Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

Who are "climate deniers"? Do they deny the existence of climate? And where are they? Uh...are they in the same room with you? And that includes even if you mean climate change deniers. Because I haven't seen them posting in this thread.

You publish their literature and support the same thesis. Be honest for once.
I know my English is bad. Here, there is only one word missing and you have understood the meaning. This attack is ... weak.

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

Well this at least looks like a meaningful discussion, although I certainly don't expect any objectivity from you. Because you obviously don't need to analyze any new information, you have one goal, you need to prove that "World Climate Declaration completely stupid".

But like I said, I'm not interested in defending someone else's words. So I'll just go through your thesis.

The “World Climate Declaration” is a hoax known and already deciphered by all serious journalists and scientists on this planet. You are the only one who discovers things here.
Unlike you, I do not pose far-fetched theses opposed to scientific realities. I inform myself and I only relay information verified and attested by competent scientists.

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

That's interesting, and how many climate scientists are there, if there are so few can you list them all?

Professional journalists from major media who have investigated this subject include less than 1% of scientists competent in climatology among the signatories. I posted links about this.

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

And who said that? You made up a thesis and you debunked it yourself. It happens again and again. Classic example of a straw man arument.
I said:

Scientists and professionals. And this is written in the declaration itself.
You make up a thesis for your opponents, and break it down yourself, I understand that you find it more convenient to do this than to argue with the actual theses of your interlocutors. But does it bring you pleasure instead of having a real discussion with your interlocutor and his theses?

My baker is a professional. His opinion on global warming is not authoritative. This is the same as for the 99% of signatories to the “World Climate Declaration”.
If this statement were honest it would be written: "signed by ordinary people including 1% of climate scientists paid by fossil fuel producers, John F. Clauser & Ivan Giaever Nobel Prize in geophysics (nothing to do with climate sciences) and a few counterfeiters.
FYI, in 2015, 36 Nobel Prize winners called for urgent action against climate change.

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

What is sophism? And how to distinguish it from argument? A sophism is a fallacious reasoning, an incorrect argument based on a deliberate, conscious violation of the rules of logic. If it is a sophism, then demonstrate what rules of logic this sophism violates. That's what I did with the Scawen analogy. I didn't just demonstrate the rule it violates, but I showed in detail how it violates it. Are you capable of this?

I did it. Read the posts instead of stupidly covering them with your empty prose.

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

I do not exclude that this declaration is a counter-propaganda to the climate change propaganda. I am not you to consider all sources that I like automythically true and those that I don't like false. I don't know that, and I don't have the time and desire to check these leaked documents, because they could also be fake and like I said, I'm not that interested in this topic. But it is interesting that neither you nor the western media are doing the same about the hot topic of global warming. You're just assuming it's all true, and all I'm doing is encouraging you to think critically about any source and question it.

And it’s interesting how you selectively decided to break down the theses of the declaration... So do you agree with the others? What about the bias and politicization of this topic. And articles on this topic that I wrote about?

No one here needs a lesson in critical thinking from you. Your superiority complex, totally unjustified, blinds you to your abilities and those of others. No one blindly believes nonsense here except SamH and you.
In this debate, there is on the one hand a scientific reality of global warming (which you partly deny) and its political consequences which are open to criticism. On the other hand, there is the propaganda of the polluters that you promote. These two things are not equal and cannot be considered as the same value.
No one here will tell you that the political decisions taken in the face of the climate challenge are good. But that's not the point.

You publish this lamentable disinformation out of provocation and because it flatters your ego. You say it yourself. You see there “the confirmation of your words by the scientific world”! You also publish this misinformation because this type of deception comes from the same biases and relies on the same methodology that you consistently use. Panglossian reasoning + Reversal of the burden of proof + Ignoratio elenchi. This has been said to you before by different people, in different ways and on different topics. This particularity that you share with SamH makes your relationship fascinating (to be observed by a psychiatrist), but unfortunately also makes any communication with you completely useless. Except (I've already said it) to avoid this forum being identified as an antechamber of climate CHANGE denial or anti-abortion extremism.
You know that your interlocutors will become discouraged. This gives you the illusion of being right. Since that’s what interests you, you manage to be satisfied with it. So, everything is perfect for you. But contrary to what you think, things aren't true just because no one has the patience to explain to you why you're wrong. And no one is obligated to do it.

I don't care what you write and I don't want stopping you from speaking. I just ask that you have enough respect for this forum to clarify things when you relay stupid propaganda.

I have already said what I had to say about the political cause of global warming. The politicization of this subject is only the consequence. The theses that you support are those of the far right, on this subject and others. Nothing else.

Please note that none of this is a personal attack. Your words describe you. Take responsibility for yourself.

Happy end of the year.

[Sorry for the delay. I came to answer you but my attention was attracted by something else and I forgot you].

I did the same tests on different tracks. I think the worst was Handling, but I'm not sure.
What I was able to verify is that on Blackwood REV for example, the AI enters the pits after 10 laps and returns very quickly. In my first tests, the AI went straight on tight turns.
Maybe it's a bug because I didn't regenerate the AI paths with your new configuration?

Whatever it is, make the choices that seem best to you. You are the boss. I'll tell you what I think when all your cars are balanced. For the moment, I admit that I am having fun with your XRT CS300_002 and your first setup.

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

I was just a little surprised when I found literal confirmation of my words from scientists.

Quote from SamH :

Bro.. almost literally my first 2 or 3 posts in this thread!

Quote from Scawen :

is just stupid.

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

I'm not sure you understand what I'm talking about, I'm quoting a declaration from over 1600 scientists including two Nobel laureates and professionals that said - There is no climate emergency.

Quote from reason0809 :

I don't need to read their propaganda bullshit?

This post has two objectives:
1- avoid this forum being identified as an asylum for climate deniers who peddle hoaxes.
2- reassure those who find the “arguments” of the “World Climate Declaration” completely stupid.

The arguments in the “World Climate Declaration” are stupid. It's obvious. This is easily explained. Notably by the fact that what is brandished here as a petition from authoritative scientists is in reality nothing but a known hoax which has resurfaced since 2019. The imbecilities and lies which make up this well-known hoax of the “World Declaration on climate” are also very easy to demonstrate, as we will see. All this has been deciphered by fact checking journalists and the scientific community.

Knowledge Base on CLINTEL and it's “World Climate Declaration”:

CLINTEL is financed to the tune of $700,000 by Dutch billionaire Niek Sandmann, a notorious climate skeptic.
Only a tiny minority of the signatories of this petition are real scientists. An insignificant percentage of them work (or have worked) on climate.
For example, “Christopher The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, Peer of the Realm and Author of several reviewed papers on Climate,WCD Ambassador” (signatory page 38) is not a scientist. He was convicted of falsely claiming to be a Nobel laureate and a member of the House of Lords.
Most signatories of the “World Climate Declaration” have ties to the oil industry and climate skeptic organizations, the other signatories are fisherman, airline pilot, sommelier, musician, lawyer, linguist, retired teacher, urologist, psychoanalyst and at least three representatives of energy workers' unions.
To say that the “World Climate Declaration” is the work of scientists is a lie.
(you will see this in detail on the attached links and documents).

In addition to the absurdity of its unfounded assertions, what some interpret as “the scientific confirmation of their words” is in reality the propaganda of a disinformation company created and financed by the coalition of the biggest polluters on the planet: i.e. the 1 % of the richest who emit as much CO2 as two thirds of humanity and fossil fuel producers who are responsible for 75% of CO2 emissions.

Some links for complete and objective information on CLINTEL’s “World Climate Declaration” and the deconstruction of the imbecile and false statements that make it up. Everyone will easily find references to this subject in their language.

Here is a complete article from Belgian Radio-Television (RTBF) of the French Community of Belgium (Wallonia and Brussels). Those who do not speak this barbaric language will be able to translate the articles with their favorite tools and access the links present in the text, some of which are in English.

https://www.rtbf.be/article/une-declaration-mondiale-sur-le-climat-qui-nie-lurgence-climatique-vehicule-des-affirmations-trompeuses-11063843

Other sources
https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.32HG6HR
https://www.desmog.com/2019/09/06/climate-science-deniers-planning-coordinated-european-misinformation-campaign-leaked-documents-reveal/
https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1402070/lettre-500-scientifiques-urgence-climatique
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/aug/11/lords-climate-christopher-monckton

This stupid attempt at disinformation is an identified and debunked hoax which was also the subject of a detailed article on Wikipedia.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Intelligence_Foundation


It is of course and fortunately not necessary to have the right information on CLINTEL to understand that the “arguments” put forward in the “World Climate Declaration” are fallacious. You just need to know how to read and understand what you read. As an example, the extract below is perfectly stupid:

Clintel quote:
"CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. More CO2 is favorable for nature, greening our planet. Additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also profitable for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide."

It's just an accumulation of sophisms identifiable for a 5 year old.

CO2 is not “nature’s food”. Nature absorbs CO2 with varying consequences. The oceans, for example, are absorbing increasing amounts of CO2 because of global warming. This leads to the death of marine organisms and some fish, with repercussions on food chains. Including for humans. Ocean acidification caused by global warming and its consequences are an undisputed scientific reality.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/acc085


Stated in kindergarten language, the fact that A is beneficial to B (in certain circumstances and proportions) does not make A beneficial to C (as a general rule) as well as to all the other letters of the alphabet, a fortiori if this fact is contrary to all known scientific realities.
If CO2 is “essential to life on earth”, its increase here is deadly for oceans. Nature is not only made up of green plants and depends on fragile balances directly threatened by global warming. And oceans cover ONLY 70% of the earth's surface.

By presenting CO2 as "non-polluting" and beneficial for nature, this reasoning confuses also biological CO2 and CO2 which results from human activities.
Biological CO2 is a so-called “natural” gas, like water vapor, emitted by living organisms. Nothing to do with the combustion of fossil fuels which releases an additional supply of CO2 into the atmosphere for hundreds, even thousands of years, and acts as a greenhouse gas.

I recommend this experience to those who struggle the most to understand the difference here.
Fill a basin with vodka. Dip a sugar in it. Let this sugar melt on your tongue. Then immerse your head in the basin with your eyes open and count to 1000. You will perhaps understand that the same substance can have different effects.

Pretending that the increase in CO2 is "favorable for nature", or that the "earth lacks CO2" is not only completely idiotic because it is contrary to scientific realities, but completely irresponsible.
Here reasoning behind Clintel's argument would be worth a grade below zero for an elementary school student. I am surprised that those who are so quick to give lessons in logic are not moved by it. But this too must have an explanation accessible to reason.

The other “arguments” in this petition are of the same level and have all been deconstructed by real scientists (see links above).


The graph of deaths from natural disasters over the past centuryand and the comment below are worse.

Clintel quote:
“Climate related deaths (floods, droughts, storms, wildfires, extreme temperatures) have declined precipitously because richer and more resilient societies reduce disaster deaths and swamp any potential climate signal.

Thirty years of climate summits have had no discernible effect on the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. These summits cost an enormous amount of money. Money which can be better spent on adaptation measures”.

Death is unfortunately neither the only nor the worst consequence of climate disasters. The fact that rich and polluting societies are more likely to survive the consequences of global warming is an elliptical “argument” that is absolutely unworthy and unbearable.
What is the reasoning here? Global warming is nothing. Because the rich have polluted the planet but will survive, unlike the poor who have not been able to adapt: It is the harsh law of evolution ! survival of the fittest? Climate denial and its fallacious arguments is actually one of the too many avatars of Social Darwinism ambiant.

The international summits have failed, it’s true. They will systematically fail, as long as lobbies like CLINTEL infiltrate and pollute social networks and the media with their absurdities. The solution to global warming depends on profound political changes for a more just society. It is in reality against these changes that lobbies like CLINTEL are fighting. They don't care at all about climate change and its societal consequences for the rest of the world. CLINTEL doesn't even bother to give credible arguments. CLINTEL is in a purely cynical position because this association of evildoers knows that it speaks to imbeciles. Let's not be one of those!

Last edited by Avraham Vandezwin, Sat, 23 Dec 2023 10:24. Reason : Translation problem - invalid terms

[sorry if I'm wrong, this seems like the right place to ask the question]

Are there plans, in future patches or later, to allow modders to choose configuration options for their car, in order to have cars with fixed or limited setups?

@Günni92,
Just a little feedback.
I tried your version 2 of the XRT. With the new configuration, the car is more stable and docile. So, easier to drive but loses "aggressiveness and character"(I don't know if that makes sense in English ). It's a choice. Personally (sorry!) I preferred the more subtle, demanding and precise steering of the first setting. It's not that important.

But the big problem with this configuration is that the tires heat up a lot and very quickly. With the first configuration, I was able to do 30 laps of racing without problems. There, in a few laps in the same conditions, the tires died.

Quote from Günni92 :

Yeah, that's what my impressions are as well. I tested mostly on Westhill and in South City, and I always had a blast. The cars work on large, fast circuits equally as well as on the slow, bumpy tracks. The low downforce makes them dance just the right amount to always keep it interesting.

For my part, I mainly tested Rockingham (ISSC, Handling), Blackwood (rev), Kyoto Ring GP long (both) and Aston (North & grand prix) with your XRT CS300, without changing your setup. I had fun on every track. This gives a idea of the potential of the car, its category and the versatility of your setup.
Kyoto Ring GP longs and Aston grand prix are quickly boring with a car that is underpowered and/or too easy to drive (that's just my opinion). With this balance, things are going wonderfully. I had tested other mods on these tracks, particularly in Supertourer, without achieving the same level of sensations and I had grown bored ( I switched back to the GTR).

Quote from Günni92 :

What do you think?

Your choices and base skin are good. I would add two little things to personalize your Clubsport class. First a common banner with the name of the class to differentiate it from the others. Then, some small bodywork modifications, like a kind of kit that wouldn't disappear under the new skins. Maybe too, but it's more incidental, new textures for the dashboard (in fiber for example) and doors without interior trim (stripped). Maybe that's too much, but would it be nice ?

I can't wait to test your new XRT and the others.

Quote from Günni92 :

Regarding the sequential gearboxes:

I see that they are not as popular as I expected them to be . I am open for discussion about changing one or more cars over to H pattern.
We could look at all cars in the "class" (Supertourer and Clubsport 300) and define, which change on the Clubsport cars would provide the most variety (e.g. we don't need multiple RB4 with sequential). I will put that on my todo-list and am open for your ideas.

After a test drive, these “Clubsport” versions are very pleasant to drive. Just enough power to not fall asleep and force you to reach the limit. It's very stimulating. Too bad the AI is totally insignificant on the track (especially on Rockingham). Perhaps there is something to improve here with the AI setup? The settings offered are indeed very perfectible, especially that of the FZ5. Otherwise (I know this will shock purists...) why not make special versions of cars for AI? (while waiting for the new tires physics and its new AI, of course )

Regarding gearboxes (I can't be objective here, as I only drive H gearbox ) I think the XRT & RB4 could be with an H gearbox. Apart from comfort, I don't see not really the use of the sequential gearbox with this kind of gear ratio. I would even tend to consider that all these cars would gain in charisma by being in H gearbox (I actually converted them to drive them).

The current mod system is essentially (at the moment) a vehicle editor. Real "race" categories are missing to select and sort the mods in order to compose grids. The mod system needs something specifically dedicated to racing. This “Clubsport” category could serve as a model here. Many models already created could complete this category if their specifications were adapted for this.

Don't give up on Günni92. You are on the right path.

I haven't found the time to do a test drive yet. First impressions watching AI races.

The category seems balanced and the AI is fighting among itself. This bodes well. The "complete mod, race-ready" effect works with car names and their category. But is it enough to stand out in the clutter of current mods without a specific entry?
I have already mentioned it but, beyond this particular mod, the mods which are made up of several cars and are intended to compose "race-ready" type grids, should be identifiable and directly accessible in the system of mods.

Three small comments on the mod:

- The interiors deserve a little creative effort in order to be more inspired by the "racing" style. Especially the historically ugliest ones (FXO, FZ5).
- A few skins for each car are a must.
- Having only sequential gearboxes is too limiting.

Quote from Gutholz :

I am not good with tweaking setups either. But just ask for a setup, in my experience usually multiple people would send theirs. Just make sure to ask ahead of time, not when everybody is busy.

I know people online are nice and share their setups. I have tested it often in the past. But this doesn't solve my current problem. I don't have time to waste getting to grips with a new setup before each race. Changing configuration for each track annoys me a lot.

Without being good at setups, mine suit me perfectly. For me, a good setup is one that is realistic, enjoyable to drive and polyvalent. I don't care if it's fast or not. I might want to race online again if the setup options were limited so as not to unbalance the races. And that mechanical gearboxes do not magically transform into sequential gearboxes, like on world record replays .

Quote from Günni92 :

I think it's a great concept [...] There are so many combinations of cars and tracks now that I do not feel motivated to create good setups for the ones I'm gonna use. [...] It'd just be important that the base setups are good and that basic modification of things like final drive, wheel alignment, brake balance (in sane limits) etc. is still allowed, so everybody can still fit the cars to their driving style.

I am happy to see that we understand each other perfectly. The nature of your modding project made me think about it (thinking by categories and not by individual car, balanced grids, cars that are pleasant to drive but accessible to all, favoring technical specifications over cosmetic gadgets etc.).

The good news is that your project can already work under current conditions. I think it will find its audience. Limited configuration options would definitely give it a wider audience. We've been talking about limited configurations here for a long time. The developers were already talking about it more than 13 years ago. (I was reminded of this in this other thread. https://www.lfs.net/forum/post/2030087#post2030087)

I am convinced that it will soon be possible to limit setups, at least in the context of modding. It has become unavoidable. Today, those (like me) who have little time to devote to gaming and enjoy racing, prefer to play offline with a single generic setup. This is paradoxical with a multiplayer game. Beyond the limited configuration options, it is a new online game mode, more contemporary and adapted to the players that we are, that we must rethink.

Quote from Günni92 :

This is exactly what I want to ultimately achieve. I love the idea of a server with all these cars (including the existing ones that were suggested in this thread). That would provide a great variety of drivetrains, engines and their sound and driving characteristics. It could be great for drivers and viewers as well.

What do you think about the possibility of having limited setups for these cars? (If the mod system or Insim could finally allow it of course).

So, with enough car choices to satisfy all racers, competition could become more about car choice, driving and race strategy rather than setup science. This would, I think, attract racers who don't necessarily have the time to refine a killer setup. Or who simply don't have the mechanical gene, but love racing and fair competition.

I've mentioned this idea here before, and I'm not the only one to have done so. It seems we are in the minority position here on this. So, I can hear you disagree with that .

But your opinion interests me. Indeed, in this type of intermediate category, quite close to production cars, we can imagine that the range of settings could be more in line with reality.

Quote from Eclipsed :

All these cars should be marked as "tweaked" - these are standard LFS cars with changed (tweaked) parameters.

It's true. But the most important thing seems to be that these cars are also identifiable as a category, for example to easily form coherent grids.

This is the problem with the current mod system. There are many things, good and not so good. Everything is mixed and unclassifiable. It is difficult to navigate, or even to know what has already been done. This subject is the very expression of this problem.

Rather than thousands of cosmetic mods with crude physics and dysfunctional LODS, it would be nice to have a real "racing" section with consistent car types. Even if it means reusing native models and skins already made.

LFS was a car racing game before modding. I have nothing against evolution or the unbridled creativity of modders, nor against motorcycles. But having a section of "ready to race" racing cars, with good settings and racing skins, would be enough for me. If this was grouped on a dedicated server with a "ready to race" mode, I might fix my ping problem to reconnect. I don't think I'm the only one in this situation.

Quote from subUwU :

Yes, as a person who enjoys racing the AIs, this would be a great addition, however only creating a racing line for custom tracks wouldnt be enough. Things such as track borders would have to be defined for the AI to randomly not hit it.

Many racers enjoy racing against AI, for different reasons. Others would like to have a ghost mod to practice with. This solution based on player replay, if it were technically possible to implement, would satisfy many players.
This would also create a dynamic between players on the AI, in particular to make it more competitive on each combo. This would expand the use of custom tracks to solo players. Furthermore, the question of AI will arise if a track editor is developed for LFS, which would be an important addition.
You're right. For custom tracks, demarcation of boundaries and obstacles would be necessary.

Modding that focuses on the essentials, I like that!
LFS needs operational modding. That is to say, cars that are fun to drive with compatible characteristics to make varied and stimulating grids; some coherent groups for racing on tracks. The idea of a Clubsport class is excellent.

This is just a personal opinion, the native LFS turbos are pleasant to drive, but too sluggish. The GTRs are great, but a little tiring over time, because too easy to drive (power + grip). An intermediate class with real racing tires would synthesize the best of LFS (with its current physics).
On the other hand, even if I understand the choice of the sequential gearbox, it would be nice to have a little choice too with a H gearbox.

Quote from UnknownMaster21 :

It is wayyy too hard to implement like that, as there is required to code of how AI uses data from player use. Also, player can think, AI can not.

I hope I understand what you're saying, even though I've never practiced programming to this level. In any case, thank you for taking the time to decipher my gibberish .

The idea here is not to teach the AI to drive like the player. But just that the AI integrates the player's trajectory in the form of data, like the AI currently integrates the layout of the track to define its own trajectory (if that's how it works in LFS?).

The AI would then drive according to its own parameters, as is currently the case. But if possible, with other references of limits. For example for subsequent braking points, reals limits of loss of grip, re-acceleration point etc. This based on a trajectory “more aligned” with that of the player.

I don't know how it would be possible to code it (even explain it in English ), but if it worked, it would be a way to give some resemblance between the AI and the player without the AI needing to learn to think.

---------
Edit:

If anyone is interested in this topic, let me clarify that I don't think LFS's AI is bad. From what I understand, it is a generic AI capable of piloting all types of vehicles. It can be said that a multiplayer game does not need better AI.

The idea I'm talking about here aims to give to LFS AI a kind of extra soul when it drives a specific vehicle, on a specific track: a combo.

For example, since patch D48, the AI is generally more efficient and pleasant to play. Even if the AI is less realistic than before the patch in certain aspects, such as caution. Indeed, before the last patches, the AI refused contact with the player. The AI braked so as not to go off the track if it was stuck against the edge of the track. This attitude was more realistic than today. But the current AI is more pleasant to play, because it is more combative. The problem here is not realism and AI performance. The AI could be hyperrealistic and credible without being adapted to the behaviour of virtual racers. The challenge here is to satisfy the player.

Likewise, a generic AI will not perform equally well on all combos. It would be a waste of time to code it for a multiplayer game like LFS. And with the mod system, it will be crazy.

However, even online racers may want AI more suited to their driving style and performance. For example, to populate servers.

I don't know what it is possible to do in terms of programming with this idea of "framing the AI with a player replay". The idea just seems interesting to me.

Last edited by Avraham Vandezwin, Wed, 22 Nov 2023 12:54.

Quote from dvd14 :

Scawen, after you made changes to the behavior of the bots, they began to go even slower. Maybe it is possible to make some kind of scam bots that will use alternative accelerated physics or reduced weight of the car?

Between the first AI patch and the last one, bots have been slowed down a bit. But they are faster and more competitive than before the AI patches.

Having the bots drive modified cars (in weight, downforce and engine speed, suspensions etc.) works well for lap time.

The problem is that with the current trajectories and acceleration and braking points, the bots go faster in a straight line, but still lose a lot of time in turns. Even if their behaviour has been greatly improved by the patches.
This is why I suggested an alternative mod for creating AIs trajectories do or modified by the player.
https://www.lfs.net/forum/post/2065857#post2065857

(This obviously exceeds the ambition of the AI patches and is of much lower interest than the other expected updates. But maybe for later...)

It's just an idea. I don't know if it's possible to do.

The AI has been significantly improved by patch D48, and it's great

However, the path of AI are not always perfect. The speed of the AI is still not adapted to the player's level. Custom tracks do not have AI.

Also, I was wondering if it wasn't possible to create an alternate path for the AI with a replay of the player, like a ghost? The game would record the player's trajectory on a track with a specific car. Then random iterations would be calculated on this trajectory, like with mods.

I'm not talking about changing the way this currently works, but implementing an alternative player-created AI path recording mod, if the player wants, and enable on demand. This alternative mod could also work for custom tracks, and be exchange between players.

If this is too difficult or time-consuming, perhaps a way to modify the AI's paths to correct trajectories and manually change braking, acceleration, and speed per zone would be sufficient. I'm still talking about an alternative mod here and not a replacement for the current system.

Thank you for your response Gutholz,

Yes, I'm talking about the trange bend in the middle of the turn.
The issue predates patch D48 and is not resolved with it. I think this is the same thing Pasci is talking about in the patch thread. https://www.lfs.net/forum/post/2061711#post2061711

Scawen says this no longer appears in the development version so there's no point wasting time on it. So I was wondering if there was a way to fix this while waiting for the next update.

The AI is really better since patch D48. It's a shame that small trajectory imperfections like this lessen the effect of the AI improvement. It would be great to be able to correct them manually.

UP

Is there anything new about editing AI trajectories?
(I asked the same question here, with an example, https://www.lfs.net/forum/post/2065527#post2065527, before seeing this topic)

Now that the AI has been significantly improved with patch D48, editing AI paths has regained importance. Indeed, with cars specifically modified for AI, LFS is much more enjoyable to play. All that's missing is better trajectories for the AI.

{To Van Sterberkt} And now solo championships could become interesting.

Is there a way to correct this type of trajectory error ?

Thanks

Quote from yasin.inan :

I'm waiting and waiting and waiting again

Think about the other things that have brought you as much happiness as LFS over time and for such a low price, with the unwavering attention of the developers who do everything possible to satisfy you. This allows you to put things into perspective a little and find the strength...to wait.

I come back to this subject because it is important. As I write this post, the mods page shows 1361 mods.
If nothing is done, the mod system will no longer even be usable. I admit that I stopped being interested in it, even though there are some absolutely brilliant things. It just became impossible to consult.

The first urgent thing seems to me to be to divide the display of all mods into several pages. This single page is no longer even displayed on the laptop I use while travelling...

The second thing would be to sort the mods by typologies before creating categories by vehicle characteristics.

Having a first choice between cars and the others things seems obvious to me for a game like LFS !
Then a classification by use (Racing, Drift, off-road, street, stock etc.).

Then sorting by type of mods (Tweak, Wip, Derivatives etc.) a bit like in the attached image.
Then it will be easy to introduce classes by era or by vehicle characteristics.

I also made a suggestion to improve the organization of mods here, with a visual, a while ago.
The idea was to be able to quickly find what interests us in the mods.
https://www.lfs.net/forum/post/2058501#post2058501
It would also be nice to be able to create different favourite mod groups per vehicle type. For example, to classify in the same folder the vehicles from the 70s that you prefer.

I've already done it elsewhere but if this is where we have to say thank you, then huge thanks for this fabulous patch which completely revolutionizes the single player experience against AI.

The AI is still too slow but this has become even easier to correct with cars adapted for the AI, now that its behavior in races has become more consistent.

Superb work Scawen. The evolution of the AI was my biggest expectation from this fantastic game.

News of this morning, but not a surprise. The year 2023 will be the hottest in 125,000 years. This afirmatie is based on objective paleoclimatic data from the study of ice cores, corals and trees which provide precise information on climate evolution.

The temperatures recorded last October broke the record set in 2019. With an average of 15.38°C on the surface of the globe, the past month exceeds the previous record of October 2019 by 0.4°C. In October 2023, the average air temperature was 1.7 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial average for the period 1850-1900.

Quote from gu3st :

Just go and steal the rF2 physics like Rennsport did.

How did they do it? Code copying? Or a similar attempt to reproduce physical phenomena through programming ?