Black Milk WTF?

[fireWIRE]

What rig is that dude running?

He's already at a flag capping it before I'm in the game.

On Easting he has spawned, made it to the chopper, flown the chopper to the village, bailed, got in the T72 and is on the flag turning it white before 95% of the folks have spawned for the first time. ROFL

[starbucks]

he could be using the latest intel core 2 duos or the i7s and overclocking the living piss out of everything.

OCing does wonders...

add 12gb of DDR3 1600 and he will be able to load DC maps in a few seconds.

[fireWIRE]

he could be using the latest intel core 2 duos or the i7s and overclocking the living piss out of everything.

OCing does wonders...

add 12gb of DDR3 1600 and he will be able to load DC maps in a few seconds.

He's not sporting 12GB of RAM unless he's running 64 bit XP or Vista.

[Soylent]

He's not sporting 12GB of RAM unless he's running 64 bit XP or Vista.

Alot of people do.

[Spilling_Guts]

Black Milk (aka Fantastic_Damage) was banned a few months ago for using minimap radar (there are some screenshots out there ).
He came in with a new nickname and new CD keyhash.

Check this website:

http://www.battlefieldplayers.com/playe ... 7861663dec

or just type his nickname in the search field.

Did he get a rehab?

[MOJORyder]

ab983f2d4ac428973198d098937fb54c Black Milk 2009-04-07 23:03:00 2009-05-13 21:48:16 View player
47950b0c0d33515af9ab697861663dec Black Milk 2009-04-06 19:53:05 2009-04-07 21:58:10 View player
e95d08ca04287728ced0b0b23e3a7cb5 Black Milk 2007-07-01 20:18:51 2007-09-18 00:37:48 View player

[Dvaren]

he could be using the latest intel core 2 duos or the i7s and overclocking the living piss out of everything.

Map loading speed has much more to do with HDD access and southbridge capability than it does with CPU types. A pair of Velociraptors or SSDs in RAID paired with a SB750 or ICHR10 would provide blazing fast map loads. Having Intels latest EE quad core would provide little improvement, if any.

OCing does wonders...

Generally this is true, but not so much in this case =)

add 12gb of DDR3 1600 and he will be able to load DC maps in a few seconds.

That would only be true if the maps were stored in RAM and not on the HDD. Even good old PC133, given sufficient quantity, could load a map faster than any single modern HDD.....if Battlefield actually loaded maps from RAM.... Now if some genius here would just code BF to cache all the maps on RAM...! *moans gleefully*

12GB of DDR3 would be of little use to a game that uses perhaps...mmmm...512MB? 1GIG at most? Also keep in mind that DDR3 sports much higher latencies than DDR2 (while providing higher bandwidth)....yet it's access time, not frequency, that shows higher yields when gaming!

He's not sporting 12GB of RAM unless he's running 64 bit XP or Vista.

Correct...and he's not running BF on a 64bit OS (unless of course he's got it running on a virtual machine...which kind of negates the whole purpose of it in the first place)

Don't forget that textures must be loaded into your GDDR also. Those of you running 1920x1200 on a 512MB/128bit video card are really pushing the limits =p

Take care all

[starbucks]

Shows how much I know. Thanks for bringing me up to speed.

On a second note...I was under the impression that the faster speed of DDR3 makes up for the higher latency levels.

[starbucks]

Black Milk (aka Fantastic_Damage) was banned a few months ago for using minimap radar (there are some screenshots out there ).
He came in with a new nickname and new CD keyhash.

Check this website:

http://www.battlefieldplayers.com/playe ... 7861663dec

or just type his nickname in the search field.

Did he get a rehab?

Smoking Gun?

[Spilling_Guts]

Indeed, solid evidence.

[starbucks]

So does this site just list banned players/cd hashes from battlefield 1942?

I wouldn't want to rush to judgement...

[MOJORyder]

nah, look yourself up using the site...(I did) it shows everyones Hash, not just those banned

[starbucks]

I guess I don't understand what use that site would have.

[Spilling_Guts]

No, that website lists all the bf players according to their CD keyhashes and some sort of IP address. If you play with two or more different nicknames, that is registered. Black Milk was using three different CD keyhashes, in one of them he played as Fantastic_Damage which previously has been banned for being a hacker. I am assuming he installed a new BF (bought it for 10 bucks) in the same computer. He can get a new CD keyhash but still the IP address is the same.

[Swanny-CG]

His IP is different now, which is not surprising. an ipconfig /release ipconfig /renew would do it, or whatever address renewal capability he has through his router. It would take two seconds ... IP address blocking is really unreliable.

That site will show every nick you've ever used with your current keyhash, as well as other nicks used identical to yours and nicks that user has used.

starbucks

Dvaren, do you know for a fact that a 64 bit OS won't run BF specifically, or are you saying that a 64 bit OS wouldn't pass more than 3 GB of RAM to a 32 bit app that was installed? It *seems* to read that 32 bit apps won't run on a 64 bit OS and we do it all the time :)

[LF55]

he could be using the latest intel core 2 duos or the i7s and overclocking the living piss out of everything.

Map loading speed has much more to do with HDD access and southbridge capability than it does with CPU types. A pair of Velociraptors or SSDs in RAID paired with a SB750 or ICHR10 would provide blazing fast map loads. Having Intels latest EE quad core would provide little improvement, if any.

OCing does wonders...

Generally this is true, but not so much in this case =)

add 12gb of DDR3 1600 and he will be able to load DC maps in a few seconds.

That would only be true if the maps were stored in RAM and not on the HDD. Even good old PC133, given sufficient quantity, could load a map faster than any single modern HDD.....if Battlefield actually loaded maps from RAM.... Now if some genius here would just code BF to cache all the maps on RAM...! *moans gleefully*

12GB of DDR3 would be of little use to a game that uses perhaps...mmmm...512MB? 1GIG at most? Also keep in mind that DDR3 sports much higher latencies than DDR2 (while providing higher bandwidth)....yet it's access time, not frequency, that shows higher yields when gaming!

He's not sporting 12GB of RAM unless he's running 64 bit XP or Vista.

Correct...and he's not running BF on a 64bit OS (unless of course he's got it running on a virtual machine...which kind of negates the whole purpose of it in the first place)

Don't forget that textures must be loaded into your GDDR also. Those of you running 1920x1200 on a 512MB/128bit video card are really pushing the limits =p

Take care all

That's my boy! The really good Engineer in the family.

[Dvaren]

Shows how much I know. Thanks for bringing me up to speed.

On a second note...I was under the impression that the faster speed of DDR3 makes up for the higher latency levels.

Application dependent, actually. Modern games benefit much more from higher speeds than older games for instance. This of course applies more to GDDR than DDR though. That's why you see GDDR4 or GDDR5 on modern video cards instead of old GDDR2 and GDDR3 (of course the bit rate is also an important factor here). Take the size of the texutres in BF, for instance, and compare them to the ones you see in Crysis. Crysis obviously employs much larger textures resulting in much more information being passed inbetween texture memory and the GPU. Although I'm not certain, I'd guess that "response time" in this case would take a back seat to throughput.

So I'm not quite sure at what point, or under which conditions, frequency begins to exhibit substantial gains over latency (if at all). What I do know is that up to this date, DDR3 still has not shown mentionable gains over DDR2 except in artificial benchmarks. It has shown mentionable gains in price, though =p (to play devils advocate, GDDR5 HAS shown massive gains over GDDR2...but once again...what percentage of this result is a factor of increased bit rates?)

If all of us had unlimited capital (like LF55!), I'd suggest throwing a few SSD's in RAID for map loads. Raptors are also a decent choice, especially seeing as they nearly match SSDs in most areas and smoke them on write speeds....but I think we all know that platter driven HDDs are rapidly on their way out =(. SSDs even excel in reliability compared to HDDs, so when the price drops, I guess I'll be jumping ship =))

[tona]

I can't seem to even get the site to work. Clicking on register does nothing. Entering a nic does nothing.
So, besides this thing not working for me and just assuming that the evidence on Black Milk is relevant...and/or accurate, what does this mean?
Does it mean that he has actually been busted for running a hack and has changed cds and/or IP's to continue playing undetected?

Really...what is actually being said here? I ask, because its frustrating enough to get owned by players like SOS, its another thing to be owned by a cheater.

So, are we actually discussing freaky fast load up times here, or are we discussing a potential cheat?
Just curious...

[Swanny-CG]

Yes.

I wouldn't register on the site. They seem to be having some issues right now, but normally entering a nick will bring up all of the keyhashes associated with that name. Clicking on the keyhash will show every nick that ever played using that keyhash.

A discussion started based on the original subject, which is how maps load faster for some folks than others, then went sideways on the player mentioned in the subject. As for his current status, I am monitoring things diligently and intently. It seems that if he is the same person he got another keyhash one way or another.

[tona]

good enough

[LF55]

Black Milk, aka:
werf
Player
Player20
Player23
Player29
Aphroe
Mosenschleim
Lord Quas

[redsled]

wow another haxor busted, down the drain, why even use them? are you really that insecure with yourself that you have to use a cheat to feel good? isn't the point of the game to be a challenge?

[fireWIRE]

Oh damn, I wasn't even referring to him as a hacker was just curious about his rig setup.

I'm guessing also he also using an image of the CD and not the CD itself since the game wants to spin up the CD for validation.

And putting more than 4GB of RAM in a 32 bit OS is a complete waist of money considering 4GB is the addressable limit on a 32bit OS. Then you have to take into consideration close to .5GB of overheard the OS is going to take. So really you have more like 3.5GB with 4GB installed.

I have 64bit XP at work and I can run most 32bit apps. XP will install them into the "Programs Files (x86)" directory

[Dvaren]

Dvaren, do you know for a fact that a 64 bit OS won't run BF specifically, or are you saying that a 64 bit OS wouldn't pass more than 3 GB of RAM to a 32 bit app that was installed? It *seems* to read that 32 bit apps won't run on a 64 bit OS and we do it all the time :)

I guess I was a bit sweeping with that brush. eh? lol. To be more specific:

64bit OS's (especially Vista) often fail at running older 32 bit apps. This is in no way an all encompassing blanket statement. Just a rough guideline. Running a virtual XP solves this problem in the vast majority of cases that this incompatibility does occur.

With that said, I have to admit....I have never personally tried installing/running BF1942+DC07 on a 64bit Vista, XP or 7 machine. I made an educated guess that it would be problematical....so don't take my word as gospel on that issue (other issues, I prefer my word be taken as gospel...thankyou =p)

In either case...12GIGs of DDR3 would not outperform 2-4GIGs of DDR2 in BF....especially pertaining to map load times.

[Dvaren]

Oh damn, I wasn't even referring to him as a hacker was just curious about his rig setup.

Don't apologize. We don't like him either =p

I'm guessing also he also using an image of the CD and not the CD itself since the game wants to spin up the CD for validation.

Are you saying that BF spins up the CS for validation every time it loads a map??! I've never noticed this, but then again, I've never actually looked. Could someone confirm this?

And putting more than 4GB of RAM in a 32 bit OS is a complete waist of money considering 4GB is the addressable limit on a 32bit OS. Then you have to take into consideration close to .5GB of overheard the OS is going to take. So really you have more like 3.5GB with 4GB installed.

You're actually unlikely to get any more than 3.25GB with 4GB installed...lol. I wish software vendors would make the jump to 64 bit already. They're the last link on this outdated chain.

I have 64bit XP at work and I can run most 32bit apps. XP will install them into the "Programs Files (x86)" directory

Many older apps, especially games, are problematical on 64 bit OS's. Many 32 bit apps that do run, actually run slower (albeit by a small margin). As I stated in a previous post (a correction), I am not absolutely certain about BF/DC07...just an educated guess =)