Yeah, I always wanted more object too. Again, it might seem trivial on the first glance but right off the bat questions arise which kinds of objects will be most useful -- very debatable topic in essence I think it might deserve a separate thread where we could present and discuss all ideas in a comprehensive way
And given that Eric is busy redoing all the tracks for new graphics, it would be a bit impolite to ask for that right now ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You should have received an email about it.
It seems like a lot of people don't think of the idea of checking their email to find out what has gone wrong.
Are we mistaken to think that email is a good method to send information to people?
Do some people just not check their email?
EDIT: To be clear - I'm not being sarcastic, I've just noticed that this has happened quite often.
The thing about objects is that a driver doesn't join a server and take anything like that with them. They only take sets and skins.
It's down to the host to hold the necessary tracks and layouts on their sever.
I build a layout, then it's really just the track limits.
Layout sans scenery
If I want to show something other than an empty track, I have to make things that look like scenery.
Layout with scenery
What I'm looking for, is (ideally) individual items (trees, bushes, houses, gantries, marshall posts, etc) that you would see on a normal track, or a large background of mountains, tree line, housing, etc, that you see at normal LFS tracks.
Layout with background surrounds
I would imagine (!) that scenery objects or backgrounds that you can just 'plonk' down where you would like, would be much easier to implement than making a full track editor.
There could be a SHIFT U edit tab just with maybe a choice of 20 - 25 defined objects or so.
If these are part of the object allowance (currently 2,400) then that would be fine.
If I want to make something that sort of resembles a tree, I might have to use 40 objects or so to do so.
Using one object that actually looks like a tree would be much better.
... should any mod that's submitted only be approved if supplied with a skin template? Blank or otherwise.
I spent a lot of time doing a skin for a bus, and then after using this skin for a while, next time I chose same bus, the bus downloaded as a newer version, and my skin was all wrong. One side became roof, and other side was upside down.
In my opinion, people should still think of the layout editor as a layout editor, not a track editor. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see more objects available, but I think it would be more viable to wait for a full track editor support instead of having to add more track style / scenery objects to what is intended to be a layout editor really. I'm sure once a set of scenery objects is added, then people will come up again saying "now that you've added trees and houses, why not add kerbs, fences, railings etc...".
I remember that in the old layout objects system the objects were track dependent and it was possible to "activate" more objects on a given track. The question is whether it would be possible to use both systems at the same time, old and new, to have access to selected elements of the track, such as trees, bushes, buildings, etc?
The thing is, that the the layout editor may have originally been thought of for car park time trial events, where you place cones, bales, etc, and people slalom, reverse into areas, etc, but that's not how most people now use them. Especially with the addition of concrete objects. Some of us may make things that are track shaped, but they're very obviously not proper tracks.
There's a world of difference with choosing objects from a select list, and placing these objects on an existing LFS track or on an autocross area, to actually designing a proper race track like Blackwood.
Give me a crayon and a piece of paper, and I can draw you a picture. Just don't expect anything to rival Michelangelo or Turner.
And, at the moment, autocross is for people with S1 license. I imagine if a track editor comes out, it will be at least an S3 license, and no reason why it shouldn't require an S4 license.
As for people asking for more. Yes, that will happen. People are greedy unreasonable optimists, with a sense of entitlement.
Attached image shows sort of objects that I was thinking of.
Imagine it as a single drop down list without the images.
Victor has now added a note at the top of the page when you click your mod in "Changes required" section. So this should help for people who don't check their email often.
It says: Please refer to the email we have sent to you for details on the required changes.
I think yes, skin-support should be a requirement for approved mods. Skins are important part of the online experience.
However, just the existance of a template does not mean it is also functional or well mapped, for example there can be problems like this: https://www.lfs.net/forum/post/1982055#post1982055
The only way to check that, is to actually make a skin. Which is very time consuming for reviewers?
So maybe even go a step further a make it a requirement that a skin is included. Not a superfancy one, just something that shows that the mapping is correct.
---
A note to mod makers, many mods have the message:
Some of these mods actually do have a template.
I do not know what the mod-upload looks like, but I think that the problem is maybe that the template is uploaded as a skin rather than as template.
example: the banger car: https://www.lfs.net/files/vehmods/B6064B
(by the way, super nice template with the text that explains what the parts are! also good usage of texture space)
example of correctly added template: https://www.lfs.net/files/vehmods/B21690?skins
Thanks to all modders for their work, it is interesting to follow the updates etc.
Also, remember any user can actually write a news article that displays on the front page of lfs.net
I think if a mod has reached 100% completeness, creators should not be shy to make a news post about it. (If you need help with writing/proof reading, pm me)
Hello, you will need to contact us using the technical support form with a detailed explanation - which payment method you are trying to use and exactly which message appears at which point in the process. https://www.lfs.net/contact
Damn. I would love to see this implemented... For us layoutters, and even more so ones like me and Michal who devote time to creating scaled and close replicas of real tracks, using 40 objects just to create a grandstand or a building object is way too much. The object limit either needs to go up, or there needs to be these "standalone" and "basic" object items like trees, tent, spectator stands or buildings, so we don't waste parts aimlessly.
Even creating Long Beach was a stretch at 2400 objects, I barely made the grid and pit start points work.
And also, side note, the current 0.25 step increment in height, rotation and length is also too limiting. Even kiddo game like Roblox has the ability of infinite X-Y-Z editor movement for individual objects, so I don't see why LFS can't do the same in the future. At least I hope it can, if not, LFS Editor is missing a huge ball here.
For anyone following this thread but not following test patch updates:
In Test Patch A10 there is a new skin viewer mode in the garage. You can use manual or auto reload to inspect the result of your changes and zoom / rotate features to get a close look at the model.
I think it might deserve a separate thread where we could present and discuss all ideas in a comprehensive way 