almccoyjr

Would that be clockwise or counter-clockwise? Makes a difference if the desk is L-shaped. plug_nickel

I'm afraid I won't be much help with AMD or with ATI/AMD video cards. I left AMD in '06 and have always used a Nvidia card since the first Geforce. On the Intel side, I'd look very closely at the LGA 1366 socket. Checkout the different motherboards and make sure they have SLI support for future upgrading. For a cpu, I'd compare pricing for a I7-920, 930 and 950. The 920/30 can be nicely overclocked as can the 950. PCSpecialist was advertising a special on the GTX470 card they use. Compare it to the 460 and then to the 570 to keep the pricing honest. You'll be able to see if in fact the 470 offers the "best-bang-for-buck". The 460 is no "slouch", but if it's priced comparable to the 470, then the 470 is the better of the two. You'll have to determine if the 570 is within your budget. I would stay with 4gb DDR3 dual channel or 6gb if triple channel. 8gb dual or 12gb triple will be of no benefit unless you're going to be doing some very intensive rendering, streaming, editing or....applications. Go with a minimum 750watt PSU, 80% if available, and make sure it will handle 2x470's at the minimum. The HAF 922 case, IMHO, is the best among those that are offered by the builder. And don't forget to ask the builder about filters for the case. Hope this helps. plug_nickel

Be very wary of 2,3,5ms LCD "screens"; very deceptive marketing tactic and not true engineering mojo. The 2ms rate is an average of gray-to-gray scale only and doesn't represent the true response rate in rendering dynamic color changes. You "simply" want an LCD the doesn't ghost 32bit pallet. There is no TRUE 2ms anything, glass or LCD. The only technology that comes close is yet-to-be-developed liquid crystal. To approach 2ms rate is equal to 500hz +. It's going to be hard to find an LCD that offers 1920x1200 native support that won't break your budget. Wodin: +1 on pcspecialist. Trialed both AMD and Intel; very reasonable for builds with very good components. For my 5cents,don't use the standard Windows defragger. Get either O&O Defrag or Disktrix Ultimate 3 Defrag. Both have the ability to actually place an app to a specific location on the hard drive. You can set OFF on the outside of the disk, followed by page file, Windows and then other apps. I use UD3 because it has some extra features; however, some of the options can really screw up performance, or worse, if you're not careful. Have a good time "OFFing" your opponents. plug_nickel

"Shopping" on line at Newegg to checkout what ifs. Just "built" a main board with AMD II, ram, 5870 and a couple of different mobo's for $745/780 excluding final rebates from mfg's. AMD has really cut some prices on extremely good componets. "Bang for the buck" to say the least. plug_nickel

Good place to start: http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/ultimate_core_i7_overclocking_guide_we_push_nehalem_its_limits It's a whole different ball game when it comes to o'c'ing these cpu's. The mobo plays an even more critical role when pushing for benchmarks as well as speed. You'll also need to "dissect" you're NB to see how well it can stand voltage increases. Relaxing ram timings just a "smidge", even if you have locked the memory's speed can help with a more stable o'c. I've just in the last couple of days got my X6800 to 3.73. Bus is 1066 which actually equates to 267 w/ 14x multiplier and still at default voltages. I haven't been able to run prime for as long as I'd like to, but for apps and gaming, no problems so far. Not bad for an ol' '06 model. And the mileage has been excellent. plug_nickel

I was with AMD up until 12/06 when Intel's Core Two Duo blew the Hades out of AMD. AMD does run hotter and they "seem" to have a few more operational anomalies then Intel, but they're primarily software specific and support forums have ironed out them out. AMD forced Intel into making their procs more o/c friendly. AMD has been the "better" company in processor/motherboard consistency when it comes to upgrading. Every time Intel turns around, it seems you have to change your board has well. AMD has done a better job at "future proofing". AMD's acquisition of ATI has put them much further down the road where cpu/gpu will be cpgpu at some point. Intel can't put together a slide projector, let alone a gpu. That being said, Intel has just blown the Hades out processing. Several days ago, several of us had a good conversation on building systems. That discourse has caused me to do a lot more thinking about "future proofing" and what it means in "real" terms. To me, "future proofing" is akin to buying the latest, best badas* hardware you can to blow away the apps you currently run and to "try" and be ready for the next round of Dx, software that runs optimized on 4,6 or 8 cores, etc. Is anyone here running a 64 bit gaming program? If you're apps are already "max'd" out, are you going to "max'em them more" while waiting on newer software? I built my current system back in 12/06 and it has run everything that I've thrown at it pretty dam* good. Not because of the hardware, but because of the improvements to the OS and being able to tweak all the parts to make it a system. Technical support and forums are where future proofing is realized. That's where the real investment pays off; keeping what you have by optimizing it and with extreme "judicial" restraint when spending money on that next biggest, best upgrade. You don't have to buy new to get good/great performance; frame rates prove that. I've been Googleing and eBaying to see what ifs and you can REALLY build a dynamite system from the "refuse" abandoned by those that have the incessant upgrade itch. That being said, AMD and Intel are both excellent choices. I prefer Intel at this point. Hardware and software make a pc; how well it runs is strictly up to YOU. YOU determine the mileage, not the parts. plug_nickel

Multiple +'s plug_nickel

GOD Speed to your mom. I had a hip replacement a couple of years ago so I can empathize with her. Being away from OFF does have an upside. You won't be using up any 7.62x57 ammo "trying" to hit someone. My best to you both. plug_nickel

To all the professionals, computer geeks and enthusiasts, what does this file represent: > CFS3.1a_MD_TIR5_CH_TARGET_FRAPS.vdf < plug_nickel

So what is the file? It's an image of a ramdisk file I'm currently testing. So? The programs in the file are CFS3.1a, MagicDisk, TIR5, CH Control Manager, TARGET and Fraps. So? These programs are currently NOT installed on my testbed. They were removed once I had them setup, configured and imaged. They are being loaded directly into system memory, run, and any files that are changed are being updated prior to shutdown all on a 4gb USB drive. When the image is being loaded into sys-mem, the .udf image of CFS3.1a is being mounted by MagicDisk into a virtual cd so that CFS3.1a can start automatically. The CFS3.1a image is pre-mounted by MagicDisk. The profile for my Cougar HOTAS is also being loaded from TARGET automatically as is Fraps. Right now, all I have to do is load the image using my ramdisk software on the hd, go to the ramdisk drive, open it and hit CFS3.exe. When I'm in game and want to do a recording, I use a hotkey to start and stop. What I'm testing is seeing if I can load my CH TQ image without having to rescan the controller. CH is peculiar like that sometimes. Even though CH-CM "sees" the controller, it's not always enabled, thus the rescan. The TIR hardware and software also handle initial start up differently so this part is a w.i.p. I may or may not be able to automatically start my CH TQ and load a profile. Same goes for the TIR5 software. Only testing will determine. My first goal is to see if I can make CFS3.1a truly "plug and play". If not, at least it will be load and play for the time being. My second goal is to see if I can "image the image" and have the ramdisk software functioning within the image file itself. That way I wouldn't have to have the ramdisk software installed either; it would all be truly "self contained". I could then run it on any computer that has a 64 bit OS. I could use a boot loader and....whew.... So. Have you looked at OBD's footprint? Why? Because I've seen Crucial 24gb set of DDR3 PC-1666 for $271.65 . AND you don't need to keep the ram clocked at that speed!!! The "game" is most definitely now on. plug_nickel

Direct hit, but no discernible damage to the file's I.D.

And so I repeat: Does this allow you to run OFF directly from your HD without having to always use the CFS3 disc to launch?! Please say yes...please. Yes. Oh wait! I know! This allows you to take OFF with you wherever you go and run it on any computer set up for flying! That's my goal; however, I'm a toddler at this point. I'll wait a little while longer

And just to peek your curiosity a little bit more, that file is currently residing on a 4gb USB drive. I can hear the wheels turning.

MagicDisk is a program that mounts an iso image, to name just one type of image, into a virtual cd which is made from a copy of the cd. The program is just one of many that are out there. From this point, I don't know if it's appropriate to go into the copy portion of it. MD is a small, but important part of the file's overall structure. plug_nickel

Ok, a very small hint: MagicDisk. plug_nickel

Lou, You're getting close sir. plug_nickel

Just to chime in: Lou I found your use of "comportment" spot on appropriate. It addressed the "gestalt", on several different levels, of the intent of elephant's post and where the discussion(s) could have possibly led. By that I mean that I was (am) curious about elephant's observations regarding "user unfriendly externals" and "complex engine management" and "visual awesomeness". elephant The discussion, from my perspective, would have touched on areas where tradition and roots combined with technological advancements leads to a whole new gaming experience. Where the differences in assigning controls in game take a back seat to scripting them using software supplied by different HOTAS mfg's. Where "visual awesomeness" differs from "visual freshness" when trying to emulate the look of varnish, nitrate dope and not shellac as seen through the eyes of 32-bit color pallet. Maybe another day. plug_nickel

Coming out of the sun on the the Baron's 2 o'clock when he sees me and does a various impressive jink towards me. I start to counter by throttling back, killing one mag and starting a "snap" roll along with right rudder to re-correct my position as he attempts to cut under me when my right foot slips off the pedals hitting something sharp on the side of the pc case. Remember to wear something that will protect your little toe. It'll save you a pilot and time cleaning the tears off of the keyboard and stick. GOD *&^$*($&$^*%(%*$&%*%*( did that ever hurt. plug_nickel

It just keeps getting better. Thank you sir. plug_nickel

I would have held off on getting a new(er), different sound card since you're now going to migrate to W7. The way W7 handles hardware drivers is totally different. No, I'm not sure the HD audio driver was the problem; however, you had an install issue and the conflict started there. In trying to troubleshoot your original setup, I suggested disabling your sound card and enabling onboard sound. Since you had problems with driver conflicts between the SC and VC, eliminating the SC and its driver would simply make diagnosing easier. You would have had one less variable to contend with. Parky is spot on using Driver Sweeper. It can also be used to clean out audio driver remnants as well. You'll also need to the Dx redistributable from MS for use with legacy games. Dx10/11 borked DirectX, hence MS reissuing the redistributable to correct that problem. plug_nickel

Aim it at CFS3.exe plug_nickel

You, sir, are on the right track. Those "things" you're trying to adjust are what matters, but what are those "things"? Setting up and tweaking hardware to produce the most balanced motion fidelity is the key, and it's impossible to do so without some sort of baseline for your particular system. For starters, I currently have OFF placed on the outer track of my hd, followed by a number of different .dll files and drivers,then page file that's fixed in size and then the OS. W7, despite its efficiency, has memory leaks. Just boot up, run Resource Monitor and make a note. Go do something for a little while and check it again. Look at what's cached and the amount of available memory that has "evaporated". And that's for starters. Have you ever looked to see what's in your cached file folder? After two weeks of use, it's amazing. I'm still running my old X6800 with my old 8800 GTX with my old WD Black Caviar hd, sliders on 5-5-3-5-5, fps capped at 50 and thoroughly enjoy QC flight. Flying a true campaign with all the environment options working would be a completely different experience. Unless your hardware, and supporting software are working as seamlessly as possible, no amount of game tweaking will matter. For a more in depth discussion on some of those topics, search out some of the posts by BirddogICT,Parky, Tamper, Von Paulus just to name a few. They've gone into this subject on various levels, from different aspects and when put together, gives a very good generalized way of how to "tweak" system/game to help produce the best overall rendered motion. A plane sitting on the tarmac with it's prop spinning, environmental elements working can have an fps of 1000. In the air, it could have an fps of 30. If both scenes are fluid, then why the difference in fps and why use it as a measure of performance regarding rendering? In MMHO, if fps is the most overriding concern, you're a driver. If fluid motion with the best fidelity possible is the most overriding concern, you're a pilot with a dam* good ground crew. Just some thoughts; more than 5 cents worth and your mileage will vary no matter what you drive down this road. plug_nickel ps; I'm just an old "well integrated" analog device trying to makes sense of a digitally rendered world.

Use this as an intro to trying to find the holy grail of simulating motion: http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm plug_nickel

I test frame rates by drawing a sequence figures on index cards and see how fast I can flip through them to produce a fluid image. Sorry for the sarcasm, but fps IS NOT a "true" measure of "performance"; not when it comes to motion. The human eyes are. They are the truest baseline diagnostic tools we have at our disposal. If you're going down the road that fps = a measure integrating cpu, gpu, vc, hd, cache, you're going down a dead end street. I've seen 30fps games maxed out that are totally fluid. I was once at an flight sim exhibition where hardware was pushing 80-100fps. That's what "they" were highlighting. When it came my turn, I picked the most densely populated area and had no trouble producing shimmering, "autogen popping" and slowing of the scene. "They" never responded to my question "If 100fps is so great, then why does this happen in this scene?" There are different methods to use to tune for smooth(er) motion that is both pleasing to look and immersive, but how you test for fps isn't one of them. Sorry if this comes across wrong. plug_nickel

Right in the middle of downing my third ace in QC, my wife calls out "I can't get online". Never, ever, ever retort with "What did you do?" Not if you want to keep simming, that is. Sheesh! plug_nickel