Quote from ORION :

Try to disable dynamic lod?
Well, with your ugly fps I would rather reduce the settings. You have only one car and almost no scenery, and already unter 50 fps. In an average race you will not get more than 30 fps, which is unplayable.

1. i'm running on lowered speed while not playing serious, to reduce energy waste.
2. the fps wasn't my concern, and anyways let this be my problem...
3. where to disable dynamic LOD?

Quote from ORION :

Try to disable dynamic lod?
Well, with your ugly fps I would rather reduce the settings. You have only one car and almost no scenery, and already unter 50 fps. In an average race you will not get more than 30 fps, which is unplayable.

Hi Orion,
That doesnt work.first I wanted to mention it to Scavier as well but later I realized not to bother them with it too much.

Anyway generally it fit to what is discussed more and more and some details could be avaible to not be stripped off if people have the machines to cope with it still having reasonable or fast framrates.

I liked the quote of Scawen that LFS should be optimized as racing simulator and not screenshots genarator but still some of us would like to have everything maxed on or have more freedom to turn off the optimizations.

Quote from micha1980de :

3. where to disable dynamic LOD?

Options -> Misc -> at the bottom

you mean settings like these?

but the dynamic Lod slider doesn't make any difference between 0.00 and 1.00

and for the frame rates, i let them limit to ca.50 cause i think they are enough, and the minimum sleep saves some CPU time for V-dub for example.

Try to play with these settings while watching a long and well filled race-replay, while in window-mode and watch the Threads-performance drain go lower, but without loosing too much frames...

Dynamic LOD set to zero
Screen width affects LOD set to YES

That's how I get the best look... and got the octagon wheels to be less...

thx, will try it...

Quote from Scawen :

What do you want them for anyway, are you taking close-up screen shots of the road? Or is it for some adverts? Do you think there are just a few things that are too low res or are you talking about everything?

I can't speak for anyone else, but the thing I notice most when I drive is, fortunately, the road, being the thing I'm driving on. And it doesn't look to great to see a white/grey splotch to represent different bits of gravel, or yellow/brown splotches to represent different kinds of dirt. A high-res asphalt texture and high-res dirt texture would greatly improve this. At the moment it reminds me of Doom II. New physics work good though.

Quote from bw_krupp :

I can't speak for anyone else, but the thing I notice most when I drive is, fortunately, the road, being the thing I'm driving on. And it doesn't look to great to see a white/grey splotch to represent different bits of gravel, or yellow/brown splotches to represent different kinds of dirt. A high-res asphalt texture and high-res dirt texture would greatly improve this. At the moment it reminds me of Doom II. New physics work good though.

Sounds like something's up with your graphics. Maybe your mip bias slider bar is too far to the right and you have half texture res switched on?

yeah wouldnt be bad to have high res textures of everything in game. Right now its like minimum half texture size, medium what is max right now and high is really missing.
I just recently installed some older games which I thought had great gfx and couldnt believe how dated it looks by today. It will be the same with LFS by the time it gets final. Hack its the same with every game until the day everything looks just like if you look out of the window and possible a clean one.

^^ pretty much best IQ I can get on the road surface.. 1600 x 1200 16xAF, high quality in NV control panel- no optimizations.. maxed out LOD in LFS, then reduced to 1400 x 1050...

Is that what you mean by splotchy? Like the closest mip isn't high res enough? I think bump mapping would help there immensely.. some dynamic lighting (reflection) would look cool too. Not necessarily the res of texture..

Quote from Scawen :

Sounds like something's up with your graphics. Maybe your mip bias slider bar is too far to the right and you have half texture res switched on?

Hi Scawen,

I think i know what he means.

Please look at the attached picture and the highlited area by white colour.Closer to the bottom of the pic its worst.

Here's a pic on same video card from Oblivion..
- see I don't think it is only resolution of textures.. a lot has to do with shader affects.. look at the blocks on the road.. high res but also dynamic..

(some of the best GFX of any video game ever created though) Sometimes real life doesn't look that good.. For instance a real photo of tarmac.. looks more like LFS! LOL...



EDIT

Then again, here are some custom shots form ][ Hudson high res textures from rF.. but people from LFS are always saying rF GFX suck and look like crap/ cartoony so I think some people are just hard to please and won't ever be happy. (looking at the tarmac textures here)

Hi,

I think the "issue" with closet texture streched is very similar to this post.
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulleti ... ?p=844304&postcount=7

Maybe its possible to tweak that in LFS internally like in Oblivion in .INI file. And really sorry for coming here with Oblivion.I just used it as It remind me of similar issue

I am not sure what LFS exactly use resolution for textures but Oblivion use by default 1024*1024 textures.
So it might not the issue how the texture are apllied in LFS but the resolution of the textures.


Edited reacting to BWX232 post above:
Looks like especially on 3rd screenshots the road textures has really hi-resolution.I like also the trees texture quality.Definately hi-res make it looking better.
The formula cars somehow doesnt fit the screenshots.They look like floating and somehow plastic compared to the surroundings

@BWX232: the asphalt on those reallife pictures looks like lfs because its blurred (either by motion blur and/or dof)

why are all this pictures thumbnail size?Hope thats not the resolution LFS uses lol.

Quote from Sawyer :

why are all this pictures thumbnail size?Hope thats not the resolution LFS uses lol.

Huh? Try clicking the thumbnail?

......

Hmm, maybe we should wait Hudson Kerr (or whoever it was that has made hi-res textures for rFactor) to make hi-res textures for LFS. LOL, asking money for just some damn hi-res textures is very ridiculous.

Quote from Don :

@BWX232: the asphalt on those reallife pictures looks like lfs because its blurred (either by motion blur and/or dof)

Maybe that's what they are going for in LFS since most of the time you see the road textures they are moving by you and should be blurred- Who knows..

Quote from deggis :

Huh? Try clicking the thumbnail?

......

Hmm, maybe we should wait Hudson Kerr (or whoever it was that has made hi-res textures for rFactor) to make hi-res textures for LFS. LOL, asking money for just some damn hi-res textures is very ridiculous.

nothing happens in IE

edited:
ok just had to remove the .th out of the pictures by hand and get them in full size.

Quote from DEVIL 007 :

The formula cars somehow doesnt fit the screenshots.They look like floating and somehow plastic compared to the surroundings

Quote from BWX232 :

. but people from LFS are always saying rF GFX suck and look like crap/ cartoony so I think some people are just hard to please and won't ever be happy

Quote from Sawyer :

nothing happens in IE

I use IE.. click it.. then click it again if it says "this image has been reduced... blah blah blah..." to see full res in new screen..



If you are on dial up maybe it is too slow to see the pics or something.

Quote :

edited:
ok just had to remove the .th out of the pictures by hand and get them in full size.

Huh??? just click it... remove .th ?? What .th ??

Quote from BWX232 :

Huh??? just click it... remove .th ?? What .th ??

Erm thats the link I see. http://img460.imageshack.us/im ... 0213172030329cm7re.th.jpg

Click on it nothing happens just small size and in the thumbnail it says 950x713 181kB. I can let the mouse on it as long as I want and nothing will happen. When i remove the .th marked in bold red above it works in full size lol.

Quote from Sawyer :

Erm thats the link I see. http://img460.imageshack.us/im ... 0213172030329cm7re.th.jpg

Click on it nothing happens just small size and in the thumbnail it says 950x713 181kB. I can let the mouse on it as long as I want and nothing will happen. When i remove the .th marked in bold red above it works in full size lol.

That is what you should see (click link to see full pic)
http://img475.imageshack.us/img475/3982/thumb4vt.jpg
Edit- no idea why you don't- it is just an image shack thumbnail code.

two attached pics.
1. a good asphalt texture, which looks like crap ingame
2. increased saturation in devils pics, which shows the ugly dds 16 bit style also for non-Orion geek eyes :P Compare ground - sky

@ devil:
Its normal that textures get unsharp when they are that near to the camera... what do you expect?? You would need 4 times the res to make it look a bit better, which makes 16 times the filesize illepall

Quote from BWX232 :

That is what you should see (click link to see full pic)
http://img475.imageshack.us/img475/3982/thumb4vt.jpg
Edit- no idea why you don't- it is just an image shack thumbnail code.

ah lol.
Now enabled Show Images (including attached images and images in [IMG] code)
and see it like you.

Maybe he is saying if you can't have 16 times the files size, you can have 2 times the files size...

Depending on the resolution of those textures, a lot of people's PC's could handle 2 or 4 x the resolution.. What is the res of those particular tarmac textures? 512 x 512? I would say 2048 x 2048 would look good... and most high end card s would have no prob with it.


hard to say without actually seeing what it would look like.

Quote from Sawyer :

ah lol.
Now enabled Show Images (including attached images and images in [IMG] code)
and see it like you.

Well yeah you have to let the browser show images, LOL...
Why would you ever not allow images?