I want Directx 9c or Opengl 3,0 in the LFS!
Please !!!
Please !!!
I want Directx 9c or Opengl 3,0 in the LFS!
The developers have chosen to work on more important things than Eye candy, If you want DX9 or openGL 3 then you might as well go somewhere else.
Eye candy is not important to a sim, the physics are.
Eye candy is not important to a sim, the physics are.
the game looks fine!!!! let them work other things out and then well see what happens 
#4
- Takumi_lfs
Yes, and LFS hardware, it's solid.
And I want Lyndall Jarvis on my D.
Done. Have a nice day.
(Apologies for the terrible photoshop, but it should be enough!)
(Apologies for the terrible photoshop, but it should be enough!)
#7
- Takumi_lfs
You forgot Opengl, lulz nub
He said or, foo'
Simulation is very important, graphical realist similar to the Gran Turismo 5 is well better 
The more licensed racer, the more budget, the more graphics update. Buy LFS!
WTF are you on about. I'd rather have something like this
but has LFS physics than something that looks like this. But has Grid graphics .
and i doubt your pc is powerfull enough for that quality of graphics.
Well, I think that the PS3 sux compared to PC. I think that a up-to-date pc would run that game even better than a ps3 can.
Actually it is.
IMHO I think graphics can be very important, as far as immersion, like.... Eh, I can't think of how to explain what it means, to me anyways.
Like, special effects, being able to see a blowout occur in front of you in great detail, realistic smoke, different types of smoke, imagine volumetric, "dynamic" smoke! How amazing to have an accident of some kind in front of you, smoke everywhere, lighter colored spinning coils of smoke from tires, darker smoke from burning oil from..maybe a severe collision with the engine/front end, if front engine car heh. And, as the cars in front of you pass through the smoke, it blows it around...hmmmmm sounds so sweet, and absolutely possible in a hardcore DX9 engine, but far better in DX10, especially when it comes to performance, physx acceleration, (I think in a racing game that has serious physics, hardware physx like that from nvidia would be necessary, so the CPU wouldn't have both tasks, well obviously, but especially in a racer which already needs superb physics performance, you can't spare extra power for graphical type physx. I use the term physx loosely, just because I'm so used to Ageia then Nvidia, who purchased the API.
This won't happen anytime soon for LFS, and likely never...well I shouldn't say that, I think LFS will grow for a very long time, but because of the nature of LFS, it's programmers, their work thus far, and the users, it's unlikely we'll see them spend countless hours working out a DX10 engine, or more likely a DX10 enhanced DX9 engine.
Things like shattered glass, or any and all kinds of fragmentation of objects, controlled by physics acceleration, would make a racer look incredible, the idea's in my head are like infinite. This will all happen, and likely soon, but not with LFS, it's just expensive, however, because it's immersion, it may not be considered unfair advantage by those who cannot use physics acceleration to the extent I'm describing, and the Sim would look much simpler. I think it certainly may matter, but not enough to limit certain graphics/physics funcitons in online play. Nobody complains in Stalker, or Crysis, or any other game with physics, but Stalker is the best example, the graphics difference between DX8, DX9 and DX10 are major, and each player will have a very different look of their surroundings when using the different options. For example, anomolies that can kill you or hurt you badly are easier to see in DX10 with options maxed out, because the special effects they use for them make them much more revealing, while the older engines use older effects that aren't so telling when you're wandering around. (Anomolies are areas in the game world where the environment is bizzare, where gravity is chaotic, or electricity is, or radiation, many things. While many you can spot easy, being noticeable, and obvious, the worst anomolies you can't see anything except at times strange ripples in space.) I admit the developers could have used some other, simpler effect to make them easier to spot, and in a way they did, but still there's a small advantage in the game with everything maxed out.
Sorry for such a long explanation but it's just so hard to explain this aspect of that particular game, and how it effects all those who play it.
I think we should realize that graphics are incredibly important, but in contrast to physics, obviosly are way down the list of things that need to be well done, or done on time, etc etc. But no way in heck are graphics just, entirely not important. It can depend on the context like... with LFS it's obvious where it needs work, and with such a limited staff that's what will come first. Without the physics LFS would never ever have taken off and grown the way it did; as far as the community, and support.
Building a graphics engine and a physics engine to go along with it must be pricey as hell, I'm not sure, but I'm aware of how important it was that Nvidia purchase the Physx API from Ageia. Anyone here that's played a game that supports it, should agree it's breath taking in ways, and with all this GPU power we're on the verge of ray tracing, which is going to change everything.
Okay too long of a post, I'm on pain medication and bored, bad combo lol. While graphics will likely always be on the back burner in the LFS universe, there's a specific reason, and if things were different, and the technology were available, I truly believe people would eat it up. What's possible visually, that can add to the realism, man oh man, it would be just soooo real at that point... Who knows, maybe some kind of marketing possibility can make this a reality down the road. Or maybe another sim developer can do this, and actually take the time to create realistic driving environment. I'd prefer all the success in the world for LFS though, everything about it, from the play to the community, long live LFS. And if graphics are ever sooo important that the majority of users demand more of it, I think we'll get it. But good as it would be, it's unlikely, it's just soo much work, and I could be wrong about how it could effect the balance of play.
Damn, now I can't get the scene out of my mind, coming through the chicane, turn two BL GP a car spins knocks another off the track, grass and dirt fly, a hood is laying on the road just waiting to damage your front spoiler and hurt your downforce, with the volumetric smoke of several varieties woohooo!
Like, special effects, being able to see a blowout occur in front of you in great detail, realistic smoke, different types of smoke, imagine volumetric, "dynamic" smoke! How amazing to have an accident of some kind in front of you, smoke everywhere, lighter colored spinning coils of smoke from tires, darker smoke from burning oil from..maybe a severe collision with the engine/front end, if front engine car heh. And, as the cars in front of you pass through the smoke, it blows it around...hmmmmm sounds so sweet, and absolutely possible in a hardcore DX9 engine, but far better in DX10, especially when it comes to performance, physx acceleration, (I think in a racing game that has serious physics, hardware physx like that from nvidia would be necessary, so the CPU wouldn't have both tasks, well obviously, but especially in a racer which already needs superb physics performance, you can't spare extra power for graphical type physx. I use the term physx loosely, just because I'm so used to Ageia then Nvidia, who purchased the API.
This won't happen anytime soon for LFS, and likely never...well I shouldn't say that, I think LFS will grow for a very long time, but because of the nature of LFS, it's programmers, their work thus far, and the users, it's unlikely we'll see them spend countless hours working out a DX10 engine, or more likely a DX10 enhanced DX9 engine.
Things like shattered glass, or any and all kinds of fragmentation of objects, controlled by physics acceleration, would make a racer look incredible, the idea's in my head are like infinite. This will all happen, and likely soon, but not with LFS, it's just expensive, however, because it's immersion, it may not be considered unfair advantage by those who cannot use physics acceleration to the extent I'm describing, and the Sim would look much simpler. I think it certainly may matter, but not enough to limit certain graphics/physics funcitons in online play. Nobody complains in Stalker, or Crysis, or any other game with physics, but Stalker is the best example, the graphics difference between DX8, DX9 and DX10 are major, and each player will have a very different look of their surroundings when using the different options. For example, anomolies that can kill you or hurt you badly are easier to see in DX10 with options maxed out, because the special effects they use for them make them much more revealing, while the older engines use older effects that aren't so telling when you're wandering around. (Anomolies are areas in the game world where the environment is bizzare, where gravity is chaotic, or electricity is, or radiation, many things. While many you can spot easy, being noticeable, and obvious, the worst anomolies you can't see anything except at times strange ripples in space.) I admit the developers could have used some other, simpler effect to make them easier to spot, and in a way they did, but still there's a small advantage in the game with everything maxed out.
Sorry for such a long explanation but it's just so hard to explain this aspect of that particular game, and how it effects all those who play it.
I think we should realize that graphics are incredibly important, but in contrast to physics, obviosly are way down the list of things that need to be well done, or done on time, etc etc. But no way in heck are graphics just, entirely not important. It can depend on the context like... with LFS it's obvious where it needs work, and with such a limited staff that's what will come first. Without the physics LFS would never ever have taken off and grown the way it did; as far as the community, and support.
Building a graphics engine and a physics engine to go along with it must be pricey as hell, I'm not sure, but I'm aware of how important it was that Nvidia purchase the Physx API from Ageia. Anyone here that's played a game that supports it, should agree it's breath taking in ways, and with all this GPU power we're on the verge of ray tracing, which is going to change everything.
Okay too long of a post, I'm on pain medication and bored, bad combo lol. While graphics will likely always be on the back burner in the LFS universe, there's a specific reason, and if things were different, and the technology were available, I truly believe people would eat it up. What's possible visually, that can add to the realism, man oh man, it would be just soooo real at that point... Who knows, maybe some kind of marketing possibility can make this a reality down the road. Or maybe another sim developer can do this, and actually take the time to create realistic driving environment. I'd prefer all the success in the world for LFS though, everything about it, from the play to the community, long live LFS. And if graphics are ever sooo important that the majority of users demand more of it, I think we'll get it. But good as it would be, it's unlikely, it's just soo much work, and I could be wrong about how it could effect the balance of play.
Damn, now I can't get the scene out of my mind, coming through the chicane, turn two BL GP a car spins knocks another off the track, grass and dirt fly, a hood is laying on the road just waiting to damage your front spoiler and hurt your downforce, with the volumetric smoke of several varieties woohooo!
Dude, come on.. this wasnt even a serious thread why that long post!?
can i haz Directx 11 y0?
I gave an explanation, but I don't expect anyone to actually read it all and spot it. I was just misreably bored and consumed by the topic at the moment. I was really trying to visualize what hardware phsyics acceleration could do.
Mate, i totally agree but we have only three guys working on(and only two have direct contact with graphical side of LFS) it and if i would have to choose between graphical or physical updates, i would choose the second one .
.+1 Absolutely. We can dream tho
I want DirectX 1337 or OpenGL 666, but it won't let me. 
Bumping an old post
With Win7 becoming the norm sooner or later the Devs have to switch gears and work on graphics again.
I know most people would rather have better physics than graphics, but to be honest, I think its one of the top 3 racing games in terms of physics and now it may be time to move to DX9c at the very least.
And if your 6 year old PC can not run LFS than time to upgrade...
maybe to a 3 year old PC
I may be wrong about this, but I think one reason LFS tracks are so smooth are due to DX8 limitations. Or at least no need for rough tracks when the graphic engine cant show it.
With Win7 becoming the norm sooner or later the Devs have to switch gears and work on graphics again.
I know most people would rather have better physics than graphics, but to be honest, I think its one of the top 3 racing games in terms of physics and now it may be time to move to DX9c at the very least.
And if your 6 year old PC can not run LFS than time to upgrade...
maybe to a 3 year old PC
I may be wrong about this, but I think one reason LFS tracks are so smooth are due to DX8 limitations. Or at least no need for rough tracks when the graphic engine cant show it.
How did you come to that conclusion?
Whether you use WinXP or Win7 is completely irrelevant for how LFS looks or what DirectX version it uses. Win7 does not remove DX9 (and with that also DX8) compatibility.
Indeed, you are wrong.
1) DirectX or rather Direct3D is an API that allows you to communicate with the graphics card. Newer DirectX versions give you different/additional/more efficient ways to do that, however, how many polygons you can display is still determined by your graphics card, not DirectX version.
2) In LFS, the ground you drive on IS NOT the track you see. There are two separate meshes for each track. The first one is the one that gets rendered and you can therefore see on the screen, the second one is invisible and used for physics interactions. Because it is not rendered, it can be vastly more complex than the visible one without affecting performance.
Ever driven over kerbs? These are rendered perfectly flat, but when driving over them they're actually acting as if they were zig-zagged. There are also a few places in LFS where these two meshes are not perfectly aligned, allowing you to drive "below the floor" or "in the air" depending on how misaligned they are. Just go on the dragstrip and drive along the little path on the right side. If you go off into the grassy hills on the right of the path you can see what I mean.
I work in IT for a major company in the US and our IT directive is to go to Win 7 in 2010 we have over 35,000 employees, of all the companies that my friends work for are going to make the switch too, in the not so distant future. My friends who are not all gamers are making the switch, to OSX or Win7.
If you dont think sooner or later (2-3 years at a maximum) that WinXP will be replaced by Win7 or other OS you are really fooling yourself. When a majority of your users are on newer machines it would be foolish not to exploit that fact that your usergroup has the hardware to make things better.
Well chances are, if you are using Win7 your computer is not 6 years old and your graphics card is at least a Nvidia 6800GT (know these are not the requirements but playing the odds)
Thanks for clarifying the ground in LFS though, but you said it yourself DX9 maybe more efficient, then why not use it?
If you dont think sooner or later (2-3 years at a maximum) that WinXP will be replaced by Win7 or other OS you are really fooling yourself. When a majority of your users are on newer machines it would be foolish not to exploit that fact that your usergroup has the hardware to make things better.
Well chances are, if you are using Win7 your computer is not 6 years old and your graphics card is at least a Nvidia 6800GT (know these are not the requirements but playing the odds)
Thanks for clarifying the ground in LFS though, but you said it yourself DX9 maybe more efficient, then why not use it?
The way I see it, a complete rewrite of the graphics engine would take a long time.
What I think is realistic is Scawen starting it as a side project for S3.
What I think is realistic is Scawen starting it as a side project for S3.
1
2
I want Directx 9c or Opengl 3,0 in the LFS!
(49 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG