Quote from xfirestorm :

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.

Well, more memory = Higher FPS @ Higher resolutions. So it's not a bad thing tbh, but we dont really need better graphics as someone said

256 MB for me baby! \o/

Even if developers would decide to remake the textures and make them in highier resolution (1024X1024 and highier? >:-) ) thery would also probably make lower resolution versions for players with older computers.

Quote from Bigbob1993 :

Even if developers would decide to remake the textures and make them in highier resolution (1024X1024 and highier? >:-) ) thery would also probably make lower resolution versions for players with older computers.

Yes, that's why there is an option Low res textures

Quote from xfirestorm :

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.

I am quite realistic with LFS....it has very low demand on the other part of graphic card as even very old cards with decent amont of graphic RAM can give you high FPS numbers.

The point is also that I do not expect LFS to get any 3D engine upgrade very soon so better textures are the best way to improve LFS in graphic are withouht impacting most of the players. Even something like 7600GS could output hundred of frames with 4x AA or even more. LFS use vertex shaders to very low ammount and does not use pixel shaders at all. If you would knew something more about LFS you would not use those points.

Dont on LFS using more cores then one shortly in effective way nor using graphic cards potential in short time. So my question about RAM is quote valid at the moment

Quote from Flame CZE :

Yes, that's why there is an option Low res textures

Come on....I could run full texutres withouth penalty even on my old 8500 128MB RAM. We could have much better textures and it would bring 0 perfomance penalty for 95 percent of users probably.

ATI Mobility™ Radeon® HD 5730, 1G DDR3 VRAM (1600x900)

(Yes, I7 laptop)

Quote from DEVIL 007 :

The point is also that I do not expect LFS to get any 3D engine upgrade very soon so better textures are the best way to improve LFS in graphic are withouht impacting most of the players. Even something like 7600GS could output hundred of frames with 4x AA or even more. LFS use vertex shaders to very low ammount and does not use pixel shaders at all. If you would knew something more about LFS you would not use those points.

My P4 3.0GHz with 220GT 512 GDDR2 struggles with full grid on AS3 online, not AI. At start I get FPS drop to around 20-25, until the track clears a bit or gaps between cars become larger. And this is on 1280x1024 resolution full graphics settings and only 2x AA. So I'm all ears on getting it spitting "hundred of frames with 4x AA".

I know a thing or two about LFS, so I might have just miss-understood your thread, and therefor I believe my points are in place.

Quote from xfirestorm :

My P4 3.0GHz with 220GT 512 GDDR2 struggles with full grid on AS3 online, not AI. At start I get FPS drop to around 20-25, until the track clears a bit or gaps between cars become larger. And this is on 1280x1024 resolution full graphics settings and only 2x AA. So I'm all ears on getting it spitting "hundred of frames with 4x AA".

I know a thing or two about LFS, so I might have just miss-understood your thread, and therefor I believe my points are in place.

turn off AA + AF in LFS and force AA+AF in your GPU control panel. this could give you a few FPS.
what i used to do was to have dynamic LOD reduction set to 0.5 (i think) this helped to maintain FPS at the start of the race. visual quality would then increase automatically as the grid spread out.

Quote from xfirestorm :

My P4 3.0GHz with 220GT 512 GDDR2 struggles with full grid on AS3 online, not AI. At start I get FPS drop to around 20-25, until the track clears a bit or gaps between cars become larger. And this is on 1280x1024 resolution full graphics settings and only 2x AA. So I'm all ears on getting it spitting "hundred of frames with 4x AA".

I know a thing or two about LFS, so I might have just miss-understood your thread, and therefor I believe my points are in place.

Because your CPU is not able to count all physics for full grid. I had AMD K8 which was running at 2.8Ghz which is much faster processor for LFS then your P4 at 3.2Ghz. LFS is not GPU bound but heavily CPU bound and P4 was never great for LFS.

i remember reading that LFS was all about CPU cache. i could be wrong though.

That's true. Eza did that test, and biggest FPS boost came from CPU with biggest cache.
Edit: Aparently, that username doesn't exist. It's been long time since I saw him. I'm sure it's along those lines.

Quote from BlackEye :

That's true. Eza did that test, and biggest FPS boost came from CPU with biggest cache.
Edit: Aparently, that username doesn't exist. It's been long time since I saw him. I'm sure it's along those lines.

More or Faster (LFS performance review)

Ah yes, I thought FIN part is at the end of the name.

Tnx, Renku. :beer:

1024MB (NVIDIA GeForce GT320M)

Quote from DEVIL 007 :

Because your CPU is not able to count all physics for full grid. I had AMD K8 which was running at 2.8Ghz which is much faster processor for LFS then your P4 at 3.2Ghz. LFS is not GPU bound but heavily CPU bound and P4 was never great for LFS.

Ok, but why does it not lag when I turn down graphics then?
I did a test yesterday.
I put AA up to 8 and I got 15-20FPS on a server with around 15-20 cars on the grid. On the next round I turned AA back down to 2 and I got 50-60FPS.
The amount of physics to process stayed the same.

I know P4 is not the best CPU around, but hell, I'm not going to use my quad laptop to play LFS.

SLI: 2x 512 MB
Voted as 1024, assuming LFS uses both.

1280Mb DDR5 (GTX 470) for me so voted 1024mb+

Quote from Breizh :

SLI: 2x 512 MB
Voted as 1024, assuming LFS uses both.

http://www.slizone.com/object/slizone_ask_mmm013.html

"The graphics memory is NOT doubled in SLI mode. If you have two 128MB graphics cards, you do NOT have an effective 256MB. Most of the games operate in AFR (alternate frame rendering). The first card renders one full frame and then the next card renders the next frame and so on. If you picture SLI working in this way it is easy to see that each frame only has 128MB of memory to work with."

SLI != double memory. :rolleyes:

g80 8800 gts which option should i choose with 320Mb?

Voted as 1024, have 1280mb memory (intel graphics media accelerator)
i play with laptop

BTW: i have 2x 2ghz processors

Quote from suokkola96 :

i play with laptop

BTW: i have 2x 2ghz processors

No, you don't.

Quote from flak0 :

g80 8800 gts which option should i choose with 320Mb?

please vote 256 as in case the textures would be 384 as other close option you might see performance decrease. I want the poll to give as objective result as possible. After creation I realized there have been more option like in your case but then the poll would have also "endless" options to vote too which would be not good.

Quote from Matrixi :

SLI != double memory. :rolleyes:

Not having much in the way of pedantry, I couldn't be bothered to look it up for the sole purpose of being accurate on this one video game poll. Thanks for enlightening me.

It's hardly pedantic to tell people how SLI (or crossfire for that matter) really works, since by reading this thread, the majority of SLI owners seem to believe it really doubles their vram.

I actually made a mistake of buying a GTX 295 by believing what the box said (1792MB) and was hugely disappointed when GTA 4 only displayed a lousy 896MB worth of usable memory.