Progress report June
I must admit I haven't been working on ClaViCo AP the past few weeks. I'm working on other aspects of ClaViCo at the moment. For some reason I prefer waiting for news concerning the "no ground level check" flag as well as the new autocross object(s). ClaViCo AP has progressed alot over the last months and it will be easier to use and make much more sense if or when a "no ground level check" flag is implemented. Either way ClaViCo AP is not yet ready for a public release. I want to iron out a few rough edges, fix 1 big bug (which requires rewriting a few parts) and wait for the autocross improvements.
On the brighter side, I setup a testserver where ClaViCo AP is currently up and running. Feel free to try it out. Only problem at the moment is that there are a few things you can't do without admin pass.
The server is called "ClaViCo". Don't hesitate to report bugs you encounter on the testserver. Once online type "!help" for a list of commands. Finally, once you are online you will have to do "shift + I" to open the HUD.
On the brighter side, I setup a testserver where ClaViCo AP is currently up and running. Feel free to try it out. Only problem at the moment is that there are a few things you can't do without admin pass.
The server is called "ClaViCo". Don't hesitate to report bugs you encounter on the testserver. Once online type "!help" for a list of commands. Finally, once you are online you will have to do "shift + I" to open the HUD.
I encountered 2 issues related to TEST5 today:
1) DCon5.exe crash
I updated my server to the latest TEST5 dedi on June the 21st. It ran smoothly but crashed today evening. DDOS attacks might be to blame but I can't recall a crash with LFS dedi 0.6E (even though it suffered alot of DDOS attacks too).
EDIT: My InSim application may have caused the crash although it did not crash when Dcon5 did.
2) Excess : 127.0.0.1
Unrelated to the above issue, while testing my InSim application offline. It occurs after I join specific host and immediately disconnect when connected. Repeat approximately 10-15 times in a row to trigger it.
When the "Excess : 127.0.0.1" message is logged I can't join the server. I get the "Did not receive track info" notification. After ~10-20 seconds I can connect again. I could not reproduce this with LFS dedi 0.6E.
It's easy to reproduce though. Could someone do ~10-15 quick joins/disconnects in a row offline to confirm this (no InSim app has to be connected) ?
1) DCon5.exe crash
I updated my server to the latest TEST5 dedi on June the 21st. It ran smoothly but crashed today evening. DDOS attacks might be to blame but I can't recall a crash with LFS dedi 0.6E (even though it suffered alot of DDOS attacks too).
EDIT: My InSim application may have caused the crash although it did not crash when Dcon5 did.
2) Excess : 127.0.0.1
Unrelated to the above issue, while testing my InSim application offline. It occurs after I join specific host and immediately disconnect when connected. Repeat approximately 10-15 times in a row to trigger it.
When the "Excess : 127.0.0.1" message is logged I can't join the server. I get the "Did not receive track info" notification. After ~10-20 seconds I can connect again. I could not reproduce this with LFS dedi 0.6E.
It's easy to reproduce though. Could someone do ~10-15 quick joins/disconnects in a row offline to confirm this (no InSim app has to be connected) ?
Last edited by sicotange, .
My server now runs on TEST5, so far nothing to report. I have one futile suggestion though. Wouldn't it make more sense to replace the playernames by usernames (especially in the log file)? The username makes it easier to distinguish players offline in my opinion. It would make the log file easier to read but I suppose it would also make LFS code unnecessary complicated or is there another pertinent reason?
Example:
playername
username
Example:
playername
username
LFS dedi log: "FATAL INSIM ERROR : BUFFER SIZE"
I'm asking the experienced LFS programmers out there for some help.
Here is a snippet of my LFS dedi logs.txt file.
Obviously my InSim application is to blame for this but I can't exactly figure out what exactly causes the socket to be terminated. I'm speculating that a high amount of IS_BTN packets could be the cause. Only thing I know so far is that the issue occurs after 50 hours of runtime on a busy server. My lack of core knowledge of the OSI model,Internet Protocol,InSim protocol is no help either. Any information about this error is highly appreciated.
Guidance towards a comprehensive "button factory" is also welcome.
(Finally, ":-13-:" without "-" makes this weird smiley of ET and his little brother :13
EDIT:
link: https://www.lfsforum.net/archive/index.php/t-81538.html
Here is a snippet of my LFS dedi logs.txt file.
Obviously my InSim application is to blame for this but I can't exactly figure out what exactly causes the socket to be terminated. I'm speculating that a high amount of IS_BTN packets could be the cause. Only thing I know so far is that the issue occurs after 50 hours of runtime on a busy server. My lack of core knowledge of the OSI model,Internet Protocol,InSim protocol is no help either. Any information about this error is highly appreciated.
Guidance towards a comprehensive "button factory" is also welcome.
(Finally, ":-13-:" without "-" makes this weird smiley of ET and his little brother :13
EDIT:
link: https://www.lfsforum.net/archive/index.php/t-81538.html
Last edited by sicotange, .
Reason : found some info
I'm still optimistic and convinced Scawen is hard at work preparing a tasty diluvian feast. From what he wrote in the past I concluded that LFS remains his full-time job (with occasional time offs) but I guess there is a thin line to draw between being curious about Scawen's occupation and infringing on his privacy.
I was merely replying because I felt Macfox was partially speculating on Scawen's devotion which can lead to more of those "LFS devs sipping fruit cocktails on the Cayman Islands" theories.
Scawen chooses his own workload, I suppose it can be confusing for us at times. I'm just trying to counter fatalism with some pertinence and find it a bit sad that the LFS forum is such a hostile place for the devs.
I was merely replying because I felt Macfox was partially speculating on Scawen's devotion which can lead to more of those "LFS devs sipping fruit cocktails on the Cayman Islands" theories.
Scawen chooses his own workload, I suppose it can be confusing for us at times. I'm just trying to counter fatalism with some pertinence and find it a bit sad that the LFS forum is such a hostile place for the devs.
I don't know where you read that. I've only read the following, coming from the horse's mouth:
source: https://www.lfsforum.net/showt ... highlight=job#post1672231
source: https://www.lfsforum.net/showt ... highlight=job#post1742751
Why are the LFS devs being blamed in any way? My server has been DDOSed continiously over the past 3 months, sometimes once a week, sometimes 4 times a day yet I don't vent my frustration towards the LFS devs.
It's unfair to target the LFS devs, those responsible for making a great sim. They aren't even remotely responsible for the partycrashers DDOSing servers.
Instead of showing gratitude towards the LFS makers once in a while, rotten eggs are being thrown at them. Surely you know that DDOS is a widespread issue far from being easy to fix.
Tarnishing players reputations based on speculation only fuels contempt which ends up in tribalism. Although I share your frustration I think the last people to vent it on are the LFS devs.
It's unfair to target the LFS devs, those responsible for making a great sim. They aren't even remotely responsible for the partycrashers DDOSing servers.
Instead of showing gratitude towards the LFS makers once in a while, rotten eggs are being thrown at them. Surely you know that DDOS is a widespread issue far from being easy to fix.
Tarnishing players reputations based on speculation only fuels contempt which ends up in tribalism. Although I share your frustration I think the last people to vent it on are the LFS devs.
Progress report April
I'm currently improving a feature I brainstormed about a few years ago: patterns. Patterns give you the possibility to save small structure of objects who can then be reused quickly to improve productivity. It has been tested for a while now on WS • Metropolis with no big issues so far. The only significant issue I'm encountering is that I can't seem to figure out how LFS is rounding the heading of the object when it is converted from byte to degrees.
To show you what it is about, the second picture shown below shows several patterns.
To show you what it is about, the second picture shown below shows several patterns.
Progress report March
Lately I have been actively developing ClaViCo AP to the next level. I made a few breakthroughs programmatically speaking and hope the New version will be more functional and useful once released publicly. I am still eagerly awaiting news on the improvements Scawen briefly discussed a few months ago. I hope it is still on his agenda. The ability to avoid the ground level check would make this tool more appealing.
Anyway, just to clarify I never stopped developing ClaViCo. I just develop at my own pace, besides alot is being done behind closed curtains. Furthermore, single player support has always been a tricky one not because it is hard to do but because there are certain LFS limitations I do not encounter in muliplayer mode (Ex.:inability to intersect objects in single player).
Also ClaViCo AP is an Autocross Plugin of the more vaste ClaViCo (which feature a Cruise Plugin, Race Plugin & DerbyPlugin) so I am not always busy with the AP although it is my favorite :P
To prove that ClaViCo AP is still alive a few screenshots & layouts hereby attached.
Anyway, just to clarify I never stopped developing ClaViCo. I just develop at my own pace, besides alot is being done behind closed curtains. Furthermore, single player support has always been a tricky one not because it is hard to do but because there are certain LFS limitations I do not encounter in muliplayer mode (Ex.:inability to intersect objects in single player).
Also ClaViCo AP is an Autocross Plugin of the more vaste ClaViCo (which feature a Cruise Plugin, Race Plugin & DerbyPlugin) so I am not always busy with the AP although it is my favorite :P
To prove that ClaViCo AP is still alive a few screenshots & layouts hereby attached.
I thought digging up the pertinent posts by Scawen in relation to Autocross objects would be interesting:
The essence:
Originally Posted by sicotange
I can't help myself to ask the following (since you seem to have been working on Autocross Objects recently): are there any plans to add pitch (& roll) to the IS_AXM packet? Changing the angle of the slope of the "Ramp2" object for example would be awesome but I guess this would mean you would have to reduce the minimum step of objects (25cm) too.
Originally Posted by Scawen
As there is no space for pitch and roll in the existing 8 bytes per object, that would be too much of a change at this time. I thought I might investigate one thing though - maybe I could add a single bit to the Flags that would avoid the ground level check, so an object would stay exactly where you put it (and with zero pitch and roll). I realise that the granularity of ZChar is a limitation but at lest this would allow objects to be placed in the air over physical surfaces. One more thing I was thinking might help is a simple new object, a plain rectangular flat slab of concrete. It would look like the ramp but be level. Maybe it should have the same height as the ramp and legs. Or maybe two different objects, a plain flat slab and a separate slab with legs.
Topic of interest:
http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=81331
I can only hope that Scawen will find the time to implement the things mentioned above, it is exactly what I long for since 0.6B (InSim wise). If implemented it would increase ClaViCo AP's usefulness & appeal alot.
A few recent layouts:
The essence:
Originally Posted by sicotange
I can't help myself to ask the following (since you seem to have been working on Autocross Objects recently): are there any plans to add pitch (& roll) to the IS_AXM packet? Changing the angle of the slope of the "Ramp2" object for example would be awesome but I guess this would mean you would have to reduce the minimum step of objects (25cm) too.
Originally Posted by Scawen
As there is no space for pitch and roll in the existing 8 bytes per object, that would be too much of a change at this time. I thought I might investigate one thing though - maybe I could add a single bit to the Flags that would avoid the ground level check, so an object would stay exactly where you put it (and with zero pitch and roll). I realise that the granularity of ZChar is a limitation but at lest this would allow objects to be placed in the air over physical surfaces. One more thing I was thinking might help is a simple new object, a plain rectangular flat slab of concrete. It would look like the ramp but be level. Maybe it should have the same height as the ramp and legs. Or maybe two different objects, a plain flat slab and a separate slab with legs.
Topic of interest:
http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=81331
I can only hope that Scawen will find the time to implement the things mentioned above, it is exactly what I long for since 0.6B (InSim wise). If implemented it would increase ClaViCo AP's usefulness & appeal alot.
A few recent layouts:
A few months ago I experienced the same issue. I failed to report it thinking my code was to blame. MadCatX has found the culprit it seems, hopefully DarkTimes will take a look into it.
Other than that so far I can only praise InSim.NET. My InSim app is running on my server as we speak, bombarding InSim.NET while remaining rockstable (at least it has been for several weeks now)
Unrelated to the npl.SetF issue, I wondered if there is a way to bind packets more efficiently when there are several InSim instances created at once, 8 being the limit:
InsimInstance[0].Bind<IS_NCN>(new_NCN1);
InsimInstance[1].Bind<IS_NCN>(new_NCN2);
InsimInstance[2].Bind<IS_NCN>(new_NCN3);
InsimInstance[3].Bind<IS_NCN>(new_NCN4);
InsimInstance[4].Bind<IS_NCN>(new_NCN5);
InsimInstance[5].Bind<IS_NCN>(new_NCN6);
InsimInstance[6].Bind<IS_NCN>(new_NCN7);
InsimInstance[7].Bind<IS_NCN>(new_NCN8);
private void new_NCN1(InSim insim, IS_NCN ncn) { }
private void new_NCN2(InSim insim, IS_NCN ncn) { }
private void new_NCN3(InSim insim, IS_NCN ncn) { }
private void new_NCN4(InSim insim, IS_NCN ncn) { }
private void new_NCN5(InSim insim, IS_NCN ncn) { }
private void new_NCN6(InSim insim, IS_NCN ncn) { }
private void new_NCN7(InSim insim, IS_NCN ncn) { }
private void new_NCN8(InSim insim, IS_NCN ncn) { }
Is there a convenient way to use a loop instead?
//rant start
In my opinion alot of the somewhat rude, negative and destructive individuals posting on the forum are spoiled children not even realising what it actually takes to create a great sim.
These posters seem to think that Scawen has the ability to finish something very challenging yesterday and get on with it. It is rather sad to see so much negativity especially when you have the opportunity to interact with the creator himself. If your an LFS fanboy you should feel priviliged and thankful that Scawen even dares to take part into community discussions. I can relate to Eric easily, Scawen seems to be a very tolerant person, the mass of garbage posts he has to "scrape off his windshield" is impressive.
On the other hand I think there also is room for improvement in terms of communication devs --> community. The Progress Reports always include the necessary/pertinent information people are looking for but audio/video is missing these days.
I found it very enjoying to have Scawen commenting on his FBM testdrive and Victor being interviewed. The youtube era/generation loves this. For example a video of Scawen describing the Tyre Physics hurdles he is trying to overcome or just an interview would perhaps reinstate their reputation of caring devs interacting and listening to the community fully.
Either ways, in the end I judge the sim and looking at Z28->0.6B->0.6E I only see a positive evolution of pertinent improvement / bugfixes and new features. Hopefully this trend continues and hopefully the trend of bashing the devs stops.
//rant end
In my opinion alot of the somewhat rude, negative and destructive individuals posting on the forum are spoiled children not even realising what it actually takes to create a great sim.
These posters seem to think that Scawen has the ability to finish something very challenging yesterday and get on with it. It is rather sad to see so much negativity especially when you have the opportunity to interact with the creator himself. If your an LFS fanboy you should feel priviliged and thankful that Scawen even dares to take part into community discussions. I can relate to Eric easily, Scawen seems to be a very tolerant person, the mass of garbage posts he has to "scrape off his windshield" is impressive.
On the other hand I think there also is room for improvement in terms of communication devs --> community. The Progress Reports always include the necessary/pertinent information people are looking for but audio/video is missing these days.
I found it very enjoying to have Scawen commenting on his FBM testdrive and Victor being interviewed. The youtube era/generation loves this. For example a video of Scawen describing the Tyre Physics hurdles he is trying to overcome or just an interview would perhaps reinstate their reputation of caring devs interacting and listening to the community fully.
Either ways, in the end I judge the sim and looking at Z28->0.6B->0.6E I only see a positive evolution of pertinent improvement / bugfixes and new features. Hopefully this trend continues and hopefully the trend of bashing the devs stops.
//rant end
http://www.acapela.tv/card/Fis ... 7695a3754eeefb8e6c8a9443/
If the link isn't intelligible: happy birthday LFS virtuoso
If the link isn't intelligible: happy birthday LFS virtuoso
Stating the obvious: 0.6D fixes the take over bug on my server. Apart from that 0.6D seems to be a neat improvement over 0.6B. My InSim app uses (depending on it's usage) a lot of buttons and no issue related to that whatsoever. I can also happily report that I haven't encountered any "JOOS-OBJS" so far 
IS_MSO bug?
I'm fairly sure I found a little bug. I compared 0.6B with 0.6B14 and can reproduce it. In 0.6B when you enter an InSim command with prefix in chat (T) and press enter and then press T again and use up arrow to see the T history you will come across the InSim command you entered previously. In 0.6B14 when you do exactly the same thing the InSim command won't show up in the chat (T) history. Anyone else can reproduce this with his InSim app?
In retrospect it did seem rather utopian to think that you would have been able to implement these new things on such short notice. I probably was a bit to euphoric in the heat of the moment. Your decision to call a stop is more than pertinent. What can be frustrating though is that fanboys (I'm a prime example
) can only speculate as to when or if these new things will be implemented. At some point it seemed like an opportunity to add these new things to make 0.6C even more appealing. I can only hope that you will find some time to implement these new features in the future (while reminding myself that you only have 1 brain & 10 fingers).The option to avoid the ground level check has been high up my wishlist since 0.6B, if you can manage this for 0.6C that will put a big smile on my face
Another big +1. A flat table top (Ramp3) the height and dimensions of Ramp2 and a separate slab with legs with different dimensions (Ramp4)?
The issue surfaces when in cruise mode while checkpoints are on some players cross some splits, then join the custom race and if the finish line is just after the race grid, their lapcount gets +1. It only happens when a player crosses a split (without crossing finish line) and then "joins" (=parking on the race grid as seen in the screenshot) the race. So the split is saved and that's why when the race starts the finish line can't be just after the race grid so I put it before the racegrid which is more of a temporary measure. That is if checkpoints move once in a while and players did a parade lap before the start of the race. My explanations probably lack clarity, please see screenshot attached.
Yes, sorry for the lack of clarity.
Last edited by sicotange, .
Looks like 0.6C will feature a very pertinent list of improvements together with a few out of the blue surprises (more Autocross Objects)
OFF-TOPIC
=========
• I can't help myself to ask the following (since you seem to have been working on Autocross Objects recently): are there any plans to add pitch (& roll) to the IS_AXM packet? Changing the angle of the slope of the "Ramp2" object for example would be awesome but I guess this would mean you would have to reduce the minimum step of objects (25cm) too.
• When starting a custom race (on an open config) using autocross checkpoints (without using /restart, drivers have to park on the custom made grid before the race starts) it seems not possible to clear the laps. As a result I put the finish line before the race grid and the split1 checkpoint after the race grid to be sure all racers cross split1 before the finish line to ensure that everyone is on the same lap. This is obviously not ideal, is there a way to clear the laps (without having to use /restart) ?
I noticed that when you type /restart as an admin you get the "Autocross : x checkpoints" message which confirms that the laps have been cleared for everyone. There doesn't seem to be an IS_TINY who clears the laps, is there something I overlooked?
OFF-TOPIC
=========
• I can't help myself to ask the following (since you seem to have been working on Autocross Objects recently): are there any plans to add pitch (& roll) to the IS_AXM packet? Changing the angle of the slope of the "Ramp2" object for example would be awesome but I guess this would mean you would have to reduce the minimum step of objects (25cm) too.
• When starting a custom race (on an open config) using autocross checkpoints (without using /restart, drivers have to park on the custom made grid before the race starts) it seems not possible to clear the laps. As a result I put the finish line before the race grid and the split1 checkpoint after the race grid to be sure all racers cross split1 before the finish line to ensure that everyone is on the same lap. This is obviously not ideal, is there a way to clear the laps (without having to use /restart) ?
I noticed that when you type /restart as an admin you get the "Autocross : x checkpoints" message which confirms that the laps have been cleared for everyone. There doesn't seem to be an IS_TINY who clears the laps, is there something I overlooked?
@sarxes, you read my mind that is exactly what I hope some day will be possible. I am eagerly awaiting the next Progress Report but it already seems more likely that the ability to change the altitude of object on track as well as modifying the pitch of objects is far away or just not considered at all.
I constantly have to remind myself that Scawen only has 1 brain & 10 fingers. "Overclocking" is not an option either. Also, perhaps he does not want the "line" between an Autocross Editor and a Track Editor to become thinner. Finally, another option is that he did not see this coming and is firmly opposed to it. I will go as far as saying that I would release the latest ClaViCo AP version today if Scawen asked me to or just commented in this thread. I just have a feeling that ClaViCo AP is borderline unacceptable and perhaps in a way distorting the initial core business of LFS. Therefore I wait for the crucial bit of information I need to proceed pertinently.
Concerning ClaViCo AP's development. The current version has (& is) being tested live on my server for a few months already with no big issues. You can always pop in on WS • Metropolis and ask to test the new ClaViCo AP (when I'm online).
I constantly have to remind myself that Scawen only has 1 brain & 10 fingers. "Overclocking" is not an option either. Also, perhaps he does not want the "line" between an Autocross Editor and a Track Editor to become thinner. Finally, another option is that he did not see this coming and is firmly opposed to it. I will go as far as saying that I would release the latest ClaViCo AP version today if Scawen asked me to or just commented in this thread. I just have a feeling that ClaViCo AP is borderline unacceptable and perhaps in a way distorting the initial core business of LFS. Therefore I wait for the crucial bit of information I need to proceed pertinently.
Concerning ClaViCo AP's development. The current version has (& is) being tested live on my server for a few months already with no big issues. You can always pop in on WS • Metropolis and ask to test the new ClaViCo AP (when I'm online).
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG