No, it's not related to pit stops. It's only for resetting / moving the car.

Could be used by admins to simulate the marshalls getting a stuck car moving again, or moving a car to a different place for some reason.

Ok, thanks for replying, I'll keep asking every now and then for that feature to be implemented xD

E: Fixed


You are doing great work guys!

Wat version too use for hotlap now?
I tried k and k6 but every time i get mail it's 'oos

When i watch aanrus hotlap i get replay OOS error and his is uploaded i'm on k6

Forget it I did clean install lfs and now it works

Begin the hl process by the end of next week , there will not be any major issue then

Yeah, sorry about the RO hotlap confusion during these test patches. Just inevitable as some parts of the track surface were fixed. We plan to release the full version on Saturday and that should be stable for a while.

Fe2y
concrete wall not move down
zero quota is to high

Yes, there are just a few places in LFS which are below sea level, and the floating autocross objects can't go low enough at those points. This part of Fern Ban, one area of Aston and under the bridge at South City.

I wasn't aware that Shift+F10 and Shift+F11 behaved different!

F10 "minimizes" if not focused, while F11 is always on screen (but behind taskbar and other windows).

I DO LOVE this difference. Did anyone notice this? I'm not aware of reading about this in any of Scawen's posts.

Well, that is the "Borderless window system" referred to in the first post. It was a major focus on my side of this series of test patches, several days work on that.

Borderless window system :

New SHIFT+key functions are displayed on right of Screen Options
Borderless modes allow ALT+TAB to other programs without minimising
Multiple monitor support is greatly improved by a borderless window
New command /window min/max/monitor/virtual (no parameter=restore)

Watch out though, borderless windows have worse performance than exclusive mode full screen.

Argh, I was wrong. I thought that F10 was a borderless mode, not the real fullscreen. I should've read properly before getting that excited xD

Another incompatible "sub-test" patch K11 on the programmers thread. It's mainly for programmers until Thursday when I plan to do a 'proper' incompatible test patch here.

But InSim programmers should definitely have a look. Server admins might like to have a look at the new grid manipulation buttons too.

Just remember it's not compatible with what most people have. https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/88999

A bug related to the new test patch feature "Input when window is inactive": https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/89018

It happens to me as well, pressing Shift + C or switching to full screen mode (Shift + F4) reactivates the FFB.

Thanks, got it and the fix will be in K12.

EDIT:

K12 is now available.

It's another incompatible "sub-test" patch in the programmer section. The test patch is mainly for programmers until Thursday when I plan to do a 'proper' incompatible test patch here.

InSim programmers should definitely have a look. Server admins might like to have a look at the new grid manipulation buttons.

Just remember it's not compatible with what most people have. https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/88999

I was hoping to release the latest Rockingham in an incompatible update today, for final testing. I think no more Rockingham bugs have been reported, so it would have been the same as in K9 but with the new sunset lighting, and also the exe would contain the new incompatible features.

The delay is because the interesting incompatible updates are still ongoing. It seems to me best to take one more week and release the full version the following weekend (on 13th February).

This way, the InSim programmers get more of a chance to try out the new features over the weekend and I can get more things done from my list.

what do you mean by "interesting incompatible updates" ? the InSim features ?

Feature more user based I think, that could be things like Rockingham update, UI improvement or shader updates for example. I don't think he got time to work on a Cascaded Shadow Mapping system but I still hope to see it in the next update

The incompatible updates are listed or discussed on the programmer test thread and to me they are interesting! Yes, most of the changes need InSim to use them but the changes offer some interesting possibilities for online racing, and that's why I'm working with server admins and InSim programmers on that thread. It's all about helping to support good online racing.

Scawen, talking about incompatible update, it is possible to increase the maximum packets per second on LAN and Internet servers ?
Something like 32 pps for example, because for now, it feels really cheap IMO, and bandwidth is not the same as in 2003 lol

Try out the bandwidth calculator in game (start new host screen). The bandwidth becomes very heavy with high numbers as it is approximately proportional to the number of cars times number of guests. Something like N-squared. True we are no longer using 56k modems but we do have 48 guests and 40 cars on track...

Why did I never see any better than 40k on a 56k modem...

I think increasing the limit to something like 16pps on internet and LAN, with 12pps and max cars and hosts it's like 2 Mo/s of upload needed, I'm sure some servers could support that easily

This is the current maximum. 12 pps is indeed double the current shown maximum which is 2 Megabytes/sec but this is not only affecting bandwidth I am afraid. Packets need to be handled, structures/functions need to be changed because the packets are timed, workload on LFS instances will increase. However from 6 to 8/9 there is 33% or 50% improvement already. It maybe is smoother for the visual eye, maybe the difference isn't that big at all because position is calculated by probability in between the real packet updates. It certainly doesn't have to match visual FPS ratings (30 pps). I do think/hope chances are less destructive when there are people far away from the server with mild packet loss to be involved in a nasty car collision with a slightly higher packet rate but this is just theory.

I only see possitive things in increasing pps sure it eats bandwith but bandwith high enough these days. My up is higher then 2x max server settings lfs in dave's post and i think thats case for more servers.

Edit: + hosters can set their own pps