xBoii

Ahhhhh yeah, I totally forgot. That's what was causing the problem. Thanks.

Hi guys, I'm having a bit of trouble with the lights on Carperino's new Charger. Whenever I install the car in the "sheriff" spot, I'm getting mis-placed lights that appear off of the actual car. In the images above, you can see that the lights on the sheriff vehicle (the white car) are misplaced. Specifically, the amber lights from the lightbar in the rear window appear in front and to the left when facing the front of the car. The lights on the highway patrol car (the black one, which is installed in a custom hwaycar spot) are perfectly fine, however. Is there any explanation to this and how do I fix it? Thanks.

So, after pulling my hair out all night - uninstalling/reinstalling GTAV, RPH, mods, etc, etc. - I think I found the issue: "Disable custom loading screen" in the Advanced Options screen is broken. Un-checking this option got RPH to load in and work for me. See if it fixes your problem.

Having this exact same problem. Some issue with RPH and the current game version, I'd imagine.

The reason it was present in GTA IV (and also in that video) is the way the mod works. Each light in the mod is an "emissive object" that is created when the light is supposed to be on, and removed when it is supposed to be off. This means that for each light turning on/off, the entire car model is essentially refreshed to its default state. This was why invulnerability was present in all but the last versions of ELS for GTA IV, and also why the door looks as if it is opening and closing rapidly whenever you enter or exit the vehicle. As far as I know, the push for ELS in GTA IV isn't as prevalent in GTA V, simply because police lights in V look a lot better than they did in the previous iteration of the franchise. What myself and others are missing now, though, is the ability to select patterns and the like for our cars when playing. While I still expect ELS to be popular if it is released for GTA V, I don't expect it to be as game-changing as it was in GTA IV.

Thanks for the update, Caine. I think you are right with it being a controller issue. I updated to 2.18 with the "ParkingMode" option off, and it works perfectly.

There is a line in the PLD.ini as follows: [ CONTROL ] TogglePark = 71I tried setting it to 0 (since the documentation says doing so will disable it), but it still occasionally sets the parking break. Right now I've just removed the mod. A real shame, too, since I liked the mod. However, I sincerely disagree with how it is becoming commonplace to add functionality to particular mods beyond what they were initially advertised as doing. There is no need for there to be a parking break or turn signal control on the Player Location Display mod, since all I want it to do is display my location. There are different mods that do just that (and they should remain as different mods). At any rate, there always needs to be the ability to disable features in mods like this. I have no doubt that Lt.Caine is fixing - or would fix if he doesn't already know - this issue when he is able. Until then, you're better off just removing the mod.

I use this mod with the improved coronas instead of the Tir6 one: It does the same thing as the Tir6 mod (gets rid of the washed out red/orange blue/white looking lights), but keeps the default LED look of the lights. It also changes the lightbar glass to a cool looking clear style instead of the red/blue colored glass. I used the Tir6 for a while (but I also disliked how it looked - personal preferences and all that), although I find that I prefer this one much, much more. He doesn't list it in his mods, but I'm pretty sure Jeff Favingano uses this one as well. That or he has found some other way to deal with the washed-out-lights from the improved corona mod. Don't quote me on that.

I'm not a police officer, and I believe in holding public officials and police to a higher standard. I don't, however, believe in the notion that we should label people under a huge umbrella and say that "since x happened everyone who has the same job is also capable of x, therefore we should preemptively assume they will do x given the opportunity". It's an illogical (and frankly un-american) point of view. That's all I'm going to say on this. I don't want to make assumptions as to the circumstances of your friendships, but I can tell you that I would genuinely rethink who I consider a friend if any one of them was convicted of a felony regardless of how long I knew them.

"License to Kill", in the sense you are describing, is most aptly attributed to the rules of engagement of a soldier in a foreign, hostile land rather than a police officer of any jurisdiction in the United States. "Deadly Force", which is arguably under the umbrella of that dramatic term you are fond of, is applied to law enforcement when an officer is met with a situation where he could prevent harm to himself or others by discharging his weapon. I stand by my argument that most of the time it is not intentional abuse of power, but rather poor training and nerves. The failure to prosecute the legitimate abuse of power, however, is a failure of the courts and society, and not any individual person. All government officials ARE public officials. Even the ones in those super-secret agencies like the NSA. They are all subject to some form of government oversight, even if it isn't directly from the population but rather from some publicly elected official. That's how republics work. I don't doubt you, or anyone, prefers it when our police officers follow the rules. However, like anything anywhere, there will be people who don't. They are not, however, as commonplace as you'd think. At the very least we should give our police officers the benefit of the doubt; just as we should anyone accused with a crime. In the United States it is "innocent until proven guilty", after all. You should always strive to have all the facts before making an argument. To do otherwise not only fails yourself and your opinions, but it detracts from your entire side's credibility. To quickly judge wrongdoing with minimal facts and evidence delivers injustice to the innocent and wrongly accused and hides the guilty from the consequences. You should consider your arguments closely, always. To finish off my point, private police forces have lead to poor oversight, rampant corruption, and heavy injustice in the past. I point to the Pinkerton Detective Agency and the Homestead Strike and the ensuing chaos and death that resulted. In fact, one could argue that the police force in the US is what you describe, in that it is formed and funded by city and county agencies that are paid for and derive their authority from the people in that jurisdiction (through taxes and elections). In closing, you have no real bearing on the realities of this situation and have become brainwashed into your current biases. Not only that, but your passive-aggressive tone and lack of concrete argument, as well as your instantiation of Godwin's Law, does you a great disservice. I agree. We can't tell exactly what happens from that video, and it is unlikely that a police officer would kill her in the jail cell (how he could even do so without anyone seeing him is also something to think about). I don't know why she would kill herself - or even if it was intentional - and I agree that you can't apply logic to that sort of thing. It is a tragedy, though, and I'm sorry that it happened.

Oh, yes: "The Study". A concrete proof if ever there was one. What, exactly, is this evidence? There is, quite literally, zero evidence of anything regarding police corruption in either that article or your statements.Mexico is different from the United States. Quite different, actually - especially concerning corruption and police activities. You also fail to cite any source here.No police officer in the United States has a "license to kill". Hell, they are held to the same exact criteria concerning murder and self defense as the general population. I believe most of the time an officer has to shoot someone its because he was poorly trained and is just too damn nervous. This doesn't excuse murder, however, and a failure to prosecute an officer of the law for murdering someone is absolutely more the fault of the courts and society than any accused officer.At any rate, you're arguments are borderline absurd. You're obviously biased, for whatever reason, and fail to understand the importance of citing concrete sources in any argument. I'd recommend you take a step back and research a bit more before being so quick to judge.

You're loading multiple plugins twice, which can cause weird problems. If your startup.rphs has plugins like "SpeedRadar.dll" and "Spotlight.dll" (etc.) loaded twice, remove the duplicates. RageHook defaults the WarnOnPluginLoad value to false as of their latest version, which means that each time you load a plugin twice it actually loads it twice. You can double-check if you have a plugin loaded more than once by typing "listPlugins" into the RageHook console. If you see a plugin listed more than once, you should unload both of them/reload them ONLY ONCE. See if that fixes/mitigates your crashing.

I just encountered a small bug when playing. I got the "broken down vehicle" callout, but when I responded I was met with this: It is a bit hard to see, but the broken down vehicle is floating above the highway (it was meant to be broken down on the overpass ramp, but is instead several yards to the south of it). You can see the taillights to the right of the officer's shoulder. This is the first time I've encountered this, but I haven't had another callout with a broken down vehicle on the highway, yet. I was able to knock it down (lol) by shooting it (the driver then ran away, but I was still able to repair it, finish the callout, and call a tow truck). Here is where it happened: The rest of the callouts work beautifully, otherwise. The ambulance escort is a very interesting challenge! Can't wait for you to add what has already been suggested here.

He says "Kifflom!", which is what the storymode (Michael) scientology-esque 'Epsilon' Church members say as a greeting/farewell. It is either a hilarious bug or a hilariously obvious (borderline annoying) easter-egg.

Lets be honest with each other: we could all enjoy a stiff drink anytime regardless of the circumstances. Really looking forward to these issues getting resolved and 0.2 getting released. Until then, Ill be waiting patiently.

I think I do remember seeing that in the countdown/no-countdown thread now that you mention it. I didn't think it was actually going to be in there when I saw it then, though. Sill a fun little easter-egg.

Haha, that's surprising. I must've found it the first day when cycling through all the different choices. He always salutes when you cycle the hat on, as well.

If you choose the fat North Yankton officer in the selection screen, and then add the hat, the interface turns red (a reference to the Soviets, I imagine). I don't know if anyone has found that easter-egg yet.

This is correct, but it is irrelevant concerning what I said. The 980M and the 980 have the same architecture and design, but the 980M is a small chip whereas the 980 is a full card. You're always going to get less-powerful mobile versions of GPUs for laptops, which is why most people prefer having a desktop for gaming. Both are still really nice, and the 980M he is talking about still comes with 8GB of VRAM, which is important for a lot of texture-heavy games like GTA V. The performance will not be the same frame-wise with the same settings, but the 980M is a very capable chip and he should be alright running it on higher settings.

I've run GTA V on mostly-high settings on a single 770 before I got a new setup and got frames of around 55-60 consistently, and the 980 (inc. the M) performs about 40% better in benchmarks. As for GTA IV - it depends. The i7s are nice processors and 2.5Ghz isn't bad, but GTA IV sucks at multi-core optimization so I'm not sure how good it would run.

The 980 is a really nice gpu, and should run GTA V beautifully. The 8GB of VRAM will give you a ton of leeway with graphics settings (so you should be able to have everyting on high + most of the advanced settings as well with an fps of around 60). GTA IV was really poorly optimized for CPU/GPU cooperation, and a lot of stuff was unnecessarily unloaded onto the CPU. GTA V uses the massive processing power of modern GPUs to unload a ton of its heavy-duty processing like animations, rendering, and even some of the vector calculations, while leaving the CPU to do a lot of the logical processing (which is what its good for). In other words: you don't need to drop $650 on another gpu if you aren't going to use it. That having been said, if you're planning on using the laptop as a mobile-desktop and plug it into 4K monitors then you may want to consider it (but I'd at least wait for the price to come down a bit).

The United States is a very, very diverse country with millions of people of different backgrounds, nationalities, and ancestries. With that, there comes a whole lot of issues regarding a whole lot of things. An issue that is "#1 important" to one group might be way down the list for another, different group. The same is true for individuals as well. So whenever something changes, or a law is passed, or a ruling made: there will be people who say "Finally, the most important problem plaguing our country is resolved" and others who will say "What? Why are we even worrying about this? <insert thing here> is a WAY more important issue and no one is talking about it!" So yes, back in 1954 there were people who didn't care, and people who cared a lot. That's what you get when you have a nation where policy is driven by public opinion. In an appropriately contradictory way: It's both a good and a bad thing.

You're thinking of this like the Supreme Court just made gay marriage legal themselves. The Supreme Court cannot make laws; they make rulings concerning the Constitution. This case was brought up because a couple in one state wanted their marriage recognized in another state (and that state denied their marriage existed because of their own state laws concerning the matter). Once that happened, it became a Federal case and was brought up through the appeals courts. What the Supreme Court ruled is that the current laws regarding bans on gay marriage in the states are UNCONSTITUTIONAL due to the 14th Amendment (specifically the clause in Section 1: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."). No state can deny the legal status of a US citizen as recognized by the Federal government (and, in some cases, the government of another state), including marriage (since marriage is a legal contract). Therefore: the bans on gay marriage are illegal. This effectively requires all states to recognize gay marriage. This is what the Supreme Court is made to do, so that we can have concrete precedents to interpret the Constitution. Without these rulings, subsequent generations of legislatures in both the states and the federal government could warp the Constitution's meaning to further their own goals, with little regard for the spirit of the law. So, effectively, the United States Congress - in its power to pass amendments to the Constitution which both STATES and the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT must abide - as well as every US state - who all ratified the amendment by 1959 - made it illegal to ban same-sex marriage in 1868 (When it was ratified by at least 3/4 of the states). The Supreme Court just made a ruling that declared that as fact (which is why the Supreme Court exists). Hopefully this will shed some light on the subject, and you can understand it better. The United States Constitution and the Federal Branches that it set up were inherently confusing and meant to balance each other out. The Supreme Court has tons of power when a specific case is brought to it, but it can't do anything else otherwise. That, and the US Congress could, theoretically, pass an amendment that invalidates anything that the Supreme Court says (though that is very unlikely in this case, since most states would probably not ratify it). Regardless of what anyone says, the Legislative Branch (the US Congress) has WAY MORE POWER than any other branch - they just won't admit it (because they like to draw attention away from how dysfunctional they usually are). They like to blame the President and the Supreme Court for "overstepping their power" - when it is in fact their own job to limit it. The way I see it: the more a Congressperson talks about how the President or the Supreme Court are eroding our freedoms, the more I know that they really, really suck at their job.

I use the Tir6 LED you have listed above, alongside drunkpolice's New LED Corona. The Tir6 solves the issue with the washed-out red lights on the vapid crusier that visualsettings.dat mod cause, and it just looks really cool as well. Any increase in light brightness is going to make it more difficult to see at night, but I usually drive in first-person so it's not a big deal for me. You can always try one of the zoomed-out third-person views, but I don't know how much that will help.