Quote from DavidTiger :

Is it better to have the PSU at the bottom? Noticed a lot of high end PC's with them at the bottom...
Mine is at the top, back of the case... Thinking it would because hot air rises

It gives extra space at the top for big fans. A 20 cm fan at the top sucks a lot more air out of the case than a power-supply at the top of a case.

The simple reason, a single 20 fan at the top of a pc-case has no restrictive heatsinks, small casing, wires etc. to push air through. Just the fan, air and one grill. Which results into removing hot air from the cpu real efficiently.

Quote from Shadowww :

Not if ATI could make drivers properly.

Some people just keep living in the past.
Maybe stop looking for dinosaurs... bit waste of time, although crocodiles....:P


Anyway, nvidia and ati have about the same amount of divers issues. ati releases new drivers evvery month and everymonth some things get fixed, sometimes performance improved and in rare cases new bugs are added. despite the huge buglist, its very rare i run into a real bug. And never encountered a driver problem so big, i couldnt run a game. There is one instance, but that is because there is a bug in a not very popualr game but the developers refuse to fix it.


Just wondering, why buy an outdated card? 5xxx series is already on the market with direct11 support, more power efficient and 200-60% faster then 4xxx cards when comparing equal series (4870 vs 5870)

"physX processor from ageia"

Not many successful attempts to use it and as mentioned earlier, also i never read about anybody being enthusiastic about it. Just as mentioned earlier, its a very, very, very bad idea to supporting technology's specific for one manufacturer. So physX, No i disagree.

There is an other possibility to get a lot of extra physics calculations:
Todays pc's come with at least dual core cpu's and quad-core cpu's are now available below $100 dollars or less then 85 euro's. So multi-threading would give huge possibilitys to do many, many physics calculations But somewhere on this forum i read a post from scawen rewriting the engine of lfs is a lot of work meaning it will take a long time to do it. But i do think it is becoming more important everyday since performance for a individual core is hardly improving over the last two years but the number of cores is still growing. Soon we can plug in hexa-cores from amd and a few monthes later intel will be producing with 6 to 8-core cpu's. In fact, amd is already supplying hexa-core cpu's for x86 servers.

So if the crew wants to add realism, for example model complex aerodynamics into lfs, i think there will be no other possibility than to rewrite the lfs engine to really take advantage of at least two cpu cores. It will increase available processing power on the average system by about 80%. With quad-cores up to 200% extra cpu-power (using more cores rarely gives linear improvements in performance).

So i do think lfs should use multiple cores, it will open up great possibility in terms of added realism. Waiting to get faster individual cores.. is going to take a very, very long time..

Last edited by Bluebird B B, Tue 10 Nov 2009, 01:30. Reason : typo s

Quote from AndroidXP :

Unfortunately, new physics doesn't necessarily mean new/fixed tyre heating behaviour. It would be nice to have, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Regarding the wear-grip relation, judging from hearsay I thought that at least brand new tyres are often very grippy for the first few laps and then quickly degrade before plateauing at a slightly lower grip level, but I could be imagining things. It is, however, certain that the tyre wear/heat/grip correlation is a very complicated matter that is influenced by many factors, making a completely accurate simulation with just one base tyre model (that we have in LFS) nigh impossible.

Exactly, tried a long time ago to explain the tyres of bf1 feel likes being the same compound as the one used on fox. Also that in the real world severe tyre overheating problems are very rare. I was told i was crazy or something simular and lfs was right, the real world must have been incorrect


All we can do is wait

Interesting file name you choose:-) How to make the life of sysadmins difficult

Quote from tristancliffe :

Just ask Scawen to give one of the cars a messed up power/torque curve, and hey presto, you've got variable valve control.

It is not that easy since some manufactures now use continuous variable valve timing. I doubt you really notice this beside just better overall performance than engines which do not have it. Making it again pointless to model it into to code. Just improve the parameters for the engine and we are done

Quote from AndroidXP :

Since the wear doesn't affect grip with the current modelling, it's purely a choice of how far you can go before they blow out

Actually, that is not much different as irl.
Current F1 tyres stay the same until tyres are really worn out. Laptimes go down as fuel load decreases. Suggesting tyres are very constant nowadays in terms of grip. Main difference is, irl they do not have the overheating problems we have in lfs, but the new physics-patch is coming someday

People complain about no weather, but lfs has quiete realistic wind effects. However about 100% of servers always set option NO WIND.

So i choose cars&tracks

Quote from Hyperactive :

I guess it is just the thing that it would mostly benefit the drifters. People on the LFS forum don't hesitate to shoot down any suggestions if they are not 100% racing related. Basically it means that drifting is looked down and laughed at all the time.

And after all it is quite ridiculous to say 36 degrees is enough because in real life cars don't have such amounts of steering lock. At the same time we can adjust our transmissions in 0.001 steps and have infinite amount of different springs/dampers/arbs in a "standard" car (XRG).

Matrixi said it right.

Actually it has already few times been suggested such precise tuning of cars should be removed.
But for the wings settings and toe-in settings, it should have a much finer control/adjustments

Hello,

I noticed some time ago(2 weeks) after starting lfs in windows mode lfs states it is running at 100fps. But the visuals indicate it is clearly not. estimate the fps is 25 at maximun and lfs is nearly unplayable. Setting lfs full screen and back fixes the problem. It is not reproducible in the sense you get it everytime, but now and then lfs starts up with this framerate issue and going full screen and back fixes the problem. So i asume it is a bug in lfs or the graphics driver?

OS: vista 64 bit fully updated
directx 11
9.10 catalyst drivers
ati 4890
amd [email protected]
8gbyte mem 1333Mhz 6-6-6-22

Last edited by Bluebird B B, Mon 9 Nov 2009, 14:35. Reason : improved memory timings a lot lately

Quote from LiveForBoobs :

When we use the handbrake, aren't the brake lights supposed to turn on? It always confused me seeing cars stopped on handbrake with all lights off, like they had the engine turned off. I suppose it wouldn't be hard to implement? Just a small observation, which i'm sure Scawen is aware of anyway.

On many cars brake lights also work when the engine is turned off. But handbrake has no effect on the lights.

So lfs, is correct at this point.

Quote from jasonmatthews :

Yeah I had no issues with Vista at all, although the superfetch on vista is supposed to be worse than Win7. Strange indeed

It can only be worse if microsoft is to intentionally not to update superfetch on vista anymore and thgus attempting to push windows7 as a better OS than vista, which it is not since they are the same.

Currently it requires an registry change to get directx11 om vista via windows update, because microsoft is hiding this update for vista users. But why... we can only guess...

Quote from jasonmatthews :

Windows 7 64 bit, build 7600. Below is a pic of my memory, if you use Superfetch, your cached memory will be much higher than that

BTW I am not saying that this is a problem for everyone, it just fixed my particular problem, so just putting it out there in case it can help others.

Cached memory is good! It means unused memory is used for increased performance to load programs much faster. This memory is released as needed if programs request more memory then is free at the time. When this happens, windows(or any decent OS) will decrease the amount memory allocated to file-caching and give it to the programs requesting more memory.

Currently i have about 3.9gbyte of cached memory and 2.7gbyte's of memory still unallocated at all.

Strange,

vista is working here 100% with superfetch on. On systems with lots of memory it does makes things faster. Windows7 is the same OS as vista, behind the gui it is the same as vista so i recommend to stop super fetch only if you are having issue's with it.

Actually i am running vista now with directx 11 installed And again i have no issue at all with lfs.


edit: also i do not notice heavy background use of the harddrive. And i do have an noisy "enterprise"-class sata disk which is really noisy compared to disks aimed at home-users. Noisy is relative though, there must be no sound at all in the room to be able to hear it.

The standaard question i always have to ask: Is it not the virus software causing problems? Is windows fully updated? Are all drivers updated including chip-set drivers? No programs running which are aimed at cleaning up stuff windows just have put there? etc.

Last edited by Bluebird B B, Sun 25 Oct 2009, 10:06.

Quote from boothy :

The only hand gesture I want http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCij9mYIokA

Hej that's how we drive in lfs!!! fighting so hard usually in the pack with a result nobody finishes

Quote from Scawen :

But LFS should never crash.

I think the ALT+TAB (etc) problems are just in some version of Windows, where after using ALT+TAB (if I remember correctly) Windows seemed to give LFS zero CPU time - it was never updated so you would lose connection if you were connected to a host. I don't know if that is still a problem but anyway there should not be a crash.

In vista 64 bits, its no problem. LFS is rendered in a tiny view from the taskbar, rather cool to watch those tiny cars going around while lfs is minimized hehe.

Quote from rc10racer :

What's your OS? because on vista/W7 but mainly windows i sometimes have the issue where the windows experience performance tool (WinSAT.exe) starts in the background which can cause stupid fps drop but under my experience it's worse then your problem.

WinSAT.exe?
I never have that one running in the background. Where do you turn on the option to get such a lousy program scheduled?

Note, i have been using vista for desktop for two years now, seen many, many accusations vista is to blame for slowiness. Then i remember the time windowsXP was just out and the first two/three years people always blamed the thing that was new.... Try to figure out what is configured wrong! Why is it starting and how you can stop windows from starting it.

(i don't like microsoft, i just need it OS to run games)

Quote from cmanns :

Hi, would it be possible to have control of the mouse? The throttle can hit too hard with mouse too quickly in turns and you gotta on/off click and that heats up the fronts, hard to keep the boost going, etc.

I love the XRR but it's very very difficult to compete w/mouse if I can't slow down max throttle control, so far it seems to take a sec or so to reach full throttle but it's just not enough delay....

XRT I can't drive AT ALL because it'll just slide out of control like it's wheels are ice blocks, any set.

XRG, etc are okay though the heavy throttle beats on the front tires after a lap or two I can't race w/out pit.

We need to think of a nifty method, maybe a button we can define to max throttle when pushed? IE: 50% when pushed, then throttle returns to normal after you corner or whichever. I use A for clutch and the mouse wheel for shifting (If you dont use that, ouch....) so pushing a button on the keyboard isnt a issue

Control with mouse is already to easy. Going fast/win is just very very difficult. Many mouse drivers do not have your tyre-heat problems. Well not more then anyone else.

Quote from Christof Blum :

When I use VSync I have a lag between real and virtual wheel. In every race-sim i tried it.

Is it only visual effect or does it affect physics too?

refresh-rate of 60Hz is low, so if a frame is just not ready to be displayed at a screen refresh, you will be shown the next frame about 1/60th of a second too late. Add to that the significant input-lag many lcd-screens have.... you might be lagging, in worst case, up to 5/60th of a second behind. Espacially many samsung lcd' s which are often notoriously slow. This lag is not caused by the leds in the lcd-panel, it is caused by the electronics in the monitor which send the signals to the lcd-panel.

Quote from AndroidXP :

Yes.

3) Vsync will cut your fps dramatically if you are for some reason not able to reach your monitor's refresh rate. Every time you dip below it your fps will be cut in half, so for example on 60Hz if you can't hold 60fps it will be cut to 30fps, if you can't reach that it will be cut to 15fps, etc.
4) Manual limitation should really only be used to relieve your graphics card

Overall, vsync should only be used if you notice tearing and you have a graphics card / CPU combo that can reliably hold your monitor's refresh rate in fps.

3: In al those years.. from the beginning at voodoo cards, s3 virge cards i have never noticed such behavior. If a frame is not ready when your screen is ready to receive, a 3d-engine will just wait for the refresh and display the frame as soon as possible. There is no intentional cut in fps. Although vsync will certainly reduce fps, but the devider by two?? no way! Well that said, there are so many programmers around the world, most likely there will be someone who managed to get this behavior out of his program And then its called a bug.

4: Limiting lfs to 100fps is a very efficient way to save energy. It also relieves your cpu. On fast systems it will save well over 50 watts of power. Certainly worth it.

Last edited by Bluebird B B, Mon 5 Oct 2009, 17:10.

Quote from morpha :

Ah, did some research. Apparently MS introduced a new display management layer with Vista, preventing the driver from "faking" a display, which is essentially what spanning does. Unfortunately, Seven also comes with this stupid management layer. In other words, if you've got Vista or Seven, you cannot use spanning modes. You can only use modes supported by an actual physical display, it's no longer possible to create a virtual display device and let the graphics adapter, or its driver respectively, handle the output.

duh, the driver/kernel changes in vista is a major improvement over XP and making vista a lot more stable. Windows 7 = vista with some gui updates.
So the graphics manfactures must write proper drivers to support multiple display's.
Although a product of microsoft and thus essentially total crap, for a microsoft product vista is really, really good compared to XP.

Quote from MijnWraak :

FPS problem: when turn button mode changed to classic style (2 buttons = 180 degrees) I get half of the max FPS when looking behind me, 30fps. I get constant 60 fps everywhere else with front/side view, only effects looking behind me. (phenom II x2 550 @ 3.8ghz, 4870 512, 1920x1080)

edit: it's a general FPS problem. Turned off vsync and it's only at about 60 most of the time. the 30 fps instance was looking behind while spectating someone, view had many barriers. I got much better FPS with z15.

Your frame rate is rather low for the given hardware, are you sure your graphics card settings isn't forcing v sync? 60fps is too low what you are getting out of your hardware.


However, the weird framerate drop using "classic 180 degrees lookback", i could reproduce the weird frame rate drop. I get from 300+ to 220-230fps as soon as i look backwards. passing of other cars seems not to make any difference. After about 1 second fps climbs back to 300+ Also just switching left/right seems sometimes to have a similar effect.

For me, this is not a problem but somebody using a 4630 card instead of a 4890 might have frame-rate issues because of this

When turning on lights, do you loose about 200watts of engine power? Or is it not yet programmed?

Patch test z16, as usual no problems whatsover.

Quote from Krypto1 :

Ok, im so confused right now, because i quited lfs about 3 years ago..and it was running normal..when i went to play again, the fps was so low O_o like when i get the camera inside the car i get low fps..even outside i cant play like i used to play ...i dont know if its because of the new stuff it was added to the game like crash colisions or new graphics...etc

Just saying that in the past i played normal and now i can't even play it..:cry:

some info on my system:
Pentium(R) 4 SP3
CPU 3.00 GHz
504 MB Ram, ( going to buy a 1 Gb ram soon)
Name of Motherboard: ASRock 775i65GV
DirectX: 9.0c
Video: Intel(R) 82865G Graphics Controller (96 MB) ( Can't afford a new one)
3D acelerator: Intel Extreme Graphics 2


it realy sucks to know that i could play it and now i can't..

Get a new system, your computer is severely outdated. today's 3.Ghz cpu's are up to 8 times faster.
You are using onboard graphics, avoid onboard graphiccards at all times for gaming! I recommend against buying anything new for such a old system.

I understand you don't have the money for upgrades, well... it looks like you need to start saving money then

Last edited by Bluebird B B, Sun 27 Sep 2009, 08:53.

Quote from DejaVu :

This guy didnt even need a kerb

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... 4mmSg&feature=related

Thx for this replay, proving tires are irl very, very grippy
(edit: And thus much better as many people here think)

Last edited by Bluebird B B, Fri 25 Sep 2009, 21:06.