I can see where having coloured arrows can be hard to see - black arrows against a dark interior texture (there are two players hard to see) or trees. Also, if there are players using a green first letter, it can be difficult to find your own car on the map quickly (especially with a non-rotating map), since they have the same colour.

My plan is to add a server option /teamarrows=yes

At first this option will be simply unavailable (team colours will not be displayed) as there is no server available that can enable this option.

It's been on my list for weeks but there has been a lot to do. Chuck's comment just makes me less willing to sort it out.

Maybe strange, but I find I am less willing to do things for people when they annoy me.

I'm sorry but I thought you wanted to hear people's feedback.
Sure there is always a risk when changing things. I sure can tell. I'm developing TCs Insim for ~15 years now and people say things like above right into my face.

I wasn't aware that you had planned an option, so if that's the case, everything should be safe and people should be happy with it. Not sure why it has to be a server option though, I mean it's surely more work than necessary.

Gentle reminders work better with me, rather than trying to ram it down my throat / rub my face in the shit or whatever metaphor.

I have a lot to do and I can get through more when I have peace of mind. Irritation makes me less able to get work done.

Everything is here on a list and I'm trying to get it done. You might have observed by now, I'm not really forgetful about things that have been mentioned on test patch threads. Regardless, I don't mind gentle reminders but a list of dumb insults isn't at all helpful.

Quote from Scawen :

Gentle reminders work better with me, rather than trying to ram it down my throat / rub my face in the shit or whatever metaphor.

I have a lot to do and I can get through more when I have peace of mind. Irritation makes me less able to get work done.

Everything is here on a list and I'm trying to get it done. You might have observed by now, I'm not really forgetful about things that have been mentioned on test patch threads. Regardless, I don't mind gentle reminders but a list of dumb insults isn't at all helpful.

I perfectly understand this feeling, I also worked on projects that required feedback from a large number of people. And I also received irritating comments about what needs to be changed or added. And often without reasoning.
Then the idea came to me, I just started to make polls for proposals, and in the first place I did those things that were in the top of the polls. Simply because these are objectively the most requested things that users want to see. And i don't have to rely on the opinion of one or of a few.
As it turned out many of those annoying comments were not the majority opinion. And afterwards, I calmly answered them that there are more requested tasks, unlike yours.

I think something similar can be done in LFS. Thats why ill do these post - https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/97725-Favorite-feature-request-by-most-of-players-
https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/98163-Favorite-feature-request-in-mod-system-by-most-of-players

But obviously that's not the best way to implement it.
Because at least there are 2 types of people who communicate on the forum, and who just use the game.
I often talk to my friends from LFS, and they have their own opinion where LFS should move and what should be added or changed, which is different from mine. But they haven't posted any of that on the forum. In fact, they very rarely go there. I do not have statistics, but I think that actively use the forum a small percentage of the players LFS. And in these polls there are only 15 options, which seems like a lot, but not always.

Imho, for this reason, it would not be bad to implement it same as a list of upcoming events, in main menu, somewhere near it.
For example, in a special forum thread (will be convinient use Improvement Suggestions treads for this), players can make threads with thread title of the proposal which will be displayed in the main menu with the opportunity to vote for it, such as a "like" or "dislike". Or just for one of many options. It would also be possible to click on the name of the proposal, which would lead to a thread with a detailed explanation of what is meant. Then you will have a larger and more objective coverage of people with their suggestions and the amount of opinions about them that will be reflected in the voting.

I realize that it seems odd when the conversation came up about irritating comments with suggestions and here I am making a suggestion to that effect. That sounds ironic.
Not for this update obviously, and if you need it. I'm not pushing it, I just want to make things easier for Scawen. Because it helped me. If it's unnecessary, then okay.
Peace to everyone.

upd; sorry, the original post is elsewhere, you can send my post there too if it bothers you here.

I wish real hud still shown on Shift+U mode, instead only blank but keeps virtual ones on

Quote from ivancsx :

I wish real hud still shown on Shift+U mode, instead only blank but keeps virtual ones on

If you are talking about the real dashboard "s_clock" dissapearing when SHIFT+U / viewing the car from 3rd person camera, I think it would be visible in the next update ( graphic, tyres ). I am saying this, because in LFS Editor, we can see S_CLOCK when watching from outside of the car.

Quote from ivancsx :

I wish real hud still shown on Shift+U mode, instead only blank but keeps virtual ones on

I hope the mirrors to be working when using external camera at some point in the future. Maybe with an option to turn it on/off (optimization).

I think the engines should be separated for racing and cruising in the game. Vehicles move slowly at low revs. The turbo should be more efficient at low revs and should be optimized for low maximum torque revs.

Quote from johneysvk :

why would you care? no turbo cars in demo

It is very expensive in Turkish lira because of the country, but I will try to buy it in two months. I made a lot of adjustments with the tweak program.

I dont think this is really that important. Please either stay on 0.7D or to the latest test patch so u wont face such things.

Hey super, please let me judge for myself what's important.

For the record, it's very important if the test patch has a bug in it that means people can't change drivers. Most useful would be to go out and test it. If there's a bug, I'll fix it. That's how it works.

EDIT: But I now notice that I said "D8" in previous post. Sorry about that, I should have said "D9" as it's the latest test patch. All I really want to ask is to test D9 driver changes, perhaps one player in D9 and the other in D. You are right, it doesn't matter about D6 or D8.

Super nice start!

Scawen do you have any small gossip to spread about new tire-physics? Is a more "lasting" Hybrid-Road Super-Road Normal tyre a part of it ?

Or just any small news about new tyre physics would be awesome.

I think it's very early to say anything about such advanced and specific properties about new tire physics. From what I remember from his posts he did mentioned that he was planning to change one core thing about tire physics, that is replacing tabular slip curves with a numericaly calculated ones based on his new model for it. If done right, we should not see too much difference in how the cars handle and feel.

Quote from rane_nbg :

I think it's very early to say anything about such advanced and specific properties about new tire physics. From what I remember from his posts he did mentioned that he was planning to change one core thing about tire physics, that is replacing tabular slip curves with a numericaly calculated ones based on his new model for it. If done right, we should not see too much difference in how the cars handle and feel.

Can you please link to those Scawen's posts? I remember none about this topic, assuming it is a very sensitive one to be kept secret.
Then when you say 'we should not see big differences' I wonder what is the reason to do any change.

There are lots of points to be improoved : not only temperature.
There will be a difference in handling, and one main goal is to have most of the flaws allowing "cheats" to disappear, so I expect FWD to handle like they should (indeed, having a locked diff and no antiroll bar at the back to have the car to rotate like a charm on the gas is not normal ).
Let's quote Eric :

Quote from Eric :

I quite liked “close your eyes and pray” corners back in the day!

Without getting into too much detail, it’s mainly some corners on the the faster circuits. I won't start quoting each corner because I don't want to turn this thread into a request for corner changes.

Before The release of S2 and GTRs, I was working with S1 tyre physics which had very little grip before Scawen improved on it. The classic case is Westhill which was challenging with the old Pre-S2 tyre code but just became a flat-out drive with the current physics. My fault, partly for not thinking ahead design wise and not having the experience. Anyway, I’ve addressed most of the design issues I’ve had with Westhill, so hopefully no-one will fall asleep at the wheel this time.

As a side note, I have no idea how the revised Westhill will drive with the old tyre physics that you guys are using. I’ve been testing with the new tyre physics for a few years now and I refuse to drive the old one, which has just doesn’t have that visceral tyre feel and response compared to the new tyre physics.


Eric

While waiting for 0.7E patch to be out

Quote from Flotch :

Let's quote Eric :

Thank you for letting me know how good your memory is.
That Eric post is on Sat 26 Jul 2014.
By approx 12 years Eric does not use the same game we use?
You remember well a very important post indeed that was made 9 years ago.

Seriously, is Eric talking about the same tire physics on development that Scawen is still doing now?

Its by amazing if latter on game will by optimized for different size monitors like now I using 49 inc and chat with track just standing in the middle.

Quote from Gods_CadeT :

Its by amazing if latter on game will by optimized for different size monitors like now I using 49 inc and chat with track just standing in the middle.

Or an option to be able to move the HUD around? Like chat minimap, position list etc..

Quote from Gods_CadeT :

Its by amazing if latter on game will by optimized for different size monitors like now I using 49 inc and chat with track just standing in the middle.

With some settings trickery you can get it wider instead of middle 1/3 - you can have the HUD in the middle 1/2 where 1/4 of each side are not usable,that's a current limitation of LFS. I don't remember what settings I have now (also using 49" on my rig),if you can't find it yourself,later could take a screenshot when I'm at my rig.

LFS has gone into "three screen" mode as the monitor is so wide.

If you want that to be treated as a single monitor, you should set the number of "left" and "right" monitors to zero, as in the attached image.

Quote from Scawen :

LFS has gone into "three screen" mode as the monitor is so wide.

If you want that to be treated as a single monitor, you should set the number of "left" and "right" monitors to zero, as in the attached image.

idk I dint see difference xD

Quote from Scawen :

LFS has gone into "three screen" mode as the monitor is so wide.

If you want that to be treated as a single monitor, you should set the number of "left" and "right" monitors to zero, as in the attached image.

Yeah there's no difference with that option. I've played with those settings for years.

I've also noticed for mouse drivers like myself when i steer from left to right, the steering only goes from where the insim buttons start and where they end.

I've been playing like this for years, so its not really a big deal. I just thought it was worth a mention

For a bit more clarification, the mouse only works inside the blue container.
https://i.axycloud.net/GPC_IyHphYtWzmvn.jpg
I couldn't upload here because the file was too big

Quote from Gods_CadeT :

idk I dint see difference xD

Quote from kristofferandersen :

Yeah there's no difference with that option. I've played with those settings for years.

There is a big difference there.

In the earlier image the interface was confined to the central third of the screen, and the left and right thirds had separately rendered images (at a different angle, designed for a 3-screen setup).

In the recent image the interface is wider, confined to a 16:9 area in the centre of the wide screen. The game image is one single render.

Have a closer look:

Quote from Scawen :

There is a big difference there.

In the earlier image the interface was confined to the central third of the screen, and the left and right thirds had separately rendered images (at a different angle, designed for a 3-screen setup).

In the recent image the interface is wider, confined to a 16:9 area in the centre of the wide screen. The game image is one single render.

Have a closer look:

Can you snap the UI to the edges of the screen?