Your Name: Neil Conway
Your LFS Licence: neilser
Team Name: Sonicrealms Racing
Driver Number: 20
Car Selection: XFG
Nation: Ireland

Quote from Amynue :

Some quotes from CEO of Oculus:
1) We can make custom hardware, not rely on the scraps of the mobile phone industry. That is insanely expensive, think hundreds of millions of dollars. More news soon.
2) We can afford to hire everyone we need, the best people that fit into our culture of excellence in all aspects.
3) We can make huge investments in content. More news soon.

I'm thinking that (just possibly) Dave was not being sarcastic with his original post ("just what was needed")
Like most people, I also thought "aw shit" at first, but then things like the CEO mentions above started to occur to me. If FB truly stay hands-off then it's probably a major win all round...
And as Jason says, we can all chill out cos VR is inevitable now.
(Having said all that - I was fighting the impulse to buy one until I read the news. Now... I'm not. Will wait and see.)

Quote from cargame.nl :

Expected shipping @July but the year is not mentioned

LOL FAQ does state 2014, so fear not

Quote from Bose321 :

I guess we will never see any new patch now.

Huh? Noooo noooo, you've got it all wrong. This guarantees we'll have the tyre physics patch in July, cos Scawen will want to have it out of the way before enjoying his new Rift

Quote from englishlord :

highly insecure to even connect to the internet and download the game updates.

Hmm, I reckon that's overstating the risk quite a bit for a "typical" user who is behind a NATing router with little or no port forwarding turned on.

Having said that, even though I'm a big fan of XP I'm not hugely keen on staying with it much after April. I don't like 7 much so far, strongly dislike Vista, and 8[.1] is just weird. So... wtf to do.

I'm tempted to stick with XP a little longer, on the basis that most of the risk I currently experience is via the browser (+ Flash etc.) in any case. When I replace this PC (well overdue) I suppose I'll have to choose between 7 and 8....

Edit: forgot to ask Scawen a question:

Quote from Scawen :

2) Windows 7 has made it IMPOSSIBLE to run a dual screen setup using Nvidia cards, where the wide desktop is reported as a single surface. [snip]

I'm guessing that (surely??) there must be a "supported" and vendor-independent way to drive multiple screens - if this is the case then do you dislike it because it saps performance (relative to a single-surface model) or for another reason?

Last edited by Neilser, Mon, 24 Feb 2014 18:10. Reason : Q for Scawen

Quote from Racer X NZ :

Personally, 3.11 for Workgroups has yet to be beaten, everything else is just going to more bloat.

Ah yes, it was good (compared to 3.1 anyway!) but I'm presuming you never experienced NT 3.51. IMHO nobody who did would ever consider going back to WFW 3.11 NT3.51 was the pinnacle of stability, and a bling-free zone.

Hmm, thought-provoking, thanks.

My "textures (excluding skins)" is set to high - changing that probably wouldn't help though? (Because it says "excluding skins").

My "car and helmet skins" is set to compressed, which (from the explanation offered by the question-mark button) appears to be the option for best performance. I am too noobish to know how to do high/super-high res skins (so am presumably doing neither ).

However, your comment also made me think again about the skins_x folder - it had got quite big so (by coincidence, lol) I purged it last night. Will see if that makes a difference... (I'm thinking that reads/writes to that folder might take a while if the folder has thousands of entries.)

Funnily enough I'm noticing pit-out (and possibly join-related??) stutter much more recently than I ever recall from the past. However I'm mostly running 0.6E - I don't think it has been any better/worse with E13/14.

Quote from DANIEL-CRO :

Neilser, do you mean something like this? (attachment)

Circles with numbers represent point (physical) where physics is calculated.
When LFS detect that split has been passed, it calls function which will calculate time more "precisely".
For example:
SplitTime = TimeInPoint2 - LengthOf_a / VelocityInPoint2;

Its not like Velocity can change much between two time steps (0.01s).
IMO its good on a paper, saves CPU power (no need to use 1000Hz physics to get 1ms splits precision)...

Yeah, that's pretty much what I mean (many ways to tackle it but that's one).
And in fact I reckon LFS already has all the maths to handle velocity changing between timepoints because I seem to recall that it uses multiple derivatives in order to make multiplayer mode work well with only a few updates per second. (Can't recall how many derivatives tho.) That's the part that could make it more accurate to do it by interpolation than (what I'm guessing is) the current scheme
(To do the best possible job on it, you would also need to store the previous point's information - position, time, velocity, accel, and the higher derivatives; the storage required would be negligible. However, doing it by just using the current point's info is probably acceptably accurate anyway.)

Quote from Dygear :

But that would be a lie. Do you really want to lose a race because the game engine took a guess. I guess you could make the argument that everything is a lie.

Huh?
I'm unsure where you see a problem here.
Interpolation of a smoothly varying quantity is NOT the same as a guess.
(In fact, it's arguably better than the current scheme, but the difference would only be apparent if you really split hairs.)

Quote from DANIEL-CRO :

Physics loop doesn't seem to be very heavy for a CPU (with not as much cars in race) for example try minimizing LFS, CPU usage will fall down immediately, even though physics is still updated. There are other loops heavier in normal conditions.

Ah, OK, excellent point, thanks. I had been thinking that open tracks were harder on the CPU because of the physics loop doing more, but that didn't quite make sense either. Your explanation does seem to match the evidence awfully well

Quote from DANIEL-CRO :

Key reason for selecting 100 Hz, is probably 0.01s time precision. (1/100)
If physics would run at 120 Hz, first loop=0.008333s, second=0.01666s, ... users will definitely like such a times on splits

Agreed, BUT (as I once suggested in the distant past) LFS could semi-trivially interpolate between the current position+time and the previous one to give much higher precision splits. This would free the physics clock to be run at whatever we want. (Probably same for everyone tho, or sync issues...)

What's not overly clear is whether we'd gain anything at all by exceeding 100 Hz. How does one quantify smoothness?

Last night I played with limiting the frame rate to 50fps (I was hoping for exactly 2 physics updates per frame). It didn't really work though as the expected frequency lock did not occur - it was dancing around the 48 fps mark... (It was capable of 90-100 fps when not limited.)

Funny you say that - some time back, before I realised LFS was single-threaded, I had assumed that there was a physics thread which would regularly update, and a separate graphics thread which would display stuff from the most recent snapshot (bit like double-buffering) of the physics data
(Beneath this was the possibly-wrong assumption that the snapshots required by the graphics thread were pretty small.)

My own particular problem right now appears to be linked to CPU overload (open tracks). Not sure what would fix that. Is it really the case that the physics loop is still updating at 100 Hz even when the CPU is pegged and the graphics update rate falls to 30 fps or less?
(I confess I have yet to try the DX9 patch as I was assuming it would make things worse.)

Edit: no argument on the tiny pixels. Total waste!

Aha. Thanks, and apologies - I was unaware.

Quote from Scawen :

If there is a difference in the number of physics calculations, the replay will go out of sync. Every physics update is run at a time step of 0.01 seconds, and LFS tries to keep this in sync with real time by doing enough physics calculations to keep up with real time.

Yes, this struck me the other day. So the problem (if it exists!) is likely to be connected with inputs from controllers (as someone else suggested) and/or visual feedback. The car would then be nominally doing exactly what it's told, but what the driver is telling it to do is messed up either because the driver isn't seeing the right things or the controllers aren't being read in a timely fashion...
I'm planning to do some experiments myself later. Might even do "blind" tests (i.e. I get someone else to set the fps limit and switch off the fps display )

Quote from DANIEL-CRO :

Anyway its not like you will see difference if your GPU is capable of 200 FPS, if you monitor refresh rate is 60 Hz. Look to it from bright side, 60 FPS will save you some $$ on electricity bill I would suggest everyone to play full screen with VSYNC

Makes sense, BUT I could have sworn someone asserted (some years ago? :shrug that the LFS physics loop was not entirely unaffected by the display FPS and thus (the argument went) it might feel better to have vsync off... Personally I don't think I ever tested it much though.

Quote from bishtop :

Its where you look then as the demo servers are mostly full the majority of the time. i know its only demo racing but much fun can be had when the crashers are kept away

Fair point, but whenever I succumb to the temptation to try demo, the normal pattern is that I enjoy it for a bit, and then it's ruined by idiots and I end up just wishing I hadn't bothered. (Having a grumpy day today! )

Quote from Gutholz :

See race calender at top of forum and events&leagues forum.
https://www.lfsforum.net/forumdisplay.php?f=22
There is more races then you will have to time to practice for.

Good idea, will check that out. The only downside of organised stuff is the need to find time to practice, rather than just enjoy some casual races. I do enjoy organised events now and then though.

Interesting questions...

When I really think about it, I reckon I don't really care about the Scirocco, or the new tyre physics - I'd appreciate them but if they never come, big deal.
I would kinda like new tracks, but again, no biggie.
I don't even care about the visuals.

What I really miss is drivers to race against. Had a look tonight, and no servers seemed worth bothering with - hardly anyone about

So, other people must care about something, cos they are leaving.
I'm wondering if the non-arrival of the promised stuff actually drove people away, or if the lack of developments would have done the same anyway even if stuff hadn't been announced...

Nice one! Gorgeous little car (well, not so little compared to your last one ) - shame it's so pricey in Norway, but enjoy it.
And so long as you do plenty of mileage and not too much city driving, the diesel is absolutely the right choice - plenty of power and fuel economy.
I'm gonna have to replace my own ancient and unwell Punto very soon. Much tinier budget, much lower mileage, so probly another ancient petrol shitbox...

[Edit: I reckon Takumi got banned for posting a really tasteless remark on the RIP thread.]

Last edited by Neilser, Wed, 22 Jan 2014 21:00.

Quote from Whiskey :

I guess I could be CPU bound (though no core is near 100% :S)

Hmm, when you say "no core is near 100%", are you saying that all cores are sharing the load, and if so, is the total CPU load from LFS equal to one core's worth? If so then you really are CPU-bound because LFS only seems to use one thread. For example, on my PC, I get 50% CPU load whenever LFS is CPU-bound because I only have two cores...

Quote from cargame.nl :

If that tyre psychics saga is not going to be completed / shutdown / put behind then there is no LFS future to begin with. How many times I now have heard the last years; "after the tyre psychics have been updated", it's becoming uncountable.

Thanks Dave - big smile on my face reading "psychics" instead of "physics"
(Now, was that accidental or am I missing the joke?)

But, hell yes, agreed. We can fantasise about a lovely multi-platform future for LFS, but tyre physics first please. This recent venture into DX tweaks is great to give the poor guy a short break from the tyre model but let's not extend it too far

Edit: ...OR, I'd also be OK with Scavier saying "tyre model is postponed indefinitely, but here are some new tracks"...

Update: I can't understand this at all, but today in the actual race, I had 70-90 fps ALL the time. I then went back to single-player mode just now to see if that was still going down to 30ish fps and it was also 70-90 fps, with the same layout as before on AS6X. I don't think any options were changed in between (I tweaked a few here and there but put 'em all back, and in any case I really think it was the CPU which was pegged anyway, not the GPU).

I'm totally bewildered now...

Quote from molocco :

looking forward to the dx9 test patch, so there is finally something new for me after the new 3d functions, which i do not use at this time.

I'm curious - what does DX9 offer you?

Quote from sti228 :

I don't understand why in this forum so many people think that i am from Mars and i can't use google ? It's because i am for Georgia ? Really ? I asked 2 questions. I don't need systems explain... And before ask here i read all topics about ban with ip address and don't find answer how to do this with windows firewall. Also as i said firewall block my server when it's turn on and can't find any way to start server when it's turn on (not off).

I confess I'm intrigued - a ban by IP address will fail as soon as the problem person gets a new IP number, which is trivially easy for many people.
Did you reject the idea of simply using a password on your server?

Quote from Eclipsed :

Just wondering,which part of track is it? The AWS layout has quite big amount of objects,wondering if they are causing fps drops. Or is it when your car turns in direction where the most of the track is in front of you?

It's a chunk which starts about half-way through sector 3, roughly the 5 or 6 corners before the hairpin, most noticeable on the fast left handers.

I did wonder about objects and view direction being important, which might conceivably change from lap to lap if the angle the car points is subtly different, but it's so hard to repeat...

Edit: clearing the layout boosts the FPS by about 30%; without a long test I don't know if it would prevent the jerkiness. I also know why you added so many objects - anti-cut )

(And yup, CodeLyoko1, it's ancient. If money was no object, I'd replace it tomorrow!)

Quote from DANIEL-CRO :

OS BL1 BL1X
Win7 106 89
WinXP 134 95

Bizarre that Win7 is so much slower than WinXP. My drops are MUCH bigger than yours. The FPS in AS6 is 93, while in AS6X it's 34 (fine until the jerks occur). The CPU usage goes from 15% to 50% (i.e. one core is flat out) when I switch to open layout (which suggests that GPU tweaks may not help...)

PS: thanks for the help guys

Last edited by Neilser, Sat, 18 Jan 2014 18:13. Reason : reply to Daniel

Howdy.

When open tracks first came out I noticed lots of people had problems but I was unaffected - my fps dropped quite a bit but LFS was always driveable even with a full grid on open layouts. (My PC is old - E4300/1.8GHz, Radeon X1650.)

I recently upgraded to 0.6E (from C), which may or may not be relevant, but in the last week or two while practicing for a race on AS6X/A61 I've found that even when alone on the race server, I am intermittently getting jerkiness and low fps which is bad enough to cause me to crash - frame rate drops to 15 fps and below, but the main issue is probably the jerks.

Nothing else on the PC seems to be consuming cycles (I've closed more or less everything else.)

Searching this forum didn't show up too many hits (surprisingly), so I'm wondering if anyone can help:

Firstly, is this mainly a GPU or CPU thing?
Secondly, any recommendations to mitigate it?

I haven't tried changing much yet, partly because it's so intermittent that I'm not sure how to conduct sensible tests. (I can drive 10 laps and only one of the laps hits a problem, which is normally at a particular part of the track. And the laps are LOOOOONG! )

Help gratefully received!

Quote from Bose321 :

Why did we need a DX9 version again?

Possibly to cope with chromatic aberration in the Rift?
See https://www.lfsforum.net/showt ... php?p=1830424#post1830424