Can't access the options, it just crashes. Awesome... :rolleyes: Game itself works though, until I hit the wall in front of the pits due to not having a steering axis. Could this be due to me using Vista 64?
I think it's more accurate when you remove it. Certainly feels that way, but that may be the placebo talking.
Headshot FTW. Only way to kill the bastards (also just like Far Cry).
Whether or not you're using the silencer has a lot to do with it. If you use the silencer they usually don't get where the shot is coming from, but if you have it off they hear where you are (with pinpoint accuracy, miles away). Not sure if that was what happened to you though. That they don't lose you from sight after spotting you across the island sounds strange.
Yeah, it is rather quirky. I've had my share of physics WTFs too. The best one was the "Recovery" level where the trailer thingy on top of the hill overlooking the village went mad, went airborne and flew all the way down to the village, taking out several buildings and the people in them. Saved me the trouble of course, but I can't help but think that wasn't supposed to happen. Probably was the aliens... Yeah, that's it.
I still had fun though. can't help it.
You wouldn't chopped so much as scooped up and spit out the back. That's a wheel of humongous buckets used for digging.
If you don't mind, does that mean LFS is going fully Unicode? Or are you using some other multi-byte encoding for these languages?
That I'll give you. First thing I did was set post processing to medium to get rid of that awful blur. It's all done in screen space based on camera movement so it's nowhere near "physically accurate" the way they have implemented it. A box flying across the screen won't be correctly blurred for example. Just a stupid flashy effect in my opinion.
I respectfully disagree. Especially if you're going to compare it to HL2 (Ep2 I assume/hope?) which is really can't hold a candle to Crysis technically. It's not just down to how realistic the shadows look and how realistic the lighting is (though they too are top notch in Crysis), it's the amount of crap that engine is able to put on your screen at once while still being dynamic enough to allow you to tear almost anything apart into it's component pieces. When I first got to that huge battle before the harbour I was literally awestruck at how open and busy it was. I've never seen anything like that in any other game.
Regarding the TV show, anyone seen this: http://www.v1racer.com/? Looks like Scawen will be on TV too? Apparently he's in charge of Online Driving Evalutation. There's a few shots of Scawen in the intro video and the "full promo" too.
EDIT: Just found this, never mind. Searched and everything.
There's a few shots of Scawen in the intro video and the "full promo" too.EDIT: Just found this, never mind. Searched and everything.
Last edited by wien, .
Huh, that's strange as I haven't had any of these problems with my HD3850 and the 7.12 drivers. I'm on Vista 64 though (Yeah, I'm nuts :P), so there may be some differences between platforms here.
Nope. Wine doesn't emulate the x86 processor, just the WIN32 API (and cousins). Wine won't work on systems with a non-x86 processor (Like Cell). Doesn't really matter though. It wouldn't be able to run LFS with reasonable FPS anyway.
Protip; Before going into an argument about the terrificness of a processor, try to educate yourself on the matter before spouting irrelevant specifics you've picked up somewhere. I'm so god damned sick and tired of people filled to the brim with peripheral knowledge running around teh interwebz spouting this nonsense. It's exactly like the old Sega versus Nintendo arguments we had in gaming magazines 10-15 years ago. ("Sega is waaay better than Nintendo because Sonic is waaay faster than Super Mario Bros"). It's getting old.
The fact of the matter is that, contrary to popular belief, the Cell is NOT a million times more powerful than a 3GHz Core 2 Quad. The fact that it has 8 cores and runs at 3,2GHz is completely irrelevant when comparing it to a desktop x86 processor. The Cell is so completely different architecturally that these metrics taken on their own mean diddly squat. Only the PPE in the Cell could be reasonably compared to a normal processor, and if you did compare it you'd see it performs about equal to a 1,5GHz PowerPC G5. That's slow! Horribly slow! You'd have 3 times that perfomance from one out of the four cores in a modern Core 2 Quad. We're talking about a simplistic dual-issue, in-order core here! The fact that it runs at 3,2GHz is irrelevant.
But what about the 8 (7 in the PS3) SPEs? Well, they're actually a lot closer to DSPs than actual general purpose cores. For starters they can only work against their own pool of 256KB memory. They set up a DMA transfer from main memory to their local store, do the required processing, and then put it all back with another DMA transfer. This is a huge deal, and a big difference from how other multi-core architectures work. In fact, this design choice makes the SPEs completely unusable out of the box for software written for normal multi-core processors. To take advantage of the SPEs, you have to rewrite significant portions of your software specifically for the Cell. A simple recompile will not cut it. Not many game developers are willing to do that, especially considering the limited market share the PS3 has. Polyphony may do this, but I don't believe for a second that they can keep all those cores fed with useful things to do during normal gameplay. A game is more than pure physics number crunching.
Anything you may have read about the Cell coming from Sony or their affiliates is pure theoretical bullshit. I'll say it again; Peak FLOPS, GHz and core count are irrelevant metrics when comparing performance with existing desktop processors.
Could be the memory is damaged yes, but frankly I'd expect the artefacts to be more random where that the case. Do you get any other artefacts? Could you attach a screenshot of them if that the case? (In JPG and attached to your post using the forum. Your other screenshots are broken links.)
I think it varies from computer to computer. Superfetch will try to be smart about what it pre-loads and will load different things depending on your usage pattern (what files you use and when etc.). I've seen the cache shrink by a GB for no apparent reason here, but usually it only leaves a few megabytes of memory unused. Loading LFS, the LX6 and Fern Bay without having disk access is a great thing to behold.
Actually, Superfetch will use every last drop of your memory if it can find a use for it. I have 4GB in my system and 2.9 of them are currently used by Superfetch and the other caching systems in Vista.
The point is that this cache will be dropped as soon as this memory is needed for something else. That's the theory anyway. In practice my computer, back when I had 2GB RAM, had Superfetch and Crysis in a battle to the death over who would get to use the memory, and the whole game slowed to a crawl as the harddrive tried to keep up with it all. Turning off Superfetch solved that problem quite nicely, and Vista performed a lot closer to XP in Crysis (Drivers still sucked though). Turning off Superfetch won't get you the benefits it provides though, and they really are quite noticeable.
But they generally also love cool hardware, so if anyone would make it fly it'd be the Open Source guys.
I know the Mesa guys are working on a "software" OpenGL implementation on the Cell which is supposed to be pretty good. Still no match for a real GPU though.The Cell is a great chip for certain workloads like raytracing and folding. If pure FLOPS is what you need, Cell is what you want. That said, a modern GPU with a Quad core by it's side would murder the PS3 Cell chip even there (granted you had the required software), but at a higher cost of course.
The Cell just isn't a good processor for games as they have very different workloads they need to deal with in addition to the number crunching. It's also way too different from anything else out there and that makes it hard to take advantage of. The 360 processor is probably a better choice in that it is "just" a conventional multi-core processor, something developers already have to target on the PC.
I'd take those specs with a pinch of salt to be honest. I've seen no conformation of those numbers by other sources. And if those specs are for real, it'll be a freaking monster (sizewise) and thus extremely expensive. 1800 million transistors is just ridiculous for a single chip, even at 55nm. The only Nvidia card I have seen some good evidence of is the 9800GX2, and that is mostly a 8800GT times two as far as I've seen (onboard SLI).
Furthermore AMD has the HD3870x2 (onboard crossfire) coming up before the 9800GX2 and with that they may actually be ahead in single card (but dual chip) performance for a little while. Then there's the R700 (or RV770) which will also appear some time in 08 so I think AMD is looking better now than they were when they released the HD2900XT.
It seems the graphics industry has hit the brick wall the CPU guys hit a few years back so you won't be seeing these extreme improvements over previous gen we've been used to. Looks like it's going to be tweaking of existing architectures with some multi-chip action from here on out.
It's amusing if you like casual games, but it's only a rather limited demo of the full thing.
Before commenting I'm going to need a replay (preferably single player) of this happening, because I haven't seen anything like that.
It wasn't "implemented" through clutch temperature. I'm guessing that because of the way you got hit the clutch was the weakest (only) link in the chanin, so it slipped and overheated. Once the rest of the damage model is implemented, I'm quite certain the rest of the car will fall apart as well, possibly leaving the clutch a-ok (but resting in a field somewhere).
It's not as clear cut as you seem to think it is. In the lower/middle range AMD is the clear favourite right now with the HD3850. I'm also not sure what you're referring to with the G100 as I haven't heard of such a thing. There's the G92 on which the 8800GT is based, and then there's the D9X on which the 9X00 series will be based, but that's merely another refresh of the G80 architecture (much like the G92 is). Nvidia won't have anything really challenging the 8800 Ultra any time soon (other than the dual chip 9800GX2).
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG