The online racing simulator
Any WIP new physics progress?
(234 posts, started )
Quote from johneysvk :hope this will be implemented on car body (skins) as well, would be great Smile

Yeah, that would be really cool. I already tried to implement that before, but actually, alpha is 1 bit only, so a pixel could only be matt or shiny, and setting an alpha value other than 1 resulted in black dithered dots on the skin, so not really usable for skin creation. And online shaders were only shiny, since JPEG files don't have an alpha channel.
Scawen bro has any date in your mind, this year yet?
Quote from cargame.nl :eeehh.. no. It is 8 bits.

Yeah I know that, I'm saying that skins in LFS are using alpha with dithering, and even when I save the skin in DXT5 and make a gradient of alpha, it ends up with dithered black dot everywhere. I'll try edit this post and upload a screenshot of it today.
Oh, you are talking about the actual situation.. Yeah, okay.. It's heavily outdated.
coentrao !!
Quote from bbman :I'm sorry to kidnap this thread a bit, I just can't resist my curiosity...



Is it because that's the backup bike or is there a special reason you went with the 10-speed?



Why are your brake discs installed front to back?

Ui! Because i am a noob.

I changed the brake disc at that time without knowing that there is a difference.
Until now!Ya right (My first bike after 20 Years. ) Thx for the clarification Thumbs up
Quote from Scawen :
2) Finish some graphical updates that will help with new tracks.

Any chance that you have an improvement of physicsClock(100Hz) to screenClock(typical 60Hz) micro stutter issue in mind?

I know that many don't see the micro stutter as a problem, in fact some claim they don't have it which cannot be true unless they of cause run 20,25,50 or 100Hz on there display, but for me after I found a way to clock my main monitor down to 50Hz and seen the smoothness of constant image change frequency, it hurt my eyes looking at the jitter composed by the 100Hz to (60Hz or 75Hz) "latest frame" sampling which LFS currently does. And I would bet many would see it as a very big improvement on immersion, if this issue was addressed somehow someday.

Actually this issue is why I have not dared to buy a VR headset yet because I would intent to use it almost exclusively with LFS but afraid that the 100Hz to 90Hz jitter would ruin my experiences because I know it could be more smooth. And eyes are very sensitive to jitter when image is scrolling, the brain know it is fake and not a real world image.
This actually stimulate your balance centre the wrong way compared to real world image, which the balance centre use among other things to keep track of your balance and avoid you becoming dizzy. Of cause maybe the micro stutter is not making anyone dizzy and pop but it sure is noticeable when compared to none stutter and much more important for immersion than getting the lighting of the scene or the 3D models more photo realistic or even getting the tire physics(almost back on topic :-) ) more realistic than it already is.

The funny thing is that implementing an interpolation between physics and graphics each thread running on separate CPU core would actually yield more headroom for both physics and graphics improvement and solve micro stutter at the same time. Of cause this is easier said than done on a SW architecture I would guess was developed before multi core CPUs became mainstream.

PS: nice bikes..same story here, quit smoking and began bicycling 5-6years ago :-D only road biking though.
Quote from hetner :Any chance that you have an improvement of physicsClock(100Hz) to screenClock(typical 60Hz) micro stutter issue in mind?

I know that many don't see the micro stutter as a problem, in fact some claim they don't have it which cannot be true unless they of cause run 20,25,50 or 100Hz on there display, but for me after I found a way to clock my main monitor down to 50Hz and seen the smoothness of constant image change frequency, it hurt my eyes looking at the jitter composed by the 100Hz to (60Hz or 75Hz) "latest frame" sampling which LFS currently does. And I would bet many would see it as a very big improvement on immersion, if this issue was addressed somehow someday.

Actually this issue is why I have not dared to buy a VR headset yet because I would intent to use it almost exclusively with LFS but afraid that the 100Hz to 90Hz jitter would ruin my experiences because I know it could be more smooth. And eyes are very sensitive to jitter when image is scrolling, the brain know it is fake and not a real world image.
This actually stimulate your balance centre the wrong way compared to real world image, which the balance centre use among other things to keep track of your balance and avoid you becoming dizzy. Of cause maybe the micro stutter is not making anyone dizzy and pop but it sure is noticeable when compared to none stutter and much more important for immersion than getting the lighting of the scene or the 3D models more photo realistic or even getting the tire physics(almost back on topic :-) ) more realistic than it already is.

The funny thing is that implementing an interpolation between physics and graphics each thread running on separate CPU core would actually yield more headroom for both physics and graphics improvement and solve micro stutter at the same time. Of cause this is easier said than done on a SW architecture I would guess was developed before multi core CPUs became mainstream.

PS: nice bikes..same story here, quit smoking and began bicycling 5-6years ago :-D only road biking though.

Are 50/100hz displays more common than I think they are around the world?
Quote from mosquitohater93 :Are 50/100hz displays more common than I think they are around the world?

I don't think so, but since you can run a 60Hz display at 50Hz, some people like to do this in LFS to remove the judder. I personally prefer disabling VSync and playing at 100 FPS.
Quote from Scawen :

Eric has been working on one of his new tracks in particular and also done fixes and updates on Blackwood, Westhill and Rockingham which we hope to release in an update in the not too distant future.

Okay, I just thought out this again...

...To prevent causing earlier issues about updating Westhill track, I hope that this does not effect on map area borders as several LFS'ers have created their layouts maxed out to the very border of play area, so if upcoming update will take an effort to optimization to scale area, I suggest to make alternative way. However, because everyone are developing to make some kind of things bigger on their own product, I do assume LFS will be no exception at all.

However, all of sudden I got worry about by thinking and remembering. Not because the update itself or I do not have anything else to do than creating layouts and using them ( involves other guys too, not speaking only myself ), but more like keeping the insane inner flexibility, which is indeed strong factor on LFS.

Also, I do keep it always on my mind that things may change while going forwards. LFS is still on alpha stage and even if being full product, things would still change. This seems to be happening on elsewhere as well, including real life too.

Please take this only as reminder, regardless of need or not. Anyway, I am sure the updates and fixes on mentioned track areas will be most likely excellent work for sure.

(Yeah, as looking on this page on lfs forums, every square meter will be used sooner or later in some point. )

But yeah, this does not of course involve the new content which might come in some point. I did re-check again the discuss in test patch section. I see the reason why this happens is that indeed update pace is slow ( not everybody things it is too slow, though ), so messing around and finding some cool things like did happen on Westhill and already on new Blackwood as well is a joy.

But I am prepared. At least some of my layouts might not work anymore in some point, but that is not big deal. This will take an effort on physics update itself, not only track updates.

But of course! Sandbox area with absolutely nothing included would fix this.

Now, we wait! ( Yes, we know that. )

( Duh... I went straight to off-topic, like jumping on the gun, oh well. )
I would adore a max object limit and an empty area... Be it just tarmac or sections of tarmac and maybe dirt, or hell, a map editor!
Apparently Codemasters really screwed up Dirt4, so now's the time for LFS to step up and grab some of the rally sim market, lol.

Seriously though, I think LFS would feel better than RBR for rally racing if there was a proper rally track and comparable car with the current physics as they are.

Keep up the good work guys.

Brendan
Quote from Lord_Verminaard :Apparently Codemasters really screwed up Dirt4

That's a given after trying Dirt Rally. Assetto Corsa is hardly better.

LFS could easily be better than RBR if it had full rally stages and a dedicated chassis/suspension/etc.

Also I'm still waiting for tire heat to be fixed. Don't have any problems with the current model near as much as I do with practically every other sim I've tried.
Quote from Xenix74 :Scawen you have a few years' advance. After I also stopped smoking last year, I bought this toy for me this year .....Shrug Big grin

I live 30 minutes from cannondale's HQ
Quote from Scawen :My preferred hobby is shown in the attached pictures. Smile

I would like to add bikes to LFS. More likely motorbikes.

Thinking forward in the short-medium range I would like to:

1) Release an update with the current physics, with Eric's Blackwood fixes and minor updates on Westhill and Rockingham including 3D kerbs.
2) Finish some graphical updates that will help with new tracks.
3) Get back to tyre physics and release it with the Scirocco.

Note, that is not a list of promises. It is simply a short list of things as I personally see it.

In the future I am still interested in various things that the LFS team and I cannot make any promises about, but I can state an interest in. Such as bikes, karts, trucks, user created content.

My modest ride.
Attached images
IMG_6277.JPG
Quote from Bmxtwins :My modest ride.

That's not a BMX! My whole world has just been turned upside-down... Looking
Quote from nacim :I don't think so, but since you can run a 60Hz display at 50Hz, some people like to do this in LFS to remove the judder. I personally prefer disabling VSync and playing at 100 FPS.

Actually, I also prefer disabling V-sync and cap LFS at 100Hz but if you do that on a 60Hz monitor, you will have screen tear randomly (like) all over the screen. Changing the monitor update to 50Hz will keep the screen tear steady in the picture and imo not so noticeable and annoying. And at 60Hz, part of the screen will still have the judder(constant micro stutter) where at 50Hz it will be smooth as butter only eye hurting at the screen tear lines.

When that is said, running with V-sync when monitor is at 50Hz is also very nice. As long as the general frames are steady. I usually set LFS priority to "runtime" in task manager and remove all speed step and power saving options in BIOS to keep CPU clock steady, this almost eliminate the remaining V-sync related stutter when running 50Hz, but also helps even if you run v-sync with 60Hz monitor.

I used this tool to change Monitor update: https://www.monitortests.com/forum/Thread-Custom-Resolution-Utility-CRU

It is by far not all monitors that will run at 50Hz. Therefore, it is not a general solution if you want ultra-smooth frame updates.

Sorry if I got too much out of topic here, but a good solution for this just is way higher on my wish list than tire physics(which already is the best and most immersive physics I have tried) :-)
Around 2005-2007, I had a Sony FW900 24" widescreen CRT (22" LCD equivalent) that ran 1920x1200 @ 100Hz. It was old and the colours were washed out, but it was glorious for playing LFS. xD
Quote from Forbin :Around 2005-2007, I had a Sony FW900 24" widescreen CRT (22" LCD equivalent) that ran 1920x1200 @ 100Hz. It was old and the colours were washed out, but it was glorious for playing LFS. xD

I'm on a CRT here, I hate flatscreens with a passion - call me fussy, but I like my colours to stay the colour they're supposed to be when I move my head Wink
Quote from Racon :I'm on a CRT here, I hate flatscreens with a passion - call me fussy, but I like my colours to stay the colour they're supposed to be when I move my head Wink

My guess is you've only used TN panels?

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/panel_technologies.htm

IPS-type panels are much less prone to that sort of colour distortion. I haven't owned any other type of LCD since my FW900 died. The primary advantage of TN is its speed (primarily colour-change response time, but also input lag and refresh rate support) over IPS, but that advantage is significantly narrowed these days.

Now you can get a really fast IPS-type panel that runs at 100Hz or more, even at resolutions as high as 3440 x 1440.
No idea, I imagine the ones I use a lot have always been the cheapest option available (ie, they're work screens), so I'm sure they're pretty poor examples of the least effective technology.

But then, of all the flatscreens I've ever seen, there has only ever been 'better', never 'fixed'.

Someone said new physics?
Quote from Racon :
But then, of all the flatscreens I've ever seen, there has only ever been 'better', never 'fixed'.

OLED,but they are still too expensive.

Any WIP new physics progress?
(234 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG