rFactor.....LFS Killer?

Certainly a great demo. Aimed at a slightly more casual racing crowd than the likes of GTR or N2003 but rFactor certainly posesses a more advanced graphics and physics engine than any sim I can think of at the moment (initial impression) The textures etc are fairly basic like LFS. I honestly can't believe I'm playing an ISI game which recommends hosting no more than 18 players on a 128kbit upload dedicated server !! Haven't actually seen that many on such a server yet but so far the multiplayer seems very impressive.

AI cars in multiplayer - that's new for ISI too....

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Steve Simpson) wrote: > The textures etc are fairly basic like LFS. You reckon? I think the track textures are superb, and that's what I think matters most for a sense of speed and immersion. I have no problems with the rest either, looks great. Mind you, I am using an x800pro which may be helping a little. One thing I'm finding with this demo is that the faster I drive, the better it gets. I'm not sure I've ever felt quite so satisfied in a sim as when I hit a corner right and hear that satisfying rumble as I catch the strip on the exit. It just feels "right" somehow. Andrew McP

> You reckon? I think the track textures are superb, and that's what I think > matters most for a sense of speed and immersion. I have no problems with > the rest either, looks great. Mind you, I am using an x800pro which may be > helping a little. The track textures are pretty good. It's the car textures that a bit low-res. Still, I bet there's some mod makers out there that are absolutely rubbing their hands together after seeing this demo....

> You reckon? I think the track textures are superb, and that's what I think > matters most for a sense of speed and immersion. I have no problems with > the rest either, looks great. Mind you, I am using an x800pro which may be > helping a little. The track textures are pretty good. It's the car textures that a bit low-res. Still, I bet there's some mod makers out there that are absolutely rubbing their hands together after seeing this demo.... Here's an example.... http://www.mypage.tsn.cc/wiw_stats/rfactor.jpg

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Steve Simpson) wrote: > It's the car textures that a bit > low-res. Oh, right. Sorry, my attempt to play online was hampered a little by the fact I forgot I was downloading something*. So I didn't see much of the other drivers :-) Andrew McP *For those of you sucked into the political threads here recently, I offer up http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/10/24/115621/52 and its (bittorrent) link to the first of three thought-provoking BBC documentaries which may be of interest to some. This is what I was downloading. Can't find any links to the other two programmes unfortunately.

"Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > You reckon? I think the track textures are superb, and that's what Ithink > > matters most for a sense of speed and immersion. I have no problems with > > the rest either, looks great. Mind you, I am using an x800pro which maybe > > helping a little. > > The track textures are pretty good. It's the car textures that a bit > low-res. Still, I bet there's some mod makers out there that areabsolutely

Quoted text (7 lines)

> rubbing their hands together after seeing this demo.... > > Here's an example.... > > http://www.mypage.tsn.cc/wiw_stats/rfactor.jpg > >

Looks like they may have only included low res textures in the demo. They have released screenshots with higher resolution textures. Kyle

Andrew MacPherson wrote:

Quoted text (20 lines)

> In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Steve > Simpson) wrote: > > >>It's the car textures that a bit >>low-res. > > > Oh, right. Sorry, my attempt to play online was hampered a little > by the fact I forgot I was downloading something*. So I didn't see > much of the other drivers :-) > > Andrew McP > > *For those of you sucked into the political threads here recently, > I offer up http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/10/24/115621/52 and > its (bittorrent) link to the first of three thought-provoking > BBC documentaries which may be of interest to some. This is what I > was downloading. Can't find any links to the other two > programmes unfortunately.

here you go. http://conspiracy.hopto.org:6969/index.html?search=nightmare All 3 shows, tho I found the 3rd's video I bit jumpy at times -- (clear the weather to reply)

"Kyle Roberts" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:duKkd.18363$[email hidden]

Quoted text (10 lines)

>> http://www.mypage.tsn.cc/wiw_stats/rfactor.jpg >> >> > Looks like they may have only included low res textures in the demo. > They have released screenshots with higher resolution textures. > > Kyle > > >

I tried it for a short while last night...I saw 1 car that looked like a Baja Dune buggy. Very boxy with exposed wheels and yellow covered cockpit. Most of the other cars seemed ok, My ping to the server was listed as 0-10 so I'm guessing I was pretty close to the guy, but the other cars generally showed pings to me in the 1400 range. (don't know if that is good or bad) dave henrie

Steve Simpson wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

>>You reckon? I think the track textures are superb, and that's what I think >>matters most for a sense of speed and immersion. I have no problems with >>the rest either, looks great. Mind you, I am using an x800pro which may be >>helping a little. > > > The track textures are pretty good. It's the car textures that a bit > low-res. Still, I bet there's some mod makers out there that are absolutely > rubbing their hands together after seeing this demo.... > > Here's an example.... > > http://www.mypage.tsn.cc/wiw_stats/rfactor.jpg

Wow that looks awful, my graphics are like 10 times better, I have a radeon 9800 pro, let me go take a screenshot.

well SP2 managed to completely fuck up my computer, so i cant right now... SP2 locked up on install on 2 attempts. first time i just left the computer for about half an hour and when i came back windows had rebooted... but then windows update said i still hadnt installed SP2 so i tried again... this time when it locked up i just rebooted the computer then windows bitched to me that SP2 was halfway installed so please uninstall it... so i uninstall it and all these warnings come up listing every program on my comptuer and how they wont work anymore... so SP2 decided to take all kinds of drivers down with it... sigh

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 12:28:19 -0600, Dave Henrie wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > I tried it for a short while last night...I saw 1 car that looked like a > Baja Dune buggy. Very boxy with exposed wheels and yellow covered cockpit. > Most of the other cars seemed ok, My ping to the server was listed as 0-10 > so I'm guessing I was pretty close to the guy, but the other cars generally > showed pings to me in the 1400 range. (don't know if that is good or bad) >

I saw this one, too, only a couple of hours ago on some MP test server. Maybe one of the ISI guys is pulling our strings / rattling our cage or whatever ;-) uwe -- mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox) Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

Uwe Sch�rkamp wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 12:28:19 -0600, Dave Henrie wrote: > >> I tried it for a short while last night...I saw 1 car that looked like a >>Baja Dune buggy. Very boxy with exposed wheels and yellow covered cockpit. >>Most of the other cars seemed ok, My ping to the server was listed as 0-10 >>so I'm guessing I was pretty close to the guy, but the other cars generally >>showed pings to me in the 1400 range. (don't know if that is good or bad) >> > > > I saw this one, too, only a couple of hours ago on some MP test > server. Maybe one of the ISI guys is pulling our strings / rattling > our cage or whatever ;-) > > uwe

The yellow car thing is what prevents the freeze when someone joins the server. It has that yellow car pre-loaded then when you go to pits it will load up all the cars of the people that have since joined

My mistake, I had the graphics settings set to 'high' instead of full. The framerate has gone from excellent to a complete dog though unfortunately but I've only got an old 9600. http://www.mypage.tsn.cc/wiw_stats/rfactor_fixed.jpg

the baja buggy's are temporarily loaded then replaced with the drivers actual car, it is to avoid lockups while a new player joins the race. ...and ISI had AI in SCGT multiplayer in 1999.

In article <baMkd.12134$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Kinesin) wrote: > here you go. > http://conspiracy.hopto.org:6969/index.html?search=nightmare Thanks, I did find the streamed versions but the downloaded vids are easier to watch. Andrew McP

"Spede" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:1100213214.561042.5790 @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: > > the baja buggy's are temporarily loaded then replaced with the drivers > actual car, it is to avoid lockups while a new player joins the race. > ..and ISI had AI in SCGT multiplayer in 1999. yes, but 4 cars were enough to collapse the online flow... :) dh

"Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Certainly a great demo. Aimed at a slightly more casual racing crowd than > the likes of GTR or N2003 but rFactor certainly posesses a more advanced > graphics and physics engine than any sim I can think of at the moment > (initial impression) The textures etc are fairly basic like LFS. > > I honestly can't believe I'm playing an ISI game which recommends hosting > no more than 18 players on a 128kbit upload dedicated server !! Haven't > actually seen that many on such a server yet but so far the multiplayer > seems very impressive. >

Unfortunately it requires a hefty system to run well. Framerates are about half of what they are in the GTR demo and on third of what I get out of LFS at a similar resolution. The DX9 graphical touches are certainly nice, but I could do without to keep a good framerate. The developers of LFS are claiming a not-too-heavy framerate hit with the move to S2, and the improved graphical details. Given that they have managed to improve framerate over the development of S1, I believe this. LFS strikes a great balance between visual charm and framerate performance on less than bleeding edge machines. LFS will still keep my attention because the selection of cars is very attractive for me. Just the inclusion of the Caterham clones is something to keep me coming back. The other winning thing for LFS still, and it is difficult to evaluate rFactor in this area, is the track design. For a series of fantasy tracks, the LFS tracks are a lot of fun to race on. A good mix of corner types and some good racing possibilities. I'm curious if the S2 tracks have "grown up" a bit to handle the faster cars. The track in the rFactor demo didn't do much for me.

In article <41948e1d$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Stephen F.) wrote: > Framerates are about half of what they are in the GTR demo > and on third of what I get out of LFS at a similar > resolution. Ah. My enthusiasm for the demo may be assisted by the fact I'm running it in "ultra" mode on an x800pro with no frame rate issues whatsoever. After spending so many years playing catch-up with hardware I keep forgetting that I am (briefly) on the bleeding edge of vid card technology. Otherwise there's nothing too special about my setup. 2.2GHz AMD, 1Gb pc3200, 166fsb. So it must be vid card limited. > The track in the rFactor demo didn't do much for me. You're not going fast enough ;-) I know what you mean, but the original track for LFS was (and still is) pretty tedious to drive around, especially in those slow, basic cars. Andrew McP

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 12:39 +0000 (GMT Standard Time), [email hidden] (Andrew MacPherson) wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

>In article <41948e1d$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] >(Stephen F.) wrote: > >> Framerates are about half of what they are in the GTR demo >> and on third of what I get out of LFS at a similar >> resolution. > >Ah. My enthusiasm for the demo may be assisted by the fact I'm >running it in "ultra" mode on an x800pro with no frame rate issues >whatsoever. After spending so many years playing catch-up with >hardware I keep forgetting that I am (briefly) on the bleeding >edge of vid card technology. > >Otherwise there's nothing too special about my setup. 2.2GHz AMD, >1Gb pc3200, 166fsb. So it must be vid card limited.

I guess that's the AMD 2200+ CPU? I've one, and with a GeForce 3 ti200 rFactor, with all settings low, 1024x786x32, is a slideshow... BTW Andrew, slightly of topic here, but how the heck can you take off from a carrier in PF with a spitfire without a SPLOOSH sound? Cheers! Remco

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Remco Moedt) wrote: > I guess that's the AMD 2200+ CPU? No, it's a mobile Athlon 2500+ (they're still unlocked I believe) which overclocks nicely to 2.4-5Ghz for some people. I can squeeze 2300 out of mine, but to be honest there's no noticeable benefit. 2.2GHz seems like more than enough to cope with anything I've run on the PC recently (apart from Lomac, which always eats whatever CPU and vid power you throw at it). > with a GeForce 3ti200 rFactor, with all settings low, 1024x786x32 > is a slideshow... That a shame. I guess there must be some major DX9 hardware support used in rFactor. The GF3's still a good card for many older sims, but maybe the time's come to start thinking about something a little newer. Since I had a GF3 in my games box (gave it away to a friend in need) I've had a 2nd hand ti4200, a second hand 9700Pro, and now a new x800pro (it was either that or start having driving lessons. So the British roads will be safe for another year or three ;-) The ti4200 wasn't a huge improvement over the GF3 in raw frame rate terms, but it did allow me to run at higher resolutions with more fsaa. The 9700Pro was a very nice upgrade, giving me more of everything and that increasingly important DX9 hardware support. I'd probably still be using it if I hadn't been seduced by Doom3's amazing (IMO) use of hardware lighting. FWIW I just installed the demo on this email/work box which has an older KT7a motherboard with 768Mb of pc133 and an Athlon1700+ running at 1680MHz. The vid card is a 9800se (which I bought for the AIW features and the hope it'd flash to a 9800Pro... it didn't :-) and it handles rFactor "ok". At 1024x768, auto visual settings, I can tell the frame rate's not consistent, but it's certainly very drivable. At 800x600, auto, it's smooth but ugly. The 9800se is roughly equivalent to a 9600/9600Pro (not a particularly good buy). I still think the 9800Pro represents excellent value for money. The trick is raising the money :-) > how the heck can you take off from a carrier in PF with a > spitfire without a SPLOOSH sound? If you look out of the front of the cockpit you'll see some things sticking out the front of the plane. They're called "propeller blades". If you can count them, that means the engine is what we pilots called "not turned on". I advise consulting a trained technician who may be able to show you how to make these blades spin fast enough to dry what hair you have left and perhaps also assist in the takeoff process. ;-) I have no problems taking off in PF. Plenty of throttle, lots of flaps, just enough back pressure on the stick to take off without risking an early bath, and it just happens. Landing is a different matter... still waiting for my first successful trap. I can touch down without problem but I appear to have aircraft equipped with rubber hooks! Still, it's far more fun to crash land with the undercarriage up, coming to a stop balanced on the front of the carrier. To be honest though I get a far bigger kick out of just sitting on the moving deck with the graphics in "Perfect" mode. The reflections of the nearby ships and the sense of motion of the carrier are quite special. But there again, the vid card helps the experience. Andrew McP... in essay-writing mode, obviously.

I've only tried it for a few scant minutes so far, but my first impressions of the MP were not good. With only perhaps 6 cars on track, I find that my opponents constantly pop in and out of view both in front of me and in my mirrors. Perhaps there's a setting that I need to adjust? BTW -- I'm on a cable modem connection. Steve Simpson wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Certainly a great demo. Aimed at a slightly more casual racing crowd than > the likes of GTR or N2003 but rFactor certainly posesses a more advanced > graphics and physics engine than any sim I can think of at the moment > (initial impression) The textures etc are fairly basic like LFS. > > I honestly can't believe I'm playing an ISI game which recommends hosting no > more than 18 players on a 128kbit upload dedicated server !! Haven't > actually seen that many on such a server yet but so far the multiplayer > seems very impressive.

I've only tried it for a few scant minutes so far, but my first impressions of the MP were not good. With only perhaps 6 cars on track, I find that my opponents constantly pop in and out of view both in front of me and in my mirrors. Perhaps there's a setting that I need to adjust? BTW -- I'm on a cable modem connection.

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Certainly a great demo. Aimed at a slightly more casual racing crowd than > the likes of GTR or N2003 but rFactor certainly posesses a more advanced > graphics and physics engine than any sim I can think of at the moment > (initial impression) The textures etc are fairly basic like LFS. > I honestly can't believe I'm playing an ISI game which recommends hosting no > more than 18 players on a 128kbit upload dedicated server !! Haven't > actually seen that many on such a server yet but so far the multiplayer > seems very impressive.

"Andrew MacPherson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] > (Remco Moedt) wrote: ><snip> That a shame. I guess there must be some major DX9 hardware support used in rFactor. <snip> FWIW, from the readme: "Known Graphics Limitations: - Shader source code is not exposed; - DX9 render path disabled; - Live cube mapping disabled; - Moving shadow receivers disabled; - Object reflections disabled" From what I've seen to date, rFactor doesn't look that CPU-dependent, particularly online without a bunch of AI. But it definitely wants all the GPU you can throw at it, just like RBR. SB

BRH wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> I've only tried it for a few scant minutes so far, but my first impressions of > the MP were not good. With only perhaps 6 cars on track, I find that my > opponents constantly pop in and out of view both in front of me and in my > mirrors. > > Perhaps there's a setting that I need to adjust? BTW -- I'm on a cable modem > connection.

did it ever enter your mind you were on a shitty server

Hmmm...... Could be. I'll try again. buster wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> BRH wrote: > > I've only tried it for a few scant minutes so far, but my first impressions of > > the MP were not good. With only perhaps 6 cars on track, I find that my > > opponents constantly pop in and out of view both in front of me and in my > > mirrors. > > > > Perhaps there's a setting that I need to adjust? BTW -- I'm on a cable modem > > connection. > > did it ever enter your mind you were on a shitty server

Hmmm...... Could be. I'll try again.

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > I've only tried it for a few scant minutes so far, but my first impressions of > > the MP were not good. With only perhaps 6 cars on track, I find that my > > opponents constantly pop in and out of view both in front of me and in my > > mirrors. > > Perhaps there's a setting that I need to adjust? BTW -- I'm on a cable modem > > connection. > did it ever enter your mind you were on a shitty server

Quoted text (7 lines)

> I've only tried it for a few scant minutes so far, but my first > impressions of the MP were not good. With only perhaps 6 cars on > track, I find that my opponents constantly pop in and out of view > both in front of me and in my mirrors. > > Perhaps there's a setting that I need to adjust? BTW -- I'm on a > cable modem connection.

Probably someone hosting too many cars for his connection, Bert. I had some pretty good races last night, but I can't say I see a dramatic improvement over the multi in F1C (except you now get ridiculous looking temporary cars instead of a freeze when someone joins). Also the lobby/matchmaking server works rather crappy compared to the slickness that is VROC/Sierra. Jan. =---

Jan Verschueren wrote:

Quoted text (16 lines)

>>I've only tried it for a few scant minutes so far, but my first >>impressions of the MP were not good. With only perhaps 6 cars on >>track, I find that my opponents constantly pop in and out of view >>both in front of me and in my mirrors. >> >>Perhaps there's a setting that I need to adjust? BTW -- I'm on a >>cable modem connection. > > > Probably someone hosting too many cars for his connection, Bert. I had some > pretty good races last night, but I can't say I see a dramatic improvement > over the multi in F1C (except you now get ridiculous looking temporary cars > instead of a freeze when someone joins). > > Also the lobby/matchmaking server works rather crappy compared to the > slickness that is VROC/Sierra.

You gotta remember this is just a TEST so they can get some feedback and improve their service. Papy had years and years of netcode tweaking before it was in its current state.

"buster" wrote... >> <snip> > You gotta remember this is just a TEST so they can get some > feedback and improve their service. Papy had years and years > of netcode tweaking before it was in its current state. A friend gave me this link: http://forum.rscnet.org/showthread.php?t=185532 Which improves things quite a bit, but this aspect still needs quite a lot of work IMNSHO (a complete re-write is on the cards, I think, as it appears to only be able to show the player a limited snapshot of all races being hosted). I didn't mean to sound as if I was thrashing rFactors multiplayer, but the Papy "advance" on ISI didn't build up with time as you seem to imply. NR3 and GPL shipped with better online multiplayer back in 1998. GPLSpyBoy (as VROC was then called) followed soon after and also worked right out of the box. Of course it's early days and with everyone joining in, ISI are coming up against things they didn't envisage when they wrote their code. They need time and feedback to make their mulitplayer more robust. I'm certainly looking forward to them doing so, because the driving itself is really quite good (and has been since F1 2k2). Jan. =---

BRH <"bhoenig<no-spam>"@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (21 lines)

> I've only tried it for a few scant minutes so far, but my first impressions of > the MP were not good. With only perhaps 6 cars on track, I find that my > opponents constantly pop in and out of view both in front of me and in my > mirrors. > > Perhaps there's a setting that I need to adjust? BTW -- I'm on a cable modem > connection. > > > > Steve Simpson wrote: > > > Certainly a great demo. Aimed at a slightly more casual racing crowd than > > the likes of GTR or N2003 but rFactor certainly posesses a more advanced > > graphics and physics engine than any sim I can think of at the moment > > (initial impression) The textures etc are fairly basic like LFS. > > > > I honestly can't believe I'm playing an ISI game which recommends hosting no > > more than 18 players on a 128kbit upload dedicated server !! Haven't > > actually seen that many on such a server yet but so far the multiplayer > > seems very impressive.

Hi - As a client, you don't really need a ton of bandwidth. Most of the MP problems are generally caused by misconfigured servers, in particular servers which overstep their upload bandwidth (easy to do since upload bw seems to be at a premium among most ISPs). Most cable users starting a server should use the 128 kbit setting, even if your line reports higher uploads. This helps the throttling to be more efficient. joe image space

[email hidden] (Scoob Droolins) wrote in news:[email hidden]:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Hi - > > As a client, you don't really need a ton of bandwidth. Most of the MP > problems are generally caused by misconfigured servers, in particular > servers which overstep their upload bandwidth (easy to do since upload > bw seems to be at a premium among most ISPs). Most cable users > starting a server should use the 128 kbit setting, even if your line > reports higher uploads. This helps the throttling to be more > efficient. > > joe > image space

Wha? A DeeeVelper? Here? hehehe Good thing to know Joe. dh

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 21:41:55 +1000, "Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

>Certainly a great demo. Aimed at a slightly more casual racing crowd than >the likes of GTR or N2003 but rFactor certainly posesses a more advanced >graphics and physics engine than any sim I can think of at the moment >(initial impression) The textures etc are fairly basic like LFS. > >I honestly can't believe I'm playing an ISI game which recommends hosting no >more than 18 players on a 128kbit upload dedicated server !! Haven't >actually seen that many on such a server yet but so far the multiplayer >seems very impressive. >

Don't make me laugh. rFactor is DOA

ISI had AI in multiplayer with SCGT in 1999. The baja's are loaded temporarily in place of the users car to help avoid lockups when a new player joins the race.

rFactor is brilliant.Physics are papy like and graphics are great. "Jim V." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 21:41:55 +1000, "Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > >>Certainly a great demo. Aimed at a slightly more casual racing crowd than >>the likes of GTR or N2003 but rFactor certainly posesses a more advanced >>graphics and physics engine than any sim I can think of at the moment >>(initial impression) The textures etc are fairly basic like LFS. >> >>I honestly can't believe I'm playing an ISI game which recommends hosting >>no >>more than 18 players on a 128kbit upload dedicated server !! Haven't >>actually seen that many on such a server yet but so far the multiplayer >>seems very impressive. >> > > Don't make me laugh. > rFactor is DOA

LFS was dead as soon as they added the annoying Product Activation scheme. -Larry Steve Simpson wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

> Certainly a great demo. Aimed at a slightly more casual racing crowd than > the likes of GTR or N2003 but rFactor certainly posesses a more advanced > graphics and physics engine than any sim I can think of at the moment > (initial impression) The textures etc are fairly basic like LFS. > > I honestly can't believe I'm playing an ISI game which recommends hosting no > more than 18 players on a 128kbit upload dedicated server !! Haven't > actually seen that many on such a server yet but so far the multiplayer > seems very impressive. > >

"Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:uAAld.1682$ol.1527@lakeread02... > LFS was dead as soon as they added the annoying Product Activation scheme. Well now you can race rFactor & stop complaining maybe? ;-) Product Activation has it's pros & cons but I'd say they've done a hell of a lot better taking the path they did than if they'd waited until they had a publisher. Malc.

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 15:14:05 -0000, Malc wrote: > Product Activation has it's pros & cons but I'd say they've done a hell of a > lot better taking the path they did than if they'd waited until they had a > publisher. I agree. It's a hell of a difference wether you're dropping a line to Victor of LFS, asking him kindly to reset your activation counter, and receive a kind reply within the hour, or submitting all your details to some unknown billy-based hack or calling a number to receive your windows product activation thingy or whatever they call it these days. Larry should be running anything, but not a "modern" version of windows. I hope he manages to live up to his own standards ;-) Cheers, uwe -- mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox) Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 14:20 +0000 (GMT Standard Time), [email hidden] (Andrew MacPherson) wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

>In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] >(Remco Moedt) wrote: > >> I guess that's the AMD 2200+ CPU? > >No, it's a mobile Athlon 2500+ (they're still unlocked I believe) which >overclocks nicely to 2.4-5Ghz for some people. I can squeeze 2300 out of >mine, but to be honest there's no noticeable benefit. 2.2GHz seems like >more than enough to cope with anything I've run on the PC recently (apart >from Lomac, which always eats whatever CPU and vid power you throw at it).

Ah, ok. >> with a GeForce 3ti200 rFactor, with all settings low, 1024x786x32 >> is a slideshow... > >That a shame. I guess there must be some major DX9 hardware support used >in rFactor. The GF3's still a good card for many older sims, but maybe the >time's come to start thinking about something a little newer. Hehe, yup. Update is planned for Jan. 2005

Quoted text (15 lines)

>> how the heck can you take off from a carrier in PF with a >> spitfire without a SPLOOSH sound? > >If you look out of the front of the cockpit you'll see some things >sticking out the front of the plane. They're called "propeller blades". If >you can count them, that means the engine is what we pilots called "not >turned on". I advise consulting a trained technician who may be able to >show you how to make these blades spin fast enough to dry what hair you >have left and perhaps also assist in the takeoff process. > >;-) > >I have no problems taking off in PF. Plenty of throttle, lots of flaps, >just enough back pressure on the stick to take off without risking an >early bath, and it just happens.

I succeeded in taking of with the Seafire from the carrier now. Since it only had 'Landing' flaps I thought I didn't need them when taking off. Even with the flaps it's quite a challenge, I've to raise the gear ASAP, and even then I almost touch the water...scary stuff. >Landing is a different matter... still >waiting for my first successful trap. I can touch down without problem but >I appear to have aircraft equipped with rubber hooks! 50% of the time I hit the back of the carrier, the other 50% I do an unintentional touch & go.... :-/ >Still, it's far more fun to crash land with the undercarriage up, coming >to a stop balanced on the front of the carrier. To be honest though I get >a far bigger kick out of just sitting on the moving deck with the graphics >in "Perfect" mode. The reflections of the nearby ships and the sense of >motion of the carrier are quite special. But there again, the vid card >helps the experience. Rub it in... Cheers! Remco

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Remco Moedt) wrote: > I succeeded in taking of with the Seafire from the carrier now. Glad to hear it. The "landing" flaps thing is a bit confusing, but without flaps you're never going to get off a carrier without getting wet. > even then I almost touch the water...scary stuff. The Seafire does seem quite reluctant to take to the air. Some other planes are far easier to get in the air. > 50% of the time I hit the back of the carrier, the other 50% I do an > unintentional touch & go.... :-/ Last night I finally made a successful landing (I haven't really flown PF much to be honest). I cheated and did it in F2 view first just to prove it could be done. Then I came in quite tightly, very slowly, and at an angle so I could clearly see the deck until the last moment. Try aiming the nose at the front of the carrier and let your airspeed drop as you lose sight of it. It's very satisfying when you finally manage it... though I must admit I did manage to damage my propeller. Andrew McP

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Andrew MacPherson) writes:

Quoted text (15 lines)

>If you look out of the front of the cockpit you'll see some things >sticking out the front of the plane. They're called "propeller blades". If >you can count them, that means the engine is what we pilots called "not >turned on". I advise consulting a trained technician who may be able to >show you how to make these blades spin fast enough to dry what hair you >have left and perhaps also assist in the takeoff process. > >;-) > >I have no problems taking off in PF. Plenty of throttle, lots of flaps, >just enough back pressure on the stick to take off without risking an >early bath, and it just happens. Landing is a different matter... still >waiting for my first successful trap. I can touch down without problem but >I appear to have aircraft equipped with rubber hooks! >

Hmm...carrier landings and propellers?!? What is PF? Sounds like something I'd be interested in... Gotta be a WWII Pacific Campaign game! I *love* that part of history. My dad was on the USS Independence in the war... Eldred -- http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank -6.0 MoGPL rank +267.80 Ch.Rank +52.58 Hist. +82.34 N2k3 rank: -1.182 Slayer Spektera lvl 79 assassin Slayer Spectral_K lvl 44 Necro US East

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Scoob Droolins) writes:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>As a client, you don't really need a ton of bandwidth. Most of the MP >problems are generally caused by misconfigured servers, in particular >servers which overstep their upload bandwidth (easy to do since upload >bw seems to be at a premium among most ISPs). Most cable users >starting a server should use the 128 kbit setting, even if your line >reports higher uploads. This helps the throttling to be more >efficient.

Have you seen the thread where I commented that I couldn't get it to run on my servers? If so, any suggestions? I'd be curious to see how many cars could run smoothly on mine. Thanks. Eldred -- http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank -6.0 MoGPL rank +267.80 Ch.Rank +52.58 Hist. +82.34 N2k3 rank: -1.182 Slayer Spektera lvl 79 assassin Slayer Spectral_K lvl 44 Necro US East

[email hidden] (EldredP) wrote in news:[email hidden]: > Hmm...carrier landings and propellers?!? What is PF? Sounds like > something I'd be interested in... Gotta be a WWII Pacific Campaign > game! I *love* that part of history. My dad was on the USS > Independence in the war... > > Eldred My Dad was an Amphibious tracked vehicle driver in the Pac. His best landing was when his 'boat' sank and he tracked/crawled ashore on the bottom. I don't know how the Marines felt about an Army Sergeant piloting something that was supposed to float. dave henrie

> > Have you seen the thread where I commented that I couldn't get it to > run on my servers? If so, any suggestions? I'd be curious to see how > many cars could run smoothly on mine. Thanks. > > Eldred Most likely the server's lack of dx8 capability, or whatever level it uses. dh

> Hmm...carrier landings and propellers?!? What is PF? Sounds like something > I'd be interested in... Gotta be a WWII Pacific Campaign game! I *love* that > part of history. My dad was on the USS Independence in the war... > > Eldred Pacific Fighters, basically a sequel to IL-2

Dave Henrie <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > > > Have you seen the thread where I commented that I couldn't get it to > > run on my servers? If so, any suggestions? I'd be curious to see how > > many cars could run smoothly on mine. Thanks. > > > > Eldred > > Most likely the server's lack of dx8 capability, or whatever level it > uses. > dh

headless dedicated server coming soon - will not require any DX-compatible video, sound, or input HW. Will run on server 2003 and potentially other windows-compatible platforms. And you should be able to run multiple servers on a single box, with the right HW. stay tuned. joe image space

Quoted text (10 lines)

>> > Have you seen the thread where I commented that I couldn't get it to >> > run on my servers? If so, any suggestions? I'd be curious to see how >> > many cars could run smoothly on mine. Thanks. >> > >> > Eldred >> >> Most likely the server's lack of dx8 capability, or whatever level it >> uses. >> dh >

Both servers have DX9.0b, and one of them can run N2k3 just fine. The other one has a Radeon 7500, which certainly should be capable. It's gotta be something else...

Quoted text (8 lines)

>headless dedicated server coming soon - will not require any >DX-compatible video, sound, or input HW. Will run on server 2003 and >potentially other windows-compatible platforms. And you should be >able to run multiple servers on a single box, with the right HW. >stay tuned. > >joe >image space

Cool... Eldred -- http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank -6.0 MoGPL rank +267.80 Ch.Rank +52.58 Hist. +82.34 N2k3 rank: -1.182 Slayer Spektera lvl 79 assassin Slayer Spectral_K lvl 44 Necro US East

On 18 Nov 2004 07:19:13 -0800, Scoob Droolins wrote: > headless dedicated server coming soon - will not require any > DX-compatible video, sound, or input HW. Will run on server 2003 and > potentially other windows-compatible platforms. And you should be > able to run multiple servers on a single box, with the right HW. > stay tuned. Hi joe, great news. While you're making it headless, could you please relase a linux / posix compatible server version, too? Thanks & keep up the good work, uwe -- mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox) Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

In article <4IUmd.33041$[email hidden]>, buster <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (10 lines)

>> Hmm...carrier landings and propellers?!? What is PF? Sounds like >something >> I'd be interested in... Gotta be a WWII Pacific Campaign game! I *love* >that >> part of history. My dad was on the USS Independence in the war... >> >> Eldred > >Pacific Fighters, basically a sequel to IL-2 >

Ooh...gotta find THAT one... Does it have an AI component, or online only? Thanks! Eldred -- http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank -6.0 MoGPL rank +267.80 Ch.Rank +52.58 Hist. +82.34 N2k3 rank: -1.182 Slayer Spektera lvl 79 assassin Slayer Spectral_K lvl 44 Necro US East

Its still IL2 except with Pacific theatre and planes so yes it still has AI. Its still great dont get me wrong but I HATE it when devs add a few minor updates and call it *NEW* instead of a expansion pack or a patch as it should have been. Mitch "EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >>

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > Ooh...gotta find THAT one... Does it have an AI component, or online > only? > Thanks! > > Eldred > -- > http://www.umich.edu/~epickett > > GPLRank -6.0 MoGPL rank +267.80 > Ch.Rank +52.58 > Hist. +82.34 > N2k3 rank: -1.182 > Slayer Spektera lvl 79 assassin > Slayer Spectral_K lvl 44 Necro > US East

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 22:33:48 -0500, buster <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>> Hmm...carrier landings and propellers?!? What is PF? Sounds like something >> I'd be interested in... Gotta be a WWII Pacific Campaign game! I *love* that >> part of history. My dad was on the USS Independence in the war... >> >> Eldred > >Pacific Fighters, basically a sequel to IL-2

So, does that mean it's finally been released? -- __________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke \_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru _H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com '-_____|( remove the "no_me_j." and ".sons.of" parts before replying