Two years ago... 21st February 2009, 00:40

http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=1079954#post1079954

Eric's attitude is towards the community is disturbing. It's a truly saddening post, that I hoped was just a temporary frustrated rant. But it wasn't retracted or softened.

Up till now I've refrained from drawing attention to the post, given the further anger it generates in the community. But two years have past and things are the same. I think Scawen is very determined to get the physics done and when released, it will be an achievement to be proud of and witness. But it wont be the LFS resurrection we all so dearly hoped for. Simply because the foundation of community that generated and supported LFS popularity, was sacrificed out of ignorance.

There will plenty who disagree with this previously unpopular view, but it's entertaining to see the very ones calling for patience only a year ago, now complaining too.

I must admit, if I had been spending a lot of my spare time working on designing tracks & cars for a game I'd be very very excited to show previews of my work, ask for feedback about what the community want etc. Instead we got that horrible post and then nothing...

I hope there are better days again for lfs because it really does deserve it.

Quote from Alric :

I hope there are better days again for lfs because it really does deserve it.

Indeed it does.

got to admit i was a little frustrated but not about when it will be released but about if there is gonna be an s3 for sure,now i believe there will be and will be patient awaiting for its release,all the best to scawen and team and look forward to the release of s3 and understand that there must be reasons (physics ect)that its not released,projects such as lfs are like an offspring of your own you only want the best for it and sometimes holding out is needed,

Quote from Alric :

I must admit, if I had been spending a lot of my spare time working on designing tracks & cars for a game I'd be very very excited to show previews of my work, ask for feedback about what the community want etc. Instead we got that horrible post and then nothing...

I hope there are better days again for lfs because it really does deserve it.

Okay, maybe I'm wrong about it but IIRC Scavier don't work like that, i.e.we didn't get S2 preview shots (but I may well be wrong).

Personally, I'm neutral whether S3 comes out, there's a lot of S2 stuff I've not tried, If S3 doesn't come out for whatever reason, S2 has a lot of depth

Quote from DieKolkrabe :

Okay, maybe I'm wrong about it but IIRC Scavier don't work like that, i.e.we didn't get S2 preview shots (but I may well be wrong).

Personally, I'm neutral whether S3 comes out, there's a lot of S2 stuff I've not tried, If S3 doesn't come out for whatever reason, S2 has a lot of depth

Well it really is a long time ago but we did get a lot of screenshots and a lot of updates regarding development process. Maybe because it was smaller parts of the sim that were being developed so Scawen & Co had something to write about I don't know.

But I do remember some screenshots being released before S2 with S2 content and someone spotting a new car. The buzz and hype was fantastic.

I've got every faith we will see a patch with the new physics but I'm not sure we will get a lot of new content any time soon.

Hi.

I think...

From an outside standpoint...

After watching other games with long development cycles...

There needs to be updates and peeks...without it we're in the dark and we don't know if development stalled, is kicking ass and taking names or if it's been abandoned.

The devs should be excited that such a large group of people is so eager for the next installment of LFS. The last thing they should be doing is telling their loyal fans off with a cynical attitude. That's insane.

Without any updates people dwell. There's not much going on because people want more...isn't that a sign of a good product? To say that customers are a waste of resources is silly. Those same obnoxious voices that scream and shout when they feel their wronged will also spread praise and the word about whatever you're selling if you treat them nicely. It goes both ways.

I'm kind of frustrated. I don't play online, I just run single player when I have the chance...that's fun for me. Racing against myself regardless of how awful I am, lol. It's been a long journey..and it does feel stalled. Mainly because there's little updates that show progress. I just want to know what's going on.

The tire physics update is cool but there has to be visual goodies to show...something to stir some more buzz and hype...the positive kind,

Quote from Shotglass :

why are you on the interblag then?
and more importantly why are you talking to s14?
in your free time

IIRC I was waiting for a web service to respond to my debug prodding.

Quote from AndRand :

As Scawen wrote, to obtain some behavior (like extreme camber) the setting ought to be very unrealistic. So as it was expected, the REAL car was and is a challenge for LFS.
http://www.lfs.net/?page=report_dec2010

This virtual simulation rig looks like an outcome of such a realistic approach tat occured to be too much CPU consuming. It seems reasonable that Scawen still attempts to achieve realistic results not on raw data level (deriving outcomes based on underlying phisics laws) but on specific parts level (like tire contact patch, suspension parts etc.) outcomes mathematicaly fitting the results with sets of coefficients. Thus not calculating everything but that what is needed.

2 points to your reply....

Victor said in the video they achieved realistic behaviour of Scirocco in LFS. So either they were not telling true or I dont know.

We have at least 2 core CPU since 2005 yet LFS cant fully use it. Scawen limit the development himself unless the next big thing he is working on is full multicore support.

Quote from DEVIL 007 :

Victor said in the video they achieved realistic behaviour of Scirocco in LFS. So either they were not telling true or I dont know.

It could be just one setting that fit. Problem with racing sim is that racers will exploit any setting that makes them quicker no matter if it is realistic or not. And then it would occur that "real car" feels real just with narrow range of settings.

I really wish I'd taken the path now to learning programming in college instead of mechanics, then I could try creating a racing simulator myself. I would find a bunch of other dedicated souls to work with and together, I am sure that we could surpass LFS within a couple of years. The reason I say this is because although I respect the amount of work involved in creating an accurate tyre physics model, it seems to have become the entire future of LFS.
I really do think that if this project is to have any future commercially, priorities need to switch to fixing existing faults, (that are supposedly done alrady, but waiting for the big physics update,) and releasing the content that is completed. Call it S3 with everything bundled in apart from the tyre physics and I will pay £36 for it providing the graphics have received a freshen up so it doesn't look like an 8 year old game.
The tyre physics could become S4 or S3b, but basically, if you wait too long before releasing anything, there will hardly be anyone left to buy it which makes all that work go to waste.

Question to people who complain about 'outdated' graphics.

What you actually expect/wish for, as for updated graphics?
What should be improved?

The track shadows are badly rendered in some areas (and I think Scawen mentioned this in a thread with future plans somewhere).

Quote from Nick Brad :

I really wish I'd taken the path now to learning programming in college instead of mechanics, then I could try creating a racing simulator myself. I would find a bunch of other dedicated souls to work with and together, I am sure that we could surpass LFS within a couple of years.

So, despite having no experience in the field (by your own admission) you're sure that you could surpass LFS within a couple of years? Well...it's certainly a bold statement and avoiding the burden of proof is a master stroke.

Quote from Nick Brad :

The reason I say this is because although I respect the amount of work involved in creating an accurate tyre physics model

Oh, you do? How did you come to have this respect? I hate to go back to it, but you've already said you have no experience. I see you have a background in "mechanics", but building an accurate tyre model isn't just about copying some formulae from a text book and plugging them into the computer. There are very few people who truly know how hard it is to develop an accurate tyre model. The fact that there have been several independent efforts (from groups of developers and lone developers alike) and none are quite there yet stands as a testament. Even the ones that are being used by F1 teams for their simulators are being improved constantly and they have budgets in the tens of millions of GBP (if not higher). Sure, some tyre models are 'better' than others and some are improving all the time, but how many of them are accurate (or within a small degree of error) in the broad spectrum of scenarios which are encountered in the real world? How many can't handle low speed situations well? How many behave accurately at high tyre surface temperatures? How many can't cope with cars that produce downforce?

Quote from Nick Brad :

I really do think that if this project is to have any future commercially...

Same stuff that's been said time and time again. Nothing to comment on here.

Quote from Nick7 :

Question to people who complain about 'outdated' graphics.

What you actually expect/wish for, as for updated graphics?
What should be improved?

I think shaders.

Quote from Nick Brad :

I really wish I'd taken the path now to learning programming in college instead of mechanics, then I could try creating a racing simulator myself. I would find a bunch of other dedicated souls to work with and together, I am sure that we could surpass LFS within a couple of years.

I am similar to you. I wish I had never quite racing for several years when I was younger because had I not I would have been F1 World Drivers Champion within a few years.



talk is VERY cheap!

Implementing shaders is not just making some hlsl shaders. New gfx engine -> new model definitions. A lot of time...
During racing DOF, motion blur and such is disturbing imho. Highly detailed models (geometric and texture wise) with proper shaded materials would look nice though.

Quote from amp88 :

So, despite having no experience in the field (by your own admission) you're sure that you could surpass LFS within a couple of years? Well...it's certainly a bold statement and avoiding the burden of proof is a master stroke.

I am sure based on the fact that I wouldn't be afraid to accept help on the project, instead of the burden being carried by 1-3 people, (not sure what Victor's role in the project is,) plus knocking out a physics engine with average graphics should be no problem for a small group of up to 6 people to achieve in 2 years.
I am only now beginning to learn C++ programming and so I'd assume that S3 will actually be released before I am able to assemble such a group of people, but I shall carry on learning regardless due to a wish for an accurate banger recing simulator and not expecting someone to create one for me.

Quote from amp88 :

Oh, you do? How did you come to have this respect? I hate to go back to it, but you've already said you have no experience. I see you have a background in "mechanics", but building an accurate tyre model isn't just about copying some formulae from a text book and plugging them into the computer. There are very few people who truly know how hard it is to develop an accurate tyre model. The fact that there have been several independent efforts (from groups of developers and lone developers alike) and none are quite there yet stands as a testament. Even the ones that are being used by F1 teams for their simulators are being improved constantly and they have budgets in the tens of millions of GBP (if not higher). Sure, some tyre models are 'better' than others and some are improving all the time, but how many of them are accurate (or within a small degree of error) in the broad spectrum of scenarios which are encountered in the real world? How many can't handle low speed situations well? How many behave accurately at high tyre surface temperatures? How many can't cope with cars that produce downforce?

Yes I do respect how difficult it is for the exact reasons you stated above. I too am aware of other efforts to recreate an accurate tyre physics model and how they have all struggled, so no, I don't have to know how to code one myself to appreciate the difficulty. By your logic, you don't appreciate the difficulty Scawen is facing because you don't know how to do it yourself.

Quote from amp88 :

Same stuff that's been said time and time again. Nothing to comment on here.

You may feel there is nothing to comment on as it's been said repeatedly now, but there is a reason people keep talking about the commercial aspect. No one would take on such a project in the first place unless they had aspirations of making money from it, otherwise, why do we have to pay for a licence? Surely if the simulator is purely being made for their own pleasure, Scawen and co would either give it away for free or they would have never released LFS into the public domain.

Quote from pezia :

Highly detailed models (geometric and texture wise) with proper shaded materials would look nice though.

This is the sort of thing I'd like to see. I'm not asking for the stunning visuals of an EA game, (they need them 'cos the actual gameplay is always lacking,) but trying to cater for 10 year old pc technology whilst creating a cutting edge simulator is just ridiculous. Who can blame people for looking enviously at products like iracing and deciding the premium is worth paying.

Quote from Nick Brad :

I am sure based on the fact that I wouldn't be afraid to accept help on the project, instead of the burden being carried by 1-3 people, (not sure what Victor's role in the project is,)

Design by committee is another thing that's very difficult actually do in the real world, especially when you have distributed team members and you're working in an intricate area. If you have multiple people working you need to co-ordinate your efforts which requires lots of communication, 'wasting' a lot of time that could be spent actually researching and coding the simulation. Have a look into Amdahl's law then consider which portion(s) of the task of designing the tyre simulation can be done in parallel.

Quote from Nick Brad :

plus knocking out a physics engine with average graphics should be no problem for a small group of up to 6 people to achieve in 2 years.

It's that sort of nonsense sentence that should make anyone who was still believing what you say turn off immediately. You really have NO idea of the scale of the task, despite what you claim.

Quote from Nick Brad :

I am only now beginning to learn C++ programming and so I'd assume that S3 will actually be released before I am able to assemble such a group of people, but I shall carry on learning regardless due to a wish for an accurate banger recing simulator and not expecting someone to create one for me.

I wish you and your soon to be assembled group the best of luck. Judging by your posts here you're really going to need it. Still, if it stops you from posting here again for a while maybe there's a silver lining

Quote from Nick Brad :

Yes I do respect how difficult it is for the exact reasons you stated above.

...yet you think it's going to be "no problem" for a small group to do it in 6 years? Hmm, something doesn't quite add up here.

Again, good luck.

Quote from Drift_anton :

Hope Live For Speed Ill Have Realic Drift Smoke Like In Real Life And More Things

forgot and steering like a real drift car 48.0

Quote from Nick7 :

Question to people who complain about 'outdated' graphics.

What you actually expect/wish for, as for updated graphics?
What should be improved?

Here is what I would like to see. If it ever happens I think the world would be a much nicer place.

Lighting Improvements - from scene lighting/time of day to object lighting shadows/headlights/ track lights etc.
higher poly models /car & driver with optional LOD , more defined destruction /damage of models.
Rally dirt decals maybe more persistant dust levels, laying of dirt on tarmac track etc.
Weather effects and actually cockpit screen misting dirt spray etc.
ingame gamma/contrast/brightness/satuarion controls of course.

Thats about it from dreamland, forget that depth of field stuff, that's down to how the individual focuses,Its ok for some genres but please keep it out of racing games.

Quote from Drift_anton :

forgot and steering like a real drift car 48.0

In the old client just released the XRT's max steering angle is 45!

Why did that change?


The fact that Scawen released a fix for an old version tells me that things are in great shape

@Nick Brad,

Quote :

I am sure that we could surpass LFS within a couple of years.

Good luck on your project!
Does the math and physics level of your "mechanics" courses suffice for proper codewise integration of real life measurements and simulinks?
Maybe this will become your major bottleneck - but there's always the option to catch up - just as you said. Looking forward to see what you can accomplish.

Quote from Nick7 :

Question to people who complain about 'outdated' graphics.

What you actually expect/wish for, as for updated graphics?
What should be improved?

multiple shadows layers combined with direct and ambient light