IPB


Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

41 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

BigglesTrevor
Posted on: Aug 24 2010, 23:49


The Il2 Fan
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 733
Joined: 7-November 06
From: England
Member No.: 25


Hey guys, about to buy a new desktop so i can play ArmA2 and OA properly.

So here it is:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Asrock P55M Pro SKT-1156 motherboard

Intel Core i5 750 Quad CPU 4 x 2.66ghz Std, Will run at 3.8Ghz becuase of
CoolIT Systems ECO ALC water cooling system

4gb Corsair DDR3 1600Mhz

Windows 7 Home Edition

ATI Radeon HD 5870 1024MB GDDR5 PCI-Express Graphics Card

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Will this run ArmA II well with decent resolution?

Thanks in advance.
  Forum: OT Discussions · Post Preview: #71540 · Replies: 526 · Views: 111,237

BigglesTrevor
Posted on: Mar 28 2010, 20:54


The Il2 Fan
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 733
Joined: 7-November 06
From: England
Member No.: 25


So here is the deal:

Just got home for Easter for a couple of weeks, travelling lightly I have a suitcase full of cloths and my handy, if rather limited Phillips laptop :

- Intel Core Duo 2.00 GHz
- 4GB RAM
- NVIDIA GeForce 9300M GS
- Windows....cough....cough.....Vista.....cough.....cough

The result of such a weight efficient commute has left me pants down in the game department, an opportunity, some might say, to get some much extremely necessary work done. However, there is a definitive limit to the amount of research on the East India Company's patronage of the south coast one can pursue before it becomes officially considered unhealthy.

Thus the dilemma, I require a game, a game fit for a man with limited budget and computer power. The game must meet the obvious restrictions of a laptop, but must also be available to either download directly to hard drive or be purchasable from the local Game(/station) outlet (due to the restricted length of my stay). The genre is not rigidly fixed, the absence of a joystick or wheel restricts certain options, but open minded I remain. However! a story-line of half-decent quality is a must, the staple diet of MW2 and instant Lidl noodles makes one weary of simple minded shooters. To summarise, a thinking mans game, under 20, graphics light and purchasable. Suggestions, gentlemen, are most welcome.
  Forum: Chatter, Word Games & Jokes · Post Preview: #69768 · Replies: 4 · Views: 3,768

BigglesTrevor
Posted on: Nov 17 2009, 00:00


The Il2 Fan
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 733
Joined: 7-November 06
From: England
Member No.: 25


Played this quickly at a friends, mostly found it pretty rubbish tbh. I found it confusing that it boasted a 'huge' map and yet most of the gameplay that i experianced didnt really take advantage of this. Its not that bad, but when you have MW2 as mainstream competition on console your doomed to second place. I know which game i would prefer to play on xbox live anyway, to give you a clue ill be shooting at Russians.
  Forum: OT Discussions · Post Preview: #67462 · Replies: 174 · Views: 84,367

BigglesTrevor
Posted on: Jul 15 2009, 15:24


The Il2 Fan
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 733
Joined: 7-November 06
From: England
Member No.: 25


Ill take your points.
  Forum: OT Discussions · Post Preview: #64414 · Replies: 216 · Views: 93,772

BigglesTrevor
Posted on: Jul 15 2009, 10:23


The Il2 Fan
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 733
Joined: 7-November 06
From: England
Member No.: 25


QUOTE
That's what you said. You said the point of the UN and NATO was to avoid war. Actually, you quoted that in your own post there, so I don't see why I bothered repeating you.

I fail to see how this is a description of MAD. I feel that you pasted it thinking incorrectly that it was something I posted. Why you had it on your clipboard I don't know. I can only assume you were attempting to edit your previous post to cover up that sentence. You failed at that too.


Go look up the meaning of nuclear deterrent. That post was in direct responce to :-

QUOTE
a nuclear deterrent is a complete waste of money...


MAD is the fundamental principle behind a nuclear deterrant. I think you understand the principle philosophy that is the centre of this debate [sarcasm]. I commented that for some NATO members the fact they come under the protective branch of a military alliance is good enough for them not to need there own individual nuclear deterrant. I understand that deterrent can refer to discouraging a conventional attack, but with your referral to the current political climate (I assumed eg. N. Korea, Iran) i really think the debate orientates around the deterrent of nuclear attack as oposed to conventional attack. A conventional nuclear deterrant can work for sure, but in the case of Britain its really not a serious concideration due to the favorable position (geographically and politicly) that our nation enjoys.

QUOTE
You're saying we should just sit back and wait for the US to come riding in whenever we're in trouble.


Where did i say this? Im saying we should take advantage of some of the defence they already offer us. Once again you take my words and spin your tabloid headline. You should concider a job with the Daily Mail, you like to blow things out of all proportion in order to pursuade others to your agenda. I merely suggested when would we ever use the nuclear arsenal without the backing of the United States? Besides, The last time we flexed are muscles to any degree without US backing was in Suez, nothing short of a political disaster.

QUOTE
Unless you're some kind of socialist-hippie then you can't deny that the trident system is an essential part of the UK's defence network.


oooohhhhh, applause for bringing out the "everyone who dosnt agree with me is a leftie" agrumant, highly original. Frankly, what your saying here is a complete bunch of tosh if you take any interest in British politics. However right now im not really expecting anything better from you.

QUOTE
So, why should the UK maintain it's nuclear arsenal? As a deterrent. You might as well ask why we have Armed Forces as a whole, because, frankly, that's what you're argument amounts too.


Please elaborate. Nations who do not have nuclear arsenals dont have armed forces? I really dont understand how my argumant amounts to this, quite frankly.

QUOTE
I've already given you undeniable evidence that Nuclear weapons in Europe has stemmed the inevitable "Let's have a huge war every 20 years for no reason" school of thought in the continent.


Yes, the political map and super power relations (which includes the use of nuclear deterrant) have prevented a major war, as well as nearly potentially caused it in the early 50's. I dont dispute this. I agree, but it has nothing to do with Britains individual nuclear deterrant, its the collective arsenals of the west and east.

QUOTE
I know they left the Eastern Bloc equivalent (name escapes me right now)


They are partner members in some shape or form, it really translates to prospective members. Just to confuse things a little bit more Russia actually share similar status. ohnoo.gif
  Forum: OT Discussions · Post Preview: #64408 · Replies: 216 · Views: 93,772

BigglesTrevor
Posted on: Jul 14 2009, 23:34


The Il2 Fan
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 733
Joined: 7-November 06
From: England
Member No.: 25


QUOTE(D@V @ Jul 14 2009, 21:30) *
1. That's not what you said. You implied that NATO would prevent wars in the same manner as the UN. Which is the sort of thing I'd expect from someone who doesn't fully understand what NATO is.


Like hell did i

QUOTE
Other nations act as the deterent on our behalf, thats the hole point of the UN and more particularly NATO.


This is the theory of MAD, Preventing nuclear attack on nuclear attack. Its has nothing to do with preventing conventional warfare. The US act as out on our behalf as the nuclear detterant through NATO.

QUOTE
2. NATO clearly aided Georgia, a NATO member, with their entire nuclear arsenal, didn't they? Wow. I'm surprised Russia was that dumb, but, hey, they aren't any more now that Moscow's been reduced to a pile of rubble.


Somone who dosnt fully understand what NATO is? Gerogia is not a NATO member.

I cant help but feel your completely missing the point and jumping in favour of watery argumants. Give me some decent reasons why Britain should maintain its nuclear arsenal, they are some pretty convincing ones.
  Forum: OT Discussions · Post Preview: #64396 · Replies: 216 · Views: 93,772

BigglesTrevor
Posted on: Jul 14 2009, 20:35


The Il2 Fan
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 733
Joined: 7-November 06
From: England
Member No.: 25


QUOTE(D@V @ Jul 14 2009, 17:07) *
That's only because the government doesn't seem to appreciate how awesome it is to have the power to destroy up to 12 targets on earth with the press of single button...

As for Nuclear Deterrents as a whole being useless. The UN has shown it's completely useless by their attempt to prevent war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and NATO has never tried to prevent a war. You can't tell me it's merely a coincidence that hasn't been a major war in Europe since nuclear weapons were first deployed.


I didnt say "Nuclear Deterrents as a whole being useless", i said in terms of super power relations they were limited, Only someone with no grasp of international politics would say otherwise.

I have suggested Nuclear Deterrent has been useless to Britain, which when you look at the political circumstances the past 35-40 years is not exactly unfair to suggest. The argumant that NATO has not tried to prevent a war is completely irrelevant to the point i was making, NATO is a collective defence, Britain is a member and as such benefits from the nuclear deterent provided by the USA. Im not trying to deny nuclear deterrent has deferred conflicts in Europe (and in Asia), the spheres of influence that nations in Europe are alligned under have almost certinly prevented a number of open conflicts. Your showing plain ignorance to the content of my post, i really shouldnt have to repeat myself.

Im questioning the purpose of a independant British nuclear deterrent when our international political position has not moved significantly in the last 65 years, and shows no imminant threat of doing so many decades to come. Lets take the plunge like South Africa, join Austrailia, Japan, New Zealand, Canada, Spain, Italy, Germany and Holland. I dont see any Chinease, Russians, North Koreans, Iranians or French walking all over there faces.

This brings me to my next point, whats the point of spending this enormous sum of cash on a nuclear detterant when we would never use them independantly without the USA's backing anway? Its madness, its pretty much paying the USA to station an extension of there detterant in the UK.

QUOTE
Besides, you seem to be forgetting that this money is not only going towards the trident missile system, but also provides technological and scientific understandings that better the lives of the common citizen.


Excuse the fact that i have had to pull it from wiki, but im pretty sure the top 10 share some sort of corrolation. Now im not trying to suggest thats becuase they dont have nuclear arsenals, but it hardly hurts quality of living not too. But i have to agree with you to an extent, the internet that is allowing us to have this debate was a technological advantage that came of the back of nuclear programs. thumbsup.gif

QUOTE
As for your "other countries don't need nuclear deterrents" crap. Well... let's look at the facts, shall we?
1. Korean War - Would North Korea have invaded the South if they were nuclear capable?
2. Vietnam War - Would North Vietnam have invaded the South if they were nuclear capable?
3. Chinese invasion of Tibet - Would China have invaded Tibet if they were nuclear capable?


This is comical, your asking me to look at facts by providing questions formed from completely invented hypothetical situations. Not even to bring up the fact they share no similarity with the current situation that the UK finds itself in in 2010 and that you have once again deviated with an argumant against a quote which appears no where in the content of my post. Christ start living in the here and now, Maybe we should spend that 25 Billion on helping France extend the Maginot line to the North coast of France, would Hitler have planned a Blitzkrieg through the low countries if there was an extended Maginot line? Better yet, would North Korea have invaded South Korea if the US officers (in rather junior positions it must be noted) accepted the entire surrender of the Japanease forces on the Korean penisula rather than seeking Russian involement for conveniance? Like i said, Im talking about Britain, not Tibet or Sri Lanka or Barbados. Anyway in responce :

Falklands War - Would Argentina invade an overseas territory of the United Kingdom if it was nuclear capable? Yes - (Fact)

China - Did all the prowess of a nuclear deterrant prevent an invasion of North Korea occupied by UN forces or the consistance shelling of Taiwan islands? No - (Fact)

Nuclear detterant is not a magic wand of invulnerability, is more a barganing chip on the craps table of international politics, on which Britain was never reserved a seat. The view of this Citizen is that its time for Britain to cash up that chip and improve its decade neglected military of an overdraft.

Oh i left some spelling mistakes so you could do the [sic] stuff, you seem to like playing the English teacher. Go crazy.
  Forum: OT Discussions · Post Preview: #64388 · Replies: 216 · Views: 93,772

BigglesTrevor
Posted on: Jul 14 2009, 16:07


The Il2 Fan
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 733
Joined: 7-November 06
From: England
Member No.: 25


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8149762.stm

Nothing new in the banking system. All that tax payers cash to make sure there bonuses are back to normal by next financial year!

EDIT : just noticed i wacked this in wrong thread, cheers for moving.
  Forum: OT Discussions · Post Preview: #64373 · Replies: 1652 · Views: 307,259

BigglesTrevor
Posted on: Jul 14 2009, 15:11


The Il2 Fan
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 733
Joined: 7-November 06
From: England
Member No.: 25


QUOTE(D@V @ Jul 14 2009, 14:33) *
Yes. Because, clearly, with the global political climate what it is nowadays, a nuclear deterrent is a complete waste of money...

[/sarcasm]


Yes it is. Other nations act as the deterent on our behalf, thats the hole point of the UN and more particularly NATO. Its seems to go pretty fine for other countries...

Its pretty much pissing away 75 billion over the next 30 years whilst getting absolutly nothing back, nothing at all. The past 30 years of British nuclear deterent have all but proved that. Nuclear politics is such a limited philosophy really reserved for super power relations, and perhaps even more reserved when it is so. Useful for Britain? It really worked wonders on freezing the Argentines claims to the falklands, not to mention keeping Russia and the Middle East in check over cartelling there energy reserves.
  Forum: OT Discussions · Post Preview: #64368 · Replies: 216 · Views: 93,772

BigglesTrevor
Posted on: Jul 14 2009, 10:40


The Il2 Fan
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 733
Joined: 7-November 06
From: England
Member No.: 25


38.7 billion overall, 1.5 billion is for trident. The new trident plans may cost up to 25 billion to implement.
  Forum: OT Discussions · Post Preview: #64354 · Replies: 216 · Views: 93,772

BigglesTrevor
Posted on: Jul 14 2009, 08:00


The Il2 Fan
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 733
Joined: 7-November 06
From: England
Member No.: 25


QUOTE(D@V @ Jul 12 2009, 13:30) *
3. Helicopters. Apparently we don't need more of these. Mr Ainsworth seems to think so anyhows. I suppose it hasn't occurred to him the Taliban don't have the facilities yet to make IEDs that fly... oh wait. Helicopters cost money. Why didn't I think of that?! Duuuuh...


Too be fair theres a dozen of Merlins on the way, plus about 10 Chinooks. Helicopters arnt risk free, though they are a much safer way to get about when your main enemy is the IED. I dont understand why the forces dont unlock more of its helicopter fleet for Afganistan, then again its probably becuase half the helicopters are utterly outdated and fulfil no significant role, eg. the Gazelle and Lynx.

TBH the main way forward would be to scrap trident and a ridiculously redundant political asset, and used the 20 odd billion you save to bring the active parts of the armed forces out of the 90's.
  Forum: OT Discussions · Post Preview: #64350 · Replies: 216 · Views: 93,772

BigglesTrevor
Posted on: Jul 10 2009, 22:54


The Il2 Fan
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 733
Joined: 7-November 06
From: England
Member No.: 25




made me chuckle
  Forum: Chatter, Word Games & Jokes · Post Preview: #64214 · Replies: 1560 · Views: 289,413

Pinned: Music
BigglesTrevor
Posted on: Jul 8 2009, 18:43


The Il2 Fan
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 733
Joined: 7-November 06
From: England
Member No.: 25


Limp Bizkit - Full Nelson
  Forum: Chatter, Word Games & Jokes · Post Preview: #64125 · Replies: 1099 · Views: 192,890

BigglesTrevor
Posted on: Jul 1 2009, 18:56


The Il2 Fan
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 733
Joined: 7-November 06
From: England
Member No.: 25


QUOTE(D@V @ Jul 1 2009, 17:13) *
Actually this is possible with the attchto command (I think this is what Rellikki was asking about). You can attach soldiers to any vehicle, and even animals, though there's not a good horse addon yet, and there's no way to control how animals move short of taking direct control of the animal itself. You'll need to set the deadzone right up when attached to a vehicle, as you can't turn, also for some reason you can't reload when attached to stuff. weirdsmiley.gif

I think you could set up a reloading system through scripting if you had enough time though.
@AndreACE: I probably could... but... well... it'd take effort... and... well... I'm too lazy tongue.gif

EDIT: Curse you Benoist and your ninja posting! tongue.gif


ahh i see, sorry i took the wrong end of the stick (ie. forgot to read the attach bit).
  Forum: ArmA II - Combined Operations · Post Preview: #63778 · Replies: 29 · Views: 14,372

BigglesTrevor
Posted on: Jul 1 2009, 16:07


The Il2 Fan
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 733
Joined: 7-November 06
From: England
Member No.: 25


QUOTE(Rellikii @ Jun 5 2009, 21:52) *
Is it possible to attach humans into vehicles' cargo so they'd be able to shoot while traveling?


No its not in, A long time ago it was planned, but i think i remember BIS saying they wernt going to implement it quite a while ago. Its more than likely that it could work with scripting, after all people got it working in OFP be it with some slight issues.
  Forum: ArmA II - Combined Operations · Post Preview: #63764 · Replies: 29 · Views: 14,372

BigglesTrevor
Posted on: Jun 30 2009, 23:54


The Il2 Fan
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 733
Joined: 7-November 06
From: England
Member No.: 25


Oh man i love a good de-bunking. The BBC absolutly kicked the crap out of some pretty desperate 7/7 conspiracy theories. Honestly people need to get a life and some respect. I would recomend the program with anyone lucky enough to have access to the Iplayer.
  Forum: OT Discussions · Post Preview: #63739 · Replies: 1652 · Views: 307,259

BigglesTrevor
Posted on: Jun 30 2009, 11:15


The Il2 Fan
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 733
Joined: 7-November 06
From: England
Member No.: 25


QUOTE(D@V @ Jun 29 2009, 00:12) *
Thinking of upgrading my graphics card... currently have Geforce 8600GT... looking at 8800GT... this seem like a good idea? According to this thing on their site it'll double my PC's "3DMark" score... which seems a bit strange, because it's only got 200 more GTs! ohnoo.gif

Would I be better off getting a 9800GT? That has over a 1000 more GTs? (KGT?) But the specs look the same. What are GTs a measurement of!? Graphicalness? ohnoo.gif

As you've probably guessed by now, I don't "get" this whole graphics card naming convention... if someone would care to explain? unsure.gif

Processor: AMD 64 X2 duel core 6000+ 3.01GiHz
RAM: 4GiB


I got a GTS250, pretty happy with it. Wasnt particularly expencive either, 160 or somthing around there. Graphics cards confuse the hell out of me though, they release to many to fast for me to keep up.
  Forum: OT Discussions · Post Preview: #63701 · Replies: 526 · Views: 111,237

BigglesTrevor
Posted on: Jun 28 2009, 22:42


The Il2 Fan
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 733
Joined: 7-November 06
From: England
Member No.: 25


QUOTE(Helping Hand @ Jun 28 2009, 22:06) *
Define dark? Tunnels or Nocturnal. Also. Lul whut? You 'soft?


Tunnels, its a old ww2 bunker system. Not really, i went for a work trip but had excellent fun.
  Forum: OT Discussions · Post Preview: #63658 · Replies: 425 · Views: 78,252

BigglesTrevor
Posted on: Jun 28 2009, 20:45


The Il2 Fan
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 733
Joined: 7-November 06
From: England
Member No.: 25


Awsome stuff sparky, but looks dam hot.

Any of the Brits here been to UCAP airsoft in portsmouth? Really awsome stuff in the dark.
  Forum: OT Discussions · Post Preview: #63655 · Replies: 425 · Views: 78,252

BigglesTrevor
Posted on: Jun 27 2009, 16:24


The Il2 Fan
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 733
Joined: 7-November 06
From: England
Member No.: 25


QUOTE(D@V @ Jun 26 2009, 17:32) *
Ah... the old "Africans people are all ignorant fools who kill people for no reason"...

Ever stopped to consider that perhaps these witch burnings aren't just baseless acts of violence? There's plenty of evidence that such "magic" do have a grounding in reality, and in many cases, are terrifyingly real.

What's that? You want an example? Fine. Vodou Zombies. (I hate to have to specify that they're vodou zombies, but if I don't you'll all just assume I'm being crazy or something)


It is my understanding that Vodou is practiced in West Africa, the event reported is in Kenya. Besides its all irrelevant, a women was still burnt to the stake without a state recognised trial witch or not.
  Forum: OT Discussions · Post Preview: #63602 · Replies: 1652 · Views: 307,259

BigglesTrevor
Posted on: Jun 26 2009, 15:08


The Il2 Fan
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 733
Joined: 7-November 06
From: England
Member No.: 25


Its the same story for the door on the aircraft carrier.
  Forum: ArmA II - Combined Operations · Post Preview: #63545 · Replies: 1 · Views: 1,777

BigglesTrevor
Posted on: Jun 24 2009, 21:51


The Il2 Fan
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 733
Joined: 7-November 06
From: England
Member No.: 25


Got the game today, really enjoying it so far. Citys brings the FPS right down for me but the countryside i get 45-50. About to start the campaign, hope its up to standards. ( Track IR is MUCH better than ArmA )
  Forum: ArmA II - Combined Operations · Post Preview: #63460 · Replies: 501 · Views: 169,955

BigglesTrevor
Posted on: Jun 19 2009, 00:10


The Il2 Fan
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 733
Joined: 7-November 06
From: England
Member No.: 25


QUOTE(wipman @ Jun 18 2009, 02:34) *
Hi, the America's Army 3 has been released, it's based on the Unreal 3.0 engine, and looks like that it has been improved from the AAO 2.81 which was
the last update that i seen, it haves some new weapons and well... looks like a good shooter. Let's C ya


is it still free?
  Forum: OT Discussions · Post Preview: #63192 · Replies: 449 · Views: 100,792

Pinned: Music
BigglesTrevor
Posted on: Jun 18 2009, 22:41


The Il2 Fan
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 733
Joined: 7-November 06
From: England
Member No.: 25


I have been really getting into Static X recently.
  Forum: Chatter, Word Games & Jokes · Post Preview: #63185 · Replies: 1099 · Views: 192,890

BigglesTrevor
Posted on: Jun 2 2009, 23:33


The Il2 Fan
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 733
Joined: 7-November 06
From: England
Member No.: 25


Just played around with the Sherman for the first time. Stunning model, absolutly fantastic work.
  Forum: Mods · Post Preview: #62625 · Replies: 60 · Views: 41,312

41 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

New Posts  New Replies
No New Posts  No New Replies
Hot topic  Hot Topic (New)
No new  Hot Topic (No New)
Poll  Poll (New)
No new votes  Poll (No New)
Closed  Locked Topic
Moved  Moved Topic
 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 25th June 2017 - 05:54