NFS...

Last edited by MadCatX, Sun, 21 Oct 2012 07:59. Reason : Confused HP/MW

1.05D is up. It hopefully fixes the bug I introduced somewhere after v1.05 while providing much better debugging info. Please note that the official support is still for LFS 0.6B only, test patches are supported through "runleds". Unless you're having problems with 1.05, there is no need to update.
Before reporting any issues, make sure you have debugging output enabled in the g27leds.cfg and don't forget to post the output file.

Quote from edge3147 :

Did you even read my post????
LLM, TRR, and all the other Trolls always have something negative to say it seems.

Yes he did and he is absolutely right. Situation with Anakin or whoever that guy was was totally different as he was exploiting a vulnerability in LFS code. Analyzing and reporting such an incident is the correct thing to do. This thread is all about a plain simple DoS attack. Every networking service is vulnerable to DoS and it's the responsibility of the person who actually runs the server to do their best to minimize the damage when such an attack takes place. Perma-banning the attacker is more of a petty revenge than an actual security measure, you don't need LFS account to DoS LFS servers. (BTW, I don't see any conclusive evidence that HeCosmin was really behind this attack except for a few forum posts so I don't see on what grounds he should be banned)

Victor's post should be stickied and displayed to everyone who goes on the forum whining that someone has downed their server.

LFS uses classic x86 32bit little endian format in all its packets.

Good, there appears to be some pretty odd problem with 1.05C, but once that gets sorted out, the LEDs will hopefully work fine.

To make matters complicated, my Windows installation flatlined just a few minutes ago, so I can't give you any estimate when I'll release a new version...

There is a slightly modified version 1.05C available here. Could you please capture the debugging info with this version?

I might be missing something, but AFAIK there are only three situations that may occur concerning the installation path

1. Selected path does not exist -> The installer should attempt to create the necessary folders and proceed.
   
2. Selected path points to an empty folder -> The installer should proceed and install into that folder.
   
3. Selected path points to a non-empty folder -> The installer should refuse to install into such a folder or, as NotAnIllusion suggested, forcibly create a \LFS subfolder
   

Would it be possible to implement such a check in the installer LFS uses?

Perfect, can we have fire trucks and hotdog carts too? (Seriously, when has LFS become a cop game?)