re reading my post i hope i didn't come off as a dick head.
I missed the point you were trying to make,which is now clear after your second post, and got caught up on a little technicality
re reading my post i hope i didn't come off as a dick head.
I missed the point you were trying to make,which is now clear after your second post, and got caught up on a little technicality
It's true that some games strive to advance in one direction only (graphics). But unlike many people here I tend to think that that's still ok. It's still an innovation. It would be extremely hard for any development team to push the boundaries in every element of a game and for every game. The last few years have really generally concentrated on graphics and online cababilities, for sure. When I look at a game like BF2, I'm amazed at the things you can do which just weren't feasible ten years ago (huge maps, wide diversity of vehicles and terrain, great teamplay, excellent graphics, multi-leveled gaming...).
The flip-side of that is that there's a definite romancing over graphics to the exclusion of other elements, arguably equally or even more important; and that argument is always flying around here! But then, as an example- the NFS style games were never meant to have realistic physics in the first place. They're not sims, they're arcade games with 'pretty' graphics. They do what they're designed to do.
drop DirectX
Way dont ust quit on Microsoft DirectX and use a "proper" render lib like Open GL, then LFS will runn fine on Linux so we can delete Windows.
OR................
Rofl you maniac
In your dreams mr.
Well then turn it down.
People like me who have spent money on high end hardware get cheesed off by people who say "Noooo dont make better graphics cos my PC can't handle it"
Well sorry mate, TURN EM DOWN! So they rest of us can have better graphics, and yes, I DO look at the graphics while im in game because im not a hard core racer.
So yes +1 to DX9 additions!
Wouldn't mind at all if there would be only hard core racers in LFS 
My FPS is fine thank you. I have a decent PC. But what I was saying is that lots of people claim to use non-cockpit view because of FPS issues, so why would they want more intensive graphics too?!?
Plus, some things should not be 'turn-off-able". Spray and rain HAS to be the same for everyone, as does smoke and flag displays. Otherwise you just turn off spray and smoke, and have a clear track whilst other people can't see very well...
That's fair, but on the other hand, it looks like we will be getting more detailed cockpits shortly. It's not just a wish of some people, graphics are being updated. If people are having fps problems with cockpits now, I'm sure it won't be any easier for them after the patch Y gfx update, or any future gfx updates, or S3. It's important to include proper gfx detail scaling options- that way hopefully everybody wins.
Was funny hearing someone saying though that with cockpits turned on they're fps went from 9 fps to 3 fps (or something). Some folk just really need to upgrade!
Was funny hearing someone saying though that with cockpits turned on they're fps went from 9 fps to 3 fps (or something). Some folk just really need to upgrade!
I think that it's needed much more efford on phisics than in graphics, LFS in the think of graphics it's quite fine, the first think to think on it's the phisics or other thinks that make it more real.
If you want more graphics turn to an arcade game and buy a 8800GTX.
If you want more graphics turn to an arcade game and buy a 8800GTX.
Hehe, well I like that there are different people in this game. If everyone had been hardcore sim`racers, then I probally would belive it would get borring
Tho, I don`t like crashed, but thers is a limit of how many and to what level hardcore racers are.
Well, the physics is already arguably the best around, and it will obviously get better. The graphics on the other hand, aren't- but obviously they will improve as well. I guess, the point I've vaguely tried to make is that any improvements should be welcome, and with LFS it's bound to happen, because it's still an unfinished product. Of course there's limited manpower to do that, and I've got no problems or preferences whether the improvements are in graphics/physics/AI/netcode or whatever- I'm sure all these elements will improve over time. I just wonder why people are against seeing improvements in graphics, like some of us are not 'hardcore' if we'd like to see improvements in that area. It's still an improvement, still helps the game become 'more real'. Sure I can understand the argument that some performance may be sacrificed, but over time you'd have to expect (and accept) that- LFS is bound to become a more demanding game both physically and graphically. The physics engine is already giving your CPU a run for its money (eg. many AI's on track), the GPU on the other hand is hardly being utilised at all...
Whats wrong with cockpit FPS?
Mines 89 constant with 6xAA, 16xAF, Adaptive AA, everything, oh and not even at my full clocks (600/700 instead of 709/845).
Other games manage to have levels of graphics, so can LFS, is just HAS to.
LFS graphics arn't bad at the moment, but they can be so so so much better.
More volumetric smoke (like LOTS more, so cars can disappear into there own smoke), more trees, 3D clouds, proper shadows, better reflections, the list is endless.
Your never going to get a level playing field, so going over the top to get there isn't worth it, at all.
Edit: S3 should almost 100% have updated and improved graphics, even to DX10 in one go, although the improvements DX10 has might not be worth it for a racing sim.
But for now bug fixing and physics is the name of the game, especially crash physics :o
Ah, I see the problem. You can read, but not comprehend.
There is nothing 'wrong' with cockpit FPS. But there is a FPS reduction on slower computers when viewing inside the car. Thus people with slower computers didn't appreciate the Forced Cockpit View OPTION that Scawen added a couple of weeks ago. So if such a large majority of people are AGAINST anything that lowers FPS, then I would also imagine that a lot will be against graphical stuff that does the same - in this case DX9 and 'bling'.
Yes, we should have better smoke, but it cannot be toggleable. Whilst we can never have a complete level playing field, as people use different computers, monitors, controllers, speakers etc, LFS can go to some lengths to ensure that the playing field isn't rutted and hilly. Otherwise too many people will turn off cockpit views/smoke/spray to gain advantages.
Yes, other games have levels of graphics, and look at them - crap nonsense. I'd wager that if nKP gets weather conditions they won't turn off with different levels of DX or pressing the shader button, because it's attempting to be a sim.
And DX10 doesn't result in 'better graphics', it just means some things are easier to acheive (perhaps) or that some can more easily be offloaded onto the graphics cards. A racing sim doesn't NEED amazing jaw-dropping graphics, mainly because real life isn't amazing and jaw-dropping to look at. Whilst going round Rockingham yesterday I can assure you I never saw reflective tarmac, lens flare, or sparks from other peoples crashes. I never saw the trees swaying (not that there was much wind or trees, but even if there was you don't see it. At all. Ever)... Never once did Rockingham look anything like GTR, rTractor or nKP. But it did look a bit like LFS*.
*a bit, of course even realistic graphics will probably never entirely emulate reality or the human eye.
I want improvements on graphics, and change to DX9, (not DX10, it's too early for that) and improve graphics, yes phisics are good but wht not improve them?, in my last post i meant that i, personally want a general improvement, not just in the graphics thing.
And this is exactly my point, people with old hardware stopping the progression of the game, I've even thought of two new points, grass and then tire tracks in grass. Curved instead of flat surfaces.
People want weather, to have weather we need rain, with rain comes puddles and spray etc, which 25% of the computers won't be able to get decent FPS in, so we should just stuff the idea for the people who can't be bothered or can't upgrade?
Night racing, means light, means using HDR in some cases for the beams when going through smoke....
To cater for the others we have different servers, one who don't have weather or night racing, so people with slow computers don't get left out.
For people with powerhouses we get everything, volumetric smoke, HDR, rain, sun, everything!
Some HDR is overdone but some HDR is just stunning. I'd absolutely love to be able to turn the lights off at night, start up LFS, go to a night race and bomb around in moonlight with lights, rain, thunderstorms!
THAT would make me buy S3, because atm an addition of a few cars and tracks isn't alot for me to buy it.
Edit: Offline mode can have whatever settings they like, but online we will have to separate the slow from the fast, we will just have to.
No, no. NO.
DX10 means A. I have to run Vista (which means that i gotta shell out £65) and B. I (and most LFS'ers) have to shell out for a new GFX card when the one i have works fine. People on laptops? Your fecked i'm afraid, please buy a new £1000 DX10 laptop, Kthxbai!
DX9 has a LOT left in it - look at stuff like Stalker, HL2 - they STILL haven't touched the limit of what DX9 can do, but DX10 is easier, and people assume DX10 = Magically better graphics and to saite the consumer they do it.
LFS sells to a niche market, and to tell alot of customers to f*ck off until they get a new OS and graphics card, or computer (for your Laptop users) will do NOTHING for LFS' sales.
DX9? Sure, bring it on, some people DO need to accept that LFS WILL get more demanding, but not by much - the PC's that still have a turbo button are unrealistic to support, but anything socket 754 or above should be able to play the game on slightly more than "Super-Ultra.... Low".
LFS (imo) does look quite good, because it doesn't look as... glitzy as stuff like GTR, and while GTR has some nicer effects, i really like the... style of LFS.
Crucial part of the sentence there, im not convinced by DX10 either, im hoping that it makes a big difference in FS-X, if it does then ill upgrade
But again, missing the point of being able to use DX9 graphics becauseCrysis is DX10 but DX9 people will still be able to use it
So a DX8/DX9/DX10 option, although atm DX10 really really really isn't worth it, only thing I've seen is massively reduced CPU usage from the graphics driver, which will help in FS-X hopefully!Speak for yourself!
(Got your point though Tristan,
)quick bit from me...
What happens if a game developer creates a game that equals LFS on physics but on a DX-9 or higher graphics engine? GTR2 was pretty close.
End of LFS? Possibly.
Don't let NFS get physics and make you all eat your hats.
What happens if a game developer creates a game that equals LFS on physics but on a DX-9 or higher graphics engine? GTR2 was pretty close.
End of LFS? Possibly.
Don't let NFS get physics and make you all eat your hats.
I wouldn't suggest NFS as a good graphics model to work towards! Tristan's probably right, LFS is probably one of the more realistic looking racing games around, taken as a whole, but IMO it could simply go much further.
I watched some videos of GT HD, and while the cars looked stunning, as soon as there was a collision, the car just stopped dead... no damage... instant immersion killer and downright ugly
Also there are no cockpit graphics in the game, at all. So LFS has the better cockpits there...
edit: just found some beautiful GT HD screenshots over here. You've got to admit it's graphically miles ahead (as a screenshot generator ) of LFS. The lighting and the cars looks pretty much spot on.
I watched some videos of GT HD, and while the cars looked stunning, as soon as there was a collision, the car just stopped dead... no damage... instant immersion killer and downright ugly
Also there are no cockpit graphics in the game, at all. So LFS has the better cockpits there... edit: just found some beautiful GT HD screenshots over here. You've got to admit it's graphically miles ahead (as a screenshot generator
) of LFS. The lighting and the cars looks pretty much spot on.Yes, I guess I'm crazy then, but never ever I don't like to get such stupid looking graphics. There is some blur effect all over, also what it is with bright areas 'burning', there is no such thing happening when I'm on track, therefore I don't like to see such things on my screen
Yeah, NFS isnt the best graphics, just used it as an example. It would be a nightmare if it came true! That was me point.
If you let the graphics slip too much, someone will come along and do something better. As everyone said before, it takes time to port from dx 8 to 9, probably longer than building from scratch from dx-9. This gives even more room for someone to do a LFS clone on a higher dx and beat our LFS. If LFS does this too late there could be irreversable damage done if say half the community swaps to the new game that has real physic models and a better graphics engine.
This is my worries thats all. I want LFS to always be the best. On all areas.
If you let the graphics slip too much, someone will come along and do something better. As everyone said before, it takes time to port from dx 8 to 9, probably longer than building from scratch from dx-9. This gives even more room for someone to do a LFS clone on a higher dx and beat our LFS. If LFS does this too late there could be irreversable damage done if say half the community swaps to the new game that has real physic models and a better graphics engine.
This is my worries thats all. I want LFS to always be the best. On all areas.
Focus tends to make the BG look blurry. and i'd guess the reflection is what your saying is "burning" i have a few shots of cars with that light intensity on the roof or wings etc.
Stupid photo mode. It probably looks ok in motion, but I haven't played this game. The bright areas 'burning' effect I see all the time on cars in the street, if it happens to be a very sunny day. Any highly reflective material will give an appearance like that if the light source is strong enough (ie, the sun), and it's reflecting right back at you. I actually think it looks quite tastefully done on that screenshot, anyway it's leagues away from the mega saturated hdr look of a game like Dirt (which I haven't played either
). Megghh. Enough talk of graphics. I'm going to go and have some beans.
edit: some car shots with glare
http://debri.ru/foto/funny_cars/funny_cars_011.jpg
http://montin.ws/media/cars/20060814-Lincoln%20Navigator.jpg
http://www.i-van.org/3%20stainless%20steel%20cars.jpg -possibly photo enhanced
http://www.glareeurope.com/img/foretter/before-1-en.jpg
http://www.markbusse.ca/images/cuba/cuba_cars2.jpg -dusty old thing, but still quite a lot of glare
Release S3 with a Modern DirectX version!
(196 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG