It isn't, you can be sure about that.
It doesn't use the same cores for graphics. That probably was Sony's intention but they seriously overestimated what they'd be able to do with the Cell (It lacks most of what makes GPUs fly, texture-units and blending hardware comes to mind). So, they added the RSX (mostly a bog standard 7800GTX) upping the cost considerably.
The Cell may be a powerful chip if given the right data to work on (It's a ray-tracing beast for instance). The problem is that games just can't take advantage of it without some serious engineering effort. Unless you're developing exclusively for the PS3, or are developing middle ware (Epic comes to mind), very few game developers can allow themselves to put in this effort. And when you don't put the extra effort in, the Cell becomes a pretty pathetic excuse for a processor, roughly equivalent to one of the 3 cores in the 360 (which also suck compared to a reasonably recent x86 processor).
Last edited by wien, .
If you can't use your Electron, how would anyone be able to get your money?
Either it works and you get your license, or it doesn't and you don't.Hey, TV time is TV time. Slow motion images of your car flying across a sand trap is exposure good as any.
Scawen is working on translations for some Asian languages. We have already established that. Other than that, I don't see how that's any of our business? I'd go nuts if I was Scawen and had thousands of people clawing at my windows to know what I was up to today.
You could, oh I don't know, try them before jumping into a huge argument here on the forums? The fact that you've barely even tried the LFS clutches at this point just boggles my mind. What has been the point of discussing this with you the last twenty-twelve pages if you don't even know what you're complaining about? How can you just take some random complaint you've read here as gospel and then engage in a huge discussion about it?
Of course it's a compromise. Every damned thing in a computer simulation is a compromise. It's always a balance between resource usage, development time and final result. The real question is; is it good enough in most cases encountered when racing? Also load and tire pressure most certainly is part of the simulation right now. You don't need a dynamically sized contact patch to simulate that reasonably well.
Do not mock the humble servants of his Holy Noodliness! :mad:
Remember to change the email address too now that you're at it!
The best way to contact the devs is through this form: http://www.lfs.net/?page=mailus It may be a day before you get a reply though, it's too late today I think.
Also, have you forgotten your password on this forum too? That is your web-password if I'm not mistaken, and you should be able to log in to lfs.net with that password.
Well he'd have to prove he is who he says he is first I guess. I doubt the devs just send this info to any old guy posting here on the forums. You can easily stumble upon a computer logged into the forums and post as him.
OHNOES! The democrat mafia got him. Run! Save yourselves! :eek:
That doesn't help much if he doesn't have access to his old email address though.
You have your web-password i hope? If so, just log into the main LFS page and change the game password there.
I think those two are more or less mutually exclusive these days. To be compatible with everything you'd need so many layers of APIs and crud that you wouldn't be able to turn around.
Okay, we get it. The guy's kwaizy. I still find this kind of public ridicule a bit tasteless though. Don't you have better things to do with your time?
And if you're human, you may never reach WR speed at all. I know I put that idea away years ago.
An armed society is a scared society. I don't want to live in a world where the reason people respect each other is because they *might* be carrying a gun.
As far as I've been able to gather the guy behind RDKF, Mark Healey, is a mate of Scawen's and he helped him out with some (probably physics related
) stuff with the game. I don't think he took a big part in the development.EDIT: I see now that Mark also worked on Black & White so that's where they know each other from I guess.
We're getting closer to that with every hardware revision. AMD is working on Fusion which will incorporate the GPU in the x86 ISA, Intel has that whole Larrabee thing that no-one really knows what is but expects to be a GPU-ish monstrosity, Nvidia have their own GPGPU thing (CUDA) they're certain will change the world and Sony/IBM has the Cell which, barring a few brain-dead design choices, is more or less what CPUs will end up looking like in the future.
At some point all this will merge back together with the CPU under a standard ISA, thus making graphics APIs and drivers little more than standard code libraries, and all will be well in the world again. (Until the next accelerator fad finally manages to grab a hold in the market. Anyone for PPUs?)
At some point all this will merge back together with the CPU under a standard ISA, thus making graphics APIs and drivers little more than standard code libraries, and all will be well in the world again. (Until the next accelerator fad finally manages to grab a hold in the market. Anyone for PPUs?)
Well here's my anecdote: I've had plenty of problems with ATI drivers for a number of years (Radeon 9800), just as I'm having some now. ATI's reputation for poor drivers isn't completely undeserved. That said, I've had my share of problems with Nvidia drivers too (their GLSL compiler sucks donkey balls), so all in all it's a toss up. Drivers suck, period.
What a load. The people writing drivers now are exactly the same people writing drivers before. If there are in fact more problems now than before (seems about the same to me), that's purely coincidental.
I've seen the threads, but never had any such problem here. I'm guessing it probably depends on card and OS.
If your end goal is making games, what language you use to learn is wholly irrelevant. Yes C++ will probably give you more performance than C# if you use it correctly, but when learning that just isn't important. What's important is that you get the high level concepts used to build a game (creating a renderer, getting input, doing game logic, scene management, physics, that sort of thing). Once you get these and know how they all tie together you should be able to implement them in a language of your choice without too much difficulty, regardless of what language you used to learn in the first place.
Focusing on the language is just starting at the wrong end in my opinion as they all do pretty much the same thing. C# and the XNA framework is a very good starting point for games and you can progress onto the "harder" languages later if you feel you need the performance.
Focusing on the language is just starting at the wrong end in my opinion as they all do pretty much the same thing. C# and the XNA framework is a very good starting point for games and you can progress onto the "harder" languages later if you feel you need the performance.
Well, not everyone will blip correctly now that they have to do it themselves. So it's not like you'll be the only one. If you're really desperate it's also completely possible to use a button to blip the throttle while braking. Harder of course, but I don't see why you should get an unfair advantage over people actually trying to master this skill by themselves just because of your choice of controller. If the setting is there, why would anyone that's trying to go fast ever turn it off?
I could possibly get on board with autoblip only being available for people driving with combined throttle/brake because of the inherent disadvantage of this setup, but quite frankly I think implementing that would be a lot of hassle for Scawen for very little benefit.
Blipping (for those able) is now another thing to do wrong and mess up and that adds some diversity to the racing that we didn't have before. LFS needs that to get away from the online hotlapping we see everywhere. Every lap shouldn't be perfect, and LFS shouldn't help you in any way to make that happen.
Personally, I'd like to see them go too. At least for the road cars. If the car wouldn't have that kind of telemetry readout in real life, remove it.
It's my impression that the people thinking it is exaggerated are a small minority at this point. I've also seen much more reasonable arguments and "evidence" from the "it's actually pretty good" camp and the other way around.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG