If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
"Krane" > wrote in message ...
> Jeff Reid wrote: >> I think my posts about Live For Speed weren't sitting well with the mods >> at RSC, and I was getting a bit of extra attention. I complained about the >> physics in S1 making cars like the LX6 unstable (this wasn't popular >> with the die-hard Live For Slow fans). When S2 alpha was released, I >> was asking for two things. Slicks for all cars (there's a mod for this > They weren't sitting well because about every one of the regular visitors just about had enough of your links to > videos you made. I only made 2 LFS S1 videos, one of the LX6 with slicks, and one showing the bumper problem. > of your real caterham/lotus 7/whatever, you complaining about the instability of the LXs' and how your real life > caterham/lotus 7/whatever even when it has Ford whatever engine having how much ever more HP than LX6, is more stable, > and that you demand slicks for all cars even when the cars are supposed to be pretty much stock and all the babble > about biasply tires. LFS S1 had a poor physics model, both tires and tranny for the car, it affected the LX6 the most because the LX6 is RWD and had the highest power to weigh ratio in S1. S2 fixed this the cars are much more stable now. Regarding slicks for all cars, other people thought it was important enough to create mods to allow this. In the case of S2, the mod was made within 2 weeks of the release of S2 alpha. In the case of S1, with a poor tire model that had been improved when it added slicks, the mod was a good addition to the game. The babble about bias ply tires was to point out that the simplified tire model had traction falling off way too fast once past the limits, and that almost all non-down force racing classes use bias ply tires. > The first time was cool, "hey, someone with a real LX, wow" but the umpteenth post about it, starts to get on ones > nerves. It was just one thread, with a lot of the LFS fanatics trying to defend a game with flawed phsycis, claiming this is how real cars behave, when in fact LFS S1 didn't model how real cars behaved at the limits. Note that none of the moderators complained about any of my posts regarding the flaws in LFS. |
Ads |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
"Jeff Reid" > wrote in message
news:4RANe.100042$E95.69983@fed1read01... > First a RSC moderator edits a post of my to delete a link to a widely > available (back in 2002) video of David Coulthard doing a qualifying > lap back from 2002. "Jeff Reid" > wrote in message news:dvENe.106010$E95.15842@fed1read01... > I don't think it came from an actual F1 event. It's a on-board video of > David > Coulthard doing a solo run of a single lap at Spa, probably a > demonstration for > the broadcaster and not an actual F1 qualifying lap (although the time was > quick). So, are you finally admitting that you yourself don't even know where the footage is from? |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
"Jeff Reid" > wrote in message news:4RANe.100042$E95.69983@fed1read01... > I responded to the moderator that the video in question had been in the > public domain for a long time, but agreed not to post a link to it at RSC. > The moderator insisted on leaving the yellow warning unless I got the > FIA to mail a letter to RSC stating I had permission to host the video. > I responded back that this was the equivalent of being "assumed guilty > until proven innocent" and that it was also the equivalent of defamation > of character. > BS. Get your facts straight before posting. I never said anything about the FIA sending anything to anyone. I told you that if you could show me something, anything, saying that this is in the public domain, I'd remove the warning immediately. Otherwise, it'd disappear in a week. Is one week really that hard to take?? In your infinite wisdom while trying to show how the video was in the "public domain", you sent me a link to another website that hosted the video. That site has the following disclaimer word for word: "These video clips are only intended for a 24 hour educational personal preview only, for all other purposes you have to buy the original licensed recording. After your 24 hour personal educational use of these clips you must delete them." |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
> you demand slicks for all cars even when the cars are supposed
> to be pretty much stock In the case of S1, the Road Supers were poorly modeled and unstable. The slicks later added to S1, had a better tire model. This is part of the reason I wanted slicks on all cars. I would have asked for a better tire model, but that wasn't going to happend until S2. In the case of S2, I would have liked slicks seen on more cars than the game allowed, but rather than drawing a line, I suggested slicks for all cars and allowing the players to decide, or a server host. This would allow servers to not allow slicks for all cars, keeping the field level for those that choose not tor race slicks. I wasn't the only one, as another person made a mod to allow slicks on for all cars, and this was 4th post in that thread. (RSC deleted the link, but it was noted that a web search would locate the mod). LFS S2 is a racing simulator, allows setup changes like gearing, differential settings, and all sort of adjustments not available no "stock" cars. So why limit the cars to "stock" tires when they aren't limited to stock differentials or gearing? > and all the babble about biasply tires. This was because so few people that don't race aren't aware of the fact that most non-downforce racing cars use bias ply slicks, and that even radial racing tires, both DOT and slicks, behave more like bias ply tires than the radial street tires that come stock on most cars. Racing tires are more forgiving at the limits, give more warning, and the breakaway grip is much close to maximum grip. The main flaw in S1 was the breakway grip was much less than maximum grip, causing the cars to be unstable. This significant flaw was my main complaint about LFS S1. S2 is much better, but still has it's issues. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
"Jeff Reid" > wrote in message
news:uOtNe.88838$E95.5394@fed1read01... > > I consider the attachment of warning avatars to a person's posts to be > a violation of the agreement when I joined RSC. My posts at RSC were > a part of this agreement, and they had my implicit permission to > display my copyrighted posts, until they violated the agreement. > Why'd you stick around so long if you feel this strongly about it? It's not like you haven't had publicly displayed warnings before.... |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
"Jeff Reid" > wrote in message
news:RJWNe.112641$E95.39096@fed1read01... > BTW the video I posted was in the public domain, as it was made for > ITV during a practice session, and not part of an official F1 event. > This means my post wasn't inappropriate. LOL, then why'd you post is as "David Coulthard doing a qualifying lap at Spa in 2002 in a F1 car:" with a link? |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
"alex martini" > wrote in news:wO6Oe.18382$%w.8643
@twister.nyc.rr.com: > > "Dave Henrie" > wrote in message > . 97.136... >> "alex martini" > wrote in >> : >> >>>> For pity's sake...it's a freekin' Race Sim site. It's not a >>>> publisher of scientific thesi. >>>> >> >>> The plural of thesis is theses as far as I can tell ... >> >> so? >> lol >> dave henrie > > So now you know. > > > My work station is called the Hays Park Post Office. Every official form I fill out that needs the station name, I use just one word: Hayes. It's wrong. But I do it anyway. kinda like my drivin' dave henrie |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
>> BTW the video I posted was in the public domain, as it was made for
>> ITV during a practice session, and not part of an official F1 event. >> This means my post wasn't inappropriate. > LOL, then why'd you post is as "David Coulthard doing a qualifying lap at Spa in 2002 in a F1 car:" with a link? Well, it's called a qualifying lap at the link below, showing a side by side comparason of a Caterham and a F1 at Spa. Scroll down towards the bottom of the page, back to September 15, 2002, since it's an old video. http://www.jackals-forge.com/lotus/ But other sites that had the same video called it a practice run made for ITV. Now I'm not sure of what it is anymore. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
>> I consider the attachment of warning avatars to a person's posts to be
>> a violation of the agreement when I joined RSC. My posts at RSC were >> a part of this agreement, and they had my implicit permission to >> display my copyrighted posts, until they violated the agreement. > Why'd you stick around so long if you feel this strongly about it? It's not like you haven't had publicly displayed > warnings before.... Just because I put up with it before doesn't mean I didn't think it was wrong. Also like the person who started this thread, I felt that the warnings, deleted or locked threads were getting out of hand at RSC. I just decided not to put up with it anymore and see if I could get a reasonable response from you and the other moderators at RSC, but you proved yourselves to be unreasonable. Your's is the only forum that publicly displays warnings, no other forum does this. The only possible purpose of such public displaying of warnings is to punish, and therefore cause harm, to the victims of your warning system. Since the intent such action is to cause harm, and is not covered in the agreement made when a new member signs up, your on shaky legal ground here, as no member of RSC has consented to your public abuse and harassment with the intent to cause harm. If it ends up causing problems for RSC, then it's your own fault. If you feel that your public warning system is justified, then why don't you include this information in your rules and agreement so a potential new member can decide if he consents to having publicly attached warnings to every post that member makes? Both you and Mbrio turned this molehill into a mountain. You deleted the link, claiming the video was copywrighted (based on your assumption, not fact), this was OK with me. Then rather than suspending the warning for a reasonable time to allow me to detmine if it was OK to have a link to the video (either under fair use or public domain laws), you stated that instead the warning would stay until I had the FIA or FOA sent you a letter stating I had permission to link to that video. This was unreasonable. Next when I mentioned that your public warnings were the equivalent of defamation of character (referring to your own rule 4.1), Mbrio steps in and first tells me I can never post a link to any video, even one that I had made, and later asks me to send a letter stating that I would agree to your public attachemnt of warning labels. This clearly shows you were violating your own agreement and rules, because if the public warning policy was covered by the original agreement no additional agreement would be required. Mbrio also stated that I had many times previously violated the rule about posting links to copyrighted vidoes in the past, which is a lie. There was just one occasion, a link to a video of a pair of CART cars that I did not know was copywrighted, that I had posted in two sub-forums. The only other warning I got was for mentioning the LFS S1 slicks for all cars mod, and the stated reason for the warning is that the mod was made by a banned member, how could any reasonable person know if any content, mod or otherwise was from a banned member? |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
>> I responded to the moderator that the video in question had been in the
>> public domain for a long time, but agreed not to post a link to it at RSC. >> The moderator insisted on leaving the yellow warning unless I got the >> FIA to mail a letter to RSC stating I had permission to host the video. >> I responded back that this was the equivalent of being "assumed guilty >> until proven innocent" and that it was also the equivalent of defamation >> of character. >> > > BS. Get your facts straight before posting. I never said anything about the FIA sending anything to anyone. I told > you that if you could show me something, anything, saying that this is in the public domain, I'd remove the warning > immediately. Otherwise, it'd disappear in a week. Is one week really that hard to take?? > > In your infinite wisdom while trying to show how the video was in the "public domain", you sent me a link to another > website that hosted the video. That site has the following disclaimer word for word: "These video clips are only > intended for a 24 hour educational personal preview only, for all other purposes you have to buy the original licensed > recording. After your 24 hour personal educational use of these clips you must delete them." Your wrong, that website did not host that video. I just grabbed the first hit I got on google for F1 videos and ended up picking a bad example. You didn't mention that I had emailed you that this particular site was a bad example, taking advantage of a USA law that extend privileges for eductional purposes. I then referred to the site below which includes the actual video in a side by side comparason of a Catherhan and an F1 car at Spa. This site has no such disclaimers, is fairly popular, has had that video available for download since September, 2002, and has never had any legal issues with hosting this video. Many other web sites had hosted that video back in 2002 and early 2003. You'll need to scroll down towards the bottom of the page to get to September 15, 2002 to see the "side by side" videos. http://www.jackals-forge.com/lotus/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|