The online racing simulator
[Merged] Discussion regarding LFS development
(1577 posts, started )
Quote from Bose321 :Am I the only one that find it 'funny' there is a moderator called "Scirocco" ?

LOL, just noticed it now!
What a cocktease lol.
Quote from englishlord :Glad you agree.

That isn't what I said now, was it?
I dislike being British. Naturally a bunch of ponces.
I should become Australian.

I can answer the phone by adding "-o" to the end of everybodies name and end the call by saying "Oolaru!"
good call
Quote from bongst3m :spot on. Rfactor has a superior online experiance, it only takes a few minutes of google searching and downloading to be compatible for a certain server/gametype. Alot shorter then waiting for something new from Scawen, tweaking is the only thing that has made lfs interesting for me lately thankfully. Imagine how popular lfs would be if had a modding community that was supported by devs.... but no were suck wondering what if.... lfs was still interesting...

User modding does not sound appetizing.
Quote from Keling :About C.A.R.S. :

Better graphics ? Of course !

Better tracks ? I think so.

Better FFB ? Not sure.

Better physics ? Well, at least in theory, the C.A.R.S. game, which is based on GMotor 2, can be as good as some of the top rFactor mods out there. In that case, it's hard to say which is better. Both LFS and those rF sims have their pros and cons. But given where the project is actually doing I'd say "NO".

Quote from theirishnoob :tbh every sim is tackling the same problems in their own ways and manners, its only disapointing when a game with a much larger budget fails to perform.

Really, did you try the recent builds of P.C.A.R.S.? Do you know what has been working on?

I felt LFS was one of the best sims in terms of Physics and FFB until a while ago, only beaten by NKPRO. Today, my opinion is PCARS has overlaped LFS and keeps getting further and further away. Even doing single hotlap is really rewarding and fun!

The great difference there is that above all I keep seeing development evolution every week. The FFB had progresses and regressions over the builds and it will keep progressing and regressing until PCARS is released with the best settings achieved.

Frankly, I don't race LFS for about 4 months now and the reason is simple: I'm feed up with the same old tracks and cars and even the FFB of other sims like Race 07 are not that good, I can still participate in a league race with a grid full with 24 guys racing. I really like LFS, I was really hopping for it to renew and raise up to fight for it's place like a champion, but all I see is the same Felipe Massa, resigned to it's place and with the same arguments as ever.

When the new physics model comes out, LFS will have lost his race way back in time and you didn't noticed it, because it is still good as it is...

Just a correction about the question Victor asked, what we couldn't do with LFS besides modding. My answer is: race with different weather conditions, weather conditions changing during a race, race at night, dynamic grip of the track and brakes eficiency fading during a race due to use. These are actual arguments, not future ones, so thing if you are or are not loosing the race to the others...
Quote from CheerioDM :User modding does not sound appetizing.

If they added modding and you didn't want to use any of them, it's as simple as that. Not using them. When it comes to modding, everyone wins.
Quote from col :LFS = niche product.
Many lfs users are not 'gamers' and do not need a high end modern PC for most of what they do. If the devs make LFS only run on a modern gaming PC, they lose these non-gamer users.
They have limited resources, so they have to make a decision: put resources into making it work on low end machines, or put resources into maxing out the graphics capabilities of high end gaming PC's
When you consider that if they lose the non-gamers, they might not make a living from this niche product, that decision is a no-brainer.

What is it about this that you don't understand?


hm, i think that you don't understand what i mean. we are in 2012 and nearly everyone (not all, thats right) uses a 4 cores (or more). i don't talk about a high end pc. f.e. I5 2300 in combination with a GTX560Ti. that's not a high end pc. but it's like what most ppl have.
Quote from " :I'm feed up with the same old tracks...

I understand your point of view - don't get me wrong, but in reality I do not think race drivers get fed up with going to the same track year after year. Instead, they tend to develop their skills for each and every track also claiming favourite locations. Racing is just that fun. Of course, environment and other conditions change irl to add extra challenges. Perhaps LFS would benefit a lot by simply adding a dynamic weather system.

I beleive the "fed up" syndrome is reserved exclusively for games
Happy racing!
Quote from Ingolf :I understand your point of view - don't get me wrong, but in reality I do not think race drivers get fed up with going to the same track year after year. Instead, they tend to develop their skills for each and every track also claiming favourite locations. Racing is just that fun. Of course, environment and other conditions change irl to add extra challenges. Perhaps LFS would benefit a lot by simply adding a dynamic weather system.

I beleive the "fed up" syndrome is reserved exclusively for games
Happy racing!

Yeah, but the race drivers go to the same location year after year, not week after week like me on LFS at some time ago...
#486 - col
Quote from dauwe :hm, i think that you don't understand what i mean. we are in 2012 and nearly everyone (not all, thats right) uses a 4 cores (or more). i don't talk about a high end pc. f.e. I5 2300 in combination with a GTX560Ti. that's not a high end pc. but it's like what most ppl have.

You are wrong, that is not what nearly everyone has. Most people I know have maybe a dual core era cpu, and definately not a gaming graphics card. Many just have onboard graphics processor, or at best a low end pcie or agp card. It's people in this demographic that can make the difference between a niche product like LFS being a viable business or not.
Should also note that 38% of everyone already has a quad core processor now. In a couple years time that number will be 50%, which is now the amount of people who are on a dual core.

LFS would really benefit from being multi-threaded after/if the tire physics are finished. It would make Scawens work much easier without having to optimize the code for those who don't want to ditch their good ol' 486.
#489 - col
Quote from Matrixi :Should also note that 38% of everyone already has a quad core processor now. In a couple years time that number will be 50%, which is now the amount of people who are on a dual core.

Don't forget that those are the stats of steam users - people who are gamers. It is highly likely that if the figures included 'non-gamers', then the average spec would be considerably lower. LFS can appeal to non-gamers, and the devs can't afford to put the minimum specs beyond what the average PC user would have access to.

EDIT: Also DX11 GPU is pretty meaningless at least in terms of grunt. There are likely DX9 GPU's that can out-perform some low end DX11 GPU's.
Quote from col :LFS can appeal to non-gamers, and the devs can't afford to put the minimum specs beyond what the average PC user would have access to.

That's like saying certain types of meat can appeal to a vegetarian. If you're a non-pc gamer, you shouldn't want to, or expect to be able to play games on your shite PC. If you are going to be playing any games on your computer, chances are you have a computer capable of playing decent games and new releases. I keep seeing awful exuses from a minority of people as to why they shouldn't update their outdated technology and it burns my eyes.
#491 - col
Quote from Seb66 : If you're a non-pc gamer, you shouldn't want to, or expect to be able to.... I keep seeing awful exuses....

Oops, sorry, next time I want to or expect to do something, I'll ask you first...

I'm not making excuses for anyone. I'm explaining why Scawen prioritises optimising LFS to get it working on older systems over making it get the most out of the latest gaming tech.
I've shown LFS (and GPL before it) to non-pc-gamers who enjoyed it immensely. There are plenty of non-gamers out there who would play LFS if they knew about it - they just are not aware that games like that exist.

Just because someone hasn't been taken for a sucker by clever marketing and a culture of GegaHertz and Gigatexel ePenis competitions doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to pay Scaviers wages.
No, you're an ePenis.
Quote from col :Oops, sorry, ePenis competitions.

You're being unnecessarily rude and defensive. That kind of behavior indicates insecurity.

I understand that some people have to live places where the economic climate is very poor. I believe that the conditions leading to persistent poverty are a great deal more worthy of discussion than how well recreational software runs on outdated hardware.

On mods:
mods=gods

On better sound:
LFS is not a car video soundtrack generator.

On community:
There are active InSim projects, leagues, and sub-communities. People still write entertaining posts here. The only promotion needed is an email from the devs.

On where's the ****ing content:
Content production workflow is affected by the target graphics platform.

On why Scawen and Eric remain in hiding:
They actually hate most of us. FACT.


Good day. :drunk:
#493 - col
Quote from Mountaindewzilla :You're being unnecessarily rude and defensive.

You read my post and the one I was replying to(I assume), and that's your conclusion...?! lol
ePenis redux
Quote from col :You read my post and the one I was replying to(I assume), and that's your conclusion...?! lol

Your face is a conclusion.

Quote from col :Oops, sorry, next time I want to or expect to do something, I'll ask you first...[1]

I'm not making excuses for anyone. I'm explaining why Scawen prioritises optimising LFS to get it working on older systems over making it get the most out of the latest gaming tech.[2]
I've shown LFS (and GPL before it) to non-pc-gamers who enjoyed it immensely. There are plenty of non-gamers out there who would play LFS if they knew about it - they just are not aware that games like that exist.[3]

Just because someone hasn't been taken for a sucker by clever marketing and a culture of GegaHertz and Gigatexel ePenis competitions doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to pay Scaviers wages.[4]

[1] A sarcastic remark. That's defensive.
[2] It's rude to speak for someone without their explicit permission. A link would have been more appropriate.
[3] But they wouldn't have the hardware necessary to run it, right?
[4] You tried and failed to rationalize your lack of a fancy computer with rude remarks. The implication of a false dilemma wherein I can't buy a computer without being taken for a sucker or wanting a larger penis(!) for competitive purposes(!!!) is offensive.

Sarcasm can win any argument...! lol
Quote from col :Don't forget that those are the stats of steam users - people who are gamers. It is highly likely that if the figures included 'non-gamers', then the average spec would be considerably lower. LFS can appeal to non-gamers

non-gamers don't usually appeal on a racing simulator. Not a single non-gamer out of the people i have shown it have got it after they have tried it, of course they were like: "oh yeah that's cool...etc...". But.... it's way too hard to drive for a starter + consumes a pretty huge amount of time to be a competitive. And yes ofcourse it can appeal them to buy the game and stay eventually for a longer time than few races, but that number is just too small(compared to a gamers) to make any difference...
#496 - col
Quote from Mountaindewzilla :
[1]...
[2]...
[3]...
[4]...

I'm impressed by your counting skills.
Quote :
Sarcasm can win any argument...! lol

damn!
#497 - col
Quote from -NightFly- :but that number is just too small(compared to a gamers) to make any difference...

How do you know if it's too small a number?
It would be interesting to find out for sure. It's might not be enough by itself to influence the devs, but when added to folks living in less affluent countries, and kids who have to use a family PC that's not a gaming monster, it will make a difference.
Lol
Good job mod.
Ok, from one point of view it can be good that LFS would have compatibility with older systems, run smoothly on Pentium 4 with 1GB RAM. But that way you will never achieve more accurate simulation and better look & feel.

By FINALLY moving step forward you can get better physics by using multicore/threading opportunity, much better graphics with today's GPU. That way, you will probably loose some of players with 10yo computers, but you can get many new players with modern PCs who are waiting for simulators of 2012 like rFactor 2...that could be another LFS...

imho it's silly to provide backwards compatibility for such old systems. The sooner jump to multi-core universe, the better.
Quote from majod :Ok, from one point of view it can be good that LFS would have compatibility with older systems, run smoothly on Pentium 4 with 1GB RAM. But that way you will never achieve more accurate simulation and better look & feel.

By FINALLY moving step forward you can get better physics by using multicore/threading opportunity, much better graphics with today's GPU. That way, you will probably loose some of players with 10yo computers, but you can get many new players with modern PCs who are waiting for simulators of 2012 like rFactor 2...that could be another LFS...

imho it's silly to provide backwards compatibility for such old systems. The sooner jump to multi-core universe, the better.


[Merged] Discussion regarding LFS development
(1577 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG