For AI driving, it would help to have an option to manually recompute the AI path, as most of times when a mod is updated, the path is not automatically recomputed, even when suspension geometry, weight and other critical things are changed.
As it is now, we have to manually delete the file in data/knw/ to trigger a recompute.

edit:
also when I want the AI to race a mod on "super" compound tyres, if that mod has slicks on default setup, the path generation will be done with slicks, not my setup, even if the "AI uses player setup" option is set.
Then AI races on normals with a path for slicks, and misses almost every corner.
It would be good that path generation could be computed with player setup.

about the website, maybe by default make the updated mods on front, that can motivate the modders to update the mod?Some mods are hidden befor public, these mods are in back and rarely rated or view...

Quote from NENE87 :

about the website, maybe by default make the updated mods on front, that can motivate the modders to update the mod?Some mods are hidden befor public, these mods are in back and rarely rated or view...

That's a bad idea,you would only get tons of "updates" with one little "fix" just to push it up. And then should mods which are completelly done sink away?

I would rather see much more filters,sort options in website (not really needed ingame) to have better possibility to find mods with specific values.

I would like to have some kind of tag. Like something "to test" or hide that could be done on website and in game.
For exemple I follow the mod publication thread I see something I like I tag it to test and then I can do a test session in game. Usually I don't remember what I wanted to test. A user hidden tag would be great too. I would remove by defect all the mods built for an event.

Customizable engine and flywheel weight would be a great addition,
we could have those aluminium parts at last.
Maybe wheels (rims) too, it that makes sense.

having l_find / l_rind directly in l_head / l_side would be cool

(basicaly indiscator in lights )

you can already do it by duplicating triangles , but if you have headlights on or tailights on , if too bright you cant see the indicators.

Good for modern cars mods

+ more lights mapping for saffety cars , police , interior lightning ...

I have a suggestion.

Same as the electric cars, when you turn off the engine, the electric displays turn off. ( MFD (Multi Functional Display) Etc ) But for the normal cars with engine.


Also, to be as an option in LFS Editor
( Do you want to turn off displays when engine off ) YES/NO.


It is just a suggestion, only if it is fast to do and does not slow down the thing you are doing at the moment.

Thanks.

I don't know if it would be feasible to put a graphic showing the audio clipping instead of the red warning in the middle of the screen, to make it easier to adjust the sound, to know if it's going too far or just in a few moments, I'm having some difficulty of making racing engines that sound loud without going over the edge.


I don't know if I could explain it right, but I'll put an example of how it would be.

There something that is bothering me (hopefully not only me ).

We need the follow camera setting to be per mod, like 'in car' or 'custom' views.

Now we need to manually adjust it for every mod, and if I want to ride a bike... need to adjust it again, but then I want a car again... need adjust it again.

The follow camera when changing vehicles, for example: MZG, MERCIDS BNZ I6 and Chimera X1 (they all are in follow camera):

Is it possible to give us the option to order the mod lists by power/weight ratio?

I often want to find a mod that's in the same performance ballpark as another, and right now that's quite a chore involving lots of guessing and clicking back-and-forth to check.

Dunno if that's enough of a use-case for the effort

Another thing might be to have the value displayed in the list view somewhere, but I guess that would also open the worm-can for things like drive train, slicks, etc.

Perhaps an organization of this type would be more appropriate for the Mods system (The attached rudimentary model does not make for a decent graphical proposition it just gives an idea).

Each choice of checkboxes could modify the classes available in the drop-down list and thus facilitate the display.
We could also introduce more meaningful classes like:
Oldtimers (before 1970)
Youngtimers (1980-2000)
H-pattern gearbox
Paddle and sequential
Etc.

It also seems important to me to highlight in separate choices mods with authorized derivatives as a specific category. It would also be appropriate to shed more light on the creator(s) of the original mod compared to its derivatives. Thus the number of derivatives would attest to the success of the original mod. Currently, the original creator disappears behind the derivatives. I understand that under these conditions, few modders authorize derivatives.

This might be more a thing the modders should fix, but idk so im just gonna post this here anyways:
Some mods force feedback is not scaled properly, i dont really know what else to call it.
For example in the Pochete 118 GT3, if you take a corner at speed, the FFB is immediately in the red are with max opposite force. That makes it a lot more tricky to drive than the native LFS cars. Something you really notice if you switch back to original lfs cars after driving mods for a while. As an idea maybe take the force feedback into consideration for "approved mods" if you dont already do so. I've also noticed on some cars that the wheel turns to a random full lock when stationary (or it violently shakes when pressing the brake while stationary, for example on "VRC FA 2007"). Speaking from experience that can really hurt your pinkie if you do not expect it and use a direct drive wheel haha...

The force feedback on cars is based directly on the handling and suspension geometry of the car. It would be nice to have a slider for the power steering of a car in the editor. That way the handling of the car can stay the same.

Allow the mod author to override the (Derivatives are allowed : NO) if he's uploading a tweak mod of one of his own mods.

Like the HUMHII LIMO
https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/106153-HUMHII-LIMO
Is a tweak of HUMHII
https://www.lfs.net/files/vehmods/2F33A3

If the license allows to do Derivatives.
above example shows i had to upload it as a new mod but it's actually just a tweak.

After updating a texture on a mod and exporting it into LFS for offline testing, I have to either restart LFS or switch between low res / high res textures in Options - Graphics for the new textures to appear.

It would be useful to have a dedicated command or a button in LFS to reload all textures.

That's now done in Test Patch E2.

Text command /rtex

Suggesting the usage of the recent older version of a mod (if available) if the mod is taking long to download for any reason until new updated one is done downloading. Maybe it appears without the need to pit and rejoin/spec, just like skins.
Instead of it showing as a dot on the map and being invisible.
Also when a mod is taking long to download, the mod image list request seems to prevent user from entering mod list at all.
Until mod has downloaded.
so maybe this is a semi solution?

I would like to have the ability to include or exclude WIP mods on the mods screen.
The same checkbox could be on the Vehicle Mods page on the website.

That's now done on the mods web page and will also be in the next LFS test patch.

not really a suggestion but, the servers feel slow as hell in my region.. joining a peaked server with many mods starts downloading would take ages. its really annoying. also are japan servers still dead? because i have regional download disabled along time ago. just tried it,, even worse.. not a single download success.. idk maybe a thing where we can select download server from ? i suppose my nearest one is in turkey .. i dont even know why regional downloads choses japan

I have a suggestion, that will improve your hosting servers, faster download speeds, and little to no quality difference.

Allow JPEG image formats for mod textures. Keep DDS conversation only on PNG textures (although I would also add PNG conversation to JPEG for non-ALP/non-transparent textures).

I've attached two files, both converted into DDS end up in the same 683KB size. You can check quality/size differences on websites like this one (was the 1st one I saw in the search console): https://www.diffchecker.com/image-compare/

PNG - 1355 KB
JPEG - 113 KB

The difference is a 91% size reduction and in my eyes no quality change. Since skins can be JPEG, why not textures as well?

What's the benefit?

1. You will save up disk space on the servers on which the mods are uploaded and downloaded from. Which will result in cost reduction for maintenance and improve earnings from this game.

2. Users will download the mods faster, which should improve their gameplay experience. I've seen a lot of people complaining about momentary lag spikes. My best guess is that they are downloading someone's mod at that exact moment.

I have a suggestion. Grouping all different derivatives of a single mod into the original mods page, being able to choose the different variants once you've chosen the original mod. Similar to how BeamNG does it. This will imo greatly decrease the bloat of the mod list, and make it easier to navigate through the mods itself. I also believe derivatives should have an option to be approved or denied by the original mod creator, as to limit the amount of very similar mods with only minor differences to the original source material.

Quote from VladM :

I have a suggestion. Grouping all different derivatives of a single mod into the original mods page, being able to choose the different variants once you've chosen the original mod. Similar to how BeamNG does it. This will imo greatly decrease the bloat of the mod list, and make it easier to navigate through the mods itself.

This is not a bad suggestion. You choose XRT and you get to choose from all 100 modifications of it. I support this idea. Sometimes I lose myself in scrolling when I want to try a new mod.

Quote from VladM :

I also believe derivatives should have an option to be approved or denied by the original mod creator, as to limit the amount of very similar mods with only minor differences to the original source material.

I disagree with this. If you make a mod derivative, then you should stick with your decision. Some people know how to make mods, others don't. Some will do a good job in just days of work, others will do a bad job in weeks of work. If it's poor quality - that's why we have mod reviewers.

Your suggestion sounds very selective and a bit emotional. What will happen a few years from now? What if the original mod creator is not around here for some reason? How will the mod be reviewed?

Plus I don't see a reason why people can't just change the rims of a mod and upload it right away. It sounds a bit like "I want them to use my mod, but I don't want them to use my mod".

Quote from r3zp3k7 :

This is not a bad suggestion. You choose XRT and you get to choose from all 100...

Also prioritises the original mod, and yeah, on second note, my last suggestion is not that good .
For example, today while on a drift server i spent a quarter of the time just looking for a nice S13/S14/S15 variant out of the 1000, meaning i constantly had to scroll and be on the lookout for one of the derivatives of the originals. This wouldve taken a lot less time if I simply could see all the cars that are derived from those original mods.

Quote from r3zp3k7 :

Allow JPEG image formats for mod textures. Keep DDS conversation only on PNG textures (although I would also add PNG conversation to JPEG for non-ALP/non-transparent textures).

I've attached two files, both converted into DDS end up in the same 683KB size. You can check quality/size differences on websites like this one (was the 1st one I saw in the search console): https://www.diffchecker.com/image-compare/

PNG - 1355 KB
JPEG - 113 KB

Even if textures could download as jpg they would have to be converted to dds on arrival, as jpg takes a lot of CPU to extract each time, and doesn't contain mip maps etc, so there's quite a bit of processing to get them ready for realtime use. Basically for in-game use it must be a dds and must be saved locally that way, so it can be loaded and sent directly to the GPU without any conversion.

For your download comparison, the best thing to compare is a jpg vs a dds *after* it is compressed in a .7z file. DDS look a lot bigger than a JPG on disc but the DDS often compress well in a 7z file, so the download saving might not be as much as you think.

I don't mind being proved wrong - I'm just stating my current understanding of it, without doing any detailed analysis.