Jump to content

Tamper

VALUED MEMBER
  • Content count

    372
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Tamper last won the day on January 23 2010

Tamper had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

9 Neutral

1 Follower

About Tamper

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. Hadn't seen you in a while...still around? Sent you a PM :)
  2. Hi Pawgy, sent you a PM that may be of help. Look forward to hearing back :)
  3. Still checking here? Sent you a PM...contact me when you can, thanks :)
  4. This, plus about a bajillion. I would *love* (and pay a fairly hefty price, I might add) to see how the team at OBD - with their keen interest and unparalleled devotion to historical detail - would make out with access to modern 'tools', 'engine', etc for creating a totally new W/OFF. There are so few limits to WOFF any more, but most of them are due directly to the 'engine' (even though that is probably a generalization and the most over-used term around here). I've often wished it were so and, like Hellshade says, all one can do for now is /sigh Hmm. I'm no expert, but I would just imagine that more up-to date tools/engine would actually have incorporated the benefit of more modern technologies - which the older engine wouldn't support - and thereby improve perhaps even beyond what is currently the "State of WOFF Art". I think a good example of this is the new shaders, which I believe rely on technology that wasn't necessarily a developed part of the original CFS3 - and allowed not only more impressive graphics, but actually off-load some of the work from the CPU to the GPU. And this is not uncommon in the graphics card world...I have read about super-duty systems that required a lot of processing ability basically doing it with multiple graphics cards (bitcoin mining). BTW, as much as CLoD looks great and I've always been interested...the moment they say "Steam", I say "I'm out". Everyone's entitled to the own opinion, of course - and mine on this subject is that things like Steam, Origin, et al wouldn't exist if it weren't for marketing and DRM, two things which I have no interest in tying up my computer's resources doing. There is plenty enough media in the world trying to cram every other agenda down our throats. Again, my opinion - but one shared by many legitimate licensees of various software.
  5. Always fun to speculate...maybe you should make the rule that all guesses must be accompanied by the reasoning for the guess (even if it's just "totally random"). I like hearing what drives the speculation; helps me to "see" ideas I hadn't considered myself. I would say 1st December. Biggest reason being it's approaching the holiday, but not so close that we'd run into "We just couldn't make the release in time for Santa" (which seems to happen). No reflection on OBD at all, just these are my experiences with releases in general (even work projects, not just entertainment stuff). I think a group - any group - goes through that once or twice, they eventually steer well clear of it in the future. Then again, I don't have much of a 'dog in the fight'. The few things I really would like to see happen with WOFF are likely never going to happen. It's remarkable what's been done so far, but - being totally honest here - I find the few remaining issues to be more and more detracting. And any change in this is a technical improbability, since it involves the sim's "engine" and graphics. We'll see, though. OBD has certainly amazed in the past, no doubt.
  6. Now see...no one has said that, and I don't understand why you'd choose to phrase it that way. We're not talking about "right", we're talking about "choice". People have indicated here they prefer the choice - that's all. They are arguing (and I use the word strictly in an academic sense) that they don't want to lose the choice. And that seems perfectly fair and reasonable to me. Again, it's not about the action (i.e., whether anyone is posting), it's about the place (inasmuch as a website can be a place, that is). It's an important distinction which, regretfully, it appears is being overlooked. Don't forget that every time anything is done to limit mention of WOFF, it is actually contradicting the oft-stated goal "What we need is more exposure". Naturally, with increased exposure, yes - you might actually incur the risk that someone incorrectly assumes WOFF is dead. But that seems very unlikely, because as several people said already - anyone likely to find this place is just as likely if not more so to be able to find the other. (On that note, I am still given to wonder how many other 'unofficial' forums there are out there, and whether anyone would actually suggest they all be closed...) With all the foregoing having been said - I think there seems a consensus that posting links, "pointers", stickies, or what-have-you, directing visitors so inclined to the official site would be adequate. So, by all means, maybe the appropriate Mod can come along and help out with that. As was discussed, no need to close the forum here or limit discussion. Your thread title included the question of whether this forum should be closed (the functional equivalent of closing the CA "whale pool", from your analogy). I believe the majority of the respondents have indicated they aren't in favor of that choice, and several have opined that the concern about confusion is probably...well, not really likely to be an issue.
  7. Actually, the analogy isn't that bad...but, also in the name of creative writing, if you'd allow me to run with your example... The discussion wasn't about the whales (which admittedly aren't that common in this pool). The discussion is about the pool. It's not about what's being done, or by whom - it's where that's at issue. To clarify: Forum = Pool(s) Members = Whales Discussions = Swimming See, there are basically two pools. No one's arguing that whales aren't to be found of late in the CA pool - officially, whales swim over at the SimHQ pool. But, it's still perfectly OK for whales to swim here at CA, should the case arise. Several who have posted in this thread have echoed that they don't want this pool closed, just because it's not the official whale pool. For different reasons, they want to see both pools open...they prefer the choice. In your words, they are passionate about that choice (and I am among those who are passionate about maintaining this choice). I might not even have a whale currently, but I have kept whales from time to time - and I strongly feel that CA is the best place for my whales to swim. As for the confusion...well, signs would be posted saying "No Whale Lifeguards on Duty - Whale Lifeguards Are Available at the SimHQ Pool For Your Safety and Convenience" Makes it fairly obvious where the whales 'official' pool is. No need to close the CA pool, or ban whale swimming here. I hope that my taking liberty with the analogy was not unwelcome, and helps to illustrate the distinctions being made.
  8. I understand your examples, and they are accurate, of course. But that's apples and oranges. We aren't discussing whether there has been any activity - your original post, the title, and the ensuing dialogue, have revolved around eliminating or somehow limiting discussion on this site to only the 'legacy product OFF', at the exclusion of discussions concerning WOFF. Above, I asked To which you replied: Agreed. If there is a good indicator ...then it's not necessary to remove WOFF references or shut down the forum. I honestly took that to mean you understood (and agreed) that there was no need to exclude discussion of WOFF. But then, in your very next post, you said: Which certainly seems to limit discussion to OFF. So I offered a more accurate way to word what has been discussed here, by saying the 'blurb' could recognize that discussion about WOFF still happens here... And now it seems you're upset. Can't imagine why, really - but I'll certainly apologize. In any event, I don't see why it's necessary to say anything that implies or gives the appearance that discussion of WOFF shouldn't take place here. I thought you had agreed to the concept. Even though the general consensus is there's little danger of wandering souls mistaking this forum for a sign that WOFF is no more, if you're concerned about this not being the 'official' support forum, I'm sure it can be conveyed effectively by saying "This isn't the official support forum. That is located at...(x)" And let that be that. Though not always without good reason (said in my best Ben Franklin voice)
  9. Again, I would point out that there's no need to exclude discussion of WOFF here. In other words: "...and a little blurb that discussion of both OFF and WOFF is ongoing and welcome here, however for the most up to date information regarding WOFF (the latest version), please see the official website." The former statement seems to imply that this forum is limited to the 'legacy product OFF'; the latter statement makes it clear that discussion of either is appropriate, while still conveying the message concerning the official site. A small distinction, perhaps - but a very important one.
  10. Don't know why it should be necessary to remove any reference to WOFF, etc - several have stated they see no reason there would be confusion. Anyone likely to find this place would almost assuredly find/know about the other (SimHQ). Add a sticky, sure, whatever - but don't remove anything. No real reason to; one certain thing that removing this forum will accomplish is eliminating a choice for those who use WOFF but don't wish - for their own reasons - to participate at SimHQ. One could argue that killing WOFF here is effectively killing another avenue by which WOFF gains exposure (and the benefit thereof). If there are ample indicators WOFF is actively being developed and 'officially' supported elsewhere, and certainly sufficient detail about how to get there - why is it so important to shut down this site's WOFF section? (On that note, I wonder how many 'unofficial' forums/sections are devoted to WOFF, specifically - are we going to run around trying to close them all?) Folks can feel free to discuss WOFF to their hearts' content over at SimHQ, and it doesn't require being concerned with whatever else goes on, wherever else. Live and let live.
  11. As you said, my intent here isn't to upset anyone. Much the same as any other, this is my opinion; take it for what it is. Whatever ire might be raised by the suggestion is possibly, at least in some measure, due to a sub-set of the general flight sim community that will probably never want anything to do with the 'other site'. I read over at the 'official' site, and might otherwise post, if it didn't involve having to be a member there. I bet I'm not the only one. (Heck, for all I know, some or many might be perfectly OK with my not posting - but then, the more you exclude members from a community, the smaller it will be and the less likely it will ever grow.) The thing the so-called "closely-knit" communities often don't seem to get is that, the harder a 'core group' tries to keep anyone who doesn't agree with them from having a voice, the smaller their community will be, and the less it will grow. The same 20 or so guys can only do so much back-patting and carrying on about how great something is, for so long, before it all gets very boring. Kind of the opposite of a forum - in my opinion. More like...well, a fan club. The 'other site' is far too given to that sort of attitude, IMHO. Not much argument that the official site has moved on, but I would remind that SimHQ was a choice borne of necessity - and very much 'of the moment' - rather than of preference. As for confusion, well, I think anyone capable of finding this place is at least as likely - if not more so - to find that place. After all, all the official links point there; most any relevant Google search is going to at least include that site in addition to (if not instead of) this one. My $0.02, FWIW
  12. Hardware Question

    The Samsung T1 has UASP support, as I described above - not a surprise, given it's performance reputation. It won't perform as well on a 'regular' USB 3.0 connection - that's what UASP is all about. The SSD itself (a Samsung EVO 850 series drive, internally) is capable of the bitrate of the SATA 6G/s interface - 540read/520write, according to Samsung. The T1 drive claims 450MB/s (which looks to be fairly accurate): http://www.anandtech.com/show/8885/samsung-portable-ssd-t1-review(but I think that's with a UASP-capable host). What brand/model of laptop are you using?
  13. Hardware Question

    Below is some testing I did a while back, to illustrate what I'm referring to above. I used ATTO disk benchmark to compare various scenarios involving USB 3.0 enclosures, SATA 3.0 G/s and 6.0G/s SSDs, UASP performance, and eSATA performance. (Yes I realize benchmarks are synthetic, but this is all comparative) Top left; SATA 3G/s SSD on USB3.0 enclosure. Numbers roughly equivalent to the same drive on an internal SATA controller. Top center; SATA 6G/s on same enclosure, port, etc. Although the drive is faster, the enclosure's internal ASM-1051 SATA controller is limiting the drive to SATA 3g/s speeds. Top right; A higher-quality USB enclosure than above, same drive/port/pc: Now internal SATA controller allows faster speeds (though still not even close to what drive is capable of). Enclosure is UASP-capable but it is disabled for this test. Bottom left; same enclosure as Top Right, but now with PC's UASP support enabled. Note much faster read speeds (about 35% for larger data sizes) but still not at full speed SATA 6 is capable of. Bottom right; same drive/enclosure, but now on eSATAp 6G/s port. Note further read speed increase (additional ~6% for total of 43% over 'normal' USB 3.0 on same drive, even with high-quality enclosure). Note that I focused on read speeds, because where SSDs and especially games are concerned, that's where your money is being spent. Also, if you don't already have an internal (boot) SSD, I cannot recommend it strongly enough. Don't let enyone tell you that it won't improve performance of your games other than loading levels, that's rubbish perpetuated by people who, at the time, hadn't already adopted the technology. They claimed that SSDs only improved load times since that's the only time the hard disks were being used - which is baloney, of course. The real issue was that most of them couldn't accept that technology had come out that kicked the living daylights out of the shiny new WD Raptors they just paid a lot of money for :) A good SSD will improve the overall performance of any computer over a conventional hard disk, because it speeds up *any* hard disk read by many times, even up to 100x what platter drives can do. This includes any OS files (such as paging files) and also DirectX and other elements your machine uses to run your favorite games. Games do not just read data from the hard drive when levels are loaded; this is particularly true of flight sims, where you're moving around and the computer is constantly having to 'load' things like terrain, buildings, and aircraft skins as they come into view/higher LOD, etc. All that stuff is *not* loaded into memory every time you load a mission, therefore it must be read from somewhere in 'real time'...therefore the faster you can read it, the better. Less 'stutters' from loading textures.
  14. Hardware Question

    Particularly if you have a fast SSD (the speeds do vary broadly), even USB 3.0 is liable to slow the drive down. People don't realize that, while USB might be portable, etc, it's not really "fast", even USB 3.0. Sure it's faster by far than 2.0, but USB in general is popular because it's portable, external (easy to attach/remove) and widely implemented...not really for being "fast". If you want fast, check to see if your laptop has an eSATA port. If it's eSATA 6Gb/s, even better. It's not all that rare, even though a lot of people don't know what it's good for. Some laptops even have eSATAp, which even provides the 5v necessary to power an SSD (though you'd want to consider the hit on battery life, and maybe use an externally-powered unit). eSATA provides speeds consistent with being an internal drive on the native SATA controller (because that's essentially what it is). Stupid fast compared to USB, if you have a fast SATA 6Gb/s SSD and an eSATA 6Gb/s port. If you don't have an eSATA port, check to see if your laptop USB 3.0 supports what's called UASP, Even if you don't have eSATA, UASP will definitely improve speed beyond typical USB 3.0. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESATAp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_Attached_SCSI http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA24G28M5597&cm_re=uasp-_-17-707-312-_-Product http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA29716C8573 Finally, depending on your laptop, I'd strongly consider buying an SSD to replace your internal drive (I'm assuming you don't already have this). If your drive is full due to storing a lot of content, I'd consider getting an external drive for storage, and put a 250G SSD in your laptop; they're not terribly expensive these days and it's a fairly adequate amount of storage...if you're even just somewhat selective about what you install on your boot drive, 256G would be enough, and you can store huge files on a big terabyte-plus platter drive externally, where speed isn't crucial. Another reason I say this is I'm not sure if some games/apps will be happy if they're installed on a removable drive that's not always there, or maybe has the drive letter it was installed under taken up by another USB drive you plug in. Just a thought. Good luck, HTH
  15. Sure - but perhaps not many these days. I check in often, don't post much because there's not much to say, but I still check in. I couldn't say whether keeping this particular section(s) open is worth whatever effort is involved, but there's not much arguing that not many people post here. I enjoy reading from the few that still start threads here, and will contribute if I've something to say. But my primary interest has always been technical, and that "other site" has shown over and over that genuine objectivity is unwelcome. Too many websites these days where if you don't agree with certain people you're not welcome. Not really a "forum" when open dialogue is not welcome. I've often thought about starting threads for some of the more technical subjects that interest me (and seemingly others; in the past, anyway). But, since it looks as though few are here to actually read said threads, wouldn't seem to make much sense to post - and joining the other site, for me personally, "ain't gonna happen". But, to strictly answer your question, "Yes".
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..