Jump to content

Guest_Jim_*

News Editor
  • Content Count

    11,411
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Guest_Jim_*

  1. That first part you wrote, do you mean the gun is not aimed at the car yet? Obviously though, if there is something else for the waves to bounce off of, the result will be affected though. Sorry about bringing up movement, the officer was stationary at the time, so that is not an issue (first paragraph of the ruling, and I forgot it by the end). The officer testified he was certified to use the RADAR gun and has experience with it, so we should be able to assume he would have operated it correctly. Calibration I cannot speak to, as I have not calibrated a RADAR gun before. An interferometer, yes, but not a RADAR gun. If we were to consider the possibility that the reading was double what the driver was doing, that would put the driver at 41 mph, which then contradicts the officer's visual estimation, which is used to determine who to aim the RADAR gun at. Yes, he did confirm the speed with the RADAR gun, paragraph six of the ruling. After he visually estimated the speed, he then "observed that the radar unit indicated [the driver's] vehicle was traveling at 82 miles per hour." It seems to me that the procedure was completely correct and the standard procedure for all RADAR units. The throwing out of the RADAR testimony was because the defense threw doubt on the officer's ability to use the RADAR gun, which is something that only the officer's testimony states he was qualified for. Do not read that as though he may have been lying, simply that it does not say anything to the contrary in the ruling or article. Perhaps not so surprisingly, the article is written with the slant of the the driver is a victim here. The ruling is more unbias and reasoned (for example, the article states "[the officer] said he decided to write Jenney a ticket for 79 mph -- closer to what the radar calculated instead of his own estimate" while the ruling has the officer's testimony I mentioned earlier, that it was to give the driver a break). I really cannot find anything wrong with what has happened here, aside from an apparent lack of interest by the article's author, to not investigate something as simple as if the officer was RADAR gun certified, which would immediately remove this debate if he is.
  2. RADAR guns are not affected by their own movement though, that's what makes them so nice, and why physics is a good class to take. Misaiming it though is a possibility, but it would require that object to be exceeding the speed limit (in this case going 82-83 mph) for the ticket to still be written. Also, nothing has said the officer was not qualified to use the RADAR gun correctly, simply that he did not have the certificate at the trial. This is why I think the point that defense made at the end of the first trial, not the one in the article, about being in a lane different from what the officer said is important. As they did not bring it up at this trial, that leads me to assume the defense felt that was too weak a position to take, as though the driver was unsure of his memory. For those of you out there thinking the officer may be a bad cop, read the ruling. The officer testified that he put 79 on the speeding ticket, instead of the 82 or 83 of the RADAR gun specifically to give the guy a break. Apparently the punishment is more severe if you go 20mph or more above the speed limit. So, yes that does mean the officer "made up what he wanted" (referring to bilcliff's post) but for whose advantage?
  3. Not hard. There is a thread here titled "ATi+ nVidia" that explains how to do it. Just takes a few minutes. nVidia did make it "harder" by having a driver side block of it, but the way around that, some people found, was to trick the nVidia card into thinking it was running a display. In fact that is all nVidia says you need to enable PhysX, is have the card run a display. The solution that thread gives has the nVidia card run a fake display. Find the thread, follow the instructions (though use updated files, if available) and you'll be good to go.
  4. I would think so, and hope so. Found the article though. Originally saw it through Engadget:NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 4-way SLI exemplifies law of diminishing returns. They link to Hardware.info which shows only an average of 3% increase that the fourth 480 brings. Of course the question worth asking is what uses PhysX so much that a 480 can't handle it and the graphics? I thought Fermi was meant for calculations like PhysX and not so much graphics?
  5. Just finished reading through the ruling. The RADAR testimony was thrown out because on the day of the trial, the officer could not produce proof he was certified to use it. It does not say if he really is certified or not. There have been numerous case before this one that affirm a conviction can be made based on the officer's visual testimony alone. Only one case, that the defense brought up, was this not the case, but it appears the weight of other cases was considered, or the fact that the officer was trained and certified for such visual estimations, and is experienced. This ruling does not allow an officer to write a ticket whenever they eyeball you. Their ability to estimate accurately and precisely must also be determined. Really, since this is not the first ruling of its kind, it is a non-issue.
  6. But how is that done? If that is by letting the computer see 8 GPU's there could be an issue with deciding what does what. The cards them selves, with both GPU should always work fine, my question is more will the really work better. As stated earlier, only a few benchmarks can use 4-way SLI, so if the program does not support it, the scaling may not be very good. Let me put it like this, does the decision to send PhysX to the 240 occur on the card, so only the 480 is seen, then the instructions are parsed between the two GPU's, or does the computer have to say, 480 gets this, 240 gets that? I will try to find where I read that 4 GPU's at least scale worse than 3, though I think I saw that the performance itself was worse than 3 GPU's. Will find that out as soon as I can.
  7. Could a computer even do that? I thought I read somewhere that computers can't really even use 4-way SLI or Crossfire, or at least that the performance is worse than 3-way, because of figuring out what card does what. If the computer saw that setup as 8 GPU's, I don't think it would work well. Now, if they integrated something like Optimus into that, where the 480 is switched off when not gaming, for example, and the 240 used for lesser graphics, then I think they may really have something going for them (assuming, of course, the 240 would be using less power than the 480 in those situations).
  8. According to the article that is how it should work and normally does. I'm trying to figure out how you can be incompetent with a RADAR gun. Anyone used one of those here at the forums? I thought it was just point and push button, then read display. The physics removes a discrepancy from the officers movement, so how can you supposedly mess it up? Also, if the officer was originally trained to be able to eyeball a car's speed to within a few miles per hour, then you cannot throw out their testimony. I do not like it, and want to know about the RADAR testimony. Personally though, I would have thought the discrepancy as to which lane the driver was in is a better one to go after. Some people surely can eyeball speed, and no doubt many can be trained to do so, but if the wrong driver was ticketed, then the method by which the speed is recorded does not matter. I feel it is worth pointing out though that speed limits predate RADAR, let alone RADAR guns. How do you think officers figured out how fast you were going then? If we say this ruling is incorrect, then what about those earlier ones? How do you think drivers knew how fast tey were going before speedometers?
  9. This is weird, because with a 4850 you should be doing about as well as my 5770. I'm getting just above 20 FPS with everything maxed but anti-aliasing; that's at 2x. Though my processor is more powerful than yours, but I'm not sure if that should make such an impact. Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea for you to post something at the SH forums. Yes, the weapons could stand some tweaking. I think the assault rifle is fine where it is, but definitely believe the machine gun needs to be more powerful. For a gun that big it should be more powerful than the assault rifle, in my opinion of course. Perhaps make the shotgun slower and something to deal with cross map head shots.. Railgun is fine. SMG is better now that they're no longer giving you max movement speed.
  10. That's weird, because I've been in matches where people were talking about how their 5870's were giving them 40-50+ frames at max settings. The lag/choppy spikes, are you sure those are graphics related and not connection related spikes? What is the frame rate you get?
  11. They have released a few more updates since Firepower to improve performance, so at least check and see how it is now, before writing it off. When was the last time you played? It also seems to me now that the assault rifle is the pretty good. Not the original, but good compared to the other weapons. Of the fully automatic weapons we have now, it is the most powerful. In any case, we are now on version 1.2.1.29, so you may want to check where you're at.
  12. This weekend is a free weekend on Steam. Steam Free Weekend June 4-6 The price is also being cut in half to $10, for the weekend. So try it and buy it, if you don't already own it. For those of you that already own it, let's try not to kill off the fresh meat
  13. Copying over the Steam folder works, that what I did when going to a new computer. There is also the ability to "Backup Game Files," that will make an installer for Steam for the game, and can be set to break it up into chunks to fit on CD's, DVD's or whatever size you want. I make them single chunks that I store on an external hard drive, and work pretty well, when I want to put a game back on the system. So my recommendation is to download them somewhere else and update them, then make the backup there to install on your home machine. All updates should be included this way, if only because it would not make any sense if they weren't. Copying the Steam directory may be at least as easy for you, but this is another option.
  14. "100% limited by nvidia" is a good way to put it, I think. If it was not just nVidia's toy, then it would be for more than just nicer effects, but actual gameplay, like havok is in Red Faction: Guerrilla and Force Unleashed.
  15. I did buy a card specifically for PhysX, so I guess that question is more for me. I own two games that use PhysX, though one of them uses it so lightly, that I can't see a difference between CPU and GPU driven effects. Just two games and I still spent about $100 on another card? Well, I didn't just get it for PhysX. Now I can still game off of my ATi card and fold with the nVidia PhysX card, assuming PhysX isn't used in the game. The two games I own are Shattered Horizon, which barely uses PhysX or is very well setup for the CPU, and Mirror's Edge. With Mirror's Edge I do see a great difference with the PhysX card. Before, even though PhysX was off, I would notice frame rates slowly drop over time (same thing with CPU PhysX but much faster) and only if I started the game, or at specific points in the gameplay did the frame rate return to where it was. Now, the effects are there and no drop in frame rate. In fact, I can run it at maxed settings and still achieve 60FPS, though that is apparently pushing it, as it tends to drop to around 55 if there is a lot to render. Quite an improvement, though I do not know why with PhysX it is doing better than without. I also have Red Fraction: Guerrilla and have played Star Wars: The Force Unleashed (not mine though, my brother's) both of which use Havok, and to a much greater degree than PhysX is used in Mirror's Edge. At least physics is used more in those two games than in Mirror's Edge. It seems to me then that if a game is going to be using physics in the game play, unless it is in deep with nVidia, they may not use PhysX, which makes a lot of sense to me. As you said, Havok, and other non-PhysX physics engines, is supported on all kinds of hardware, so why would a software company write a game to use something that requires specific hardware? That immediately cuts down who can buy the game, and can be seen as an insult to some of them. Right now, I have not seen anything to make me think that PhysX is really much more than a visual effects system, when a CPU just isn't fast enough. Maybe I will look at Batman: Arkham Asylum sometime to further test that opinion. I do not think I wasted the money though, because the shattering glass and (more) realistic cloth in Mirror's Edge is pretty cool to see. Plus, the nVidia card folds more than twice as fast as my ATi card, and can fold while I game. Definitely a good use of an old nVidia card with nothing to do but collect dust.
  16. Yes, I know that, but the original question I was responding to, and what also occurred for me was that PhysX was not ticked in GPU-z. That would indicate that the card, at the moment, the card cannot run PhysX. Once I reinstalled PhysX, the box was ticked, so games with PhysX support should then be utilizing it. I ran Fluidmark, and it showed that there was hardware PhysX acceleration. I've got a GTS 250, is that old enough? I haven't really seen an improvement. Maybe the temperature is better, but my ambient can change so much, that I can't consider that. At least I have not seen any bugs. Of course, I'm not running a display with the card.
  17. As you can see now, the HTML does work. Perhaps then the BBCode on the folding page should be removed or changed so that others will know which to use.
  18. Does that mean the code at the folding page will have to be updated, because when I try adding that to my sig, it still throws the error. Specifically I've tried [url=http://www.overclockersclub.com/pages/folding/][img=http://www.overclockersclub.com/foldingimage.php?image=8&name=Guest_Jim_*.jpg][/url] [url=http://www.overclockersclub.com/pages/folding/][img=http://overclockersclub.com/foldingimage.php?image=8&name=Guest_Jim_*.jpg][/url] [url=http://www.overclockersclub.com/pages/folding/][img=http://www.overclockersclub.com/foldingimage.php?image=11&name=Guest_Jim_*.jpg][/url] [url=http://www.overclockersclub.com/pages/folding/][img=http://overclockersclub.com/foldingimage.php?image=11&name=Guest_Jim_*.jpg][/url] The code given on the folding page does not have the www. for the image location, which is why I also tried that. Let's see if a link to the image, which I have up in another tab, will work in this post. Image: [img=http://overclockersclub.com/foldingimage.php?image=8&name=Guest_Jim_*] Link: http://overclockersclub.com/foldingimage.php?image=8&name=Guest_Jim_* The link works, but the image does not, throwing "You are not allowed to use that image extension on this board." It's the little things that aren't simple. I hope this information can help. Edit: Had to use the code tags to get this post without the error.
  19. That would explain why I can edit my sig. I will quickly add that image to my sig, and see what happens. Edit: Same error when I tried to add that image. Edit 2: Just tried adding the image to this post, and it says, "You are not allowed to use that image extension on this board."
  20. No problem here changing mine. Go to your profile, there is an "Edit my Profile" button on the right, beneath Forum Rules and View New Content, then "Change Signature" is on the left.
  21. I haven't seen any change for either the GPU2 or GPU3 beta clients. Wouldn't they have to write the client to use the newer CUDA before we see improvements? Maybe they will, before the release of GPU3.
  22. It wasn't for me at first either, so I just reinstalled PhysX and it was back.
  23. Should those of us that accidentally forgot to include our full name resend, or will it not be a problem too?
×
×
  • Create New...