Vaelin

Actually, my 3 year old PC with an older ATI card is fine. However, my new HTPC (which should be perfectly capable of handling SC4) with a 9500GS has problems. I've tried three recent drivers, and I've found that it's choppy whenever shadows are not on low. I can enable all types of AA, AiF, etc (though I haven't tested all combinations yet) so long as shadows is set to low. It even runs great in software mode (with shadows). You may want to try turning shadows to low with the new ATI cards. I'm thinking it may have to do with some of the newer shaders conflicting or not being handled correctly or lack of backward computability. Comparing 8XXX Nvidia to 4XXX ATI is mixing generations. If you are running an 9XXX Nvidia card then you have a good comparison feature-wise (similar shader and DX10 support). There also may be a setting that will correct the shadow problem, I'll investigate more in the coming week. New PC specs are Intel E7200 (Core 2 Duo), 2GB PC800 DDR2, some weird mITX motherboard (Intel NB if I recall), 9500GS (not the sharpest tool in the shed, but perfectly capable of SC4) with 512 MB, Vista 32 Premium.

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy I see the sense in the idea...though not too sure I agree with it to be honest. Its difficult..if in the event of a global pandemic we can not treat everyone and even at the best hospitals equipment will be limited. Do we left the oldest die and allow the younger and stronger to survive and get the best care. Part of me says yes and the other part says no. quote> In almost any plausible case, the young and the strong won't be hit very hard. For a disease to be successful in a pandemic situation, it will have to have a long incubation time (when the patient can be contagious) and typically those types of diseases aren't virulent enough to take out the young/strong. The old and *very* young and already sick will need the most care, and likely get it... well... it IS America... they'll get it after the politicians, celebrities, corporate big wigs, and sports stars are all taken care of, naturally. Anything virulent enough to kill quickly will be found and contained just as quickly. SARS was too virulent to become truly successful (at under 10% mortality) and it only was as successful as it was due to its surprising ability to survive on surfaces longer than most. (http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/sars/factsheet.htm) So wash your hands, use a tissue, and cover your mouth when you cough! The modern flu is a perfect example of a successful virus, easily contagious, but not too virulent. Though HIV is a good one too: HIV is weak because it cannot survive outside the body, and is incredibly difficult to contract... but it's incredibly slow to show symptoms and allows a person YEARS to possibly spread it to others before they have any observable symptoms. The funniest part about comparing these two diseases, is that a true flu-like pandemic would all but eradicate HIV/AIDS from many countries.... Flu wins! (maybe) This entire report/article is about about money. Be it some PhD trying to justify their over inflated job or someone trying to justify asking for more funding... The article comes from "prestigious universities, medical groups, the military and government agencies"... Having taught at a 'prestigious' university, my wife having worked in the medical research industry, and now working with various 'government agencies'... I'm fairly confident that any assurances by these groups that aren't backed up with hard facts, research, AND math are likely just regular political fear-mongering to justify their budgets/salaries. The list was reportedly "emotionally difficult" and the likely-hood of its necessity is based upon "belief". I really like Devereaux's admission: "you never know". Freaking bleeding-heart political pseudoscientists literally saturate what used to be a scientific community. It makes it hard (and sometimes easy) for me to feel doing real science is ever worth it... (wow, that came off appropriately bitter) I, and many of these people, grew up under the constant reminder of apocalypse: the Russians are going to nuke us, the terrorist poison us... etc... They can't LET it seem nice because hey don't know how to live without fear. If the medical system is strained to the point that doctors are consciously letting people who don't want to die, die... their little list and report will be right out the freaking window as the system has breaks down. P.S. to the OP - And your kids will likely be able to say that there were sci-fi movies about this too when they're grown... beca

Seeing as it is getting around to that time of year, perhaps a christmas-tree farm/nursery may be something you'd like to do. I know there is already a great tree nursery lot, but if you are planning any holiday season-themed rural lots, this may be a good idea.

Is any other building like this in the world? This is the nice solution that solves the space problem. ---------------- I've never seen a building do it that frglantly, but a number of cities have buildings built over roads and rail lines... It's just that the city "street" level has risen over the years so that you don't see it. It is however a big problem when it comes to architecture, as it's hard to build a highrise when you can't send pylons to bedrock. (Yielding some very interesting cantilevered buildings, like the Boeing building in Chigaco) Very interesting building though.

Like vladamir said, You can cross the avenue all the way down (I know this is tedious, but it IS a work-arouund) with streets that don't go beyond the boundaries of the avenue like: AAAAASAAASAAASAA AAAAASAAASAAASAA Only make all of the crossings streets. This essentially allows for 'turn lanes'. Now, I'm not entirely certain how the engine will use this, but I'm guessing the speed limit or capacity of your avenue may drop below that of a regular avenue if you do this along the length... but that only makes sense. Where I grew up we simply called them five lane roads (It was understood that a road with an odd number would have the middle lane be a turn road) and in a situation where a turn lane existed, the speed limit and capacity of the road was less due to people slowing down frequently to turn. So if this happens, it is what you're asking for. Although it's slightly off topic, I don't know why we can't have shifting one-way roads. In Houston, there is a 3-lane road without a turn lane that goes through a residential area. Many commuters live there, but it's fairly dense, so that can't add two more lanes without taking out alot of buildings. So, the middle lane changes direction at different times of the day for commuters. I don't know anyone else's experience with this sort of thing, but a commuter road like this that would not necessarily have as big of an impact on commercial, but have a higher capacity, would be nice to have...