My processor has never throttled at all, either it is defective, or its one odd prescott that doesn't do it. Like I said, CPU-z says it doesn't support throttling.
I was warned by a Computer Tech shortly after I got the computer that the 3.2 prescott HT generates retarded amounts of heat, but at the same time, I was told I HAD to increase my voltage because its also power hungry.
I upgraded my power supply not even a week after I got it because the original one coulden't keep up, and then a month later I upgraded my cooler and added three extra fans and a side fan just to keep the thing cool, otherwhise it would hit critical and my computer would hard lock.
That is the first and last computer I will ever buy pre built, I usualy build my own, but for that one I got lazy and had someone else do it, and I paid for it in the end. Problem is, I'm way behind in my knowlege of parts, the last CPUs I know the particulars on are the last P4s.
I upgraded my power supply not even a week after I got it because the original one coulden't keep up, and then a month later I upgraded my cooler and added three extra fans and a side fan just to keep the thing cool, otherwhise it would hit critical and my computer would hard lock.
That is the first and last computer I will ever buy pre built, I usualy build my own, but for that one I got lazy and had someone else do it, and I paid for it in the end. Problem is, I'm way behind in my knowlege of parts, the last CPUs I know the particulars on are the last P4s.
I actualy built the internal workings for a shifter out of k-nex and made a lego case and gates for it, for centering I used rubber bands.
Rubber bands work well, but if you pre-load the springs, they won't warp or bend when you move the stick. They have to be stretched so that when the stick is in any possition they are still loaded.
Rubber bands work well, but if you pre-load the springs, they won't warp or bend when you move the stick. They have to be stretched so that when the stick is in any possition they are still loaded.
well my system said 100c and it's been pretty accurate, so I would assume that it actualy hit or was close to 100c.
My CPU doesn't seem to throttle at all, It never has. I've had it at 80c and it didn't even drop one Mhz.
CPU-z actualy says that my CPU doesn't support throttling.
lately though it hasn't been getting nearly that hot, I've added alot of extra cooling. Prescotts get realy hot no matter what, my computer used to actualy heat my room in the winter.
My CPU doesn't seem to throttle at all, It never has. I've had it at 80c and it didn't even drop one Mhz.
CPU-z actualy says that my CPU doesn't support throttling.
lately though it hasn't been getting nearly that hot, I've added alot of extra cooling. Prescotts get realy hot no matter what, my computer used to actualy heat my room in the winter.
Last edited by DragonCommando, .
If you haven't noticed any slowdowns you are very lucky then, or your CPU is realy good at error correction.
About damn time, I am so happy I can finaly use my horn button 
joking aside it realy is about damn time. I can't wait to start using all the cool controlls.
I'm going to write a new review on this wheel soon, probably just after I install the new drivers and test them.
joking aside it realy is about damn time. I can't wait to start using all the cool controlls.
I'm going to write a new review on this wheel soon, probably just after I install the new drivers and test them.
Even though the clock is staying the same, there will be internal errors because of how the CPU works.
CPU's use two voltages to do what they do, they call them Logic High, and Logic Low. these are 1 and 0 respectively.
If you run the CPU voltage too low it will start running into errors where it gets a low voltage (0) on a logic gate that should be high (1). you won't get instability right away because of internal error correction, but it will hurt the performance of the processor because it has to spend time to correct errors.
My prescott had majour problems with this before I upped the voltage, it got bad enough that I had loop errors that would completely hard lock the computer under load.
If the processor is designed to run at a set voltage, it should be run at that voltage.
CPU's use two voltages to do what they do, they call them Logic High, and Logic Low. these are 1 and 0 respectively.
If you run the CPU voltage too low it will start running into errors where it gets a low voltage (0) on a logic gate that should be high (1). you won't get instability right away because of internal error correction, but it will hurt the performance of the processor because it has to spend time to correct errors.
My prescott had majour problems with this before I upped the voltage, it got bad enough that I had loop errors that would completely hard lock the computer under load.
If the processor is designed to run at a set voltage, it should be run at that voltage.
The problem with running the CPU lower is you lose performance long before you actualy get low enough to be unstable.
For my 3.2ghz prescott HT I have to have the voltage increased to get optimum performance because the CPU is power hungry.
62º C under load is nothing, most CPUs run quite comfortably at that temperature these days. They make them to handel higher temps because most people wont bother to get realy good cooling.
As long as the case temp stays below 40º C the computer will be fine.
It's temperatures above 70º C you have to worry about, I had my prescott up to 100º C one time before I upgraded my CPU cooler. I was told the old one would be enough, my CPU didn't seem to think so.
As for less power consumption, thats negligable as far as power savings goes, especialy at the CPU.
For my 3.2ghz prescott HT I have to have the voltage increased to get optimum performance because the CPU is power hungry.
62º C under load is nothing, most CPUs run quite comfortably at that temperature these days. They make them to handel higher temps because most people wont bother to get realy good cooling.
As long as the case temp stays below 40º C the computer will be fine.
It's temperatures above 70º C you have to worry about, I had my prescott up to 100º C one time before I upgraded my CPU cooler. I was told the old one would be enough, my CPU didn't seem to think so.
As for less power consumption, thats negligable as far as power savings goes, especialy at the CPU.
More polygons won't make anything look better realy, and all it will do is increase rendering time, which will decrease frame rate.
LFS's cars are already pretty high poly as far as I'm concerned. The hoods of the cars even have edges instead of just being textured to look like they are seperated, they actualy are.
The one nice thing about LFS is that the cars are made well enough that the lighting can be done completely in the game, so you don't realy need the shading in the textures. This is something alot of other games don't have, they ususaly use alot of textures to make out the details, where LFS uses actual geometry to add the same details.
LFS's cars are already pretty high poly as far as I'm concerned. The hoods of the cars even have edges instead of just being textured to look like they are seperated, they actualy are.
The one nice thing about LFS is that the cars are made well enough that the lighting can be done completely in the game, so you don't realy need the shading in the textures. This is something alot of other games don't have, they ususaly use alot of textures to make out the details, where LFS uses actual geometry to add the same details.
You could always use my realistic ones, they use absolutely no new sounds exept for the shift sound, everything else was adjusted but not changed.
I made every car sound as close to the real thing as possible, basing it off the cars they are based on.
http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=51238
The road cars are quite, but they sound right.
I made every car sound as close to the real thing as possible, basing it off the cars they are based on.
http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=51238
The road cars are quite, but they sound right.
My setup is completely dependent on what I'm doing at the moment, but most of the time I run a simple one.
Amp/subwoofer: Monsoon MM1000
Speaker wires: Solid core theater wires.
Speakers: (name to long to remember)
The speakers I use only play Mid-high fequency and everything else is on the sub. I can't understand why people would buy speakers that have massive drivers for low frequency and then run a sub anyway, it just makes the bass over powered. For me its one or the other, never both.
I don't spend that much on audio equipment because if you know how to set up an equalizer properly you shouldent need to spend retarded amounts of money on speakers to get good sound. I'm not saying cheap speakers are good, but there are alot of mid priced ones that perform better when set up proprely than some of the "high end" garbage.
Amp/subwoofer: Monsoon MM1000
Speaker wires: Solid core theater wires.
Speakers: (name to long to remember)
The speakers I use only play Mid-high fequency and everything else is on the sub. I can't understand why people would buy speakers that have massive drivers for low frequency and then run a sub anyway, it just makes the bass over powered. For me its one or the other, never both.
I don't spend that much on audio equipment because if you know how to set up an equalizer properly you shouldent need to spend retarded amounts of money on speakers to get good sound. I'm not saying cheap speakers are good, but there are alot of mid priced ones that perform better when set up proprely than some of the "high end" garbage.
The first lands of lore was a good graphic adventure, it has some RPG elements but its a damn good adventure/combat game.
just look for a copy of Lands of lore: throne of chaos. You need a dos emulator to play it.
There's also Shadow Caster, thats sort of the same as LoL:ToC, but it doesn't have the RPG element to it. I only played it a bit but its also a Dos one and is very good.
They don't make these kinds of games anymore, and its very unfortunate, because these are some of the best games I played when I was younger.
just look for a copy of Lands of lore: throne of chaos. You need a dos emulator to play it.
There's also Shadow Caster, thats sort of the same as LoL:ToC, but it doesn't have the RPG element to it. I only played it a bit but its also a Dos one and is very good.
They don't make these kinds of games anymore, and its very unfortunate, because these are some of the best games I played when I was younger.
Wow, way to jump the gun guys.
You know, this whole thing of instantly calling a demo player a cracker the second they mention something you think they shoulden't know about is realy getting old. Why don't you leave it to the moderators to make those judgements. Instead of acting like a bunch of school kids calling names.
You know, this whole thing of instantly calling a demo player a cracker the second they mention something you think they shoulden't know about is realy getting old. Why don't you leave it to the moderators to make those judgements. Instead of acting like a bunch of school kids calling names.
I still will not admit that having restricted access will ward off attacks.
I have always had admin on all of my computers and I have NEVER had a virus or any kind of bug. I always protect my computer properly.
My friend who has restricted access has had at one point at least 3 virus infections at the same time, and I coulden't remove them because of restricted rights, and the virus took advantage of that even. It increased the restriction level so the computer basicaly became a usless brick.
The end result of which was a complete format without being able to back up anything.
Restricted rights is just another way to take controll away from the user and put it into the hands of microsoft.
And as for LFS storing user data anywhere else than its own folder, that would be adding extra work for anyone who changes opperating systems, since every one seems to store files like that in a differently named folder structure. It would be best just to leave LFS self contained and remind people that LFS's files are stored in a sub directory inside the LFS folder.
Even storing user data online would be a much better idea than putting it somewhere outside of the LFS folder.
I have always had admin on all of my computers and I have NEVER had a virus or any kind of bug. I always protect my computer properly.
My friend who has restricted access has had at one point at least 3 virus infections at the same time, and I coulden't remove them because of restricted rights, and the virus took advantage of that even. It increased the restriction level so the computer basicaly became a usless brick.
The end result of which was a complete format without being able to back up anything.
Restricted rights is just another way to take controll away from the user and put it into the hands of microsoft.
And as for LFS storing user data anywhere else than its own folder, that would be adding extra work for anyone who changes opperating systems, since every one seems to store files like that in a differently named folder structure. It would be best just to leave LFS self contained and remind people that LFS's files are stored in a sub directory inside the LFS folder.
Even storing user data online would be a much better idea than putting it somewhere outside of the LFS folder.
I personaly hate not having full rights to my OWN computer and I turn off anything that limits those rights. I am by no means a computer expert but I do have the common sense to not bugger things up.
The only reason people need to have thier hands held when they use thier own computer is because they lack the sense to think "If I delete this it might kill my OS".
If it wheren't for people like that windows would be alot less cluttered with wizards and helpers that do nothing more than piss off experianced users.
If I could go back to windows 98se I would in an instant, but do to something microsoft somehow calls "progress" I can't.
I mean seriously, how is making things more complicated for people progress, sometimes I feel like I'm using some kind of nightmare interface where it just bombards you with usless information and prompts.
I want my DOS back
.
The only reason people need to have thier hands held when they use thier own computer is because they lack the sense to think "If I delete this it might kill my OS".
If it wheren't for people like that windows would be alot less cluttered with wizards and helpers that do nothing more than piss off experianced users.
If I could go back to windows 98se I would in an instant, but do to something microsoft somehow calls "progress" I can't.
I mean seriously, how is making things more complicated for people progress, sometimes I feel like I'm using some kind of nightmare interface where it just bombards you with usless information and prompts.
I want my DOS back
.Then let me re-state that, ABS should stay an option in LFS.
I find that most of your points are quite the opposite for me.
The FF in LFS is very realistic, having actualy been in a slide before I can definately say that the steering does become completely loose, and it will counter on its own to some degree.
Going off the track with two wheels isn't all that uncommon, and will not be unforgiving unless you don't know how to handel it, I have never once spun because a wheel or two whent off the track.
The damage model on LFS will eventualy be a very realistic and detailed one, we just have to wait.
iRacing is crazy because they don't expect to sell alot of the game, so they raise the price to compensate for low sales. Its much like alot of other software that isn't expected to sell alot.
The FF in LFS is very realistic, having actualy been in a slide before I can definately say that the steering does become completely loose, and it will counter on its own to some degree.
Going off the track with two wheels isn't all that uncommon, and will not be unforgiving unless you don't know how to handel it, I have never once spun because a wheel or two whent off the track.
The damage model on LFS will eventualy be a very realistic and detailed one, we just have to wait.
iRacing is crazy because they don't expect to sell alot of the game, so they raise the price to compensate for low sales. Its much like alot of other software that isn't expected to sell alot.
Unfortunately, the sidewinder wheel is not supported by the 64bit version of vista, I actual went to microsoft about it, and it isn't properly supported.
The only newer OS I've seen it work correctly on, with full features like split pedals, is my computer with XP 32bit.
The only newer OS I've seen it work correctly on, with full features like split pedals, is my computer with XP 32bit.
I say ABS should be an option in LFS, but it should be realistic to the car, ABS on the starion (xrt/xrg) should be rear wheels only and single channel.
As far as the debate about what ABS is designed for, I already stated the facts, the REAL facts. ABS is NOT designed to stop your car, it IS designed to give you steering control/prevent spins.
On the starion the implementation of ABS was intended to prevent the car from spinning when you mashed on the brakes and turned the wheel, the front wheels could still lock if you realy pushed on the pedal, but the rears would not, allowing you to get maximum brake force from the front wheels without locking the rears.
The problem with that was that drivers would just mash the pedal and lock the fronts, so future systems included the fronts in the ABS system. A car stopping faster from ABS is a happy accident of the design and not its intended function.
I started this debate when I tried to tell people the truth about ABS, this is not something I just said because I belived it true, I learned this information while working on and learning about brake systems. Any experianced mechanic who has read the proper books on ABS systems will tell you exactly the same as I have. I have yet to find any book that says ABS is to stop the car faster, they all say it is designed to allow steering control in a panic situation.
As a note on that, NEVER listen to car dealers about what things in your car do, they will almost always give you wrong or incomplete information.
I realy hope people will listen to me, I have read the books, looked at the studies and talked to people with alot more knowlege/experiance about it than myself, and they all say the same.
Lets just put this one to bed people, shall we?
As far as the debate about what ABS is designed for, I already stated the facts, the REAL facts. ABS is NOT designed to stop your car, it IS designed to give you steering control/prevent spins.
On the starion the implementation of ABS was intended to prevent the car from spinning when you mashed on the brakes and turned the wheel, the front wheels could still lock if you realy pushed on the pedal, but the rears would not, allowing you to get maximum brake force from the front wheels without locking the rears.
The problem with that was that drivers would just mash the pedal and lock the fronts, so future systems included the fronts in the ABS system. A car stopping faster from ABS is a happy accident of the design and not its intended function.
I started this debate when I tried to tell people the truth about ABS, this is not something I just said because I belived it true, I learned this information while working on and learning about brake systems. Any experianced mechanic who has read the proper books on ABS systems will tell you exactly the same as I have. I have yet to find any book that says ABS is to stop the car faster, they all say it is designed to allow steering control in a panic situation.
As a note on that, NEVER listen to car dealers about what things in your car do, they will almost always give you wrong or incomplete information.
I realy hope people will listen to me, I have read the books, looked at the studies and talked to people with alot more knowlege/experiance about it than myself, and they all say the same.
Lets just put this one to bed people, shall we?
The only thing I have any input on is engine braking, I noticed it's not very strong on alot of the cars. however, there are variables at play that would determine how strong the engine braking is.
I don't know all of these variables, so I don't know how strong the engine braking should be.
Engine braking comes from one main force, vacuum. Some people say its compression but thats because the term compression braking is misleading. Compression braking is actualy quite the opposite, it should be called vacuum braking.
Compression acts as a spring and will NOT slow down a car, thats why diesel engines are fitted with special equipment, they can not engine brake on thier own. A diesel engine requires a compression release brake because the compression will spring back and return most of the energy it took, not to mention the fact that the engine is still running and defeating compression anyway.
Compression, or De-compression braking is the effect of manifold vacuum on the speed of an engine. When the throttle closses and the engine is at a high RPM the speed of the engine is going to instantly want to return to idle, the engine basicaly becomes a pump, it has to suck as much air through the idle port on the throttle plate as it can. Since the idle port is only big enough to allow enough air through for the engine to idle it will build up alot of vacuum in the intake. This vacuum will act on the piston faces as the engine turns, slowing it down very quickly.
Now there is one majour factor that plays a big roll in the actual braking force generated by the vacuum, piston shape. This is the variable that I don't know in LFS.
The braking force will not always go up when displacement does, but the Bore:Stroke ratio will always effect braking.
Take a 1L engine as an example, the same displacement with larger pistons and a shorter stroke will generate more engine braking than an engine with a longer stroke and smaller pistons, even though they are the same displacement. This is because the vacuum has more surface area to act on. Engine braking happens on the Intake stroke, not the compression stroke.
As it stands I don't know how in depth the engine simulation in LFS is, its possible engine braking is just a variable and currently has nothing to do with physics, if this is so, I think the engine simulation needs some work.
I don't know all of these variables, so I don't know how strong the engine braking should be.
Engine braking comes from one main force, vacuum. Some people say its compression but thats because the term compression braking is misleading. Compression braking is actualy quite the opposite, it should be called vacuum braking.
Compression acts as a spring and will NOT slow down a car, thats why diesel engines are fitted with special equipment, they can not engine brake on thier own. A diesel engine requires a compression release brake because the compression will spring back and return most of the energy it took, not to mention the fact that the engine is still running and defeating compression anyway.
Compression, or De-compression braking is the effect of manifold vacuum on the speed of an engine. When the throttle closses and the engine is at a high RPM the speed of the engine is going to instantly want to return to idle, the engine basicaly becomes a pump, it has to suck as much air through the idle port on the throttle plate as it can. Since the idle port is only big enough to allow enough air through for the engine to idle it will build up alot of vacuum in the intake. This vacuum will act on the piston faces as the engine turns, slowing it down very quickly.
Now there is one majour factor that plays a big roll in the actual braking force generated by the vacuum, piston shape. This is the variable that I don't know in LFS.
The braking force will not always go up when displacement does, but the Bore:Stroke ratio will always effect braking.
Take a 1L engine as an example, the same displacement with larger pistons and a shorter stroke will generate more engine braking than an engine with a longer stroke and smaller pistons, even though they are the same displacement. This is because the vacuum has more surface area to act on. Engine braking happens on the Intake stroke, not the compression stroke.
As it stands I don't know how in depth the engine simulation in LFS is, its possible engine braking is just a variable and currently has nothing to do with physics, if this is so, I think the engine simulation needs some work.
I appologize for not responding sooner, My internet was cut off at home. I'm on a laptop right now.
I'll post the replays and layout in a new thread at some point.
Also, the Mitsubishi starion (which the XRG/XRT is based on) only had single channel anti-lock on the rear wheels.
I find it odd they would put it only on the rears, but thats what all my sources say.
I have done 4 replays with a layout I call Lock and Pop test, I did a no ABS lock and pop, an ABS steering maneuver, and straight stop with both (and crashed with both doing it).
I also set up my car like a Starion, that means moderately loose suspension and Starion ratios.
The thing is, I've never posted replays before. So I have a question, do I need to post the setup and layout files as well, or is that in the save file somehow?
I find it odd they would put it only on the rears, but thats what all my sources say.
I have done 4 replays with a layout I call Lock and Pop test, I did a no ABS lock and pop, an ABS steering maneuver, and straight stop with both (and crashed with both doing it).
I also set up my car like a Starion, that means moderately loose suspension and Starion ratios.
The thing is, I've never posted replays before. So I have a question, do I need to post the setup and layout files as well, or is that in the save file somehow?
Last edited by DragonCommando, .
As an explination for why race car drivers tap the brakes before a corner.
As the brakes cool down from the last corner parts and fluids shrink, with anything when you heat it up it expands and when it cools it shrinks. What they are doing is removing the slack in the pads so the whole system is ready to apply force.
If they didn't do that they could have to re-pump the brakes and lose valuble time or run off the track.
As for the flatshifting, there is an ignition cut , I can't remember for sure, but I think its actualy a button on the shifter. I heard that somewhere but I can't be sure it's right. There is an ignition cut though, I know that for sure.
Edit: here it is: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=8TjO_hi8woQ&NR=1 micro switch on the shifter, it cuts spark.
LOL, rollbar adjustment from IN THE CAR, thats just an awsome feature I would love to have.
When he shifts without the clutch he's just letting things line up in the transmission as he doesn't need to double clutch if he doesn't clutch at all. I have driven like this before, I only use the clutch for starts and stops, everything else can be rev matched.
As the brakes cool down from the last corner parts and fluids shrink, with anything when you heat it up it expands and when it cools it shrinks. What they are doing is removing the slack in the pads so the whole system is ready to apply force.
If they didn't do that they could have to re-pump the brakes and lose valuble time or run off the track.
As for the flatshifting, there is an ignition cut , I can't remember for sure, but I think its actualy a button on the shifter. I heard that somewhere but I can't be sure it's right. There is an ignition cut though, I know that for sure.
Edit: here it is: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=8TjO_hi8woQ&NR=1 micro switch on the shifter, it cuts spark.
LOL, rollbar adjustment from IN THE CAR, thats just an awsome feature I would love to have.
When he shifts without the clutch he's just letting things line up in the transmission as he doesn't need to double clutch if he doesn't clutch at all. I have driven like this before, I only use the clutch for starts and stops, everything else can be rev matched.
Last edited by DragonCommando, .
He was accelerating through gears with a blip of the throttle and it sounded like he was planting it.
Totaly awsome sound, but I wouldent want to pay for the fuel.I recently got a Driving Force GT, you can read my review here:
http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=51314
I would recommend this wheel, Its got 900º steering, FFB thats on par or better than the G25s, and its built realy well.
http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=51314
I would recommend this wheel, Its got 900º steering, FFB thats on par or better than the G25s, and its built realy well.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG