Quote from Scawen :

Just wondering if the 3d projector can work without the nvidia thing, so you'll be able to use it directly from LFS (no nvidia software) when you get this update?

One of the LFS output settings will produce side by side (half) output like these youtube videos.
So anyone who can view these [edit : in 3D] (in full screen mode) will be able to use LFS 3D.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTEPm5ZUcXU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h52AN-xV1d8

I'm expecting to complete the side by side (full) and top and bottom modes as well.

This is great !

I don't own a nVidia 3D vision kit. Only an nVidia card and a 3DTV (it just happens that mine is an LG). And today, if you want to play a game in 3D on your 3DTV, you have to buy additional software.

The 2 main solutions are nVidia 3DTV Play and TriDef 3D. Problems are:
1. They cost (~40 euros)
2. LFS didn't work (at least not with TriDef3D) being on DX8

So, if it will be possible to have direct SBS or TAB from LFS itself, it will be awesome !

Quote from luchian :

2. LFS didn't work (at least not with TriDef3D) being on DX8

There are DX8 -> DX9 dll converters, that's how the unofficial Rift support currently works.

Quote from luchian :

So, if it will be possible to have direct SBS or TAB from LFS itself, it will be awesome !

Here are some screenshots of the SBS (side by side) and TAB (top and bottom) half views at the moment. The word "half" refers to the horizontal or vertical compression of the image. It may be that TAB half is the better choice on a passive display, because you are going to lose vertical resolution anyway, so you might as well keep the horizontal resolution in that case.

There is also an SBS full view (not squashed) which is closer to the Oculus Rift view but without the distortion. Also a TAB full view. Some hardware may allow the use of the full views to display a full HD 3D without any loss of resolution, but I don't know if any existing hardware does that.

Note : The blu ray frame packing output is apparently impossible to simulate from an ordinary graphics card, although it's actually a form of TAB full view with 45 lines of black space between the two images.

I´m pretty sure Oculus (maybe it was Palmer Luckey himself) stated somewhere that the current display of the devkit was just a less-than-ideal solution. At first the they planned to use a 6" display instead of a 7" one. But the manufacturer couldn´t deliver as much units as they needed.
And technically it all has to do with resolution and pixel density.
If you make the display smaller you just have to magnify it more by the lenses, but the drawback is that a small display with same resolution may not exists or is just too expensive.


[edit] ... and of course one more drawback of a small display is the increasing screendoor effect, which everybody knows very well who owns a Rift.

The Google Nexus 5 allegedly has a 4.95" 1080p display.

Quote from PeterN :

The Google Nexus 5 allegedly has a 4.95" 1080p display.

And the Samsung Galaxy S4, since April. The screens are there for a "long" time now, I think it's just that Oculus don't want to use them for now until the consumer version needs to be assembled.

When I first heard of LFS, it was almost state-of-the-art game with unparalleled physics (It is only game up-till now in which I actualy enjoy just driving a car). But now, we are entering 2014 and that game is still the same. It is nice and all, that you will make even better tires, but there are other projects, that are way better in many other ways. You need new graphics engine (and by that I mean DX11, teselation, folliage on tracks...). Badly. I love your online stuff, but it is kinda obsolete in many ways. You need new cars, new tracks, maybe singleplayer championship/career...

Why don't you have anything of this? you have 10 years old project, which was on top of the hill - you could easily work on it for 10 years and make it better by every year (EVE: Online - anyone?), you could hire few other people to help you (whilst still managing small company). 10 years have passed and now, there is rFactor 2, there is p.C.A.R.S., there is Asseto Corsa and even iRacing is fixing their physics and shifts to simulation.

Now I've played only p.C.A.R.S. (and when I was playing it, I was enjoying driving in it very much), I know nothing about actual physics in AC, iRacing or rFactor, but those games are advertising themselves as hardsims and they look way better than you do right now. You are missing your train (for like 6 years now).

How can you compete with them? If any of those games nails physics (to your level), you will basically became irrelevant. You should really rethink what you want to have 2 years from now, 5 years from now... Dead legend, or EVE with cars?

why would this sim need better graphics? The power of this sime is that it's playable by almost everyone with pretty decent graphics. Even the oldest computer I have in house can play it at decent fps. If they upgrade the graphics (wich is not needed at all, these are good enough), they would throw away a bit of the community. It would also slow down the content and physics development which is going on right now. I think (correct me if I'm wrong community), that the community wants content and physics more than graphics.

I also like it when you first say that iracing is making their physics better and then you say you know nothing about it

Quote from CodeLyoko1 :

I also like it when you first say that iracing is making their physics better and then you say you know nothing about it

To clarify - I hated iRacing when I tried it like two years ago. I know that they have better tire model and that they are making better physics, but I won't install it just for checking actual state. But I believe that rFactor 2 is somewhere near LFS, and I strongly feel about pcars being even better when they ship.

That being said, I was not talking about graphics only, I am talking about every part of that game and general "untouched state of things". And don't tell me that you like sounds for instance.

what about for scirocco...will be released or there are other new car(s) ? :P

All depends on S1/S2 license sales. If it's staying low then there is motivation to do something. So to accomplish that we basically need to make the licensed environment as boring as possible.

Well that's an awkward situation.

Quote from Scawen :

I have enjoyed test driving on two of his new tracks which look great and I look forward to the time when they can be released.

This is awesome, can't wait to take a peek at those new tracks!

Quote from Scawen :

Hello everyone!

The developers are all alive and working on LFS.

Eric has been working on new tracks. He slowed up a bit during some of the great English summer which we don't get very often. I have enjoyed test driving on two of his new tracks which look great and I look forward to the time when they can be released.

I am still working on the tyre physics, though I haven't really made serious progress this year. I also enjoyed the summer, did a lot of cycling and running too. It's a better hobby than smoking like I used to, and I really enjoy it. But the good news is it won't pay the bills!

LFS income has gradually gone down as it always does between updates. That that has increased the urgency of finishing the tyre physics. So I plan to get down to it, make the appropriate approximations and sort out a good physically based system, with enough assumptions to make it workable, accepting that total realism is an unachievable goal.

I just got a bit excited about stereoscopic 3d support, which some people will like because they'll be able to see LFS in 3d on a 3d TV, if their TV supports "side-by-side" or "top and bottom" mode. Also headsets should be supported if they accept one of those output modes. The old headsets that require specific support and sequential output will not be supported. For example a Sony HMZ works but a Vuzix VR920 does not. A more recent Vuzix should work but the field of view is not really good enough to give you peripheral vision. I'm not sure how much it will benefit the Oculus Rift at the moment. I think that depends on a pixel shader to provide the proper distortion, which I think is not available in D3D8. Anyway, one of the output options will be non-squashed (full) side-by-side 3D, which may possibly make it easier to use the Oculus Rift. Anyway it is a step in that direction. It does appear that the current Oculus Rift's resolution is too low for a racing simulator at the moment. Anyway I should be able to post a 3d test patch in a few days, I'm guessing early next week. Some people will enjoy that, though I realise most people, like me, don't have 3d equipment.

Victor is still with us, although he has indeed got another job, which looks like a really good one, putting his excellent skills to more use. I'm pleased for him about that, as his job here wasn't often really full time, although he is an absolutely vital member of our team. He needed a job as well because our profit share isn't one third each and depends on our actual contributions to the project. Victor started later and never has so much work, so for that reason only, his profit share was a bit of a tight squeeze to live on, specially with the gradual reduction in profits while we are waiting for a serious update.

People ask why I don't come here more often with progress reports. But there hasn't been enough progress to give a report. And it's not appealing to come here and say that. Every month I've thought I would be making more progress, and would have some good progress to report the following month. Hope you see what I mean...

Anyway, we do have to pay the bills and I'm very interested to get the better feeling tyre model out there for everyone to enjoy. You've heard it all before so I don't expect great enthusiasm. It will take a while yet, but hopefully not too long.

scawen you and the intusiasta and loco by realism it wouldn't be possible to put a graphic on the tracks and in the cars as was done in pcars
Ex: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYkwjLI-iFo

because the lfs detonates any company of racing games and have these in your rightful place in the world rank place 1


I guarantee that you can do that because you are the best in this segment
Let these companies jealous of you make them kneel at your feet

And that's what bothers me a BIT, all we hear are news about new tracks, physics etc :P, but... what about movies? Screenshots? It's almost 5 years and nothing "physical"... Anyway, i'm just visiting the forum once in a while, it's good to hear some stuff from Scawen and I do not regret buying that game .

Quote from Scawen :

Thank you for your kind offer. I don't think I will take you up on it, but I'll remember this in case it turns out to be a good idea.

Scawen, I´m really glad, you don´t completely ignore the Rift thing.
Just from curiosity, have you ever got the chance to check out a Rift?

I would lend you mine, but i love it too much to give it away (yes in spite of low res and screendoor effect!)

I'd propably recommend waiting for the final consumer version unless you're dying to try it. The WOW-effect will be much better (though it's VERY impressive already) with a sharper resolution panel.

But the dev kit is good enough for what it's meant for, development, and us impatient ones who couldn't wait.

Edit: Oh yeah, regarding the screen they're going to use in the consumer Rift. After a quick talk with Carmack, they're still trying to nail the input lag down, possibly with OLED panels. And they should, because when you turn your head around quickly in the dev kit, everything just becomes a blurry mess of pixels. OLEDs are much better in this regard, but I do hope they won't go for the PenTile type subpixel layout, they're venom to my eyes.

Sounds good

Quote from TFalke55 :

Hmm... I hoped for more from the legend Why don't you grab some pom-pom, dance for us and post a pic of it

Did you mean this one.......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zCVjA8pEtE
Still cracks me up.

Sorry O/T.....Moving along

Fordie

Quote from Scawen :

I get it... the top part of my nose blocks some left FOV from my right eye and some right FOV from my left eye. But the Oculus Rift has only around 90 degrees FOV for each eye, still nowhere near reality, so I don't believe that creating different FOV for each eye makes it more realistic... my right eye can see more than 45 degrees left. So, that "missing central bit" in the oculus rift would only simulate having a massive nose bone or sticking a piece of cardboard to your nose.

i couldnt find and concrete numbers for the fov of each image on the oculus however assuming your number is correct i did find these:
http://wekoenig.de/DissWK/Koen ... 2010-Dateien/image019.jpg
from
http://wekoenig.de/DissWK/KoenigDissertation2010.htm

and
http://www.leepvr.com/images/sid1992/fig04_28.gif
from
http://www.leepvr.com/sid1992.php

both seem to agree that (depending on your nose) your unidirectional fov towards your nose is around 45° (this is crrect from very rough guesses on myself by placing a finger where its just obscured by my nose and probably making myself look like a complete idiot to everyone walking past my office)
so with a 90° fov on the oculus identical image fov centres should indeed be correct

i havent actually had an opportunity to try the oculus yet so i dont know how realistic the feel of the fov in the centre is but since theyre smart people and they decided to offset the fovs im guessing the rendered fov per image is actually higher than 90

This headset does actually use two separate displays... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH86II2CwdE

A little more info. https://developer.oculusvr.com ... topic.php?f=26&t=3604

Quote from Scawen :

Here are some screenshots of the SBS (side by side) and TAB (top and bottom) half views at the moment. The word "half" refers to the horizontal or vertical compression of the image. It may be that TAB half is the better choice on a passive display, because you are going to lose vertical resolution anyway, so you might as well keep the horizontal resolution in that case.[..]

Made a test on my 3DTV (with active shutter glasses), and didn't noticed a big difference between the 2 images. There is a slight advantage towards T/B but not that much. The efect though, is not quite there imediately.. Looking in the horizon (or outside the cockpit) is ok, it has a good depth. But looking inside the cockpit is not straight forward. You have to adjust your eyes a bit. (yes, and I also did change the left/right or right/left order).
Didn't had this problem with other games I tried (via TriDef 3D) rF2, AC, DIRT 3 <=very good looking in 3D.

Quote from luchian :

Made a test on my 3DTV (with active shutter glasses), and didn't noticed a big difference between the 2 images. There is a slight advantage towards T/B but not that much. The efect though, is not quite there imediately.. Looking in the horizon (or outside the cockpit) is ok, it has a good depth. But looking inside the cockpit is not straight forward. You have to adjust your eyes a bit. (yes, and I also did change the left/right or right/left order).
Didn't had this problem with other games I tried (via TriDef 3D) rF2, AC, DIRT 3 <=very good looking in 3D.

Thanks for the test. One thing I'm wondering about is the positioning of the output image. The view point of each image is simple, use the left and right eye approximate positions. But if I understand this correctly, there is something different about TVs and VR headsets. For looking at far distant objects your eyes should be parallel, and I think this works naturally for VR headsets. As you see far distant objects are in the same place on the L and R image in both screenshots I posted. But on a TV, I'm concerned that the far distant objects will look like they are at screen distance, because they are displayed in the same place.

Do any games with 3D support have some options like "image separation" or "VR headset / TV" or "3d effect strength" to adjust the effect or make it work differently with different hardware? Or do 3D TVs have an image separation option?

Quote :

Do any games with 3D support have some options like "image separation" or "VR headset / TV" or "3d effect strength"

It's been a while since I experimented with the 3D-feature, but yes, there are usually an option (either on the gfx-card driver or game-specific settings) that lets you exaggerate or ajust the 3D effect. I remember sliding this bar back and forth between different games because usually you had a "good" vision of foreground with a "flat" (no depth) background or a good background with a messed up foreground. So it is a tricky equation to get the parallax to work correctly. Not much help, just a comment.

I'm sure other people have got their dev rifts but after 2 weeks with mine I thought I would add that although at the moment the 720p isn't really enough to spot braking points & see far enough ahead it is still totally usable for single player & testing the technology. I think that a 1080p consumer version will then be good enough for online racing. It still won't be perfect though as I think we need close to 4k to get graphics like what we are now used to on a normal 1080p monitor but the actual latency / immersion / depth of field is perfect for a racing sim once your body can handle the sicky feeling. Very happy lfs is looking into this technology early

With iracing the only driving sim to have official support is it likely they had to change cockpits etc? For example when sitting in a mazda mx5 the thing that makes all my friends "wow" is the way the roll cage / head support / steering wheel stick out and actually look 3d themselves and feel closer to you rather than just a flat 2d texture that is closer to you. Thoughts?