Suggestion: Lower end PC

[DieKolkrabe]

Hey all. I was thinking about this last night/yesterday. Could LFS be more scaleable for low(er) end PCs. By this, I mean to have LFS be more scaleable to low(er) end PCs. For example

Today's current top of the range machines: No change

1-3 year old machines: A few options.

3-6 year old machines: A lot of options

6+ year old machines: All the options for tweaking

I was thinking about stuff like more LOD levels, lowe(er) texture resolutions, less details.

DK

[theirishnoob]

them option would be nice , concidering my machine is 4-5 years old ( most parts of it are ) it would be nice but i should be getting a better graphics card soon so i can say goodbye to 30 fps :D

[DieKolkrabe]

That is off-topic Ben. :P

On-topic anyone?

/me sits on top of a Topic bar

There :P

DK

[Electrik Kar]

You already have all the options for scaling to lower end machines. Why take out options for more upto date computers?

[DieKolkrabe]

@Electrik Kar: I disagree. More people playing LFS = more sales, right? Also more people who can spread the word of LFS to your friends.

DK

[Dajmin]

I don't think we need any more lower-scaling options. Seriously, by the time you've lowered everything as far as it goes you're pretty much playing with coloured squares.
And if people can't run the game on it's current lowest settings, they probably shouldn't be trying to play online games anyway.

Even my old 1.5Ghz CPU, 64Mb GeForce 5500 and 10Mb bad sector HD ran LFS at a respectable frame rate, and if that could run it, anything can.

[Mr.Muh]

aswell as admin lvl would help

i think admin lvls would help because you could have :

lvl 1 = respected racer ( he's abloe to cancel votes , restart race and maybe spec someone )

at the top end of the scale

lvl 10 server host/head admin ( he gives out admin lvls , adjusts the servers options , he can kick ban anyone etc )



This ain´t no mmorpg :really:


I agree with Dajmin´s points.. got nothing to add :tilt:

[Electrik Kar]

I do think it would be cool to add a no textures option though- just plain surfaces. It would look quite wild in an 80's tron way (and totally relieve the graphics burden on older computers)

[Dajmin]

That would look kinda cool. So I guess you know what your next texture pack should be then, eh? :)

[CSU1]

hey DK, the option to lower the detail and textures in LFS would kinda be counter productive in as i mean time spent to work out the various bugs etc. could have been time on other areas especially as most users would call for the option to improve graphics and envoirmental physics. LFS is not so dependant compared to other titles.

If you, or any other members have lower end machines the first thing imo that you should upgrade is the cpu.

If not post your full system specs along with a screenshot of:

windows processes running(Windows Task Manager)
Graphics card settings from within display manager
The virtual memory size of other applications(Windows Task Manager[click>view>select colums> and check the "Virtual Memory Size" radio button)

- with the above info we can give you advice as to where the bottlenecks are in your system. A PC running at 40 fps with little graphical detail should be your goal with a low end PC.
Also everyone should note that using a wireless router in most cases is not the best choice. No matter if the PC can produce smooth frames this can be hampered by network lag(lost packets from the wireless router)

[Electrik Kar]

I guess you know what your next texture pack should be then, eh? :)

Already started (http://www.nlgaming.com/games/2204/xbox/e3-16.jpg)... (new South City mod)

[DieKolkrabe]

@CSU: Upgrading isn't easy or an option in some cases (e.g. laptops). What if, as a hypothetical example, you can't upgrade the system.

The way I see it, it's a matter of economics.

DK

[CSU1]

@CSU: Upgrading isn't easy or an option in some cases (e.g. laptops). What if, as a hypothetical example, you can't upgrade the system.
Which is why I suggested to post your system info.


The way I see it, it's a matter of economics.

DK
No it's not, its a matter of understanding how to get the most from the tools you have to work with:tilt:

[DieKolkrabe]

It is, but when you have people constantly saying "upgrade, upgrade, upgrade", and you can't, it is irritating, yes? So that is why I feel that LFS should support lower end PCs. How many casual gamers (don't forget, there are a lot of casual gamers out there who play LFS), have upgraded their systems in the last year.

If you can't upgrade, how will posting your system info help?

DK

[CSU1]

If you can't upgrade, how will posting your system info help?

DK

- with the above info (http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=477676#post477676) we can give you advice as to where the bottlenecks are in your system. A PC running at 40 fps with little graphical detail should be your goal with a low end PC.
Also everyone should note that using a wireless router in most cases is not the best choice. No matter if the PC can produce smooth frames this can be hampered by network lag(lost packets from the wireless router)

[Electrik Kar]

It's just that LFS is already so friendly towards lower-spec computers. I'm not really sure what else you could do. Scawen is always optimising the code (gfx are again optimised in latest x7 test patch), and LFS has become smoother and more playable for me with almost every patch that has come out since I joined a year or so ago. I'm not sure what you're suggesting?

[CSU1]

It's just that LFS is already so friendly towards lower-spec computers. I'm not really sure what else you could do. Scawen is always optimising the code (gfx are again optimised in latest x7 test patch), and LFS has become smoother and more playable for me with almost every patch that has come out since I joined a year or so ago. I'm not sure what you're suggesting?

He's suggesting that LFS caters for really low spec machines maybe the infamous Gateway 2000 series! pHoweR!!!:tilt:

@DK: honestley you can't suggest this; as I and Electrik already pointed out that LFS is not so dependant compared to other titles.

If you think that your machine is not running as it should, take my advice given above...al we can do is try to help.

[Gunn]

LFS already works on low spec machines. If anything I'd rather see people upgrade or get a new PC.

[thisnameistaken]

I do think it would be cool to add a no textures option though- just plain surfaces. It would look quite wild in an 80's tron way (and totally relieve the graphics burden on older computers)

With high-res textures selected I think LFS reports that it's using about 30Mb of texture memory. That's easily manageable by a five year old graphics card, and five year old graphics cards can be bought for less than a takeaway pizza.

[DarkTimes]

LFS already scales extremely well to old computers, far more so than most modern simulators. If anything LFS could use a bit more (optional) high-end gloss. :)

[theirishnoob]

LFS already scales extremely well to old computers, far more so than most modern simulators. If anything LFS could use a bit more (optional) high-end gloss. :)


not really my nvida graphics card is about 2 years old ( not that old , tho it seems really old ) i have to play Everything on low quality also my dad has this p.o.s kicking out 3200 gh'z ( at 500 watts :) ) with only 12 of the 80 gb hardrive being used i manage 30 fps , so i fail to see how it run good on older machines tho i know theirs a few rich guys here with top-end pc's ( nerds :D )

[XCNuse]

S2 doesn't support elderly computers as well as S1 did, but you have to keep in mind, getting 30 or so FPS or lower in LFS means you can't play any games with a playable FPS in the last 5 years or so. From S1 to S2 there was probably a 25 to 50% drop in FPS, but you can't expect anything to get better when you have a 10 year old computer or so. Stuff isn't that expensive these days. 5 Years ago 1GB of RAM was almost unheard of, now you can get it for around $50 which is extremely cheap.

Things aren't going to get better, LFS is always going to increase the load on CPUs, and as hard as the devs are trying to keep it widely compatible it just isn't going to happen. There is a limit as to how low you can go when it comes to older computer capabilities. If you can afford S2, then you can afford a graphics card which will support LFS in the 50 FPS range.
And if you're still running a P3 or lower then I'm surprised you even can access the internet.

The devs can only do so much for people with lower end computers, and in the end they'll just have to upgrade, complaining about getting low FPS isn't the dev's fault, they are on a mission to create a realistic racing simulator, not the widest computer capable game in the world. And if that means leaving a few users behind, then so be it, but there is only so much you can do these days, and as technology increases, prices decrease on lower end, but still capable cards and hardware.

[DarkTimes]

not really my nvida graphics card is about 2 years old ( not that old , tho it seems really old ) i have to play Everything on low quality also my dad has this p.o.s kicking out 3200 gh'z ( at 500 watts :) ) with only 12 of the 80 gb hardrive being used i manage 30 fps , so i fail to see how it run good on older machines tho i know theirs a few rich guys here with top-end pc's ( nerds :D )
I have a 3ghz Athlon with an x800, and I have no problems running LFS. My computer is sadly old by todays standards.

[mrodgers]

I have a 3ghz Athlon with an x800, and I have no problems running LFS. My computer is sadly old by todays standards.
That certainly isn't old. I have sitting beside me at another desk an old PC that my daughter messes around with LFS on. I'm loading LFS right now, but it's only on patch U28, I think.....

Here goes. I am sitting at the startline of Blackwood in the XFG and I switched to wheels view. Frame rates with wheels view are sitting at 30 FPS. Unfortunately, I wouldn't be able to run multiplayer or against any AI with this machine, but considering what it is, 30 FPS by yourself is REALLY good. My daughter (6) usually races against 1 AI car, and it's fine for her. We also have run together through multiplayer lan with my computer as the lan server.

What is the machine? Many of you know from a while ago. I use to run the S1 demo online with it. Celeron 667 MHz with old version PCI Radeon 9250 card and I think 512 mb of ram.

How low of a PC do you want available to run LFS?

[Belgrom]

Already started (http://www.nlgaming.com/games/2204/xbox/e3-16.jpg)... (new South City mod)



Sorry for the off topíc , What game is that?



My Pc:Intel Celeron 2.53ghz , 256 ram ,32video onboar 24 -25 Fps
With 12 racers 8fps

[Electrik Kar]

Tron 2.0 by Monolith.

Quick Wiki link here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tron_2.0:_Killer_App)

[Jakg]

With high-res textures selected I think LFS reports that it's using about 30Mb of texture memory. That's easily manageable by a five year old graphics card, and five year old graphics cards can be bought for less than a takeaway pizza.with hi-res textures/skins etc all loaded in a 32 player race i've hit 100 MB usage - but still, a 64 MB card wouldn't like hi-res textures, and even my old ATi 9000 Pro was 128 MB!

also my dad has this p.o.s kicking out 3200 gh'z ( at 500 watts :) ) with only 12 of the 80 gb hardrive being used i manage 30 fps , so i fail to see how it run good on older machines tho i know theirs a few rich guys here with top-end pc's ( nerds :D )I'm no nerd, i prefer the term "Geek" :P

You don't NEED a top end PC to max LFS (i think even my old AMD 2800/9600XT could do that easy), but to max AA/Textures etc needs a surprising amount of CPU power, at least to pump out a continual 60 fps would NEED an 8800GTS and a Core 2 Duo, although 16xAA and 8xAA look the same to me, and i use 4xAA which i can only separate from 8xAA in pictures. I do like the fact it scales well, and that on a PC which can barely sustain 8 fps on Supreme Commander set to "Low" it can chuck out graphics like this (http://jakg.com/LFS/Screenshots/STCC/Round%201/T1.jpg) at 60 fps with ease.

[harjun]

-1...i think all the settings are perfect as they are, and then the cars just wont look very good with the bad settings

[DeKo]

I dont see the point, though, in actually removing options for people with higher-end PC's. and anyway, LFS is one of the most scaleable games on the market. Try playing rfactor on a 1GHZ athlon and a Geforce TNT2 :D My old PC had that and it ran LFS with about 30fps, not bad.

Obviously an X1900XTX runs it a little better, but still.

[Jimmy_Lemon]

-1 lfs is allready for low end pc's its Directx 8.

[spavatch]

LFS already works on low spec machines.Hi guys, before I take part in this discussion I just wanted to say hello as this seems to be my first post here :). Oh, and please forgive me my english, it's far from excellence but I'm doing my best :nod:.
Well, I beg to differ, sir ;). Compared to todays standards Live for Speed isn't a very demanding game but we are talking about outdated standards here, right? And unfortunately on this field practice doesn't come anywhere near theory. The manual says It should run on a 1 GHz PC with 128 MB of RAM and any 3D card. I've tried to run LFS on such machine equipped with 384 megs of RAM and a rather decent Radeon 7200. I didn't want to play actually, I just wanted to stay as a spectator as my gf said she'd like to see me racing on her PC. Belive me, no matter how low I went with graphic settings (640x480x16 with almost every option set to lowest) there was no way to make LFS run faster than 12-13 FPS even if there was literally nothing on the screen (like looking at the sky or downwards at the tarmac) and driver's view gave 7-8 FPS at the most. So it's not that old-PC-friendly as it seems... or maybe the manual needs a slight update :razz:.

[CSU1]

Hi guys, before I take part in this discussion I just wanted to say hello as this seems to be my first post here :). Oh, and please forgive me my english, it's far from excellence but I'm doing my best :nod:.
Well, I beg to differ, sir ;). Compared to todays standards Live for Speed isn't a very demanding game but we are talking about outdated standards here, right? And unfortunately on this field practice doesn't come anywhere near theory. The manual says It should run on a 1 GHz PC with 128 MB of RAM and any 3D card. I've tried to run LFS on such machine equipped with 384 megs of RAM and a rather decent Radeon 7200. I didn't want to play actually, I just wanted to stay as a spectator as my gf said she'd like to see me racing on her PC. Belive me, no matter how low I went with graphic settings (640x480x16 with almost every option set to lowest) there was no way to make LFS run faster than 12-13 FPS even if there was literally nothing on the screen (like looking at the sky or downwards at the tarmac) and driver's view gave 7-8 FPS at the most. So it's not that old-PC-friendly as it seems... or maybe the manual needs a slight update :razz:.

Prove it:shrug: ....run LFS on the older machine and show us a screen shot of the performance tab in Windows task manager when LFS is running...

[spavatch]

Prove it:shrug: ....run LFS on the older machine and show us a screen shot of the performance tab in Windows task manager when LFS is running...

I will gladly do that as soon as I'll get access to that computer. That'll probably be tomorrow :thumb:.

[Gunn]

Compared to todays standards Live for Speed isn't a very demanding game but we are talking about outdated standards here, right? You might not think LFS is very demanding but it is where CPU resources are concerned. Fancy graphics cards won't help you if your CPU is weak. If you want to compare old with new, a 1GHz CPU is not only outdated, but obsolete as well. Yes it will run LFS, but not well. Personally I would recommend no less than a 2GHz CPU and at least 512MB ram. A 128MB graphics card will be fine, but of course a better card is slightly more useful.

I have accepted long ago that an old PC won't do well with modern games, LFS remarkably still is usable on many low spec systems. But I don't see how making it run on even older systems will benefit anybody. If a person's PC is that old then they are unlikely to have much joy running any modern game. Time to upgrade if you want your system to be a gaming machine.


*when I first started playing LFS I was using a P3 450 with 128MB ram and a 32MB TNT2. Things have changed since then but one thing hasn't changed: a PC is obsolete about 3 years after initial purchase.

[CSU1]

If a person's PC is that old then they are unlikely to have much joy running any modern game. Time to upgrade if you want your system to be a gaming machine.

yep....I thought throves would have flocked in here waving screenies of their running processes and system setups seeking advice:shrug: ...but even the op seems not to give a shite....oh well...all we can do is try to help ey...

I suppose what that tells us is, very few have problems:) good good:)

[JTbo]

+1, my brand new machine won't run LFS smoothly, under 20fps on times and I run all at minimum setting.

Yes, this is a laptop, but should have enough CPU power being A64 3400+ and I'm not interested from gfx chrome so would be nice to turn something off to get better fps...

[CSU1]

...JTBO no machine will run LFS smoothly under 20fps:really:

does this machine got integrated gfx chipset?

example: my machine will just about run on "the boundry"(above 25-30fps) on full grid from spec view it will see 40-50fps

in car view will see anywhere from 25-40fps

my machine is a laptop with integrated ATi crap(64mb) running at 3.4 ghz

[Gunn]

+1, my brand new machine won't run LFS smoothly, under 20fps on times and I run all at minimum setting.

Yes, this is a laptop, but should have enough CPU power being A64 3400+ and I'm not interested from gfx chrome so would be nice to turn something off to get better fps...You should probably be getting 120FPS with that CPU, perhaps there's something wrong with your computer or its configuration?

[CSU1]

agreed.

Jtbo ^^ (http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=477676#post477676) giz a look.

[spavatch]

You might not think LFS is very demanding but it is where CPU resources are concerned. Fancy graphics cards won't help you if your CPU is weak. If you want to compare old with new, a 1GHz CPU is not only outdated, but obsolete as well. Yes it will run LFS, but not well. Personally I would recommend no less than a 2GHz CPU and at least 512MB ram. A 128MB graphics card will be fine, but of course a better card is slightly more useful.

You're right :thumbsup:. This game is rather CPU than GPU dependent. The machine I've told about a few posts ago isn't my everyday PC, as I said I just wanted to spectate on it. For racing I use an Athlon XP-M 2500+ @2,5 GHz with 1,5 GB of RAM and a Radeon 8500 128MB @300/600. It runs LFS nice and smooth (60-90 FPS) as long as there's not too many cars in front of me ;). Right after joining the race, when I'm starting from one of the last positions and there are thirty other racers in front of me, I get a rather unplayable framerate of 12-15 FPS :razz:.
Currently I'm flirting with an idea of upgrading to X1950XT, which seems to be the fastest solution for AGP bus (as I don't want to buy a whole new PC), but I'm not quite sure if it will help :scratchch.

*when I first started playing LFS I was using a P3 450 with 128MB ram and a 32MB TNT2. Things have changed since then but one thing hasn't changed: a PC is obsolete about 3 years after initial purchase.
Sad but true... :( These are the moments I miss those good old C64 and Amiga times... :goodvibes

[JTbo]

You should probably be getting 120FPS with that CPU, perhaps there's something wrong with your computer or its configuration?

I guess not, latest drivers just installed them yesterday, but this machine has this son of bitch OS called Vista, very very bad for performance this is :(

For example today I did small race, we were 7 drivers on server and I started from back of grid as I was bit slow with my gamepad (don't ask), I got 14fps and at best I got was 35fps.

Performance in general is very bad in this machine, this runs at full speed and all, but this just is bit slow.

Oh yes, CPU is also that damn Sempron version, really slow computing.

Edit: CPU load is at 100% all time, on my home machine that is much less than 100% and there I have real Athlon 64 3200+ cpu and radeon x850xt card. So this laptop is just too slow to play LFS, need option to give less to compute to increase performance :D

[Electrik Kar]

but one thing hasn't changed: a PC is obsolete about 3 years after initial purchase.

Sad but true... :( These are the moments I miss those good old C64 and Amiga times... :goodvibes


Keep in mind that the Commodore Vic-20 was released around 1981, the C64 in 1982 and the Amiga 1985. :D:tilt:

[spavatch]

Keep in mind that the Commodore Vic-20 was released around 1981, the C64 in 1982 and the Amiga 1985. :D:tilt:
You're right, but to be honest the VIC-20 was quite a false start :razz:, the C64 became what VIC-20 should be from the very beginning and lasted for several years till 1990 and the Amiga 500/2000 was more than enough till around 1992, when A1200/A4000 had arrived :). Their rather closed architecture (that doesn't include 'big' Amigas - A2000/3000/4000) forced developers to optimise their code and ensured 100% compatibility and more than decent performance on every single machine :thumbsup:.

Don't get me wrong, Scawen does an amazing job :thumb:. I'm just a nostalgic person and I miss the 80's ;).

[Electrik Kar]

I'm just a nostalgic person and I miss the 80's ;).

Hehe, I hear ya. Sometimes I think that from all the time I've ever spent with computers, half of that time must have been spent on a C64. :shy:

[harjun]

where do i put this file?

[CSU1]

where do i put this file?
wot file?

[harjun]

oops...wrong thread

i meant it for the high res track thing

[JTbo]

You're right, but to be honest the VIC-20 was quite a false start :razz:, the C64 became what VIC-20 should be from the very beginning and lasted for several years till 1990 and the Amiga 500/2000 was more than enough till around 1992, when A1200/A4000 had arrived :). Their rather closed architecture (that doesn't include 'big' Amigas - A2000/3000/4000) forced developers to optimise their code and ensured 100% compatibility and more than decent performance on every single machine :thumbsup:.

Don't get me wrong, Scawen does an amazing job :thumb:. I'm just a nostalgic person and I miss the 80's ;).

Compared to C64 1Hz todays 2 000 000Hz (or even more) machines should be really quick to use, but how they manage not to impress still?

We have nice 4 core processors that certainly should have computing power of few million times, but when using todays software they seem rather slow. Maybe software is indeed quite bloatware or something, I do miss indeed yesterday's efficency :nod:

[Ricerguy]

Wouldn't be possible to stabalise the graphics by making the grass one flat colour and removing all the banners at the road side? If someone can make a sand mod and a snow mod why shouldn't this be possible, to atleast make the graphics smoother on older computers like mine :).

"cut and paste": AMD Athlon(tm) Processor
897 MHz, 368 MB of RAM

P.S. I will post the pics of task manager and lfs when I reinstall it

[spavatch]

Prove it:shrug: ....run LFS on the older machine and show us a screen shot of the performance tab in Windows task manager when LFS is running...
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? :shrug:

[harjun]

lol...9fps....i couldnt stop laughing...sorry :) my Intel p3 did 20 fps and that was at 900mhz :)

[Jakg]

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

[DieKolkrabe]

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



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

[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).

[Gener_AL (UK)]

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? :shrug:

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.

[DieKolkrabe]

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

[Jakg]

It wouldn't work, that was my point.

What was your point...?

[obsolum]

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

[DieKolkrabe]

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.)

[Jakg]

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...

[DieKolkrabe]

Could there be a DX7 mode, possibly?

DK

[Jakg]

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...

[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$

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

[spavatch]

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 :Looking_a. 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 :smileypul.


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 :razz:. 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 :).

[Smoky DRFT]

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

[BumpinKickerl7]

if you honestly need this game to be slower, GET A NEW COMPUTER.
i have a p4 2.6ghz and a ati 9550, 1.5gb ram and it runs just fine. if anything they should make it for faster computers. again to all those with old comptuers. GET WITH THE PROGRAM. lol

my 2 cents

every one should go out and get a C2D and a nvidia 8 series card :)