Is there anyway for a server to set its own restrictions (and to override the global restrictions?)? Maybe it's being saved for the proper patch?

Just thought I'd post two setups that drive well with the preload settings. I really think that the FZR set has amazing grip (though admittedly, I've just set up the diff on it - the LX4 set is my own work). Have fun.

I don't think the intake restriction is quite right at the moment. When you have a restrictor plate, the engine has about the same horsepower at low revs. But at high revs, the engine "run out of air" and looses horsepower.

I did a very unscientific test and it felt like the intake restriction was a linear scaling over the power band.

But maybe this will be implemented later.

Quote from Scawen :

No, canreset should be "no" for all hosts except arcade hosts for beginners. This is supposed to be a purely "arcade" option, it fixes damage and takes you out of the gravel, that's good for example if you have LFS set up at a show and the public are using it. For sim racing, canreset should not be switched on at all. I'd prefer not to add a middle option.

That's a good choice imho. No more moral dilemmas about resetting and that's just realism.

Quote from ajp71 :

Is there anyway for a server to set its own restrictions (and to override the global restrictions?)? Maybe it's being saved for the proper patch?

No, the global restrictions are meant mainly as a correction for what we can't get exactly right during beta testing. Though at the moment it's more wrong than it should be in future - for example the FXO turbo is just so light it's unreasonable - it must have a carbon fibre body and also those wide wheels like a racing car - but it's supposed to be a road car - it's just not right. That's why it has to carry a lot of restriction now. After the physically incompatible patch, restrictions should be back to zero, until we find with time and setup development that one of the cars goes too fast, then we'll restrict it. It's not intended to be that every host has different settings. It's supposed to provide consistency, so that you can drive your XRT and win, not just have to go in the FXO for any chance of success like it has been until now.

When I extract the file to install it just puts abunch of languages in a folder and doesn't install ;(

does it replace LFS.exe? if so, it's installed!

Argh, damn. Every single time I've ever left home for a week to stay with my parents (where I can't play LFS), a new patch comes out. EVERY DAMN TIME!

The question: as infuriating as it is... should I start visiting them more often?

/OT

Quote from Bob Smith :

Argh, damn. Every single time I've ever left home for a week to stay with my parents (where I can't play LFS), a new patch comes out. EVERY DAMN TIME!

The question: as infuriating as it is... should I start visiting them more often?

/OT

yes-yes-yes

Quote from Scawen :

No, the global restrictions are meant mainly as a correction for what we can't get exactly right during beta testing. Though at the moment it's more wrong than it should be in future - for example the FXO turbo is just so light it's unreasonable - it must have a carbon fibre body and also those wide wheels like a racing car - but it's supposed to be a road car - it's just not right. That's why it has to carry a lot of restriction now. After the physically incompatible patch, restrictions should be back to zero, until we find with time and setup development that one of the cars goes too fast, then we'll restrict it. It's not intended to be that every host has different settings. It's supposed to provide consistency, so that you can drive your XRT and win, not just have to go in the FXO for any chance of success like it has been until now.

That's all well and good, but in the old times when I and other people raced in GPL noone bothered if someone did choose a Lotus over a BRM.
Either we got the realistic conscious knowledge that Lotus and Eagle would be obviously quicker than the others and we were fine with it, because so it was in real racing back then in 1967 and today too, or quicker drivers went to choose by their own whim (without pressure by the other people) slower cars and saw it as a challenge.

Our last two seasons were won by a guy that did choose a Cooper once and then even a BRM... and battled with a full grid of Lotus, Eagle, Ferrari.
I often did choose a Brabham, and even if I knew I would be helpless with it against the others, there was a lot of fun nonetheless and it was the car I liked more to race.

Can we have at least the option left to be so that the cars will be UNbalanced?

Thanks for your time.

Quote from amp88 :

Hmmm, was just trying out the false start there and I got one in a race even though I don't think I was moving until the green light. Take a look at the screenshots/replay. Is this a false false start?

lol.. the light is green and you aren't moving .. so no its not a false start

its a false start when you're moving when the lights are still red

I'm really digging the clutch LSD preload, XRT is pure heaven and can be throw around a bit too I managed to match my normal sector times on several combos where I've previously used a locked diff setup. Great stuff!

I'm feeling we are coming closer to something important

Quote from Blerpa :

That's all well and good, but in the old times when I and other people raced in GPL noone bothered if someone did choose a Lotus over a BRM.
Either we got the realistic conscious knowledge that Lotus and Eagle would be obviously quicker than the others and we were fine with it, because so it was in real racing back then in 1967 and today too, or quicker drivers went to choose by their own whim (without pressure by the other people) slower cars and saw it as a challenge.

Our last two seasons were won by a guy that did choose a Cooper once and then even a BRM... and battled with a full grid of Lotus, Eagle, Ferrari.
I often did choose a Brabham, and even if I knew I would be helpless with it against the others, there was a lot of fun nonetheless and it was the car I liked more to race.

Can we have at least the option left to be so that the cars will be UNbalanced?

Thanks for your time.

I think that the situation which you have described is much different from the actual LFS one:

GPL is simulating an old f1 season:
simulating a season mean with all the goods and bads of each car.

LFS instead is creating and simulating completely fictional cars:
These are not meant to be identical, but at least balanced each other.
Atm FXO on longer tracks can be 3 / 4 seconds faster then RB4.
2 drivers with SIMILAR skill but different cars are realistically unable of compensating 4 seconds at lap eachother with skill difference.

Imho eh


However the amount of these limitations should be written in public somewhere (a page on liveforspeed.net, in game, on lfsworld), because if someone is developing a setup for a champ race in a, for example, 2 weeks time, and 2 days before the race you change the amount of ballast and restrictors to one car, at least he has the time for adapting his setup to the new values.

There should be an advice for each change some days before too (like 4/5 days before).

Had a recorrent error when trying to join to an empty server, it kept saying this: "A race is starting"
The server was simracingportugal w9, after i reiniciated the server directly from the root server it go back to normal.
Wasn't able to reproduce this...

Anyway i was already on a few crowded server and seems smooth and i think i have better fps too.
Its great to race against a bigger grid

edit: Afterall i did reproduced the error, same as i described above is happening again. This started again after another error. I gave some commands to the server, i did it while on garage where we pick the cars, and send, /cars xxx and nothing happened, after i send /track xxx and the screen blip and lfs crashed. afterwards it started showing the message "a race is starting" again. Went back to normal after i reinicated lfs this time.

I also had that issue when I set guestcars to 0 (to prevent people from starting while changing track) then I got disconnected, and couldn't go back in to be an admin and start the race, I now have the honour of clearing a 40 player server out in minutes

Bah big dilemna: Trying W9 or wait for the official release ? I prefer to wait and get a big surprise ^^

False starts

Because this patch is aimed at multiplayer stuff, is there any plans to do improve the visual car movement while online? I mean that "jerky" movement, well everyone probably knows what I mean. As far as I know currently there is no "precalculation" (or whatever that is) and that's why the other cars moves not-so-smoothly looking while online and in multiplayer replays. Improving this would make MP replays more enjoyable to watch, while playing that jerky movement doesn't really matter at all.

Quote from Riders Motion :

Bah big dilemna: Trying W9 or wait for the official release ? I prefer to wait and get a big surprise ^^

Only difference from this and the other patches we are used to, is that W9 is a "test test patch" - so you a going to have to wait for a very long if you looking for a "patch" (no "test" involved at all)

Quote from SpaceMarineITA :

I think that the situation which you have described is much different from the actual LFS one:

GPL is simulating an old f1 season:
simulating a season mean with all the goods and bads of each car.

LFS instead is creating and simulating completely fictional cars:
These are not meant to be identical, but at least balanced each other.
Atm FXO on longer tracks can be 3 / 4 seconds faster then RB4.
2 drivers with SIMILAR skill but different cars are realistically unable of compensating 4 seconds at lap eachother with skill difference.

Imho eh


However the amount of these limitations should be written in public somewhere (a page on liveforspeed.net, in game, on lfsworld), because if someone is developing a setup for a champ race in a, for example, 2 weeks time, and 2 days before the race you change the amount of ballast and restrictors to one car, at least he has the time for adapting his setup to the new values.

There should be an advice for each change some days before too (like 4/5 days before).

Well, let's not get about the fictional cars (since everyone can see clues of which real car/s inspired every single LFS car) but in any case... Balancing car would be understandable in spec racing (well, duh!) but with DIFFERENT cars you CANNOT have a full balancing effect.
No real done racing series can achieve that.

Unless you take in account how latest regulations are ruining FIA GT and WTCC.

Yes, it's a game.
Still it is a simulation.

Honestly if I wanted a catch up/balancing option so that each car in each class would be doing the exact laptimes I would have played Need For Speed, not LFS.

I hope that's not were LFS is heading.

A worried paying member.

Quote from XCNuse :

lol.. the light is green and you aren't moving .. so no its not a false start

its a false start when you're moving when the lights are still red

Yes, I know the definition of a false start, I'm just wondering if this is an error/bug in the detection of jump starts, as I was given a penalty for the start whereas I don't believe I was moving before the green.

Yeah, the MRT definately mis-behaves whenever it gets a wheel off of the ground. It flips out when you try to tip it over or when you hit a barrier!

See replay:

i think i found a problem in the false starts system

if someone get a false start and go fast to the garage (shift+s) before the green light comes out, then leave the garage(go back to the grid) the DT penalty is gone


i don't how to describe it very good in english, so i'm going to attach a mpr replay that reproduces the bug

this is bad, someone who get a DT penalty due false start can get rid of the penalty before the race start

sorry for bad english

I'm now sure that what i said before is a fact.
- changing tracks inside the garage causes the client to crash, admins doing it. afterwards the server starts displaying that "a race is starting" message.
One time only i restarted lfs i could join the server, those other times i had to close and open the server on rootserver.
-i used the new command /reinit and strangly the same message appeared after the server reloaded, i tracked it to another monitor on vnc client and i'm sure to have waited for it to load, done that some times and its duplicates the situation.
-and i dont really understand how i got that message the first time i reported this.

Edit: now i just changed the cars and track on entry screen, waited for it to change, left the server, refreshed the list and the evil message returned

Quote from Blerpa :

Well, let's not get about the fictional cars (since everyone can see clues of which real car/s inspired every single LFS car) but in any case... Balancing car would be understandable in spec racing (well, duh!) but with DIFFERENT cars you CANNOT have a full balancing effect.
No real done racing series can achieve that.

Unless you take in account how latest regulations are ruining FIA GT and WTCC.

Yes, it's a game.
Still it is a simulation.

Honestly if I wanted a catch up/balancing option so that each car in each class would be doing the exact laptimes I would have played Need For Speed, not LFS.

I hope that's not were LFS is heading.

A worried paying member.

Keep attention :Here noone is speaking about exact laptimes.


But if from 3 - 4 seconds advantage only for FXO we can go down within a difference of 0.5 sec in the majority part of tracks (in certain AWD will go faster, in others FWD, in others RWD too), surely it will be a better situation that the actual ones.

FIA GT is ruined by ballasts to winners imho, not by balanced or unbalanced cars
And WTCC from a racer prespective too (not from a TV viewer prespective, WTCC is much less boring that F1 on that aspect )