I wouldn't like it myself, but that's the beauty of InSim - we get to add things along these lines per server, without needing it programmed in by Scawen.
I think people sell LFS short a little when they consider it only for serious racing. It's a racing simulator by design, but that necessarily entails simulating a car. The racing part is, looking from a step back, 'just' a layer of organisation on top of the car simulator. It's a convenience that is not strictly necessary to achieve the basic aim of racing cars.
I love serious racing (I consider my LFS time as training, rather than playing - I gave up the guitar for it), but I also love various types of what can only be considered goofing around in a car. (Hence the PiranMOTO range of servers: there's plenty of serious servers out there with standard tracks, so mine are all there to fill in gaps. Some serious racing on layouts, some games, and some in-between).
Long story short: If I had a disposable car and a large patch of tarmac in real life, I know I wouldn't just be training with it, I would also spend some time hooning about. If I could play tag in my car without destroying it, myself and my friends, I would do so in an instant. LFS gives me the chance
Until such time as a soccer ball is added, people have been using a volunteer 'ball' in a UF1
I think people sell LFS short a little when they consider it only for serious racing. It's a racing simulator by design, but that necessarily entails simulating a car. The racing part is, looking from a step back, 'just' a layer of organisation on top of the car simulator. It's a convenience that is not strictly necessary to achieve the basic aim of racing cars.
I love serious racing (I consider my LFS time as training, rather than playing - I gave up the guitar for it), but I also love various types of what can only be considered goofing around in a car. (Hence the PiranMOTO range of servers: there's plenty of serious servers out there with standard tracks, so mine are all there to fill in gaps. Some serious racing on layouts, some games, and some in-between).
Long story short: If I had a disposable car and a large patch of tarmac in real life, I know I wouldn't just be training with it, I would also spend some time hooning about. If I could play tag in my car without destroying it, myself and my friends, I would do so in an instant. LFS gives me the chance
Until such time as a soccer ball is added, people have been using a volunteer 'ball' in a UF1
Today's new-thing-learned comes early, cheers Rony
So that's username/playername, FPS/clock, and now a whole new mode of tyre temp that I didn't even know I could get at and will massively cut the time it takes to get camber right, if not also improving the accuracy of testing.
Any other ctrl+shift magic I've missed? (what do you mean greedy?
)Aleksandr: Those vids were interesting, and a good demonstration of the difference and relation between surface and carcass temps... you could leave them in the post even if you want to remove the question.
Edit: Something changed in a recent patch, or I'm missing something? I couldn't see any difference to the tyre display with ctrl+shift held down (The FPS/clock changed, so LFS is receiving the keys). I did doughnuts and kept the wheels spinning constantly to go from blue to red as quickly as possible, on the assumption that that would maximise the difference between the two temps.
Last edited by Racon, .
It should also be noted that there's nothing in the remote viewer that requires LFS-side coding, it's all through the relay (ie, anyone JS/Canvas capable can make a replacement... not just Victor).
Not all of them (there's a huge variety), but that style of kerb with the direction shown in the colours of the bricks is quite common.
Have you seen the magic roundabout?
I don't often get the chance to do GTi Thursday races, but I've had 'Race is full' every time I've tried.
Have you tried using water in your fire extinguisher? The petrol doesn't seem to be doing us much good
Happy to help
CON->spClose is the speed of the contact between the two cars, not the speed of the cars themselves (which are A->Speed and B->Speed).
Two cars could be driving side by side at 100mph for instance, and just lightly touch as they do so. In that case both car speeds would be 100mph, but the closing speed would be something tiny like 1mph - it would be the speed the cars were moving towards each other, regardless of the speed they're going forwards.
Or one car driving at 100mph rear-ends a car driving in the same direction at 80mph - the closing speed would be 20mph.
Or two cars driving head head-on into each other at 30mph each, spClose would be 60mph.
CON->spClose is the speed of the contact between the two cars, not the speed of the cars themselves (which are A->Speed and B->Speed).
Two cars could be driving side by side at 100mph for instance, and just lightly touch as they do so. In that case both car speeds would be 100mph, but the closing speed would be something tiny like 1mph - it would be the speed the cars were moving towards each other, regardless of the speed they're going forwards.
Or one car driving at 100mph rear-ends a car driving in the same direction at 80mph - the closing speed would be 20mph.
Or two cars driving head head-on into each other at 30mph each, spClose would be 60mph.
PLID isn't a property of CON (the packet), it's a property of CON->A and CON->B (the two carContact structures inside the packet).
If PRISM sets up the object as I would guess it does, you should be able to remove the '$C=...' line, and then replace the above line with the following:
<?php
$playerA = $this->getClientByPLID($CON->A->PLID);
$playerB = $this->getClientByPLID($CON->B->PLID);
$this->SoundMessageToAllPlayers("Car contact: ".$playerA->PName." and ".$playerB->PName);
?>
GT3s? (FXR@32%, FZR@28% and XRR@34% are all 300bhp/t and 1100kg),
or
GT2s? (FXR@23%, FZR@20% and XRR@24% are around 330bhp/t)
or
GT2s? (FXR@23%, FZR@20% and XRR@24% are around 330bhp/t)
Now that is how you cover a song
I'm a little rusty on tyre physics, but I think you're saying that the fall-off in grip as the slip angle goes over the threshold is not enough, or doesn't come quickly enough, or both?
I appreciate that there are other dimensions that will complicate the picture, but if we graphed slip angle to grip, you're saying the curve would be wrong at the higher end of slip... but what shape is it and what should it be?
Does that mean we're also getting a little more turning than we should out of riding the edge of an understeer?
I appreciate that there are other dimensions that will complicate the picture, but if we graphed slip angle to grip, you're saying the curve would be wrong at the higher end of slip... but what shape is it and what should it be?
Does that mean we're also getting a little more turning than we should out of riding the edge of an understeer?
Doh! Sorry, I thought you meant success ballast applied at the start of the race, rather than intake restriction applied live according to position.
PS: In-race diddling is not my cup of tea - I hope all you F1 fans enjoy it when/if they realise aero problems aren't solved with more aero
Last edited by Racon, .
The INST_ALWAYS_ON flag goes on a different byte than the ISB_* flags, it's the 'Inst' byte just before 'BStyle' and after ClickID. (I'm not sure how you'd get to that with PRISM though.)
struct IS_BTN // BuTtoN - button header - followed by 0 to 240 characters
{
byte Size; // 12 + TEXT_SIZE (a multiple of 4)
byte Type; // ISP_BTN
byte ReqI; // non-zero (returned in IS_BTC and IS_BTT packets)
byte UCID; // connection to display the button (0 = local / 255 = all)
byte ClickID; // button ID (0 to 239)
byte Inst; // some extra flags - see below
byte BStyle; // button style flags - see below
byte TypeIn; // max chars to type in - see below
byte L; // left : 0 - 200
byte T; // top : 0 - 200
byte W; // width : 0 - 200
byte H; // height : 0 - 200
// char Text[TEXT_SIZE]; // 0 to 240 characters of text
};Watch BTCC at Snetterton this weekend fella, then tell me that again
You can't reduce an individual car's power directly with InSim. There's a recently added packet (IS_HCP) to change intake restriction and ballast weight, but it applies to all cars of the type you set, not individual cars.
Instead, you could check their restriction when they join (IS_NPL) and spec them if they've not complied with an instruction to reduce their power/add weight manually.
Instead, you could check their restriction when they join (IS_NPL) and spec them if they've not complied with an instruction to reduce their power/add weight manually.
How did you manage to load a WE2X track in WE2? 
By that logic I should be banned from the forum because at least one person out there doesn't like me. If you can get that system implemented into our politics I'd be most grateful, but I'll reserve my support for the LFS version until then 
Sorry, I misunderstood. As Bish says, make sure you're in the right configuration (did you rename the layouts? the links are broken now so I can't test them myself). Failing that I suspect a reinstall would be the next step, just to be sure there's nothing corrupt.
You're not doing anything wrong - some of the bits outside where you're supposed to be don't have a surface to hold you there, and there's some barely-any-grip-and-invisible surfaces underneath other things too.
You have to find which bits you can drive on through trial and error, but one tip is to use the autocross editor to try to place a tyre stack - you can only place (basic) objects on ground that will hold a car, so you can quickly trace the edges.
You have to find which bits you can drive on through trial and error, but one tip is to use the autocross editor to try to place a tyre stack - you can only place (basic) objects on ground that will hold a car, so you can quickly trace the edges.
Scawen has said before that he calculates the size, shape and pressure of the contact patch, then does something on that shape in multiple passes to determine the grip ('brushing', IIRC).
I don't know how many individual points he uses in that stage (or even that he uses representative points at all), but, to address the original question, it's hard to imagine all that thoroughness ends with a model that doesn't respond to a contact patch straddling the boundary between two grip levels.
I don't know how many individual points he uses in that stage (or even that he uses representative points at all), but, to address the original question, it's hard to imagine all that thoroughness ends with a model that doesn't respond to a contact patch straddling the boundary between two grip levels.
I had two dreams as a kid: Rock star guitarist and/or racing driver. I've always played racing games but only ever for entertainment, being poor had ruled out 'serious' motorsport and I was putting my spare time effort into music. One day, after the 2nd band had become all work and no fun, I found LFS and realised that there is such thing as a racing simulator as opposed to racing game, and that it is possible to learn to race without being in a racing car. Whoop whoop, lifelong dream unfaded
My guitars get a quick noodle every now and then, but as of that day my spare time focus is racing. If I'm not on the track, making a track or coding up an insim then I'm probably planning it for my next bit of spare time. (You'd think PiranMOTO might have had a few more features by now, given this... but a couple of laps is pretty tempting when you can't find the latest bug.)
I've tried other sims, but they all felt off. I can't put my finger on what it was in the closer ones, it could well be confirmation bias, but they just didn't immerse me, I couldn't feel the car with them like I can feel it in LFS.
They're not monthly any more, they're going to be "as and when" now (https://www.lfs.net/forum/post/1948686#post1948686)
My guitars get a quick noodle every now and then, but as of that day my spare time focus is racing. If I'm not on the track, making a track or coding up an insim then I'm probably planning it for my next bit of spare time. (You'd think PiranMOTO might have had a few more features by now, given this... but a couple of laps is pretty tempting when you can't find the latest bug.)
I've tried other sims, but they all felt off. I can't put my finger on what it was in the closer ones, it could well be confirmation bias, but they just didn't immerse me, I couldn't feel the car with them like I can feel it in LFS.
They're not monthly any more, they're going to be "as and when" now (https://www.lfs.net/forum/post/1948686#post1948686)
Have you heard the expression "Quick; cheap; good: Pick two."?
Especially so when we know that that's what they're doing right now
Your idea of a good balance between two specific goals. Scawen's idea of a good balance (let alone which or how many goals he's balancing) may vary
This I would love, almost as much as I'd love to stick a set of knobblies onto a FXR and go churn up a field. RB4 field-hooning is great, but MOAR PWR! and all that. Tyre restriction is not a coding issue, just a matter of preference (Scawen's said before it's for realism, IIRC).
That one's not just about priority, it's to avoid duplicated effort. The current cars have been extensively tweaked/tested to make the way they interact with the old tyre physics better (again, IIRC. I think he said he something along the lines of wallpapering over some tyre physics sins with car model hacks, but I can't find the reference). Long story short: there's more than the usual content development goes into putting cars into current-physics-version LFS, the extra time would be wasted effort if he did it before the physics. I don't fancy your chances of swaying him on this particular issue
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG