Sure but I have my doubts that 7,8,9 speed gearboxes are fitted to the majority of modern vehicles. I'm happy to be proved wrong though.
Until then I'll just go on believing that 5 and 6 speed are the usual thing.

Editor Patch E7:

Drag selection box:

Function to make drag box from points now available in points mode
Scale / rotate / shear axes are now hidden while making a drag box
Grey button shows drag info to avoid left buttons moving around

Typing individual values to align points:

ALT + click r/f/u numbers to set all selected points to same value
- relative values compared with last selected point not preserved

New modeller line guide:

Set up a trace then click "guide" to create a line guide
- the guide is visible in most editor modes and all views
- options to hide/show the guide or draw it open/closed

Merging subobjects:

You can now merge a subobject fully into another subobject
- this is a step towards moving a selection between subobjects
- triangles can now be transferred via an intermediate subobject

https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/106792

Quote from dh7938726 :

As majority of modern vehicles carry 7 to 8 or even 9 speeds

I'd like to see the stats that bring you to this assertion!

In your third screenshot, if you press the pedals, do the axes (blue and yellow) move?

If they do then you just need to assign them to the correct input.

EDIT: I see your axes are set to "con botones" - it should be 'separate'.

Have you tried to setup according to the guide?
https://en.lfsmanual.net/wiki/Options#Controls

Hi, I see there were some threads in the 2023 forum section so I hope it's OK to create a thread here. If not, someone can delete it.

My question is about directions, I have a vague memory that last year one of the rounds (that I didn't enter) was run in both directions around the track. Is that happening this year, or maybe not now that the two races are of unequal length?

Thanks!

It's really not on topic as it's a completely different interface.

By the way, my own Xbox controller reports separate axes through Direct Input.

The problem you report is really a Microsoft bug.

I can't imagine that it would be easy to implement the new interface, maybe even impossible with the old compiler used for the public version. Anyway, it's a really big task and I'm 99% certain this will never be implemented into the old version of LFS.

Nice to see a dragster approved. I have an improvement suggestion.
In version 23, I believe the engine rotation direction is wrong. For nearly all RWD cars, when you blip the throttle, the left side should lift (car rocks clockwise from driver's viewpoint as engine revs increase).
This is confirmed at least in this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywDgpkWas8k

To fix: 'Object Positions' -> Rotation (from front) -> clockwise.

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.