DX9 slightly more CPU usage (which could explain why some people even got FPS drop), while much lower GPU usage.
About that DX vs OpenGL drama:
OpenGL does not provide support for input, sound, ... while DX does. So answer is simple. OpenGL "is a journey into the unknown", for slightly more users Scawen will have headache for months. Not to mention all possible problems that OpenGL could bring.
Hold on a second... Are you saying, that OpenGL is inferior to DX, because as a Graphics Library, it only supports graphics? Heck, I will install OpenAL for the audio parts... problem solved...
Other parts needed when switching from DirectX to OpenGL: window setup/resize/fullscreen switching (OpenGL does not do this itself), keyboard/mouse input, joystick/controller input, and force-feedback output.
Lets sum it up. If LFS wants to get rid of DirectX, it needs to be replaced by SDL(window management, input,2D sound), OpenAL(3D sound) and OpenGL(graphics).
You stand firm on your right to restrict the graphics output of LFS to suit a small number of ?low income? low end computer users who presumably refuse to upgrade to either a more powerful computer or a later OS or cannot afford to, whichever.
Fine, but what confuses me is your 3D development for Occulus equipment that at a suggested $400 plus US dollars ( which I certainly can't afford and with eyesight problems couldn't benefit from anyways,) would seem counterproductive, given my interpretation of your willingness to cater for what appears to be low income users of LFS equipment wise?
My idea being if they cant go up to later video and cpu power due to poverty, how can they afford 3d googles?
Also this is as keeping you as you imply from finishing the tyre physics that is holding up anything and everything update wise.
if you choose to answer this question.
I believe no one can achieve perfection in something so complex and variable as the tyre physics no matter how smart you are or how much time you put into it, I believe there is a point of diminishing return, both in time, effort and sanity .
I ask the question, respectfully, that may be on everyones lips, at what point would you consider it enough and release what you have rather than devote your entire future years to solving the necessary equations?
Thanks for the opportunity to ask a few questions, submit some concerns about a product I've been invovled with for many years, remembering I took the time to collate and write the unoffical S1 guide for LFS many years ago.
Implementing Oculus support, or multi-monitor settings does not break compatibility with people that don't have the hardware. Switching to DX10/11 would make the game unavailable to anyone stuck in XP.
Would you drop steering wheel support because not everybody has one?
Using DX9 isn't a restriction at all. It has loads of features we aren't using and enough to keep us busy improving graphics for many years. DX10/11 are just minor updates, specially designed not to work on XP, a strategy by Microsoft to force people to upgrade from XP which is a perfectly good operating system.
I've used Windows 7 now and it's much more difficult to use, unbelievably frustrating to just try to do something as simple as install some printer software and share the printer for use by other computers on the network, a task which had me quite angry and searching the internet for the necessary solutions and ways round the stupid security systems. I completed the whole task in 5 minutes without a single hitch when I reinstalled XP.
Windows 7 also removes the ability to go full screen on multiple monitors, except in specific configurations using third party software. So it a real step backwards in many ways. An awful experience that I don't want to subject others to.
Also DX9 is supported by Wine so people using Linux can run LFS. This is really great - I'm so pleased that there is an alternative to Microsoft which is now resorting to sabotage to try to get people to buy its later (and in my opinion inferior) operating systems.
We aren't forcing XP and Linux users to use an Oculus Rift, so I don't see your point.
The Oculus Rift is a great device, I've always wanted something more immersive than looking at the screen and I'm really looking forward to getting a high resolution Rift!
I don't have any more to say about the tyres really. I just want to get them done, and I don't want to go on for years.
pretty sure it already has gone on for years. My second child just started her first day of real school. she was born the same year sirocco was announced along with the new tire model.
not sure we will need that tire model once we have hover cars.
This is maybe because of the higher encryption of the network traffic. When using 64 bit and 32 bit Operating systems on a Network, you need just to share the 32 bit driver over network. But i dont know how to use a printer which is installed on a 32 bit XP in a 64 bit windows 8.1.
Some Canon Printers like PIXMA IP5300 works not on Windows 8.... I have also alot of reasons to be angry about microsofts new operating systems.
How about to make LFS ready for OpenGL and make a real linux-version?
Next year comes Windows 9, i hope this will be better. If it the same crap like Windows 8, i really go to linux when i buy new hardware. With new hardware i have then maybe also enough power for using LFS in Wine.........
Hopefully windows 9 will be good. Microsoft tends to follow the one good/ok os and then a totally shitty one pattern. Seeing as 7 was still ok despite its problems and windows 8 being criticised almost unanimously I can just hope that 9 will be good(and I really hope they get rid of that metro thing, at least for the PC version...)
I've always agree on that opinion, but since I installed Windows 8.1 I can only regret for not having upgraded earlier. Maybe the bad was 8 and the good 8.1, but that would leave as expecting 9 to be bad again xD
In the "metro thing" is it not possible to create subcategorys and it use for every tile a single shortcut in the filesystem. It seems microsoft will cause a overkill of the filesystem just because of the windows surroundings. Why do it make no databases for installed software and shortcuts? If i want uninstall a software it need time to create a list with installed software. And in my Windows 8.1 works the Google Earth from 10/2013 not. This are just some examples. If u have older software and hardware are there much more problems. For example: No 64 bit drivers for my Network-Controller available. Linux 64 bit have a driver for it. Linux support more hardware than windows.
BTW Windows 8.1 is faster than Windows 8. 32 Bit programs work very much better.
(I do not install a 32 bit operating system higher than Windows XP)
Yes i wan't to run windows2000 since w2k is a LOT better than XP. And in fact Vista is better than both of them and more stable than win7/win8. Never seen a properly managed vista system that needed suddenly a re-install. How different that is with win7/win8.
But,
Support on w2k has ended, xp will be ended soon and in about 20 months about all gamers will move to win7/win8 since new software just won't run on XP and will be unsupported on Vista.
I have moved on and i am now on win7 and will try to skip win8.x, There really is no point in fighting for an end-of-life product.
My personal preference is that everybody would run RedHat/CentOS or Ubuntu since that would solve lot of daily problems. Not very likely to happen soon I am not running linux on my game-pc since games are build for win7/win8 except for lfs:auto:
I've had completely opposite experiences when it comes to Vista and W7...
Ubuntu have made some really weird decisions in the past years, like going for the horrible unity UI and adding so much bloat. Mint is now my preferred Linux distro, it uses Ubuntu as a base with its packages, but comes with a much better UI and skips all the bloatyness.
Nah, biggest problem with vista was, people tried it to run it on outdated hardware or to slow systems. I made sure friends got up-to-date hardware before they moved to vista. Not seen much vista-installations in enterprise-market though.
Most extreme example i have seen with vista is surviving 6 full years without a single reinstall, surviving multiple system-board upgrades, several graphics cards replacements, 500+ installations and removals of software. Software ranging from simple crap to production applications and actively used as media/workstation/game-system every single day. Why did the person move on, vista is nearing end-of-life.
win7 well... as i mentioned earlier, you need to move on, Vista will soon no longer be supported so I already moved to win7 long time ago. Probably i will skip win8.x and move straight to win9(?), since working with win8 makes me seriously frustrated, angry within 10 minutes. So I will try really hard to completely skip win8 and try not to get myself into situations I have actually to do any production work on a system with win8.x installed.
I am puzzled why Scawen clings to WindowsXP, it is something from the past. The greatest system I ever had was atari ST, sold it over 20 years ago. Why, no matter how great it was, it was OUTDATED.
Well, my experience with Vista in a corporate, server/client situation is, ( drum roll please ) XP is an awesome OS.
Personally, 3.11 for Workgroups has yet to be beaten, everything else is just going to more bloat.
Mind you, even that is bloatie so lets all go to command line unix with no GUI.
Vista tends to wag it's tail and bark, and in no way is it superior to XP. 7 is, because it sorted Vista's issues out, works, is stable, has enough bling to keep user's quiet, works well in server/client relationships, it really is the OS of current rational choice.
It also has the stable 64 bit environment that XP never offered. 8 and 8.1, well, if you use a touchscreen/tablet, or run a shell to get rid of it's huge issue's as a desktop OS is ok, but, in a desktop environment, 7 just works.
Mind you, for most programmers, multithreading is black magic, multicore ?, well, roll on 2020, when they may have caught up with current 5 year old technology.
As little as people like MS's OS policy, there is no reason to not run 7, unless your PC is 8 plus years old and doesn't. In that case, I can sell you a cheap PC that is awesome !!!!!!!!!!
TBO, if clients would accept that Linux will soon do everything they need, embrace openGL, ( and the other Open* requirements ) then if game studio's also go, PHUQ DirectX, if you want us to use the latest MS OS just to give bling, WHY BOTHER !!!
That's why Steam OS has the potential to be a game changer. History say's that change is the only constant, let's see different OS's actually offer a different playing field.
Ah yes, it was good (compared to 3.1 anyway!) but I'm presuming you never experienced NT 3.51. IMHO nobody who did would ever consider going back to WFW 3.11 NT3.51 was the pinnacle of stability, and a bling-free zone.
I'm not sure about the majority, but personally I was a little disappointed in SteamOS. I do use my computer for gaming, but I do many other things with it, programming, writing, hosting servers sometimes (on LAN for example), and SteamOS by default doesn't really provide this, I have to install a lot of extentions that are provided on other Linux distros by default. Personally, I was looking for an OS that is better for gaming, but does not necessarily exclude everything else.
On the other hand, Steam client is pretty cool on Linux, it practically installs itself, and if I change the filesystem under it, Steam itself quickly adapts to it. There are not much games for it atm, but wine is still an option (which decreases performance. That's why I was looking for a distro that can run every game natively [is this a word?], but SteamOS is kinda quirky atm.).
Oh, and since LFS demands for power hasn't increased much in the past decade, I think running on WINE won't be much problem, I haven't tried it personally, I use W7 for gaming purposes , but might run only Linux at the next OS reinstallation.
SteamOS is designed to play games on your living room, nothing more. It's not really intended to be a general purpose OS, so... you are right, for a power user it is not that useful. But it is interesting though, as it will push forward drivers, API and performance under all Linux distributions.
Howdy, what is LFS like under Wine/Linux these days? I used to do it years ago but it wasn't that great & I had to hack drivers for my old wheel & FFB didn't work so I ended up just playing in WinXP as I dual boot anyway. I have a G25 now & am itching to upgrade my PC from its current 2005 level tech & seeing as WinXP support is ending soon too. I don't want to waste money on Win8 which I use at work & don't like, I'd rather wait for Win9 assuming it won't end up such a pile of crap, or just go Linux only.
Does anyone know/use LFS under Linux & is it 100% ok? It goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway; it'd be great if there was a native Linux version of LFS.
NT3.51 was the pinnacle of stability, and a bling-free zone. 
