*looks out window* Ooo, very impressive...
Wish we had the day off on snow days back when I was in school. Makes you appreciate them more than if you have to drag your arse to school no matter the weather. Trying to bicycle through 10cm of wet slushy snow can make anyone hate the world.Ain't that the truth. Seems people lose all ability to judge grip over the summer and then pile up in every ditch of the land once the first snowfall hits.
Grr, ISPs. I can very much relate.
Thanks for the heads up though. There has been quite a lot of noise here these past few weeks, but I hope you (and the other devs) realise that for every whining idiot spamming up the test patch thread there are quite a few of us that fully sympathise with your way of working and that will gladly wait as long as it takes, even if we don't say that every time someone throws their toys out the pram. Don't take the noise too close to heart.
Thanks for the heads up though. There has been quite a lot of noise here these past few weeks, but I hope you (and the other devs) realise that for every whining idiot spamming up the test patch thread there are quite a few of us that fully sympathise with your way of working and that will gladly wait as long as it takes, even if we don't say that every time someone throws their toys out the pram. Don't take the noise too close to heart.
DX10 comes with Vista by default. You shouldn't have to do anything.
Because windows is built around the notion of having programs in "program files", so that's where people end up installing their programs. And rightly so. "My Documents" isn't a good place for them for the reasons outlined above.
Temporarily escalating to administrator, installing, and then going back to your own account. Windows makes this really easy. On Vista the default is that users actually run as administrators (because apps working like LFS are too plentiful still) but that UAC will pop up to confirm if you try to write to somewhere your user doesn't have write permission. In those cases a simple click on "continue" will do. But only that one time, instead of every time you launch the game.
Well if each user has their own LFS copy, "cross infection" obviously won't happen, but then you have the other problem I mentioned in that malware can change the executable behind your back. I like the security knowing that all my executables are clean gives me. If something were to infect my computer I can reasonably assume that only my user-directory is affected and I can log in as another user to solve the problem.
My main motivation is mostly removing UAC prompts and the need to run LFS as an administrator when the user has limited permissions to the computer. With the arrival of Vista that seems to have become a common problem here.
You can obviously install the whole thing to your home or twiddle the permissions of whereever you install it, but that kind of defeats the purpose of running with a limited user account in the first place. Executables and shared content should simply not be writeable by the user to prevent malware from changing them behind the user's back. If users can change these files a worm/virus/whatever taking over the IE process can easily rummage around the disk and attach itself to executables it finds that the user can write to. This can then lead to other users on the same system also getting infected, and it's suddenly that much harder to clean up the mess.
LFS already has read write permission to your My Documents folder. Any application you run normally on your computer will have the same rigths you have. What my suggestion is about is preventing other software you may be running (like for instance a virus) from changing the LFS executable or game content.
Well my initial thought was to have them per-user along with everything else, but I realise that could be wasteful. At least in the case of auto-downloaded ones on a multi-user computer. (But then, so is my current set of LFS dirs all downloading skins into their own directories)
All users would be ideal of course, but like you I'm not sure if limited users actually have write permission there. Would seem logical though. I'll give it a try later.
The registry is evil and should never be used, especially not by games. You'll get no argument from me there. Storing files in the home directory does not require using the registry though. I very much agree with the stand-alone nature of LFS currently, I just disagree on where user data should be stored.
The reason limited user accounts are a good thing for home users is that when Joe opens his "Britney Spears nude" email and runs the attached executable he won't have write access to any of the executables already installed on the system and the malware can't hook itself up in the depths of the system. You also protect the files of other users on the computer from Joe's idiocy. It's simply about limiting the attack surface available to malware.
The reason limited user accounts are a good thing for home users is that when Joe opens his "Britney Spears nude" email and runs the attached executable he won't have write access to any of the executables already installed on the system and the malware can't hook itself up in the depths of the system. You also protect the files of other users on the computer from Joe's idiocy. It's simply about limiting the attack surface available to malware.
Last edited by wien, .
Unless they use Vista or Windows 7 in which case this is a real problem (see uproar about UAC). I wouldn't expect Joe Blow to fiddle around with permission settings, nor know what they are. I realise you don't like it, but that's just the way Windows, and every other OS out there, is built to work these days. Applications don't need huge installers and all that crap to work with this layout either (though most vendors for some reason think they need one). After formatting you simply restore your home, copy your 20GB of games, and there you go.
Okay, so it's only a problem while establishing the connection and you will get a warning is someone tries it. That's what I thought earlier, but it sounded like someone could silently listen in on your connection even through SSL, which made me wonder.
With AppData that would be a problem, yes, but the Vista+ Games folder can be moved wherever you want it. That's why it's important to use the functions I mentioned in the OP to retrieve this path instead of hardcoding it into LFS. Good point though.
Hmm, have I misunderstood SSL that badly? Can someone listening in on the server-client communication decrypt the stream using only the transmitted information? If so, what's the point?
Unless the traffic goes through SSL, which anything important should be anyway.
Nothing really, AppData is still "the place" for user specific data, but Vista has a new, user accessible, "Games" folder that can be used for savegames and suchlike. There are also other folders for Pictures and Music etc that don't interfere with (My) Documents. Personally I find these distinctions fairly arbitrary and I prefer the single home directory of *nix, but Microsoft is boss so there you go.
While true, it's hardly something most home users have to worry about. Unless you've got a nuclear silo connected to your home network I mean. People mostly use this stuff to prevent their neighbours from stealing interwebs, and for that MAC-address limitations usually do the job.
Ah, I was awaiting your objection, Mr. Glass. :drevil:
An option to keep LFS self-contained would certainly be a good idea as long as it isn't too much trouble to implement (shouldn't be). That way people can choose for themselves. Hopefully "self contained 0" would be the default though.
I also agree that AppData isn't the best solution on XP and below, but I find the My Documents approach most games seem to use equally annoying. One possibility is to default to "self contained 1" on XP and below and the opposite on Vista+, but that could perhaps be a bit confusing.
Putting LFS in a folder where you have write permission shouldn't be too much of a problem, I agree, but most people seem to have no idea what write permission even is. Judging by posts I've seen around this place quite a few people seem to have trouble with it and often they are running LFS as Administrator or turning off UAC to get around it (bad).
An option to keep LFS self-contained would certainly be a good idea as long as it isn't too much trouble to implement (shouldn't be). That way people can choose for themselves. Hopefully "self contained 0" would be the default though.
I also agree that AppData isn't the best solution on XP and below, but I find the My Documents approach most games seem to use equally annoying. One possibility is to default to "self contained 1" on XP and below and the opposite on Vista+, but that could perhaps be a bit confusing.
Putting LFS in a folder where you have write permission shouldn't be too much of a problem, I agree, but most people seem to have no idea what write permission even is. Judging by posts I've seen around this place quite a few people seem to have trouble with it and often they are running LFS as Administrator or turning off UAC to get around it (bad).
Store user data in the user's home
I have no idea if the devs are still reading this section, I sure wouldn't be, but here goes.
I would like to propose a change to where LFS stores its configuration and all other user-specific data like setups and skins. Instead of storing these in the directory in which it is installed, LFS should instead store these files in the user's home (Documents and Settings/<username>). This has numerous benefits:
Windows versions before Vista did not have a Games folder, so there the proper folder is somewhat up for debate. Some games use "My Documents/My Games", but personally I'm not a fan of that as savegames and configuration files are not documents. AppData would seem like the best candidate to me, but that is admittedly a bit obscure and will be hard to locate for most people as it's hidden by default.
Either way, the proper way of fetching these directories on pre-Vista OSes is probably SHGetFolderPath with CSIDL_APPDATA or CSIDL_PERSONAL depending on the chosen location.
Thoughts? Comments?
I would like to propose a change to where LFS stores its configuration and all other user-specific data like setups and skins. Instead of storing these in the directory in which it is installed, LFS should instead store these files in the user's home (Documents and Settings/<username>). This has numerous benefits:
- It will allow users with limited permission user accounts, Vista or Windows 7 to use LFS without having to install the whole game to their home directory. Limited permission users will usually not have write access to the disk outside their home. This means that if LFS is installed in, for instance, the Program Files folder they have to run LFS as an administrator or that Windows will display UAC warnings. A lot of people have posted in the forums with problems related to this, and I would imagine the devs get some support requests about it as well. Solving this would be the primary benefit.
- On for instance a home computer, multiple family members with their own Windows user account can use LFS without having to share setups, skins and controller setup between them. If unlocking information is stored in the home directory as well, each user could also unlock the same install of LFS with their own license simultaneously.
- Multiple installs of LFS, say a test patch and the stable version, can be installed simultaneously and share setups, skins, etc without the user having to manually duplicate them. Some care would obviously have to be taken to avoid problems with changes in file formats etc. but that shouldn't be too much worse than it already is.
- Backup of important files in case of system failure is, IMO, made easier since you don't need to hunt around the disk to find them. Just backup your user directory and you're done. Many retail backup solutions also automatically back up the user directory by default which is useful for "normal people".
Windows versions before Vista did not have a Games folder, so there the proper folder is somewhat up for debate. Some games use "My Documents/My Games", but personally I'm not a fan of that as savegames and configuration files are not documents. AppData would seem like the best candidate to me, but that is admittedly a bit obscure and will be hard to locate for most people as it's hidden by default.
Either way, the proper way of fetching these directories on pre-Vista OSes is probably SHGetFolderPath with CSIDL_APPDATA or CSIDL_PERSONAL depending on the chosen location.
Thoughts? Comments?
Is that supposed to be sarcasm or something? You've got so many paranoid fear mongers that would believe every word of that over there, so it's kinda hard to tell.
The surroundings are just an environment map, which is why they seem completely disconnected from the "ground".
No, that would be "overly pedantic programmers" or "Germans".
In some cases, when handling extremely important data, there could be some value in testing stuff to that level and then blocking off "unsupported" versions, but frankly MS could screw up just the same in every update coming through Windows Update. Furthermore, you'd have backup (right??). The version check is completely arbitrary since even with an "approved version" you have no idea what code is running underneath it.
If Microsoft find themselves changing an API to the point where it's doing something completely different they should make the programmers explicitly state what API they want. (Win32 api = new Win32("6.0")) Leaving this responsibility to the programmer and then just changing things around willy-nilly in established APIs would be plain stupidity.
So instead of letting idiot programmers pay and then learn from their mistakes, Microsoft once again bends over backwards to keep their POS code running. Their whole platform is completely littered with stupid legacy decisions like that and it's just disgusting.
I mean how mind numbingly stupid do you have to be to limit the major version your app will run in to the current one? Why are Microsoft helping these idiots out?
I mean how mind numbingly stupid do you have to be to limit the major version your app will run in to the current one? Why are Microsoft helping these idiots out?
It's not a limitation on the number of layers, nor a D3D thing. The engine just doesn't sort transparent triangles back to front before drawing them. This means that depending on the camera position you may end up in cases where for instance the wind screen is drawn before the smoke which means the smoke fails the depth test (since the invisible windscreen is "in front" of it) and therefore doesn't get drawn.
In the case of transparent visor the visor would always have to be drawn after the face, so it could easily be hardcoded that way. Not that I feel this is something worth spending time on.
Not surprising since you posted it: http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=17285
Indeed, and I must admit I had no idea how much I actually relied on that until I tried Netkar with its new sample based engine sound. It's horrible. I have absolutely no idea if I'm getting my shifts right. I have for instance no way of effectively rev-matching on down shift because It's impossible to tell WTH the engine is doing when I let the clutch out. It's just some noise. In LFS you can tell exactly how the engine is doing as the clutch engages and you can instantly tell if you did it wrong and can expect the rears to lock up or the revs to drop.
Sample based sound is just completely unusable compared to what we have in LFS.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG