I second that, lego like cars interest me with odd manner
I second that, lego like cars interest me with odd manner
Sorry its a bit off topic but this is the only place where i can get a quick reply:
Exactly the same setup that i was getting 100fps on has dropped to about 20 - 30 fps. I can't race cos I end up crashing into everybody
.
Any Ideas?
I have a laptop that it plugged into router or wireless access point or whatever (not setup for wireless yet) and I have recently been unplugging the pc from the router and pluging it back in again cos I need to take the laptop downstairs to plug into printer to print things and then bring it upstairs again so i can play lfs (yes it is a nightmare). Could this have caused the problem?
Framerate is all over the place now. For a brief few moments it went back to normal but then dropped again. FPS keeps changing and ranges from between about 17 and about 55 at the most. Today I hit a low FPS of 2.7!!! You cant play the game with that FPS!!!
Btw my computer isnt old
Exactly the same setup that i was getting 100fps on has dropped to about 20 - 30 fps. I can't race cos I end up crashing into everybody
.Any Ideas?
I have a laptop that it plugged into router or wireless access point or whatever (not setup for wireless yet) and I have recently been unplugging the pc from the router and pluging it back in again cos I need to take the laptop downstairs to plug into printer to print things and then bring it upstairs again so i can play lfs (yes it is a nightmare). Could this have caused the problem?
Framerate is all over the place now. For a brief few moments it went back to normal but then dropped again. FPS keeps changing and ranges from between about 17 and about 55 at the most. Today I hit a low FPS of 2.7!!! You cant play the game with that FPS!!!
Btw my computer isnt old
A quick sollution might be to defrag the drive and see if it makes a difference.
I assume you haven't made changes to LFS settings or your GFX card nor updated drivers. If that's the case, check processes to see if there is something there draining power from your system.
I might defrag the drive later....
Havent changed anything at all and still same drivers
Checked processes and apart from Internet explorer (which uses 47,860K, i dont have it open when playing lfs) the biggest use of memory is dwm.exe which I found out was the Desktop Window Manager, using 16,780K.
Havent changed anything at all and still same drivers
Checked processes and apart from Internet explorer (which uses 47,860K, i dont have it open when playing lfs) the biggest use of memory is dwm.exe which I found out was the Desktop Window Manager, using 16,780K.
You are not running low on HD space by any chance, are you?
See if defrag helps. If not, you might have cooling or hardware issues.
My HDD still has 101GB free space so its fine, the framerate seems to stay more in the 50-60 range if i'm lucky but sometimes it will drop to the 20s again
2.2 is my new record low framerate, thankfully its not 2.2 all the time, i would say average framerate is about 35
I personally think this is the one part of lfs that is behind the rest, i mean the phisics, handling, and playability is at a decent level yet we have gfx from the 1980's that rival frogger and asteroids
Go play asteroids and then you will learn that you have let frogs out from your mouth
I don't often quote myself.
I've been a bit of an idiot.
You see I play lfs on a laptop, and i've just realised I had it set to power saver.
Just changed it to high performance and framerate is fine - 70 to 100 FPS. Thanks for ur help anyway
Feel free to think that im stupid.
I'm not thiiiiii... I'm not thiiiiii.... Ok, I'm thinking you're stupid
Nah, everyone has moments like that. It would be quite an easy thing to do, I would think (not a laptop user here).
Some interesting stats here
So if game is released as dx10 only, that means quite big share of players can't run it, dx 9 offers alot wider userbase, dx 8-7 does not offer much increase on those that can run game, but of course some dx9 cards are just too slow to run any dx9 graphics.
Stats will of course improve over time when more results are being submitted.
So if game is released as dx10 only, that means quite big share of players can't run it, dx 9 offers alot wider userbase, dx 8-7 does not offer much increase on those that can run game, but of course some dx9 cards are just too slow to run any dx9 graphics.
Stats will of course improve over time when more results are being submitted.
It's impossible to think of a game being released any time soon which will strictly be in DX10. I'd give that atleast another whole year, perhaps two. Perhaps 3.
Hopefully longer than that. I'm one to purchase a new computer every, oh..... 10 years or so
Yes but would you be playing it when other games are visually just so much better?? There comes a point where no matter how good the game play a game has it looses its appeal because it looks so dated.
Personally, I dont think the graphics are too bad. But thats now, wait till we do reach DX 11 or 12 and it will actually look very poor in comparison. Good physics will only gain you so much.
Also, from the commercial point of view do you think other games developers are standing still with their physics and game play?? What when EA Games produce a driving sim in dx10 with as good physics as LFS? what then? no more revenue and bye bye development. Say hello to the Dodo.
Simply put, for a game to be a real commercial success today it must be dx9 compatible, there is simply no excuse to have graphics which are over 2 years out of date on a new release. So dx9 is a must for the next release (assuming it comes out within the next 6 months). This will just about be acceptable because dx10 games will be on the shelves in 12-24 months minimum. At the end of the day, the guys want to make money right??
You don't need to worry about EA making good sim, they just simply won't make it as it is not going to be financial success
No, at the end of the day they just want to work there way, and have their costs covered. They don't want to make money specifically.
I'm sure LFS will get updated in time - you are right that selling a DX8 game when everything is DX12 would be a bit silly, especially as DX8 might not be supported properly by then (backwards compatibility only goes so far).
When EA games produce a sim with comparable physics I'll eat myself entirely
Will LFS last forever? Of course not. You can't expect a one man (programming) band to keep up with physics and graphics all the time. Scawen has chosen, wisely, to concentrate mainly on physics over graphics for the time being (the laws of physics don't change, so get that good and it will remain reasonably good and new stuff can be bolted on in time). Later, when the physics have reached whatever standard Scawen decides is 'okay' we'll get graphical stuff, maybe meaning a new version of DX.
A community 'rumour' is that this point will be S3, so the majority of the physics stuff will be done by the end of S2 (no including stuff that requires the graphics first - rain for example). How true this is will only become clear in a few years time. I look forward to finding out.
I'm sure LFS will get updated in time - you are right that selling a DX8 game when everything is DX12 would be a bit silly, especially as DX8 might not be supported properly by then (backwards compatibility only goes so far).
When EA games produce a sim with comparable physics I'll eat myself entirely
Will LFS last forever? Of course not. You can't expect a one man (programming) band to keep up with physics and graphics all the time. Scawen has chosen, wisely, to concentrate mainly on physics over graphics for the time being (the laws of physics don't change, so get that good and it will remain reasonably good and new stuff can be bolted on in time). Later, when the physics have reached whatever standard Scawen decides is 'okay' we'll get graphical stuff, maybe meaning a new version of DX.
A community 'rumour' is that this point will be S3, so the majority of the physics stuff will be done by the end of S2 (no including stuff that requires the graphics first - rain for example). How true this is will only become clear in a few years time. I look forward to finding out.
As a hobbyist game developer with a large knowledge of the directx sdk. I will regret to inform the people out there who think dx9 = bling are dead wrong. Actually reading posts saying OMGZ LFS SUCKZORZ WE NEED DIRECTX 10 AND VISTA FOR UBER GAMING is very very annoying. I still code my games with dx8.1 because of how easy it is to code with, graphics still look nice, and the frame rate is over double that of me rendering the exact same scene in dx9. Now lfs in opengl NOW that is something which would blow your heads off.. better lighting, 4x the fps and hdr integration is easy too. You get better texture mapping and it can run on nearly every operating system. But this "upgrading" to dx9 would take time which could be time spent on creating new tracks and cars which according to nearly half the posts is what everybody seems to want. When I find some free time ill make a hook to add a few more lighting effects to lfs, just thought id post my 2 cents from somebody who has knowledge in this field and to tell those spoiled brats to stfu and wait... The devs have their money and those who wish to convert to nfs can do so, I will stay with lfs and enjoy my time when im not at work and drive for the fun of playing one of the best sims out....
Peace.
Peace.
I strongly agree with ReVVeD back there... honestly, the only thing i think that LFS needs is HDR and the sun to blind you, everything else is nearly perfect.. it's very clean and comfortable for driving...
although there are something that have always bothered me.. the people in the galleries.. they just don't look light... sometimes id rather have an empty track, against looking at those people that look like a billboard.
maybe some animated 3d marshalls would be nice too
but i find LFS perfect as it is now for it's stage of development...
HDR would be nice too, check the preview, that's how it would like only with HDR and bloom effect... some heat blur and dust fog like in real traks would be great also.
although there are something that have always bothered me.. the people in the galleries.. they just don't look light... sometimes id rather have an empty track, against looking at those people that look like a billboard.
maybe some animated 3d marshalls would be nice too
but i find LFS perfect as it is now for it's stage of development...
HDR would be nice too, check the preview, that's how it would like only with HDR and bloom effect... some heat blur and dust fog like in real traks would be great also.
For some reason, when I hear HDR or Bloom, my first reaction is "How do I turn it off?" Don't know why, but for some reason those seem to be better turned off, they bring some kind of radiation scenes to game 
I've found that Bloom and the more resource expansive HRD can look great if you follow a certain rule.
When you think it looks perfect, tone it down 10%.
Both can add quite a lot of depth and "candy" to a scene without looking cheap and overdone.
Also, they look better when character models are excluded or toned down more while the enviroment uses the full effect (the full, toned down, slight effect of course).
My experience with both is mostly with FPS, but I can see it work very well with LFS, as long as it's done tastefully.
It also requires less coding then a move to DX9 or openGL (although the devs should consider moving to a different platform, for longevity reasons)
When you think it looks perfect, tone it down 10%.
Both can add quite a lot of depth and "candy" to a scene without looking cheap and overdone.
Also, they look better when character models are excluded or toned down more while the enviroment uses the full effect (the full, toned down, slight effect of course).
My experience with both is mostly with FPS, but I can see it work very well with LFS, as long as it's done tastefully.
It also requires less coding then a move to DX9 or openGL (although the devs should consider moving to a different platform, for longevity reasons)
anyways it's ment to be disabled for anyone who wants to save some performance to get additional FPS.
and the overexposed image it's what you get with your eyes when you see something with a high reflection... try looking at a car with the sun on the windshield, see how everything else looks like. HDR it's ment to make images more life like, not prettier.
and the overexposed image it's what you get with your eyes when you see something with a high reflection... try looking at a car with the sun on the windshield, see how everything else looks like. HDR it's ment to make images more life like, not prettier.
What ugly, unrealistic images. I hope LFS NEVER adds blurry bloom. Your images just rubbish.
I hope too lfs never adds bloom or hdr. Why do you need this for a sim.??
It would be ok, when LFS is nearly finished completly, but for now its time to work on the physics tracks and cars etc. but not on graphics !! For me, the graphic in LFS looks rly nice, i dont need a better one, maybe a little bit.
But i rly hope that lfs never ever goes dx10.
A better graphic doesnt make a better sim!
just my 2 cents
with my bad english, sry
It would be ok, when LFS is nearly finished completly, but for now its time to work on the physics tracks and cars etc. but not on graphics !! For me, the graphic in LFS looks rly nice, i dont need a better one, maybe a little bit.
But i rly hope that lfs never ever goes dx10.
A better graphic doesnt make a better sim!
just my 2 cents
with my bad english, sryI don't know if you're being dramatic for effect, but that is waaaay over the top. No (modern) API on the planet can possibly give you 4 times the performance of another unless you're severely misusing the API you're comparing to. I'm also not quite sure what you mean with "better texture mapping". The quality of the texture mapping is mostly down to the card itself, not the API controlling it. What exactly is "better" about textures in OpenGL?
Other than that I agree. Watching people with absolutely no programming experience discuss the merits of graphics APIs can make you want to rip your hair out. The API is irrelevant. It's what you make it do that's important.
The 4x the performance I mention is contrasting two games like the crysis engine and the unreal engine. Its not exact figures and I am aware they are totally different engines etc but what I am saying is, performance wise opengl will always top out king. The texture mapping I also mentioned is just to say that textures in opengl when rendered IMO look better than that of a directx texture. doom3 / quake4 for example... great coding team behind them, and I love the way the lighting and bump mapping throughout the game sets the scene perfectly and still has a decent frame rate. Ive been running linux for the last 7 years, occasionally popping back to windows to check how bad things are going, after trying the crysis game out I laughed and went straight back. Im anti microsoft and am fully aware of the microsoft conspiracy so im bound to say opengl > dx thats my personal opinion, im not brainwashed into thinking I need a new graphics card every month in order to play "DIRECTX 10 IN ALL ITS LEETNESS!" although I will still continue to code with the directx api as its industry standard. I cant really change that but if I can open other people minds up to the better alternatives out there I might possibly be able to make a difference...
Peace
Peace
Release S3 with a Modern DirectX version!
(196 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG