Quote from blackbird04217 :

I am hoping 1 and 2 can be resolved by driving the first circle(s) slowly. I think if I start at 1mph, (or at least below say 5mph), the radius of the circle will be the "expected" radius for that steering angle.

I don't know if LFS suffers from this, but bear in mind that many games have to change physics equations when speed gets closer to zero. Maybe starting at 20 or 30 mph if the radius is big enough could yield better results?

Your driver is aware of G-forces, isn't he? Understeering occurs when more degrees result in lower lateral acceleration. This may not be useful while racing, but if you are doing stable circles it sure is consistent.

Quote from blackbird04217 :

Strange, patch Z, I think it was seemed to work flawlessly on Windows 10 before I had updated, so if nothing changed there, let me run more tests and get back to you, maybe something was just failing to save in the config or some other oddity going on.

LFS now runs under DX9 instead of 8. How/If it interferes with your window position I don't know.

Quote from Stölzel :

There are Missing Startlight Meshes on Rockingham National X, Handling X and Lake X Configuration.

Known issue, that's why we are expecting the January patch.

Quote from Drifteris :

Car reflections weren't done using the latest tech either because it gives more performance this way since Scawen likes performance over the quality. And I'm suggesting simple method than some performance costly one. But either way something like this would be useful even in day time.

That is not completely true. Car reflections were done the simple way from the programming point of view. He wants to implement a cubemap reflection or some modern technique, but doesn't want to do it right now.

Oh, shame on me then xD

Thanks for all the bugfixing you did lately

Quote from VicaNo :

hold left look buton,and press right look buton ..this is double

That's how it is supposed to work.

Check this out, LX4 soft top is shiny, while it shouldn't.
[/quote]

LOL, I didn't even remembered that it had roof haha.

Quote from nacim :

While I'm at it, skins preview are sometimes glitched and cutted :

It bugs out when click in another car, if you F5 it loads fine. Someone forgot the ajax call when 2048px skins were introduced?

Quote from cargame.nl :

Thats potentially illegal because copyrighted material can be transferred

Quote from cargame.nl :

Right, so that makes all CD, DVD, Bluray writers and photo copiers also illegal?

No.

LFS only support one sound per car model. It uses the one you are using in that car.

The online sharing is not the problem, but the sound engine would need a revamp.

Quote from DANIEL-CRO :

Update is up that support 0.6K3!

Some other changes:

FIX: start LFS with LFSLazy - it didn't work if LFS.exe had spaces

I've never used LFSLazy, but just a wild guess.

He may have "LFS.exe", "LFS K2.exe" and "LFS K3.exe". Combining this with your latest update could lead to opening another LFS instance?

I don't seem to understand the problem. You just have to set split2 just a few meters away from the finish line (towards first corner). Then the finish line will be ignored in the half-lap because you still have to cross all the splits, and the next time you crosh it you finish the race.
This even works in multilap races.

Now it is fixed. Either you just fixed it or it fixed itself, I didn't visit the forum since the previous post xD

Still the same. Tonight there were 2 thread with new post, I have read them, but the icon is still there in the main page.

Forum mainpage tells me that I have some unread post in "Improvement Suggestions" section, but I don't have any unread thread there.

I don't know if it is related to this bug I reported, or it is a new unrelated one.

Quote from PeterN :

Funny how those path node squares get larger the further away they are...

Perspective and our brain don't mix very well.

Quote from GAVD999 :

One of the servers I used to race on (The GDC) had something similar implied via a custom insim, well the ballast side of things, although I assume if you can check ballast individually you can with restrictions also? The server had a ballast penalty system for driver errors. The insim would only let people join if they had the correct amount of ballast designated to them from the previous race/s.

I know, our InSim program already deals with it this way. But I don't like realying on the user to comply the requirements. Plus being able to apply handicaps in real time opens a roster of possibilities.

Didn't want to start a debate in this thread anyway, I've never requested this in the right thread because I'm aware that we could do with the current tools, but it could be better, no doubt.

Thanks for the clarification.

I hope the warning message is implemented in the upcoming patch, I don't want to dive into the .pth file structure to check the boundaries in all tracks xD

Quote from Scawen :

It's because the AS2 path does not extend far enough back. See attachment. It doesn't go all the way to the fence. So the game never tracks the car's progress.

I have to think about what to do about this. Either fix the path or add a warning or both...

Does this affect only "pit start points" or "start positions" (aka grid slots) also must be inside the path?

I guess the ideal would be to have both things, extend the path where it is easy to fix, and get a warning when the layout is going to break the game.

Quote from vitaly_m :

You can set engine restriction and weight via insim. Look for IS_HCP packet in docs/insim.txt.

// The same restriction applies to all drivers using a particular car model

I'd want to set handicaps per driver, not per car.

I still dream of the day we can set handicap & restrictions through InSim xD

Scawen, could I get confirmation that you saw this bug report?
https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/88859-Qualifying-laps-not-counting%21

Quote from GreyBull [CHA] :

I think the most intriguing "hidden track" is the South City one in the last video. It drives just as any other track, it has flow and good elevation changes. It even has cameras installed... Now that we have open configs and ramps at South City we can even race on it, all we have to do is put ramps to bypass the walls surrounding it. Not many people seem to realize that yet, sadly.

The "hidden track" that is so secret that we at Cesav did an official race there last month

I attach a replay so you guys can see/grab the layout we made, even with custom pits.

Aha, good to know it is not a big issue.
I tried to use a mpr stripper last year, with not a very good result, though after a few tries it did actually result in a cutted mpr, but it was a bit glitchy, so I wouldn't trust it for debugging...

I belive our InSim program relies on everybody being on track at session restart, tough luck.

Cargame, I think you should report it, despite the tread being ignored at least other users could learn how to avoid issues.

I don't know how to reproduce the bug I reported here, because it is nearly imposible to have more than 32 people kind enough to test it again. So when the next race arrives, we are going to cross our fingers and hope Gutholtz is right and this is random or a 1 time bug.

CloudFare and such things don't avoid DDoS attacks, they just "eat" all the traffic.

A DDoS attack consist in receiving more connections than your hardware can handle. The only real protection is routing your website traffic throught a company with enough infrastructure to deal with it. As I already said this is not useful for game servers, where you need real time and stable conection.

Any developer around here? I expected this bug to be flagged as important right away. We are talking about ruining whole races for many people.

When I post a bug report I'd like to get some kind of feedback. Did you even see this thead?

And what about this other bug report? https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/88504-AntiAliasing-missing-while-lossing-connection


I don't ask for special treatment, I trully believe that any bug report that makes sense should have a dev answer as simple as "we'll look into it" or "not on the priority list, but noted for future fix".