Quote from Breizh :

Pics for FE9 thru 13 are broken.

Nah, they're just not done yet. Whoever is doing them has to make the mini-oval to add to the possible layouts, they'll probably be up today or tomorrow.

Quote from aroX123 :

super idea man

I think maybe you accidentally voted wrong in this case.

Quote from q1pass :

ok then im must first patented it

Why patent it if you're going to give it to the devs for free?

Re-reading the OP I was surprised that no one mentioned this bit:

Quote from Scawen :

The story behind the new patch :

A few weeks ago I was working on some track editor improvements that Eric had requested

Dear anyone who doubted that Eric was working,



That is all.

Quote from Krane :

By your logic, anything in the 1st post change log is "not possible" and "can not be done"

Not really. If you read what Scawen said the fully-open map is still a bit of a half-done job. The engine (back then and currently as well) does have the limitations that the posts you mock describe, so it wasn't possible to have an open map (and still isn't with all the intended features of the engine). Obviously if you change the engine different things become possible.

Quote from Krane :

"Something we don't have yet" and "seems possible" not quite the same as "not possible".

It wasn't possible with LFS's then-current engine. Scawen changed things (and has resorted to leaving out light maps and other stuff) in order to get it working. I hardly see how people repeating what Scawen said are dunces.

Quote from Flame CZE :

One more question though, what effect does it have on the open configs, when it doesn't have "echo maps" and "light maps"? An absence of some shadows?

I have a feeling it'll feel slightly "wrong" in comparison to what we know. Hopefully only slightly.

Quote from Krane :

And all other nay-sayers, this is for you: :dunce:

I'm pretty sure if you tried hard enough you could find a post where Scawen said it wasn't possible a long time back. He even mentioned that he had to re-write some stuff for the new shift+u camera controls and that led to the open-track.

Quote from DevilDare :

Me and a friend were talking about this. Imagine the Kyoto Super Long GP endurance with like 64 cars. So much win its impossible to do.

But yeah, good question. Although I think there is more behind it than just track lenghts.

Like grid spots (easily changeable) and pit boxes (not so easily) and netcode/people with poor internet connections (not under Scawen's control) and the graphical hit of being 64th on the grid (who knows how easy this is to deal with).

Quote from Flame CZE :

Well, it can be just one number as a sum of the two vectors, plus an arrow indicating the direction.

Well online it's a point that ghosts around. It could either be that or an arrow that only shows the instantaneous direction. I was asking which (or perhaps something else) it was.

Quote from Scawen :

Misc :

Misc options : F9 / F10 accelerometer can be shown as one value

Does this mean it'll be a circular graph like in LFSWorld RAFA's Overview?

Thanks for the chance to play with new things

And then me too of course.

Yeah but luckily Phil and Yann posted to make this thread a little better.

Quote from PMD9409 :

Journey to F1 (MRT > FBM > FOX > FO8 > BF1)

Road to F1 was a really good event when DSR put it on. That's probably where you got the idea though, isn't it?

There was a stillborn sister-league too, Road to GTR.

UF1 -> STD -> TBO -> FZ5/RAC -> nGT -> GTR

Quote from Bose321 :

Wut.

He's clearly complaining about the lack of development. No weather changes, no rally pack, the Scirocco aint all that, only a little bit (updates? news?) per year.

Quote from Forbin :

Given the opportunity to improve upon a racing organization's procedures in a way that would improve competition, would you not capitalize upon that opportunity? Or would you prefer to dogmatically follow the existing procedures, even if it meant competition suffered as a result?

You're fighting a brick wall with a toothpick here, there's no way they'll change. Both ways of doing this (with or without SCs) have their followers, and NDR is definitely for it. Trust me, they've been doing it for a while and are pretty good at it (even if some racers aren't good at dealing with it), either race and accept it or don't and find something that suits your tastes better.

On that site it says 13 configurations, are there really that many unique paths? Anyone know what the other 6 are?

Quote from PMD9409 :

Well when you take the LFS version of FBM around Rockingham and you see a different time to that of real life, what do you expect needs changing?

More than likely skill of the driver and quality of the setup, among other things

Quote from shashdev :

UHHHHH, say wha?!!?!?!?! 2 new cars? I know about the Scirocco. What's the other one? Clearly I haven't been paying attention...

Many many moons ago it was said that besides the Scirocco there would be another car on S3's launch. For a time it was rumored to be the Audi R10 (or was that R15?) and that still may be the case, but nothing beyond the fact that it'll be Scirocco + 1 car has been confirmed.

Quote from Guthix :

WAS THINKING THE SAME

But we cant see what he posted But if that the video from rockingham site is LFS i do want naow. Hope it will be released soon since the video from rockingham site looks LFS legit

Don't get your hopes up, it's not the Rockingham track that's holding up S3's release.

Quote from Rathalos888 :

Thanks guys. Is there still a good amount of races going on daily? Or are there only like, 3 servers with anyone in them, and they aren't even racing, generally speaking, on a day to day basis?

Also, I have that Logitech gamepad that was mentioned earlier. With it would I still have t do all the stuff I had to to try to get the 360 controller working? Meh whatever, I'll try it out. Thanks again.

Well there may be only 3 servers a day with a full grid, but there are dozens more that will have 10+ at some point during the day. It's only during the middle of the night (east coast USA) that it's a graveyard. There may be 2-4 servers with any racing going on at all, and its like 6 drivers max.

Go ahead and get the full game, you'll be able to get more than enough out of it for it to be worth it.

I'm just gonna assume that said banana since the post is gone.

Oh I see, missed that somehow.

Quote from AutoPilot :

You said, exact quote, "LFS isn't really at a stage where it needs to use more than one core".

What I had given was a quote from Victor(*) from which it can be inferred that LFS is at a stage where a physics model is too complex to be handled by current CPUs with reasonable FPS, and is one of the reasons for the patch delay. Assuming it's true, do you still think there's no reason for more than one core? I just don't see a rationale for that. Going from one core to four provides a theoretical boost available now that ST performance will not reach in a decade at least.


(*) Shotglass really gave it now that I've read it again, but seems it originates from Victor.

I'm talking about what I know, and what people asking for multithreading, Patch Z28. Victor (would be interesting to read that quote if you could paste it here) maybe is talking about what Scawen has behind closed doors? I dunno how you can expect me to be talking about a version of LFS that isn't public if that is indeed what you're talking about with the quote.

Edit: Either way it doesn't much matter, Scawen either will or he wont rewrite stuff to make it multi-threaded, would be nice if LFS got complex enough physics to necessitate MT, I'm sure we can all agree to that (except a handful who have 7 year old computers )

The only reason I brought all this up in the first place is it seems like people are asking for it simply because it's a newer technology, not because LFS actually needs it. Maybe someday it will need it and this discussion will be moot.

Last edited by pik_d, Tue, 5 Apr 2011 03:55.

Quote from Gener_AL (UK) :

You have tried south city pikd with Full grid?

Well I tried this from the back of a grid at SO4R in GTAL, the lowest my FPS ever goes is 48. This is with all the graphical options in LFS set as high as they can go, and with vsync turned off now. Maybe something is wrong with troy's setup if he's getting as low as 25.

Quote from AutoPilot :

I saw that link when Eza first posted it (I've even posted in that thread if you go through it ). I'd say that 4870 is a fair bit faster than ATI 2900, but it's true that LFS is largely CPU limited.
The numbers there are based on the current patch though, unless you think that physics is OK as it is, I still disagree that MT isn't needed. You can always get a bit more refined and more complex model with more CPU performance. And LFS being singlethreaded, there's a LOT more headroom going MT than trying to squeeze more from ST.

The only thread about what I said that I could find in my brief search was this: http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=1426006#post1426006

I didn't say it was just DX8, I said it's also outdated, which is true. I mean it ran pretty fine with my Ti4200 back in the day without too many cars around, and IGPs on Sandy Bridge, and especially the upcoming AMD's Llano with 400SPs are practically orders of magnitude more powerful.

Look at my first post in this thread: http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=1573560#post1573560. I say that I don't think LFS as-is needs multi-threading. People ask for it without anything else attached, like "I wish LFS had multi-threading and support for better physics and this and that and the other thing". They ask for multi-threading by itself as if it'll make LFS better without tons of other stuff being implemented.

Of course I would love for the physics to improve, actual realistic crash damage, higher poly-count tracks/cars, and tons of other things that would make multi-threading a means to those ends.

Quote from AutoPilot :

IIRC, Scawen or Victor once said that if we all had monster CPUs, the patch would have been out. I assume this also accounts for multithreading, because not having enough ST performance and not looking into MT in an application that should scale well with cores, is doing it wrong, very wrong...

And with an outdated DX8 graphics with no graphics updates in site, the newer IGPs from both Intel and AMD won't be a bottleneck.


@S14 DRIFT
Max is 32 cars on the track.
1280x1024 is quite a low resolution nowadays, maybe his monitor is bigger...

That may be ST vs. MT or it may just be needing to aggressively optimize for lower end computers regardless of thread count.

Just because something is DX8 doesn't mean integrated graphics is powerful enough to handle it. There's many cars that support a certain DX# but cry when they try to run a game with it.

And check out the link in Gener_AL (UK)'s post, it shows that resolution doesn't change FPS with a graphics card about as good as S14's.