Harjun - either prove your 900% overclock or stop bragging about it...

[bitchy]
Harjun. GTFO of my thread I started. GTFO off the forum. I for one don't give a toss about your 'overclocking' 9fps is nothing to laugh about. I can give you an old pc that'll play lfs at 9fps if you keep taking the mickey out of other users

[/bitchy]

On-topic, LFS is CPU dependant (sp?), not entirely GPU dependant, so the graphics are like the icing on the cake, correct? COULD the CPU and GPU split the load evenly then, possibly?

@Ricerguy: Check the accessibility thread, there's some textures there AFAIK

DK

What do you mean "split the load up". You can't run a physics engine on a GFX card without a lot of re-programming...

If you know what to do LFS should be both GFX limited (when your on your own) and CPU limited (when in a full grid).

Quote from spavatch :

Sorry it took me so long guys. But it's better late than ever, right?

Here's a screen you've requested. As you can clearly see LFS.exe is using over 90 percent of CPU's processing power and runs extremely sluggish. Any idea what's wrong?

Ugh ...


Dunno where to start

First get rid of all the XP theme GUI, 2nd close all proccess and applications not needed. Get rid of desktop background, The less memory usgae and CPU usage before running LFS is critical on anything around the 1ghz mark.

Quote from Jakg :

What do you mean "split the load up". You can't run a physics engine on a GFX card without a lot of re-programming...

If you know what to do LFS should be both GFX limited (when your on your own) and CPU limited (when in a full grid).

How would that work though? I fail to see how it'd help the lower end PC users, unless it's a straight 50/50 GFX/CPU split?

DK

It wouldn't work, that was my point.

What was your point...?

Also, will running LFS in windowed mode (like in the screenshot) not always result in lower fps, even on faster computers?

Quote from Jakg :

It wouldn't work, that was my point.

What was your point...?

That there could be a way, possibly move some of LFS' physics calculations onto another CPU/a gfx card/other card, or lower the cycle that physics samples are taken at? (Idk if that'd have any effect.)

Lower Sample Rate - Less realistic, incompatible replays/multiplayer

Spreading between CPU/GPU (or seperate cores) - The PC's that have trouble running LFS (A DX8 game i can MAX with a 3 GHz P4 and integrated graphics) aren't gonna have ANY spare cores of cycles...

Could there be a DX7 mode, possibly?

DK

That won't help.

Usually the problem is the CPU, and tbh theres not much that can, or imo should, be done.

The only way to make CPU load lighter (that i can see) is to go for Multi-Threading (which wont help in the case of a lowend system), 64-bit (wont help either) or to try to work out a way of calculating the physics with less calculations, which might help slightly, but what happens when the physics get better?

LFS is a modern game, you can't expect a PC from the ark to run it, as harsh as that is - a Skt. A system can max LFS, and yet good luck even getting Crysis or SupCom to give you more than 5 fps on low with it...

It runs great on an athlon XP 3000+ with 512mb of ram and with an ati radeon 9500pro (more than 5 years old spec machine…)

You can buy used parts… eg A64 3000+ with 512mb ram and an 7600 like gfx card and the appropriate mobo, for way less than 200e ~150p ~250$

What lfs needs is better graphics.
The only thing that could be improved is the cpu usage of the current sound system cause in some cases it overcomes the physics engine cpu usage

Quote from Gener_AL (UK) :

Ugh ... Dunno where to start
First get rid of all the XP theme GUI, 2nd close all proccess and applications not needed (...)

You won't belive it . Changing the gfx board helped A LOT! A Radeon 8500 made LFS go smokin' fast, just around 40-45 FPS with all the bells and whistles turned on .

Quote from kaynd :

It runs great on an athlon XP 3000+ with 512mb of ram and with an ati radeon 9500pro (more than 5 years old spec machine…)
You can buy used parts… eg A64 3000+ with 512mb ram and an 7600 like gfx card and the appropriate mobo, for way less than 200e ~150p ~250$ (...)

That wouldn't be a bad idea but as I said before it's my girlfriend's machine and it's overall performance isn't really my business . I'm not going to spend a dime on it, all I could do was putting DDR memory instead of SDR and swapping that video card. I actually did that and it worked! My usual gaming rig is also 6-year-old but was recently uprated a bit (XP 2500+ @2.57, 1.5 GB, Radeon X1950XTX) and therefore it runs LFS like a dream .

i play LFS at a ROCK SOLID 100 fps lol. But i think its a good idea because less then 2 weeks ago my old computer was strugeling at playing LFS
My new pc specs are:
AMD Athelon 64 X2 DualCore 6000+
2GB RAM
ATI Readon HD2600 Pro