Quote from Lible :

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.

I agree totally, but its not like DX9(4.09.00.0900) is new it has been out since 2002

If anyone else has read the Bit-tech review of DX11 on dirt2 the conclusion that dx11 was not needed but look how amazing it looks even in DX9. Not sure of my point here but look how awesome that looks!

http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming ... mance-first-look-dirt-2/1

Quote from OmniMoAK :

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.

what does that have to do with graphics. Androids point is that LFS can still be played on Win7.

LFS isnt Dirt (by codemasterss big dev team)... they do it their way and so far did not bad. Dirts physic can barly be compared to LFS.

PS: Dirt doesnt look "that" good. Smoke for example does not impres me.

Quote from JazzOn :

what does that have to do with graphics. Androids point is that LFS can still be played on Win7.

LFS isnt Dirt (by codemasterss big dev team)... they do it their way and so far did not bad. Dirts physic can barly be compared to LFS.

PS: Dirt doesnt look "that" good. Smoke for example does impres me.

Yes I understand his point and I agree with him, but if you are running Win7 are you at the requirements for LFS or way above it? Chances are your are running a Intel P4 or a Athlon at least, and what is your graphics card? I guess it could be an Intel video card, but if you are a gamer than its a 6800 at least.

I am just saying that almost all of use can utilize it, so lets do it. Even if DX9 update cost money I'd pay for it, it would be work well worthy of my money. By that I assume the devs will utilize DX9 for the effects and enhance the graphics at the same time.

Quote from OmniMoAK :

<removed>

E: Ah okay, you edited, so I edit mine, too

There is no need to break compatibility to DX8 hardware right now, so why bother? LFS is not about being or becoming a multi-million $ cash cow, so as long as it provides enough dough to let the devs live their lives without requiring a "real" job it's working well enough. Besides that, due to being a niche product it is more beneficial to be compatible to as much hardware as possible to give lots of people the opportunity to use your product rather than trying to attract the graphics circlejerk crowd that mostly consist of people who aren't interested in simulators or realistic gameplay anyway.

And in case you haven't noticed from the-LFS-way-of-development™ yet, just because something can be done doesn't mean Scawen will do it. There is no acute need for a complete graphics overhaul (nothing is broken), so graphics improvements will continue to come as they do now. Slow and in small amounts.

Quote from DragonCommando :

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.

Scawen work in physics, victor in "eye candy" He did a good job with the city, and was a work only for "eye candy"

Quote from Napalm Candy :

Scawen work in physics, victor in "eye candy" He did a good job with the city, and was a work only for "eye candy"

Nope, that's incorrect! Victor is the "web guy" who maintains the forums and LFSWorld. Eric is the one who designs the tracks and (most of the) cars, with the tools and graphical capabilities that Scawen provides / codes into LFS.

PS: if IIRC SO wasnt only eye candy made , but also curbs flattended (?) anf the bumps were changed slightly.

Quote from OmniMoAK :

I agree totally, but its not like DX9(4.09.00.0900) is new it has been out since 2002.

It does not matter when DX9 came out, it would still take a long time to switch.
Imho switching to DX9 at this point is not ideal (it's so old and DX10/11 is so much better). Switching to DX11/10 would be better, but that's not ideal either, since many people are still using XP and therefore they couldn't play.
Having both engines like many high budget games would work, but it would require double the amount of work to keep both versions up to date. So it wouldn't work with LFS.

LFS is in a difficult position with DirectX imho. DX8 is old and many things would be easier and better with newer DX, however neither going to DX9 or DX11/10 is a good option at the moment. So what LFS is doing now is probably the best option, stick with DX8 and switch to DX11/10 when it comes more mainstream (90+% can run it).

Quote from Shadowww :

I want DirectX 1337 or OpenGL 666, but it won't let me.

If I didn't already have a very serious quote in my signature, this would have become the new one xD

Quote from geeman1 :

LFS is in a difficult position with DirectX imho. DX8 is old and many things would be easier and better with newer DX, however neither going to DX9 or DX11/10 is a good option at the moment. So what LFS is doing now is probably the best option, stick with DX8 and switch to DX11/10 when it comes more mainstream (90+% can run it).

wouldn't opengl be the better choice then? opengl 1/2 has been around for ages, and the spec for opengl 3 hasn't been fully accepted, but it's probably easier than supporting multiple versions of directx.

plus, it would probably run better on linux and mac.

then whats eric doing in the design?

i gotta admit, i wouldnt care about the graphics, but i would want these in because it can lead to a better fps with it supporting the graphics card, like a suspension bridge, helps to have another wire or two

I don't care about improving the graphics either. The good thing about lfs is that it can be played on almost anyone's computer which makes this game easy to play. The problem with upgrading is that people with slower comps won't be able to run it anymore, causing lfs to loose some players if they don't have the money to upgrade their PC. Besides, lfs can be eye candy if you have the bloom mod plus Lynce's reflections.

Most players would care about the physics and content, not the way you see it.

The biggest issue is once an incompatible patch happens (either with or after an upgrade to the graphics engine), the older versions become obsolete and players with low spec systems can essentially no longer player LFS as it was intended (i.e. online). Now eventually this is inevitable, so there will come a point where you have to drop support for these lowest spec machines, but you have to do it when the proportion of your userbase is effected is very small.

Maybe with Windows 7 proving popular, XP machines will start to reduce in significance much more quickly, meaning it would be sensible to switch to the latest DX version in maybe just a couple of years.

Quote from Bob Smith :

Maybe with Windows 7 proving popular, XP machines will start to reduce in significance much more quickly, meaning it would be sensible to switch to the latest DX version in maybe just a couple of years.

That was my point exactly Bob, I just assume its closer than most people see it.
I just think there are a lot of people that play the game that has better eye candy. Like I love Half-Life 1 but with HL2, Crysis,... I have have no motivation to play HL 1. I am not saying push graphics to the limit, but get back to par with rFactor, GTR2, iRacing, NKPro and to any of you who says "who cares LFS is more fun", well yes you are correct, but isnt LFS even more fun when there 20+ servers to choose from with 15+ people in it?
Instead of an average of 3

I bought S2 a few weeks ago, and have been playing LFS for a few years now.

LFS is the only PC game I play nowadays, first because I have others machines for playing, second because PC reminds me of work and third because I can play LFS at my home PC, at my laptop and at my old piece of junk I still have at my parents', when I go there spend some weekends. And at all of them I have fun (but still play badly )!!

If LFS turns into a GRID like game, where my FPS drops to 8 at the meelee in T1, then my money was just sent out of the window...

Quote from bunder9999 :

wouldn't opengl be the better choice then? opengl 1/2 has been around for ages, and the spec for opengl 3 hasn't been fully accepted, but it's probably easier than supporting multiple versions of directx.

plus, it would probably run better on linux and mac.

I don't have much experience with OpenGL, but I have heard that it's a bit of a mess. Some things are easy to do with it, some things are harder. Also it has quite a lot of bits that need to be done using GPU specific things, so if you want to support both ATI and NVIDIA you need to do the same thing twice and that leaves out all other manufacturers. OpenGL is still based on the same old OpenGL the 90s so some things are quite deprecated already. DirectX had the same thing which is why they started from "scratch" with DX10.

Quote :

The biggest issue is once an incompatible patch happens (either with or after an upgrade to the graphics engine), the older versions become obsolete and players with low spec systems can essentially no longer player LFS as it was intended (i.e. online). Now eventually this is inevitable, so there will come a point where you have to drop support for these lowest spec machines, but you have to do it when the proportion of your userbase is effected is very small.

Maybe with Windows 7 proving popular, XP machines will start to reduce in significance much more quickly, meaning it would be sensible to switch to the latest DX version in maybe just a couple of years.

But isnt that the whole reason why you can change settings in menus?
If I remember correctly you could revert to Dx7 in Call of Duty 2. Theres no reason why we shouldnt be able to do that in future releases.


I think LFS looks fairly OK even by todays standards though (only thing letting it down right now are environment shadows). Its not Crysis but it doesnt make you want to gouge your eyes out either. Its a good sweetspot between eyecandy and performance. The fact that its one of the few games that manages to run on my Radeon 7000 is testament to that.

Really, what matters is the simulation, so for me that the LFS is the best simulation game that currently exists
It would be a very interesting new enginer, supporting the new technology of processing and graphics rendering
I am a layman in programming, but I think it is possible to have the two versions, the current engine and enginer again in the same way in online game
Changing from DirectX 7 or 8 to DirectX 9 onwards is not easy, but the staff of LFS are to be congratulated, the realism of physics and concern for her

Thank you for your attention

DirectX 5.1 is much better than DirectX9.0c or newer


/sarcasm (ofc)

LFS got awesome graphics, I don't get how people can't see it. I for one perfer the current graphics over a big blur of nonsense. Also I don't want a bunch of people seeking "eye candy" all over in the game. People should understand that LFS doesn't need to attract any other audience then the audience who perfers realistic handling physics.

Quote from pärtan :

LFS got awesome graphics, I don't get how people can't see it. I for one perfer the current graphics over a big blur of nonsense. Also I don't want a bunch of people seeking "eye candy" all over in the game. People should understand that LFS doesn't need to attract any other audience then the audience who perfers realistic handling physics.

Agreed. But it would be cool if it was written in OpenGL, because then half of the world would be done for a Linux and OS X version of LFS.

oh lord, the world is turning upside down!

Quote :

id Software co-founder John Carmack built his popular game engines around the cross-platform OpenGL API. It therefore may be a surprise to learn that he considers Microsoft's DirectX to be a superior API. "I actually think that Direct3D is a rather better API today," he told bit-tech. "Microsoft had the courage to continue making significant incompatible changes to improve the API, while OpenGL has been held back by compatibility concerns. Direct3D handles multi-threading better, and newer versions manage state better."
That being said, Carmack won't be switching away from OpenGL anytime soon. Despite the advantages of DirectX, OpenGL is rooted deeply in the company's game and tool code and transitioning to the Microsoft camp would involve a lot of work. It could complicate supporting platforms like the Sony PlayStation 3 and the Apple Mac.
"It is really just inertia that keeps us on OpenGL at this point," Carmack said. "OpenGL still works fine and we wouldn't get any huge benefits by making the switch, so I can't work up much enthusiasm for cleaning it out of our codebase. If it was just a matter of the game code, we could quite quickly produce a DirectX PC executable, but all of our tool code has to share resources with the game renderer, and I wouldn't care to go over all of that for a dubious win."

http://www.techspot.com/news/4 ... s-better-than-opengl.html
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/g ... ck-directx-better-opengl/

I have decided to run LFS in 320X240 resolution just to spite the OP