Tamper

Lothar, I dunno...we should probably ask those folks I mentioned who have 'gobs of RAM' running W7/64 why they continue to have stuttering...that's what they reported, and their systems would undoubtedly be running SuperFetch. Shouldn't be a problem, according to your perspective - yet there they are. (BTW, wouldn't this also mean that anyone who has 16G of RAM or more won't see any improvements at all from adding SSDs? Dubious, in my mind.) Or maybe let's ask the guys who have 16G+ RAM how they noticed a clear improvement with stuttering upon adding SSDs, when SuperFetch should have already made such an improvement unecessary, and difficult (if not impossible) to notice. Yet reports of noticing a substantial improvement are fairly consistent. We'll ask them why they wasted money, since the free technology (!) our trusted friends at Microsoft included with Windows (SuperFetch) made the purchase of an SSD unecessary, because they already had 16G or more of RAM. We should also probably contact the SSD manufacturers and tell them to get out of that business quick, because once the general masses figure this 'SuperFetch" thing out as you have, no one's going to spend $200 for an insanely fast 250G drive, when adding $75 worth of memory can do the same thing just as well... *ahem* Our experiences differ, that's all. It happens that the experiences I'm referring to are shared and corroborated by most anyone who actually owns SSDs. And don't forget people with 16G or more of RAM, apparently already using SuperFetch caching, yet still having problems with stuttering... ...I say let folks look at the evidence, and draw conclusions for themselves. I haven't relied on the OS' defrag in forever. There are much better tools that can be scheduled, and selectively defrag whichever disk(s) you specify (because, of course, we know better than defragging an SSD). The write issues you mentioned are outdated. SSDs are progressively becoming more recognized/supported by the OS, where all the manual tuning isn't necessary. For example, wear leveling was introduced in past generations of SSD firmware which helps keep the 'write wear' in check. Windows 7 recognizes SSDs and handle them differently from conventional drives. In a typical, single, non-RAID SSD setup, according to MS, "Typically, Windows 7 automatically disables these services for your SSD disk." (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2727880) TRIM is also supported, and it's automatic (again, assuming W7 and single drive arrangements). There are also more than a few sources that indicate no need for a lot of configuration changes when using SSDs in Windows 7:(http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2072259). Basically make sure the drive's running in the Advance Host Controller Interface mode (AHCI) and the rest is a largely matter of preference (and nothing that will really destroy performance, depending on who you want to listen to). Many sources recommend checking just to make sure Windows actually does what it should in terms of enabling/disabling the services etc above; some recommend aligning partitions. Many of these 'manual' tweaks either aren't necessary anymore, or are essentially done once and that's it. As I explained earlier, *my* arrangement does require some upkeep (still pretty limited, honestly, and mostly because RAID0 has no redundancy), but not many people are going to have all this in the first place. Yes, if you expect top performance from your setup, then you have to fiddle with some things - but that's hardly new, and hardly exclusive to solid state storage technology. As a footnote, hello to Al (plug_nickel); always nice to have you in on these discussions. I haven't seen you in forever!

AROTH: Yes, you can load only games on an SSD, while booting the OS from a conventional, platter based drive. I actually did that for a while until I saved enough to buy several solid state devices; now I boot from one SSD and load games to a different one (see sig below). In fact, I don't even have TrackIR loaded to either SSD. It's loaded on the 500G conventional hard disk I use, along with a few 'non-performance' games I play (Age of Empires 3, Company of Heroes...). My layout is like this: (2) 120G SSDs in a RAID0 array (acts as one drive that's theoretically twice as fast) for the OS (only) (1) OCZ "RevoDrive" (has 2 SSD drives on it, in a RAID0 configuration, but is a PCIexpress add-in card, which eliminates the SATA drive interface bottleneck) which is used for the flightsims, as it is a very fast drive; fastest on my system. (1) Western Digital conventional SATA-6G/s platter-based hard disk, 500G, for everything else: big stuff, stuff that doesn't require performance including several games, stuff I'm inclined to keep a lot of like photos, music, videos, etc. I'll be the first to admit I've gone a bit nuts with the storage here, but it wasn't all done in that order, just using parts I collected/upgraded through along the way. What appears a fairly common arrangement is 1 fast SSD (with performance games, and for some the OS) and one conventional drive (comparatively cheap, large storage). Also, don't forget: several companies make 'hybrid' arrangements. Both WD and Seagate I believe offer a form of SSD and conventional drive hybrids, and if you have a specifc motherboard, they support MSATA cache drives, sort of a little, bare SSD (see http://www.gigabyte.us/products/product-page.aspx?pid=3892#sp) The Intel Z68 chipset or a select few Asus boards will also support this sort of caching to any SSD. In absolute fairness and accuacy, Lothar makes a point above; that is, once you start using multiple drives for different purposes/reasons, you do have to think about what you put where. But, at least for me, it wasn't a hard decision and you pretty much only load stuff once, then you're done. True, *my* specific arrangement of drives does require a little planning and also some maintenance, but I've seen almost no one else with such an arrangement, either.

I still hear plenty of people who have 8+ Gigs of RAM (on 64-bit OS, of course) complaining about stutters, yes. Meanwhile, everyone I've heard from has indicated a substantial reduction if not complete elimination of stuttering when they finally moved to SSDs. I can't say Windows SuperFetch doesn't help, maybe it does. But it clearly doesn't help as much as fast storage. All you need to do is go over to the "other" WW1 flight sims forum to see that plenty of folks with tons of memory on W7, and still have problems with stuttering. Probably isn't as obvious by far in OFF because OFF doesn't place nearly the texture loading demands on a system as the other sim does. (Of course, this is also a huge liability in the other sim - don't get me started...) While adaptive algorithms can be very smart and useful, I don't have to carefully manage anything. I made one decision, one time: To load any game that's going to need the fastest storage access possible to a sold state device. Since I only play a handful of games, and no first-person shooters for a long time now, that pretty much means flight sims; OFF and the "other one." Everything else - perhaps 5-6 games - is loaded on a conventional drive. Even one of the 128G SSDs I use is enough to hold an OS and maybe a game or three, depending - and, as I said, they're getting cheaper every day, All I had to do was know that some games are going to require better performance than others (for instance, I run Age of Empires off the conventional 500G HDD and it stutters tremendously when loading big things - which is fine because AoE isn't like a flight sim or a FPS). But it proves the point, and it also shows that any caching going on just isn't keeping that huge texture load from causing my otherwise powerful machine to stutter (and I play AoE regularly enough it should've 'learned' by now). There are 9 computers in my house (not counting the ones that aren't used routinely). Of these, 4 have Windows 7/64. Of those 4, only mine uses any sort of solid-state storage. The others are fairly capable; two have similar graphics cards, and one is a fairly new 2600K with a 570GTX - exactly like mine, and 8G memory, like mine, overclocked - like mine. I can tell you for sure that none of the other machines runs as smoothly in any game as mine does when I run it from the SSDs (I know, because I built and maintain them all). They will all pause, even if ever-so-briefly, while certain things happen (maps changing views, or several high-poly a/c skins coming into view; that sort of thing). My PC doesn't have to spend resources adapting to what I do; anything that loads from one of the sold-state drives is "Just. Plain. Faster." And it's all just as fast, all the time - the benefits of SSDs include no 'latency' while platters spin, and near-zero random access times. Nothing had to be learned, and the SSDs were as fast brand new as they are now. Another thing about SuperFetch is that there are sources that say it's flawed; that it doesn't work as it's designed in some cases. (Whether I agree with these claims is immaterial). The thing is, if 'fancy' (to borrow your term) software tricks worked as well as high-performance hardware, no one would make or buy SSDs. That 387 math coprocessor I bought back in the day, which made AutoCad run 100x better than the software emulator, would have served little purpose. I also strongly doubt that using a caching algorithm to pre-load OFF has the same effect as loading textures as quickly as possible while it's running. For one thing, it wouldn't know which map you're going to fly or what planes you're going to encounter, unless you flew the same mission just prior (and even then the chances that it's all cached are slim). RAM is volatile; it "forgets" everything in this dynamic cache every time you restart your PC. It can only predict what to load ahead of time if you are going to use the same textures every time - doubtful in a world like OFF. By comparison, having a very fast, truly random access storage system means no matter what you encounter, no matter where you fly - it all loads at the same rate. No matter what part of the game you're talking about, it's always there, equally and rapidly accessible when called. An algorithm, no matter how good, cannot do that. It's entire premise is based on prediction, and it's not always going to be right, nor will it always have a way of knowing what to predict. One day, we may have machine with RAM drives that can actually load everything into memory (which is faster still than solid-state NAND), The problem is it's volatile, so you'll wind up waiting at boot time (or at least run-time) for that initial loading of everything. I personally believe SuperFetch and such caching mechanisms are useful and can improve PC performance. But I do not believe that any of it can compete with the performance advantages of fast storage.

I believe anything that can be 'pre-loaded' into memory will definitely help, since memory is many times faster than reading data from a hard drive. However, we are still quite a way from having computers that support enough memory to load everything there up front. Since "textures" (which may or may not be the proper term, technically) such as terrain and even sky or water can't be loaded entirely into memory, at some point there will come a need to read that data off the hard disk and load it into memory. SSDs are simply a much faster way of doing this. Spending money on faster CPUs and graphics cards is an understood and accepted part of making PCs perform at a level consistent with what these sims require, and there's no reason the single slowest part of a PC (the storage subsystem) should be any exception. It's just that many still haven't quite accepted that storage performance is worth considering as a factor in gaming. It is, and experiences like that reported by MudWasp are clear indicators of that fact. People still relate smooth video performance to high frame rates, and the two are not the same. It's funny, you can look at sigs for a lot of the sim forum members and see their setups have spared little expense on graphics cards, CPUs, RAM, motherboard, etc...the list goes on and on, then finally - if it's remembered at all - oh, yeah, I have a hard disk. Look around, you'll see what I mean. I noticed long ago that storage and power suppies are the two most often forgotten pieces of hardware. And of the ones who do mention power supplies, they're almost always grossly over-rated. BTW, SSDs are hardly what I'd call 'fancy'. Although it's still happening slowly, they are becoming more accepted as the default storage media, particularly on laptops. The cost has kept them out of desktops for a while, but prices are coming down; you see more and people with 'hybrid' systems like OS and/or games on a fast SSD, and other stuff on a conventional hard disk. Some fairly big names (Intel, Asus) have introduced storage systems that include 'performance' technologies like SSD caching; hard disk manufacturers have developed hybrid drives that use both types of storage media...even Windows has support for solid-state media's differences. What with smart phones, tablets, netbooks, laptops - I'd venture that there is more 'solid state' storage out there right now that there is platter-based. MLC NAND may not always be the way it's done, but I will guarantee you that computing (in whatever form it takes) will eventually move completely away from conventional, platter-based storage, and the cost continues to come down. Much as the topic of this thread seems to indicate, more people are considering solid-state storage than ever. I would say that, in a system with an otherwise reasonably capable CPU and graphics adapter, an SSD can be a very good choice as a performance upgrade.

While I totally agree with MudWasp as you cited, the second part of what you said isn't exactly what he said. You omitted his observation that the sim "...ran smoother and certain scenery areas that had given me micro stutters no longer did so." He's right. I've been using SSDs for running flight sims now for several years, and I've learned not to underestimate the importance of drive access times to 'loading'. Yes, SSDs load much faster, no doubt. But - just as MudWasp says - because of this, they also help with (if not completely eliminate) so-called 'stutters'. SSDs will not (cannot) increase frame rates, per se. That's a function of your graphics adapter. SSDs definitely can, and will, improve the even distribution of frames over time, even where heavy texture loading is involved - a huge factor in stuttering that many observe. For some reason, this delay in loading textures is commonly perceived as a problem with the graphics card. Yet many have learned that a faster graphics card (and even the highest of frame rates) won't improve stutter due to slow loading of textures. Smooth video is absolutely not a function of high frame rates. I will take 35 FPS, evenly distributed, over 60 FPS with stutter any day - and so would anyone else in a truly "blind" test. Many of us here have used SSDs and never looked back once. Especially now that the prices are getting more reasonable.

Hi von Baur, I do realize the thread is dated, and I didn't respond at the time because I wasn't using a multi-monitor setup. However, that has changed most recently. I now use three monitors, very similar in size and exact in orientation to your question. SoftTH has made it work, although not without some struggles - and I'm still a way from being at 100% 'set up' in my own opinion. For one thing, I've had to reduce the horizontal resolution - now vertical, flipped into portrait - on the two side monitors (I have two Dell 17" flanking a Viewsonic 27", in PLP as they say). This was so that I could get things lined up and sized; they are now both at 768x1024 and the center unit at 1920x1080. As you can tell, this causes the two outside monitors to lose a bit toward the outside edge - this is why I say I am not finished, although it does work and the effect is awesome. Still got work to do though. I'm not sure it answers your question, but I think the WDDM refers to a 'Windows (Display) Driver Model' - and I'm guessing that the driver you would odinarily get from ATI/AMD is probably considered a 'WDM' driver. I hope this helps - and I hope you'll share your experiences with us. I started a thread not long ago on the same subject, and I'd welcome any input. Best of luck.

Well, I guess this goes to show exactly how little I knew on the subject *lol*. Apparently, the "PLP" style setup is what I'd be doing, having one 27" and two smaller 17" displays. But it looks as if neither Nvidia nor AMD support a PLP arrangement - more than a little odd; if you ask me, this portrait-landscape-portrait would be the most common way to go. The SoftTH software appears to work, so I guess I need to study that. However, it evidently uses one GPU to do all the work even if you have more than one, so it sounds as if using two card SLI won't make any difference (? - still reading). Thanks, FenrisWlf...any others?

Hi AROTH, sorry for the confusion, it can be a bit much at first. I do this a lot, so I sometimes forget not everyone likes all that detail at once In truth, if you were to buy new storage now it's probably going to be SATA6 anyway (check to be sure). But my own opinion is that no one should intentionally buy a new conventional platter-based disk just to go from SATA3 to SATA6. The difference would be almost negligable. But, if you're in the market anyway, then (if you want pure speed) consider going to SSD(s). If you want more storage space for the money - even if at the cost of optimal performance - then buy the highest-performance, conventional SATA6 hard disk you can afford. Many gamers are now going to setups using both SSDs (for games that require optimal speed) and regular hard disks (for general storage and slower games). There are such things as "hybrid" disks which incorporate both SSD and platter components, and other alternatives include systems (Intel's Z68 chipset, for an example) that allow a small SSD to cache the main system hard disk, improving performance. My own system is a combination of SSDs, platter-based drives, RAID arrays, and an add-in storage card; each part intended to offer more/less speed/space as appropriate to whatever will be loaded there. I am glad if this information helps, and would be happy to answer any questions.

For comparison, here's an example of really fast storage (the OCZ RevoDrive I use): Same two tests, and the difference is huge. 8-10 times faster for some of the ATTO tests - this illustrates getting fast storage off the SATA interface altogether (ie, how really fast storage can 'outrun' a SATA interface, basically leaving SATA as the bottleneck - even SATA6). And take note of the random access times in HDTach compared to conventional drives above - this is on the order of 150x faster. It's actually the factor that I believe contributes most to helping with "microstutters".

AROTH, I wouldn't worry at all about the difference between SATA3 and SATA6. While the SATA6 controller interface is theoretically twice as fast as the SATA3, conventional platter-based hard disks just can't move data fast enough to 'outrun' the interface. SATA3 doesn't really limit a conventional hard disk, because the mechanical parts of a hard disk are slow enough that the SATA3 interface is not the bottleneck. The only time the difference will be an issue is if you use SSDs, which can easily outrun SATA3. This is the reason I use the Revodrive PCIexpress adapter card: Two SSDs in RAID0 is faster than even SATA6; at that point even the SATA6 interface becomes a bottleneck. So, unless you already planned on using SSDs, there's not much reason to be concerned with SATA3 v SATA6. Below are screen caps from some tests I ran. These tests were done on two essentially identical hard disks, the only difference being one is SATA3 (WD5000AAKS) and the other SATA6 (WD500AAKX). Both have 16M caches, both are 7200RPM drives. Western Digital basically took an SATA3 drive, removed the controller board and replaced it with a SATA6 controller board. http://www.wdc.com/w...2879-701277.pdf I used two different test apps, ATTO and HDtach, which for me have proven plenty reliable indicators of disk performance. Of course, I fully appreciate no benchmark test can duplicate 'real-world' performance, that's not at issue here - what we're doing is using the same test on two different subjects, so the test is comparative, not quantitative (for those in the crowd who like to fuss that benchmarks are synthetic, etc...). Also, to be perfectly accurate, the tests were run on two different storage controllers in two different machines...but to behonest it wouldn't make that much difference if they were on the same machine. I could do that test if you wish - or, better still, don't take my word for it, do your own, or browse the ton of similar data that's all over the web. Finally, some may say WD drives aren't as good as Seagate, or that none of the 'basic' hard disks are as good as high-velocity drives (WD Raptors, for example)...but remember, that's not at issue: We're testing drives that are identical, compared to each other (only), the only real difference being between SATA3 and SATA6. You could dupicate the test on 2 WD Raptors, one an older SATA3 drive and a newer SATA6 drive - I don't have any to test - and you might see a difference, but I doubt the outcome would be substantially different than the test I've done. On the left is the SATA3 drive, on the right is the SATA6 drive. To be completely accurate there is maybe a 5% to 15% increase in some test areas on the SATA6 drive, but at least in these limited tests there are times when the SATA3 fared better as well. (You really have to run mutliple tests and average out a series to get the best picture, and I only ran one set for this). Hopefully this helps illustrate the comparative performance of the SATA3 v. SATA6 interface, on otherwise equal drives.

MudWasp - precisely. SSDs (nor any other storage) won't do anything for actual frame rates. But there seems to be very common confusion about frame rates and smooth video. High frame rates do not guarantee smooth video; the even distribution of frames does (well, at least anything above about 35 FPS, anyway). The stutters aren't typically because of a low frame rate, it is more accurate to say the frame rates are low when these stutters occur - so the two (lower FPS and the perceptible stutter) are coincident. What causes this type of stutter is frames that occur at a given rate - we'll say 60 FPS - normally, but then suddenly hesitiate for a split second. Now, if 60 frames are displayed within a second, but 55 are in the first half-second, and the remaining 5 are in the next half-second, that's a 'microstutter'. During that small time period, the FPS was actually about 10, which most people can notice, especially in contrast to the 55 frames in the half-second just before. When I was studying this, and after trying faster and faster graphics cards without improvement, I realized it was coming from elsewhere - the problem isn't the graphics card's ability to display data; the problem is with the system's ability to deliver data to be displayed at a rate that doesn't interrupt the smooth display of data by the graphics card. If you have reasonably decent graphics card - I'll say a GTX260 or so, maybe even a 9800GT, can handle OFF at typical resolutions and with reasonable settings. Lower settings as per the OBD webpage and you can use a 6000-series card perhaps. But smooth video is not necessarily a function of a monster graphics card (for OFF, or any other game, either). Lou, I am sure you will love the new setup - and I'm sure you will enjoy great performance, too. I also agree that faster storage components will complement the balance of your new rig nicely :) Best of luck to you! (I am sending you a PM, btw)

Lou, my Mom (who taught English) told me that Winston Churchill once said: "That is the sort of thing, up with which we shall not put." *hehehe* As for the hardware - specifically the WEI scores - conventional platter-based hard disks will typically yield scores of 5.9, doesn't matter what type, how fast or whether SATA 3 or SATA 6. Pretty sure even multiple drive RAID arrays won't make a difference. Generally it takes an SSD to get scores up into the 7.8-7.9 range. To understand why, consider that SSDs are (up to) 100 times faster - depending on which measurement - than a platter-based drive. I was an "early adopter" for multi-drive arrays and SSDs. They can help a lot with loading times, but I am also convinced they have helped minimize 'micro-stutter' which is often (incorrectly, IMHO) attributed to graphics performance. Although I have never built or used system components just for scores, I can tell you the difference in using the HW I do now is substantial, in terms of this microstuttering. I have been accused several times of buying fancy hardware just to get high benchmarks , but that's never been the case - everything I've done was for a specific reason, and generally it's proven to do precisely what it was intended to. Besides, I doubt anyone buying fancy hardware just for benchmarks would be using a GTX-570; I took the extra several hundred dollars and invested in a fast storage subsystem. And I am absolutely satisfied it makes more difference in overall performance than having bought a much more expensive graphics card, and stil using a single, platter-based hard disk. There are plenty of people who still dismiss the concept of fast storage, particularly for gaming...I find it interesting to see who, over the years, comes around and finally makes fast storage part of their systems. Some of the same ones who, not long before, would swear that SSDs wouldn't make any difference. DIfferent song now that they have one *lol* Particularly where something like OFF is concerned, and more so if your screen resolution is less than say 1920x1080, the graphics cards don't need to be incredibly powerful. In my opinion, the difference in cost is better spent on fast storage (assuming you have a decent graphics card and don't require the ultra high-end graphics for some other game). Just my $.02

Yes, I wasn't sure what term to use, and choosing 'most accurate' might not have been the best choice. One definitely gets the feel you mentioned with the default view, and that would generally be considered a plus on the side of immersion. But, just as you said, the peripheral vision suffers - and that's impossible to correct in any game/sim, etc. on a single, flat monitor. Multiple monitors of course, helps - but then yes, you start running into distortion problems, and the bezel edges, etc. And the cost is prohibitive for many of us (like me *lol*). I also zoom out, but there seems to be an issue with this; the 'in-could' effect doesn't go all the way to the edges of the screen. Always bothered me, because I prefer zooming out. I recall reading somewhere it was a CFS3 thing - but that can't be correct, because I have had it on (at least) one machine where it didn't do that. Maybe a driver thing or how I've fiddled with the workshop FOV settings (?) I really have never figured out. This discussion caught my eye because I would love to find the 'happy medium'; that is, a reasonable FOV (including periphery), that still 'feels' right in the cockpit, but doesn't chop off the cloud effect.

Very interesting discussion here. So, Lothar - a question, then: Am I correct in the inference that the "most accurate" spot for the VC viewpoint would be further back than it is by default in OFF (to allow for the distance between player's eye and monitor, IOW)?

Some good advice in here re: the tweaks as per Hood (and, in turn, Olham) with AMD cards (I use Nvidia, so not much help). I also tend to agree w/ what usafphantom4 says about drivers and NOT letting WIndows update them(!). The 7950 is fairly top-end hardware, for sure, but configuration - especially with something like OFF - can make a big difference. One thing I wanted to point out is that even though that's a great video card, running @ 2560 X 1440 is almost twice the number of pixels that 1920 x 1080 is. So that may be something to consider. I think a lot of the "super-resolution" setups (basically, those with multiple monitors, particularly 3 wide or more) are really geared toward mutli-GPU setups - which works out well, because that's also where multi-GPU like SLI really is best applied: high-end resolutions. Many have set up SLI or CrossFire rigs only to be disappointed because their monitor only supports up to 1920x1080, and in my experience the benefit of mutli-GPU is really only appreciated at the higher resolutions. They didn't know why; they just didn't see the 1.5-2x performance these mutli-GPU arrangements are good for. You say it runs the same res as your old setup at slightly better FPS - which (depending on a million things, but particularly drivers) might be all you get. Let's face it, the developers writing drivers aren't really focused on optimizing their drivers for things like the CFS3 engine (although we all still admire it here in OFF). Smoothness counts for a lot, too - although you don't indicate the actual frame rates you experienced, damn near everyone I've run into on the Internet still confuses high frame rates with actual smooth, fluid video. They re not the same thing, and it's fairly easy to prove that. You can monitor FPS, and it's one indication of video performance - but I'd trade even 120+ FPS that oscillates down to 20, for an evenly distributed 35 FPS any day. And, in "blind", side-by-side comparisons, so would just about anyone else; people just tend to discuss FPS because it's common and farily easy to measure...look at all the means there are for monitoring FPS, then try to find a software utility for determining the distribution of frames sometime. The point I'm trying to make is that once you get consistent FPS above about 35, you should be more concerned with exactly how consistent they are. I guarantee you would prefer to see smooth rate that's lower than a higher rate that varies, if you didn't know which was which. And there are several other things besides the video card that absolutely can cause "slideshow" type stuttering effects, again, particularly at very high resolutions. Take the understanding that ultra-high FPA also = a good deal more data the entire computer will have to deal with (not just the GPU) and it's not hard to see that a great video card can be crippled by a problem moving data elsewhere. Something else is that a big trend in CPUs, multi-core, doesn't really do much for something like OFF, which is commonly accepted to prefer higher CPU speeds over multi-core and threading performance. Multi-core has obviously moved the entire PC industry three generations past the problems of late-model, high speed single-core CPUs (heat, power consumption, and the related problems, etc). The FX series of AMD processors are able to hold their own in environments suited to multi-threaded/multi-core CPUs, but I'm not sure that translates well to great single-core performance (even if at a 3.5Ghz clock rate). You don't mention what kind of CPU your 'ancient rig' had - and (because it was older) it may have been better suited to runing something like OFF. Overclocking may be a good bet with that CPU; from what I gather it really helps the AMD FX CPUs compete w/ Intel offerings in single-thread performance (of course, the stock soolers are usually not sufficient, and that increases cost, which offsets one of the advantages of AMD CPUs. As always overclocking is done at your own risk). Anyway, best of luck. Hopefully some of the more AMD-fluent folks here can offer you advice. I always look forward to hearing what Al (plug_nickel) has to say since I think he's got experience with the AMD stuff moreso than I do.

porterjr FYI, Just sent you a PM - thx!

*heh* Yup, we burned quite a few models when I was a kid too...though most were cars and my brother was always 'in charge' (a right earned by his having built the models, of course). I think the doping (I used that term; I don't know if it's accurate) on Hindenburg included a fair amount of aluminum (powder...?), which if I remember burns like crazy. I think a lot of metals, while maybe not easy to catch fire, burn with extreme intensity. Although I was never flight deck personnel, I was in the Navy and I remember during training there was mention of incredible fires from magnesium aircraft wheels (everyone had to go through fire and flight deck safety training, even though I wound up in intermediate level maintenance doing micro-min avionics repair). As mentioned above, we seem to learn a lot from mistakes like these, but I've often marveled at the idea of a huge, hydrogen-filled balloon with powdered aluminum paint all over it. At some point, you'd think someone would say, "Hey, isn't this sort of dangerous?" Of course, I guess it was offset by the notion of a substantial increase in speed of travel, particularly across bodies of water. You know, I've been on long flights, to Europe for example, but the idea of being in the air for days (to cross the Atlantic) just seems freaky to me; a little scary even. Fascinating subject.

Yessir, you are spot-on. My brother works in construction and he had a piece of a hammer embed itself in his arm while banging two together. The pros are supposed to know better, of course, but talking to him it's not uncommon. Coment....square windows, right? It's good we do learn from bad things happening...it's just too bad we seem to learn so much (and at such a cost) from them.

The US Navy's more recent airships I believe were helium filled. Trouble is, at the time at least, helium as fairly rare and the US had almost all of it, as I understood it. Hence, the hydrogen. Too bad, that, because it gave hydrogen a bad name as an energy source forever, I thnk - and it's not necessarily any more dangerous, really than the gasoline almost all of us use, most every day. I've heard it said that gasoline wasn't used for a long time as a fuel because it was considerd too dangerous. And the Mythbusters? Well, IMHO the show is great; almost always interesting to watch, no surprise why it's so popular. Also, Kari Byron is a total hottie...and I think most of us would love to have a job where you get to blow stuff up all the time... ...but their "science" is sometimes....uhh, debatable. The episode about mileage in vehicles w/ windows down v. running AC was flawed, and so was the one about the airplane taking off from a conveyor belt. Anyway, I think many sources have now corroborated the 'doping' material was very volatile, adding to the intensity of the fire so to speak - but I don't think it was considered as being among the potential sources of ignition. (Edited, after confirmation USS Akron and Macon were both lost prior to the Hindenberg disaster.)

BH - another scenic and enjoyable short read. This sort of AAR 'style', if you will, fits you well; apparently it fits me too. I look forward to more. I also understand your comments re: the online thing; I agree with your very qualified observations. I do not enjoy such a history myself, only getting into sims around the RB days and no online at all until much more recently. If the new WOFF supports online activity as well as things seem to suggest, I'd be pleased to have you kick the crap outta me any time. But I do have to say, in fairness to VB, I think he probably assumes you have a worthy opponent of your choice, opposed to the (*heh*) larger paint-huffing public...(still chuckling about that line). While I agree with your points, I think decent adversaries are out there and I think VB means the human opponent can be a far more challenging foe. I'd have to say I agree, just that it also sucks you have to go through the dropped-out masses to get the decent opponents. Hopefully, WOFF will be geared more toward 'arranged' contests, rather than the open pool concept which I think invites the type players you describe. We'll all see, won't we? Here's to the future!

Well, as much as I can appreciate your feeling ripped, I wouldn't say nothing came of it, or it was wasted. I enjoyed not only reading the short story, but the DFW is actually very well-done too, I think. Folks are often kind enough to share AARs here, but I have trouble reading some of the longer more involved stories. Yours was short enough to read 'casually', but had enough color and imaging to put the reader right there with you, IMHO. So, thanks for the post. Like with so many veterans that would've told such stories to friends and relatives, it wouldn't be the claim form that rivets the listener anyway.

(I really probably shouldn't, but I cannot help myself): I don't want to know what a "Fahrtmesser" is used to measure...

And, as I have previosly stated, I absolutely refuse to go over to SimHQ for my own reasons which I'll not go into here. However, I do still read over there, and let me say how glad I am that there's no one posting over here about how freakin' great Steam is. Still, I do feel it's worthy of mention, just that I don't deem SimHQ worthy of my time whatsoever... I hope to God WOFF does not rely soley on anything like Steam - ever - and that's not because I'm "old and refuse to accept changing technology". It's because I have some d@mn sense, and I recognize the difference between change that exists to serve the user for the better, and change that exists basically because it can, as a means to generate more money off your computer and your use of it (which should all be completely and privately your own business). Since some people insist on being offensive about folks' age as it relates to changing technology, let me say this: Younger people more and more readily accept all these invasive practices into what *we* (the old people) enjoyed as PERSONAL computing are allowing greed to saturate the industry, and if left unchecked on present course, your computer will no longer be anything that is even close to PERSONAL. You'll basically have a 'dumb terminal' that allows you to connect to your own so-called "library" of software (none of which you can claim ownership of, nor do you possess media for)...and then you can enjoy whatever media THEY say you can, WHEN they say you can, on WHATEVER machine they say you can (and ONLY that machine, BTW). Of course, during this 'experience', you'll need to watch ads you'd rather not sit through (but they're for your good, dont'cha know?)...and suffer progressively poorer performance from your computer and internet connection (as the marketing types all pull whatever stunts they can legitimize to cram their pitch in your space)...more than likely experience numerous conflicts, many impossible to resolve, due to all these marketing types doing what they want the way they want (nevermind following standards or best practices designed to MINIMIZE problems). But it's a small price to pay, right? I mean, for all the GOOD something like Steam can do...right? *Pfft* I think not. Steam as it is is invasive, and that's something no amount of 'features' should warrant ignoring. As it (and others like it) continues to evolve, it absolutely *will* be akin to 'big brother' - not that this isn't already getting bad enough as is. A few weeks ago there was a post here about browsers 'back' button and how these tracking ads are constantly watching where you go, what you look at...all in the name of marketing. Don't be fooled into believing this is somehow in your best interest, because whatever the benefit might be, it pales to the problems this has created (and will yet). If you don't believe this is all about marketing, answer a simple question: How much of this would exist if the respective advertisers/marketers didn't put their money into it? How much of it would exist if there was nothing to sell you? Assume, just for debate, that everyone stops buying anything based on this 'targeted' advertising. That there is no money paid, and none to be made, by watching and tracking everything you do online. Exactly where do you think all these online "services" and "features" would be then? Yes, I realize Steam isn't just about marketing...it (claims to be) a "distribution system" (whatever the hell that means). Here's a question: How'd we all manage to get by just fine, all those great years we've enjoyed PC gaming, without it? Because, it's not necessary in the first place, that's how. FWIW, and if by chance the fine folks that brought us OFF to date read this: Please, never give in to this Steam type nonsense. The benefits are NOT worth the cost.

You're calling names. You're not addressing key points. You're dismissing relevant fact, because it doesn't suit your purpose. I learned a lot from Ed Roberts, both about hardware engineering and also software. It's not a question of competence magically "rubbing off", it's a question of study. A career of study, if I may, that's spanned some 30 years now, including some of the best hardware and technical schools out there. Just because I understand money is sometimes necessary to get the best from a system doesn't mean I'm guilty of "throwing money". If you knew me at all, you'd know I'm exactly opposite that - for instance, I have never bought any piece of new computer technology when it first came out; I wait until it is reduced in price due to the next "latest thing" which has saved me countless thousands of dollars in building my machines. I understand the purpose of computers as work tools, since I do work with them every day professionally. I also understand the purpose of automobiles primarily as transportation...but I still can admire those folks who put a lot of hard work into getting the best from these machines as a hobby. Their primary use doesn't mean there is no other use. Not only that, but much of what I spent (time and money) on my various computing experiments was educational for me. I learned a lot in the process. And you may term the methods I've learned and study as "childish tricks", but that's just another reason for the specs I cite. I can show proof the real-world performance that I worked to earn. There are no tricks here, just learning to get it right. Oddly enough, many people - family, friends, coworkers - all trust me to advise them and work on their machines. But, most of this is really getting off the subject of this thread...which you seem to be intent on dragging further and further from the subject...

BH, those things are "good" IN YOUR OPINION (which I do, believe it or not, respect your right to). Just don't understand why the "pro-Steam" bunch cannot seem to admit there are substantial drawbacks to these 'systems', and that, in the end, they simply are not necessary. And good lord, RoF...for once, I'm actually glad it got brought up. Because, as much as there MAY be to dislike about RoF, at least they - a bunch I'm not known for admiring at all, mind you - but at LEAST they managed to find a way without resorting to nonsense like Steam. By comparison, their scheme is less intrusive, and it only starts/runs while the game is in use. I'm not saying theirs is the best, mind you - many have argued it's also over the line (myself included). But Steam goes well beyond that.