Do you all not realise how much of a bunch of wankers you are making all look.

Stop posting.

Quote from MAGGOT :

I really don't see the point. What does getting achievements give you?

e-penis

Quote from Matrixi :

I can see this happening already.



Moonflight from a barrier collision, of course.

good stuff

1:59:00

...Soooo,

Been trying to get back driving this past few evenings, rig is all set up now

except, with the cheap ass gfx card posted above(nvidia 8500GT) and new ram installed I want a little more CPU power.

But, before the new GFX card install I was able to OC with little problem and now the PC just freezes if I try the OC from within Foxcon's app or the bios the result is the same

I tried looking the interwebs and people say PSU power and such...

Bios is up to date and I'm running out of ideas and don't want to mess around for fear of melting something...

Must I OC everything on the board to match ie. is there a missmatch in frequenceys when I set CPU from 133mhz to 165mhz?

...never mind the ruddy forum go and make LFS babies with Scawen

Quote from Jakg :

If you mean to use it for learning to drive - then no, it'd be utterly useless. It's just not the same - you can't learn to fish on a computer and the same applies for LFS.

...what a ruddy knob like statement to make

I'd love to try to explain to the eurofighter trainee pilots = "Okay lads, the training curriculum we provide is fairly hands-on. Take this £66.7 million Eurofighter for your first spin - and remember! If you don't know what the buttons or levers do, don't press it"

Fresh fish are no different to simulated ones. The fun is in the game/catch

Realism is a nonesential factor in sport.

Three Days Grace - Get Out Alive

wtf have you been smoking LOL!


Gimme some

...not a paramedic


































I am the Doctor of Love!:hippy:











pff. Crap joke!

I'll look into ICS for now and thank you for your time and info.

... on another note I was trying to get iSCSI up and running instead of having the need for network shares with my current setup, I'm favouring this setup because without ICS the only interaction between the 'outside' and PC2 is me logging onto remote desktop, so in that regard the network is totally secured from the WWW.

But, whatever I try iSCSI just wont find any targets at the IP of PC2(not using Domains just work groups)...go figure it just does nothing and when I try to add or auto configure drives for use on the iSCSI server it just moans about "The device specified does not originate from an iSCSI disk or a persistant iSCSI login" , am I missing something, the help file shows no info on how to make a disk or drive originate from iSCSI other than telling you to press the auotconfigure button...

I better stick with ICS

...that link is very slow for me?

The Wan router is assigning addresses DHCP 192.168.xx and router 2 is manually assigned to the 10.42.43.xx range so no conflicts there. As I've said above I did go through the Windows firewall and only allow basic communication on the 'Public' side, according to the firewall is locked tight...but meh, I'm not convinced...while were here do you know of similar software like Zonealarm for Vista?

All would be hunkey dorey if Vista allowed me to assign profiles based on interface(maybe thats in the link but it's still loading...?)

E; and sorry, no there's no ICS enabled as I want no direct communication between WAN and LAN.

MS paint?

Last edited by CSU1, Wed, 2 Sep 2009 19:14.

...my email provider seems to be down atm so registering with Cnet can't be done, if I may ask some questions to you knowledgeable folk instead.

I'm running Vista on two machines in the house and want a setup that keeps PC1 connected to the internet and PC 2 is a standalone media server not connecting to the internet for fear of something going wrong with my personal data(photos etc.).

PC 2 is connected to it's own wireless router via ethernet cable and has an Xbox360 connected to the same router via ethernet cable making use of the Xbox's HD media playing capabilities, in-turn I manage that network from PC1 via remote desktop.

Problem is, on PC 1 I have two network interfaces, wireless Wan interface is connecting to the WWW and has a profile of 'Public' and wireless Lan interface with which I use to remote desktop to PC 2 has a profile of 'Private'. Once Vista recognises the Wan interface is gone live it superceeds my 'Private' profile and knocks off all network shares. If I try to turn on network shares whilst Wan is public and LLan is private Vista for som reason or another changes Wan to Private.

I have gone through all the firewall rules relating to the Public profile not allowing the obvious incase I need to set both interfaces to Private in order for Vista to allow Wan connection to WWW(with no network shares) and Lan to have network shares, but this is less than perfect.

I guess I need a way to select shares based on interface and not profile...any ideas please?

Last edited by CSU1, Wed, 2 Sep 2009 18:56.

Effing greedy bastards, where are your manners?

Quote from george_tsiros :

how about an extra button for the mrt only, where the driver reaches down and pushes the car a bit backwards?

realistic, practical, reasonable

Agreed, it's less realistic having the driver vanish to the pits for lack of options to turn around. A simple 'nudge' option would be more realistic...

...IRL are you allowed to exit your cart and move it so as to get 'unstuck'?

BASTARD LMAO - you got revenge ! ! !

Quote from george_tsiros :

allow me to give an example

suppose the devs don't have the resources to improve the selfshadowing/lighting of the cars

hypotheticaly speaking if i were to write a couple shaders that took care of that, i could send them in, the team could try it for 5 minutes or so and if it works, great. if it doesn't, no big loss.

i gave an example. it is not a good example. please don't try to prove that the whole idea is wrong or impossible because the example i gave is not a good example.

Myself, I know diddley squat about game design and production but to me 'content' as the example above is'nt the problem. The most time consuming part of it all I imagine is trying to constantly iron out bugs trying to make as little change to the old code along the way. Given that Scawen did work for Lionhead I imagine he and Scavier have a huge contacts list at the ready, and I also imagine the various professionals among us are well known to them also.

Releasing info about the particulars and asking for help in this public forum would only cause un-needed speculation and banter/arguements , which is the last thing we want.


...I suppose at the end of the day - If you have something to say or work done simply PM any of the dev's.

*Can't wait for post #69 !

...which would be counter-productive as bringing groups of people into the different coding and work practices would take a management team of it's own(which first itself would need to be brought up to speed).

Although our intentntions are all in good faith, Scavier is renowned for being a closed and small team, if they need our help they will ask, leave em' to it.

...really

I was not under the influence at the time...just waiting for something and wanted to discuss the difference

kinda off topic, but anyway

Installshield for Microsoft Windows and the epic repo's of Linux, why so different?

Okay, so say you are at work and someone asks you to do something trivial on a linux OS, the first thing that pops into your head is 'Synaptic Package Manager' , or if you like sudo apt-get whatever you need and PaPoOOW! > the download installs(install might not even be the correct phrase?).

My point is, IE, windows and installshield have a problem, it's like neither of them want to talk to one and other and both of them are just plain ignorant to all those certificates and hand shakes flying around. Why on earth don't suppliers of interweb applications support live streaming of the packake(install.exe) to the clients installshield for instant installation? Why do we need to clutter our PC's with the bulk of the software, and why should we need to MD5 sum just about everything when if bulk were not sent in the first place they can't be tampered with resulting in everyone running about with these sums???

*Baffled*