Confirmed, does work in reverse. Nissan/2000/Bosch.

Quote from BlueFlame :

2:09 is SERIOUSLY fast. Isn't that in top 10?

Nah it isn't fast and not in top10 Those guys are truly aliens, I cant even keep up to first split and it's only 3 corners

Best time atm: PeZoR 02:04,695 (in race mode)

There'll be new slope in couple of days I heard.

Last edited by vari, Fri 19 Dec 2008, 19:24.

Quote from Da Hoe :

ok, i give up.
2.10.078 was the best i could do
http://skichallenge.orf.at/oe?player=DaHoe

vari 1 - hoe 0

awww

Quote from batteryy :

do u trought the gates?:sp3poskin

Yes, no way to get a qualification time otherwise, you can check the ghost file you know, search for 'vari'

Last edited by vari, Thu 18 Dec 2008, 18:22.

Quote from Da Hoe :

2.10.174 [etals:]

02:09,904 :spanakinp

Quote from swisscosmo :

how do you guys go so fast? What are your setups? cause i'm using defualts and i'm slowly getting faster but not as fast as you guys.

I did my time with custom ski's carve 25, grip 26, speed 49. Most likely those settings aren't optimal at all.

For some reason I seem to ski better when using the helmet cam.

You can play qualify against other people's ghosts, maybe that helps to see where the speed comes from.

Quote from Da Hoe :

2.10.835

02:10,542 :ambulance

Last edited by vari, Wed 17 Dec 2008, 21:04.

Quote from Da Hoe :

2.11.157 http://skichallenge.orf.at/oe?player=DaHoe

02:11,001

Quote from Da Hoe :

2:11,355 http://skichallenge.orf.at/oe?player=DaHoe

02:11,238

Quote from Da Hoe :

haha, 2.11.737 now http://skichallenge.orf.at/oe?player=DaHoe

02:11,513

swisscosmo: It's quite to easy to register in the game

Last edited by vari, Tue 16 Dec 2008, 20:33.

Quote from Da Hoe :

http://skichallenge.orf.at/oe?player=DaHoe
2.12.452

(i cant do those funky linking times )

02:12,310

Quote from Da Hoe :

down to 2.12.5 now ( http://skichallenge.orf.at/oe?player=DaHoe )

but uuuhhh....2.04 is the fastest now

02:12,494

Quote from plehto :

I said the conditions where abs is at disadvantage in braking distance are not relevant to lfs or this discussion.

Yet we have tarmac, gravel and grass in LFS.

You said that LFS ABS reacts too quickly providing some figures and whatnot. I'm merely trying to point out that no matter how much worse you make it while still keeping it somewhat realistic (10 year old ABS systems, old brakes and cars), it'll still be better than non ABS braking so that won't help your mission so to speak.

Making it worse to the point to where it no longer simulates any real system would only put us back to square one almost (old brake help).

I don't know why you think this is some sort of war but I think it's probably best we let this be.

Quote from plehto :

The discussion shouldn't be about abs benefits on different surfaces, that's offtopic.

This is a test patch thread that has a new implementation called ABS. How is it exactly offtopic to make comparisons to the real device that it's simulating?

I don't think that the intention of this tread is just to discuss what and whatnot should be in but rather how well the changes work, or both.

When you say that a test should be made with one new car I have to disagree as it's known to change from vehicle to vehicle (unless of course it's those specific cars we have in the game). And the fact that you post figures about winter tyres is somewhat amusing since LFS doesn't have those. (Even though ABS seems to outperform on tarmac)

You also mention the fact that the cars were used (in the report I posted). I would probably concentrate more on the fact that they were using more than 10 year old
ABS systems probably making them less effective compared to what we have today.

I don't think that it makes much difference that they used old cars and brake components when it comes to the balance between ABS and non ABS braking. If anything, it's likely to make ABS less effective in my opinion but that isn't a fact, just a gut feeling.

And finally, should ABS be in the game? In my opinion yes because it's a simulator afterall.

Last edited by vari, Sun 14 Dec 2008, 12:59.

Quote from plehto :

In many cases braking distance with abs is longer compared to locked tyres.

Quote from DragonCommando :

Even on modern vehicles, ABS will increase brake distance when compared to threshhold braking.

Since it's unclear which surface types you mean I tried to find some facts. I wouldn't make generalisations perhaps implying that it should be so in LFS.

This report was made ten years ago. Attached is the summary.

Last edited by vari, Sun 14 Dec 2008, 09:58.

Nice start there

It's Räikkönen and Heidfeld by the way

Thanks for voting. There's no need to post/vote anymore, it has been decided.

This thread can be closed now if possible.

The site has been updated with a new replay

Major changes:

-1280*960 resolution
-4XAA/8XAF for the 'max' benchmark (min is 0X/0X)
-Full GTR Grid in SO4R (full S2 needed)

I lost 60 fps, happy benchmarking

http://lfsbench.iron.eu.org/

I finished the game last night. My total playing time was 24h37m.

I didn't like the lack of damage of the spray and pray weapons, sniper rifles are one shot kills though so I just used them and didn't bother with anything else really.

The game got very repetitive and tedious quite soon but I wanted to finish it anyway. I don't want to tighten 'radiator bolts' even again Use those boats and busses often. I guess that helps.

Quote from Mikey Monkfish :

One question though, why the increase in resolution? If you want to make the game look prettier, surely it would be better to work on texture details or track/car detail in general? Not to say that LFS doesn't look good, but it does pale a bit in comparison to something like Forza Motorsport 2...

Err...what? This poll is for the benchmark site me and Henrik have: http://lfsbench.iron.eu.org/

This has nothing to do with LFS development nor am I a developer.

Quote from dougie-lampkin :

I think the benchmark should stay at 1024*768 though, as everybody can run that res to compare. I presume that using maths one can work out what it would run at at a higher resolution? Or does it not go proportionately?

It doesn't. There's a point at which the GPU becomes the bottleneck. It seems to depend on:

-'The amount of frames the cpu can throw at it'
-The card itself
-Resolution
-AA/AF

With the current (max) benchmark settings the CPU is always the bottleneck meaning an old vid card seems to be just as fast as a new one and this gives a false impression.

With the new bench I planned my avg fps went from 130 to 50'ish. This was with full gtr grid (20) on so long rev, 1280*960 and 4x/16x. Without AA/AF I gained 10fps so at least my old card (850XT) had some work to do this time

Why 4x you might ask...Well some Nvidias seem to jump from 4x to 8x and older ATIs do 6x max.

Thanks to everyone for voting

Crommi: looks like it yeah.

Android: You lost me

I tried to say that both CRT and a TFT have their maximum resolution (not 'fixed'. With TFT it's called 'native')

Meaning that both can display whatever resolution is smaller than that as long as both width and height limitations aren't exceeded.

I could be wrong though but that's the case with my 22" TFT (1680*1050)

Quote from AndroidXP :

At least I don't see another way considering the vast amount of TFT monitors with a fixed resolution nowadays.

Mine can display all of the abovementioned resolutions and it's a TFT so I'm not sure what you mean by 'fixed resolution'. Sure it can't go any higher than the native resolution hence the poll.

Quote from AndroidXP :

Or you can force everyone to run 1024x768 (which isn't used by TFTs at all)

We've used that for several years now I think.

Bob

Last edited by vari, Fri 3 Oct 2008, 10:11.

Quote from Crommi :

I think it's better to go with whatever people prefer to use with LFS.

I have to disagree.

How would you compare the systems then? In my opinion the information value wouldn't then be much more than in occasional post 'my machine runs at 200 fps'.

Sure it's possible to make a new sorting system for the site but I still think it should be exactly the same for everyone because we don't get that many results. There has been few flawed results already where the poster clearly forgot to change to cockpit view. When you add more variables it's easier to make a mistake and then it'd eventually be a mess nobody could make any sense of.

A bit like hotlap competition where everyone would use different track. (except this isn't a competition )

Last edited by vari, Fri 3 Oct 2008, 09:45.

I've made a poll about the benchmark here: http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=48957