Eric does want to update the interiors. It's obviously important. It's not as high a priority as finishing the tracks, because they don't have any particular problems with shadows.
The existing tracks have issues with the new shadow system because some geometry needs to be rebuilt to cast shadows correctly. Basically if they can be viewed properly from above then the shadows cast properly. But some tracks are so old there are buildings without a roof, and single sided geometry that looks wrong in the new system. There's also the new lighting system and the tracks can be improved to take advantage of that, e.g. shine on surfaces.
That means we can't release the new graphics until all the tracks are updated. The cars don't have this problem so they aren't as high priority. It's not a matter of opinion, it's just logic.
The existing tracks have issues with the new shadow system because some geometry needs to be rebuilt to cast shadows correctly. Basically if they can be viewed properly from above then the shadows cast properly. But some tracks are so old there are buildings without a roof, and single sided geometry that looks wrong in the new system. There's also the new lighting system and the tracks can be improved to take advantage of that, e.g. shine on surfaces.
That means we can't release the new graphics until all the tracks are updated. The cars don't have this problem so they aren't as high priority. It's not a matter of opinion, it's just logic.
Yes, you can blame me for the UF, not Eric.
November Progress Report
Hello Racers,
We have decided not to do a graphics progress report this month.
On Eric's side, things are going well as you have seen in the progress reports. But it does take a while because of the level of detail. There are still two tracks to update after he finishes the one he is currently on. We plan to show you some more pictures in December.
On my side I was working on sharing the lighting between tracks, but recently got diverted onto improving the sharpness of the text for the interface which then led to sharper dashboards and number plates. I was aware that it wasn't really necessary for the release, but I got an idea for a slight improvement that would take "a couple of days" and ended up doing a few weeks' work because of the improvements it led to.
Some people might be interested to know how one thing leads to another and can cause apparent delays in development. Warning: Technical details in the following paragraph! Feel free to skip to the before and after screenshots!
In fact this started from an improvement in the editor. Recently I had removed the software-based render for ambient lighting so now the images for the ambient lighting are rendered on the graphics card. After that update, which was important to help improve the graphics, there were just a few software-based drawing functions remaining. They include the editor text and guide lines, which were drawn by locking the back buffer and setting pixels directly. I converted these functions to use the graphics card's version of line drawing and the texture-based text as used in game. This finally allowed anti-aliasing to be used in the track editor which is helpful for Eric. But it did require some improvements in the accuracy of the in-game text. I decided to go through the font characters, thinning them a little, which took a couple of days once I had been through all the Latin, Greek and Cyrillic characters. Then I realised some of the character drawing wasn't really under control and I went through making sure it all made sense and upgraded the resolution a bit. This included visiting all places in the code where text was drawn, including the dashboards, so I doubled their resolution while I was at it. Also I noticed the number plates were looking quite bad so their resolution has been doubled as well along with more accurate text positioning. One more thing I implemented was "kerning" which is when you move some characters closer together for visual reasons. For example a classic case is A followed by V. The gap looks too big unless the characters are moved together. I had added a small tail onto the small L and this was causing a particularly bad gap between the l and t in "multiplayer" so I finally succumbed to the temptation of implementing kerning which I had wanted to do for years.
Here are some comparison shots to demonstrate some of the improvements.
We have decided not to do a graphics progress report this month.
On Eric's side, things are going well as you have seen in the progress reports. But it does take a while because of the level of detail. There are still two tracks to update after he finishes the one he is currently on. We plan to show you some more pictures in December.
On my side I was working on sharing the lighting between tracks, but recently got diverted onto improving the sharpness of the text for the interface which then led to sharper dashboards and number plates. I was aware that it wasn't really necessary for the release, but I got an idea for a slight improvement that would take "a couple of days" and ended up doing a few weeks' work because of the improvements it led to.
Some people might be interested to know how one thing leads to another and can cause apparent delays in development. Warning: Technical details in the following paragraph! Feel free to skip to the before and after screenshots!
In fact this started from an improvement in the editor. Recently I had removed the software-based render for ambient lighting so now the images for the ambient lighting are rendered on the graphics card. After that update, which was important to help improve the graphics, there were just a few software-based drawing functions remaining. They include the editor text and guide lines, which were drawn by locking the back buffer and setting pixels directly. I converted these functions to use the graphics card's version of line drawing and the texture-based text as used in game. This finally allowed anti-aliasing to be used in the track editor which is helpful for Eric. But it did require some improvements in the accuracy of the in-game text. I decided to go through the font characters, thinning them a little, which took a couple of days once I had been through all the Latin, Greek and Cyrillic characters. Then I realised some of the character drawing wasn't really under control and I went through making sure it all made sense and upgraded the resolution a bit. This included visiting all places in the code where text was drawn, including the dashboards, so I doubled their resolution while I was at it. Also I noticed the number plates were looking quite bad so their resolution has been doubled as well along with more accurate text positioning. One more thing I implemented was "kerning" which is when you move some characters closer together for visual reasons. For example a classic case is A followed by V. The gap looks too big unless the characters are moved together. I had added a small tail onto the small L and this was causing a particularly bad gap between the l and t in "multiplayer" so I finally succumbed to the temptation of implementing kerning which I had wanted to do for years.
Here are some comparison shots to demonstrate some of the improvements.
Yeah I know what you mean, I see those roads too and wish I could drive on them.
There are similar things at Blackwood. I don't know what the future holds for the external roads. I know Eric enjoyed doing that massive update at Westhill but it takes so long to do the main racing areas, there isn't really time at this point.
The trouble is all the tracks must be updated for us to be able to release the new graphical system at all. To do all the external roads can add months per track.
I hope some tracks might get a sort of Westhill treatment one day but I'm guessing it might be more important to do some car models first and then it might be time to add a new track. I'm just making this up though and this sort of prediction is usually wrong!
There are similar things at Blackwood. I don't know what the future holds for the external roads. I know Eric enjoyed doing that massive update at Westhill but it takes so long to do the main racing areas, there isn't really time at this point.
The trouble is all the tracks must be updated for us to be able to release the new graphical system at all. To do all the external roads can add months per track.
I hope some tracks might get a sort of Westhill treatment one day but I'm guessing it might be more important to do some car models first and then it might be time to add a new track. I'm just making this up though and this sort of prediction is usually wrong!
Graphics Progress Report: Aston
Hello Racers,
In the August and September progress reports we talked about the new shadows and lighting system and showed pictures of the updates on the Blackwood and Rockingham tracks. All our tracks must be updated to use the new lighting system and some older tracks need more changes to bring them up to date. Aston is one of them and is the subject of this month's report. Eric has made various adjustments to the track and tightened some of the bends while keeping the original flow. We hope you enjoy the pictures!
Aston screenshots: https://www.lfs.net/report-oct2018-as
NOTE: For comparison shots, Aston has been raised by 2 metres so 131072 must be subtracted from the Z coordinate.
In the August and September progress reports we talked about the new shadows and lighting system and showed pictures of the updates on the Blackwood and Rockingham tracks. All our tracks must be updated to use the new lighting system and some older tracks need more changes to bring them up to date. Aston is one of them and is the subject of this month's report. Eric has made various adjustments to the track and tightened some of the bends while keeping the original flow. We hope you enjoy the pictures!
Aston screenshots: https://www.lfs.net/report-oct2018-as
NOTE: For comparison shots, Aston has been raised by 2 metres so 131072 must be subtracted from the Z coordinate.
Thanks! I need to remember that every time someone asks the same question, for each of them it was the first time!
I do know what you mean that although the cars don't look any worse than before, and in fact look better now with the self-shadowing and improved lighting, they can start to stick out when everything around them is up to a more modern standard.
Anyway I am sure that Eric is very keen to update cars when the tracks are done. I believe he could update some of them and we could do another patch some time after the tracks release. It shouldn't be necessary to update all cars at once. Ideally the oldest ones would be done first. But I'm not saying that's what will happen, because it depends what comes up and what seems to be the best thing to do at the time.
I keep getting that question.
It somehow seems a bit of an annoying question, because it is quite obvious that many of the cars need to be updated (have a look at the RB4 for the most extreme example) but we are on the tracks at the moment. There is only one Eric. He does one thing and then another. Not both at the same time. It is obvious that he would not have failed to notice that the cars and drivers could do with an update.
What I do keep saying, every time I get this question, is that the tracks MUST be updated before we can do a release of the new graphical system, because with the new system, the graphics and shadows are broken unless the tracks are updated. So if we released now, you would have a game full of bugs. But the cars are no worse than they were before. Therefore they do not stop us doing a release.
This means, the cars have a lower priority than the tracks. There is no reason to delay the release by several more months in order to update all the cars. It is a separate subject, though it is quite obvious that they need an update.
It somehow seems a bit of an annoying question, because it is quite obvious that many of the cars need to be updated (have a look at the RB4 for the most extreme example) but we are on the tracks at the moment. There is only one Eric. He does one thing and then another. Not both at the same time. It is obvious that he would not have failed to notice that the cars and drivers could do with an update.
What I do keep saying, every time I get this question, is that the tracks MUST be updated before we can do a release of the new graphical system, because with the new system, the graphics and shadows are broken unless the tracks are updated. So if we released now, you would have a game full of bugs. But the cars are no worse than they were before. Therefore they do not stop us doing a release.
This means, the cars have a lower priority than the tracks. There is no reason to delay the release by several more months in order to update all the cars. It is a separate subject, though it is quite obvious that they need an update.
Last edited by Scawen, .
Reason : stay calm
Obviously I'm not just sitting here waiting for Eric to finish the tracks. I'm working very hard every day on all the things that need to be done, and I believe that once a month I might be able to think of one or two interesting things to say, maybe something I thought of or something I've been working on.
I'm just saying, although each progress report will be mainly some pictures of a track, I should hope to add a few words about something else, occasionally.
I'm just saying, although each progress report will be mainly some pictures of a track, I should hope to add a few words about something else, occasionally.
When we load an old track into the new lighting system, it does an auto adjustment for the light colour to try and look as close as possible to how it did before, though it does look a bit different because of the gamma corrected lighting. In most cases that is a better look, even without any manual adjustments.
But the new lighting system cannot be released with tracks in that condition, mainly because the shadows don't work properly with all the buildings. Some of them were built long ago when there was no free view mode and they would only be seen from track level. In those days we saved polygons and a bit of work by not always bothering with a roof. Now it turns out that doesn't work with the shadow system. The shadows are only cast from surfaces that are seen from the sun's direction. So every object needs a top surface. For example South City looks good with the shadows, but there are many places where the shadow is missing or there are various shards of shadows around.
So that means every track must be visited to do some fixes. The next thing is that we have shine on roads on some tracks now, and it would be quite inconsistent if there isn't any shine effect on road surfaces at another track, so it always makes sense for Eric to go and sort that out. But he is not comfortable with just updating a few textures here and there on an old track. He wants to do a better job, updating barriers and walls to have the right shine effect too. Then he sees old construction methods and things he wants to do a better way. Also he sees corners that need some adjustment, maybe they were too wide or there isn't enough detail or it's a corner that has caused problems while racing over the years. Sometimes things can be improved a bit for the open configuration support as most tracks were built before we had that system. All these things add up so he ends up doing at least several weeks on each track.
I think most of the questions in the thread have been answered by other readers.
Usually the specular reflections are not coloured. So I suppose that is a specular workflow though I'm not really sure about the terminology. Currently we do not have control of specular colour per pixel. A specular colour can be set for a whole surface and that can be used for a metallic effect (or another kind of coloured reflection, for example a window covered with a film of coloured transparent plastic).
I'm not really sure what a specular factor or a specular power is, but the BRDF naturally reduces the brightness of the shine and increases the spread if the roughness is increased.
Our shaders are using an approximation to a Cook Torrance BRDF with optimisations discussed by various authors. After quite a bit of experimentation we came to one that Eric was happy with and felt he had enough control over to get most of the effects he needed.
I was forced to implement fog in the shaders when I needed to move to shader model 3 and it doesn't do fog otherwise. So I went for exponential fog. It's nice because it allows fog to have some effect in the middle distance without reducing far distance pixels to 100% fog colour.
The layouts at Autocross should be compatible, though some of the areas are a few metres wider. So some changes at the edges may be needed.
At Aston there are quite a few adjustments, various corners have been improved, tightened up a bit in some cases, but most things are pretty much in the same place so I believe most layouts should work with a few adjustments.
I think I should be able to make old Aston layouts load with the extra 2 metres added automatically.
Usually the specular reflections are not coloured. So I suppose that is a specular workflow though I'm not really sure about the terminology. Currently we do not have control of specular colour per pixel. A specular colour can be set for a whole surface and that can be used for a metallic effect (or another kind of coloured reflection, for example a window covered with a film of coloured transparent plastic).
I'm not really sure what a specular factor or a specular power is, but the BRDF naturally reduces the brightness of the shine and increases the spread if the roughness is increased.
Our shaders are using an approximation to a Cook Torrance BRDF with optimisations discussed by various authors. After quite a bit of experimentation we came to one that Eric was happy with and felt he had enough control over to get most of the effects he needed.
I was forced to implement fog in the shaders when I needed to move to shader model 3 and it doesn't do fog otherwise. So I went for exponential fog. It's nice because it allows fog to have some effect in the middle distance without reducing far distance pixels to 100% fog colour.
The layouts at Autocross should be compatible, though some of the areas are a few metres wider. So some changes at the edges may be needed.
At Aston there are quite a few adjustments, various corners have been improved, tightened up a bit in some cases, but most things are pretty much in the same place so I believe most layouts should work with a few adjustments.
I think I should be able to make old Aston layouts load with the extra 2 metres added automatically.
It's a good question. If I can get the graphics ready to a condition that is suitable for this release and could then get back on the physics so that is suitable in time for Eric to have finished the tracks, then this opens the possibility of working on separate physics and graphics threads. That would be a great help and the plan would be to combine this with some means of producing visual frames at the correct visual frequency for the monitor. That would either be by using a high frequency physics update that can be interrupted at any point for a graphical frame, or by using a lower frequency physics update that can be interpolated to produce graphical frames.
Obviously the graphics needs to be done then that would make it releasable, even with the current physics and it's possible this may happen. But I really hope I can sort out the new physics so we can move on.
Yes!
We want to show some nice pictures. We noticed some flaws and thought I might as well work on them. It's a way to get things done. It's part of the development process, in just the same was that it was a good thing that Eric took a few days off the track he is currently on, to go over the already updated tracks to fix a few things.
It's a good thing that we are brushing up our work for the screenshots, not a bad thing!
I mentioned in the first post of this thread that we planned to release images of the graphical updates this month. Since then we have been brushing up the existing updates to be ready to make some screenshots.
It has been a useful process as Eric visited the already updated tracks to fix remaining issues, while I got back into looking around the tracks and noticing things I could fix.
As we looked around with our thoughts on the screenshots, we noticed there are things I should work on to improve the screenshots. I will do some of those. So as it turns out our plan has changed a bit to release screenshots in August rather than July.
I wanted to tell you about that change of plan. Also I can say a a few more words about what we are doing and why.
The new shadow system requires an update of every track before we can release it. Some scenery objects were not built in a way that works properly with the shadow maps. For example, every building must have a roof so that shadows are cast correctly. Some of the tracks were built so long ago that they were never designed to be viewed from above. At that time there was no real Free View mode, so things like that were invisible. It's an opportunity to visit every track and bring them up to date, also making the roads and a lot of other scenery make use of the specular reflections, 3D kerbs, better scaled scenery, improvements on some corners and so on. There will not be a "full Westhill" job done on every track. Some tracks will change more than others. We need to remain focussed on getting the updates done, not letting the job expand out of hand, although it is fun doing so many updates. We look forward to showing you some screenshots in August.
It has been a useful process as Eric visited the already updated tracks to fix remaining issues, while I got back into looking around the tracks and noticing things I could fix.
As we looked around with our thoughts on the screenshots, we noticed there are things I should work on to improve the screenshots. I will do some of those. So as it turns out our plan has changed a bit to release screenshots in August rather than July.
I wanted to tell you about that change of plan. Also I can say a a few more words about what we are doing and why.
The new shadow system requires an update of every track before we can release it. Some scenery objects were not built in a way that works properly with the shadow maps. For example, every building must have a roof so that shadows are cast correctly. Some of the tracks were built so long ago that they were never designed to be viewed from above. At that time there was no real Free View mode, so things like that were invisible. It's an opportunity to visit every track and bring them up to date, also making the roads and a lot of other scenery make use of the specular reflections, 3D kerbs, better scaled scenery, improvements on some corners and so on. There will not be a "full Westhill" job done on every track. Some tracks will change more than others. We need to remain focussed on getting the updates done, not letting the job expand out of hand, although it is fun doing so many updates. We look forward to showing you some screenshots in August.
We don't have any predictions for other things. The graphical updates are really important and I still have some more work to do on them. Eric still has some tracks to update. Depending on the timing, maybe I can get the tyre physics updated to a good state in time for the graphical update, although it is possible to release the new graphics with the old tyre physics. The long awaited tyre physics update is also really important because we'll be able to move into the future and consider car updates and so on. We'll see how the timing works out.
We are working on new things. This test patch is something I was forced to work on due to the attacks in April. I added some autocross and InSim updates while we were at it.
A couple of weeks after the release of this full version, we plan to show some images of the new track updates Eric has been working on using the new graphics system which supports specular lighting and a new shadow system.
Hi there. Sorry about the long delay. It's nothing exciting. There were some more possible developments for the test patch, but they were not very interesting and other things came up. At this point we've decided not to go on working on the test patch. Better to release it as a full version and I can go on developing for the new version that Eric has been continuing to work on.
For the test patch, I did add the key to temporarily hide the object outlines. I went with ALT. CTRL+SHIFT seemed to interfere with other things and was confusing. I expect to release this minor test patch update in a few hours.
For the test patch, I did add the key to temporarily hide the object outlines. I went with ALT. CTRL+SHIFT seemed to interfere with other things and was confusing. I expect to release this minor test patch update in a few hours.
We are getting very near to the end of this series of test patches now as I must get back to the real stuff I have been working until interrupted by the attacks.
I'll have a look at this, which is almost a bug, and see if I can implement those sub-mode states mentioned in your other post.
In the new graphics system that Eric is using to update the tracks, we have textures that use the alpha channel to control the shine level. So that would seem like a nice thing to consider on skins of the future but definitely not in this version.
You can press CTRL+C if you want to copy the objects.
Why this is, I have tried to explain in a special thread: https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/92152
I'll have a look at this, which is almost a bug, and see if I can implement those sub-mode states mentioned in your other post.
In the new graphics system that Eric is using to update the tracks, we have textures that use the alpha channel to control the shine level. So that would seem like a nice thing to consider on skins of the future but definitely not in this version.
You can press CTRL+C if you want to copy the objects.
Why this is, I have tried to explain in a special thread: https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/92152
CTRL + right click to copy a colour
SHIFT + right click to paste a colour
The shadows are all done a very good way in the new version I am working on, but it is totally impossible to update the public version with the new shadows. Eric is working on all the tracks to get them working with the new shadows. It's the thing I am trying to get back to.
I don't expect we will do that until nearer the time when we have some idea of when it will be ready. Otherwise we will be heavily attacked for hype and it will not be fun at all. I know that most people don't do this but some do and then there is bad feeling and it all gets ugly and demoralising. At the moment we are working very hard and that is the main thing.
EDIT: If you'd like to imagine what it looks like, it's the same LFS but with better lighting, shadows and nice subtle shine effects and updated textures on the roads and many other surfaces. Eric can now add specular effects and he is making good use of that.
EDIT: If you'd like to imagine what it looks like, it's the same LFS but with better lighting, shadows and nice subtle shine effects and updated textures on the roads and many other surfaces. Eric can now add specular effects and he is making good use of that.
Last edited by Scawen, .
I am still working on graphics code (mainly optimisations at the moment) and need to get onto the tyre physics code and then the packet encryption. Eric still has more tracks to update. So it's still quite some time yet.
I use D3DSAMP_SRGBTEXTURE so we can use standard sRGB textures without needing to convert them in the pixel shader. Then all the processing internally is linear and finally the output is converted to sRGB using D3DRS_SRGBWRITEENABLE.
Yes there is still an offline render for the ambient lighting, but now it is a single offline ambient render shared between all lighting configurations. For anyone who doesn't know what I am talking about, this is the thing mainly concerned with sky lighting, so for example you can have two different places that are not lit by the sun, but one of them might be a lot darker than another because the sky is obscured.
See in the attached images, the first two have all direct (sun) lighting switched off. The first one is simply default ambient lighting without the offline render. The second one has the offline ambient render applied. Finally the realtime direct lighting and shadows are applied in the third image.
NOTE: This is the original South City track with the old textures and no specular lighting added. This is simply a plain conversion of the old South City into the new system and Eric hasn't had a go at it yet.
At the time, I believed the new tyre physics was about to be released and had done a significant amount of work in the new version. It was difficult to avoid clashes in the code because of the number of changes so I deleted the old code out, thinking it was finished other than any emergency patches.
If I had known at the time I would be going for over a decade with two versions, I would have taken a different approach.
Well, since you ask about the physics, I might as well say, although I am very well aware and should point out that plans may change.
I'm really working as hard as I can on the graphics but taking care not to go into mental fatigue. The reason is that Eric should have the best version to work with, so his work looks the same as it will end up.
To explain what I mean... for example, right now he doesn't have the new shadow code because really it needs to look right in the track editor, and the old shadows have disappeared at this point. But currently the shadows only work in game because it uses a special draw mode. So I need to make that draw mode work in the track editor. So there's the work for the week, as each time he moves an object it needs to update the object on the GPU so the shadows can appear.
What point am I making... well every graphical change has lead to repercussions, other things that should be updated to make the most of the new stuff. It's quite exciting and that's why I've been very motivated to do a lot of work recently.
Anyway, as some of you know, due to a separation in the code when the new tyre physics was to be released may years ago, there are two separate versions of LFS, the development version with the new tyre physics and the public version with the old tyre physics. The trouble is that updates (to graphics, interface, etc.) in each version need to be merged into the other version. It has been like a chain around my neck attached to an iron ball and one that I want to get rid of. At the moment there are just so many changes for the new graphics, it would be a bit of a nightmare to try and merge that into the public version. The only way to avoid that tedious merge now is to get the physics complete to a point where it is good enough to release. So the development version can be finally released to you and LFS will be back to a single version again.
So my intention is to keep on this graphics stuff as much as Eric needs right now, then get that physics suitable for release while he is finishing the remaining tracks.
That's how I see it right now, it's an exciting thought that LFS development could be kind of back on track again and that's why I am hoping to be able to do. But in reality as we have seen, there are sometimes unforeseen things that come up and change the plans. I hope it will all go as planned!
I'm really working as hard as I can on the graphics but taking care not to go into mental fatigue. The reason is that Eric should have the best version to work with, so his work looks the same as it will end up.
To explain what I mean... for example, right now he doesn't have the new shadow code because really it needs to look right in the track editor, and the old shadows have disappeared at this point. But currently the shadows only work in game because it uses a special draw mode. So I need to make that draw mode work in the track editor. So there's the work for the week, as each time he moves an object it needs to update the object on the GPU so the shadows can appear.
What point am I making... well every graphical change has lead to repercussions, other things that should be updated to make the most of the new stuff. It's quite exciting and that's why I've been very motivated to do a lot of work recently.
Anyway, as some of you know, due to a separation in the code when the new tyre physics was to be released may years ago, there are two separate versions of LFS, the development version with the new tyre physics and the public version with the old tyre physics. The trouble is that updates (to graphics, interface, etc.) in each version need to be merged into the other version. It has been like a chain around my neck attached to an iron ball and one that I want to get rid of. At the moment there are just so many changes for the new graphics, it would be a bit of a nightmare to try and merge that into the public version. The only way to avoid that tedious merge now is to get the physics complete to a point where it is good enough to release. So the development version can be finally released to you and LFS will be back to a single version again.
So my intention is to keep on this graphics stuff as much as Eric needs right now, then get that physics suitable for release while he is finishing the remaining tracks.
That's how I see it right now, it's an exciting thought that LFS development could be kind of back on track again and that's why I am hoping to be able to do. But in reality as we have seen, there are sometimes unforeseen things that come up and change the plans. I hope it will all go as planned!
Hi, thanks for the support in this thread and your patience.
I confirm this is a full time job for Eric and me. There were some quiet years due to life changes but I can tell you we are really on the case now.
In the past year I have made a lot of updates to the graphical systems and there is much better support for different types of specular reflection including the shine on the road. The shaders are completely rewritten and structured better now as over the past few years I have got to grips with shaders (that was first stimulated by the VR support).
The lighting system is now done in a "gamma correct" way, i.e. processed linearly within the graphics system and only converted to sRGB at the output. Gamma correct rendering is an interesting subject if you are interested in that kind of thing and want to read up about it.
The specular reflections don't just appear automatically. Eric must visit each track and do an update to take full advantage of the new shaders. He is working hard updating the existing tracks and the results are very nice.
I've also recently been working on a new shadow system based on cascaded shadow maps.
So you should see a much better looking Live for Speed within a reasonable time frame. I won't speculate on how long it will be but Eric and I still have quite a few things to do, so don't hold your breath!
I confirm this is a full time job for Eric and me. There were some quiet years due to life changes but I can tell you we are really on the case now.
In the past year I have made a lot of updates to the graphical systems and there is much better support for different types of specular reflection including the shine on the road. The shaders are completely rewritten and structured better now as over the past few years I have got to grips with shaders (that was first stimulated by the VR support).
The lighting system is now done in a "gamma correct" way, i.e. processed linearly within the graphics system and only converted to sRGB at the output. Gamma correct rendering is an interesting subject if you are interested in that kind of thing and want to read up about it.
The specular reflections don't just appear automatically. Eric must visit each track and do an update to take full advantage of the new shaders. He is working hard updating the existing tracks and the results are very nice.
I've also recently been working on a new shadow system based on cascaded shadow maps.
So you should see a much better looking Live for Speed within a reasonable time frame. I won't speculate on how long it will be but Eric and I still have quite a few things to do, so don't hold your breath!
Thank you for giving licenses to people!
That is very kind and generous.
I will lock the thread now as you suggest now that the license giveaway is finished.
We are continuing to develop Live for Speed and are working hard on a graphical update at the moment. As always, everyone who has a license and also demo racers will benefit from the updates, on whichever content is accessible by their license.
We can't comment on when things will be ready but we obviously want it to be ready as soon as possible. There is quite a bit to be done by Eric to take advantage of the recent graphical updates and plenty more for me to continue working on. So we are working hard on that.
Thank you everyone for the continuing support!
For a while, licenses were not available at BRCruse but now they are again, which can be useful as local payment methods are available for Brazilian people.
http://lfsbrasil.com/loja/en/
As stated many times recently, I am interested in making it harder for crackers to crack LFS. But there isn't really much point releasing the same current version with new crack protection, as the old one is still around. So crackers could say:
"Ah, I can have this version or that version of Live for Speed, which are exactly the same except one is easier to crack and one is harder... hmm, hmm, oh what a dilemma, hmm... what a difficult decision, hmm... what will I do?"
I think you get my point. What we need is a new and updated LFS that people do want to have, that also comes with better crack protection. Better not give up all actual development right now in order to work on crack protection. Eric will be able to use the new graphical tools that I am currently developing, while I get on with some crack protection, packet encryption and so on.
EDIT: No more points to be made here. Thread closed.
http://lfsbrasil.com/loja/en/
As stated many times recently, I am interested in making it harder for crackers to crack LFS. But there isn't really much point releasing the same current version with new crack protection, as the old one is still around. So crackers could say:
"Ah, I can have this version or that version of Live for Speed, which are exactly the same except one is easier to crack and one is harder... hmm, hmm, oh what a dilemma, hmm... what a difficult decision, hmm... what will I do?"
I think you get my point. What we need is a new and updated LFS that people do want to have, that also comes with better crack protection. Better not give up all actual development right now in order to work on crack protection. Eric will be able to use the new graphical tools that I am currently developing, while I get on with some crack protection, packet encryption and so on.
EDIT: No more points to be made here. Thread closed.
Last edited by Scawen, .
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG