Aslickproductions.org/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=4rpmddblr0qsa28id791kk1410&action=profile;u=6;area=showposts;start=915e:/My Web Sites/Slick Productions - FFIV Message Board/slickproductions.org/forum/index1d06-2.htmlslickproductions.org/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=4rpmddblr0qsa28id791kk1410&action=profile;area=showposts;u=6e:/My Web Sites/Slick Productions - FFIV Message Board/slickproductions.org/forum/index1d06-2.html.zxh^KOKtext/htmlISO-8859-1gzip8:Wed, 11 Mar 2020 08:30:53 GMT0 0Ph^0 Show Posts - Deathlike2

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Deathlike2

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 »
916
General Discussion / Re: Upgrade time
« on: January 28, 2010, 06:03:58 PM »
Try the following...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814143153 - NVidia 9400GT, 512MB
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814187037 - Same thing, except 1GB version (although, I doubt you'll need that much mem with this low end crap)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814500143 - NVidia 9500GT, 512MB, should be faster since I believe this is old mid-rage slottage
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131178 - better version of your ATI selection, ATI 4650
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127456R - NVidia GT 220, it's still low end, but it's the most current and it has DX10.1 support

Did you check to see if your mobo supports the CPU? You may want to consider flashing your BIOS before even attempting to replace the CPU if it doesn't already support it.

You might be better of linking your combo deal... because I can't seem to find yours... the closest match is this:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.315542

The one that looks more appealing is this:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.319504

917
General Discussion / Re: Upgrade time
« on: January 28, 2010, 04:57:10 PM »
Quote from: Dragonsbrethren on January 28, 2010, 03:14:15 PM
PSU:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817371023
I know almost nothing about PSU's; this is part of a combo with the video card I've chosen below. Reviews make it sound pretty good; I am a bit concerned about the comments on short cords though, since I do have a fairly big tower.

I think you could do better, especially if you can get the 80 Plus PSUs on the cheap... especially if you have concerns about power efficiency and power savings...

Quote
CPU:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103279
This is the second cheapest socket AM2 CPU I saw, and the cheapest when you factor in shipping. It certainly outperforms the Sempron 3800+ I have in here now, but I have to admit I lost track of what a good processor was years ago. If I can get something better than this for about the same price, post a link.

Are we reusing mobos here? It seems to be a missing component... because it assumes your current mobo can support it... which is not what I can tell. If your mobo does support it, then at least tell us what it is.


Quote
Video Card:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150390
This was the best price vs. performance video card I could find. I've never owned an ATI card though, and I've heard their drivers are garbage that actually limit the power of the cards in most cases. If you can find me an equivalent nVidia card, go for it. I have one PCI Express and one PCI Express x16 slot.

I think you can find better garbage than that. 64-bit mem bus is a warning sign for craptacularness. There's nothing really wrong with ATI, unless you are running OpenGL sensitive apps (GZDoom comes to mind).

Quote
That's about $235 (with OEM Win 7). Don't drive the price up to $300 just because you can :tongue: (I'll spend some of what is leftover on RAM, and if I have any after that the rest can go towards a game or two I'd like to pick up.)

Clearly there are heavy constraints... with some time, I'm sure we can find better options.

918
Gaming Discussion / Re: The Official "How to fix Quick" topic
« on: January 27, 2010, 03:26:20 PM »
Quote from: Lenophis on January 27, 2010, 03:08:33 PM
I can only imagine it's just as broken in FF5, but that doesn't get nearly the cover FF6 does for some reason.

It's not as broken... you would have to sacrifice something by doing it, unlike FF6.

There is no Economizer. The next best option is the Gold Hairpin, but that produces a loss of defense that would have normally gone to the helmet, which would prevent the use of a Ribbon... though it allows you to use the Mime class w/o much of a penalty.

Everyone has the Magic command in FF6 (well, with the obvious exception), but FF5 requires you slot the individual spell commands... and if you even attempt to slot in the !Red + !Time commands for the Quick dualcast, you'll have one more slot left as a Mime for another spell slot (probably !Summon or !White or !Black) and if you go all out offensive, you will have to spend a turn just healing up the MPs... which makes Quick less impactful than it normally would. It would take two turns of massive magic usage if you use the Gold Hairpin...

919
General Discussion / Re: Google Chrome
« on: January 26, 2010, 01:02:25 PM »
Chrome has updated to version 4, and the bugs seem to have gone away...

920
General Discussion / Re: Google Chrome
« on: January 25, 2010, 06:17:27 PM »
This board renders oddly under Chrome... the sigs are specifically looking odd.

921
General Discussion / Re: NFL season (2009-2010), week 20 - playoffs?!
« on: January 24, 2010, 09:56:53 PM »
Leno, it sucks, but you got what you knew what would've been the worst case scenario. Peterson fumbled, and Favre... well, he's gonna be Favre.

Next time... work on home field advantage. That silly loss to the Bears didn't help.

922
General Discussion / Re: NFL season (2009-2010), week 20 - playoffs?!
« on: January 24, 2010, 09:24:11 PM »
I said this long before the season started... Favre will make the play to end a season.... he did just that.

This was an epic game... Vikings gave away the ball too many times, when it was looking like Peterson was the fall guy. Saints gave that advantage and the time of possession back with penalties. However, when Favre was making the critical play to set up the FG for a win by running with the ball, he makes the sin of all QBs and put it into the worst position... OT and losing the coin toss. Favre wasn't going to be the goat, but he put it back on his head.

Congrats to both teams for making it more interesting than the early game.

923
General Discussion / Re: NFL season (2009-2010), week 20 - playoffs?!
« on: January 24, 2010, 05:03:14 PM »
Good job Leno. The Sanchise scored as much as their season average... but that Jets defense was figured out, like before.

The only mystery was how long it took before Peyton figured it out. It was before the half...

924
General Discussion / Re: NFL season (2009-2010), week 20 - playoffs?!
« on: January 24, 2010, 01:24:28 AM »
Reread what I wrote Leno.

925
Game Modification Station / Re: Its finally out :D
« on: January 22, 2010, 01:45:42 PM »
Quote from: Lenophis on January 22, 2010, 03:19:49 AM
If you have beta 2, use the "Optimize All" button. That will free up about, ohhhh, say, 8000 bytes. :wtf:

This is somehow bad?  :tongue:

926
Gaming Discussion / Re: Crystal Armor vs White Robe
« on: January 21, 2010, 09:25:04 AM »
Bleh @ the error... it's hard to get it all perfectly correct the first time around.  :tongue:

Here's something to think about, there's a portion of the game where you get access to the Black Belt. Imagine how much better you are defensively against monsters you face at the time... where most of them don't attack you with anything elemental while you have lots of elemental armor available (Fire/Ice/Diamond Armor).

927
General Discussion / Re: NFL season (2009-2010), week 20 - playoffs?!
« on: January 20, 2010, 10:42:12 PM »
Quote from: Lenophis on January 20, 2010, 07:38:11 PM
Plus this makes the ultimate Deathlike Doomsday Scenario. :tongue: Since we can't have the ultimate Mercury Morris Doomsday Scenario, I'll have to settle for this one, instead.

I'm pretty much set on Saints vs Colts. The real Doomsday scenario is if the Vikings lose. Then I will rant about the Favre.

 :edit: I will poke holes in your points Leno... a bit later.  :tongue:

928
General Discussion / Re: Google Chrome
« on: January 20, 2010, 10:40:16 PM »
Quote from: assassin on January 20, 2010, 07:16:01 PM
Quote from: Deathlike2 on January 20, 2010, 01:22:56 PM
I wonder why you are making references to older versions of Opera?

because those are the only ones i used before abandoning it.  as said previously:

Quote from: me
Opera is nice, but this pathetic downloading has stopped me from using it regularly, or from trying the newer versions.

It's working fine, but like most browsers, they have their own quirks.


Quote
Quote from: Deathlike2
The only way downloading slows down is if you set a large cache...

i doubt that's it..  it's hard to believe Opera could be *that* shoddy at accessing the hard drive.

When any browser is forced to load lots of cache (we're talking >400-500 MB), the browser craps on itself in general. This is the same for Firefox, Opera... and probably Chrome. There's something about the resources required that makes it go uber sluggish, so a "small" cache like 100MB should be "enough" generally.

Quote from: JCE3000GT on January 20, 2010, 09:33:55 PM
Quote from: assassin on January 20, 2010, 02:47:04 AM
JCE3000GT: as an Opera user, have you had the following problem?  for me, with prior versions of Opera (6 and 7, iirc), the interface is very fast, but the actual downloading is painfully slow.  this is especially evident on a page with multiple images -- even on a simple Google Images search results page -- it'll take a long time to load entirely.  i can't find any options to tweak this.  the closest one is something like "(A)synchronous DNS", and if i toggle that, the browser will eventually stop downloading entirely, so it's not an option for me.  IE 6 and Firefox 1.x on the same machine are plenty fine, so it's not a global Windows issue.

Opera is nice, but this pathetic downloading has stopped me from using it regularly, or from trying the newer versions.

i'm guessing you don't currently encounter the problem, if it's your favorite browser..  but have you encountered it on older versions of Opera?  i'm just trying to figure whether Opera hates my computer for some reason.

 
My experience with slowness only occurs with pages that use an assload of plugins and flash (IE ebay).  I've found that the best thing to do is set the limit of active downloads per server to less than 4~5 and don't do redraw instantly.  But everything is reletive depending on the sites you visit. 

I believe Flash is less harmful to Chrome than any other browser because of the sandboxing. Resource allocation for any browser when Flash is involved eats the browser up to varying degrees. I couldn't tell you which has it worse, but I'd say that Firefox suffers the most. When Opera gets sluggish, it usually starts with the rendering (there's some noticable delay)... it appears a tad different from say Firefox, but Firefox goes kaput in terms of rendering... where scrolling a page causes garbage-like effects to the point of invisibility.

929
Gaming Discussion / Crystal Armor vs White Robe
« on: January 20, 2010, 06:23:42 PM »
Hopefully this brings me back to modding the game, but I doubt it... but it's worth a discussion.

I did try this once before, and I forget if it worked out (I did this on the real console), but I never looked into it deeply.

Here's some baseline stats for your reference:
Quote from: My FAQ
Crystal Armor/Crystal Mail
--------------------------
Defense Power: 25
Evade Rate: 0
Magic Defense: 10
Magic Evasion: 6
Stat Modifiers: +3 Will
Elemental: n/a
Status Immunity: Toad, Mini, Piggy, Silence/Mute, Blind/Silence, Berserk
Resistant Against: Undead
Metallic: No
Equipped By: Paladin Cecil
Value: 10
Notes: This is found in a treasure chest filled with monsters in the Lunar
Subterrane.

White Robe
----------
Defense Power: 18
Evade Rate: 10
Magic Defense: 10
Magic Evasion: 6
Stat Modifiers: +15 Will
Elemental: n/a
Status Immunity: Blind/Darkness
Resistant Against: Spirits/Ghouls, Undead
Metallic: No
Equipped By: Young Rydia, Tellah, Rosa, Porom, Paladin Cecil, FuSoYa
Value: 10
Notes: This is not really a great upgrade for Rosa, particularly when it comes
to Magic Evasion.

I have long argued that the Minerva/Heroine Robe was better for Rosa than the White Robe.

I've long held the belief that evasion in this game is far more important than raw defense (not that having both is a bad thing), so when it comes to heavy armor like the Diamond Armor (defense) vs the Sorcerer/Light Robe (evasion, magic defense, magic evasion, stats), it's not as bad as one would think.

I believe Cecil is best served with this armor... not only will he have the ability to do better healing early on, he will be more effective at evading AND the most important aspect is that he is not immune to Berserk status. The other resistances can easily be covered with a Ribbon anyhow.

930
General Discussion / Re: Google Chrome
« on: January 20, 2010, 01:22:56 PM »
I wonder why you are making references to older versions of Opera?

The only way downloading slows down is if you set a large cache...

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 »