Quote :

Well,

I discover new passions... and LFS is past for me...


It looks like past, sounds like past and drive like past... literally speaking.

Moderns games look, sound and drive much better.

Sorry

LFS is still the only simulator that makes me feel connected with the car, although I must admit that I didn't try GTL or GTR (I'm going to do that).

The sound system also is good, although I think that Scawen is not using a sound system with a flat response for reference, since on a flat system (my headphones are reasonably flat, and I don't use equalizers), it lacks too much mid-bass and bass (or maybe the low frequencies are not properly simulated yet). But playing with LFS mekanik you can see how big is the potential for the sound system (if you put a 5 cylinder engine, it sounds like a 5 cylinder engine, if you put a v10 engine, it sounds like a v10 engine, with limitations of course).


Everything on LFS seems to be in the right way, although are not on a good state right now. The graphics are clean, efficient, without some tricks that some games use that make them look too cartoonish, although they lack a proper illumination system, the sounds are good, although they need some refinement and sound more "warm" and need a better crash sounds, and the physics are good, although the differentials and aerodynamics are flawed right now (although the differential problem may be related to a bug on tyre modeling as Scawen said before).

But as I say,we paid for the potential, but we want someday the finished product. Ok, I don't want to push the devs to release a patch with hundreds of bugs, but what I want is something to clarify what we are the next improvements that we are going to see on next patch, and if it will be released before next year or so..... Something more short or medium term.

Quote :

I don't know why people keep moaning about the way LFS is being developed

I support someway the way that LFS is being developed, but what make me frustrated someway is the long period without patches or any information about the development state, like they did before. We had almost 1 progress report a month, and now, I forgot when we had any news about the development state or when the last patch was released (without counting the language patches).


Ok, they needed a break, no problem with that, but the way that the community here is acting makes them very confortable. Anyone that wants information about the development progress gets almost flamed by the strong supporters. So they don't feel the need to keep us informed, or give us any patch.


[edit]


I've just checked, the last physics update (Patch P2) that we had was on 7th August, Almost 6 months ago, and until then, almost no news about the development. Quite a long time.

[editing again]

Well, Patch P2 was fully compatible with patch P (same physics), that was released on 25th June 2005

Last edited by Mogar, Sat 4 Feb 2006, 00:48.

Quote from Flotch :

wtf with the locked diff?? clutch pack is really wrong, locked diff is as crap as it should be, I do not see a problem with it.

IMO, that is not an excuse to a physics fault. The non-locked diffs should be better than the locked one.

Quote :

We know a patch is coming, that it's fixing physics.. what's to complain about?

Yes, we know that a patch is comming, but we don't have any idea when it's gonna be released. Maybe 1 month, 6 months, 2 years..... I know that software developing usually takes more time than we think that it will get, but they could at least give us a idea, or what they plan to fix on the next patch. They don't said even if they plan to release a patch before the S2 final. It's reasonable that they will release at least one beta version, but again, we don't know how far they want to go on the next patch, and right now we don't need so big changes to get the fun with LFS again.


Ok that lot of changes on physics through sucessive patch releases on short periods is not nice, but it's not nice also when there are bugs for so long time, that ppl start to discover and use exploits. LFS is a SIMULATOR, so riding unrealistic bug-exploiting setups shouldn't be a reality.

Quote :

If LFS gets on my nerves for whatever reason, I quit within 30 seconds.

I quit it since 3 weeks ago, and I don't miss LFS as it is today at all.

Last edited by Mogar, Fri 3 Feb 2006, 22:42.

Well, I stopped driving on LFS for a while. I really got frustated seing that ppl are exploiting physics faults (not only aero.... I've NEVER seen a DTM or similar "gtr" car with locked differential), and to be competitive, you need to follow the same way.


This is making LFS unrealistic, and made me loose interest on LFS for a while. Surelly when a new patch is released I will try it as soon as I can, but for now, I stopped with LFS.


I hope that the situation get better, because I someway like the way that things are on LFS (a simulator really focused on physics and multi player, and without comercial pressures), but it can't be a excuse to close our eyes to other offerings on this market or to let the bugs the way they are now for a long time.

well, I will post my results with the lfs benchmark

CPU: Athlon XP mobile 2500+ @ 2.2ghz (aka 3200+ ), 512mb ddr 400mhz latencies 2.5-3-3-6, Asus A7N8X-E dlx motherboard, Nforce drivers 5.10

Video card: ATI Radeon 9800 non-pro 128mb (standard clock) at 1280x960@85Hz , 2x AA, 4x AF

Custom lfs settings (everything in max)


Frames: 4787 - Time: 103406ms - Avg: 46.293 - Min: 26 - Max: 73 (clr+sky)

Frames: 4801 - Time: 103438ms - Avg: 46.414 - Min: 29 - Max: 73 (plain sky)

Frames: 4752 - Time: 103516ms - Avg: 45.905 - Min: 29 - Max: 68 (ellipsoid)

Well, that replay from benchmark is cpu limited on my system, so there is no significant difference between those 3 modes. And did a test switching the resolution to 800x600, and got a very small performance increase, but on hotlapping (and maybe on-line races) it does make a difference.

Quote from Scawen :

Ok, i've added "solved" to the title again.

"Clear + sky" clears the entire screen to a background colour, then draws the sky dome.

"Ellipsoid" does not do a clear, but simply draws a sky dome and a grey underworld dome (so it's a complete ellipsoid).

"Clear + sky" is probably faster on most modern cards, even though every pixel in the sky area is drawn over once with the background colour then again with the actual sky texture. I don't know why that's quicker but i guess it's to do with how the card's hardware works. On older cards, the ellipsoid option can be quicker because it doesn't waste its time drawing all those pixels twice.

Humm.... Interesting.....

Anyway, I think that this information could be useful on a troubleshooting guide, or on a recommendation list for better performance (since I believe that there is a lot of users unaware about how it can change the LFS performance, in my case a huge difference)


And I hope that this "investigation" can be useful for other LFS players and to LFS progress

Well, I won't switch back to 5.13 right now since 5.11 is working just fine, but anyway, people that had performance issues are using a newer generation video card (I believe that although on the same package, each card family has your own driver).

But anyway, switching back to 5.11 didn't solved my issue immediately, the real change was changing the LFS settings.


And I'm using the CCC version of all drivers since it was released, but again, this wasn't the issue, since I've been using them for a long time, even before I noted the performance drop.

Now I think I've solved


I noted that on patch L I was using the "clr+sky" screen clear method (don't know if it was the default method on that patch) and on patch P and Q I was using "ellipsoid". When I changed on patch Q it for clr+sky, I got a very nice performance boost (more than 10 fps instantly, and on some sections of the track, got more than 25fps more).


I tried to look if there are image quality differences between those two methods, but I didn't noticed immediately. I can't tell if there is a difference at all, but if there is a difference it's minimal.


So, for now, I think that I solved my issue changing the screen clear method. I will some more testing just to be sure that it was it.



[editing before posting]

Well, just did a test on KY1 with FO8, watching a replay from my pb hotlap. With ellipsoid method, I got 70-78 fps, with clr+sky method, got 92-116 fps (what is a huge difference). So I can consider my issue solved.


BTW, what are the differences between those two methods that could lead to a such performance drop without an apparent better image quality ?


And thanks LFS devs for the lightning fast answer for my private message

Last edited by Mogar, Wed 4 Jan 2006, 20:13.

Installed the 5.11 drivers, and got the same performance, so again, it WASN'T a issue with 5.12 and 5.13 drivers.


I will PM a moderator to change the title of the topic



Just tried a lap on patch L, and the performance was 78fps minimum and 113fps maximum (versus 58fps min and 83 max that I get on patch P) on same conditions (same settings inside lfs, same settings for video card, a lap on BL with XRT on hotlap mode). But I did a test with minimum sleep (on patch L, testing 0ms and 1ms), and while it affected the performance, the performance drop was very small (like 3-5 fps). So it looks like it's not a issue with minimum sleep, but a performance drop on patch P (and Q also, since I didn't noted a performance difference between them).

Last edited by Mogar, Wed 4 Jan 2006, 19:33.

Quote from herki :

there is a own thread about the poor performance of the 5.12/5.13 catalyst drivers, you should downgrade them to the 5.11 or (the better way) the omega drivers

thread: http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=3639

If you have read my original post, you will see that I was using the 5.11 drivers before I decided to format my hd.


Anyway, I'll give a try, but as far as I know, those issues with catalyst 5.12 and 5.13 are far different from mine. Ppl having issue with latest drivers don't use the same video card than me (this make a difference although they are on a single driver pack), and they are having performance like 15-20 fps, and not like me.

So, my issue is [r]NOT[/r] solved. I will try to switch drivers to 5.11, but since it WASN'T working before, i doubt that it will work this time.


Please be careful before editing the thread's title.

tried disabling sound, but without results.... and disabling all filtering (AA and AF) resulted on a very small gain in performance.. so it doesn't look like a video card problem.

well, timings and clocks for memory were checked, and the benchmark results that I got were pretty consistent with the reference numbers, so it doesn't look like I have a performance problem on my pc.


about eax drivers, that I simply don't know because I use the on-board sound (my motherboard has soundstorm), and I'm not familiar with tweaks for it. Anyway, I've double checked and I have no dsp effects being applied, and it's set as 2 channels only (I use headphones). However I will check if without sound LFS runs faster.


about video drivers, I'm using catalyst 5.13 right now, and since ATI released those drivers with control center, I've been using it. I will do some testing, but I remember that my pc has always been affected with minimum sleep settings in all versions of S2 (except for patch P and Q that I didn't test anything higher than 2ms).


And this performance that I said that I'm having is on hotlapping, so I'm alone on the track and not connected with LFSworld.

I did some benckmarking using Sisoftware Sandra and 3dMark2005, and the numbers that I got were normal for my system, so I believe that it's something only related to LFS.


Anyway, Merry Christmas for all !

this kind of texture blurring is usually due to lack of anisotropic filtering..... maybe you were using it before and didn't even noticed.


I recommend strongly to use anisotropic filtering, since your pc will unlikely be affected on performance, but you will get a nice boost in image quality

Hi folks,


I'm having some performance issues with LFS on my pc.

It's an Athlon 3200+ with Asus A7N8X-E deluxe motherboard (nforce 2 chipset with soundstorm), 512mb pc3200 ram (timings 2.5-3-3-6) and a Radeon 9800 non-pro 128mb


I'm using the latest drivers, but for a long time I've having low performance, since minimum sleep was forced to 1ms in LFS (don't remember exactly witch patch forced that).

Even before, setting minimum sleep to 1ms instead 0ms, although solved some controller lag issues, dropped the performance significantly (although some users didn't have any performance drop doing this).


I run LFS on 1280x960 at 2x Anti Aliasing and 4x Anisotripic filtering, and driving alone on Blackwood (hotlapping) with all gfx options on max, I get a performance that is between 58 (lowest) and 83fps (highest). I remember that with minimum sleep to 0ms I could do a whole lap using v-sync and sticking to 85fps (I'm not using v-sync nor frame rate limiter right now).


I think that this performance is pretty low on this system, specially if you consider the conditions and the system that is running lfs. On on-line races, the performance is significantly lower than off line (of course), what is not good specially on starts with full grid.



Just to be sure, I formatted my pc installed the latest drivers (even updated the motherboard bios) and windows xp updates, and still got the same performance, and I already tested another driver version for the video card, without results.



Don't know if it's a bug with my setup, but I think that I had to get a better performance on my pc.

Since this looks like "the complaining thread", I will do mine...


What is making me loose interest on LFS is that each day, more and more physics bugs are being exploited in order to do fast laps.



I noticed that some WR laps are done with locked differential. This wasn't new with FWD cars, but now some are using even on RWD cars. I'm still going to see ANY real car with locked differential on track, even for qualify. It just doesn't make sense, but it's more effective on LFS.


The aero bug was already making me avoid driving the downforce cars, then the fixed diferential on FWD even on races, and now fixed diferential on RWD ? And not only XRT, but the I've already seen VERY fast setup for XRR with locked diferential.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Agreed Mogar. If Scawen has a window open to write a progress report (be it in Notepad, or Firefox), please DON'T close it until you've finished writing. Dinner/Sex/Kitchen work can wait

He could post some progress report about his kitchen, since it IS relevant to the LFS progress (since the LFS progress depends on the kitchen progress), but for the sex progress report, well, this one I don't think it's necessary... ehheheheheheheh

A little back on the topic, I believe that a monthly progress report would calm down some folks here. I personally miss those reports because they give the impression that you are really working on the project, and give us imagination to wonder how the next patch of LFS will be.


I'm not exactly asking for periodic progress reports, but they were cool when we had.

Well, I see that some users here really get angry when someone points a flaw on LFS.


I hope that the devs don't take things on this way. Everyone should be opened for other ppl comments. I'm not talking about who wants NOS on LFS or some other ridiculous stuff, but we have to recognize that LFS has still some flaws.

Ok that those flaws don't prevent making LFS one of the best simulators out there, and we now that the devs WILL solve some of them (under S2 scope at least) because they've a enough background that make us to trust them, but we can't be blind about problems, nor flame who points a flaw on LFS.


There are several hardcore LFS fans here (I am a LFS fan, although not hardcore, but it's the only racing simulator that I have on my computer since I downloaded S1a demo), that have maybe a too strong atitude supporting LFS, but those shouldn't make ppl that wants to contribute someway and wants a better product go away from the forum, or else, the devs will only have feedback from the hardcore fans, and this kind of feedback is dangerous IMO.

Quote from Breizh :

Just not listening.

You guys oughta schedule a business meeting with the devs.

Hey, don't compare us to Delerue.


I'm not here for flaming LFS. I just expressed MY opinion (what I think that the forum allow me to do), and if you read my reply. I'm saying that LFS IS good, but not perfect.

I think that most of those complains are because several language related patches were released, when most of the problem with lfs weren't language support, but some few physics bugs that sometimes are annoying. Language support is more a cherry on the top of the cake than a real need.


IMO, sound and graphics improvements would be good, but they are not needed right now, but what we need is to get those annoying aero bugs sorted as soon as possible (and some bugs related with penalties that I don't know if it was already reported, about drive through penalty assinged by an admin that when paid not always it's recoginized as paid, but that's a subject for another topic), and we can wait a bit more for the other improvements.



And I also think that this rush for improvements is due to the fact that we already have a great base (the immersion that it provides is just great, we can feel connected to the car so much in a way that no other simulator gives, that we in Brazil call it the "LFSsensation" ), and LFS have potential to be the best simulator by a far margin. We really hope that LFS achieve that.

I like to drive the GTR class cars, but the aerodynamics bugs just kill the fun of the races. Specially the slipstream bug (it's simply too exagerated on GTR cars, you can see on real races drivers going much closer than you can in LFS, on LFS you need to be too far from the car in front of you or else you loose a lot of grip and spin).


So, we on brazilian league decided to go with the TBO cars for our first championship, and we had some very nice fights for positions on the first races.

I like to drive the LX cars. They are tricky to be fast.


Unfortunately I'm very bad on setting up a car, so I didn't find yet a good balance for the lx cars for S2, but they are way easier than in S1....


A lot of people prefer to drive the downforce cars on LFS. I actually prefer to drive the non-downforce cars while the aerodinamics are so limited ( the cars loose grip way too much on slipstream, slipstream is exagerated, and the undertray bug on long straight tracks).

Great work !

I wish I had space in home to do that.... But I have to use my wheel on that kind of "ready for pc" tables, with a tray for keyboard and mouse, and I have to install the wheel on the tray, with the wheel very close from my legs. And you can imagine what can happen if I'm not on proper position and do a snap counter-steering........... that hurts...

Also with the FFB the whole tray shakes, but it's the only way I can use it. My 19" crt don't let me to install the wheel on the part done for it.

Well, I think that keyboard is not the way to go on lfs.. Even on the days of assisted steering on keyboard I quit this kind of controller because I was not satisfied with the reactions sometimes when I went through the curbs. Then I discovered that my setups had very big issues that would make them undriveable on other controller methods.

I don't support bringing back the old system, and it's not related with the fact that I use a wheel today. I think that it was unfair with some mouse drivers, and the old kb system don't make you to use actual driving techniques.

But mouse is a very competitive way. I've played lfs with mouse for a long period on S1 days, and could even fight for some world records using that. My teammate Carlos uses mouse and he is a very fast driver.


The advantage of mouse over keyboard is that mouse lets you to use actual driving techniques, so most part of the problem is to know actual driving techniques. Other part of the problem (imo) is to have a fast computer in order to get a fast visual feedback of the virtual wheel as a feedback of the mouse position.


Imo, the best view for mouse drivers is the cockpit view, because the virtual wheel is much more precise than that curved bar that you get on other views as a feedback of the mouse position. Since the virtual wheel is more precise and is nearer from the viewing point, I think that it should always be used.



As any other controller, mouse takes time to master. My FPS game days helped me a lot on having a precise mouse control, so I took about 1 and 1/2 week to be on par with my keyboard laps (on the assisted steering days). Actually I took much more time to be able to be fast with my wheel than I got to be fast with mouse.


And everyone can afford a good quality mouse, so I don't think that it's an excuse. Also every computer have a mouse, so it can't be used as an excuse too.

Last edited by Mogar, Thu 6 Oct 2005, 13:33.

Well, the cars on Brazilian stock car championship have about 450hp and 1200kg, and their speed at the end of main straight on Interlagos track (where F1 takes place on Brazil, a track with tight curves but very long straights) is around 240km/h, so I think that the final speed of the GTR class cars (except FXR) is pretty on par with reality