Thanks for those posts Scawen! Good luck with developing and take as much time as you need to make the physics as realistic as possible! I guess not everyone will agree with that :hidesbehi, but i prefer something that takes a few months extra and is done well, then something which is rushed.

Finally , You even don't know how nice it is to read Your posts. Thanks a lot for the info.

Hello all

Thank you for ce post Scawen.

Quote from Scawen :

I think the tyre physics have come along a lot recently.

Cheers Scawen, I think that is all most of us wanted to hear

It was interesting to read those posts Scawen, but this is the sentence that stands out to me the most:

Quote from Scawen :

It's kind of a private activity, not sure how to explain that.

I don't normally get involved in the moaning/whining about the rate of development or the meta-moaning about that, but that line really struck a note with me.

It seems like most of the people who are moaning and whining about the slow development pace have no idea what it's like to develop an application. They think it's just a case of sitting 9-5 at a keyboard and writing thousands of lines of code. If they actually tried to develop any non-trivial application they would soon have a different opinion. Sitting 9-5 tapping on a keyboard isn't going to produce high quality code in the long run because you need to spend time stopping and thinking about what exactly you want to achieve and how exactly you want to achieve it. I've had quite a few times where I've been having trouble with a certain aspect and it's been solved while I was just standing in the shower.

I don't know how many people could honestly say they were happy with the development speed of LFS, but I can honestly say that I'm happy that the people developing LFS aren't happy to release a new patch until it's been written and tested properly.

amp, I think you forgot the fun times of waiting 5 minutes for your code to compile, just to get a linker error because of a tiny typo buried deep in the code you wrote 3 days ago, but that compiled without problems before implementing your new code.
Or fun variable problems (I can imagine LFS using quite a bunch). Nothing more fun than a tiny mathematical error that messes everything up - and you can enjoy step-by-step debugging.
Programming. Fun times.

Quote from herki :

amp, I think you forgot the fun times of waiting 5 minutes for your code to compile, just to get a linker error because of a tiny typo buried deep in the code you wrote 3 days ago, but that compiled without problems before implementing your new code.
Or fun variable problems (I can imagine LFS using quite a bunch). Nothing more fun than a tiny mathematical error that messes everything up - and you can enjoy step-by-step debugging.
Programming. Fun times.

Oh, absolutely. Or finding a comment like "FIX THIS IMMEDIATELY!" in code that you wrote a couple of years ago. Or writing something when you're really tired and coming back to it the next day saying to yourself "what the hell was I thinking when I wrote this?". Programming is most certainly not like it's commonly portrayed in the movies and TV.

Perhaps this will help explain Scawen's point of view better in addition to his own comments.

http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=1455007#post1455007

Thanks for the informational report ;-)

Quote from amp88 :

Oh, absolutely. Or finding a comment like "FIX THIS IMMEDIATELY!" in code that you wrote a couple of years ago. Or writing something when you're really tired and coming back to it the next day saying to yourself "what the hell was I thinking when I wrote this?". Programming is most certainly not like it's commonly portrayed in the movies and TV.

You mean like in "hacker" movies?

It pisses me off actually. They just sit there and bash their keyboards and code magically appears on screen that does super awesome commands and whatnot. Argghhh.....

Quote from Scawen :

"I'm working on the tyre physics" and then the next month "I'm still working on the tyre physics" and so on.

Basically that's what you did today, but in a personal way that people find pleasant (yeah me too :nod. If instead of putting together a couple long-ish posts every n months you could post some random thoughts every now and then people would have a feeling of things progressing, they would have something to think and speculate about, and we all would be happier. We don't want your hard earned secrets or physics video lessons, just some bits to keep our brains fed. That stems from our love for LFS.

You have made pretty much clear that you don't like to do that, but I guess you also don't like taking the wrong turns in tyre development or dealing with the boring parts when coding?

Bet you still do it because well you need to, because nobody else would or could make that for you. Posting reports, even vague ones, is just the same: a part of the job.

That's my 2 cent.

Good luck with your work and family, and thanks for taking the time to post something anyway.

Quote from nightshift :

basically that's what you did today, but in a personal way that people find pleasant (yeah me too :nod. If instead of putting together a couple long-ish posts every n months you could post some random thoughts every now and then people would have a feeling of things progressing, they would have something to think and speculate about, and we all would be happier. We don't want your hard earned secrets or physics video lessons, just some bits to keep our brains fed. That stems from our love for lfs.

+1!

Quote from DevilDare :

You mean like in "hacker" movies?

It pisses me off actually. They just sit there and bash their keyboards and code magically appears on screen that does super awesome commands and whatnot. Argghhh.....

The best was Swordfish were the guy actually creates a computer virus he can look at as a cube on the screen.

Anyway, nice update Scawen, but I just don't understand how you say you can't do updates in the first part, then go on to do such an update in the second part ^^

Those kind of updates are pretty much what's needed. I don't think people want super-specifics regarding what's the last thing you tried to implement and so on. Just a broad view of what's going on is plenty, and doesn't leave us in the dark.

Just a little progress update goes a long way. To be honest, I was getting a little antsy. I do check for new Scawen posts most days on my daily trawl through my favourite websites, and always get that little sinking feeling when I see that 3rd of June post. Happy to see some more news, just to let us know what's up.

By the way, I was wondering if the new tyre model will have the same or more than 48 sections than the old one.

Thx Scawen for the update I'm the one of doubting sometimes that LFS as I see your, side-project has in fact steady progress rate - so good to hear it is the opposite

I reckon you are concetrating on physics because thats what LFS is all (and online racing) about but anyway I propose to consider third party involvement. I know that is not a Scavier strategy, but there are things to really look at:

a mod (or just movie editing effect?) to look for wet physics:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLkLg9LSx3E
LyScavier was maybe not a good idea but Scavierly sounds ok...

Quote from amp88 :

I've had quite a few times where I've been having trouble with a certain aspect and it's been solved while I was just standing in the shower.

I know exactly what you mean, it tends to come to me just before bed and then I can't sleep even if I just try writing the idea on paper to implement later. No instead it is a compulsion that the idea needs to be implemented and tested immediately to find if it worked or not.

Quote from herki :

amp, I think you forgot the fun times of waiting 5 minutes for your code to compile, just to get a linker error because of a tiny typo buried deep in the code you wrote 3 days ago, but that compiled without problems before implementing your new code.
Or fun variable problems (I can imagine LFS using quite a bunch). Nothing more fun than a tiny mathematical error that messes everything up - and you can enjoy step-by-step debugging.
Programming. Fun times.

Don't forget some larger projects, when requiring a full build can take a lot longer, even on higher powered machines of today. Although admittedly much less time than the old days. It is NOTHING like the movies, although if movies portrayed it like the real thing non-programmers would fall asleep immediately.

How about memory corruption bugs; crashing at completely random spots because you went out of bounds on an array, or deleted memory and still use it elsewhere?

Quote from amp88 :

Oh, absolutely. Or finding a comment like "FIX THIS IMMEDIATELY!" in code that you wrote a couple of years ago. Or writing something when you're really tired and coming back to it the next day saying to yourself "what the hell was I thinking when I wrote this?". Programming is most certainly not like it's commonly portrayed in the movies and TV.

I always loved finding those comments. Coming back and reading it later (even just a few months later) can sometimes make you wonder WHY it needs to be fixed. (If you didn't document it initially which can happen during 'testing by feeling' and just walking away when it felt right.

I can't say I've fallen into the trap recently, but those times where you write an algorithm, and your convinced enough that it works on paper that you fiddle with it for hours to get it to work. Once it is working you run away with a note never to touch it again. Then next week you find that 'this set of inputs' breaks down the 'magically working code' and you don't know why. It is often best to stop what you are doing and redesign it from the ground up - but that doesn't change anything to the end-user - who sit complaining for months that nothing is changing! I'd bet that this (not the magical function, but the re-factoring aspect) is going on quite a bit right now. Although that is speculation.

Thanks Scawen for the note of update. It is always nice to hear, but I agree 100% with this statement:

Quote from amp88 :

I don't know how many people could honestly say they were happy with the development speed of LFS, but I can honestly say that I'm happy that the people developing LFS aren't happy to release a new patch until it's been written and tested properly.

Don't know why I find myself typing again, since it'll fall on deaf ears.. but anyway.

Dear Scawen, the problem has never been your adventurous mind that explores a myriad of paths in the development process, nor was it the fact that Scirocco hasn't been released back in 2008 (or that you're not a drivetrain & electronics engineer and cannot code a whole ESP on your own - although the pricks at VW could've given u more help than a Scirocco pamphlet..), problem isn't even the tire physics.

However, this is the problem: you haven't looked at the LFSW most used car/track graphs for a long time, you haven't looked at LFS Forum leagues that are springing up left and right (most of them new endurance leagues).. so you haven't realised that we would just like some new stuff to drive. It doesn't have to be real life track and cars, doesn't have to be anything you would need to pay a license for, most of LFS' imaginary tracks are GREAT, cars too.

So, why do I have to cry each year when 24 h of Le Mans rolls around? Why do I have to suffer through beurocrats trying to balance the GTR class for every new season, not understanding that there's little to do about a shit-to-drive FR layout race car with huge turbo lags other than slow the car that's nice to drive waay down? Why do we have only 4 tracks wide & fast enough for endurance multiclass racing (KY2-3, WE1, ASX)? Have you tried being lapped or lapping even decent drivers around SO4 and BL1 with a proper race car (in multiclass racing)? Cmon.

These are the pressing concernes that cause all the moaning and quitting. If Scirocco came out tomorrow, it wouldn't be driven any more than a FXO, maybe for the first month or even three. So, why lay all the delays on the poor car and the tire physics? Correct me if I'm wrong, but would a newly added car or track need to be completely re-done once the tire physics are updated? I'm not a coder, but I really doubt you'll be updating all the LFS cars every time tires are changed (like in patch Y).

Two more fast & wide tracks, one GTR class car (or at least fixing the two currently there) and something resembling a sports-prototype class and you wouldn't hear any bitching for at least 2 years, and I don't think it's and unrealistic timetable (releasing that amount of content with your workforce capacity in the timeframe since the last update was delayed).

Screw tyres and AI.
Please tell us, how's Scawen Junior and the Miss doing ?!

Plus what Scipy Burnnnn said.

See Scawen? ...didn't hurt at all. or did it...?

What counts is that you stopped by and said something...

Quote from scipy :

Don't know why I find myself typing again, since it'll fall on deaf ears.. but anyway.

Dear Scawen, the problem has never been your adventurous mind that explores a myriad of paths in the development process, nor was it the fact that Scirocco hasn't been released back in 2008 (or that you're not a drivetrain & electronics engineer and cannot code a whole ESP on your own - although the pricks at VW could've given u more help than a Scirocco pamphlet..), problem isn't even the tire physics.

However, this is the problem: you haven't looked at the LFSW most used car/track graphs for a long time, you haven't looked at LFS Forum leagues that are springing up left and right (most of them new endurance leagues).. so you haven't realised that we would just like some new stuff to drive. It doesn't have to be real life track and cars, doesn't have to be anything you would need to pay a license for, most of LFS' imaginary tracks are GREAT, cars too.

So, why do I have to cry each year when 24 h of Le Mans rolls around? Why do I have to suffer through beurocrats trying to balance the GTR class for every new season, not understanding that there's little to do about a shit-to-drive FR layout race car with huge turbo lags other than slow the car that's nice to drive waay down? Why do we have only 4 tracks wide & fast enough for endurance multiclass racing (KY2-3, WE1, ASX)? Have you tried being lapped or lapping even decent drivers around SO4 and BL1 with a proper race car (in multiclass racing)? Cmon.

These are the pressing concernes that cause all the moaning and quitting. If Scirocco came out tomorrow, it wouldn't be driven any more than a FXO, maybe for the first month or even three. So, why lay all the delays on the poor car and the tire physics? Correct me if I'm wrong, but would a newly added car or track need to be completely re-done once the tire physics are updated? I'm not a coder, but I really doubt you'll be updating all the LFS cars every time tires are changed (like in patch Y).

Two more fast & wide tracks, one GTR class car (or at least fixing the two currently there) and something resembling a sports-prototype class and you wouldn't hear any bitching for at least 2 years, and I don't think it's and unrealistic timetable (releasing that amount of content with your workforce capacity in the timeframe since the last update was delayed).

New tyre physics won't bring LFS back to life, well maybe 3 to 6 months without a lot of moaning, but then what? we adjust to the new drive style and still have to drive the same cars/tracks as we have been doing for years.

Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of updating the physics but why hasn't Eric released any new content in such a long time? there is no excuse for that.

it will be good if civilian cars in LFS could have more realistic engine output charateristics meaning more lower end torque...

Quote from RiGun :

But why hasn't Eric released any new content in such a long time? there is no excuse for that.

I don't think Eric's work rate is the issue because no one has a clue how fast he can make tracks/cars without him telling us, my opinion is that Eric has plenty of work that could be made public but the final decision ends with Scawen on what gets released.

A new version is getting ready for the beta testers?

That 'means' something for us!

Quote from amp88 :

Programming is most certainly not like it's commonly portrayed in the movies and TV.

Ah yes, the hollywood operating system.