Tamper

Hi elephant...I don't know CoD was or was not used for this, just wondering if it was, I should have worded the question better. Post above by JonathanRL made me think perhaps it was well-known that CoD was used in this film.

At the risk of proving my own ignorance, does anyone know for certain that Cliffs of Dover was used to produce the 'CGI' segments in this film? Impressive short; like some others here, I also had no idea about Ireland! Interesting, thanks

"There is a VGA slot for onboard graphics but wouldn't you know it, it's a male to male connection for all 3 of the VGA cables I have..." I'm not quite sure I understand this comment. All the VGA connectors on every PC I've ever seen (for decades now) have female connectors, so a M-M cable shouldn't be a problem, assuming the monitor also has a female (which it should). The 'on board' graphics shouldn't be a 'slot', it should be a 15-pin female connector, oriented parallel to the mainboard itself (not perpendicular). If you see a male connector on the back of the PC mainboard, chances are about 99.99999:1 that you're looking at a (9-pin) serial port, not a 15-pin VGA port.

You mentioned the PC "suddenly stopped recognising it's monitor"...to be specific, is this to say the unit appears to have no video at all (or) appears not to boot at all (or) the unit will boot, but Windows tries to do something funny with the screen resolution due to not being able to detect the monitor? Depending on the answer, here are some thoughts: Moving a PC inherently means two things happen, which are sometimes overlooked as a potential source of a problem. 1. The PC was unplugged, and therefore could've had a problem with the battery that 'holds up' the CMOS memory. Sometimes PC's stay plugged up for years without ever losing power, and when it does get unplugged, the PC *only* has the on-board battery to rely on (plus some 'non-volatile' settings in CMOS). When plugged in, there's actually a 'standby' voltage applied to the motherboard (called '+5VSB' or something similar) even if the PC is turned off, so it never technically 'loses' power. 2. Moving sometimes means mechanical vibrations or unintended bumping about. Cards and connectors can develop connection problems over time or during a move. For instance, it might have worked just fine held in the exact same position without moving prior to the move, but that little bit of jarring can work something loose. Couple things to try (even if they don't work, you're not out anything): 1. Unplug the computer, wait a few minutes, then pull and reseat all expansion cards, including the video adapter, as well as the power connectors (typically, one 20/24-pin power connecter and one 4 or 8 pin motherboard 12V connector - consult documents for that board). You can safely do all this, and throw in reseating the RAM too; as long as you unplug the unit, ground yourself against static, and be reasonably careful with the mechanical slots/connectors, it won't hurt to try these things. 2. While the machine is unplugged, and you're inside doing the connections, locate the board's 'Clear CMOS" jumper. The location and directions for resetting the CMOS to default values should be in the manual. Try resetting the CMOS; sometimes the settings get 'scrambled' by power fluctuations and can cause all manner of confusion. The posts above concerning using the 'on-board' video are helpful ways to help narrow down what's going on. HTH/good luck.

'Around' 3G is a good way to put it, because I don't know of any specific formula that will yield the exact result you see when you actually plug everything up and run it. Seems to vary a fair amount, based on what I've seen, and not necessarily according to a hard and fast rule or two. I think things like this can lead to the situation you decribed with the "Dell from Hell" :) Although Microsoft certainly did their part in this, it's also true that each machine's BIOS will have an impact on this, because the machine's BIOS is primarily responsible for memory allocation before Windows gets ahold of it. I think there may even be some BIOS settings that have some impact on how memory gets allocated (like using system memory for on-board graphics, video and BIOS "shadowing", the so-called "graphics aperture"... I wonder if your efforts with that Dell unit included a video card with a different amount of memory on it ...?

Hi markl, It can be rather confusing...here's a link that discusses this, maybe it will help: http://en.wikipedia....ki/3_GB_barrier Note the first line: "In computing, the 3 GB barrier is a limitation of some 32-bit operating systems running on x86 microprocessors. It prevents the operating systems from using more than about 3 GB (3 × 10243 bytes) of main memory (RAM). The exact barrier varies by motherboard and I/O device configuration, particularly the size of video RAM; it may be in the 2.9–3.5 GB range." Although this article refers to it as a "3G barrier", it shows how the memory is affected by video memory and I/O devices, and can actually show memory out to about 3.5G. It also discusses how Microsoft was complicit in the situation, choosing to disable the hardware's access to this 'top-end' memory in 32-bit OS's, as a work-around for compatibilty.

It is not true that XP can only use 3G of RAm. 32-bit systems can access up to 4G of memory not 3G as stated above (although there is some mathematical rounding taking place, because a 'gig' is not exactly one billion, nor is a 'meg' exactly one million). The 4G 'limit' does not include the memory on a dedicated gaphics card - but it is *affected* by the graphics memory. The thing is, if you have 4G, a good deal of that last gig is tied up by some fairly stupid memory management on Windows' part, so you'll never see a machine with 4G physical memory actually report 4G in the system properties. It will always be less, and usually it's around 3.2-3.5 G. What determines the exact number, among other things, is the amount of memory your video card has on it. Oddly, it seems this only happens when you have more memory than 3G in your system. Von Paulus is correct, you do not have 5G memory total, it is actually 4G - and they are separate...but the way it's handled on a Windows machine, they might as well be combined, because of this silliness with video memory determining how much of the 4G physical memory Windows has access to. VP is also correct in saying that if you have an 'on-board' graphics adapter, the memory for that is usually taken from the system's physical memory. You have to understand that all this wasn't considered a problem long ago when it was conceived; the idea was no one would run into a 'barrier' at just over 3G because - at the time - no one was even close to that much memory. As to your question, I do not think you'd benefit, but if you're worried that the 1G on your video card is affecting your 4G physical RAM, there is some loss due to the size of your video card memory. I still think you're better off than having only 3G - because, even if the number isn't quite 4G (with 4G installed and the 1G video card), it's still more than just 3G. HTH

Hi Rickitycrate, IMHO the biggest single bottleneck in the description you gave is that video card. Yes, the RAM could probably use attention too...but it's not too bad. Good news is, where video is concerned, you're in a good spot at least to start, because you have a PCIe x16 slot - very important to good graphics these days. It happens I have a 8600GT 256M card without a home at the moment. The 8600 - numerically - might seem a step backwards from the 9300, but I assure you it's a huge improvement. The 9300GE has an 8:8:4 core on a 64-bit bus, where the 8600GT has a 32:16:8 core on a 128-bit bus (in addition to having twice as much memory, 256M v 128). Also, this specific model 8800GT card has GDDR3 memory @1400MHz, compared to DDR2 memory @1000MHz on the 9300. http://en.wikipedia....89xxx.29_series http://www.evga.com/...-P2-N751-TR.pdf PM me to work out details, and the card is yours - Merry Christmas early I may also have some memory that will work in your machine (I know what it's like living on a budget.) Best regards,

Hi 33, I'm glad you mentioned areas (in each sim) that I didn't. I think many of us focus on areas that are most important to us, while overlooking some other equally crucial aspects - and it's good to have more than one set of 'eyes' doing the assessments. I'm admittedly more likely to pay attention to graphics, and although I'm normally not a FM/DM accuracy freak, some of the limitations we're discussing seem to actually be hurting my (already meager) abilities as a pilot. You've obviously noted AI behavior more carefully than I have, and quite honestly AI is at least one area I couldn't offer any meaningful critique of. (The AI has killed me enough that I can't say they're ineffective; yet they make some really bad mistakes so I can't say they're super-human, either). Another example of how I'm more focused on certain things concerns the graphics in OFF. I think you're spot on, the best things they can do for OFF is continue to overcome as many CFS3 issues as possible. And, overall, the graphics are very good. But I have to honestly say - in another simplified version of how I see things - if OFF had RoF's graphics capabilities, I personally would be completely happy with it. And, to be more specific, the only things that 'bother' me about OFF are the clouds popping/jumping and appearing as 2D 'sheets, rather than the boundless volumes of gaseous vapor they are. (This is me quibbling, more than anything). The clouds also get an almost 'letterboxed' effect if you zoom your view out, and it just destroys the otherwise very convincing experience for me...I do find most everything else to be very good, especially the terrain/scenery. (Although, again, it's dated even if very good, and RoF has taken advantage of more current technology to really shine graphically). Like you, I think the planeset is probably enough as is that they should focus on other areas. I know I need to have a closer look at FE...I have the Gold version, but I should consider FE2. I'm actually glad to hear that the mods aren't necessary (again, my knowledge here is very limited). (*sigh* Too many projects and not enough time!) I was actually there on the download page just the other day, and was once again reminded of what a quality offering it is, for the cost. I decided to hold off, for no other reason than I simply don't have time to take on yet another sim right now. RoF does deliver a certain thrill in dogfights, I would absolutely agree there. The graphics are still remarkable which appeals to me and adds immersion during the actual flight and combat moments (I just really - really - wish they hadn't made such a mess in the recent patches). I do actually recommend it to others, but it seems like (cost-for-cost) I always feel I have to offer more caveats with RoF than perhaps with OFF or FE. I suppose I should be grateful to have the choices we do, and I do continue to look forward to future improvements in all these products. Nice to hear more from you here. I am always interested in these sorts of (mostly) objective discussions, and they are regretfully rare IMHO.

Back on topic, indeed... I own two licenses for RoF (long story...) and OFF P3+HITR. I briefly tried FE but - although I gather it's the mods that make this a great sim, I am not the sort interested in having to mod, patch and otherwise cajole a game into being what it can/should. That being said, I did notice FE seemed to have very good graphics and played well, 'out of the box' as it were. I would strongly recommend it as the premier choice, cost-for-cost. Cost is always a factor :) Back when this poll first started, I voted in favor of OFF, because at that time it appealed to me more. I was already running RoF, and although it was impressive, it lacked then what it still does - the depth of immersion in terms of the overall WW1 combat flight sim experience that OFF delivers. The 'world' in RoF seems sterile and largely unoccupied, for a place/time when there's a war going on. RoF's highly touted DM isn't that much better than anything else I've played. More complex - sure...but better? Not to me. There are some nice touches, but there are still glitches aplenty (planes continuing to fly though missing crucial structural components, damage modeling catastrophic failures too late/prematurely, etc). The FM; again, highly touted, but it's well known throughout the community - even among some of RoF's biggest fans - that there are issues here, as well (roll and climb rates inaccurate on several planes, etc). The graphics used to be, even for my admittedly high standards, where RoF glowed. And did it ever. It still has excellent graphics overall, of course, but with the past few 'updates' the Developer has inadvertently created stuttering, hitching, whatever you wish to call it. And, it's not just one type of card (some Nvidia users, myself included, have noted the same issues many ATI users have). Nor is it strictly related to multi-GPU arrangements. (And it's not my hardware either, for God's sake...I get *so* tired of that excuse...) Now, RoF has released the career mode. It is well done, and undoubtedly adds dimension where it was sorely lacking before. And they've reduced the online requirement (though it still is not truly eliminated, no matter what you might hear). The entire game is now available as a downloadable, time-unlimited demo - a fantastic idea, long overdue...but, regretfully, more about trying to generate sales than anything. Not that there's anything wrong with that, mind you, but it's just not been done strictly in the interest of the community, that much is obvious. Meanwhile, OFF is as good as it ever was, and continues to deliver a solid experience. Perhaps not the newest engine (it's not that bad, though), or best graphics (which are very good, and I think the terrain is better than RoF). But still far and away a more rounded experience...bigger planeset, more flyables, historical accuracy...if they'd fix the stupid clouds and a few other smallish issues, it would be near perfect, IMHO. The way I tell, between RoF and OFF, is to ask myself a basic question: What more could you ask for? In RoF, there's still quite a landry list..in OFF, that list is much smaller. One thing OFF may never have that RoF does is the graphics - but P4 is due and there are some impressive screen shots already. So, for me - after more than a year - I'd still say it's OFF, even with RoF's much-proclaimed 'continual updates' (which, of late, seem to be breaking a lot, even as they're fixing other stuff). Which is another point of contention with RoF for me: Forced updates. I'd really like to put my current install back to pre-1.019. But you really aren't given much of a choice with RoF. Guess we'll see what it's like in another year.

*Whew* Thank God we do agree on that And, just like you, I waited (using good old 98SE) until XP was past the bumps. As memory served, i waited on Windows 9x until it was 98. Likewise, I also skipped Vista and landed on W7 after XP. (I bet money you're familir with the "rule" that applies to 'every other version' of an M$ OS). But - just for the record - I have to say I liked DOS 5 better'n 6.x(x) S'where I really learned a lot (and it was fun, and almost made sense), and I never used the drive compression or any of the other junk 6.xx introduced much, anyway. (Plus it was honestly getting time to move into Win3.1 by then). Like what you describe, I still have machine(s) that run XP...this is more or less necessity for me. Not due to tough times in my case (thank goodness), but I keep 9 machines running at home (for the kids, their guests, and our "multi-seat a$$whip-a-palooza" LAN games). All these machines have legal OS licenses, and I just couldn't afford to put 'em all on W7 (currently only mine is). Anyway, they work just fine, and they support everything we need them to. Since they're only 'guest' seats, some of these are old enough that they might have driver issues with W7 (if drivers exist at all). Good old hot-as-Hades late-model P4s; S-478 boards with AGP slots *lol* In any event, I can appreciate anyone who can't (or doesn't want to) go to W7 - even though nowadays it does seem the 'obvious' choice. My situation might be different, but I have to remember that not everyone can afford to 'keep up' with how PCs change. Fortunately, XP is a long way from 'dead' as long as you're not trying anything too new.

JM, I normally find your posts among the more reasonable, and enjoy your contributions as generally objective. However, I have to disagree with this comment. One "reason" to keep a 10-y/o OS is compatibility; as much as I understand time marches on, there are usually some apps that just wont run properly on a newer OS. (On a "not-so-funny" note, these are usually my favorite apps...) Another reason? Cost. Keeping XP ATM (for the poster you were discussing it with) is free; last I checked the cheapest you can find a (LEGAL) version of W7 is around $80-90USD. A less concrete (but still significant) reason, at least for me, would be that M$ really screwed some parts of W7 up (for all the good I agree it is). Among these is no more 'expanding' menus on the desktop/Start button (and this isn't optional, if you don't like it then you must use third-party SW to overcome this); they moved the "show desktop" button to the right-most corner of the taskbar (completely away from everything else!!) And again, not optional. And this ridiculous "search"??? They've actually made it so that you're better off not knowing where anything is...and this encourages the type behavior that will, over time, ruin a good computer. God forbid anyone learn and use the file/directory structure properly any more... And these things aren't just my opinion, either. There are *plenty* of long-time (and new) computer users out there that complain about these same things in W7. Just look around on the Internet sometimes, you'll see. And please - don't hand me this crap about I just need to learn the "new way"and stop clinging to the past. The new way is totally stupid...it makes little sense and actually rewards people for being total idiots when it comes to a computer. Mostly, I attribute this to what I call the "i-tards"; that is, mostly younger people (no offense, it's simply a demographic thing, not personal) who have grown up thinking a 'smart-phone' replaces their brains, and it's perfectly OK to have to "search" for everything (even stuff you put there, and/or you have already been to at least 10-20 times). Windows 7 appeals strongly to this demographic. To be honest, if we collectively are at such an intellectual state as to require Microsoft to help us find things...well, we're screwed in ways Windows 7 can't touch, I can tell you. I changed to Window 7 strictly to get the benefit of a 64-bit OS (> 4G RAM). If it weren't for that, I wouldn't use it. (And let's not get started on XP64...). Sorry to disagree, but it is what it is. Hope you understand, nothing personal :)

Thanks...I believe this does get rid of the edge issue, but it does so by eliminating the dense white fog altogether. However: As I mentioned elsewhere, there was a time - I am absolutely certain of this, BTW - where this didn't happen... IOW, I had the 'in cloud' dense fog effect, all the way to both edges of the screen. And it would've been long before I knew anything about changing the in-cloud effect (or even trying it). It couldn't have been that, anyway, because I did get the whole "whiteout" effect (except cockpit, of course). It seems that, rather than being an issue with whatever "mask" there may be, it's more like an issue with the way this 'mask' is applied to a specific combination of monitor, video adapter, and driver (I'm guessing). Unfortunately, I have no idea how it may have changed, perhaps a driver update or some other setting I changed (?). Thing is, I've since rebuilt/reloaded my machine several times, and now of course it's back to the usual behavior, and I cannot figure out what the difference was. Any thoughts?

Thank you, sir :) I had actually been reviewing this lately myself, but I do appreciate your thinking of me. I had seen this, and also another thread where it was suggested to turn off the 'in-cloud' effect. Unfortunately, a lot of r/l has kept me lately from a lot of stuff I would rather be doing *lol*. One of these - a good thing, actually - was I got two more SSDs for my RAID0 array (now total=4). But this necessitated reloading my machine in order to get the drives on the controllers like I wanted. Then several friends and relatives had PC problems, so that took some time...then a leak in the basement ceiling (awfully close to my 'theater room' ...yikes!) and on and on...I have had a front row seat to the "Crazy as a Sh*thouse Rat Show" for a while, it seems *heh* Good news is things are starting to settle down now, so I hope to get a chance to try Hellshade's advice and the in-cloud setting sometime soon. Thanks again for your suggestion!

I have very high hopes, seeing the screen shots which show such meticulous attention to detail. I did have a question, though - hope this is an appropriate place to ask: Perhaps the only thing I could ask is improved upon in P4 is clouds. Now, don't get me wrong - they are magnificently done (and have been)...to me, they look far better than in "the other sim" - especially in threatening weather. Very dramatic and forboding. The problem(s) I've had are when you're actually going into the clouds, particularly right at the edges...they seem to appear rather like a translucent sheet, a wall if you will (opposed to a 'bank' of vapor which slowly engulfs you in a very 'analog' fashion). They also seem to 'flash' in and out, depending on your view and position relative to the clouds. I also have noticed the (return of) the edges of the screen not being affected by clouds at all - the rest of my wings, etc will slowly go white as I enter a cloud. But the two sides have lines, maybe an inch wide, that appear to be completely unaffected by the 'white out' effect of flying in a cloud. This applies, I think, when running wide screen res and zooming out. I seem to recall it maybe being a 'CFS3 thing' - but the darndest thing is, it went away at some point - never figured out why. But the last time I had to do a complete re-load of my computer (due to upgrade), it was happening again. Of course, I thought of drivers first, but I recall changing drivers a couple of times when the clouds *didn't* do this, and it didn't affect this at all. Is it drivers, maybe? That, and maybe a visible prop arc in the Dr1 (but if I recall this is a CFS3 thing and can't really be changed) Don't mean to turn this into a "What I want is..." thread, just thought I'd ask whilst we're on the subject of P4. If it's not the right time to answer, I'd certainly respect that. Regards, one and all.

Even more good advice from ConradB...man this place is remarkable. Al, I went immediately to the site you suggested, and will fervently pursue knowledge - thanks :) Of course, I have two brand-new SSDs to add to my existing RAID array, been here almost two weeks now, still 'new in box'. I remember when I'd bring new hardware home after work, and spend all night getting it installed and tested...I guess those days are gone forever (darn it). Last weekend I got 3 machines deposited on me by friends and family; viruses, HW problems...*sigh*. Oh, and then - a leak in my basement roof... ...so I might be a while getting back tot he overclocking thing *lol* But I definitely appreciate the help!

And let's not let BirdDogICT and almccoyjr off the hook, either :) (They both "got skillz" too) I've enjoyed reading their input on multiple 'cases'. @ BirdDogICT - I wasn't even taking the ironed out issues and updates into account, either. Both good points. (and yes, I have invoked the occasional "BS call" at work *lmao*) C'mon, Al..out with it...I see you over there... (see, I told you these guys know stuff...) (PS, one of these days I'm gonna ask you both about overclocking...I've done it, but I got a brand new machine with a big, fat after-market heat sink and a i930 that's just screamin' to have the hell run out of it *lol*. Everyone always seems to get more than I can out of one; C2D-8400's and 920's @4G; I never could my 8400 stable past about 3.7G, never mind what cooling...I think I need to know more about voltages...oh, well, perhaps a different thread).

First, I have to call "bullsh*t". Parky's being way too modest, he knows more'n he lets on here :) (Kidding aside, he makes two good points: Matching up pieces couldn't hurt, but then building a machine with a 'common sense' approach works, just as well). Me, I've been an Intel user ever sense. But, I do own several AMD's (other family machines, etc), and I've built a few as well - no problems to speak of. I think, currently, Intel has the lead in terms of preformance, but it does change like the wind blows - and AMDs always been a 'force to be reckoned with' in it's own right, just because of the cost-performance ratio. One thing - can't really say for current AMD stuff: If you buy Intel-based now, be sure to get into the 1366 socket if you can afford it. And, if possible, might as well go for SATA6/G and USB3. If you're even remotely interested in SLI or CrossFire, make sure you get a board that supports PCIe x16 on two slots that don't 'scale back' the number of lanes when you populate the other PCIe slots. Also, even though I usually have a decent enough machine, I *never* buy what is hot stuff right now. There's just usually a huge premium for buying what just came out....my advice is wait 6 months and it'll come down. Or, if you really must build now, consider saving by buying what's just one step below what's brand new this week. (To be balanced, of course, with the comments above about USB3 and SATA6/G - all a question of your budget and what you want out of it).

OK, then...to 'borrow' your words: I bought RoF, and hated it (although it's gotten better). I am not happy with (certain parts) of it. The damage model claims by it's producer seem to be inaccurate; there are many videos, postings, etc. all over the internet to prove this. One shows a Dr1 flying with almost the entire top wing gone - no ailerons at all - and then the same plane goes on to shoot down (5) Camels, with no apparent loss of control or even any ill effect on the Dr1 at all. Another common problem is planes that crash into the ground seldom if ever have damage to the fuselage that are proportional to the impact. There are many other examples of problems with the damage model that is supposedly superior. It would seem impossible that a DM - as advanced as this one claims to be - would never allow for such things to happen. It may be that the Damage Model is/was designed or intended to be superior, but in practice there are ovious issues. When does the publisher plan to fix this problem?

Well, I'll tell you...I don't know that I could be quite so uhhh... deliberate about it *lol* but I do see your point, and tend to agree - there's something to be said for being brutally honest when it comes to life-long relationships. In fact - albeit through a radically different set of circumstances - my wife and have have arrived at essentially the same point as it appears you have. It's nice when you can live in total honesty, and a luxery I've learned not many actually have. Here's to what works, being courageous enough to seek it, and being lucky enough to have found it.

Oh, don't get me wrong - my wife's always been wonderfully supportive of all my computer doings...games, building them, fixing them for friends & family...even the (excessive) money I spend on them... ...just don't let her sh*t stop working, is all...*heh* You know what they say: If momma ain' t happy, the hell with everyone else.

I just read (what I believe is) the review. Forget everything I said earlier; there's obviously no point.

21 years for us, also a 'second' wedding in Vegas - only with Elvis (swear to God...she's a big Elvis fan). The "water" washed "the bridge" out, a long time ago :)

First of all, let me offer my thanks to Dagger for being open-minded enough to keep this discussion open. No one needs to be offended, really - and there's no reason everyone shouldn't be allowed to express their perspective - as long as it's civil, and I do believe it has been in this case. This is of the utmost importance, since I think it is discussions just like this that will ultimately bring about products that are the best they can be. Is it always easy to confront honest criticism? No, but then real improvement is seldom easy, either. That being said, I still think Wodin has a point: There's a crucial point here, and I hope we don't lose focus by placing too much emphasis on the words being used - what matters is the thought that's being conveyed. I think it is absolutely imperative that any customer - any user of any product - should be able to freely express their views on that product (again, without personal insult, etc.). The problem is exactly what Wodin describes: The tactic commonly used to move focus away from the real issues, by claiming personal attack or insult, or dismissing the complaints by attacking the originator as irrational. And I hope people recognize it for what it is - I know I do; it's apparent that Wodin does, and I know quite a few others in 'the community' that know it, as well. I'm not going to tie up time and space here by making the countless examples I could. If you take an objective look around, you'll see it. It's undeniable. Have there been any 'personal attacks' against Jason/777? Perhaps, but maybe not. I think you'd be hard pressed to find anything where someone says "Jason you're an SOB" or something like that (in the public posts; can't speak for private emails, etc) . I think what you will likely find is people using perhaps strong words to express their complaints against a company. But, as I explained above, these are complaints being expressed to Jason as the entity that owns RoF...not against Jason the person. Therefore, you cannot say these are "personal" attacks or insults. It is a part of running any business to have to field customer complaints with your product - and guess what? There's no law anywhere that says the customer has to be nice about it! Now, before anyone goes off on me, I'm not defending rude behavior, I'm just saying that the company can't fail to address a real problem just by claiming they are being personally attacked. Again, we're confusing the person with the business entity. And it's not the customer's responsibility if a company's staff can't separate themselves personally from their work. I think the "personal attack" tactic is way over-used to avoid discussing some of the more obvious problems in this product. The problem is that, if people don't feel they can discuss flaws, then the product is far less likely to improve. If we want to discuss what is 'good for the community' then you have to include this aspect of that discussion. If you want to discuss what 'the community doesn't need', then you have to acknowledge that over-using "personal attack" as an excuse to evade a 'sticky' subject is a common problem, and the community actually suffers for this behavior. Wodin, I hope it is obvious. As I stated earlier, I have nothing to gain or lose by giving an honest opinion, where it should be obvious that anyone officially connected to any product will inherently have at least some bias toward that product. It's not just Jason, so it shouldn't be turned into a personal attack. It's business, and it's also human nature. I don't honestly believe anyone here has doen anything other than offer honest input. And that's precisely what was solicited. Sometimes, I swear it seems like producers try to prove they're "listening to the community", by making public 'appearances' to solicit input. But then, when that input turns too critical and honest - even when there is no personal attack or insult , it becomes "I'm not going to sit here and let you personally insult me". Jason says [sic] Developers often won't show up in forums because they get attacked by ungrateful mobs (I'm paraphrasing, intentionally). In my opinion, it's more accurate to say that Developers often won't show up because they're too personally vested in their work to take criticism as anything other than a personal insult. Just my opinions.

Ah, wives and computers... *lmao* I've learned over time to just say "I'll fix it..." (and then I do). Any other tact isn't going to land you somewhere you really want to be :)