Sounds a bit like GT4.
But yeh, DX8 is fine.
Sounds a bit like GT4.
But yeh, DX8 is fine.
you do know, that everything we have seen of crysis has been running on DX9?
I have already told him this above...but never mind
Here's an idea for you. You remodel evrything, your re-write the graphics engine, and you do all the leg work so that the devs have more time to spend on other more demanding parts of the game, which lets face it, come way before eye candy. Oh, don't like the sound of that idea?
Isn't that why one buys the cake?
Add to the fact the game barely even uses DX8, I can run LFS on my MX440 (DX7) and see no major difference between it and running it on my X1900, other than the fact I have better FPS on the latter.
Ditto. I'm already saving up for my new Mac because Vista sucks so badly.
Personally, I think the LFS engine is perfectly fine as is. The things that would really improve LFS graphics wise don't require DX9 or DX10. If the game had higher res textures and improved texture mapping, that would help immensely. Add on more track details (flag men, track marshalls, higher quality crowds, ambient noises) and some car model details and sound improvements and you'd have a beautiful game (not that it isn't now) with the best physics and a high immersion factor.
DX10 isn't needed at all.
@Psychoman
Well with S3 they will have to re-make the engine because the other titles will have already running possible DX10 and DEVs will have to compete somehow to attract more people buying S3.
I know that more important will be always the physic part but thats how is it going on the market.Eye candy brings money too
Well with S3 they will have to re-make the engine because the other titles will have already running possible DX10 and DEVs will have to compete somehow to attract more people buying S3.
I know that more important will be always the physic part but thats how is it going on the market.Eye candy brings money too
Reasons for shifting to DX10:
Faster
More adaptable
Better integration to OS
Host of other stuff too long to list
Reasons not to:
You HAVE to have Vista and a new graphics card.
Sounds like plenty of reason not to unless you actually NEED something that DX10 provides that DX9 does not. (Unified Shader, callback support and a host of other FPS and fancy graphics orientated stuff)
IMHO I'd love to see a fully realised rendering engine that simulates the view as well as the car physics simulate the driving feel, but I'd only play the game for the physics so I'm more than happy with what we have now - but with better support for silly high res, AA and AF etc. (not sure what the support is like right now but I know that occasionaly my machine refuses to do either AA or AF.)
Faster
More adaptable
Better integration to OS
Host of other stuff too long to list
Reasons not to:
You HAVE to have Vista and a new graphics card.
Sounds like plenty of reason not to unless you actually NEED something that DX10 provides that DX9 does not. (Unified Shader, callback support and a host of other FPS and fancy graphics orientated stuff)
IMHO I'd love to see a fully realised rendering engine that simulates the view as well as the car physics simulate the driving feel, but I'd only play the game for the physics so I'm more than happy with what we have now - but with better support for silly high res, AA and AF etc. (not sure what the support is like right now but I know that occasionaly my machine refuses to do either AA or AF.)
Indeed, they will, but there is no need for DX10 any time soon, or even ever. The collective of S2 holders play LFS for the realism, not for eye candy. If that was the case we'd all be playing GT4, or NFSMW. They are games aimed at the main populus of the gaming market and have huge budgets and huge dev teams working on them. LFS is three guy with a some what limited budget.
Plus because LFS doesn't go all out eye candy more people can play the game on a large range of hardware.
I believe that LFS doesn't look bad at the moment, and that's using DX8. On the other hand, I also believe there are some "simple" features of DX8 that could/should be used to improve the appearance of LFS. Using cube maps for reflections on cars for example.
For the moment, and probably until S3 is released, DX8 is enough I think as it allows for more potential users, which is what LFS needs.
Appart from the cube maps or some other features, I'd much rather see an improvement in sounds than graphics honestly. LFS needs better sounds much more than graphics.
For the moment, and probably until S3 is released, DX8 is enough I think as it allows for more potential users, which is what LFS needs.
Appart from the cube maps or some other features, I'd much rather see an improvement in sounds than graphics honestly. LFS needs better sounds much more than graphics.
Physics and sounds are much much more important. Personally, I don't care much about graphics. They're qiute good now. Also, what was mentioned before, you can play LFS on a very broad range of hardware configs, from way below average, to "head-explodes" ones
I agree. Many players don't have (and/or can't afford) high-end machines that will meet Vista's and DX10 reqiurements.
Same here, but I'm thinking about Linux.
I agree. Many players don't have (and/or can't afford) high-end machines that will meet Vista's and DX10 reqiurements.
Same here, but I'm thinking about Linux.
Sometimes I think of LFS as a graphically quite beautiful game. At other times, I start to yearn for some fancy lighting effect or other- better textures or models, richer sounds etc.. But I notice that I tend to think about this stuff when I'm losing concentration with the game. When you're feverishly in the moment, trying to burn those few 10ths of a second off your personal best, graphics come second, or not at all.
Please no DX10. I am not letting Vista anywhere near my PC so that will stop me running LFS.
Who wants "Trusted computing" when it means the person they do not trust is the user. MS has even locked out Anti Virus software. Vista is about DRM and making DRM more secure for the RIAA and other people that want to remove your fair use rights, nothing more and nothing less.
So NO to DX10!
Who wants "Trusted computing" when it means the person they do not trust is the user. MS has even locked out Anti Virus software. Vista is about DRM and making DRM more secure for the RIAA and other people that want to remove your fair use rights, nothing more and nothing less.
So NO to DX10!
If LFS would use DX10 (I really don't think it will) it doesn't mean it would stop you from using LFS. Scawen would never do that, it would be like game suicide.
It would just fall back to DX9 (or 8) mode. Look at rFactor (pardon my french), upon first start you have the opportunity to choose DX7,8 or 9.
It would just fall back to DX9 (or 8) mode. Look at rFactor (pardon my french), upon first start you have the opportunity to choose DX7,8 or 9.
Its not as simple as you think.At the time S3 in the middle of the development that could be probably around 2008 almost all of the new sold computers will be already running Vista as OS.
This mean all the graphic hardware will be DX10 compatibile but rather DX10 native hardware.There was clearly stated that the graphic companies nor the Microsoft will provide support for Windows XP with DX10.It mean no drivers for WindowsXP at that time no DX10 for WindowsXP.
Its just almost impossible to integrate(at least it looks like that) DX10 into windowsXP because its fully rewritten API not like was DX8 to DX9.
It call different way the hardware.
So if Scawen dont want to let the LFS be lost in dust with less and less people buying it then he will have a problem probably not going with DX10.
Scavier need new customers to cover the cost of their daily life,cost of the all staff around LFS.You have to see it frok more angles.
I would rather see at least some DX9 staff in LFS around the start of 2007.It seems S2 could be finished before 2007,sure my pure speculation but it looks a bit logical.
P.S:I am a bit skeptical guy I agree but I would like to not see the all above to happen really.I have already tried the Vista and its total mess with all the changes and I even dont see them usefull for regular users who have even problem to unpack/pack a file into a zip file and other problems.I am daily deeling with people who have problems to work easily with current Windows XP.I dont see excuse for all the fency Vista staff and eating so much memory.My XP have after the start usually around 120-140MB nothing more.Vista had 400 at least:-(.
This mean all the graphic hardware will be DX10 compatibile but rather DX10 native hardware.There was clearly stated that the graphic companies nor the Microsoft will provide support for Windows XP with DX10.It mean no drivers for WindowsXP at that time no DX10 for WindowsXP.
Its just almost impossible to integrate(at least it looks like that) DX10 into windowsXP because its fully rewritten API not like was DX8 to DX9.
It call different way the hardware.
So if Scawen dont want to let the LFS be lost in dust with less and less people buying it then he will have a problem probably not going with DX10.
Scavier need new customers to cover the cost of their daily life,cost of the all staff around LFS.You have to see it frok more angles.
I would rather see at least some DX9 staff in LFS around the start of 2007.It seems S2 could be finished before 2007,sure my pure speculation but it looks a bit logical.
P.S:I am a bit skeptical guy I agree but I would like to not see the all above to happen really.I have already tried the Vista and its total mess with all the changes and I even dont see them usefull for regular users who have even problem to unpack/pack a file into a zip file and other problems.I am daily deeling with people who have problems to work easily with current Windows XP.I dont see excuse for all the fency Vista staff and eating so much memory.My XP have after the start usually around 120-140MB nothing more.Vista had 400 at least:-(.
oh dear god no, if they up date this game to DX9+ my FPS will go form 35ish to 10! PLZ DEAR GOD NO. i dont want to quit lfs becus my computer cant fliping handle the game :/
DRM will most likely get hacked, before or just soon after Vista's release.
Dont worry.You would have the same game but some people could just set higher details like DX9 effects.I bet Scawen would made it this way so nobody would have a problems.
lol. Feel free to believe that. MS, the RIAA MPA and others that want to change copyright so you rent instead of own have been working on this for a while.
This is what "trusted computing" is about. YOU are not trustworthy and so YOU are limited to what you can do or even install. Only code that is signed by MS and its partners will be able to run in the "trusted ring", nothing else.
Can you guess where all the DRM code runs yet?
Anti Malware companies have already said that the "trusted ring" in Vista means they are UNABLE to run their software to give protection unless they use blackhat techniques. But as soon as these holes are found they will be plugged in security patches by MS. No company will risk development of security software if they think each MS patch will break their code and they will need to find new hacks to make their code work. So unless they do something here you will also only be able to get MS Anti Malware and firewall software.
Have alarm bells started to ring yet?
The DX10 hardware also has DRM built into the hardware and unless you have DRM enabled hardware throught the complete chain from source to render, be it sound or vid, it will downgrade or not even render. This even follows through to your monitor, which must be DRM enabled. Just read about the new Nvidia DX10 cards they are working on, these have DRM in the hardware.
Vista, back in the original spec, had features that made sense. WinFS etc but one by one they have been dropped off the list until what you are left with is WinXP 64 with a new interface and huge chucks of code replaced with brand new code such as the complete IP stack, a huge chunk of code that needs full scale real world thrashing before that is safe and stable.
For me, XP is the last MS operating system I will use. Unless Vista gets "sorted" so that I am trusted to do what I want with MY own computer they can forget it.
When you're talking about DX10 you gotta understand what it can do. Then you gotta start thinking about how to apply what it can do to some hypothetically updatable graphics engine. Since not even developers are really sure yet of the potential, we're kindof in a fantasy world, projecting our desires into the future. Supposedly one benefit of DX10 would be an increasing shift of responsibility onto the GFX hardware to display a scene, freeing the CPU to concentrate on things like physics calculations, etc. TBO, I don't give a rats about DX10 atm. But A DX9 LFS would be quite the Christmas I imagine...
->
+ 1 myriadbillozilloquadrillion
u remember when DOS has been released?
i still play sum DOS games, yeah on real DOS, just couz the games are great and not couz i have DX 1 or 7 or 10 there...
DX8 is that enuff, i mean LFS looks already that kewl, theres also still potential to get more features of the engine.
me and loads of other dudes wont switch to Vista even if we buy a totally new pc that comes with vista
(ever heard FORMAT C: ?
) and XP is cool enuff for my taste to rest on my hdd for minimum next 4 years...it has all features i need for my personal taste, i dont need new vista graphic tweaks that needs more cpu and more ram, blah blah blah :slap: they should spend all work into improving existing capabilities to maximum instead of thinking we dudes have now 6ghz dualboard dualcore and double triple quad SLI, lets use 2500 shader effects more for their explorer folder... same way the peopz love the LFS menus much more than the fookin graphic stuff of GTR2 f.ex. ...
i drift away sry...
after s3 ther can be next steps of LFS coding it to existing or futurous graphic engines or what eeeever but i think until 2008 we all are pleased with dx 8 or if u so damn want it dx 9... first try all u can do with most less ressources-costing programming...
What i don't understand, when people say, that they are very happy with the graphical aspect of the game and then, on the other hand, the first thing they do is downloading some mods of better textures and what so ever to improve that and to have more a realistic image when playing...its a litle bit contradictorry, isn't it? 
What i mean with it, is that the LFS development should not only concentrate on the physics, as it will come some day, specially when dx10 will be out with all the new games having stunning graphics, so that LFS will look odd in comparison. Just think of new customers, coming to the website to have a look to the game and they see the graphics that were ok 6 years ago. I think that the mayority of them wont even donwload the demo to try it. Perhaps i'm here the only one, but thinking of myself i don't buy now a game that has been on the market since 6 years and that is by far not at the same level as current games.
I agree that physics development is very importnant es well, perhaps even more than graphics, but in some time in the future, perhaps not in the next 2 - 4 years, but at least then, LFS must get better graphics to survive on the market. LFS can't do that with the now existing amount of players, there must come more! You can't stay on the idea that new players will come only because of the good physics in the game, there must be more!!
What i mean with it, is that the LFS development should not only concentrate on the physics, as it will come some day, specially when dx10 will be out with all the new games having stunning graphics, so that LFS will look odd in comparison. Just think of new customers, coming to the website to have a look to the game and they see the graphics that were ok 6 years ago. I think that the mayority of them wont even donwload the demo to try it. Perhaps i'm here the only one, but thinking of myself i don't buy now a game that has been on the market since 6 years and that is by far not at the same level as current games.
I agree that physics development is very importnant es well, perhaps even more than graphics, but in some time in the future, perhaps not in the next 2 - 4 years, but at least then, LFS must get better graphics to survive on the market. LFS can't do that with the now existing amount of players, there must come more! You can't stay on the idea that new players will come only because of the good physics in the game, there must be more!!
Anyone that cares enough about racing sims will not shrug a sim off because of graphics.There are too many games on the market now that just focus on OMGTEHROX0R shaders etc but are dire in gameplay terms.Maybe when the dev team complete the physics in LFS S2 or S3 maybe then they can update the graphics.
Gameplay>Graphics.
Yes you can. It is the single most attractive aspect for a sim racer to consider.
OpenGL would be far more use than DX10. Opening the game up to Linux and Mac users would be better for the game. What exactly will DX10 do to make LFS look better? Probably nothing that can't already be done in DX8 or 9.
LFS meets DX10
(195 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG