So, keep away from Fern Bay curbs on long races.
Dayum, if those curbs would be any higher you'd need climbing gear to get over them.
But the chance to get a full suspension failure only because of "jumping" over high curbs is slim?

Hi,

is the suspension prone to wear? I mean, does it matter if I run a whole endurance race, let's say 4-5 hours constantly at the limit, hitting all the curbs, to get those best lap times and will I get away with a perfectly good suspension at the end, or should I be more vary of the curbs on the long runs?

And brakes, I haven't noticed a significant change or any at all in braking over time, except when on too cold or too hot tires. Does LFS simulate brake temperatures yet?

Thank you!

I know, but I don't want to be bothering with the 3d renders right now. Not until I'm fully satisfied with my skin.

Quote from LineR32 :

Search for the skin stretching files, iirc JazzOn made them. They will help out with the stretching of logos.

Stick to making simple stuff and then move on to harder and more complicated designs, you should try and do some replicas of real liveries too.

I've found that stretching thread just before I posted this, sorry for not mentioning it. I haven't implemented it yet because I'm just on my lunch break and will have a looksy on it when I get home from work.

About the liveries, I've tried it. Wanted to put a Corvette Racing GT2 skin on the XRT. Boy did it turn out bad.

For the laughs:
XRR Skin 2

@daloonie: what effect? The "ugh" effect?

And thank you both for the tips.

Hello,

I've been trying to make a decent skin for my XRR quite some time now. And every time I give it a shot it turns out just....ugh...well...let's put it this way, when I look at some of the skins up here, they seem just so much better than my own. And I have no idea how to improve my skinning.

Here is an example of my latest skin:
XRR Skin

What would you do to improve it? And how?

Kind regards,
Thomas

P.S: I use GIMP

Quote from dadge :

ok, you have two V6 engines in your car. does this means you have a W12 or the performance of two V6 engines?

Comparing cars and CPUs. That's smart...


kimd41, nice pics...
But you're still wrong. A multi-core CPU, no matter what OS, no matter what app(as long as it's single threaded) will still run in only one core. Why? How the hell will the OS know when to run some operation, so it wont run before an operation that needs to be run in the first place? So it will run at one core speed only
If you have an application supporting multi-threading, the programmer who's written the application programmed those limitations into the program it self, so that operation D doesn't run before operation C, thus failing, because it needed some data from C. But it can run different operations that aren't depending on data from other operations, thus speeding up the proccess. If you want to convert it to time. You have operations:
-A independent
-B dependent from A
-C independent
-D dependent from C
each operation finishes in 2 seconds, on a single core you get:
A first - 2s
B second - 2s
C third - 2s
D fourth - 2s
4*2s = 8s
On a multi core you get:
A and C first - 2s
B and D second - 2s
2*2s = 4s
Is it running faster? Sure as hell it is. Is it because a fairy godmother came from the sky and did magic? No, because you can use the speed of one core and the other AT THE SAME DAMN TIME, thus multiplying the overall speed of the processing unit(if you're using multi-threads)



As far as cars are controls, and I'll pump it up a little bit. If you push in 2 V8 engines into a trunk, they wont produce more power, and wont "create" a W16. But you also don't just put two cores onto a board and say work you worthless piece of s*****.
But if you take it on carefully and create tecnology that is capable of using the power from both of the engines, you get a W16 and far more power. Similar in CPU world, if you take care and create technology that is capable of using the power from both of the cores, you get a dual-core CPU and far more power.


I suppose a beowulf consisting of 10 machines, each with (single-core) 1000MHz CPUs still all work together only as 1000MHz...based on your thinking, that would be it.

I'm done here talking about computers... *facepalm*

Ok...
Let's take LFS in to example, and let's prettend it's supporting multi-threading.
It's using 1 thread for graphics interface, 1 thread for game calculations, like tyre deformation, suspenssion simulation etc. And 1 thread for each network connection(you're running an non-dedi server)
You have 6 cores, each juicing at 3GHz.
Let's also pretend the game is heavy on calculations and network usses intense amount of resources.
The GFX interface is using one core at 2.5GHz, the calculations are using up the second core at 2.5GHz, and you also have 3 connections up to you, each using 1 core at 2.5GHz.
Is the whole game using up more then 3GHz or not?

Why then invent multi-threading, multi-core CPUs, multi-CPU systems etc. if you don't benefit from it? If it was still running at the speed of only one core, then no one would care about multi-threading, and no one would bug around with it, I can tell you, it's a hell of a hard "thing" to debug(and to design as well), and trust me, you will have to debug it.

Quote me, where I said CPU is the only measure of CPU performance.
Further more, you pointed out the obvious, but still didn't even go near the first "question" of this "cpu tech talk".
No one never said about anything about comparing CPUs.
And an single-thread application running on multi-core CPU isn't running faster just because of "teh aw may gawt" new technology in C2D, but because the application can be run at one core, while other things can be ran in another, thus taking the load of the core that is actually used to compute for that application.

Quote from kimd41 :

I hope you're joking The number of cores do not multiply the total frequency.

Each core has the cappability of running at 2.8GHz.
If you have an application that's using multi-threading, and it's the only application running, it can run up to 11,2GHz in an ideal environment, meaning no other thing is using up any resources(which never happens, because of the OS and other applications, plus you need to take into account the CPU juice needed to actually do multi-threading, etc.)
The bottleneck in such a system is usualy the memory, AFAIK, Intel C2D, Q2D are lacking in memory access, because they're using all banks for all cores, while I7 and already Opteron before had a way to assing each core it's own bank of memory, thus speeding up memory access. But those are milliseconds, which you'll never benefit from in running games. Unless you're running the "heaviest" game and all that(duke nukem forever, for example)

P.S: Yes DNF is a joke.

I have two same cards, but according to wiki(how much you trust it) they can be different.

As far as I understand this:

Quote :

If a dual PCIe interface is not available or is otherwise occupied, a standard PCI graphics card can still be used to provide additional video outputs, albeit with performance trade-offs.

Unless my interpretation of this sentense is wrong.(Yep, English is my second language to those who's head can't turn left) :P

Most gfx cards nowadays have 1 VGA and one DVI output, some have 2 DVI outputs(HDMI output or not). I've never seen 3 screens on one gfx. I use 2 gfx cards with 2 DVI outputs at work to supply 3 screens.

Quote from obsolum :

Only on CRT monitors.

I use LCD screens too, and can't stand low refresh rates, my eyes still hurt.

Quote from Bmxtwins :

Do you mean with users or setting it up? I'm sure you mean users, anyways post server details and I'll take looksy

Users, users. It's set up as I wanted it to be.
Server details, name, X-Shells.org LFS Server, track BL1, demo server

Quote from dadge :

(60hz=60fps).

Don't your eyes hurt at that refresh rate? O.O

And my survey says yes. Buying a new computer does not mean you need to buy a new monitor, so drop the display and add some more juice to that CPU power. Surely it wont help LFS, but it will help with other things, unless you're using your computers only as gaming platforms.(no not web browsing)

Seems that I'll need to get the load up on the server and see how it'll handle it.
Any volunteers that would want to help in loading up the server?

If I were you, for 500 pounds or thats roughly the same as 650€ I'd get an AMD Athlon 2 X4 630, 2.8GHz, AM3
at least 3GiB RAM
and some mid-range gfx, pick one:
GF 9600GT
ATI HD 4670
ATI HD 3850
GF GT240
ATI HD 4670
..
..

Neither of those are the top on the market, but all of them will do a pretty damn good job in running LFS and some other gmaes, that's for sure.

Quote from hankevans83 :

ok so what is ati ccc, gfx? how do i find this anti-aliasing option, like what tab in lfs? or is this gfx setup option?

suppose i aint gonne have this option whith intergrated graphics?

does anyone know what would be a good choice duo core, cpu and gfx to handle lfs at an averege fps whilst looking nice?

gonna buy summayt soon just dont know where to start??????

ATI CCC is the ATI Catalist control center for ATI graphics cards. In it you can override some graphics options for the applications(games to be more exact).

If you're not doing much offline, AI races, then your CPU is more then enough, because the CPU needs to calculate only your car.
All you're missing is a grpahics cards. If for now you're on a low budget, just get some dedicated graphics card and you're good for online races.

Quote from hankevans83 :

yeh i kinda know ma pc is old n crap but yes i thought it would be able to handle it a lil better than this, also my graphics card is intergrated like on the motherboard!

I think here is your problem.
I have around the same setup like yours.
P4 3.0GHz
1GiB RAM
and an x600 ATI graphics card.
It's not the best, not the worst either. I had problems with FPS too, my problem was with the ATI CCC, where I set the anti-aliasing and all to the max and it was squeezing around 20-22FPS on average, when I was alone, no impact when racing with 10 other players online.
Then I reduced the settings in the ATI CCC to absolute minimum(or use application settings option), set everything to the highest point in LFS(except anti-aliasing, that's only 2x I think or even none, would have to check) and now I'm getting about 50-55FPS on average with a full "demo pack" on the road.
Just get some cheap graphics and you're ok.

Hello,

yesterday I've tried(and succeded) setting up my first LFS Dedicated server. My connection is fast enough to hold up at least 3 32slot servers. But...it's the hardware that's bugging me. It's an old AMD Duron 700MHz with round ~768MiB of memory running on Linux(so it pwnz urz windoze monsterz)
Until now, I've used it as a gateway and firewall for my network, and as a fileserver. So, here's the thing, will this hardware be able to support at least one 20slot LFS server, or will I need to buy another machine just for that purpose?
As far as I've been trying it out yesterday, there were total 4 or 5 players on the server and I didn't experience any sort of lag, been monitoring the server at the same time, and ram usage didn't go over 1.5%, the CPU as well, usage by LFS server I mean. And so far it's only set to demo(waiting for the MasterCard to arive so I can order S2 and then switch the server to S2 as well)

Thank you in advance and best regards,
xfirestorm