hah created explosion particles using thraxs bfg method! this will look great once i implement it to explosions!

Good work. Manipulating existing methods to a new idea.

Just an idea. In my work i also found i could make those same repetition
formats to be effected by gravity. In effect, i could make the pulsing lasers
arc over distance. Maybe with some bending, the explosion particals can be
made to do the same. It looks better with that method than simply spraying
flares outward.

arc you say? how did you do that, extremely slight redirections? i also failed to ask how theese would fare on servers, i have 20 implemented in explosions, and they work great on my machine, but wouldnt they crash another persons if their computer is less than par?

i am very curious about the arcing ,though i am currently unable to mod due to a failed power supply.
(hopefully they can refund/replace it after school tommorow, called them, very nice but still might not replace/refund it.)

hmm will have to play with this alot.

P.S. howd the lands look?

Thanks and long live your power supplies!

KB

apart from water s3d is not all that resource intensive. I run full system back ups on a 3.2 ghrs wolfdale in merge and my fps stays between 10-15 with occasional drops to 3

You must be running vista then..

before my motherboard crash, i would get 25-40 fps in merge with a
pentium4 1.6ghz, 1gb ram, and 64mb vid card. (40-60 in Swars)

Try improving your speed by using Simple Water and disable the other
types of water featured.

no its on XP. And it is only during system back ups. That is very proc and hard disk demanding. next saturday will test with simple water but it will be a pain in the ass turning it off for just 1.5 hours

remember when youre comparing frame rates on old hardware, some very old graphics cards just won't support full water. it doesnt matter how you have the game options set up.

if the hardware isnt capable of implementing the full water effects, youll get an unrealistically high frame rate on "max game settings". i know thrax has experienced this.

the same probably applies to fog, shadows and transparency. you musnt use very obsolete hardware to gauge game requirements, because youre not comparing like for like in terms of the amount of work the hardware is doing and the level of visual effects youre seeing.


ps:
i agree. scorched reqs are nothing to a modern system capable of running newer proprietary games. any modern mid range pc will run scorched at max twice over, easy. (thats part of its appeal - you can cap the frame rate and leave it running while you work)

*cough*

Not that the current conversation is over my head or anything.

and can any one reccomend a good 650watt or greater power supply?

and the lands are correct right, i wasnt sure if i had them in the right format, land heightmaps i am okish at (dib error sheesh!)

all my progress in experiments has gone down the tube, my power supply has failed, but they refunded it with a (Damn) 15% restocking fee! they sold me a (damn) defective product and now charge me to bring it back (damn) wtf!

im going with tiger direct instead this time, heard they have moderate success in the industry
(options very limited since my dad makes the purchases with his credit card and is not very trusting of off the wall sites.)

Thanks and wish me luck on my purchases!
KB

johnyGURU gave the smaller watt model a near perfect review which is rare for him. the 750 is the bassiacally the same xcept higher wattage

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductLi ... 0Certified

looks good, ORCA.


you havent given your specs, but...

if you have to ask, you dont need 650w or greater, or anywhere near. there are very few pc's that require greater than 400w rated psu IRL. even at 400w, youd be well into the realms of the 'enthusiast' market in terms of the hardware youd have to be using to need it.

you need to allow for how total rated output is distributed across rails, but generally, if a pc is using more than 250w peak total, its a monster. a 380w or so psu is plenty for all but the very highest end.

can you imagine what it would do to your electricity bllls (and the envronment) if pc's really used say 400w? if home pc hardware ever got close to needing that much, theyd have to start making the hardware more efficient. and, they did, a few years back.

'enthusiast' i think the contemporary term is fanboi.
(musnt confuse enthusiasts with experts. sometimes its hard to tell the difference on the interweb)

the end-user psu market is tainted. theres more branding than ever. youll struggle to find a psu these days that isnt mostly paint and glow in the dark nvidia badge.

ps:
speaking of fanbois, i like fortron source
http://www.fsp-group.com.tw/
may not be your cup of tea if you like led fans and case windows

true most pc's do not need more than a 400 watt psu
you only need more than that under 3 conditions
1. SLI or crossfire utilization
2. overclocking.
3. You have more hardware than you need.

There is no need to imagine anything. If one understands the billing method in
use and can perform a bit of simple mathematical magic it is easy to calculate.


In the United States :

Residential consumption of electricity is generally billed in kilowatt hours (KWH).
Residential rates are generally fixed and do not fluctuate based on peak demand.

This makes calculating the actual operating cost of an appliance a simple process.

For ease of calculation 10 cents per KWH will be the declared residential rate.
Note : The national average is reported to be less than 10 cents per KWH.

The cost difference of 400 watts per hour -vs- 250 watts per hour is easy to
compare after finding the cost per Watt Hour for each appliance.

If 1000 watts per hour = 10 cents
Then 100 watts per hour = 1 cent

(mathematical magic is assumed to be understood)

A 400 watt consumption costs 4 cents per hour.
A 250 watt consumption costs 2.5 cents per hour.

In this case, 400 watts -vs- 250 watts amounts to a cost difference of :
1.5 cents per hour.

This is not a material cost difference for a seldom used appliance.

Most appliances do not run continuosly under full load. However,
in order to explore the maximum varience that can be produced, the
worst case condition for a 30 day billing cycle should be examined.

24 hours per day x 30 days -> 720 hours.

720 hours x 4 cents / hour -> $ 28.80 cost of operation.
720 hours x 2.5 cents / hour -> $ 18.00 cost of operation.

The cost difference is $ 10.80 per 30 day cylcle.

This is where the advanced magic starts.

Determine if the additional expense is justified by an increase
in productivity and/or enjoyment of the appliance.

The enviomental cost is of no concern.
It has already been figured into the bill.

NOT !

Have fun.

P.S. - Smart grid technologly will provide a more enviromentally
aware billing method but few will appreciate the increased cost.

P.P.S. - You might want to hold off on that big screen tv you are
thinking about buying yourself regardless of your decision on the
consumption costs of the various sizes. At least until the courts
decide something about Califorinia trying to outlaw them for
personal use.

thanks rom. we're about 10p per kwh in the uk with cheaper rates overnight with thresholds for cheaper rates once youve used so much in a month.

did you just say 250w costs 250/400 as much as 400w? whod have thought? : )

many people have at least 2 pc's in the house. if you have a family, you could well have 3 or 4 time the kids have one each.


heres the thing, anyway... psu rated output? its all bs. you may as well ignore it completely. id elaborate but i feel like im spamming.

It wasn't the ratio I was intending to point out but instead the actual
operational cost difference. It seemed that the worst case should be
sufficient to satisfy even the most vivid of imaginations.

The object of power is power. H. G. Wells

If I were to purchase a new microwave oven, I would not care if it
caused my neighbors lights to go dim as long as it was shielded
properly and cooked something frozen in less than 5 seconds.



Power to the People!

Recent Edit : The quote that I erroneously attributed to H. G. Wells is actually from George Orwell's book, 1984.

In trying to write the correction, I first wrote that it was Orson Wells even though I knew that it was not. Being aware that the brain can play tricks on the mind, I asked myself why. After a few moments of thought, I found my answer ammusing. Perhaps you do as well.

Live long and prosper

even 250w is a beast of a machine by my standards. (and im well used to sli, high-end architecture, several hard drives). a reasonably powerful mainstream pc might need 140w or so (peak) and ive read (but not tested personally) the newer consoles (ps3 etc) use about 200w peak, which gives some context.