Quote from Imphy :

I think the biggest problem is getting good FPS on a 3ple monitor system? Also you get a broken up image... but the wideness is always nice of course

I have posted some stuff on this topic on my blog if you are interested. http://simroom.blogspot.com

Hey great work there in your blog!!! Im definitely going to use some of your ideas!

How do you all calculate the fuel at pit entry? Im running a championship that forces us to enter twice to pits.

Strategies are welcomed too

Quote from auto emocion :

Now for the graphics:

I think LFS actually looks really good. So im happy.. but of course, if i had an expensive superfast pc i probably would be begging for more.

This is a good point. But its relatively easy to keep current graphics for "not that fast" machines, while giving the ones who do have the ultimate gaming PC the proper eye candy.

In fact, its my believe that more people would buy LFS if it was "prettier". Not everybody is spartan, you know

Quote from geeman1 :

You are not really thinking now. Of course the car sounds similar all the time, but there are still subtle changes.

Great, now we are going somewhere. Ok, lets take the sound of your voice and my voice. They are different, yet, people can recognize them all the time, because they are "consistent with themselves".

Why don´t we hear simulations of a particular voice? Because it would be impossible to accomplish it with synthesized sound.

If I really want to emulate the voice of someone I should first SAMPLE his voice, then polish the model with the variables you talk about (the ones we can simulate or replicate of course) and then we could have something resembling the original. Not at rich you will say. Well of course! but RECOGNIZABLE.

Yes, sampled sounds are really different from the real thing, but are closer to it than simulated waves.

Quote from geeman1 :

Actually not. Real cars sound is never repetetitive, every little explosion inside the pistons sound different. Not to mention that everytime the engine load, throttle position, speed, position of the listener, position of the moon, ... the sound changes.

Well, my girlfriends used to recognize me by the sound of my car... go figure!

Quote from Lible :

You've got something wrong with that Piano theory. How come proffesionals use real pianos and klaviers (it's klavier in English, right?). They use them, because a synthenizer is NOT AS GOOD. Piano doesn't only change the pitch, it changes a lot. If you've ever looked inside a piano, you'd know.

Well, I happen to play the piano...and keyboards, and computers.

Quote from Electrik Kar :

He's right that a sampled piano will always sound better than a synth piano, and of course a REAL piano will sound the best- but we can't use real engines in LFS now can we?

It's probably not a good idea to compare pianos and engines though. There are some very good synths around, I'm thinking especially of the Steam Pipe synth in Reaktor, which simulates air passing through a tube and can turn out some very passable likenesses of real flutes and other instruments.

The more a synth system actually properly models what it's trying to replicate, the better the result I imagine. For now, the LFS engine synth isn't doing too badly, but It's still in the simple early stages. If ever perfected, it would totally leave the sampled route for dead. It would be an incredible innovation and I hope Scawen gets there some day.

You are right, for music there are good synths, and there are even synths that are just effects for samples. Thats what I think LFS should have, some sampled sounds with synth effects.

But I dont see how just synth sounds could do it.

In any case, the question would be... when can we expect an improvement on LFS sound system?

Quote from geeman1 :

If you mean that a sample can be re-mixed to make it different it doesn't help. The sample will still be the same and it will get repetitive.
Infinite number of samples would be of course better than synthetic sound, but that's hardly a realistic task to do. For example simple thing like listening the sound from two different directions makes a big difference. Basically synthetic sound will need a less complex sound engine when closing in on the realism.

Hmm we are not communicating. The sound of ANY car would be repetitive for your tastes, I guess because its always the same!

Again, if you knew something about sampled music you would understand. To replicate the sound of a piano, for example, I would need to sample an incredible amount of individual sounds. Right?

Wrong. I have to know what sounds I need to sample, and then, from them, extrapolate others. Hint, a change in the pitch can be done without having to sample the change in some factual waveform.

Quote from Jakg :

No, as i dont feel samples can do that - i used to think this "samples sound fake" was a bunch of BS but playing GTR and i believed it - it sounds "WOW" at the start, but you start to realise it's repetitive and you can hear alot about the load on the engine etc through it's noise, which you just don't get with samples.

Bad programing. Anything that can be synthesized can be sampled (or synthesized above the samples). And it will sound a hole lot better.

Just drive a lap in the F1 of rFactor and then in LFS. Sorry to say it, but it sounds pathetic in comparison.

Quote from geeman1 :

For sample you need the car to exist, which majority of LFS' cars don't. Also you need a huge amount of resources to do the recording...

... Also as other people have said you need millions of samples to make even remotely as flexible sound engine and it still will end up being repetitive.

Cars do exist, thats not a problem. Or will you argue about that it would matter if the samples are taken from a ford k instead of a opel corsa? As for the resources needed. Thats true, but that is also why I said I wish they had them.

Regarding the flexibility of sound, nope that would be a mistake in programing, not in flexibility of sampled sounds. Again, take a look a the music industry.

Quote from Jakg :

...how is you showing YOUR opinion "end of discussion"?

Every sound in LFS should sound exactly like real life, and also sound like the car is actually MAKING the noise (unlike GTR etc). End of discussion.

My bad, sorry about the attitude. Yes sometimes Im arrogant. That said, I believe you agree with me then?

Quote from Maelstrom :

It would be true if we could isolate sample sounds from each part of the car. It is possible with some of them but the majority can only be heard with all the other sounds. Thus, for the sake of simulation we are better off with the synthetic ones.

What do we need to listen? The engine as it revs, tires stressing against the road or other surfaces, wind, maybe the sound of a crash. What else?

I hope no one takes this personal. I see fanboyism here. True, LFS is the best sim, but some of you talk as if any kind of improvement would be wrong.

Sampled sound are A LOT better than syntetic ones. I guess those who oppose dont know about sampler for music? Syntetic sound of instruments, say a violin, are awful. If you want the sound of a violin you need to sample it and then integrate some algoritms to change the form of the wave to resemble a real player. FYI, the music of some movies and games are done this way, even when we hear a full orchestra.

Every sound in LFS should be sampled. End of discussion.

Regarding graphics, the light effects on LFS are really dated and need to change to dynamic. Textures could be improved too.

Note that I recognize the effort of the creators of LFS, they have done an admirable work, but still I do wish they had the resources to improve the game.

There is nothing like real sound, it should give you even more info about the car (if done right). What makes you think the opposite?

Quote from mcintyrej :

Always take extra fuel. Thats what I do, I don't even notice the 2% or 3% that I added, so i'd rather be safe than sorry.

I did it; an extra 3%, and entering the pits I set it to 1% extra each stop. Whats the point of the tool if you have to calculate 5% maybe 10% extra?

Are all of these planned upgrades?

Quote from frokki :

EDIT: Oh, you were driving a single seater on oval. That pretty much invalids my whole post

Im still kind of noob regarding deep knowledge about LFS tools. That said I find it ridiculous that the % of consumption in race is only accurate to one digit.

I just lost a race after being in the lead for more than half of it (75 long laps) BECAUSE my calculations were based on the accuracy of F12.

Thanks LFS team.

Quote from Crazy Horse :

You may not need to buy th2g, I'm running 5040x1050 resolution with a 8600GT , c2d E6600 cpu, 2 gigs RAM and getting fps round the 35-40 mark. Might make the 3 screens solution bit cheaper in your calculations if you don't need th2g.

How do you do that? AFAIK video cards have only two connections (for two monitors)

Quote from srdsprinter :

Personally I'd go with the 42" with a condition:

I'd try to find a 1080p (1920x1080) vs 720p (1366x768). While the difference when watching hd tv/movies might not be that much, when using it for general computing, 720p has very low total pixel count.

GL!

Good point. But that means I would have to spend a lot more in the TV than in the triplehead solution. I will have to check costs.

Quote from GFresh :

So basically, if you think you will use it for viewing movies as well, then go for the large LCD. If just for games i'd recommend the triplehead.

Thats a good answer, I have to consider the wife on this!

Quote from George Kuyumji :

I use TH2GO with

AMD 4000+ 64 single core
2 GB
GeForce 7600 GS

In LFS: 3840 x 1024 no AA no AF

In NR2003: 3840 x 1024, 2 AA, 2 AF

Wow thats amazing! I have the same videocard and I was wondering if it had enough "juice" to feed up three monitors. You answered my question

So this rig is exclusively to play with it? Do you have more pictures of your setup?

A guesstimate tells me that cost would be almost the same (asuming a cheap LCD tv this is). What would you choose, and why?

BuddhaBing, (kind like a cousing, because our names )

Thanks for your input. You are right, that comparision is just about characteristics, no word or details on how they have been implemented.


Woz,

I will check RBR, thanks.

I found a comparison between all the racing simulators on Wiki, LFS is ranked among several cathegories against the rest of the pack. Have anyone of you driven all the sims?

So far, I have tried LFS (my favorite and the only one I own) rFactor (a close second but I just have the demo) and GTR2 demo (I like somethings but no others).