Here is the complete set of tracks that have changed significantly.
New versions:
https://www.lfs.net/file_lfs.php?name=SO_new_3072.zip
https://www.lfs.net/file_lfs.php?name=KY_new_3072.zip
https://www.lfs.net/file_lfs.php?name=AU_new_2560.zip
https://www.lfs.net/file_lfs.php?name=AS_new_2560.zip
Old versions:
https://www.lfs.net/file_lfs.php?name=SO_old_3072.zip
https://www.lfs.net/file_lfs.php?name=KY_old_3072.zip
https://www.lfs.net/file_lfs.php?name=AU_old_2560.zip
https://www.lfs.net/file_lfs.php?name=AS_old_2560.zip
Other tracks (BL/FE/WE/RO/LA) have not changed significantly. Changes are mostly fixes, details and textures updated for the new lighting and shadow system, so I have not generated 2D bitmaps for them.
New Westhill included for comparison with new Kyoto:
https://www.lfs.net/file_lfs.php?name=WE_new_3072.zip
Here's a zip with the old SO and KY generated as 3072.
I think they are the current public ones, but without any ambient lighting.
I didn't include the old WE as it hasn't changed significantly, other than textures and details.
EDIT: Changed to two separate zips.
https://www.lfs.net/file_lfs.php?name=SO_old_3072.zip
https://www.lfs.net/file_lfs.php?name=KY_old_3072.zip
Last edited by Scawen, .
Here are some zips with 2D top down views of updated South City and Kyoto Ring in 3072x3072 png.
EDIT: for comparison I've also generated Westhill in the same format.
https://www.lfs.net/file_lfs.php?name=SO_new_3072.zip
https://www.lfs.net/file_lfs.php?name=KY_new_3072.zip
https://www.lfs.net/file_lfs.php?name=WE_new_3072.zip
Note: some of the newly filled in areas of South City are not actually driveable. There are so many new driveable areas but to get the job finished there has to be some scenery which is not updated to full detail level.
Last edited by Scawen, .
I hope it's OK to post these route images, with the disclaimer that any configuration could be be revised or removed.
Last edited by Scawen, .
Graphics Progress Report: Kyoto updates
Hello Racers,
Eric has spent most of this year working on the Kyoto Ring environment and has expanded the driveable areas in a similar way to the Westhill track. In open configurations, you can drive around all the access roads and a new high speed karting track has been added.
To read about our progress and see some pictures of the Kyoto updates, visit the Kyoto Progress Report page.
- LFS Developers
Eric has spent most of this year working on the Kyoto Ring environment and has expanded the driveable areas in a similar way to the Westhill track. In open configurations, you can drive around all the access roads and a new high speed karting track has been added.
To read about our progress and see some pictures of the Kyoto updates, visit the Kyoto Progress Report page.
- LFS Developers
Thanks. Based on your description and the log file and the thread you linked to, I think I can see what's going wrong.
As you say, the screen resolution is 1:1 but the strange thing on your headset is this is not matched by the projection.
E.g. for left eye: GetProjectionMatrix: Left -1.635 Right 0.833 Top -1.118 Bottom 1.122
This gives X/Y of (1.635 + 0.833) / (1.118 + 1.122) = 2.468 / 2.24 = 1.102
Those values are tangents of FOV in each direction so can be safely added before the division. The problem is the result is 1.102, not 1.
For comparison with my Vive DVT, I get this result:
Resolution per eye: 1512 x 1680 giving aspect ratio 0.9
Left eye: GetProjectionMatrix: Left -1.391 Right 1.254 Top -1.473 Bottom 1.466
This gives X/Y of (1.391 + 1.254) / (1.473 + 1.466) = 2.645 / 2.939 = 0.89997
So that is basically a perfect match for the resolution aspect ratio.
So I suppose at this point that the Vive Pro 2 either has non-square pixels or uses anamorphic lenses.
I'm not sure of the solution yet, it seems that LFS will need to scale the image vertically or horizontally. I'll need to look into the code and see how it is worked out and where to insert the correction.
I'm guessing that it wouldn't be anamorphic lenses, more likely non-square pixels but it's a long time since I have encountered that. I'm thinking of Mode 13h from MS-DOS days in late 80s / early 90s.
As you say, the screen resolution is 1:1 but the strange thing on your headset is this is not matched by the projection.
E.g. for left eye: GetProjectionMatrix: Left -1.635 Right 0.833 Top -1.118 Bottom 1.122
This gives X/Y of (1.635 + 0.833) / (1.118 + 1.122) = 2.468 / 2.24 = 1.102
Those values are tangents of FOV in each direction so can be safely added before the division. The problem is the result is 1.102, not 1.
For comparison with my Vive DVT, I get this result:
Resolution per eye: 1512 x 1680 giving aspect ratio 0.9
Left eye: GetProjectionMatrix: Left -1.391 Right 1.254 Top -1.473 Bottom 1.466
This gives X/Y of (1.391 + 1.254) / (1.473 + 1.466) = 2.645 / 2.939 = 0.89997
So that is basically a perfect match for the resolution aspect ratio.
So I suppose at this point that the Vive Pro 2 either has non-square pixels or uses anamorphic lenses.
I'm not sure of the solution yet, it seems that LFS will need to scale the image vertically or horizontally. I'll need to look into the code and see how it is worked out and where to insert the correction.
I'm guessing that it wouldn't be anamorphic lenses, more likely non-square pixels but it's a long time since I have encountered that. I'm thinking of Mode 13h from MS-DOS days in late 80s / early 90s.
The aspect ratio and all other relevant info should be obtained through the interface. Maybe you could post the contents of openvr.log and we'll see if there are any clues in there?
Could you give a more detailed explanation of the skewing issue? Is it only apparent when your head is doing the roll, or does it remain visible while you hold your head in a rolled position?
Could you give a more detailed explanation of the skewing issue? Is it only apparent when your head is doing the roll, or does it remain visible while you hold your head in a rolled position?
I can't see any glitches on our performance graph, and a network test now shows very little packet loss, so I wonder if the problem has been resolved?
The graph looks clean from around 18:00 UTC on Saturday (7 December).
The graph looks clean from around 18:00 UTC on Saturday (7 December).
I've restarted the server so it should be up and running again.
I think there is still a high level of packet loss so that means our provider is responsible. It looks as if the change they made some months ago, that improved the service, is no longer effective. For some reason this changed in the past few days, so I will raise a ticket with our provider.
I think there is still a high level of packet loss so that means our provider is responsible. It looks as if the change they made some months ago, that improved the service, is no longer effective. For some reason this changed in the past few days, so I will raise a ticket with our provider.
Restarting Turkish Server
We have been asked to look at the Turkish server again.
I can see a high level of packet loss.
I am restarting the server to see if the packet loss improves. I will get results to send to our provider if the packet loss is not improved by the restart. It may take up to 20 minutes or so.
Sorry for the disruption (closing server while people are still racing).
I can see a high level of packet loss.
I am restarting the server to see if the packet loss improves. I will get results to send to our provider if the packet loss is not improved by the restart. It may take up to 20 minutes or so.
Sorry for the disruption (closing server while people are still racing).
There is a failed payment, probably details entered incorrectly. Anyway, a failed payment means no money was taken.
That is actually intended. Victor implemented it that way in the early days of the mods system. I think it uses a WIP thread as a comments thread if a WIP thread was provided. If no WIP thread then it makes a new one. I'm not sure if that's a good idea.
It's possible that it seemed like a good idea at the time but doesn't really suit the mods system as it has developed? I won't be the judge of that, would prefer to see what other people think.
I might be able to track down that decision in the website code and change it to always create a separate comments thread even if there is a WIP thread, but there may be complications. Things aren't always as simple as they seem (but sometimes they are). I have more important things to do for now but will read any opinions on whether it should be changed.
It's possible that it seemed like a good idea at the time but doesn't really suit the mods system as it has developed? I won't be the judge of that, would prefer to see what other people think.
I might be able to track down that decision in the website code and change it to always create a separate comments thread even if there is a WIP thread, but there may be complications. Things aren't always as simple as they seem (but sometimes they are). I have more important things to do for now but will read any opinions on whether it should be changed.
I'm not suggesting adding more to delay the release, but as a relatively simple thought for the future...
As it's completely enclosed, I wonder if it would be better to have a tiny 'track area' that is just a stadium and nothing else? The same kind of idea as Layout Square, but enclosed instead of open. Because then the frame rate would be as high as possible, instead of having an entire city behind the walls, that you can't see anyway.
As it's completely enclosed, I wonder if it would be better to have a tiny 'track area' that is just a stadium and nothing else? The same kind of idea as Layout Square, but enclosed instead of open. Because then the frame rate would be as high as possible, instead of having an entire city behind the walls, that you can't see anyway.
No, that is incorrect.
The path system is still there and unchanged for AI drivers.
What no longer uses the path system:
- echo map (now uses live render)
- ambient light map (now uses a global octree)
- hidden object removal (now uses global octrees)
The path system is still there and unchanged for AI drivers.
What no longer uses the path system:
- echo map (now uses live render)
- ambient light map (now uses a global octree)
- hidden object removal (now uses global octrees)
I may be wrong as I have not installed Oculus software in recent times. But I would have guessed that to run your Oculus device, you must have installed the Oculus software.
If that is the case, then it should be possible for LFS to enter VR without using Steam VR at all.
You would simply select:
Options - View - 3D
In the dialog "Options for 3D device" you select "VR system : Oculus Rift"
I'd be interested to know if that works for you.
If that is the case, then it should be possible for LFS to enter VR without using Steam VR at all.
You would simply select:
Options - View - 3D
In the dialog "Options for 3D device" you select "VR system : Oculus Rift"
I'd be interested to know if that works for you.
In what way cannot initialize? What do you see?
Maybe have a look in openvr.log
Does the HP reverb work generally in SteamVR?
Maybe have a look in openvr.log
Does the HP reverb work generally in SteamVR?
Hi, I confirm that we had to stop using the Japan server. It was an i3d server that was very expensive to run.
We did write to you on 16th October, informing you in advance of the change and suggesting you could try the Hong Kong server.
To explain the decision:
When we released the mods system, we started the Japan server (along with the USA server) hoping that it would be good for a lot of users from China, Japan, Korea and a lot more of Asia and even Oceania. But the ping was too low in Australia and China (and South America too) so we had to open some more, cheaper servers, including Sydney and Hong Kong (and Brazil).
The Japan server has been used very little from the outset and in recent times there were only two hosts running on it, and even they were not used much. It was clear we could not continue with that dedicated server so that's why we closed it down at the end of October.
What ping do you get when you are connected to the Hong Kong server? Is it consistent and stable? I would be interested to hear from anyone in East Asia, what their experience is when using the Hong Kong server.
We did write to you on 16th October, informing you in advance of the change and suggesting you could try the Hong Kong server.
To explain the decision:
When we released the mods system, we started the Japan server (along with the USA server) hoping that it would be good for a lot of users from China, Japan, Korea and a lot more of Asia and even Oceania. But the ping was too low in Australia and China (and South America too) so we had to open some more, cheaper servers, including Sydney and Hong Kong (and Brazil).
The Japan server has been used very little from the outset and in recent times there were only two hosts running on it, and even they were not used much. It was clear we could not continue with that dedicated server so that's why we closed it down at the end of October.
What ping do you get when you are connected to the Hong Kong server? Is it consistent and stable? I would be interested to hear from anyone in East Asia, what their experience is when using the Hong Kong server.
I know that problem with Cloudflare timeout. Have you tried the option to reduce the size of the mod upload by excluding the png files?
As you are OK now and upgraded to S3 I'll mark it as answered. 
I won't try to give all the answers. Each point you mention has been discussed many times before, at great length. You could try searching "Steam" for example.
I could make a few points though, before instantly unsubscribing from the thread as I don't want to start answering questions.
If financial growth was the aim, LFS would have been a completely different game. Eric and I founded Live for Speed with a deliberate aim to work on our own project, free from the pressures and issues of working in a larger company. Admittedly, we thought it would just be a project of a year or two, so that looks a bit different more than two decades later.
Live for Speed was on sale before Steam existed, so this is why we have our own payment system. Moving to Steam at this point would require restructuring our business and changing the code model. We would then be at the mercy of Steam ratings and in my opinion no longer "independent" (even if Steam is said to be for indie developers, such 'independent' developers are entirely dependent on Steam). This is too long a subject and I won't get involved. Many pages of forum text have been written about this already.
Regarding income, Eric and I believe that the ability to work on what we like, in our own time, is more important than a high income. If we wanted a high income, it would have been better to stay employed in larger companies. However, there was a period of relatively high income for some time starting with the release of S2. But over some years, sales dropped off gradually until income was eventually too low to live on. Some of this was caused by my change in life, moving house and bringing up two small children, which affected development. By the way, they are now 18 and 16 years old. Another cause for the eventual drop off was the well documented piracy, in which pirates were able to create a bigger active community than the legitimate one.
There were some boosts in that time, such as after important updates and the S3 license release. Although that only provided access to the laser scanned Rockingham track, people who upgraded to S3 did ensure continuing development. Eventually we were able to offer mods, which are not properly available in pirated systems.
How is all this relevant? Well, now we have enough income to pay our bills, so we can continue developing. We are still not interested in hiring more staff and moving into an office. I'm sure we are even less willing to do that now, after all these years working from home. There is no thought entering our minds to suddenly give up our entire work philosophy and try to get rich by running a company!
I could make a few points though, before instantly unsubscribing from the thread as I don't want to start answering questions.
If financial growth was the aim, LFS would have been a completely different game. Eric and I founded Live for Speed with a deliberate aim to work on our own project, free from the pressures and issues of working in a larger company. Admittedly, we thought it would just be a project of a year or two, so that looks a bit different more than two decades later.
Live for Speed was on sale before Steam existed, so this is why we have our own payment system. Moving to Steam at this point would require restructuring our business and changing the code model. We would then be at the mercy of Steam ratings and in my opinion no longer "independent" (even if Steam is said to be for indie developers, such 'independent' developers are entirely dependent on Steam). This is too long a subject and I won't get involved. Many pages of forum text have been written about this already.
Regarding income, Eric and I believe that the ability to work on what we like, in our own time, is more important than a high income. If we wanted a high income, it would have been better to stay employed in larger companies. However, there was a period of relatively high income for some time starting with the release of S2. But over some years, sales dropped off gradually until income was eventually too low to live on. Some of this was caused by my change in life, moving house and bringing up two small children, which affected development. By the way, they are now 18 and 16 years old. Another cause for the eventual drop off was the well documented piracy, in which pirates were able to create a bigger active community than the legitimate one.
There were some boosts in that time, such as after important updates and the S3 license release. Although that only provided access to the laser scanned Rockingham track, people who upgraded to S3 did ensure continuing development. Eventually we were able to offer mods, which are not properly available in pirated systems.
How is all this relevant? Well, now we have enough income to pay our bills, so we can continue developing. We are still not interested in hiring more staff and moving into an office. I'm sure we are even less willing to do that now, after all these years working from home. There is no thought entering our minds to suddenly give up our entire work philosophy and try to get rich by running a company!
I haven't seen that before.
- Does it work correctly if you use a maximised window instead?
- Is there any desktop scaling? I'm trying to imagine what could make LFS set the wrong window size, if that's what's happening.
- What do you see in cfg.txt "Window" line (near the top) after exiting in that state?
- Does it work correctly if you use a maximised window instead?
- Is there any desktop scaling? I'm trying to imagine what could make LFS set the wrong window size, if that's what's happening.
- What do you see in cfg.txt "Window" line (near the top) after exiting in that state?
Unfortunately, there is no "/mod" command similar to the "/car" command.
When originally considering this, the problem I encountered was: if implemented in a reasonably simple way, it would give access to non-public mods.
Currently, the downloaded list of mods is required to determine if a mod can be used. I couldn't think of a simple and reasonable solution to this problem, so I left it out. So for now, this is one of the many improvement suggestions that I can't stop and do right now as there are more important things to do first.
When originally considering this, the problem I encountered was: if implemented in a reasonably simple way, it would give access to non-public mods.
Currently, the downloaded list of mods is required to determine if a mod can be used. I couldn't think of a simple and reasonable solution to this problem, so I left it out. So for now, this is one of the many improvement suggestions that I can't stop and do right now as there are more important things to do first.
First image, I don't know why speed is low, maybe try what johneysvk said:
Options - Display - Show pedals - YES
Then you can see if your pedal axis is reaching the top.
Middle picture shows overheated clutch, slipping badly.
Options - Display - Show pedals - YES
Then you can see if your pedal axis is reaching the top.
Middle picture shows overheated clutch, slipping badly.
Are these exact numbers? 4000 RPM and 120 km/h or does it vary?
I'm asking in case you damaged the engine, by shifting to low gears while at high speed. In that case your engine power is reduced and the engine makes a damaged engine sound (like popping while revving). This damage gets worse the more times you over rev.
I'm asking in case you damaged the engine, by shifting to low gears while at high speed. In that case your engine power is reduced and the engine makes a damaged engine sound (like popping while revving). This damage gets worse the more times you over rev.
The minor updates I did to dashboards and wheels were only in the editor. I didn't put them in public LFS game because hotlaps would be affected by the slight differences in wheels (old hotlaps would go OOS but for no really good reason). For example some have a slightly reduced rim width to make them more realistic for the size of tyre.
I did have, on a list, a thought about importing the dashboards into the public version. But minor game updates and editor updates could go on forever so at some point I had to just stop and do the release.
I did have, on a list, a thought about importing the dashboards into the public version. But minor game updates and editor updates could go on forever so at some point I had to just stop and do the release.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG