Thanks Beta. Yes, I have the 9600 GT. I recently shot some air through it (a bit of dust did blow out of it), although I did not take the cover off as you've suggested.
I've considered going back to older drivers, but the problems (artifacts/graphical anomalies or whatever they're called) have not happened recently.
btw, the middle pic in your previous post was the most recent type of error that occurred, which has never occurred in the past; the sky in Crysis turned into little colored blocks. This type of stuff has been happening off and on since Crysis 1, so I don't think it's a sign of my gpu dying like you suggested, as I'd think it'd be dead by now.
Anyways, here are the Crysis 1 videos I uploaded to youtube in 2008.
Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
Those vids are whacked man. I was just like woah. Another options you can try is underclocking the video memory. If that doesn't help, underclock the GPU. So far I've found Rivatuner to be the most stable on all video cards I've clocked. http://www.guru3d.com/index.php?page=rivatuner
If it is an EVGA 9800 GT then I'd get a replacement.
I've never seen that before. I wouldn't call it artifacting either.
This is an example of artifacts (actually an ATI card):
If drivercleaner and re-installing Crysis do not help, you may actually have a dying video card. Or possibly, the PCB/memory is overheating. You can remove the video card and clean it. If it has a cover over the heatsink, removing that before cleaning is easy. Here's an image of my EVGA 9800 GT:
Alright I'll explain away, but this is not meant as an offensive argument. Just an experience.
Every clan member that votes in a given time frame is considered active. So, then take 50% of the # of active voters and you have the # of votes required for an applicants entrance.
For example: If 3 of 10 clan members do not vote on ANY polls for 3 weeks, they are considered INACTIVE. That leaves 7 ACTIVE voters. Therefore, 50% of 7 is 3.5, rounded to 4. The total # of positive votes needed for an applicant would be 4.
This system has been the most successful voting system I have ever seen used in a clan. It eliminates the need to make changes to the voting system no matter how many clan members decide to take part in the voting.
*edit* I should mention the items to be adjusted. - time frame of activity - you can make it two months or whatever - percentage of active votes needed
Clan members will have more of an incentive to be "ACTIVE" in the voting process. It will also give you an idea of who is contributing and who is not.
Ok I'll let you in on a secret. I didn't pull the ten number out of my ass. I updated the members list and literally counted the amount of people that go in our forums and I feel would place a vote. Of those, I figure it should be possible, but not too easy to get votes from 10 of them. After running it by a few others, this sounded like a good number for now.
I fear that by using some percentage of total population, we won't be guaranteeing any number of certain votes as some members use the forums more than others (like, not at all for some).
Ah yes and believe it or not, I have implemented a successful solution for that problem too. I just didn't mention it yet. lol should I explain it or would I just be going over the top?