That won't help you any more, I no longer work there.
Not sure if it was mentioned yet, but just as important as throttling maximum upload rate, you should limit the maximum number of connections too. The way I see if, each connection gets an equal share of the network, so if your torrent client keeps 100 active connections, eah tab in your web browser is going to get less than 1% of the line.
Expected this long ago, tbh. The cost to run YouTube far exceeds advertising revenue, last I heard. Either they charge or it'll get closed down. We all like things for free but someone has to foot the bill.
No way a bicycle brakes harder than a car. Weight transfer limits braking force, all the available weight ends up on the front wheel, braking harder does work but is unsustainable because your rear wheel lifts off the ground.
Don't worry about the mass of the vehicle, or the size of the brakes. Both are entirely irrelevant. All other things being equal, a heavier vehicle will have a lower coefficient of friction, increasing stopping distance, but things are very much not equal. It's all down to tyres. Put super soft slicks on a truck and it would outbrake a sports car on a set of old economy tyres.
The size of the brakes only affects two things; 1) the amount of pressure you have to apply in order to generate the same braking force, so with smaller brakes, you just have to push/squeeze harder 2) how long you can brake for before the braking components overheat and become ineffective. This is why racing cars have larger brakes than road cars, despite weighing less. It's not because road car brakes can't stop a car as quickly as the tyres allow, they just can't do it over and over again.
Crashgate3 - stopping from 20mph in 4m requires a little over 1g of braking. I think your estimate is a bit off there. I'd guess it being at least double that.
Don't worry about the mass of the vehicle, or the size of the brakes. Both are entirely irrelevant. All other things being equal, a heavier vehicle will have a lower coefficient of friction, increasing stopping distance, but things are very much not equal. It's all down to tyres. Put super soft slicks on a truck and it would outbrake a sports car on a set of old economy tyres.
The size of the brakes only affects two things; 1) the amount of pressure you have to apply in order to generate the same braking force, so with smaller brakes, you just have to push/squeeze harder 2) how long you can brake for before the braking components overheat and become ineffective. This is why racing cars have larger brakes than road cars, despite weighing less. It's not because road car brakes can't stop a car as quickly as the tyres allow, they just can't do it over and over again.
Crashgate3 - stopping from 20mph in 4m requires a little over 1g of braking. I think your estimate is a bit off there. I'd guess it being at least double that.
Or you're simply too far away. I'm sat 18 inches from a 32" display; at 1366x768, these pixels look massive!
Larger screens sat further away achieve the same thing but are easier on the eyes and more people can watch. We're all used to being sat close to high def displays with our computers, why should changing the media suddenly make us change this?
Larger screens sat further away achieve the same thing but are easier on the eyes and more people can watch. We're all used to being sat close to high def displays with our computers, why should changing the media suddenly make us change this?
I thought fullHD just referred to explicitly 1080p footage, whereas HD can refer to either 1080p or 720p?
Curious as to why this is?
Curious as to why this is?
E.Reiljans, it's been a couple of years since I did a comparison myself, I'll have to try again and see if I should be using something higher. After reading a few h264 guides, the general concensus online seems to be use crf=22 for high def footage, so I'm only out by one.
I think switching to my LCD has made the differences a little clearer, I didn't notice the differences in the eyelashes before. If anyone wants to try the same test I'm doing on their monitor, I've uploaded the screens here.
I wasn't debating that it wasn't worth getting 1080p capable displays, or that the format itself is pointless. Clearly as technology improves, it makes sense to be future proof. I just wonder how much benefit it provides at the moment, given camera technology.
I think switching to my LCD has made the differences a little clearer, I didn't notice the differences in the eyelashes before. If anyone wants to try the same test I'm doing on their monitor, I've uploaded the screens here.
I wasn't debating that it wasn't worth getting 1080p capable displays, or that the format itself is pointless. Clearly as technology improves, it makes sense to be future proof. I just wonder how much benefit it provides at the moment, given camera technology.
In fairness, this 22" CRT is 11 years old now, so probably no longer at it's best. I've three of them and they've all got different issues, though none of them serious. I'm about to plug my widescreen LCD in, will go back through the screenshots and see if the differences become any clearer.
That's an excellent example of what I'm talking about. Massive resolution overkill. View that image at 1:1 and there's not a remotely sharp feature in it, which would be made far more obvious if the image was denoised. I did the same trick, downsized (to 1080) then upsized that image, and the only difference afterwards (with 1:1 viewing) was the noise got a little softer, so overall it looked better, IMO.
Bit rate is irrelevant by itself. I re-encode films using x264 at constant quality (level 23) and have found most 1080p films compress to under 5GB, and I've even had one come out under 2GB before, without noticeable artifacting.
Only if you sit too far back from it, so the pixels become too small for your eye to distinguish (see this). Given that I'm sat about a foot from my screen (maybe less if really concentrating on finding differences in images), despite this monitor only being 20" viewable, I shouldn't be suffering from any such issues.
1080p, is it overkill atm?
Given how people clamour for 1080 sets over 720 sets, I'm wondering if there is actually any footage capable of really making use of 1920x1080 resolution yet? I've been taking stills from 1080 films, downsizing to 720, then resizing back to 1080, and can rarely see any quality loss. When I can, it's some tiny detail, like the edges of some buttons on a shirt, and that's it for the entire scene. I thought Avatar would be the best possible example, yet in a close up of Neytiri's face, you'd think being CG there's no optical limitation of the camera involved the difference would be obvious, but even then it seems limited to one of two freckles on her face.
If I use the same technique and go to a lower, say DVD, resolution, then there's a pronounced lack of clarity over the whole image, so this seems a reasonable test. Clearly things have progressed, I tried on some 1930s footage and I had to get down to about 400 pixels across the width before I lost sharpness, but it seems 1280x720 is adequate for even recent, high budget releases.
Just wondering what other people's thoughts are on this.
If I use the same technique and go to a lower, say DVD, resolution, then there's a pronounced lack of clarity over the whole image, so this seems a reasonable test. Clearly things have progressed, I tried on some 1930s footage and I had to get down to about 400 pixels across the width before I lost sharpness, but it seems 1280x720 is adequate for even recent, high budget releases.
Just wondering what other people's thoughts are on this.
It sounds like you want to use three viewports and angle the side viewports a lot. Use a wide FOV, then zoom in each view a bit, should give something close to what you want.
As Squelch suggests, it does just sound like you're missing some the VB6 runtime files. For installing them, or the first time the run you program, you generally need to run as administrator. Once the program has successfully loaded once, you can run it normally.
I'm about to start working on VHPA again as I had a few emails come in with requests and suggestions, so if there is anything you'd like to see, please post away!
I'm about to start working on VHPA again as I had a few emails come in with requests and suggestions, so if there is anything you'd like to see, please post away!
Correct, although the cornering stiffness of a tyre, and the maximum lateral force, do not necessarily increase at the same rate (usually the stiffness increases less, thus the required slip angle ends up increasing), and neither increase as quickly as load.
I'm a mod, so I can't actually put anybody on an ignore list. The whole point is that I'm supposed to see everything so I can take appropriate action. In theory I could justify removing any off topic post but obviously that becomes unmanageable. Don't feel like you're being picked on, there's just too much rubbish on the forums for us to get everything, but it stood out a lot in an otherwise interesting thread.
Because banging on about software piracy and posting 4chan crap really isn't helpful, or nice to read for the rest of us. If you suspect something, report the post, and leave it at that.
Essentially, yes. The net result is that the front tyres need to slip more to create the same (in this case, lateral) force as the rears, which is the definition of understeer.
On older cars, I believe speedo was commonly linked to propshaft rotation.
As I see it, there is understeer in three places, each with different (and sometimes conflicting) ways to deal with it.
While outright friction determines the overall understeer/oversteer balance while at the limit, the difference in cornering stiffness front and rear defines the balance while under the limit of adhesion. This is a direct property of the tyres, in response to load and slip. The higher load on the front tyres will make the front stiffness relatively less (cornering stiffness increases non-proprortionally with load), thus creating understeer on turn in.
At the initial point of turn in, before weight transfer begins, the only tool you have to control this is tyre pressures. More pressure will increase the stiffness, and thus the sharpness at this end. So you could increase front tyre pressure and reduce the rear, to reduce understeer at this point.
As turn in progresses and weight transfer begins, you can use the suspension to diagonally shift the weight transfer, and thus control the load distribution of the front and rear tyre pairs. The more evenly loaded the tyres (which axle has the relatively softer roll stiffness - relative to the supported mass, that is), the less they will need to slip in order to produce force, again reducing understeer at that end.
Finally, once settled in to the corner, with maximum weight transfer (I don't see the point of the whole centripetal/centrifugal force argument... the force from the tyres is torquing the car, which creates weight transfer as the suspension reacts to the body roll created), things get more complicated again. If the front and rear are exactly equal in outright friction (unlikely), then everything said this far still applies, and will control the balance of the car. If not, the more unbalanced the two ends of the car are, the more you will just feel this difference determining the handling, and the effect from he difference in cornering stiffnesses will become much reduced.
One last complication with FWD cars is that the engine is generally providing some torque to the wheels, causing longitundinal slip. This reduces cornering stiffness massively, and is responsible for the large feeling of understeer, even when all four tyres are still well within their traction circle.
Managing all of this is not easy and you can never remove all of the understeer, at all times, from a non balanced car, and FWD will always add understeer (much like RWD will always add oversteer).
While outright friction determines the overall understeer/oversteer balance while at the limit, the difference in cornering stiffness front and rear defines the balance while under the limit of adhesion. This is a direct property of the tyres, in response to load and slip. The higher load on the front tyres will make the front stiffness relatively less (cornering stiffness increases non-proprortionally with load), thus creating understeer on turn in.
At the initial point of turn in, before weight transfer begins, the only tool you have to control this is tyre pressures. More pressure will increase the stiffness, and thus the sharpness at this end. So you could increase front tyre pressure and reduce the rear, to reduce understeer at this point.
As turn in progresses and weight transfer begins, you can use the suspension to diagonally shift the weight transfer, and thus control the load distribution of the front and rear tyre pairs. The more evenly loaded the tyres (which axle has the relatively softer roll stiffness - relative to the supported mass, that is), the less they will need to slip in order to produce force, again reducing understeer at that end.
Finally, once settled in to the corner, with maximum weight transfer (I don't see the point of the whole centripetal/centrifugal force argument... the force from the tyres is torquing the car, which creates weight transfer as the suspension reacts to the body roll created), things get more complicated again. If the front and rear are exactly equal in outright friction (unlikely), then everything said this far still applies, and will control the balance of the car. If not, the more unbalanced the two ends of the car are, the more you will just feel this difference determining the handling, and the effect from he difference in cornering stiffnesses will become much reduced.
One last complication with FWD cars is that the engine is generally providing some torque to the wheels, causing longitundinal slip. This reduces cornering stiffness massively, and is responsible for the large feeling of understeer, even when all four tyres are still well within their traction circle.
Managing all of this is not easy and you can never remove all of the understeer, at all times, from a non balanced car, and FWD will always add understeer (much like RWD will always add oversteer).
Well hopefully that's the matter dealt with now then.
Really nice to see you're getting to do something you clearly have talent and passion for. Kudos.
I just can't get over that anyone, even the ASA, would even make that connection in the first place. It's like they're bored with nothing better to do. It makes me want to throttle them.
Yahoo condones anti-social behaviour and irresponsible driving. Apparently.
Fictional tracks have the potential to be far superior to real tracks. They are not subject to financial, safety or geographical restrictions, don't need to worry about spectators and viewability, and don't have to cater to any particular series, with it's rules and regulations.
LFS has good variety in cars already, though this could easily be expanded greatly. Tracks have been the weak point since pretty much day one. Not in terms of quality, just quantity. LFS need more artists. Since cloning Eric is out of the question, more people need to get involved for LFS to reach it's potential. There are several routes the devs could take to achieve this, but will they take any of them?
LFS has good variety in cars already, though this could easily be expanded greatly. Tracks have been the weak point since pretty much day one. Not in terms of quality, just quantity. LFS need more artists. Since cloning Eric is out of the question, more people need to get involved for LFS to reach it's potential. There are several routes the devs could take to achieve this, but will they take any of them?
Indeed, mine is back too.
It's not the dark. It's because groups of youngsters get in cars together, egg each other on, and the driver does silly things. It's not the road or driving itself that becomes more inherently more dangerous (the opposite I'd say). You can stop this by not allowing people to drive at night, or by mandating the older supervisor, who should in theory stop such situations, yet still allow night driving. Or just through proper education of youngsters.
I tend to agree that limiting how they drive is likely going to be more effective.
I tend to agree that limiting how they drive is likely going to be more effective.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG