Tamper

Wodin, Not to get too far off track here, but your last paragraph sums it up nicely for me. It's far too easy for someone defending their own product - and therefore, naturally biased - to dismiss anyone who disagrees as irrational, hateful, personally insulting...but this is the common tactic. If the comments can be classified as hateful or personal attack, you see, then they have no place on the fora, and can be easily justified as warranting dismissal (and censoring). As I explained above, I don't feel anything I've said is a 'personal attack' , insult, or anything else besides an honest opinion. And I have observed that, over on the 'other' forum, if you don't agree with the folks who think RoF is the second coming, you will be ridiculed, accused of personal attack and insult, which in turn warrants the censorship that is bound to befall your comments. This, in fact, leads to my other observation (that criticism isn't received well). Instead of responding directly to the comments and treating them as valid, they are often dismissed, ignored or even censored. Entire threads locked or deleted. The response is always positive and helpful, as long as you're not asking tough questions and pointing out obvious flaws. 95% of those who think RoF is fantastic don't ever ask tough questions or point out obvious flaws - this is because they don't see anything wrong, themselves (which is only their opinion). And yes, they get courteous and helpful responses all the time over there. But, someone whose opinion tends to be more critical (more honest, more objective) - even when their criticism is absolutely spot on - is obviously being insulting, personally attacking someone, only on the forum to "troll"...whatever. Basically, if we find a reason the criticism is out of line, then we don't have to respond to the criticism itself directly. I think it's called 'deflection'; if you turn the discussion in to "What's wrong with the person who made the comments", then you completely deflect the discussion from the comments themselves. And, unfortunately - in my observations - 95% of these criticisms, while they may be accurate, are met with a brick wall of hostility and "You're just a troll", "You never liked RoF anyway and never will", or any one of a million other ways to move the discussion away from the actual comment and criticisms themselves. As an added bonus, this means anyone who disagrees with the 'fanboys' also earns the distinction of being a troublemaker, so that their comments *never* get proper responses from that point forward. We don't have to respond to you, because we already declared you a troublemaker. All this is terribly unfortunate, because the product - any product - stands to improve much more from the comments of those who are willing to address the shortcomings, than it will if we only pay attention to the "Everything's fine" crowd. No one ever improved if they didn't feel they needed to improve. A brief response to Venator: I believe the OP asked for thoughts on RoF, and then expanded that to "OR any other sim"...this means the OP doesn't limit the discussion to RoF, but also doesn't require any discussion of any other sim. It is not necessary, in other words, to 'validate' one's response by including comments on any other sim. So it's perfectly OK, in my interpretation, to discuss only RoF, or to include discussion of other sims. Neither is required, as it is stated by the OP. No real conspiracy here, no 'diatribe', just someone who opened a conversation about something and left it open. Finally, for the record: I said earlier that I think Jason has as much right to speak up here as anyone. I just don't think that his being in charge of 777 makes his comments anymore factual than anyone else's; rather, they would be every motivation to be biased (only human, after all). And it's perfectly OK, so long as you understand that it 'is what it is'.

ArgonV - although your input is obviously welcome and respected, I don't think that Jason's responses to my posts could be counted as any more 'factual' than my remarks are. Are we to accept that everything from his perspective is fact, just because he owns 777? If anything, he's motivated to lean toward the positive (one of my biggest complaints - not about Jason, mind you, but about most 'pro-ROF' USERS - is a lack of objectivity). I, on the other hand, stand to gain or lose absolutely nothing by expressing an honest opinion. I'm not saying Jason hasn't helped clear the air here on a few subjects - and (as I said) I'm grateful. But I did also say much of what I said remains my opinion as stated originally. I chose not to argue the individual points about DMs and so on, simply out of a sense of civility - as Jason is obviously trying to "rise above" (no pun intended). I do believe he's got as much right as anyone to speak up, and it's good to hear both sides - but (let's be totally honest), some of what he says is nothing more than his opinion, just as mine is...mine :) (Jason - I do apologize for referring to you as if you're not here - I mean nothing by it, just replying to Argon) So - with all due respect, and if you please, let's not label one perspective in it's entirety as "setting the facts straight" while by inference we cast others as perhaps not factual. Again, this is the very nature of opinions; they are usually held strongly and seldom without at least some bias. Thanks, mate.

Lewie, Man, I hear ya...Tell you what. Send me a PM with some contact info (be patient, I'm in and out a lot). I have a few older fx5200 cards w/128M I'll gladly send you one if it's at all practical to do so. These are AGP cards, of course, so it wouldn't work for a laptop - but maybe you have a machine it would work on? In my experience, even older machines can run OFF. One tip: Make sure TERRAIN DETAIL TEXTURE on the Overrides tab of the graphics config is NOT checked. This cuts way back on requirements for terrain, I learned when trying to make older machies run OFF smoothly. HTH

Jason, Well, I won't tell you to buzz off...quite the contrary, actually. I'm genuinely impressed and appreciative that you took the time to respond. Your response was probably the most detailed, specific, and objective that I think I've ever heard from you. I am sure we don't agree on all points; this is the nature of opinions (which were solicited in this thread and claimed as my own throughout my post). Much of what I said remains my opinion as stated. But I have to say you just ratcheted up my opinion - for whatever it's worth - by a mile. Don't know why it took my writing my honest opinion here to get such a response, but I'll certainly take it for what it's worth. The "other" forum locks and deletes threads like it's going out of style - and while it may be their 'right' to do so, it just plain makes them look guilty of censorship and obvious bias. I can assure you, if I had written there what I have here - word for word, it would've been deleted within hours (if that). Incidentally, so we're clear, none of what I wrote is (intended to be) a personal attack on you. I feel it is expressed simply as a customer's frustration with an enterprise. Much as you likely feel you "are 777" (and rightfully so), my complaints are directed at the entity, not the individual. Saying "You're ugly" is a personal insult - saying that you (as the enterprise) have not treated customers well in my opinion is an expression of my experience with your company's handling of it's clients. If I've personally insulted you, then I apologize. But you might consider this constructive criticism, in it's own right. To respond to one question of yours, regarding the Damage Model: What have we said that is not what we claimed it to be? On the 777 website, there appears the claim "The detailed damage model leaves no room for error." To be accurate, there have been numerous demonstrated errors in the damage model, from planes flying with damage which would make flight impossible, to certain parts of the aircraft that are not affected by damage as other parts are, to planes that have an intact fuselage after 'augering in'. To me, advanced DM or otherwise, it's the same sort of stuff other sims have suffered from forever. WIthout getting to an argument about it - maybe you could just consider being a little more accurate in the marketing language? I wasn't aware you would allow email accounts to be 'reset' for logins - it has come up, and I believe I have a record of a public posting to the effect that it would not be done "without good reason"[sic]. I am fairly certain it was stated that it wouldn't be done just because someone wanted to sell a copy. (I'll have to look back over the saved texts I kept) Regardless; now, if you're clarifiyng this policy to include "I want to sell my copy" as a "good reason" for needing the email changed, I will forever cease from claiming otherwise. And move a mark from the minus to the plus column in favor of RoF. Is that, in fact, what you're saying? I also wasn't aware that you would give 'server-only' code to anyone who asked. Can you direct me to where this is stated? Again, I am certain it's been asked before, but did not get the answer you gave above. If it winds up that the things you touched on above are as you say, it would certainly raise opinion(s) a lot - not just mine, trust me. I believe there are many out there "on the fence" who might be similarly convinced, if these things are true. RoF has indeed come along - it is good, and it is getting better. I never said I wouldn't recommend it (I would), and a 7 from me is pretty damned good - you could count on one hand the games from all time that I thought honestly rated an 8; even fewer get a 9. 10 is reserved for maybe 1 or 2 games I've ever played (and they're actually really like 9.5's). And, shouldn't that be the way, incidentally? How many games could actually be said to be 'above any improvement'? At least with me you know that if you're in the 7+ range, you're in some fairly decent company. But there's always been this list of annoyances. A "recommendation" to a friend or colleague to buy this game is just another opinion - and I can't very well recommend something to another person without giving what I believe to be 'the whole truth', including the unpopular bits. Once again, thank you for the response. It does actually go a long way toward changing my opinion, and probably will for others - which I'm sure is important to you (as the enterprise). Regards,

Damn it, Jim

Hiya CW3SF, I'd love to help you decide, but I'm really only any good for the technical data :) I have zero experience with any builders, online or "brick-n-mortar". So, I do hope you hear from a few of the people here with specific experience in that area. FWIW, I would also say - if I had asked a similar question - almccoyjr is someone who I think has a good sense for what you want, and there have to be a few others here whose input I would hold in the highest regard. In any event, best of luck!

Wow! $1,000 difference - that's substantial...hats off to almccoy for the Digital Storm reference. I've built my own computers since I first owned one, so I couldn't really comment on the online 'build houses' other than saying that there are numerous reputable firms, each with many satisfied customers. I am a little surprised that there would be so much difference in the costs, though...wow. There are plenty of folks here who could tell you more, either from their own experiences or having helped others in the past, or doing their own system builds or sourcing one online. Parky, almccoy, B1rdogCT<sp?> all these guys have experiences with building / spec'ing parts, and knowing where to shop. And they all keep up with all this computer stuff, too. I do agree with almccoy on the idea of using local shops, for myself. When I buy parts to build a machine it's almost always stuff I buy locally (Fry's and MicroCenter both on my way home...they love me and my wife hates 'em both *lol*), One reason I do this is 'return privilege' without the cost and time of shipping. I've almost never had to use returns, but when you do, it's more than just convenient. Plus, like al says, they probably don't mind showing you the build or maybe even letting you help (depends on the place). Take care.

. I'm sure it's no bother at all, CW3SF...the folks responding here all share a genuine keen interest in this stuff, offer very good advice, and actually enjoy doing it :) Better still, when there's such a convergence of opinions as in the responses here, it's a 'gimme' you're getting good advice. As to your question, good news: You needn't learn a whole lot at all to succeed in this case, pretty straightforward. First, about SATA: No need to really know much at all here, SATA is simply the means that newer computers use to connect to hard disks and the like. Since it's been around for a while now, it's well-established and supported. Basically, to the user, it's totally transparent and doesn't require any special knowledge or care. (See...easy, right?) They'll plug everything up when the machine's built, and you needn't give it much more thought at all if you don't care to. Only thing to know, really, is that SATA/3G is more or less 'current', SATA/6G is out now, roughly twice teh speed (but more costly, of course). To get the speed benefit, you must have a motherboard drive controller that supports SATA/6G and a disk(s) that are SATA/6G. Next, using more than one drive doesn't mean you have to use RAID. Simply put, RAID is a special configuration of hard drives that increases performance and/or security - but is not required at all. Even with more than one drive. You'll be just fine without it - and, should you have time/interest later on, nothing stops you from going to RAID if/when you want to give it a try. Win7 on SSDs: Windows 7 is actually the first version of Windows to support SSDs (in a limited fashion) so that's a good thing. No reason at all you can't run the OS (even if not Win7) on an SSD, and it would no doubt speed things up. It is just my opinion that loading the OS on an SSD does entail knowing a bit more than usual, and some extra steps to keep things 'healthy', but there's nothing overwhelming - and if you're using Win7, it's even easier. Just that some folks would prefer not having to learn extra; they just want to use the PC without a bunch of technical stuff to learn. And that's fine, too. Really up to the individual. Writing/erasing/re-writing to SSDs is what causes them to lose performance over time, so some maintenance is needed to optimize. If you do run Win7 on an SSD, you'll need to learn (just a little, promise) about a function called TRIM - this is a tool that helps keep SSD performance tuned up. SSDs (as you probably know) use a different mechanism entirely for storing data - and because of that, they require different treatment than conventional disks. But Windows 7 TRIM takes care of most of it. The other few items are well-known, and in fact will probably come with the documentation for your new SSD (or will be available on the manufacturer's web site). Basically, you change 2-3 settings in Windows, use the TRIM function, and never defrag the SSD...that's about it. Also, now that SSDs are becoming more 'mainstream' there's no doubt that support for them will be even better - one day not too far off, it'll be completely transparent to the user, is my guess. (Like the OS will probably recognize which drives you have an do the proper configuration for you automatically). On having multiple drives: SSDs are still expensive, on a cost-per-unit of storage space basis. So, outfitting a brand new build with amount of storage considered "adequate" these days, using only SSD, can get very expensive. Conventional hard disks go between $50-100 for 500G-1TB, depending on model, manufacturer...an SSD will cost $400-500 for 256G; quite a difference in cost and capacity there. So, the idea is that conventional drives perform reasonably, and are inexpensive for fairly large capacity - SSDs are built for speed, but pricey. If you buy one big SSD, everything will *load* faster, but it's not necessarily going to *run* a lot faster. Once a program's loaded (depending on a lot of factors), it usually runs from your computer's memory (RAM), not directly from the drive...so, once loaded, the program doesn't benefit much from the SSD's speed. As I said, though, sims load lots of textures are therefore an exception, because they are constantly loading new stuff from the drive. My experience is that they benefit remarkably from SSDs, loading and running. What you can do to compromise is use two drives, one each conventional and SSD. The conventional drive is cheap, and can be used to load/store most everything on a PC. Pictures, videos, music, even most games will be just fine on a conventional drive. For your favorite, speed-hungry games - especially those with lots of graphical textures to load (like OFF and most other simulators)...this is where the speed of an SSD pays off. You just want to reserve that (relatively small) amount of space for only what really needs it. The OS can be loaded on an SSD, and it will speed up most everything you use, but the gain won't be as substantial in my opinion as the gain you'll get with loading a game that needs top-notch performance. Examples: Option 1 - Buy one SSD and load everything there: Everything speedier, but space is at a premium. Everything will load much faster, but won't necessarily see nearly as big a "performance" increase as the sims will. Option 2 - Buy a smaller SSD and a conventional disk, load the OS and your 'fastest' games on the SSD, everything else on the regular drive: You'll get somewhat faster boot-up times (and to a lesser extent shutdown times). Most programs will probably load slightly faster (we're talking maybe 5-15% faster, but it really depends on a lot). Everything will still run as well as it ever would, and the stuff on the SSD will be much faster at any time it loads - which is a lot in most sims. You do lose about 8-10G for loading the OS on the SSD, and the considerations for keeping it healthy apply. Option 3 - Buy a smaller SSD and a conventional disk, load ONLY your 'fastest' games on the SSD; the OS and everything else on the regular drive: The OS will perform adequately, just as it always has. It requires no extra attention and doesn't take up any space from your precious speedy SSD. The games on the SSD will load faster, stuttering will be all-but-eliminated (in my experience), and you'll have all the space on that drive to load as much in that space as you want (up to let's say 5-10 games average size today, on a 64G SSD). As long as you aren't installing/uninstalling constantly on this drive, you set the few options once and don't have to worry so much about the ongoing maintenance (TRIM). If you just install your games the one time, do a patch every now and then, etc., it will likely not require much 'clean-up' at all. I do hope all this helps and makes sense - please feel free to ask any questions at all :) Best of luck to you!

Hi Olham, I actually did that, but only for a short while. Having given it some thought (after I set it all up, of course *lol*) I realized that it wasn't the way to go. I actually don't recommend installing an OS on an SSD, unless it's the only drive in the computer. Even though Win7 is more "SSD friendly", OSes in general are still very bad at dealing with SSDs. Platter-based drives and SSDs are very different, and the OS (with some exceptions in Win7) still wants to treat all disks the same. I can explain why if you like. Also, in my own experience, comparing OS and OFF on an SSD, vs. OFF on an SSD w/ OS on a different drive, any gain is negligable. The SSD makes OFF run better, period - and the OS isn't necessarily delaying OFF, so it being on another (platter) drive doesn't seem to matter all that much (to me, in the limited experience I had with it). HTH

Since you've asked for input, I'll be honest: If you're buliding a new rig, my personal approach has always been to spend as much on the new mainboard as possible toward "future-proofing". For example, even if budget constraints force you to use a lesser CPU right now, I'd spend more on a motherboard that supports a longer "upgrade path". Having said that - regarding the motherboard you've chosen: I've used several Asus "top-end" boards for my own machine builds; they are as good a product as most anyone else makes. But that's an expensive, upper-end board - features like USB3 and SATA/6Gs (which are both great steps now in the upgrade path area). However, the PCIe slots run x8/x8 when both populated. Now, even if you've decided not to XFire/SLI right now, this is a fairly substantial limitation in terms of the future...if you find SLI is better supported down the road, for example, you'll be hampered in this area. Also, from what I gather, video cards aren't terribly restricted running x8 PCIe last I studied it - but that is/was somewhat dated info (6 months in PC terms can make a tremendous difference). I wonder if you've studied whether the newest video cards (like your 580) would be limited running on 8 PCIe lanes, should you decide to run SLI one day down the road (at which point a second 580 may well be cheaper then than buying the newest thing). The thing is, for what that top-end board is going to cost, I bet you could find one that offers USB3, SATA6 *and* will run both slots at x16/x16, for no more money. It would be worth looking into. In my opinion, SLI can be worth it - but it's almost never worth buying two brand new cards at the same time just to run SLI. You are better off buying the best quality single card you can afford. As I said, later on that second 580 will probably be a lot cheaper - adding a second card later on is actually where SLI starts to be "worth it". Also, that's a socket 1155 board. Now, 1155 currently supports core i7's, so that's good. But again, my personal recommendation is always to buy a motherboard that is as 'future-proof' as possible, so you have room to grow later on. In this case, the 1155's, while perfectly capable boards right now, will no doubt be eclipsed by the 1366 boards at some point down the line. Right now, nothing you could throw at the 1155 build would slow it down...but as I said, later on, you might wind up wishing you'd bought the basis for a machine that allows more of an upgrade path - and I'm going to guess it wouldn't cost a lot more (at least, whatever you spent extra would definitely be worth it, IMHO). Finally, good to see you're going to SSD. It's a move everyone will make sooner or later, still kinda pricy for some. You don't mention which drive specifically you intend to use, and that can matter. Also, an SSD tht size is going to be fairly pricey, but even though everything will benefit from the speed, you could probably save a lot of money by getting a smaller SSD now, and a larger, conventional drive - run most everything on the platter drive and only the most demanding stuff on the SSD. The cost of SSDs is still fairly high, and a 256 GB drive appears to go into the $500 range. Meanwhile a good 64G drive can be had for a quarter that (about $125 or so), savings = $300-350. (minus another $50-100 for adding a conventinal drive, so your net would be $200-250). The 64G drive is plenty big enough to hold the OS and a game or three, and SSD's will do nothing but get a lot cheaper now that they're becoming "mainstream" (watch what I tell you, you'll see...) Put the $200-250 or so savings toward a different motherboard and CPU (socket 1366 and supports x16/x16 PCIe slots, USB3 and SATA/6G), I honestly feel that's the better investment. I believe that, one day not too far down the road, you will be glad if you do it this way. I also see 16G memory...now, that's a very impresive number, don't get me wrong - but there just isn't much today that will use all that. You could shave a few hundred off, I bet, by using 8 or 12G, still run triple channel 1333 ( w/12G) - and I doubt seriously anything you'll do for a while would suffer at all for the difference in 8, 12, or 16G (for right now - you can always add more later). 16G is just costing you a lot of money for very little return at present IMHO. I hope this helps.

First thought: Good thing you're doing this here...some other "forums" are about as objective, where RoF is concerned, as a clothier commenting on a nudist colony. Other thoughts: I have grown into a love/hate relationship with RoF. Up from initially hating it (pre-release) to beginning to appreciate some of it's better points, but then down from realising how far it still is from being complete and/or what it is hyped by it's publisher to be. It does feature a lot of impressive eye-candy (the planes are truly gorgeous), but it starts to become really shallow not too long after that - kind of like that really pretty (yet horribly shallow) girl you probably wanted to hook up with in high school. The damage model is OK, but far from all it's claimed to be. About on par, I would say, with other fare out there today - certainly nothing ground-breaking. Which would be OK, if it weren't heralded as the second coming in their marketing hype. Flight model, I think is fairly impressive, but then who can really say when we're talking about airplanes from almost 100 years ago? Plenty of folks with issues in this area. Campaign mode - almost entirely lacking (though it's supposedly coming soon). Connection requirement - still there, toned down a bit but still too restrictive. Still requires a connection for almost everything. Multi-player - here's a game that claimed from the start to be all about online. Used this point, in fact, to justify much of what is really more about DRM. Yet, to this day, they don't have a dedicated "console" server (like CoD, for example) that doesn't require a separate license and another stout machine to run. Does that sound like it's encouraging online/MP to you? (Me, neither). Plus, the number of servers is genreally pathetic (really), and many of those are locked/private, or run by some of the fanboys at the aforementioned "other" forums. Don't want to be too honest with any of that lot, I can tell you. Lots of cheaters online, too I've noticed (not really the game's fault, in fairness...but disconnecting right before you crash after I shoot you down, so it doesn't count...really?) "Forced" updates - totally suck in my opinion. Even Windows lets me decide, for God's sake. The fact that the producers have gone well out of their way to prevent purchasers from (legitimately) reselling their copy - nearly criminal, in my opinion, and completely unnecessary to treat customers like that. Won't offer a refund, and still generally deny that it's all about making sure no one can by a copy from a private party (it is, let's be honest). Which means they pretty much have your money, too bad if you decide you don't like it once you actually paid for it. Publisher - in my opinion, treats customers poorly and doesn't accept criticism well at all - even constructive criticism. I dislike the fact that so many give them credit for 'listening to the customer' when they do very little of it, in reality. What they actually do is contort things to make it seem as if they're doing everything the customer wants, when it's actually what they knew they'd do anyway. As I said, love/hate. Is it worth it? Everyone has to decide for themselves. I still play the game (and why not? I can't sell it...) and I've actually bought extra planes (Of course I did; wouldn't you know - you have to pay extra for any of the planes that 95% of people are going to want to fly). When RoF was new, I gave it a 6 of 10 (being generous)...now I'd give it a 7 maybe. Still too unfinished to rate an 8, and too many negative parts about it to ever be a 9 (unless there are some major changes, which let's be honest, isn't happening). Some people insisted it was a 10 when first released (in *that* state - you're kidding, right?)...some others say it's a 10 now (so why would the producers need to keep adding anything?). I like to think I'm a lot more objective than that. Regards,

Lou, if I may, a friendly word of advice: That's too much, in my opinion :) Actually a lot too much. Defrag does need to be run, for sure, to keep things in order. But the other school of thought suggests that defrag - especially when done excessively - does in fact wear a drive (unless we're talking SSDs, which should never be defragged). Conventional, platter-based drives actually have quite a few moving parts in them - and as we all know, it's the moving bits that wear out and cause failure (why "solid-state" electronics were/are such a big deal, after all...no moving parts). Also, doing it back-to-back..well, if once a week is excessive, then you do the math With the kindest of well-meaning intent, I would strongly encourage you to consider doing this once a month, max. For machines that feature a (relatively) static load - meaning you're not constantly uninstalling/reinstalling SW or copying/deleting really big files (say, professional video editing) - even once a month is probably overkill. You really do need to balance the benefit v. the drawbacks - and I'm afraid you're erring on the side of premature disk failure (and with very little real benefit, at that). Almost like going out in your car and smoking the tires for 30 minutes every week, just to make sure they wear evenly...*lol* Just my opinion, again, with the best of intent.

*lol* Yes, it might at that. As always, your study hits the nail on the head. The info you're refering to - the SLI AA modes - these are among the "modes" I spoke of earlier (don't know that 'modes' is the accurate word). But there definitely are things an SLI setup can do to improve performance overall, without requiring 'native' support. This is *the* reason I still don't get why folks still say games like OFF (and the "other" WW1 flightsim) don't benefit from SLI. It's almost as if the only "improvement" that's recognized is increased FPS. And while FPS is obviously an important measure of performance, it's another often misunderstood aspect of PC performance. (I can show you a rig that runs 60+ FPS and still stutters like a fuel-starved rotary...) I think FPS in this respect is "overrated" for lack of a better term. Absolutely. Again, another great piece of advice for how to get good *performance* - and not necessarily just a higher FPS rate - from OFF (or any other game). Very timely, considering I was just on a rant about FPS being overrated

Thanks Parky, for your technical contribution, and the PSA A correction on something I stated earlier (apparently, "Edit" only works for so long after you post...): "...if you have three cards, one will have to operate at 8 lanes while the other two can run at 16 lanes each assuming no other cards. (This limitation is present in Intel's x58 chipset..." This is inaccurate. The 36 lanes is a limitation of the Intel X58 chipset...still can't speak for others. But if you operate three cards, and if two of them operate at x16 (depending on the board, etc.), then the third card can't exceed x4. Similarly, if running two cards means (due to the board itself) that each of these cut back to 8 lanes, then a third card could run at x16 and still leave 4 lanes available to other slots. However, it would be my guess that triple- and quad-SLI setups are almost always going to result in each card being run at 8 lanes. (3x8=24; 4x8=32). And, like Parky mentioned, I wouldn't buy a shiny new x16 card and run it in a configuration where I knew it would be limited to running 8 lanes. It just doesn't seem appropriate to me either, even if some indications are that 8 lanes won't choke the card (still not finished studying this, TBH...some day *lol*).

Al, I do thoroughly enjoy when you are involved in one of these technical discussions :) I certainly remember the "original" SLI, no doubt some others here will, too. OFF has a lot of old RB3D fans, and you know, RB3D was all about Glide...and Glide was all 3Dfx at the time. But I do have to offer some clarification, though: The "old" SLI was actually what you're referring to - Scan Line Interleave, where the idea (and the *only* "mode") was to alternate each line of the display dat per GPU, in order to theoretically cut the load on each GPU in half. (Of course, there's overhead, etc....but that was the theory). In fact, I owned one of the rare VooDoo 5500 cards. They were among the first to incorporate two GPUs on a single card, to allow the original SLI concept on a single board (multiple GPU interface slots weren't really around at that time). Of course, that's when 3Dfx was already having serious problems...the 5500's never did too well, and they were bought up shortly thereafter, as I recall. I think it was the forerunners of today's Nvidia that bought them. Today's SLI isn't the same thing, though. The SLI now stands for "Scalable Link Interface", and although the idea of a 'bridge' between GPUs is roughly the same, the "new" SLI offers different modes besides just the 'every other line" approach. Granted, they're all still essentially variants of splitting the workload, but there are (at least) two different frame rendering modes, and at last one additional mode, last I checked. Plus, I don't think the original SLI would have ever worked with more than 2 GPUs, whereas new SLI is designed to accomodate genuine "multi-GPU" setups; already there are triple and quad SLI setups. That's the S in SLI - "scalable", which it was designed to accomodate, where the original wasn't designed for it. Of course, now the issue has become one of the chipsets limitation to 36 PCIe lanes. So, even if you have three cards, one will have to operate at 8 lanes while the other two can run at 16 lanes each assuming no other cards. (This limitation is present in Intel's x58 chipset; I don't know about whatever Nvidia themselves may have done recently, or the newer chipsets...changes too fast to keep up with *lol*). Last I checked - when I was shopping around for my current motherboard, there were very few that delivered 16 lanes on two slots with both populated. I found exactly one that did this and still offered the full balance - 4 lanes - on a third slot (I have a PCIe x4 RAID controller). At present, I am not running a second video card; I'm actually considering a second GTX260/216 vs. a newer 400 or 500 series Nvidia card. I was never (ever) displeased by the SLI setup I had (three of them, actually, 8800GSs, 8600GTs, and 9800GTs), even though SLI was blamed for a lot of stuff inaccurately. I finally figured out and solved where the 'stutters' come from (it's not SLI), and only really stopped using SLI to try a single-card solution due to cost and the aforementioned marketing impact on pricing. For me, it's funny - any number of folks here will readily tell you OFF runs best at higher resolution (no real details, mind you - but I believe it is a consensus, and I've no reason to disagree). The same number will tell you OFF doesn't benefit from SLI... ...but one of the biggest benefits of SLI is higher resolutions, and native "support" (by the game) isn't required for it to work - the video driver and configuration takes care of it. So, I say OFF can and does benefit from SLI. How much, as has been discussed, is a function of many other variables. Whether it's "better" than a single card solution is a question of which exact cards, on which system, and how much each will cost. Another factor is that, if OFF isn't the only game you play, then other games might benefit even more from multi-GPU, which might possibly even out-do a single card on a 'bang-per-buck" scale, depending on what's on sale where.

I'd like to add something: SLI (and probably "multi-GPU" in general, to include Crossfire) IMHO is one of the most widely misunderstood features of personal computers these days. While I do understand the concept that CFS3/OFF do not have "built-in" support for SLI or Crossfire, I do not agree that CFS3/OFF will not benefit at all from a multi-GPU platform. It is the video driver's job to "support" SLI, not necessarily the application (game). What Parky said, I think, is the absolute truth: "...you would realize a significant performance boost with any game that provides crossfire support or has a crossfire profile associated with it" The thing is - while I cannot speak for Crossfire from personal experience, I can speak for SLI - the "profiles" are something you can create and edit yourself. Many are posted online, like for OFF here, with user 'tips and tricks', etc. Perhaps not as effective as having 'native' support for multi-GPU, I believe the performance benefit of mutli-GPU is still possible even if there's no built in support for it. This was certainly my experience when I ran SLI for about a year - everything graphical I ran was improved at least somewhat, in some way, by using SLI. Some more than others, naturally, but still. If nothing else, for example, SLI would allow me to run AA at higher level, and on a larger screen res, than one of the two cards alone. SLI doesn't make sense if you're buying two brand-new video cards, for exactly the reasons discussed here: Primarily, you won't get a 200% increase by using two cards; it might go well over 30 or even 50% or beyond, depending, but not double a single card. The entire idea behind SLI IMHO was/is to run single card you could afford - and then later (after prices on that exact card have dropped), get a decent boost in performance by adding an identical second card, at less than the cost of a new, better card. But the various retailers' price models, sales, rebates, etc. tend to screw up the whole concept *lol* In any event, I believe the best advice when buying new is to buy the best video card you can afford at that time, rather than two of anything else. Later on, hopefully prices come down, you can get a second card like the first for less than the 'latest and greatest' (which tend to be expensive at first release); ideally getting performance near to the newest card at a much lesser cost. As for PCIe slots, Parky's got a good point, you have to have a mainboard that supports it, on two slots, and many cards do actually drop the number of PCIe "lanes" for both slots to x8 if you fill more than one slot. That being said, however, there are a number of articles, reviews, and tests that I've read on this subject, which suggest that the 2 slots running at x8 isn't going to bottleneck current-gen video cards anywhere nearly as bad as it sounds...seems I recall bandwidth measurements, etc. The impression I was left with is that with the CPUs at the time of these tests, CPU bottleneck is far more of a potential problem than running two video cards at x8 instead of x16 (this may no longer be true...I don't honestly recall what generation of CPUs were involved at the time the articles/tests were published). With the appropriate Google serach string, you can find tons of info about PCIe x8 vs x16, and it may have changed substantially since I studied it (a year ago, maybe?) HTH

Wow! Outstanding, VP!!! I am also an old fan of PG, enjoyed many a "PBEM" game back before online gaming was really heard of. I can't wait to see more about these games. Thanks for sharing this great find.

Hi CW3SF...some good ideas above as to who should build a machine for you - I build all my own so I couldn't comment a lot on other alternatives (just that, in my own opinion, avoid the Best Buy retail-type places, stick with a local "brick and mortar" small shop...also I don't receommend 'name brands' - Dells, Gateways, HPs, just my opinion). As for your cooling question - I think you could be fine "on air" (just fans), depending on how crazy this machine gets...but there are some good after-market heatsink/fan combinations that are quiet, reliable and do a better job than stock by far. One thing, though, if you go with a heatsink/fan, watch the weight and height of the overall unit - most of these aftermarket units are heavy (often lots of/even solid copper). And the taller it is (off the mainboard), then it's more weight 'sprung' against the board mounts. All boards have limits on how much they can be flexed, and a (recommended) maximum amount of weight for the heatsink/fan. If you decide to go liquid, I don't think you'd have much to worry about, assuming good quality guts are used and secured properly at install-time. You might check on some of the 'quiet' PC sites, as well as the overclockers' sites, for liquid hardware reviews/recommendations. In either case, what you should consider is a 'dampening' rig for your PC in the RV. Could be a foam-lined container for when it's not being used, or maybe some fancy silicon bushings for the chassis 'feet', or the desk your PC will sit on...whatever you do, dampening is a vital part of making mobile electronics run problem-free. (I am a former US Navy Avionics tech). Good Luck, whatever you wind up doing :)

Not so sure it's a system spec thing... I use an i7 930, GTX260/Core216, 6G DDR3-1333, and two SSD's in RAID 0 on a hardware controller - not a slouchy system, by any standard. I bought the Logitech C-160 cam, as listed on the FaceTrackNoIR website. Like Ratatat, I also tried for quite some time to get this working, to no avail. Either no response in-game, or at best, very slow response (panning as if in slow-motion, for example). Also, in the FaceTrackNoIR interface, it will show as tracking my face fine, but even there (without running CFS3/OFF) it seems to go away and come back intermittently. I would give anything to not have to wear the cumbersome head-tracking LED array (TrackClip) - well, anything *except* not having head-tracking that is. And I think it's a great idea, using face-tracking tech to replace the LED array, etc. It just doesn't seem 'ready for prime time' in my experience, and that's a shame. Even though it means wearing the array, TrackIR works well, so it's "worth the pain". I do hope to see the idea continue to develop, though.

Great thread...I do hope it continues. One of the (very, very, very) few issues I have with OFF is the cloud 'presentation'. They look very believeable from a distance, but this "popping" thing has always bothered me. Like I suspect many probably do, I always wrote it off as something limited by CFS3 - but it's very exciting to know there may be hope. I need to try Hellshade's recommendations and others to see what effect I can get. Another cloud issue happens when I zoom in the default cockpit view. (I think most probably shun this, but I find it enhances the game by increasing my FOV). WHat happens is the could effect - the 'white out' or fogging that occurs in clouds is 'cut off' at both edges of my widescreen display. The middle looks great, but there's a very narrow bar of 'normal' visibility at both sides. Polovski had said once (correctly) that it only happens in zoomed view. But - here's the funny part - there was a point on my prior machine where it didn't happen. It could've been becuase I changed a setting, and when I upgraded my PC/reloaded OFF, I failed to set something right (though I have screen caps and thought I duplicated the old settings). Another thing it could easily be is drivers. In any event, if there are ways to improve clouds in OFF, it would eliminate the last remaining problems I have with graphics. I noted P4 has improved clouds - but again, since I associated the cloud issues with CFS3, I don't know how far OBD can go - even with their superlative record of making miracles of a mediocre game.

If I had to guess, you have one (or more) of three things there (or some combination thereof): 1. The video card is too tasked with RoF to keep up. (try making user all your settings are absolute minimum and see if it improves at all) 2. You have a power supply that cannot keep up with the load your system and video card combined are placing on it. 3. You have a problem with airflow (heat) - the harder the system has to run, the more heat it produces. You don't really say what your RoF video settings are, what your system temps are like when this happens, what wattage your PSU is, or how much memory that 9800GT has on it - they were made in both 512M and 1G varieties, I believe. These are all important things when you have issues like the pics you posted. Also, drivers can do that, too - might run fine on everything else, but one game. The thing is, that's a fairly conservative rig you have there -and RoF's producers have *grossly* underestimated the system 'minimum requirements'. Your machine is having to work hard to do RoF, I bet - and maybe much harder than the other games you play (you also don't say which other games). It is not the "SLI problem" someone suggested before (uhhh, you're not running SLI - but I guess they overlooked that; besides that people wrongly blame SLI all the time because they don't know what they're talking about). I'd also venture it's not a bad graphics card, either. There's a lot of stuff that can cause video corruption like this, and affect only one game. I've seen memory set at the wrong speed do it - only in one game. Speaking of which, you also don't mention if you've done any overclocking or fiddling in the BIOS on the machine...everything pretty much stock, or ? HTH

Perhaps I'm just not expressing myself well (although I thought it was pretty clear). I don't find anything wrong - at all - with the video itself; certainly not. It is, indeed, exceptionally well done. It depicts an epic engagement (and very well, again) in the specific area of a monumental conflict that we all cherish. Hell, I'd even go so far as to say that RoFs remarkable graphics truly add to the overall realism of the video. Having said all that, my point was that the video offers solid evidence of something that's been very controversial in the evolution of the sim. And, to put it in proper context (borrowing a moment from Rabu), the only big deal that's been made is because the folks who rant about how great RoF is, are the same ones who make the DM out to be the second coming. It is them (not me) who is making a big deal about how this video shows exactly how great RoF is. Now, just to be sure there are no further misunderstandings, kindly allow me to repeat what I'm saying: It's not me making the big deal - it's the fans of RoF. And, just to be certain - to put it a different way, I wouldn't care if the plane in the video doesn't disintegrate, were it not for the fact that RoF fans themselves have chosen to make it a big deal. I even seem to recall that, when the issue concerning 'invincible' fuselage structures came up, they argued fervently that the DM was accurate...that those who thought there should be destruction of the fuselage were just...well, wrong. I'm simply sitting back, amused at how they've made this video a big deal - not about it being a great video, but about it showing how good RoF is - apparently without realizing that this video actually illustrates a crucial flaw in one of their core arguments for RoFs claims of being superior to *everything* else - the damage model. To me, and in my own humble opinion, this video shows precisely how misguided the claims truly are. At least according to McCudden, who was there at the time. I start to wonder if some of these folks would try to tell him he was wrong, too. I guess if I'm wrong for having my own additional observations beyond it being a "wonderful video" (which I agree with, again)...then I'll apologize now, and let that be the end of it.

Thomas, sorry if you took offense - after reading what I wrote again, I honestly don't believe I said you tried to plug anything. In fact, to your point, I believe I agreed that the video itself was nicely done. I was simply expressing what I find an interesting irony about the video; that many RoF proponents say it shows how good RoF really is, when it actually seems to illustrate one of the flaws in RoF. A flaw in one of the two areas of RoF (FM and DM) that it's fans claim are far superior to any other sim, ever. That's all I really said - not that you were plugging RoF. Regards,

Yes, it is a nice video - and it's being widely touted as a flagship video for RoF. The guy who did it should be proud, it is well done. Interestingly enough, it shows one of the more controversial issues about RoF; the damage model that many claim is so superior. But look at the very last few frames...it shows Voss' craft crash violently after Voss is mortally wounded. According to McCudden himself "(I watched)...the triplane hit the ground and disappear into a thousand fragments, for it seemed to me that it literally went into powder." But in RoF, even though the plane does explode, the fuselage appears to remain intact. You couldn't find a better example of a flaw that has been related by quite a few people. It's amusing to me that so many are saying this video shows exactly how good RoF is. The damage model and flight model are supposedly two of RoF's biggest features, but there are examples of how they're just not all they're claimed to be. Seems the vastly superior damage model missed the mark where Voss' plane is concerned. In other words, what it comes down to - for me - is that RoF is really just a lot of eye candy. I agree the graphics are truly remarkable. But a DM and FM that are 'light years' ahead of anything else? I just don't see it.

The 6 months you refer to could be explained because the on-board battery (which provides 3V to hold up the CMOS when the machine has no power) got drained enough that it loaded the default BIOS settings, and therefore could run again. The lithium CMOS batteries have quite a long life, but aren't really intended to hold up memory forever. Especially after about 5 years, a machine can lose BIOS settings when it sits without power long enough (when it's plugged in, the board uses what's called 5volts "standby" (5VSB) to keep the memory up, so the battery doesn't get drained, even if the machine isn't running). In these cases, you notice the machine resets to default every time it's unplugged. If it's running on default settings anyway, you might not even notice at all. Many machines do so, because the BIOS nowadays loads hard disk type, etc automatically. Used to be a problem where the hard disk suddenly wouldn't recognize - because the BIOS settings that were specific to the drive had gotten reset when the battery croaked. One thing I can assure you of: If an electronic device was actually damaged by lightning, it doesn't "get better" by itself. There's an explanation as to why something started working, and like I said, I've seen the BIOS thing a couple times myself. Try clearing the BIOS using the jumper on the board and/or removing the battery for a while. Might just work. But sometimes, well....lightning gets what it wants, unfortunately.