Quote from The Moose :

All the stuff you bolded in his reply was absolutely spot on. Tristan was absolutely correct.

He also voted for Radical, which immediately make him the furthest thing from an idiot

Pretty much this.

I did vote Ruf though, because as some here may recall I do like Porsche's.

I don't claim they're amazing for engineering reasons related to physics, but I recon they're just plain fun.

The braking thing is quite true; since 50/50 weight distribution (or close to it) is often achieved under braking. I also do like the exit style, and they can be competitive despite their inherent flaws

Quote from NotAnIllusion :

Because it actually requires 55.6.

Well that explains it lol... I double checked what I read after I read your post, I guess they have to fix that

Quote from Mysho :

try to completely turn off abs just to see how unstable braking without abs is

No kidding!

Got a 56.129 but for some reason I don't have the 56:60 achievement

Starting to get it back a little, into the 56s with the 458 after finally getting a solid 30 mins in to practice - life's been nuts. Turns out I was braking like a moron, the car can slow down a lot faster than I thought previously. Hope to be in those 54s soon

Quote from Gabkicks :

man i am so out of practice. just did 1'58.7 with untouched 458 italia and no assists.

I feel your pain

I can't believe how much I've lost the last few years, though I guess it makes sense - don't use it - lose it! Having a hard time breaking 58s with the 458 at Imola

They definitely do seem to be listening, that's for sure.

AC might just get me a little "serious" about sim racing again

Is the E92 M3 seriously faster than a 458?! At Monza on the front straight it hits a higher top speed according to the speedo....... surely that cannot be right?

Next update on the 22nd.

Fixes, 3 cars, 2 tracks, new features.

Really hoping the F40 is on the way

What's taking so long for the modders to release a 'ring?

Not sure what he's on about... in the 458; I have to be REALLY careful not to kick the ass out when applying any kind of throttle in the first 3 gears.

Is that Z4 supposed to be the I6 twin turbo version??

It makes strange sounds that seem like maybe they're supposed to be turbocharger sounds but it doesn't seem to act properly.

The issue is that everyone who thinks 3D is a "gimmick" clearly hasn't messed around to see what's actually achievable. These are opinions likely based on movies at the cinema (which although CAN be done reasonably well, such as The Hobbit).

Properly set up 3D gaming renders a whole new world to look into - same thing as Rift but with a limited FOV and no head-tracking. And it's still very immersive; far more than staring at a 2D image. Attached are some JPS screenshots from some games taken with my system (just a hotkey within 3D vision to do that) - anyone who has the ability (Scawen mentioned he can feed them to his TV in SBS mode) should have a look, and if you can see these shots and still tell me "3D is a gimmick" or "3D gaming is a gimmick", then you should probably poke out one eye because depth isn't important to you, or you may have no depth perception to start with.

Note a couple these were taken back when I had 1680x1050 a couple of years ago, the rest are 1920x1080. Not sure how the smaller ones will translate on a 3DTV (Avatar and The Witcher 2). Also excuse the JPEG compression noise, I'm not sure if I can change the compression factor for taking screenshots.

The Metro 2033 shots I really like, they capture the atmosphere of the game pretty well.

Note that these are at maximum depth setting and might be a bit strong. If anyone is interested I could down the depth down to 50% or 25% and take a shot of any of these to compare.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent. ... 106394989/Avatar21_50.jps
https://dl.dropboxusercontent. ... 6394989/batmanac07_50.jps
https://dl.dropboxusercontent. ... 394989/Metro203302_50.jps
https://dl.dropboxusercontent. ... 394989/Metro203304_50.jps
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/106394989/TESV04_50.jps
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/106394989/TESV16_50.jps
https://dl.dropboxusercontent. ... 6394989/witcher299_50.jps

Quote from tristancliffe :

Never noticed any difference in any game with any controller as long as frame rate is above about 20fps. Never noticed any controller lag in any game ever either.

EXACTLY.

But I didn't want to say it; controller lag at 60fps is a pretty silly notion for a human considering nerve impulses travel at about 200mph or so around one's carcass. (yes that's actually a limitation).

Theories are only as good as the variables one is cognizant of.

This is the best solution out there at the moment:
http://www.nvidia.ca/object/pr ... eless-glasses-kit-us.html

If spending dough doesn't concern you, get 3 of the monitors and continue with triple screen, but in 3D

If it's only LFS you're wanting to run in 3D then you could just grab pretty much any 3D TV since LFS is going with native support.

edit: What kind of PC rig do you have however?
At this point, I'd actually wait until the Occulus Rift comes out next year some time

Last edited by Ball Bearing Turbo, Sun 13 Oct 2013, 18:21.

Quote from Shotglass :

still the most you can make your eyes diverge is looking parallel
and with the lines of sight being parallel the offset between the rendered images will be the same as your interocular distance regardless of how far away the screen is

That's what I was thinking as well because it makes perfect sense... but... as you said maybe it only applies to objects in the far plane. But how far is that? The whole idea is forming a triangle between your eyes and an object. I think I'm over-thinking this maybe. But I will say this, in my experience of using 3D for a few years, generally at least an hour a day mostly more, if I roll my chair backwards the scene seems to elongate and if I force my noggin right up to the screen the scene contracts. So its definitely affects something.

Quote :

might be different when sitting close to the screen
my experience was in a cinema setting where a had came way out of the screen until it was lowered until it touched the screen border at which point it immediately jumped to the actual distance of the screen

Balls on cinema 3D, but that shouldn't happen - if both images are present there's no reason for it to revert to screen depth - if the effect failed you'd see double images, not a single one at screen depth?

Quote from Shotglass :

as far as i understand a single setting for 3d isnt enough
what you want is 2 settings for changing both the
- maximum image seperation which should occur at distance infinity ie eyes perfectly parallel (ideally set to match the useres interocular distance)
- convergence/zero point ie the distance at which the images match exactly and are thus seen in the monitors actual image plane (for monitors that are too small to cover your whole fov ideally set to whatever touches the edges of the screen)

This is 100% correct, I already said that

Quote from Shotglass :

width should do it for adjusting the offset beween the images for infinitely far objects
my instincts tell me distance between you and the screen doesnt matter for this

Not true because the relative distance effectively changes based on the field of view. This is why Avatar the game has adjustments for both monitor size and distance from the screen

Quote :

there must be a plane inside the virtual 3d world where the rendered 2d images have 0 offset
a sort of focus distance that defines where the line of sight from both cameras meets
http://eww.pass.panasonic.co.j ... nt/guide/EN/3D_02_en.html
objects that are rendered at that convergence distance will appear in the same plane as the actual tv screen youre looking at

since in my experience objects that are rendered to be in front of the screen only appear in front of it if they dont touch the edges of the screen this should be adjusted accordingly
i believe what happens is when looking at a 3d object at the edge of the screen the 3d perception of the real world (ie the edge of your screen) overrides any 3d perception from the "fake" 3d on the screen

I sit close enough (about 16 to 18" from a 27" monitor) that this doesn't really matter. If you're look at a screen far away, obviously as soon as an object crosses the bezzels it's no longer visible, but even broken objects still "pop out" just fine in my experience, just like objects with depth are still perceived fine - quite literally just like looking through a window into the game world.

Scawen regarding convergence point, Shotglass hit the nail on the head.

Basically, objects will appear either inside the screen, at screen depth, or outside the screen.

Inside the screen the objects are separated in the same relative direction of each eye to produce depth. Objects at screen depth obviously have no separation. Objects outside the screen are separated in the opposite relative direction to your eyes (slightly cross-eyed, because the convergence point of your eyes is in front of the screen).

The zero depth point of the rendered scene is the convergence point of the two images, and drastically affects the perception of the gameworld. This is why I can have, for example the gauge cluster just slightly "out of my screen" so that it lines up really nicely with my physical steering wheel - by adjusting the convergence point of the images.

Shotglass might be able to explain it better but for some reason it also tends to "elongate" the world and create a greater sense of depth - everything isn't "far away"; and yet the closer objects appear smaller as well - I don't understand why this is.

edit: Great link Shotglass.

Okay indeed...

Quote :

I need at least 60fps to have smooth gameplay.

Unless you have a 120Hz monitor, more than that does nothing for you

Quote from imthebestracerthereis :

I'm pretty sure it's the focal point, but it's only affecting LFS. I can watch a SBS 3D movie just fine, I can look around and my eyes are always focused and continuously see the 3D effect. On the other hand while playing LFS I can only focus on one thing, and if I look elsewhere, my eyes have to readjust, causing much eye strain. It's hard to explain, but when I'm focused on what's directly in front of me, if I even so look at the steering wheel and try to look back, I lose focus and have to squint to readjust. I've also tinkered with the 3D settings inside LFS.

Sounds to me like the separation is too high for you at this point. Again, I'm not being super useful because I'm not running LFS using it's new native stereo rendering - but what you're describing tells me that the separation is too high for your comfort. All it really takes is some getting used to. I believe the reason this happens at first is because your brain isn't used to decoupling a focal point (the physical distance to focus your eyes on an object; like a camera lens) from the convergence point of your two eyes (the point in space that forms a triangle between said point and your eyes). In 3D, the latter distance changes whilst the focal point remains the same (your monitor is not physically further away from you). Movies don't suffer this because the separation is very low and this effect is minimal; and yet people still complain about it sometimes.

When I first bought 3D Vision a few years ago I couldn't run it at full depth (ironically until I had a few beer, then I could crank it up... the next day I'd have to turn it down again). That acclimitisation only lasted a few days though, and as I stated before, I couldn't go back - playing things in 2D quite literally I find much more straining now, not to mention the fact that I can't see everything properly. The 3rd dimension "separates" objects so well that now running 2D makes everything seem like a jumbled mess of objects overlapping each other. I have a nice 3 monitor setup (sadly they're different so I can't use 3D across 3 screens) but I vastly prefer running 3D on one monitor compared to the massive FOV of 3 monitors in 2D.

I'm sorry if this is taking things mildly off track Scawen but you mentioned a newly birthed interest in 3D rendering, and hopefully this all relates to LFS's implementation at least in a roundabout way.

Quote from Becky Rose :

The 3D worked, it was just utterly dissappointing *shrug*

Anyway LFS didn't have those issues, and even if there is a patch for the nVidia 3DTV it makes no odds to me because my trial expired and I am not shelling out for something that didn't work very well.

Sorry for not mentioning - you'd best check the 3D Vision ratings on games before firing them up; AC3 just plain does not work with 3D vision - everything is screwed up. The drivers themselves tell you "not recommended" when you fire up the game.

Quote :

Daymn shame that VIZIO doesn't allow 'game mode' in 3D.

Also, 3D in LFS strains my eyes too much so... bummer.

Looking forward to new tracks though

What solution are you using to run LFS in 3D? What kind of strain are you experiencing?

When it's set up properly, 3D is LESS strain on my eyes over long sessions - your eyes are not locked into converging on a single (for all intents and purposes) distance in front of you. When I'm driving LFS (or AC tech these days), that convergence point ranges from just in front of my monitor for the gauges, to somewhere very far away (the background scenery), and everything in between - braking markers are effectively in my neighbors house when I look at them. Although the focal point is the same because the image itself is still close, at least the function of your eyes is a lot closer to reality than trying to force your brain to resolve depth out of a 2D image.

Quote from Becky Rose :

I'm one of these people who does ocassionally suffer a cross-eyed sensation with 3D, especially when things come out of the screen toward me.

This is a sign that the paralax convergence of the images is too high. It's not just a sensation, it's because your eyes are over converging trying to see the object coming out of the screen.

Quote :

So firing up the LFS native side by side 3D support I was pleased to be able to very quickly get a 3D setting that I found comfortable. I had a good sensation of depth and didn't get the cross eyed feeling at all.

...

For my next test I switched to top and bottom 3D and the difference was stunning, I had a much better and more defined perception of distance. The side by side 3D seemed more flat by comparison to the top to bottom.

This is interesting, I don't know why it would be different; the two images should be the same whether they're fed SBS or not.

This is one thing that nVidia did right; with any game you can adjust both the separation (depth) and the convergence of the two images to get exactly what you want, and save that to a profile that loads every time the game is run.

I'm not sure what options are present in LFS but to do 3D "properly" both the separate amount and the convergence point need to be adjustable. For example I like to have the dash board slightly out of the screen because it makes my steering wheel line up right where it should be but someone not used to that might get that "crosseyed" effect you were talking about.

Quote :

support and how it circumnavigated the need for that overpriced nVidia program that doesn't even work properly!

3D TV Play works perfect as long as you use a "supported" TV, or do a nice EDID over-ride

nVidia 3D Vision as stated always worked perfect with LFS, save the for topic I made a long time ago where there were frustum problems at the very edge of the screen.

nVidia uses some clever (but straightforward) maths to generate two different perspectives based on information in the frame buffers. The only time it doesn't work well is when rendering shortcuts (or deferred rendering) are used and there is no Z depth information present. It's actually possible to fix those shaders with an injector which is exactly what HeliXMod does - he's made a lot of fixes.

There is no translation needed for LFS's 3D options, these options will simply make it easy for everyone that has other 3D solutions to enjoy LFS in 3D. So anyone with 3D Vision doesn't need to worry about this test patch or use this new functionality.

Gaming in 3D is much much different than crappy "cinema" 3D which has barely any depth and kind of gives 3D entertainment a bad rap. LFS in 3D is excellent, as is everything else - couldn't go back now if I wanted to.

Edit: BMX Twins: 3D Vision works directly with specific 120Hz monitors. I'm using the Asus VG278H which has the IR emitter for their glasses built in. Using 3D Vision with a 3DTV requires 3DTVPlay software (yes it's lame that you have to buy that considering 3D Vision drivers are included with every nVidia driver install whether you use it or not; in fact you can try 3D Vision Discover using red/blue glasses just to get an idea of what the depth would look like at least) I'd guess it's just their cash grab so that you have to buy "something" in order to use 3D without buying their kit/glasses.

Last edited by Ball Bearing Turbo, Fri 11 Oct 2013, 21:16.

Does anyone know of any information on turbocharger modelling in AC?

Followed the link to the photo stream.... Since it's been trickling out slowly and steadily I've forgotten all the great shit they've been making!

Geez man... when the Rift comes out to retail, and I have AC safely on my hard drive, sounds like I should book a week off of work because I suspect many late nights will be occurring!

I wonder how long until some Lambo's show up? And a year from now there will likely be some great mods out Good times.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Like I said, and you quoted, I don't really think it made any difference. I don't REALLY think it.

Unfortunately, that's probably naive (but I suspect you already know that).

These days, anyone in a position of authority is so bloody desperate to prove that they're NOT: (racist, sexist, homophobic, intolerant, blah blah blah blah blah) that normally simple decisions are reassessed through lenses of political and professional insecurity, and I doubt this is any different.

Anyone, even a moron, can see from either video what happened and where the mistake was made. You were expected to back off and make way for the almighty - never mind racing

I don't even know how it can be disputed... it's silly. She said she was past you, yet if that was the case, then you wouldn't have been there to turn in on.

It looked fairly violent though - question: what did that feel like? Did you just pump so full of adrenaline that it was all a blur or did you see her coming down and think "holy shit this isn't going to go well" and involuntarily piss or something?