No, it's just one or the other. I have not tried to support EVs with gears either. I have to set limits to try and finish this and get it out there. I do want to add regenerative braking during the public test stage though.

EDIT: The mods system is ready for testing! https://www.lfs.net/forum/498


Dear Community Members,

We have been working on a new system to support mods. We need a little more time to get to public testing, but there's quite a bit to show you and talk about already.


NOTE: There may be changes to any part of this plan, between now and the point of public testing.


About the new system and how it came to be:

We have always wanted to support mods because of the huge variety that becomes possible. We thought it could be done after the new version release, with the new physics. That would have been ideal but there is a lot of demand for mods and we started to look into it this year.

At first we started thinking about simply allowing VOB mods, with some restrictions. But it would of course be better if we had an official way to edit and export mods. So I experimented with some changes in the current public version of LFS, to the point where it could load VOB models saved from our development version. It was immediately obvious that it would be too restrictive if we only allowed VOB mods on existing cars. So I made more changes to save fully edited vehicles that could be loaded in the public version.

As a standalone model and vehicle editor was proven to be possible in principle, we got more serious about the whole thing. We started working on a mod submission system, with mods stored on our website and automatically downloaded in LFS. With the new system, you can visit any server and see new mods there for the first time as they are automatically downloaded like skins.

To make a mod you can build a model (3D mesh) directly in the LFS modeller or start by importing one from another program, e.g. Blender, then make adjustments and apply texture maps within the LFS modeller. To create a driveable vehicle with your model, you could either start from scratch with a new vehicle or choose an existing car as a starting point. Adjust wheel positions, mass, suspension, engine and so on. Test the mod in your public version of LFS then export and upload it to our website. Reviewers will check it follows the rules and approve / reject / request changes. When approved, the mod can be downloaded in LFS and used online.

There are some restrictions.

- The mods system is only for S3 licensed users.
- We will not allow real car names or logos, unless permission is proved during the submission process.
- We will not allow meshes converted from other games, unless permission is proved during the submission process.
- There will be limits (e.g. triangle count and texture size) so the mods are quick to download.


Changes to hosting:

There will be some changes to the way game servers work. We believe the only way to prevent piracy is to no longer release any server code at all (or even support LAN games). For the new version, we will provide the servers, using our existing server rental system. Game server owners can use InSim connections to their servers. We are setting up internet servers in Europe, America and Asia so you should get a good ping wherever you are.

You can start a free server in game, using the "Start new host" button. But now, that starts a host running on one of our servers, instead of locally on your computer. When you leave a free server, it closes down after a few minutes.

If you want to run a full-fledged server, or multiple servers, that stay online all the time and store replays and layouts, you will be able to use our existing game server hosting system, but now you will be able to choose Europe, America or Asia for the location of your game server. We are still finalising the prices but we are thinking around a quarter of the current prices.


More information about the new system

Downloads: [NOT YET AVAILABLE]

1) LFS Editor - Modeller and Vehicle editor to be installed separately
2) LFS Test Patch with mods support


Mods page:

https://lfs.net/files/vehmods


Tutorial videos: (there are more to do)

1) LFS Mods Introduction (11:49) https://youtu.be/9EPWaGraQfs
2) LFS Modeller Overview (3:30) https://youtu.be/05y8apUWyVs
3) View Controls Overview (3:40) https://youtu.be/As_aPoU2Qr4
4) Updating a mod with a new version (4:06) https://youtu.be/vDSn_XkyGGM
5) Building the Brickmobile: Part 1 - Model (11:58) https://youtu.be/eegTP5mo8Zk
6) Exporting from Blender to LFS Editor (3:01) https://youtu.be/Rf6HK_niFjo
7) Building the Brickmobile: Part 2 - Texturing (9:24) https://youtu.be/_HIrlxJMWnI
8) Building the Brickmobile: Part 3 - First Drive (5:07) https://youtu.be/c9Pi0aYbA0c
9) LFS Steering Animation Editor (12:09) https://youtu.be/JPbMCfZ8VmU
10) Building the Brickmobile: Part 4 - Level of detail (LOD) meshes (5:43) https://youtu.be/DAyiQbhvbYM
11) Building the Brickmobile: Part 5 - Masses and object positions (5:22) https://youtu.be/l0iiQOk_1Os


Documents: (just a start - incomplete)

Modeller
Vehicle Editor


We look forward to hearing your feedback!

Thanks,

Scawen

Last edited by Scawen, Sat 6 Nov 2021, 21:04.

It's the usual thing. If we don't talk, it's "where are the devs" and "why have they abandoned us". If we do talk and excitedly announce things that we are working 12 hours a day on, then don't quite make a point where we had said "we hope to be able to say something on day X" then we get told off again by some people. There isn't really a way around that!

But the really great thing is that most of the community members totally understand what we are talking about, and I am very happy to hear the nearly all positive comments since my last post. I'm working super hard on average 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, for quite a few months to get this current project ready for a public test patch. It's pretty tiring but think it'll be worth it.

Thank you for this information. I've implemented this today so it will be in the next test patch, which I hope is in the next two or three weeks (though my time estimates are normally terrible).

Thank you, I'd be interested to hear when you are ready. No rush, I know that when moving house, this won't be the highest priority!

There's nothing in particular to test, only whether it is working properly, looking 3D and visible in both eyes. Because of the definite fault on MagicFr's computer and the apparent scale issue on bberger's one, it's good to get an idea if other people get the same problems.

Quote from bavabanga :

Hi Scawen, add please 225 front tires for XRR and boost controller, turbo lag on 1.76 bar on 4 piston engine it's not comfortable for drifting. Need low boost for tyre spin control imho.

Hi, the test patch stage is over, I'm back to work on the development version now. So no more changes in the near future.

I thought we were getting past it but maybe not.

Quote from ZanZi :

i cant jump on a 3 day notice to verify a potential gamebreaker is intended to be added to the sim.

I don't know which thing you are talking about. I haven't heard of such a thing.

Quote from ZanZi :

@Scawen, you probably missed my post in the thread where you announced the intent to make small changes, ill remind you that back in time when LFS was in its strongest, the MAJORITY of the people racing then were begging for simple solutions that were overlooked (considering the GTR balancing). These things were nothing compared to what we're pushing back and forth here.

Going back into history with vague comments is kind of irrelevant.

There are thousands of things that could have been done differently at any stage, which didn't get done or prioritised for any number of reasons. That doesn't really have any bearing on people getting worked up about tiny changes they didn't test in a recent update.

I'll say it again: There was opportunity, invitation, notification to test these things. If people didn't do it, and they don't like a tiny little change that happened, it's not reasonable for them to come here and whinge. There is no bug, just people exaggerating problems. It's quite pathetic.

EDIT: Unsubscribing from thread now. Thanks for the positive feedback. I'm really pleased the update is working very well, as intended!

Last edited by Scawen, Tue 2 Mar 2021, 20:21.

Thanks but when I am attacked by random people for no reason, I am genuinely concerned about their mental state. I'm not a whipping boy for people's personal problems.

As for talking about mental health, I've experienced serious depression in the past and I know for a fact that getting out and enjoying nature as much as possible is a great help. I am genuinely concerned about people staying indoors during lockdown and seriously suggest they get outside. It's not a joke that people need exercise. Without it, gradually the brain and body deteriorate.

There was a thorough and lengthy test patching process where people were invited to give feedback. If people with a special interest have a problem with one of the slightly adjusted features, then it really is too late and the correct advice is, next time, participate in the test patch stage.

If there was an actual bug or serious issue, then I'd have to spend more time away from the real development and start working on 0.6W. But there isn't such a problem. There are a few tiny changes that a very small number of people are worried about. It's a real storm in a teacup.

Quote from rik97 :

But at the end of the day we players are your customers, so talk with a bit more respect against them.

Respect is the way I developed this patch:

- Public test patch
- Full transparency
- Descriptions of all changes, with reasons
- Repeated invitations to people to please test
- Attempt to solve every problem and accomodate as many requests as possible

What is not respect:

- A very small number of users who couldn't be bothered to test, coming here very shortly after the test patching process has finished, and telling me I've done something wrong.

NOTE: There isn't anything actually wrong. It's more like a few members playing 'bait the dev' for no reason.

Quote from k_badam :

Unrelated to the current issue, this 'blaming the public beta testers attitude' is totally wrong. The developer is definitely responsible for any bugs or issues in the game, if the community fail to find them it is still the fault of the development team.

To be clear, there isn't a bug or an issue, so I'm not blaming anyone for it.


EDIT: I am saying, that people who have a special minority interest, should definitely have a go with the test patch which was there for weeks. There were many repeated requests for testing, warnings of the changes and so on. So there is no sense in complaining if after all those requests, someone with a minority interest refuses to test the patch then when it is released, it turns out that one small beneficial change isn't to their liking. There's nothing more I can do, than put all these test patches out for public testing, ask people to test them and fix any issues they report. So don't ask me to do more than that.

This is why I'm suggesting, get outside for a little each day. A lot of people have discovered the great outdoors during lockdown, but still more people have not understood that you can go outside, or believed that it is beneficial in any way. But it is very important to get outside every day. Or at least nearly every day, probably not if there's a storm out there.

Last edited by Scawen, Tue 2 Mar 2021, 09:25.

It's your mistake. This is the beauty of public test patches.

Learn and move on.

Also: It's actually a good thing that there is some new opportunity for some hotlap activity. So your failure to bother to test your own special interest has resulted in some good fun for a few people. So that's good!

Seems you don't seem to have much idea how things work around here.

You can only really be upset with yourself for not spotting this during the test patch phase.

Better get over it and go and have some fun racing and hotlapping.

Quote from Viperakecske :

KY1 OVAL FBM is now -0:00.030 faster than old r3 wr.
I dont see the point releasing new hard tyre

But do you see the point of long periods of test patch availability?

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you talking about some shimmering of thin objects and also other things that appear 'thin' such as dark lines on the track in the distance?

There's not much to be done about that in this version and I don't think you are talking about a new issue in the test patch. But you might get slightly better results with 8x AA.

Thank you all for the feedback and testing.

Test Patch U25 is now available. I hope it's the last test patch.

Please have a go with it if you can.

Changes from 0.6U24 to 0.6U25: COMPATIBLE WITH U23 AND U24

Training:

FIX: AI changed to low fuel load if overtaking lesson restarted
FIX: AI skill / admin commands no longer processed during training
FIX: Training lesson did not end if replay saving was interrupted
FIX: Refuelling depended on refuelling allowed in single player
FIX: Logo was visible under title during lesson replay

OutSim:

OutSim packet is documented in docs\OutSimPack.txt
Added steering torque as additional field in new OutSim
All data options can be switched on with OutSim Opts 1ff

Misc:

Removed debug message "Replay name : temp_mpr"
Saving replay name now shown beside option in Options - Game

https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/95016

Quote from thegamer147 :

Are we getting the final patch soon? I can't wait to test it

Please test now. There is little point testing after the official version is released!

Quote from MacedoSTI :

you know what i said is not off topic

Yes, you instructed me to update the driver models, but that is off topic.

I fixed the driver animations to deal with new steering limits. It's not closely related to working on the driver models.

Last edited by Scawen, Sat 27 Feb 2021, 00:01.

Quote from Degats :

One observation, the IS_RES TTime ("session time") doesn't quite match the IS_LAP ETime ("total time")
...
If I understand correctly, the IS_RES time is equivalent to the replay time and IS_LAP is equivalent to the time since the lights go green?

I've noticed that some packets have ETime and others are TTime - are they always consistent with the interpretation of the two times above?

Thanks for the test.

Yes, the IS_RES TTime in practice mode is the time since the start of the session until... and here is the dirty secret... the time the packet is processed at the server (a short and unpredictable time after the packet is sent - in this case 0.47 seconds). And, as you said, the IS_LAP ETime is the time since the lights go green (3 seconds after the start of the session) until the time the car crossed the finish line. So that's how to get the 3.47 seconds difference.

Explanation: The IS_LAP is triggered by an internal packet that has a proper time stamp (from the driver's computer) of total time as that is very important for accuracy. But the internal result packet that triggers the IS_RES packet in qualifying mode doesn't have that accurate time stamp as it was never needed before. So the server goes with the time the packet is processed for this new use of TTime in IS_RES in qualifying. I think for the purposes you are describing, that additional slight delay won't be a problem. I think it could only be a problem if two qualifiers cross the finish line at almost exactly the same time, with exactly the same lap time, then the tie-break between these two identical laps might not get the right order. But that might never happen! And if it did happen I think that would match the order generated by LFS...

EDIT: Sorry, this isn't quite right as they are both triggered by the same internal packet. So I think it would be possible to make the IS_RES TTime in qualifying equal to the associated IS_LAP ETime if needed, by passing some extra parameters to a couple of functions. But then the order might not match the order generated by LFS in that very rare case described.

Quote from vanopaniashvili :

Increasing the range of steering wheel rotation is welcome news and I got a question about it. What was the reason behind changing all street cars to 900 degrees of rotation?

I'm concerned about the non-wheel users of LFS. It's certainly gonna affect their understanding of vehicle handling characteristics which they are already familiar with and force them to rethink everything. Obviously, steering ratios play a huge role in letting you know about the handling character of a vehicle and LFS was always familiar with 720 degrees of rotation, which gave a certain steering ratio output while being paired with default 36 degrees of steering lock. It gave street cars a certain driving characteristic, which is also what most of the users are familiar with. Changing LFS's signature steering ratio, might cause a confusion in LFS users.

I always knew the steering wheel turns in LFS were too low, compared with real road cars. I had already changed most of the road cars in the development version to the new value. It is an old request to update the steering angles, maybe ever since the higher range controller wheels were available. So now as I was dealing with wheel turns on the racing cars I started to look into steering ratios.

Side note for anyone who doesn't know: steering ratio is the degrees turned by the steering wheel, compared with the degrees turned by the front wheels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steering_ratio

Normally in road cars this is between around 12:1 and 18:1 - usually closer to around 15:1 - but in LFS previous versions:
- FWD road cars had a ratio of 12:1 (720 deg steering wheel for 60 deg road wheel)
- RWD road cars had a ratio of 10:1 (720 deg steering wheel for 72 deg road wheel)

So the previous version of LFS was outside of the values ever seen in real road cars. With the new adjustment, the FWD cars have a ratio of 900:60 which is 15:1 and the RWD have a ratio of 900:72 which is 12.5:1 and this is closer to reality (though still a bit low in the RWD case).

I know this will make the cars feel different, while having the same underlying physics, but I'm hoping that as it's closer to reality that shouldn't be a bad thing.

EDIT: This change should not affect mouse or keyboard users at all. In their case the keyboard or mouse operates the steering directly so there is only a graphical change. The change in feeling should only affect wheel users and maybe has a slight affect on joystick users.

Quote from tankslacno :

Hi! I've noticed several strange things and bugs in training lessons. At least one of them is related directly to this test patch and I found two others due to me trying to test that new Live Replay-feature in this test patch, meaning that they could be related to this test patch as well.

Thanks for the detailed descriptions.

Some of them I won't worry about but I will have a look to see if some of them can be corrected easily.

Last edited by Scawen, Fri 26 Feb 2021, 10:33.

Quote from Degats :

Would it be possible to set TTime to the session time when the lap was completed, or is there a technical reason why it can't be?

You should find the TTime in IS_RES now has the qualifying session time. Please let me know if it looks right. I did a quick test with the IS_RES appearing live and when requested with TINY_RES.

Test Patch U24 is now available with updated steering animations and new steering wheel rotation limits. Road cars now have 900 degrees steering wheel turn instead of 720. XF and UF GTR now have 540 degrees instead of 720. The new values are more realistic. This may affect the feeling of the cars if you use a wheel.

Steering:

Road cars now have 900 degrees steering range with default setup
XF and UF GTR have 540 degrees steering range with default setup
Updated and fixed steering animations to cover new steering range
Removed option "Move view with animation" which had little effect
FIX for new bug: Steering wheel could turn too far with some setups
FIX for new bug: Switching setups while driver visible could crash

InSim:

IS_RES: TTime in qualifying now indicates time in session
IS_RES: PLID is now zero if the player has left the race

Misc:

Blocked messages remain blocked when returning from game to lobby
Command /block [0/1/2] : block user messages (like the minus key)

Translations:

More updated translations. Thank you very much, translators.

https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/95016

Quote from Gutholz :

It is not possible to assign "block chat" to a button. It is hardcoded to the minus-key "-" and that key is not supported by the /press function.

In the current test patch, you can use the command /press minus (or /shift minus)

In the version I should release this afternoon, there is also a new text command /block X
/block [0/1/2] - block messages (none / user / all)

OK, the test patch won't be today. I've updated all the steering animations and set all the road cars to have 900 degrees of steering wheel rotation with the default steering lock. There are a few more things to do, so hopefully a test patch tomorrow.

Quote from martin18 :

Scawen is there anything we can do about steering lock and steering degrees? When set to 45 degrees max steer lock steering turns now to 900. Now when set to anything past that the vehicle steering wheel can not be matched to racing wheel.

Yes, I have noticed that bug. If you increase the maximum lock, at the point you reach "Car's steering wheel turns 1080 degrees" then everything is OK. The bug comes when you continue to increase the steering lock past that point, the screen display still says 1080 degrees but the in-game wheel turns further. I've fixed that in my version and I'm also updating the steering animations to keep going up to the new limits.

I plan to release another patch that is compatible with the current test patch, hopefully on Wednesday. Nothing very exciting in it but a few fixes.

It is CPU, not GPU, time which is being measured. Actually it's just time itself between one point and another.

The "Draw" section is supposed to represent the time taken for the CPU to work out everything related to drawing the shadows, environment maps, mirrors, main views, etc. During this time there are a lot of calculations and thousands of calls to D3D to set constants, set active textures, set vertex and index buffers, and request sections of those buffers to be drawn. Even some vertices and triangles to be sent to the GPU every frame (for flexible objects like drivers and tyres). There is a *lot* of work for the CPU to do when drawing.

That is why it can help to separate physics and rendering onto separate threads. The GPU doesn't just magically know what do to, it is instructed by thousands of calls every frame, from the CPU, through Direct3D. If the CPU didn't have to do much then there would be no need for a separate thread for rendering.

However, there is something seemingly anomalous about a high value in "Draw" in certain situations. In my case I can make Draw go over 90% by selecting exclusive mode full screen (SHIFT+F10) with Vertical Sync enabled. I don't know exactly why that is without looking into it, but it seems quite certain that the time while we are waiting for the vertical sync, is within the start and end of the section I have marked as "Draw". It's nothing to worry about.

If I go full screen in borderless window mode (SHIFT+F11) then the waiting time is in "Flip" which I would have expected to be the case in exclusive mode full screen too. So that's the only anomaly but I'm not really too worried about it.

Without vertical sync enabled, but frame rate limited, the spare time moves into "Sleep" so we get a much better reading for how long the Draw is taking. If you disable frame rate limitation then frame rate goes insane and Draw goes up to a high number. That is expected as we are asking LFS to draw as many frames as possible with every scrap of time remaining.

That is only a waste of energy. Frame rate should either be limited to a set value or vertical sync should be used. There is no point in extremely high frame rates, specially since the new test patches have sorted out a controller issue that previously caused high frame rates to be useful for force feedback.

I repeat - that is no longer the case. Please save some energy and heat by limiting frame rate (e.g. 100 fps) or using vertical sync if you prefer.

Last edited by Scawen, Thu 18 Feb 2021, 10:03.

All the vehicles with front wheel drive (including four wheel drive) have less steering lock because of the CV joint in the front drive system. Of course in LFS the CV joint doesn't really exist but we don't want to allow impossible things.

I have not researched recently into the lock limitation of CV joints. I do know that ordinary road cars with front wheel drive have a quite bad turning circle compared with RWD cars. If that was an easy problem to solve then manufacturers would do it.

Of course it would be wrong to allow extreme steering angles for vehicles with front wheel drive. There may be some cars where it is reasonable to increase the lock a bit more but I don't have any appetite for looking into that type of thing now.

As I've said a lot of times, I want to get back to the development version. It's really important to me. I hope we don't have to do any more incompatible test patches in this series. My brain already feels quite mashed with all these recent updates which were not planned. I don't regret them - I think there are so many new possibilities. But we have come to the end.

Of course, we are still in testing and I do want to know if anyone finds any issues.

Now that you can adjust your tyre width, we don't need to consider balancing the GTR class. Instead, the community and race organisers can work out what works well and specify limits for events.

Thank you for the feedback. I think it's good that we came round to a flexible system that allows so many possibilities for drifting, rallycross and hard track racing. And without messing up any existing categories or needing to reset any hotlap tables.

I'll close this thread now. Please try out the new version and leave comments on the test patch thread.
https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/95016