Quote from TypeRacing :

I'm also asking Rockstar Games to optimize and lower details of GTA V. I bought it and I can't run, so I keep writing them as long as they start listening to people who have computers from '90s and want to play 2015 game.

He he, I had to buy additional 4 GB of ram for GTA V becase with only 4 GB it was stuttering due to loading stuff from HDD (Same thing as with NFS most wanted in 2005 when I had to buy additional 256MB)

Scawen, don't feel despondent by all these people complaining about how poorly 0.6H is optimized. Maybe it's optimized so good that all their PC's are going into power saving modes and have poor framerate? Because I didn't notice any FPS loss on non-rebuilt tracks whatsoever...

Before, it was very easy to run LFS.. No matter what computer settings you had, it would always run.. Yes, it would even run on a Pentium III with S3 Trio AGP card (I really need to think about these names, it's 20 years ago ) ...

Now, the bar for GPU performance has been risen. Slightly.. I like that! Finally the people which try to run it on toast maker machines is over. But this means all other people need to realize a bit more what they are doing. For me a driver update solved the issues I reported earlier however my GPU still decides to go to power save mode (P5 state).. I now know why, this happens when I lock the FPS on 100. It's simply the driver which detects, 'oh the GPU has not much to do, lets throttle it to save power and generate less heat'. Without switching back to LFS0.6G I'm quite sure it worked exactly like that. The only difference is that the earlier LFS versions run much easier in this power saving state because LFS demanded less GPU power to begin with. I now boosted the P5 memory clock to get around this, of course I can remove the LFS FPS cap but then I end up with a hot noisy laptop. And for what, nobody needs more then 100 FPS.

I can't comment on desktop experiences. Desktops belong in a museum.

Quote from cargame.nl :

And for what, nobody needs more than 100 FPS.

People with 120Hz monitors...

Quote from cargame.nl :

Desktops belong in a museum.

What's that supposed to mean?

Quote from Taavi(EST) :

People with 120Hz monitors...

LFS run physics at 100 Hz, so anything more will produce exact same frames. Run a replay at a very low speed and you will see...

Quote from Taavi(EST) :

What's that supposed to mean?

Probably that he has a laptop

What next update?

Quote from DANIEL-CRO :

Quote from Taavi(EST) :

People with 120Hz monitors...

LFS run physics at 100 Hz, so anything more will produce exact same frames. Run a replay at a very low speed and you will see...

Do some research...

Quote from Scawen :

One example in LFS is the spring above the wheel which is supported by a tyre below. The wheel is light compared with those two large spring effects and can easily cause instability. That is the reason for LFS's high update rate of 2000 Hz in the sub-updates, which avoids the cars jumping up and down all on their own due to jumping wheels! You saw in the google video, at one point, in a crash when some vertices went a bit wrong.

What happens is you have some very stiff springs for the chassis members, supporting a node which let's say is 10 kg. The physics engine finds out in one update that the springs are stretched by 5 cm. Now the super string spring applies a force of [A LOT] to that 10 kg mass. So in the next update you find that 10 kg mass has gone maybe 10 metres away or whatever, when really it should only have moved a mm or so.

The update time steps must be small enough so that large force acting on the small mass at the node, doesn't push the node too far away.

If LFS physics were locked to 100Hz, it couldn't be classified as a simulation at all.

In this case would it be more correct to say that LFS displays it's physics at 100Hz while the calculations are run at 2kHz?

Quote from Taavi(EST) :

If LFS physics were locked to 100Hz, it couldn't be classified as a simulation at all.

Then why is the replay slow motion not smooth enough? Or why are there only 2 decimal places for lap times? The "displayed" updates seem to be at 100 Hz.

Edit: Thanks, Rony.

Quote from Taavi(EST) :

People with 120Hz monitors...

Do they exist? If they do then I guess they are also smart enough to do this; http://www.overclock.net/t/1368777/how-to-create-custom-fps-limits-in-inspector

Quote from cargame.nl :

Quote from Taavi(EST) :

People with 120Hz monitors...

Do they exist? If they do then I guess they are also smart enough to do this; http://www.overclock.net/t/1368777/how-to-create-custom-fps-limits-in-inspector

I don't have a 120hz monitor but I've needed frame limit on some games (sims cough cough thousands of fps in loading screens making GPU's fry) and I don't like that the Nivida inspector doesn't seem to save these settings and you seem to have to turn the fps limits on every time when you boot your pc etc. Atleast that's how it worked for me.

Quote from Taavi(EST) :

If LFS physics were locked to 100Hz, it couldn't be classified as a simulation at all.

No, it's 100 Hz. LFS only does 20 sub-updates in each iteration to prevent high oscillations (collisions tests) for exact same reason Scawen has mentioned in this post.

Quote from DANIEL-CRO :

Quote from Taavi(EST) :

If LFS physics were locked to 100Hz, it couldn't be classified as a simulation at all.

No, it's 100 Hz. LFS only does 20 sub-updates in each iteration to prevent high oscillations (collisions tests) for exact same reason Scawen has mentioned in this post.

So in the end we agree, right? Graphics may be locked not to render more than 100Hz (100fps). But the PHYSICS are 20KHz.

Ehh no... Apparantly you insist about it but I think you missed some postings. This is one of them; https://www.lfs.net/forum/post/1866796#post1866796

right, OK?

He is right though dave, some parts run at 100HZ some run in the kHZ range. I am 100% confident I remember Scawen mentioning that.

edit: Only found Bob Smith mentioning Scawen right now but I'm sure I'll hunt down his post too at some point

Quote from Bob Smith :

'02-'08 Live For Speed - 100 Hz (collision detection) / 2000 Hz (vehicle dynamics) [posted by Scawen on lfsforum]

edit2: there you go https://www.lfs.net/forum/post/148802#post148802

I'm really concerned now, my 8 year old system copes really well with the new update but as I'm planning on never updating it I need to know,
when S3 is released in 10 years time, that my current PC will be supported ! /s

Quote from troy :

He is right though dave,

About what? GPU needs 2000 FPS? Maybe you also lost the original discussion.

Quote from Racer X NZ :

I'm really concerned now, my 8 year old system copes really well with the new update but as I'm planning on never updating it I need to know,
when S3 is released in 10 years time, that my current PC will be supported ! /s

Your PC will fail one day... mine did after 8 years... GPU´s are going down first if heavily used

Quote from Bigbob1993 :

Your PC will fail one day... mine did after 8 years... GPU´s are going down first if heavily used

He is trolling to say that people think that they never have to upgrade theirs computers to make recents games or updates work.

Quote from nacim :

Quote from Bigbob1993 :

Your PC will fail one day... mine did after 8 years... GPU´s are going down first if heavily used

He is trolling to say that people think that they never have to upgrade theirs computers to make recents games or updates work.

Racer X is trolling? dayum, how is that possible...

/s

"Understanding the subtlety of this usage requires second-order interpretation of the speaker's or writer's intentions; different parts of the brain must work together to understand sarcasm.
This sophisticated understanding can be lacking in some people with certain forms of brain damage, dementia and autism, and this perception has been located by MRI in the right parahippocampal gyrus.
Research has shown that people with damage in the prefrontal cortex have difficulty understanding non-verbal aspects of language." /s

And, to draw a picture for those the above statement relates to ....

"...form of expression of language often including the assertion of a statement that is disbelieved by the expresser, although the intended meaning is different from the sentence meaning. The recognition of sarcasm without the accompaniment of a cue develops around the beginning of adolescence or later. Sarcasm involves the expression of an insulting remark that requires the interpreter to understand the negative emotional connotation of the expresser within the context of the situation at hand."

And, as a CUE, the use of /s implies sarcasm in the preceeding statement.

Quote from Scawen :

Quote from Abone :

according to the description Scawen we do not have significant improvements and in future FPS will drop further ..... this patch has no graphical improvements, just have files with a higher resolution, something that users already previously created(HD textures) without obtaining problems with fps. Scawen explain the problem, but without much will to fix in my opinion .. a quad-core i5-3570K is not exactly a bad computer and you got the same problem XD

What? Have you seen the new Westhill?

It seems from what you are saying, you think it is just like any of our other tracks but with higher resolution textures. That is not the case at all. It has about 3 times the number of objects and far more geometric detail.

Quote from kristipops1 :

Quote from Papa :

At first I thought it was a problem WITH recent drivers since I updated to the latest drivers not too long ago. So I installed some older drivers again which didn't lead to any difference at all.

I will test whether I get the same results with one screen at 1920x1080 later this week.

Well i have done it before u then, fps drops even more :)1920x1080

I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that you get high frame rate in a window. but not when in full screen mode?

I don't think we can do anything with this information unless you tell us what type of computer you are using. I'm not seeing a pattern here but it's hard to see a pattern or a connection without a bit more information.

At the moment it seems I am mainly seeing people saying things like:

"I have frame rate issues on Westhill"
"I have lower frame rate on all tracks"
"My computer has frame rate issues when in full screen"
"My laptop randomly goes into power saving mode"
"There is a lower frame rate when a lot of detail is visible"
"It is all good and running smoothly on my computer"

And this is why there isn't really much I can do at the moment. There is some time now for me to look into certain optimisations, and have a look and check that the hidden object removal has indeed been generated well and doesn't randomly draw the whole world at some points, in case there are any such bugs. But I don't think there are such bugs, really, because it works well and smoothly on most computers. I do understand that some computers are struggling with the higher level of geometric detail and high memory use due to the textures. That was always going to be the case if we went for higher level of detail.

Seems a bit like this:

Before 0.6H: "Why do you insist on making LFS run on a Casio wristwatch from the 1980s?"

After 0.6H: "OMG this is impossible, I don't have a Cray supercomputer!"

I agree and understand what you said earlier, but textures for high resolution improved the track by 90% or more in my opinion. if we go back to old tracks we can see that the fps is not more stable as a 0.6G version and old tracks not have both geometric work as the new Westhill or more objects... I dont have issues on old tracks (reason is better fps sure) , my problem is only in the new westhill. later introduce printscreens showing the places where the fps descent is critical and my system requirements.

Quote from Scawen :

Seems a bit like this:

Before 0.6H: "Why do you insist on making LFS run on a Casio wristwatch from the 1980s?"

After 0.6H: "OMG this is impossible, I don't have a Cray supercomputer!"

I dont really get this point. Yeah, there are some winers who complain now about less frames with their non-gaming-compatible computers. But the ones you quoted definitely dont fall into that category.

I actually do play on my HTPC on a Full HD TV (=> 1920*1080) - only passively cooled and only onboard graphics. I got used to frames around 50-60. In the new westhill the fps went down approx 10% - completely understandable and fine. For Papa though, the situation is completely different. While he managed to average way beyond 100fps before, after the update (_and not just on westhill_) he is facing fps around 30 dropping constantly to 15, 20. Therefore LFS is simply not playable for him right now. Even more interestingly, if he sets up (almost) the same resolution but in window mode he gets the performance from prior 0.6H. Since there are more people reporting similar issues, there must be something off. Especially when looking at my results and the impact on fps compared to others with significantly higher performance PCs having relatively and absolutely speaking a higher impact on fps.

I agree with you Scawen though on the fact that from the current data you cant really make up any patterns. Shouldnt we try to change that and try to find out some specs?

@Papa: Could you post your detailed system specs?

Cheers,
Steffen

At least Scawen was right about there is no really need to have a look of HD graphics. Once new westhill is released, well the whole thing is of course absolutely top notch, and still not all of track area is explored. But once you have got that new WE now, it doesn't really have a difference between new and old track, hehe. Sure it looks beautiful, and geometric things looks fabulous, but now it has a same effect as old and new blackwood

I did look tarmac, no matter how I did look in various angles or various minds, it still is a tarmac. same for grass, walls, trees, and concrete.

for me fps drops doesn't matter as long as they stay higher than 15, if normal fps would be 100 or so.

BTW, overall performance is still better in 0.6H than previous patches, just tried with 0.6B and 0.6H, AS5X and found the difference, the fps for me is higher ( though only 1.2 average higher ) in 0.6H against 0.6B. I wonder if lfs.exe affects differently on differentl system settings? sure it does but how much? I remember when open configs released, people also reported fps issues, for me fps drop was max 60, but never under 36.6 ( unless 20 cars or more, but thats other story )

Average fps in old tracks is 28 - 34
Average fps in westhill is 5 - 15

But again, very bad laptop, so np.

Now do the same in low texture quality mode, which is 3 times less in size then high texture mode.

After I switched the Full scene AA from 8x to 4x, Westhill works well for me with always 100 fps.