I like it 
Nice action shots and good camera angles.
thumbs up
a dl link would be nice
Nice action shots and good camera angles.
thumbs up
a dl link would be nice
Yes if the motherboard wasn't compatible it would most likely fail to boot at all... But you know... strange things hapen in computers 
Did you try your new CPU with 1.4 or 1.45Vcore? Not nesseserily to keep it working at 1.45 but just to draw some more conclutions. (eg if this problem is realy cpu watt power related)
you said you tried to reduce the Clock speed... but still there are many ways to test the same thing.
Did you try your new CPU with 1.4 or 1.45Vcore? Not nesseserily to keep it working at 1.45 but just to draw some more conclutions. (eg if this problem is realy cpu watt power related)
you said you tried to reduce the Clock speed... but still there are many ways to test the same thing.
he says that temperatures are fine under load.
We asume that he has tested this properly for both GPU and CPU.
Also temperatures in the first screenshot look ok.
We asume that he has tested this properly for both GPU and CPU.
Also temperatures in the first screenshot look ok.
Power consumption of the fans is a lot lower comparing to what a CPU or a GPU needs... your fans could not take more than 3-5 watts. There is no way any fan speed variation could cause you this problem.
This is a bit confusing, but to me it seems more like the motherboard's incapability to support properly your new CPU.
I have searched a bit about your core and it seems that Windsor cores where released in both 125 and 89watt versions. I have found references to your core's stepping though mentioning that power consumption is 89W. So if this is true, you shouldn’t have any hardware related problem.
Having in mind that you previously used a not known to us brand PSU, and now you have a reconditioned ocz psu... it is not a bad idea to get e proper 600W PSU, even though your system could be run easily with a proper quality 400W PSU like the Corsair CX400 or the pc power and cooling silenser 420
Also try to raise your CPU vcore to 1.4V and see if it strays longer in performance mode.
Sorry arrox but this is a bit overdone. You lost completely the brakes on that last turn... That is definately a wall-made WR.
[edit]
that also goes to the leonardo555's lap too...
[edit]
that also goes to the leonardo555's lap too...
Last edited by kaynd, .
He is talking about a mode so I guess we will still play with more setup options while not being in that mode.
btw Thanks for not removing completely all options for us who find a big part of our entertainment experimenting with setups.
If money did not exist, then there wouldn’t be any sort of personal computer to write and distribute your thoughts instantly.
Apart from the smartass statement. “Money” isn’t your problem here.
Even if you where able to produce anything you need to live by your own power, you would definitely need some space to do it… Automatically space has value now and as long as you are next to some other living being that also uses space to make his living, there is a reason for killing to start… The more crowded the place gets, the more like it is for killing to start.
And there is no way to make space disappear in order to solve your problem…
It’s all about the people and how they choose to interact with others.
Money is just a mean to make trading easier. If this didn’t exist, then something else with similar effects would.
Apart from the smartass statement. “Money” isn’t your problem here.
Even if you where able to produce anything you need to live by your own power, you would definitely need some space to do it… Automatically space has value now and as long as you are next to some other living being that also uses space to make his living, there is a reason for killing to start… The more crowded the place gets, the more like it is for killing to start.
And there is no way to make space disappear in order to solve your problem…
It’s all about the people and how they choose to interact with others.
Money is just a mean to make trading easier. If this didn’t exist, then something else with similar effects would.
The video was ok.
Good for a first one, way better than many "first videos".
The 40+sec of darkness at the begining is not helping it though... I was tempted to click->x at that part.
Also it would have helped if you had placed it in the right section
Good for a first one, way better than many "first videos".
The 40+sec of darkness at the begining is not helping it though... I was tempted to click->x at that part.
Also it would have helped if you had placed it in the right section
Using videoed footage, no matter how sophisticated the method might me, seems to be the lame way for me.
I don’t believe in a future of virtual reality that consists of dead pictures captured at some given point. To me computer generated graphics that have the ability to adapt real-time is the way to go.
Getting back to that thing that is promoted as a “new technology” It just looks like a 3d environment generated by the already know laser scanning method, the only difference being that it uses real photos for environment-object textures…
Real-time generated physics are way harder to get right. What is shown in that video isn't really promising at this aspect.
I don’t believe in a future of virtual reality that consists of dead pictures captured at some given point. To me computer generated graphics that have the ability to adapt real-time is the way to go.
Getting back to that thing that is promoted as a “new technology” It just looks like a 3d environment generated by the already know laser scanning method, the only difference being that it uses real photos for environment-object textures…
Real-time generated physics are way harder to get right. What is shown in that video isn't really promising at this aspect.
I don't see the connection. At any culture at some point some animals are killed in order to feed people. This is how nature works, a man could be eaten by animals as well given the right sircumstances.
This is different... This is just a Job... Killing the animal first would actualy make the skinning prosses much easyer... But no they prefer it this way, even if it takes longer to skin an alive animal, because it's probably less borring for them to do it that way. This involves a lot of cruelty.
I think shift has better graphics than real life.
Regarding graphics, Shift is the best hands down. For many immersion seems to be good, but not for me. If I constantly spot unrealistic behaviour, immersion gets spoilt for me, no matter how good sound or the camera shaking is.
I have driven Zonda in shift and it feels like driving on glue. Don't know if real mod makes it decent. But anyway I didn't expect any NFS to be a sim. It's really ok as it’s aimed at a larger group of games than just sim racers.
Some rant just observing the video about shift.
At 0:40 where we can see the car having right wheels on grass and left wheels on tarmac and the driver going full throttle... the car doesn't show the slightest yaw change... Or at 2:27 when powering out of the corner, driver puts his outside wheels over the grass after riding hard the exit curb which is enough to unsettle the car on it's own... let alone the slippery grass. Still the car gets away without the slightest direction change.
Ok 5:31 is just ridiculous... no need to explain.
Yes I know. ESP is on. But even this doesn't do miracles like these.
This lap is full on mistakes in lines-braking and putting down the power. And still this is 20seconds faster than what an experienced racing driver does in real life.
An experienced simracer after some practice could do this in mid 6mis.
The rfacror video doesn't show any better car behaviour (but this depends on mods realy), also Forza 3 doesn't look promising with that awkward direction changes.
I have driven Zonda in shift and it feels like driving on glue. Don't know if real mod makes it decent. But anyway I didn't expect any NFS to be a sim. It's really ok as it’s aimed at a larger group of games than just sim racers.
Some rant just observing the video about shift.
At 0:40 where we can see the car having right wheels on grass and left wheels on tarmac and the driver going full throttle... the car doesn't show the slightest yaw change... Or at 2:27 when powering out of the corner, driver puts his outside wheels over the grass after riding hard the exit curb which is enough to unsettle the car on it's own... let alone the slippery grass. Still the car gets away without the slightest direction change.
Ok 5:31 is just ridiculous... no need to explain.
Yes I know. ESP is on. But even this doesn't do miracles like these.
This lap is full on mistakes in lines-braking and putting down the power. And still this is 20seconds faster than what an experienced racing driver does in real life.
An experienced simracer after some practice could do this in mid 6mis.
The rfacror video doesn't show any better car behaviour (but this depends on mods realy), also Forza 3 doesn't look promising with that awkward direction changes.
It isn't wrong to take imigrants.
Having an uncontrollable income of humans you can't support as an economic and social system is a problem. Ethnicity doesn’t matter here. It’s that fundamental reason… the very one that causes that phenomenon. Low quality of life. This is the main reason that makes immigrants leave their country.
What’s wrong with people who have not exactly the same criteria of living as you do? There is nothing wrong about the people. It’s the non intended, by any simple civilian, side effects. For “them” a slight change for the better is enough. Even if by your standards there is a quality drop of your life. If people tolerant at low quality of life become the majority then there is no way anything will go forward. Just a simplistic example that might sound silly but it doesn’t seem that silly when you are directly affected by this.
At “their” country they might get paid the equivalent of 200$ per month for the same job that in your country you get paid 2000$ For an immigrant having 5times the money he was getting at his country will be a bless. For you that kind of payment would be 50% down. So be it you might say… we live in tough times. If he can live with half the money, I can live too right? I just have to quit the frivolous spending on useless things being the silly consumer I am. So how exactly you cross a live between the frivolous spending life and a basic quality life? What is and what isn’t necessary to live? Is having a car essential? Going out with your friends? Having a hobby? What of these affects quality of life and what’s unnecessary? Is there really a subjective way to tell?
Then there comes the problem of just pure numbers. Again I say this is not matter of ethnicity. A country is built having public services that have a specific capacity. I don’t really know eg how strong is health care system in England, but having sudden waves of millions of people coming in, might stress it out to a point that some services might get restricted. Is this quality drop really necessary? I mean can’t we all work for higher capacity services? Yes we can. Is there a limit though on how fast this can improve? Yes there is. So there should be a limit of how many your country can afford to take care. There might be some ways to limit legal immigration, but what about illegal immigrants? No they aren’t problematic people. We are all human but where exactly are they going to live? Will you leave them die on streets? Now you can’t do that… So you are forced to take whatever number of immigrants it happens to come to you and try to help them all. So should you be heartless and just leave anyone outside your borders die? Hell no! But this doesn’t mean that this entire situation doesn’t cause problems.
Again. The problem is not the immigrant as a single unit. It’s the whole phenomenon.
This problematic situation is a quite obvious in countries like where I live (Greece) where there is one of the first spot any immigrant from east and south east lands to, trying to pass into Europe. Greece was already a country with problematic economy having insufficient public services way before immigrants started flowing in waves of millions right after the east block failed. Now after 15+years waves and waves of immigrants keep flowing after the resent unstable condition in Middle East.
All this in a bleeding to death economy with nearly no industry or anything significant to export in order to balance what we import.
Is this the immigrant’s fault that we are so useless as a country? Not any more than anyone else’s who lives at this country. But here comes another problem:
Political awareness.
I know that politician’s are not trusted in any country or system. This is a global fact. But here in Greece, corruption is so obvious that no one cares about it anymore. There is nothing that can be done here regarding the government owned mechanism without nearly anyone involved taking a bribe at some point. So no wonder when nearly nothing that got promised gets accomplished. And here we go to the resent trend that matters to political parties… The main goal by the strong political parties is to be likable in eyes of the less fortunate resent passengers that have arrived here potentially being future voters.
No political party being in government actually try’s to solve any problem that troubles the entire population living in Greece with immigrants included. Anyone cares just about how open-minded and caring about “human rights” looks to be. And because any action brings a reaction, there are always some yelling at the opposite side the “get all you strangers out of here” theme… giving actualy a reason for the other sided parties to brag even more about how caring about immigrants are.
And you know what? All this really works… people get manipulated that way, especially those who lived most of their lives not knowing if they are going to eat something the day that follows.
Now let’s see what some (a tiny part of any country’s population) who got the economic or the political power have to benefit from this situation.
Those who used to have a lower quality of life are less prone to demand anything more.
Easily manipulated mass with limited political awareness judging mostly based on self preservation.
The obvious… “Cheaper working hands”.
…This is really a win win situation for those being in power to take advantage of this phenomenon.
Not going to make a clear point here. Just food for thought.
Again. Any immigrant as a unit is not the problem. But being companionate and helpful does not need to make you not acknowledging that there is a problem in global scale that moves around in the form of massive immigration dropping our quality of life. (or just wait till side effects hit you)
And instead of giving only pity alms to the less fortunate that are forced to leave their country, why not trying to avoid causing problems (wars and/or economical manipulation) to these countries in the first place so they can be developed and support their own population.
Last edited by kaynd, .
The point here was not to explain what settings favor drifting.
Yes generally low or no Ackerman geometry will be better when going always with opposite lock. But only if this doesn't compromise the maximum wheel angle like it happens in LFS. As I said in my first post, In 100% parallel steering you have a maximum of 36degrees steering angle in both wheels but in 0% parallel steering->full Ackerman geometry at XRT you have 43degreese for the leading wheel and ~30degreese for the trailing wheel. So there must be a compromise between keeping the tires parallel and having maximum lock at the leading wheel.
But apart from this. I, AndRad and xaotic responded to some frivolous points cupraman tried to state using the “stfu” attitude.
A user who actualy prooved to me his quality by senting several PM's swearing at me.
mooving on
This is a simplistic approach that applies only in low rolling speeds.
While cornering in speed, none of the tires actually faces the direction it is going. Tires produce maximum grip at a certain slip percentage.
When cornering, this slip percentage is covered by the slip angle and the speed in which the tire is traveling.
The effective slip percentage of any tire depends in many aspects like the tire’s design, the compound it’s made, the temperature it’s operating, the air pressure that it keeps it inflated and the vertical load it pushes it to the ground.
Keeping it simple. The greater vertically loaded tire produces its maximum grip at a higher slip percentage (or angle if we are talking about a turn) comparing to a less loaded tire.
It’s a known fact that in a turn, while creating some lateral forces, the outside tires get loaded a lot more than the inside tires. That makes the outside tires produce their maximum grip at a higher slip angle than what the inside tires need to be effective. Here is where the anti-Ackerman geometry comes into play, (the more you steer the more toe in is applied) especially in situations when track conditions and the car's setup tend to stress the front outside tire way more than the inside.
Situation like these are met in fast tracks with wide corners using a car that has grater roll resistance at the front, and doesn't produce much downforce.
In slower tracks with tight corners where weight transfer transitions last longer and you are forced to enter corners while braking (that makes both front wheels more equally loaded), some percentage of Ackermann geometry (the more you steer the more toe out is applied) is beneficial in making the car to turn.
100% ackerman implementation would be efficient only in parking speed turning. This is the only case where a road car keeps both front wheels equaly loaded when turning. So no manufacturer realy uses it. Thats why you hear thiese tire sqealing noises while turning in parking spaces covered in that smooth surface.
Ackerman, anti-Ackerman at nearly any sensible percent or fully paralell steering, isn’t nesseserily going to make the car spin happy on its own. So no it’s not all about Ackermann, it’s a combination of several factors around suspension geometry and stiffness that play a far grater role than this.
Yes generally low or no Ackerman geometry will be better when going always with opposite lock. But only if this doesn't compromise the maximum wheel angle like it happens in LFS. As I said in my first post, In 100% parallel steering you have a maximum of 36degrees steering angle in both wheels but in 0% parallel steering->full Ackerman geometry at XRT you have 43degreese for the leading wheel and ~30degreese for the trailing wheel. So there must be a compromise between keeping the tires parallel and having maximum lock at the leading wheel.
But apart from this. I, AndRad and xaotic responded to some frivolous points cupraman tried to state using the “stfu” attitude.
A user who actualy prooved to me his quality by senting several PM's swearing at me.
mooving on
This is a simplistic approach that applies only in low rolling speeds.
While cornering in speed, none of the tires actually faces the direction it is going. Tires produce maximum grip at a certain slip percentage.
When cornering, this slip percentage is covered by the slip angle and the speed in which the tire is traveling.
The effective slip percentage of any tire depends in many aspects like the tire’s design, the compound it’s made, the temperature it’s operating, the air pressure that it keeps it inflated and the vertical load it pushes it to the ground.
Keeping it simple. The greater vertically loaded tire produces its maximum grip at a higher slip percentage (or angle if we are talking about a turn) comparing to a less loaded tire.
It’s a known fact that in a turn, while creating some lateral forces, the outside tires get loaded a lot more than the inside tires. That makes the outside tires produce their maximum grip at a higher slip angle than what the inside tires need to be effective. Here is where the anti-Ackerman geometry comes into play, (the more you steer the more toe in is applied) especially in situations when track conditions and the car's setup tend to stress the front outside tire way more than the inside.
Situation like these are met in fast tracks with wide corners using a car that has grater roll resistance at the front, and doesn't produce much downforce.
In slower tracks with tight corners where weight transfer transitions last longer and you are forced to enter corners while braking (that makes both front wheels more equally loaded), some percentage of Ackermann geometry (the more you steer the more toe out is applied) is beneficial in making the car to turn.
100% ackerman implementation would be efficient only in parking speed turning. This is the only case where a road car keeps both front wheels equaly loaded when turning. So no manufacturer realy uses it. Thats why you hear thiese tire sqealing noises while turning in parking spaces covered in that smooth surface.
Ackerman, anti-Ackerman at nearly any sensible percent or fully paralell steering, isn’t nesseserily going to make the car spin happy on its own. So no it’s not all about Ackermann, it’s a combination of several factors around suspension geometry and stiffness that play a far grater role than this.
Last edited by kaynd, .
Reason : spelling and "logic" mistakes
At first you said it's all about Ackerman... and now you say that in drifting you need paralel wheels in full lock (so no Ackermann geometry at all) And then you bring all these other aspects that indeed have a great effect on car's behaviour but do not necessarily make it unstable or hard to drive.
So this sould be an easy one for you.
Does any of thiese mods eliminate Ackerman geometry?
http://kpi.squarespace.com/steering-angle-modifications/
I still think you have a very limited understanding of what you are talking about but I am not going to bother with this anymore.
Ok ok I get it. No more talking to you Mister "engineer".
So this sould be an easy one for you.
Does any of thiese mods eliminate Ackerman geometry?
http://kpi.squarespace.com/steering-angle-modifications/
I still think you have a very limited understanding of what you are talking about but I am not going to bother with this anymore.
Ok ok I get it. No more talking to you Mister "engineer".
Where exactly in the "page of Ackermann" did you read this?
"The car in video can do only drift"
Not at all. A drift car is not neseserily an usntrable car... Ackermann geometry defines the relative difference in angles between the front two wheels according to steer radius, wheel track and wheelbase of the car. It does not determine the maximum steering angle of the wheels... let alone making the car unstable...
I didn't want to insult anyone but you are asking for it.
Stop talking about things you can barely understand.
It's the same run... You just get a different perseption from different camera angles. Only in corner entry and the first half of the corner he is holding a drift angle above 90degrees. As he powers out of the corner, he reduces the drift angle to what front wheels can cope with.
And how exactly you know in what speed Tiff's drifts are? Because he says "and here I am. ballancing in a hundred miles/hour blah blah"? He is a tv show presenter... he is supposed to exagerate in his coments to make it even more thrilling to whach.
And how exactly you know in what speed Tiff's drifts are? Because he says "and here I am. ballancing in a hundred miles/hour blah blah"? He is a tv show presenter... he is supposed to exagerate in his coments to make it even more thrilling to whach.
Last edited by kaynd, .
Well 36degrees is the steering angle for both wheels in 100% parallel steering.
eg in XRT setting the parallel steering to 0, implementing full Ackerman Geometry, the leading wheel has 43+ degrees angle and the trailing wheel ~30 degrees.
It’s still more than what most sport cars have in stock.
http://kpi.squarespace.com/steering-angle-modifications/
Looks like taking account Silvia S14 service manual page 449 or FA-15 , that S14 has similar leading wheel turning angle with XRT. Leading wheel 39-43degrees and trailing wheel 33degrees.
You need a drift purpose steering modification to have 52+degrees at the leading wheel in order to atchieve what we see in the video above.
It's not in our hands.
It's the developers choice.
For me drifting is enjoyable and challenging as it is with current steering angles.
And it is a lot more chalenging with low steering angles in general.
As for the drift vs race debade. Well it's meaningless and for sure It's not covered in simplistic examples.
There is not an objective way to mesure how big or small a mistake is in different sports. From what I have experienced a "small" mistake can put you out of races too. And from my prespective it's much easyer to cover your mistake while you are always sliding at an angle. But all this is nonesence... what makes it hard is the competition. It's a matter of how competitive your oponent/s is/are.
eg in XRT setting the parallel steering to 0, implementing full Ackerman Geometry, the leading wheel has 43+ degrees angle and the trailing wheel ~30 degrees.
It’s still more than what most sport cars have in stock.
http://kpi.squarespace.com/steering-angle-modifications/
Looks like taking account Silvia S14 service manual page 449 or FA-15 , that S14 has similar leading wheel turning angle with XRT. Leading wheel 39-43degrees and trailing wheel 33degrees.
You need a drift purpose steering modification to have 52+degrees at the leading wheel in order to atchieve what we see in the video above.
It's not in our hands.
It's the developers choice.For me drifting is enjoyable and challenging as it is with current steering angles.
And it is a lot more chalenging with low steering angles in general.
As for the drift vs race debade. Well it's meaningless and for sure It's not covered in simplistic examples.
There is not an objective way to mesure how big or small a mistake is in different sports. From what I have experienced a "small" mistake can put you out of races too. And from my prespective it's much easyer to cover your mistake while you are always sliding at an angle. But all this is nonesence... what makes it hard is the competition. It's a matter of how competitive your oponent/s is/are.
Last edited by kaynd, .
Well it’s in typical high Big time Quality 
I have seen all your previous movies but haven’t commented because I got bored to congratulate you after your first 5or so good movies.
All I would like to add, even if it is just my subjective view. I would prefer a bit more FOV and angle (not in roll) variation. EG all 8 shots from 0:12 to :17 seem to have similar FOV and in many of them the car seems to cover the same space in the frame.
Same goes with the next 10 shots from 0:18 to 0:40.
No. they don’t look all the same, but many of them seem to be similar. Now this isn’t wrong. It’s just something that gets too profound in fast pace movies like yours when shots change in less than a second.
I have seen all your previous movies but haven’t commented because I got bored to congratulate you after your first 5or so good movies.
All I would like to add, even if it is just my subjective view. I would prefer a bit more FOV and angle (not in roll) variation. EG all 8 shots from 0:12 to :17 seem to have similar FOV and in many of them the car seems to cover the same space in the frame.
Same goes with the next 10 shots from 0:18 to 0:40.
No. they don’t look all the same, but many of them seem to be similar. Now this isn’t wrong. It’s just something that gets too profound in fast pace movies like yours when shots change in less than a second.
Impressive, especially after that tire pop!
(Your audio could be in a bit lower level. It’s distorting and tried to get me def after having forgotten my speakers in a bit higher volume than usual.)
(Your audio could be in a bit lower level. It’s distorting and tried to get me def after having forgotten my speakers in a bit higher volume than usual.)
Well I tried and watched the whole video. It is boring because it’s all about the “look I can drift” thing.
From the drifting perspective: You can hold a drift angle for long enough which is pretty easy in current LFS physics, especially in FZ5. But that’s it. Lines are kind of random and especially corner exits (you are supposed to straighten the car as you reach corner exit if you don’t have to hold another line for the next corner.)
As for the video:
I can see some interesting custom cameras but they are all with that huge FOV. The car should cover a significant amount of our screen in order to see it. A camera that has enough FOV to cover everything you want to show us in a single shot is not a solution here, unless your point is to show us the track and not the car action.
If you make another video, try and use the camera in a more effective way.
Music and basic effects are not so hard to implement. Just don’t start throwing around random effects or fast pace music with slow video action.
As for quality, try to stay in 32bits and use as low resolution as it needs to run so you can record. It may look awful in your screen but for a video even 640*480 is enough.
From the drifting perspective: You can hold a drift angle for long enough which is pretty easy in current LFS physics, especially in FZ5. But that’s it. Lines are kind of random and especially corner exits (you are supposed to straighten the car as you reach corner exit if you don’t have to hold another line for the next corner.)
As for the video:
I can see some interesting custom cameras but they are all with that huge FOV. The car should cover a significant amount of our screen in order to see it. A camera that has enough FOV to cover everything you want to show us in a single shot is not a solution here, unless your point is to show us the track and not the car action.
If you make another video, try and use the camera in a more effective way.
Music and basic effects are not so hard to implement. Just don’t start throwing around random effects or fast pace music with slow video action.
As for quality, try to stay in 32bits and use as low resolution as it needs to run so you can record. It may look awful in your screen but for a video even 640*480 is enough.
Yes that’s why I clearly state in my previous post that {nothing is a straight line here like “the more the better” or “the less the better” }.
Going full throttle at low rpm is comparable inefficient to going with too low throttle at high rpm. (By “throttle” I mean the pedal control of the car. Recent advanced engine management systems try to hold the electronically controlled butterfly valve as open as possible, trying to alter engine load by fuel mixture, ignition timing and valve lift-timing)
Last edited by kaynd, .
Theoretically this shouldn’t be the way for an engine to work efficiently. (I understand you might know all these but this post is not just an answer to you)
More revs and less throttle increase energy consumption cause of pump loses. Internal combustion engines basically work like air pumps. Keeping the intake restricted while revs build up just increases the energy that pump needs in order to turn.
Ideally you’d want to run an engine with no "butterfly" resisting air flow at the intake, adjusting fuel mixture in order to modulate power output.
But this is not always possible because lean mixtures (a little fuel - a lot of air) tend to either not combust at all or combust too violently in a way that no engine can handle it.
The "violence" of air-fuel combustion depends on many aspects but mainly in temperature, pressure and mixture distribution existing in the combustion chamber.
Fuel management systems take account all these aspects and provide the proper air fuel ratio. Lean enough fuel mixtures for cruising speeds in mid rpm in part throttle operation, and rich enough mixtures for safely produced maximum power-torque in the whole rpm range at full throttle.
Because the engine works like a pump, by restricting air supply intake, vacuum increases and so combustion chamber pressure decreases.
The less combustion chamber pressure - the less prone fuel mixture is to combust "violently". But also the more like to not combust at all
(So nothing is a straight line here like “the more the better” or “the less the better”…)
Fuel management system is programmed to go as lean as possible in part throttle operation and that justifies the lower fuel consumption while keeping the intake restricted even in an inefficient way like the butterfly valve.
Id say keep the lower rpm that allow you to accelerate lively by not using more than 50% throttle.
Same goes with cruising. Keep the lower possible rpm that allow you to use low throttle (arround 20%) in order to maintain your speed.
But really this depends on your car's fuel management mapping and the air induction technology it uses.
Speaking about less that 1000rpm difference between gears:
Definitely the gear that allows you to travel with noticeably less throttle will let your fuel management system use less fuel.
If the difference in throttle position is not noticeable I’d say stick with lower rpm.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG