I doubt that they would compromise the simulation to keep LFS working on older systems.
More like spending time optimising for older systems instead of adding polish and bling.
nope
yep
[Merged] Discussion regarding LFS development
(1577 posts, started )
I doubt that they would compromise the simulation to keep LFS working on older systems.
More like spending time optimising for older systems instead of adding polish and bling.
nope
yep
I wrote out an essay to your reply yesterday, but then deleted it because I realised even before all of your shitty remarks above that I wasn't going to get a non-sarcastic, non-bullshit reply. So I deleted it instead to save my head from yet more stupidity.
Pull the hook out
Dude! Something was just hitting my space bar like a ghost.
Very creepy.
Very creepy.
Nope. A majority is 50 % and more, right?! Regarding the dual-cores you're right, but the 5GB+ option just got 30%, that means about 70% have less than 5GB. So the majority has less than 5GB. And also only 42% have DX11, so about 58% have DX10 and less. 58% being the majority of course.
The numbers I took from the above link, at the time I posted.
Those (steam) statistics say zip about LFS and it's users since it's based on steam customers. LFS is not part of steam. Typical misuse of numbers. 
Also the system ram were for Mac owners, and anyone who can afford mac, should be able to get atleast 16GB's of Ram
Doesn't matter. It's polling a LARGE number of gaming orientated people. Statistics say that if you poll 1000 people it already is more then enough. Let alone this.
87% of the gaming community has a dual or quadcore CPU, 80% has a DX10 capable GPU or higher.
Thats how you have to read it. LFS doesn't matter.
Sure we have more poor man configurations here but LFS allows that.
I personally would like to see that people which cannot achieve 50 FPS or more cannot join a race at all (only cruising). Would improve a lot.
I know some examples of pretty good and frequent racers which had a wrong configuration and only race with ~25 FPS and had no idea what they did wrong.
Should be at least a warning or something.
8 Gb RAM is easy. Going to the Mac Donalds is almost more expensive then buying more RAM.
But the youngsters are more tended towards wasting money on bad food, "energy" drinks and other crap then to do some smart long term investing. Sad.
.
Nope.
4GB is easily the most common Mac memory config at ~60% of the userbase.
Well, first, sim racers and gamers are a very different people... Gamers just want to win, get points, collect status, like most of the actual LFS players. Sim Racers are race fans who want to race, respecting the rules and etc, uncare about statuses, "rt", and these things... Also forgetting the fact what gamers play all games, racers play only simulators.
Second, why only have people with high end PC's racing would improve anything? There is no relationship between finnancial status and driving hability...
Have you ever played a game online with under 30 fps? Almost Impossible.
I would consider any FPS value below that of the monitor's refresh rate to be "low", to be honest. I see people quoting numbers even below 20 being playable; I cannot understand how. Maybe it's just specific to my laptop, but I detect very noticeable jitter or dropping of frames (not tearing) even when LFS shows FPS to be around 70 (no vsync). Anything below 60 feels like a slideshow. Even in other games 30 FPS is just waaay too low (for me).
+1
If you look at the current server population there are not many so called active racer playing simulators.
LFS; poorly populated
Netkar; almost empty
Rfactor; almost empty
Al other names are not even worth to mention.
So we are left with names like; Forza, Dirt, Iracing, Gran Turismo .. Which are more games then simulators but highly popular.
Its better to attract gamers and try to convert them into race simulator enthusiasts then try to keep this very low amount of people.
Yes there is.
It is not even financially related. Sometimes more to do with unfamiliarity with the world of PC's. GPU settings for example. Had to turn down 8xAA to 2xAA @fellow team member .. He had no idea that his computer was performing like crap and had poor lap times because of that.
Today I had someone from Brazil with a Celeron 310 causing major havoc on open config... AND long distance and a poorly configured computer.
Personally I'm too tired to admin all that. The game (or simulator, whatever), should indicate that there is no way you can race like that.
But it looks like the *swear word* tire physics are forever priority 1 here while meanwhile many are leaving this arena because of poor racing environments.
I'm sorry but what are you +1 'ing?
I don't think anyone asserted that correlation. Sounds like a red herring to me.
Lag causes accidents. Outdated hardware and crumby internet connections cause lag. Outdated hardware and crumby internet connections cause accidents.
I do not accept your definitions for what should be obvious reasons.
@cargame
I am of the opinion that Gran Turismo and Forza are legitimate racing sims. I think that there are people in those communities that take their racing just as seriously as people here do. I however must admit that serious console racers are relatively rare.
I like your statement regarding the way people invest their money.
LOL @ GT and Forza being racing sims. I've seen better physics in a toilet bowl than those 2 games combined.
You ever seen a crash from either of these games? Pathetic
About NetKar, i don't know, but rFactor community is and was mostly always full... When not online, people driving offline... The rFactor leagues have big sponsors, full grids, tight racing, how this is "empty"?
iRacing, even not being so realistic and having flaws on its physics, its a simulator... More simulator than the other games you citated, so its a sim still...
12 when racing inside a pack, to be more exact...
BL1, FBM/XFG/XRG, im competitive (1:14/34 average lap) and the only crashs are racing incidents...
Having a bad PC doesn't changes nothing for who races against me...
Keep thinking you are invincible.
No, im not, and i suck at the S2 tracks/cars...
Its not me, its because over 10 FPS, its already playable... Anyway, i get 12 just sometimes... The average is 16, what is nothing so bad...
Nothing says crap like 10 fps.
Compare
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... eature=watch_response_rev (10 FPS Video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... A8WSE&feature=related (60 FPS & 30 FPS Comparison)
Disclaimer: If you have a crappy computer, chances are you will not see a difference in the videos.
Compare
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... eature=watch_response_rev (10 FPS Video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... A8WSE&feature=related (60 FPS & 30 FPS Comparison)
Disclaimer: If you have a crappy computer, chances are you will not see a difference in the videos.
AFAIK YouTube can't go faster than 30FPS so this video doesnt make sense, because both left and right side of video goes at 30fps.
Ehhh yes, it's very bad.
It means the CPU is far too busy with something else then handling your connection, and worse, your input device.
You are exactly showing the reason why we have so many crashes from people which shouldn't be on a racing server with this kind of hardware specs. You are watching a slideshow and are always to late -everywhere-.
It's impossible to race but you only discover that when you experience something better.
But in the meantime you spoil the races of other people. I don't blame you, you are just ignorant like a lot of other people here on LFS.
I blame Scawen for making it possible to race with <50 FPS and/or joining a race on racing servers with higher then, lets say, 80 ms average(!) ping.
You are correct, Youtube support a maximum video framerate of 30 frames per second.
I've uploaded a few onboard videos to Youtube that I shot at 60 FPS which is my ingame frame rate. However, when I have reduced the framerate of my footage by only using every other frame, the "flow" of motion is so choppy it is unpleasant to watch. The only way to make somewhat smooth motion from LFS with 30 FPS is to use frame blending in my video editing software. The software will blend two (or more) adjecent frames to create a fake motion blur effect. But even this will not make for as smooth and pleasing motion flow as a full 60 FPS video with no frame blending.
So the gap between 30 and 60 FPS is significant if you're dealing with fast motions, such as LFS.
hey i manage with shit fps, get used to it after some while.
Still cant open config
Still cant open config
[Merged] Discussion regarding LFS development
(1577 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG