i am afriad he is right. all the very loyal lfs players however sweet it may be, need to wake up for once.
The general gamer for racing, me i race in real life and i am the same, i like to have good online racing, but when i have the option of cars that are out there in the real world, with real life great circuits of the world played across public and great leagues, they win me over.
lfs just does not offer this, and although its a great game, its loosing touch and needs a rethink, not on how to be a great game, but on how to lure everyone back into actually playing it to allow it to develop properly! the concept is not one that will win over the majority of sim racers.
Getting there takes time. Realize it. Do you prefer an arcade game with real life cars and tracks, or do you prefer to wait more, but instead get a sophisticated simulator, which slowly includes such?
You'd think this topic was posted by (The Stig)! He posted a month or so ago asking if the devs were still working on LFS. I mean come on! How stupid of a question is that?
i prefer the simulators out there already such as rfactor and i racing that can provide both.
Edit. And those simulators out there are the ones that are taking the players away. they are both fantastic. And when rfactor 2 comes out lfs may be in alot of trouble..
Well partially michael is right .Before unleashing the dogs of war have in mind that for all of us to be here and write our thoughts in the forums instead of making something...ahem..more constructive means we really care and love about lfs.
Yet if you do not talk about the game's shortcummings then nothing will be done to improve or fix mistakes or add new content and new features.
We all fell in love with lfs because it featured something more than the average joe's need for speed,burnout,gotham racing,race pro,midnight club etc....That was it's physics,it's great cockpits and great overall feeling.We let lfs go for many shortcummings for this exact reason.
The truth is that when s2 came out in 2005 it was way more advanced than many,many other games out there.If only the game developing continued as fast as in the early days or if only the devs had accepted the help of many talented users that offered their help.And that help was all for free with the only thing people asked was a mention in the credits.
And still the developers are negative towards user created content or even to something i asked and proposed many times ,a contest to remake the existing car models and eventually contests to make specific cars while the devs may work on their physics instead of spending a hell of a lot of time making models of cars exteriors and interiors...The same could apply also for the tracks...
And no matter how much you love the game the s2 status approaches a good 6 years....In a time where everybody uses dx9 renders and many use dx10 or even dx11.... having a dx8 engine starts to show its age.A dx9 engine brings shader effects and hdr lighting on the table....And in lfs it does not even use bloom lighting ....Good texturing on cars (like the Lynce update ) and on tracks may partially cover the fact that the game misses those features but trust me properly set Hdr improves the graphics drastically.And the addition of shaders in a dx9 render adds the possibility of realistic looking tarmac and rain.
So...finally the thing is with the help of users lfs can be the dominant driving sim.If only the devs realized that,they could focus on the engine itselft,the general physics ,sound and initially on car physics...
So the mentality my way or the highway should stop,because eventually people will go seach for greener land...
Isi proved with Rfactor that a small company can make something amazing.A lot of people including myself were very negatively biased towards Isi when rfactor was released.And yet after a couple of years and after the real feel plugin was made some incredible content started to flow.Nowdays there a dozens of triple-A quality cars and tracks to play the game.What stops it from being the end of all sims is the luck of decent ai,overall polish(like weather effects ..,body deformation etc) and the fact that you must start doing backflips if you find someone to play with many mods...
To close this really long rant lfs is nothing sort of amazing if you think that it was made by just 3 people....Grand turismo in contrast has 150 people....!!! But new ways of developing should be considered for lfs to have a chance with all the competitors that exist today or are eventually comming...(Rfactor 2,gtr 3 and yes...even gt5...)
For all these DX 8 - 11 whiners, links below lead to screenies from two similar games. One of these games has DX8 engine, the other one uses DX9. Now can you tell which one is which? I swear that these are two different games, namely LockOn: Flaming Cliffs and DCS: Black Shark. BTW, shaders are available even in DX8.
You posted two screens which show something totally different and ask us to find differences?
Post the same scene in dx8 and dx9 and i will show you the differences.
Since i played lock on FC and tried DCS i can tell you the most noticeable differences for me.
I played DCS only like 20 minutes because of the weak computer (But I still seen it on max details) it was quite time ago but here is what i noticed and still remember.
In DCS.
Textures were much better (resolution and details).
Shading was more live like it wasn't shiny glare it was more subtle and natural, darker in some places and bright in the other with mid tones and soft edges.
On grounds object were more detailed cars and firetracks for example had transparent glasses and crew inside.
Everything was more detailed as well 3d models and textures.
The environment is not so sterile anymore.
DCS definitely look better but you would have to show screens which presents ground, buildings, trees, clouds etc and not just two pictures which both show something different and incomparable.
And you still cant compare those two game to show us the differences because while yes DCS looks better but its not really much better as devs said themselves they didn't concentrate on better visual, Dx9 suppose to work better on modern PCs and allow for better physics.
To show us the real difference you should take stalker for example and make a quicksave turn to DX8 do prtscr then turn to DX9 load and do another screen and then you will see the difference.
Or any other game which uses both modes GTL for ex.
My two cents to this thread would be.
LFS doesn't need dx9/10/11 at least not now, at present moment i am satisfied with graphics, nice cockpits and shiny cars, Hi Res textures etc.
Compare LFS with GT4 on PS2, LFS surprisingly have much better graphics than GT4 so why doest GT4 looks much better?
Because they made a good use of what they had, life-like and interesting surroundings, colourful and realistic textures, everything is well designed and looks really good.
While in LFS every track looks almost the same (Exception Fern Bay and South City)
As a result LFS just look deserted, dull and boring because of that, I mean how many times can you round Aston or Westhill or blackwood and not get feed up with its green grass and trees and nothing more?
If devs would allow modding i am sure there would be tons of tracks and cars well designed, known and desired but as for now LFS is just boring in longer perspective.
I am still wait and hope politics toward modding will change some day and i will get what I want, good physics and tons of fresh content, but as for now rFactor which handle like a brick on the wheels or GTL which looks kinda outdated but still fun are the only alternatives.
Exactly my friend.You are 100 % right.
And Dcs black shark does not even use 100 % of dx 9...If you had the luck to play lock on flaming cliffs 2 its even better than Dcs.And that huge difference by only using the full potential of dx9 and some good modeling and texturing..
I am the last that will ask dx10 or dx11.And i am the last that will ask a gazillion of tracks and cars.And again i am the last that will ask for fully licenced content.
But a dx8 engine is a render engine almost 9 years old before shaders were commonly used.It does not also support hdr lighting and there are some limitations with particle effects and volumetric fog usage.You don't need to use dx10 or dx11 to make something looking amazing.Some very high polygon car and track models with some high resolution texturing with shaders used and some bloom/hdr lighting will make for some incredible graphics.Also the shaders usage means weather effects could finally be introduced in lfs.
You can use whatever car you want with photorealistic graphics as long as you name it differently and change its badge....
And by adding a good number of new tracks at least 4-6 you quarantee that not only new players but also lfs veterans will keep enjoying the game for the upcoming years.Coupled with a improved tire/suspension model there could be a strong chance many former lfs players that moved to rfactor ,gtr evo/race on and i-racing will come back to lfs...
All the above could easily be materialized if the devs were more open to user content and user help...
I hope that Scawen,Victor and Eric realize that before it is too late for lfs to get up from the limbo state it has been for the last few years....
IF the made "contests" for remaking lfs cars with super high quality real life models of the real cars they could save weeks of developing them themselves.The same with " contests " for improving/remaking the current tracks.That would give them time to make the improvements i suggested and new content without constantly having to update the old content.
And lastly i do NOT want to be pessimistic about lfs...I sincerely hope all the best for lfs and for Scawen,Victor and Eric....
But common now be honest first to yourselve if not to anybody else.For how long will you play lfs new ff car ? For a weekend ? For a week ? Two weeks maybe ?
And about the new track ? Are you going to play it for a few weeks ? Then what ? (rockingham is a nice track from what we know but its not anything special.Its not norchielfe,its not isle of man,its not rouen,its not magny course,its not col de turini(monde carlo),its not circuit de la sarthe(le mans) and it is definitely NOT targa florio).The above tracks are so amazing that i do not care driving alone in rfactor.Driving with a nice car on any of the above tracks is what simulation is all about.
And lastly even if they add 1-2 cars and a track more for s3.Will the game be saved ?
Doesn't depends on DirectX version
Doesn't depends on DirectX version
Doesn't depends on DirectX version
Doesn't depends on DirectX version
Doesn't depends on DirectX version.
It's kinda hard to not resort to this kind of petty DX fights when you hear about DX10,11,12 from everywhere. It's got to the point when I feel rather annoyed when I read somewhere how awesome would it be if LFS used newer DX. I mean dammit guys, it's not even squeezing DX8 to it's limits yet, so be a bit more constructive with your suggestions...
So if nothing "depends on DirectX version" then why if I turn dx9 to dx8 in any game which uses both modes suddenly graphic looks worse?
No bump mapping, shadows are very simple, volumetric light is a long gone memory.
Also a lot of new games Stalker for example in adverts mention new directX features God Rays, soft water, volumetric fire, dynamic volumetric smoke etc. Or Dirt 2
You could say that in those adverts a statement were made, that all those fancy graphics, cool features things that make game look good, like shadows and count of polygons in 3d objects (example flag in dirt2 )are dependable on directX version.
So if all this have nothing to do with directX version then why it is advertised like that?
Because somehow everything tells us that higher version of DirectX means better graphic and now you saying that directX have nothing to do with shadows, polygons, bumpmaps and how game looks in average.
A lot of things i mentioned must have some connection with version of directX.
Good shading and bump mapping combined with texture makes it look much better and more 3d without it the texture is just a flat texture.
In Stalker for example in Dx8 brick wall is just a flat wall with bricks painted on it while in Dx9 thanks to bump mapping you can tell its no more flat anymore.
More likely because a lot of things just arent supported by Dx8 for example higher versions of shaders.
Or I can disable features in Dx9/10/11 why cant I switch to Dx8 and disable some features from there?
According to you version of DirectX clearly have nothing to do with how game look like so why not make games only in Dx8 if its offer such a great performance and still can look like Dx11.
Also what about above mentioned examples in adverts.
Those adverts usually are made by people who knows how game is made.
So if they say that graphics in game is depend on version of DirectX i think its true.
Because those adverts are directed to wider audience if they would made a comparison of great looking water in dx11 with good looking water in dx9 some knowledgeable folks would stand up and say "Hey that total bullshit DirectX have nothing to do how water look like or how many polygons a flag have"
My point is, if an advertisement would be made with false statement it would be pointed out very fast but those adverts somehow functioning for a very long time and no one says its totally bullshit.
You must be kidding me...
Rendering as a 2D picture and displaying image in real time in 3D its two different things also I never had to work with 3D Studio Max but I am pretty sure that its render things in 2D (Animation Its still 2D)
Also because its rendering this "shockingly good looking scenes" it takes much longer to render stuff than it would take average game with good graphics to display scene in real time in 3D (Crisis for example) and because of this it would be impossible to use it in game (Rendering in real time, what a speed 1fps )
Anyway you cant compare the way 3D max renders scene to the way game displays image because they do it in totally different ways and final effects are two different things...
And yet - the demo users keep pushing the directX thing.
GTFO - dont try to make Scawen waste his valuable time trying to rebuild the Direct3D Buffers.
Switch to DX10 exclusively and you kill all the Windows XP users (and 90% of those running LFS on Wine in Unix or VM, and even the handful that managed to get it running under a Mac as well)
Switch to some DX10.1 Api features and above and you kill yourself ( and Scawen )
What are you going to suggest next, force DirectX 11? - so that only Win7 users can use it?
DirectX DOES NOT need a change, because with the the way things are now - anyone can use LFS.
LFS is a pure "game/sim" - it is developed to be fun, and realistic - not look like hot cake. Do you really need bump mapping to win a race? Do you play games only based on their graphics?
And to say LFS needs to be completely re-made is childish - it isn't even finished yet....
Scawen intends to keep LFS permanently accessable to anyone and everyone, including those with low spec machines. Why would you want to now change that? Do you hate poor people? Are you like that bitch that was in the 'Titanic'?
A DirectX version change request - is selfish....
The graphics rendering in LFS IS getting work over the years - but the DirectX version is not likely to change - i doubt it ever will.
The highest that should ever be allowed should be DirectX9 - but for what gain?
It is possible to emulate certain shader effects without it - directX is only middleware.
Wrong, DirectX8 modes exist for backwards compatibility - not for slow PCs.
Those are all HLSL Shader Effects - they are not dependent entirely on directX - they are dependent on weather your card has the ability to render them - HLSL shader [code] are run on the hardware - not in directX.
You cannot get great looking water in DirectX 11 if a graphics card does not have the shader ability to do so when using HLSL shaders.
OpenGL renders shaders in Quake4 - because OpenGL recognizes when a graphics card has the ability to process the shader language - and sends it to the card - were the shader code is executed - a wham - Normals Mapping.
DirectX, like OpenGL - is middleware and does not process shader effects by itself - the High Level Shader Language is usually run and interpreted directly on the graphics card.
If you play Doom3, you do not need DirectX 9,10,11 for any of those effects - because ID-Tech it is OpenGL based, and it depends entirely on your card & drivers - nothing more. DirectX doesnt determine weather your game will support certain shader effects at all - simply write your own middleware for the hardware API ( which isn't simple at all ) and there you go.
And we don't need DirectX 9++ for bump mapping - normals, raycast shadows etc.... they can all be done in DirectX 8, including the shader based water effects or raytraced/'render to texture' car reflections, or for other camera mapping based effects anyhow.
.
DirectX 8, and DirectX 9 are only 2 versions of an API with more, or less predefines features that is designed only to provide easier ( dedicated ) access to hardware for games and rendering environments.
I'm stating this bluntly - you don't need DX9+ to gain volumetrics and other shader effects in DX8, or even in LFS. I'm pretty sure Scawen is smart enough to pull off some really nice effects that will look great and run well - without ever changing the version of the API the 3D engine runs on
-- and it can be done procedurally as well and still be fast. Everything depends on YOUR god damned graphics card and the developer behind the game.
This is not important to LFS in it's current development stage anyhow.
None of those are new features...
And Dirt2 is 'may not' be compared with LFS tyvm...
You don't know the difference between Bump Mapping, Normals Mapping, Parallax Bump Mapping and Deep Parallax Mapping - obviously.
-> Shadows are a Rendered Texture Buffer in LFS, DirectX 8 supports raycasted shadows, Stencil Shadows, and various other approaches. That is dependent on the game engine itself, not directX. The shadows cast by cars in LFS are rendered onto their own surfaces - not the track itself. Scawen could code this anyway he likes - if he ever decides to change it.
^ -- not a directX feature ...
Track Shadows - its something Scawen has mentioned before - as a programmer's error that needs to be fixed, or re implemented. No telling what will happen there - maybe he will implement BSP rendering, or maybe he will implement raycasting for realtime track shadows.
^ -- not a directX feature either ...
Adverts are made by people who are paid to "know" what a game is made of, and dictate it's features on TV/Internet. And then sit there and "Goddify" DirectX 10.1/11 - the middleware...
But it is not... All ID-Tech engine games run on OpenGL - and therefore can run even if you have directX 7 -
Its is dependable on:
-> Hardware -> primarily does all the work
-> Drivers -> drivers tell directX what your card can and cannot do
-> The Game Engine Renderer's capabilities --> uses these features
-> Weather the middleware API is up to date and wraps certain features - eg OpenGL/DirectX/(dead ones here)
-> The developers capabilities -> weather he knows how to implements them
-> The graphical artists that make your models and textures
Because people already think DirectX is doing all the shader work, and the wider audience are usually ignorant - they don't care as long as it runs on their machines. The wider audience don't know how games work, what is in them, or even what directX does.
Its your card's capabilities... once again.... not the middleware api.
^ His response - is correct - except for the directX8 modes part...
Because it is how they tell it to the dumb end users....
^-- 'dumb end users' are not a DirectX feature either...
DX8 cleary isn't that feature rich as DX9+, but this doesn't mean that you can't do good looking games in DX8. Many DX8 engines in modern games are just a pure crap because programmers don't want to waste their time in developing pretty much superfluous engine for few fellas with ancient hardware.
I didn't quite get this one, what were you getting at here?
Nobody's saying that. DX10 and 11 are likely to be much faster because of unified shaders. DX11 also offers hardware tessellation which can improve appearance a lot if used properly. But DX8 still has some potential, but today nobody uses it because it has it's limitations and certain things might become pain in the ass. Very limited shader length code is one of the bigger problems.
Come on, I know you're smart enough to see through this. But let's go through this one step at a time
If I were there, I'd be that guy Because clearly, number of polygons has nothing to do with the DX version. You can make 30000+ poly flag in DX7. Quality of water is depends a lot on how lazy the programmer was. I bet you can make a very good looking water with DX9 too, it just might be a but harder to code.
This is usually not true. I mean, you seldom see a real programmer talking about the game. It's more likely a businessman who is there to ensure the game will have good sales. Most people have only vague to none idea what DX is so if you tell them that they need GF GTX480 for something, they'll get it.
It is also a matter of self-protection, if they didn't explicitly announce that you needed supported hardware to run something, there'd be a bunch of guys with GF 440MX moaning that they cannot get HDR on in Mass Effect 2.
To finish this off, advertisements don't necessarily have to be truthful, as long as they don't announce complete bullshit it's OK. Perhaps you remember "Actimelgate" where it was scientifically proven that DANONE's uberdrink Actimel has no effect on you immune system at all. Dunno how is it in Poland, but I still see ads stating exactly the opposite on TV and nobody cares
When i said "Wider audience" I meant that in that wider audience will be not only technological noobs like me but also people who
know how things work and will point any bullshit at sight so addressing their adverts to this knowledgeable folks is probably a bad step
Here is the catch making a road which is full of bumps and holes or wall with every brick modelled or flag full of polygons it is possible but it would take a lot of polygons and in result would be a system killer so here is where bump mapping and tessellation(According to wiki a staple feature of DirectX 11 and OpenGL)come in handy.
Bump mapping will make holes on the road and bumps also will model bricks on the wall and space between them and small cracks on the survace without raising number of polygons.
In case of flag tessellation will divide it in that way that flag doesn't need to have 30000+ poly it can have less while thanks to tessellation it appear like it have 30000+ and its easier for computer to handle. Not sure if I am right but that what I read somewhere and that how I understand that.
means we really care and love about lfs.