I am glad!I was a bit worried when you reported it not very stable but now I am sure you have a solid foundation! Keep up the good work!
I am glad!I was a bit worried when you reported it not very stable but now I am sure you have a solid foundation! Keep up the good work!
Scawen has requested partial floodlight areas for Aston, as well.
I'll fix that in my next Aston update.Kind of a dumb question but I noticed AIs have names in Eric's video, is this going to be in the final version?
Nah, you have always been able to name AIs at Options -> Game
Eric just happened to name his AI-drivers like that. He also had AI 22 and AI 24 in those videos. Those AIs used the default AI name
How long are the nights ?
If sun position is computed correctly, does it mean that we have seasons, where the lenght of day change with latitude ?
Then do track have specific latitudes ? like fern bay near equator and 12h nights all year, and kyoto 45° north and 6h to 18h nights depending on season
If sun position is computed correctly, does it mean that we have seasons, where the lenght of day change with latitude ?
Then do track have specific latitudes ? like fern bay near equator and 12h nights all year, and kyoto 45° north and 6h to 18h nights depending on season
Yes, it does take the date and latitude into account:
Maybe it has been obvious and I didn't think of it/didn't see it
· Do the headlights in cars share the same behaviour as the track lights where they fade-in during the transition to night or are they always on just not that noticeable during the day?. If so, does this apply to the AI only or does it also apply to the player's car?
· If a player pressed 3 to turn them off, would they turn off or just be forced on?
· Do the headlights in cars share the same behaviour as the track lights where they fade-in during the transition to night or are they always on just not that noticeable during the day?. If so, does this apply to the AI only or does it also apply to the player's car?
· If a player pressed 3 to turn them off, would they turn off or just be forced on?
I certainly hope that turning the headlights off during the night will disable the "physical" lights, not just the textures, otherwise things will look very weird. Your first question is interesting though, as it wouldn't be so surprising that lights are "optimized out" during day time; however, I think that would be a mistake in some situations, e.g. going through a tunnel/underpass (KY3, South City) or just into the shadows of buildings in South City in some lighting conditions. There are also more tunnel-like driveable areas in the updated Kyoto and South City.
Another concern I have regarding headlights is how far they can illuminate: I believe AI turns on the high/full beam at night, and well, that doesn't really look like high beam lights to me, but rather low beam. Regulations may vary for each country, but high beams should typically illuminate at least around 100m, while low beams are around 30m (at least that's what regulations say in France). In the videos, it looks like the lights barely reach 30m, let alone 100, which might make racing even more difficult than it should already be at night.
And on a related note: mods - I assume all vehicles will have either one or two "physical" lights, but will we be able to set their position (and orientation) manually? I imagine beam asymmetry is not too much of a concern and doesn't really need to be accounted for.
EDIT: To be fair, even from real life aerial views at the likes of Spa 24h or Nurburgring 24h, the visible illuminated spot on the road in front of the car doesn't reach that far either, but still a bit more than what we can see here. However, in the attached screenshot, the yellow car at the front doesn't appear to be illuminated by the white car's lights at all, when they look like they should be around 25m apart.
Another concern I have regarding headlights is how far they can illuminate: I believe AI turns on the high/full beam at night, and well, that doesn't really look like high beam lights to me, but rather low beam. Regulations may vary for each country, but high beams should typically illuminate at least around 100m, while low beams are around 30m (at least that's what regulations say in France). In the videos, it looks like the lights barely reach 30m, let alone 100, which might make racing even more difficult than it should already be at night.
And on a related note: mods - I assume all vehicles will have either one or two "physical" lights, but will we be able to set their position (and orientation) manually? I imagine beam asymmetry is not too much of a concern and doesn't really need to be accounted for.
EDIT: To be fair, even from real life aerial views at the likes of Spa 24h or Nurburgring 24h, the visible illuminated spot on the road in front of the car doesn't reach that far either, but still a bit more than what we can see here. However, in the attached screenshot, the yellow car at the front doesn't appear to be illuminated by the white car's lights at all, when they look like they should be around 25m apart.
Therefore we will be able to triangulate the exact position of fictitious tracks 😁
Edit: I can't wait to go to Fern Bay and have my Cocopine on the beach!
I hope Fern Bay has no lights, would be amazing at night.
Perhaps a feature to disable the track lightning?
This seems wildly unsafe!
Controlling it sectionwise via insim (or similar) could be a nice thing though. Considering the usage of layouts, you'd probably be able to help the driver a bit. I mean tracks like Bahrain offer multiple layouts, not all are illuminated when using a specific layout.
I think this has been asked a few times on Discord and here on LFS Forum. About the dynamic lightning: what are your current plans in regards of implementing this into demo content?
Is the same dynamic lightning system still planned, if not already being currently developed, in there as well or will that demo content still have those usual 2-4 static daytime settings? Or does that version have that dynamic lightning as well, but with more limited options (for example, there are less time multipliers available)?
After all, demo is meant to be demonstration of LFS
Is the same dynamic lightning system still planned, if not already being currently developed, in there as well or will that demo content still have those usual 2-4 static daytime settings? Or does that version have that dynamic lightning as well, but with more limited options (for example, there are less time multipliers available)?
After all, demo is meant to be demonstration of LFS
Lightning storms illustrated to have some occasional lighting.
ACE PLACES to RACE!
From the footage, what are your ACE PLACES to RACE (AP2R!) in the new LFS?
My nomination South City Stadium
My nomination South City Stadium
Looks like the perfect spot to get some cones out and create a drift track for competitive purposes
I'm wondering about the way the lit areas look in some places. It seems to be vertex based, because some areas look smooth and realistic, while others like the car park in the screenshot has strange artifacts following the 3D mesh geometry. This is what we see in the current baked-in lighting model as well. Is this something that's going to be improved for the final version? I don't want to judge it now because it's still in progress, I'm just curious.
Scawen, Eric, this looks superb.
Even after all this time, and probably 6 years since my last double click of that .exe I am still excited for any LFS update.
Even after all this time, and probably 6 years since my last double click of that .exe I am still excited for any LFS update.
That ambient lighting, including from the artificial lights, is baked and vertex based. Where there is an issue like the one you spotted, Eric can improve it by manually increasing the geometry in those areas.
EDIT: To be clear, in the older versions of LFS, we had automatic geometry splitting to try to allow more detailed shadows (that were also for sun shadows). It worked OK in some places, but sometimes it creates long shards of undesirable lighting. In the new version of LFS, direct lighting shadows are done using shadow maps. Vertex lighting is now only for the ambient lighting (including sky lighting and street lights). Automatic splitting then seemed to cause more problems than it could solve, so we decided that it would be better if Eric has full control of the geometry instead of leaving anything to a flawed algorithm.
The design compromise of storing lighting in vertices has pros and cons, it's very efficient and helps LFS keep running on less powerful GPUs that is important for many of our customers. In my opinion it usually works quite well but there can be problems in some places, e.g. sometimes near street lights or occasionally there are excessive ambient shadows. I think it's not worth trying to make it too perfect but it can be improved a bit in some places where it might be seen a lot or has obvious issues.
EDIT: To be clear, in the older versions of LFS, we had automatic geometry splitting to try to allow more detailed shadows (that were also for sun shadows). It worked OK in some places, but sometimes it creates long shards of undesirable lighting. In the new version of LFS, direct lighting shadows are done using shadow maps. Vertex lighting is now only for the ambient lighting (including sky lighting and street lights). Automatic splitting then seemed to cause more problems than it could solve, so we decided that it would be better if Eric has full control of the geometry instead of leaving anything to a flawed algorithm.
The design compromise of storing lighting in vertices has pros and cons, it's very efficient and helps LFS keep running on less powerful GPUs that is important for many of our customers. In my opinion it usually works quite well but there can be problems in some places, e.g. sometimes near street lights or occasionally there are excessive ambient shadows. I think it's not worth trying to make it too perfect but it can be improved a bit in some places where it might be seen a lot or has obvious issues.
So there is only baked ambient occlusion during the day, and baked lighting during the night right ?
So no baked Global Illumination that blends during the various time of day for the moment ? That could be a huge increase in visual fidelity, but a lot of work so probably not for this graphics update
Anyways, keep up the good work guys, always a pleasure to see and I hope to play it in the not too distant future
Eric's newest post where he stated that he will do an update for Aston later got me thinking. I would like to get a clarification about this:
Does this new dynamic lightning system force you to release all updated track environments at the same time? Is it even possible to release a patch, where one of the track environments is updated and that particular track environment uses the new dynamic system, while all the other tracks still use the current 2-4 static lightning options for time being?
While it may sound strange, that only one track gets updated for one patch, it wouldn't be unprecedent as in 0.6 timeline, new Westhill was introduced in 0.6H, 0.6K introduced Rockingham, it was updated in 0.6M and 0.6R was when new Blackwood was introduced. Although, all track environments did get a major update at the same time in 0.6B, when those open track configurations were introduced.
And if it's possible to do it like that, it could make sense. It would be easier and less overwhelming for everybody to focus on fixing one track environment at a time as I'm sure that they will almost certainly have some issues in the test patch stage, as Flame already showed out one issue. Heck, the slightly updated Fern Bay probably would be very useful for testing the dynamic lightning system and time multipliers themselves, as Scawen himself has said that Fern Bay is an exception and doesn't require any major updates.
Of course, none of these pros matter, if it is very difficult, if not outright impossible for you to release a patch like this, or if you have always intended to release all the tracks at the same time using this new lightning system. I'm just curious, are you forced to release all at the same time or could you use your own discretion with this
Does this new dynamic lightning system force you to release all updated track environments at the same time? Is it even possible to release a patch, where one of the track environments is updated and that particular track environment uses the new dynamic system, while all the other tracks still use the current 2-4 static lightning options for time being?
While it may sound strange, that only one track gets updated for one patch, it wouldn't be unprecedent as in 0.6 timeline, new Westhill was introduced in 0.6H, 0.6K introduced Rockingham, it was updated in 0.6M and 0.6R was when new Blackwood was introduced. Although, all track environments did get a major update at the same time in 0.6B, when those open track configurations were introduced.
And if it's possible to do it like that, it could make sense. It would be easier and less overwhelming for everybody to focus on fixing one track environment at a time as I'm sure that they will almost certainly have some issues in the test patch stage, as Flame already showed out one issue. Heck, the slightly updated Fern Bay probably would be very useful for testing the dynamic lightning system and time multipliers themselves, as Scawen himself has said that Fern Bay is an exception and doesn't require any major updates.
Of course, none of these pros matter, if it is very difficult, if not outright impossible for you to release a patch like this, or if you have always intended to release all the tracks at the same time using this new lightning system. I'm just curious, are you forced to release all at the same time or could you use your own discretion with this
Sorry, I know there are other questions but I can't answer them all as I'm still busy working long days every day.
In our system, I call the following ambient lighting:
1) Lighting from the sky
2) Lighting from nearby objects
3) Lighting from artificial lights (excluding headlights which are obviously dynamic)
These are linked together in our system, values baked into vertex lighting and they are in operation at all times, with a varying effect depending on the lighting situation. Some artificial lights are on at all times (e.g. pit garages) and some come on only at night (street lights).
No, all tracks must be updated. This has all been explained. I know it's a lot of reading but there are links at the bottom of this page:
https://www.lfs.net/patchInfo/report-dec2024-ky.php
In our system, I call the following ambient lighting:
1) Lighting from the sky
2) Lighting from nearby objects
3) Lighting from artificial lights (excluding headlights which are obviously dynamic)
These are linked together in our system, values baked into vertex lighting and they are in operation at all times, with a varying effect depending on the lighting situation. Some artificial lights are on at all times (e.g. pit garages) and some come on only at night (street lights).
No, all tracks must be updated. This has all been explained. I know it's a lot of reading but there are links at the bottom of this page:
https://www.lfs.net/patchInfo/report-dec2024-ky.php
As I was watching yesterday's lunar eclipse, I wondered:
Will there be a moon?
The aerial views of the tracks looks phantastic!
Will there be a moon?
The aerial views of the tracks looks phantastic!
The moon with its phases, casting a subtle shadow if it's up during night time would be a nice touch!
September Progress Report
(76 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG