Today video card drivers are DX9 (or DX10) optimized, and DX7-8 are too old, so it will be a good thing to switch engine to full DX9. benefit will be mainly fps gain (with dual or triple monitor).
Switch engine to DX9
Yeah. It will be done this afternoon.
yeah i', sure its only a case of the devs just pressin' the DX9 button over night
:doh:
:doh:
beat me to it lol
Thank you for being constructive, if not go pollute elsewhere
Well, its not easy. Do you develop stuff in dx? If not, then dont just say "switch it" because obviously its not just switching - i assume its recoding the half engine. 
plz use the search button. it was added in patch x
have you a link please i'm looked in this section but did'nt find anything about "dx9 patch x"
i used switch as shortcut. i'm aware they have to recode half (or even entire) engine, but il will be certainly good for the future of lfs.
Entire engine needs to be rewritten.
He was kidding, but got a point. It's been discussed a lot. It comes down to the fact that the actual dev of the engine (scawen) has alot of things on his to-do-list. Many things that are more important for the Simulation.
If you only need graphics there are hundreds of games that have this as the focus. One day it will be recoded, but this might take quite a while.
i never wrote that i only need graphics, i have 3 22" screens coupled on a ati 5850 and the fps is not great, mainly because engine is too old, tried with Dirt2 (ok no simulation but a whole higher in gfx) and the fps is better (with 3 screens).
on lfs, on starting grid (on IHR server) my fps is under 30 wich is not good.
a repeat, i don't want better graphics, i just need dx9 only because today graphics card drivers are optimized for.
on lfs, on starting grid (on IHR server) my fps is under 30 wich is not good.
a repeat, i don't want better graphics, i just need dx9 only because today graphics card drivers are optimized for.
People seem to think that coding the engine in DX9 instead of DX7 will suddenly automatically make things look like Forza 2. It would look *exactly the same*, just be using a different library (although granted you may get a small performance improvement - LFS ain't exactly Crysis though). You'd still need to spend months creating new models, tracks, textures, shaders, etc.
it seems that you have not read correctly my request. and no there will be a big performance improvement since video card drivers are focused on dx9 (and dx10).
My understanding is the graphics in LFS are significantly less computationally intensive than the physics calculations. If anything, you should be asking for multi-core CPU support.
A while back, I upgraded from an nvidia 6800GT to a 7900GT on the same platform. My framerate in LFS remained the same.
What CPU are you running?
A while back, I upgraded from an nvidia 6800GT to a 7900GT on the same platform. My framerate in LFS remained the same.
What CPU are you running?
There would be no increase in performane, or if so, it would be quite negligible. DX9 is not better that DX8 because it's faster, but because of a lot of new features which can make the game look nicer and still run fast. If you're experiencing any problems related to the multiple screens, I suggest you check your PC first, LFS is not to blame for this.
As for the graphics cards being focused on DX9/10. Where did you get this idea? DX8- support might not be maintained as well as DX9+, but that doesn't make DX8 slow and useless. I have GF9800GTS in my laptop and it runs LFS as a dream.
It appears to me that the low FPS you get in LFS is because of ATI screwing up ther drivers (once again) or because of your CPU overheating. Have you actaully tried to run LFS on one screen only? The only difference multiple screens make is that you have a bigger resolution and thus more pixels to calculate, but LFS is not really extensive to GPU, so something like 5000x1200 should run just OK on any decent graphics card.
My cpu is a q6600 watercooled (no temp problem) with 8Gb of memory and a ati 5850, when i test my triple screen with dirt2 (hard gpu usage) i get the same frame rate, it may be whole better with lfs since the gpu usage is less, if lfs is not multithreaded, the problem may be here. it's not driver related since ati makes good drivers now.
if you learn how a driver works and how gpu are designed you will understand. DX8 is not even maintained as well as DX9, he's simply not maintained it's a fact, it's why somes olders games don't run on moderns video cards or moderns drivers and we have to alter drivers to make them run.
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
when lfs was first released there were no publicly available multi core cpus
it would be cool too if people read all the topic and not only a part
may be it's time to jump on multithreaded code ?
wow had evolved to multi core, it's a evidence that if a software don't evolve to support modern hardware, it will die.
Going multihreaded is definitely much better idea, but still don't think it's a priority. LFS runs pretty fine just as it is and it has no problems running at 1000fps on full details and resolution if you have an adequate CPU. WoW was modified because as it was growing moer complex, it suffered from performance problems, LFS on the other hand is OK.
And no, I don't believe that LFS(or any other SW) will die off if it doesn't implement all the new stuff, as much more people care about enjoying the game, not the technology behind it. As long as the SW works, the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" rule shoud apply.
And no, I don't believe that LFS(or any other SW) will die off if it doesn't implement all the new stuff, as much more people care about enjoying the game, not the technology behind it. As long as the SW works, the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" rule shoud apply.
i speak about evolving not about fixing
Switch engine to DX9
(58 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG