This is pretty much what I came in here to post - totally agree.
This is pretty much what I came in here to post - totally agree.
Exactly. Look at games like NFS:Porsche. It had night stages with working lightmaps, and that was Dx7 or 8, so obviously these things are certainly possible with LFS current tech.
Likewise, rain has been in countless games over the years.
The only difference is whether you want your graphics card to automatically calculate and generate the effects, or whether they're scripted. To be honest, in a racing game that's a really trivial matter since you should be looking at the road and the cars around you more than the effects. And in my experience, moving to Dx9 will not cause an increase in frame rates, rather the opposite. Your card has to do more stuff, so it can't render the screens as quickly.
With the texture mods and a load of AA/AF I think LFS looks fantastic. It's actually amazing how much difference I noticed just with the those settings. And I'd take a high frame rate over pointless fancy effects any day
Likewise, rain has been in countless games over the years.
The only difference is whether you want your graphics card to automatically calculate and generate the effects, or whether they're scripted. To be honest, in a racing game that's a really trivial matter since you should be looking at the road and the cars around you more than the effects. And in my experience, moving to Dx9 will not cause an increase in frame rates, rather the opposite. Your card has to do more stuff, so it can't render the screens as quickly.
With the texture mods and a load of AA/AF I think LFS looks fantastic. It's actually amazing how much difference I noticed just with the those settings. And I'd take a high frame rate over pointless fancy effects any day
Various games and sims allow you to choose wich DirectX version to run!
Im sure there wouldn't be too much trouble to allow multiple versions of DirectX in LFS!
Look at the Geoff Crammond sims for example (Im primarily a BF1 driver, naturaly i'd suggest him lol)
Yes.. but..
Lfs doen't make full use of its DX Version yet!!!
+ Its textures are fine, the only lacking in the current LFS is bumpmapping + Specularmapping + Reflactionmapping + lightmapping + grilled chees sandwiches!
Im sure LFS could possibly even include and option for Cocpit Detail Levels?
Pretty much agree!
:: Edited because I had typos, lack of coffee today!
WIN!
Yes, prabably the thing most of us want out of LFS is da/night and weather/track temperature changes. I just recently aquired Richard Burns Rally, and I think a proper point to point course at night and in the rain using the RB4 would be a blast.
Oh yeah, and some cool mud splatter couldn't hurt, but that's just fancy gimmics...
EDIT: Umm, btw, how much of an elevation chage can LFS do anyway? Blackwood has some nice ec, but when you drive, you barely notice it for some reason... maybe it's just me?
Oh yeah, and some cool mud splatter couldn't hurt, but that's just fancy gimmics...
EDIT: Umm, btw, how much of an elevation chage can LFS do anyway? Blackwood has some nice ec, but when you drive, you barely notice it for some reason... maybe it's just me?
You can prove that wrong with FPS Compare. It shows split screen with either a simple 3d model rotating or landscape model (more noticiable in this) and you can set the fps limit for both split screens. The limit where you practically don't anymore notice difference is maybe somewhere at 80+ fps.
But of course 50 fps in a driving game (in 3d shooters the limit is higher) should be perfectly playable for anyone.
Rain certainly isnt an issue for our current Direct X version. GP4 had, and imo still has the best rain implementation of any game, and that was out like what, 7 years ago?
+1 for real time shadows and lighting. And for that we need dx9
For me these are the two most important thing when creating a realistic look
They bring live to a game
For me these are the two most important thing when creating a realistic look
They bring live to a game
People that say that they need about 80 fps to even be able to drive are making me laugh. You don't need more than 25 or 30 fps to drive without a flaw. Under that, MAYBE you'll have some trouble, and that's if you're not used to it.
Personally, anything over 25 fps is fine. People with 120 fps don't gain much experience in 100 fps.
As for Dx8, 9 or even 10, I think that by the time LFS S3 is out, Dx10 will be widely spread and most cards sold will be Dx10 cards, unlike now. We're in a period of transition. What's sure is that newcomers with brand new Dx10 setups will probably laugh at a game that still uses Dx8.
That said, I really feel that an engine change or upgrade is out of question until LFS S3 is out, and that's of course because Scawen just doesn't have time alone to do that. It wouldn't be a smart move to work on a new engine for an X amount of time and let the rest rot in the to-do list. So basically, LFS is getting even more screwed the more time passes... 2007 already! :o
Personally, anything over 25 fps is fine. People with 120 fps don't gain much experience in 100 fps.
As for Dx8, 9 or even 10, I think that by the time LFS S3 is out, Dx10 will be widely spread and most cards sold will be Dx10 cards, unlike now. We're in a period of transition. What's sure is that newcomers with brand new Dx10 setups will probably laugh at a game that still uses Dx8.
That said, I really feel that an engine change or upgrade is out of question until LFS S3 is out, and that's of course because Scawen just doesn't have time alone to do that. It wouldn't be a smart move to work on a new engine for an X amount of time and let the rest rot in the to-do list. So basically, LFS is getting even more screwed the more time passes... 2007 already! :o
IRL I haven't noticed car moving by warping small distances forward and that is what happen when fps is low, like 30fps or so, I prefer 60fps as that is monitors frequency. Frop from 60fps to 57 is something I can notice and it affects to driving already, very annoying.
I would say that people that think 25fps is enough and smooth are just bit slow to see difference Sorry, not so good joke 
Also making separate dx modes is making lot of work, all graphics need to be done for dx7, dx8 and dx9 to get them look all good, sure it is not as much as making game 3 times, but it is not walk in the park either, also devs need to find out what is working and what is not for all 3 dx modes, so it is not quick job you could do in one afternoon.
I would say that people that think 25fps is enough and smooth are just bit slow to see difference
Sorry, not so good joke Also making separate dx modes is making lot of work, all graphics need to be done for dx7, dx8 and dx9 to get them look all good, sure it is not as much as making game 3 times, but it is not walk in the park either, also devs need to find out what is working and what is not for all 3 dx modes, so it is not quick job you could do in one afternoon.
25 fps will give a quite the headache over a short period of time. Just hope you're not prone to seizures.
As far as LFS needing eye candy, I fully agree. Life is full of eye candy, so should be a sim. By this I don't mean tunnel vision at speed, blur effects and such. I mean balanced lightning, dust, light effects, etc. However, it's not the ver. of DX thats the problem. It's the devs not doing anything about it/with it.
As far as LFS needing eye candy, I fully agree. Life is full of eye candy, so should be a sim. By this I don't mean tunnel vision at speed, blur effects and such. I mean balanced lightning, dust, light effects, etc. However, it's not the ver. of DX thats the problem. It's the devs not doing anything about it/with it.
cue the obligatory "the human eye cannot detect more than 24fps anyway" arguement LOL
Hell, my crap-arse ol' PC can't even generate more than 24fps
Vote [1] Keep LFS Lo-Fi !!1
Vote [1] Keep LFS Lo-Fi !!1
Yeah, but gaming FPS has little to do with the human eye.
High FPS in games means smooth game play and the difference between 60 and 100fps is very noticeable. Furthermore, if your hardware is capable of a higher frame rate it is less likely to drop too low to cause lag or stuttering.
We always see "the human eye cannot detect..." etc when people talk of FPS in games, but high FPS is more about how fast your hardware can draw the screen than how many frames your eye can detect.
24 frames is the trashhold for your brain. However, a trashhold is just that. Recomended frames are 36, just to avoid abnormalities (movies, flash, etc). Translated into gaming, this is a whole different animal since 36 FPS in terms of graphical rendering is a bit different. I'd love to get into it but it's too late and I'm goign to bed. 
Indeed, also if harware can do 100fps and I'm limiting fps to 60fps I consider that extra 40fps as buffer so there is that much odd behaviour allowed so that it won't disturb my driving, what ever that would be, 4 cars spinning to tires in front of me or Windoze doing something quirky at background as usually it does. I love to have large buffer, 100fps of buffer would be nice, but I'm not getting there after patch X without upgrading :P
It's due to the urban myth that movies/tv only run at 24fps, therefore thats all you need to see a smooth picutre, however, movies and tv have bluring between each frame, not so with computers where every frame is drawn "sharp" and the is no bluring between frames.
I would say the "sweet spot" for computers is 60fps, its not REALLY worth having more than that, also, it's not REALLY worth having more fps than your monitor can refresh.
I would say the "sweet spot" for computers is 60fps, its not REALLY worth having more than that, also, it's not REALLY worth having more fps than your monitor can refresh.
Correct me if i'm wrong but for epilepsy doesnt the framerate need to be 15/30 or 45fps to cause a seizure?
"normally" between 16-25hz (fps)
Don't over-do it though.
If LFS converted to the likes of DX9 and/or DX10, I can quickly see it becoming a GTR2 type simulator, which people with low end computers (whop play lfs with a good FPS) will totally lose out on playing properly.
I say, a set of adjustment tools within LFS. Such as Contrast and Brightness. Even with a little more contrast LFS can look like a more real game. As well as adjustments to things like motion blur, (possibly) High Dynamic Range Lighting (HDR).
Just the simplest things can make the biggest differences.
If LFS converted to the likes of DX9 and/or DX10, I can quickly see it becoming a GTR2 type simulator, which people with low end computers (whop play lfs with a good FPS) will totally lose out on playing properly.
I say, a set of adjustment tools within LFS. Such as Contrast and Brightness. Even with a little more contrast LFS can look like a more real game. As well as adjustments to things like motion blur, (possibly) High Dynamic Range Lighting (HDR).
Just the simplest things can make the biggest differences.
We can't just stay with pehistoric graphics only because some players still play with over 5 years old computers. Things have to move on. I'm not saying it is that important in a racing game but the computers' age is just not a good reason to keep the game that way. And actually my computer is a dinosaur
Am I the only one who thinks that actually, LFS looks quite nice?
No actually i like it too! It could just be better and I don't see how getting better graphics could be bad!
Release S3 with a Modern DirectX version!
(196 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG