rothdave1

[quote who="master1a" reply="1" id="2942425"]No, it creates a box used for selecting multiple units. Try the right mouse button. Edit: Holding in the right mouse button will rotate the view when you move the mouse. If you want to *slide* the camera use the arrow keys or move the cursor to the side of the screen, also you can follow a unit by zooming in on it.[/quote] Thanks. I haven't played in about 4 months and I thought something felt off, b

Isn't the left mouse key supposed to grab and drag the view when held?

I'm in. Thanks ironclad/stardock.

There is the, either, page file or read-seek problem as well with the limited memory usage. I never really paid much attention to the amount of back and forth between the HDD's and the memory when the game got laggy. I'm in the processor camp myself, as far as most limiting bottleneck for Sins, though. We need to find some dope that's not scared to dump 1.6v into a i52500k and play a Sins game at 5.7 GHz with ram at 1066 and a 2tb WD green to prove it.

[quote who="bluesuns" reply="4" id="2889995"]i'd go with a i5-2500k and a p67 motherboard. but you might have to wait a month or two until they bring out updated p67 motherboards which remedy the faulty chipset of earlier models. btw, the i5-2500k overclocks very nicely. ssd drive if you can afford, like the OCZ Vertex 3 Pro which has the new SF-2500 controller. you'll want to hook that to your sata 6gp port. as for graphics card, whatever hits the sweetspot in price and performance.[/q

[quote who="Boobzor" reply="15" id="2884170"] Quoting rothdave1, reply 13I just played my first largish game that didn't get laggy at anypoint. Huge Random map 100ish planets no lag whole time and all it took was a i5 2500k at 5.2 GHz and ram at 2133. Sure, the number of planets being so huge, u can never have epic battles which relax your processor compared to my map that has 50 planets here : (with only 6 being reachable and on constant attack) So lets say t

[quote who="harpo99999" reply="16" id="2884196"] Quoting rothdave1, reply 13I just played my first largish game that didn't get laggy at anypoint. Huge Random map 100ish planets no lag whole time and all it took was a i5 2500k at 5.2 GHz and ram at 2133. you have just confirmed my claims of over a year ago that sins is RAM speed bound, with SINGLE cpu ghz bound as the SECOND bottleneck thank you harpo [/quote] Your welcome.I don't know

I just played my first largish game that didn't get laggy at anypoint. Huge Random map 100ish planets no lag whole time and all it took was a i5 2500k at 5.2 GHz and ram at 2133.

I don't think graphics cards make a bit of difference with Sins. CPU restrictions are going to get you long before the graphics card does.

Congrats! I think I saw this on the intratubes. www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2010/0408101wind1.html Better luck next time, unless you enjoyed yourself.

[quote who="ShotmanMaslo" reply="8" id="2607165"] Also, ship/planet name lenght limit should be increased, I cant even name my ship TDN Enterprise ..[/quote] That's an outrage.

I wouldn't even try and bother with all this science of racism bullcrap. I'd explain simply that I was trying to have kids that are good at basketball, know karate and are super good at math, then when they are looking at me like I'm nuts I would change the subject.

When I initially posted, hesitantly, I was hopeful a thoughtful discussion of what is and is not bias and how there's more than enough outrageous hyperbole by both sides, and to have some international perspective added as I'm an American and OP is an Aussie. I was clearly mistaken and apologize for misconstruing the intent of the OP. The duality of the problem belies that this is some sort of malfeasance on behalf of Fox, or one ideology. I will now graciously bow out and let you fellows sit

I did respond to the original post, I thought effectively, as a matter of substance. The examples stated came as a response to my suggesting that there was confusion as to reporting and commentary, which, I also tried to respond to on it's face. The first comment strikes me as an imbecilic musing of Beck, not part of a news report, which I thought enforced my initial response, that one must differentiate between the commentators and reporters. The defense I offered for Fox was that all

I have to say, I find it hard to believe a reporter said "turning the best country in the world to communism", and the exxon story deserves to be glossed over in it's own right. It's a non-issue. Like most companies that operate internationally they shelter out of domiciled country income from double taxation. Exxon more then makes up the difference in permitting expenses and leasing. It's important to remember corporations do not pay taxes, the consumers that purchase their products do.

[quote quoting="post"] My god, it has so much bias. The whole Daily Show with John Stewart would be nothing (kinda) without FOX News. FOX News..... Can anyone on these forums mount a rational defense in support of FOX News? I'll answer now... No. Note too this does not mean a defense of "Well the other side is dodgy too". I write this because here in Australia we now have the Daily Show (have had for a little while I think) and we also have a show called Med

[quote who="DariasDruss" reply="33" id="2589198"]Thanks for the numbers but I am out of luck. My Batch# is 3923A366[/quote] Maybe, maybe not, tinker with it see what happens. My 930 is from a shifty batch and it runs 3.8 with reasonable volts and temps. You never know, unless you have one of those batches I mentioned and then you do know.

[quote who="vStyler" reply="31" id="2588908"] I typed up a wall of text to respond to the hysterics about OC'ing being bad and then server/form crapped the bed and I'm not doing it again. Maybe if you had overclocked just a liiiiiiittle bit more you could have typed it faster and got it posted Honestly, its almost as bad as fishermen and lures or mechanics and carburetors. [/quote] Bah, forum prolly crashed because serv

[quote who="DariasDruss" reply="29" id="2588071"]rothdave1 mentioned this: Additionally with the i7 920s and 930s they sell so effectively that chips binned as 975X are sold as i7 920 (i.e. week 45-49 2009). I bought my I7 920 right around that time. Is there any batch numbers I could look at to see if my chip is actually a 975x. [/quote] Yessir, I'm trapped in my office when I get home I'll get them to you. The 930's didn't ex

[quote who="kona0197" reply="23" id="2586784"]Do what you like with yur own stuff. I'm simply stating that overclocking the CPU to such a degree will shorten the CPU's life and hurt other hardware as well. You may not see it right away but you'll see it in time. Just because it's stable now does not mean it will not fail quickly and when you least expect it. Besides for everyday use and even gaming overclocking is overkill with today's hardware.[/quote] I didn't mean to com

[quote who="kona0197" reply="21" id="2586740"]I'm off base? Push that chip beyond those limits and watch the smoke coming from the case. It only takes one time with the wrong settings...[/quote] Which limits? (Aside from the voltage; which I mentioned is dangerous to your hardware.) Edit: Typed on a PhenomIIx4 965 running 4.2GHz 1.4875v at 31C stable since March while looking at the screen of a i7 930 running folding at home on 8 threads at 3.85GHz 1.30v 69c running 100 percen

Your both off base. The chips have designed voltage ranges, bclks, and thermal loads. Staying in those won't affect the life of the chip. i7's have a voltage range of .85-1.35, a bclk range of 50(I think) and 400, and a thermal load of 85c staying in those specs has no effect outside what the retail specs would have. About the only thing you can do that would have a negative long term affect would be overvolting underwater to maintain stability at the high end of those specs.

Ahot Cap'n! I have a batch number 3951A689 i7 930 and I can not for the life of me get this thing stable at 183 or higher. 182 is A+ at 1.3v, but all the volts and tweaking I've tried haven't given me anything stable from 183-220. I'd love to hear what batch you have and what you have tried to get some stability out of it.

Any 260 will work just put the newer one in the first slot and your second card should automatically grab the clocks from it. Won't be much of a difference anyways. Your card should be clocked 576core 1242 shader i think and the 10 mhz bump to the new cards clock won't make any difference. (Newer card in top because with air cooling your card on top will run 8-10c warmer then bottom card and the 216-55nm cards run cooler then your old card.)

Get a solid aftermarket cooler OC your cpu to 3.9-4.0 tighten up your ram timings as much as is stable and use core affinity to make sure nothing else is sharing cores with the game. That's about all you can do.