The multiplayer part is for a niche market, but it's only one half of the equation. The other half, the part that should make the business case, are the spectators.
Picture a cross between Victor's LFS Remote, Becky's STCC movies, and a live race on TV. A race where spectators can choose the camera position, and get expert commentary. With professional drivers and a NASCAR-size audience. And a matching advertising income for the guys who run the show.
If you run a RL racing car, and race on the tracks modeled in iRacing, you'll get loads of value. iRacing could save you a whole day of testing on the track, because it enables you to you tweak your car's setup at home. (IF iRacing lives up to the ambitions of its makers.) The money you saved that way will easily outweigh the cost of a decent simracing rig plus the iRacing subscription fee.
Yes. Well, not personally, but I know someone who had this urge, back when she had a severe mental illness. The fact that all other people appeared to live happily while she had been suffering for so long made her very angry. (BTW, I'm married to her and I love her deeply.)
I believe there are many people, in all countries, who feel this way. Some of them live in a country where they can get the means to do it. Some of those may give in to the urge. The example set by others also counts; it's hard to be original when you are depressed.
They may have felt like they were living in hell before they died.
Many folks would stop racing every now and then, to shout insults at the people of nearby planet rFactor and at the guys in the SimBin constellation (not to mention the weirdos inhabiting the faraway Arcade galaxy).
It's a bird!
-- A bird?
It's a plane!
-- A plane?
No!! It's... Physics Man!
<fx: Scawen speeding past (in Shift-F view), with roaring engine and screaming tires>
-- A bird?
It's a plane!
-- A plane?
No!! It's... Physics Man!
<fx: Scawen speeding past (in Shift-F view), with roaring engine and screaming tires>
IMHO the intention of that rule is to prevent people from "time-sharing" an account. There is no specific statement about transferring an account. (The problem is that there is no token representing the licence, that can be passed on. The password IS the token.)
Translation: I know how to Google for game cracks.
In my experience LFS does have some short-term heatup, because after I have spun the car I find that the wheels have less grip in the next corner (often causing me to spin again
). The next corner, things are back to normal. This heatup is not visible in the F9 screen.Send a copy of the printout to his home. Then he knows that (a) you know where he lives, (b) you have some evidence if he acts to his plans, and (c) your friend has passed the info to you, so she (a female!) probably thinks he is a loser. And if he lives with his parents, they might find out about the brawl, which may be an extra source of embarrassment.
A multiplayer replay is not a very good base to analyse your driving, because your inputs are only stored 4 times per second. (LFS "guesses" the car's movement in-between.)
For a closer analysis you can use a replay analyser. You need to drive a couple of laps in single-player or hotlap mode. When you have done a good lap, press "1" to view the replay. When the replay is in the lap that precedes the good one, press "Esc" and select
"Save output data". Continue viewing the replay until the lap has completed. LFS will save telemetry data in a .raf file, in folder lfs\data\raf. This file can be read by the analyser.
You can compare your own driving with the World Record by downloading its .spr replay from LFS World, and creating a .raf file from it in the same way. Load both .raf files in the analyser and see where you lose time. (Note: if you are several seconds slower than the WR, it may be better to compare your lap with someone who is just 1 second faster.)
For a closer analysis you can use a replay analyser. You need to drive a couple of laps in single-player or hotlap mode. When you have done a good lap, press "1" to view the replay. When the replay is in the lap that precedes the good one, press "Esc" and select
"Save output data". Continue viewing the replay until the lap has completed. LFS will save telemetry data in a .raf file, in folder lfs\data\raf. This file can be read by the analyser.
You can compare your own driving with the World Record by downloading its .spr replay from LFS World, and creating a .raf file from it in the same way. Load both .raf files in the analyser and see where you lose time. (Note: if you are several seconds slower than the WR, it may be better to compare your lap with someone who is just 1 second faster.)
It sounds like one, but maybe the noise was just an MP3 played by the sound system.
Other genres not in the poll:
- V12
- Inline 4 with VTEC
- Flat 6 with turbo
- Tyres at the limit of adhesion
- V12
- Inline 4 with VTEC
- Flat 6 with turbo
- Tyres at the limit of adhesion
Oops, made a thinking error there: the script must be pretty limited in its power, if you really want to keep the setup confidential. For instance, the function can't be allowed to make an HTTP call, because that enables a malevolent script to send the setup data elsewhere.
I don't think of InSim as limited. You can do a lot with it, both for retrieving data from the engine and for controlling the game engine. Have a look at the CTRA X-system; it uses InSim's possibilities to the fullest.
The downside to InSim is that writing an application is not for beginners. (The upside is that the performance penalty is lower than with scripting.) That could be solved by building a scripting engine of top of InSim, like the_angry_angel did with luaLFS.
EDIT: Hm. I may have been talking nonsense. Had a look at UnrealScript and TorqueScript, and they look far more advanced than where LFS is now.
To get back to the original topic, LFS would need an extra feature: to let the client execute a piece of code that it gets from the server (which may have got it from an InSim application). I expect this will be very complicated, so it will have to wait until S3 is designed.
Last edited by wsinda, .
Forget it guys, this iRacing stuff is not meant for you. At least, that's what I conclude after reading this on their site:
Looks like iRacing is aimed at two groups:
The average LFS user is neither. LFS has imaginary tracks, and most cars are either imaginary or out of reach for amateur/semi-pro racers. And LFS'ers want to race themselves, not just sit watching.
Notice that the cars that will be in iRacing are standardized and/or produced in series. I don't think you will ever drive high-profile cars like LMP, F1, or WTCC, because if they were modeled to perfection they would leak trade secrets.
Looks like iRacing is aimed at two groups:
- People who run a real race car, and need maximum accuracy of physics (but don't care much for graphical perfection).
- People who like to watch races (be it online or real).
The average LFS user is neither. LFS has imaginary tracks, and most cars are either imaginary or out of reach for amateur/semi-pro racers. And LFS'ers want to race themselves, not just sit watching.
Notice that the cars that will be in iRacing are standardized and/or produced in series. I don't think you will ever drive high-profile cars like LMP, F1, or WTCC, because if they were modeled to perfection they would leak trade secrets.
Last edited by wsinda, .
I like ACCAkut's approach better. If you really want to protect setups, the check must be done client-side, and the server must send its rules. The rules are public data anyway, so snooping is not a problem.
An important issue is flexibility of rules. In duke_toaster's suggestion you can only define a range for each value. You can't fit in rjm1982's example, where the acceptable choices for one setting (tyre type) depend on the value of some other setting (gear). And rjm1982's suggestion has fixed rule sets, so driver-dependent rules (e.g., a driver with a Gold license must carry 50kg of ballast) are impossible.
You get maximum flexibility if the rules are declared in the shape of a program. Suppose that the server sends the client a JavaScript function. The function takes a setup as input, and returns a boolean result. If the server rules are simple, the admin can write the script and store it as a file on the server. For more complex rules, like the one that depends on the license, you would need an InSim app that generates a validation script on-the-fly.
It is getting pretty complicated, though. Scawen needs to incorporate a scripting engine into LFS, and make an RPC-like mechanism on top of InSim. All of this to get some extra protection of setup data.
An important issue is flexibility of rules. In duke_toaster's suggestion you can only define a range for each value. You can't fit in rjm1982's example, where the acceptable choices for one setting (tyre type) depend on the value of some other setting (gear). And rjm1982's suggestion has fixed rule sets, so driver-dependent rules (e.g., a driver with a Gold license must carry 50kg of ballast) are impossible.
You get maximum flexibility if the rules are declared in the shape of a program. Suppose that the server sends the client a JavaScript function. The function takes a setup as input, and returns a boolean result. If the server rules are simple, the admin can write the script and store it as a file on the server. For more complex rules, like the one that depends on the license, you would need an InSim app that generates a validation script on-the-fly.
It is getting pretty complicated, though. Scawen needs to incorporate a scripting engine into LFS, and make an RPC-like mechanism on top of InSim. All of this to get some extra protection of setup data.
If you have a little money to spare, buy a second-hand wheel (a good guide can be found here). I found a good one for about the price of an S2 license.
Mouse + kb driving is an option. It should be easier than kb alone, but be prepared for a new learning curve. (Plus a second one when you eventually get a wheel.)
Mouse + kb driving is an option. It should be easier than kb alone, but be prepared for a new learning curve. (Plus a second one when you eventually get a wheel.)
Two posts later:
Record broken.
Tristan must be getting close to absolute zero now...
lerts, you are courageous to still be posting here.
Tell me, why should folklore be a more reliable source of knowledge than "the media"? What makes it trustworthy? That many people have believed it to be true, for many years? Well, people also thought that the Earth is flat, that lightning is the wrath of the gods, and that diseases are caused by putrid fumes.
Do you believe your own perception? You must have seen pictures of optical illusions: straight lines that seem to be curved, equal length lines that look like they aren't, etcetera. You can check, measure, and decide that your eyes were wrong. So, if you experience something that seems like ESP, how do you know that it is not an illusion? How can you be sure that it is not just wishful thinking?
I'm very skeptical of both.
Tell me, why should folklore be a more reliable source of knowledge than "the media"? What makes it trustworthy? That many people have believed it to be true, for many years? Well, people also thought that the Earth is flat, that lightning is the wrath of the gods, and that diseases are caused by putrid fumes.
Do you believe your own perception? You must have seen pictures of optical illusions: straight lines that seem to be curved, equal length lines that look like they aren't, etcetera. You can check, measure, and decide that your eyes were wrong. So, if you experience something that seems like ESP, how do you know that it is not an illusion? How can you be sure that it is not just wishful thinking?
I'm very skeptical of both.
What? You mean you don't know yet??
Three stupid presidents do not a whole nation of morons make. (OK, four. Reagan fits in.) But you have a point there.
<puts finger back in dike>
It's the same.
(Except if the first coin, after having been drawn, will be put back in the bag. In that case the probability is 2/9 * 2/9 + 2/9 * 4/9 * 2 = 20/72 = 5/18. But that is ludicrous because you were gonna use the coins for a payment. Aquilifer's calculation is correct.)
Despite persistent rumours Rossi still denies use of LSD.
-----
Performance problems for Yamaha
Rossi: "It's faster to walk"
-----
Performance problems for Yamaha
Rossi: "It's faster to walk"
If you reproduce but your offspring is too dumb to get laid or to get a job(*), you family tree will soon wither.
*: Economic status is still a good indicator of life expectancy.
The point of leaving it to an InSim app is that when it comes to setup restrictions there are myriads of variations. Some examples:
- Fixed setups, one for each car in the LRF class.
- XFGs must carry extra weight, to even out against the UF1.
- RB4s can't use hybrid tires, so XRTs stand a chance on a rallycross track.
- Setups that make use of the "high nose" bug are forbidden. (Okay, that bug has been fixed, but imagine that a new physics flaw is discovered.)
- Drivers who have already won a race this month must carry one passenger.
If you leave all that to an external add-on, things will be much more flexible. There may even be several add-ons, to cater for different needs. And it will not burden Scawen, so he can spend his time on other nice features.
The downside is, indeed, that setups can be "stolen": the creator of the add-on and the server admin could decide to store the setups for their own use. Does that create a new problem? I don't think so. My guess is that setup data is already exchanged between client and server, and possibly even among clients. (LFS needs at least part of the setup to simulate a car's behaviour between updates.) Therefore, anyone who is adept at packet sniffing or memory peeking can already steal your setups.
You might say that my suggestion makes theft easier. In that case it would be good if LFS gave a warning when you connect to a server that uses setup validation.
Sorry if I duplicated your idea (got a link?). I only checked the stickied threads on this subforum.
I know, I have been a mouse driver until recently. I also like brake force the way it is (as you can see in this thread). But there is demand for this kind of thing.
My suggestion is to make it possible to check the setup at the server. The admin can choose to restrict setups (but he will need some extra tooling for it). Then it's your choice to join and race at this server, or go to an "unrestricted" server instead.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG