You don't need to go on and on like I don't know what a texture or a skin is :rolleyes:
You still don't get my post(s) as usual.
Uncompressed renamed to Compressed, that's all I asked. If this is a set of options so that the "yes" and "no" need to be lined up to look pretty, then that is silly. By default (if this was renamed) the game should come with Compressed textures set to "Yes", and Full size textures set to "No". If it needs to be lined up to say "yes" "yes", that's being a bit picky imo. Naming it compressed skins is a bit more explanatory, since the skins are not compressed in the first place, and the compression applied is from the game. So the game should be the one to decide if it 'compresses' the skin/texture. Hence the reason to call the option Compressed skins: [ No ] [ Yes ]. It is basically the opposite of what it is like now, only it makes more sense with this change I think.
Scawen is treating this option as if the game needs to override compression, in which case the skins are not compressed in the first place. The game controls the compression on uncompressed skin files, so having it say "yes" to compress the skin seems to make sense.
If this doesn't change, not a big deal, but it is something I happened to notice that didn't make sense to me when browsing through the options. Also consider that when translating to other languages, 'uncompressed' might not be translated too well. Compressed is an actual word, so I thought that is another reason to change it too.
You might think it is important whether the button is labelled "compressed" or "uncompressed". I would just like to know what the hell is the difference if I click the button or don't.
With the way the option is right now, having 'Uncompressed skins' set to Yes, then you get the 'raw' file that looks just like what you've saved in the JPG. Basically there would be no qualitly loss as compared to the JPG image you made. But with this option set to 'No' (compressed), LFS will apply texture compression to the skin and it will help you use less memory on your card. Only downside is that you have really poor quality on the skin (lines and other detailed parts would look pixelated).
I think people are getting mixed up from what I've started here.
Scawen only changed the NAME/TITLE of 'compressed skins' option to 'uncompressed skins'. So you still have the option to use compressed skins Filur. Only the wording is flipped around in this latest patch, and it makes it less intuitive imo.
I suppose the idea of that change is that you can get the lower quality options on the left, and the better-quality options on the right, and not the randomness we had in earlier versions.
Uncompressed skins: [no] [yes]
Full size textures: [no] [yes]
Both have 'yes', but there wasn't anything wrong with 'half size textures' imo. Besides, like I said with the compressed skins text, having these two options control (or turn on/off) low quality options makes more sense. If you think about someone that wants to come and look to lower or raise the quality, the suggestion I made makes sense. And I still don't understand why you can't put the buttons with [Yes] in front.
Blah, these menus have always been changing around, and it doesn't help much to be honest, it isn't becoming "easier" to find things, it still is catered to the more savvy users I think. Anyways, I've gone too far talking about this, Scawen can make up his mind.
Actually, it's synonymous to decompressed (and possibly expanded in a way). The "un-" prefix doesn't really require a hyphen, like "untrue" (one could easily just use "false", but negating a word with the "un" prefix seems to add some extra emphasis in colloquial). I see your point though, although in either case it does get the message through.
Perhaps just using a term like "High quality" for both options would make it more uniform? "Use high quality skins", "Use high quality textures" - anyhow! This is just semantics!
No. The AI are stupid at the moment, and sometimes their learning goes too far, so they just can't drive on cold tyres. You can delete the knw files in the knw folder and their knowledge will be reset.
Of course they will be improved in the future. I just have to add this line so people don't start suggesting that I improve the AI, as if I had never thought of that before.
Well... keep me informed though I sort of doubt this is LFS. Because you have a reliable computer, I guess I suspect maybe a spike in the power or one of those rare half a second power cuts...?
I'm just trying to suggest a reason why it might not be LFS. That is a total operating system failure if other programs stopped working and you had to use the power switch. I wouldn't know how to cause this, if I tried. Not saying it's impossible but I'd better not worry about it too much unless we get more reports of that.
lfs had to be shut down for me last night (you know, the stupid send error report thing)(first time ever since s1) but this has not happened again so not too much to worry about (probs something i had in the background that caused the error). i have not had any problems with any of the test patches. (makes me think, are the devs really fixing things or just renaming this thread :P) as usual tho. nice work. keep up the great work guys.
Well the "send error report" is silly yes because MS can't fix a bug in LFS.
But that window is a great opportunity, because if you click the blue button "view more info" then "view technical info" you are given a crash address. I can often use that address to work out find the exact line of code that caused the crash.
It's a hexadecimal number - a load of zeros followed by 6 digits (numbers and letters A to F) - that is the crash address that I need. Please make sure you report the crash address if you ever get a crash.
I tend to go along with that. Maybe a fly killed itself on my processor. The odd thing was that Windows showed no sign of distress and booted normally. I'll keep a lookout. Cheers
It's not a u30 bug, as it happened to me last monday at some point too, but I believe it may be a test patch related bug - a few times now I have started qual from the start line, instead of normal positioning. I don't remember this ever happening at all except in the last couple of weeks. Happened tonight when I exited pits just as qual was starting.
I don't know how to reproduce it exaclty but i found a pattern, something to do with window mode, search for multiplayer servers and try to safeexit using the X windows button.
OS: Windows 98 SE
LFS caused an invalid page fault in
module <unknown> at 0000:1000171c.
Registers:
EAX=eb4d6f84 CS=0167 EIP=1000171c EFLGS=00010202
EBX=bff76a38 SS=016f ESP=03d9fda4 EBP=03d9fdec
ECX=ecf9ce90 DS=016f ESI=1000171c FS=29f7
EDX=00000100 ES=016f EDI=0280bca4 GS=0000
Bytes at CS:EIP:
I don't know whom are you referring to atm, but I remember this "bug" being present long before the patch U. This is not a matter of an U test patch. I believe this will be taken care of if and when the new qualy starting\finishing changes come.
Nope, not a new option. If you look at the screenshot i attached, in the connection list on the bottom right there is a column that has a "T" in it, then a blank column to the right of it. In previous versions there was an "SS" there, and when you clicked on that, it would send your current setup to that person.
sorry, my post stands alone, it did sound kinda like a reply to someone. Fair enough if it's always been happening. Only happened to me a few times recently and I couldn't find an old bug report for it.
were you actually in the race? have you joined the session? because unless you have a car and thus a setup assigned there is nothing LFS could send the other guys. I believe that is why there was no button for it either.
wouldnt it be better to set the "Show flags in SHIFT+F mode" to NO defaultly? Because i believe, that most users who use SHIFT+F use it because of taking screens/doing movies and only a "few" use it for actual driving. I can imagine how people will be confused when they press SHIFT+F and will still have text on their screen - and they will flood forums with questions then
I've had a few problems with the in car mirror when changing from U25 to U30, the mirror inside a few cars is really low, even in the highest position (for example the XRT). In the changelog it says 'Improved position of road car internal mirrors (again)', but personally, i think U25 was better at this point.
Also, the mirror in the XRR intersects with the windscreen.
(And as an improvement suggestion: mirror mode real-virtual-etc, is placed in the display menu, while all the other mirror stuff is in 'view', a bit confusing)
I'm sure you already know this, but that's not quite the point of error reporting. Iff your application is signed (can't be self-signed, actually needs a trusted cert), you (as the application developer) can get much fuller detail than is provided on-screen to the user.
