By then, a game that scratches perfection not only in a graphical manner but also in its physical attitudes.
Could that be the future or only a dream?
What do think about it? What capabilities could the game have?

But then the graphics engine would have to be half re-written, would it not?

Quote from wheel4hummer :

But then the graphics engine would have to be half re-written, would it not?

Depends how much they change the API, etc. But at least partially yes.

DX10? No DX9 is more than enough I think.
It's going to take a very long time before DX10 will be widely adapted I think. DX9 took a long time to take over too. DX10 will take even longer since it will only be available on Vista afaik. Wouldn't be worth the trouble imo.

I think that thats even the case if S3 should come out with dx9...
So one step further and you have dx10! Right?

Why not dx10?
My dreams of a perfekt racing sim. is, what LFS is trying to be by now, a physically perfekt game but also with a realistic enviroment!
If the physics are there, lets have it all realistically done! ( Ok..it might take still a couple years, but why not? )

There is more potential left in the DX8 engine yet. Lots of DX9 games look very similar when run in DX8 mode.

Quote :

Why not dx10?

I for one wont be buying Vista. I'll be praying either for a consumer backlash and removal of all of it's DRM components, or i'll fully migrate to OSX and keeping XP just for LFS. Vista and DX10 will never get to see my hard disk, unless the corporations make significant changes to what they are planning to do.

Just because it's a higher version number does not meen it is an improvement.

It would be nice to have some shader 2 stuff going down though, but DX9 is all that is necessary for that.

Right now LFS isn't even using DX8 fully.

Quote from cpachmann :

Why not dx10?
My dreams of a perfekt racing sim. is, what LFS is trying to be by now, a physically perfekt game but also with a realistic enviroment!
If the physics are there, lets have it all realistically done! ( Ok..it might take still a couple years, but why not? )

Because DX10 will only be released on Vista, unless MS gets a LOT of negative publicity because of this.

As it is, there's more than one problem with LFS on Vista because MS once again decides what users are able to do on their own systems.

dx10 isn´t just a higher nr than dx9...Its a completly remodification of what was before. Just look at games like crysis, for example. Thats amazing, and its the first game running with dx10. Remember the first games with dx9? Not that big difference to 8..but with the later games...

The point with vista or not...when LFS could get DX10 ready, there might 10 years going. Since then, I think nobody will stick to Windows XP anymore...

Becky: uh, and enter into the world of itunes/ipods? If you want to get away from (the flawed concept of) DRM, I wouldn't start walking towards Apple....

LFS is pretty enough as it is I reckon - looks much better than GTR2 anyway (as long as one turns up AA/AF). Efforts would be better spent elsewhere, imho.

As always hardware advancements are way ahead of software actually using all the new features. They don't make software to sell software, they make it to sell hardware.

I think pretty graphics should be way down the priority list. We've seen too many new games that only focus on graphics so they can show beautiful screenshots but when you actually play the game you realize the game is lacking in gameplay.

Advanced physics is the way to go. They are even making new hardware for the purpose of making physics calculations.

What they have now is good enough!

Im a "gamplay comes first" guy. I do not care for amazing graphics, even though it would be nice, but i would much rather have amazing gamplay.

Updating too DX10 will probably require alot of people to upgrade things, which many people might not have the money to pay for.

As much as I have understood from what the devs say every now and then, they aim that LFS is available on broad range of windows machines. So it works with 95 (?), 98, 2000 and XP. It will work with Vista too, but not on Vista alone.

Quote :

If you want to get away from (the flawed concept of) DRM, I wouldn't start walking towards Apple....

iTunes has DRM, OSX does not. Vista is different, Vista is fully DRM integrated to the point where a DRM flagged file will be uncopyable by the OS, without first hacking it. Luckily for me i'm not interested in iTunes or mp3 players of any brand .

Quote :

Im a "gamplay comes first" guy

I definately agree with this, if LFS just had fancy graphics and standard physics I definately would never have even bought it in the first place.

Quote from Becky Rose :

I definately agree with this, if LFS just had fancy graphics and standard physics I definately would never have even bought it in the first place.

well...but thats not the case. LFS has amazing physics. OK, there is still space for improvement. But imagine the game how it is right now, with its physics, and amazing graphics?? Woow, i would leave my girlfriend and marry LFS!

So you want to eat the cake too then ...

Amazing graphics don't come from DX 10. That's the coder's work. Or rather, the coding-team's work, in the case of titles like Crysis.
DX has few to do with the effects, unless you say that a workbench can build a cupboard. There are few effects that DX can produce all by itself, and they look horrible (like the lensflare).

Vain

well..nobody argues about that...
But the case is, that for now, or better for the future, DX10 is the best engine for the best graphics. You can´t get the effects with a DX8 engine that you could get with a dx9, or dx10. Right?

Quote from Becky Rose :

or i'll fully migrate to OSX and keeping XP just for LFS

I've already done that and I'm really happy with Mac OSX.

Quote from cpachmann :

But the case is, that for now, or better for the future, DX10 is the best engine for the best graphics.

No it isn't. Because DX10 doesn't run on other systems than Vista. Due to the negative publicity of Vista this will cause major incompatibilities.
Also this would foce the majority of LFS players to upgrade their hardware because Vista requires enormeous amounts of performance.

I see a DX9 engine in the future that runs in Xp and a DX10 recompile that runs in Vista, without using any new features of DX10.
Even DX8 allows for more eyecandy than we need. But DX9 will make some of this eyecandy easier.

Vain

only place where i think LFS lacks graphical edge is shadows, everything else looks as good as perfect for me.

Quote from Vain :

Even DX8 allows for more eyecandy than we need.

Would be much more proper to write "than I need" Vain. Your generalized thoughts served as historicaly proven facts are starting to be cheap, sorry.

Quote from Taavi(EST) :

only place where i think LFS lacks graphical edge is shadows, everything else looks as good as perfect for me.

I wouldn't mind more visual poetry in any of my LFS world visits, such as sun glare at Blackwood backstraight at sunset, glowing sun reflection over the Aston chicane asphalt, or local light sources in the South City at night.
Doesn't your FZR look just great, when it is rolling pass the finish line with those cool MICHELIN letters? External camera for some TV moments for the winner, after the race, that's how I do it.

Quote from cpachmann :

dx10 isn´t just a higher nr than dx9...Its a completly remodification of what was before. Just look at games like crysis, for example. Thats amazing, and its the first game running with dx10. Remember the first games with dx9? Not that big difference to 8..but with the later games...

Sorry but you are wrong.The developers stated that the current work in progress work on DX9engine with Shader model 3.0 and was schowcased on DX9 hardware which support this shader model.

The point is the LFS 3D engine is only DX8.DX8 support just pixel shaders 1.1-1.3 (but LFS doesnt using any of these futures currently)I think. DX8.1 support pixels shaders 1.1-1.4.Side note GF3 doesnt support pixel shaders 1.4 while ATI 8500 does.
The point is that the effectivity of Pixels shaders 1.1-1.3 in hardware is really slow and some effect are hard to achive due to limited lenght of the code whith DX8-DX8.1 hardware.This was approved a lot with Pixel shaders 2.0 and the complexity and lenght of the pixels shaders code in Shader model 3.0 was moved towards really high complexity.

There is no doubt that LFS 3D engine will have to be re-written probably by high ammount to achive really high effectivity as just adding DX9 stuff to the exisit would be probably possible but with lack of good framerates.I bet Scawen is not really happy about that and when S2 will be finished then we can see later in early alpha stage of S3 some DX9 stuff from Scawen.At later time he will be also at the point if DX10 will be really required or not.I wouldnt like to be in his skin.

Quote from DEVIL 007 :

I bet Scawen is not really happy about that and while S2 will be finished then we can see in early alpha stage of S3 some DX9 stuff already from Scawen.At that time he will be also at the point if DX10 will be really required or not.

But thats exactly what i want to say...i don´t mean adding now dx10 features or try force development of s2 to dx10. The think is, if that thinks could be added in future..perhaps in a view years, when development of the physics has advanced more and the most wanted improvments have been added.
The point is, why not add dx10 engine when the game is so far developed, that "only" the graphical aspect will be missing. Just imagine, LFS S3 or even S4 and with DX10...as i just mentioned before, bether than my grilfriend!