Hm, that would be rather weird, but not impossible. If possible, try restarting your Airio and see if that changes anything. Also WR table updates should be running (which they are, by default, if LFSW access key(s) are defined). Well, generally this dependence on local WR table is not a good thing, maybe I should be sending more general data and doing more processing remotely, at airio.eu... Ehhh...
I can confirm that WR tables are up to date, I checked the latest WR that's been uploaded on LFSW and it was correct in !wr. Can't restart Airio because Franky is messing with the CP and well idk. :S
Yup, it is great the WR table is up-to-date, the problem could be that in 2.4.2 WR updates are not transfered into data sent to airio.eu for processing. I'm not absolutely sure now, but it is probable WR updates are immediatelly used only from 2.4.3. I'll be announcing 2.4.3 today, because I solved the final SQLite support problem, so stay tuned and see if you get the same LFSEI values as on CG and AA (that is when you can update). 
But should the values be the same? It's something I've noticed over the past week or so, not just today. Has the actual formula changed?
No changes in the formula for a month or two now. And I do not plan any. It is only a question of local processing and sending the correct data, and there've been changes recently (and there still may be some, to make it all as much bullet-proof as possible).
So then it seems that every v2.4.2 server (except cargame.nl for some reason) is bugged? Is there some way for you to do a debug mode to see exactly what is being sent, so you can find out why it's different?
Well, I could activate a kind of debug mode on the server, but it is really caused by small changes in local WR table handling. But I concede that it is a possible weak point that could be improved. And I already have a plan how to do this without transferring too much data, but it requires Airio code and server code update. Generally, use the index as a kind of informative value. In my view, it is the hundreds that count, the tens are also pretty reliable, the units are not so important. But, as I said, I'll try to improve the process and cover the known loopholes.
Well, sorry, but I need to return to one old thing, the UFB (UFR, 45%) and XFJ (XFR, 43%) cars. No doubt they fall into the same category, but what would be the category name? And what names to use for less restricted UFR and XFR? And what category will that be?
I think there's really one clean solution. We could have UFB and XFB, where B stands for "Baby". The category would be GTB (Baby GT). Then there could be UFJ (UFR, e.g. 23%) and XFJ (XFR, e.g. 21%), where J stands for "Junior". The category is logically GTJ.
Then there are the GTR cars, but this is already set as GT2 and GT3 category, no need for changes there. So the only thing is XFJ needs to be locally renamed to XFB, because XFJ may be a different car... Uhm, I hope this makes sense.
I think there's really one clean solution. We could have UFB and XFB, where B stands for "Baby". The category would be GTB (Baby GT). Then there could be UFJ (UFR, e.g. 23%) and XFJ (XFR, e.g. 21%), where J stands for "Junior". The category is logically GTJ.
Then there are the GTR cars, but this is already set as GT2 and GT3 category, no need for changes there. So the only thing is XFJ needs to be locally renamed to XFB, because XFJ may be a different car... Uhm, I hope this makes sense.
...
No, never mind
No, never mind
This "on path" "off path" thing isnt working atm ? So all the laps are "not clean ones" ?
You sure you talk about Aitio? Or are you confused with Airio?
Nothing wrong with path detection and reporting in Airio.
The on/off path check is done completely right on the server (in AIRIO), only results are sent to airio.eu (to AUTIO). If you do not see the on/off path messages, you may have Path check messages turned off in !opt, or Airio does not have the necessary path files available. Also Airio PROS is required for AIRW data. At present there are no problems, and all data are processed correctly.
Actually, there was one more condition added today, that may have influence in certain cases. Updates of people with LFS Experience Index below 100 are ignored. This is done to protect demo good laps from speed hacks and data loss (as it happened twice already). The requirement has additional implication: People with hidden LFSW stats have 0 experience and are from today ignored by AIRW.
To be recognized, LFSW stats must be made available. I have already contacted people that have many LFSW records stored, but they hide their LFSW data. In several days all such records will be deleted (several dozens), only people with known experience will be considered by AIRW.
Actually, there was one more condition added today, that may have influence in certain cases. Updates of people with LFS Experience Index below 100 are ignored. This is done to protect demo good laps from speed hacks and data loss (as it happened twice already). The requirement has additional implication: People with hidden LFSW stats have 0 experience and are from today ignored by AIRW.
To be recognized, LFSW stats must be made available. I have already contacted people that have many LFSW records stored, but they hide their LFSW data. In several days all such records will be deleted (several dozens), only people with known experience will be considered by AIRW.
OK i see it again
I'm sorry to bump this thread but I have a little suggestion for you. Would it be possible to somehow expand this chart to more days, like a month? As it seems that the stats have been gathered for quite a long time so far.
AUTIO - online AIRW and server data
(64 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG