1
2
Thanks for the testing.
That worst case situation of fast cars jumping about (e.g. BF1 as you mentioned) seems to me the most important thing to focus on at first. If I could do a better estimate of when it's important to send the next packet, that would help a lot. We can't just send full packet rate per second for all cars all the time as it would be a massive increase in bandwidth and CPU usage, so the solutions are really about the estimate and also making sure the remote car is initialised the best way it can be at the start of the prediction.
Do you know any simple and reproducible ways to create the worst looking effects, in these situations where high latency is not the cause of the problem? You mentioned the BF1 at high speed in corners, which I remember seeing.
Of course I also remember seeing cars all over the place due to users with a poor or distant internet connection but we can't really solve that. But if you can think of any simple ways to cause large displacement issues on good connections, that could help me as examples I can consider.
I can start DCon on a remote Linux computer using Wine and it is easy, at least on that server. I realise we are relying on external software so that's not ideal but it seems to work well. What are the problems with that?
I don't really know in the future but in the short and medium timeframe that seems pretty much impossible. I have quite a few things to get done for the release. To learn another graphics system and support it side by side with D3D11 would be a mistake. Even if it might be interesting from a programming viewpoint, I expect it would take months to do. I've just done three months of very intensive work this year while converting to D3D11 (although I did some other things too - not all that time was on the port) so the thought of another port is not something I can imagine now!
I read that D3D12 has similarities with Vulkan so if we are still developing LFS in quite a few years from now, I guess it would be time to make a decision between D3D12 and Vulkan.
It's good to hear that D3D11 still can work on Linux, because I don't want to restrict users to Windows. But I'm not so pleased to hear that D3D11 support requires a DX12/Vulkan GPU.
I don't have any plans to set up a Linux computer with a super graphics card to test DXVK - we don't have those kind of resources! As in space, time, money, etc. But hearing all those other games run fine, I would be surprised if LFS didn't.
I don't think this is a problem for LFS as we are not using the "Direct Mode" to generate the output image.
LFS generates the output image itself, using tracking info provided by the Rift and info to construct the distortion mesh, but this is provided in a way that does not depend on any DirectX version.
It just means we should stick with "Extended Mode" for now. It would be sad to move onto later versions of DirectX because that would eliminate Mac and Linux users and LFS would be literally Windows only. That is something I would like to avoid for as long as possible.
LFS generates the output image itself, using tracking info provided by the Rift and info to construct the distortion mesh, but this is provided in a way that does not depend on any DirectX version.
It just means we should stick with "Extended Mode" for now. It would be sad to move onto later versions of DirectX because that would eliminate Mac and Linux users and LFS would be literally Windows only. That is something I would like to avoid for as long as possible.
No, there's no way I would have said that because it doesn't make any sense.
We just recently moved from DX8.1 to DX9 so that we CAN move forward graphically. It's now up to me to program vertex and pixel shaders and work them into our systems. We have already done some of that and there's a lot more to come.
Just a reminder to anyone, moving to later versions if DirectX never changes anything immediately, they just allow you to access some more features of the graphics card. The biggest step relevant to LFS is DX8.1 to DX9 as it allows the use of pixel and vertex shaders using the HLSL language. This is gradually affecting LFS as we go forward.
It allowed the higher frame rates with many cars on screen (although the look was not changed, yet). It allowed the 3D anaglyph mode (which is not very useful really but interesting) and allowed me to program chromatic aberration correction on the Oculus Rift. It also allowed me to write the new hidden object removal system which is far better than the old one and your next patch should not have objects popping up randomly and not being visible when they should be.
OT: The Rift, by the way, caused us to look very closely at the graphics (because the pixels are a bit big in there) and we removed loads of the "alpha test" textures that made trees (and many other things) look blocky and ugly. LFS graphics came along a long way for 0.6G but many people have already forgotten that and claim the Rift doesn't benefit most people.
So... DX9 is a thing that helps us to go forward. It is not holding us back in any way.
Yes, there is nothing in that post to say we are being held back by retaining compatibility with XP and Linux (using Wine).
Note, you said yourself that 4% of people still use XP. All I have said from the beginning is there is NO REASON to make LFS unavailable to those people (and all Linux users). I'm not saying "it's a great pity that we still have to cater for these people". I'm saying, "it's absolutely no problem to let it run on XP because there is NO REASON to move onto later versions of DX".
Another thing I've said before is it is GREAT that LFS can work on older versions of Windows or even Linux. I am so happy about that because it defies corporate greed. LFS is one of the tiny things that opposes the insanity of modern capitalism. I can't stand sayings like "grow or die!" and "time is money!" which is the ridiculous propaganda of capitalism gone wrong. Everyone should slow down a bit and focus on quality rather than growth. LFS is part of that and I wish more people would be more patient. Some people are very patient, but others seem like total nutters!
DirectX is like a tool kit, allowing programs to use your hardware. There were many tools in DX8. DX9 got a load of brilliant higher tech tools which were easier to use. DX10 got a couple of extra tools but lost the ability to work with older computers.
Exactly the same as we have said all the time. The past hasn't changed. We didn't release it, because it wasn't satisfactory, in our opinion, with the current LFS tyre physics. We had to use unrealistic setups to make it feel good. That's why I started on the new tyre physics.
I actually think you are just trying to annoy me with that comment. What on earth are you really talking about? Is this something to do with the fact that we still use DirectX 9?
Anyone who knows anything about DirectX understands that DX9 has enormous power that we are hardly using yet. It is absurd to suggest that it is not good enough for LFS. It does have great advantages over DX8.1, but there isn't any such leap from DX9 to later versions of DX, which are mainly designed to be deliberately incompatible, to force people onto later versions of Windows because MS has to resort to those kind of tactics. It does indeed have one advantage of being possible to use on XP and Linux, that is true. But it's not holiding us back in any way, except by making me waste valuable minutes trying to explain to people like you, who don't understand what DX9 actually is.
DX9 is not a hindrance.
You should try to think for yourself, instead of falling for this corporate advertising nonsense.
No, I will not consider that for longer than it takes me to write this post.
As I keep saying, and have said many, many times, it is necessary to support DX9 so that LFS runs on these 3 operating systems :
1) XP
2) Linux
3) Mac
If I moved beyond DX9 then it would not be possible to run LFS on any of those operating systems. It would ONLY run on new Windows. That is NOT an option, so please stop suggesting it. :mad:
I think this is done through Wine, as it is on Linux.
We will not break compatibility with Shader Model 2 cards at this time. I'm planning to add a SM3 option for people who want to experiment with shaders.
Maybe I'll need SM3 in future. There's a lot to be done with shaders so I'm going to be learning more about what you can do with the different Shader Models, and also a clearer picture will emerge about how many people really do have cards that can't do SM3. At the moment it appears that "some" people do have SM2 cards but we don't really know how many.
OK, as usual you are just trying to annoy me. This time, you are inventing things and attributing them to me, when I never said anything of the sort.
I am sick of arguing here with dimwits who are angry with me for not excluding XP and Linux from our user base. This has gone on for months. It's some kind of freakish capitalism thing.
Like... because YOU bought Windows 8, you gradually become angry that anyone develops software that runs on an earlier version of Windows. Ridiculous. When you buy Windows, you don't become a shareholder. You don't have anything to gain from becoming a Microsoft Windows salesman.
By the way, the word "YOU" here doesn't refer to cargame.nl in particular, just everyone who believes that it is a fantastic idea to remove a large portion on our users, because "you have to move with the times" and stupid, capitalist crap like that. I hate that stuff, got it?
I'm just asking again, if you do use Wine / Linux, you'd better have a go with the new test patch.
I would like to make sure it works for you.
https://www.lfsforum.net/showt ... php?p=1863688#post1863688
I would like to make sure it works for you.
https://www.lfsforum.net/showt ... php?p=1863688#post1863688
I'm actually more concerned about the people who still can't run the latest version on Linux. Which shader models are supported properly on Linux / Wine? Is it easy for our users who have problems at the moment, to update their D3DCompiler_43.dll and solve their problems?
So far if I remember correctly, we have heard from two Linux users with a shader problem, and one who runs it fine.
Possible solution?
So far if I remember correctly, we have heard from two Linux users with a shader problem, and one who runs it fine.
Possible solution?
Thanks everyone for the feedback, I'm pleased it seems to work so well for most people! 
Did you try (with width set to 442mm) a lower IPD, like 30mm? I am surprised by how well the 3D works with a smaller IPD than reality, and how hard it is to see when the IPD is close to real values.
One other thing, have you tried a low FOV? I'm thinking that maybe the correct IPD and screen width only work if the FOV is real too. Maybe when your FOV setting is higher than the true FOV offered by your screen, then you need to use smaller IPD or greater screen width.
IPD affects two things - it defines the separation of distant objects on your screen, and also is used to position in the in-game eye-cameras each frame. Using a greater screen width, without reducing IPD can be used as trick to decrease the image separation on your screen, while still placing the eye-cameras in game to a realistic IPD.
Yes, I'm interested to hear from Linux users or anyone else who has a problem with this version. At the moment I am using shader versions ps_2_0 and vs_2_0 - I don't know if that is the best version to use, but it seemed a good idea at the time, maybe because it was in some of the example code I was looking at. But I haven't really researched that properly.
Mine just says "New value is too low" or "New value is too high".
Good, thanks. Hope to hear from more Linux users soon...
The people who have such low frame rate in red-cyan mode, could you try with the Anaglyph.psh from the attached zip? It goes in your data\shaders folder, overwriting the original. It uses vector operations to do the pixel calculation more quickly, which may possibly help on slightly older cards. Not sure if the compiler could figure out that optimisation anyway, but this is worth a try.
Did you try (with width set to 442mm) a lower IPD, like 30mm? I am surprised by how well the 3D works with a smaller IPD than reality, and how hard it is to see when the IPD is close to real values.
One other thing, have you tried a low FOV? I'm thinking that maybe the correct IPD and screen width only work if the FOV is real too. Maybe when your FOV setting is higher than the true FOV offered by your screen, then you need to use smaller IPD or greater screen width.
IPD affects two things - it defines the separation of distant objects on your screen, and also is used to position in the in-game eye-cameras each frame. Using a greater screen width, without reducing IPD can be used as trick to decrease the image separation on your screen, while still placing the eye-cameras in game to a realistic IPD.
Yes, I'm interested to hear from Linux users or anyone else who has a problem with this version. At the moment I am using shader versions ps_2_0 and vs_2_0 - I don't know if that is the best version to use, but it seemed a good idea at the time, maybe because it was in some of the example code I was looking at. But I haven't really researched that properly.
Mine just says "New value is too low" or "New value is too high".
Good, thanks. Hope to hear from more Linux users soon...
The people who have such low frame rate in red-cyan mode, could you try with the Anaglyph.psh from the attached zip? It goes in your data\shaders folder, overwriting the original. It uses vector operations to do the pixel calculation more quickly, which may possibly help on slightly older cards. Not sure if the compiler could figure out that optimisation anyway, but this is worth a try.
New Version 0.6F and Progress Report
Dear LFS Racers,
Today we release an new update of Live for Speed with 3D support and announce another version that is coming soon with a much improved Westhill track.
Version 0.6F:
Available today and well tested by forum visitors, this new update supports 3D devices including TVs, projectors, headsets and the Oculus Rift. While developing it, we also moved onto DirectX 9 which allows for better graphical effects in future while still allowing LFS to run on older versions of Windows and on Linux (using the Wine compatibility software). This version remains fully compatible with 0.6E with many improvements and fixes.
Read more about the patch and how to get it on the 0.6F information page.
Westhill Update:
Available soon... as the development for S3 has been taking some time, we thought it would be good to update something for our existing license holders. The best thing to update was the Westhill track which was always sparse and underdeveloped. The International configuration has been improved in many places, particularly in the twisty sequence of bends in the far corner which is now more challenging. There is a new National configuration, bearing off from the International track after the first right and left bends, involving some interesting gradient changes and technical bends. The scenery has been developed to a higher level of detail and you can drive around the access roads in the open configurations.
You can see images of the new track on our screenshots page.
The configurations are complete and good to drive. At this point Eric is still finishing some buildings and filling some holes in the scenery. Scawen is making some improvements and optimisations to deal with the higher level of detail. We expect to release this version for testing in a few weeks, but remember that sometimes interesting things can come up that make things take a little longer than planned.
Further Progress:
After the Westhill update, Eric will continue with the S3 tracks he has been working on. Scawen will continue with the new tyre model. The new tyres currently feel good to drive but some work needs to be done on heat, pressure, friction, tyre load sensitivity and wear which are all closely linked.
- LFS Developers
Today we release an new update of Live for Speed with 3D support and announce another version that is coming soon with a much improved Westhill track.
Version 0.6F:
Available today and well tested by forum visitors, this new update supports 3D devices including TVs, projectors, headsets and the Oculus Rift. While developing it, we also moved onto DirectX 9 which allows for better graphical effects in future while still allowing LFS to run on older versions of Windows and on Linux (using the Wine compatibility software). This version remains fully compatible with 0.6E with many improvements and fixes.
Read more about the patch and how to get it on the 0.6F information page.
Westhill Update:
Available soon... as the development for S3 has been taking some time, we thought it would be good to update something for our existing license holders. The best thing to update was the Westhill track which was always sparse and underdeveloped. The International configuration has been improved in many places, particularly in the twisty sequence of bends in the far corner which is now more challenging. There is a new National configuration, bearing off from the International track after the first right and left bends, involving some interesting gradient changes and technical bends. The scenery has been developed to a higher level of detail and you can drive around the access roads in the open configurations.
You can see images of the new track on our screenshots page.
The configurations are complete and good to drive. At this point Eric is still finishing some buildings and filling some holes in the scenery. Scawen is making some improvements and optimisations to deal with the higher level of detail. We expect to release this version for testing in a few weeks, but remember that sometimes interesting things can come up that make things take a little longer than planned.
Further Progress:
After the Westhill update, Eric will continue with the S3 tracks he has been working on. Scawen will continue with the new tyre model. The new tyres currently feel good to drive but some work needs to be done on heat, pressure, friction, tyre load sensitivity and wear which are all closely linked.
- LFS Developers
By the way everyone, as we are talking about DirectX 9... have you tried the latest test patch? It has the graphical improvement of antialiased mirrors, many people reported higher frame rates and there are several fixes. It's on the verge of becoming the official version 0.6F so we would appreciate your testing feedback if you haven't had a go yet!
https://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=85807
Maybe I will have a look and try to see if I get some info over there. Do you or any other Linux users know of any issues running the latest test patch in Wine? I can't remember hearing many reports but I do remember comments that it worked well and some screen shots looked the same as on Windows.
I'm sure that supported software with security patches will be safer for the average Joe. I feel quite negative about Windows 7 because in every day life it seemed to be throwing obstacles into my path with nearly every step I tried to take. It became quite tiresome. Also, they took away the ability to view a dual monitor setup as a single render target surface. Seems like a total fail, the only improvement related to that was that it allowed a full screen video to use a single screen instead of being half on one and half on the other, as is done "stupidly" on XP if you run dual monitors as a single desktop. And the deal breaker was obviously when they deliberately removed the ability to run a debug version of DirectX 9. That is just sabotage and because of it, Microsoft have lost my long term support. I'll be wondering (very gradually and in a long term sense) how to get away / not use Windows as the primary platform.
Me? No, because I want to support as many systems as possible, and DX9 is the way. It works on XP, Vista, 7, 8, Mac, Linux... and there are no relevant advantages in using later DirectX
https://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=85807
Maybe I will have a look and try to see if I get some info over there. Do you or any other Linux users know of any issues running the latest test patch in Wine? I can't remember hearing many reports but I do remember comments that it worked well and some screen shots looked the same as on Windows.
I'm sure that supported software with security patches will be safer for the average Joe. I feel quite negative about Windows 7 because in every day life it seemed to be throwing obstacles into my path with nearly every step I tried to take. It became quite tiresome. Also, they took away the ability to view a dual monitor setup as a single render target surface. Seems like a total fail, the only improvement related to that was that it allowed a full screen video to use a single screen instead of being half on one and half on the other, as is done "stupidly" on XP if you run dual monitors as a single desktop. And the deal breaker was obviously when they deliberately removed the ability to run a debug version of DirectX 9. That is just sabotage and because of it, Microsoft have lost my long term support. I'll be wondering (very gradually and in a long term sense) how to get away / not use Windows as the primary platform.
Me? No, because I want to support as many systems as possible, and DX9 is the way. It works on XP, Vista, 7, 8, Mac, Linux... and there are no relevant advantages in using later DirectX
In the end, they will fail if they use these strongarm tactics. You can't force people to give you money for no real reason. On their current path they will end up with angry users and they will leave. Their current path must (and may) change. I have some vague memory hearing something a few months ago that Bill Gates might be a getting little more involved again and Mr Ballmer is leaving... is that true? Maybe that would help? I may really be off the mark here but in my imagination, Bill Gates was kind of into the technology aspect of things but Ballmer was into money making. I really haven't researched that, it's just a vague impression so if I am wrong or anyone has some better info, please let us know!
I haven't heard of any ways to run DX10 / DX11 software on Linux or Mac. I am under the impression you must use Wine and it supports up to DX9.
I haven't been catering specifically to those systems in any way. I haven't spent even 5 minutes trying to cater to them. LFS worked in DX8 on those systems (using Wine) but actually it works better on them after the DX9 conversion because it's better supported (I think that is the case, but again, this is a bit vague and not researched, don't really know much about Wine).
Our vision is new physics and new content, followed by some other interesting things like dynamic track conditions.
People can 'leave' if they want to. I don't even have a concept of leaving and returning, LFS is just here for license holders to have a go when they want to, obviously that is more likely when there is an update.
The current 3D patch is one of those diversions that is actually quite exciting for me and some people. I have always wanted to be in there in virtual reality and hopefully that will happen within two months! But I agree it has probably slowed some other things down. However, that has nothing to do with catering for old / other operating systems. Just a few days during these months on the new 3D system were spent upgrading from DX8 to DX9 because DX9 is a better standard than DX8. And that had no effect on other operating systems, it was just moving LFS one step towards more recent DirectX versions.
Again, I don't see the connection. There wouldn't be faster progress on the things people want (content, physics, etc) if we used DX10 or DX11. They just don't affect that at all. I'm simply not spending any time at all catering for these other systems. In fact I would spend more time trying to change LFS to use DX10 and DX11, but won't do so because there isn't any reason to do so.
Well I think my hardware is quite fast in fact, just a few years old, it's a pretty good base.
I would honestly feel really bad if we kicked out all the Mac, Linux and XP users. I would feel like Microsoft's slave whore if you see what I mean. That's exactly what they want me to do. And they can shove it. I'm not playing along with their self serving, ungenerous, pure capitalist, misguided grow-or-die bad attitude.
Luckily, their attempts to force developers to change have failed on me so far. I don't think that will last forever, somehow it will break in the end. But then I might try to abandon Microsoft as far as possible, as a human I can learn from experience and try very hard not to make the same mistake twice. I'm not known for allowing 'big guys' to control me for too long, I just avoid the situation of becoming stuck as a tool for others.
But I don't think you have to worry, LFS does gradually require more hardware resources as time goes on. It's a gradual process but I always want to stay on the side of high frame rate.
If I did not use XP, then I would have to move to a later version of DirectX and that would mean LFS could not be run on XP, Linux or Mac.
Explanation here: https://www.lfsforum.net/showt ... php?p=1857760#post1857760
Some people are offended that I am using XP, or that LFS uses DX9. I guess that is simply unexplainable, like people who get angry about women feeding their own baby from their breast, which is entirely natural and the best thing for the baby.
But as there is no good reason at all for me not to use XP or DX9, the important thing is to allow LFS to run on as wide a range of hardware / OS as possible. There really are people out there using XP, Linux and Mac! Nothing wrong with those guys, it's good that we have choice! Some people would like to eliminate them from our community simply because they are personally offended by my choice of operating system.
Well it is a funny old world out there hahahaha!
Explanation here: https://www.lfsforum.net/showt ... php?p=1857760#post1857760
Some people are offended that I am using XP, or that LFS uses DX9. I guess that is simply unexplainable, like people who get angry about women feeding their own baby from their breast, which is entirely natural and the best thing for the baby.
But as there is no good reason at all for me not to use XP or DX9, the important thing is to allow LFS to run on as wide a range of hardware / OS as possible. There really are people out there using XP, Linux and Mac! Nothing wrong with those guys, it's good that we have choice! Some people would like to eliminate them from our community simply because they are personally offended by my choice of operating system.
Well it is a funny old world out there hahahaha!
It is really strange that some people think it is really an option at this stage to actually remove all XP, Linux and Mac users from our community. It is not an option!
I'll explain just one more time in the clearest way I can:
Point 1:
LFS can run on some other operating systems, not developed by Microsoft, called "Linux" and "Mac" that some people choose to use for various good reasons. This is achieved by using some clever software called "Wine" which is a sort of wrapper that allows Windows programs to access Windows functions, including DirectX up to DX9, on non-Windows computers.
LFS can also run on an operating system called "XP" that is more than a decade old! It is a version of Windows that, although not perfect, does work well and was certainly a great improvement over its predecessors and actually helped desktop computing reach a new level globally. The newer versions of Windows have some improvements over XP and also removed some features and made some things more difficult.
Point 2:
Microsoft has deliberately disabled the ability to develop for DirectX 9 on Windows 7. You can actually compile your programs in Windows 7 but debug output is not available. Any programmer knows why debug output is important - it shows you when you have made many types of mistake, instead of just mysteriously not working under various circumstances. If you want to develop DX9 software, you must have debug output.
Conclusion:
Point 1 above means that LFS must be targetted at DX9 (or possibly OpenGL though I have not researched this and there is no need to do this conversion at this time because DX9 works very well indeed and has far more abilities than we need for the foreseeable future and beyond). Point 2 above means that to develop for DX9 you need to use XP.
Final comment:
If you can't understand that logic then there is simply no hope of us communicating and you can go back to your world of advertising and you can just believe everything you are told by the marketing departments of massive corporations who just want your money.
I'll explain just one more time in the clearest way I can:
Point 1:
LFS can run on some other operating systems, not developed by Microsoft, called "Linux" and "Mac" that some people choose to use for various good reasons. This is achieved by using some clever software called "Wine" which is a sort of wrapper that allows Windows programs to access Windows functions, including DirectX up to DX9, on non-Windows computers.
LFS can also run on an operating system called "XP" that is more than a decade old! It is a version of Windows that, although not perfect, does work well and was certainly a great improvement over its predecessors and actually helped desktop computing reach a new level globally. The newer versions of Windows have some improvements over XP and also removed some features and made some things more difficult.
Point 2:
Microsoft has deliberately disabled the ability to develop for DirectX 9 on Windows 7. You can actually compile your programs in Windows 7 but debug output is not available. Any programmer knows why debug output is important - it shows you when you have made many types of mistake, instead of just mysteriously not working under various circumstances. If you want to develop DX9 software, you must have debug output.
Conclusion:
Point 1 above means that LFS must be targetted at DX9 (or possibly OpenGL though I have not researched this and there is no need to do this conversion at this time because DX9 works very well indeed and has far more abilities than we need for the foreseeable future and beyond). Point 2 above means that to develop for DX9 you need to use XP.
Final comment:
If you can't understand that logic then there is simply no hope of us communicating and you can go back to your world of advertising and you can just believe everything you are told by the marketing departments of massive corporations who just want your money.
DISCLAIMER : I haven't been following the thread but had a quick look at these final posts and thought it might be worth answering a few things.
Although I much prefer XP over the overcomplication and disabling of features that I discovered in my time using Windows 7, that is beside the point. In fact Microsoft has left me NO OPTION other than staying with XP. It is the ONLY way to use a debug version of DirectX 9, since Microsoft deliberately disabled the debug version of DX9 in later operating systems. LFS runs well on Linux using Wine and Wine supports up to DX9. I believe in options and I am very, very happy that LFS runs on Linux... maybe it really is the future if MS continues on this course of deliberately disabling things for loyal customers.
So simple, don't run IE or any other MS software that connects to the internet. Use a browser and email client from a reputable developer. Then, when you receive an email with an attachment "Big Boobies.exe" DON'T CLICK ON IT. Then you will not install any trojans and XP is perfectly safe.
Cheers. You really are wrong. There are the people like me who have no choice, and the other people who just want it to be easy to allow other computers on their home network to access a folder or a printer on another machine. So easy in XP (e.g. 2 minutes) and so hard on Windows 7 (hours of research combined with trial and error).
I don't know if there is a Linux version that can run a debug version of DX9. It seems strange to go native Linux yet. Maybe OpenGL will be the way to go, Microsoft is basically driving me away. But just for now, it's definitely best to stay with XP so that I can actually keep LFS running on XP and Wine. It just works and I am not here dealing with problems. The problem was Windows 7. I got a new HDD and installed XP and now I don't have any computer problems.
Yes, a voice of reason. I don't understand why so many people are being sucked into the Microsoft hype and falling into the ridiculous capitalist trap of lies.
The practice of deliberately disabling good things so you are forced to purchase inferior products, or products with very very few improvements and no new actual abilities, isn't a good thing at all. It's a bad thing. Remember to use your own brains and not believe everything you are told, specially what you are told by the guys who want your money.
Although I much prefer XP over the overcomplication and disabling of features that I discovered in my time using Windows 7, that is beside the point. In fact Microsoft has left me NO OPTION other than staying with XP. It is the ONLY way to use a debug version of DirectX 9, since Microsoft deliberately disabled the debug version of DX9 in later operating systems. LFS runs well on Linux using Wine and Wine supports up to DX9. I believe in options and I am very, very happy that LFS runs on Linux... maybe it really is the future if MS continues on this course of deliberately disabling things for loyal customers.
So simple, don't run IE or any other MS software that connects to the internet. Use a browser and email client from a reputable developer. Then, when you receive an email with an attachment "Big Boobies.exe" DON'T CLICK ON IT. Then you will not install any trojans and XP is perfectly safe.
Cheers. You really are wrong. There are the people like me who have no choice, and the other people who just want it to be easy to allow other computers on their home network to access a folder or a printer on another machine. So easy in XP (e.g. 2 minutes) and so hard on Windows 7 (hours of research combined with trial and error).
I don't know if there is a Linux version that can run a debug version of DX9. It seems strange to go native Linux yet. Maybe OpenGL will be the way to go, Microsoft is basically driving me away. But just for now, it's definitely best to stay with XP so that I can actually keep LFS running on XP and Wine. It just works and I am not here dealing with problems. The problem was Windows 7. I got a new HDD and installed XP and now I don't have any computer problems.
Yes, a voice of reason. I don't understand why so many people are being sucked into the Microsoft hype and falling into the ridiculous capitalist trap of lies.
The practice of deliberately disabling good things so you are forced to purchase inferior products, or products with very very few improvements and no new actual abilities, isn't a good thing at all. It's a bad thing. Remember to use your own brains and not believe everything you are told, specially what you are told by the guys who want your money.
Last edited by Scawen, .
You are saying that as if there is some kind of problem with DirectX 9.
That is a really strange thing that some people seem to believe that I am only recently starting to notice. There isn't actually anything wrong with it!
It's only now occurring to me that people think there is some kind of compromise or issue in staying with DirectX 9. But there isn't, it's really good!
There isn't a problem here! DirectX 9 runs on XP and later Windows and in Wine / Linux. I get to use my dual monitor setup for racing so I'm happy too! There's no problem, we're all fine!
It's really simple. I have said it before, but I'll say it again for the last time.
1) XP allows me to use a DEBUG version of DirectX 9. A debug version is the one that sends a debug message, in text form, to the debugger, when you make many kinds of mistake, minor or major, so you know how to correct it or notice flaws in your code. It's really quite impossible to develop reliable software without debug messages. As I understand it, Microsoft deliberately stopped providing a debug version of DX9 in post-XP Windows, to force developers to be unable to develop software that supports XP. We do want to support XP because we have thousands of people who bought an LFS license and do not yet want to be forced to "upgrade" to the later and in many ways inferior versions of Windows. We can't just take LFS away from those people, who I regard as very sensible people. Some people here have described them as financially challenged people... but I think of them as people like me, who simply prefer XP because it is better in many ways. Also we do not wish to make it impossible to run LFS on Linux. As I understand it, a Wine / Linux setup can only use DX9 and it is really important to me to support that.
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. Those who say it is possible, we've been through all that already and it is in fact NOT possible. The Nvidia and AMD single surface support now requires additional software and only supports specific screen configurations. That is INFERIOR to Windows XP.
3) Many other things are FAR harder to do on Windows 7 than on XP. For example it was very difficult to install a printer. On XP, plug in printer, install software, share printer, job done. On Windows 7... well I have described it before and don't really want to remember it now. The installation was presented as a process of "solving problems" when there really wasn't a problem, I just wanted to install a printer. Sharing to another computer on my private network was some kind of crazy nightmare of unintuitive permission nonsense in hidden menus.
See above.
It's said to work well now and I think it's better with this latest patch because of the DX9 support.
Last edited by Scawen, .
Using DX9 isn't a restriction at all. It has loads of features we aren't using and enough to keep us busy improving graphics for many years. DX10/11 are just minor updates, specially designed not to work on XP, a strategy by Microsoft to force people to upgrade from XP which is a perfectly good operating system.
I've used Windows 7 now and it's much more difficult to use, unbelievably frustrating to just try to do something as simple as install some printer software and share the printer for use by other computers on the network, a task which had me quite angry and searching the internet for the necessary solutions and ways round the stupid security systems. I completed the whole task in 5 minutes without a single hitch when I reinstalled XP.
Windows 7 also removes the ability to go full screen on multiple monitors, except in specific configurations using third party software. So it a real step backwards in many ways. An awful experience that I don't want to subject others to.
Also DX9 is supported by Wine so people using Linux can run LFS. This is really great - I'm so pleased that there is an alternative to Microsoft which is now resorting to sabotage to try to get people to buy its later (and in my opinion inferior) operating systems.
We aren't forcing XP and Linux users to use an Oculus Rift, so I don't see your point.
The Oculus Rift is a great device, I've always wanted something more immersive than looking at the screen and I'm really looking forward to getting a high resolution Rift!
I don't have any more to say about the tyres really. I just want to get them done, and I don't want to go on for years.
Some graphics cards recent drivers for XP have a bug in them where LFS in DX8 goes wrong. But using a DX8 to DX9 converter the bug disappears. Of course this extra software should not be needed, so it's a good idea to fix LFS. DX9 is much more used than DX8 so it's going to be well supported by everyone for some time to come, whereas lack of testing might introduce bugs in DX8 support. It's better than DX8 and has more possibilities (don't ask me what) so that could help with future graphical developments. We do not want to go further than DX9 any time soon because that would eliminate the possibility of LFS running on XP or Linux.
Well, I haven't researched it at all. I'm sure it's possible, but not really easy, and there would be certain issues to overcome making the Linux version and Windows versions connect.
One thing bugs me, and probably someone can make it clearer, and this really disgusts me, there is a patent on Force Feedback which is somehow controlled by Microsoft, so there is no such thing as a FF wheel that works on operating systems other than Windows. Hopefully you can easily build drivers that allow FF on Linux but are they illegal?
Trying not to shout and swear... I hate patents.
Linux does pop into my mind once in a while. Because it seems to me that MS seems to be going down this Apple style route of trying to subtly lock you in and force you to buy expensive upgrades every few years, when really just a couple of software functions could have done the job.
I'm wondering if in the long term, free operating system software might be the winner because it propagates only by good ideas being better, simply for the good of it, rather than trying to please shareholders and so on. So things sort of sell themselves rather than marketing departments hyping up tiny things as if they are new technology.
I know that is a woolly post, but I feel a little angry at being pushed around by corporations. Obviously it's not personal, they just want the money to keep coming in. Some sort of capitalism / growth addiction thing they and too many others have.
No, the player doesn't see any difference apart from the skin thing.
Why is that? I'm interested to know what you could do without Wine that you can't do with it. DCon is supposed to make it work quite well / more easily with Wine than the old version.
There are some problems porting to Linux, not only that some parts of code (input / output - mainly sockets) would have to be changed and some language peculiarities would have to be dealt with (in hundreds / thousands of lines - I know this from when I rewrote the master server for Linux). The biggest problem is that some of the OOS checking would fail because the calculations that take place (when a car is built, for example) would have very slightly different results due to the different floating point optimisations used by different compilers. So some things would have to be done in a completely different way.
1
2FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG