Great little improvements! When I tested LFS in high resolution a few months ago I saw that dials seem to be a little low res and thought that could use some improvements, but didn't actually bother me that much to write a request about it. It certainly looks a lot better, thank you!
I just wanted to have a quick look on the new Blackwood so I just started LFS on the TV with a gamepad but then I realized that this is too good to not experience it in Oculus.
Eric, I must say that I really like the way you have created the vegetation. When driving at speed trees and bushes look 3D even in Oculus thanks to the smartly placed polygons and great use of textures.
I hope to test some more on the weekend but so far I'm enjoying the new parts very much.
Developers know about this problem, it affects everyone with a VR headset as none of the headsets use 100Hz. Unfortunately there is no solution available yet. As I understand from Scawen's posts it will take some work to solve this problem and he is now doing tyre physics and not doing updates to graphics.
Tested the latest version last night and it's still great, did not find any problems with it. It would be great if the mirror adjustment could be assigned to controller or keyboard buttons and it could work like in a real car.
One other thing is that LFS menus could use a little overhaul, for example on the View page the 2D/3D buttons are further up than where one would expect to find buttons and the global view settings are mixed with independent car settings.
I think something like in the attached image would be more logical, the global view controls are on the top and the independent view controls and mirror settings are below.
I did not buy LFS because of Oculus support but I do have an Oculus DK2 if that counts So that's one and judging from the LFS topic on the Oculus forum there are a number of people there who bought LFS because of the Oculus support.
Agreed, I think this shows how fundamentally different approach is taken to software development by different teams/people. I like Scawen's approach better because of the previously mentioned reasons and just look at multiplayer implementation in LFS and Assetto Corsa for example.
LFS has very few limitations in multiplayer, you can spectate and join mid-race, choose any car with any skin with any setup and edit layouts on the fly and these things are in LFS from the start basically. The result of that kind thinking can be observed in all parts of LFS which makes it a great software to use.
In Assetto Corsa you can only select from predefined cars with predefined liveries and if the slot is taken on the server you are out of luck.
Kunos says that this is by design and they won't rewrite that part of the game. As I have some development experience I can understand that you have to make compromises to make things happen but I still think that it's a poor design not just compared to LFS but compared to other older multiplayer games as well.
And while I like LFS approach better it does have its limits at this complexity level with only one developer.
The Rift Compatibility Check is a bad joke, it doesn't really check anything, just compares your computer's hardware components to a quite short pre-defined list. If your hardware is fast and capable but not on the list it will say that your computer is not VR ready. My computer doesn't have a 3.3 GHz Intel i5 CPU, just a 3.2 GHz i5 and it fails the compatibility check but runs every VR game without problems.
The SteamVR check is far better in this regard as it runs a demo and measures the performance and gives a score based on that.
Maybe Scawen could implement a simple VR Test mode where LFS would switch to the CV1 resolution and measure performance in a similar way that SteamVR does.
SLI is not supported AFAIK but LFS doesn't need really high end graphics card to run at high frame rates. The Rift CV1 render target size is 2830x1566 pixels, you could set LFS to use high DSR(Digital Super Resolution) settings to run on resolution resembling what the Rift uses (or a little higher to account for the overhead that the Rift distortion adds). Check if your laptop can run LFS at least at 90 FPS in that high resolution mode.
I somehow ended up on the roof of the pit garages in Westhill
Yeah, true FPS mode walking would be great and it would add a lot to the immersion if the driver's body would be visible and animated when in walk mode(but I guess Eric has more important work to do).
Tested the soft lock and automatic centering as well and they work quite nice on my G25, they could be a little stronger I think.
Agreed! I just got a DK2 a few days ago and the first program I tried was LFS because I knew it should work out of the box, and it did. Everything looks great but the mirrors break the immersion a little bit. Maybe LFS could be the first sim to correctly implement 3D mirrors
The mismatch between the physics rate and the DK2 screen refresh rate is sometimes quite annoying but otherwise the VR implementation with even the menu in VR is great!
Maybe not everybody is as sensitive to low resolution as you are? You value resolution over true 3D visuals and head tracking but maybe others can overlook this issue easier. And don't forget that the consumer versions will have slightly higher resolution than the DK2.
Giving the possibility to have better experience is a good thing IMHO. Other racing games have similar requirements when it comes to bandwidth and server owners should know their own connections's limits.