Thanks, I decided not to add that one as it is not available in the new physics version.

Quote from racerss :

The range is not customizable also.

It's an interesting thought.

First to say that, apart from the bug that is now fixed, nothing has changed with the mouse axes. Their range can only be set by the multipliers on the right, and not by using numbers in the range columns that the other axes use.

But I'm wondering now if they should be changed to use the same system as the other axes, and delete the extra multipliers.

I don't really know why they are different, it's probably do do with the order of development back ion the past. But maybe they should be unified now, it might be quite simple. But maybe people are happy with the multipliers and I could just leave it.

Thanks, the invert mouse axis bug is fixed in E10:
https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/106967

OK, in Test Patch E9 the in-game axes display now matches the the one in the controller screen.

The dead zones I described are included by default but are now user controllable.

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

Test Patch E9 includes input range improvements:

The full resolution reported by the controller is now supported
- previously drivers were instructed to report -1000 to 1000
- controllers we tested report values 0 to 65535
- so steering wheel moves in smaller steps

The range adjusters in controller options now use percentage values
- the range defaults replicate previously default in-game behaviour
- previously brake/throttle/handbrake/clutch axes had a dead zone
- the dead zones were not adjustable by the user but now are
- the axes visible in game now match the options screen

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

Test Patch E9 includes updated controller support.

Changes in E9:

Input range improvements:

The full resolution reported by the controller is now supported
- previously drivers were instructed to report -1000 to 1000
- controllers we tested report values 0 to 65535
- so steering wheel moves in smaller steps
The range adjusters in controller options now use percentage values
- the range defaults replicate previously default in-game behaviour
- previously brake/throttle/handbrake/clutch axes had a dead zone
- the dead zones were not adjustable by the user but now are
- the axes visible in game now match the options screen

Support for mod approval:

WIP filter is available on the mod selection screen

Translations:

More translations updated! Thanks to the translators

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

That could be the case if a position packet from the pink car was delayed, so the instance of that car on your computer still hadn't put its brakes on, even though that driver did use the brakes in reality.

I'm trying to get the patch completed. I had hope the weekend before last, then last weekend. But I had to work on website for a couple of weeks. Now I'm trying to get the last LFS fixes done. So I hope in a week or two.

There's no point asking me for an ETA really. I'm working as fast as possible and every time I give an ETA, it doesn't happen because there;s always more stuff happening that means I can't do my work.

Quote from subUwU :

I recently went on the forum to check out new activities and was upset because of some particular threads that had disrespectful and hate comments towards the developers regarding development on the updates.

Thank you for your kind comments.

Quote from Viperakecske :

We respect but servers are dying we cant race whitout timing out and such yes

That's a bit much to say really, after a single race was disrupted by a DDoS attack and we made some changes to reduce the chance of such occurrences in future. Your comment is ill-informed, incorrect and unwelcome. Also you are giving the attackers the attention they crave.


OK, the trolls can smell blood and are starting to come in for the kill, so let's close the thread before it gets any worse.

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.

Quote from johneysvk :

is there any fix on the way for that?

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.

Quote from Pukyy :

I've contacted the server owner, no response yet, but other more regular players...

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.

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.

Quote from karamurat1004 :

We need to test before we die

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.

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.

Quote from rane_nbg :

- full 16bit resolution (65536 steps) support for all analog axes of game controllers (if they report it by HID)

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

I'm starting a new thread for a suggestion from rane_nbg in another thread:

Quote from rane_nbg :

- full 16bit resolution (65536 steps) support for all analog axes of game controllers (if they report it by HID)

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, Mon 25 Mar 2024, 15:58.

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

It would be nice if replies went to the notification bell. Sometimes you forget to check your subscriptions if someone answered you, but the bell is always visible, and that's what modern websites do.

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?

Quote from dadge :

Microsoft teams does it well. It'll auto edit the quote to the first few words...

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.

Last edited by Scawen, Sun 24 Mar 2024, 17:16.

Quote from dadge :

Add an option in the quote menu to remove all text. should put it on your to-do list

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.

Quote from NumberTwo :

its probably disorganized mess like the whole development process of this game.

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.