Quote from cargame.nl :

Ye, this was 2015, now its 2017..annoying to explain. Worst of all.. CPU is no bottleneck. waste of time

Yes mate, you waste your time. You didn't put any arguments on table...nor counterarguments, instead you switch rails of topic (this patch or that patch, multicore or two, it was here or there etc.)

I know CPU isn't a bottleneck for LFS right now. I asked about something further, in which I am interested.

As TechEdison pointed 'you can play LFS on a potato', and it's great considering how flexible and accurate this code is! So instead of empty blablaing run your imagination cargame, and try to see what can be achieved in LFS with mid range hardware we have now. See?

No, I stay with my initial one sentence comment. Spot on and no room from time consuming imagination pasibrzuch

I have "mid range" hardware myself and zero problems with CPU usage, since patch J. At that time I brought the CPU usage discussion to the test patch table (together with Abone), thank you very much.

Current Version: 0.6R - 2017 January.

Just look if next update too much alfabet of version:

0.6S (Still no update August.)
0.6Q 2018?
0.6R ?
0.6T ?
0.6U ?
0.6V ?
0.6W ?
0.6Y ?
0.6Z ?
0.7A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,J,K,L,M,N,P,Q,S,R,T,U,V,W,Y,Z 2020?
0.8A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,J,K,L,M,N,P,Q,S,R,T,U,V,W,Y,Z 2022?
0.9A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,J,K,L,M,N,P,Q,S,R,T,U,V,W,Y,Z 2025?
1.0 Final Version.. 2030?

Tooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Far waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!

lol

Someone still cares about the version numbers?

0.6XD including scirocco

Quote from GT4_PL :

0.6Q 2018?

https://www.lfs.net/patch-6q

Quote from GT4_PL :

Q,S,R,T

Q,R,S,T

Quote from GT4_PL :

W,Y,Z

W,X,Y,Z

Give him a break, Cargame. His native language has 32 letters in the alphabet

a break.. Ye.. Would match perfectly in this topic hhmm.

Personally, I liked the old cartoonish graphics. It helped separate the game from all those fancy eye candy cpu hogging games with pretty cars and crappy physics. But unless they are happy to sell the game to just one person, graphics do need to be tuned up. I would love to see matte colors (paint primer) to be usable as far as that goes.
I noticed in the old days when I made skins it didn't really matter what swatches I based my colors on PMS, TV, CMYK. Whatever. It didn't really matter. Precise color translation just doesn't happen. Standard RGB seemed to work the best. How much will that change with more graphic updates?

Quote from TechEdison :

I'm going to say one thing and leave it out there: Please don't forget about the low-end users!

Sure you can add fancy shaders/graphic updates and make it the best looking game ever, but currently you can play LFS on a potato, and that was the selling point for me!

+1

Quote from Racer Y :

I would love to see matte colors (paint primer) to be usable as far as that goes. ... Standard RGB seemed to work the best. How much will that change with more graphic updates?

There may be a move to RGB-A for car skins at some point in the future, as that format is already being used in places for transparency (trees, people, backgrounds, etc). The only barrier at this time is that there's no easy way to port the format out of paint programs without a plugin and a bit of advanced knowledge.

The easiest solution that I can foresee would be a web app that combines 2 image files together - an RGB image and a grayscale image - into a single DDS that you could download and drop into your data/skins folder...

Quote from pasibrzuch :

Yes mate, you waste your time. You didn't put any arguments on table...nor counterarguments, instead you switch rails of topic (this patch or that patch, multicore or two, it was here or there etc.)

He put topics on table(people are tired to repeat 100x the same thing), you just dont read enough.....you know how much improvemts we had on 0.6J? i dont think so.
before i have a bad system with weird FPS problem in some points on NEW WESTHILL ,but other drivers having the same issue with better system than my, so we start long conversation about that, because i can show my point without know so much about computers. here is a Xenix74 results because im not so lazy lol

Quote from Xenix74 :

South City Chikane (alone)

Before update 290 Frames, after update 500 Frames!

This is fu.... UNBELIEVABLE! I am searching for words

You are a GENIUS.....

@Abone

~150-250 frames in >3d mode<. (But i lock 100 fps most times)

(Amd 8350, 8 Gb, 660Gtx)

But now i try/play in VR. (Smartphone,TrackIr,Trinus,Moonlight,usb terhering). On the smartphone i have about 50-70 frames left.

Thanks for the update!

Quote from Xenix74 :

@Abone

~150-250 frames in >3d mode<. (But i lock 100 fps most times)

(Amd 8350, 8 Gb, 660Gtx)

But now i try/play in VR. (Smartphone,TrackIr,Trinus,Moonlight,usb terhering). On the smartphone i have about 50-70 frames left.

Down significantly in 3D Mode. You tried the same setup in other sim or game? if yes, how goes your smartphone?

Quote from Abone :

Down significantly in 3D Mode. You tried the same setup in other sim or game? if yes, how goes your smartphone?

Yes. Assetto & RFactor2 & Pcars

Every other Sim is not recommendable with my Setup/ Pc. The frames seems "okay" but there is a little stutter and a little fisher eye look. Lfs is the only Sim with native Side by Side 3d mode.
(Big win)

For the other sims you need a external Programm like Tridef to double the Picture but its not realy good compared to LFS. (But i must test it little bit more, maybe there are some other tweaks.)

In LFS you are in 30 seconds on the track with your VR Smartphone. The other sims are very much harder to config.

Thanks for the info, i always wanting use VR, but i use glasses.
i dont have smarphone, my phone is like anti-damage ,you know..can drop and no problem.
im thinking buy one recently and looks like i can made VR prototype with cardboard for my glasses. he he he he

I use Trinus VR for LFS -> android smartphone VR.

Turn on view control: mouse XY and you're good to go for cheap VR.

Ps: Importent for me is the combination of Trinus & the Moonlight app! (Playstore)

With Moonlight you can send the Picture direkt from Nvidia Cards (Gtx 660<- Minimum) to your smartphones with the Geforce Experince software . The Latency get under ~10ms and the frames are nearly doubled. Trinus alone is too slow for Racing Games on my System.

(Trinus 30-40 frames and 20-30ms)
(Trinus & Moonlight ~50-70 frames and 6-12 ms)

Also Importent is a good Gyro Sensor on your Phone or "better" use a fast TrackIr.

(Sorry everybody, i dont wanted to kidnap this thread)

Quote from Abone :

He put topics on table(people are tired to repeat 100x the same thing), you just dont read enough.....you know how much improvemts we had on 0.6J? i dont think so.
before i have a bad system with weird FPS problem in some points on NEW WESTHILL ,but other drivers having the same issue with better system than my, so we start long conversation about that, because i can show my point without know so much about computers. here is a Xenix74 results because im not so lazy lol

Looks like we don't understand each other
I don't have any problems with LFS optimization. I know Scawen takes lot of care to this.

Meanwhile, to my knowledge, LFS is single core app, plus long time ago Scawen said smth like he will simplify his super version of new physics in order to run smooth on majority of our PCs.
I just asked if it will be possible in the future to easily jump to multi core, if new improvements are made to drive model, or Scawen will have the whim to 'downgrade' tyre physics less.

Quote from pasibrzuch :

long time ago Scawen said smth like he will simplify his super version of new physics in order to run smooth on majority of our PCs.

He has a 'rig' that he's using to simulate a tyre in much more detail than the LFS simulation - it works well, but it takes literally hundreds of times too long to just plug it in to LFS. What he's doing now is approximating the rig's output as closely as possible within the time constraints that will allow it to be plugged in to LFS.

Quote from Racon :

What he's doing now is approximating the rig's output as closely as possible within the time constraints that will allow it to be plugged in to LFS.

How do you know?

I am pretty sure this still applies;

Quote from Scawen :

Hi there, we have been working hard, but the tyre physics have not progressed since the January update.

Quote from cargame.nl :

How do you know?

We read a lot.
Now I seek for a piece titled 'Quod omnia negata, sed non rationes includit' Do you have one maybe?

Quote from cargame.nl :

How do you know?

I am pretty sure this still applies;

I mean now in the tyre-physics-development timeline, not now in LFS-development timeline. I could also be wrong, but that's what I've got from following what comes up on the subject. The 'hundreds of times slower than required' bit, for example, comes from Scawen saying it takes several seconds for the rig to produce a second's worth of data - so that's 3 times at least, multiplied by 4 wheels, multiplied by 40 cars. Obviously that's very rough, there are considerations altering the scale in both directions, I just like to have at least a ballpark figure for everything

ye.. lets have a ballpark figure of everything...

1 person multiplied by 1 person multiplied by 1 person multiplied by 1 person multiplied by 1 person multiplied by 1 person multiplied by 1 person multiplied by 1 person .. Is one person.. In mathematics.

1 person doesn't get you very far. Not very far => translated to the question of this topic equals a result of zero to none progress. (As usual )