I mean tbh my system is more than just the trains running, it lets you drive them too.
is it possible to release a new sync update that comes close to ■■■■■? It’s funny how I can pit a car a car’s length away without actually touching it.
1 Like
Clearly, if it was that simple for them they would have done it. This isn’t ■■■■■ and the two are very different in terms to how sync is done.
‘Trains’ are enabled the same way as they would be in base GTA V: via a few script calls (SwitchTrainTrack - FiveM Natives @ Cfx.re Docs IIRC?). Outside of that I’m not sure what you’re referring to here, except for this migration thing (Train Carriages becoming detached) where I recall the reproduction steps either didn’t work or it just wasn’t caught at the right time.
Maybe post a more specific request or link to whatever you’re actually referring to if it was already requested?
Also, third-party resource sellers have nothing to do with the project itself so it’s a little counterproductive to interpret ‘people sell a remake of a base game feature as an addon resource’ as ‘FiveM makes us pay for this base game feature!’
And this sounds like something that you should provide a bug report with reproduction steps for, rather than posting a passive-aggressive reply in an unrelated announcement topic.
We’ve been hearing people mention something along those lines for years now but each time we’ve been attempting to reproduce something similar there’s been absolutely no luck even reproducing it, and when the people mentioning it are then asked to provide a report with reproduction steps they just refuse to do so outright… and half the time this gets mentioned when trying to ‘compare’ to some Russian abuse project that seems to distribute our code without adhering to our license terms, which is also a bit coincidental.
Again, it’s not ‘possible’ to add features or fix issues if people don’t conclusively specify such features or provide reproduction steps for said issues, and the game code backlog at this time is like 800+ items long so it’s also extremely difficult to prioritize things especially as people all have different priorities so if your request isn’t concretely actionable enough it’s likely not going to get acted on at any point, and ‘offhand remark in an announcement topic’ is very far from actionable, and in fact will only help negatively prioritizing your request since it’s as such burdened with the emotional load from ‘hostility’.
7 Likes
Jeez so hostile, I was just meme asking off hand basically if db had time to look into trains migrating on 1S it’d be nice.
No need to be hostile and no paid resource will fix the migration of trains natively so it’s not even related in the slightest…
Anyway choo choo 
2 Likes
Amazing as always thank you CFX 
1 Like
The initial reason for why it’s like this is because Rockstar never intended for it to be used in multiplayer or for players to interact with.For FiveM it really was never a priority, understandably.
nice what i see fivem grow up he he
About the trains, i think what is missing as far as i know and tested is some way to use the native CreateMissionTrain server-sided, it seems that everybody that is making some sort of synced trains is using a client as host (entity owner) to spawn it in when it does not detect any train vehicles in the map (server-sided using netid, this does work somewhat but the train carriages will despawn on some clients eventually)
The default behaviour for when you activate trains the normal way (without CreateMissionTrain) will create a train/carriages for each client that joins because it will not detect the train vehicles the right way because they are out of range or not detected anyway, but it will spawn networked train vehicles when you do.
But it needs a lot of more testing and people that will explain the behaviour, and it is also not really a priority if you ask me, but if it is for you then help them out a little bit.
And for what it’s worth, you guys are doing amazing, a lot of people are having so much fun and for some it is even more then just ‘fun’ especially the players on the servers. Keep up the good work!
I tried to make CreateMissionTrain work on server side but I gave up. Im not too skilled in c++.
Maybe if we try together as a community 
I got it to spawn but I haven’t had much success spawning a carriage for it and getting it to move.
Also the movement may not be as straightforward to make on server side as the client is moving it because R* made it that way.
While a onesync train API would be a cool feature I should stress a few feats that I believe deserve higher priority:
- Statebag rejections and private server<->owner syncing.
-
AttachEntityToEntityserver setter - An updated chat resource.
These are very important features that should be higher on the “100-200 higher priority items” on the list. As a community, we have been needing to come up with workarounds to get around the limitations of these features, and their implementation feels incomplete years after they were introduced to the platform.
2 Likes
What would the chat system need that it doesn’t already have? It has pretty big features that can be accessed already (different chat channels that can be rank or role locked, themeing, etc)
1 Like
Yeah, I’ve not actually seen any concrete requests in this regard in a very long time, so I indeed wonder what ‘updates’ this would need, outside of a quick pass to get rid of some obvious flukes, and being made built-in so that it can be updated more easily and doesn’t run into weird build-time issues.
Also, again, when it comes to ‘priorities’, everyone of course will always want their requests (the state bag one for example) to be acted on first, so that’s actually extremely difficult to randomly reprioritize based on user requests especially if requests are incomplete or get sent in places they don’t actually belong like replies to announcement threads… and then people will often also get upset that something they feel is ‘less important’ is worked on first.
I’ve been wondering about the chat resource for a while though so seeing actual concrete requests in that regard would be very helpful.
Similarly, a few example use cases/comparable client test cases for entity attachment could be helpful, including parts that currently would be done client-y with broken ownership handling, since again it’s hard to implement a new API feature without knowing what exactly it needs to do in which cases.
@_Aldente would you be able to post some more specific requests for the latter two items somewhere (or be able to discuss this in a chat sometime?)
2 Likes
Here’s a scope of the chat improvements/requests: Chat resource improvements
As for the AttachEntityToEntity server setter, it’s currently not possible to make an attachment on the server to an entity which leads to using the weird RequestControl natives being used to attach an entity to a player. See this thread with a relevant github issue.
None of the chain there seems to actually have example use cases - the test.zip comes closest but it’s just a single example and it doesn’t have any details other than that.
Maybe you could actually come up with a few examples of current client behavior (and intended outcomes for each, plus variants both with and without control requests?) and post them in the feature request there. 
Sure I’ll do that
1 Like
I will try follow up with more details if needed, but a great example is a farming script I was working on recently. I had to scrap the multiplayer side of it because of some wonkiness coming from attaching bales to a trailer. When 1 client attaches, everything works perfectly. but when 2 clients attached the bale entities to the trailer to had 1 of 2 outcomes:
- Trailer would throw itself into the air and become super unstable.
- the bale would visually “roll off” of the trailer, although their entity would still be registered as being attached.
A visual example of this, is this picture, where u can see a bale has just “rolled off” of the truck even though it was attached using AttachEntityToEntity . these behaviours seem to occur regardless of using RequestControl or not (when not using it, i was having the Entity Owner trigger the function)
2 Likes
Will be ever you guys considering increasing ymt limit for custom clothes up to 255 instead of 128 like in gta 5 single player and other platforms like FiveM?
It would be awesome.
1 Like
It’s a lot more that needs to be change then just that one limit. It’s been looked into, but it’s A LOT of work.
3 Likes