Oh that'll be me messing around with translation files

I've made a change in the translation files so that fuel consumption per lap is xx.xx% instead of xx.x%. Doing that I butchered Latvian translation file into English and I guess it wasn't the newest file? Though it does seem strange as I have to do this after every update so I'd think I should be copying the newest info. Strange indeed.

As the title says, for some reason the shortcut ctrl+c isn't working on my end. Any idea what could be the reason? If I change this in screen options, it works.

My gosh this layout!

Correct me if I'm wrong but their tyres do wear.

Talk to Deko (I think he's the one) about LFS Tracker. Sure the races aren't that long but boy is it useful

Hmm I wonder why is the score rating hidden on that post?

Yeah, all good. I guess I was over excited

These are gorgeous!
I was wondering though are these colorful walls in the last pic at the outside of the corner in any way "soft"? They aren't tyres but it does seem like they're made of plastic.

Is this down or just didn't refresh yet?

That will block chat on your end but users will still be able to write. I don't think you can block other people from chatting directly. Technically you could make insim kick anyone who types a message so after one or two times they won't chat anymore? Not sure why you'd do that.

Quote from Racon :

That's what I remember of what he said once.

It wasn't clear what exactly you were talking in your previous message. I as well thought you were talking about the pararameters such as weight (overall, distribution), power, etc and not about default setups and so on.

You can do the same in LFS, just press 4 or 5 to change FOV while driving

LFSW name: Sobis
In-game name: LLM. Sobis
Full team name: Last Lap Motorsports
Nation: Lithuania

Not sure how many races I'll be able to attend but we'll see!

I believe Scawen has driven cars in real life and I think he knows himself very well that interiors are illuminated too brightly by other cars

I was wondering where does the unspent money go to, for example 2$ from my reward as 5$ is the minimum. I hope you get at least some of it to cover the running costs over all these years .

Quote from Whiskey :

That's really low fps, even for a normal screen. I guess you could get much better experience if you manage to get them higher.

The video itself reports to be 60 fps, but to be honest I got pretty uncomfortable watching it, it's not smooth at all.

It's not smooth only at the beginning. Later on it gets better.

It's pretty hilarious (6:30) that you can just get out of the car and walk around it. I don't have a VR set and I just wonder - how many other racing sims allow you to do that?

I believe you guys missed the point of Bose321's comment. I think it was a sarcastic comment directed towards cargame.nl

Quote from RC-Maus :

Take for example wind mills "so called clean engergy" But nobody talks about the toxic greenhouse gas FS6 thats leaking. (that gas isn't allowed in tennis bals anymore). Anyway windmills can't deliver enough energy and isn't that reliable. Wonder who can pay future energy bills to pay for all those windmills. Think we better plant some trees and keep energy on coal or nuclear as long as we need to. Till we find better solutions.

I know CO2 is greenhouse gas but from all gases thats 0,04% mostly 0,038 prodused by nature. Nature and our crops needs CO2.
I simply can't understand how thats a problem.

I see you're going back to planting trees and burning coal. I'll try to explain again why burning coal and other fossil fuels is bad and planting trees is very temporary. It's a copy of my previous message. I'm a chemist myself so if you don't understand something just ask.

A healthy forest absorbs CO2 and stores it in itself. Even if we don't cut it and let it grow till it dies, after its' death the microorganisms will most likely digest it and transform it into CO2 so the end result of burning it and letting it grow --> die --> rot is nearly the same. It gets transformed into CO2 and then some time later goes back to being tree again (cellulose and what not, basically some form of hydrocarbon). Because of this, there is a cycle so the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere stays stable.

Now lets think about fossil fuels. The carbon that is in fossil fuels is deep underground. After 100s, 1000s and so on years it will still be underground so the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is not influenced by fossil fuels. Now when we start digging it up and burning, the carbon that was supposed to be deep underground, is being released into the atmosphere and it enters the cycle mentioned above. As it can't go back underground (over a short period of time, not talking about millions of years), it stays in the atmosphere and thus the amount of CO2 increases. As CO2 increases, the earth gets hotter because CO2 absorbs some IR radiation that would otherwise escape to space.

E: Regarding the "small" ammount of CO2 (~0.04%) - it might seem small but it is approx. 30% more than it was in pre-industrial times. Also, even if the increase is small, on a global scale it does make a difference.

Last edited by Sobis, Wed, 27 Nov 2019 20:44.

Oh yes what a friendly community!.. Well either way, what you're asking for needs unreasonably large effort so not an option right now and in the future. Way too many other priorities.

Quote from RC-Maus :

@sobis In my eyes healhty forest absorb CO2 so why cut them for biomass.

Yes you are correct. A healthy forest absorbs CO2 and stores it in itself. Even if we don't cut it and let it grow till it dies, after its' death the microorganisms will most likely digest it and transform it into CO2 so the end result of burning it and letting it grow --> die --> rot is nearly the same. It gets transformed into CO2 and then some time later goes back to being tree again (cellulose and what not, basically some form of hydrocarbon). Because of this, there is a cycle so the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere stays stable.

Now lets think about fossil fuels. The carbon that is in fossil fuels is deep underground. After 100s, 1000s and so on years it will still be underground so the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is not influenced by fossil fuels. Now when we start digging it up and burning, the carbon that was supposed to be deep underground, is being released into the atmosphere and it enters the cycle mentioned above. As it can't go back underground (over a short period of time, not talking about millions of years), it stays in the atmosphere and thus the amount of CO2 increases. As CO2 increases, the earth gets hotter because CO2 absorbs some IR radiation that would otherwise escape to space.

Or a mod could transfer environmental messages to a separate thread? It is an interesting topic.

Quote from RC-Maus :

I agree on most with u Scawen. But also there are also many contradictions. For example burning biomass "wood" is gets subsidy for burning wood producing energy. That while burning wood causes twice as much CO2 then burning coal. In NL we cut % more trees then in amazone.

I just don't believe the CO2 story from IPCC.
And I believe we should say goodbye to economic's based on growth.

The difference in burning biomass in burning coal/oil/gas is huge. When we burn biomass, it's a cycle: carbon from biomass goes to atmosphere in the form of CO2 and then gets absorbed back to biomass. Carbon from fossil fuel does NOT go in a cycle. The carbon that is buried deep underground should stay there but we are digging it up and putting it in the atmosphere! That is the problem - if we were burning biomass only, the net carbon wouldn't increase as much. Now that we are burning lots of fossil fuels, we are increasing the overall quantity of carbon, including CO2, in the surface and that is a problem.
CO2 absorbs a bit of infra-red spectra and that's why instead of earth emitting heat into space, some of it gets trapped.
If you doubt something else about this, feel free to ask.

The poll is quite pointless so I see no reason making a sane decision

Well Scawen has stated that these graphical changes are made on the dev version with the new physics. I don't know if that statement still stands but if it does, these graphical changes will be served with the new tyre physics. I also hope that Scawen will not need to develop these changes on our version separately.

Quote from Mikus1212 :

I hope they wont destroy the flow of the fern bay layouts.

you can't destroy the flow - you can only change it. Change is inevitable. The only way of destroying the flow is deleting the track altogether.