Hi there.I wanted to ask in hope Scawen would read this question and give us some information if the render engine for the graphics would get updated.

I am the last that would talk fairy tales of dx10 and dx11 render engines as this would need the whole lfs engine to be written through scratch.

But i strongly believe as i have seen other engines get updated from the dx8 lfs now uses to dx9c render engine.Dx9c allows the infamous Hdr alongside some better bloom lighting and pixel shader support.Actually Dx9c supports up to pixel shader level 3.Is there hope to get the above render engine update ?
This along some better models(preferably of the real cars),all the textures updated to hd ones and a good weather effects subsystem could give lfs a new life graphically speaking.

HDR and bloom? Don't really care. If it makes LFS look like that horrible Xmotoracing game, please NO!

Some spec and bump would not go astray.

I don't think bloom is welcomed here. (Use Enb mod if really necessary)

HDR is always cool. But that requires lots of PC power, which is not good news...

Quote from Keling :

I don't think bloom is welcomed here. (Use Enb mod if really necessary)

HDR is always cool. But that requires lots of PC power, which is not good news...

If your PC is 7 years old, it might have some issues. But really, if it's that old, you should be turning things like that off anyway.

How many times will you start a thread regarding the LFS graphics? And how long will you wait before you finally buy LFS?

Quote from justasimfan :

I am the last that would talk fairy tales of dx10 and dx11 render engines

But also the first, second, third, fourth... ten thousandth person too.

Quote from Khann :

If your PC is 7 years old, it might have some issues. But really, if it's that old, you should be turning things like that off anyway.

My new PC has no problem running Cycris 2 at MAX settings and 1080p.

But there are lots of people who tried LFS in the very beginning simply because it doesn't put much burden on the computer.

Quote from Keling :

But there are lots of people who tried LFS in the very beginning simply because it doesn't put much burden on the computer.

Yes! I'm still using in-built graphics card and I'm happy seeing 60+ fps (when alone on track of course) for my favourite entertainment! So screw that modern crap sucking out every single megahertz out of non top end PC's just for fun for those spoiled rich guys! LFS's graphics are enough good and realistic,so main thing to upgrade is car physics to get them as realistic as possible,it's a simulation,remember that!

Quote from Eclipsed :

Yes! I'm still using in-built graphics card and I'm happy seeing 60+ fps (when alone on track of course) for my favourite entertainment! So screw that modern crap sucking out every single megahertz out of non top end PC's just for fun for those spoiled rich guys! LFS's graphics are enough good and realistic,so main thing to upgrade is car physics to get them as realistic as possible,it's a simulation,remember that!

Word.

/thread

Quote from Eclipsed :

Yes! I'm still using in-built graphics card and I'm happy seeing 60+ fps (when alone on track of course) for my favourite entertainment! So screw that modern crap sucking out every single megahertz out of non top end PC's just for fun for those spoiled rich guys! LFS's graphics are enough good and realistic,so main thing to upgrade is car physics to get them as realistic as possible,it's a simulation,remember that!

Agreed to the above.


I'm fine with some bloom effects, (Not like blurring everything to the point of hurting the eyes, and doing motion blur that makes it impossible to see, like most games nowadays) and a minor HDR effect doesn't do much on the CPU, at least for me.

But we have to move on (sorry for those who are left behind).

I personally enforce things like not supporting XP in IE9 and BF3 and such.

Quote from Bose321 :

But we have to move on (sorry for those who are left behind).

I personally enforce things like not supporting XP in IE9 and BF3 and such.

OMG BUT XP IS TEH BES WINDOSW EVR MADE WINDOWS 7 EATS ALL YUOR CPU AND RAMZ!!111

Same here, I wonder why those people don't moan about DirectX 11 and IE 9 being unsupported in Windows ME.. I mean, it's just 1 year older than XP.

Quote from E.Reiljans :

OMG BUT XP IS TEH BES WINDOSW EVR MADE WINDOWS 7 EATS ALL YUOR CPU AND RAMZ!!111

Same here, I wonder why those people don't moan about DirectX 11 and IE 9 being unsupported in Windows ME.. I mean, it's just 1 year older than XP.

Isn't that kind of obvious? Nobody uses Win ME, but lots of people use or even have to use Win XP...

Quote from MadCatX :

Isn't that kind of obvious? Nobody uses Win ME, but lots of people use or even have to use Win XP...

Define 'have to' please. All I can think of is at work, and they don't care about what DirectX version is supported or things like that.

Lots of HW and SW doesn't work correctly in NT 6.x series kernel. Fact that MS turned their API's into a hell of a mess doesn't really excuse them.
I don't care all that much about it, I actually think it's a good thing, but that doesn't mean I don't understand the reasons why people want to stay with XP.

Quote from MadCatX :

Lots of HW and SW doesn't work correctly in NT 6.x series kernel. Fact that MS turned their API's into a hell of a mess doesn't really excuse them.
I don't care all that much about it, I actually think it's a good thing, but that doesn't mean I don't understand the reasons why people want to stay with XP.

Did you ever been near to a computer with Windows 7?

Hell, even Windows Vista was compatible with almost everything which drivers were up to date.

Quote from Whiskey :

Did you ever been near to a computer with Windows 7?

Hell, even Windows Vista was compatible with almost everything which drivers were up to date.

I have it installed on three of machines I have at home. I have had compatibility issues with it. I'm not saying W7 is a bad system, but there were areas where XP was better.

Could you tell me if the program that is not compatible is old, without updates since a very long time?

I only had problem with a really old program not ready for Vista/7, and another that won't run on 64 bits. The others could be executed in compatibility mode (some not getting 100% performance) or with some unnoficial patch. I'm curious about your case

Quote from Whiskey :

Could you tell me if the program that is not compatible is old, without updates since a very long time?

I only had problem with a really old program not ready for Vista/7, and another that won't run on 64 bits. The others could be executed in compatibility mode (some not getting 100% performance) or with some unnoficial patch. I'm curious about your case

Exactly. I've been running Vista since it came out, and Seven since that came out and in those years only like one or two programs that did not work. And indeed those were REALLY old, not upgraded, programs.

My awesome old SB Live! 5.1 has no drivers for W7 (funny that W7 beta had one), off the bat I recall Total Annihilation working quite dodgy, few more annoyances caused by UAC. I also went through hell getting some 32bit specific apps like USB sniffers working. Also the enforced driver signing 64bit version has is plain stupid. There is also a pretty mysterious net connectivity issue all my 3 machines suffer from, whereas non-W7 devices work perfectly. Generally WinXP gave me a bit smoother experience.
I don't use W7 all that much, it's mostly the other family member that do and it does the job fine for them. I also consider it a good thing that MS breaks compatibility with older Windows, because the compatibility ballast Windows carries along with it since like Win95 (and older) times is becoming unmaintainable. Even though there are some valid reasons why not to upgrade, especially in the professional sphere.

Quote from MadCatX :

Total Annihilation working quite dodgy

the game was made for windows 95... what do you expect?

good game though.

About OS: XP/7 on the new powerful PC, XP only on the old legtop.

Quote from Zipppy :

...

I'm fine with some bloom effects, (Not like blurring everything to the point of hurting the eyes, and doing motion blur that makes it impossible to see, like most games nowadays) and a minor HDR effect doesn't do much on the CPU, at least for me.

There's no "minor" HDR effect. HDR means "High Dynamic Range" - extending the traditional 0-255 grey scale to a higher level (say 65535) to make real luminance calculation possible. You whether have it or not. There's nothing in the middle.

The after-effect creating brighter light and darker shadow is called "(non-linear) contrast stretch".

Quote from bunder9999 :

the game was made for windows 95... what do you expect?

good game though.

I know how old that piece is, but it worked flawlessly in XP. Even WINE handles it almost perfectly, it's just W7 that gave me a hell of a hassle. MS should really make up their mind, either maintain compatibility or ditch it completely - I'm OK with either as long as I know what to expect. This "could work, would work, should work... doesn't work" is what's annoys me.

Computers are technology. And technology evolves.

If you can't take having to upgrade every 3 or 4 years (and lets face it you can get a decent mobo bundle (cpu, mobo and ram) and a mid range graphics card for like £450...which for someone on average income is about 1/4 of their monthly earnings...so say they set aside £15 a month (smoke/drink/party less or buy a game less or whatever) and you'll see it's not entirely unreasonable) then you shouldn't be a "computer geek".

I used to have an Nvidia 6200 many years ago and it, on a P4 3.06Mhz CPU with 1GB of ram would run on medium graphics with HDR enabled and that wasn't very good even by the stats of 2006. So if in 2011 you're still running an onboard graphics chip then why should the world hold back because of a minority of people?