No, we do not change user names and we will not start to do so.

OK, I'll close the thread.

Joe, I know you said you'll think a bit more before posting, and that would be great.

Please remember this is a forum, not an instant chat application. So take some time to form your posts well and not always post the first sentence that comes into your head.

This community includes a lot of older people, including younger adults, middle aged people and we even have users in their eighties. So let's try to keep the conversation mature and think before we post.

What size 7z are you trying to upload? Can you give a rough estimate of the time taken between starting the upload, and the timeout error? I read about some different CloudFlare timeouts such as 15 seconds and 100 seconds.

OK, I've had a look in the code. I actually think that this hasn't changed, but it is different when the source model is external.

Ideally, when the source mod's grant license is:
CC Attribution-NonCommercial (BY-NC)
Then it should be possible for the creator of the derived mod, to decide if derivatives are allowed. If they say "NO" then the derived mod's grant license would become:
CC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (BY-NC-ND)

Similarly if the source mod's grant license is:
CC Attribution (BY)
Then the creator of the derived mod should be able to decide if derivatives are allowed. If they say "NO" then the derived mod's grant license would become:
CC Attribution-NoDerivs (BY-ND)

It seems in the license selector wizard, this is not possible when deriving from another mod (as described by OpenClutch above). But is IS possible when deriving from an external source, so I think that may be what we remembering.

I think that it would be best if the same logic for external sources was available for when deriving from an existing LFS mod. I don't actually know how to change this type of code but I will ask Victor if he can have a look.

Let's do a thought experiment, OK?

You must know someone with a job, right?

Now imagine going and asking that person to stop that job and work full time doing something that you want them to do for no money at all.

Will they just say "OK, that's fine, I don't really need money anyway" ?

Seriously Joe, if you can't start to spend 5 seconds using your brain before writing forum posts, we will have to give you a long ban. You are going around writing rubbish far too much and it is becoming a distraction.

Joe, are you trolling us? I took the time to answer you seriously, but I feel silly now with your last couple of responses.

I did think you could do that before, except in the case of a "ShareAlike" license.

I could have a look into this, to see if I can understand if it has gone wrong somehow. It's not my code, by the way, and that license stuff is in a part of the website code that I am not really familiar with, but maybe I could make some sense of it before asking Victor about it.

If you want a game with more developers, have a look around, there are plenty available.

More developers means more requirements for pay, which means more rushed updates and more following of the current trends. There is higher turnover of staff and more code with no remaining author, more confusion and more charges for customers. In the end the product is expensive to buy or use and then will be abandoned when it becomes impossible to maintain.

That is the result of the usual "more more more" way of running a business.

A lot of people don't understand that LFS is the way it is *BECAUSE* we develop it this way. It's doesn't just happen to be good somehow, despite our ridiculously stupid way of working.

By the way, LFS only exists because Eric and I didn't want to work in a large company any more. So it would be kind of strange to give that up and start trying to run a large company instead of actually doing what we want to do.

Thanks for the info, Victor has restarted it so hopefully it will be OK now.

Please can you describe exactly at which point in the process that goes wrong for you? And what you did before that, on the submission page.

I see various mods have been updated before and after your post. I've just tested a submission on a private test mod and it worked. So I'll need a very specific and exact description from you, to present to Victor.

I notice I introduced a small bug in the submission page - the old 'private' and 'team' access were available to select. I've fixed that now but mentioning in case you tries to select an invalid access mode. Only "custom" and "public" should be available.

EDIT: Also, if it's easy to do, please try submitting the update again. As I know Victor has been adjusting some settings, it's possible that you encountered a problem that has already been fixed.

Last edited by Scawen, Wed 1 May 2024, 07:43.

Thanks, that was an oversight by me in a recent change. It should work now.

I found when entering similar commands in the chat, the problem you describe comes up if there are two spaces before the comment (//).

When I remove the second space it seems to work fine. That seems too sensitive but at least you should be able to fix your problem now.

I agree the LOD system can be difficult to use.

I'm not really sure what you mean by "exporting to the main object every time". Is that when you are trying to load a LOD model that you have made in an external program? Can you describe the issue that comes up? Maybe it's possible to change the way the import function works.

Maybe more for the future: I know there is something confusing about the LODs sharing points, because points (vertices) don't have their own LOD that they belong to. Triangles do belong to one LOD but points don't, and this is often confusing (for two reasons: [1] all LOD1 points are visible when you are trying to work on a simpler model, and: [2] if you move a point in one LOD, it might affect the other LOD).

The way it works now might have advantages, sometimes. For example you could adjust LOD1 a bit and LOD2 would move at the same time, because you selected points that are used by both LODs. But maybe this isn't often really helpful. I'd be interested to hear from anyone if the sharing of points between LODs is of any help at all. I wonder if they should be completely separate.

If you join the E-challenge server with the old version, you just see moving walls. You can never see a car. With the new version, you can see cars driving around.

These are available in test patch E11:

/vlock=car/filter/horizon
/lookf=joystick/axis/steer/mouse_x/mouse_xy
/control=mouse_kb/wheel_js

https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/106967

Test Patch E11:

Cameras:

Layout Square cameras now have 40m height instead of 4m
Reduced jiggling of names above cars at extreme zoom
Improved accuracy of camera rotation at extreme zoom

Commands:

/vlock=car/filter/horizon
/lookf=joystick/axis/steer/mouse_x/mouse_xy
/control=mouse_kb/wheel_js

Download: https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/106967

Thanks, but if you are going to do a list, please make it clear which are higher priority. I'm not hoping for a long list of things to add! I'm really busy trying to get back on track (after releasing a minor update for the public version).

I mean, if I wanted to compare with every available setting, I could do it myself, I guess. I'm more trying to help with your specific issue at this point, so if possible please stick to what's relevant for your use case (or similar).

Remember that every thing I do in the public version, has to be copied into the development version, so it's not a good time for tasks than venture into several different source code files.

Not every setting is available as a command, although ideally that would be the case. I've made a note to see if I can add these. If there are more that you need, feel free to tell me.

Please can you tell me if the results are different if you switch off "Allow regional downloads" in Misc Options?

It is a reasonable suggestion but isn't something I can write quickly and so will be far down the priorities at this point.

But I'm responding to mention that most of this can probably be done by scripts, although you would have to manually run the script.

press space?

Mods are not published if the creator tries use a badge, logo, or name from a real car or manufacturer, unless they have written permission from the manufacturer to use it.

I think it sounds like the AI do not have paths generated, which they cannot do in multiplayer. To fix this, before spawning them in multiplayer, you should generate the paths by starting them in single player.

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

So I have to prove in the article that there are no pros? How? You can't prove...

I think this is a bit silly. The article points out benefits of the car. if you can't be bothered to read it, it's not my responsibility to find it for you.

I'm out.

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

Maybe. But since you're the one claiming, you can demonstrate the pros about the cars talked about in the article out of the context of the cons. And in this case, I agree that I was wrong.

No, you are the one making false claims about an article that you have not bothered to read (by your own admission, and by the fact that you are making false claims about it).

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

But I persistently dislike propaganda. And people in the West tend to be ignorant of it.

It's a well written article, pointing out the problems with excessive car use. It's not propaganda. It's a starting point for discussion, in a world mostly run by governments that are often supporting the car and neglecting (or even dismantling) other forms of transport.

It also points out many positives of cars, but that is not the purpose of the article. It's about the harm done by cars. The fact that the harm done by cars often affects those who cannot own a car, is part of the story.