Quote from thisnameistaken :

With high-res textures selected I think LFS reports that it's using about 30Mb of texture memory. That's easily manageable by a five year old graphics card, and five year old graphics cards can be bought for less than a takeaway pizza.

with hi-res textures/skins etc all loaded in a 32 player race i've hit 100 MB usage - but still, a 64 MB card wouldn't like hi-res textures, and even my old ATi 9000 Pro was 128 MB!

Quote from theirishnoob :

also my dad has this p.o.s kicking out 3200 gh'z ( at 500 watts ) with only 12 of the 80 gb hardrive being used i manage 30 fps , so i fail to see how it run good on older machines tho i know theirs a few rich guys here with top-end pc's ( nerds )

I'm no nerd, i prefer the term "Geek" :P

You don't NEED a top end PC to max LFS (i think even my old AMD 2800/9600XT could do that easy), but to max AA/Textures etc needs a surprising amount of CPU power, at least to pump out a continual 60 fps would NEED an 8800GTS and a Core 2 Duo, although 16xAA and 8xAA look the same to me, and i use 4xAA which i can only separate from 8xAA in pictures. I do like the fact it scales well, and that on a PC which can barely sustain 8 fps on Supreme Commander set to "Low" it can chuck out graphics like this at 60 fps with ease.

-1...i think all the settings are perfect as they are, and then the cars just wont look very good with the bad settings

I dont see the point, though, in actually removing options for people with higher-end PC's. and anyway, LFS is one of the most scaleable games on the market. Try playing rfactor on a 1GHZ athlon and a Geforce TNT2 My old PC had that and it ran LFS with about 30fps, not bad.

Obviously an X1900XTX runs it a little better, but still.

-1 lfs is allready for low end pc's its Directx 8.

Quote from Gunn :

LFS already works on low spec machines.

Hi guys, before I take part in this discussion I just wanted to say hello as this seems to be my first post here . Oh, and please forgive me my english, it's far from excellence but I'm doing my best .

Well, I beg to differ, sir . Compared to todays standards Live for Speed isn't a very demanding game but we are talking about outdated standards here, right? And unfortunately on this field practice doesn't come anywhere near theory. The manual says It should run on a 1 GHz PC with 128 MB of RAM and any 3D card. I've tried to run LFS on such machine equipped with 384 megs of RAM and a rather decent Radeon 7200. I didn't want to play actually, I just wanted to stay as a spectator as my gf said she'd like to see me racing on her PC. Belive me, no matter how low I went with graphic settings (640x480x16 with almost every option set to lowest) there was no way to make LFS run faster than 12-13 FPS even if there was literally nothing on the screen (like looking at the sky or downwards at the tarmac) and driver's view gave 7-8 FPS at the most. So it's not that old-PC-friendly as it seems... or maybe the manual needs a slight update .

Quote from spavatch :

Hi guys, before I take part in this discussion I just wanted to say hello as this seems to be my first post here . Oh, and please forgive me my english, it's far from excellence but I'm doing my best .

Well, I beg to differ, sir . Compared to todays standards Live for Speed isn't a very demanding game but we are talking about outdated standards here, right? And unfortunately on this field practice doesn't come anywhere near theory. The manual says It should run on a 1 GHz PC with 128 MB of RAM and any 3D card. I've tried to run LFS on such machine equipped with 384 megs of RAM and a rather decent Radeon 7200. I didn't want to play actually, I just wanted to stay as a spectator as my gf said she'd like to see me racing on her PC. Belive me, no matter how low I went with graphic settings (640x480x16 with almost every option set to lowest) there was no way to make LFS run faster than 12-13 FPS even if there was literally nothing on the screen (like looking at the sky or downwards at the tarmac) and driver's view gave 7-8 FPS at the most. So it's not that old-PC-friendly as it seems... or maybe the manual needs a slight update .

Prove it ....run LFS on the older machine and show us a screen shot of the performance tab in Windows task manager when LFS is running...

Quote from CSU1 :

Prove it ....run LFS on the older machine and show us a screen shot of the performance tab in Windows task manager when LFS is running...

I will gladly do that as soon as I'll get access to that computer. That'll probably be tomorrow .

Quote from spavatch :

Compared to todays standards Live for Speed isn't a very demanding game but we are talking about outdated standards here, right?

You might not think LFS is very demanding but it is where CPU resources are concerned. Fancy graphics cards won't help you if your CPU is weak. If you want to compare old with new, a 1GHz CPU is not only outdated, but obsolete as well. Yes it will run LFS, but not well. Personally I would recommend no less than a 2GHz CPU and at least 512MB ram. A 128MB graphics card will be fine, but of course a better card is slightly more useful.

I have accepted long ago that an old PC won't do well with modern games, LFS remarkably still is usable on many low spec systems. But I don't see how making it run on even older systems will benefit anybody. If a person's PC is that old then they are unlikely to have much joy running any modern game. Time to upgrade if you want your system to be a gaming machine.


*when I first started playing LFS I was using a P3 450 with 128MB ram and a 32MB TNT2. Things have changed since then but one thing hasn't changed: a PC is obsolete about 3 years after initial purchase.

Quote from Gunn :

If a person's PC is that old then they are unlikely to have much joy running any modern game. Time to upgrade if you want your system to be a gaming machine.

yep....I thought throves would have flocked in here waving screenies of their running processes and system setups seeking advice ...but even the op seems not to give a shite....oh well...all we can do is try to help ey...

I suppose what that tells us is, very few have problems good good

+1, my brand new machine won't run LFS smoothly, under 20fps on times and I run all at minimum setting.

Yes, this is a laptop, but should have enough CPU power being A64 3400+ and I'm not interested from gfx chrome so would be nice to turn something off to get better fps...

...JTBO no machine will run LFS smoothly under 20fps

does this machine got integrated gfx chipset?

example: my machine will just about run on "the boundry"(above 25-30fps) on full grid from spec view it will see 40-50fps

in car view will see anywhere from 25-40fps

my machine is a laptop with integrated ATi crap(64mb) running at 3.4 ghz

Quote from JTbo :

+1, my brand new machine won't run LFS smoothly, under 20fps on times and I run all at minimum setting.

Yes, this is a laptop, but should have enough CPU power being A64 3400+ and I'm not interested from gfx chrome so would be nice to turn something off to get better fps...

You should probably be getting 120FPS with that CPU, perhaps there's something wrong with your computer or its configuration?

agreed.

Jtbo ^^ giz a look.

Quote from Gunn :

You might not think LFS is very demanding but it is where CPU resources are concerned. Fancy graphics cards won't help you if your CPU is weak. If you want to compare old with new, a 1GHz CPU is not only outdated, but obsolete as well. Yes it will run LFS, but not well. Personally I would recommend no less than a 2GHz CPU and at least 512MB ram. A 128MB graphics card will be fine, but of course a better card is slightly more useful.

You're right . This game is rather CPU than GPU dependent. The machine I've told about a few posts ago isn't my everyday PC, as I said I just wanted to spectate on it. For racing I use an Athlon XP-M 2500+ @2,5 GHz with 1,5 GB of RAM and a Radeon 8500 128MB @300/600. It runs LFS nice and smooth (60-90 FPS) as long as there's not too many cars in front of me . Right after joining the race, when I'm starting from one of the last positions and there are thirty other racers in front of me, I get a rather unplayable framerate of 12-15 FPS .
Currently I'm flirting with an idea of upgrading to X1950XT, which seems to be the fastest solution for AGP bus (as I don't want to buy a whole new PC), but I'm not quite sure if it will help .

Quote from Gunn :

*when I first started playing LFS I was using a P3 450 with 128MB ram and a 32MB TNT2. Things have changed since then but one thing hasn't changed: a PC is obsolete about 3 years after initial purchase.

Sad but true... These are the moments I miss those good old C64 and Amiga times... :goodvibes

Quote from Gunn :

You should probably be getting 120FPS with that CPU, perhaps there's something wrong with your computer or its configuration?

I guess not, latest drivers just installed them yesterday, but this machine has this son of bitch OS called Vista, very very bad for performance this is

For example today I did small race, we were 7 drivers on server and I started from back of grid as I was bit slow with my gamepad (don't ask), I got 14fps and at best I got was 35fps.

Performance in general is very bad in this machine, this runs at full speed and all, but this just is bit slow.

Oh yes, CPU is also that damn Sempron version, really slow computing.

Edit: CPU load is at 100% all time, on my home machine that is much less than 100% and there I have real Athlon 64 3200+ cpu and radeon x850xt card. So this laptop is just too slow to play LFS, need option to give less to compute to increase performance

Quote :

but one thing hasn't changed: a PC is obsolete about 3 years after initial purchase.

Quote :

Sad but true... These are the moments I miss those good old C64 and Amiga times... :goodvibes

Keep in mind that the Commodore Vic-20 was released around 1981, the C64 in 1982 and the Amiga 1985.

Quote from Electrik Kar :

Keep in mind that the Commodore Vic-20 was released around 1981, the C64 in 1982 and the Amiga 1985.

You're right, but to be honest the VIC-20 was quite a false start , the C64 became what VIC-20 should be from the very beginning and lasted for several years till 1990 and the Amiga 500/2000 was more than enough till around 1992, when A1200/A4000 had arrived . Their rather closed architecture (that doesn't include 'big' Amigas - A2000/3000/4000) forced developers to optimise their code and ensured 100% compatibility and more than decent performance on every single machine .

Don't get me wrong, Scawen does an amazing job . I'm just a nostalgic person and I miss the 80's .

Quote :

I'm just a nostalgic person and I miss the 80's .

Hehe, I hear ya. Sometimes I think that from all the time I've ever spent with computers, half of that time must have been spent on a C64.

where do i put this file?

Quote from harjun :

where do i put this file?

wot file?

oops...wrong thread

i meant it for the high res track thing

Quote from spavatch :

You're right, but to be honest the VIC-20 was quite a false start , the C64 became what VIC-20 should be from the very beginning and lasted for several years till 1990 and the Amiga 500/2000 was more than enough till around 1992, when A1200/A4000 had arrived . Their rather closed architecture (that doesn't include 'big' Amigas - A2000/3000/4000) forced developers to optimise their code and ensured 100% compatibility and more than decent performance on every single machine .

Don't get me wrong, Scawen does an amazing job . I'm just a nostalgic person and I miss the 80's .

Compared to C64 1Hz todays 2 000 000Hz (or even more) machines should be really quick to use, but how they manage not to impress still?

We have nice 4 core processors that certainly should have computing power of few million times, but when using todays software they seem rather slow. Maybe software is indeed quite bloatware or something, I do miss indeed yesterday's efficency

Wouldn't be possible to stabalise the graphics by making the grass one flat colour and removing all the banners at the road side? If someone can make a sand mod and a snow mod why shouldn't this be possible, to atleast make the graphics smoother on older computers like mine .

"cut and paste": AMD Athlon(tm) Processor
897 MHz, 368 MB of RAM

P.S. I will post the pics of task manager and lfs when I reinstall it

Quote from CSU1 :

Prove it ....run LFS on the older machine and show us a screen shot of the performance tab in Windows task manager when LFS is running...

Sorry it took me so long guys. But it's better late than ever, right?

Here's a screen you've requested. As you can clearly see LFS.exe is using over 90 percent of CPU's processing power and runs extremely sluggish. Any idea what's wrong?

lol...9fps....i couldnt stop laughing...sorry my Intel p3 did 20 fps and that was at 900mhz