Quote from PLAYLIFE :

EDIT: And another thing: The new Monza track is awsome with the oval and everything... However, when I arrive at the front straight, I suddenly get like 2 FPS... WTF!! I don't understand how they can make a track where I can get 2-30 FPS... Furthermore: this seems like wasting resources. If you make a track that needs a very good Graphics card then make the whole track pretty and shiny and not like friggin 10 seconds of 2 minutes. 1 minutes 50 sec of the track I can drive, 10 sec I can't drive even in a straight line... Can't imaging what will happen when there is a race start with 20 cars on the grid or smth. Minus 20 FPS?

EDIT: Yes, I love it that I can't play the new track because of some friggin boxes* on the side of the front straight!!!

* buildings

The new Monza track is awesome. Your issue with your 2 FPS is on your end. I haven't seen my frames drop below 60.

And WTF are talking about "friggin boxes" on the side of the front straight. Is there a sidewalk or something your trying to drive up on? Try the track, its much easier that way.

Quote from Pain-less :

The new Monza track is awesome. Your issue with your 2 FPS is on your end. I haven't seen my frames drop below 60.

And WTF are talking about "friggin boxes" on the side of the front straight. Is there a sidewalk or something your trying to drive up on? Try the track, its much easier that way.

OK, if you don't understand there is no need to put me down, dumbass. Thank you very much!

Let me clarify a bit: When you drive on the front straight there are objects around the front straight alongside the road. They are called buildings. However, to me they are just boxes. They are boxes as, when I'm doing 300 km/h I won't be looking if the window has a handle for opening on the inside or not. If the intricate detail of the buildings was lost and only boxes (4 sides, colored gray) remained, that would be good enough for me, as I'm not looking at them anyway.

Now, if the high detail of the buildings (which I don't need) means I can't play the track, then I have have something I don't need not allowing to get what I want. And that's what got me fuming!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Frame rate issue on my side? All other tracks are ok. Monza front straight is not. I'm sorry, but at lowest video settings I still get 2 FPS??? That's crazy! And there's so much problems with this game. Conflict with Anti-Virus etc. Could've mentioned that in some FAQ, but nooo, they don't give a f*ck. Had me scratching my head for almost 2 hours.

RACER is known as the acdsee of racing sims

Quote from KiDCoDEa :

RACER is known as the acdsee of racing sims

please explain (I have ACDSee, but what the...?)

Quote from PLAYLIFE :

please explain (I have ACDSee, but what the...?)

I kindly ask the same
Another ACDsee user here

ACDC is a rock band.

Quote from PLAYLIFE :

OK, if you don't understand there is no need to put me down, dumbass. Thank you very much!

Well had you explained yourself correctly in your post I wouldn't have put you down...thank you very much!

Quote from PLAYLIFE :

Let me clarify a bit: When you drive on the front straight there are objects around the front straight alongside the road. They are called buildings. However, to me they are just boxes. They are boxes as, when I'm doing 300 km/h I won't be looking if the window has a handle for opening on the inside or not. If the intricate detail of the buildings was lost and only boxes (4 sides, colored gray) remained, that would be good enough for me, as I'm not looking at them anyway.

Now, if the high detail of the buildings (which I don't need) means I can't play the track, then I have have something I don't need not allowing to get what I want. And that's what got me fuming!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, I understood the building part and thank you for clarifing your point. The buildings or as you call them (boxes) are there for the immersion. Whether you look at them or not. If they weren't there you would be complaining on how lousey the track looked.

Quote from PLAYLIFE :

Frame rate issue on my side? All other tracks are ok. Monza front straight is not. I'm sorry, but at lowest video settings I still get 2 FPS??? That's crazy! And there's so much problems with this game. Conflict with Anti-Virus etc. Could've mentioned that in some FAQ, but nooo, they don't give a f*ck. Had me scratching my head for almost 2 hours.

I don't understand your 2 FPS issue at all, even at lowest video settings. I will admit there have been cases of that happening in "some" conversion tracks (mainly RD3 conversions) when a car would hit the wall or some other damage related issue but this has never been the case with ISI tracks. I have owned rFactor since it's release and NEVER had a problem with it. So your claim of "so much problems" is invalid. Maybe you have had problems, and for that I am sorry, but most users do not have any more problems with this game than they would any other. And your Anti-Virus conflict is in the readme.chm under "known issues" if you had bothered to look. It could have saved you hours of head scratching.

Last but not least. ISI devs DO give a f*ck! They care about their users every bit as much as the LFS devs do. They respond in the fourms and give help and tips just as much as the devs do here. More developers should take note and follow suit.

I like both LFS and rFactor.

oh lol

Quote from Gabkicks :

ACDC is a rock band.

it's AC/DC but and ACDSee is a photo manager program

ps. rofl reposted, I was going to edit but then I just clicked delete instead

Quote from deggis :

Some eh little birdie told that SimBin is actually planning to leave behind ISI engine after they'll finish Race.

Would become bloody time!

Quote from Shotglass :

mind telling us about your latest findings ?

Not just yet - still got research to do, but from what I've seen, the LFS longitudinal curves are very far away from what they should be. Mind you, that doesn't affect things nearly as much as the lateral curves.

Quote from ruckus37 :

Ok see this is what makes LFS different to just about any offline/online game available, we can start a useless thread and have the… dev comment, please where can you find that interaction? LFS is better on just that ground>

Hey!!! Since he seems to be the only dev, he should not be here and should be working hard on hiring new devs, cos rfactor becomes stronger day after day. And LFS seems to be almost stucked on a very very slow stepping Sorry if I ofended anyone it wasnt my intention

Quote from JimBRA :

Hey!!! Since he seems to be the only dev, he should not be here and should be working hard on hiring new devs, cos rfactor becomes stronger day after day. And LFS seems to be almost stucked on a very very slow stepping Sorry if I ofended anyone it wasnt my intention

It's not a race. LFS is being developed at its own pace. Sure, I'd like to see more frequent updates but the end product produced by Scawen, Erik and Victor is so obviously better than the work produced by other dev teams that their approach clearly works. If you get bored of LFS, move on to something else. You'll come back to LFS eventually.

JimBRA has a point. The fact that LFS has only 2 devs is the biggest problem and fault in LFS. If the dev team had 10 Scawens we would be already playing S3 final.

Quote from deggis :

JimBRA has a point. The fact that LFS has only 2 devs is the biggest problem and fault in LFS. If the dev team had 10 Scawens we would be already plaing S3 final.

Or we might have arcade modes and bling bling. Speculating is dull

Quote from deggis :

JimBRA has a point. The fact that LFS has only 2 devs is the biggest problem and fault in LFS.

I see it as a strength. It means that their vision does not become diluted and ensures that there is a coherence and consistency to the end-product. That's the upside. The downsides are that product updates are less frequent than they might be otherwise and the devs run the risk of becoming burnt out or bored with no one able to pick up the slack if and when they falter. I'd much rather wait a couple of years for S3 than have the devs sacrifice quality for the sake of getting product out the door.

Quote from deggis :

JimBRA has a point. The fact that LFS has only 2 devs is the biggest problem and fault in LFS. If the dev team had 10 Scawens we would be already playing S3 final.

the upside is that the one scawen knows his code inside out which is probably the very reason why lfs is almost bug free

But in one sense the fact that only one (?) person is producing code for LFS (LFS is not just the game, don't forget tools) means that only one thing can be done at time. It also means that only one person is making all the textures and 3d-models and it also means that only one person is looking after the LFSworld/forum/online part.

This has lead into that some things have been put to background simply because they are not seen important to hold back something else. Like sounds, damage engine, replay rewind... This could be easened some much if the devs opened up just a little so that the community could "develop" some stuff by themselves. For example textures and sounds. This wouldn't lead to overflow of mods, like I guess it has happened with rF. And it wouldn't care what you have added or modified in your LFS because that stuff doesn't hassle with LFS.exe and there is no danger that the online part would suffer either, or become less user friendly. The community has already produced some good looking stuff, like track and car cockpit textures, but it is very limited what we can do atm. With a little more opened LFS and it would look and sound even better

With the current update cycle, there is (imho) enough time between critical updates that the community could make "mods" and keep them up to date, even if the main software (LFS) changes radically with a new patch. Like car sounds or textures, they don't need to be updated every time LFS gets updated, so the actual update cycle time is quite long = meaning that the time available is enough for the hq stuff to come up. Insim/outgauge/outsim is a good example of this, and now with the outgauge, we are getting more advanced stuff for the single user too. The killer addons are still missing, partly because the graphical side is a bit lacking. But there are few very promising things coming

Like in the case of insim/outsim/outgauge, it would allow the community to produce even better 3rd party addons for LFS, so the devs can concentrate on more important things. I'd just like to see the devs to let us do more

Quote from Hyperactive :

...

with the real time synthed engine sounds lfs uses you have to change the exe to change the way the cars sound

Quote from Shotglass :

with the real time synthed engine sounds lfs uses you have to change the exe to change the way the cars sound

But there is a base sound where different other sounds are derived from, yes? Or add some "sound-ports" to LFS code so we could run the sound through some synthetisators (if that's possible)...?

Quote from Hyperactive :

Like in the case of insim/outsim/outgauge, it would allow the community to produce even better 3rd party addons for LFS, so the devs can concentrate on more important things. I'd just like to see the devs to let us do more

Offering these 'interfaces' immediately means users will expect support, without support and an intention of trying to keep things compatible between versions it doesn't make sense to encourage the community to add content. There are currently a few threads about improvements / new packets for insim, if more people used/worked with outsim/outgauge, they would probably also see requests.

Thus it doesn't magically let the devs simply shift some of the work onto the community.

Quote from filur :

Offering these 'interfaces' immediately means users will expect support, without support and an intention of trying to keep things compatible between versions it doesn't make sense to encourage the community to add content. There are currently a few threads about improvements / new packets for insim, if more people used/worked with outsim/outgauge, they would probably also see requests.

Thus it doesn't magically let the devs simply shift some of the work onto the community.

The sounds part is defenately more trickier but the textures can be done without "official" support. It doesn't matter if the textures need to be in certain file format, what it needs now is some small features to the current LFS apps. Like a button to refresh the textures on track/car when you're playing LFS, without needing to exit-restart. Or to make all cars to use independant cockpit textures so that they could be textured indepently.

I don't see the need for support for such thing, if the end user just has to replace the original file with something else. The sounds could be updated this way, making the sounds available for editing. So there is really no need for support, because the whole thing would be basically "unofficial addon". Of course making a sound-port would require documentation but just making the sound files available in the LFS folder needs 0 documentation.

The point would not be to shift work fromdevs to community but to allow the community to produce some stuff that is not wise for the devs to make. Like high quality textures or different braking sound samples for cars. If there were or are any samples to edit

Quote from thisnameistaken :

If Scawen was to hire a development team, even if he found great people, he'd be sidelined into a practically full-time job of managing them and the project. That wouldn't be making the best use of his skills, and it probably wouldn't interest him either.

I said so but I didn't exactly mean a huge dev team. I just meant that if Scawen wanted to "hire" 1-2 more devs to improve certain areas (for example sound) I'm sure he would find persons with similar passion than Scawen himself has. Maybe Scawen is just too stubborn to do that. Keep some realism with your expectations about S3. Scawen just can't do everything himself, that means we don't get even half of the features everyone is naturally expecting from S3 final or then it comes out in year 2016.

New dude here

I just downloaded rFactor demo. One thing I don't understand, is there difference in driving on grass and on pavement. when I position car so that left side is on grass and right is on the roadway then brake hard, car doesn't spin. In LFS it does. I made sure I turned off all the easy game settings.

Is it me, or does rFactor not model different surfaces on the same track?

Quote from dimastep :

New dude here

I just downloaded rFactor demo. One thing I don't understand, is there difference in driving on grass and on pavement. when I position car so that left side is on grass and right is on the roadway then brake hard, car doesn't spin. In LFS it does. I made sure I turned off all the easy game settings.

Is it me, or does rFactor not model different surfaces on the same track?

Of course it has but it is simply weird. In LFS you can also do some weird cutting especially in chicanes but in rFactor you can have two wheels on grass but doesn't affect grip almost at all.