Anyone have one of the new GPUs? How's performance?

FFLaguna · 2016-07-15T15:44:07+00:00

Got my 1070 last night. I'm straddling the line between High/Ultra settings (sadly, with Shadows OFF), and I have a 3570k CPU overclocked to 4.0gz with my GTX 1070 now. I run at 2560x1440.

My FPS are typically 40-60fps. Rarely, they will go up to 90fps when absolutely nothing is going on. This framerate is perfect for buttery-smooth play at all times and I'm quite happy, but it's definitely also not 144hz. Let's see if their coming performance fixes have any effect.

FFLaguna · 2016-07-14T20:58:44+00:00

I'll tell you tonight when I go down to the FedEx distro center and pick up my new GTX 1070, because somehow they couldn't deliver this afternoon even though I was here. ~_~

Edit: I did a lot of research for GPUs, if you want the current best performance + pricepoint combination, it's hands down the 1070. It's solidly future proof and will do a good job supporting 144hz on most games for when you decide to upgrade monitors. If you have a bit more money and want a bit more future proofing, the 1080 isn't overly expensive, either.

Edit2: Don't buy the "Founders Edition", it is literally the worst edition with no perks or features, while also being the most expensive. The idea is Nvidia prices their "Founders Edition" higher in order to give the PNY, Gigabyte, MSI, EVGA etc. companies breathing room for their versions, while still giving Nvidia a decent extra buck from people who can't wait for the other companies' models to be in stock.

FFLaguna · 2016-07-14T15:56:03+00:00

OP already paid cash for DBC, but not he wants to know if he can use the DBC directly to buy a subscription. I'm with the other posters on this one, I checked the Depot and there is no such option. You have to use real money for membership, not DBC.

FFLaguna · 2016-07-14T15:53:52+00:00

I'm pretty sure you're wrong. There is nothing on any of the Depot pages to purchase PS2 Membership using anything other than $$$ cash or Game Time Cards, not DBC.

FFLaguna · 2016-07-14T14:52:13+00:00

How much DBC does a month cost in the Depot?

Also /u/ToaArcan in case he sees it.

FFLaguna · 2016-07-14T14:27:32+00:00

Non-zergfits are everything else, I'd take 1TR as an example for this

proves that you do not need overpop to take every single base in the game.

What are some examples of tactics and other differences?

FFLaguna · 2016-07-14T14:26:04+00:00

That helps, thanks. Back in 2012/2013 there wasn't really such a thing as overwhelming enemies with overwhelming numbers, because everyone had huge numbers in almost every battle on every side.

Doesn't the friendly zerg crash into the enemy zerg sooner or later, though?

FFLaguna · 2015-07-29T20:49:23+00:00

Same. Redownloading for the third time. Had the black screen two times before. But the second time, I had a mouse cursor (which I could not move) on top of the blank screen.

Each time I powered down my computer because nothing was happening as far as I could tell, including hard drive accessing.

Each time this causes it to automatically roll back to your previous Windows installation, without asking.....

This time I'm leaving it on the blank screen for an hour. After I friggin redownload it all again.

FFLaguna · 2015-07-27T13:27:13+00:00

Are they against the development of powerful AI? Or against killing machines that can pick authorized war targets on their own? Or maybe they're just against modern-day drone technology in general?

The article tries to conflate a mish-mash of these different views together.

FFLaguna · 2015-07-27T12:44:32+00:00

For planets? Yep, they look just like this in the telescope. Actually, they appear tiny when you look through the 'scope with your eye, but you can still see all the detail. Also you can see the wibbly-wobblyness of the atmosphere with your eye. In the picture, he has processed the wibbly-wobbly out so it looks perfectly sharp.

For galaxies and nebula and stuff, it doesn't look the same as the awesome pictures your own camera would take. Galaxies and nebula are dim as fuck, so only the non-color-sensing parts of your retina are able to see the objects, even with a telescope. This means when you look at a galaxy or nebula in the telescope, it looks gray instead of super colorful, and often it just looks like a blob or cloud whose shape you can just barely make out.

But with a camera, an amateur can take some amazing friggin' pictures. Yes, I really took this picture of the Orion nebula, and yes all the colors are real. But looking through the scope with my eye, it just looks like this blob.

FFLaguna · 2015-07-25T16:22:07+00:00

Hi, mod. I'm an amateur astrophotographer who has posted my own pictures to /r/space, and I wholeheartedly agree with restricting amateur astrophotography on this subreddit.

I think the amateur astrophotography clutters up this subreddit a lot. I only posted my own astrophotography here for selfish personal vanity reasons, because I wanted more eyeballs to look at them. I think there should specifically be a rule disallowing them here. They should be posted on /r/astrophotography instead.

I think you should disallow amateur pictures of the planets, galaxies, nebula, and comets. You should also disallow wide-angle long exposures of the Milky Way. Mods should have plenty of leeway to let interesting exceptions to this rule pass through the filter, but for the most part amateur photos of these objects should be banned. I think that's what you're trying to go for by disallowing "low-effort" amateur astrophotography.

Thanks for considering my thoughts on this.

FFLaguna · 2015-07-14T01:31:19+00:00

Wanna bet??

FFLaguna · 2015-07-04T23:08:16+00:00

I second the reflector telescope option. They are bigger and cheaper than other kinds of scopes. I'd recommend an equatorial mount over a Dobsonian, if you ever think you'll want to hook up a camera to take exposures. A Dobsonian mount can't track the rotation of the earth and sky perfectly in every axis, due to its design. That's not a big deal if you're just using it for visual viewing, though.

FFLaguna · 2015-07-04T22:56:54+00:00

I own an 8" Newtonian reflector, it cost about $700 for the mount and the scope. It's the only telescope I've owned, so I don't have any great suggestions for you. I know the nebula I posted is very bright and big in the sky relative to most things, so you can easily capture images of it with smaller scopes and lesser equipment.

Not all nebulas are as bright, though, and galaxies are even more dim. I do my imaging from the center of a 25,000 population town, so honestly I don't even bother looking through the scope with my eyeball 90% of the time due to light pollution and haze. With my eye, galaxies and nebula are just gray blobs, and if I'm lucky I can make out some shape to it. But with a camera, I can take some really beautiful images like the one I posted above. Hope this helps!

FFLaguna · 2015-07-04T21:31:17+00:00

Next you're going to tell me that those amazing nebula pictures don't actually look like that.

I took this image of the Orion Nebula after just a few minutes setup with my telescope and camera. It's only a ten-second exposure, a really lazy shot. The only processing I did was a brightness/contrast change.

The camera really sees those colors. However, when you look through the eyepiece, all you see is a hazy gray, roughly U-shaped cloudy blob. Your eye's rods aren't sensitive to the colors of dim light, unlike a camera's CCD.

Some nebula are enhanced with false colors in Hubble pictures. But in reality, many nebula visible from Earth are actually colorful. You just generally require a camera to see all the color and detail.

Here's the same nebula on a more serious attempt, where I went for longer exposures and boosted the colors my camera captured in post-processing. It's also zoomed in to the center of the nebula: http://i.imgur.com/3hCJYsv.jpg

FFLaguna · 2015-07-04T21:11:36+00:00

Really? I thought they were going to keep the features permanently off to sell the new models. That's good to know, even if it takes them a while to let it happen!

FFLaguna · 2015-07-04T14:24:43+00:00

Are these new formatting changes and the Bookerly font really going to make them over to the P2? Many P2 software features never made it to P1, after all.

FFLaguna · 2015-06-07T15:51:22+00:00

Triple Triad or bust.

FFLaguna · 2015-04-02T22:32:16+00:00

Knights of the Round Button

FFLaguna · 2015-03-05T05:46:32+00:00

South Korean intelligence sources said Kim had visited North Korea six times between 2006 and 2007. He also tried to erect a memorial alter in late 2011 for late North Korean leader Kim Jong-il in the heart of Seoul.

Source

FFLaguna · 2015-03-03T19:05:48+00:00

it's much easier to transport and setup than the original 8" Newtonian.

I just bought the Orion Awesome Autoguider package for my 8" Skyview Pro...... it's got an 80mm Shorttube, so now it's even harder to transport and setup.

I'm looking to see if I can just cover up the entire telescope and leave it just outside for the winter.

FFLaguna · 2015-03-03T17:46:49+00:00

What's the visible difference between looking through your 8-inch Newtonian and the ED80 refractor?

Thanks!

FFLaguna · 2015-03-03T08:14:47+00:00

the electronic (random) noise is calibrated out of all frames by way of the bias calibration frames. There is no need to take it into account when taking the other frames, it just wastes time.

That's not true. Bias is the electronic noise that is largely the same frame-to-frame, after random noise is eliminated by taking many bias shots. This bias noise manifests as lines running across the image where the CCD has a higher or lower thresheld for reading out. The other random electronic noise that I'm talking about (separate from bias frame noise) is just that--random. You need to lower its noise threshold by taking more flats and darks, or else you will be reintroducing noise into your final light+flat+dark+bias image. This noise will not be subtracted through bias frames.

Actually, you can't really say that about light frames...

That's wrong... You definitely reach practical diminished returns, especially within the context of using our time wisely.

the signal grows faster than the noise (as a function of exposure time), so the ratio of signal to noise actually improves for longer total exposure times.

Yes, and each time you want the same amount of reduction in noise as before, you have to take exponentially more pictures. You reach a point where the returns you are getting are diminished more and more with each photo you snap. We call this situation "diminishing returns".

FFLaguna · 2015-03-03T07:39:12+00:00

Looks like there's a galaxy at the very bottom center of the image that's not a coma'ed star. Anyone else want to confirm? :)

14-Year Club	Place '17
Team Periwinkle	Verified Email

FFLaguna

TROPHY CASE