LittleBigPlanet 1 - PSP - Tearaway -Run Sackboy Run #1
Directional AND Speed logic?
Archive: 42 posts
| I gave up... My best bet was to create emitted wheels (with keyswitch set 2 speed) for both forward and backward speed motion. It works-ish, but I wanted to know if anybody has results or got anything working. Also, My ant (StL) cannot have emitting wheels unless I totally redo him.. and I kinda want to keep them the same to keep everything coherent. Any suggestions? attempts? | 2010-03-09 00:25:00 Author: Luos_83  Posts: 2136 |
A speed-set lever also works directionally. I think it came in an update  | 2010-03-09 02:09:00 Author: Incinerator22  Posts: 3251 |
| I'm a little fuzzy on exactly what you're asking. Do you want a speed switch and a directional switch to feed into the logic or do you want two speed switches: one for each direction. If it's the latter, you can achieve it with double-bolted wheels: one for forward and one for back. It's the former, then you'll need a speed relay. I've included a speed AND gate (just uses speed and on/off) in my demo level: "Motion sensing searchlight." It really didn't have anything to do with the searchlight; I just didn't want to create a new level just for the speed switch. The level is copyable, too. Using two speed relays, you could control double bolted wheels. One relay would control one wheel (forward) and the other relay would control the other (backward). Then the directional switch would just alternate between which of the two relays is active by moving them or the drive wheel (makes more sense if you see the relay I put in the level). This solution will let you select between forward and reverse, but use a single speed switch to control the vehicle's speed (you're talking about a wheeled vehicle, right?) Btw, I didn't invent the speed relay, though I did alter it for use in logic gates. The original speed relay came from Rtm's copyable level "Wheeley good switches." A speed-set lever also works directionally. I think it came in an update Yeah, but it doesn't work especially well, due to the fact that it has no dead zone: once you've activated the switch, letting go doesn't make it stop--it just goes really slow. | 2010-03-09 02:11:00 Author: Sehven  Posts: 2188 |
| (you're talking about a wheeled vehicle, right?) Yup, but only got wheels on one layer, like a bike.. not a car. I want a directional switch that can adjust the speed trough other logical imputs, I dont want to use rockets. So if I pull right, car goes right, first slowely and when I say so (as editor) I want him to go faster/slower. Same for left. But it should not only be for motor bolts, I want to use them for winches/pistons the whole deal. | 2010-03-09 11:53:00 Author: Luos_83 Posts: 2136 |
| I tried for ages to make the logic for this (a while ago) And failed miserably, however I will try again... using only a pen and paper. Wish me luck! EDIT: A 3 Way Switch set to speed would be perfect, but ( im pretty sure) there are no such settings on 3 way switches... Ok there are other ways of achieving the desired effect but for simple 2 wheeled vehicles you might want to consider this: Warning: This will be very fiddly andl only work on relatively loose motor bolts 1) Use a 3-way switch (set to direction), attach to both motor bolts on wheels. At the center position the wheels will not rotate in either direction so the vehicle remains stationary. 2) Attach a winch to either side of the 3-way switch (from the floor to the handle). Set both winches to a short period time (perhaps 0.2 seconds and strength 10). Set the max lengths of the winches so that the handle of the 3-way-switch can move fully in both directions and the min length of each winch so that the 3-way-switch handle is just lower than 45 degrees (i.e. half way between vertical (off) position and horizontal (on) position) for each side. Note**- angle may need to be changed (made greater) but I would need to test that in create mode- I've just chosen 45 degrees because i've assumed that is the angle at which the 3-way-switch enters its 'ON' state. 3) Now attach 2 pieces of elastic from the handle to the ground/pieces of dark matter on either side. The elastic should be reasonably stiff so that 3-way-switch remains in a stable upright 'OFF' position when not in use (perhaps 5-7 on the strength setting). So the idea is that when one of the winch on a given side (depends on the direction you want) oscillates at a high frequency it will briefly enter the 'ON' state and then return to the 'OFF' state each cycle. As I said earlier in the NOTE** you may need to increase the angle (by reducing the min length of the winches) to ensure that the switch does enter its 'ON' state at some point in the cycle. The result of this oscillating between both states should cause a build up in speed of your vehicle. This speed will be your slow speed. Also its important that the winches are activated only by a direction input so that they dont get stuck at minimum length and cause your vehicle to accelerate in a given direction. 4) Add another set of winches to your 3-way-switch. This time set the minimum lengths to less so that when the switch oscillates it should be active for a longer period per cycle than the previous set. This could then account for a greater speed than the 'slow speed winches' EDIT 2: Emitted dark matter might also need to be used to make the system more secure. Im coming home soon. I'll give it an attempt this weekend. | 2010-03-09 12:49:00 Author: ladylyn1  Posts: 836 |
| But it should not only be for motor bolts, I want to use them for winches/pistons the whole deal. Not really possible. The three-way switch is the only switch which is capable of outputting a speed and directional signal at the same time through a single wire, and as Sehven pointed out, it doesn't have a 'dead zone' if you set it to speed. Even then, you can't make it work with pistons, because the concept of 'direction' is different for a speed switch attached to a piston than it is when attached to a motor bolt. If you can live with that, then that's probably your best bet, otherwise you're stuck with double-bolting, or multi-pistoning (like comphermc's sack tracker):- http://www.lbpcentral.com/forums/littlebiggallery/images/4697/1_A_Photo_20.jpg | 2010-03-09 15:33:00 Author: Aya042  Posts: 2870 |
| (like comphermc's sack tracker):- http://www.lbpcentral.com/forums/littlebiggallery/images/4697/1_A_Photo_20.jpg Ohhh, that technique looks really familiar for some reason  The multiple pistons technique will work fine for you if you need a set number of speeds in both directions and you can live with simple 1D movement or can create 2D movement with vector velocities. | 2010-03-09 15:44:00 Author: rtm223  Posts: 6497 |
| There was a level about that a while ago. It worked really, really well. I believe it used a thin wheel behind the other wheel. Or something like that. I'll PM you once I find it. | 2010-03-09 23:29:00 Author: srgt_poptart  Posts: 425 |
| Is my post invisible? ladylyn, 3-way switches work with speed too. However, like aya said, there's no dead zone  | 2010-03-10 02:41:00 Author: Incinerator22 Posts: 3251 |
| Is my post invisible? ladylyn, 3-way switches work with speed too. However, like aya said, there's no dead zone Ah woops! I missed that! Ok that makes things easier and harder... You now also need a mechanism to oscillate the 3 way switch quickly between both 'Left' and 'Right' states in order to keep the vehicel still. However, the position will now determine the speed of the vehicle so there will be no need to oscillate the 3-way-switch between different states. Therefore a simple set of dark matter blocks that are emitted in different positions should do the trick. Pull the 3-way-switch lever onto the dark matter and it will result in a constant speed increase. Moving to a different dark matter block will result in another speed setting and the reverse on the other side. | 2010-03-10 14:34:00 Author: ladylyn1 Posts: 836 |
| You now also need a mechanism to oscillate the 3 way switch quickly between both 'Left' and 'Right' states in order to keep the vehicel still. It's much easier just to double-bolt the wheels, like in my copyable level "Multi-speed Train Example for TSFRJ v2". | 2010-03-10 15:42:00 Author: Aya042 Posts: 2870 |
| It's much easier just to double-bolt the wheels, like in my copyable level "Multi-speed Train Example for TSFRJ v2". Yeah but he specifically stated that he only wanted single layered wheels | 2010-03-10 15:51:00 Author: ladylyn1 Posts: 836 |
| Yeah but he specifically stated that he only wanted single layered wheels He must be using at least one thick and one thin layer in order to make the wheels rotate, and I'm fairly certain you could double-bolt thin->theck->thack, while keeping the vehicle contained in the same number of layers. | 2010-03-10 16:13:00 Author: Aya042 Posts: 2870 |
| He must be using at least one thick and one thin layer in order to make the wheels rotate, and I'm fairly certain you could double-bolt thin->theck->thack, while keeping the vehicle contained in the same number of layers. And that my friend, will be the solution to his problem. Use the theck-thack glitch, it will work perfectly, surprised i didn't think of it myself. Ignore my method, it will work but would take a significant amount of fiddling. | 2010-03-10 17:02:00 Author: ladylyn1 Posts: 836 |
| not using the theck/thack layers as I do not trust them, aswell as amber looking fugly when using them. | 2010-03-10 17:22:00 Author: Luos_83 Posts: 2136 |
| not using the theck/thack layers as I do not trust them, aswell as amber looking fugly when using them. "There's no pleasing some people." Perhaps if you were to elaborate on exactly what you're trying to achieve, there might be another method which would work for that purpose, but if you're after a generic speed/directional muxer which works for all connector types, then you're out of luck. | 2010-03-10 17:41:00 Author: Aya042 Posts: 2870 |
| Luos, I hope you realize that the thack (that's sackboy thick) layers are actually just thick layers that can have a checkpoint thick layer slide behind them. Otherwise, they look no different and behave no different. The only concession is that you must not use the grid when overlapping them (but you can very easily just move one in front of the other by moving it forward a layer, and then pushing it back once aligned in the grid. I'm not sure why you fear them... ? | 2010-03-10 20:53:00 Author: comphermc  Posts: 5338 |
| they look no different and behave no different That's not true. Set up a thack object directly above/beneath a thick object and turn the camera as far to the side as possible. You'll see that the thack layer is noticably thinner than the thick, both in the front and back. If you glue thin layer to a thack layer, and turn the camera to the side, you can see a gap between them. It's worth noting that theck and thack each weigh the same as thick. In addition to not being able to use grid mode while overlapping them, you can't corner edit either layer while they're overlapping. As for not trusting them, they're a glitch, which equates to undefined behavior in the game. Meaning, since the game wasn't meant to use that particular feature, it's difficult to tell what any extended repercussions might be. At least, that's the theory. In my experience, there hasn't been any down-sides (stability-wise) to using any glitch (at least, not the ones that I've tried). I can understand not trusting them, but I love glitches that give me more options for creating, so I choose to trust them. And, like Aya said, you're probably going to have to make some concessions to get your multi speed/direction vehicle working. Double bolting wheels is your best bet, so you'll either need to use an extra layer or use theck/thack. | 2010-03-10 21:03:00 Author: Sehven Posts: 2188 |
| As for not trusting them, they're a glitch, which equates to undefined behavior in the game. Perhaps being able to create them is a glitch, but it seems to me as if their existence is very deliberate. It's the mechanism which allows sackboy to walk past a checkpoint, i.e. allowing two objects in the thick layer to pass each other, rather than block each other. Without it, the game would cease to function correctly. Also, how is it any different to bolting a checkpoint (which is theck) to a thin material, and then a golf ball (which is thack) to that checkpoint? Logically, you shouldn't trust those objects either.  Double bolting wheels is your best bet, so you'll either need to use an extra layer or use theck/thack. ...or, if none of those options are acceptable, you might have to consider using something off-screen to move the objects, e.g. creating an offscreen rail, using a non-theck/thack double bolt to move a dummy vehicle along that rail, then suspending your actual vehicle from that via a stiff invisible rod or somesuch. | 2010-03-10 21:27:00 Author: Aya042 Posts: 2870 |
| Here's my question: http://www.lbpcentral.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=9977 Is there a way to make two layer treads (either thick/thick or thick/thin) into a single, thick layer? Theoretically at least, if ignoring the possible game glitching side effects? ------ Also, I experimented with speed-set 3-way levers, and if it's really grid aligned, with at least 6 winches, the top two pulling upwards at a smaller length than possible, there is a dead zone.  ! | 2010-03-13 02:46:00 Author: Incinerator22 Posts: 3251 |
| Does something like this work for you, Luos? http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/457/aphotou.jpg The wheel a spinning in different direction, their strength is set to around 5. The player controls the block that between the legs. Both switches on the leg are set to speed. If the key block is in the middle neither wheel moves. If you want to have control over the speed and not the players you can probably use multiple piston that extent and retract and that way push the block from one side to the other. Edit: Obviously the logic doesn't have to be part of the vehicle. I was just too lazy to make extra logic bits. | 2010-03-13 13:44:00 Author: Syroc  Posts: 3193 |
| Is there a way to make two layer treads (either thick/thick or thick/thin) into a single, thick layer? If you're using the bolting approach for treads, rather than the string approach, then, yes, you can just bolt theck and thack to keep it in a single layer. Also, I experimented with speed-set 3-way levers, and if it's really grid aligned, with at least 6 winches, the top two pulling upwards at a smaller length than possible, there is a dead zone. Well, there kinda always is a dead zone - it's just nigh-impossible to access it. I found my wobble-based three-way speed switch works pretty well, but even when it's seemingly in the dead zone, there is a tiny signal coming through. It's more apparent when powering a motor bolt set to maximum speed. But it might be good enough. http://www.lbpcentral.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=13916 However, I'm curious to know if your technique really works, or just seems to work because the output signal is too small to notice. The wheel a spinning in different direction, their strength is set to around 5. The player controls the block that between the legs. Both switches on the leg are set to speed. If the key block is in the middle neither wheel moves. I tried something like that before, but found that the amount of force required to overpower the friction of the opposing motor bolt meant it had big problems moving at any significant speed. | 2010-03-13 15:31:00 Author: Aya042 Posts: 2870 |
| That's why you need to set the strength to something low. At zero strength motorbolts show no resistance to being pulled in another direction, so with a bit of testing you should be able to find the sweet spot. | 2010-03-13 17:29:00 Author: Syroc Posts: 3193 |
| That's why you need to set the strength to something low. At zero strength motorbolts show no resistance to being pulled in another direction, so with a bit of testing you should be able to find the sweet spot. I tried that too. If one bolt is stronger than the other, then it'll only move in one direction, and if both bolts are the same strength then, regardless of what strength you choose, the moving bolt will still have problems making the other bolt rotate, since they both have the same strength, and therefore the same resistance to rotation... if that makes sense. What I have found is that when the bolts are the same strength, then the center of mass plays a big part in determining which wheel has the most friction on the ground, so in your example, if you make the block which holds the mag key very heavy relative to the mass of the whole vehicle, then it should work much better. Similarly, if the whole vehicle is not significantly heavier than sackboy, and you leave both opposing wheels running all the time, then the direction of the vehicle's acceleration will change as sackboy walks from one side of the vehicle to the other, and will stop accelerating when he's exactly in the middle. | 2010-03-13 19:01:00 Author: Aya042 Posts: 2870 |
| I tried this out today as well. That dead zone is a sneaky fellow. I think that stacking motor bolts is the way to go. Doing it with theck/thack is annoying because you have to use pistons to get everything aligned properly (grid doesn't work with them), but it's definitely possible. | 2010-03-13 23:06:00 Author: comphermc Posts: 5338 |
| For me, there was only a dead zone when the winch reset after going leftwards. Wierd. I added timed logic so that when the left output reset, a winch pulled the lever right slightly, and then the lever reset to the dead zone from the right side. The small jitter is barely noticeable but I still want to see if I can completely conquer it. | 2010-03-14 00:44:00 Author: Incinerator22 Posts: 3251 |
| http://www.lbpcentral.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=13916 Can't believe I never thought of that. That could be even more precise than mine. Does it give you any problems? Like breaking or something if you set the speed too high? | 2010-03-14 10:37:00 Author: Sehven Posts: 2188 |
| Does it give you any problems? Like breaking or something if you set the speed too high? Never tried setting the speed that high before, but it seems to work at 0.1s without breaking. The wobble bolt's angle is constrained to 80 degrees, which ensures that it can never pull the lever too far in either direction. Point is, when using it in a speed switch configuration, you probably want the wobble bolt's speed to be as low as possible, to make it easier to get as close to the dead zone as possible. As for why the dead zone is seemingly impossible to access, it's often been speculated that LBP uses floating point math in most cases, rather that integer math, to take advantage of the PS3's cell processor architecture, and floating point math is notoriously imprecise with regards to rounding errors. The lever's angle will start at zero, but will never quite return to zero once moved, rather to something like +/-0.0000000001, which is causing the problems. It's speculatively the same reason why the "160-hour bug" occurs, i.e. if a floating point value is used to store the current simulation time, then when its exponent becomes large enough that its mantissa is no longer capable of expressing numbers which are close enough to each other to express small time deltas, then any connector which relies on such deltas (such as 0.1s pistons) will no longer appear to move. The speed-based three-way is actually quite easy to fix for MM. Any competant programmer should know that when you're comparing equality on two floating point numbers, you don't ask the computer if they're equal, but rather ask it if the difference between them is suitably marginal. | 2010-03-14 14:08:00 Author: Aya042 Posts: 2870 |
| Um... did you just call Mm incompetant? As for the wobble switch, if it doesn't break with a .1 sec time, then I guess it won't break at all. That's an ingenious remote 3way. I thought mine was clever for using 4 winched (two to pull to center and two to actually work it) but that's simpler and probably works better. | 2010-03-14 18:10:00 Author: Sehven Posts: 2188 |
| I'm not sure why you fear them... ? I just dont like them, there are now over 50 layers we can allready use, there is no real need for theck and thack. I still dont like the fact that all these glitches are available. 3d, cow, invissi stuff.. They should have never been part of the levels anyways. Only recently have I been using 3d glitch stuff, and that was mostly to please adi while working on his levels. But tbh.. its still a glitch, if MM ever decided to fix it.. you either have to redo your level, or in the worst case.. are not able to ever open the level. Um... did you just call Mm incompetant? Lets just call it lack of experience, and lack of listening to the people who keep MM big.. the editors. We actually have to PAY them for new materials/stickers while we are the reason lbp is still as big as it is. They should GIVE us new stuff to thank us for all the hard work we do. but thats getting offtopic. I just dont want to use theck/thack and thats it. | 2010-03-16 19:59:00 Author: Luos_83 Posts: 2136 |
| there are now over 50 layers we can allready use, there is no real need for theck and thack. True, but... LBP has 11 independant simulation layers, corresponding to the 4 thin layers, the 3 theck layers, the 3 thack layers, and the 'hover' layer (which is the layer in which sackboy hovers when in create mode). Any objects behind the rear thin layer share a simulation layer with the rear thin layer, and any objects in front of the front thin layer share a simulation layer with the 'hover' layer. A consequence of this is that any objects which share the same simulation layer will collide with each other if not held in place with dark matter. ...so having these 50 extra layers isn't always going to help. | 2010-03-16 20:10:00 Author: Aya042 Posts: 2870 |
| A consequence of this is that any objects which share the same simulation layer will collide with each other if not held in place with dark matter.Actually, objects emitted in the BG on a piston, in front of/behind an object in the glitch layers will result in the object nicely moving, as long as the piston is attached to DM. (made rtm's waterfall in the background) ...so having these 50 extra layers isn't always going to help. Still not gonna use theck and thack. period. | 2010-03-16 20:15:00 Author: Luos_83 Posts: 2136 |
| Well, you asked for a solution. The best solution available is double bolting, which costs an extra layer. Theck/thack eliminates that layer cost. So do whatever you want: drop the idea all together or use two full layers. We actually have to PAY them for new materials/stickers while we are the reason lbp is still as big as it is. They should GIVE us new stuff to thank us for all the hard work we do. Um.... wow. Some people's ideas of what they "deserve" are really....interesting. I've gotten more playtime/fun out of lbp than I have out of any five other games. That means that it's theoretically worth 5 times as much as any other game is to me, but I still only had to pay $60 for it + $6 for mgs pack, $6 for potc, $3 for monster (or was it $4?) and $3 for history (there are other packs that contain materials, such as christmas and valentines, but these are the ones that are the most universally useful). That's $78-80 I had to pay for the privilige to play this game. That's not bad at all. Most devs would've charged closer to $15 for mgs and potc. I absolutely HATE dlc almost all the time because it's a way for devs to rip us off (plus I hate spending money and not getting anything tangible in return). Many devs will deliberately hold stuff back while making a game just so they can squeeze a bit more money out of us for it later... or worse, they'll include it in the game, but make us pay to unlock it! (Soul Calibur's Yoda). But I am more than happy to buy Dlc for lbp, because (unlike almost every bit of dlc out there for every other game) it's reasonably priced, it's stuff that I really want, and Mm seems to actually care about their game's community: aside from the paid add-ons, Mm has been really good about tracking down and fixing bugs, and otherwise improving the game. They overhauled the search engine and the cool levels pages because we wanted them to and they gave us the creator's pack for free. This is exactly how I wish every video game developer would treat their customers. | 2010-03-16 20:39:00 Author: Sehven Posts: 2188 |
| I know, but ive litterally been raised in an editing community where we would get all sorts of cool stuff from the company who created the game. (Epic). They released so many awesome packs for us with new meshes, objects, models, materials, particles and as the game progressed more tools would come available all for free. they realized that the editing community prolonged the shelflife of their games for years, and thanked us by handing out more tools, levels etc etc. So you can say 6 euro's.. (yes euro's) is cheap, but imho its cheap that they ask us editors to pay them.. while we prolong their LBP for probably years to come. My biggest hate though in the dlc is that I have to ACE levels to get all the stuff I want to use in the editor, I am an editor/EA, not a gamer.. I want an option to unlock everything, even if it means my trophies will be cancelled. (i dont give a monkeys sack about trhophies). I still dont have the lightswitch and laser in mgs dlc unlocked, I just copied them from fellow editors. | 2010-03-16 22:46:00 Author: Luos_83 Posts: 2136 |
| they realized that the editing community prolonged the shelflife of their games for years Interesting. So the games sold more copies because of the community? I wonder how much that affects lbp. I bought it to make my own stuff, not because I wanted to play other people's levels, but I suppose I wouldn't still be playing and buying their dlc if it weren't for the community. I wonder how many new copies of lbp sell because of the community. My biggest hate though in the dlc is that I have to ACE levels to get all the stuff I want to use in the editor, I am an editor/EA, not a gamer.. I want an option to unlock everything, even if it means my trophies will be cancelled. (i dont give a monkeys sack about trhophies). I agree. There were even a few materials, decos, stickers, and costume items from the main game that I didn't have until recently because I was more interested in creating than trying to ace the levels or get four people together to do the 4x parts. I finally knuckled down and got 'em all a few months ago, and it was annoying. I used to steal the vent deco off the hot coal emitter, and edit objects that already had the barbed wire material in them cuz I didn't have the material itself. Not only do I not care about trhophies..... er... trophies; I despise them. If there were no such as the create trophy, we wouldn't have to deal with h4h. And the early days of lbp were packed with trophy levels. Why is there a trophy for getting a certain score modifier or speed when you can just set it up in create mode in a matter of minutes? Anyway, while I don't have any problems with lbp's dlc prices (most of the time: some of the costumes don't give you very much for what you pay and it would be nice to get the sound object from Ico without having to buy the whole pack), I can see where you're coming from. I still think they're handling it pretty well: as I said before, most devs would charge twice as much if not more. | 2010-03-17 00:10:00 Author: Sehven Posts: 2188 |
| Ok to get back on track, why not use "kinetic energy" or just plainly... Brakes. I assume you can make something like a wheel slow down by applying pressure from another object i.e. sponge/rubber.. (wouldnt want to use wood.. it might splinter and sends your rubber tire flying) And attach a piston set to a not yet defined strength to slowely release tention on the tires are you start. this way you could just use a directional imput and use some simple logic to make the "brakes" and still have the feeling the car is accelerating. Just a thought. | 2010-04-02 16:18:00 Author: Luos_83 Posts: 2136 |
| I've tried brakes before, but it didn't really go as planned. It was bulky and unreliable. Also, it's not so much kinetic energy as it is friction. Kinetic energy is just the energy that a moving object possesses. Me second attempt was to use winches to prevent any further movement from the wheels. It had better results, but got a bit wobbly, and it only stops the wheel at a predetermined position. | 2010-04-02 16:24:00 Author: comphermc Posts: 5338 |
| Would a floor like those that push the player forward work on vehicles as well? If so you could maybe just make normal floor for the slow sections and the other type of floor for the faster sections. | 2010-04-02 16:38:00 Author: Syroc Posts: 3193 |
| You could use the three way set to speed. With a brake that activates only when the switch is in idle position. | 2010-04-02 18:59:00 Author: IStwisted  Posts: 428 |
| You could use the three way set to speed. With a brake that activates only when the switch is in idle position. That's exactly what he was proposing, and what I said was difficult to work out. The break tends to be too weak to do anything. | 2010-04-02 19:34:00 Author: comphermc Posts: 5338 |
| I've always wanted to try to make some sort of a clutch mechanism, but I haven't got around to trying it yet (the idea intrigued me, but I've never had a practical need for one, so I haven't tried), so I dunno' how feasible it is. | 2010-04-02 19:47:00 Author: Sehven Posts: 2188 |
| That's exactly what he was proposing, and what I said was difficult to work out. The break tends to be too weak to do anything. I thought you were saying applying breaks to vary the speed was unreliable. I suggested a 3 way set to speed just using a break to prevent unwanted movement when idle. I did kinda skip ahead so sorry if I was being redundant. | 2010-04-02 20:35:00 Author: IStwisted Posts: 428 |
LBPCentral Archive Statistics
Posts: 1077139
Threads: 69970
Members: 9661
Archive-Date: 2019-01-19
Datenschutz
Aus dem Archiv wurden alle persönlichen Daten wie Name, Anschrift, Email etc. - aber auch sämtliche Inhalte wie z.B. persönliche Nachrichten - entfernt.
Die Nutzung dieser Webseite erfolgt ohne Speicherung personenbezogener Daten. Es werden keinerlei Cookies, Logs, 3rd-Party-Plugins etc. verwendet.
Die Nutzung dieser Webseite erfolgt ohne Speicherung personenbezogener Daten. Es werden keinerlei Cookies, Logs, 3rd-Party-Plugins etc. verwendet.