Quote from mikey_G :

It's called a curbstone, and why would that be worth anything while analyzing?

I realize that is not possible, but I also see how this could be useful. I very often use the start of the curbs as a braking reference point.
Would it be possible to mark the straights with tiny triangles or something at the 300, 200 and 100 marks? That way it would be easier to relate the trackmap to the actual track, and to see how much you need to adjust your braking points.

Just thought I'd post this here as well, the new guys might not go to the teams section all that often.

Please look us up.

http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=393648#post393648

GURU has been dormant a while, but we hope this new patch will bring us back into action. LFS will get a new buzz for sure!

Please visit our site at www.grownupracing.net

We see ourselves as a first step for new racers still learning the ropes.
We are more concerned with racing close and fair than winning. I'd rather be midfield in an intense battle than 2 miles infront of the pack. We will be using the new handicap system to balance the field and create interesting sessions.
Anyone that want a 1-on-1 lesson or just a quick race, feel free to join us on track.
We have a W9 server running 24-7 that can handle a full grid. Other, private servers will be opened as the need arise.

I think it's awesome. I've spent WAY too much time with it already. My wife will testify. I just love cruising and exploring the huge island and beautiful scenery. Or just watch it go by in a blur. It's all I've wanted from a driving game. I'm actually glad it doesn't have LFS physics, cause that would make it too serious. Some of the races are pretty awesome too, even offline. The first 'around the island' race in the supercars was intense. I was a little slow and used 49 minutes on that one, in the koenigsegg. Averaged 232km/h over 49 minutes.. Even on good roads that took a lot of concentration. much of the race was spent well in excess of 320km/h. I had to wind down with a leizurely cruise in my caterham after that, I was all pumped up!

Ok, I wanna go back to the HDR thing for a little while now. The 3D thing is going nowhere...

One thing about HDR most seem to be missing is reflection. Let me try to visualize it for you;
First a short description of how reflections work. A lightsource sends out light, that light bounce off a surface hitting you eye, but some of it is absorbed and scattered. So the intensity of the reflection drops. Some surfaces, like mirrors, absorb very little, others, like charcoal, absorb a lot.
These two extremes are easy to simulate in any renderer.

Let's say you have an 8-bit renderer, giving you 256 shades of brightness. Also, let's ignore renderer output range for now.
You have a representation of the sun through a window, reflecting off a flat surface, like Don's example scene. The sun is very bright, so the designers give it the max brighness the renderer would allow, 255. The rays hit the surface, which has a reflectivity of 10%. So the reflection has a brightness of 25.
All who work with computer graphics or imagery of any kind know that a gray surface with the brighness value of 25 is not very bright. yet, i the real world, an object with a reflectionvalue of 10% would look very shiny indeed.

Let's do the same example with a renderer capable of 10 times the depth, 2550 shades of gray.
The sun is still very bright, so it gets a value of 2550. The surface still reflect 10%, so the reflection will be a brightness of 255.

Now to the part where it gets a little tricky.
Most of us, if not all, only have 8 bit outputs. So we need some sort of normalization, or tone mapping. The way this works is like described earlier in this thread. the scene is analyzed. The brightest spot in the scene is given the value 255, the darkest is given a value of 0. An 8-bit renderer don't have to worry about this, as no value will aver be over 255. The 'HDR' renderer however, need to consider this. So, looking at our scene, the sun is off camera, and the reflection is (for argument's sake) the brightest spot of the image. Analysis say the reflection is just within bounds, so no mapping needs to be done, and the image is rendered.

The real issue here isn't displayed dynamic range, it's how much dynamic range is available in the entire scene. Now go back and take a look at eekie's example from some game or other. Pay attention to the sun glinting off the water, and the reflections in general. And that particular scene even has the sun in the FOV.

I wish I was at work, I'd render a few examples of this for easier visualization....

I can't drive without it now. It was a bit unsettlign at first, but now, not looking to the apex and racing in a crowd is veery difficult without it. Recommended.

I did some testing with my SLi system, and I definetly get the double buffer syndrome with v-sync enabled.

Fraps benchmark:

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
2605, 65925, 37, 75, 39.515

Care to guess my screen refresh rate?

Last edited by atledreier, Mon 26 Mar 2007, 18:44.

I found this VERY informative thread about Vsync, what it is, what it does, what to look for and all explained in a manner that normal people should be able to understand it.

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=928593

Scawen: Be aware also that Vsync can cause issues on SLi systems. Best case scenario, Vsync just doesn't work, worst case, all timings go to hell. I'm not sure of the exact cause of this, but I will do some research and give you any useful links I might find. Just wanna give you the heads up. I know Vsync looks good on paper, but I have very few aplications where it actually does any good. I never noticed much tearing in racing sims anyway... I'd rather rely on some minimum sleep value to give the cpu and system a breather.

My front setup, for anyone interested...

Oh man, don't get me started on video! :Eyecrazy:

Quote from Victor :

sounds like you're a non believer

And it sounds like you are, Victor!

I am well aware that a good portion of the human species don't give a rat's ass about sound quality. Not because they can't tell the difference, but because they don't want to. Could be that they are stubborn. Could be that they are untrained. Could be that they just don't care. Either way, they have decided there is no difference of you do this or that to your system. In my opinion, this is no different from the guys that coat their CDs with green rubber along the edge and claim to hear a difference. The believers will hear a difference that isn't there, the sceptics won't hear a real difference. I'm not one to tell one from the other. If you claim there's no difference, fine. Likewise, if you hear a difference I can't, good for you. The thing that gets me though, is people dismissing or embracing a difference before they have heard the system in question.

I have a well treated room. Without any electronic correction it sounds just about as good as a room of my size can. I have alot of experience from different rooms and setups, being an installer for a hifi-shop. I also have the opportunity of testing a lot of different components in my system, and in my room, including acoustic treatment. I would say I know a thing or two about the subject both in theory and from experience. I know that my system perform much better with electronic room correction. It won't be perfect, but it will be much better. The correction system can and will introduce some artefacts to the signal. In some cases the artefacts will be more severe than the original problem, so in effect you have just moved the problem to another part of the signal.

The Audyssey system use multiple measurements for multiple positions and average the results in a very complex manner. The actual calculations are copyrighted, and I probably wouldn't understand them either, but they work. My system sounds incredibly much better with the system engaged. And not only for a single position either. I could get better spot-precision (is that even a word) from a single measurement, but if I moved my head an inch, my measurements and correction would be void and worse than useless. The way Audyssey do it, I get a much wider sweet-spot, and a smoother response through the entire audible range in a relatively large area. How they do it? Beats me! Does it work? Beyond a doupt! I'm not asking me to take my word for it, I'm asking you to try it for yourself before you dismiss it as rubbish and a waste of time and money. Or even better; go put on a CD and forget about my ranting. I know I will...

Room acoustics are very very important, that is true! A lot can be accomplished with electronic room correction though. And if you do both you're in hog heaven. I have a very well setup system and room, and when I put the new Audyssey Room EQ standalone into it, it's just plain awesome.

My system, should anyone care:
Dali Euphonia MS4 fronts
Dali Helicon C200 center
Dali Helicon S600 subwoofer
Dali Concept2 rears (very ready to be replaced)
NAD M15 and M25 posessor and power to drive it, and
Audyssey Room EQ to tame it all.

I'm a happy hog!

I have a bit more controller lag in rF than in LFS, so that could be the reason rF won't detect your double shifts. The built-in lag comes in addition to you 200ms enforced lag.

200ms is not really that long, and if you controller generate the second press upon release of the button you could well exceed the debounce.

I can say that software version 5.00 has the centeringspring bug present in rF, but not in LFS. AFAIK LFS uses direct force mappings, while rF use DX springs to generate forces. I never had a problem with centeringspring in LFS, either with the G25, DFP, or MOMO.

I was not aware of teh 101% overall force thing though. How would I feel this in my G25? What do I look for?

Make sure you set the LFS profile to a more linear yaw than the default one. The default with the distickt deadzone made it very difficult for me to get a reference. A more linear yaw feels much more natural and is a great help for immersion and situational awareness.

Have fun with it!

Why don't you just let TrackIR intercept the button directly? I'm not sure I even understand what you're asking.

My GURU servers have been running port 999-1009 for years. Feel free to check them out.

Good luck, and take good care of both the mother and yourself. It's gonna be hard, man. Make no mistake. But it's so worth it when the little critter crawl up into your lap, give you those big eyes and go: "I love you, daddy"

Congrats!

PS. Since you won't be needing that car in a while, can I have it?

My cards do that when I use nVidia's 8x Antialiasing. Go one step lower, and you're fine. Still looks great, runs even better.

Just about every real-life track has got some 'quirk' that drivers learn about from driving the track. Roll with the punches. Avoid the kerb, or set your car up to deal with it. Simple.

Prime example is the 'hump' in monaco, where drivers swerve way off the line to avoid it.

My TH setup give me a real FOV of 136degrees. I'm sure with larger monitors or other setups there will be a need for even wider FOV. I'm not sure how easy it would be to do, though. I'm sure there's performance and clipping issues involved. Might even need a rewrite of some of the graphics code. But +1 if it's an easy fix, definetly!

I can remember from back in the day I used caster actively to enhance the feel of my setup. +1 for bringing it back, with realistic range.

Thanks a million!

Not only support, but fast too... You should go into business, dude!

One question about bordersize: Do I need to add the 'lost' pixels to the horisontal resolution?
If I set bordersize=40, do I need to add 80pixels to my horisontal resolution to make the side monitors come out right?

Quote :

forceHorizontalFOV: Forces horizontal FOV to be three times as wide

What does that actually do? I get a real FOV of 130degrees in my setup, but LFS won't go beyond 120. Is this an option to override the ingame FOV?

I know you said you wouldn't provide support, but.... Please?