If you consider the size of list of improvements (already suggested!) ... it's hard to resist to push for some particular one, when you see the devs listening quite directly to feedback. I'm sure Scawen will prune this reasonably. Also I hope he does check the improvements list from time to time, like once per he finish some feature (like tyre physics). Then again that list is huuuuge, must take a whole day just to read through it?

Quote from Ped7g :

when you see the devs listening quite directly to feedback.

Yup, this is the crux. The list of suggestions is outrageously long, and thus Scawen can be forgiven if he doesn't read it regularly.
But... the fact that unrelated improvements suggested** in the patch test threads are often implemented promptly is basically Scawen making a rod for his own back.
No disrespect intended and many of the improvements are hugely welcome but so would be many of those in the suggestions forum...

** (which may strictly be against the rules anyway?)

Quote from Ped7g :

If you consider the size of list of improvements (already suggested!) ... it's hard to resist to push for some particular one, when you see the devs listening quite directly to feedback. I'm sure Scawen will prune this reasonably. Also I hope he does check the improvements list from time to time, like once per he finish some feature (like tyre physics). Then again that list is huuuuge, must take a whole day just to read through it?

To me it is completely different. Seeing how people (myself guilty aswel) throw random requests to test patch topic, makes me feel like we are group of children trying to catch free sweets
wonder what is the criterion for a request to be considered by developers? Is it just enough to bring 2 or 5 friends spamming with simple request?

There are tons of small improvements that can benefit the game, and we do even have a whole forum section for it, yet that Suggestion Improvements section feels redundant in the light of these requests here...

Quote from vitaly_m :

feel like we are group of children trying to catch free sweets

LOL! OMG, you nailed it!

The size of the Suggested Improvements list wouldn't be that long if he had implemented them (if he thought they were good ideas).

For the cars that we have to drift now 45° is way to much, it would turn drifting into something that i find fun to do every once and a while due to the difficulty into something that i would never to due to how easy it would get. If you want to give us cars that can have 45° steering lock, give us cars with 600bhp... then if would be a bit more than just full throttle drifting.

Quote from BeNoM :

The devs wont be adding any new content before the tyre physics and even then they already have a ton of stuff planned.

Quote please? I can't remember them saying that. I do remember them saying that they don't want to withhold content because of the tyre physics, that's the reason they released RO, isn't it?

Quote from Sobis :

Quote please? I can't remember them saying that. I do remember them saying that they don't want to withhold content because of the tyre physics, that's the reason they released RO, isn't it?

I believe they are waiting for the tyre physics for the scirocco, but the tracks can be released any time?

Quote from k_badam :

I believe they are waiting for the tyre physics for the scirocco, but the tracks can be released any time?

I think so as well. Even more, isn't only Scirocco delayed because of the tyre physics? I mean we might as well get another car, not only a track. But don't count on me with this one! I can't remember what exactly Scawen said and I'm a bit lazy to scroll through his posts .
We are getting quite off topic though...

Quote from Sobis :

I think so as well. Even more, isn't only Scirocco delayed because of the tyre physics? I mean we might as well get another car, not only a track. But don't count on me with this one! I can't remember what exactly Scawen said and I'm a bit lazy to scroll through his posts .
We are getting quite off topic though...

Everytime devs make new post here, it goes off topic

Scawen, you added a second parameter in /track <trackname> <weather> not long ago.

Would be possible to have a 3rd parameter to indicate <layoutname>? I hope its possible and easy.

Quote from NeOn_sp :

Scawen, you added a second parameter in /track <trackname> <weather> not long ago.

Would be possible to have a 3rd parameter to indicate <layoutname>? I hope its possible and easy.

/autox?

Quote from UnknownMaster21 :

/autox?

¿?

We have axload, but right now if you want to configure a server you have to set "/track as7x 2" with one command, wait lfs load that track, that weather, and a random layout you dont want, and after that, call "/axload name"

Adding one parameter would make it easier and prevent fails like sending axload when the random layout is still loading causing that desired layout won´t load, and saving cpu and time.

The new small map is great!

Anyone having a problem with the map not rotating? I've got the option to rotate the small map on "Yes", yet it doesn't rotate whilst driving :/

Quote from UnknownMaster21 :

Isn't it possible to do with INSIM?

You also can build a layout using InSim only, without loading any file...

NeOn_sp is asking for a more efficient way to load everything in one command, that may be pretty easy for Scawen to do.
I don't see any drawback in his suggestion while I see a few advantages, do you?

Quote from Whiskey :

You also can build a layout using InSim only, without loading any file...

NeOn_sp is asking for a more efficient way to load everything in one command, that may be pretty easy for Scawen to do.
I don't see any drawback in his suggestion while I see a few advantages, do you?

Okay, no problem

Quote from BeNoM :

So I guess this has turned into https://www.lfs.net/forum/8-Improvement-Suggestions lol

Not really, it most of the time is about a specific section of LFS which already has it's attention. Which in this case is mini-maps and open layouts. And I also saw a request for InSim improvement input somewhere else on the forum. So why not express some opinion about that in two lines of text

offtop: Scawen, as i understand in cars you don't update only f1.vob, because only in f1.vob i found trash with 192 bit what said what must read additional bytes after faces

Could we have track maps skinnable? Like, you upload a TRACKMAP_<whatevername>.png to server and then can put it somewhere in dcon's setup.cfg and voila, everyone will see the same custom map.

It can even have some settings to make it look good with layouts far from center of the world, like 'trackmap_center_position x y' (defines map image center position in the 3d world) and maybe 'trackmap_effective_scale x y' (defining how many meters does image cover in the 3d world)

That would move the burden of good map creations from devs to server admins.

Scawen, this is not a new bug, but since you implemented the brilliant shift-f12 mode for triple screen without needing to use the utter useless NVidia Surround, sometimes (maybe always) I find that on first use since starting LFS shift-f12 switches from windowed to full triple monitor window, but with the game only on the middle screen. If I toggle it again twice, it will then be all 3 screens as expected. Not a major issue though.

Not sure sicne when it's this bug here, but incase that you dont know, you can pass under this wall at Aston track.
Not important/necesary update, but just incase that you want to take note of it

The shadow looks bad ... looks through the concrete

Quote from Popughini :

The shadow looks bad ... looks through the concrete

That has been since forever

This patch stops RevBouncer from working from as far as i know

Quote from UnknownMaster21 :

That has been since forever

They have to solve it, since it would not have to see the shadow through the concrete

Quote from Charlieh18 :

This patch stops RevBouncer from working from as far as i know

I don't know what that could be. I don't know of any changes affecting external programs (assuming they don't use some kind of exe hack).

Quote from Popughini :

They have to solve it, since it would not have to see the shadow through the concrete

The problem is that the concrete isn't casting a shadow. It's not really a bug that the car casts a shadow there. Really everything should cast a shadow, including the layout objects. That would be great, and I hope to do that one day, but it's a big project, not for this patch, and not until after the new tyre physics.