Yes, VOB mods are poor quality, but it's mostly people don't have the right tool and it's not officially supported so qualified people doesn't want to work on it for nothing. I'd convert a lot of cars and track if it was officially supported! And I'd spend a lot of time making them look right for the game.
That always the problem with low poly models, they look extremly flat on high end renderer. Just see the Vice City map imported in GTA V, same effect.
1 - I don't see why it wouldn't work
2 - Why using ENB when Reshade 3.0 exists? I know Reshade can't find the depth buffer, but END doesn't do much with it except ambiant occlusion.
2 - Why using ENB when Reshade 3.0 exists? I know Reshade can't find the depth buffer, but END doesn't do much with it except ambiant occlusion.
IMO it looks just as rushed as Blackwood, but there are less things that can go wrong so it looks better import wise.
It we had access to the correct tools, I'm sure it could be possible to import GTA SA's LS, but not GTA V one. I don't know how much objects the actual occlusion culling implementation in LFS can handle though, so it might need a decent CPU (with fast core speed since LFS is single threaded only). ^^
But that would be fun to see and drive on though!
A little bit of steering help (just like the keyboard stabilisation) and analog direction smoothing enabled by default wouldn't be a bad addition to it.
That's just the default textures, just like for Aston
Texture quality varies depending on the tracks. Fern Bay and Aston are the oldest ones, Blackwood has been updated several times, and Westhill and Rockingham as the newest. And texture quality is also in that order.
Images in spoiler on resized
Update:
He now has imported Blackwood, and as I already told him on GTAForums, it's a really rushed import, just quick rip and import, no mip-maps, no glass materials, and a lot of missing objects. He told me that he didn't knew much about the 3D modeling stuff though.
Screenshot:
More screenshots:
Link:
https://www.gta5-mods.com/maps/gta-live-for-speed-blackwood-racetrack
Do you know that Eric already has more content in the works since a long time? He's working on it, and as Scawen said, now they doesn't want to wait for the tires physics before releasing it, and that's why they released Rockingham with S3 right now.
That's totally off-topic.
He now has imported Blackwood, and as I already told him on GTAForums, it's a really rushed import, just quick rip and import, no mip-maps, no glass materials, and a lot of missing objects. He told me that he didn't knew much about the 3D modeling stuff though.
Screenshot:
More screenshots:
Link:
https://www.gta5-mods.com/maps/gta-live-for-speed-blackwood-racetrack
Do you know that Eric already has more content in the works since a long time? He's working on it, and as Scawen said, now they doesn't want to wait for the tires physics before releasing it, and that's why they released Rockingham with S3 right now.
That's totally off-topic.
Last edited by nacim, .
The LEAST you could add was "please". BTW, you need to buy a license to play on Fern Bay with a GT2 car, I hope you run fast, because you just got reported.
EDIT: Seriously though, the least you can do is respect the developers and post screenshots with DEMO content only on it. As a developer myself, I can't really tolerate that.
For those who have a similar problem, you need to enable the post process first in the Misc menu.
Last edited by nacim, .
No, no, only when you edit it while the game is still running.
Yeah, just renable the S-curve (remove the previous bit of code you added), and increase that 2.95f you see on the line "tex_col = -2.0f * x_cu + 2.95f * x_sq;". By default I think LFS uses 5.0f. You can try that, or values in between.
Physics is using the CPU, while graphics are mainly GPU based, so no compromises on physics fluidity are done if it's properly implemented (setting graphics and physics in two different threads than the main one would be even better for CPU performance, since absolutly no one have a single core CPU in 2016).
Talking about Unity is kinda ridiculous here knowing how much care is taken on saving every single bit of performance. Yet it is also ridiculous that doing everything by yourself made LFS outdated in both performance and appearance aspect
Technically, there are track shaders, but not the one you are referring about
And alpha sorting is still not right at some placed, I reported the problems where I found them, never got an answer.
For the shaders, it would be nice if Scawen just that a few hours to give us the input we need to improve the shaders, so people can have less outdated graphics, which will give a bit of time for Scawen to work on the physics instead instead of trying to be on every front at once.
It will do just fine, even if the comment is misplaced now lol
Don't forget to do /rsh in LFS's chat when you edit the shaders and the game is running.
Having a bigger team and a bigger community means you have also less freedom of development. You have obligations to do what people want instead of doing what YOU want. I know this feeling, and I hate it too. But I guess by recruiting someone with the same vision as you for the game or making him clearly understand that he should be going by your vision will help, but the then the newcomer will feel like his ideas have no impact on the direction of the project, which is the opposite of how it should work in an indie team.
That, in my opinion, would be sad. Like I said, if the work is done properly, it can give us a sneak peak of what to expect with an upgrade to LFS's engine. Plus, it's free advertisement, and it's not like GTA V is making concurrence with LFS.
I think it's really not noticeable, it would need a really big map to make this a real concern. I'm sure not even Westhill or a possible South City remake will cause any problem at all. Nearly every modern game engine uses float for positions (either 32 bit or 64 bits if needed, like Star Citizen or KSP, which is on Unity BTW)
I don't see why a deferred renderer would make LFS bad. Deferred rendering can be really performant if done correctly (see Tiled Deferred Renderer used for example in the Frostbite engine), but I don't really think this would be a real need for LFS.
The only real use of a deferred renderer that I can see for LFS, is night time on South City, with full real-time lighting. But it would set the minimum requirements way higher (since it uses more VRAM and more bandwidth, and requires a GPU with Multiple Render Targets support).
But for now, I think a simple PBR forward renderer with HDR and a REAL post-process pipeline would be more than enough for its needs, and will let the minimum requirement stay relatively low.
Well, Global Illumination, Physically Based Rendering, Ambient Occlusion, Borek Depth of Field, volumetric lighting, and object-based motion blur are only a few thing that I can list that make today' real-time graphics really nice IMO. Oh and I forgot about real-time reflection, a real struggle in 2001
Today's graphics are all on the subtility, and trying to be the most physically based possible, now that we're getting enough horsepower to do so.
That, in my opinion, would be sad. Like I said, if the work is done properly, it can give us a sneak peak of what to expect with an upgrade to LFS's engine. Plus, it's free advertisement, and it's not like GTA V is making concurrence with LFS.
I think it's really not noticeable, it would need a really big map to make this a real concern. I'm sure not even Westhill or a possible South City remake will cause any problem at all. Nearly every modern game engine uses float for positions (either 32 bit or 64 bits if needed, like Star Citizen or KSP, which is on Unity BTW)
I don't see why a deferred renderer would make LFS bad. Deferred rendering can be really performant if done correctly (see Tiled Deferred Renderer used for example in the Frostbite engine), but I don't really think this would be a real need for LFS.
The only real use of a deferred renderer that I can see for LFS, is night time on South City, with full real-time lighting. But it would set the minimum requirements way higher (since it uses more VRAM and more bandwidth, and requires a GPU with Multiple Render Targets support).
But for now, I think a simple PBR forward renderer with HDR and a REAL post-process pipeline would be more than enough for its needs, and will let the minimum requirement stay relatively low.
Well, Global Illumination, Physically Based Rendering, Ambient Occlusion, Borek Depth of Field, volumetric lighting, and object-based motion blur are only a few thing that I can list that make today' real-time graphics really nice IMO. Oh and I forgot about real-time reflection, a real struggle in 2001
Today's graphics are all on the subtility, and trying to be the most physically based possible, now that we're getting enough horsepower to do so.
Last edited by nacim, .
I think you never saw Unity used in it's full potential.
But I think it would be too heavy for what LFS is, and wouldn't match the way Scawen works (optimizing things as hell and having full control of what happens in his game).
I don't like to speak for them (@Scawen: don't hesitate to correct me if I'm wrong), but from what I understood, it's because LFS is more of a spare time project than a big thing that would get them millions of dollars. That's how they see it, even if they do it for a living. As a developer, I like the way they don't want to rushed by the community, but as a gamer, it makes me REALLY frustrated.
One of the reasons I'm on graphics programming right now is that I'm frustrated by the LFS's graphics engine, I started learning graphics programming because I needed to see how hard it would be to make a realistic graphics engine. And so far, it's more a work of research to find work that fits your needs (performance and quality wise), and implementing it, 99.9% of the time, there is no need to reinvent the wheel. But it takes time, and is evolving every day, and when you have a whole lot of things to do next to it, I can guarantee it's hard to be on every front at the time.
As I said, see LFS like a fun project to work, they don't want to make it big. For me that's sad, considering the missed potential of the game.
Just go to PostProcess.psh and add return tex_col; just before the // S-curve comment. It will disable it.
Thanks, and they are even better now
I know what it is, I even made things for my game that I never released (yet
), took years to get it where it is. I don't remember the name of this mod though, if you could refresh me that would be cool (even in PM if you are afraid of being banned for that lol)
You can't detect where the player is looking at for now (actually there are devices for that, but maybe 4 guys have it in the world lol), so we do it how we can, but I think it looks pretty cool and doesn't distract when it's tuned correctly (only very far objects are blured).
Not with this track and this mod. FiveM FiveReborn doesn't calculate realtime cubemap when a custom map is loaded, and the track isn't made for such a modern engine (LFS doesn't even uses world objects' normal !). That's why I'm waiting to see Westhill and Rockinham on it, I'm sure it will look much better. But the shadows and the volumetric lighting are really giving the track a concrete feeling (which isn't that much present on Assetto Corsa's engine).
Everthing's possible. But I don't really want to see LFS ported to a generic game engine like Unreal Engine or Unity (and I know there is zero probability for that, so everything's cool
).I know Scawen wants to work on the graphics engine after the release of the tire physics, but it would be really nice to have a graphics programmer on the team, because real-time graphics are evolving so fast and are such a big selling point !
Here's an update to my shaders. Big thanks to Keiichi_Tsuchiya for the tips and help.
Changelog:
- Added (some kind of) forward scattering
- Added some configuration (disable custom fog, disable forward scattering, density multipler, ...), available in the World.vsh file
- Reverted car shader to default fog (wheels fog is bugged, just like for dynamic trees)
- Improved height fog
- Reverted my change to the lighting multiplier, now it's not "very darkly" anymore!
Notes:
I recommend disabling dynamic tree as they seriously ruin the landscape (because they don't use the same fog method, I haven't figured out how to do that, at this point I'm nearly sure it's not fixable)
Screenshots:
Download is in attached files below.
Changelog:
- Added (some kind of) forward scattering
- Added some configuration (disable custom fog, disable forward scattering, density multipler, ...), available in the World.vsh file
- Reverted car shader to default fog (wheels fog is bugged, just like for dynamic trees)
- Improved height fog
- Reverted my change to the lighting multiplier, now it's not "very darkly" anymore!
Notes:
I recommend disabling dynamic tree as they seriously ruin the landscape (because they don't use the same fog method, I haven't figured out how to do that, at this point I'm nearly sure it's not fixable)
Screenshots:
Download is in attached files below.
Last edited by nacim, .
The screenshots are not nice, I agree, but LFS's graphics engine is no where near the RAGE's one.
Just the shadows and the lack of volumetric lighting (and poor fog) are making the screenshot you uploaded "bad looking" (not even talking about PBR materials, depth of field and all that kind of stuff, and without even considering that LFS has pre-baked lighting while GTA use fully real time lighting.
And finally, you are comparing the new Westhill with Aston, not a legit comparaison at all, I'm sure that if you take the same track, on the same spot, with the same weather and the same sun direction, it will look thousand of times better, while still being fully real-time.
EDIT: While I'm on it and since you seems to like good looking LFS, you should check out my shaders for LFS (link), the new fog is really improving the depth of the scene and fixing some of the graphics problems with the default's LFS one. I will upload a new version to add some configuration and improvement soon.
EDIT2: updated link
Last edited by nacim, .
He wants to import every track, so let's see how it progresses, and I hope ScaViEr won't be too upset (@Eric: you will be able to see the track in their form of glory
)So today I found this on GTAForums
Check this out:
http://gtaforums.com/topic/873982-gta-live-for-speed-project/
https://pt.gta5-mods.com/maps/gta-live-for-speed-aston-racetrack
Some screenshots for the lazy:
This gives us an idea of what to expect with a better graphics engine. I wonder how it would look if you added VisualV with it.
http://gtaforums.com/topic/873982-gta-live-for-speed-project/
https://pt.gta5-mods.com/maps/gta-live-for-speed-aston-racetrack
Some screenshots for the lazy:
This gives us an idea of what to expect with a better graphics engine. I wonder how it would look if you added VisualV with it.
It's normal, I removed the lighting multiplier, I don't really like the light saturation. Reshade's fake HDR is doing a better job at making bright zones shine.
I'll try to add some configuration for the next update.
I'll try to add some configuration for the next update.
Hello everyone,
I've just came here to post my lastest addition to LFS's Shader: Crytek's Volumetric Fog!
It really improve the depth of the scene, check it out:
Blackwood
South City
Kyoto
Westhill
It's not perfect, for example dyanamic trees and tires still uses the old fog, but I'll try to get it fixed when I can. It already includes Keiichi's linear color space shader. Don't mind the bloom and vignetting, it's my Reshade preset. I can share it when it's finished. Enjoy
DOWNLOAD
(extract the content of the folder in your LFS folder -> data/shader/ and replace all)
I've just came here to post my lastest addition to LFS's Shader: Crytek's Volumetric Fog!
It really improve the depth of the scene, check it out:
Blackwood
South City
Kyoto
Westhill
It's not perfect, for example dyanamic trees and tires still uses the old fog, but I'll try to get it fixed when I can. It already includes Keiichi's linear color space shader. Don't mind the bloom and vignetting, it's my Reshade preset. I can share it when it's finished. Enjoy
DOWNLOAD
(extract the content of the folder in your LFS folder -> data/shader/ and replace all)
Last edited by nacim, .
"Not much". I guess you forgot VR, DirectX 9 with its performance improvements, new mirrors and realtime reflections for cars.
For Christmas, I'd be happy with a big announcement on how tires physics are going, a preview of the future tracks, maybe in a video
And today I finally had the opportunity to try LFS with the Oculus Rift, and damn, it was fun!
I didn't had a wheel nor my own LFS installation with mod, but it was still really fun !
The new mirrors are on a whole new level in VR, and the possibility to see ourself in it is just mad, even my teacher had fun doing it!
BTW, it seems that VR really helps people figure out the handling in LFS, I made my friend and teacher try it, and in less than 30 seconds they got the basics where I'm sure no one would have survived with a standard display!
The only complains I can make are:
- The low resolution of the headset is really visible on LFS, I can't even distinguish things that are far away, it just look like a pixel mess. I think using supersamping and a temporal filter would greatly help
- The UI is a bit hard to aim, adding a hover to the buttons and a bit of aim assist would be great
- Adding gamepad controls out of the box is really awesome, but damn, why the analog steering smoothing is not enabled by default with it ? Just like I requested before, please make this parameter controller dependent and not global, and set it to max for the default controller setup
Anyway, that was fun, and I hope that I could try it on the HTC Vive in two weeks. Keep you updated! Keep it up ScaViEr!
And today I finally had the opportunity to try LFS with the Oculus Rift, and damn, it was fun!
I didn't had a wheel nor my own LFS installation with mod, but it was still really fun !
The new mirrors are on a whole new level in VR, and the possibility to see ourself in it is just mad, even my teacher had fun doing it!
BTW, it seems that VR really helps people figure out the handling in LFS, I made my friend and teacher try it, and in less than 30 seconds they got the basics where I'm sure no one would have survived with a standard display!
The only complains I can make are:
- The low resolution of the headset is really visible on LFS, I can't even distinguish things that are far away, it just look like a pixel mess. I think using supersamping and a temporal filter would greatly help
- The UI is a bit hard to aim, adding a hover to the buttons and a bit of aim assist would be great
- Adding gamepad controls out of the box is really awesome, but damn, why the analog steering smoothing is not enabled by default with it ? Just like I requested before, please make this parameter controller dependent and not global, and set it to max for the default controller setup
Anyway, that was fun, and I hope that I could try it on the HTC Vive in two weeks. Keep you updated! Keep it up ScaViEr!
Hey Daniel,
I just had an idea for the dashboard: since the in game resolution is low, did you tried to render it at twice the resolution and downsample it with a supersampling algorithm ? It may increase quality
I just had an idea for the dashboard: since the in game resolution is low, did you tried to render it at twice the resolution and downsample it with a supersampling algorithm ? It may increase quality
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG