Hi, I'd like to make some points what I think would be nice to have in new multiplayer version:
* as many cars in race as possible (32 pits available in Blackwood); sometimes spectators are not needed (2h endu) and it's better to have 30-32 cars than 24 cars + 8 spectators (possibility to divide max number between cars and spectators in server ini)
* add some "hc" options, like shift+s and reset car restrictions -> it will be possible only retire (go to spectate) !! for others before moaning: only option and not default, we need this for leagues !!
* GO TO GRID button or something like that after race restart (I hate when someone go out, leave car somewhere on road and after restart this car will appear on start without "driver in it" and spoil race)
* new field in player options "team". If 2 players will have the same team, they will be in the same box (I mean 1+2 / 3+4 / 5+6 /...) and share the same repair area (yellow box on road) - I know there is some dificulties with rejoining and rearanging players if free space next to team mate is occupied, it can be done during race restart in this case and box number will be always noted in F12 screen.
(more players from one team can divide yourself by "abcteam 1", "abcteam 2" etc..)
* each player can use only his/his team repair area, this means only one, not whichever like now (box number noted in F12)

I have more suggestions, but I don't want to bother Scawier too much
Keep up the good work

Ballast... it's so simple, and will make a lot of people happy.. and those that don't care for it, won't have to use it.

Server and client side options, so the server can force a car/track/driver, or combination of those, a positive or negative amount of ballast, depending on whether it's public/private/league/etc, and client side as well (with server side the higher authority to, for example, disallow negative ballast on public servers), so you can ballast yourself online.

Obivously if a server sets the handicap rules wrong, it won't get traffic, just like any other variable set wrong, e.g. auto-spectate if going the right way, or 500 laps of Uf1 @ KY1 with tons of red & white chicanes all over it.

Quote from Breizh :

Ballast... it's so simple......snip

Yup, still can't believe we don't have this yet...............

I can't see ballast happening in patch W, it's supposed to be small multiplayer incompatible changes only, so physics changes such as additional mass would have to wait until patch X. At least that's my understanding.

Why would ballast need a physics patch?, surely it's just adding mass (like more fuel) to a car?

certainly the ballast would change the center of gravity of the vehicle, according to its position, not like the fuel wich i dont know how it works but i guess it just adds mass to the whole vehicle?

No, fuel also has a certain place where it goes. Never noticed how the F/R weight distribution changes when you add fuel?

I agree with Danowat, I see no reason why it shouldn't be possible to add it to the multiplayer incompatible version. Unless "no ballast" is not 100% the same as the current cars, there should be no problem. All the old replays will be assumed with no ballast, producing the same results as previously.

Quote from Barroso :

certainly the ballast would change the center of gravity of the vehicle, according to its position, not like the fuel wich i dont know how it works but i guess it just adds mass to the whole vehicle?

I'm fairly certain the fuel affects the centre of gravity. I remember reading something pre-S2 where Scawen said it was the only way he'd do it. I could be wrong though, long time ago now

Ballast wouldn't have to be part of a physics change, necessarily, but it would have to be an incompatible patch. I couldn't connect to a server where drivers are running ballast if my lfs version doesn't support it could I?

I always believed one of the strengths of the LFS physics engine was being able to do things like add mass without making changes to the physics engine

Quote from sinbad :

but it would have to be an incompatible patch. I couldn't connect to a server where drivers are running ballast if my lfs version doesn't support it could I?

Yes, Scawen already announced that the patch after V3 will be multiplayer incompatible.

Quote from Bob Smith :

This is all still educated guesswork but

Ah true, didn't think around the other way. But then again, if the patch is multiplayer incompatible, isn't it expected that everyone updates? Like: "You MUST update, but old replays still work" ?

This is all still educated guesswork but:

You'd be changing the mass (and moment of inertia matrix) of the vehicle compared to what was expected, thus older clients wouldn't be able to watch new replays as the cars would go OOS. That's more than just multiplayer incompatibilities. I'd expect, aside from what Scawen has mentioned, the possibility of false starts and similar for patch W.

sinbad - you would be right, the centre of gravity shifts both horizontally (both lengthways and sideways) and vertically when you add/burn fuel.

Quote from AndroidXP :

Yes, Scawen already announced that the patch after V3 will be multiplayer incompatible.

Ah, okeydoke, sorry.

ok i missed that assumption but i seem to have also missed the part where scawen said v3 would be incompatible, cant bother to search it also im sure someone will correct me on that, but anyway arent the incompatible bits tested by the beta crew? or were going back to testing incompatible stuff (not that i dont like testing stuff )? i mean lfs has been stalled in development even though the guys do work behind the curtains, its been a few years in alpha stage and any kind of development would have to be something big to get most of the inactive people running again. oh no now ive hijacked it and turned it into a lfs isnt going anywhere soon thread again. sorry.

Quote from Barroso :

where scawen said v3 would be incompatible

He didn't. The patch after V3!

http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=364992#post364992
http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=365619#post365619

And "next patch" means "next non-test-patch patch"
So, if there's a bug in V3, there might be a V4 or V5 etc.

This is one of the sortcomings of the LFS engine. It does now allow for alterations of the program to remain backward compatable. I can see reasons why they did this and I can se reasons why this is a bad thing but its not my sim.

Adding ballast would break the compatability as the OOS check would not find a paramiter for the ballast option from a client without the current version and would reject the client. It would break Hotlapping as well. LFS does not have the ability to ignore missing but expected paramiters.

Its the same reason why a Demo client can not conect to a S2 host running Blackwood with only the XRT enabled. Or why and S1 client can't connect to an S2 host running Fernbay. The engine does not allow cross connection unless you have the rights to all of the content of the host. So just the same a client what does not have a version with a feature can not connect to a host that does have the feature. It would be come a validation nightmere and allow for cheating.

Until there are built in systems to control who or what can enter a race on a much more granular level such as displacement, weight/power ratios, etc which let us define our own race classes LFS will never be able to support altering vehicle performance or allowing clients with veriyng features to connect to hosts which have features not supported by its clients but it does allow an client with a newer client to connect to an older hosts with less features such as and S2 client connecting to an S1 or Demo host.

Why wouldn't ballast be compatible? Everybody needs a client that supports ballast, so yes, you have to download the latest patch then (= multiplayer incompatible), but playing old replays would simply assume ballast = 0, which should give identical replay results like the current physics do.

Thats the point AndroidXP, LFS doen not have the code to assume a missing paramiter means that the parameter should return 0. The base engne is not written that way. That would be even more new code needed just to allow the newer client to reconize this state and not error out when it does not find an expected paramiter.

LFS has not been desined to allow for clients of differing versions to interact. Part of that is cheat pertection, part is code efficiency. For the engine to allow for clients of differing versions to play togeather it would need to be have a check and logic function for each possible feature/paramiter differece and then automaticly default to the feature set of the lowest common dinominator(only allow features/paramitors which all clients have in comon).

While very doable the cost in terms of code complexity is extreamly high and its not very often done as the need for such adaptability is often not worth the cost and its far easier to control by forcing client version compatability.

Yep, I thought it would only be multiplayer incompatible.

Forgive for the hijack Pablo

i'm pretty sure everything anyone says (unless a major bug) wont make it into patch V3.... pretty positive scawen already knows what he wants in patch V3

Quote from XCNuse :

i'm pretty sure everything anyone says (unless a major bug) wont make it into patch V3.... pretty positive scawen already knows what he wants in patch V3

It's about Patch W, not Testpatch V3...

i know... and once again i'm pretty sure he knows whats going into the patch

Quote from Gimpster :

That's the point AndroidXP, LFS does not have the code to assume a missing parameter means that the parameter should return 0.

Where do you have this knowledge from? Did Scawen tell you? Did you have a look at the code? Or is it just an assumption?

If deciding in a replay that "value not there" = "value is 0" is so hard (it is not), how come that replays were still compatible after Scawen strengthened the suspension of the BF1, which was actually really a physics change? I can even recall him saying, that upon loading the replay he was checking if he should let the physics engine run with strong or weak suspension, to stay compatible with replays.

Sorry, but I think you're pulling this out of your butt.

Ballast is one thing I'm waiting to arrive too at some point (hopefully soon) as there is need to set ballast in smaller increments than one passenger, I'm currently having two and car feels quite heavy already if I still win I will have three passengers and they start to chit chat too much that will disturb my concentration so can't take poles anymore, then after I win one more time I will have car almost loaded and there is so much talk and also small fights going on that it is almost impossible to concentrate to driving

So ballast would solve this issue nicely

When did the BF1 get new suspension? I don't remember anything about it..