Well, I use 3D Vision and it's really great. It does give better feel, and does make it more realistic.
Also.. with '2D' you don't see how awesome cockpits in cars actually are. In 3D they are.. just awesome!
However, for RPG's 3D Vision really owns too (especially for World of Warcraft
).
Also.. with '2D' you don't see how awesome cockpits in cars actually are. In 3D they are.. just awesome!
However, for RPG's 3D Vision really owns too (especially for World of Warcraft
).I have tried also with various sound driver versions. Latest ones have issues, again especially in LFS - crackling and similar noises. I had to revert to somewhat older ones which work OK.
However, the issue forementioned happens with any newer version of Nvidia drivers.
I may try latest version of both drivers and see what happens.
However, the issue forementioned happens with any newer version of Nvidia drivers.
I may try latest version of both drivers and see what happens.
Issue with newer Nvidia drivers
My PC config:
E6750 on Gigabyte 965P-DS3P with 4gig RAM, Audigy 2ZS, some hard drives
, and Gigabyte GTX275 (896M) with Windows 7 x64
I currently use Nvidia driver 190.62
Basically, any newer than 195.xxx (including latest 257.15) I get occasional black screen freeze with sound loop, which lasts for approx 10 second. After that, all goes back to normal.
It happens like once in hour or few hours, but you can imagine mayhem it can make
As said, tried now even with latest 257.15 drivers, but due to same issue had to revert to the old ones.
In other games I don't have any such issues.
E6750 on Gigabyte 965P-DS3P with 4gig RAM, Audigy 2ZS, some hard drives
, and Gigabyte GTX275 (896M) with Windows 7 x64I currently use Nvidia driver 190.62
Basically, any newer than 195.xxx (including latest 257.15) I get occasional black screen freeze with sound loop, which lasts for approx 10 second. After that, all goes back to normal.
It happens like once in hour or few hours, but you can imagine mayhem it can make
As said, tried now even with latest 257.15 drivers, but due to same issue had to revert to the old ones.
In other games I don't have any such issues.
DNS part is easily done.
Depending on your default TTL (which is generally set to 1 day), you lower it more than 1 day before actual action to 5 min.
So, during 24 hours new TTL will propagate everywhere.
What this means is when you change IP to new one, you also change DNS. This also means it will take upto 5 min for whole world to know new address.
After all is done and finished, you put TTL back to original value.
It would actually be cool if people know what they are talking about.
DX7 vs DX8 vx DX9 ...
You >can< force code to use higher DX version. Same code, different libraries.
Will it change anything? Maybe, but only for negligible part.
Main difference between DX versions is in extra features each one has.
Just changing DX version without code rewrite will have minor, if any FPS impact.
However, adding extra GFX goodies with new DX may even have negative FPS impact.
On the other hand, on server like IHR with tons of cars, I'd say bigger bottleneck could be CPU.
Somehow I doubt LFS is written with multicore support in mind.
Similar fate suffer other games, like World of Warcraft for example.
Often false conclusion is that quad core is better than dual core CPU, while it has more 'horsepower', very often in games dual-core will perform better due to higher core frequency which is due to lack of proper multicore design (code) of game itself.
In other words, I believe you'd get better FPS increase with re-coding game to properly support more cores.
However, with development as is, I do not see that as an possibility anywhere near in this century
DX7 vs DX8 vx DX9 ...
You >can< force code to use higher DX version. Same code, different libraries.
Will it change anything? Maybe, but only for negligible part.
Main difference between DX versions is in extra features each one has.
Just changing DX version without code rewrite will have minor, if any FPS impact.
However, adding extra GFX goodies with new DX may even have negative FPS impact.
On the other hand, on server like IHR with tons of cars, I'd say bigger bottleneck could be CPU.
Somehow I doubt LFS is written with multicore support in mind.
Similar fate suffer other games, like World of Warcraft for example.
Often false conclusion is that quad core is better than dual core CPU, while it has more 'horsepower', very often in games dual-core will perform better due to higher core frequency which is due to lack of proper multicore design (code) of game itself.
In other words, I believe you'd get better FPS increase with re-coding game to properly support more cores.
However, with development as is, I do not see that as an possibility anywhere near in this century
I must say I find it always interesting how much people complain for price of software.
I'm not saying it's you, but very often people buy hardware in worth 1000$+ yet 50$ or less is 'too much' and 'too expensive' for something they use *a lot*.
Back to topic (again), 50$ for this game is fair. It's good game. But as I said before, monthly fee is out of question since they are not hosting servers, nor have any actual support / questionable development.
Actually, it wouldn't.
Just one of those myths.
That's why they invented rev limiters.
Monthly fee could be viable only if they hosted servers and we actually get regular updates.
With current scheme - no go.
With current scheme - no go.
Not entirely true... surge on BOV is situation you mention: when spring is too stiff and vacuum alone is not enough to open fully BOV.
Also, keep in mind vacuum alone >can< be enough to open BOV - it's pure physics.
Inside BOV is a piston which is pushed by spring so it's in closed position.
Area that's on pressurized side is for example 1 cm^2 (as example).
However on other side there's vacuum line and on other side of piston it's bigger surface area - example 4 cm^2.
This means if piston would move at 0.5bar negative pressure it is same as if it were pushed with 2 bar pressure on pressurized side (different surface size).
This way you can have stiff spring to hold high boost, yet have vacuum alone enough to open BOV.
What this also means - when there's pressure in intake it will also help keep BOV closed on boost, so it is not only the spring that is holding it closed.
This however is very dependent on BOV itself.
Also, keep in mind vacuum alone >can< be enough to open BOV - it's pure physics.
Inside BOV is a piston which is pushed by spring so it's in closed position.
Area that's on pressurized side is for example 1 cm^2 (as example).
However on other side there's vacuum line and on other side of piston it's bigger surface area - example 4 cm^2.
This means if piston would move at 0.5bar negative pressure it is same as if it were pushed with 2 bar pressure on pressurized side (different surface size).
This way you can have stiff spring to hold high boost, yet have vacuum alone enough to open BOV.
What this also means - when there's pressure in intake it will also help keep BOV closed on boost, so it is not only the spring that is holding it closed.
This however is very dependent on BOV itself.
Exactly.
This was turbo surge, due to wrongfully dimensioned turbo for engine.
This is why you have compressor maps for turbo's to size them appropriately, and why there are different A/R ratios, etc..
Generally this is due to too stiff spring
Well, BOV can also release air based on over-pressure, but that's like last-resort option, as it's not precise, and idea is to release any positive pressure out when flapper is closed.
It depends on spring stiffness in it.
2senn: yes, flapper = throttle body = butterfly
It depends on spring stiffness in it.
2senn: yes, flapper = throttle body = butterfly
mdmx, you confused things a bit.
The pressures you mention are NOT in intake manifold but inbetween turbo compressor and flapper.
Blowoff valve/dump valve is connected via vacuum line to intake body - and to make clear, this is what open it. Blowof itself sits inbetween turbo and intake flapper.
When you release throttle, you close flapper -> at that point in intake manifold pressure goes to negative (vacuum) while turbo is still pushing air due to inertia. This air hits flapper and build still bust in intake pipe to manifold.
This is where blowoff comes to play. Due to vacuum in intake manifold it opens up BOV (remember, it's connected to intake manifold via vacuum line). While opening up, it releases boost either into air or back infront of turbo (VTA or recirtulating BOV) - air released is one inbetween turbo and intake flapper.
Reason for this is due to no gasses to spool turbo and pressure in intake turbo starts drastical deceleration which can damage bearings.
The pressures you mention are NOT in intake manifold but inbetween turbo compressor and flapper.
Blowoff valve/dump valve is connected via vacuum line to intake body - and to make clear, this is what open it. Blowof itself sits inbetween turbo and intake flapper.
When you release throttle, you close flapper -> at that point in intake manifold pressure goes to negative (vacuum) while turbo is still pushing air due to inertia. This air hits flapper and build still bust in intake pipe to manifold.
This is where blowoff comes to play. Due to vacuum in intake manifold it opens up BOV (remember, it's connected to intake manifold via vacuum line). While opening up, it releases boost either into air or back infront of turbo (VTA or recirtulating BOV) - air released is one inbetween turbo and intake flapper.
Reason for this is due to no gasses to spool turbo and pressure in intake turbo starts drastical deceleration which can damage bearings.
I said it was 'simplified version'
But ofc, wastegate opens flapper on exhaust part, so part of exhaust gasses goes around the impeller to reduce pressure turbo makes.
FYI: Was quite a lot into turbo's 5+ years ago, when I custom installed turbo on my Honda Civic + all changes (fuel, mapping) it needed. Hell, even understood how to read compressor maps for turbo's/calculate based on them
Blow off is connected to intake manifold.
It opens up on negative pressure (vacuum) in intake manifold, which is achived with closing throttle butterfly/low throttle.
Wastegate is generally also connected to intake manifold and will open up when there's excess of pressure in intake manifold and by this way regulates intake pressure.
This is just simplified version.
As for turbo spooling. It's spooled by exhaust gasses. More load, more exhaust gasses -> more boost -> more power/exhaust gasses.
Since this part does take some time you generally can only generate low boost in 1st/2nd gear, and very often none while in neutral (or very low - depending on engine/turbo size).
For making it easier calculation, using engine load 'can' be used as starting point to go and calculate how much boost turbo will generate. Ofcourse, factors as turbo spool time, etc cannot be ommited.
2 Tim: It depends. If you're in gear (like 4th/5th or so) - yes, boost will fly up, granted there's still no ignition cut.
It opens up on negative pressure (vacuum) in intake manifold, which is achived with closing throttle butterfly/low throttle.
Wastegate is generally also connected to intake manifold and will open up when there's excess of pressure in intake manifold and by this way regulates intake pressure.
This is just simplified version.
As for turbo spooling. It's spooled by exhaust gasses. More load, more exhaust gasses -> more boost -> more power/exhaust gasses.
Since this part does take some time you generally can only generate low boost in 1st/2nd gear, and very often none while in neutral (or very low - depending on engine/turbo size).
For making it easier calculation, using engine load 'can' be used as starting point to go and calculate how much boost turbo will generate. Ofcourse, factors as turbo spool time, etc cannot be ommited.
2 Tim: It depends. If you're in gear (like 4th/5th or so) - yes, boost will fly up, granted there's still no ignition cut.
It's for automatic.
As far as I remembers, it's similar as to 'regular' automatic -> PRND32 (or something inline of that).
Actually it's even 'big lag' not low lag in most situations.
If you have high rpm's, spool will come much faster. On low rpm's you can't build boost.
Also, with big turbo's you cannot build max boost in at least first 1 gears, due how fast engine revs and lack of exhaust gasses to spin turbo that fast that soon.
If you have high rpm's, spool will come much faster. On low rpm's you can't build boost.
Also, with big turbo's you cannot build max boost in at least first 1 gears, due how fast engine revs and lack of exhaust gasses to spin turbo that fast that soon.
Well, what I meant by 'martix' is simple matrix holding data simlar to turbo-maps themselves.
What creates boost is exhaust gases, so in neutral it's simply not possible to build max boost by flooring it.
On a same note - flooring gas in neutral should not consume same amount of fuel as floored pedal in some gear while driving (amount of fuel should be somewhat equal to power produced).
What creates boost is exhaust gases, so in neutral it's simply not possible to build max boost by flooring it.
On a same note - flooring gas in neutral should not consume same amount of fuel as floored pedal in some gear while driving
(amount of fuel should be somewhat equal to power produced).More realistic turbo simulation
If anyone has driver real turbo car, they'd notice turbo emu/simulation is .. well... not really right.
Building boost in neutral is impossible, unless there's specifically option in ECU for it, which moves ignition way back, so most of gas expansion actually happens after exhaust valves are open.
This can be found on some race cars to enable for faster start, but in more 'regular' cars is, well.. not an option.
Also, such thing can/will damage engine if used too much due to high exhaust temperatures.
Another thing is how boost is built when you lift off and press again on throttle, as it's not that much realistic either, just doesn't have realistic feel.
For better turbo emulation you should have a matrix similar to turbo map itself, which could ease way the spool/boost is calculated, and which could keep in account turbo rotational speed too.
Well, it doesn't need to be calculated as is in real world, but make it feel more real
Building boost in neutral is impossible, unless there's specifically option in ECU for it, which moves ignition way back, so most of gas expansion actually happens after exhaust valves are open.
This can be found on some race cars to enable for faster start, but in more 'regular' cars is, well.. not an option.
Also, such thing can/will damage engine if used too much due to high exhaust temperatures.
Another thing is how boost is built when you lift off and press again on throttle, as it's not that much realistic either, just doesn't have realistic feel.
For better turbo emulation you should have a matrix similar to turbo map itself, which could ease way the spool/boost is calculated, and which could keep in account turbo rotational speed too.
Well, it doesn't need to be calculated as is in real world, but make it feel more real
Whoa... something what is completely wrong. You can make best SIM racing game ever. But, as time passes, new things come, and this best sim gets outdated.
Because it was best ever >than< it isn't now anymore.
And you cannot expect community to keep that game alive, just because developers of the game lay low as they had best game ever at that time.
This applies to LFS, as it does to anything in this world. Point being: too slow development is killing the game.
PS: All those 'moaning' posts, including mine, doesn't mean we don't like the game. We do. We play it. We love it. But, if it's neglected by developers, it will die out.
Back to original topic
Few months ago I also tried LFS, but under VMware, with 3D acceleration.
E6750 @3.4GHz / Geforce GTX275 on Windows7 host and WinXP guest.
It run at around 30-ish FPS, no graphic glitches.
Few months ago I also tried LFS, but under VMware, with 3D acceleration.
E6750 @3.4GHz / Geforce GTX275 on Windows7 host and WinXP guest.
It run at around 30-ish FPS, no graphic glitches.
Just wondering - ones who are actually using this, can you play that way for several hours? Any headaches, eye strain, etc..?
Thrustmaster F430 mini review
Previously owned one of first FFB wheel - Logitech Wingman Formula Force (the rubber red one).
But decided it's time for an upgrade. G25 was about twice the price of F430, and with as much time (not that much) I spend playing LFS or similar games, did not find it worth to cash so much more for G25, nor did I find I would miss 720 rotation/H shifter that much dissatisfying.
So, the choice was Thrustmaster F430.
Reviews that I found said it was quite good, with decent FFB, and hopefully a bit better quality from Thrustmaster than their previous wheels.
Package was really nice when I got and mounted.
Wheel really feels 'good' in hands with it's design. But, as it is rubber after some time spent playing my hand did start to sweat a bit, but not enough for wheel to actually slip.
Design of wheel is really good done (hey, it's a replica anyway), and wheel itself seems sturdy and with decent quality, as do paddle shifters (although they do seem to be a bit 'up').
Pedals are decently 'heavy' with brake having progressive feel when pressing it, which is good. Watch out only when pressing both pedals, as bottom might 'lift' up, due to force both pedals require (base could be heavier).
But.. after 2 days wheel started producing 'plastic' noise, like something is rubbing in it. I looked way to open it myself, but two screws are under 'Thrustmaster' logo on top of it, so decided not to void warranty and return it to the shop. After some days got it back - repaired. Apparently something inside needed some lubrication.
Also after some days tightening and removing proved to be a it harder - clamp does hold, but part where you tight it in needed some lubrication.
But.. (again), something didn't feel right - there was too much 'dead zone' play, basically when turning wheel to one side I had to turn it few degrees to opposite before it actually registered something. This made driving straight quite hard and 'swirvy'.
Since top of cover where screws are was now obviously opened, decided to take a look myself. Problem was pot was having some free play in contact to wheel itself. Getting pot out and adding some duct tape fixed the issue, and it worked perfectly.
But.. (yet, again) - after few weeks heard some 'clunk' from pedals, and something came loose inside.
Again, a bit mad ad things, open it up, and there was reason. Magnet which adds for progressive feel in brake came loos - plastic it was fixed in broke. Fixed it myself, and voila - works great again.
Overall, wheels works really good - feel is good in game, it sits really good in hands.
But, Thrustmasters build quality came into play once again, and even though it looks at first sight as sturdy wheel, inside it's quite fragile.
Looking at the belt inside the wheel - I am not wondering if it could break in some time - but when it will break.
Another niggle is tension pulley on belt - for some reason it's not centered properly, and while turning wheel one can feel it a bit.
Overall, too much plastic in some parts, and just pure lack of quality (again, *inside*, as outside it does look much better quality).
It's really a shame, as it could have been really GREAT wheel.
I still use it, and will use it as long as it lasts, and prolly will try to fix/improve it myself when needed - but it should have been much better out of the box.
But decided it's time for an upgrade. G25 was about twice the price of F430, and with as much time (not that much) I spend playing LFS or similar games, did not find it worth to cash so much more for G25, nor did I find I would miss 720 rotation/H shifter that much dissatisfying.
So, the choice was Thrustmaster F430.
Reviews that I found said it was quite good, with decent FFB, and hopefully a bit better quality from Thrustmaster than their previous wheels.
Package was really nice when I got and mounted.
Wheel really feels 'good' in hands with it's design. But, as it is rubber after some time spent playing my hand did start to sweat a bit, but not enough for wheel to actually slip.
Design of wheel is really good done (hey, it's a replica anyway
), and wheel itself seems sturdy and with decent quality, as do paddle shifters (although they do seem to be a bit 'up').Pedals are decently 'heavy' with brake having progressive feel when pressing it, which is good. Watch out only when pressing both pedals, as bottom might 'lift' up, due to force both pedals require (base could be heavier).
But.. after 2 days wheel started producing 'plastic' noise, like something is rubbing in it. I looked way to open it myself, but two screws are under 'Thrustmaster' logo on top of it, so decided not to void warranty and return it to the shop. After some days got it back - repaired. Apparently something inside needed some lubrication.
Also after some days tightening and removing proved to be a it harder - clamp does hold, but part where you tight it in needed some lubrication.
But.. (again), something didn't feel right - there was too much 'dead zone' play, basically when turning wheel to one side I had to turn it few degrees to opposite before it actually registered something. This made driving straight quite hard and 'swirvy'.
Since top of cover where screws are was now obviously opened, decided to take a look myself. Problem was pot was having some free play in contact to wheel itself. Getting pot out and adding some duct tape fixed the issue, and it worked perfectly.
But.. (yet, again) - after few weeks heard some 'clunk' from pedals, and something came loose inside.
Again, a bit mad ad things, open it up, and there was reason. Magnet which adds for progressive feel in brake came loos - plastic it was fixed in broke. Fixed it myself, and voila - works great again.
Overall, wheels works really good - feel is good in game, it sits really good in hands.
But, Thrustmasters build quality came into play once again, and even though it looks at first sight as sturdy wheel, inside it's quite fragile.
Looking at the belt inside the wheel - I am not wondering if it could break in some time - but when it will break.
Another niggle is tension pulley on belt - for some reason it's not centered properly, and while turning wheel one can feel it a bit.
Overall, too much plastic in some parts, and just pure lack of quality (again, *inside*, as outside it does look much better quality).
It's really a shame, as it could have been really GREAT wheel.
I still use it, and will use it as long as it lasts, and prolly will try to fix/improve it myself when needed - but it should have been much better out of the box.
Ooops... missed than one. Sorry :slap: 
It works fine. Tested on Vista64, and now running in Windows7 64bit.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG