Vault

Rule of thumb for C2D CPU's is 10% OC for the Intel stock fan to keep CPU within acceptable limits for example E8500 @ 3.16 GHZ on stock Intel fan = 3.46 GHZ. I love this fan it forces the hot air from the CPU straight out the chassis rear exhaust fan. Remember I never exceed 60C under prime95 heat test and I have my fan running on silent (edit fan setting is on optimal not silent) with ASUS Q Fan. If I turnt that Qfan onto performance mode I could bring those temps right down. I can't get past 3.8GHZ due to shit memory but I'm upgrading my memory to Corsair soon and with that fan I'll easily break 4 GHZ.

Mayak Chemical Combine, lake Karachay and the Techa river are far more of a clean up priority than Chernobyl. So are the 15 nuclear reactors dumped in the northern sea's of Russia three of which are still loaded with plutonium and uranium fuel rods include the 10+ containers of nuclear fuel rods also dumped at sea. Mayak chemical combine is contaminated with 2,400,000,000 curies of radiation, Chernobyl is contaminated with just 50,000,000 curies of radiation. Mayak CC is over 200 times more polluted than Chernobyl. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxus4XLLl0A&feature=related

Diveplane even at stock the E8400 @ 3GHZ is a very good chip mate. It's also very good for overclocking! you should have a go at OC'ing it mate. I rekon you could bump that E8400 up to the same standard as an E8600 and OC it to 3.3GHZ on the same stock cooler without any stability or temperature issues. Just keep te CPU under 65C-70C. :thumbup:

The UK came very, very close to a Chernobyl style incident too. http://www.sonicbomb.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=76

http://www.pixelpress.org/chernobyl/ If you're intrested in Chernobyl google "the elephant's foot" it's a mixture of molten glass and Urainium fuel rods from the RBMK reactor and it scares the sh*t out of Russian scientists. Most people think Chernobyl is the most irradiated enviroment on Earth which is false. Chelyabinsk near the southern Ural mountains at a place called Mayak chemical combine which has enough radiation contamination to poison every square foot of Russia. http://www.american.edu/ted/URAL.HTM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OR1wo5s3Ua4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxus4XLLl0A&feature=related

If I had to buy a new rig today I'd futre proof myself and go for i7. OTOH if you're on a budget an E84/5/6/00 chip will overclock to 4 GHZ easily on an aftermarket fan giving most i7 systems a run for it's money. Pound for pound the E8400 is hard to beat because it's easily overclocked to 4GHZ. I run BS in non SLI mode on a single Nvidia 8800GTX combined with a overclocked E8500 @ 3.8GHZ which is more than capable of running BS at full tilt.

Stolen? please go on. If they were stolen how come they dont have names and copyrights plastered over them or sample? Don't you kinda get the idea these were deliberately released without copyright and are open to all?.

I'm glad I could help guys, My freind said he had more and if the others are of same quality and res, I'll be sure to post them soon enough.

Thanks for the rep man here's some more.

I got given a huge collection of high quality high def aircraft wallpapers and I thought I'd share. I dont know who took the pictures and I take no credit for them. I have posted a few samples below and have uploaded the complete folder in rar format to here http://www.mediafire.com/?vwl1yjzzxc9

I'm not sure about I7 systems but I read on clunk.org.uk that you should not exceed 75C on C2D CPU's. For every 10C increment above 75C you lose 1 year of life of your CPU. I've just upgraded my stock Intel cooler to a Zalman CNPS9500A and I can run my E8500 @ 3.8 GHZ on air no problems. I never exceed 60C on full load using prime95. I highly recommend this CPU fan it's huge. Don't use a stock cooler there inefficient.

NAS LOL yeah, yeah I get it now. Never seen the film though so you can understand the confusion. :thumbup:

lol GG what the hell are you on about. :lol: I'm lost.

What interference GG Tharos? Even my microwave doesn't interfere with my wireless connection and I dont hop channels I'm permantley on one channel. I have NAS to stream my music and films to my TV's and stereo's upstairs and downstairs without having to be at my computer or have it switched on. Also most of my devices are networked in peer to peer I can send music from one stereo to the other and vice versa without a PC now try doing that with a cabled network without a great big birds nest. Below is a sample of my Admin log. Does a cabled network have a built in firewall and adblocker with anti DOS protection running independently of the computer freeing your computer of valuble CPU cycles? Let's see a computer to computer ethernet network be as versatile as mine. Sat, 2000-01-01 00:00:48 - Initialize LCP. Sat, 2000-01-01 00:00:48 - LCP is allowed to come up. Sat, 2000-01-01 00:00:55 - CHAP authentication success Sat, 2000-01-01 00:01:00 - Send out NTP request to time-g.netgear.com Fri, 2009-01-30 20:45:10 - Receive NTP Reply from time-g.netgear.com Fri, 2009-01-30 20:44:09 - Router start up Fri, 2009-01-30 21:00:45 - TCP Packet - Source:192.168.0.2,52306 Destination:gv-in-f164.google.com,80 - [bLOCK] Fri, 2009-01-30 21:00:46 - TCP Packet - Source:192.168.0.2,52309 Destination:annymegabetavip1.doubleclick.net,80 - [bLOCK] Fri, 2009-01-30 21:00:46 - TCP Packet - Source:192.168.0.2,52310 Destination:annymegabetavip1.doubleclick.net,80 - [bLOCK] Fri, 2009-01-30 21:03:15 - TCP Packet - Source:192.168.0.2,52428 Destination:gv-in-f164.google.com,80 - [bLOCK] Fri, 2009-01-30 21:03:15 - TCP Packet - Source:192.168.0.2,52430 Destination:annymegabetavip1.doubleclick.net,80 - [bLOCK] Fri, 2009-01-30 21:03:15 - TCP Packet - Source:192.168.0.2,52432 Destination:annymegabetavip1.doubleclick.net,80 - [bLOCK] Fri, 2009-01-30 21:04:31 - TCP Packet - Source:192.168.0.2,52499 Destination:gv-in-f164.google.com,80 - [bLOCK] Fri, 2009-01-30 21:04:31 - TCP Packet - Source:192.168.0.2,52505 Destination:gv-in-f164.google.com,80 - [bLOCK] Fri, 2009-01-30 21:04:31 - TCP Packet - Source:192.168.0.2,52509 Destination:gv-in-f164.google.com,80 - [bLOCK] Fri, 2009-01-30 21:04:31 - TCP Packet - Source:192.168.0.2,52513 Destination:ew-in-f127.google.com,80 - [bLOCK] Fri, 2009-01-30 21:04:32 - TCP Packet - Source:192.168.0.2,52521 Destination:http://www.qksrv.net,80 - [bLOCK] Fri, 2009-01-30 21:05:06 - TCP Packet - Source:192.168.0.2,52559 Destination:http://www.qksrv.net,80 - [bLOCK] Fri, 2009-01-30 21:05:06 - TCP Packet - Source:192.168.0.2,52561 Destination:gv-in-f164.google.com,80 - [bLOCK] Fri, 2009-01-30 21:05:07 - TCP Packet - Source:192.168.0.2,52563 Destination:gv-in-f164.google.com,80 - [bLOCK] Fri, 2009-01-30 21:09:02 - TCP Packet - Source:192.168.0.2,52720 Destination:ey-in-f164.google.com,80 - [bLOCK] Fri, 2009-01-30 21:09:17 - TCP Packet - Source:192.168.0.2,52749 Destination:ey-in-f164.google.com,80 - [bLOCK] Fri, 2009-01-30 21:09:18 - TCP Packet - Source:192.168.0.2,52767 Destination:ey-in-f164.google.com,80 - [bLOCK] Fri, 2009-01-30 21:09:19 - TCP Packet - Source:192.168.0.2,52776 Destination:ey-in-f164.google.com,80 - [bLOCK] Fri, 2009-01-30 21:33:18 - TCP Packet - Source:192.168.0.2,53706 Destination:gv-in-f166.google.com,80 - [bLOCK] Fri, 2009-01-30 21:33:18 - TCP Packet - Source:192.168.0.2,53710 Destination:gv-in-f166.google.com,80 - [bLOCK] Fri, 2009-01-30 21:33:18 - TCP Packet - Source:192.168.0.2,53712 Destination:gv-in-f166.google.com,80 - [bLOCK] Fri, 2009-01-30 21:33:19 - TCP Packet - Source:192.168.0.2,53714 Destination:gv-in-f166.google.com,80 - [bLOCK] Fri, 2009-01-30 21:33:19 - TCP Packet - Source:192.168.0.2,53716 Destination:gv-in-f166.google.com,80 - [bLOCK] Fri, 2009-01-30 21:33:19 - TCP Packet - Source:192.168.0.2,53718 Destination:gv-in-f166.google.com,80 - [bLOCK] Fri, 2009-01-30 21:51:36 - TCP Packet - Source:192.168.0.2,54393 Destination:gv-in-f166.google.com,80 - [bLOCK] Fri, 2009-01-30 21:51:37 - TCP Packet - Source:192.168.0.2,54397 Destination:ukmegaadvip1.doubleclick.net,80 - [bLOCK] Fri, 2009-01-30 21:51:37 - TCP Packet - Source:192.168.0.2,54398 Destination:ukmegaadvip1.doubleclick.net,80 - [bLOCK] Fri, 2009-01-30 21:51:38 - TCP Packet - Source:192.168.0.2,54402 Destination:ukmegaadvip1.doubleclick.net,80 - [bLOCK] Fri, 2009-01-30 21:51:38 - TCP Packet - Source:192.168.0.2,54406 Destination:ukmegaadvip1.doubleclick.net,80 - [bLOCK] Fri, 2009-01-30 21:58:38 - Administrator login successful - IP:192.168.0.2 Fri, 2009-01-30 22:03:13 - TCP Packet - Source:192.168.0.2,54905 Destination:annymegaadvip3.doubleclick.net,80 - [bLOCK] Fri, 2009-01-30 22:03:13 - TCP Packet - Source:192.168.0.2,54911 Destination:annymegaadvip3.doubleclick.net,80 - [bLOCK] Fri, 2009-01-30 22:03:13 - TCP Packet - Source:192.168.0.2,54913 Destination:annymegaadvip3.doubleclick.net,80 - [bLOCK] Fri, 2009-01-30 22:03:13 - TCP Packet - Source:192.168.0.2,54915 Destination:annymegaadvip3.doubleclick.net,80 - [bLOCK] Fri, 2009-01-30 22:03:15 - TCP Packet - Source:192.168.0.2,54917 Destination:gv-in-f164.google.com,80 - [bLOCK] Fri, 2009-01-30 22:03:15 - TCP Packet - Source:192.168.0.2,54919 Destination:annymegaadvip3.doubleclick.net,80 - [bLOCK] Fri, 2009-01-30 22:03:15 - TCP Packet - Source:192.168.0.2,54921 Destination:annymegaadvip3.doubleclick.net,80 - [bLOCK] Fri, 2009-01-30 22:03:16 - TCP Packet - Source:192.168.0.2,54925 Destination:gv-in-f164.google.com,80 - [bLOCK] Fri, 2009-01-30 22:03:19 - TCP Packet - Source:192.168.0.2,54935 Destination:annymegaadvip3.doubleclick.net,80 - [bLOCK]

Ah networking 101. Your right a wired ethernet network can send data over a network at 100MB/S+ which is alot quicker than wireless routers. The flip side to that is that no SATA HD can write and transfer at that speed so 100MB/S is overkill between two computers on a wired home network. Only file servers & medium to large networks are really capable of utilizing an ethernet connection efficiently. Reliability on my Netgear is unquestionable. My ISP is more unreliable than my Wireless router. I've never seen a log on my router for any collisions. Regarding security a cabled network wins hands down. A wireless network can never be as secure as a wired network, cabled security is good for infrastructure and other sensitive networks but overkill again for a home network. Home networks that use wireless routers that have a minimum of a WPA2-PSK pre shared key as well as access by hardware MAC address are more than adequate against a local attack on your network. An attacker who knows how to by pass a pre shared key and spoof a hardware MAC address will get on your network but these type of hackers dont go around attacking home networks. As for any remote attacker trying to gain access to your network via a Netgear wireless router the SPI firewall and anti DOS attack is one bad ass beast and good luck to them. Their going to need it.

Hi Mike I have a Netgear WPN311 card and I have no problems transmitting to my router that is at least 8 meters from me now. My connection is very reliable. I dont like wires. If my router kept dropping packets or the wireless connection was unstable I'd have a slew of collisions. 01:51 uptime and not a single loss of packet/s or connection is extremley reliable.

Can I ask why you think wired is better?

Wireless routers are the best. I have a Netgear DG834G 802.11G 54MBPS Wireless router with built in hardware SPI firewall (I dont use a software based firewall which saves alot of CPU cycles) which connects my computer to a 8 MB ADSL Broadband connection via a WPN311 PCI card. I also have a 1TB connected NAS HDD connected to my router so I can stream media, photos and music to my TV and my stereo both upstairs and downstairs. Considering the average SATA 7,200 RPM HDD's transfer speeds are approximatley 50 MBPS my router can transfer data across my wireless network as quick as my hard drive can read and transfer the data which makes routers ideal for home networking. I have imported an adblock list into my router so I dont need to run any Adblocker software which also saves CPU cycles. My network is protected against unauthorised devices by hardware MAC address and a WPA2-PSK (8-64 digit) pre shared access key. I also have my wireless network SSID broadcasting on silent. My network is very, very fast and very, very secure. Using the routers WAN for connecting a computer to another computer via a wireless network is very easy, fast, reliable and secure. Buy a wireless router you'll never regret it. You can get the DG834G for £40-£50.

OK before I have much more say on the XB360 I need to find another game to compare. Maybe it's my rig but I swear down F3 does look better on my XB360. :helpsmilie:

Hi Brewber please don't take me the wrong way but my PC is running fine. I have what I think is a pretty high end rig I may be wrong ??? I don't know what rig that person is using but F3 is better on the console for me I have included a pic of my rig so you know I'm not talking shite. I even wrote vaults rig on the paper for proof you just cant see it well.

Wow a HOTAS for XB360 even if it is Saitek. Thanks for telling me about this.

I never said my PC was running bad and yes with the affinity trick i can run DCS with more FPS than I need.

OK I've played F3 on both PC and XB360 and I'm really not trying to be argumentative but the first thing I noticed when I fired up F3 on the XB360 is the graphics are MUCH MUCH better. Maybe this is because as RedTiger stated consoles are dedicated gaming machines with no overheads from operating systems, programs, incompatible hardware etc etc... TBH I can live without a HOTAS just give me a gamepad with a shift function that can be implemented into the game for multiple buttons. For most of the hardcore PC virtual pilots with HOTAS setups I know that a console version makes you shudder and it's really not for you, I'd just like to see ED release this on console. DCS would be so unique on console it couldn't fail! You think the PC market has been starved of sims? really the console market has been starved of any type of real sim ever. DCS has so much potential. Shame to see it go to waste...

You can get keyboards for Xbox. If you have to titles on both platforms try playing them v's each other Xbox is far faster and graphics are superiour. I am currently playing DCS on a programmable dual stick gaming pad in realistic mode. If the Xbox isn't a good candidate to run DCS can some one explain to me why I can run Fallout 3 MUCH better on the console than the PC?. My specs in a nutshell are Intel E8500, GTX8800 SLI, ASUS P5NT, 500GB 7,200 SATA, 3GB DDR2 RAM.

OK now I understand. I wish ED could adapt and overcome this problem and sell DCS to a much larger gaming community on a different gaming platform. Limiting such a great product as DCS to one platform is illogical especially in a niche market. I just don't see the logic in selling a niche product for only the PC considering there's ALOT more console gamers than PC gamers in this world.