Where can you see that? If I search for you with "Find user online" I don't see you anywhere.
OK, I see it's [LCS] Cruise Server 2
It displays symptoms of the 49.7 day bug so I've just shut it down. That should free the stuck players.
I hesitate to restart it as I don't know if InSim programs will reconnect. I'll leave that to the server owner.
It displays symptoms of the 49.7 day bug so I've just shut it down. That should free the stuck players.
I hesitate to restart it as I don't know if InSim programs will reconnect. I'll leave that to the server owner.
One of the other problems with LFS forum is that people always ask me the same question. They seem to want their own personalised essay. It seems to me I spend so much time repeating myself that it impacts development.
For a test, I searched 49.7 to see what comes up. It's there in the search.
I can shut it down but I'm just trying to see if I can first get any more information about it from server side.
OK now you have provided some information.
It's probably the 49.7 day bug.
It's probably the 49.7 day bug.
Thread started by a guy saying positive things.
Thank you buedi - it was really nice to hear how you enjoyed coming back to LFS.
I'm sorry that the validity of your post had to be refuted by people desperate to paint a negative picture.
Thread has now been derailed badly and it's time to close it.
Some people have a very strange attitude.
Thank you buedi - it was really nice to hear how you enjoyed coming back to LFS.
I'm sorry that the validity of your post had to be refuted by people desperate to paint a negative picture.
Thread has now been derailed badly and it's time to close it.
Some people have a very strange attitude.
Strange use of the word 'need' for something that is supposed to be a fun game.
Please avoid the desperation. We're working on it. Do you need constant reassurance?
37/Scawen/Scawen Roberts/England/Live for Speed
Thanks for the feedback.
I've continued thinking about it, and think I start to understand how a variation on the current system - option (1) above - might work.
This in conjunction with another post I've made today on a bug report that is not really a bug.
https://www.lfs.net/forum/post/2085863#post2085863
The point in the other thread is that the axes other than steering already operate over a limited amount of the controller axis output, in a way that cannot be controlled by the user.
Brake, throttle, handbrake : 0 to 1 over 5% to 95% of controller value.
Clutch: 0 to 1 over 5% to 65% of controller value.
So what I'm thinking now is that the confusing "-1000 to +1000" range might be converted to a simple percentage, and the default values could cover the other non-adjustable values described in the other thread (that would be removed).
So instead of -1000 to 1000 in the range section, the defaults would be:
Brake / throttle / handbrake : default min 5% / max 95%
Clutch : default min 5% / max 65%
Steering : default min -100% / max 100%
These defaults would replicate how LFS already works. As far as I can understand, these min and max values do not need to go outside 0% and 100% except for the steering which should be allowed outside this range (allowed range -200% to 200%).
I think this is quite obscure and my explanation might be insufficient and confusing. But anyway that's where I am so far. When looking in the code there could be further complications that make me backtrack and change my mind, but that is the nature of game development.
I've continued thinking about it, and think I start to understand how a variation on the current system - option (1) above - might work.
This in conjunction with another post I've made today on a bug report that is not really a bug.
https://www.lfs.net/forum/post/2085863#post2085863
The point in the other thread is that the axes other than steering already operate over a limited amount of the controller axis output, in a way that cannot be controlled by the user.
Brake, throttle, handbrake : 0 to 1 over 5% to 95% of controller value.
Clutch: 0 to 1 over 5% to 65% of controller value.
So what I'm thinking now is that the confusing "-1000 to +1000" range might be converted to a simple percentage, and the default values could cover the other non-adjustable values described in the other thread (that would be removed).
So instead of -1000 to 1000 in the range section, the defaults would be:
Brake / throttle / handbrake : default min 5% / max 95%
Clutch : default min 5% / max 65%
Steering : default min -100% / max 100%
These defaults would replicate how LFS already works. As far as I can understand, these min and max values do not need to go outside 0% and 100% except for the steering which should be allowed outside this range (allowed range -200% to 200%).
I think this is quite obscure and my explanation might be insufficient and confusing. But anyway that's where I am so far. When looking in the code there could be further complications that make me backtrack and change my mind, but that is the nature of game development.
It's not actually an overlap or graphical error.
For better or for worse, the actual explanation is this:
In game, the value displayed is the value sent to the car as an input, while in the options screen the value displayed is a sort of raw value.
Here's the part that might be controversial: The value sent to the car only uses 90% of the pedal's range. That is, the value sent into the car goes from 0 to 1 as the controller axis goes from 5% to 95%.
This is the case for Throttle, Brake and Handbrake. The 5% margins may sound quite large but I think this was set a very long time ago to avoid any possibility of an issue from controllers not producing the full output range. I don't know about these days but that was common in the past.
For Clutch it's different, it goes from 0 to 1 as the controller goes from 5% to 65%. This is to make sure the biting point is a significant distance away from fully floored clutch pedal. So the clutch must be lifted 35% to start pulling. Again, set a very long time ago to make the clutch have a reasonably realistic characteristic, although in reality the biting point varies between vehicles.
Final statement:
It's not really a bug at all, but there may be a case for an improvement suggestion to be made.
For purposes of checking your potentiometers I think you should look only in the controls screen, not in game.
For better or for worse, the actual explanation is this:
In game, the value displayed is the value sent to the car as an input, while in the options screen the value displayed is a sort of raw value.
Here's the part that might be controversial: The value sent to the car only uses 90% of the pedal's range. That is, the value sent into the car goes from 0 to 1 as the controller axis goes from 5% to 95%.
This is the case for Throttle, Brake and Handbrake. The 5% margins may sound quite large but I think this was set a very long time ago to avoid any possibility of an issue from controllers not producing the full output range. I don't know about these days but that was common in the past.
For Clutch it's different, it goes from 0 to 1 as the controller goes from 5% to 65%. This is to make sure the biting point is a significant distance away from fully floored clutch pedal. So the clutch must be lifted 35% to start pulling. Again, set a very long time ago to make the clutch have a reasonably realistic characteristic, although in reality the biting point varies between vehicles.
Final statement:
It's not really a bug at all, but there may be a case for an improvement suggestion to be made.
For purposes of checking your potentiometers I think you should look only in the controls screen, not in game.
I've started a separate thread about this and could do with some feedback about the range settings.
https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/107601
Controller axis input resolution
I'm starting a new thread for a suggestion from rane_nbg in another thread:
I've had a look in the code and although I have not yet tested on a wheel, I do believe the LFS code sets the input resolution for analogue axes unnecessarily to -1000 to +1000. I think it should be possible to allow the full resolution allowed by the controller.
While it may seem a simple matter to 'fix' this, it is currently complicated by one of the user options. That is, the user's ability to set the 'theoretical' range (in the Range column in "Axes / FF" tab).
Most people probably don't touch those values, but it is possible to use them to change the sensitivity of an axis and/or the range over which the output value moves from -1 to 1 (or 0 to 1). For example someone might change where the clutch bites, or something else, I don't know what.
Now the question I want to ask. As the current values there (-1000 / 1000) would be meaningless if I allow the full range of resolution that the controller allows, what sort of value would actually make most sense and achieve the required result?
Two initial possibilities come to mind:
1) A minimum and maximum, similar to the current system, but more like a percentage of the range.
I find it a bit confusing to think about this option, the current system is already bad enough.
2) Something like a sensitivity and a central point.
So default values would be:
- Sensitivity - default 100% (adjustable from 50% to 200%) - note that less than 100% removes range
- Centre position - default 50% (meaning, the reported centre is half way through the controller output). Adjustable from 0% to 100%.
It seems to me that (2) above may workable but I thought I should ask in case someone has a better idea.
EDIT: Also (1) may be workable, described a couple of posts down.
I've had a look in the code and although I have not yet tested on a wheel, I do believe the LFS code sets the input resolution for analogue axes unnecessarily to -1000 to +1000. I think it should be possible to allow the full resolution allowed by the controller.
While it may seem a simple matter to 'fix' this, it is currently complicated by one of the user options. That is, the user's ability to set the 'theoretical' range (in the Range column in "Axes / FF" tab).
Most people probably don't touch those values, but it is possible to use them to change the sensitivity of an axis and/or the range over which the output value moves from -1 to 1 (or 0 to 1). For example someone might change where the clutch bites, or something else, I don't know what.
Now the question I want to ask. As the current values there (-1000 / 1000) would be meaningless if I allow the full range of resolution that the controller allows, what sort of value would actually make most sense and achieve the required result?
Two initial possibilities come to mind:
1) A minimum and maximum, similar to the current system, but more like a percentage of the range.
I find it a bit confusing to think about this option, the current system is already bad enough.
2) Something like a sensitivity and a central point.
So default values would be:
- Sensitivity - default 100% (adjustable from 50% to 200%) - note that less than 100% removes range
- Centre position - default 50% (meaning, the reported centre is half way through the controller output). Adjustable from 0% to 100%.
It seems to me that (2) above may workable but I thought I should ask in case someone has a better idea.
EDIT: Also (1) may be workable, described a couple of posts down.
Last edited by Scawen, .
In my account settings: https://www.lfs.net/account/settings
I have it as in the attached image.
Do you not use, or like, to have notifications by email?
OK here's my new attempt. REPLY does a short quote, up to about 80 characters.
Replying to k_badam :
I've added a new REPLY button, let's see how it goes.
EDIT: There was a bug, couldn't edit post. Might try dadge's suggestion after a cup of tea.
I've added a new REPLY button, let's see how it goes.
EDIT: There was a bug, couldn't edit post. Might try dadge's suggestion after a cup of tea.
Last edited by Scawen, .
Well... seriously I do wonder why some people do that "quote" reply when they could just type their message.
Would it help if there was a REPLY button next to the QUOTE button? And it would provide a link to the original text, which would be as I think you are suggesting, something like a quote but without the quote?
Maybe instead of "Quote from Scawen:" it could say "Replying to Scawen:" ?
I don't know but I think I'll have a quick look in the code as a bit of Sunday work.
You confuse me.
A genuine community contributor and proper racer, but always harshly critical.
I think you don't understand the development philosophy here. I would say again, if you know so much better than us how to make a game (and presumably that would involve a larger team) you should secure the funding, start up a company and just do it right. I would be happy to see your success. But I'd be surprised if it lasted as long as LFS.
On the other hand, if you like a game done the way we do it, you can wait a bit, have a little patience and enjoy the outcome.
You are welcome to use the button to report the post if someone makes an offensive comment. Do you think I read every post in minute detail? Maybe, I am very busy so I have to read over things quite quickly, even if I am following a thread, and might not have time to analyse every word.
On the other hand, I suppose if someone came to the forum every few days and wrote repeated posts about how bad the people of a certain nation are, it would get noticed. Especially if this went on for many years.
The person we are now talking about has been extremely negative, toxic and unpleasant for a very long time. I don't know why someone like that keeps coming back. I'd be happy if he stayed away for good. But something tells me to always be very tolerant and give tiny short bans even when long ones seem deserved.
It's pretty hard doing this job when under attack so often. Also, I could do something else. I do this job for the community members. So it's actually quite upsetting to hear constant anger from bitter members who really have no idea what they are talking about or what is involved.
Wow you are a real genius.
As if I don't already have piles of notes of things to do on paper all around my desk.
As if I don't already have piles of notes of things to do on paper all around my desk.
No, I'm not a perfectionist.
I just want to release something that will be fun and not containing extreme flaws that would destroy racing altogether. No, I will not expand on this comment. I need to spend some peaceful time focused on the tyre physics, to understand exactly what is good and bad about it.
I'd like to get back to the tyre physics so we can get something released, although LFS will never be finished or perfect.
Unfortunately I have not yet worked even one hour this year on the tyre physics as I've been dealing with mod stuff most of the time. There were too many holes in the system and people were exploiting every crack. I hope that is coming to an end now with various improvements.
The mods system is simultaneously the best and worst thing ever to have happened to LFS.
The idea is to release a new version hopefully in a week or two (just like the current test patch with a couple more updates) then I can get back to work on the new version. So basically at start of April I'll be in the position I wanted to be at start of January.
I just want to release something that will be fun and not containing extreme flaws that would destroy racing altogether. No, I will not expand on this comment. I need to spend some peaceful time focused on the tyre physics, to understand exactly what is good and bad about it.
I'd like to get back to the tyre physics so we can get something released, although LFS will never be finished or perfect.
Unfortunately I have not yet worked even one hour this year on the tyre physics as I've been dealing with mod stuff most of the time. There were too many holes in the system and people were exploiting every crack. I hope that is coming to an end now with various improvements.
The mods system is simultaneously the best and worst thing ever to have happened to LFS.
The idea is to release a new version hopefully in a week or two (just like the current test patch with a couple more updates) then I can get back to work on the new version. So basically at start of April I'll be in the position I wanted to be at start of January.
When have I said that? I've never said that.
A full time occupation, working 10 to 12 hours most days, is more than a hobby, I think.
Unless you have a different meaning of hobby?
I have said, I like working on it. Maybe you interpret that as meaning it's a hobby and not a job?
That's now done on the mods web page and will also be in the next LFS test patch.
No, it's not possible.
This is not related to the test patch so that's as far as my answer will go.
Please do not use the test patch thread to talk about things unrelated to the test patch.
This is not related to the test patch so that's as far as my answer will go.
Please do not use the test patch thread to talk about things unrelated to the test patch.
Can you give some more information?
Was it one particular mod, and not others?
Are you talking about downloading the mod in game or on the website?
Where were the players located? (may affect download location).
Was it one particular mod, and not others?
Are you talking about downloading the mod in game or on the website?
Where were the players located? (may affect download location).
It's a funny thing that before we started the shop, we wanted to gauge stock, so we did a poll, asking people to only vote if they were absolutely certain to buy particular goods, without any doubt at all, as soon as they were available.
Well I can't remember the exact numbers but let's say 1000 people said they would buy a shirt. Well, we ordered something like 500 in that case, only worried that we wouldn't have enough stock to meet the demand. This was at a very busy time in LFS's history when it was really active (let's not get into that conversation).
Then, with a variety of high quality shirts, printed and delivered and a special new site created, we were all ready to go for the substantial sales promised.
What happened then? Well instead of 500 sales it was more like 20. Then a few more each week until it fizzled out almost completely.
Sorry for not knowing the exact figures, but these are roughly representative. Basically the vast majority of the stock, that community had promised to definitely buy, just sat there in boxes. It was quite disappointing really.
Lesson to learn: If people claim they will absolutely, definitely purchase something with no doubt at all, the instant it becomes available... well when it comes to actually getting their credit card out to buy, only a very tiny number of those people will actually do it. I don't know, what seems like a good idea suddenly isn't a good idea when you actually pick up your credit card?
Well I can't remember the exact numbers but let's say 1000 people said they would buy a shirt. Well, we ordered something like 500 in that case, only worried that we wouldn't have enough stock to meet the demand. This was at a very busy time in LFS's history when it was really active (let's not get into that conversation).
Then, with a variety of high quality shirts, printed and delivered and a special new site created, we were all ready to go for the substantial sales promised.
What happened then? Well instead of 500 sales it was more like 20. Then a few more each week until it fizzled out almost completely.
Sorry for not knowing the exact figures, but these are roughly representative. Basically the vast majority of the stock, that community had promised to definitely buy, just sat there in boxes. It was quite disappointing really.
Lesson to learn: If people claim they will absolutely, definitely purchase something with no doubt at all, the instant it becomes available... well when it comes to actually getting their credit card out to buy, only a very tiny number of those people will actually do it. I don't know, what seems like a good idea suddenly isn't a good idea when you actually pick up your credit card?
Have you tried "Start Windowed 1" in cfg.txt?
You should find that on the second line. With that, it should try to run in a window. I'm wondering if there's something up with D3D9 in exclusive mode on your computer.
If that does solve it, you might try full screen window with SHIFT+F11.
You should find that on the second line. With that, it should try to run in a window. I'm wondering if there's something up with D3D9 in exclusive mode on your computer.
If that does solve it, you might try full screen window with SHIFT+F11.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG