Quote from Scawen :

By the way, do you start to see why Eric doesn't like posting here? These crazy conversations you end up having with people who can write but can't read. They are quite mentally tiring because you have to say the same thing dozens of times and still it is ignored and the conversation goes round and round like a wheel of deja vu. It seems like people have nothing to do so they play a fun game "wind up the developer who likes talking to the community". "All we have to do is keep repeating Microsoft marketing at him, regardless of his reply, and soon he'll become agitated which is great fun". That's probably not the case but it starts to look that way, when people talk to you and don't read the reply.

After a while it seems like there isn't any point saying anything because what you say is ignored.

I do think you're right with that, your mind is set, there is no reason for you to move on from XP so why discuss it at length with us.

Maybe you shouldn't go to the extreme Eric has chosen to go, meaning no communication at all but just be a little more selective in which discussion you chose to get involved in. I do think this XP vs Win7 one for example would've gone the same way without your input, maybe it wouldn't be as heated (because both a part of the community and you got very strong views on the subject) but I still think it is an interesting discussion about the pros and cons of software moving with the times and deserves a space in the forums, this thread was probably the wrong place to go on about it though.

While it may not seem like it but I do think a lot of us really appreciate having a developer that is so open with the community and that is probably part of the reasons why so many still are so passionate about LFS and whatever happens in this forum. I still think no/very little communication is the wrong approach for the situation we are in right now, just ignoring the few naysayers when stuff doesn't work out as planned is still much easier then ignoring an even bigger part of the community that used to love speculating about every little thing you guys decided to share with us.

But that is another topic where there's strong opinions on both sides and was discussed at length already, so I'll stop now before we get into even more drama.

Quote from ferret :

This was the post on the first page that led to the debate over OS's. My question - How did a thread about Physics lead to this? Also, am I correct in thinking that it is ONLY Scawen that has to use XP? We can use Win7/8, Linux, Mac, Win 98 (can we still?) and XP if we want. Is this correct or have I missed something? Isn't that the message Scawen is trying to get across to people?

Exactly, thank you.

And there is no wasted time involved in using XP. It was Windows 7 that seemed to waste my time with its ridiculous, absolutely absurd security measures as if my home network was full of cyber criminals, to the point where it could waste hours to (1) install a printer and (2) allow other computers to connect to it, something that took a couple of minutes on XP. I don't know where that idea that using XP somehow wastes time comes from but it was probably just edge3147 trying to be controversial.

Quote from troy :

I do think you're right with that, your mind is set, there is no reason for you to move on from XP so why discuss it at length with us.

Maybe you shouldn't go to the extreme Eric has chosen to go, meaning no communication at all but just be a little more selective in which discussion you chose to get involved in. I do think this XP vs Win7 one for example would've gone the same way without your input, maybe it wouldn't be as heated (because both a part of the community and you got very strong views on the subject) but I still think it is an interesting discussion about the pros and cons of software moving with the times and deserves a space in the forums, this thread was probably the wrong place to go on about it though.

Thanks, yes actually it is quite interesting to share views.

I was just getting a bit frustrated by people trying to solve the "problem" of me using XP, although I've said a lot of times that I am quite happy using XP and also it's the best option to allow LFS to run on many different types of computer. There simply isn't a problem.

I really do think Microsoft is just pushing us around in a desperate attempt to force people to upgrade. It will work a bit but in the long term it will just drive people away. They are running out of time. They should have just continued with good upgrades, let people update in their own time, accept a lower income. There is a big problem in capitalism - a religious belief in "grow or die". Actually, income can be reduced and things can go on. Maybe you need to reduce staff numbers but really, this whole growth thing is starting to look quite silly in a crowded world.

thick scawen being thick

So umm , back on topic - How's the Physics going Scawen

Quote from CodeLyoko1 :

thick scawen being thick

You are thick, CodeLyoko1. Almost brain dead.

You can't read but you can write. You are the sort of annoying nutcase that begins to wind me up.

If you can read, read this: https://www.lfsforum.net/showt ... php?p=1857760#post1857760

Scawen, don't let them waste your time. Your decisions are absolutely resonable and well explained.
No need to go futher offtopic, this thread should be closed.

Anyone can use whatever operating system or version they want for all I care, if Scawen would be better off with Windows 3.11 for game development, power to him.

I personally made the switch from XP to 7 (via Vista) out of my free will and for video/art/vector creation work it's far superior to XP. One reason being that XP is natively 32-bit only. Yes, there is a 64-bit XP version, but it's far from stable or polished for daily use. For serious video editing, 16+ gigs of RAM is a godsend and that is something XP doesn't allow for a single application to use.

Regarding OS updates, I can understand skipping some of them. I know couple updates for W7 that totally broke deleting folders on my system, so I just uninstalled and hid them from the update manager. Not installing security updates as a whole seems very risky, as crooks manage to pull off pretty impressive stunts even with temporary files from web browsers, non-IE browsers included.

:twocents:

each one work with stuff that can help him and provide simplicity and easiness.

some people should stop imposing their opinion to others, DX9 have great potential and have all stuff that a artiste/programmer needed to make great piece of art, its all about dev's talent to how model/textures/code their work and only with that they can make realistic result, newer version of DX have nothing to do with good graphical quality.

Quote from Scawen :

You are thick, CodeLyoko1. Almost brain dead.

You can't read but you can write. You are the sort of annoying nutcase that begins to wind me up.

If you can read, read this: https://www.lfsforum.net/showt ... php?p=1857760#post1857760

the question is, who is thicker Dawesdust or Codelyoko?

Anyways... Hopefully you guys can get us some new content to try or physics by year end, you might be able to revive the community a bit for league racing at least. Best of luck.
Also just to add, I don't give a damn how you develop stuff. What difference does it make as long as the end result is achieved in the easiest fashion?

I understand your point in wanting to stay with XP and DX9, but look at this from a technical standpoint. XP is not longer supported with security updates. Meaning that everyone who is using XP is going to be very vulnerable to being exploited and exposed. We are talking about an OS that is over 12 years old. How do you expect to progress and develop a physics engine that isn't slow when you are catering to hardware that is equally old, slow and out of date.

To advance you have to move out of your comfort zone and try new things, otherwise those who are not afraid of change and progression will move past you like a super car flying by a moped on the motorway.

**Side Note**

I am not saying abandon all of your current work and start over or start upgrading to DX10 right away, but for the future of LFS this needs to be considered. Computers today are sooo much better than basically every machine running XP unless someone is such a diehard fan of XP that they have a monster gaming system running it.

Quote from edge3147 :

I understand your point in wanting to stay with XP and DX9, but look at this from a technical standpoint. XP is not longer supported with security updates. Meaning that everyone who is using XP is going to be very vulnerable to being exploited and exposed. We are talking about an OS that is over 12 years old. How do you expect to progress and develop a physics engine that isn't slow when you are catering to hardware that is equally old, slow and out of date.

To advance you have to move out of your comfort zone and try new things, otherwise those who are not afraid of change and progression will move past you like a super car flying by a moped on the motorway.

the vulnerability problem is not on xp, but on the person who are using their pc and download the first link that appear on a random popup.

and why you want him to change DX, while lfs has not yet exploited even 1% of DX9 possibility, the change are needed only if scawen want to make some features that DX9 hasn't.

Quote from lfsrm :

the vulnerability problem is not on xp, but on the person who are using their pc and download the first link that appear on a random popup.

and why you want him to change DX, while lfs has not yet exploited even 1% of DX9 possibility, the change are needed only if scawen want to make some features that DX9 hasn't.

The point I am trying to make is development progress might be faster than it is currently by catering to today's hardware and software and not hardware that is a decade old now.

I work with technology on a daily basis and the overall stubbornness of the public to accept change with technology is just ridiculous. Technology advances and changes to improve performance, reliability and security. Sticking with something that is over 10 years old is just silly when you look at the advances technology has made since that time.

Quote from edge3147 :

I understand your point in wanting to stay with XP and DX9, but look at this from a technical standpoint. XP is not longer supported with security updates. Meaning that everyone who is using XP is going to be very vulnerable to being exploited and exposed. We are talking about an OS that is over 12 years old. How do you expect to progress and develop a physics engine that isn't slow when you are catering to hardware that is equally old, slow and out of date.

To advance you have to move out of your comfort zone and try new things, otherwise those who are not afraid of change and progression will move past you like a super car flying by a moped on the motorway.

Well I think my hardware is quite fast in fact, just a few years old, it's a pretty good base.

I would honestly feel really bad if we kicked out all the Mac, Linux and XP users. I would feel like Microsoft's slave whore if you see what I mean. That's exactly what they want me to do. And they can shove it. I'm not playing along with their self serving, ungenerous, pure capitalist, misguided grow-or-die bad attitude.

Luckily, their attempts to force developers to change have failed on me so far. I don't think that will last forever, somehow it will break in the end. But then I might try to abandon Microsoft as far as possible, as a human I can learn from experience and try very hard not to make the same mistake twice. I'm not known for allowing 'big guys' to control me for too long, I just avoid the situation of becoming stuck as a tool for others.

But I don't think you have to worry, LFS does gradually require more hardware resources as time goes on. It's a gradual process but I always want to stay on the side of high frame rate.

Quote from edge3147 :

The point I am trying to make is development progress might be faster than it is currently by catering to today's hardware and software and not hardware that is a decade old now.

newer DX technology won't magically draw polycount/textures or making physics code by themselves, its all depend of devs motivation and talent, with today's hardware you can increase polycount or making some heavy effect and DX9 can do all of that with ease, IMO the graphical engine and how is coded is more important than DX version 95% of feature that you can see in modern game is provided by how graphical engin are coded.

Switching over to DX11 won't improve a thing, it will simply limit other OS users. LFS doesn't need fancy graphics, they need to be simple, yet effective.

oh man i feel like i missed a party here but seriously there is about as much agreement going on here as there is between republicans and democrats in the US congress.

where to begin?

fact: we like XP so much because it is a version of NT. in fact windows NT, XP, Vista, 7 and 8 all have the same operating system kernel developed by IBM for OS/2 (which was supposed to be a joint venture between IBM and MS). NT features the HAL (hardware abstraction layer) which is a bridge between the applications and all the nice hardware in our machines. newer versions of windows add extras that may or may not be useful and that WE DON'T NECESSARILY NEED. we need NT and the HAL to use LFS on windows.

fact: once compiled, our applications are just processor instructions. LFS running on XP is no different from LFS running on windows 8 or linux.

dustin has a point that there are a ton of ongoing security issues in microsoft software and that XP is no longer being patched. where i respectfully disagree with him is that almost all bugs that have been patched in the last half a decade are related to malicious websites.

as has been pointed out the average user gets infected mostly from that. my grandmother repeatedly got infected (while using fully patched vista) and one of my neighbors got the conduit malware too under fully patched windows 7. (source: i cleaned their computers). my XP machine never got a virus. it all depends on how you use your machine and how much you know about technology. patches are a good idea to limit how easy it is for malware writers to do their evil, but the malware writers are always one step ahead.

i'm comfortable stating i'm not an idiot for using XP. i have a dedicated machine hooked up to a simulator cockpit and use it only for that. if i were to connect it to the internet it would be so LFS.exe could do multiplayer connections.

unlike MS code, i'm pretty sure there aren't a zillion buffer overflow vulnerabilities in LFS.

paying for a windows 7 license for this sim cockpit would give me zero benefit at this moment. i literally would not see the difference as i did laps around aston in an fz5.

as has been mentioned, developing on XP in DX9 is only better for the user base. we can use our win 8 DX 11 machine to run this code if we want. no one is being forced to be less secure by this design decision!

one note to make about shader support in DX9 is that shaders do not benefit from FSAA! just look at euro truck sim which does a lot of heavy shader stuff and you'll see people with $500 video cards who complain the framerate isn't good enough. there are cases where shaders are great, mostly for kids games where cool looking graphics will increase sales. personally i don't like movies that rely on special effects instead of plot (say, X-MEN).

Quote from edge3147 :

How do you expect to progress and develop a physics engine that isn't slow when you are catering to hardware that is equally old, slow and out of date.

actually even old hardware is blindingly fast. i have a commodore 64 that only runs at 1 megahertz but it can do a lot of calculations in a second.

the key is that even though computers got faster in the last 10 years the core MHz hasn't changed that much. for lfs to have a faster physics engine we either need new technology that will give Scawen 8x the processing power (per core) or he needs to come up with a new trick to get more done with the same processing power.

Doom is an example of a good trick that got more done with existing technology. it did that by leveraging a data structure to precompile expensive calculations.

Thank you Carl. If I may add a bit to the discussion, what's better than a picture ? I know, 2 pictures. What's better than 2 pictures ? A blind test ! (sorry I had to.. for some reason..).
Anyways, here's the pic(s); could you folks tell me which one is DX9 and which one is DX11 please ?

PS: don't mind the AA please .

Quote from Scawen :

Windows 7 did originally allow developers to switch on the debug version of DirectX 9, but recently disabled that ability. My understanding of it is a deliberate move to discourage developers from developing for anything other than the latest versions of Windows, to subsequently increase sales.

i did a few student placements at IBM in tech support. during my first work term i was often asked to convert documents from newer MS Office formats to the previous version so they could be opened by employees using OS/2. when i suggested people could just install windows 98 i was told it would be a cold day in hell when IBM installed 98 on its employees computers.

the next year i spent a good part of my student placement installing 98 on IBM employees' computers.

Scawen i agree with you 100% and i think that in recent years we've seen that although Microsoft's approach to business worked very well for them there has been some push back from the public.

I don't mean to be that guy.... but I don't understand what any of this does. LFS can run on a toaster, is this new DX11 that much better looking?

Quote from luchian :

could you folks tell me which one is DX9 and which one is DX11 please ?

i guess the one on the right is DX9. the texture on the burgundy part in the top right looks a bit more blurry.

i hope to god Scawen improves the lateral force / slip angle fidelity before we see reflections and dynamic shadows

although driving in the rain in netKar is really cool and the reflections do play a part of that .. but after i'm done with netKar i always come back to lfs

Quote from Bmxtwins :

I don't mean to be that guy.... but I don't understand what any of this does. LFS can run on a toaster, is this new DX11 that much better looking?

https://developer.oculusvr.com ... topic.php?f=44&t=5291

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/110048-13-dx10-dx11

i think the biggest difference is tessellation. tessellation is when you send a circle or part of a circle to the video card and say "draw this in 8 pieces" or "draw this in 32 pieces". as you ask it to break the circle into smaller pieces it looks smoother but takes longer to draw.

in a nutshell, video cards became a big cash cow but to sell video cards to kids you want to make them "better" and "cooler" so they added features and to use those features a new API.

really LFS does its magic directly in the CPU and only uses to basic features of video cards.

Quote from Bmxtwins :

I don't mean to be that guy.... but I don't understand what any of this does. LFS can run on a toaster, is this new DX11 that much better looking?

there are zero major visible difference, only dev's skills to code their own graphical engine are making the difference.

It's like talking to a brick wall here.

I am more concerned about the hardware than I am the software aspect.

Progression of the physics will eventually need a hardware boost. Start adding things like weather and engine breakdowns or other mechanical errors that will need some sort of calculation to determine these things and you are eventually going to hit a ceiling when catering to this older hardware or hardware that doesn't have appropriate support because it is on an OS that isn't supported like Windows is. I know you want to cater to Mac and Linux, but from a business standpoint. Windows has and will remain the dominate platform for PC gaming. There are plenty of ways for Mac and Linux users to use LFS without having to specifically cater to that specific OS. This seems like a dragging the feet kind of method if you ask me. On one hand you want to progress LFS and make it better and add more content/features but on the other hand you are worrying about a fraction of the player base because you fear they won't figure out a way to play LFS because of OS issues. LFS fans that use all 3 platforms will certainly figure out a way to play LFS if there is much more development progress going on. At this current pace, I see everyone leaving and complaining because again, the developers vision doesn't match what the player base wants.

I think it is pretty clear that over the last 5 years since the announcement of VWS and Rockingham, people are more concerned with having the game updated and refreshed rather than all of this other development that has taken place.

If the developers want to keep being blinded by their own view for LFS, then go ahead and continue down this path.

Whatever you decide to do, you will always have someone that is upset. The question is, do you want to have a majority of the player base upset because of the lack of progress or would you rather have a fraction of the player base upset because of loss of support of hardware/software.

In any technical situation, there will always be a point where in order to progress, you have to force those that use your product to upgrade and purchase something that will perform with you technical advances