When NetKar pro reaches LFS levels in amount of different cars/tracks I will probably make the switch as the main game I play for racing. As its physics are equal too if now better than LFS.

I have posted it before about how much I love LFS physics and at this point IMHO more enjoyment would be gained in the graphics department (also FFB but that is another topic) as well as multi core than updating the physics.

Its like having a girlfriend who is not a looker in any way but she has a kind heart and fun to be with. But hey you are not married to her you really dont owe her anything keeping you to her. So if a younger, hotter girl with an even better personality and even more or the same fun comes along what do you do?

And hey when shes continues to say shes getting VW Sciracco, it aint going to cut it when she already has an Fiat Arbath.

You may argue with my feelings with DX9, but my analogy is dead on and I bet most of you would agree.

http://www.lfsforum.net/showth ... t=54990&highlight=dx9

Here you go, DX9 for lfs

Now S U

http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=41775

Quote from Androme :

it seems that you have not read correctly my request. and no there will be a big performance improvement since video card drivers are focused on dx9 (and dx10).

Your and everyone's video card can live with DX7, nothing wrong with that. "Now go and pollute somewhere else"

This is funny to see how loads of people are close minded and LFS extremists

And I'm sure everyone in here will be able to demonstrate that I am close minded and a poor su**er

Oh, and by the way, an updated graphic engine wouldn't be luxury Although there are some other features we're more waiting for

Quote from Kristi :

Your and everyone's video card can live with DX7, nothing wrong with that. "Now go and pollute somewhere else"

it's your pov, not mine, little parrot.

with direct x 9, many poeple could not play lfs anymore.

And how's that?

People running very early beta versions of Windows 95?
People running hacked versions of Windows 3.1 with DirectX 8 support?
People using Commodore 64s?

Quote from chavm481 :

with direct x 9, many poeple could not play lfs anymore.

Well, I think you're pretty wrong saying that.
How many use computers so old that they can't even run Windows 2000/XP?

It would mean a really good improvement in graphicquality to use DX9, tho I can't see it coming anytime soon

Quote from Feffe85 :

It would mean a really good improvement in graphicquality to use DX9

How's that?

I'm getting sick of this thread, and I've got the solution. I saw this somewhere and it was pretty effective.

Quote from matijapkc :

I'm getting sick of this thread, and I've got the solution. I saw this somewhere and it was pretty effective.

Quote from tristancliffe :

People running very early beta versions of Windows 95?
People running hacked versions of Windows 3.1 with DirectX 8 support?
People using Commodore 64s?

and who ownes that?

for example my pc is a "average pc" and already this has a quad-core and dx 10

and if i would buy a cheap small laptop (>200€), even that would have dx 9

cmon 95% of the windows users, use win xp +

Quote from Androme :

My cpu is a q6600 watercooled (no temp problem) with 8Gb of memory and a ati 5850, when i test my triple screen with dirt2 (hard gpu usage) i get the same frame rate, it may be whole better with lfs since the gpu usage is less, if lfs is not multithreaded, the problem may be here. it's not driver related since ati makes good drivers now.

There's your problem, LFS uses just one of the four cores in your processor, and the Q6600 ins't the fastest of the processors in single threads, probably an E8400 will have better FPS on LFS than your Q6600.

Quote from RiGun :

There's your problem, LFS uses just one of the four cores in your processor, and the Q6600 ins't the fastest of the processors in single threads, probably an E8400 will have better FPS on LFS than your Q6600.

Well yeah ofc it does, an E8400 is clocked @ 3GHz.. so thats 0.56GHz faster, per core, than the Q6600..

Quote from John5200 :

and who ownes that?

Nobody, at least not as gaming rig. That's exactly Tristan´s point

Quote from John5200 :

and who ownes that?

for example my pc is a "average pc" and already this has a quad-core and dx 10

and if i would buy a cheap small laptop (>200€), even that would have dx 9

cmon 95% of the windows users, use win xp +

Sorry but that is not an average pc. That may (possibly) be an average new pc, but by no means is that the average pc. DX9 is an appropriate average for graphical capabilities; hyper threading / simple dual cores are possible average, or still a little above average. And by average I mean what people actually use in their homes, not what they would buy if they went out to get a new computer.

Sure I would like to see DX9 effects, but changing the engine over from one version to the next really won't add ANY improvement in the graphical quality, it will be a large pain for the developers and not get very far. The only way it would improve is if the developers actually added new effects, some of which even DirectX 8 would support, although in my personal opinion graphical quality of LFS is perfectly fine, it is fully immersive, and to me that is all it needs. To many games these days jump on the 'better graphics' boat. And when new techniques come out they get over used. Sure bloom is a nice effect, and can be present in certain situations, but games over bloom so that their players can recognize it as a special effect.

Gameplay is what is important, graphics need to create an immersive world, and nothing more. LFS's gameplay is all in the physics and racing 'rules'. Meaning, adding features like brake fade, engine overheating would add to the physical gameplay of LFS and adding things like a proper burnout, staging and tree for the dragstrip would add to the racing 'rules' area... These are things the developers should focus on. There are still a few more graphically immersion related effects LFS could benefit from, and I am sure the developers will get there, in their own time, as they knock off the list of things they are implementing.

things lag for me more with dx9 than 7...

Have you installed correctly the drivers?
Don't think that by just installing dx9 your game will run faster, if your GFX doesn't supports it.

Correct me if im wrong but i read somewhere that they had done a (almost) complete rewrite of the Directx engine from 9 to 10.

The DirectX API had a major overhaul in going from 9 to 10. An engine is something different, like the Source engine for HL2 or the LFS engine, which is usually built on top of an API.

Keep in mind, there was no "rewrite" going from DX9 to DX10, DirectX must remain backwards compatible with every release, meaning that DX10 cards must be able to run DX9 content, and so on. All the existing DX9 material is still in DX10, so the correct thing to say is that DX10 was a large addition to the DX9 API. Similarly, DX11 was an addition to the DX10 API.

Quote from blackbird04217 :

Sorry but that is not an average pc. That may (possibly) be an average new pc, but by no means is that the average pc. DX9 is an appropriate average for graphical capabilities; hyper threading / simple dual cores are possible average, or still a little above average. And by average I mean what people actually use in their homes, not what they would buy if they went out to get a new computer.

Sure I would like to see DX9 effects, but changing the engine over from one version to the next really won't add ANY improvement in the graphical quality, it will be a large pain for the developers and not get very far. The only way it would improve is if the developers actually added new effects, some of which even DirectX 8 would support, although in my personal opinion graphical quality of LFS is perfectly fine, it is fully immersive, and to me that is all it needs. To many games these days jump on the 'better graphics' boat. And when new techniques come out they get over used. Sure bloom is a nice effect, and can be present in certain situations, but games over bloom so that their players can recognize it as a special effect.

Gameplay is what is important, graphics need to create an immersive world, and nothing more. LFS's gameplay is all in the physics and racing 'rules'. Meaning, adding features like brake fade, engine overheating would add to the physical gameplay of LFS and adding things like a proper burnout, staging and tree for the dragstrip would add to the racing 'rules' area... These are things the developers should focus on. There are still a few more graphically immersion related effects LFS could benefit from, and I am sure the developers will get there, in their own time, as they knock off the list of things they are implementing.

yes i mean a everedge new pc. and woah i saw some weeks ago a new pc for 350€ that almost beat mine o.O

anyways the switching to dx9 still refers to improving the fps not the graphics

Switching to DX9 won't improve FPS. The DirectX 8 calls are boiling down to what the DX9 calls would be at the driver level.

Quote from shiny_red_cobra :

Keep in mind, there was no "rewrite" going from DX9 to DX10, DirectX must remain backwards compatible with every release, meaning that DX10 cards must be able to run DX9 content, and so on. All the existing DX9 material is still in DX10, so the correct thing to say is that DX10 was a large addition to the DX9 API. Similarly, DX11 was an addition to the DX10 API.

Wrong.
Up until DX9, backwards compatibility was kept. However, with DX10, it was made deliberately incompatible to optimise it. In Vista and 7, both DX9 and DX10 run simultaneously, although programs will use one or the other. Similarly, DX10+ cards are usually also DX9 compatible to allow for either or both.
Programs have to be written for either DX9 or DX10+. Games that support both usually have different executables and/or libraries for each.
DX11 does have compatibility with DX10 and 10.1 though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F ... _to_Windows_Vista#DirectX