Radsoc

SimCity Warlords 2 Sudden Strike 2 Alpha Centauri Battlezone Red Alert

What\'s your current CPU? I would wait for Ivy Bridge + 1 month, that is about to be released.

Well, the only way to find out is to find reviews and look at test results. There is no general AMD > Intel, or Intel > AMD result.

I burned two ASUS boards in a row for my old X2 4800+, but got them replaced by the warranty. Then I finally got a Gigabyte board as replacement along with a replacement for the CPU (to the AM2 version), a SATA 2 HD and new RAM . It lasted for years. A couple of weeks ago the comp shut down randomly from time to time, I eventually found that a component on the board had blown up and burnt. It was a hard time finding an AM2 board, and when I did I found one online which cost about 70€ incl. shipping etc, which is a bit much considering the age of it. I can\'t send you a board, but I can direct you to a shop located in Sweden where I got my board from.

Two cores is a minimum, but if you want to run other programs in the background you will benefit from it even if you\'re a gamer only. And with the new consoles being heavily multi-core it also means that more games will be using more cores, also when ported or made for the PC. Four cores minimum is a must for any computer that is set to last for the next few years. And the cores also have to be good, that\'s why i7 is the only alternative. I\'m not saying that you should buy any enthusiast i7\'s like the Extreme editions (they are a waste of money), but the cheapest of the high-ends in the latest generation usually has the best value. You can\'t get the best value components for less than USD 1500. I completely understand the 'budget' constraint, and my opinion is that he shouldn\'t buy anything at all under those conditions. So I won\'t suggest a build, because there is none. He should save his money for a later time when he can buy something that lasts. That\'s what will benefit him the most. Otherwise he will just be able to play Shogun 2 (barely) for a while, then he quickly will be back in the same situation as before. The one and only real budget computer is a good one that holds for years and not for days or months. Buying three computers in three years is much more expensive than buying one and perhaps upgrading the GFX after 1.5 yrs.

Even if VAT and other factors are accounted for I still get a minimum of about USD 1.4k . I wouldn\'t settle for less than a GTX 670, an i7 processor, and 6-8 GB RAM. I don\'t include a monitor or SSD-primary in the budget.

Don\'t buy anything for below $1500 (a low estimate). You will be disappointed and you will also find that the use-value of such a computer is close to zero. You would buy something that won\'t work well for games like Shogun 2, something that\'s already outdated. What some people have posted for that price is worse than my 3+ year old rig, of which only the chassi retains its original value. To be very frank you just pay a lot of money for overpriced trash that\'s already old, and don\'t get the value (or performance) you look for. Save your money until you can buy something that works, and that for a couple of years, and not something that works so-so from day 0 and a month on. And if you really are serious about saving money you should build it yourself. It might seem a bit harsh for a beginner, but you don\'t get anywhere without an effort. The hard thing is to find components that fit together well, and that\'s what you need help with.

Wow cool. Good work!

You can get a computer for 200 bucks too, but that would just be money down the drain. But it all depends on what you want to do with the computer. Better save your money until you can buy something that holds for three years without problems. A computer for $400 USD won\'t be significantly better than your current one, whatever that one is. Just use your old OS, you can install it on your new computer. I use XP 64, the performance is better than that of 7. If you really have to buy an OS you can get discounts if you are a student. I get it for free. However, don\'t settle for anything low-end. It\'s bad value.

The best idea is to save to reach the treshold where performance/value is best. I think you need at least $1k . GTX 670 will be released in May. Go for that one.

i7 920 @ 2.9 GHz on air. 6 GB DDR 3 Triple-Channel 896 MB GTX 260

Don\'t buy a laptop for gaming unless you have no other choice. Supreme Commander and SimCity are CPU intense, while the other games aren\'t very GPU demanding. So it looks like the CPU will be more important than the GPU for you. And GPUs are easier to replace (no need to change the MB). My strategy is to buy a cheap one from the latest gen and upgrade when I need to. I can still run almost everything I want on my GTX 260 (definitely those games). GTA V might be demanding, but I think it\'s being limited by the console hardware anyway. CPU is still important there for traffic etc, but you most likely need a lot of VRAM as well if you want to max things out.

I think you need about £1000 to get good performance/value. (i.e. that lasts for 3 years, with no or minor upgrades). Right now I\'m waiting for the GTX 670. Not sure about the CPU, but definitely some i7. I will reuse my old GTX 260 for PhysX. Modular power supply with 4+ PCI-e rails. (2 for GTX 260, and 2 for the 670). The chassis has to fit 4 slots for GPUs and some PCI. Most likely a somewhat bigger than standard has to be used. I\'ve got 6GB RAM currently, but never used that much. So I\'ll aim for that again. Small SSD for the Windows-HD. 1 TB+ total storage. Reuse old ones. Soundcard (very important for the sound quality, old ones are as good). Mainboard with PCI-e 3.0 USB 3.0 Gigabit ethernet Later on: Retina 24' Screen (probably next year) (They seem to call it 4K HD) Approx: £150 Chassis £350 GPU £350 CPU £100 SSD £50 HD £150 Mainboard £100 RAM £100 PSU

Next time.

That\'s cool, but you must have done something extra? I mean a lot of people have had all A\'s without receiving any recognitions.

Pyongyang reveals newest rocket: Specs (PHOTOS, VIDEO) http://rt.com/news/pyongyang-rocket-launch-unha-552/ Will it reach into orbit?

Yes, but see it as a shuttle service. There are more people on the moon that may need transport and there\'s only a limited amount of crafts

I\'m also working on this, however, I\'m pretty sure it won\'t be possible for the orbit to follow the moon unless thrusters are applied. Maybe it\'s possible to make the 'rendezvous' occur relatively frequently (in periods), which in theory could be supplemented by addtional stations to make it possible to make transfers every month or so.

Alright, that\'s probably doable, so by orbiting Kerbin you get to accelerate perpendicularly towards the gravitational field and reach higher speeds before you finally 'exit' than you would get by going straight up? That\'s the idea behind the higher fuel efficiency?

If you can make it follow the moon around Kerbin you have a solution, i.e. to have the moon permanently inside the orbit. But that might not be possible.

No tidal effects in other words. They may be using such an approximation for some reason, but that alone wouldn\'t make things impossible, just maybe less accurate and prone to growing errors, because you can still just pass the station from one body to another. I think that\'s a first step. The difficulty arises when we want the Ap to rotate around Kerbin at the same angular velocity as the moon. The polar orbit is intuitively a great idea (at least makes thinking easier). Initially it could be in orbit at a distance where the Moon doesn\'t affect the station. I\'m more or less assuming a space station on the Moon here, but it doesn\'t really matter. The problem is interesting enough in itself as it is Earth and Moon is a good start in any case.

I guess that all celestial bodies affect the space craft gravitation-wise (within some numerical limits). The displayed trajectory likely takes all bodies into account, while being limited (in plot) to the surroundings of the dominant body. Maybe they just don\'t show non-local trajectory plots to keep a limit on line clutter? It shouldn\'t take that much extra computational power to compute a little bit more of it. But of course, right now, with the current limited trajectories, the challenge likely relies more on math than on testing. One very basic solution is to position the craft very very far away from both bodies, at a distance where Mun+Kerbin would behave more or less like one body. Then it would orbit both bodies. But it doesn\'t fulfill the minimization requirement on the other side. In addition to that the station should follow the rotation of the moon around Kerbin, i.e. the average angular velocity around Kerbin has to be the same.

The most common technique to reach the moon is to use the 'Trans Munar Injection', i.e. you orbit Kerbin early on. A drawback is that it may create more space junk around the planet than necessary. I\'ve been doing it differently, I just keep going straight on up until the trajectory maximum reaches 11400km which is the Munar orbit radius. Consumed steps will fall back to Kerbin as no orbit exists at that stage. Ideally the moon waits for you there (at this point the fuel consumption should be equal to the Trans Munar one), but otherwise you have to accelerate in the opposite direction of the moon and align with its orbit. A good thing is that you never miss it.

The idea is to have a permanent space station in an orbit around both Mun and Kerbin, that transports people from Kerbin to Mun and vice versa. Other local space craft would have to handle the transport to and from the station. It should definitely be possible, but a condition is to minimize the minimum distances to the Mun and Kerbin form the station orbit. How close can you get while maintaining a stable orbit? What would it look like? Ellipse-shaped? An eight?

I\'m not an artist, but everyone needs a suitable avatar.