The online racing simulator
Spinoff : DirectX and Windows version discussion
(291 posts, started )
LFS should work perfectly fine with any recent Linux distribution and a Logitech wheel.
Quote from Bluebird B B :I am puzzled why Scawen clings to WindowsXP, it is something from the past. The greatest system I ever had was atari ST, sold it over 20 years ago. Why, no matter how great it was, it was OUTDATED.

It's really simple. I have said it before, but I'll say it again for the last time.

1) XP allows me to use a DEBUG version of DirectX 9. A debug version is the one that sends a debug message, in text form, to the debugger, when you make many kinds of mistake, minor or major, so you know how to correct it or notice flaws in your code. It's really quite impossible to develop reliable software without debug messages. As I understand it, Microsoft deliberately stopped providing a debug version of DX9 in post-XP Windows, to force developers to be unable to develop software that supports XP. We do want to support XP because we have thousands of people who bought an LFS license and do not yet want to be forced to "upgrade" to the later and in many ways inferior versions of Windows. We can't just take LFS away from those people, who I regard as very sensible people. Some people here have described them as financially challenged people... but I think of them as people like me, who simply prefer XP because it is better in many ways. Also we do not wish to make it impossible to run LFS on Linux. As I understand it, a Wine / Linux setup can only use DX9 and it is really important to me to support that.

2) Windows 7 has made it IMPOSSIBLE to run a dual screen setup using Nvidia cards, where the wide desktop is reported as a single surface. Those who say it is possible, we've been through all that already and it is in fact NOT possible. The Nvidia and AMD single surface support now requires additional software and only supports specific screen configurations. That is INFERIOR to Windows XP.

3) Many other things are FAR harder to do on Windows 7 than on XP. For example it was very difficult to install a printer. On XP, plug in printer, install software, share printer, job done. On Windows 7... well I have described it before and don't really want to remember it now. The installation was presented as a process of "solving problems" when there really wasn't a problem, I just wanted to install a printer. Sharing to another computer on my private network was some kind of crazy nightmare of unintuitive permission nonsense in hidden menus.

Quote from Racer X NZ :As little as people like MS's OS policy, there is no reason to not run 7, unless your PC is 8 plus years old and doesn't.

See above.

Quote from mr_spoon :Does anyone know/use LFS under Linux & is it 100% ok? It goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway; it'd be great if there was a native Linux version of LFS.

It's said to work well now and I think it's better with this latest patch because of the DX9 support.
Quote from MadCatX :LFS should work perfectly fine with any recent Linux distribution and a Logitech wheel.

Quote from Scawen :It's said to work well now and I think it's better with this latest patch because of the DX9 support.

Good to hear, I will give it a whirl!
#229 - Woz
As a long term windows user, the alternating versions thing is true.

2k - Great
XP - Great but to be fair had a dire start before patches
Vista - My last laptop was on this, is was a mess
7 - I grew to really like this. Loved the start menu it had and improved Vista no end but still had the backwards driver issues on much of XP hardware
8 - I skipped this
8.1 - My new laptop. If it is better than 8 then OMG. Metro (Or whatever it is called now) is a nightmare and the start menu, don't get me started on that.

8.1 core feels solid enough though so there might be hope for 9

On the DX front. DX10 and 11 do not bring that much to the game in reality. There are some lighting effects etc that are nice but the reality is, as Scawen pointed out, they were created to force people of XP

People should not focus on DX above 9, I will not suddenly make LFS appear better as you have to use the new code paths. A well done DX9 will still look great.

For me XP is dead now, I am sure that the hackers out there are saving up their zero day exploits for "death day" knowing they will not be patched but if people want to use it why not. The culture today appears to believe in obsolescence when in fact XP will run all the software it did before "death day" after that day and on forever.

Even Valve have lost faith in Windows direction and put huge effort into moving people away from it. While they are still in the throws of the change it will get better.

The end of the day, we just want to play games/sims etc.

One word of warning on DX9 though. MS would get a huge backlash if they dropped DX9 but do not put that past them in some future version of windows. It appears they are about to kill Games For Windows Live in a few months which means GTA IV also dies.

So DX9 is a solid move but I would also be testing that the DX9 implementation functions if switched to DX10 in case Win 9 kills DX9 and forces the issue. MS have a long history of dumping technology. Just look at Silverlight, WPF, RDO, ADO etc.

Also MS have moved to a far more rapid release cycle which means Win 9 will be soon and expect 9.1 and 10 to follow on year cycles. The life of DX9 might be shorter than people think.
Windows XP support cycle ends in April this year, so unless you're going to release content before then, I am not sure the point of catering for an operating system where it be highly insecure to even connect to the internet and download the game updates.

Using OpenGL instead would be more appreciated for Linux users.
Quote from englishlord :highly insecure to even connect to the internet and download the game updates.

Hmm, I reckon that's overstating the risk quite a bit for a "typical" user who is behind a NATing router with little or no port forwarding turned on.

Having said that, even though I'm a big fan of XP I'm not hugely keen on staying with it much after April. I don't like 7 much so far, strongly dislike Vista, and 8[.1] is just weird. So... wtf to do.

I'm tempted to stick with XP a little longer, on the basis that most of the risk I currently experience is via the browser (+ Flash etc.) in any case. When I replace this PC (well overdue) I suppose I'll have to choose between 7 and 8....

Edit: forgot to ask Scawen a question:
Quote from Scawen :
2) Windows 7 has made it IMPOSSIBLE to run a dual screen setup using Nvidia cards, where the wide desktop is reported as a single surface. [snip]

I'm guessing that (surely??) there must be a "supported" and vendor-independent way to drive multiple screens - if this is the case then do you dislike it because it saps performance (relative to a single-surface model) or for another reason?
Quote from Neilser :
I'm guessing that (surely??) there must be a "supported" and vendor-independent way to drive multiple screens - if this is the case then do you dislike it because it saps performance (relative to a single-surface model) or for another reason?

Someone mentioned earlier that you can use only 3 screens on nVidia card (not 2), I think ...
I have no problems with 2 screens while using ATI card (set in drivers; ofc Win7)
Quote from englishlord :Windows XP support cycle ends in April this year, so unless you're going to release content before then, I am not sure the point of catering for an operating system where it be highly insecure to even connect to the internet and download the game updates.

Using OpenGL instead would be more appreciated for Linux users.

You are saying that as if there is some kind of problem with DirectX 9.

That is a really strange thing that some people seem to believe that I am only recently starting to notice. There isn't actually anything wrong with it!

It's only now occurring to me that people think there is some kind of compromise or issue in staying with DirectX 9. But there isn't, it's really good!

There isn't a problem here! DirectX 9 runs on XP and later Windows and in Wine / Linux. I get to use my dual monitor setup for racing so I'm happy too! There's no problem, we're all fine!
Quote from Neilser :I'm guessing that (surely??) there must be a "supported" and vendor-independent way to drive multiple screens - if this is the case then do you dislike it because it saps performance (relative to a single-surface model) or for another reason?

There is a way, but it's a lot harder.

Instead of initialising a single DirectX "device" with all the textures and meshes on it, ready to draw to the part of the backbuffer that represents each screen, the developer has to initialise a device FOR EACH SCREEN! Then download all the textures and meshes in turn to each of those devices, so each "device" can draw frames.

The sad / stupid thing is that all those "devices" are actually one physical device (the graphics card) so by disabling the "single device with access to all screens as a single surface" MS has really made it a lot less efficient.
Im good with DirectX 9 in this game as far as the graphics cards will support it. (the newest cards from AMD that dont have proper DX8 support)
I thought I'd just stick my two pence in~

8.1 is great, very solid and now (took long enough) on all the numerous systems I own that are in regular use (some are broken lol).

Anyway, about LFS, DX9 is fine. Yes, it's a little older (okay a lot older) but it's programming so it doesn't affect things quite the same way as if it was a piece of hardware from the same year. I understand Scawen for wanting to use a version of DX on a system that gives him a debug. I could suggest a VM but I realise this just doesn't give accurate enough results being that it is emulated hardware more or less and really not a great idea when he wants to know how it runs on native hardware.

Realistically, everyone is entitled to their own opinion and many need to learn this. If Scawen (and anyone else) wishes to use XP/DX9 and understands the risks (and benefits yes in DX9's case) then that's totally fine!

All I wish for is for LFS to live on with more work done to it. I view LFS as an ongoing project, this isn't a standard crappy game, it's a simulator with a LOT of hard work and love poured into it with a metric ton of brain grease from Scawen (and the others when they were still around).

@Scawen: If you see this, please, please, please give people a reason to stick around. I'm not moaning or raging. I'm just very sad after looking at the server list today and seeing barely two dozen servers, half of which have one or two people on. If you do give us a decent patch at some point this year I for one am FULLY willing to actually pay you the cost of another upgrade ticket for it (or two if it's larger), purely because I appreciate your work (and because LFS is literally THE reason I bought a DFGT and then spent £220 on a G27 setup barely 6 months later).

Regardless, I shall return to racing & cruising in my LX6 *cough* Caterham SuperSeven *cough* end of May when I finish this year of university so I wish you all good racing in the time being.

Rambler out!
I understand... directx9 is sufficient for current LFS graphics.
But while switching to a 10 year old directx version, are you aware when microsoft stops delivering security updates for xp many ppl will switch to newer windows versions and many game developers will stop supporting directx9 for there new games (simply because there are to few customers).
In the end the developers at amd and nvidia will stop optimizing driver for directx9 and you will run into same problems as with directx8.
Of course this is not today and not tomorrow, but not to far in future too.

You made your statement according to directx but maybe with the next patch you could collect data about the supported directx version in client pc's. So you get a better picture of your actual customers.
Technically, LFS is made to work on DX9. That means it will work on any post XP OS made by MS because DX is backward compatible. Meaning LFS isn't tied to XP's fate directly.

Indirectly, chain of evens yankman mentioned, leading to stopping software support for DX9 by companies is a very slow, predictable processes. Although serious one it is dealt with in a similar way as 8 to 9 switch was made.

Dropping official support for XP by MS was another slow and predictable process which is even more easily dealt with. That is simply doing exactly nothing and continue to use the best OS MS has made to date, for as long as you don't run out of driver support. That is pretty much the only reason that should force an upgrade. For smaller reasons there is dual-boot, if you want to work fast and efficient then you're already using XP.
This is coming from an XP user who has been using unsupported XP for 10 years on the same PC without ever having a virus, malaware, spyware, trojan etc., never reinstalled XP, never unexpected slowdowns, and so on - doing all kinds of stuff which would be considered unsafe security wise. If you don't know what you're doing official support will not help you. Aside from myself another three persons with various amount of experiences have been using that same machine with the same results.

Now for the fun stuff - some short personal modern OS rating
win7 is a piece of shit
Well I partly agree with you, as I was using XP for almost 8 years on my Desktop.
But what makes your experience with XP an example for the rest of LFS customers ?

I am not a fan of MS but MS "tries" to build an OS that can be used by unexperienced users in any way.
While you seem to be aware of do's and don'ts, the majority of windows users is not.
The UAC among a few other post XP innovations (as well as security updates) are there to protect the unexperienced user.

Like the oft mentioned "best windows" statements your opinion regarding Win7 is pure trolling, it's not about what you prefer, it's about what the people playing LFS are using.
If any of those XP user who are "planing" to switch to Linux actually plan it, they would do it long time ago. Simply Linux lacks software, real software for work, etc... while if you only use PC for internet and such stuff its fine.

Also I don't see a reason for any existing XP users to move to newer version of Windows, stories like there will be no more support, updates, ... are for little kids, I mean there wont be, but who need it anyway when M$ stopped supporting it several years ago, talking about some nasty bugs. Its clear that M$ only care about money, therefore they want as much as possible people on newer software. Currently I'm using W7, tried W8 as well as W8.1 and all I can say its shit. I don't need tablet interface on my desktop PC, though W8.1 bring some quite impressive boot up times, and generally feel faster, anyway I'm sticking to W7. To be honest XP is perfect OS, but M$ is constantly trying to ruin it lately, last time I tried it I couldn't login to Skype (it says that my account doesn't exist, though work on W7; using M$ account), some professional tool which I use constantly crash on XP while again work flawlessly on W7, ... Probably they have pact with M$ to screw up XP users
In fact I will give a try XP this weekend again, screw Skype (ofc M$ owns it), ... for other programs I have W7 on laptop
Quote from DANIEL-CRO :Simply Linux lacks software, real software for work, etc... while if you only use PC for internet and such stuff its fine.

What is "real software for work"? All I did on my uni I did on Linux, including my diploma thesis and I see absolutely no problem to work on Linux, except failing to install it 4x in a row and installing graphic driver 3x resulting in login/logout black screen, also not supporting my CPU and keep core i5 on 800mhz constantly no matter what, but I'm sure many people don't have hardware problems.

Quote from DANIEL-CRO :Also I don't see a reason for any existing XP users to move to newer version of Windows

I agree, because I also imagine existing XP users as users on 13 years old computers, just like the OS. Unless you're old married couple, no need to stick around XP.

Quote from DANIEL-CRO :Its clear that M$ only care about money, therefore they want as much as possible people on newer software.

Just like any other company in the world. Also, how they would be payed for 13 years old software? It's not selling anymore and no one would buy anymore. There's just no budget. And support extension is not enough.

Quote from DANIEL-CRO :Currently I'm using W7, tried W8 as well as W8.1 and all I can say its shit. I don't need tablet interface on my desktop PC, though W8.1 bring some quite impressive boot up times, and generally feel faster, anyway I'm sticking to W7.

On Windows 8.1, all you need is edit:5 clicks (just counted it) altogether to log in directly to desktop instead of the metro interface and you won't see it never again, just like I'm using it. Looks like you also believe "stories for little kids" - that there's only metro and it's everywhere.
Btw why is Win8.1 shit exactly? Because you read it on 9gag?

Quote from DANIEL-CRO :some professional tool which I use constantly crash on XP while again work flawlessly on W7

Because no one is going to develop and mantain software for 13 years old OS with no support.
The point of my post was to explain how LFS isn't XP dependent, to relieve fears of LFS being stuck in the past, unsafe to use or that is it waste of time and resources to support it by keeping it DX9 and, consecutively, XP compatible.
It is not affected by how many users are using whichever OS or which one is the best (and which one is preferred to thyself). Now, everyone can use it, including Linux users which is great, and for a very long time at least in the IT timeframe.

To prove that one statement which caught peoples attention about XP being superior to later MS OSs would be a time wasted. Not in a sense you wouldn't understand or something like that but rather it wouldn't change anything.
MS will continue to overprice newer, modern OSs which will become less and less usable, more restrictive, slower and at the same time more demanding for processing power. I can't say it is because of catering to the less experienced userbase because that is done differently by adding failsafes, not by removing essential stuff. The reason it's done the way it is done is because of less gifted managers and/or programmers being employed. The reason for that is stagnation of the education system and bombardment of bad examples through mass media, so people have almost noone to learn from. Or worse, they learn from bad examples.

So, sorry I'm not going to solidify my statements with arguments, I hate doing that and is often contra-productive. I wish I had the patience and optimism about the end result as a motivation to write down my experience, but I'll provide the next best thing: other people experiences
Why is Windows XP better than Windows 7
Why is Windows 7 better than Windows XP

Google that, skip the non argumented statements (good luck finding those), compare, welcome abroad.
Quote from majod :What is "real software for work"? All I did on my uni I did on Linux, including my diploma thesis and I see absolutely no problem to work on Linux, except failing to install it 4x in a row and installing graphic driver 3x resulting in login/logout black screen, also not supporting my CPU and keep core i5 on 800mhz constantly no matter what, but I'm sure many people don't have hardware problems.



I agree, because I also imagine existing XP users as users on 13 years old computers, just like the OS. Unless you're old married couple, no need to stick around XP.



Just like any other company in the world. Also, how they would be payed for 13 years old software? It's not selling anymore and no one would buy anymore. There's just no budget. And support extension is not enough.



On Windows 8.1, all you need is edit:5 clicks (just counted it) altogether to log in directly to desktop instead of the metro interface and you won't see it never again, just like I'm using it. Looks like you also believe "stories for little kids" - that there's only metro and it's everywhere.
Btw why is Win8.1 shit exactly? Because you read it on 9gag?



Because no one is going to develop and mantain software for 13 years old OS with no support.

LOL

Software which I generally use is avaiable only on Windows, its not like there is version for linux of that kind of program, as well as ministry here specified which programs can be used, anything other than specified makes your project invalid.

Stories for little kids? ... Its not like you can disable metro completely, you can disable hotcorners and such. For completely removing metro you need third party software...

About that software that crashes under XP. First time I reported bug in 2011, and never got reply. Its not only me who encountered these problems, there are lots of people complaining. Still latest version released just month back is still "XP compatible" and still crashes... When reporting other bugs I got instant reply, basically in matter of minutes... for XP bug no reply even after 3 years, even through I exactly explained when crash happen, addresses, ...
What's so funny about that post? Also you didn't answer my question.

You said that Linux lacks software for work. It depends on what work. If someone is forcing you to use Windows, then of course it lacks your software.

And if you boot directly to desktop and use desktop applications, how exactly does metro bother you? When do you have to interact with it? Because I never had to.
Quote from majod :And if you boot directly to desktop and use desktop applications, how exactly does metro bother you? When do you have to interact with it? Because I never had to.

Guess you've never used Bluetooth in W8 then. Select BT from the desktop and it brings you in to the metro interface devices list, there's no more desktop equivalent control panel for it.

Available BT settings in W7
Just a devices menu in W8
That is true, I don't use bluetooth. It's strange that there's classic device manager and all the centers in desktop mode, but bluetooth requires metro.

Spinoff : DirectX and Windows version discussion
(291 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG