Though it is interesting that the problem was noticed only after the new patch!
Guess it's related with the 0.6T, since it happened after i updated the game... But when the FPS or time are set to be shown on the left, nothing appear, but when it's set on the right, it's working. Any way to fix that?
In 0.6R I did have my own code in there that did the job. But I just came across that CopyFile Windows function one day and thought it would be good to use it. I guess for no real reason than to save a few lines of code.
Just for interest:
For comparison, here's the old function:
int copy_file(ccs src, ccs dst)
{
FILE *fin = fopen(src, read_bin);
if (fin==NULL) return 0;
fseek(fin, 0, SEEK_END);
int size = ftell(fin);
if (size==-1)
{
fclose(fin);
return 0;
}
fseek(fin, 0, SEEK_SET);
byte *mem = new byte[size];
fread(mem, 1, size, fin);
fclose(fin);
FILE *fout = fopen(dst, write_bin);
if (fout==NULL)
{
delete [] mem;
return 0;
}
fwrite(mem, 1, size, fout);
fclose(fout);
delete [] mem;
return 1;
}
And here's the new one which is very compact but causes that issue:
int copy_file(ccs src, ccs dst)
{
return CopyFile(src, dst, FALSE);
}
I think you need to switch off the LFS logo. At the bottom of Options... Misc.
I think you have it set to be displayed, and that hides the FPS/Time but the logo is in turn hidden by the InSim buttons.
I don't think using CopyFile is such a bad idea itself, not that it really matters for small files like setups. Simply resetting the file attributes of the new file afterwards should still result in a nice and compact solution.
There could be other scenarios, like if the setup is on a read-only media. In general, I'd think it should be considered an LFS issue, as it's LFS itself which imports the file and expects the result to be writable (apparently) but doesn't take steps to ensure it.
Agreed:
Perhaps resetting the read only bit like this wouldn't require a whole new round of test patches?
Completely untested, used SetFileAttributes docs as reference. The "allowedBits" field is used to clear any extra bits that GetFileAttributes() may return but SetFileAttributes() cannot work with. MSDN does not seem to mention whether such bits would be ignored or cause SetFileAttributes() to fail.
DWORD allowedBits = 0x31A7;
LPSTR pszFileName = "copied_file.dat";
DWORD attrs = GetFileAttributes(pszFileName);
if (attrs & FILE_ATTRIBUTE_READONLY) {
attrs &= ~FILE_ATTRIBUTE_READONLY & allowedBits;
SetFileAttributes(pszFileName, attrs);
}
Completely untested, used SetFileAttributes docs as reference. The "allowedBits" field is used to clear any extra bits that GetFileAttributes() may return but SetFileAttributes() cannot work with. MSDN does not seem to mention whether such bits would be ignored or cause SetFileAttributes() to fail.
It requires new version
We have had bugfix versions released quickly without a test patch phase, 0.6T2 could carry such a fix...
I don't really have any difficulty thinking of a solution. I just don't want to release a test patch with this little update. It's on the list for the next patch but there is no time estimate for it.
By the way, I remembered why I changed to the new function. It wasn't actually to save the few lines of code with the convenient function. The main reason was that in the development version, I wanted a copy_file that preserved the file dates. The solution I'm happy with is to reinstate the old copy_file for the purpose of copying the downloaded files, but retain the new version for the development version purposes.
By the way, I remembered why I changed to the new function. It wasn't actually to save the few lines of code with the convenient function. The main reason was that in the development version, I wanted a copy_file that preserved the file dates. The solution I'm happy with is to reinstate the old copy_file for the purpose of copying the downloaded files, but retain the new version for the development version purposes.
We are in the timeframe ! let the speculation begins !!! Will we have some images of a new track (
) or updated old tracks ? (I would feel painful for Eric if he had to update manually hundreds of objects on 'old' tracks ... not that I think he would have 'Westhilled' the 4 remaining tracks anyway) or if we can see some Blackwood updates (there some crazy straights not available directly in the open config mode) ...I mentioned in the first post of this thread that we planned to release images of the graphical updates this month. Since then we have been brushing up the existing updates to be ready to make some screenshots.
It has been a useful process as Eric visited the already updated tracks to fix remaining issues, while I got back into looking around the tracks and noticing things I could fix.
As we looked around with our thoughts on the screenshots, we noticed there are things I should work on to improve the screenshots. I will do some of those. So as it turns out our plan has changed a bit to release screenshots in August rather than July.
I wanted to tell you about that change of plan. Also I can say a a few more words about what we are doing and why.
The new shadow system requires an update of every track before we can release it. Some scenery objects were not built in a way that works properly with the shadow maps. For example, every building must have a roof so that shadows are cast correctly. Some of the tracks were built so long ago that they were never designed to be viewed from above. At that time there was no real Free View mode, so things like that were invisible. It's an opportunity to visit every track and bring them up to date, also making the roads and a lot of other scenery make use of the specular reflections, 3D kerbs, better scaled scenery, improvements on some corners and so on. There will not be a "full Westhill" job done on every track. Some tracks will change more than others. We need to remain focussed on getting the updates done, not letting the job expand out of hand, although it is fun doing so many updates. We look forward to showing you some screenshots in August.
It has been a useful process as Eric visited the already updated tracks to fix remaining issues, while I got back into looking around the tracks and noticing things I could fix.
As we looked around with our thoughts on the screenshots, we noticed there are things I should work on to improve the screenshots. I will do some of those. So as it turns out our plan has changed a bit to release screenshots in August rather than July.
I wanted to tell you about that change of plan. Also I can say a a few more words about what we are doing and why.
The new shadow system requires an update of every track before we can release it. Some scenery objects were not built in a way that works properly with the shadow maps. For example, every building must have a roof so that shadows are cast correctly. Some of the tracks were built so long ago that they were never designed to be viewed from above. At that time there was no real Free View mode, so things like that were invisible. It's an opportunity to visit every track and bring them up to date, also making the roads and a lot of other scenery make use of the specular reflections, 3D kerbs, better scaled scenery, improvements on some corners and so on. There will not be a "full Westhill" job done on every track. Some tracks will change more than others. We need to remain focussed on getting the updates done, not letting the job expand out of hand, although it is fun doing so many updates. We look forward to showing you some screenshots in August.
Cars could do with an update. Some of the cars are very old indeed. But they aren't causing any problems with shadows so there is no need for car updates to delay the release of the new graphics.
I'm actually glad to hear this.
The changes you made to Westhill made the race track better, and arguably it was never really finished when you originally released it with S2. Some of the corners on the original track were in need of change when they were initially released and the changes Eric made in the most recent version are quite genius. But that said, changing any of the other track layouts too drastically now might not be smart because they are considered 'classic' tracks to many people. The visual updates and off-track features you added to Westhill would be a welcome sight if they were added to the current set of tracks, but I very much hope that there are not too many updates to the underlying track layouts that alter the flow too drastically.
Nevertheless, I am stoked to see what's new and just hope that we really will see the fruits of your labour in August.
no problem, we will still be there lurking around
Glad for you the things are going well with new ideas and challenges ! Freshing up some tracks sounds very promising !
For me classics are meant to be changed : no problem with this
Let's imagine Fern Bay and Kyoto a bit more designed for some corners, it would not hurt !
I'm not against subtle changes, just nothing too drastic.
I really like this news I'm looking forward to seeing how LFS will get with new updates
Thanks for the update ...
There's a complaint. This update is constantly coming into the loop and it continues as if there is not always the same change or addition.
1.Map insertion feature may come up. I do not speak as a layout.
2.New blank car slots can be added.
3.Servers can be played by adding their own special vehicles, adjusting the power of the engine etc. and sharing them with the users in separate packages.
vb
vb
vb
vb
.
.
.
.
There's a complaint. This update is constantly coming into the loop and it continues as if there is not always the same change or addition.
1.Map insertion feature may come up. I do not speak as a layout.
2.New blank car slots can be added.
3.Servers can be played by adding their own special vehicles, adjusting the power of the engine etc. and sharing them with the users in separate packages.
vb
vb
vb
vb
.
.
.
.
This is a guess, but it makes sense to me, so here goes:
When you open a file in Firefox without saving it first, it stores the file in a temp folder. This file (theoretically) will eventually be automatically deleted.
By setting the Read Only flag, Firefox is forcing programs to load a Save As dialog if you make changes to the file that you later want to keep.
If it didn't do this, people would accidentally permanently lose their changes after the temporary (now modified) file is deleted.
Sorry for the late answer, but I had already tried that.
Finally solved it by restarting the game, with the LFS Logo set off.
Is your problem only with transparent DDS files?
I'd put my money on corrupt graphic's card driver or a failed overclok on GPU memory.
That must be some English humor my lord
Do you suspect a negative feedback because of ugly screenshots of preview of a beta test patch? It is like... a screenshot of Work in Progress... if someone can't understand it, refund his license and ban forever.
Personaly I am ready to take a look of quick PrtScr > Paste more often in read only mode - without bothering your attention mr Scawen, best regards.
I hope that the Westhill's infamous buggy kerb is on the list... if not so, please fix it because it has been a major headache to many drivers.
Bah...! No one forces to drive in regular layout to that spot. In my opinion, it is Excellent!
Sure! Not in terms of physics, so I partially agree. But still...
New Version 0.6T - More robust multiplayer system
(210 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG