rFactor.....LFS Killer?

"Andrew MacPherson" > wrote in message
ddress_disguised...
> In article >,
> (Remco Moedt) wrote:
>
<snip>
That a shame. I guess there must be some major DX9 hardware support used in
rFactor.
<snip>

FWIW, from the readme:

"Known Graphics Limitations:
- Shader source code is not exposed;
- DX9 render path disabled;
- Live cube mapping disabled;
- Moving shadow receivers disabled;
- Object reflections disabled"

From what I've seen to date, rFactor doesn't look that CPU-dependent,
particularly online without a bunch of AI. But it definitely wants all the
GPU you can throw at it, just like RBR.

SB

BRH wrote:
> I've only tried it for a few scant minutes so far, but my first impressions of
> the MP were not good. With only perhaps 6 cars on track, I find that my
> opponents constantly pop in and out of view both in front of me and in my
> mirrors.
>
> Perhaps there's a setting that I need to adjust? BTW -- I'm on a cable modem
> connection.


did it ever enter your mind you were on a ****ty server

Hmmm...... Could be. I'll try again.

buster wrote:

> BRH wrote:
> > I've only tried it for a few scant minutes so far, but my first impressions of
> > the MP were not good. With only perhaps 6 cars on track, I find that my
> > opponents constantly pop in and out of view both in front of me and in my
> > mirrors.
> >
> > Perhaps there's a setting that I need to adjust? BTW -- I'm on a cable modem
> > connection.
>
> did it ever enter your mind you were on a ****ty server

> I've only tried it for a few scant minutes so far, but my first
> impressions of the MP were not good. With only perhaps 6 cars on
> track, I find that my opponents constantly pop in and out of view
> both in front of me and in my mirrors.
>
> Perhaps there's a setting that I need to adjust? BTW -- I'm on a
> cable modem connection.

Probably someone hosting too many cars for his connection, Bert. I had some
pretty good races last night, but I can't say I see a dramatic improvement
over the multi in F1C (except you now get ridiculous looking temporary cars
instead of a freeze when someone joins).

Also the lobby/matchmaking server works rather crappy compared to the
slickness that is VROC/Sierra.

Jan.
=---

Jan Verschueren wrote:
>>I've only tried it for a few scant minutes so far, but my first
>>impressions of the MP were not good. With only perhaps 6 cars on
>>track, I find that my opponents constantly pop in and out of view
>>both in front of me and in my mirrors.
>>
>>Perhaps there's a setting that I need to adjust? BTW -- I'm on a
>>cable modem connection.
>
>
> Probably someone hosting too many cars for his connection, Bert. I had some
> pretty good races last night, but I can't say I see a dramatic improvement
> over the multi in F1C (except you now get ridiculous looking temporary cars
> instead of a freeze when someone joins).
>
> Also the lobby/matchmaking server works rather crappy compared to the
> slickness that is VROC/Sierra.

You gotta remember this is just a TEST so they can get some feedback and
improve their service. Papy had years and years of netcode tweaking
before it was in its current state.

(Scoob Droolins) wrote in
om:

> Hi -
>
> As a client, you don't really need a ton of bandwidth. Most of the MP
> problems are generally caused by misconfigured servers, in particular
> servers which overstep their upload bandwidth (easy to do since upload
> bw seems to be at a premium among most ISPs). Most cable users
> starting a server should use the 128 kbit setting, even if your line
> reports higher uploads. This helps the throttling to be more
> efficient.
>
> joe
> image space

Wha? A DeeeVelper? Here? hehehe
Good thing to know Joe.

dh

ISI had AI in multiplayer with SCGT in 1999.

The baja's are loaded temporarily in place of the users car to help
avoid lockups when a new player joins the race.

"Larry" > wrote in message
news:uAAld.1682$ol.1527@lakeread02...

> LFS was dead as soon as they added the annoying Product Activation scheme.

Well now you can race rFactor & stop complaining maybe? ;-)

Product Activation has it's pros & cons but I'd say they've done a hell of a
lot better taking the path they did than if they'd waited until they had a
publisher.

Malc.

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 15:14:05 -0000, Malc wrote:

> Product Activation has it's pros & cons but I'd say they've done a hell of a
> lot better taking the path they did than if they'd waited until they had a
> publisher.

I agree. It's a hell of a difference wether you're dropping a line to
Victor of LFS, asking him kindly to reset your activation counter, and
receive a kind reply within the hour, or submitting all your details
to some unknown billy-based hack or calling a number to receive your
windows product activation thingy or whatever they call it these
days.

Larry should be running anything, but not a "modern" version of
windows. I hope he manages to live up to his own standards ;-)

Cheers,

uwe


--
mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox)
Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/
Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E)
GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 14:20 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
(Andrew MacPherson) wrote:

>In article >,
>(Remco Moedt) wrote:
>
>> I guess that's the AMD 2200+ CPU?
>
>No, it's a mobile Athlon 2500+ (they're still unlocked I believe) which
>overclocks nicely to 2.4-5Ghz for some people. I can squeeze 2300 out of
>mine, but to be honest there's no noticeable benefit. 2.2GHz seems like
>more than enough to cope with anything I've run on the PC recently (apart
>from Lomac, which always eats whatever CPU and vid power you throw at it).

Ah, ok.

>> with a GeForce 3ti200 rFactor, with all settings low, 1024x786x32
>> is a slideshow...
>
>That a shame. I guess there must be some major DX9 hardware support used
>in rFactor. The GF3's still a good card for many older sims, but maybe the
>time's come to start thinking about something a little newer.

Hehe, yup. Update is planned for Jan. 2005

>> how the heck can you take off from a carrier in PF with a
>> spitfire without a SPLOOSH sound?
>
>If you look out of the front of the cockpit you'll see some things
>sticking out the front of the plane. They're called "propeller blades". If
>you can count them, that means the engine is what we pilots called "not
>turned on". I advise consulting a trained technician who may be able to
>show you how to make these blades spin fast enough to dry what hair you
>have left and perhaps also assist in the takeoff process.
>
>;-)
>
>I have no problems taking off in PF. Plenty of throttle, lots of flaps,
>just enough back pressure on the stick to take off without risking an
>early bath, and it just happens.

I succeeded in taking of with the Seafire from the carrier now. Since
it only had 'Landing' flaps I thought I didn't need them when taking
off. Even with the flaps it's quite a challenge, I've to raise the
gear ASAP, and even then I almost touch the water...scary stuff.

>Landing is a different matter... still
>waiting for my first successful trap. I can touch down without problem but
>I appear to have aircraft equipped with rubber hooks!

50% of the time I hit the back of the carrier, the other 50% I do an
unintentional touch & go.... :-/

>Still, it's far more fun to crash land with the undercarriage up, coming
>to a stop balanced on the front of the carrier. To be honest though I get
>a far bigger kick out of just sitting on the moving deck with the graphics
>in "Perfect" mode. The reflections of the nearby ships and the sense of
>motion of the carrier are quite special. But there again, the vid card
>helps the experience.

Rub it in...


Cheers!


Remco