Yep, some guys in my team race it. So that's probably what it is, its around that number that race in it aswell, apparently.
When I type a nickname with spaces e.g. here, it doesn't return good results. There seems to be a problem with URL encoding of spaces - try %20 instead of +.
Hm, it works very good for me in IE and Opera...
Damn, it works now :doh:
The LFSW count has the same discrepancy. On the left you see "Racers (687)" and over on the right you see "There are currently 874 racers online in LFS. (432 Demo - 442 Licensed)". I had just refreshed both boxes, so it's not different because one of them is an hour old. 
At roughly the same time (well, in the time it took me to take a screenshot and write /\ that /\ paragraph), your stats say:
L+D 374+280
T-D 654
So from this we can see that it is *more* (not all) demo users that are "lost". Hacked games maybe? Really old versions of LFS that aren't reported in the left hand list? I wonder if it would get a reply if we submitted it as a website "bug" .
Edit: Also I should add, this is pretty much exactly what I was asking for, so long as it can be considered accurate. The 3 days - 4 weeks all being the same confuses me though.
At roughly the same time (well, in the time it took me to take a screenshot and write /\ that /\ paragraph), your stats say:
L+D 374+280
T-D 654
So from this we can see that it is *more* (not all) demo users that are "lost". Hacked games maybe? Really old versions of LFS that aren't reported in the left hand list? I wonder if it would get a reply if we submitted it as a website "bug" .
Edit: Also I should add, this is pretty much exactly what I was asking for, so long as it can be considered accurate. The 3 days - 4 weeks all being the same confuses me though.
The numbers are as accurate as you can get it. Every minute Autio is asking LFSW for a complete list of hosts. This list includes also all currently connected usernames, so t goes through the list (containing usually 100 to 1000 names) and updates their "last seen" field in a database table. I was using the hosts list for different purposes for a year or so now and I think it is very reliable.
The data gathering runs now just for 2 full days, there is no one seen as "last connected" more than 2 days ago, that's why the bottom table items are mostly the same. To see different numbers in the 4w column we need to wait for 4 weeks.
When I say accurate, I'm talking about the 200 or so "lost souls" that we can't seem to find.
Edit: Because I am very curious I've started a thread in the Live for Speed > Bug Reports > Bugs - Websites section.
Edit: Because I am very curious I've started a thread in the Live for Speed > Bug Reports > Bugs - Websites section.
Hm, I believe the numbers in Autio are OK, if you take a look at the reported online people or sum up number of people on all servers, I believe you'll get the same number that the hosts list contains. It is just sums appearing on LFSW that seem somehow strange...
Yeah, that strangeness is the "bug" I reported.
Worry, any chance you could add XFJ (XFR w/43% intake rest.) to AIRW?
This would go along with UFB.
Also, Autio page shows this:
Can you define how close "in the vicinity" is?
Thanks.
This would go along with UFB.
Also, Autio page shows this:
Can you define how close "in the vicinity" is?
Thanks.
Yup, there's a good chance I could.
One suggestion though: Why not call it XFB (Baby XFR), so that we have UFB and XFB, two baby GTL cars? Seems more, uhm, kind of systematic, to me... 
Closer than 15 meters for 3 seconds or more. If you turn on path check for yourself, you'll see messages when the lap is invalidated.
Because it's the XF-JR. It's less common than the UFB (UF-BR) but it's already got an accepted name.
OK then, I'll add it in a few minutes...
?
http://www.google.com/search?q ... orum.net+xfj&filter=0
Looks pretty unknown to me. But OK
edit: http://www.google.com/search?q ... Alfsforum.net+%22xf-jr%22 (y)
thanks EQ, and yes, XFJr has been the accepted name amongst those who frequent it.
EDIT: (i had a shitty attitude this morning) :P
EDIT: (i had a shitty attitude this morning) :P
Just interest. I searched before for such a car but couldn't find it.
for future reference.....(although it is now defunct)
http://www.lfsforum.net/showth ... 35&highlight=NDR+XFJr
Well, back to the above theme, having UFB and XFJ falling into the same category still sounds weird to me. I would say B stands for Baby and J for Junior. But Baby and Junior could be two different categories, Baby with restriction say something over 40%, Junior something over 20%. The other day I was racing in XFR with 23% and it was great. Personally, I'd love to call such cars Junior, so that there could be UFJ and XFJ. Cars restricted by 45 resp. 43% are in the Baby category, and UFB and XFB would be the most suitable names. This Baby/Junior separation would seem logical and understandable to me and applicable basically to all car types. XFJ is maybe a known name among those few who frequent it, but adjusting to a more consistent naming scheme should not be much of a problem? C'mon, it would make me happy!
who frequent it, but adjusting to a more consistent naming scheme should not be much of a problem? C'mon, it would make me happy! Would that cause trouble if we have it defined as XFJ on our server and you have it XFB on Autio, and you had XFJ as something else?
Wow, that is a tricky question! So, let me think while writing.
Autio and AIRW always ignore local custom car settings. They receive standard car name + applied restrictions, store the data and use it to internally assign custom car type as defined on the Web site. That means whenever you'll be using XFR with 43% restriction, AIRW will be seeing it as XFB and reporting it back as such. The back-reporting includes online AIRW messages and also world records in custom cars updated once an hour just as LFSW WRs.
Locally the PBs will be stored as XFJ. For example !sb xfb will return nothing, while !sb xfj will work as expected. On the other hand !wr xfj will return nothing or WR of XFR with lower restriction (about 20%), while !wr xfb will give you a WR of the car you call XFJ.
But then it gets yet more complicated. For the good lap times and several other things WRs are used. If there's a mismatch in custom car names, Airio would see you as joining with XFJ and will look up XFJ world record. But this XFJ would have e.g. 23% restriction and not 43%, meaning the good lap times will be impossible to achieve.
This problem arises only when AIRW and local Airio use the same car name with very different specifications. Question is it this could be solved by applying time adjustments for local XFJ in the TCD file, but that would require testing and searching in the code.
Overall conclusion? The could be specific problems, for the smoothest run it is best to have local and AIRW custom car names synchronized...
So, let me think while writing.Autio and AIRW always ignore local custom car settings. They receive standard car name + applied restrictions, store the data and use it to internally assign custom car type as defined on the Web site. That means whenever you'll be using XFR with 43% restriction, AIRW will be seeing it as XFB and reporting it back as such. The back-reporting includes online AIRW messages and also world records in custom cars updated once an hour just as LFSW WRs.
Locally the PBs will be stored as XFJ. For example !sb xfb will return nothing, while !sb xfj will work as expected. On the other hand !wr xfj will return nothing or WR of XFR with lower restriction (about 20%), while !wr xfb will give you a WR of the car you call XFJ.
But then it gets yet more complicated. For the good lap times and several other things WRs are used. If there's a mismatch in custom car names, Airio would see you as joining with XFJ and will look up XFJ world record. But this XFJ would have e.g. 23% restriction and not 43%, meaning the good lap times will be impossible to achieve.
This problem arises only when AIRW and local Airio use the same car name with very different specifications. Question is it this could be solved by applying time adjustments for local XFJ in the TCD file, but that would require testing and searching in the code.
Overall conclusion? The could be specific problems, for the smoothest run it is best to have local and AIRW custom car names synchronized...
Well obviously whoever came up with the XFJ wasn't looking ahead to Airio being invented It sounds like the two options are:
A) Change nothing, keep it slightly confusing mixing Jr. and Baby. Easier on those who know the car and have Airio set up.
B) Change everything, re-define what the XFJ/B is called. Will cause problems unless everything is updated at once, but follows a standard format.
The engineer in me prefers B, but the the stubborn racer prefers A because that's just how it already is if you know what I mean. I don't know how many people this would affect and cause issues for, but I do know there are a few Airio powered servers that would need changing, and I don't control.... any of them.
Slightly related:
When you were racing with XFR w/ 23%, was it matched to a UFR, and what was it called locally?
Very unrelated:
Cargame.nl S2 seems to be messed up. Their LFSEI calculations are different from every other Airio server even with the same Airio version. Please yell at them or whatever it is you do.
Last edit I swear:
http://stats.airio.eu/PPL.aspx Is looking really good as the weeks go on. 9195 S2 users and 18263 demo users in the past 2 weeks. A bit more than I expected actually.
It sounds like the two options are:A) Change nothing, keep it slightly confusing mixing Jr. and Baby. Easier on those who know the car and have Airio set up.
B) Change everything, re-define what the XFJ/B is called. Will cause problems unless everything is updated at once, but follows a standard format.
The engineer in me prefers B, but the the stubborn racer prefers A because that's just how it already is if you know what I mean. I don't know how many people this would affect and cause issues for, but I do know there are a few Airio powered servers that would need changing, and I don't control.... any of them.
Slightly related:
When you were racing with XFR w/ 23%, was it matched to a UFR, and what was it called locally?
Very unrelated:
Cargame.nl S2 seems to be messed up. Their LFSEI calculations are different from every other Airio server even with the same Airio version. Please yell at them or whatever it is you do.
Last edit I swear:
http://stats.airio.eu/PPL.aspx Is looking really good as the weeks go on. 9195 S2 users and 18263 demo users in the past 2 weeks. A bit more than I expected actually.
Uhm, little background first. Several months ago I was repeatedly asking developers to do or at least consider some changes I thought could be relatively simple. One of those changes was direct custom cars support, in game via specific new setups, on LFSW with new categories incorporated into the existing ones.
Only when I received no response at all I went adventurous and started the custom implementation. It was not easy for me, because I never worked with databases so I had to learn and implement everything from scratch. The big surprise is it actually works as expected.
Yes, I know what you mean. Still, the custom cars support is working quite well I think and could be extended. But to have an understandable system the new car names should be somehow obvious and meaningful. The Baby/Junior separation looks good, and I think it is better to do it earlier than later.
No name was given. It was matched to UFR, yes, but I do not remember the values now. I already asked, when I get answer I'll inform you. But overall, GTLs with over 40% restriction does not appeal much to me. With slightly over 20% it was a great car for my cheap mouse to control.
Wow, hm. Basically the core calculation is done at airio.eu, so it is the same for all FULL Airios. Local Airios only supply input data, so the difference could be a result of some data not available temporarily. Maybe your hotlaps were not downloaded properly from LFSW, and in that case incomplete data would be used for the calculation. Anyway, I just checked and it gave me exactly the same number as on AirAttack.
Yup, the stats start to be useful there. Just today I extended the chart to 24 hours and changed what servers are displayed to something more informative. I'd like to add weekly chart too, maybe, and some Airio servers stats as well...
PS: Currently supported cars table, ha... I need to make one, somehow, somewhere...
PPS: XFR had 22%, UFR then 24% (thx for info goes to babyonwheels). In the new AIRW paradigm they could be Junior-level cars, XFJ and UFJ...
Only when I received no response at all I went adventurous and started the custom implementation. It was not easy for me, because I never worked with databases so I had to learn and implement everything from scratch. The big surprise is it actually works as expected.
Yes, I know what you mean.
Still, the custom cars support is working quite well I think and could be extended. But to have an understandable system the new car names should be somehow obvious and meaningful. The Baby/Junior separation looks good, and I think it is better to do it earlier than later.No name was given. It was matched to UFR, yes, but I do not remember the values now. I already asked, when I get answer I'll inform you. But overall, GTLs with over 40% restriction does not appeal much to me. With slightly over 20% it was a great car for my cheap mouse to control.
Wow, hm. Basically the core calculation is done at airio.eu, so it is the same for all FULL Airios. Local Airios only supply input data, so the difference could be a result of some data not available temporarily. Maybe your hotlaps were not downloaded properly from LFSW, and in that case incomplete data would be used for the calculation. Anyway, I just checked and it gave me exactly the same number as on AirAttack.
Yup, the stats start to be useful there. Just today I extended the chart to 24 hours and changed what servers are displayed to something more informative. I'd like to add weekly chart too, maybe, and some Airio servers stats as well...
PS: Currently supported cars table, ha... I need to make one, somehow, somewhere...
PPS: XFR had 22%, UFR then 24% (thx for info goes to babyonwheels). In the new AIRW paradigm they could be Junior-level cars, XFJ and UFJ...
Again, I don't control the servers. I know NDR's dekojester has run UF-BR vs. XF-JR in the past (both a really old league and as a public server), and sa|haVoc (who asked for the XFJ in this thread) has a server with them set up. I'm sure you can somehow find out which servers people are driving XFJ on, if you want people to change the name you will have to talk to them.
I have joined a few different servers to test now.
cargame.nl and AirAttack give me one value: 746.2
sa|ngl lite and NDR.GTAL 2010 give another: 747.3
I have attached the "Calculation Details" for both. You are right in that the hotlap index is what changes between the two numbers. The only reason I bring it us is that it is consistently different. I have started going to cargame.nl a few times a week, and of course I visit my own teams servers regularly, and my EI is always lower when I go to cargame.nl. Also I raced a bit on cargame.nl today, it started at 745.9 and rose up to 746.2 as I raced more. It never jumped up to 747.x, so it was either missing hotlaps every single time, or it was in fact using a different calculation compared to other servers.
My theory is that when you changed the percentages from WR for the calculation (back in 2.4.0 I think?) something got flubbed up in the clean install vs. upgrade/overwrite methods.
As I type this, I notice that Cargame.nl and AirAttack are on v2.4.3, compared to v2.4.2 of the others. Has something changed in this update?
What you might do on that chart is have 800 on the left side as it is now, then put 80 on the right, and have a visual key below telling you which number you use for the line/shaded region.
Or maybe following the example GTRs and GT2 they could be XF2 and UF2, allowing UFB and XFJ to be equals.
I believe it is due to the version changes. 2.4.3 handles WR updates slightly differently, more dynamically. It uses newer, improved lap time data, and thus some PBs fall into lower category, resulting in slightly lower HL index. BTW, the new Airio version is almost ready, I need to address one more issue related to the introduction of partial SQLite support and data import to the database.
Ha! Yes, that could be a solution...
OK, so it would make sense that two of my online PBs would fall from the 1st category to the 4th with this new way of handling WRs?
AUTIO - online AIRW and server data
(64 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG