I started the race for our team in SO4R in GTAL 2010, starting about midpack and don't recall any slowdowns. I will test again this evening though just to be sure (and also watch from last on the grid).
The Q6600 is quite literally two E6600 cores on the same die. The Q6600 has 2x4MB of L2 cache but each core can only access its associated 4MB, so performance there will be exactly the same as an E6600 under ideal conditions. I think the Q6600 will have a slight advantage of background tasks are being computed on one of the cores not sharing the 4MB with the LFS core, but that's it.
That review by Eza is really nice, and does look like I am mistaken in theory. In most of his tests (from 2.5 year old computers) the minimum fps was about ~55 (low end) and 70-80fps (high end, of 2.5 year old computers). Hardly any need for multithreading there.
The Q6600 is quite literally two E6600 cores on the same die. The Q6600 has 2x4MB of L2 cache but each core can only access its associated 4MB, so performance there will be exactly the same as an E6600 under ideal conditions. I think the Q6600 will have a slight advantage of background tasks are being computed on one of the cores not sharing the 4MB with the LFS core, but that's it.
That review by Eza is really nice, and does look like I am mistaken in theory. In most of his tests (from 2.5 year old computers) the minimum fps was about ~55 (low end) and 70-80fps (high end, of 2.5 year old computers). Hardly any need for multithreading there.
Last edited by pik_d, .
Well your single used core is better than mine, your GPU is better than mine (8800 GTS 512), I'll guess your resolution is higher than mine (1440x900)? If that's the case then again, it's a graphics issue, not a CPU issue.
Also I would think adding more cars to be drawn (especially standing on a starting grids when there's not much physics to be calculated) would ask more of the graphics card than the CPU. I could be wrong though.
Edit: Don't get me wrong, multithreading would be welcome, as it would allow more CPU intense stuff to be added to the game, I just don't think it will make much of a difference if nothing else changed.
Last edited by pik_d, .
They could have predicted that 3 months ago, that's just how Malaysia works.
Something isn't right with that because my Q6600 (same on a per-core basis) at the stock 2.4GHz never has any issues. I leave vsync on to reduce tearing and it never deviates from 60fps even with a full grid. Without knowing the rest of your system though it's hard to say what the issue might be.
And as soon as you give it multithreading any integrated graphics in a netbook will bottleneck just as hard as a 1GHz CPU. Sorry but that setup just wont game with any decent FPS no matter what.
If this is really your computer try something. Run a replay file at native resolution and then again at the lowest resolution you can make it run without changing any other settings. If there's any difference in framerate then it's the integrated graphics holding it back and multithreading wont do jack. If the framerate is 4fps in both tests then multithreading will give you at max 8fps which still looks like a slideshow.
The community as a whole does not see a host that mimics the name of another host as legitimate. You're the terrorist here, no one has any sympathy toward you. Thanks for making yourself look like a massive tool on the forums as well as the server list.
What :| Maybe post the original Russian so someone bilingual can translate properly.
Google translated
Что? : | Может быть, после оригинальной русской так кто-то двуязычного можете перевести правильно.
It's almost as if you didn't even read my posts.
Pretty sure you're missing the point of him asking for his stuff to be reset, he didn't want it saved.
Either way it is painfully obvious that he has driven more miles/laps than his totals say. If you deny this you are deliberately ignoring facts. Who cares if the PDF has huge spacing issues, and why would Victor (assuming him because it's a LFSW thing) use a header? It's a 3 man team not a corporation.
But yes, that conversation is over, you were wrong about something and it's annoying for people who haven't driven much to ask for new content, nothing changes.
Pretty sure you're missing the point of him asking for his stuff to be reset, he didn't want it saved.
Either way it is painfully obvious that he has driven more miles/laps than his totals say. If you deny this you are deliberately ignoring facts. Who cares if the PDF has huge spacing issues, and why would Victor (assuming him because it's a LFSW thing) use a header? It's a 3 man team not a corporation.
But yes, that conversation is over, you were wrong about something and it's annoying for people who haven't driven much to ask for new content, nothing changes.
Don't be thick dadge, his stats were clearly reset. His total laps says 1508 while if you add up all his BL1 laps its 2272. The stat reset can't just erase him from races because that would mess up other peoples stats. And it looks like it can't delete the number of laps driven on a combo by combo basis either for whatever reason. I've got a feeling if you added up only the laps for the combos that he has a time for it would equal 1508, but I can't be bothered to do that and I doubt you can either
I'm only asking this because I'm curious. In your stats it has a bunch of blanks for the lap times, but it still has a # of laps driven. For other drivers it has grayed out lap times to indicate that the lap was set on an old patch with old physics. For your stuff, did they actually delete everything, or did it still list # of laps immediately after they deleted all the lap times and stuff?
EDIT: actually looking at it closer that must be what it is. It says you've done 1508 laps total but if you add up just your BL1 laps (including those with blank times) it comes to 2272.
Last edited by pik_d, .
I am curious though, how many turns do you label in AS4/5/6?
Though what's interesting about it is that it agrees with neither of us, giving the AS2 layout 5 numbers for turns, not my 4 or your 7 (which, retroactively, is what my point of that post was).
Or we could use NDRs rather odd "number every corner of every track" map:
So the first real turn is T1, the first fast chicane is T2 and T3, then the second fast chicane is T4 and T5, T6 is... that bend leading up to T7? That's as much of a turn as the two minor bends before the real T1.
If you want to claim that AS2 has 8 turns then how many does AS6 have? 40? This is what I mean when I say it's easier to label a chicane as "T2" in its entirety. Watching a lap of XFR/AS2 (WR lap) I count 12 distinct apexes (there are two on the bend before the final hairpin). I suppose at some point it's all objective unless you define a full set of all-encompassing rules. One mans turn is another mans minor kink/bend that doesn't need a number.
Two (or more) apexes in a chicane, I'll agree, but it's much easier (for numbering) to say "a chicane is a type of turn which contains two (or more) apexes on the opposite sides of the track" and just call them T2 an T3, and the final turn T4.
I was going by whats up on LFS Manual: http://en.lfsmanual.net/wiki/Tracks:Aston#Club. I'm sorry but AS2 does not have 7 turns.
I don't think "flat out" is a gear, and T4 isn't flat out all the way through, only on exit. Also the correct answer is you shouldn't be in an XFR (or UFR as it magically changed to in bunder's answer) because it's a horrible car. A FOX or TBO is much more fun there. I'd say since T4 is pretty slow it's probably a 2nd gear corner for most cars with reasonable setups but driving is more about feel and instinct than memory so that's a silly question.
Though I agree with you on your other stuff, I've driven quite a lot of combos and can still find ways to have fun. It's a bit annoying when people who haven't done half or even a quarter [edit: haha guess I was being conservative with 1/2 and 1/4, it's more like 1/15th
] as much moan about "old content". In the end it doesn't matter because I'm sure a lot of us who have driven tons of combos want another 'S' worth of new content, I know I do. What's it matter if a few people who have to claim they've done offline "racing" want new content?
Last edited by pik_d, .
Actually It can get worse. Red Bull could add KERS and get even faster, therefor making the 107% time harder to reach. The teams at the front have much more money than HRT and even though HRT are in a position where they can make big gains easily (because there is much to gain) they are openly talking about money issues and it's only the first round.
Saying 2 seconds or 4 seconds off 107% makes it sound much nicer since it's a shorter track. Malaysia is a bit longer so I wouldn't be surprised to see them 3-6 seconds off pace.
My point is that your original statement used "pencil and paper" as the part that's left out of their design process when they say "entirely CFD/CAD" when actually what's left out is the wind tunnel usage. I have no idea if they use pencil and paper for sketches, but I'd be surprised if it was used much at all when CAD is much more advanced/easy to send around and modify/send to the molding machines.
Well that's good because it looks like nothing so far.
I don't see how they could have closed the gap when they've done no track testing outside of the first qualifying session and a few shakedown laps. Besides, they showed up with a front wing that couldn't pass the safety test, that doesn't seem like "closing the gap" to me.Did you ever get this fixed? Do you still need help?
Because part of the point of endurance racing is dealing with slower/faster classes than you. Formula One is one formula of cars, not F1 and F1.5.
That remark was in reference to Alonso moaning constantly last season about the backmarkers. I'm sure he'd have gotten around them eventually.
The fact are that, unlike everyone else, they were not prepared for what was supposed to be the second race, don't have enough funding, and just barely got their cars on the track long enough to confirm everyone's suspicion that they're slow and dangerous.
"Wow they got realllly close (they didn't they were still like 2 seconds off I believe) to qualifying without much running time" is not a good fact. It's bad from every angle.
That would have been dangerous though. The track would have flooded due to Alonso's tears from being held up by too many backmarkers.
And there were better options, Dallara or Prodrive would have both been much better options. I suspect the entrance was more about money though.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG