That would be your graphics card holding you back. If you were GPU limited before you probably won't see any improvements in FPS. With a recent driver you may see a drop in CPU usage though.
Beautiful work. With full AA/AF I'm now completely GPU limited at the back of a grid full of Formula BMWs with the physics paused (~85% load on one CPU core). In Y20 it was the other way around with GPU usage around 85% with the CPU pegged.
Same grid without AA/AF is CPU limited, but yields about 15 FPS more (~45 to ~60).
Same grid without AA/AF is CPU limited, but yields about 15 FPS more (~45 to ~60).
See those dates at the top of the news posts? They enable you to deduce the date at which the post in question was made, thus eliminating any confusion you might experience from being told "Merry Christmas" in the middle of June.
But it doesn't "negate the need to go there". You'll get much more detail by scanning it up close. I'm willing to bet it'll be much more accurate as well.
I'm pretty sure this short season was due to the writer's strike. I'm sure I read somewhere that they'd make up for the lost episodes in the later seasons.
Saw that one coming.
I agree though, rallycross is extremely good fun. Shame it's rarely on the tube anymore. You see the occational half hour summary, but that's about it.Personally I also enjoy F1, WRC, and even a bit of V8 supercars. Recently I've become more and more aware of MotoGP as well. Never really been into bikes but blimey, you don't see that kind of action in most four wheel championships.
So you spontaneously materialising here to refute the slightly negative comments from someone who I fully believe has played the sim like he says and generally knows what he's talking about; that is you not defending iRacing? I see, my mistake.
The fact that he said he did is enough for most of us here. You know, because of all that "respected community member" nonsense. I think we can all appreciate the humour of someone with no actual experience with the product defending it vigorously though, so please keep it up.
Oooh. Can't wait to see all the new and inventive ways this will blow up in the hands of Petter Solberg. It's gonna be great I tell you.
Fast forwarding a replay runs as fast as possible on one of your processor's cores. LFS isn't able to take advantage of multiple cores (yet?), so that's why you'll see less than 100% CPU load on multi-core processors.
Sounds like a good idea to me. It'd add a bit more of the "randomness" that LFS is currently lacking. Conditions don't change nearly enough, and something like this would definitely make driving a bit more challenging.
It depends on the low-temp physics being at least in the ballpark though.
It depends on the low-temp physics being at least in the ballpark though.
Yeah, call me when he straps a couple of Rolls-Royce Trent 900s to his wing.
Is this a WINE-based (Linux) server by any chance? I've seen something very similar happen due to a problem with WINE.
The future of copyright
The iRacing thread just got my mind going a bit on the topic of copyright (and "IP" in general) and I thought it would be interesting to gauge the popular opinion on the subject...
To cut right to the chase, I'm getting more and more convinced the whole concept of copyright is a dead end and that it will eventually disappear. More importantly I'm convinced this won't really hurt most of the creative people making a living "because of" copyright, like programmers, musicians etc. Let me explain why.
If you look at copyrighted material through the goggles of free market capitalism, the product itself (a piece of music or a program) has infinite supply. Once the initial copy is created and the costs of creating that copy are paid you can create any number of copies from the original at no additional cost. This makes the total cost of all copies trend towards 0.
The only reason a music file or a program has any value at all is because we have laws in place which artificially give them value - copyright. This worked more or less okay back in the days when copying a book or a piece of music was rather expensive and time consuming in and of itself, but with the advent of computers and the internet this expense has all but disappeared. While copying a piece of music tape to tape like in the "old" days took some time, effort and money (an empty tape at the very least), copying it now is done in seconds through Bittorrent at virtually no cost. And so, the amount of copyright infringement has sky-rocketed.
Now you have two choices, keep copyright the way it is and use extreme amounts of time, effort and money to try to keep the "market" from doing what comes naturally (The RIAA/MPAA approach), or you just drop the whole concept and try to find alternate ways to make money within this new system and with this new technology.
For a musician that would be the good old live show. People may be able to download your record, if you have one, but they won't be able to download the experience of seeing you live. Nor will they be able to download your merchandise. There's a lot of money to be made there and copyright is not important at all to keep this money flowing, quite the opposite.
If your recorded music is free you may reach a much larger audience than would be otherwise possible and if you're good your reputation will build purely through word of mouth. This means more people come to your live shows and more people buy your merchandise. There are already artists out there doing something very similar to this, and they are able to make a comfortable living that way. Will they become hugely popular multi-millionaires like many of the stars of today? Most likely not, but they'll get by, and so will many, many others like them. I find it much more appealing to have a huge creative community alive and thriving, than a few filthy rich super-stars and their managers that get all the cash.
For a programmer it's a bit different of course, since few would pay to see live programming on stage, but it's still possible to make money in the absence of copyright. I'm living proof of that. As a web-developer I program and configure web-sites for my customers and I can honestly say my "ownership" of the code I produce means absolutely nothing to me. I'm not hired because of the code I own, I'm hired because I have skills the people hiring me don't. They aren't able to create a good web-site, so they hire me to do it for them.
Furthermore the fact that the code I produce is effectively public domain means that the amount of time and effort spent reinventing something others have done before can be limited. Instead of doing every project from scratch or paying license fees for existing products to base my stuff on, I can just modify some existing code and get stuff done in half the time. This means less cost for the people hiring me to do some work for them, which is good for the economy as a whole.
Of course the loss of copyright would hurt for a lot of businesses currently thriving on selling software licenses and a lot of existing jobs would be lost, but at the same time a lot of new possibilities would open up in customising existing software and the savings the rest of the economy would have on software spending would be extremely beneficial. In my view that's an overall win.
Now, I'm not deluded enough to think removing copyright over night wouldn't create chaos and mayhem in the various industries and hurt a lot of people in the process, but I do think that's where we eventually have to end up; will end up. The current system just isn't working and we're wasting way too much time and effort trying to patch it back to a working state. We need to face the realities and adapt to them.
If anyone made it all the way down here (thank you by the way), I'd like to hear your thoughts on the subject. I'd love nothing more that to be proven wrong if you can find some obvious flaws in my reasoning.
To cut right to the chase, I'm getting more and more convinced the whole concept of copyright is a dead end and that it will eventually disappear. More importantly I'm convinced this won't really hurt most of the creative people making a living "because of" copyright, like programmers, musicians etc. Let me explain why.
If you look at copyrighted material through the goggles of free market capitalism, the product itself (a piece of music or a program) has infinite supply. Once the initial copy is created and the costs of creating that copy are paid you can create any number of copies from the original at no additional cost. This makes the total cost of all copies trend towards 0.
The only reason a music file or a program has any value at all is because we have laws in place which artificially give them value - copyright. This worked more or less okay back in the days when copying a book or a piece of music was rather expensive and time consuming in and of itself, but with the advent of computers and the internet this expense has all but disappeared. While copying a piece of music tape to tape like in the "old" days took some time, effort and money (an empty tape at the very least), copying it now is done in seconds through Bittorrent at virtually no cost. And so, the amount of copyright infringement has sky-rocketed.
Now you have two choices, keep copyright the way it is and use extreme amounts of time, effort and money to try to keep the "market" from doing what comes naturally (The RIAA/MPAA approach), or you just drop the whole concept and try to find alternate ways to make money within this new system and with this new technology.
For a musician that would be the good old live show. People may be able to download your record, if you have one, but they won't be able to download the experience of seeing you live. Nor will they be able to download your merchandise. There's a lot of money to be made there and copyright is not important at all to keep this money flowing, quite the opposite.
If your recorded music is free you may reach a much larger audience than would be otherwise possible and if you're good your reputation will build purely through word of mouth. This means more people come to your live shows and more people buy your merchandise. There are already artists out there doing something very similar to this, and they are able to make a comfortable living that way. Will they become hugely popular multi-millionaires like many of the stars of today? Most likely not, but they'll get by, and so will many, many others like them. I find it much more appealing to have a huge creative community alive and thriving, than a few filthy rich super-stars and their managers that get all the cash.
For a programmer it's a bit different of course, since few would pay to see live programming on stage, but it's still possible to make money in the absence of copyright. I'm living proof of that. As a web-developer I program and configure web-sites for my customers and I can honestly say my "ownership" of the code I produce means absolutely nothing to me. I'm not hired because of the code I own, I'm hired because I have skills the people hiring me don't. They aren't able to create a good web-site, so they hire me to do it for them.
Furthermore the fact that the code I produce is effectively public domain means that the amount of time and effort spent reinventing something others have done before can be limited. Instead of doing every project from scratch or paying license fees for existing products to base my stuff on, I can just modify some existing code and get stuff done in half the time. This means less cost for the people hiring me to do some work for them, which is good for the economy as a whole.
Of course the loss of copyright would hurt for a lot of businesses currently thriving on selling software licenses and a lot of existing jobs would be lost, but at the same time a lot of new possibilities would open up in customising existing software and the savings the rest of the economy would have on software spending would be extremely beneficial. In my view that's an overall win.
Now, I'm not deluded enough to think removing copyright over night wouldn't create chaos and mayhem in the various industries and hurt a lot of people in the process, but I do think that's where we eventually have to end up; will end up. The current system just isn't working and we're wasting way too much time and effort trying to patch it back to a working state. We need to face the realities and adapt to them.
If anyone made it all the way down here (thank you by the way
), I'd like to hear your thoughts on the subject. I'd love nothing more that to be proven wrong if you can find some obvious flaws in my reasoning.I didn't mean to insinuate the iRacing devs aren't passionate about their product. I'm sure they are. I phrased that badly.
What I'm getting at is that I doubt those millions were spent purely for the "passion for the product". There must be some expectation of being able to make that money back. It's a huge gamble, true, but there must be some hope that it pays off in the end. It just seems much more like a normal business when compared to the LFS way of wanting to do their own thing without anyone breathing down their necks. I just respect that approach so much more and it makes me much more willing to spend, even though I think the licensing terms are less than ideal.
It may be, but they're much bigger than the LFS devs, and I'm quite sure the actual developers have little to say in regards to pricing strategies. That's enough to put me off it. I'm not saying I won't pay up. It may be freaking spectacular, and I'm not stupid enough to let something good pass me by, but nothing will make me feel happy about the pricing structure.
EULAs are as far as I know not enforceable in court as they are a contract you have to agree to after making the purchase. Software vendors just include it anyway in the hope people forget that and they're mostly succeding.
The LFS lisence is different in that you have to agree to ba able to purchase. I don't particularily like the terms of that agreement either (especially the activation part which prevents me from playing older versions, which is a bit sad since I have a lot of good memories from them), but I'm willing to put up with them because the product is stellar and quite frankly Scawen and the rest of the devs seem like standup guys and I doubt they would pull anything.
I will not give the same trust to a big company or even a medium developer like iRacing. Too many businessmen and too few actual developers with a passion for the product.
No. The DX10 subsystem is completely separate from the DX8/9 one. Touching it won't do anything.
As for the problem at hand I've been out of ideas for a good long while now. I'm still 99% sure the problem lies with the driver and/or OS itself, but it could perhaps be useful to get Scawen in here to have a look. It's obviously not a widespread problem, but with two separate cases on two different OSes it's perhaps worth looking into.
Oh there is, trust me. It's one of the reasons I won't touch any of them. It seems I'm in the minority though, which I find a bit sad since I don't want to end up having to rent every game I want to play instead of paying once and be done with it. The business model just doesn't appeal to me, nor does it fit my gaming habits at all.
Of course it's possible. Anything's possible given enough development time. The question is is it worth it for something that doesn't affect gameplay at all, and which for a lot of players will be completely worthless?
I just don't see why the actual 3D model of the car is something you'd need to modify. Putting a Ferrari model over the top of an XRT won't make it anything other than an XRT. It's still the same car. It just seems like pointless bling that has potential to get real silly real fast once people start abusing it. I don't think it fits with a game that tries to come off as a realistic simulator. This is arcade racer territory.
I just don't see why the actual 3D model of the car is something you'd need to modify. Putting a Ferrari model over the top of an XRT won't make it anything other than an XRT. It's still the same car. It just seems like pointless bling that has potential to get real silly real fast once people start abusing it. I don't think it fits with a game that tries to come off as a realistic simulator. This is arcade racer territory.
Is this for real? Who the hell are these people, and more importantly, who the hell do they think they are? I vote for all drivers in the WRC to let their hair and beard grow as a response to these fools. Bonus points for now showering during a rally weekend.Given the fact that more or less everyone on the internet are complete muppets and the unlimited scope for stupid looking cars this would bring it seems quite obvious to me that this is a bad idea. Don't you see how silly this would end up being? I can guarantee that within days half the field in the average online race would running cars from Mario Kart and Trackmania. It would ruin the game without any (real) benefit to the actual gameplay.
You have to start to wonder when they sell exclusive rights to the coverage to some random station that coughs up the requisite amount of dough and then turn around an complain because no one is watching. I have no idea who broadcasts the WRC in Norway these days as it changes every year. I'm tired of trying to figure out which cable package I'll need to be able to watch. These days I just download the Eurosport/Dave coverage instead as it's by far the easiest way to keep up.
By being tactically smarter than the opposition? Yes, I would. It's all part of the game. I wouldn't mind if the rules for who goes first were different (for instance decided prior to the rally like ajp71 suggested), but when the rules are the way they are I would most definitely take advantage of them if I gained from it. I would expect others to do the same.
Last edited by wien, .
Actually, he had a hydraulics failure which leaked oil and eventually caught fire. He didn't actually hit anything when it happened (or so he says).
I don't know what it is with him these days to be honest. It seems like he has extraordinarily bad luck with all these technical failures, but it may be he's just driving the car to destruction. A bit of both probably.
Rallying has never really been about that though (though the FIA is trying it's best to make it like that with all their stupid rules and the ever shortening stages). It has always about talking measured risks, and knowing when to back off and save the car. Even if that means slowing down on purpose to get an advantage later in the rally. Going all out, balls to the wall in rallying is stupid and will eventually get you killed.
Last edited by wien, .
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG