Also happened to me, also using ATT. I hadn't had any black screen problems since switching from Nvidia to ATI so it probably has something to do with
Couldn't reproduce it though so I can't be sure.
Yeah, it's funny. At one point I had full S2 privelliges on this account (avatar, sig etc.). Then I lost them during a forum software update. Then after that hacker attack a few months ago my old avatar came back out into the open but I still don't have access to the menus to change or deactivate it.
I've uploaded the two youtube clips you linked to in better quality so you can see his right hand better. I would say the Monaco one is clearly H-shift (right at the beginning you can see him pull back to 5th and then push forward to 6th) while the Interlagos one is hard to tell but IMO also H-Shift.
Damn. After finally managing to join the track ("can't pit, player is connecting") I got the blackscreen of death when I used shift F4. I believe something changed in a recent test patch?
How do you know it's overheating? You neither mentioned the CPU temperature nor any stability problems. If your PC doesn't crash, it's not overheating, almost by definition.
If it's noise that's annoying you, open the case, find out which fan is noisy by stopping them from rotating with your finger and then replace the loudest with a better one.
Just remembered that I once encountered a similar problem with a laptop. But I can't remember if I fixed it by changing the XP power management settings from laptop to desktop or by installing a program that let me force the FSB and multiplier (CrystalCPUID?).
Some people in this thread should be ashamed of themselves. He's 8 FFS! Do you know any 8 year olds? Can you imagine reacting to one of them like that if he came up to you in real life to show you his first ventures into the world of programming?
OK maybe one of you can help me here. I've just realized that I don't even understand the simplest of all models of a car going round a corner which is the steady-state, neutral steer, two wheeled bicycle model as described in RCVD.
On p130 it is stated that if the centre or mass is exactly half way between the front and the rear contact patch and both tyres are identical then the front slip angle will be identical to the rear slip angle while the car follows a perfect, steady state circle.
Now if the car is travelling on a circle, then obviously it has a constant yaw velocity. But if the tyres and their slip angles are identical then the lateral forces they create must also be identical. Now my problem: If they are the same then where do the forces come from that make the car yaw?
EDIT: While writing the above I realized my mistake: The the car has a constant yaw velocity, not a constant yaw acceleration. This means there shouldn't be any yawing forces during steady state cornering as these would cause yaw acceleration. So I guess I answered my own question.
Yawing forces are needed to build up a yaw velocity from zero, during the transition from straight line to steady state cornering. For this torque to exist you need to have a higher force i.e. higher slip angle at the front wheel than at the rear, which is what Shotglass meant by "understeer by definition up to the apex".
Yep, that's really the issue now. We should accept that McLaren didn't break any rules and publicly explained what happened and leave it at that. Now that the FIA are investigating McLaren will just keep quiet next time and the spectators will lose out even more.
Disagree. So far we know that he is able to give the best driver in F1 a run for his money in every race and qualifying from his first race onwards (compare to Rosberg, Kubica, Kovalainen) and doesn't make any mistakes while doing it.
Agree but I think there's a big difference between letting them run until the final pitstops and letting them run until only the first. When you jump in that early you really are mocking the spectators IMO.
Also I don't fully understand Ron Dennis' explaination. Why exactly is a one stop strategy better in case there is a pace car? Why did LH only have 5 laps more fuel than FA if fhe really was on a one stop strategy? Why exactly did they switch to two stops during the race? One stop worked quite well for Wurz and Kubica.
What I do understand is that they saw just how hard both drivers were chucking their cars around (a beauty to watch) and then got scared that maybe they would throw away a very very good chance to win the race. Especially for Lewis, who touched bariers more than one, I think this was a good decision from a team point of view.
Don't like this at all as I feel tricked into believing I was watching a motorrace.
But at least they came out with the truth afterwards and the decisions made are understandable from a team point of view.
I watched the second part of qualifying from onboard and made a splitscreen clip of LH and FA's fastest laps. It doesn't show much, only 25 seconds, but it does show that there still was some laptime potential left in the McLaren.
This thread actually got me to start reading the handling parts of Milliken. Haven't gone far yet and it doesn't look like it's going to be easy but I did come across a quote that seems relevant to some of the confusion in this thread.
So as I understand it the race driver's sensation of understeer is not closely related to the engineering definition of front slip angle > rear slip angle. To really understand it I would need to get a bit more involved with the subject than I have time for ATM but at least you guys know where to look now (in case you didn't already).