He's clearly complaining about the lack of development. No weather changes, no rally pack, the Scirocco aint all that, only a little bit (updates? news?) per year.
You're fighting a brick wall with a toothpick here, there's no way they'll change. Both ways of doing this (with or without SCs) have their followers, and NDR is definitely for it. Trust me, they've been doing it for a while and are pretty good at it (even if some racers aren't good at dealing with it), either race and accept it or don't and find something that suits your tastes better.
On that site it says 13 configurations, are there really that many unique paths? Anyone know what the other 6 are?
More than likely skill of the driver and quality of the setup, among other things
Many many moons ago it was said that besides the Scirocco there would be another car on S3's launch. For a time it was rumored to be the Audi R10 (or was that R15?) and that still may be the case, but nothing beyond the fact that it'll be Scirocco + 1 car has been confirmed.
Don't get your hopes up, it's not the Rockingham track that's holding up S3's release.
Well there may be only 3 servers a day with a full grid, but there are dozens more that will have 10+ at some point during the day. It's only during the middle of the night (east coast USA) that it's a graveyard. There may be 2-4 servers with any racing going on at all, and its like 6 drivers max.
Go ahead and get the full game, you'll be able to get more than enough out of it for it to be worth it.
I'm just gonna assume that said banana since the post is gone.
I'm talking about what I know, and what people asking for multithreading, Patch Z28. Victor (would be interesting to read that quote if you could paste it here) maybe is talking about what Scawen has behind closed doors? I dunno how you can expect me to be talking about a version of LFS that isn't public if that is indeed what you're talking about with the quote.
Edit: Either way it doesn't much matter, Scawen either will or he wont rewrite stuff to make it multi-threaded, would be nice if LFS got complex enough physics to necessitate MT, I'm sure we can all agree to that (except a handful who have 7 year old computers
)The only reason I brought all this up in the first place is it seems like people are asking for it simply because it's a newer technology, not because LFS actually needs it. Maybe someday it will need it and this discussion will be moot.
Last edited by pik_d, .
Well I tried this from the back of a grid at SO4R in GTAL, the lowest my FPS ever goes is 48. This is with all the graphical options in LFS set as high as they can go, and with vsync turned off now. Maybe something is wrong with troy's setup if he's getting as low as 25.
Look at my first post in this thread: http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=1573560#post1573560. I say that I don't think LFS as-is needs multi-threading. People ask for it without anything else attached, like "I wish LFS had multi-threading and support for better physics and this and that and the other thing". They ask for multi-threading by itself as if it'll make LFS better without tons of other stuff being implemented.
Of course I would love for the physics to improve, actual realistic crash damage, higher poly-count tracks/cars, and tons of other things that would make multi-threading a means to those ends.
That may be ST vs. MT or it may just be needing to aggressively optimize for lower end computers regardless of thread count.
Just because something is DX8 doesn't mean integrated graphics is powerful enough to handle it. There's many cars that support a certain DX# but cry when they try to run a game with it.
And check out the link in Gener_AL (UK)'s post, it shows that resolution doesn't change FPS with a graphics card about as good as S14's.
I started the race for our team in SO4R in GTAL 2010, starting about midpack and don't recall any slowdowns. I will test again this evening though just to be sure (and also watch from last on the grid).
The Q6600 is quite literally two E6600 cores on the same die. The Q6600 has 2x4MB of L2 cache but each core can only access its associated 4MB, so performance there will be exactly the same as an E6600 under ideal conditions. I think the Q6600 will have a slight advantage of background tasks are being computed on one of the cores not sharing the 4MB with the LFS core, but that's it.
That review by Eza is really nice, and does look like I am mistaken in theory. In most of his tests (from 2.5 year old computers) the minimum fps was about ~55 (low end) and 70-80fps (high end, of 2.5 year old computers). Hardly any need for multithreading there.
The Q6600 is quite literally two E6600 cores on the same die. The Q6600 has 2x4MB of L2 cache but each core can only access its associated 4MB, so performance there will be exactly the same as an E6600 under ideal conditions. I think the Q6600 will have a slight advantage of background tasks are being computed on one of the cores not sharing the 4MB with the LFS core, but that's it.
That review by Eza is really nice, and does look like I am mistaken in theory. In most of his tests (from 2.5 year old computers) the minimum fps was about ~55 (low end) and 70-80fps (high end, of 2.5 year old computers). Hardly any need for multithreading there.
Last edited by pik_d, .
Well your single used core is better than mine, your GPU is better than mine (8800 GTS 512), I'll guess your resolution is higher than mine (1440x900)? If that's the case then again, it's a graphics issue, not a CPU issue.
Also I would think adding more cars to be drawn (especially standing on a starting grids when there's not much physics to be calculated) would ask more of the graphics card than the CPU. I could be wrong though.
Edit: Don't get me wrong, multithreading would be welcome, as it would allow more CPU intense stuff to be added to the game, I just don't think it will make much of a difference if nothing else changed.
Last edited by pik_d, .
They could have predicted that 3 months ago, that's just how Malaysia works.
Something isn't right with that because my Q6600 (same on a per-core basis) at the stock 2.4GHz never has any issues. I leave vsync on to reduce tearing and it never deviates from 60fps even with a full grid. Without knowing the rest of your system though it's hard to say what the issue might be.
And as soon as you give it multithreading any integrated graphics in a netbook will bottleneck just as hard as a 1GHz CPU. Sorry but that setup just wont game with any decent FPS no matter what.
If this is really your computer try something. Run a replay file at native resolution and then again at the lowest resolution you can make it run without changing any other settings. If there's any difference in framerate then it's the integrated graphics holding it back and multithreading wont do jack. If the framerate is 4fps in both tests then multithreading will give you at max 8fps which still looks like a slideshow.
The community as a whole does not see a host that mimics the name of another host as legitimate. You're the terrorist here, no one has any sympathy toward you. Thanks for making yourself look like a massive tool on the forums as well as the server list.
What :| Maybe post the original Russian so someone bilingual can translate properly.
Google translated
Что? : | Может быть, после оригинальной русской так кто-то двуязычного можете перевести правильно.
It's almost as if you didn't even read my posts.
Pretty sure you're missing the point of him asking for his stuff to be reset, he didn't want it saved.
Either way it is painfully obvious that he has driven more miles/laps than his totals say. If you deny this you are deliberately ignoring facts. Who cares if the PDF has huge spacing issues, and why would Victor (assuming him because it's a LFSW thing) use a header? It's a 3 man team not a corporation.
But yes, that conversation is over, you were wrong about something and it's annoying for people who haven't driven much to ask for new content, nothing changes.
Pretty sure you're missing the point of him asking for his stuff to be reset, he didn't want it saved.
Either way it is painfully obvious that he has driven more miles/laps than his totals say. If you deny this you are deliberately ignoring facts. Who cares if the PDF has huge spacing issues, and why would Victor (assuming him because it's a LFSW thing) use a header? It's a 3 man team not a corporation.
But yes, that conversation is over, you were wrong about something and it's annoying for people who haven't driven much to ask for new content, nothing changes.
Don't be thick dadge, his stats were clearly reset. His total laps says 1508 while if you add up all his BL1 laps its 2272. The stat reset can't just erase him from races because that would mess up other peoples stats. And it looks like it can't delete the number of laps driven on a combo by combo basis either for whatever reason. I've got a feeling if you added up only the laps for the combos that he has a time for it would equal 1508, but I can't be bothered to do that and I doubt you can either
I'm only asking this because I'm curious. In your stats it has a bunch of blanks for the lap times, but it still has a # of laps driven. For other drivers it has grayed out lap times to indicate that the lap was set on an old patch with old physics. For your stuff, did they actually delete everything, or did it still list # of laps immediately after they deleted all the lap times and stuff?
EDIT: actually looking at it closer that must be what it is. It says you've done 1508 laps total but if you add up just your BL1 laps (including those with blank times) it comes to 2272.
Last edited by pik_d, .
I am curious though, how many turns do you label in AS4/5/6?
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG