it's close, it's close ...

Quote from Flotch :

it's close, it's close ...

Go steady there...that may be interpreted as sexism....

Quote from troy :

http://www.lava-studios.com/downloads/christoffersen/schUPpor_-_White_UpMas.mp3

More relevant then ever!

)) what tha'... ))

Quote from Amynue :

Scawen can you please tell us how that shadow experiment went?

It's a variation on the existing shadows + ambient lighting system. Still using vertices and splitting triangles to create shadows, but as it splits them a different way, it can go deeper, splitting the already split triangles, without them becoming pointy shards like broken glass. Also there is a process of test-splitting them to see if there is a shadow between two vertices, then backing out again if there is not. So it's better at detecting shadows and reducing the size of excessive shadows on large triangles. There's still more to be done. I need to store in pairs of triangles the info that they are part of a rectangle, so it can be split more sensibly. For example, a long thin rectangle that is part of an armco barrier. If one end is in shadow and the other is not, then it is split 'along' as required, but also 'across' which is very wasteful. It's worth finishing this because the shadows are improved (to some extent, although still flawed) without going deep into some alternative shadow system.

Quote from racerss :

Quote from CZE :

Hello.Any new progress with westhill??Last post about how its going is old around one moth...

He said that the ETA Is few weeks, (8 nvmbr)it's 9 december now and still nothing. i'm just waiting for the paths system =D

Yes there is progress. I have received updates from Eric, tested them, found things that could be improved with some code support. Also some editor requests from Eric to help with things. So he's been on the case and I have continued to support it.

Basically we are working together and it's one big graphical push. To our way of thinking it's worth carrying on with that, so we get to a level we are happy with for now. For once, Eric has had a long session with my coding support and hasn't been rushed to a deadline. So that's a good thing. The functions and features I have been working on will help with updates on other tracks and the ones we have not yet released.

Quote from nacim :

Quote from Flotch :

Do not you think they plan to release the damn thing before xmas ? ^^

I'm still hoping a test patch for Xmas.

Unfortunately if I look at the date and look at my lists of things to do, Westhill will not be out by Christmas. Maybe I can get the new paths system test patch released. I'll see if I can prioritise those tasks. Though it's good I didn't rush that out, as I just came across a change that needed to be made to the TV camera selection system.

Is there a chance to get a "Westhill Progress (Dezember '14)" Thread?

Quote from Scawen :

It's a variation...

thanks for progress report , I personally have no problem to wait because graphics improvement are very complex and I understand the time taken to improve things with minimal collateral damage.

keep this great work, we are all happy to see you working hardly on our favorite simulation, and am sure LFS in 2016 will up to another level.

Quote from Flame CZE :

Quote from rychlyjaromir :

lol.

What's so funny?

just delete this, some personnes dont deserve any chance to explain their limited opinion.

"good" (in some way), I still have some time to buy a G27 at a decent price before Westhill is released

Quote from Scawen :

...
Unfortunately if I look at the date and look at my lists of things to do, Westhill will not be out by Christmas. ...

Do you dare to share this list or part of it ?

It's better to wait a long time for a finished product, than to get an unfinished product now

So 0.6 means finished?

Quote from cargame.nl :

So 0.6 means finished?

he mean finished improvements.

Quote from nacim :

Quote from Flotch :

Do not you think they plan to release the damn thing before xmas ? ^^

I'm still hoping a test patch for Xmas.

Quote from Scawen :

Maybe I can get the new paths system test patch released.

Cool! Thanks for letting us know.

Quote from Scawen :

Maybe I can get the new paths system test patch released.

That would be really nice!
You mean with path system the path for the AI and that we can create a path for the AI??

Quote from Stölzel :

Quote from Scawen :

Maybe I can get the new paths system test patch released.

That would be really nice!
You mean with path system the path for the AI and that we can create a path for the AI??

In first post there is something about paths

Quote from Scawen :

The high level of detail resulted in some loss of frame rate, specially in open configs, so we have worked on a new system where open configs can use 'paths' (and change between paths as needed) so LFS knows where you are and what you can see from your location. This keeps the frame rate high by avoiding drawing too many objects. I worked on a new hidden object removal system which doesn't miss objects like the old system did. I plan to release updated hidden object files for the existing tracks.

Scawen keep up the great work! No rush

Thanks to advise him xD

Quote from Scawen :

Unfortunately if I look at the date and look at my lists of things to do, Westhill will not be out by Christmas. Maybe I can get the new paths system test patch released. I'll see if I can prioritise those tasks. Though it's good I didn't rush that out, as I just came across a change that needed to be made to the TV camera selection system.

Okay, thanks for your reply. That's really great that LFS is getting a big refresh ! Keep it up guys !

I post this here because it has a vague link to progress reports and i see Scawen follows this thread.

I was wondering, why doesn't LFS use a third party engine like Unity3D? I see the price is $1500 or $76/month if i understand correctly. Also, I remember reading somewhere there are older engines that have become free. Can't the physics engine be added to such game engine? Are there other limitations?
I'm not a programmer per se, but i guess development would proceed with fewer headaches and progress (here's the link with the thread ) would be faster.

Searching the forum for similar questions i found this thread https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/86262 where someone posted a interactive rendering of a LFS car made in unity3d, it looks really nice.

I wish LFS an even bigger community in 2015, some new content... and a physics system.

I myself Work with Unity3D and i think Unity3D is not bad but it is to bad for LFS. LFS is the way it is now Properly Good. Graphic is not all and that is the big good thing here.

Added: For a LFS 2 i have no problem with Unity3D

LFS 2 running on Unreal would be a bigger beast.. with the new voxel cone GI and particle systems would add a lot to the immersion.

Anyway, i don´t care much as long as I see some activity here .

I was talking about the engine in context of the new progress report. I see Scawen is working a lot lately trying to fix different graphics problems. Using a separate engine would free the developer from having to "reinvent the graphics wheel" and increase time allocated for the innovative physics engine.

Quote from pigmeu :

I was wondering, why doesn't LFS use a third party engine like Unity3D? I see the price is $1500 or $76/month if i understand correctly. Also, I remember reading somewhere there are older engines that have become free. Can't the physics engine be added to such game engine? Are there other limitations?

To be honest, the use of third-party engine as Unity3d can inhibit the development of even more than the further development of the existing engine. The use of such engines seems very easy at first, but when it comes to rewriting some built-in stuff or adding new, you may encounter a bunch of restrictions that can not be avoided because of the lack of access to the source code.
For example, for a demo with the car from LFS I had to rewrite part of the rendering pipeline, and many times to step on a rake, before I was able to achieve results.
If the only problem is the outdated graphics, this problem is not in whole engine, but only part of the rendering, which can be modified and rewritten. Scawen just need some time to fully explore the graphics programming and choose the right direction. A recent move to DirectX 9 allows to make a lot of things.

also I think graphics engine have some connection to the physics one in lfs, so using external system need to rewrite big part of physics code.

so it's just making things longer.

My personal opinion is that LFS devs should give us the source code of the graphical engine, so that experienced people can work on improving it (or share it to trusted people).
Then, people can send their work to the devs, and so Scawen can choose to implement it (a bit like the translation process).
The only restriction will be to not overload devs with "new super cool feature that need to create super high 8K textures with normal maps and specular maps and 4000h to implement it" and respect requirments from the devs.

LFS has a wonderful and powerful community, I think it could ne great to give us the opportunity to improve our favorite game that made us live on someway.

You guys have some weird fantasies...

Nonono everything can be done by one or two guys, its only going to take fiftheenthousandmoreXmasses but in the end the biggest baddest race simulator is going to be released with the most amazing real life race tracks and cars. You will see!

/ban [how many days its going to be this time]

Last words: Hire Becky