Quote from Honey :

i remember i've reported this bug on an already started thread, but it died without conlusions iirc, i always assumed scawen put that on his "to-fix list"

Yes, I meant telling about testing in the bebinning, especially that "UDP packets not sent" thing. Not just the bug.

Quote from DEVIL 007 :

I cant bealive me eyes Vykos .

Sorry I have to say always soemthing more.Its georgeous achievement how LFS looks with current 3d engine even its only DX8 one.
The thing is world is slowly moving with development of the upcoming titles to DX10 and we still sitting with DX8 and DX9 is almost at the end of his life.I dont blame Scawen for this as I said I am in LFS long time and I have no words for what was Scawen able to do.Its great.

I have just in my mind that in Vista there will be only DX9 support (will we have even DX8? support)thru software layer for games(that what is Micorsoft claiming) and most of us will move to that system even we dont want(I just still hope that Vista will be somethinbg like WindowsMe and will disaaper quickly as it was a big mistake).
Hard to say how the software DX9 layer support will be effective for games or not.Its just something to consider as well.

I dont see too deep into 3D LFS engine but as Scawen give some info from time to time here in forum there could be moved more work to GPU and saving CPU cycles thus increasing FPS,eye candy but I know its a "run for a long time".

i fully agree with that, except, that windows vista should be the reason,
why changing to DX9 or higher...

but imagine, what LFS could look like, if using DX9 or higer (in future of
course)...
the way, scawen is coding is really great, cause if u compare new games
to the LFS graphics, I only can say, that LFS look better sometimes or
even the same (except som special DX9 things)....
take rFactor...me likes LFS graphics more...

so, keep on the great work u are doing, and u'll never get rid of me,
SCAVIER

lfs is the most exciting, thrilling, and for me, emotional software, which
exists...
emotional, because I like the way SCAVIER are doing....love that...

Quote from Honey :

i'm in the "ict" area of my company and you cannot believe the absurd stories and the most subtle problems that come out everyday.

I have really funny one and unbeliveable story.

There was a connection(not internet one) provided to one customer and after a time there was always connection drop but always coming back in like 1-5 minutes later always same time late in the afternoon.
Everything was remotely checked and even engineer came onto place to check all the equipment.Everything was fine even to be sure he replaced some equipment but the problem was still there.The people were clue less so they sent engineer to that place at the time of the failure to see what the hell is going on.

You will not bealive what happed.The engineer was sitting in the room right next to the equipment looking at all the LEDs and at the time of failure came a cleaning lady,asked nicely that she has to do something and put off the the equipment power plug and insert vacuum cleaner power plug:eek: .He was shocked.
Its real true life story .

Sorry enough of my low quality spam

Quote from DEVIL 007 :

You mean LFS client didnt send UDP packets or server part?
If I understood that was test made on LAN?

the very first on internet, the other on lan
about server or client, you arise a dubt in me, i always assumed it was the client, but i don't remeber my collegue specifically said it was the client, next week i will return to work and ask him if he remembers

Quote from Honey :

the very first on internet, the other on lan
about server or client, you arise a dubt in me, i always assumed it was the client, but i don't remeber my collegue specifically said it was the client, next week i will return to work and ask him if he remembers

The internet is not very reliable way to make such a tests.The LAN is better way to go if you are 100 percent sure how the LAN network is configured.

Hope I am not mistaken but both LFS client and server should send UPD packets or is it only server side who sent UDP`s about car positions?

Quote from Scawen :

Please can you give an example? The idea of the disappearing wheel is that it only disappears when you can't see it anyway.

The 10ish FPS is because of the capturing, without it FPS is (and was) ~25.


Edit: doggoned. I meant steering wheel not the tire wheels. Gotta remember to read my posts in the mindset of others :doh:

Quote from DEVIL 007 :

Hi GP4Flo,
You might know that I am in LFS very,very long time and went thru all these changes to the LFS so there is no place to "teach" me .

And why not use more if there is such a possibility?That was a bit "stupid" question.Sorry I dont know better word in english so please dont take is as something bad.

The current LFS to be honest doesnt stress much current or even some years old graphic cards really much.I had same FPS on ATI8500 as on the current GF6600(now low end card) except I am now able to use 4xAA+16AF without penalty to FPS drop.

At the end I have to say that LFS has really nice graphic and I am enjoying it but sometimes I would like use more...better textures(for example Don`s and Kidcodeas`s hires sky packs)etc.

Its not that I am negative about current LFS 3d engine.

Yeah, I have nothing against adding new features to the LFS engine. What I wanted to say is, that I don't think removing optimizations just for the sake of it would be any good.

Quote from GP4Flo :

Yeah, I have nothing against adding new features to the LFS engine. What I wanted to say is, that I don't think removing optimizations just for the sake of it would be any good.

OK....my bad.I didnt mean to removing the optimizations but to be able to choose myself if I want it or not. Just a ON/OFF button

Quote from DEVIL 007 :

With your experiencies probably you should know that all ISP sometimes shaping UPD packets very lot.If there is too much on network of UDP they can automaticly shape it down.Its really easy.
And you should know that if UPD packet is lost you never get the same one again as its possible with TCP but just the next one.

There are always some priorities on ISP`s network and to be honest its not the home user.

i understand, and if that maybe true for my home isp, but for my company isp the internet connection has a minimum bw guarranteed and i mad sure the first test was on our "high priority" gateway so its unlikely that bw saturated at anytime (also holiday time) because on very first test i didnt reserved bw only for lfs.
let's assume some udp loss occurs, for any reason, as soon any lfs packet succeed to reach destination, then car position is updated and this happens every day when you see those guys that lag as a hell...there is huge packet loss, but a new packet updates car position.

the bug i'm talking about make lfs simply stop sending packet "forever"...it is "similar" to the bug that surely happened to any of us, when a server suddenlly lags every car forever until server restart...whilst this now rarely happens, it still happens and it encourages me to believe that is a very subtle problem that still is present either in server and client

Quote from DEVIL 007 :

OK....my bad.I didnt mean to removing the optimizations but to be able to choose myself if I want it or not. Just a ON/OFF button

well, but if u can't see it, why not hiding it
i mean, what is the advantage of displaying a thing which is not visible
ok, to know, that the PC is great enough and as a kind of benchmak, but
in fact, it's useless

Quote from Krane :

The 10ish FPS is because of the capturing, without it FPS is (and was) ~25.


Edit: doggoned. I meant steering wheel not the tire wheels. Gotta remember to read my posts in the mindset of others :doh:

Thanks for the video and mprs. I thought you meant the steering wheel anyway.

I had just never heard that it could vanish, on your own car, due to the dynamic LOD. I will fix that for today's T6 patch.

Quote from Honey :

i understand, and if that maybe true for my home isp, but for my company isp the internet connection has a minimum bw guarranteed and i mad sure the first test was on our "high priority" gateway so its unlikely that bw saturated at anytime (also holiday time) because on very first test i didnt reserved bw only for lfs.
let's assume some udp loss occurs, for any reason, as soon any lfs packet succeed to reach destination, then car position is updated and this happens every day when you see those guys that lag as a hell...there is huge packet loss, but a new packet updates car position.

the bug i'm talking about make lfs simply stop sending packet "forever"...it is "similar" to the bug that surely happened to any of us, when a server suddenlly lags every car forever until server restart...whilst this now rarely happens, it still happens and it encourages me to believe that is a very subtle problem that still is present either in server and client

The fact you can reproduce this problem on two PC's in different locations with differing internet connections and yet I do not see any other person reporting this bug makes me very suspicious.

I have tried running Ethereal with LFS running and I can see lots UDP packets coming and going. Personally I would have thought it was a configuration issue on those machines, maybe some software or registry edit or something along those lines.

Quote from ebola :

...I do not see any other person reporting this bug makes me very suspicious...

I have it too, sometimes. And it´s not the new F1-Patch, because i had it before as well.

Wait-wait-wait-wait-wait, please, with the final patch!!! I was offline 3 days, and my translation update will be soon!

No problem Detail. I expect to construct version U in the morning.

Version T6 is out now, so I will close this thread.

http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=116823#post116823