Myself and another coder (T-RonX) has come accross the problem of each application using the same button range.


Now we thought it would be a great idea of the insim protocol was to handle each applications buttons seperatly. So, theoretically, there could be three, buttons with the ID of: 1. And so on....

Please?

It is said in the text file that you should make your range adjustable for your users in a config file for this exact reason :P

how about if my app requires the full range... 1-239... what then...

Then thats how many buttons InSim supports (that would be a load of buttons too!) I have only ever hit 65 on the screen at any given time, and that feels like a lot... IMO I think 240 is enough buttons for two or three InSim apps to run together.

I really don't think you get what I am talking about.

What if, there is my application that uses all of the button ID's at SOME point, not AT ONCE.

Whenenver the second program uses those numbers, it will remove "my" button.... Which means that each application will end up fighting for the button ID's and neither application will work as planned.

So you're asking for another ID field, something like an application ID?

YES!

Or, just make each InSim Conention, unique... no need for an additional field, just make it handle them seperatly...

I already knew what you were saying and I still don't think its "needed". Like I said you can make your InSim application have 1000's of buttons and display 50 to a time, you just need a system to assign button ID's at runtime rather than define them at compile time... Not to hard to do, and takes the work off our good pal Scawen who could be spending his time improving physics, adding rain, changing other things that make LFS more real.

then they might as well just ditch the whole InSim protocol, as that is not "needed" either, it was a suggestion, that was all.

And it is something that would probably take about 5 minutes to complete.

Adding rain and imporoving physics, are you kidding me? they're too busy with fonts & languages.

Wow.

Quote from blackbird04217 :

Wow.

Don't get me wrong, I think the game is amazing, its realism is absolutly tremendous.

I love the game, I really do - and I've spent so much cash to it (in a round about way).

It just seems like the dev's have lost interest.

Anyway, I think this would be a good feature to the insim protocol, and would be used by many.

/end of.

Are you saying you think they've lost interest because the implementation of InSim is basic as it was only ever expected to something basic?

Nopes, I think the InSim protocol is fabulous, has to be said.

The thing that I'm on about is the fact that it seems to be a lack of new content going on... and lack of "features" coming

Quote from Krammeh :

It just seems like the dev's have lost interest.

I don't think this a bit. Actually it takes a lot more interest to support other languages than it does to implement brake fade, rain and new "FUN" features. After all, they started LFS for their enjoyment and it shows because of the quality and pride in their work. They are adding support for other languages to share it with more people; Trust me, language support is boring, I am working on it for the last two weeks in the game at my job... It seems pointless to you, and even me, but thats only because I don't speak the other languages...

Yes it *could* be added, I am not knocking your suggestion. But if you want I can explain what I mean by handling dynamic button ids...

The InSim protocol is WHY I bought LFS in the first place. Its physics got me interested, but I could have enjoyed those from demo. I started using InSim with the demo and had to support the devs... So I bought S2, and have always looked at that as being money well spent.

How about if I wanted an onscreen hud, include my "moderation" system which uses 4 buttons per user, also having the "officer" system enabled which takes 2 buttons per user.

Then I also want to run the LFS Mail system
oh and a subsection system that I've written for PB's or something.

Im pretty sure that would clash.

At the end of the day, adding this very small feature, would just make it a hell of a lot easier for the developers that create the insim applications, and would also make it a hell of a lot easier for the server administrators, or the people that run them locally on the client side of LFS.

It would be a very simple addition to the protocol, and yet would improve it 10 fold.