384 mb!!! Nvidia 9600 GSO TOP !

2x GTX460 OC, with 768MB/ card..

Quote from Degats :

Don't forget that memory is only half the issue - the card still has to be powerful enough to do something useful with all the pretty pixels.

I dont think fillrate is an issue with LFS

Mobile Intel(R) 915GM/GMS,910GML Express Chipset Family

256mb, utter onboard poop!

Quote from Flame CZE :

I have the same one as you. What's bad on it?

Nothing bad with it at all. It's just that I really want the HD6970 "Turbo"

256MB Geforce 6600.
But don't play games anymore.

Interwebs tells me that "The Nvidia GeForce 9400M G is an integrated (onboard) graphics card for laptops without dedicated graphics memory."

So I guess I'll be one of those sorry people who vote for less than 64MB

Asus Radeon HD 5870X2 4GB GDDR5

Infact, lfs devs should do such polls officially, on the main site (or forum). It would be a big help for them.

Why they would need to create now thread with same poll. Why not to make better this one sticky...the poll on the main LFS page would be something different and maybe better though.

Actually, they could add some polls here if the wanted to. http://lfs.net/polls/

Wouldn't creating a poll asking how many CPU cores/threads our PCs have be more important?

it might be an idea to create a small survey asking CPU, RAM, GPU and OS. adding something like "Graphics settings: low, med, high" could help too. add a link to this thread for users to go and fill out the survey. this could give some interesting data.

Quote from SlamDunk :

Wouldn't creating a poll asking how many CPU cores/threads our PCs have be more important?

I do not want to open any discussion here is it would be uselless then but I think there is higher option we get better textures then Scawen coding LFS to use more cores

Quote from DEVIL 007 :

I do not want to open any discussion here is it would be uselless then but I think there is higher option we get better textures then Scawen coding LFS to use more cores

I think quite the opposite. LFS devs don't actually need to include any new textures to LFS because we already have them, it's just the matter of downloading a texture pack from this forum. On the other hand, Scawen's tyre simulator he wrote in the process of creating a new physics engine is extremely complex and requires considerable amount of time to calculate anything. If he's to implement a simplified version of it in LFS, he definitely needs to take advantage of multiple cores and other speedup tricks modern CPUs offer.

None of the re-texture pack is complete and most has serious issue due to bad texture mapping on a lot of tracks. Like kerbs look much better with same hi-res textures then track etc. The low-res textures mask this quite well. I have been trying few attempts but its really hard with the ungly texture mapping in LFS.

I said thats not thread to discuss it. If you want please create another one and we can continue there.

512 gf76

Quote from DEVIL 007 :

GeForce GTX 295 ??

yessir, and does tripple screen on it's own

1024mb or 2813mb. i'm not sure. Sticker in the laptop says its ATI Mobility Radeon HD 560v up to 2813mb hypermemory t-mark.

Playing good with it

The 1024mb is the relevant value, it is the RAM physically on the card.

Quote from NotAnIllusion :

The 1024mb is the relevant value, it is the RAM physically on the card.

Okay, Thanks

It seems there is obviously space for devs to create much better textures.
Thanks again to all who voted so far.

I have a 512MB Nvidia 9600GT-based card, it appears to be working quite hard, as it has to display 2048x1152 onto a gaming 23" widescreen and 1024x768 on a 15" square. I get 60+ FPS too with high resolution textures and models, but I have VSync on to limit it.

You might as well have called the thread "show off the size of your e-penis".

Who gives a toss how big your GFX card is unless you're trying to be better than everyone else.

Since when does the amount of GRAM determine the overall performance of the gfx card?
Where is the GRAM frequency? GPU frequency? For starters.
Then you have, pixel/vertex shader versions etc.

Don't turn LFS into another NFS/CoD/etc serries, where each year you get better graphics(HELL YEAH!), the same old story(MEH, BETTER GRAPHICS!), maybe just slightly altered story with some new stuff that are fun for a few minutes(STILL, BETTER GRAPHICS!).
The graphics look good enough and with lower textures etc. you have more potential players. Not everyone of us have the money to buy 500core cpus with 10 gfx cards in sli mode you know.(A little bit of sarcasm there)

As for the wanting for LFS gfx improvements over use of multi-cores. Is your gfx going to do the simulation computations when you're on a full grid instead of the other cores that are doing "nothing" when you are playing LFS?

Instead of better graphics and new content I'd much rather see some improvements to the sim, like water/oil temperature, brake wear and brake temperature etc.