EDIT: I feel stupid. Problem solved - in about 13 seconds... lol.

Last edited by Stang70Fastback, Wed 13 Feb 2008, 01:28.

Lol - don't worry. I can do simple conversions

Don't know too much about what site you could use to buy from in the UK...

Any Seagate drives I would recommend. I just know the Barracudas are what most people get (I have four!)
If you want to have a backup, there's certainly no harm in getting two of them and creating a Raid 1 setup. I've got four drives setup like this:

|Drive 1 - 320 Gb| + |Drive 2 - 320 Gb| => |Drive 1 - 640 Gb|
|Drive 3 - 320 Gb| + |Drive 4 - 320 Gb| => |Drive 2 - 640 Gb|

Drives 1 and 2 are linked to show up as 1 large drive, and same for 3 and 4. That way I see 1 640 Gb drive, and everything on that is mirrored onto another 2 drives in the same format. Gets you faster read/write times and redundancy in case a HDD ever fails, which is especially useful if you have Maxtor drives

For RAM, I will time and again recommend the Corsair DDR2-800 2x1Gb pack at 4-4-4-12 timings. Great RAM, great price.

As for the HDDs. Maxtor may have been the only drive to not fail on you, but they're the only drive to have managed to fail with everyone else, lol. Seagate Barracuda Perpendicular-Recording drives are the way to go - any size you want!

As for the cooler, I'm using this on my AM2 FX-62 - and it works like a charm!

Wow... that's fairly odd. Just out of curiosity, what was the power rating of the PSU and what brand?

Quote from garph :

was it overclocked?

LOL.

No, in all seriousness though, try re-seating the RAM, and perhaps the CPU. Also, check that the CPU is being cooled correctly. Sounds almost like in the time it takes to boot to that point, your CPU may be getting too hot?

Other causes may be corrupt files in the registry - but IDK, or loose wires, or maybe even a bad PSU?

Quote from atlantian :

^ergo, i say that ebrakes are for people who are too afraid to do anything, it's too predictable

Well, there are a lot of times when a more predictable maneuver is desired. Besides, I think with a bit of practice, you can learn to be just as "predictable" when initiating a drift by flicking the car as you can be by pulling the handbrake. I personally don't find that flicking the car requires that much more skill than pulling the handbrake anyway. Sure the rear end slides out more abruptly, but if you really have a lot of trouble controlling it that way, you're not likely to fare THAT much better with the other method.

But maybe not - hell if I know

Quote from atlantian :

you know that's the most dangerous thing i could think of at the time right? that was to taunt people, because i am pissed at people saying cars under 200 bhp is soooo dangerous

I know I just had to say it.

Quote from zoltecrules :

I hate to troll, but yeah, Atlantian is a tool:

http://drifting.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24124

Ahaha - FINALLY, lol.

Quote from atlantian :

wtf... you haven't lived until you have done 60 in a 35 zone, on windy dark roads with black ice and snow on the asphault...

No, you haven't DIED until you have done 60 in a 35 zone, on windy dark roads with black ice and snow on the asphalt...

Quote from Primoz :

Comapring A64 and C2D is like comparing apples and oranges.

I know - that was my point. They're in two entirely different leagues.

I managed to contact Austin Meyer - the main developer behind X-Plane, and asked him the question we've been arguing about here, and pointed him to this forum. Here is his reply:

Quote :

It all depends on the detail to which you want to model things.

There is no doubt, at all, that when you look at the detail to which automotive simulators model the aerodynamics, their math will be the tiniest drop in the bucket compared to the OCEAN of data that is computed by x-plane

The aero physics of any car racing sim, compared to the aero physics in x-plane, are a grain of sand compared to a beach.

There is no doubt about that.

NOW, your question is: Which is harder to model.

MY answer is: To what degree of accuracy do you want to model?

To the degree of accuracy that x-plane models aerodynamics (full blade element theory) compared to the aero that is done for any PC racing sim (lift, drag, sideforce, downforce), there is simply no comparison.

If I were to ask the coders of the auto racing sims how they handle non-standard atmosphere, transonic drag rise, atmospheric changes with altitude from sea level to 400,000 feet, supersonic shock waves, moving parts and control surfaces, aerodynamic centers and damping, they would just sort look at me like i was crazy... they have never even CONSIDERED flying a porsche 911 at mach 2 at 100,000 feet with the difference in drag from the left side-view mirror being retracted, but not the right...

but x-plane does this.

It has to

It's a FLIGHT sim.

So, computing the physics of cars vs airplanes could be said to be identical... they are both moving bodies with possibly moving parts going through air.

BUT, when you look at how good a job people actually DO, there is no comparison between x-plane and automotive PC sims.

austin

Last edited by Stang70Fastback, Mon 11 Feb 2008, 20:26.

Quote from wien :

If you take any information on wikipedia as final proof, you're doing it wrong. That does not mean it's not a useful tool. Wikipedia very often links to the original sources for claims made, enabling you to research it yourself to see if it's bunk.

Dismissing everything stated on Wikipedia as bogus is just a stupid as believing it without question.

Exactly. Use Wikipedia as a starting point, and be sure and double check the information you get. Wikipedia is the greatest source of information on the internet at current.

Three things affect the prices of different graphics cards:

1. Manufacturer - Obviously, there will be fluctuations in prices between manufacturers, with lesser known brands generally selling their cards for a bit cheaper. I wouldn't go with anything other than Asus, EVGA, PNY or the other big brands... mainly because they offer great support should you have any problems. Asus cards in particular always seem to be a bit more expensive than EVGA and PNY - so try for one of those two. EVGA even has a great "step-up program" allowing you to swap a card for a newer one down the road and save some money on the upgrade.

2. Clock speed - Most manufacturers sell a few different versions of their cards at different speeds. Check the site (I looked at a few - and they seemed to be the same) and see what the clock speeds are on the cards. 600 Mhz is the standard clock speed. You will pay higher ($20-$30 usually) for, say 650 Mhz and more for 700. Basically, you are paying the extra price for a card that comes overclocked from the factory - so it's faster, but still fully covered under warranty, and pretty much guaranteed to work fine. I had a bit of trouble reading the site, but they all seemed clocked at 600/1800 Mhz - except one which was 500 Mhz for some reason.

3. Bundled software - Sometimes it's impossible to figure out why two absolutely identical cards sell for a $30 difference in price, because you are completely overlooking the fact that one of them comes bundled with a game (say, Crysis.) If you want the game, you may as well get the bundled one as it saves you money.

Hope that helps!

Quote from ACCAkut :

Audi's automatics (A4, A6; I have driven those) are only good if they have a S mode, otherwise it will always shift in improper times. And it feels like having drivetrain out of rubber, in either mode. I won't chose it for a city car definatly.

The S-mode does make a huge difference. As for the rubbery feeling, I've driven my dad's car and I know exactly what you mean. I think the problem is largely due to the drive-by-wire system which has one of the strangest non-linear gas pedals ever invented. There's a dead spot at first (on purpose - dunno why), and then the next bit increases power in a strangely exponential way (all over the course of a zillionth of an inch) - which gives it that rubbery feeling of being "slingshotted." I hate it, but my dad says that after a bit of driving you get used to it. I don't know why they did that though (maybe to make it smoother instead of such a jerky start under hard acceleration?) because it makes the car difficult to drive smoothly in stop and go traffic.

Quote from sgt.flippy :

Aaaah, and did you know that 86% of all statistics are made up?

Well then that means that 86% of the time, the facts you look up on Wikipedia will be fake, as opposed to 85.14% of the facts you look up on other sites. So that means that there is a 0.86% chance that the stuff you found on Wiki would have been correct if researched from somewhere else. Hardly worth the extra effort.

Quote from Becky Rose :

You still won't sell me an Audi by telling me in stupid.

True. You've got me there

All I'm saying is at least give them another chance. My dad just went from an 03 A6 to an 05 A6, and they are almost entirely different cars.

Quote from Boris Lozac :

Anyone knows the way i could download this video to the hard drive?

In Firefox, if you type about:cache?device=disk in the address bar, you should be able to find the video somewhere there - and then you can right click and save. It takes a bit of looking though. Also, you don't want to right click on the first link. Click on that, and it will bring you to a page detailing that object, and present you with another link - which is the one on which you should right-click and select Save As.

Quote from Becky Rose :

Stupidity is repeating the same mistake, so I'll never have an Audi as a personal car after having already enjoyed the Audi experience.

Nope. Stupidity is having a bad experience and then assuming that all other vehicle types from all other years from the same company must be terrible cars. And considering how many people swear by Audi and how many raving reviews their cars have recieved, I'd be likely to think that you either cannot drive, or you happened to have a bad experience with a malfunctioning vehicle.

My Subaru had a head gasket defect, which caused the car to overheat in the middle of the mountains in sub-zero weather, leaving us stranded when trying to return home from vacation, and making us miss the beginning of school after break. However, my next car will be a Subaru because I know that my particular model engine was the one with the defect, and that Subaru has not only fixed this, but continues to get fantastic reviews as being some of the best cars on the road.

Damn, that's a nice... Jeep - in the second to last picture!

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

He said he hates the argument, not the people. And he's right.

Well that's what I meant to say - that I hate the argument - though to be honest, I think people who argue that point are generally not very open minded.

Quote from ajp71 :

The aerodynamics are the most complicated part of a flight model, they apply equally to a car but it gets far more important to take disturbed air flow into account due to proximity to the ground, other cars and more localised weather effects. The hardest part of car simulation is tire modeling which is still a bit of a dark art because no one really understands exactly how to work out how they work in the real world even with an infinite budget and expertise it's still partly trial and error and fudging. Car simulators really also struggle from the fact they're all rigid body simulations, this can be much more easily accounted for in a flight sim seeing as under normal loads the wings and only the wings aren't meant to flex in a predictable manner. I'm not saying that simulating aircraft is easy but to get a reasonably accurate model you do not need as much time and effort, whether you choose to go the fudging route (in which case it's really very simple) or whether you choose to go the dynamic route (in which case it's more a technical dilemma of getting real time CFD to work).

I also don't believe for a minute that X plane has an advanced tire model compared to any serious racing sim of the last decade...

Unfortunately, X-Plane has just been upgraded to version 9 which means all the update history for version 8 has been taken off the site. I do remember then SPECIFICALLY stating that the tire physics would be good enough for a racing game.

As for air currents, disturbed air-flow close to the ground applies to aircraft too (ground effect.) And turbulence from other aircraft is also important when taking off behind other aircraft, flying in formations, or around varying terrain. All this is taken into account in X-Plane. And while there is the issue of tire physics which plays a much more important role in vehicle simulation, there are other factors in aircraft that do not apply to cars.

All I will say, is that the amount of things modeled in X-Plane at the moment truly dwarfs the Live for Speed vehicle model at this point.

Quote from Forbin :

Ah yes, Wikipedia, such a fine academic resource. Only the best and brightest minds are allowed on there and everything is certified to be 100% true.

I hate anyone who argues that point, because the fact of the matter is that 99% of the information on that site is not only extremely accurate, but much more useful than 99% of the other sites on the internet. I hate the "Wikipedia is open to everyone and therefore invalid" argument, because it just is not true anymore. Not only that, but there's nothing wrong with citing a Wikipedia source if you've done the research to validate the information you've found.

Quote from Rappa Z :

It would only be the movies if he jumped out as the car rolled off the cliff.

Yeah - and the truck would have had to have exploded on impact at the bottom.

Quote from Hyperactive :

Another one: http://youtube.com/watch?v=EfBObq9Z4uo
"it is Nascar, not black car!"

(it takes a bit to get up to speed)

That is HILARIOUS.

Quote from P5YcHoM4N :

But he isn't playing NFS.

Hmmmm... well what about a skin with a few Type-R stickers placed at 45 degree angles?