For me it takes much longer to load. Much longer (still talking about seconds though). I have recently replaced my SSD drive for a newer model so that can't be it. But like I said, I don't see the difference. Well, OK there is difference but not like it shocks the world. More textures would be better, not higher pixel density. Westhill 2.0 has higher pixel density, well, that will make some happy. And, it probably doesn't hurt

Well my point about high res textures is they make absolutely no difference to the scene, except for the pixels on road about 2m in front of you, which you can't even see in the cockpit. And the only way to get any benefit from high res textures in a screenshot is to take the screenshot from very near to the ground or a wall. For the rest of the scene, it makes no difference.

To be clear - I'm not saying "I'm a stereotype programmer so I don't care about beautiful things"... what I'm saying is, it makes NO DIFFERENCE to the rendered image in most situations (because the graphics card uses mipmaps - selecting progressively lower res versions of the textures as objects get further away) unless you go to special lengths (extreme close ups) to try to observe the texture resolution.

If you don't believe me, make two comparison screenshots at high and low res (at a track with relatively high resolution textures) then flick between them. I just tried and the only affected pixels were the ground just in front of me (specially using wheels view to I could see that and not the car interior).

It sounds a bit like the megapixel camera war where people generally have no clue what it means or what kind of affects it has (higher filesize, slower worktime, no different screen endresult) but oh it's a higher number so it must be better.

Quote from Scawen :

To be clear - I'm not saying "I'm a stereotype programmer so I don't care about beautiful things"... what I'm saying is, it makes NO DIFFERENCE to the rendered image in most situations (because the graphics card uses mipmaps - selecting progressively lower res versions of the textures as objects get further away) unless you go to special lengths (extreme close ups) to try to observe the texture resolution.

This is just perfect, i dont care about the graphics on LFS, when i am racing i NEVER take time to look at the things around me, i am focused on racing. If i am taking a picture i just edit it or better yet have a second install of LFS with a high res texture pack.

Keep up the good work Scawen!

I like watching replays, and while the camera is stationary pointing the car that is coming, the more beautiful the textures are, the best it is (eye candy speaking).
BTW, I like the graphical engine of LFS :
perf-loading time/render ratio is very very good

It's always been said that LFS IS NOT A SCREENSHOT GENERATOR. And I like it like that - If I wanted to just take screenshots I'd play GT6 or something.

The only real change I'd like to see graphically is that slightly-blue tyre smoke implemented as standard.

I wanted to do some comparaison screenshots between my game and the default one, but I've used all of my weekly unlocks.

Nevermind, every if textures in very high resolution (4096px) are "useless" for you (I agree in some ways), people want more and more "eyecandy" game. We don't want you to recreate a Unreal Engine 4 or CryEngine 3, but simply to make it at a standard 2014 game, with realtime shadows, normalmapping, shaders and 2048px textures for roads and grass.
BUT we want you to finish your "to-do list" (release the G patch, Westhill update, tyre physics and S3 content) before you can start developping these graphical improvements

(It's my point of view of what most of community member thinks, correct me if I'm wrong)

Quote from Flotch :

I like watching replays, and while the camera is stationary pointing the car that is coming, the more beautiful the textures are, the best it is (eye candy speaking).

Me too. For me, good textures are for screenshots, movies and replays.

Quote from nacim :

with realtime shadows, normalmapping, shaders and 2048px textures for roads and grass.

Even that is not important... Real time lighting is though.. From sun to sunset to darkness and then to early morning again.

I can do this very easily with a random website, just mixing a black overlay with the rendered image. Then it gets darker or less dark. I understand it's not so simple just to do it like this but there has to be some sort of solution to do realistic driving / (endurance) racing?

Is this still about Westhill? Not entirely...

Small input from me which I haven't notice being said, regarding using high res textures everywhere:
You put too many details into a texture (high res ofc) too far away from observer's view point, so many infact that there is more detail than there is available pixels to render them, and you end up with washed away texture.
Noticed that in other racing games where the road looks like a gray painted glass, flat and uniformly gray. While the actual texture is high res, detailed and what not. On screen details get scaled down, more details get merged into 'not enough pixels area' - not as designer intended but as monitor resolution and software dictates.
It doesn't help with road being at a low angle, because the details get compressed even more.

Low res textures where details are larger and further apart, at distances get compressed (smaller and closer to one another) and get high res look. This applies to all the scenery pretty much, angled or not, as the details also get washed away when the relative speed difference is high between lets say perpendicular sides of the hill next to the read and the observer view point.

All this is mostly affected by your monitor resolution. More res the farther the details are able to be distinguished, but you'll have to squint more just as you would in real life . Not that the current full HD is near enough to provide enough detail while driving for texture resolutions proposed here.

What did I just read.

I'm sure @Eric already has it all mapped out, but just in case it'd matter:

Let the textures be as high res as possible. And then let somebody like @Daniel-Cro* , create some small program to batch convert them to half size, 1/4 size whatever and everybody should be free to use what they wish.

I'd take @Lynce's RP pack of Fern Bay anytime over the default one for example (no offense @Eric). It does make a difference, even when racing. Let alone for any post-race creative effort, as @farcar already mentioned. Which should translate to 'good LFS publicity'.

PS: (*) hopefully this would keep him busy enough and stop finding all those impossible bugs that end up keeping @Scawen awake at night..

This thread is starting to sound like console users pointing out how superior the Xbox and PS4 are compared to the PC.

The awesome point about the PC is the graphics, I'm fully aware of LFS's low requirements but will the min spec work with Occ Rift ?

If not, given the work going on purely for Rift over the updates the rest of us have been waiting years for, why not make min Rift spec the lowest LFS spec.

Just in case anyone doesn't know yet, the recent test patches are not purely for the Rift (though that has been the main focus). There is a significant graphical improvement in Test Patches F9/F10. It's most noticeable on the trees and also many other objects with transparency.
https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/86202

Quote from luchian :

PS: (*) hopefully this would keep him busy enough and stop finding all those impossible bugs that end up keeping @Scawen awake at night..

Oh, sorry am I really that annoying?

You can already use half size textures in a very simple way, graphic options->low res textures.

As most of you know I use quite some hi-res textures. In fact really some, that my graphics memory usage bumped up to >650 MB (BL1).
Right after reading Scawens words I have tested how much really all the textures I have decrease FPS over default ones. Results were absolutely negligibile, 166 FPS (default) and 163 FPS (hi-res) in exactly the same conditions. IMO it doesn't hurt using such a textures at all if you have enough graphics memory. Also with my study how texture formats affect load times, load times are now within acceptable limits. My hi-res textures load just a 1-2 second longer than default ones, which still amazes me, how much time I have wasted waiting for load... Well to be honest fast track load has it's downsides too, before I would click join to server and I knew that I have atleast a minute of waiting, so I would quickly run into the kitchen and grab something to eat/drink or do some pushups. Now damn there is no time for that, so I play LFS hungry and thirsty

As resolutions go higher and monitor sized grow there is simply need for higher level of detail. In my opinion roads and cockpits obviously need higher resolution. In a hi-res hype we didn't increase resolution only for most obvious things, but simply everything

I really like hi-res textures and I can easily notice the difference on track while racing and while parked in the pits or spectating, for example. The difference between Standard textures and the Hires pack for FernBay for example is pretty big and easily noticeable (especially when you use high Anisotropic filtering). As is the difference with the hi res Texture pack for the Rally tracks. They look far, far better. I don't know how the difference could not be noticed while racing, unless you had texture filtering too low or where running a very low screen res. :? .

The only "negative" for me with Hi res textures is the longer load time, which honestly I don't care about. My FPS are unaffected.

I would like to add though, that I do now appreciate LFS's minimalist approach to hardware usage, especially now I have Assetto Corsa. I'm happy for LFS to stay as the ultra smooth and fluid online racer with clean, clear, sharp graphics. While Assetto is my full fat eye candy machine for racing.

Best of both worlds, great time for sim racing!

Quote from DratsaB :

(especially when you use high Anisotropic filtering).

You are doing something with the graphics drivers right? Because as far as I know LFS isn't that great out of the box with high quality graphics rendering.

Problem is that I don't know how to tweak my drivers (too lazy for that also to be honest).

Quote from DANIEL-CRO :

Quote from luchian :

PS: (*) hopefully this would keep him busy enough and stop finding all those impossible bugs that end up keeping @Scawen awake at night..

Oh, sorry am I really that annoying?[..]

I hope you are joking, as I was too . I am admirative on your regards. You are one of the best bug hunters I've ever met. And I did meet quite a few* . Bugs need to be iron out no question about it; it just seems like @Scawen (an engineer's mind I guess) is taking them as a personal challenge every time, so lots of small trips outside the main path . I'm just saying, I'm not managing the anyone's time-schedule. I'll be happy with whatever & whenever will be released.

PS: (*) 2

Hi all.

Well, this message is for Scawen.

First of all, I want to congratulate you for your hard work. I really love it and give me a golden opportunity to develop creative things.

But, obviously not always we are agree with all the opinions. There are differences, tastes and everything is subjective. The art is subjective, even the capacity to learn and assimilate things.
I mean that in the community there are racers, "skinners", "photoshoppers", artists, site developers, gamers,etc. But there isn't just racers. Don't feel bad if people want to improve the thing they love it. As my case. So, there are a lot of points of view.

This is just a business, people demands an improvement of the track, cars, and/or graphics, even resources to adapt the Live for Speed with the new technologies as you do now. That's fine, of course.

In this case, about the improvement of the textures, you are right, doesn't change almost nothing because this is just a mask. Even a new track makes almost the same thing. Well perhaps in the 4 first months is the newest thing, but with the time all goes back to the beginning.

The point is the experience. When you go to the lfs folder, what do you want really? You love LFS but, what is your point of view? What do you want to experiment?

This is just a reflexion and another point of view.

Cheers.

Lynce: their long term goal from https://www.lfs.net/about

About Live for Speed

Our current release is S2, the second step towards our vision of the finished product. We aim to recreate the thrill and fun of motorsport, by simulating all aspects of racing.


... my comment to it...
I think Scawen(&team) would put emphasis on "simulating" and "racing", at least from the progress of development it looks so (I'm watching it over 6+ years?). Everything else what does not get into way of racing simulation is a bonus. Everything else what you can find right now in the game, and is blocking somehow proper simulation; you can simply expect it to get cut out over time as things will progress toward the final vision.

In terms of graphics this doesn't say much, as you need quite decent graphics to get reasonable simulation, but I think the LFS is already at that level for many years, if we care about static screens. The dynamic time and weather is missing, and I expect it to be the main reason why/when LFS will get 3D engine rewritten. But till they are ready to work on this one (which may be easily years away, if ever), I don't think there's much pressure to change current graphics, as it's quite "OK" already. And improving it just "a bit" wouldn't do that much anyway, as some PC racing simulators are already far ahead, so it's of little value to improve something what will get very likely major overhaul somewhere in the future (and yet it still happens, if the gains are obvious and practical, like the new car pixel shader and translucency drawing).

If you are true than I expect some more stuff from racing aspects -- ability to limit number of tyres you can use during the whole race weekend (practice/qual/race), some car parts falling off after contacts making track unsafe (and ofcourse requiring people to fix the cars or retire, not just go further with smashed wings like now). And so on ^^

Hopefully we're back on track for WE now

One thing I really would like to see is totally empty tracks, specially South City.

Quote from Jesse Kyytinen :

One thing I really would like to see is totally empty tracks, specially South City.

u wot?

Quote from Jesse Kyytinen :

One thing I really would like to see is totally empty tracks, specially South City.

What do you mean by that? Like open tracks?