I do want to say one thing, after my previous posts which sounded quite negative. Because in fact I feel positive about Live for Speed!
I do love this job and it is only because of the support of the Live for Speed racers that we have been able to go on so long. It has been developed for a much longer period than most games! We are very lucky to be able to work from home and be able to choose our time of work each day. It's really great to be self employed, being creative and making something that people enjoy. I want this to go on and to get done the things that we have planned, even if it takes a long time!
I don't mind at all that our earnings have decreased a lot from what they used to be, some time after S2 was released. That is only to be expected, without expanding the business. But I absolutely don't think life is all about earning as much money as possible.
For many years I've just accepted that there will always be cracks and it would be a futile war putting too much time into preventing them. The only thing that got me a bit disturbed in recent days was learning that the crack community was so much bigger than our legal one, it was actually pulling legal players away from our servers. LFS isn't much good if there aren't people online and that situation seems like a downward spiral.
So, thank you for your support and kind words. I do think this thread should be closed now. It's the holiday season now and I hope that people will go online, in the legal version and get a bit more racing going on there. There is fun to be had and it's all free if you already have a license!
I do love this job and it is only because of the support of the Live for Speed racers that we have been able to go on so long. It has been developed for a much longer period than most games! We are very lucky to be able to work from home and be able to choose our time of work each day. It's really great to be self employed, being creative and making something that people enjoy. I want this to go on and to get done the things that we have planned, even if it takes a long time!
I don't mind at all that our earnings have decreased a lot from what they used to be, some time after S2 was released. That is only to be expected, without expanding the business. But I absolutely don't think life is all about earning as much money as possible.
For many years I've just accepted that there will always be cracks and it would be a futile war putting too much time into preventing them. The only thing that got me a bit disturbed in recent days was learning that the crack community was so much bigger than our legal one, it was actually pulling legal players away from our servers. LFS isn't much good if there aren't people online and that situation seems like a downward spiral.
So, thank you for your support and kind words. I do think this thread should be closed now. It's the holiday season now and I hope that people will go online, in the legal version and get a bit more racing going on there. There is fun to be had and it's all free if you already have a license!
Thanks for the comments.
This is sad to hear.
We are at a very bad point, when licensed racers go to race on an illegal server because there is more activity there.
It's hard to know what to do. We could get them all back if we offered LFS as a free game, but then we'd have to go and get another job.
Sad to think that LFS could die purely due to criminal activity. We think it's a pretty good deal, one payment for lifetime usage. But it seems that supporting independent developers is not something that most players want to do. Better just rip us off so we can't survive and only the giant corporations will remain.
This is sad to hear.
We are at a very bad point, when licensed racers go to race on an illegal server because there is more activity there.
It's hard to know what to do. We could get them all back if we offered LFS as a free game, but then we'd have to go and get another job.
Sad to think that LFS could die purely due to criminal activity. We think it's a pretty good deal, one payment for lifetime usage. But it seems that supporting independent developers is not something that most players want to do. Better just rip us off so we can't survive and only the giant corporations will remain.
Pereulok has become a big problem in recent times. The trouble is when it got to the point where more people are online on the cracked master server than on the real one. Then LFS suffers and its reputation suffers. It really starts to look like trouble when our earnings are only just paying the bills and the thought of closing down LFS development becomes an actual possibility.
We aren't ready to stop development on Live for Speed and we are working enthusiastically on good new things. It would be a great pity if we were forced to stop development for no reason other than piracy.
Pereulok is currently unavailable and I believe that repeat83 understands that we need to earn a living from this job, or LFS will die. He has considerable technical abilities and I hope he will find a way to put them to good use.
I hope that with Pereulok offline more people will join the official master server. Please go out there and race. I will close this thread as there is nothing more to be said here.
We aren't ready to stop development on Live for Speed and we are working enthusiastically on good new things. It would be a great pity if we were forced to stop development for no reason other than piracy.
Pereulok is currently unavailable and I believe that repeat83 understands that we need to earn a living from this job, or LFS will die. He has considerable technical abilities and I hope he will find a way to put them to good use.
I hope that with Pereulok offline more people will join the official master server. Please go out there and race. I will close this thread as there is nothing more to be said here.
Test Patch 0.6N5: https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/89352
Please test this if you have a Rift or Vive. It may be the final test patch before Saturday's full version.
If you have not already, you may wish to test the automatic controller button / axis assignments. It should do a reasonable job with Logitech and Thrustmaster wheels and game controllers. To test, move or rename the relevant .con file in your data\misc folder before starting LFS so LFS does not read your existing controller setup.
Thanks for the testing!
Changes from 0.6N4 to 0.6N5 :
Translations :
Various translations updated. Thank you translators!
VR :
The intro replay is avoided if LFS is started in VR mode
LFS now pauses and hides crosshairs when Rift focus is lost
OpenVR support updated to 0.9.19
Controllers :
RGT wheel should now be identified as a Thrustmaster
Misc :
Added left and right arrows to the "Look function" option
Music in setup screens is no longer enabled by default
Please test this if you have a Rift or Vive. It may be the final test patch before Saturday's full version.
If you have not already, you may wish to test the automatic controller button / axis assignments. It should do a reasonable job with Logitech and Thrustmaster wheels and game controllers. To test, move or rename the relevant .con file in your data\misc folder before starting LFS so LFS does not read your existing controller setup.
Thanks for the testing!
Changes from 0.6N4 to 0.6N5 :
Translations :
Various translations updated. Thank you translators!
VR :
The intro replay is avoided if LFS is started in VR mode
LFS now pauses and hides crosshairs when Rift focus is lost
OpenVR support updated to 0.9.19
Controllers :
RGT wheel should now be identified as a Thrustmaster
Misc :
Added left and right arrows to the "Look function" option
Music in setup screens is no longer enabled by default
K14 is now available in the first post : https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/88999
It doesn't seem like a big update but in fact it is. The best solution for the duplication bug, when moving InSim checkpoints quickly and repeatedly in multiplayer mode, was to change all the marshall code to support multiple object selection and use similar code to the other types of objects (and share some code). They can't share all the code because these circles internally are really a completely different type of object.
It turns out this was a 12 hour job, because it is complicated how this multiplayer editor works, but I think it works now. I'm not fully confident about that so I'd be grateful if you could have a go and see if it stands up to a test.
Layout editor :
Multiple object selection is now available in marshall mode
Fixes :
Quick repeat moving checkpoints in multiplayer caused duplication
It doesn't seem like a big update but in fact it is. The best solution for the duplication bug, when moving InSim checkpoints quickly and repeatedly in multiplayer mode, was to change all the marshall code to support multiple object selection and use similar code to the other types of objects (and share some code). They can't share all the code because these circles internally are really a completely different type of object.
It turns out this was a 12 hour job, because it is complicated how this multiplayer editor works, but I think it works now. I'm not fully confident about that so I'd be grateful if you could have a go and see if it stands up to a test.
Layout editor :
Multiple object selection is now available in marshall mode
Fixes :
Quick repeat moving checkpoints in multiplayer caused duplication
I see in the track editor, that is how it is. It's just a bug that has always been there. Not usually noticed as our AI drivers can test the physical surface when creating their line. I've made a note to see if I can do some kind of repair job on it.
I did some experimentation, seeing how long some calls to DirectX were taking and where there was long waiting. I found that a good frame rate increase was possible in many places at Westhill by allowing the program to go ahead and start rendering one more frame before the last one is completed. Really, it's the way it should be done and is basically standard practice. But unfortunately these big frame rate increases were in places where the frame rate was already high. At the slowest places, there was no improvement.
I noticed the graphics card fan was spinning up at the new high frame rate places but slowing down again at the low frame rate places.
This shows that it is the CPU that we are waiting for at the low frame rate locations, and the graphics card is taking a bit of a break there. It seems wrong that the card should be working less hard at the highest detail places, so I have been looking at ways to improve this.
I have done quite a lot of experimenting, with varying results. The best improvements have been in the last few days. I have done some sorting of the objects in the static vertex buffers and index buffers. This results in less switching between textures while rendering the world objects and there have been noticeable increases in most places.
That job is still not finished. I know of more ways to decrease the switching between textures (calls to SetTexture) so should do them. There are also a lot of draw calls (DrawIndexedPrimitive) at the high detail locations. The number of draw calls could be reduced by better sorting of the objects, so that the triangles of the objects that are likely to be seen at the same time, are positioned consecutively in the buffers. When they are positioned consecutively they are drawn with a single call instead of multiple calls. This sorting is done quite roughly for some objects at the moment. Actually some types of objects are sorted very well but some others are not well sorted. This could also be improved.
I noticed the graphics card fan was spinning up at the new high frame rate places but slowing down again at the low frame rate places.
This shows that it is the CPU that we are waiting for at the low frame rate locations, and the graphics card is taking a bit of a break there. It seems wrong that the card should be working less hard at the highest detail places, so I have been looking at ways to improve this.
I have done quite a lot of experimenting, with varying results. The best improvements have been in the last few days. I have done some sorting of the objects in the static vertex buffers and index buffers. This results in less switching between textures while rendering the world objects and there have been noticeable increases in most places.
That job is still not finished. I know of more ways to decrease the switching between textures (calls to SetTexture) so should do them. There are also a lot of draw calls (DrawIndexedPrimitive) at the high detail locations. The number of draw calls could be reduced by better sorting of the objects, so that the triangles of the objects that are likely to be seen at the same time, are positioned consecutively in the buffers. When they are positioned consecutively they are drawn with a single call instead of multiple calls. This sorting is done quite roughly for some objects at the moment. Actually some types of objects are sorted very well but some others are not well sorted. This could also be improved.
Yes, you can trick the system if you want to. It has been this way for a long time now, so it's nothing new. The problem was that many people used to drive around without uploading their skin, as if it was in some way difficult to use our system. We've made it really easy to use so there's no reason not to do it.
The point of a skin is not so that you can see your car's interesting paint job, while others see a white car. That is not the idea at all. In fact you as the driver can't see much of the skin. So it is about how your car appears to others. I feel silly saying this, it's so obvious!
I realise that there are some people who are intent on driving around with a skin that is a secret known only to them and they don't want anyone else to see it. I don't try to understand the reason for this, as I don't need to. It's pretty obvious that you can upload a plain white skin called XFG_SECRET_SKIN.jpg while your own local version of XFG_SECRET_SKIN.jpg has your top secret design on it. We aren't stopping you doing that. We're not doing a CRC check on the skins. This isn't about law enforcement. It's about encouraging people to use the automatic skin download system we have provided.
What we have stopped, with this system, a long time ago, is the hundreds of people driving around with skins on their cars but too lazy to upload it to LFS World. They just had to log in and look for the upload skin button... problem solved!
The point of a skin is not so that you can see your car's interesting paint job, while others see a white car. That is not the idea at all. In fact you as the driver can't see much of the skin. So it is about how your car appears to others. I feel silly saying this, it's so obvious!
I realise that there are some people who are intent on driving around with a skin that is a secret known only to them and they don't want anyone else to see it. I don't try to understand the reason for this, as I don't need to. It's pretty obvious that you can upload a plain white skin called XFG_SECRET_SKIN.jpg while your own local version of XFG_SECRET_SKIN.jpg has your top secret design on it. We aren't stopping you doing that. We're not doing a CRC check on the skins. This isn't about law enforcement. It's about encouraging people to use the automatic skin download system we have provided.
What we have stopped, with this system, a long time ago, is the hundreds of people driving around with skins on their cars but too lazy to upload it to LFS World. They just had to log in and look for the upload skin button... problem solved!
I don't see this. Can you give more detail? Which track was selected, were you online or offline? E.g. if you were at Drag Strip then you can only add yourself or one AI. When online, only one player may be allowed. If an open config is selected, AI cannot be added...
No. There isn't really anywhere for them to park and it would be a really big job to do that. I have no idea how to do it. So I don't it's a good one for release day!
Thanks, it's not really a mistake. These are the true values represented by the "Heading Byte". I know it seems a bit strange but just remember to go to -180 if you want 180. Or go to 178.6 then press the '.' key.
Not a bad idea. Thanks for the test report - it's a good point. But I don't think I'll change it (at least not now). What you can do to solve it, in that extreme case of checkpoints on the oval banking, is put the checkpoint underground. So the process would be, set it up in the air where you can see it, then finally lower the Z value until you can only see the part of the checkpoint that is on the flat area on the inside of the curve.
As it allows some quite good possibilities, I think it should be left as it is.
Thanks for your advice. I was actually just sitting around watching TV hoping the code would write itself. It's very useful to have people like you advising me how to do my job, so thanks for that!
I don't think we will release any more images before the test patch release.
It's best to just get the job done and get it into testing. Day off today but I'm back on tomorrow updating editor functions that help Eric and some other things I still have to do.
IP address wouldn't be in the NCN packet as all guests output that packet to their local InSim connection and they don't know the new guest's IP address. Obviously I will not transmit the IP of guests to other guests. When a guest joins a host, if they know anything about the internet, they know they are revealing their IP (just as when they visit any internet site) so that is a different matter.
But I suppose the new guest's IP address could be shown on the host's InSim connection, in a new dedicated packet that follows the NCN. Is there any security risk with this? Maybe only show it if there is an admin password, so it isn't shown on fully open InSim connections?
About language, would anyone not want their language revealed or can we just forget about that? I guess if they don't want to reveal their language, they'd better select English before joining a host.
Host doesn't know guest's language in any way at the moment so it's not just as simple as adding a byte, Guests will need to transmit this info to host on connection. Not hard but just saying, it's not a 1 minute job.
But I suppose the new guest's IP address could be shown on the host's InSim connection, in a new dedicated packet that follows the NCN. Is there any security risk with this? Maybe only show it if there is an admin password, so it isn't shown on fully open InSim connections?
About language, would anyone not want their language revealed or can we just forget about that? I guess if they don't want to reveal their language, they'd better select English before joining a host.
Host doesn't know guest's language in any way at the moment so it's not just as simple as adding a byte, Guests will need to transmit this info to host on connection. Not hard but just saying, it's not a 1 minute job.
Last edited by Scawen, .
Well, as I am in a good mood I will help you out with that one.
Victor has been working for quite some time on this site, not actually full time. There are many improvements that can help LFS going forward.
Now, he does actually have another full time job and he isn't the programmer or artist of Live for Speed. So although he is an absolutely vital member of our team, he doesn't actually contribute to the programming or content of Live for Speed.
I have personally spent a couple of half days on this, just testing and doing some text. So, maybe we have delayed things by a tiny amount, one day or so. Nothing to be concerned about though.
The rotation is probably in your driver software. For me, with nvidia, I right click on the desktop and in the nvidia control panel there is a "rotate display" section.
In there I can select the Rift and, confusingly, select "portrait" for the orientation.
At that point the job is done. As a quick test before starting LFS, drag a window off to the right of your desktop onto the rift and look with one eye into the lens - you should see the window in your rift in the expected orientation.
In there I can select the Rift and, confusingly, select "portrait" for the orientation.
At that point the job is done. As a quick test before starting LFS, drag a window off to the right of your desktop onto the rift and look with one eye into the lens - you should see the window in your rift in the expected orientation.
It's really simple. I have said it before, but I'll say it again for the last time.
1) XP allows me to use a DEBUG version of DirectX 9. A debug version is the one that sends a debug message, in text form, to the debugger, when you make many kinds of mistake, minor or major, so you know how to correct it or notice flaws in your code. It's really quite impossible to develop reliable software without debug messages. As I understand it, Microsoft deliberately stopped providing a debug version of DX9 in post-XP Windows, to force developers to be unable to develop software that supports XP. We do want to support XP because we have thousands of people who bought an LFS license and do not yet want to be forced to "upgrade" to the later and in many ways inferior versions of Windows. We can't just take LFS away from those people, who I regard as very sensible people. Some people here have described them as financially challenged people... but I think of them as people like me, who simply prefer XP because it is better in many ways. Also we do not wish to make it impossible to run LFS on Linux. As I understand it, a Wine / Linux setup can only use DX9 and it is really important to me to support that.
2) Windows 7 has made it IMPOSSIBLE to run a dual screen setup using Nvidia cards, where the wide desktop is reported as a single surface. Those who say it is possible, we've been through all that already and it is in fact NOT possible. The Nvidia and AMD single surface support now requires additional software and only supports specific screen configurations. That is INFERIOR to Windows XP.
3) Many other things are FAR harder to do on Windows 7 than on XP. For example it was very difficult to install a printer. On XP, plug in printer, install software, share printer, job done. On Windows 7... well I have described it before and don't really want to remember it now. The installation was presented as a process of "solving problems" when there really wasn't a problem, I just wanted to install a printer. Sharing to another computer on my private network was some kind of crazy nightmare of unintuitive permission nonsense in hidden menus.
See above.
It's said to work well now and I think it's better with this latest patch because of the DX9 support.
Last edited by Scawen, .
No, nothing specific. There are still a few things to do. I'll be interested to hear your comments on whatever you find important.
I didn't get a Rift, no, although I would have got one if I had known I would spend this long on it - it started out as a bit of a quick test of some minimal support, but I got more encouraged as it went on. Just had to a little bit here and a little bit there to keep making it better (several times over). I got enough detailed feedback and explanations from people to do a reasonable job. I plan to get the improved version as soon as it is available.
Linux does pop into my mind once in a while. Because it seems to me that MS seems to be going down this Apple style route of trying to subtly lock you in and force you to buy expensive upgrades every few years, when really just a couple of software functions could have done the job.
I'm wondering if in the long term, free operating system software might be the winner because it propagates only by good ideas being better, simply for the good of it, rather than trying to please shareholders and so on. So things sort of sell themselves rather than marketing departments hyping up tiny things as if they are new technology.
I know that is a woolly post, but I feel a little angry at being pushed around by corporations. Obviously it's not personal, they just want the money to keep coming in. Some sort of capitalism / growth addiction thing they and too many others have.
I did say that I thought XP was still the best, in my opinion so far with Windows 7.
I am shocked that you can't go full screen, using two monitors as a single surface. It is really awful to pay a lot of money for an operating system, to then find that it has maliciously disabled your hardware's capabilities. I simply can no longer race in LFS using a two monitor setup. And someone cannot, for example, use 3D mode (SBS, full) on a double screen setup, sent to twin projectors with polarising filters, unless they have XP.
Also, what happened when I tried to install a printer? On XP, I could download the driver and install it, job done. Now, no, you cannot do that, you must use Windows 7's automatic driver installation system. And what does it say? There is a problem, failed to install driver. Nothing I could do to solve that, but go to different programs and try to print from them, in which case I was told "there is a problem, would you like us to solve it?" and one by one these so called problems were solved, over about half an hour. Absolutely ridiculous time wasting pile of crap.
Hello everyone!
The developers are all alive and working on LFS.
Eric has been working on new tracks. He slowed up a bit during some of the great English summer which we don't get very often. I have enjoyed test driving on two of his new tracks which look great and I look forward to the time when they can be released.
I am still working on the tyre physics, though I haven't really made serious progress this year. I also enjoyed the summer, did a lot of cycling and running too. It's a better hobby than smoking like I used to, and I really enjoy it. But the good news is it won't pay the bills!
LFS income has gradually gone down as it always does between updates. That that has increased the urgency of finishing the tyre physics. So I plan to get down to it, make the appropriate approximations and sort out a good physically based system, with enough assumptions to make it workable, accepting that total realism is an unachievable goal.
I just got a bit excited about stereoscopic 3d support, which some people will like because they'll be able to see LFS in 3d on a 3d TV, if their TV supports "side-by-side" or "top and bottom" mode. Also headsets should be supported if they accept one of those output modes. The old headsets that require specific support and sequential output will not be supported. For example a Sony HMZ works but a Vuzix VR920 does not. A more recent Vuzix should work but the field of view is not really good enough to give you peripheral vision. I'm not sure how much it will benefit the Oculus Rift at the moment. I think that depends on a pixel shader to provide the proper distortion, which I think is not available in D3D8. Anyway, one of the output options will be non-squashed (full) side-by-side 3D, which may possibly make it easier to use the Oculus Rift. Anyway it is a step in that direction. It does appear that the current Oculus Rift's resolution is too low for a racing simulator at the moment. Anyway I should be able to post a 3d test patch in a few days, I'm guessing early next week. Some people will enjoy that, though I realise most people, like me, don't have 3d equipment.
Victor is still with us, although he has indeed got another job, which looks like a really good one, putting his excellent skills to more use. I'm pleased for him about that, as his job here wasn't often really full time, although he is an absolutely vital member of our team. He needed a job as well because our profit share isn't one third each and depends on our actual contributions to the project. Victor started later and never has so much work, so for that reason only, his profit share was a bit of a tight squeeze to live on, specially with the gradual reduction in profits while we are waiting for a serious update.
People ask why I don't come here more often with progress reports. But there hasn't been enough progress to give a report. And it's not appealing to come here and say that. Every month I've thought I would be making more progress, and would have some good progress to report the following month. Hope you see what I mean...
Anyway, we do have to pay the bills and I'm very interested to get the better feeling tyre model out there for everyone to enjoy. You've heard it all before so I don't expect great enthusiasm. It will take a while yet, but hopefully not too long.
The developers are all alive and working on LFS.
Eric has been working on new tracks. He slowed up a bit during some of the great English summer which we don't get very often. I have enjoyed test driving on two of his new tracks which look great and I look forward to the time when they can be released.
I am still working on the tyre physics, though I haven't really made serious progress this year. I also enjoyed the summer, did a lot of cycling and running too. It's a better hobby than smoking like I used to, and I really enjoy it. But the good news is it won't pay the bills!
LFS income has gradually gone down as it always does between updates. That that has increased the urgency of finishing the tyre physics. So I plan to get down to it, make the appropriate approximations and sort out a good physically based system, with enough assumptions to make it workable, accepting that total realism is an unachievable goal.
I just got a bit excited about stereoscopic 3d support, which some people will like because they'll be able to see LFS in 3d on a 3d TV, if their TV supports "side-by-side" or "top and bottom" mode. Also headsets should be supported if they accept one of those output modes. The old headsets that require specific support and sequential output will not be supported. For example a Sony HMZ works but a Vuzix VR920 does not. A more recent Vuzix should work but the field of view is not really good enough to give you peripheral vision. I'm not sure how much it will benefit the Oculus Rift at the moment. I think that depends on a pixel shader to provide the proper distortion, which I think is not available in D3D8. Anyway, one of the output options will be non-squashed (full) side-by-side 3D, which may possibly make it easier to use the Oculus Rift. Anyway it is a step in that direction. It does appear that the current Oculus Rift's resolution is too low for a racing simulator at the moment. Anyway I should be able to post a 3d test patch in a few days, I'm guessing early next week. Some people will enjoy that, though I realise most people, like me, don't have 3d equipment.
Victor is still with us, although he has indeed got another job, which looks like a really good one, putting his excellent skills to more use. I'm pleased for him about that, as his job here wasn't often really full time, although he is an absolutely vital member of our team. He needed a job as well because our profit share isn't one third each and depends on our actual contributions to the project. Victor started later and never has so much work, so for that reason only, his profit share was a bit of a tight squeeze to live on, specially with the gradual reduction in profits while we are waiting for a serious update.
People ask why I don't come here more often with progress reports. But there hasn't been enough progress to give a report. And it's not appealing to come here and say that. Every month I've thought I would be making more progress, and would have some good progress to report the following month. Hope you see what I mean...
Anyway, we do have to pay the bills and I'm very interested to get the better feeling tyre model out there for everyone to enjoy. You've heard it all before so I don't expect great enthusiasm. It will take a while yet, but hopefully not too long.
In fact, the position packets have never been sent to the host using TCP. There is no code in LFS to support that. It has been assumed that the UDP problem is a problem at the receiving end, and a host that cannot receive UDP is considered useless.
The host must receive UDP packets from a connecting guest as part of the connection process, or the connection will not be allowed in the first place.
I've always thought the UDP problem is a problem with routers that are failing to send UDP packets back to the guest, maybe the router is forgetting the ephemeral port or something like that. But the host receives UDP on a well defined port where the user (hoster) has set up forwarding to a specific computer, so the router always knows the destination and so it's less likely that a host's UDP receive could break down.
I am surprised to hear about ISP's blocking / dropping UDP packets. My first thought is, don't use that kind of ISP. That's why I'm using Zen, it costs a bit more than BT, Virgin, and so on but instead of an awful service, I believe I know where I stand. But this is my job so I can afford a couple more pounds a month. Though on the other hand I think it ends up cheaper for me because the phone service I've got from them doesn't have a "connection charge" and rounding up to the minute. It's just per second billing. They have a bandwidth limit, rather than this "unlimited bandwidth... note : fair usage policy applies" nonsense. I believe they are an honest business, not one that tries to rip you off at every turn.
So maybe if your ISP has a problem, then to fix the problem you must change ISP.
About the skin problem :
I couldn't find any reason for glitches or slowdowns in the specific case where a skin is not available at LFS World. I can only think of the problem of searching for a skin on your own hard drive when a player exits the pits, if you have many thousands of skins, maybe the file search would take a good fraction of a second, or maybe more in some cases. But that would not be any worse if a skin is unavailable at LFS World.
Anyway, I agree with the thought that it is quite annoying when people insist on joining with a skin they have not uploaded to LFS World. There is no point in using a skin if no-one else can see it. I've taken a couple of days' break from the track editor functions I've been working on, to implement a host-side check to make sure your skin exists. This feature spectates you immediately if you join with an unavailable skin.
I was angry for a while, but anger is bad for you, and it's not worth being angry about a job or a hobby. We have to take a professional approach, accept this as just one of many setbacks to be encountered along the road of development. It is really hard for me to understand why someone attacks others, without any apparent motive. I can only guess it's some kind of power thrill. I feel sorry for him really, not angry any more. But a lot worse things can happen in life that make this little thing so insignificant, and I think it's better not to give him too much attention.
This is a typically outrageous and ridiculous interpretation of something I said which has an obvious meaning.
It's absolutely obvious what "unsubscribe" means, to click the "unsubscribe" option so that I don't receive email notifications of new posts on this thread. That would be, of course, to save me wasting so many minutes of the one life that I have, reading posts like yours and edge3147's.
If I was saying that I have decided to throw away my career on a whim, that suddenly developing a program that I care greatly about means nothing to me any more because a couple of people on the internet made a couple of irritating posts, then I'd say something about it, wouldn't I? You really have a bizarre view of the world. YOU are the kind of person that makes Eric avoid posting here.
You complain about our communication. Why not learn to read?
[ After posting this, I'll unsubscribe again - no that doesn't mean I'm giving up my career and going to look for a job ]
Last edited by Scawen, .
Reason : fixed typo
Test Patch Progress Report
The "instant join" system seems to be working very well now. Of course it is not really instant but it appears like that to the other guests. There is no "A new guest is connecting", only "X connected (X)". The game state is sent all at once (cached and much faster than before) and any subsequent packets that would change the game state are added to that cache and sent to the new guest so it doesn't miss anything during those couple of seconds.
- No more "Please wait - a guest is connecting".
- No more "Can't X - a guest is connecting".
- JOOS should be very rare now. For example you can now join while a layout is being loaded or at the same time as nearly any changes in game state are happening.
I've been able to delete quite a bit of code which was only dealing with the situation of player joining, trying to avoid JOOS by avoiding game state changers while a guest was connecting - something that is no longer needed.
My plan now is to finish the loose ends of this task, then complete the other incompatible updates (cheat protection) then release a test patch later in the week. You may have heard that before... but this instant join system was a case of finishing the job of this patch and was a natural step to take after the new server packet system and the cached packets were already done.
- No more "Please wait - a guest is connecting".
- No more "Can't X - a guest is connecting".
- JOOS should be very rare now. For example you can now join while a layout is being loaded or at the same time as nearly any changes in game state are happening.
I've been able to delete quite a bit of code which was only dealing with the situation of player joining, trying to avoid JOOS by avoiding game state changers while a guest was connecting - something that is no longer needed.
My plan now is to finish the loose ends of this task, then complete the other incompatible updates (cheat protection) then release a test patch later in the week. You may have heard that before... but this instant join system was a case of finishing the job of this patch and was a natural step to take after the new server packet system and the cached packets were already done.
Daniel, you should get a job as a tester!!!
Say you'll find all bugs, now matter how obscure.
Demand very high pay!
Say you'll find all bugs, now matter how obscure.
Demand very high pay!
0.6b7
0.6B7 is now available - see first post : http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=80725
Changes from 0.6B6 to 0.6B7 :
FIX : Guests were often kicked after another took over their car
Instead of "LAG (seconds)" now "username (seconds)" is displayed
Timer bounding increased to 30 sec for normal LFS (graphic mode)
Timer bounding stays at 6 sec for non-graphical dedicated hosts
AND the lag bar is more useful. It's the other way up from the old one and gives one piece of info : how long since you heard from the host. So it stays there, gets taller and turns red if you aren't getting info from the host.
There is still no info about the other players and no info about whether the host is hearing from you! So it's only telling half the story, but that's better than half the story half of the time.
A version that gives you info about the state of all players and how you look to the host (small lag bars beside user names, maybe ping info, etc) I like the sound of - thanks for the suggestions - but it will require a new info packet sent from the host and another incompatible version. That's ok but it's a longer job. Today's update fixes the serious problem and a minor problem and adds two improvements.
Changes from 0.6B6 to 0.6B7 :
FIX : Guests were often kicked after another took over their car
Instead of "LAG (seconds)" now "username (seconds)" is displayed
Timer bounding increased to 30 sec for normal LFS (graphic mode)
Timer bounding stays at 6 sec for non-graphical dedicated hosts
AND the lag bar is more useful. It's the other way up from the old one and gives one piece of info : how long since you heard from the host. So it stays there, gets taller and turns red if you aren't getting info from the host.
There is still no info about the other players and no info about whether the host is hearing from you! So it's only telling half the story, but that's better than half the story half of the time.
A version that gives you info about the state of all players and how you look to the host (small lag bars beside user names, maybe ping info, etc) I like the sound of - thanks for the suggestions - but it will require a new info packet sent from the host and another incompatible version. That's ok but it's a longer job. Today's update fixes the serious problem and a minor problem and adds two improvements.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG