It's already been updated 2 or 3 times - no significant changes to routes (except a completely different pitlane), just more routes and more polish. I'd be surprised if the next update isn't more of the same.
Ah, yes that's what did it.
It's interesting (and a little counter-intuitive) that the AA setting ingame is removed when post-process is on, but it's functionality is still there and adjustable in the config file.
This isn't strictly speaking test patch related, but since 0.6K (or maybe even before), I haven't been able to see the Anti-aliasing option in graphics settings. The option for mirror AA is there, but not the global one.
Modifying the value in cfg.txt appears to change the AA level, but the option doesn't seem to appear in game anymore.
Has anyone else noticed this?
http://i.imgur.com/pgr0lyq.png
I'll add my vote to that request
Modifying the value in cfg.txt appears to change the AA level, but the option doesn't seem to appear in game anymore.
Has anyone else noticed this?
http://i.imgur.com/pgr0lyq.png
I'll add my vote to that request
Which graphics card exactly? There's a good chance that's struggling as well.
As someone else already said, you *will* need to run with low res textures with only 256MB.
To overclock a P4, you'd probably have to do it in the BIOS (likely by increasing the multiplier if it'll let you). Be careful though, you can easily fry it if you take it too far - small increments and do a stress test every time, keeping an eye on temps.
If you want to play it (slightly) safer and ebay, there were some 3.0GHz P4s @200MHz FSB. Check compatibility first though.
Oh, and you really don't need an i3 and dedicated graphics to run LFS - I've had a £70 AMD APU (CPU with integrated graphics) running the new Westhill at well over 100FPS on a 1440x900 screen. You'd probably even get away with the £50 one for 60+FPS at that kind of resolution.
You've also got to bear in mind that torque curves *will* be different for the real cars vs the LFS approximations which will effect acceleration, so a Formula BMW is probably the only thing we'll be able to decently compare. I assume Scawen got a decent amount of data from the real car.
Tyre tread/compounds can make a significant difference in lap times as well, and who knows how they compare.
Still, it's mighty close in that video, despite the gearing being way off
It was actually the fact that the ESC in the Scirocco made the handling worse instead of better that tipped him off. The VWS had been delayed several months already before we even heard about Rockingham.
Tyre tread/compounds can make a significant difference in lap times as well, and who knows how they compare.
Still, it's mighty close in that video, despite the gearing being way off
It was actually the fact that the ESC in the Scirocco made the handling worse instead of better that tipped him off. The VWS had been delayed several months already before we even heard about Rockingham.
The kerbs have been updated to match the new sausage kerbs in the real track that were changed a couple of years after the laser scan (you can compare the original/new screenshots)
As Dave said, some of the textures seem to have been improved as well, though I haven't actually done any side-by-side comparisons.
----
I have found a small InSim bug - IS_VER.Product returns S2 instead of S3, even when Rockingham was loaded from the config file.
That isn't valid C++, which is why it's complaining.
Pos is of type Vec - don't get confused by std::vector, which is a variable length array-like container.
Vec (along with Vector) is already defined at the top of cinsim.h.
If you want to grab the whole of Pos to store/use somewhere else, you should be able to do:
Vec Pos;
Pos = pack_cpp->Pos; // Assumes pack_cpp is a pointer to a struct. If it's an actual struct object use pack_cpp.Pos
You can then access the values using Pos.x etc
Alternatively, you can just access the values directly:
float X = pack_cpp->Pos.x; // again, access members using . instead of -> if it's an object instead of a pointer
float Y = pack_cpp->Pos.y;
float Z = pack_cpp->Pos.z;
Disclaimer: the above *should* work, but I haven't tested it against CInsim as I stopped using it a while ago.
As a side note, make sure you're using a C++11/C++14 compliant compiler - it'll make your life much easier. Modern C++ is waay nicer to use than the old styles.
Would this work? (A guess based on what the php pack() funcion does)
edit: nm, it probably doesn't. I'll try to take a proper look into it later
<?php
IS_CPP()->Pos(pack("l3",-39175822,11394484,1037662))->H(65117)->P(757)->R(0)->ViewPLID(0)->InGameCam(0)->FOV(24.60000038147)->Time(0)->Flags(0)->Send();
?>
Last edited by Degats, .
You might have to live with replacing Pos with 3 ints then, unless someone can give you some better insight - I know basically nothing about the way PHP handles this kind of stuff.
As far as the packet/data that LFS gets is concerned, 3 ints is equivalent to a C struct containing 3 ints.
As far as the packet/data that LFS gets is concerned, 3 ints is equivalent to a C struct containing 3 ints.
In LFS/C(++), Vec is just another struct containing 3 ints.
I don't know how you'd translate that to PHP, but a hacky way would be to just replace the Pos with 3 ints
edit: It probably wants to be its own class in PHP with the relevant pack/unpack functions, but that's just a guess
I don't know how you'd translate that to PHP, but a hacky way would be to just replace the Pos with 3 ints
edit: It probably wants to be its own class in PHP with the relevant pack/unpack functions, but that's just a guess
Last edited by Degats, .
#52 [TC] Racing
(updated with correct positioning)
(updated with correct positioning)
Last edited by Degats, .
BTW, it only contains the PNGs, there's no .psd
Last edited by Degats, .
In the case of Hyper-V, it's not in the startup list, or services; it's effectively a driver.
You have to use the bcdedit command to disable it - I only knew it was even running because VMWare refused to start.
You have to use the bcdedit command to disable it - I only knew it was even running because VMWare refused to start.
It's not quite as simple as that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnS50lJicXc
tl;dr a single thread that's using your CPU efficiently *can* use up to 1/4 of your CPU, even though windows says 1/8th. 1 hyperthread is not equivalent to 1 core.
~~~~~~~~
The following *may* be useful for a small number of people with performance problems, but I really don't know how widespread it is. It might only affect CPUs similar to mine (Phenom II X4 955) or it could be more common.
During the test patch phase, I noticed some weird performance issues on my PC:
In 0.6H, I was getting between ~35 and ~95 FPS in Westhill, depending on where I was looking and whether or not my car was between paths. I was pretty much CPU limited and saw no improvement when I upgraded GPUs (4890 -> R9 285).
A few test patches in and my framerate had dropped to 25~45, at a time when most other people had a ~50% increase. It was bad on other tracks as well (max 80 on an empty Kyoto).
I tried older test patches and 0.6H, but I still had worse framerates than before, so I knew it was something weird with my system and not test patch related (which is why I didn't report it).
Long story short, turns out Visual Studio 2015 installed some Hyper-V stuff that was wrecking LFS performance. I disabled the Hyper-V hypervisor (rebooted) and now I get 100~200fps on Westhill open config with 40 players, 200~300 on a Kyoto race with a handful of players.
The shift+p lag happened in Win 8.1 as well, but it seems to be fixed in H6
However, I have noticed similar lag (for a shorter time maybe?) happening when exiting replays and when the multiplayer server list finishes loading.
This happens in H5 & H6, but not in H4.
When exiting a replay, it happens only when the frame limiter is on, the server list doesn't seem to matter if a frame limit is on or not.
It seems odd to me that it would happen in the server list, but it does seem to be a genuine hang (rather than waiting for a host to respond) because it never pauses in H4, but in H5/6 windows again briefly detects that LFS is not responding sometimes.
dxdiag on my old W10 laptop says DX9Ex.
I'll let you know what deb.log says on there in an hour once it's booted up...
I'm still on Win8.1 64bit - I haven't got W10 on here yet.
I *might* be able to test with W10 on my old laptop, but the GPU probably hasn't got enough grunt to exceed the frame limiter.
deb.log says timer resolution is 1ms.
A couple of quick tests (all in windowed mode for now):
I get the freeze whether frame limit is set or not. (Very rare if no limit. I can't actually reproduce it anymore with no limit, so I may have messed up a setting). Doesn't seem to happen if I set a 200fps limit (getting ~170fps).
While the freeze is occurring, CPU usage is zero.
The freeze length seems to be quite variable - anywhere from unnoticeable, to long enough for windows to think LFS has stopped responding briefly.
TBH, the biggest problem with the 512 skins is the horrible jpeg compression, which is more noticeable at a lower resolution.
The 512 skins either need a higher base jpeg quality or (the better option IMO) store them on LFSW and download as a gzip'd dds.
I concur that 2048 seems to be the most suitable.
I've noticed one bug - previously uploaded VWS skins are showing in the XFG list.
I've noticed one bug - previously uploaded VWS skins are showing in the XFG list.
A combination of Active Directory Groups (although you can use individual users if you want a maintenance nightmare) and NTFS Access Control Lists. It's fairly straight-forward, but the existing tools for managing large file shares are somewhat lacking, so it can be time consuming. I recently wrote a program at work to make it considerably easier.
Windows PowerShell is actually quite a powerful command-line/scripting tool, although IMO many of the commands and names are rather convoluted (but then again, "grep" is fairly meaningless unless you already know what it does). Many of the basic Linux/Unix commands have aliases to their Windows equivalents, which can be handy for the lazy (me).
As for code refactoring, if you have all the source and are using c/c++/c#, Visual Studio is pretty damn good at refactoring an entire project these days.
Find (and replace, including RegEx) can be done across many files/folders in PowerShell with the right sequence of commands.
For source/version control, git's git wherever you use it, although Visual Studio has git integration now for those less commandline savvy.
Windows even has a package manager now (OneGet, again part of PowerShell), which is based loosely on Chocolatey, but is still in development. Visual Studio has had a package manager for a while (NuGet) which has proven very popular. It remains to be seen how people will take to OneGet, it's too early to tell.
Disclaimer: I'm not a Windows fanboy, just trying to be informative. I use both Windows and Linux regularly, though it is mostly Windows at work with Linux for a few tasks where it's more suited.
Somehow I forgot to include this bit in my last post:
Task scheduling has improved vastly in modern OSs and further improved now multi-core is common.
The last time I remember regularly having issues was a single core CPU on XP (don't think the various LFS sleep times made any difference back then though).
Somehow Chrome still manages to make my mouse cursor lag like a trooper (movement sometimes streched over 10+s) when it's loading multiple tabs, even on a quad-core on Win8.1, but Chrome's behaviour is far from a normal application/game though so there's not much to read into that.
FWIW, my old dual-core laptop that can barely run LFS anymore (it cries at Westhill ~6fps) seems to show no obvious difference with the various sleep modes. The only difference is a small framerate improvement on other tracks when min sleep is turned to 0. 1 and above seem to behave the same. It is GPU limited in Westhill rather than CPU limited though, so may be irrelevant.
Task scheduling has improved vastly in modern OSs and further improved now multi-core is common.
The last time I remember regularly having issues was a single core CPU on XP (don't think the various LFS sleep times made any difference back then though).
Somehow Chrome still manages to make my mouse cursor lag like a trooper (movement sometimes streched over 10+s) when it's loading multiple tabs, even on a quad-core on Win8.1, but Chrome's behaviour is far from a normal application/game though so there's not much to read into that.
FWIW, my old dual-core laptop that can barely run LFS anymore (it cries at Westhill ~6fps) seems to show no obvious difference with the various sleep modes. The only difference is a small framerate improvement on other tracks when min sleep is turned to 0. 1 and above seem to behave the same. It is GPU limited in Westhill rather than CPU limited though, so may be irrelevant.
I remember that being accidentally forced to be on in the early DX9 test patches - it would be a useful feature IMO.
The only frame rate limiting I know of is where the engine is tied to 30/60fps due to being a crappy console port.
Any sensible limits not tied to v-sync probably vary a lot depending on specific hardware combinations and personal cooling noise preferences.
An interesting input lag investigation with V-Sync vs no V-Sync, FreeSync vs G-Sync at different target framerates: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzHxhjcE0eQ
Jump to ~ 11:40 for graphs, although there is some interesting stuff earlier in the video.
If you're looking for real-world results, do your test searches in a private browser window - google will put LFS near the top if you've searched for it before.
Back on topic, I've noticed a bug: when placing chalk, it's invisible until I optimise the layout objects.
This is currently happening in H4 on Westhill; I haven't tested H2/3 or different tracks yet, but it's showing up fine to people on H.
Back on topic, I've noticed a bug: when placing chalk, it's invisible until I optimise the layout objects.
This is currently happening in H4 on Westhill; I haven't tested H2/3 or different tracks yet, but it's showing up fine to people on H.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG