je_saist

Technically. Yes.

Such physics collection features are already implemented in major commercial engine packages such as the Unreal Engine, Source Engine, Frostbite, and IDTech5. Hardware acceleration support for such physics collision is already exposed under major 3rd party physics engines like Intel Havok, Nvidia PhysX, and BulletPhysics.

There's also a reason why the largest multiplayer maps supported by these commercial engines generally max around 64players, with most only limiting play to 32players. Tracking all of that collision data consumes a large chunk of network bandwidth.

The current record-holder for most number of players online in a sustained fight, Planetside, could support around 400 players (133*3) engaged in active combat. Managing that many players, however, required significant limitations to player animations, player designs, and limited hit-detection boxes. Even then, Planetside was largely unplayable on anything slower than a DSL connection.

Sony's M.A.G. made waves for itself by being the first shooter since Planetside to support greater than 64 players in a match, offering support up to 256 players. Even then, if you actually watch somebody PLAYING M.A.G., you'd be forgiven for noticing that the game world is actually pretty barren with limited hit detections and possible game interactions to shave off on bandwidth requirements.

So yes, a physics enabled system could be done, but it would require a significant amount of processing power on the client-side, a significant amount of processing power on the server side, and a significant amount of network bandwidth to manage collision detection.

For these performance reasons, it is highly unlikely that we will see a true grapple set even if NCSoft decides to move on a CoH2 game. Given the way the Internet itself is trending back towards the AOL style lock out, with major ISP's like Comcast, AT&T, and even Verizon looking to implement non-neutral pathing and premium connection filtering, it's doubtful that, at least in the US, that the network bandwidth to support a fully physics enabled collision system will ever be available for the average consumer to buy.

So. If you want a CoH with a true grapple set, lean on your congressman in the upcoming election season(s) to support Net Neutrality: No premium paths. Treat Data as Data. No forced filtering tiers.

Well, I'm going to need to frame what I say here, since I'm about to give you the long winded reasoning of why Anti-Virus products don't work like you probably think they do. So, if you aren't interested in knowing why that anti-virus you bought did not protect your computer, by all means, skip this post.

When I was working for Cox Communications through Sitel, I basically started collecting various viral applications and trojans, either downloading them directly from infected sources, or having an infected user email me an infected file. I'd store these viral programs on CD's, and then intentionally infect a network disconnected machine running Windows 2000, then Windows Xp, and now Vista.

With a fully infected machine state, I'll install various "popular" anti-viral solutions, which have included Norton, McAfee, Bitdefender, Avast, AVG, Kapersky, Nod32, F-Secure, Trend Micro, and Avira.

Out of all of these applications, the two least successful Anti-Virus programs you could use... were Norton and McAfee. Average hit rate on known, and confirmed, viral applications, as determined by the likes of ICSA Labs, Tom Coyote (now What the Tech), and CERT, was less than 30%.

Norton and McAfee have been, hands down, the least effect anti-malware tools, ever made. They simply don't protect your computer.

Now, to be fair, there are several valid reasons on why Norton and McAfee are horrible at protecting a computer. For starter Norton and McAfee are two of the biggest names in the security business, and many viral / malicious applications are designed specifically to get around either program. Then there's the problem of the base OS itself. No Anti-Virus program is going to protect a Windows based computer from attacks. Microsoft, after however many years of making operating systems, still can't follow basic fundamental rules of security.

Let me put it like this. Most Unix and Unix-Like systems are built with the idea that eventually somebody, somewhere, somehow, will gain unauthorized access to the computer. Most Unix and Unix-Like systems grew out of a need for tight security. Microsoft approached the computer market from a different perspective, focusing on what was easy and simple, rather than what was secure. Let me explain.

User Permissions

Under Unix and Unix-Like systems each user can be assigned a finely grained list of access protocols. For example, here's a list of the access groups exposed under Kuser in KDE 4.3:



Under Microsoft NT6 in Windows 7, you pretty much have Administrator and User... and that's it. Since Windows NT5 as used in Windows 2000, Microsoft also sets the first created user-name to be the administrator, and as of NT5 as used in Windows Xp, hides the administrator account. So, if you are logging into your Windows 7 computer as Owner? You're on an Admin Account. What's worse is that you, as the user, will be locked out of some of the admin controls unless you go through a process to unlock the original Admin Account... but malicious software is not locked out of your base OS files.

Basic File Access:

Most Unix and Unix-Like systems do not assign executable status to files. Any file added to the Operating System's storage is done so with file-execution turned off. When installing a program through a Unix or Unix-Like system's native package manager, scripts are automatically run by the package manager to assign executable status to a particular file.

Under NT6 as used in Windows 7, any file can be executable by default. That picture file you just downloaded? It can be an executable file. That .pdf file you downloaded? It can be an executable file.

Basic Package Management

Most Unix and Unix-Like systems have a native Package Manager and Native Application Repositories. What this means is that there is a central location for a User to install and remove all software. Most desktop Linux's provide a repository with commonly used applications, such as as the Debian Repository. These basic packages are often supplemented by the user base, which provides packages that the base operating system may not have, such as Debian-Multimedia, or the Mepis Community Repositories. Various software vendors will often host their own repositories, allowing users to get software directly from a trusted vendor, such as Google and Opera. Other vendors will provide packages in a format that can be installed through a native package manager, such as Transgaming's Cedega.

Most of these package managers require that somebody sign off on the package that is going into the repository. This means that you, as the end user, have some assurance that somebody has actually tested the package and made sure it works as intended. Most of these package repositories are guarded jealously. For example, one of the requirements to become a Debian Package Maintainer, you physically have to go and meet at least one other package maintainer in person.


Under Microsoft NT6 as used in Windows 7, it's a bit of a different story. Not every application is listed in the Programs and Features section of the Microsoft control panel. There is no unified front-end to download software and updates. You, the end-user, are responsible for downloading any and all updates to any programs and applications you have installed. There is no such concept as a central repository that trusted and verified users sign off on.


Partitioning and Folder Placement:

Most Unix and Unix-Like Systems support folder instance by mount point and or partition point. What this means is that a Unix and Unix-Like system has a robust method of handling folder and file assignment that can span multiple hard-drives.

For example, Mepis Linux's default installation uses three partitions.

• One partition is /(root)

  This partition contains the actual operating system as well as programs installed through the package manager

• One partition is (swap)

  This partition contains the virtual memory storage

• One partition is /home

  This partition contains all of the users data and program configurations

In this configuration the user's data is kept on a physically separate partition from the Operating System. Even if a malicious software package was capable of compromising the user's account and the user's /home partition, it still would not have write-permissions to compromise the /(root) partition. Some of the more advanced secure Linux's in use automatically wipe the /(root) partition on logout, and load from a locked and checksummed copy on Login.

Windows... on the other hand.

The default installation of NT6 as used in Windows 7... still uses a single large partition. All of the users data, operating system files, and virtual memory, are accessed off the same drive, with the same read and write permissions. If a malicious program is able to compromise the user's account and achieve read / write access, the malicious program will be able to set itself to read and write to the base Operating System files.

* * *

The loading structure of Unix and Unix-Like systems can be even more robust with multiple drives. If I wanted to, I could set an entry point for /home/Username1/Movies to point to a separate physical hard-drive. From the point of view of a user, they would simply open up the /home/ file browser, click on the Movies folder... and presto. They are accessing a completely different drive seamlessly.

In Windows... if you add in a separate physical drive.. it is a separate physical drive with a separate Drive Letter and Access path. If I wanted to add in a hard-drive just for movies, I can work around the brain-dead handling of Windows 7 drive and partition handling by creating a folder on a new drive, let's call it D:\Movies, and then creating a shortcut to that folder under C:\Users\Username1\Documents and Settings\Movies


Now, I could go on, detailing a list of security features that Unix systems have been doing since the late 1970's in systems like Version 7 Unix, UNIX/32V, and 2BSD, that Microsoft still can't even implement in it's most up to date NT6 release nearly 30 years later.

The point I'm trying to make here is that Microsoft Windows, as an Operating System, is built for security about as much as a Lotus sports car is built to pull a Sherman Tank out of a hole in the ground.

This has a grave impact on the ability of any security software applications ability to protect your system from intrusion. There's a reason why Unix and Unix-Like systems make up the vast majority of the computers in use in mission critical situations. The backbone of the Internet runs on Unix and Linux. There's a reason why Unix and Unix-Like systems are used in 99% of the worlds Top 500 supercomputers. There's a reason why major financial institutions, such as the London Stock Exchange, don't use Microsoft Products.

* * *

Now, does this mean that you should just give up and not run any security software at all? Is the situation really that hopeless?

Being honest, in the long run, yes, the situation is that hopeless. With Microsoft products it is not a question of if you get hit with malicious software, it is a question of when will you get hit and just how badly will you be hit.

However, I realize that not everybody wants to hear the honest answer.

There are some steps you can take to insulate yourself from attacks. For starters, don't use Microsoft Products. If you have to use a Microsoft Operating System, use a non-Microsoft browser such as FireFox, Opera, Google Chrome, or even Konqueror.

Do take steps to insulate your computer against known threats. Tools like PepiMk's Spybot Search and Destroy can help prevent DNS Cache poisoning, and block several malicious software packages before those packages can be installed.

Get a hardware firewall, software firewalls don't work. On Microsoft Windows 9x, NT5, and NT6, if I'm a malicious cracker at the point of your software firewall, I already own your TCP/IP networking stack and your firewall means jack excrement.

Get an Anti-Virus that has regular push updates. Two of the better non-paid are Avast and AVG. I wouldn't fault you for using either one.

The best Anti-Virus though... isn't exactly a standard anti-virus. It's Clam. For reference, Clam has been the default choice in Unix and Unix-Like systems for years for scanning email systems and network traffic. Clam has been credited for for halting the spreading of many major viral applications over the years. It is, hands down, the most powerful viral and malicious program detection application available.

There is a long-standing version of Clam for Windows, hosted at ClamWin.com. Unfortunately, it's produced by people who actually know what they are doing in Computer Security, not by marketing majors, and that means the graphical user-interface is best described as functional. This branch lacks features such as real time scanning. The good news is, since this version of Clam is just a file-scanner, it is compatible all the way back to Windows 98. So if you've got relatives with a really old computer... here's your solution. Since it lacks a real-time access scanner, there's no performance impact on your computer either.

There is a new semi-branch of Clam, branded ClamAV for Windows 2.0. This particular package has had input from marketing majors and does have fancy bells and whistles. However, these bells and whistles come at a performance price. Granted, I don't exactly have very many aging systems running a Windows install, but in my own experience, against a Turion X2 TL-60 ClamAV for WIndows 2.0 has a similar performance footprint to Avast. So, it's by no means as resource hoggish as the stuff by McAfee, Symnatec, or Trend-Micro. Support for this branch also stops at Windows Xp.


Okay, I hope this answers your question as to what Anti-Virus is probably going to be a good choice; why anti-virus's are not the be all / end all of computer security; and hopefully gives some-background into Operating System design that explains why Microsoft Products tend to be uniquely susceptible to malicious software intrusions.

I find that hard to believe. I've never once considered emailing you instructions on how to be a good mod.

This is pretty much why nobody has answered.

I have one, but you're not going to like it. Don't.

I've already been over this, well, several times if I'm honest on these forums, so here's why you shouldn't be buying Nvidia cards unless it's a GTX 460 and you intend to run SLI once again.

To get this rolling, I'm going to make one critical assumption.

That assumption is that the only reason you want a GTX 480 is because it has the Nvidia badge.

If that is your one and only reason for looking at an Nvidia card, you are going to get ripped off. Period. Stop.

First, let's talk performance. Yes, a GTX 480 is actually more powerful than a RadeonHD 5870. However, in most game's the performance difference is around 5%, and the performance delta only widens on games built under Nvidia's The way it's meant to be code sabotaged program.

No, that's not a joke. There's been several Triple A popular titles, such as Borderlands, Batman Arkham Asylum, and Need For Speed, where Nvidia has deliberately worked with the game developer to implement graphics code that sabotages performance and / or features on competitors graphics cards. Our own game here, City of Heroes, was also a victim of Nvidia's deliberate code level sabotage under the Pre Ultra-Mode enabled graphics engine.

So while Nvidia is faster in many games, it's not exactly fast enough to drive a higher resolution or any more graphical effects.

Second, let's talk build quality. Nvidia chips are expensive, which may not mean much to you directly. However, in order for an add-in-board partner, such as XFX, Zotac, or Asus, to sell an add-in card with an Nvidia chipset that has similar performance to an AMD chipset at a similar price, the vendor in most cases will have to cut corners on build quality. This means that many of Nvidia's add-in-board partners are using lower quality capacitors, less layers in the board's Printed Circuit Board, and using cheaper components to manufacture system fans.

This means that an Nvidia graphics card that will give the same frame-rate performance as an AMD graphics card, generally will be less efficient in heat removal, and fail over far sooner.

Of the current Nvidia partners, only EVGA and XFX are known to not sacrifice build quality on their graphics cards. XFX makes up money by selling AMD graphics cards, and EVGA makes up money by selling their cards for more money.

Third: Let's talk price. As of right now, on Pricewatch, the cheapest GTX 480 is near as makes no difference $450. The cheapest EVGA model is $475.

The cheapest RadeonHD 5870 is nearly $100 less than the cheapest GTX 480, at $355. An XFX model is around $385, still nearly $90 less than an EVGA GTX 480.

So, if you want to spend $90 more, go right ahead. You aren't actually going to improve your performance in games by any visual measure, just stastical.

Forth: let's talk about the soft factors of the graphics card, such as the power draw and heat output. A GTX 480 will put nearly 200 degrees Fahrenheit of heat. The GTX 480 is so hot Nvidia actually has a Fermi Certified Chassis program.

In generating that heat, a single GTX 480 will make most 700 watt power supplies cry, and you'd better prepared to have a good 850watt or better power supply waiting for it: http://www.hardocp.com/article/2010/...buying_guide/4

A RadeonHD 5870? Runs pretty much no hotter than a RadeonHD 4870, and will run at full clocks on a 500watt power supply.
So. To recap.

• In buying a GTX 480 you are going to spend at least $60 more than a Good RadeonHD 5870.
• You are going to need a bulkier power supply.
• You are going to need massive air movement.
• You aren't actually going to gain any visual performance. Just benchmark performance.

I'm sorry. This is how the term RIP OFF is defined. That's what the GTX 480 is. It is a RIP OFF.


Now, the picture for Nvidia gets even worse when you consider the GTX 460.

Yes, the 460 is a phenomenal chipset. It's almost as power efficient as the RadeonHD 5x00 series cards. You can pick up a 1gb EVGA model for around $230. In 2X SLI mode, it will actually out-run 2X Crossfire RadeonHD 5870's.

However.

In single GPU mode, the GTX 460 784 meg card can't actually outrun a FILLER PART NEARLY 5 MONTHS OLDER THAN IT IS. The RadeonHD 5830, which was released at the end of January.

Remember. AMD didn't actually have to release the 5830. It's a binned part largely using 5850 or 5870 GPU's that weren't passing clock speed or shader counts at the fab, and was released to just fill in the performance cap between the 5770 and the 5850.

The 1gb GTX 460 can outrun a RadeonHD 5830... but can't outrun a 5850 in single GPU modes. For reference, if you leverage mail-in-rebates you can pick up a 5850 for around $250.

This, in and of itself, isn't a big deal. Until you step back and look at the release dates on the chips:

AMD Details: http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=88&pgno=1
Nvidia Details: http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=88&pgno=5

The GTX 460 was released 10 months after the competitors top end card. That's right, as of this posting this month, the RadeonHD 5870 is celebrating it's one year anniversary.

Now, just take a quick look at the amount of performance difference 10 months normally buys a graphics card. Just a quick look down the AMD side and you have the Radeon x1900 series into the RadeonHD 2900 series. The HD 2900 into the 3870. The 3870 into the 4870. The 4870 into the 5870. In all of these generational jumps, the mid-range card generally performs as well as the old top end card.

The jumps don't hold together as well on the Nvidia side, largely due to Nvidia's MegaChip 8800 Ultra. It wasn't until the die-shrunk GTS 250 that Nvidia had a mid-range priced card that was more powerful than it's previous generation high-end card, and even then that was largely because the GTS 250 was an 8800 Ultra.

So yeah, Value for Money, buyers of the 8800 series cards got one hell of a deal.

Anyways. The worrying part from an Investors point of view is this: The GTX 460 came out 10 months after the competitors high-end part and is only competitive with the competitors medium range parts.

That's... that's not good.

The problem get's even worse when you consider AMD's response, which basically consisted of: they aren't going to do a product refresh on the 5x00 series cards.

AMD is going to go straight into their next chipset with the 6000 series cards, and those cards are from all reports, due probably at the end of this month to coincide with the 1 year anniversary of the 5870.

It is for this reason that I couldn't tell you to buy a 5870 right now. I really do think, if you can wait till the end of the month, you'll be able to drop $400 on a graphics processing unit from AMD, that will run on a 500 watt power supply, not require any changes to your computer cases air flow, and will blow the GTX 480 out of the water.

By the same token, if you are just desperate for that Nvidia badge. If you just absolutely, positively, have to have Nvidia. If you can't stand the thought that their driver development is crap, or that they might be bought out and removed from the desktop graphics market entirely, or that they might go bankrupt from the multiple class action lawsuits from exploding laptops, then spend $460 on two GTX 460's.

Put them in 2X SLI. Enjoy.

I don't think...... and I mean I really don't think... AMD is going to move on the $200 market segment at the end of this month. I don't think they'll launch a 67xx series line this year. I think they'll just go with a 6870 and a 6850. I'll think they'll just punch the 5850 down to the $210, maybe the $200 mark, and park the 5870 at the $275~$280 mark to clear room for the $300 and $400 6000 series cards.

If this is what AMD does, then with two GTX 460's you'll still be outrunning their $200~$300 cards in multi-gpu rendering modes.

If you absolutely have to have that Nvidia badge, that's going to be your best bet for your wallet.

... you are probably S.O.L. my friend.

First, AMD retired support for that particular line-up of chips back in 2009. The last driver that was released for the x1x00 series was the 9-3 driver in March of 2009.

Second, laptop vendors have a reputation of NOT keeping their drivers up to date, and/or shipping drivers that have stripped feature-sets. AMD does offer a Catalyst Mobility program for laptops today, but you have to be running either a *nix or NT6+, and have a RadeonHD graphics card or newer.

Your laptop is simply too old.

The 9-3 driver, by and large, works with City of Heroes using the non-Ultra Mode rendering features. You should be able to use the Mobility Modder tool and the 9-3 installation package to install the 9-3 driver on your laptop:

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/modtool.php
http://support.amd.com/us/gpudownloa...?&lang=English

... looks like I am going to have to spell this one out.

A defender's Speed Boost can be gotten at level 12. If exempted down to level 8, they would still have this buff power.

An Arachnos, as mentioned in the first post, can get both the maneuvers sets by level 8.

An Arachnos can't run both sets at level 8 because of the end-drain.

However, with Stamina inherent, an Arachnos could run both powers by level 8.

However, the players could get the same effect, that extra endurance, by simply exempting down a Kinetics Defender.

The logic and tie-in reasoning here is very very very very simple: Players can get similar effects by teaming.

The same effect of giving players Stamina or Health earlier, as an inherent, can be replicated by simply teaming with other players.

The practical in-game effect of the change is negligible at the low to medium levels. More players will become more effective as they exit the low levels and enter the late teens to twentys as they can have more native powers rather than freeing up powers to take stamina at 20.

The practical in-game effect at the top-end is yet to be realized. Presuming a large portion, 75% or more, of the player-base takes stamina, that means the inherent change will free up 3 extra powers.

However, most players generally throw some slots into health and stamina.

As far as we know, there are no extra power slots being distributed as well, meaning that players will ultimately have less slots for their powers than they do now with the change of the pool to inherent.

Try Never(tm).

The RadeonHD 4850 is the starting point for running all Ultra-Mode options at once with a resolution scaling of about 1680*1050.

That's not all features on high. That's all features on Low.

The RadeonHD 4890 is significantly more powerful than the 4850, and is capable of driving Shadows on Ultra, Water on Ultra, Reflections on Ultra, and moderate Ambient Occlusion in 1680*1050.

The 4890 should be able to drive Shadows on Ultra, Water on Ultra, Reflections on Ultra, and balanced or OGL 2.0 / DX9 Occlusion in 1920*1200.

At these higher resolutions, your computer will largely become CPU dependent more quickly than it will become GPU dependent. So if you've got something like any Intel Core 2 Duo or older Intel processor, or any AMD Pre-Socket AM2+ Athlon 64 X2 processor, chances are these higher resolutions are just out of reach.

If you think there is another issue at hand, a quick and simple test can be found in the Unigine Heaven 2.1 benchmark: http://www.unigine.com/download/

Under Catalyst 10.8 the OpenGL API and DirectX API's should give similar scores in the benchmarks. If they do not, there is likely another problem on hand.

http://zerias.blogspot.com/2010/08/a...omethings.html
http://zerias.blogspot.com/2010/08/a...rformance.html
http://zerias.blogspot.com/2010/08/a...rformance.html
http://zerias.blogspot.com/2010/08/a...rmance_29.html

If you are not sure what driver version you have, please check the stickies in the Technical Support forum:

http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?t=219502
http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?t=231628

It seems a moderator is removing references to other NCSoft Games.

A: probably because it was a ton of animation work.

B: NCSoft is in business to make money.

That being said, I'd probably only buy this if it was at the $4.99 price-point.

Then you must really love Nvidia for their drivers.

Anyways, it seems I must stand corrected. I have gotten responses from AMD confirming that the ATi brand is to be retired with the 6x00 series.