The online racing simulator
[OLD] Tyre Physics Progress Report
(4436 posts, closed, started )
@justasimfan; You could be a real well salesman.

If you didn't notice we're still trying to work out tire physics, Pick a number (About 4000+ on the list) And sit the hell down.
@justasimfan, what do expect to happen?

Do you seriously think the Dev's or any player don't know? ATM it obviously isn't their high priority and as a matter of fact, there are people who have trouble to run LFS fine. Not every LFS player is a hardcore gamer who updates his system every year.
As Scawen is the only coder of this project for the moment (maybe Leo will be able to assist his father to finish the physics at some point ) you have to prioritise some things. And while it's true that the GFX engine has aged a bit over the years, it is a decent basis to develope physics on.
I'm sure an engine update is on the list (hopefully together with changing weather conditions), but it is not the most important thing to get done atm.
Even Duke Nukem Forever is going to be released, so I'm pretty sure that some day a new LFS patch is gonna come out!!!
I think that most people here would agree that good, mature (aka not the "bloom is drool" policy) directx11 level graphics would be a good thing for LFS. Why wouldn't it be? It's just a matter of feasibility.

This has been talked about over and over again... even when the current graphics were rather new, some people were complaining. Doesn't change the fact that Scawen works alone, and has a very specific list of priorities that none of us here have every influenced.
Quote from boosterfire :
Doesn't change the fact that Scawen works alone, and has a very specific list of priorities that none of us here have every influenced.

why don't he ask some help?
it s a very good game but, we need to wait a lot if he continue to work alone.

he could work on tyre physics and someone on graphics or other tracks or what you want...

sorry for my english.
Quote from akiskev :Even Duke Nukem Forever is going to be released, so I'm pretty sure that some day a new LFS patch is gonna come out!!!

LFS S3 will be the next Duke Nukem Forever style game, they have developed DNF already 13 years, S3 only two years...
So LFS S3 will not be out until 2021
Nice
Quote from civicman :why don't he ask some help?
it s a very good game but, we need to wait a lot if he continue to work alone.

he could work on tyre physics and someone on graphics or other tracks or what you want...

sorry for my english.

This question has been raised a few times before and the answer still is "because he chose to work the way he does". And that's really all there is to say about
Quote from 65D :LFS S3 will be the next Duke Nukem Forever style game, they have developed DNF already 13 years, S3 only two years...
So LFS S3 will not be out until 2021
Nice

in that time will be a flying cars
Quote from Udris1992 :in that time will be a flying cars

We already have that. Barriers. Remember?
Quote from three_jump :This question has been raised a few times before and the answer still is "because he chose to work the way he does". And that's really all there is to say about

hum.. yes. i understand. but it could be so good for us and for scaven if things come faster, he could win more money, because more people would take a s2 license or s3. if physics (physic is good yet) and graphics were better.

i think lfs has a very good potential , but will die if nothing is doing. its just my opinion.
but he do what he want, no problem.
Quote from civicman :hum.. yes. i understand. but it could be so good for us and for scaven if things come faster, he could win more money, because more people would take a s2 license or s3. if physics (physic is good yet) and graphics were better.

i think lfs has a very good potential , but will die if nothing is doing. its just my opinion.
but he do what he want, no problem.

This has all been pointed out before. It's obvious that LFS would develop faster and gain from being developed by more than one person, however Scawen works the way he wants.

This is his project, and he works on it the way he wants to.
Well, LFS aint going to 'die' that easy.
Also, LFS will never be 'mainstream' game.

Why?
Because it's a simulation.

I've seen some comments about F1 2010 and similar games, how great gfx looks, etc... that is true. They look good.
But, they are arcade type of game.

Now - what do YOU think would happen if F1 21010 was made as simulation?

I can tell you that people who invest money in it wouldn't be too happy.. as people who buy it wouldn't be too happy.
Just face it - there's much bigger market for 'arcade' type of games.
If F1 2010 was simulation, I can tell you they'd have much worse sales, and there'd be thousands of people/kids crying it's too hard, it sucks, etc...

This is also what makes simulations much more long-lasting. People who choose to play this type of games, and in the end - unfortunately market for those is much smaller.

My point with this?
Not much... except we're smaller market, and this also means less options, and slower development.

This also does mean *if* some company as Codemasters/EA or similar *wanted* to make pure sim, they could. But they wont. It's $$$$ what matters.
Quote from Nick7 :
LFS will never be 'mainstream' game.

Why?
Because it's a simulation.

And how being a sim automatically makes a niche game?
Quote from justasimfan :my morning cup of nonsence

You don't give up easily, do you? But just so you know, DX8 DOES support vertex and pixel shaders up to version 1.3, DX8.1 brought support for version 1.4. If LFS were to make a switch, DX10 is the way to go 'cause switching to like 7 years old API is rather stupid... Think and educate yourself a bit before you post, I'm outta here...
Quote from Chupacabras84 :And how being a sim automatically makes a niche game?

Because it's 'too hard' for most kids, etc...
Just look what kind of games sell most.
Real simulations aint amongst them.
Quote from MadCatX :You don't give up easily, do you? But just so you know, DX8 DOES support vertex and pixel shaders up to version 1.3, DX8.1 brought support for version 1.4. If LFS were to make a switch, DX10 is the way to go 'cause switching to like 7 years old API is rather stupid... Think and educate yourself a bit before you post, I'm outta here...

You - ofc - know that DX10 is Vista/7 only? Rendering Windows XP unusable?
You also know that still new games support DX9?

Besides - what does LFS *need* from DX10/11 that cannot be done with DX9?

In the end, as I already said many times.. there are much more pressing things than DX 'version'.
Quote from justasimfan :As i said before why you are stack with the concept of either Graphics OR Physics ??

Technology the last few years has evolved at an incredible rate to the point where an average computer runs lfs at 500 + fps....(mind you the human eye barely notices any difference over 60 fps and you need a capable monitor that has a high refresh rate.)


And i always laugh when i hear the term "Screenshot generator "

Its probably among the oldest and more commonly used excuses for inadequate graphics....

And again as i said before 5+ years ago when s2 was released was actually pretty good looking for its time.It wasn't "OmG!! " stuff but it was nice never the less.Some nice physics based head movement along some nice cockpits ,large grids,interesting tracks,tyres flying when hitting tyre walls and some interesting vertex deformation were at that time making a very solid looking game.

But nowdays no matter how you put it the graphics are looking very dated.
And yes there are some nice high res textures from Lynce and Electric Car that improve the game but still the truth is that it looks dated.The dx8 render is missing shaders effects and bloom/hdr lighting effects.Shaders are crusial to have "warm tarmarc","wet reflecting tarmarc ",real time reflections,metallic surfaces actually looking like metal etc...
Then there are effects like normal mapping that is a better bumpmapping texture effect that makes surfaces appeal that they have depth.
And the difference some bloom and hdr lighting does is like night and day...

You don't need dx11 or even dx10 to archieve the above effects.Dx9 is more than adequate for the above effects.And no the game will still run at 300+ fps on a decent computer.As much as i love fls and it still has the second best handling(the best in my opinion is netkar pro) it is surpassed on many levels but newer sims like the recent gtr evo/race on combo,rfactors latest mods(with real feel) and i can only imagine how it will compare against the upcoming rfactor 2 and Gtr 3 .....

Just to inform you, one of the reasons I still play LFS is that it can run on my 4y old NB, and no way I have 100s of FPS
Yes my friend had around 200+fps with a bit decent machine.
But I have like 20-100 fps depends on grid.
The graphics is OK for me and I have seen much worse, there is nothing I could remember that I don't like with LFS graphics. Yes the standard textures sucks etc. but if you develop your own pack of textures it looks much much better!
Yes deformation etc. wheels flying around killing people on podiums etc. would be nice but I would switch it off anyway if it would be sacrificing performance and it wouldn't have effect on physics.

Graphics, the stuff you want is a work for lets say 100 peole 1 year or more, look at NFS what ever as I got the impression you want that graphics, they developed the game with huge I mean really huge budget for many years with a lot of people, so yes it looks nice because that's the goal! Look nice, play easily, sell a lot of copies, make a lot of $$$.
Now look at LFS and how many people is developing it
Yes it's IMHO dumb, but maybe they have a good reason why they want to have it that way, no big income, you have to trust the people who develop it, etc.

If you think creating a game is easy/quick, go ahead and try it yourself
I can tell you, it ain't.
---
Quote :The dx8 render is missing shaders effects and bloom/hdr lighting effects.Shaders are crusial to have "warm tarmarc","wet reflecting tarmarc ",real time reflections,metallic surfaces actually looking like metal etc...
Then there are effects like normal mapping that is a better bumpmapping texture effect that makes surfaces appeal that they have depth.
And the difference some bloom and hdr lighting does is like night and day...

Well I don't like most of them they just sacrifice the simplicity of view and it wil be harder for eyes to see what is where and to orientate yourself, those effects will kind of blind you in a way.
Why do you think pro players of FPS games turn the graphics off? To make it more simple and to get more FPS, It's easier to orientate and to see the enemy, Q3 picmip, CoD4 lod (details) etc.
Quote from Nick7 :
You - ofc - know that DX10 is Vista/7 only? Rendering Windows XP unusable?
You also know that still new games support DX9?

Besides - what does LFS *need* from DX10/11 that cannot be done with DX9?

In the end, as I already said many times.. there are much more pressing things than DX 'version'.

This question goes a bit beyond what LFS needs and what will work for most users. DX9 is in a way pretty outdated API and considering how hard MS has been trying to dump WinXP what would be the point of moving on to technology which might get dumped as well once WinXP is finally gone? WinXP users are getting themselves stuck in the past anyway 'cause Win7 solved most of the issues making them not upgrade to Vista.
If LFS devs were to update the graphics engine today, the most logical course of action would be to write a brand new DX10 based engine and use it along with the old one for compatibility reasons.

But whatever happens, I don't care a bit, as long as LFS maintains it's great physics and playability, let the DX be damned
Quote from Nick7 :Because it's 'too hard' for most kids, etc...
Just look what kind of games sell most.
Real simulations aint amongst them.

From where did you took that info?
Dude other games are top sellers because they have, modern graphics, a lot of cars/tracks, they are not a bad games even if they not hardcore sims. And the most important they are advertised, people buy those games because they read reviews, see which games getting good notes and buy those.
LFS is not advertised.

It is true that some well mostly fly sims like DCS, lock on, MSFS are not for everyone because they are hard (More like too much theory to learn) still they are selling rather good, but in case of lfs i think you joking.
LFS is the easiest to drive sim i ever played.
In rFactor, GT Legends, you push throttle a bit too much and the car go spinning (Not the most realistic if you ask me but still).
In LFS the only cars you can lose control over are LX-4/6 or RAC but still you wont lose control because you always know how much you can allow to push your car.
You just feel when the car start losing control.
LFS is one of the most pleasant and easiest to drive sim.

Note:Had to use fly sims as a examples because i just dont know any other sim where level of difficulty could be a factor why its not selling, race sims are doing rather well never heard anyone complaint about level of difficulty in those
Quote from Chupacabras84 :...
LFS is the easiest to drive sim i ever played.


This is just down to the fact that it's made with a decent physics engine, and because of that it comes so natural for someone who is into cars and driving them.
But some people just like the look of cars, but driving them in a simulation is a pain in the arse. I know a few guys who can't get it; to break long before a corner coming in with 200km/h.
Ideally there would be swoosh effect when at high speeds and super awesome brakes, for an enjoyable racing game.

Simfans will probably always be a minority.
Quote from MadCatX :This question goes a bit beyond what LFS needs and what will work for most users. DX9 is in a way pretty outdated API and considering how hard MS has been trying to dump WinXP what would be the point of moving on to technology which might get dumped as well once WinXP is finally gone? WinXP users are getting themselves stuck in the past anyway 'cause Win7 solved most of the issues making them not upgrade to Vista.
If LFS devs were to update the graphics engine today, the most logical course of action would be to write a brand new DX10 based engine and use it along with the old one for compatibility reasons.

But whatever happens, I don't care a bit, as long as LFS maintains it's great physics and playability, let the DX be damned

Yet XP is still the most used Microsoft OS in Europe, and not everyone is buying a new pc every other year (mine is around 4 years old now), not speaking about buying a new OS for an older PC. I think XP will be with us for quite some time. (Doesn't mean I disagree with you though)
Scaweeen! Please speak!
I can't read this `stupid` (sorry guys) comments\argues anymore! :-(

I am always coming here to see if you said something and I read these "made up facts, opinions". Time to cut them off, isn't it? :-)


PS: I am on XP too and definitely not planning to go to 7 or anything else. Debian for other things, XP for some school stuff and LFS ;-)
-
(JazzOn) DELETED by JazzOn
Quote from Scawen :Hi there.

I'll "break the silence"... though I do think I said something quite recently.

There's really nothing to report, that's why we don't report anything. I've been continuing with the tyre physics. It's a mathematically based model as you know. That involves assumptions and simplifications to make it workable. During testing we found some extreme situations where the assumptions used caused a breakdown of the output forces. It turned out that the extreme situations can actually come up quite often. I don't really want to go into detail, I've been working on the model and studying the situations where things go wrong.

-snip-

-megasnip-

About slow progress... some people comment how progress is so unbelievably and ridiculously slow... well I guess that means there must be a whole lot of sims out there that have overtaken LFS in nearly every way. If so, you can use them for a while, that's why we have an email notification when a patch is released. If people "leave" LFS that is fine. That kind of thing really can't be something I can get worried about. All I can do is work on the things I need to do, to get LFS to a level we are happy with, then release the updates. Sometimes that is delayed by obstacles as I described before, and sometimes by other things that come up in life generally. With two children and a house to look after, things that go wrong, guests that visit occasionally and that kind of thing, it's true that I don't do the same hours that I used to in the early days, when LFS was my hobby, my passion and my work all in one. Now it's more my work, I have other interests as well and there are now other things in life that are more important, but LFS is something I want to be proud of. Something that I want out there and being enjoyed.

Anyway, we have not died and we are not sipping cocktails on a tropical beach. -again sniped-

Maybe some people need to read that... Again.

They will never stop complaining Michal.. Look at what page that was on.
This two posts might help, too.

Quote from Scawen :... I am quite pleased with the contact patch / tread simulation at the moment, several recent updates resulted in more interesting and realistic handling. But there are some aspects of the current tyre model that do not change in the same way as a real tyre, for example with changes in pressure or load. This is due to the lateral deformation of the tyre's carcass (the cords and wires encased in rubber that hold its shape).

So my current focus is to get the real time model's carcass deformation to be a better approximation of reality. It's different with every tyre but there are of course common things between all radial tyres. LFS tyres won't be exactly like any particular real tyre but they need to be good tyres and obviously behave like ones that could exist.

So I've been looking at a tyre simulation to answer these questions. It's a sort of virtual tyre test rig I've had for a long time but it needed some improvements. It represents the cords and belts of a tyre held in shape by the tyre's pressure. The general idea is to make that simulation a good approximation of reality, so it can fill in the gaps, giving me more answers than I can get from the various real world test results I can get my hands on. It doesn't run in real time, and takes a couple of minutes to run its tests and generate the results. It's in those periods I've been checking my email and some post notifications have sent me in here to see what's up.

I don't mind the usual criticism but when I see sarcastic or insulting posts then I'm tempted to react, either as a developer or a moderator... when it gets too annoying, I guess I'll unsubscribe again.

Quote from Scawen :.. But... most important in my opinion and many others is to get the cars feeling right and handling right. We would say, what is the point of having things that change your car when it never felt right in the first place?

LFS without the tyre updates is already an approximation of reality, good enough to enjoy, learn something about cars and do plenty of competitive racing. But there are situations where the car doesn't really do the right things. The response to some of the changes in setup and also finer points about what a car does when you turn the steering wheel and apply the throttle. It may sound fussy but these are the things you feel every second while racing. Personally I have found when testing for example an LX car around South City Chicase route, more excitement with the version I have, even got kind of hot and sweaty a few times just driving one car in practice mode as I started to drive several laps for no real reason. Getting hot and sweaty isn't necessarily a good thing in itself... But I took it as a good sign.

Anyway, even at that point, further research into the things I still knew were not finished, showed up more things and that's what brought me onto the more detailed study of carcass deformation. This year and a half of tyre model development really have been one thing leading to another, though as you know there were other things that took some of my time during that year and a half. So the tyre model updates are the results of several months but not as long as some people imagine.

Quote from Michalxo :Scaweeen! Please speak!
I can't read this `stupid` (sorry guys) comments\argues anymore! :-(

I am always coming here to see if you said something and I read these "made up facts, opinions". Time to cut them off, isn't it? :-)


PS: I am on XP too and definitely not planning to go to 7 or anything else. Debian for other things, XP for some school stuff and LFS ;-)

Well, maybe you should go here if you want to know if scawen wrote something and not in this thread
This thread is closed

[OLD] Tyre Physics Progress Report
(4436 posts, closed, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG