Quote from Scawen :

I didn't know DDS was so well optimized for RAM, CPU, and GPU. I didn't know that JPG had such a significant impact during decompression. I won't even mention the mipmaps, as that was far beyond my understanding. I believe that DTX1 and DTX3 are currently the best options available.

From what I read:
DTX1 (BC1) was released in 1998 with DirectX 6.
DTX3 (BC2) was released in 1999 with DirectX 7

After acquiring this knowledge, I experimented with all the newer formats up to BC7 (DXGI_FORMAT_BC7 which was released in 2009 with DX11). However, in my experience, all RGB/RGBA tests resulted in the same disk size or even worse outcomes. Although I read that BC7 offers better compression for alphas, I didn't achieve a smaller disk size. In theory, this compression improvement should come at the expense of CPU time and GPU resources. So, the end result is that I didn't manage to find a better solution.

The only thing that worries me is that this format hasn't improved in a significant way over the years, so we cannot benefit from it, but that's life.

Thanks for clearing this. This is a simple example of how we learn something new every day.

Yes, these DXT formats are interesting, as a special kind of compression that can be used directly by the GPU without decompression. Well, that's not quite true - I suppose they are decompressed at the moment they are read into the pixel shader, but not in advance.

Because the compression is only in blocks of 4x4 pixels, which is a completely different type of compression compared with JPG or PNG (which are also very different from each other).

The result of this is that they are even faster than fully decompressed textures because of the memory bandwidth reduction.

maybe something to flag a mod wich doesnt meet publication requirement anymore, has it been changed/updated, or review didnt see the issue.

example here on the "marigus" mod
https://www.lfs.net/files/vehmods/E1BC02

we can see on mod photo that it has magirus insignia on the rear
https://www.lfs.net/attachment/569961

wich is exactly the same as what we see in reality
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Magirus-Deutz_230.jpg

maybe button in the vehicle mod page, that would open some dialog to write reason of the flagging, and if reason is found valid, mod would be unpublished until issue is fixed

I'm not sure how bike steering currently works, but is it possible to do a minor improvement on the control, while the bike is on its rear wheel? It's very easy on bikes (with traction control: off) to lift the front wheel, but there is no control afterward, is there an easy way to add a bit of driver body weight control? Although I have no idea, that weight might have already been used for the corner steering. Would be great, if we could have a bit more control over the X-axis, left/right weight control, so we can land back the bikes on their front wheels, rather than fall down every time. This is just a question, if it's a long time process, I wouldn't mind it being rejected, it's just something I noticed in multiplayer, so I thought I'd ask.

I'd love the ability to publish a car that is based on a derivative mod, but disallow further derivatives. For example, I have the SLX180 mod, and did the SLX180 TYPEX, which links back to the SLX180 and is fine since I allow derivatives on the TYPEX as well.

When I want to build a private team car based on the SLX180, I can't link to it and have derivatives turned off, so when I look at the new how many derivatives I have for the SLX180 now (thanks Scawen for the the update, looks awesome), it isn't accurate since the team cars are set to link back to the original external source so I can have derivatives off.

In short form: allowed to base mod off a derivative, with the new mod having the option to turn derivatives off (it should be on by default I think).

FYI: before you could do that but it has been changed (don't know the context as to why)

I did think you could do that before, except in the case of a "ShareAlike" license.

I could have a look into this, to see if I can understand if it has gone wrong somehow. It's not my code, by the way, and that license stuff is in a part of the website code that I am not really familiar with, but maybe I could make some sense of it before asking Victor about it.

OK, I've had a look in the code. I actually think that this hasn't changed, but it is different when the source model is external.

Ideally, when the source mod's grant license is:
CC Attribution-NonCommercial (BY-NC)
Then it should be possible for the creator of the derived mod, to decide if derivatives are allowed. If they say "NO" then the derived mod's grant license would become:
CC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (BY-NC-ND)

Similarly if the source mod's grant license is:
CC Attribution (BY)
Then the creator of the derived mod should be able to decide if derivatives are allowed. If they say "NO" then the derived mod's grant license would become:
CC Attribution-NoDerivs (BY-ND)

It seems in the license selector wizard, this is not possible when deriving from another mod (as described by OpenClutch above). But is IS possible when deriving from an external source, so I think that may be what we remembering.

I think that it would be best if the same logic for external sources was available for when deriving from an existing LFS mod. I don't actually know how to change this type of code but I will ask Victor if he can have a look.

Thanks Scawen, I agree that if linking to a lfs deriv acted the same as an external resource, this would solve the issue.

If fixed, I'll go chase down the derivs that I know of and get them to link back to my SLX180 for full transparency.

The Vehicle Mods Discussions subforum being in the Files forum section makes it a bit hard to spot since it's lower down on the forum listing page, also it looks kinda of disconnected from the Vehicle Mods Forum in General. Could it be moved under Vehicle Mods Forum too?

OK, I've moved it and renamed to Mod Comments.

When changing the mod status from WIP to non-WIP, there could be an option to move the mod discussion thread from the Mods - Work in Progress forum to Mod Comments, or even make it automatic.

I've set up a Mod Publication Log weekly subscription, and it works great, but the subscription mail is sent 4 minutes after midnight.

Is there any chance to make the notification hour adjustable to one's preference?

I think more car classifications such as power to weight ratio would be nice to have so one can choose similar cars and statr to have a bop for racing... maybe even leading to a bit better the effort to make viable racing cars instead of a lot of soon to be forgotten mods.

The in-game mod selection screen already has such a feature to sort the list by power/weight ratio.

Yesterday I wrote a comment for that nice mod Bavaria '02 HERITAGE
To write the comment I used the comment tab of the mod page https://www.lfs.net/files/vehmods/B8374E

Now I see my comment appears in the WIP thread of that mod https://www.lfs.net/forum/post/2108450#post2108450
instead of the comment section

So I believe there is some confusion between WIP and comment thread. The mod page seems to link to the WIP threads instead.

That is actually intended. Victor implemented it that way in the early days of the mods system. I think it uses a WIP thread as a comments thread if a WIP thread was provided. If no WIP thread then it makes a new one. I'm not sure if that's a good idea.

It's possible that it seemed like a good idea at the time but doesn't really suit the mods system as it has developed? I won't be the judge of that, would prefer to see what other people think.

I might be able to track down that decision in the website code and change it to always create a separate comments thread even if there is a WIP thread, but there may be complications. Things aren't always as simple as they seem (but sometimes they are). I have more important things to do for now but will read any opinions on whether it should be changed.

Could FWD option added also for bikes? Because irl there are actually E-Scooters with FWD.

Quote from Scawen :

That is actually intended. Victor implemented it that way in the early days of...

Sure that is no emergency, no hurry. I had noticed this monthes ago. I only post about now.

Maybe just add a tab "WIP discussion" if there is a WIP thread would be good.

Then what should happen if the mod author turns off the WIP flag for his mod? Maybe the thread should be moved from WIP to mod discussion? I had to do this manually for some of my mods, but regular users can’t do it.