As Scawen is the only coder of this project for the moment (maybe Leo will be able to assist his father to finish the physics at some point ) you have to prioritise some things. And while it's true that the GFX engine has aged a bit over the years, it is a decent basis to develope physics on.
I'm sure an engine update is on the list (hopefully together with changing weather conditions), but it is not the most important thing to get done atm.
I think that most people here would agree that good, mature (aka not the "bloom is drool" policy) directx11 level graphics would be a good thing for LFS. Why wouldn't it be? It's just a matter of feasibility.
This has been talked about over and over again... even when the current graphics were rather new, some people were complaining. Doesn't change the fact that Scawen works alone, and has a very specific list of priorities that none of us here have every influenced.
LFS S3 will be the next Duke Nukem Forever style game, they have developed DNF already 13 years, S3 only two years...
So LFS S3 will not be out until 2021
Nice
This question has been raised a few times before and the answer still is "because he chose to work the way he does". And that's really all there is to say about
hum.. yes. i understand. but it could be so good for us and for scaven if things come faster, he could win more money, because more people would take a s2 license or s3. if physics (physic is good yet) and graphics were better.
i think lfs has a very good potential , but will die if nothing is doing. its just my opinion.
but he do what he want, no problem.
This has all been pointed out before. It's obvious that LFS would develop faster and gain from being developed by more than one person, however Scawen works the way he wants.
This is his project, and he works on it the way he wants to.
Well, LFS aint going to 'die' that easy.
Also, LFS will never be 'mainstream' game.
Why?
Because it's a simulation.
I've seen some comments about F1 2010 and similar games, how great gfx looks, etc... that is true. They look good.
But, they are arcade type of game.
Now - what do YOU think would happen if F1 21010 was made as simulation?
I can tell you that people who invest money in it wouldn't be too happy.. as people who buy it wouldn't be too happy.
Just face it - there's much bigger market for 'arcade' type of games.
If F1 2010 was simulation, I can tell you they'd have much worse sales, and there'd be thousands of people/kids crying it's too hard, it sucks, etc...
This is also what makes simulations much more long-lasting. People who choose to play this type of games, and in the end - unfortunately market for those is much smaller.
My point with this?
Not much... except we're smaller market, and this also means less options, and slower development.
This also does mean *if* some company as Codemasters/EA or similar *wanted* to make pure sim, they could. But they wont. It's $$$$ what matters.
You don't give up easily, do you? But just so you know, DX8 DOES support vertex and pixel shaders up to version 1.3, DX8.1 brought support for version 1.4. If LFS were to make a switch, DX10 is the way to go 'cause switching to like 7 years old API is rather stupid... Think and educate yourself a bit before you post, I'm outta here...
Just to inform you, one of the reasons I still play LFS is that it can run on my 4y old NB, and no way I have 100s of FPS
Yes my friend had around 200+fps with a bit decent machine.
But I have like 20-100 fps depends on grid.
The graphics is OK for me and I have seen much worse, there is nothing I could remember that I don't like with LFS graphics. Yes the standard textures sucks etc. but if you develop your own pack of textures it looks much much better!
Yes deformation etc. wheels flying around killing people on podiums etc. would be nice but I would switch it off anyway if it would be sacrificing performance and it wouldn't have effect on physics.
Graphics, the stuff you want is a work for lets say 100 peole 1 year or more, look at NFS what ever as I got the impression you want that graphics, they developed the game with huge I mean really huge budget for many years with a lot of people, so yes it looks nice because that's the goal! Look nice, play easily, sell a lot of copies, make a lot of $$$.
Now look at LFS and how many people is developing it
Yes it's IMHO dumb, but maybe they have a good reason why they want to have it that way, no big income, you have to trust the people who develop it, etc.
If you think creating a game is easy/quick, go ahead and try it yourself
I can tell you, it ain't.
---
Well I don't like most of them they just sacrifice the simplicity of view and it wil be harder for eyes to see what is where and to orientate yourself, those effects will kind of blind you in a way.
Why do you think pro players of FPS games turn the graphics off? To make it more simple and to get more FPS, It's easier to orientate and to see the enemy, Q3 picmip, CoD4 lod (details) etc.
This question goes a bit beyond what LFS needs and what will work for most users. DX9 is in a way pretty outdated API and considering how hard MS has been trying to dump WinXP what would be the point of moving on to technology which might get dumped as well once WinXP is finally gone? WinXP users are getting themselves stuck in the past anyway 'cause Win7 solved most of the issues making them not upgrade to Vista.
If LFS devs were to update the graphics engine today, the most logical course of action would be to write a brand new DX10 based engine and use it along with the old one for compatibility reasons.
But whatever happens, I don't care a bit, as long as LFS maintains it's great physics and playability, let the DX be damned
From where did you took that info?
Dude other games are top sellers because they have, modern graphics, a lot of cars/tracks, they are not a bad games even if they not hardcore sims. And the most important they are advertised, people buy those games because they read reviews, see which games getting good notes and buy those.
LFS is not advertised.
It is true that some well mostly fly sims like DCS, lock on, MSFS are not for everyone because they are hard (More like too much theory to learn) still they are selling rather good, but in case of lfs i think you joking.
LFS is the easiest to drive sim i ever played.
In rFactor, GT Legends, you push throttle a bit too much and the car go spinning (Not the most realistic if you ask me but still).
In LFS the only cars you can lose control over are LX-4/6 or RAC but still you wont lose control because you always know how much you can allow to push your car.
You just feel when the car start losing control.
LFS is one of the most pleasant and easiest to drive sim.
Note:Had to use fly sims as a examples because i just dont know any other sim where level of difficulty could be a factor why its not selling, race sims are doing rather well never heard anyone complaint about level of difficulty in those
This is just down to the fact that it's made with a decent physics engine, and because of that it comes so natural for someone who is into cars and driving them.
But some people just like the look of cars, but driving them in a simulation is a pain in the arse. I know a few guys who can't get it; to break long before a corner coming in with 200km/h.
Ideally there would be swoosh effect when at high speeds and super awesome brakes, for an enjoyable racing game.
Yet XP is still the most used Microsoft OS in Europe, and not everyone is buying a new pc every other year (mine is around 4 years old now), not speaking about buying a new OS for an older PC. I think XP will be with us for quite some time. (Doesn't mean I disagree with you though)
) you have to prioritise some things. And while it's true that the GFX engine has aged a bit over the years, it is a decent basis to develope physics on.
