The fastest RC cars in the world

Saturday, August 05, 2006

'Angry Buick' is Not Necessarily an Oxymoron

"You’re looking at 708 streetable horsepower of twin-turbo, all-aluminum, 265ci, Buick V-6. Newly available blocks and heads from TA Performance and Ken Duttweiler’s turbo and EFI tuning magic make the Buick viable again—if you have the bucks. The intercoolers are top-mounted in this example to fit the sand-buggy package this build was going in.""This motor’s broad, flat torque curve should make any hot rodder one of turbocharging’s greatest boosters. But there’s always room for improvement: The dip in the torque curve is indicative of a restriction or loss of turbo efficiency. Improved turbos are on the way to bust through the 800hp door."

Friday, August 04, 2006

The Scientists' Opinions on Gaming Physics - Not there yet

Physics in games isn't ready yet, from Toms Hardware:

"From a science perspective, there isn't much talking up of Ageia's PhysX card. Granted, the scientists we talked to hadn't been able to get their hands on that piece of hardware, but their opinions still have weight as they know what is to be expected from it. They know about the mathematical limitations, and know that it won't help them do real physics simulations. But, as we all know, and maybe you're saying it out loud right now: science is not gaming. What really matters in the game is how it performs, and how physics is applied in that specific setting.

What many folks want to see in games is an increase of effects that add realism. For example, debris that actually stays on the ground after an explosion, rather than going away when you leave a scene and later return. Imagine being able to actually destroy walls inside a building until it collapses under its own weight. If you're able to interact with everything in a game as well as just look at it, you're a big step away from effects that just look good and actually heading towards seeing new types of games.

An obvious fact is that physics isn't just lights and mirrors like graphics, where you can accept the illusion that a large square area looks like a realistic wooden wall. You don't want a cloth towel behaving like a wooden board when colliding with something else. Gaming physics that makes things more realistic needs insane amounts of calculations, something a PPU might do quite well in some areas but more inaccurately, whereas the CPU does more correctly but at the cost of speed.

So, what hardware will be best for physics? We still have to wait and see. The optimal solution will probably be some sort of compromise, where a multi-core CPU does the complex calculations, and some kind of hardware (be it the GPU or a PPU) takes care of easier calculations where a larger number of objects is involved. And of course, you wouldn't go wrong having dual graphic cards to render it all on the screen with a decent frame rate.

All in all - hardware accelerated physics has arrived, and will stay in one form or another."

The RIAA, IP addresses, and evidence

Great article talking about court cases for illegal downloading. In the cases that got dismissed, the defense was able to prove that many people used the internet connection, therefore its hard to show that one person is responsible for the downloading:
"In the cases above, both defendants had complex domicile arrangements that could be backed up by affidavits and, eventually, testimony. This is an important point, because a number of people have suggested that those engaging in piracy could construct an impenetrable defense for themselves by having an open wireless access point on their property. The thinking is simple: if you have an open WAP, then who's to say it wasn't your neighbor or some vagabond that did the pirating? This argument is specious however, both for the fact that no ruling supporting that argumentation alone has been made as of yet, and because in both instances discussed above, the evidence of multiple computer users in the home was undeniable. One should not expect the same result merely because of an open WAP on the premises. To scare the RIAA away, it takes evidence of multiple computer users in the home, and even then, the special circumstances of both of these cases suggests that the burden of proof would have been significant for the RIAA."
From Arstechnica

Worlds Fastest R/C car: 160 mph!

*UPDATE* 10-8-08 Nic Case set the record for Worlds Fastest R/C car 161.76 mph-Video here




Custom Works 2WD dirt-oval.
Custom Works 2WD dirt-oval car on top, electrified Nitro TC3 on the bottom.
Custom Works 2WD dirt-oval car.
The carnage of Nic Case's 160+ mph Custom Works dirt oval car.
134 mph electrified Nitro TC3.
Nic's first car, a 134 mph electrified Nitro TC3.

Download Video of 134.4 mph run.

From Pete V. of R/C CarAction:

"World's Fastest RC Car Challenge: Nic Case wins with 160mph run.

Nic showed up with two cars, a LiPo/brushless converted Nitro TC3 that went over 130mph, and a Custom Works 2WD dirt-oval car (also LiPo/BL) that made a run at 160mph, but not without controversy:

The controversy comes from the huge jump in speed. Nic's previous best was a 134.4 with his 4WD car. When he rolled out with his 2WD car, I didn't even know it was a different car (all I saw was a neon orange blur!). When the radar showed a clean 160mph pass, I thought, "no way he found an extra 25mph that easily." But it was, in fact, a whole new car that was a pound lighter than the 4WD car (and may have had more cells as well, I'm still writing the story). I wanted another run to confirm the car was capable of that kind of speed, but the car was broken beyond repair within the remaining time of the event.

Given the aerodynamic forces at play and the power required to go from 134mph to 160mph (the power requirement goes up exponentially, not in direct proportion to speed), I'm afraid that if there is an error we may have a record that will be unapproachable even by the guy who set it! And so, the OFFICIAL record will be set at 134.4. Full credit will be given for the UNofficial record of 160, and we'll tell the whole story in RC Car Action. Next year, we'll use a speed trap to eliminate any chance of radar error."

The basics of the set-up according to Nic are:

Neu 1509 2y Motor

EVO 20 3300 8s1p Lipo

Castle Creations HV-85

Geared 2:1 with 2.6 purple foam BSR tires

RCCA will be doing a detailed photo shoot that should come out in the November issue. I will gladly share the info.

-Nic

*Update 8/28/06*

Nic posted these facts in this forum post:

------JUST TO BE CLEAR---- The Facts Are --------
1) Neither crash happened on the 134.4mph OR the 160.1mph run.
2) Each car was operational after their Fastest runs.
3) There was no mention of a “back-up” run in the 2006 rules.

I am sharing all the info about the equipment in my cars in the
November issue of RCCA. I’m happy to share on this site, as well.

Records were made to be broken…………………Who’s next?

Nic Case

Worlds Fastest R/C car: 160 mph

*UPDATE* 10-8-08 Nic Case set the record for Worlds Fastest R/C car 161.76 mph-Video here


Nic Case's 160+ Custom Works dirt oval car.
Nic's first car, a 134mph electrified Nitro TC3.

Video of 134.4 mph run.

From Pete V. of R/C CarAction:

"World's Fastest RC Car Challenge: Nic Case wins with 160mph run.

Nic showed up with two cars, a LiPo/brushless converted Nitro TC3 that went over 130mph, and a Custom Works 2WD dirt-oval car (also LiPo/BL) that made a run at 160mph, but not without controversy:

The controversy comes from the huge jump in speed. Nic's previous best was a 134.4 with his 4WD car. When he rolled out with his 2WD car, I didn't even know it was a different car (all I saw was a neon orange blur!). When the radar showed a clean 160mph pass, I thought, "no way he found an extra 25mph that easily." But it was, in fact, a whole new car that was a pound lighter than the 4WD car (and may have had more cells as well, I'm still writing the story). I wanted another run to confirm the car was capable of that kind of speed, but the car was broken beyond repair within the remaining time of the event.

Given the aerodynamic forces at play and the power required to go from 134mph to 160mph (the power requirement goes up exponentially, not in direct proportion to speed), I'm afraid that if there is an error we may have a record that will be unapproachable even by the guy who set it! And so, the OFFICIAL record will be set at 134.4. Full credit will be given for the UNofficial record of 160, and we'll tell the whole story in RC Car Action. Next year, we'll use a speed trap to eliminate any chance of radar error."

Thursday, August 03, 2006

WTF

Wednesday, August 02, 2006

Core 2 Extreme vs. Athlon 64 FX-62

Performance comparison of an overclocked Athlon 64 FX-62 at 3.05 GHz, against a stock unit at 2.8 GHz.
Performance comparison of an overclocked Core 2 Extreme system at 3.66 GHz, against a stock unit at 2.93 GHz.

From Toms Hardware:

"We put the AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 up against the Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 processor. With careful optimization, the performance of an Intel Core 2 Extreme system can be increased by a substantial average of 16.8 percent (though this is where a look at our test applications is required). The Athlon 64 FX-62 only managed a performance jump of less than half that figure, 7.2 percent, with equally careful optimization. When compared head-to-head, the overclocked Core 2 Extreme outperformed its AMD counterpart by nearly 30 percent across the board.

A quick look at the power consumption we measured during our testing also shows that an overclocked Intel system under heavy load requires 29 fewer watts than the AMD unit, while delivering 30 percent more performance. The strengths of the overclocked AMD system showed up at the other end of the usage spectrum under light or idle loads. In that case, the AMD system consumed 29 fewer watts than did the Intel Core 2 Extreme.

We also took a look at our lab engineers' notebooks. Raising the FSB and memory clocks on the Intel system increased memory throughput from 5.7 to 7.3 GB/s. AMD's integrated memory controller enabled memory throughput for the Athlon 64 FX-62 to increase from 9.3 GB/s to a record-breaking value of 10.7 GB/s.

Want an comparison of a more mundane, everyday sort? Try this on for size: the overclocked Intel system compressed an entire 2.5 hour movie on DVD in under 6 minutes! This involved converting from DVD9 to DVD4.7 formats. The real strengths of the Intel Core 2 clearly lie in the video realm: the Intel system converts a 2 hour movie into the well-known DivX format in 93 minutes, whereas the AMD system takes 155, or just more than one hour longer, to complete the same task."

Tuesday, August 01, 2006

AMD and Intel CPU prices

Real Gaming Challenge Rematch: Intel vs. AMD


No $1000 CPUs. No dual $500 graphics cards. No insanely high or ridiculously low graphics settings. No timedemos. This time we take a typical mass-market system and play games normally to find the fastest processor.

About a year ago, we ran a feature called the Real Gaming Challenge. In it, we built a couple PCs using processors that typical PC users can afford, and measured their performance in games using a different methodology—real gameplay, instead of canned, recorded demo playbacks. Now, with the availability of new dual-core Athlon 64 CPUs and Core 2 Duo processors from Intel—both with very aggressive pricing—it's time for a rematch.

The New Winner: Core 2 Duo

When we ran our first Real Gaming Challenge almost a year ago, we used CPUs that were about $80 cheaper, and single-core. Though the price of the tested CPUs has gone up, they're still quite affordable, and they're a lot faster. It has quickly become a dual-core world, and Intel's introduction of a whole new processor architecture has made a huge difference. Though the games are more demanding this year, tables have turned completely, with the Core 2 Duo now winning every single test against the comparable Athlon 64 X2—the exact reverse of last year.

When you consider all six games, the winner becomes abundantly clear. There's not a single game where the Core 2 Duo didn't deliver a higher average frame rate. Across all games, Intel's new CPU delivered a 16% higher frame rate. What is more important is that it spent a significantly smaller amount of time beneath our arbitrary thresholds for a really smooth and enjoyable gameplay experience. In fact, there are three games—half of our sample group!—where the Core 2 Duo essentially never dipped below the minimum threshold at all.

The real winner here is the consumer. You don't need to spend several thousand dollars on hardware to make a great gaming system. At 1280x1024—the most common LCD resolution and 40% higher-res than 720p high definition—you can have a really awesome time gaming with a single sub-$300 graphics card and a CPU just over $300. And you don't need to reduce the game's detail levels to do it; we ran all these tests using each game's "high" setting. With such high-performance dual-core CPUs priced so aggressively, and with Vista coming out in the next year with a strong focus on improving PC gaming, the signs look good for PC game fans.

Monday, July 31, 2006

Skydiving with jet turbines strapped to your feet