You can't force them to rename using InSim. You can, however, send a message to them informing them they should change their name (giving reasons why it's currently 'invalid') and kick them from the server. I don't know if any of the currently popular InSim applications (e.g. AIRIO or LFSLapper) can do this. If not, it shouldn't be too complicated to code yourself.

Quote from dadge :

like the difference between "the news of the world" and "the sun on sunday"?

Edit. The only reason ATI was changed to AMD was for marketing purposes. My point was that the company still buys its components from the same suppliers than when they used to be called ATI. the cards are built by the same people that built the ATI cards. So wouldn't it be right to think that the same failure rates would exist?

So you're agreeing that your "thumbs up" approval of Bose321's post was actually bullshit?

The point I was making was that some of the changes I listed above (which do occur on moves from one generation to the next, and even occur within the same generation on occasion) could account for a significant difference in failure rates. Moving from one process to another (e.g. 55nm to 40nm or 40nm to 28nm) involves a massive amount of development and testing. This alone can easily account for a spike in failures and an severe problem of binning higher quality parts before the process matures.

Quote from Bose321 :

I do not think dadge was implying the cards are the same as three years ago. What I think he means is that a change of name, ATi to AMD in this case, does not change (read: make it better/worse than before) the quality of a card.

Quote from dadge :

The problem with that defence is that bmwe30m3 was clearly distinguishing between the "ATi" and "AMD" times as being distinct. If you really want to use this defence, dadge, then I think you've misunderstood the post you quoted.

edit: For example, the "Northern Islands" / HD6000 series was the first series to be marketed only under the AMD brand. Clearly the HD6000 and HD5000 (which was still marketed under the ATi brand, at least in part) are different.

Quote from dadge :

No. It doesn't matter how many times you change the name. the hardware is made with the same components, in the same factories, by the same people. even sold at the same price. so, what's exactly is different?

There are a number of differences between graphics cards of today and a few years ago. To name a few (but not all):

Process/lithography
Foundry
Suppliers (e.g. of components such as capacitors)
Power regulation

To say the cards of today are the made with the same components in the same factories as even 3 years ago is to completely miss the point of technological progress.

Quote from thisnameistaken :

Yarr. Kids today have probably never spent an hour spooling crinkled tape back into a cassette with a biro after it all flooded out and tied itself in knots inside the player.

Quote from geoslake :

I'm asking cos I just love FOX (only playing with this car) physics as it is now, and would hate to see it changed in S3...

The physics update will change various things which almost certainly will have an impact on car handling.

Incidentally, FOX + Demo user = Goodbye

Thanks for posting.

Police are looking for a man who's stabbed five people in the back with a knitting needle. They suspect he's following a pattern.

Hmm..."boost the bass"? Have you tried fiddling with the equaliser for your onboard sound / soundcard? You should able to mess things up as much as you like through that.

Quote from Bose321 :

That test was not done with them in RAID 0, is it? Obviously a single HDD is slower.

No, but RAID0 doesn't really always do a whole lot for random performance (which is where SSDs absolutely trounce HDDs and where most common workloads reside). Quite often a RAID implementation will actually decrease random performance (this is true for both SSDs and HDDs).

Quote from Bose321 :

Good luck with that on your sata 300

How many HDDs actually fully saturate a SATA 3Gbps port?

Last edited by amp88, Sun, 12 Feb 2012 20:59. Reason : added a clarification

Quote from Bose321 :

Some cheap 1TB HDD's in RAID would be cheaper and faster with shitloads of more room.

Cheaper is arguable (with current hard drive prices still elevated). Though there's no doubt that an SSD (even a couple of generations old on a 3Gbps port) provides better general performance than a mechanical/platter hard drive. Random read/write performance is orders of magnitude better and sequential performance should be in-line with a mechanical/platter 2-disk RAID0. You're obviously correct about the storage space, but not everyone wants a lot of room.

edit: Quick Anandtech Bench comparison of a 100GB Vertex 2 vs a 600GB VelociRaptor. The Vertex 2 is nowhere near the pinnacle of SSDs (being several generations old) and the VelociRaptor is one of, if not the fastest, mechanical hard drives available.

Quote from J@tko :

Oh crap BlueFlame posted in the F1 thread again.

Have to give it to this

New pic...

Quote from deggis :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQkdcE4m2D4

Now we know where D'Ambrosio got his inspiration from.

Quote from daloonie :

[VID] So you're bored, it's snowy. What do you do?

Browse the racing videos thread

Quote from JJ72 :

hm it's now a Silhouette series? a bit of a let down to me :o

For the whole of the V8 Supercars era (i.e. from '97 onwards and from '93-97 to a large extent) it's been pretty close to silhouette anyway. Project Blueprint meant that there was really no such thing as a 'Ford' or 'Holden' V8 Supercar. There just happened to be a V8 Supercar with a Ford engine and ancillary parts and a V8 Supercar with a Chevy engine and ancillary parts. The performance of the two variations was intentionally kept as close as possible and if one variation was seen to have an advantage this was addressed. The days of real Ford vs Holden competition (e.g. in the '70s) is long gone. Ford vs Holden in the V8 Supercar era is only about manipulating the fans.

Good news to see Nissan coming in. Hopefully others (possibly Audi and Hyundai) will be announced soon. At least now the bullshit Ford vs. Holden format in the current incarnation is over.

Quote from Hotdogxx60 :

Supercars are going the way of Nascar, as far as Bathurst is concerned it needs to go back to it's roots and make it for production cars again.

Race on Sunday sell on Monday.

That's what the 12/24 hour races should be for.

Quote from Intrepid :

Didn't say timesheets are indicative of performance. Visual observations, over the years, have been pretty good. Only really followed testing since 2008 and every year observers have been pretty accurate. 2008 it was traction issues for McLaren (true), 2009 the MP4-24 was a disaster (true) and the Brawn and RedBull were quick (true). 2010/2011 RBR a level above and McLaren fast but lacking balance (true).

How about the predictions of Renault being truly amongst the front-runners last year with their exhaust system? The buzz was that the technology was going to catapult them up the grid (notice how I say the technology to rule out the Kubica factor). Didn't really happen, did it?

One of the problems with the observation method (and it's why I mentioned the timesheets) is that you can easily watch an easy-to-drive but slow car and think it's really fast and on rails. The only really logical conclusions to draw from pre-season testing are done by the teams. They have a lot more information to draw on than we have. Do you really think they are looking at the rear end of a McLaren sliding a few times on a cold first winter test and trying to divine great meaning from it?

Quote from Intrepid :

I wouldn't bet my house on anything, but the pattern only follows recent years which shouldn't be a surprise. It's what we should expect. RBR are fully lit and everyone else will be playing catch up... again.

Which you could easily have predicted with practically the same degree of accuracy at the end of last season. How early were Red Bull able to direct their development to the 2012 car last year? How many times (aside from significant technical regulation changes (such as 2008-2009)) in the last 10 years has a team which finished outside the top 3 in the constructors standings been able to win at least 2 races in the following year?

Quote from Intrepid :

Times mean nothing, but visual observations can reveal alot.

As usual the RedBull is handling beautifully, from that one clip of the McLaren they appear to have some setup work to do. Lotus looked good, but probably lacks all out pace of RBR... echoes of last year

If you really think you can determine anything meaningful from a little clip and the timesheets from the first day of testing then you're really deluding yourself.

Quote from BlueFlame :

You give F1 teams unlimited capabilities and they will be clean as hell aerodynamically, hell look at the RedBull X1 for a rough example.

When you try to use an imaginary concept car from GT5 you know your argument is sound.

Quote from BlueFlame :

When I say cleaner, I mean aerodynamically cleaner but you already knew what I meant amp, you're just trolling me but there, I endulged you by replying.

When you say "generally" then what you say should apply in a lot of cases. What you said doesn't really apply in terms of aerodynamics either. Remember in 2007 when the teams were adding 'dirty' looking winglets and they were getting up into 'dirty' looking multi-element front wings? You think the teams would have done that if they could have achieved the same sorts of aero performance from 'cleaner' designs? Then you have the more obvious (and more extreme) comparison of a 1960s F1 car to one from 2008. The '60s cars generally looked a lot cleaner (with the classic cigar-shape and very few appendages) but clearly they were vastly inferior in terms of aero performance.

Quote from BlueFlame :

The cleaner a car looks generally the better it will perform.

What?

Aberdeen.