Amram

true enough. I sometimes wonder if most computers have an unstated design feature to keep your room clear of dust for longer by inhaling all of the dust themselves. Small heatsink/fan combos, like those on motherboards or graphics cards are especially good at it and CPU\'s aren\'t much if any worse. I\'ve only ever owned a single system that didn\'t excel at collecting dust, and thats my current system. I attribute that entirely to a lack of fans within the case however. Its water cooled, so only the PSU and radiator have fans for a total of 3 120mm fans, thats it. Every other system I have ever owned has made it apparent that canned air, or strong lungs are necessary. I wouldn\'t stress too much over DoA parts. Most places have really good RMA processes for such parts, so its typically fairly painless and reasonably quick to get things dealt with. When i dealt with Koolance they sent out my replacement pump by overnight air, i had it before the end of the next day after i mentioned it, not 48 hours from initial delivery to replacement delivery, and had a month to get the dead part back to them. I still visit stores for parts, but only if they price match now, or legitimately hold the lowest price, if not its online all the way. I\'ve had no more problems with that route(other than the obvious delays that shipping brings) than with buying the parts in a store.

HD\'s can bottle neck you, but in different ways. they mostlty impact loading times. games that load sections of a map as needed for example might suffer frequent stuttering if the HD is too slow, or fragmented. It also holds you back with load times and initial startup times. But generally speaking, no, the HD is insignificant if any bottleneck. Im a little late to the party it seems, but yeah, thats a good call. More ram is always usable. Beyond a given point it stops really showing any improvement, but what happens is that instead of having no more free ram and everything slowing to a crawl, you still have all that new ram to use. If you had less than 3gb of ram i\'d say te ram itself would make a huge difference. Since you made it pretty clear you have at least 3, and most likely 4, then yeah, more ram is useful, and has its perks, but its not the clearly evident increase you\'d be seeking. You should see a pretty significant step up in the graphics card. More memory for the card is mostly useful at high resolutions, with antialiasing, and anistrophic filtering. two cards, otherwise identical, both play saw, WoW at minimum settings, and you will probably get near identical settings. Play something like Skyrim, or Shogun 2, max out the graphic settings and ensure that AA and AF are at 16x, and use a large resolution like 1920X1080, or larger, and I can guarantee you the 2gb card will get significantly higher frame rates. Having gone from a 4670 to a 6850 is an enormous jump. from the low end of the budget line, to the low end of the mainstream line and 2 generations newer. i think you\'ll be pleased.

considering all he discusses is the cooling of the oxidant, and says nothing of the engine itself? What he has described is an Intercooler The system isn\'t there to directly influence the engines, such as by cooling them off, which would indeed make it an engine cooling system. It is there to help feed them, by cooling their oxidizer to a liquid form allowing them to run. sourced form http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/spaceplane-engine-tests-under-way-361501/ and that would be the test that were talking about.

as would I, but thats why it got posted, clarification to eliminate

well, your laptop would need an intel chip to operate, another i3, or possibly 15 if they make those in a mobile version as well. http://www.cpu-world.com/info/Intel/Intel_Core_i3_Mobile.html according to that, you wouldn\'t be able to get that working anyways, different socket types, your laptop\'s i3 wouldn\'t fit in a motherboard meant for a tower.

sound anything like this?

if the sockets are compatible, definitely can. Im not well read on what differences, if any, the i3\'s have in mobile form, but if it does perform about the same it saves you about $100 that you can put towards a more powerful graphics card if you wanted. You would probably find its a lower capability chip though. mobile parts usually are. They don\'t have the airflow, or the space to mount a potent cooling system, so they usually have to be alot more reigned in about what they can do, how much power they draw etc. The i3 is a rather low draw chip though, so it just may well be the same i3 in both places. I\'ll get back to you on that one, unless someone else beats me to it

fair enough, lol. And for the money, it is a good system, like i noted above, there really isn\'t any more you can get, and it should get you into such games just fine, but you\'ll have to tone it down some to keep solid frame rates. probably he biggest benefit, most significant if you take the I3 chip, is that in a few months you can drop in more powerful parts and get even more capability out of it.

I assume Tradingmon, that your referring to two separate lines coming into the house? Pretty much every house is wired with two pairs of wires, letting just about every house out there operate two separate lines. Wire a few jacks to hook into the second pair of wires and away you go, but that line needs to be active. If you did actually mean one single paid for line into the house, capable of supporting more than one simultaneous phone call, then that is interesting, i had no idea its actually been done before.

does the sound persist even after you restore the settings to defaults? If it persists even after default settings are restored, then something has probably happened to the system, probably hardware related at this point. While your system is running, pop open the side panel, and see if you can\'t figure out which part is making the noise. That can help narrow it down. and like Ydoow said, might simply be a bit of lint that shifted and ruined the balance of a fan causing it to wobble and make the noise. If its not simple, or apparent, and still happens on default settings I have a few little utilities to have you run that will provide numbers useful in getting more specific in the troubleshooting.

I think your best bet at this point, seeing as how your getting into game specific settings would be to go check out their forum with that question. you\'d have access to an entire community that has experience with that specific game then, and a number of whom who can probably answer this question with surprising detail. I\'ve never compared the different settings and the performance i got from them, so i couldn\'t even begin to guess accurately. You could probably play Rome 2 on that system, but there not a snowballs chance in hell its going to do it with ultra settings, lol. i think normal in Rome 2 will probably be a heavier load than ultra is in Shogun 2. I do not have numbers to base that off of, thats just a semi-educated guess based on a decade of PC gaming. So the system talked about in this thread will probably lag noticeably just on normal settings in Rome 2. The Total War forums could narrow that range FAR more than I can.

.youtube.com/watch?v=VLkTIRNur1E&feature=related thats what the benchmark runs. Either zoomed all the way in one one unit, or zoomed out alot and panning, or skimming a cross one army. The benckmarks have shown that for just THAT, which is far less than two 20 unit armies colliding, you will dip down to 30+ FPS. I think having seen that, and the performance of both the 6790 and the 6870 in Shogun 2, that 2 full armies smashing together, such as during 1v1\'s, you are going to dip below 30 frames/second. That is a very noticeable slowdown, but maybe not unplayable. it may be enough to make the mouse jerky as well, im not sure, every game acts differently when falling behind. I think if you want to run Shogun 2 on full ultra across the board, and have no slowdowns at all, your going to need to raise the budget quite a bit. As an example, a 7870 with 2 or more gb of ram will probably get you through a 1v1 with maximum settings, 1920x1200 resolution, and 16x AA and AF without dipping under 40 FPS, a 2v2 with 80 units running around might cause slowdowns even for that card if both armies meet in the same place and try to get all 80 units on screen at the same time and place. its ridiculous the demands a game like Shogun 2 can make on your system. Remember that the recommended hardware are what it takes to play on NORMAL settings. If you want to rise above that, then your hardware must also rise above that. High is above normal, Ultra is far beyond normal. For Empire Total war, I found myself coming up short with a 4890 with ultra settings in 40 unit battles at 1920X1200 resolution. I suspect Shogun will do the same thing to the generation of cards that was the top tier when it launched. My system hasn\'t changed much since, im due for a pretty significant upgrade, just been putting it off. I run an i7 950 with 6gb DDR3, and a 4890. I push both the CPU and the gfx card with on overclock getting more speed out of both. That wasn\'t enough for Empire Total war at max settings. Most armies with just two full armies of 20 units, mine and theirs, it choked on it until a bunch of them died off. Or I turned some stuff down. Shogun 2 is to Empire what Empire was to Medieval 2, and what Medieval 2 was to Rome. A big step forward in graphics, and with that, a bit step forward in demands. If the growth of graphics in the game has kept pace with the growth of performance in card then the following should be a fairly decent approximation. If a 4890 was not enough for Empire, then a 6890 is likely not enough for Shogun 2 at maximum settings without lagging hard. I do not think a 6890(and especially not a 6790) can handle maximum settings without choking on it from time to time. I think the campaign will be doable, the occasional battle might be too much for it, but not too bad. I think you will find yourself seeing low 30\'s and 20\'s framerates fairly often in full 40 unit armies. To some people this is perfectly playable, the settings MUST come down at that point for me. Very few gamers set out to do a new system on a budget of less than $1200. I understand your pain, and the lack of funding, been there many times, and it does suck when its just not enough. I do not think your going to get satisfactory results out of Shogun 2, full 1v1 battles in multiplayer for example at full settings on a $400 or $500 budget. Rise to twice that, $800 to $1000 and your talking very possible to do Ultra 1v1\'s with no lag, maybe also 2v2\'s with only a little. If thats not possible, then your choice is pretty binary with the $500 or $400 budget. Play Shogun 2 on ultra, and accept the lag which might be problematic. Play Shogun 2 at settings much less than ultra and have little to no lag. probably not what you wanted to hear.

I think you\'ll have slowdowns, and places where it will choke on it pretty good, but overall, quite good framerates at ultra settings. i think both the CPU, and the GFX card are minimums for your objective of shogun two on ultra. you can do it, and it will chug a little here and there, but thats only into the 30\'s from what i\'ve read, and when the resolution is larger than 1920, or AA is maxed out and at 1920 resolution. If your resolution is less than 1920x1080 or x1200, then this gets easier for the gfx card and you will probably be ok for the most part. Too much lag?, depends on your battle sizes and resolution more than anything else. But yeah, it should be fairly doable. the I3 is a decent chip and should be enough for the task at hand, I can\'t say that for the FX-4100 and Shogun 2, this is one place where Intel\'s lead really shines. and the radeon 6790 is enough for the job as well, but thats that, just enough, and thats from an average point of view. sometimes you\'ll be on the bottom end of that average and you\'ll probably notice when you are. 6790 on shogun 2 -note, these are with CPU\'s better than the i3 2120, so the frames are a bit higher than you will see, but not hugely so http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1148/pg7/sapphire-radeon-hd-6790-graphics-card-review-total-war-shogun-2.html http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/AMD_Radeon_HD_6790/13.html if you can raise the budget to do it, reach a little higher in the graphics card specifically, to get on average 13 more FPS, roughly 30% at 1920x1200. 82E16814161389 that should keep you from seeing slowdowns on all but the highest resolutions, or the really massive battles. its worth noting that its very possible to bring ANY system to its knees with shogun 2. All you need to do is get enough units on screen at once. So, bottom line? assuming a resolution of 1920x1080, or 1920x1200: more is almost always better, but to stay as close to the original budget as possible, i\'d stop there. you\'ll top out under $500, but considerably more grunt in the graphics, for which Shogun 2 is very demanding(something has to make those hundreds of little soldiers look good). If your not concerned with maybe(might not be necessary at all, its kind of a close call) having to restrict the battle sizes a bit, or the occasionally bout of noticeable choppy framerate, the $400 budget should have you covered well enough.

as compared to? for the $400 range, i\'d personally say 8 or 9 for either build. there really isn\'t much if any more you can eek out of it for $400 It doesn\'t really matter where you look, to get more the price HAS to come up. you can stop here if you want, this is the SUPER SHORT version. beware the spoiler tags, i did that for a reason, lol. but if you want opinions, there\'s mine, both what my view is, why, and the pros and cons i can think of as i write this. Last warning, you\'ll be reading for a while, lol. - not much more you can get for the price range. To do better is going to force you into a higher price. And its not a bad card at all. Definitely not the latest and greatest, but not worthless either. getting up into the 6800\'s would serve you well and the card will really show its strengths compared to the 6790, but doing this will take you much closer to the $200 card range, just off the top of my head, not referencing Newegg for this, i\'d say 160-180 easy. worth it if you plan to try and avoid upgrading for a long period after this. Im still running my 4890 almost three years later, and still haven\'t encountered a game I really want to play that i have to turn down the graphics at 1920x1200. its not the most demanding title out there, but i ran Deus Ex Human Revolution at max settings with no perceptible lag at all. A Radeon 6790 should easily outperform my card in most, if not all categories. the sole exception being that im watercooled, overclocked, and sitting on a 2gb card instead of 1, but its also 3 years old, so for me, a 6790 would likely be an upgrade even counting the boosted overclock performance. You could spend more, I would spend more, but I think you will probably find the 6790 will serve you well enough for long enough that you\'ll not regret it. Besides, odds are you will find more games where the processors mentioned will hold you back than you will games where the gfx card holds you back with this card. CPU - hurting a bit here, but its almost impossible to do better than that for $400. An i5 2500k eats half your entire stated budget by itself at $229. that said, it would take either the I3 2120, or the FX-4100 and chew them right up, its not even a contest to compare them. The last few builds i did for the $1400 CDN(comparable to US $1000 depending on day of the week, lol) used the i5 2600k which Newegg isn\'t carrying currently, the 2500k is just one notch down in frequency, but all round nearly identical. you would probably never notice the difference outside of benchmarks. If there was any one place where i\'d recommend increasing your budget by up to $100, its right here. the difference in performance that $100 can net you is staggering, and leaves you that much better positioned against what will come out next month, next year, etc. It really depends on what you intend to play. a game like KP, especially at this early stage for graphics is almost entirely bottlenecked by the CPU in almost all cases. To be bottlenecked by the gfx required you to either be running a gfx card probably well over 5 years old, or integrated graphics. i cannot see a Radeon 6790 being below the recommended hardware for the game, if anything it will probably be either overkill, or a little ways beyond recommended when they get that far. Your CPU will probably find itself at or below the minimum line however. I mentioned that for $400 you have to cut yourself short somewhere, and generally its here that it happens. The drop in performance to get a cheaper graphics card it just too big for a small drop in price, and at this price level no other part has any real value to go down in other than the CPU. All you can really do at this price point is pick something that leaves your future open and available to you. If you can buy the best processor there is, and put it in your motherboard, then you should be set, just remember to buy one before they stop making them and you can extend the life of your system enormously, it\'ll feel like a new system with the speed boost that will bring. best of all, no format necessary. SO, Cpu, personally I\'d go with the i5 solution I mentioned, slightly faster, especially at raw number crunching which is where KSP hammers processors the most, and leaves you open to the i% lineup, which are the best midrange CPU\'s on the market when considering only performance. mix in the price and AMD wins some and loses some there, but the upper ends of things are all intel. - I honestly have always had a seething hatred for the micro atx form factor, but its more me than the hardware, lol. I just don\'t like trying to make everything fit on such a compact motherboard. on the otherhand, getting it into your case is ALOT easier than with a full size mobo. With buying a motherboard near the bottom of the pile, there are generally a few considerations that come with, but for the most part, you can safely ignore them and not really worry at all. I\'ll start with the ram slots. you have two, and right from the start, they\'ll be full, so upgrading your ram will cost you more down the road, because you cannot add more, you have to replace what you already have with better to get more. You will also usually get fewer external ports, like USB. Sometimes as few as just two which might both be taken by your mouse and keyboard. Realistically, this is more of a nuisance than a serious problem however. for under 60 bucks you can pretty much pick any USB hub you want, some of which are powered and can feed all your devices off the one port on the computer, which solves that. Hubs can also be found very close to, if not occasionally below $5(i\'d aim a little higher tho, lol) It can sometimes be difficult to reach things like your sata ports(to plug in your HDD and CD drive) if the graphics card is installed, or sometimes the graphics card doesn\'t fit well with the SATA plugged in. because its a very small motherboard, they have to cram things in where ever they fit, while still trying to follow basic design standards. most of the time its not much of a problem, sometimes you find a board that makes you drop to your knees, plant your face in your hands, and weep at the stupidity of the layout chosen because something simple, is now impossible. Honestly, while its something to think about, its not as big a concern as it sounds. Check review for the part for one, these can tell you about details like it being almost impossible to instal an Radeon 4790 on this board so beware, and reading that, you\'ll know about the issue before you get it. I do not expect an issue here though, don\'t worry about it much. just the ram slots - absolutely no complaints on the ram. its pretty hard to go wrong with either Mushkin, G.Skill, Corsair, or Patriot when buy ram, especially if you hit their midrange lines. its amazingly rare to see a major OEM like IBM, or HP give you enough ram, its stupidly cheap, and they can cut you short without changing the price, then later when you complain, they can offer you an upgrade that is massively overpriced. Im still ticking on 6gb ddr3 and don\'t have space issues. I tend to get lazy about closing things(i7 quad core, 6gb triple channel ram, and an SSD will do that, my system is always responsive). i\'ve had several hundred firefox tabs open, across a couple windows, in a single session that has been ongoing for week, sometimes longer. Firefox eventually slows to a crawl when it hits its ram limit around 1.8gb. I\'ll have excel open in one unbroken session for months. I use excel as my generic calculator for pretty much everything, plus some hefty excel sheets that make my system lock up for a few seconds when you change something. on top of this I will have games that im playing, while all of this is open, and I never notice. I have caught myself with more than one instance of the same game open before. I\'ll have all of that open, AND play KSP with no noticable impact. I have 6gb, and i never notice any real issues with space, you\'ve got 8gb listed, and slightly faster ram too, i can\'t see you having any complaints with that. the CD and HD are pretty much standard fare, so there\'s not much to comment there really. 160gb is rather small though. I know I would be feeling the crunch real bad. i don\'t know what games you play, or how many you prefer to have installed at once, and how often you download stuff(not just movies/music, I mean anything, demors, pictures, youtube videos, you name it, it all takes space afterall) You can easily buy an external drive and get alot of capacity for relatively cheap, so a small HD isn\'t a problem, just a nuisance. And possibly one that will not even bother you. That said, N82E16822148539, [ur/=http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822152181]N82E16822152181, N82E16822136073 are all sitting at 79.99 currently, 10 bucks more, 3 times larger. N82E16822148697 is what i\'d pick if on a tight budget. for 60% more money you get 6 times more space. most people will not feel a need for more HD space for a very long time with 1tb. Well, given the budget I wouldn\'t worry about the case at all. there are some reasons to spend more here though. Some of the benefits that usually come with spending more are: sturdier design(ever have side panels that warp and won\'t go back on easily? more spacious, so its both easier to work with, and stays cooler due to better overall airflow(less constricted) tool less designs mean that aside from mounting the motherboard, you can do everything without needing to first find a screwdriver, or screws. better vibration isolation. Much of the noise from computers comes from the case itself suffering a sympathetic vibration, usually from the HD\'s, and PSU, but other fans can cause vibration and noise as well a more refined design, ever slice your finger on an exposed aluminum sheet edge? Doesn\'t seem sharp, slip just right and you\'ll get a rather nasty paper cut, and they can go DEEP if you catch it just right. they generally stand the test of time much better. i was a long time buyer of cheap cases, and they always wore out fairly quickly. by the time the system was due for replacement, the case was also due for replacement. A good well built case might outlive several builds and host all of them. convenient connector mounts. many cases give you USB up front, and often mic/headphones. With better cases these find better more convenient home in some designs(Antec 1200 for one), However, unless some of those are important to you, there is no real reason to go buy a quality case. Speaking practically, a case is nothing more than a metal box to protect the electronics, and keep them in one place. If that is all you need, then don\'t worry about any of that, and buy what suits you, whether that be cheap and inside the budget, or a little more for something you decided you want. i personally have a Thermaltake Spedo Advance. Love the damned thing. Always used to go with cheap cases, that was my point of view that last sentence up there. its a box. 4 builds later im still using the same case, and its still in better shape than any of my cheap cases ever were. Let me start this by saying that for $400, your best bet is probably to stick with the PSU that comes with the case. a decent PSU standalone will cost you $45+, and there goes the cost of the case. There are some mixed opinions here. I generally buy a PSU that actually outclasses my needs for a couple of reasons. more convenient with modular cabling. far more convenient. rather that fight with a stiff densely packed overstuffed bundle of cables most of which i will never end up connecting, You only plug in those you need. This reduced clutter in the case, which can help airflow depending on the layout and where the cables all end up. if you can help airflow, then the case interior stays a little cooler, which means all the parts keep a little cooler since most will use the case interior air to cool themselves off. much quieter. the PSU itself isn\'t necessarily a quieter PSU when compared fairly, full load to full load. compared fairly, with say, a 400w PSU and 600W PSU, and 800W PSU at full load, you\'ll find PSU\'s that are all about as quiet, or all about as loud. I won\'t ever hit full load, and this is beneficial for a few reasons. My system as i type this is drawing 160w, and full bore peaks around 360ish. i have an 800w powersupply. Its not possible for me to exceed 50% load, its actually rare that the fan in my PSU even turns on. because im watercooled the case interior stays cool, plus the PSU gets its air from outside the case using a grill on the bottom of the case. passive cooling can keep up unless the room itself gets too warm for that. Also, by keeping the PSU cooler, it will live longer. its just a fact of electronics, heat kills. its not quick if kept to reasonable levels, but its significant over the long run. One of the worst killers of complete systems is the powersupply. When they die, they start to give bad voltages. Maybe they are too low and you become unstable and crash alot. Maybe they go to high and slowly burnout components until you have a hardware failure. a cooler PSU is kind of like a healthcare plan, spend a little more to get more life. Then there\'s noise. if you can hear the PSU, then by using a PSU that doesn\'t need to spin up its far often or at all, it will make much less noise. This isn\'t the issue it used to be though, most fans in computers these days are surprisingly quiet. efficiency. PSU\'s might list an efficiency rating, and all have one, but this is rarely reached under 100% load temperatures. generally you will find your efficiency goes down the tube, and it pulls more current to give your system the current it needs. This costs you more in the long run, and increases the temperature. If you could change absolutely nothing but the efficiency for a PSU, the more efficient PSU would be the cooler of the two, and as a result, statistically that version would live longer too. And its a self feeding cycle, its just not a strong enough cycle to become runaway. As you heatup, your efficiency goes down, which means you pull more power, which causes more heat, so your efficiency goes down, so you pull more power, etc. It\'s not as bad as it sounds, you won\'t suddenly slip 20% efficiency because you let it get warm, but it does mean over the life of the system lower efficiency could cost you more than the PSU did if its on often enough. better components. the components int he unit are designed to handle operation at 800w loads, but im down around 400w loads, barely half at worst. I will rarely push most of the circuitry to any significant load. its entirely possible I have had PSU\'s with faulty components that had I ever pulled full load and warmed them up might have died very early, instead I\'ve only ever had one PSU die on me, and that was due to a lightning strike just out front of my house while it was still plugged in, nuked a couple things actually, lol. between being cooler, quieter, more efficient, and longer lasting on the same loads, because your not loading the PSU as much as a lower model would be, im of the opinion a more powerful PSU is the way to go there. money well spent imo. that about sums it up. As i started with, or as you can still see if the spoiler tags are closed, lol, for a $400 price range, either route makes for a good system. the price dictated the choices more than wants or needs, and those were bent as favorably as possible, but like anything, they only bend so far. If you can aim higher, its definitely a good call to do so, but as an entry level system: it is worthy imo. and with that, possibly the longest post i\'ve ever done comes to an end, lol.

even as nothing more than a joke, its hilarious and ridiculous, and I can see it happening in various countries too.

random guess as to how, but if you edit a post quickly enough after first posting it they don\'t get flagged as edited. I\'ve seen just over 2 minutes before, but its usually around a minute or so.

I don\'t even....

Very much a smartass reply, but.... yes, it is possible. The phone lines are quite capable of handling more than one data stream simultaneously, look at DSL service for evidence enough of that. So its only fair to say yes at this point, in theory you can connect two landline phones to one landline and operate them with separate numbers provided you separate their data streams. However, the phone company\'s switch system(software, hardware, or both) isn\'t setup to support it, and they are unlikely to change that. Phones also are not setup to support it, and the makers of phones aren\'t likely to include something that needs support from a provider that won\'t support it ever, so.... So, in all practical concerns, no, its not possible, but thats been covered, just clearing up my smartass remark with this bit.

certainly hard to do better for $400. There\'s somewhere you are pretty much forced to cut yourself short to get in under 400. Good gfx card, reasonable CPU, enough ram to get everything done. FOr the cost, not a bad system at all Yes, DDR3 is generally quite a bit cheaper than DDR2. Supply and demand, DDR3 is in supply, DDR2 is dwindling fast. My two cents and an alternative choice: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-4100-core-i3-2100-gaming-benchmark,3136-9.html http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_fx4100_bulldozer&num=5 two reviews, both listing 13 2100\'s and FX4100 with a number of benchmarks to compare with. fairly comparable for the most part, but imo the i3 wins out between these two. As alternatives: [table] [tr] [td]CPU[/td][td]I3 2120[/td][td]N82E16819115077[/td][td]84.99[/td][td]-64.99 w/rebate[/td] [/tr][tr] [td]Mobo[/td][td]MSI H67A-G43[/td] [td]N82E16813130616[/td][td]124.99[/td][/tr][/table] replacing the parts you\'ve listed, and substituting the prices yields $15 to $35 more expensive, depending on the rebate for the motherboard, leaving you at 415 to 435, before shipping. Everything else is perfectly compatible. It leaves you within the same price range as you listed, and it provides a generally faster CPU. plus the door is wide open for you to move up into the I5 lineup down the road if you want to which can bring you into territory AMD cannot yet reach. There are some things the FX-4100 does better, and some tests where it literally destroys the i3 2100 and some tests where the i3 returns the favour just as strongly. Overall the i3 tends to sit just a head in performance, not much, but measurable, and consistent. As i understand the FX-4100\'s are far better at overclocking however, so if thats a concern, it does lend some more support for the FX-4100 if thats something you might be doing with it to extend your value, or its usefulness when its showing its age in a year or two(or more) Anyways, there\'s my two cents on it. Personally i\'d go with the I3 2120, this coming from an AMD fanboy(since the first Athlon) right up until the I7\'s launched and extended an already large Intel performance lead to a ridiculous degree. Some like it, I was keeping an eye on bulldozer, but it looks like a rather spectacular flop for the most part. If AMD ever steals the crown again, i\'ll go back, until then...

it depends entirely. Hardcore sims, such as Lomac, or A-10C, of Falcon 4.0 are a bit insane to the average person. You start and your given a parked, powered down fighter. Spin it up, and your start sequence needs to be right, or it\'ll fail. Usually there are difficulty settings to get into it much faster. But one thing hardcore sims almost never do, even through difficulty settings, is compress time or distance. if its 600nm away, your going to take an hour just to get there, oh well. Combat pilots spend 95% of their time bored, 4.5% of their time busy with soemthing, and 0.5% of their time shitting bricks. .youtube.com/watch?v=Bvi3utr_Vug A-10C, devils cross mission, 52 min video. im at 6:30 as I type this, and he still hasn\'t started to taxi yet, just prepping the aircraft for the mission. of course, when its busy, its busy .youtube.com/watch?v=ifoKXOag6uY .youtube.com/watch?v=FG2BRSP87dI Alot of people who get into such sims use TrackIr. it makes one hell of a difference in games that fully support it. .youtube.com/watch?v=9wXx3vMy_AQ Il-2 series is pretty much the premier series for WW2 combat sims. Its beginning to look a little dated, but the flight model is fine, its far FAR better than MS\'s combat flight sim. Sturmovik is the original in the set, 1946 is fairly recent, and cliffs of dover is the newest im aware of, I might be out of touch there. their replay system is capable enough, and with a few of the right mods and the right missions, it can bring a modern system to its knees still. .youtube.com/watch?v=H0uYH0W_U7E .youtube.com/watch?v=zOSj7QcMqTM .youtube.com/watch?v=PlbP0KbJxgk -gets good at about 5 minutes in. Flight sims that don\'t focus on combat are at the other end of things. your challenge comes from either doing something you haven\'t done, or from failures and/or weather. Full realism flight from Heathrow to Kai Tak, well, thats gonna take a while. Yes, you can accelerate time, but if an engine fails and time is accelerated too far, you might lose it. maybe the elevators will hard-over and your swandive before you get time under control. Of course its flown by autopilot, your mostly just there in case, unless you really want to fly that. Collect some scenery packages and mods and things can look VERY impressive in these sims. it can be quite worth seeing the sights just to see the sights. .youtube.com/watch?v=OcnqAt5E2yw .youtube.com/watch?v=MKNw4Ii-uVM .youtube.com/watch?v=IGTc8oGxUbg .youtube.com/watch?v=OVNzSOVSl-k .youtube.com/watch?v=3ZUq5Ti47Ys I think FSX has better terrain, but X-plane has much better environments, such as road traffic, which you don\'t get in FSX. Simple touch, huge impact on the atmoshere. A collaboration mixing their strengths would be ridiculous. I think that about sums it up. Simmers play them for the simulation more than anything. If all you want is flight, then go for FSX or X-plane. They aren\'t just airliners. Cessna\'s, heli\'s, and more. If you want combat, take your pick, Modern or WW2. If modern, are you a mudslinger(A-10), or a fighter(LOMAC), or both(Falcon 4.0)? They can get pretty intense, and even the hardcore sims have a quick and dirty start that leaves you seconds from the action. Unfortunately, none of the above are all that forgiving of a newcomer. Flight is difficult, and they will punish you for your mistakes, lol. IL-2 will let you go close to arcadish flight on easy settings, but you lack power to really fix big mistakes. LOMAC, A-10, and Falcon put you in aircraft that generally have a thrust to weight better than 1-1, so you can fix most flight screwups just by applying yet more power. Unfortunately they also involve missiles which are rather faster than you. lose too much speed and you can\'t evade effectively. This became ALOT bigger than i first intended, but I can\'t imagine you won\'t understand the genre after it, whether or not you see anything of interest is another matter entirely.

well now, thats cheating, but it works

Can i be a pain and offer a suggestion? [table][tr][td] Player[/td][td] [/td][td] Balance[/td][td] [/td][td] Spent[/td][td] [/td][td] Income[/td][td] [/td][td] New Balance[/td][td] [/td][td] Turn[/td][td] [/td][td] Claimed[/td][td] [/td][td] Profit[/td][/tr][tr][td][/td][/tr] [tr][td] Alchemist[/td][td] [/td][td] 7561[/td][td] [/td][td] 6747[/td][td] [/td][td] 8497[/td][td] [/td][td] 9311[/td][td] [/td][td] 3[/td][td] [/td][td] Orbit: Polar[/td][td] [/td][td] 1750[/td][/tr][tr][td][/td][/tr] [tr][td] Awaras[/td][td] [/td][td] 7926[/td][td] [/td][td] 5772[/td][td] [/td][td] 7090[/td][td] [/td][td] 9244[/td][td] [/td][td] 3[/td][td] [/td][td] 70,000m Altitude[/td][td] [/td][td] 1318[/td][/tr][tr][td][/td][/tr] [tr][td] Crowzone[/td][td] [/td][td] 8466[/td][td] [/td][td] 5622[/td][td] [/td][td] 7447[/td][td] [/td][td] 10291[/td][td] [/td][td] 3[/td][td] [/td][td] 35,000m Altitude[/td][td] [/td][td] 1825[/td][/tr][tr][td][/td][/tr] [tr][td] DonLorenzo[/td][td] [/td][td] 8011[/td][td] [/td][td] 6325[/td][td] [/td][td] 8497[/td][td] [/td][td] 10183[/td][td] [/td][td] 3[/td][td] [/td][td] Orbit: Polar[/td][td] [/td][td] 2172[/td][/tr][tr][td][/td][/tr] [tr][td] Jamini[/td][td] [/td][td] 9241 5241[/td][td] [/td][td] 4000 4672[/td][td] [/td][td] 0 7731[/td][td] [/td][td] 5241 8300[/td][td] [/td][td] 3[/td][td] [/td][td] Techlevel 3 350km East[/td][td] [/td][td] -4000 3059[/td][/tr][tr][td][/td][/tr][tr][td][/td][/tr] [tr][td] pit_muc[/td][td] [/td][td] 7961[/td][td] [/td][td] 6972[/td][td] [/td][td] 7731[/td][td] [/td][td] 8720[/td][td] [/td][td] 3[/td][td] [/td][td] 350km East[/td][td] [/td][td] 759[/td][/tr][tr][td][/td][/tr] [tr][td] RulerofNothing[/td][td] [/td][td] 7988 4988[/td][td] [/td][td] 3000 4797[/td][td] [/td][td] 0 7798[/td][td] [/td][td] 4998 7999[/td][td] [/td][td] 3[/td][td] [/td][td] Techlevel 1 + 2 16,500m Altitude[/td][td] [/td][td] -3000 3001[/td][/tr][tr][td][/td][/tr] [tr][td] Sjwt[/td][td] [/td][td] 8033[/td][td] [/td][td] 6550[/td][td] [/td][td] 8497[/td][td] [/td][td] 9980[/td][td] [/td][td] 3[/td][td] [/td][td] 1,400km East[/td][td] [/td][td] 1947[/td][/tr][tr][td][/td][/tr] [tr][td] STCatto[/td][td] [/td][td] 7961[/td][td] [/td][td] 5397[/td][td] [/td][td] 7731[/td][td] [/td][td] 10295[/td][td] [/td][td] 3[/td][td] [/td][td] 350km East[/td][td] [/td][td] 2334[/td][/tr][tr][td][/td][/tr] [tr][td] UmbralRaptor[/td][td] [/td][td] 9561 6561[/td][td] [/td][td] 3000 6522[/td][td] [/td][td] 0 8497[/td][td] [/td][td] 6561 8536[/td][td] [/td][td] 3[/td][td] [/td][td] Techlevel 1 + 2 1400km East[/td][td] [/td][td] -3000 1975[/td][/tr][tr][td][/td][/tr][tr][td][/td][/tr] [/table] i don\'t know how much effort building your table takes you. It does appear that there is some fuss getting everything lined up right i built that table fairly quickly, and have it organised to make it easier to update with new info All the important stuff sits at the very beginning of a line, nowhere else. might ease the workload of building a table every turn for you. If you prefer it your way, don\'t let me stop you.

Just brainstorming here. I wonder if a budget income system, with a set \'national budget\' and a percentage payout, with a few modifiers based on your missions and progress, with lumpsum payouts for achieving firsts would be a good way to handle such a monetary progression predictably with a minimum of anomalies. In such a setup, one could use, say, a 200,000 national budget, and dump 1% of that into each person\'s program initially, for a per turn gain of 2000. Apply some inflation, say 13% to the national budget, so that 10 turns later that national budget would be 600800, and as a result, anyone with a 1% budget would get 6008 per turn at that point. Apply a modifier(or several) based upon overall performance, such as advancing your program. Keep progressing and moving towards some end goal, and you generate prestige for your program, and this makes you look good, so you get larger budgets as a result, something like +0.2% per successful mission that isn\'t to far behind the leading edge. If 0.2% were the value for a full prestige gain, then achieving 35,000m when everyone else achieved 70,000m shouldn\'t be worth the same increase, say 0.15%. You stil progressed, your program is more impressive than it was, but you didn\'t do something new and really WOW people. Tech should probably have a sliding cost as well. The first to research it pays full cost. All 10 n one turn do it, then all ten pay full cost. Later completions of an already achieved tech level should be cheaper. This of course should wait until after there is a stable cost/income progression that works well with minimal anomalies. As an incentive to drive forwards and achieve your goals, completing firsts should achieve a one-off payout. Don\'t divide it among those that achieve it, just give it to everyone thats gets there that turn, but it needs to be a campaign first. Going to 35,000m when someone else went to 70,000m is nothing special at all. its a successful mission and progresses your program, so you receive the prestige bonus, but no one-off payout, should have reached 70,000m if you wanted that. And last, a subsidy system, to keep it interesting. A system like this benefits good players more than anyone else. because everyone works with similar budgets, and has the same prospects to generate a larger bonus, those you can do the same mission on a cheaper budget will have more to work with next turn. Several firsts and several missions with the cheapest rocket, and you could be sitting on a very sizable lead between your budget level, and the surplus cash you have banked at the moment. So to keep players from being left behind in a campaign, subsidize them by some amount to help them keep up once far enough behind. not enough that they can leapfrog the leader and get back out in front, but enough that its VERY difficult to actually get out ahead of the pack enough to be unchallenged in being first to do something. I make no claims to balance, the numbers are pretty much just off the top of my head and would need some tweaking to find good values, but it might do everything needed from it with a minimum of fuss, and best of all, it could be very predictable. players would know exactly what their payouts might be. If everyone does the same mission in the same turn, the cheapest rocket is the best choice. Also, it becomes worth considering if you should go for say, the 35000m mission, or go straight to the 70,000m mission. Both will only get you a prestige increase in your budget, each will only get you one payout. the 70,000m mission should probably carry a larger payout, so you get more money sooner, but getting two full size prestige bonuses for doing both missions may well yield the greater income just a couple turns down the road. Choices, places for people to have a different decision and diverge. Makes for an interesting campaign race instead of always only clamoring to do the next mission up, or two ahead of the current one. leaping ahead might put you ahead and help you stay there by collecting the payouts. more money sooner means more money to do firsts, which means more payouts, and more money to do firsts. steady progression might build the prestige more rapidly and leave you with more income later when preparing to goto the moon if you can\'t easily afford it the moment its viable. once programs reach orbit and there becomes much more room to do a wider selection of missions, the divergent paths might show their strengths since it becomes impossible to guarantee yourself all the firsts, there\'s too many for only you to get them. One can also crowdsource the list of achievable firsts by looking here, [suggestion] Some suggestions for achievements. Thats that. Was definitely a good idea to run this campaign. highlighted a few quirks, and all who went into it were cautioned from the beginning anomalies WILL occur, and they have. Growing pains, learn from it, move forward, and see if the model can\'t be improved in a way that eliminates at least some anomalies and introduces fewer than it removes, or none at all preferably. I\'ve been following it, and using it as a guideline for offline play, its been amusing at least. Just figured I\'d share a thought on another way a funding system might work well. All in all, I\'d say its off to a good start. its already done what build 1 is supposed to do, it found flaws, now to find more of them and find solutions as they arise. A few campaign iterations down the road we might have a good balance worked out with minimal flaws, and if we have a workable campaign structure, then that doesn\'t have to be done by Squad, which leaves them more time for other stuff, plus we get to play around with campaigns long before they make one themselves, a Win-Win if ever there was one.

Close, same basic thought path, I went for just a bit more bang though. changing it to negative drag. instead of slowing you down, it exponentially accelerates you, producing rather amusing results. -0.20 instead of 0.20 I wasn\'t moving all that quick, maybe 3000m/s on atmospheric entry, but i hit at a bit over 103,000m/s, the last 5000m or so didn\'t get shown, the framerate hit zero, and then I was under the surface, and dead when it recovered a second later. Had to clean my monitor off after I tried setting it to -20 just to see how that turned out. Worth the chuckle to check it out. Once you get a little speed going, the command pod will rip itself lose from the rocket, and the moment it does, freed of the draggy mass behind it, at least for me, the framerate hit zero for a moment, and when it returned, I was on my way out of the kerbol system. Ah well, as i said, probly cheating a bit much as far as this challenge goes.

You\'ll have to be REALLY moving then, lol. While exploring the effects of CFG edits and how KSP behaves with them I have hit Kerbin\'s surface in excess of 100,000m/s, and while I managed to get the camera under the surface by effectively burying the pod before I stopped moving, I didn\'t clip through the whole planet. I haven\'t submitted one to this as I assume CFG edits aren\'t accepted. I can hit kerbin at absolutely absurd speeds if i add just two characters to the mk1 pod cfg.