Tracks Road America 1.0

[Neilski]

Now that's interesting and I like to clarify - do you mean



I'm not a guy that mingles online, not for chatting, nor for racing. So what you say, Phoenix, might be right but still sounds highly illogical to me. And maybe the different experiences of people are due to different server configurations. I'd say the server that hashes only the relevant files for the particular racing session is better configured than the one that hashes all files in the track.

For a very long time I've had a set of "nocut" layouts which I believe were originally created by @Captain Condescending (the set includes most if not all of the stock tracks). These layouts have modified surfaces.ini files (to make cutting more readily noticed/penalised by the sim). I have never experienced a checksum error despite racing on many public and private servers, some of which must surely have had the files available to perform the checksums.
On this basis, despite not having deliberately tested with a server which I am 100% certain to have the content for checksumming (or at least not that I can remember! ), I'm pretty confident that the checksumming isn't affected by a fresh layout with a modified surfaces.ini.

 

[cerebralvortex]

For a very long time I've had a set of "nocut" layouts which I believe were originally created by @Captain Condescending (the set includes most if not all of the stock tracks). These layouts have modified surfaces.ini files (to make cutting more readily noticed/penalised by the sim). I have never experienced a checksum error despite racing on many public and private servers, some of which must surely have had the files available to perform the checksums.
On this basis, despite not having deliberately tested with a server which I am 100% certain to have the content for checksumming (or at least not that I can remember! ), I'm pretty confident that the checksumming isn't affected by a fresh layout with a modified surfaces.ini.

That would make cheating possible..

 

[Neilski]

That would make cheating possible..

How?

Edit: turns out that the nocut layouts are a downloadable mod

 

[LilSki]

Different layouts shouldn't cause a checksum. By default only the surfaces.ini of a particular layout is checked. Then if you include the models.ini and the kn5s on the server they will be checked too. It is all on a per layout basis.

 

[cerebralvortex]

How?

Edit: turns out that the nocut layouts are a downloadable mod

From the description of the mod :

THIS MOD DOES NOT REPLACE OR MODIFY THE DEFAULT TRACKS - It creates new layouts for each track.

So that means that when you were driving online it was on the default tracks with the default surfaces.ini as well.. Unless the server happened to run the mod too.

 

[Neilski]

From the description of the mod :

THIS MOD DOES NOT REPLACE OR MODIFY THE DEFAULT TRACKS - It creates new layouts for each track.

So that means that when you were driving online it was on the default tracks with the default surfaces.ini as well.. Unless the server happened to run the mod too.

You seem to be misunderstanding how it works. It doesn't create a new track folder, it creates a new layout within the existing track folder. While racing online I was indeed (mostly) using the original layout. The point was that this didn't cause me to get booted off any server, ever.
Since @LilSki has just supported the view that an additional layout won't cause a checksum issue, I think we can consider that issue closed now, no?

 

[cerebralvortex]

You seem to be misunderstanding how it works. It doesn't create a new track folder, it creates a new layout within the existing track folder. While racing online I was indeed (mostly) using the original layout. The point was that this didn't cause me to get booted off any server, ever.
Since @LilSki has just supported the view that an additional layout won't cause a checksum issue, I think we can consider that issue closed now, no?

I think we are saying the same thing. The surfaces.ini used (and checked) when racing online is from a different layout so you were not using a modified surfaces.ini for that layout, otherwise it would cause checksum errors.

 

[Neilski]

I think we are saying the same thing. The surfaces.ini used (and checked) when racing online is from a different layout so you were not using a modified surfaces.ini for that layout, otherwise it would cause checksum errors.

You're totally losing me now
Your original post said that it would make cheating possible, and I asked "how?" because I couldn't (and still can't) see how the layout discussion we've had would lead to anyone believing that it would permit any form of cheating.

 

[Phoenix77]

I stand corrected then, sounds like I must have been wrongly informed by a number of server admins running my tracks... @alekabul go for it and change any files as much as you like, even though you would have anyway

I still consider it bad ettiquette to extract someone elses work without permission... But maybe I've been wrongly informed on that one as well. Seems like everyone does it. As you were people!

 

[cerebralvortex]

You're totally losing me now
Your original post said that it would make cheating possible, and I asked "how?" because I couldn't (and still can't) see how the layout discussion we've had would lead to anyone believing that it would permit any form of cheating.

If there was no checksum made of the surfaces.ini it would permit cheating.

 

[alekabul]

wrongly informed by a number of server admins running my tracks

I suspect you were not misinformed and those servers indeed were kicking players if there were additional layouts in "..\content\tracks\la_canyons\". Now that's a really "bad ettiquette" and not only hurts people's feelings but ultimately hurts the popularity of the track.
I really feel bad for stirring such hate and once again I assure you that the promise I gave to you stands regardless.
"Extracting" of any mesh, code or idea I'm doing only for the good of all of us and not asking payment of any kind. I will do it as long as I feel the need for improvement and see a chance of success. And certainly will not keep it hush-hush.

Enough with the off-toppic, I suggest Lilski can exercise his right to clear the thread of unhelpful messages and remove that and the one with the attachment so we have the issue resolved.

 

[mclarenf1papa]

I suspect you were not misinformed and those servers indeed were kicking players if there were additional layouts in "..\content\tracks\la_canyons\". Now that's a really "bad ettiquette" and not only hurts people's feelings but ultimately hurts the popularity of the track.
I really feel bad for stirring such hate and once again I assure you that the promise I gave to you stands regardless.
"Extracting" of any mesh, code or idea I'm doing only for the good of all of us and not asking payment of any kind. I will do it as long as I feel the need for improvement and see a chance of success. And certainly will not keep it hush-hush.

Enough with the off-toppic, I suggest Lilski can exercise his right to clear the thread of unhelpful messages and remove that and the one with the attachment so we have the issue resolved.

"Need for improvement" but you made it worse....

 

[aphidgod]

I'm wondering how much consideration for the good of the original mod authors is given as part of this very noble "good of all of us." I struggle to think of one modder who isn't deeply irritated by this.

 

[Neilski]

If there was no checksum made of the surfaces.ini it would permit cheating.

For sure. But the checksum IS made so it's all good; apparently (and sanely) it's only done for the layout that's actually in use.

 

[Atticvs]

LilSki, could you please let us know about where do you stand with the next update?

I'm asking because I engaged in some fairly aggressive hotlapping with a friend (on our level, at least, we're seconds off the GT3 WR - but very similar on pace) and the 2cm dip at the track edges is causing issues now. (Spins and whatnot.)

No worries if you had to rearrange and the update is delayed - I'm just asking for information to know what to expect.

Thank you.

 

[GT VIRUS]

LilSki, could you please let us know about where do you stand with the next update?

I'm asking because I engaged in some fairly aggressive hotlapping with a friend (on our level, at least, we're seconds off the GT3 WR - but very similar on pace) and the 2cm dip at the track edges is causing issues now. (Spins and whatnot.)

No worries if you had to rearrange and the update is delayed - I'm just asking for information to know what to expect.

Thank you.

Stay on track and you won't have issues

 

[Atticvs]

Stay on track and you won't have issues

Haaha, very funny.

The issue typically comes up when I return to the tarmac proper coming back from a kerb.

 

[Johnr777]

Haaha, very funny.

The issue typically comes up when I return to the tarmac proper coming back from a kerb.

No issues from the kerb-track connection that I'm aware. What mod are you using?

 

[Atticvs]

No issues from the kerb-track connection that I'm aware. What mod are you using?

I'm one of those few people who don't use any mods besides a few tracks.

LilSki mentioned earlier that this issue would be fixed in the next update (see below), that's why I asked. Again, no worries, if it's not planned anytime soon, I just wanted to check if it's coming or not.

The slight hole at the edges of the track have been fixed for the next update. Not entirely sure how that happened but it did.

 

[LilSki]

I don't know of any holes around the curbs but I'll check. The main issue was tiny holes between the grass and road. The curbs should be fine but as I said I'll check. There weren't any immediate plans to update it. Both of us were taking a bit of a break from it to work on other projects. But probably in the next few weeks we will get back on the road to 1.0.