Spinoff : DirectX and Windows version discussion
they might use it but they wont after april next year.. when microsoft completely shuts its doors on it..
id be willing to bet you will gain more people by upgrading to DX10 than you would loosing them due to not supporting XP...
id be willing to bet you will gain more people by upgrading to DX10 than you would loosing them due to not supporting XP...
#3
- DANIEL-CRO
microsoft.com ...
I agree with Scawen
Don't think too much about DX9, just do it
Sorry to upset you but it is fictional that you need continual updates from Microsoft for your XP computer to continue to operate. I switched off the updates years ago, I do not install anti-virus software and never got a virus. It's quite simple, don't install viruses or run an exe without being sure that it is safe and you'll be fine. I do use zonealarm on my XP computers - an old version which was still usable unlike the recent versions. That's good because it lets you control which programs connect to the internet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaster_%28computer_worm%29
This allowed the worm to spread without users opening attachments
i know that, you know that.. but you see this is where its slightly contradictive.
the majority of anyone who knows how to keep an XP machine running without breaking wont be running XP in the first place because they know bigger and better is already out there.. and the people who dont know will just update to a better operating system because media hype tells them to..
end of the day, you have to move with the times, yea its unfortunate that 2% of the population who play LFS wont be able to play anymore but there are many more people who will..
its all good and well wanting to keep supporting, its admirable.. but just look at what can be achieved using DX10/11... the pros outweigh the cons by far..
plus.. do you actually know how many people use XP atm who play lfs?
Quoting from that page :
So it was a MS patch that allowed that worm to work.
MS updates : fix some bugs and add some new ones.
read again:
for which a patch had been released one month earlier in MS03-026 and later in MS03-039.
No, I don't. But someone I believe said it was probably something like 7%. That would be about 80,000 of our registered users. It's ok to alienate 100 people or so, but not 80 thousand people.
It's just not the right time yet. XP was really the thing for a very long time and loads of people out there are quite happy with their computer that still works.
You don't need antivirus if you are relatively experienced in computer stuff. Unfortunaulty many people I know are so naive when it comes to computers, for example friend is searching some pdf, google take him to some site full of increase your penis size advertisements, then he download .exe and run it guess what its not working 
Be aware of .exe
probably number of actuall LFSers which use XP is much lower, because many of these accounts are from people with multiple accounts and quite some are inactive. However I still agree to keep LFS XP compatible.
guess what its not working Be aware of .exeprobably number of actuall LFSers which use XP is much lower, because many of these accounts are from people with multiple accounts and quite some are inactive. However I still agree to keep LFS XP compatible.
ive said this before and ill say it again
adding a dx11 rendering path wont break the existing dx9 renderign path that will still work just fine on xp
Yea, but thats 7% of registered drivers, from 2003.. how many of them 89,000 have even looked on the forum let alone turned a lap in the last 3 years...
and anyway its not like you will loose the 7% of the people because if you ever release a DX10 version im pretty damn sure the majority of that 7% will be upgrading to play it..
Well, what seems not to be clear is this : I'm not about to exclude XP users from LFS.
It's not : "I'm considering it, what do you think?"
It is : "LFS will NOT move past DX9 at this point."
Redman, I understand you disagree, you have the viewpoint "move with the times" and so on, which is exactly the attitude MS wants people to have. But I don't and can't subscribe to that viewpoint. So we will never agree on that.
Shotglass, I am not interested in making LFS work with two different versions of DirectX. All I want to do is finish this 3D stuff and get onto completing the tyre physics, so LFS can actually move on!
It's not : "I'm considering it, what do you think?"
It is : "LFS will NOT move past DX9 at this point."
Redman, I understand you disagree, you have the viewpoint "move with the times" and so on, which is exactly the attitude MS wants people to have. But I don't and can't subscribe to that viewpoint. So we will never agree on that.
Shotglass, I am not interested in making LFS work with two different versions of DirectX. All I want to do is finish this 3D stuff and get onto completing the tyre physics, so LFS can actually move on!
Don't really see the point of this arguing. Upgrading to DX10 wouldn't magically improve LFS' graphics or performance. So DX9 seems a reasonable step as that will give access to shaders without cutting of XP users.
So when exactly do these two track environments pop up? After 3D update, before tyre physics, after tyre physics, together with physics or don't want to say otherwise too much claiming going to occur.
he can make very interesent things with only DX9, just look what can do GT5/6 and forza 4 with only old dx.
but scawen please we must finish this awful story of long time waiting with tyres phycs and making better graphisme with DX9 in the near future if possible, and for sure here we goes for another 10 years of pure pleasure.
but scawen please we must finish this awful story of long time waiting with tyres phycs and making better graphisme with DX9 in the near future if possible, and for sure here we goes for another 10 years of pure pleasure.
I'm mostly a silent reader in this part of the forum (well most of the forum to be honest) but now I feel that I have to say that I am speechless about your opinion towards modern IT technology, or to be more precise, software. Don't get me wrong Scawen, you are on my list of few people I really look up to when it comes to writing games and without any doubt, you have done (and still am doing) a superb job with LFS.
I also agree with you that Windows XP is a very good OS, which is still going strong (in fact the hospital I work for, is running XP on all their computers) while other so claimed better operating systems have been released. Having said that, XP is reaching the end of its life and while Vista wasn't a great OS, Windows 7 clearly is in my opinion.
Since most gamers are keen on new technology on both hard- and software sides, I very much doubt that many of the LFS users are still on Windows XP.
This doesn't mean that you have to abandon them right now, in fact the question isn't even on the table as you are currently working on 3D graphics and will then continue work on new tyre physics, but as time progresses and both hard- and software are getting better and better (although you can always argue about what is better and what isn't) the content LFS is delivering to people is on a sliding slope.
Sure, photorealistic graphics mean nothing when the game plays like crap, but in all honesty, LFS could do with some more graphical eye candy.
Well, just my 2 cents on this issue and to end on a positive note, I want to thank you for all that you did and are still doing for this great game.
It's a masterpiece and will only get better with every release you do, but please don't forget in which year we are living and don't close your eyes completely for all that is possible nowadays.
I also agree with you that Windows XP is a very good OS, which is still going strong (in fact the hospital I work for, is running XP on all their computers) while other so claimed better operating systems have been released. Having said that, XP is reaching the end of its life and while Vista wasn't a great OS, Windows 7 clearly is in my opinion.
Since most gamers are keen on new technology on both hard- and software sides, I very much doubt that many of the LFS users are still on Windows XP.
This doesn't mean that you have to abandon them right now, in fact the question isn't even on the table as you are currently working on 3D graphics and will then continue work on new tyre physics, but as time progresses and both hard- and software are getting better and better (although you can always argue about what is better and what isn't) the content LFS is delivering to people is on a sliding slope.
Sure, photorealistic graphics mean nothing when the game plays like crap, but in all honesty, LFS could do with some more graphical eye candy.
Well, just my 2 cents on this issue and to end on a positive note, I want to thank you for all that you did and are still doing for this great game.
It's a masterpiece and will only get better with every release you do, but please don't forget in which year we are living and don't close your eyes completely for all that is possible nowadays.
yea agree with you, it's time to take some month and give us a new and great LFS at the end of 2013.
LFS already have almost photorealistic graphics.
Scawen should experiment with lighting/shading then it will be really good.
In my opinion in the simulator more important than graphic is sound and this should be improved because what is at the moment is terrible.
//Sorry for off-topic.
Very, very glad to hear that. Keep up the good work
I wish I could clean this thread!
Let Scawen work and stop bullshitting about the difference between dx9 and dx10/11. Go play farcry 3 and tell me the differences. None that you can really feel. Well I had a bug under dx9 with the crosshair, but that was just a bug, drivers or gsme related. You can also try Project Cars it looks awesome in both dx settings but it still miss two points. Cant run well on most configuration and I still prefer LFS physics. If you play LFS on a good 2003 or 2005 pc well you might have a configuration that works better with xp. I dont believe players from non super rich country (the list is quite long) change gear for the BEST every year or two.
What is the point getting Scawen pissed by comment that we know will not influence him? He is clever enough, let him finish polish that new physic engine!
Back to the topic, I had in mind going triple screen now I hesitate just getting a rift! It is cheaper and more immersive, but I still dont know if I must wait for the V1.
Wait for the release version.
DX9.0c have everything that LFS will ever need and much more.
People saying that Scawen should go for DX10 or even DX11 are completely clueless. Nobody gave any reasonable argument as of how LFS would benefit from DX10/11.
People saying that Scawen should go for DX10 or even DX11 are completely clueless. Nobody gave any reasonable argument as of how LFS would benefit from DX10/11.
Hey ;D he allready said that he wont upgrade LFS to DX9+ or something else.
When he finished the 3D Support for LFS he will finish the Tyers what is Priority 1, i hope..
LFS ist struggleing in the past and didnt made any progress since 6 years. Dont distract him from his work with this useless APIs. - Useless for LFS
Spinoff : DirectX and Windows version discussion
(291 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG