Tamper

I don't disagree with what (I think) you're saying, to a point. But as far as 'ignoring reviews', there were none. Again, I ordered for shipment as soon as it was available. And the Developers did not 'rightly point out' that their customers would be ignored, or that they were releasing a product that was little more than 'eye-candy'. We (the potential buyers) were led to believe that although it's a 'work-in-progress', it would have a mission builder, it would have a SP mode, and (of course, the RoF mantra) a usable MP mode. It really has none of the above. So, please, don't blame the consumer here. Yes, we showed some faith in a new developer - but there was plenty of hype to get us on board. The only thing we're guilty of is believing them.

The problem isn't really (necessarily) about SP or MP. Yes, there was always at least a certain leaning toward MP, and that was discussed publicly. The real issue - and the catalyst behind the current MP/SP argument on that 'other forum' - is that neither side currently has what they feel is anywhere near a product worth what they paid. Your statement "I think [Neoqb] also played a little "rope a dope" with potential customers" is spot-on. They aren't communicating at all, and the few places you can go for any information are overwhelmed with snotty fanboys (forgive me, but it's true). I am appalled at some of the lame answers and excuses they've handed out, second only to the pathetic excuse for 'customer service' that is exhibited. Every time anyone has anything negative to say about the product - never mind that it's an accurate assessment and shared by many others - the poster is rediculed, or implicated as the cause of the problem, etc. In fact, one of my favorite recent posts over at the 'other forum' was one by a chap called "Sunchaser". In (yet another) thread discussing the many flaws of RoF - not maliciously, but open and honestly, mind you - Sunchaser said [sic] "Someone will be along shortly to tell you why it's all your fault." I honestly thought I'd wet myself laughing. I own RoF; I bought it as early as the release was available. I will never (ever) buy another product from neoqb, nor from 777 Studios. They are the most rude, unprofessional, defensive bunch of people I've ever seen. They've conspired to foist a half-done product - at full price - on a public that is largely outraged, and rightfully so. And they (neoqb and 777, as well as the many fanboys) are still hiding behind the lame excuse that it was always public knowledge that it would be what it is. Nothing could be further from the truth. If they had been so forthcoming about all the problems thus far, then A. No one would be stupid enough to buy it to being with(and make no mistake, neoqb and 777 knew this), and B. No one would have any right to complain now (which they certainly do). And yes, I gave both this Jason person at 777 and neoqb ample time and opportunity to address my legitimate concerns, which I expressed in writing. And I was completely ignored by both. As I said, rude and unprofessional. Completely unacceptable (and I know - I run Customer Technical Support for the largest technology provider in our industry). Not responding to a Customer - right, wrong, or indifferent - is just wrong. My advice would currently be to avoid RoF like the plague. I'm embarrassed to admit that I was drawn in by this mess, but it's too late for me; they already got my money. (Let's not even get started on how it's practically impossible to legally sell it if you're not happy with it). But, at least I can hope to spare as many others this huge disappointment as possible. Best regards.

**LMAO** "Easy is the new hard..." Sorry for the outburst, and completely not contributing to the poll - and not at all to denigrate Bletchly's contribution, for certain... ...but that was just funny as all heck, to me, when I read it :) :) :)

Yup, assuming you can manage the cost, the 260 is the way to go - having the wider memory bus has proven a significant advantage in most cases (the 8800GTX was a good example compared to cards of the day, and still holds well against newer cards with lesser bus widths and core configs). If you look at the Wikipedia link I posted above, you'll see that the 9800GT isn't substantially different in the cores than your 8800GTS - even with almost 3 times the memory, I suspect you wouldn't see a huge improvement (this is probably a good example of where having more memory by itself won't be worth the cost of an upgrade). More important still, the 8800GTS you have is one of the earlier (G80 GPU) models - it has a 320-bit bus; for you, the 9800GT would be going down to a 256-bit bus. Specs on the 250 card aren't a whole lot different from the 9800GT - in fact, save the different model number, in looks almost identical to the 9800GTX. And again, in both the GT and the GTX, the bus width is 256 bits - less than your current card. So it looks like the 9800 series or the 250 wouldn't be much of an actual upgrade for the money, given your current card. In the 260/216 you mentioned, you're getting more than 2x the memory of your current card, a substantial gain in GPU core config, and the 448-bit bus width. Definitely worth the upgrade cost if your budget allows.

The question of speed v. memory capacity is a tough answer to give, directly. (That's where most start getting the headaches *lol*) More memory is better (than less), but that assumes you can afford a graphics card that isn't too slow *and* still get the extra memory. For example, if it meant choosing a lesser GPU (say, a 9600 instead of a 9800) just to be able to afford 1G of memory, I'd say it's a bad idea - stick with the faster GPU and 512M of memory. Where OFF is concerned, I don't think anything less than 512 is going to allow higher settings without (at least some of) the dreaded white triangles (which, I do believe, is lack of memory). I don't know if I'd agree that speed is more important than memory necessarily, but I also wouldn't necessarily say memory is more important than speed. If the card's GPU can't process the data fast enough (see above about "cores"), then all the memory in the world won't help. At the same time, if there isn't sufficient memory to handle the data needed to display properly (textures on high, for example) then it doesn't matter how fast the GPU can manipulate that data (to a point). Ideally (as if *lol*) the graphics subsystem runs 'in balance', suffering neither from lack of speed nor lack of memory. How do you know where 'balance' is? Here's one approach: Determine which game you have (or plan to own) requires the most graphics card memory. That's a good minimum if you're totally strapped; if your budget allows, double it. More fiscally conservative? Up it 50%. Then, find the fastest GPU your budget allows with that amount of memory. If this process lands you within say $30 of the next fastest GPU (same memory or more), you should *seriously* consider splurging that little bit more (one thing you can expect, games aren't likely to require less as time goes on). If you decide to settle for absolute minimum now (which, believe me, these days we're all settling a lot...) keep in mind that your new card might not take you very far beyond well...minimum, now

I'd have to go with Lou on this one. With humble deference to the "sneak it past the wife" rule (don't we all suffer?) - I think if the sub-100$ price is your constraining factor, you're liable to pay for it in not being pleased with the outcome. For the additional $30, go with the 9800GTX. For slightly less, I think 9800GTs will fit your budget. Still far better than a 9600 GSO, IMHO. Here's a newegg link for reference ($99 after rebate) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16814130435 And, in my opinion, the GS/GSO series are really just scaled back versions of the 'real deal' (the GT/GTX series). Here's a pretty good source of info on the differences: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of...89xxx.29_series The areas to look at are: - "Config core" (higher numbers are better; 9600 GSO's are 48:24:16, or at best 96:48:12; where the 9800's go 112:56:16 or 128:64:16), (these three numbers basically represent the amount of processing ability in each card - never mind each number, but good for comparing one card to another) - Reference clock rate, - "Bus width" (9800's are 256 bits; 9600 GSO's can be 192-bit, depending on manufacturer/date). Bus width can make a big difference since it determines how fast all the data is moved around in your machine. These three values tell you most everything you'd need to be concerned with as far as Nvidia cards go. HTH

Actually, you are correct...I think *lol* The old arrangement you described was for having what they called a 'hardware accelerator' 3D card, and it was connected outside the PC case, through the primary video adapter. The idea was, IIRC, the 2D graphics were handled by the 'primary' card, but 3D calls were routed to the 3DfX card. But, like you, I don't think this was what they called SLI. SLI at that time - the original 3Dfx version - meant that each of two video cards handled half the lines on the display - the two cards' outputs (scan lines) were then 'interleaved' - hence the term 'scan line interleave'. And I do believe they both had to be 3dfx cards (like what OvS describes above); and at least theoretically, you got the benefit of each card only having half the graphics load. Later on, with (again, IIRC) the introduction of the 5500 series, they put two GPUs on one card. I don't think it ever did very well (which is a crying shame). Shortly after, 3dfx was out of business. I actually had one of these cards years after they were defunct, but by that time, nothing used GLide anymore.

CJ-I have several fx5200/128/AGP cards I pulled when upgrading. Gladly part with one, free of charge, if you'd like. sitting duck - Wasn't the 'original' SLI (3dfx 'Scan Line Interleave', IIRC) done on PCI bus? The 'new' SLI (Nvidia 'Scalable Link Interface') doesn't apply to PCI, of course.

"The bottom line should then be a list of strengths and weakness of the Sim you are testing based on meeting or not meeting your requirements list" I think I see your point - but then, isn't that (the list you mention) where most people form their opinion from? In other words, don't most people form an opinion based on how well their requirements are met? For example: I buy Toyotas, exclusively (hard to argue with 22 years of performance). I have, in my mind, a 'list' of what are the most important points to me (since I'm the one considering a purchase, after all). At the same time I can say that Toyotas meet all my requirements - what right do I have to force my preferences on anyone else? I don't. And, at the same time I can clearly see Toyota is my choice, can I not go over to a Ford lot, and - without ever spending a dime - can I not arrive at an informed decision by comparing the features, functionality, form, and fit of the Ford vs. the Toyota? Of course I can. Why do the car commercials implore perspective buyers to "Drive the Ford Difference"? (or whatever) How can there be a difference, if not a comparison to another product? I genuinely understand your premise (or I think I do) that each should be considered "for it's own merits" as they say. But, the stark reality is, most people decide by making comparisons. Sure, the comaprisons will inherently involve their own list of 'likes and dislikes' - but, if choice is to be made, well... Just my $.02

Good find, uncleal...I really hadn't looked at PCI stuff for a long time, and wasn't aware they made anything better than a 6200 for PCI. 'Course, on that bus (slower than AGP, which is in turn slower than PCIe) I don't know how OFF would do. As CJ pointed out, Dells and some other big names have a "Service Tag" on the back, 5 or 6 alpha-numeric code; enter it on Dell's website to get details. For "clone" PC's, watch when it boots ( you can sometimes use the PAUSE key on keyboard) for the board name/manufacturer to flash on teh screen, just as it boots. (Sometimes the video card will also flash a banner as well, the video card's usually first). If you don't mind opening the case, look on the board itself. (If it's been more than a year, the machine could probably stand a good cleaning, anyway, is my guess). The manufacturer and model are usually silkscreened in white text somewhere on the board. Sometimes it'll be between two of the explansion slots, so you may have to "dig in". Sometimes it's between where the power plug, CPU and RAM are, just depends. Another good way is one of the utilities as mentioned above, also a utility called SiSoft Sandra will list the MB mfr/model. HTH

crossbones, I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings...but you say you have a PCI slot...Are you sure it's not a PCIexpress (PCIe) slot? If it is PCI, you're really in a bad way...the fastest Nvidia GPU for the PCI slot was, I think, a GeForce 6200 with 256M memory. It actually might run OFF, but man, I can't imagine how well... If it's actually PCIe, then maybe you're in business. Most of the machines that supported P4's usually had (at least) an AGP slot, many were PCIe. I would think it very rare for a P4 board to only have PCI slots. Do you know your motherboard's manufacturer and model number, by chance?

Winder, The discussion about regional activity makes perfect sense, of course. Given that OFF goes to lengths for historical accuracy, it's no surpirse at all that certain areas would be busier than others. Can you offer any comment on the observations about different plane types? TIA for your time and effort!

*bump* Very curious to see where this goes. Neither of you are wrong, according to my own observations (I note, with particular interest, Beard's observations about certain plane types). Just interested to see what the response(s) will be.

Hey, FWIW you can 'hover' with the mouse pointer over Google's logo and a yellow 'balloon' dialog box will pop up and tell you what the day's special graphics mean. HTH :yes:

More on Sensurround (from the MCA/Universal Sensurround Manual): "The amplifiers that power the electro-acoustic transducers are provided with programmed signals from a specially recorded sound track that contains frequencies below audible range as well as within the lower audible frequency range. The Sensurround electro-acoustic transducers reproduce very low frequency components intentionally recorded on the sound track. These frequencies are too low to reproduce efficiently on theatre speaker systems. "

The units you're talking about are technically called "transducers" (irrespective of specific brand name). They convert electrical energy into physical energy; whereas speakers are considered to convert electrical energy into acoustical energy. It so happens that, at the lower end of the human range of hearing, the sounds are low enough in frequency that the line between 'hearing' and 'feeling' is blurred. The lower the frequency of the sound, the more you feel and the less you actually hear. In the 'bottom end' it's hard to effectively move a sufficient volume of air at given pressure to make you feel the bass very well. The speakers only work down to a point as far as the 'rumbling' effect goes. That's why transducers are used in applications like theater sound systems and have been used in simulators of all sorts for decades (anyone remember when the movie Midway first came out, in "Sensurround"<sp>??). These transducers add to what we'd call 'immersion', by doing what speakers alone just can't do. Hope that makes sense :)

The 8400's are notoriously good overclockers. You shouldn't have to re-install anything; just change out the CPU - everything (software/OS-wise) should be unchanged. Now, you might prefer to start from a fresh install, for other reasons - but the CPU changing doesn't require it. I use a 8400 myself, it's up to 3.83G (27.5% o/c). I haven't tried any higher because my voltages are already as high as I care for them being to get to 3.83. A lot of how far you can go depends on the board, and how far you want to push it. Some have gotten 4G out of an 8400, without even raising voltages much, but it's pretty common to expect you'll need to raise a few voltages in BIOS to get it to o/c stable beyond, say, 10%. Some suggestions are CPU voltage, 'north bridge' voltage, and memory voltage. You could easily get 20% (3.6G) without a lot of heroics. You'll be increasing FSB settings and/or multipliers to overclock the actual CPU (most often FSB). You'll need to find out if your BIOS allows 'unlinking' the CPU FSB and the memory FSB; this will allow you to change CPU without altering memory. The things to watch are voltages (they'll need to increase, but you don't want to get crazy); and heat (overclocking will cause things to run hotter, so you have to be prepared to monitor temps/makes changes with cooling depending on how far you want to go. I have never been able to get anything useful out of the 'automatic' overclocking in BIOS from Asus boards or eVGA. I recommend studying a little, learning what works and doesn't, then get ready for some good old fashioned trial and error. You can google overclocking an 8400 - more there than you can read in a lifetime *lol* Lots of opinion; just check various sources and see what most agree on. HTH

Interesting. If we look back to what Joker actually did, he says: "Remembering that someone said to deliete the USIEL file, I did that. OFF would no longer load and I got a message to uninstall and reinstall which I did." Now, doesn't this mean that the deleting the UISEL file didn't really 'fix' the issue, only made OFF not load? Wouldn't the un/re-install actually have gotten rid of everything anyway? Hmm. Now, let's also look at the actual, original post that discusses deleting the UISEL file: "I fired up CFS3 for the first time in several months and after launching successfully, I hit escape right after the intro movie began and it crashed to the desktop. I had no such problem the last time I ran it." Is it just me, or is this not actually what Joker has been experiencing? The point at which this occurs is where you'd be dumped into the menus. Joker's clearly gotten into the game and been flying, each time he had his problem. So, different symptoms - or so it certainly seems. I don't think it's accurate to suggest that no one's come up with the solution thus far. Several of us have pointed out having the exact same problem Joker did - right down to it happening only in one game - and what at least seemed a promising solution, that worked in three of three cases. And, if I'm following, although many things have been tried and suggested, this is one that hasn't actually been tried yet. So - not to be inflammatory - I just don't think what you've said is very accurate. If this offends, I apologize, in advance - not the intent. You could certainly try going through the exact steps again, no doubt. I'd leave that up to Joker.

In a word? Heat. There are a lot of other reasons, but I'd say heat has to be one of (if not the) biggest. Small cases often mean less room for "full-sized" power supplies (there are some exceptions). But still, the smaller it is, the more difficult to deal with the heat. It really depends on who builds the system. Want a small one? No prob. Want a small one to run games at a 'serious' level - still no prob, but expect some hurdles (and get out your check-book). Want a small one that plays games well, isn't noisy, looks good, lots o' features...well, I think you see the point. Some companies even make 'gaming laptops' (a concept that just inherently doesn't sit well with me, honestly). PC's built by most 'enthusiasts' usually are the epitome of what you call 'purpose-built'; usually most or all the components used are specific to a particular intent. So, if someone (or a company) decides to build small gaming rigs, it's certainly possible. But what's always going to be at issue is heat (or more accurately, dealing with it). Lots of ways to deal with heat, sure enough - but the fact that you have to deal with it is usually a result of the design criteria (in this case 'small'). The trouble most companies would have with this idea is that they won't likely sell well - most people either want small or they want 'serious' gaming; few expect both, and few on either side of this issue are very accepting of the other side. Another couple things: physical space means limited choice in components. The high-performance video cards, for example, are generally huge (mostly owing to heat *lol*). Also, number of memory slots. Granted, memory densities being what they are, it's a smallish issue, but even if you don't populate them all right away, having four slots is "better" than two (more options down the road). Hope all that makes sense. Oh, and Dutch: I don't see a problem with either of the two cards - if you feel comfortable with the quality of the Gigabyte card, it's cheaper - go for it :) Both MSI and Gigabyte are reasonably well-known manufacturers in business for a while now. If you'd rather spring for the recognition of the MSI brand, I'm sure it's a fine choice as well. HTH

BDICT, I genuinely appreciate your understanding where I was coming from. You know what? I read what you posted, with great interest...your previous professional experience shows. It was very well written - and by someone, I could tell, who "knows their bidness" In fact, I've re-read it more than once, because it was well-written and informative. You're also absolutely right that people who want to get into this should learn this stuff; some people just sort of freak out when they see all those numbers It also happens that my personal experience proves exactly your (well-taken) point that going from 2 to 4 modules can cause "unintended consequences" (I wonder if that includes me calling my computer a lot of very colorful names - that's what it caused me to do at the time *lol*) Thanks again - best regards.

I had said "I'm going to guess that the old and new machines are in the same location/room, but the router is somewhere else you don't wish to run cables to" and you replied "the business next to me (they have cable interntet) let me put in a router, and get the signal" So, I guess that pretty much covers that :) As far as what you do to run MP (and whether I enter the address manually): I don't enter the address at all. The hosting machine shows up in the list, just as in your first example. And, what (I think) this shows is the very difference we're discussing. The 'inside' game shows up; there's no need to enter an address because it's 'found' by the game (presumably because both our games are run on the LAN side of a router). I don't know about entering the external address manually causing the game to run 'outside', since technically no computer inside a router shares the 'public IP' (this is kind of the whole point of a router, after all - even for a machine in a so-called "DMZ"). Anyhow, I never actually enter an address, mostly because I don't need to *lol* Mind you, I'm not saying it doesn't happen that way, just that I wouldn't think so - but then again, as discussed, you are essentially doing something that wasn't ever intended...so that sort of hoses up all the conventions. I honestly believe the unique result you seem to have is a direct product of the obviously unique setup you have. Even if you enter what is actually an 'outside' WAN address, I believe the router never actually sends the traffic outside - routers are (somewhat) smart - smart enough, I think, to know that both your machines occur inside the LAN, and therefore it wouldn't bother sending the traffic outside. For the question you asked about the two 'normal' wireless machines and the game being both inside and outside - no, I don't think it would be both. I don't use wireless at all, but the principle is essentially the same: Behind a router, in a 'normal' arrangement, the router isn't likely to route traffic between two internal machines outside to the WAN. Think about it - doing this would mean needlessly exposing both machines to the WAN - the very thing the router is there to prevent. Not to mention it's bombarding the (comparatively slow) WAN side with traffic that is only to and from the inside, regardless. The router knows full well who's on it's ports (wireless or wired), it does this by MAC address, I believe. So, I believe it knows to avoid the (very inefficient) sending of traffic along to the outside, where that traffic already has a destination inside the LAN. I hope all that makes sense. I'm certainly not a network engineer, but I've set up a few and I do work with them in my 'day job'. I actually even consulted our IT Manager about this very scenario - and he agreed, you have (in his words) 'a pretty jacked-up situation going on there' *lmao* But still...it seems to work for you :) Who knows? And yes, I am looking forward to hearing back from Olham soon...I think his situation will work out just peachy, and that (may be) helpful to others here, apparently. Couldn't ask for better.

Gentlemen, if I may, please - I pointed out earlier that it might not be in the best interest of the person with the issue here to delve (deeply) into the overwhelming array of options that one confronts with configurations in PC's. I pointed out that our friend Joker was (perhaps) a bit intimidated by all this, and might be discouraged to try some simple testing because of the impression all this confusion leaves. I think it just scares some people to death of modifying *anything* in a computer - even if it's appropriate to solving a problem. I believe Joker made it clear nothing was being overclocked. I'd just as soon we all agree to a temporary moratorium on that term (overclocking) *lol* (except where used to say "We're not doing that in this case") because a. it doesn't apply here and b. associating overclocking too closely with Joker's problem seems only likely to further obfuscate what might be the very solution he seeks. I'm not saying anyone's right or wrong, but I am saying this thread was about helping someone solve a problem (and still should be). If I may recap a moment: To be factual, three different people now have reported nearly identical symptoms, and all three seem to have solved the issue with similar steps. This isn't theoretical or mathematical, it's real-world experience, reported by three people who have no other connection and little reason to fabricate. I did mention my belief that it would be best to only use two memory modules for testing - not based on math or any theory, but the simple fact that doing so leaves less to cause a problem (and therefore less to rule out). I think we'd all agree it's best to make as few changes as possible (and "We're not overclocking" *lol*), so there should be little reason to mess around with voltages. A lot of that stuff applies when you're doing the (now-unmentionable) overclocking thing, but I honestly believe it's inappropriate to heave all that into the list of possibilites - especially when we're actually trying to get that list smaller instead of larger. I do agree, and it's been mentioned several times now, that the idea in this case is to lower the memory timings (and perhaps speed - but he's running DDR2-800/stock which isn't an EPP or 'extended' speed if I'm not mistaken, so I vote for timings). Maybe try lower timings, then lower speed if that doesn't help, then both if need be. I tend toward not using all 4 modules during the testing - get it stable with only two. Fact is more modules means more load, no matter how you slice it, so keep it simple; you can stir the other modules back into the mix when you've proven whether or not the memory settings cause the problem. (Reduce the problem, as much as possible, to the least number of variables). But, no matter the course or outcome...I respectfully ask of you all: could we please, just for Joker's sake, try (just try, is all I'm asking) to avoid the overly detailed? If this offends anyone, I apologize in advance - but it's intended to help Joker, and hurt no one.

BirdDogICT - wow...you're the third person now to report a (very) similar scenario. I'm glad you mentioned your experiences. Like you, I've been doing this (PC's) for a long time now, and this also had me stumped for awhile, too, when it was happening on *my* machine(s). It's a very 'vexing' scenario - everything works fine (but one), everything seems fine (but the tests won't catch this issue). That was my experience, right down to the gnat's nads :) And, like you, the eventual fix was to relax the memory timings a bit. I think - and we're still trying to determine this, to be sure - that PJ is probably already running 'auto' memory timings (SPD); we don't know for sure just yet. And, if that's the case, I believe they could be relaxed a bit from 'stock' and solve his problem..."Herr Prop Wasche" basically had the same issue (see page 3), and wound up 'declocking' his timings and it worked for him as well. (By the way, I like 'declocking'...sounds way more serious than 'relaxing' *lol*) Time will tell :)

I have 9 computers at home, all on a LAN behind a router. I have (at least twice) played OFF between two machines internally. I don't believe an Internet connection is necessary to the process at all. Nothing is required by either computer that would make an Internet connection necessary. *lol* In fact, many people are all up in arms about the fact that OFF's closest competitor (Rise of Flight) - albeit unreleased as yet - will supposedly require an Internet connection. Many who love OFF will tell you that's among the biggest things wrong with RoF. So, it's hard to imagine they'd feel that way if OFF itself required a network connection - see? I'm not sure I follow what you're saying about the colors of the cables. It may be that your specific network cables are certain colors depending on whether crossover or patch, but there is no such standard in Ethernet cables that I'm aware of. But, just to be sure, I checked CDW's web page: http://www.cdw.com/shop/search/results.asp...rtBy=TopSellers They have both crossover and patch cables in more colors than the rainbow :) The computer on which you're running ICS should have DHCP enabled - that means it should be assigning an address to the new machine as well (see this article for more: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/n...d_02july01.mspx ). Since you have a router, though, I think I know what might be happening. The router also acts as a DHCP, it's built-in. So, this is the DHCP from which your old machine gets it's IP address (in the 192.168.1.x range). The new machine, though, since it's setup to use ICS from the old machine, is getting it's IP from the old machine (DHCP service is enabled along with ICS as discussed in the article above, so that machines sharing the connection will get a 'leased' IP from the machine that is providing the shared connection). Since the two can't assign IP's in the same range on the same network segment (you can't have two DHCP servers on teh same segment), then the DHCP service on the old machine is giving out IP address(es) in a different range. So how to fix it? Yours is a very unusual circumstance, brought on strictly due to XP64's inability to use your wireless adapter. I'd bet money no one ever considered having ICS and a router in the same network, because under any other circumstance, you would never have ICS enabled when you have a router to share Internet connectivity. *lol* The entire reason for ICS is if you don't have a router! (well, technically, ICS is used if you don't have a DHCP server - which a home router/"residential gateway" does). I don't think it's technically appropriate to have two DHCP servers in (this type of) a network - so, you should disable DHCP on the router. Especially if these are the only two machines, you don't need it anyway. Technically, I believe, the router doesn't usually use DHCP and still forward ports at the same time - does your documentation say anything about having to use static IP addresses if you want to use port forwarding? What kind of router (make/model) is it? Here's what I think you should be doing: - disable DHCP on the router - assign a static IP to the new machine, in the 192.168.1.x range (make x less than 100, but that's optional - I think it's just some people's habit to set static IPs to be less than 100) - make sure both machines are in the 255.255.255.0 subnet (Note I am assuming these are the only two machines on your network; you didn't indicate otherwise - if you have more than two, it's going to get complicated). If your new machine has a network adapter (you use a cable to connect it to the old machine), then why don't you just plug the new machine into the router? (I'm going to guess that the old and new machines are in the same location/room, but the router is somewhere else you don't wish to run cables to). As far as the 'external' vs. internal game goes, you said first "when i start up a mp game on old compueter that game alwasys shows up on the new compueter in the server list. I just have to dbl click it. " But then you said "It is definatly an internet game because if i want, i can chose join game, and just enter the external ip of the old computer, and it connects" Still, since both machines are behind a router, I'm thinking your game is actually running inside your network - a router isn't likely to route to the WAN if it knows the traffic is both comnig from and directed to machines on it's inside. I suspect the 'external' IP has more to do with running two DHCP servers (but I could be wrong). Not sure why you would have to enter an (external) IP when it sounds like the game was already 'seen' inside (in the server list). Does it actually show up without your having to enter the external address, or does it show up because you entered the IP address? Anyway, you should be able to connect strictly inside your network. Maybe it'll help, but maybe you'd prefer to do it like you are. For me, it's more about curiosity as to how/why it is the way you describe it. I hope that makes sense :)

"hooked up new computer with patch cable, (which would switch to crossover if using a hub)" Actually - if I'm following what you're saying - hubs don't normally use crossover cables, they use patch cables. If you're going from machine-to-machine, that (should be) a crossover cable. Most hubs/switches these days will 'auto-switch', though, if the wrong cable is plugged in. Some older hubs/switches had physical switches you had to turn on or off depending on the cable you used. I'm not sure what you mean by "interenal ip is not in the 192.168.1.xxx format" on the XP64 machine. If it's getting ICS (Internet Connection Sharing) from the other machine, they both should be in the same IP range (192.168.x.x). (If it's autoconfigured, the range would always be 169.254.x.x) You can open a command prompt (go Start, Run) type 'cmd', then in the window that opens, type 'ipconfig /all'. This will give you either machine's IP - don't know why the IP on that machine woulnd't be in the 192.168 range. Probably better t host the game on the newer (faster) machine. In any case, I don't think the game is being run over the Internet. It's hard to say, but I believe it's taking place on your internal LAN - try unplugging your router. If it still works, they're not running the game over the Internet.