I am also wondering why scawen doesn't flip the magic directX 9 uber-visuals flip
Honestly, the graphics are very crisp when you use FSAA and AF and one or two updated textures. But I agree that when we approach S3 (which might be years away) something should be done to improve the visuals.
Yes, if LFS would look like the real world it would be great
But I don't think we are going to DX9 (or DX10) anytime soon. The code would need a lot of reworking to do that. IIRC the 8 to 9 change was pretty big and they are very different.
Besides DX8 has still a lot more to give.
I don't really mind what dx version there is in use as long as I can get at least same performance with same harware without need to use lower details than before (mainly lod as I like to see long way forward)
But LFS is not meant for masses, it would be MMOPRG or some FPS game if it would
It is actually good that LFS has not bling graphics, it will put away most of NFS kids that don't understand what is difference in sim and realistic racing compared to wall grinding and pushing others away to get 1st place in 0,5 lap race...
I totally agree with any graphical updates. Don't get me wrong though, i'm not saying LFS looks bad, but it does look pretty outdated.
At what point enhanced graphics deters from this game i'm not quite sure? As stated, if your PC can't handle it update your 1986 PC! No really, most games ("simulators" for the pedantic) have the option to turn up or turn down graphics, as LFS already has.
The only thing enhanced graphics brings to the table is the ability to race on the best simulator available WITH tasty graphics.
With that being said, i certainly don't aim to have graphic improvements infront of any more important improvements. All in due time.
I think even with DirectX 9, LFS could probably BENEFIT from having that engine, regardless if it wasnt using any of the DX9 features that DX8 doesn't have. Personally I think LFS would have an FPS increase for users with DX9 cards (and I am sure the majority of us have those). For how simple and bland LFS looks, FPS sure isn't very 'good' compared to the pimped out DX9/DX10 games using proper hardware. Hell even on autocross, systems that play DX9 games at very high FPS suffer in DX8 LFS Auto-x. I just don't understand why it has to be this way.
Perhaps it is a very crude graphics engine that doesn't make use of any DX9 powered cards... feels more 'raw' than anything else. I am sure LFS could run so much smoother if it was optimized and could be run under DX9. Sadly, I don't think we'll ever see that happening, and it will always be behind in this department. I think Scawen has the most experience with DX8 games, since that is the engine he is most familiar with even with his other previous games. Not sure if he has looked at DX9+ at all, but I hope he has... and hope it is easy to pick up on when the time comes.
Using the whole "dds" stuff under DX8 just doesn't feel like there is any gain from it. I think Scawen really needs to utilize such features for textures when there is actually a better renderer in place of DX8.... else it just doesn't feel like it helps.
I mean, newest games have all these crasy AA, AF, blurring, reflections, lighting, etc... and they still can run fine with the proper hardware. Yet LFS has very rudimentary graphics and can be hurt in some occassions... like with smoke and LOD issues. And LFS is still very low detail out of the box. Not just its textures, but also the car models and other objects are very low poly.
LFS needs a makeover but what I am worried about is losing that 'smoothness' we have now...LFS feels so much different than any other game I have played and I think some of that has to do with the graphics. They are simple yet detailed. LFS with 4xFSAA and 16xAF looks quite good if you ask me.
I love the current graphics because they are not over the top with useless effects and overly done sharers like most current games have. All the shader BS isnt really necessary. Little things here and there would be nifty but I'm not all for a complete overhaul, there's no need to imo. and thats the end of my drunken ramble.
Dx9 only really brought a couple of decent things to the table - pixel shading and realtime light/shadow/reflection mapping.
It'd be nice to see these things eventually, but they're not actually needed to improve the game.
As for the argument against slower computers, it must be possible to program it so that you can choose to run in Dx8 or Dx9 mode, depending on your hardware (yes, rTractor does this and I actually think it's a good idea). That means people with low-end machines can stick to the old drivers while folks with newer cards can experience the joys of "proper" lighting effects.
My question is this - for the weather and day/night changes which may or may not be (but probably are) in the pipeline, would it be more or less work to let Dx9 handle the shadows or to program them all manually for Dx8? Hmmm...
A simple and nice improvement (without changing DirectX) would be to use alpha channel from the skins. So you can decide how much each part of skin reflects the sky...and that way simulate different materials.
Rubbish. People dont buy games for high system requirements. They buy games because the screenshots look pretty / the demo played well and their computer is ABOVE the system requirements. DX9 gives a programmer some tools to produce better graphics, but DX9 is in itself not a selling point.
@Tweaker: DX9 wont magically make the game run faster. Although with the framerates it knocks out on my modern system it's already substantically faster than the eye can see except at a race start. If you want DX for faster framerates on your cutting edge PC - do you realise the human eye wont spot a difference over around 50-60 fps anyway? (neither will most monitors for that matter).
I've noticed that PC playing games junkies seem hell bent on believing that some things are not possible without DX9/10 whatever, like "Rain needs DX10" etc. This is simply not true. Later DX versions can help to create some nice effects or can make nice effects easier to produce, but whether an effect looks good or not has nothing at all to do with which version of DX is used.
I still use DX7 most of the time I do 3D [and OpenGL] and I have produced games with some stunning graphics and special effects, I used DX8.1 for a special effects bonanza of a game once - then looked at it and realised that everything in it I could have done in DX7 and had wider compatibility. Ironically the game flopped because of a graphics card compatibility issue...
The game with the best graphics that I think I ever produced (it was sadly never finished because the artist got hired by R* for GTA:SA with the work on it only half done) was done in DX7.
Sure my stuff isn't a patch on LFS anyway, LFS is a whole new league, but what i'm saying here is that as players we should completely ignore what version of DX is used to give us pretty or ugly screenshots, and just assess the screenshot on its own merits.
You can do great stuff in low DX versions, and you can do appalling stuff with high DX versions.
Anyway, I actually happen to think LFS looks quite pretty with a few texture mods in place, so what would I know?
