While testing my InSim application (on 0.6B11) I noticed that the netcode improvements affected the IS_AXM packet greatly. Objects seem to be added quicklier when an IS_AXM is sent.
Another interesting change is that you can now remain on top of a Ramp2 object while it is moving (except if the altitude of the object is changed upwards) without falling through it, something which was not possible with 0.6B.

On the other hand I still struggle to prevent new guests connecting from getting "OOS-OBJS" (due to objects being added/removed while someone is connecting). I assume this is not easy to fix but is there a rule of thumb/undocumented information to help preventing this from happening?

Ah, well I can't answer that but I speculate that Scawen won't add this possibility. Since I started writing ClaViCo AP I wondered what LFS developers think of this tool. That is one of the reasons I'm not yet willing to release the new version of ClaViCo AP.

The layout shown in the pictures I posted previously actually have less than 600 objects. The maximum number of objects is 896.

Quote :

When it will be possible to set ramps in the air - write here please. It very important =)

It is (and has always been) possible to modify the altitude of objects with ClaViCo AP. An (old) version of ClaViCo AP is available (check first post of this thread).

I do not recall ever encountering this error. On Windows7 32-bit and Windows7 64-bit (approximately 10 unlocks done on 0.6B, the majority of them on Windows7 64-bit).

The recent test patch (0.6B9) seems to improve the speed at which Autocross Objects are added through InSim. Either way the current version (not released) of ClaViCo AP seems to benefit from the improvements introduced with 0.6B9.

A few screenshots below:

While testing 0.6B9 I came across a rename bug which happens when player A is renaming while player B is connecting and both names are identical.

REPLAY1 (starting at 6.30)
===========================
• Player B cannot join track.
• Player A shows the new name (identical to player B) when he is chatting (T) as well as in the connections list (N).
• The old name of player A is displayed above his car.

REPLAY2
===============================
We then tried to reproduce it several times and the issue resurfaced but differently:
• Player B cannot join track.(Player A can't change his name but when he does /spec he can join the track.)
• Player A shows the old name when he is chatting.
• Player A old name is shown in the connections list (N).
• Player A new name is shown above his car.

(This issue may be carried over from 0.6B. My apologies if it's a well-known issue.)

EDIT: cars to check: "imthebestracerthereis" and "sicotange"

Last edited by sicotange, Sat 27 Oct 2012, 21:46.

I can confirm my server is the target of this partycrasher. He has done it (DDOS) yesterday evening as well as 10 minutes ago. The measures taken to counter his attacks have all failed so far. I'm trying to collect as much as I can but won't disclose until I'm sure the info is correct. Servers hosted elsewhere have also been the victim of this angry baboon. Any pertinent security wise suggestions are welcome.

Following Troy's suggestion, what about displaying the lag information numerically in the connections list (N) (see attachment)?
Perhaps less eye candy than Troy's suggestion but more accurate and you can quickly locate the laggers. It would also render lagbars obsolete.

(By the way, connections and disconnections are clearly smoother since 0.6B5 for me.)

Last edited by sicotange, Fri 21 Sep 2012, 19:24.

The following error is triggered when I start my InSim application (see attachment): › ‹host› : Security (93)

consequences:
===========
• All players online get disconnected.
• My InSim application does not crash and the IS_CNL reason reported is LEAVR_DISCO.

I'm confident my InSim application is to blame, the library used by it (InSim.NET) has not yet been updated so the IS_CNL reason might not be accurate. However, it might be helpful to know what this Security (93) stands for.

I have replays saved but I will continue testing in order to report something more conclusive next time.

FYI Visual Studio 2012 Express for Windows Desktop is now available:
http://www.microsoft.com/visualstudio/eng/downloads

DarkTimes, any news concerning InSim.NET?

Quote :

This morning I went through that French translation fixing some colons, some had a space before, some did not, and some were missing. I also tried to make some other punctuation things more consistent.

Aww, I wanted to spare you from doing that. Are you still aiming to release a patch today? I can work around the clock to release my revisions in a few hours but I won't rush things through so I'm not sure if I will be able to complete them today.

Quote :

My email failed to get to you. Please can you enter a valid email in your user account?

Sorry, should be fixed now.

Last edited by sicotange, Fri 7 Sep 2012, 16:37.

Quote :

Thanks for this, I'm pleased if you can improve the translation.

You can see the latest version here : http://www.lfs.net/lfs_translate/pub...ion_viewer.php - I don't know if anything changed since 0.6B but I did add a ^8 on the line 3a_lostcn_x

The easiest way would be for you to have access to the translation system, which I can give you very easily. I'd prefer to have the agreement of the active translators first - they are Oliv76000 and Tungsten - if they are happy for you to help then I'll give you access.

Maybe you could send them a PM?

I received Tungsten's reply to my PM this afternoon. He kindly accepted my offer to help them improve the French translation.

Sorry to bother you again about this right now.

Just to keep you up-to-date, I contacted Oliv76000 and Tungsten yesterday and am awaiting their reply.

In relation to language packs, I took the liberty to start revising French.txt because I spotted more than 10 mistakes in the first 50 lines. I should be able to finish the revision Wednesday or Thursday. I realise this is a rather futile matter but some mistakes are rather embarrassing.

I wondered, do you prefer a literal translation of English.txt (resulting in some text being too long to fit elegantly in a button) or shorter alternatives?

Finally, do I have to mail the official translators or can I safely work on this on my own and post the revised file in the "Language Packs" section? Obviously I would gladly accept becomming an official translator but if that's not possible a green light would be appreciated so that I know if I should proceed or not.

Thanks for elucidating this Scawen. I have nothing pertinent to report concerning my 0.6B4 server except for a couple of these (harmless) logs:
• OOS - CAR
• JOOS - ENG
• JOOS : Resync RES (1)
• JOOS - SET CAR WHL ENG

(This is on a server with low activity but with an InSim running.)

Obviously implementing this feature is not a priority for Scawen at the moment. Maybe in the future he might divulge plans concerning Autocross objects.

The pitch of objects can't be modified in 0.6B. This is on top of my wishlist, hopefully Scawen will consider adding this to the IS_AXM packet once he has the time although he stated before that there is a line to draw between an autocross editor and a track editor.

ClaViCo AP V1 was released publicly a few months ago. Although at one point I could have released V2 I decided not to for several reasons. Many modifications were done to the code, improvements were implemented, new features ditched etc. As a result I decided to skip a V2 release and use the V2 experience to make a more complete V3. I am currently focusing on making an intuitive HUD while simplifying things because I noticed that those who made an attempt to use ClaViCo AP struggled to understand how things work.

Only now I (barely) realise the amplitude of the challenge Scawen is facing. LFS lovers know that quality beats quantity

The following "twister" layout (504 objects) took me less than 2 minutes to make:

I have nothing worrying to report in relation to my Windows server (WS • Metropolis) using 0.6B3.

Am I right to assume that:
• The probability to encounter the error on a full server is much higher.
• The issue concerns both Windows & Linux servers.

Quote :

Have you (or anyone else) had that problem before? I am finding it hard to see how the test patch changes could have introduced that as a new bug. And where I look for the answer depends a bit on if it's a new or old bug.

No problems so far on my 0.6B3 host. I presume the issue has more chance to surface on a full server? Is there any additional information which could help us to reproduce the bug (server settings) ?

I confirm that I still develop ClaViCo AP actively. However, I must also note that ClaViCo AP is just a part of ClaViCo. The past few month I focussed on ClaViCo and left ClaViCo AP aside for a while. Progress is going slowly but surely. A new version of ClaViCo AP could have been released months ago but I decided to develop ClaViCo at my pace in order to present a better version once the LFS patch comes out. Also, I must admit that I long for several LFS improvements concerning the IS_AXM packet which would expand possibilites drastically:

• Precision improvement from 0,25m to 0,05m
• Pitch parameter for objects
• Altitude objects modifiable everywhere

It also is hard to know if LFS developers endorse tools like ClaViCo AP or think they are weird and "undesirable". A few LFS players seem to like layouts made with ClaViCo and as long as that's the case I will keep developing it. Here is a small (badly made) video of a (very rough & unpolished) feature I am working on as we speak:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... XqGI&feature=youtu.be

Last edited by sicotange, Sun 12 Aug 2012, 19:06. Reason : Nice layout by the way imthebestracerthereis ;-)

Relieve²

Mmm, not really rejoicing news... I'm wondering how Microsoft is going to convince Express users to pay 500$ in order to continue working on their desktop application on Visual Studio 2012.

Perhaps W7 users won't be easily tempted to buy W8. Also, it seems to me Microsoft is convinced that more & more people will ditch a desktop PC for a touchscreen alternative. Perhaps this restriction is one more way to promote Metro.

Concerning InSim.NET, is .NET 4.5 a big improvement over .NET 4.0? (I'm currently very happy with InSim.NET 2.0.14 by the way)

I can't help to think there is something missing in the picture. As far as I'm concerned I will reserve judgement once W8 & Visual Studio are released commercially. I do hope you won't abandon InSim.NET 3.0 though, that would be a shame. I assume you have no intention to revert back to .NET 4.0 if Visual Studio Express is as restrictive as it appears to be?

Suddenly pyinsim catches my eye Is there an evident difference of pro's & contra's of pyinsim vs InSim.NET?

I read that too but I'm not convinced this is factual. It seems a bit radical and blunt to suddenly add restrictions to Visual Studio Express while introducing a new (innovative) OS.

I resumed working on ClaViCo AP. Below is an attempt to make some sort of rainbow