Realflight G2 and ATI graphics cards

[Markerbeacon]

Ok, it says everywhere you look that the ATI Radeon graphics cards are NOT
the card of choice for using RF G2. (FWIW I'm using a ATI All-In-Wonder
Radeon with the alternate drivers and it works, but performance on the rest
of my system suffers). How come is it then that the Radeon 9700 Pro is
curently ranked as the top card and the gurus at Knifedge have issues with
it???


-Mark

[Warbirds]

My Radeon 9000 Pro works fine. What exactly is the problem you are having?

Markerbeacon wrote:
> Ok, it says everywhere you look that the ATI Radeon graphics cards are NOT
> the card of choice for using RF G2. (FWIW I'm using a ATI All-In-Wonder
> Radeon with the alternate drivers and it works, but performance on the rest
> of my system suffers). How come is it then that the Radeon 9700 Pro is
> curently ranked as the top card and the gurus at Knifedge have issues with
> it???
>
>
> -Mark
>
>
>

[Michael Basden]

9700 Pro fine here...


"Markerbeacon" <nobody@home.com> wrote in message
news:Mx3V9.50146$wQ1.255@fe01...
> Ok, it says everywhere you look that the ATI Radeon graphics cards are NOT
> the card of choice for using RF G2. (FWIW I'm using a ATI All-In-Wonder
> Radeon with the alternate drivers and it works, but performance on the
rest
> of my system suffers). How come is it then that the Radeon 9700 Pro is
> curently ranked as the top card and the gurus at Knifedge have issues with
> it???
>
>
> -Mark
>
>
>

[Normen Strobel]

Not trying to put anyone down, but when I think of Guru's I don't think of
Knifedge, I think of Quake, Unreal, Microsoft Flight Simulator. These
companies have a much larger audience, thus can afford guru's. And even
these companies have problems with video cards. The thing is when
developing graphics intensive games, the developers usually go by the
DirectX or OpenGL standards. The card manufacturers use a chip that
adhere's to the standards but add options and tidbits of code to squeek out
a little more speed and add cool functions. These are usually fine for most
applications, except for when one of these tidbits of code conflicts from
the standard.

Thus the solution is usually to download the reference drivers which are
from the manufacturer of the chip, not the card.

You also have to understand that the card manufacturers know the top games
are Unreal, Quake, etc... and test the card on these games. I doubt the
developers at ATI have ever even heard of Knifedge, so all of the testing is
on Knifedge's budget.


"Markerbeacon" <nobody@home.com> wrote in message
news:Mx3V9.50146$wQ1.255@fe01...
> Ok, it says everywhere you look that the ATI Radeon graphics cards are NOT
> the card of choice for using RF G2. (FWIW I'm using a ATI All-In-Wonder
> Radeon with the alternate drivers and it works, but performance on the
rest
> of my system suffers). How come is it then that the Radeon 9700 Pro is
> curently ranked as the top card and the gurus at Knifedge have issues with
> it???
>
>
> -Mark
>
>
>




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

[Warbirds]

Heh, Micro$haft Guru?, isn't that an oxymoron? OTOH, ID software
(DOOM/Quake), now there's where you find gurus, there and the Linux
community :)

Normen Strobel wrote:
> Not trying to put anyone down, but when I think of Guru's I don't think of
> Knifedge, I think of Quake, Unreal, Microsoft Flight Simulator. These
> companies have a much larger audience, thus can afford guru's. And even
> these companies have problems with video cards. The thing is when
> developing graphics intensive games, the developers usually go by the
> DirectX or OpenGL standards. The card manufacturers use a chip that
> adhere's to the standards but add options and tidbits of code to squeek out
> a little more speed and add cool functions. These are usually fine for most
> applications, except for when one of these tidbits of code conflicts from
> the standard.
>
> Thus the solution is usually to download the reference drivers which are
> from the manufacturer of the chip, not the card.
>
> You also have to understand that the card manufacturers know the top games
> are Unreal, Quake, etc... and test the card on these games. I doubt the
> developers at ATI have ever even heard of Knifedge, so all of the testing is
> on Knifedge's budget.
>
>
> "Markerbeacon" <nobody@home.com> wrote in message
> news:Mx3V9.50146$wQ1.255@fe01...
>
>>Ok, it says everywhere you look that the ATI Radeon graphics cards are NOT
>>the card of choice for using RF G2. (FWIW I'm using a ATI All-In-Wonder
>>Radeon with the alternate drivers and it works, but performance on the
>
> rest
>
>>of my system suffers). How come is it then that the Radeon 9700 Pro is
>>curently ranked as the top card and the gurus at Knifedge have issues with
>>it???
>>
>>
>>-Mark
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

[John VB]

What the FRAG you talking about?? Bring on DOOM III.

John VB

"Warbirds" <thewarbirds@spam.attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3E25483D.6090905@spam.attbi.com...
>
> Heh, Micro$haft Guru?, isn't that an oxymoron? OTOH, ID software
> (DOOM/Quake), now there's where you find gurus, there and the Linux
> community :)
>

[Warbirds]

Heh, last one I played was Quake III, since then I found the Delta Force series
at www.novalogic.com, Task Force Dagger, now there's a good one, blast the hell
out of Al-Queda.

John VB wrote:
> What the FRAG you talking about?? Bring on DOOM III.
>
> John VB
>
> "Warbirds" <thewarbirds@spam.attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:3E25483D.6090905@spam.attbi.com...
>
>>Heh, Micro$haft Guru?, isn't that an oxymoron? OTOH, ID software
>>(DOOM/Quake), now there's where you find gurus, there and the Linux
>>community :)
>>
>
>
>

[Ed Forsythe]

My 9000 Pro works fine with G2. ATI has come a long way in developing
drivers. I think Scott and the rest of the Knifedge troops have a bad taste
in their collective mouths from earlier Radeon cards with atrocious driver
support.
--
Happy Flying,
Ed F.

"Markerbeacon" <nobody@home.com> wrote in message
news:Mx3V9.50146$wQ1.255@fe01...
> Ok, it says everywhere you look that the ATI Radeon graphics cards are NOT
> the card of choice for using RF G2. (FWIW I'm using a ATI All-In-Wonder
> Radeon with the alternate drivers and it works, but performance on the
rest
> of my system suffers). How come is it then that the Radeon 9700 Pro is
> curently ranked as the top card and the gurus at Knifedge have issues with
> it???
>
>
> -Mark
>
>
>

[Richard Kletnieks]

The Linux community? LOL

They can't figure out Windows, what makes them guru's?!?!


"Warbirds" <thewarbirds@spam.attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3E25483D.6090905@spam.attbi.com...
>
> Heh, Micro$haft Guru?, isn't that an oxymoron? OTOH, ID software
> (DOOM/Quake), now there's where you find gurus, there and the Linux
> community :)
>
> Normen Strobel wrote:
> > Not trying to put anyone down, but when I think of Guru's I don't think
of
> > Knifedge, I think of Quake, Unreal, Microsoft Flight Simulator. These
> > companies have a much larger audience, thus can afford guru's. And even
> > these companies have problems with video cards. The thing is when
> > developing graphics intensive games, the developers usually go by the
> > DirectX or OpenGL standards. The card manufacturers use a chip that
> > adhere's to the standards but add options and tidbits of code to squeek
out
> > a little more speed and add cool functions. These are usually fine for
most
> > applications, except for when one of these tidbits of code conflicts
from
> > the standard.
> >
> > Thus the solution is usually to download the reference drivers which are
> > from the manufacturer of the chip, not the card.
> >
> > You also have to understand that the card manufacturers know the top
games
> > are Unreal, Quake, etc... and test the card on these games. I doubt the
> > developers at ATI have ever even heard of Knifedge, so all of the
testing is
> > on Knifedge's budget.
> >
> >
> > "Markerbeacon" <nobody@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:Mx3V9.50146$wQ1.255@fe01...
> >
> >>Ok, it says everywhere you look that the ATI Radeon graphics cards are
NOT
> >>the card of choice for using RF G2. (FWIW I'm using a ATI All-In-Wonder
> >>Radeon with the alternate drivers and it works, but performance on the
> >
> > rest
> >
> >>of my system suffers). How come is it then that the Radeon 9700 Pro is
> >>curently ranked as the top card and the gurus at Knifedge have issues
with
> >>it???
> >>
> >>
> >>-Mark
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
>

[Warbirds]

Can't figure out windows? The only thing I can't figure out about winloads is
why you have to reboot if you make any changes, my Linux router/firewall doesn't
require this which clearly shows better design engineering.


Richard Kletnieks wrote:
> The Linux community? LOL
>
> They can't figure out Windows, what makes them guru's?!?!
>
>
> "Warbirds" <thewarbirds@spam.attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:3E25483D.6090905@spam.attbi.com...
>
>>Heh, Micro$haft Guru?, isn't that an oxymoron? OTOH, ID software
>>(DOOM/Quake), now there's where you find gurus, there and the Linux
>>community :)
>>
>>Normen Strobel wrote:
>>
>>>Not trying to put anyone down, but when I think of Guru's I don't think
>>
> of
>
>>>Knifedge, I think of Quake, Unreal, Microsoft Flight Simulator. These
>>>companies have a much larger audience, thus can afford guru's. And even
>>>these companies have problems with video cards. The thing is when
>>>developing graphics intensive games, the developers usually go by the
>>>DirectX or OpenGL standards. The card manufacturers use a chip that
>>>adhere's to the standards but add options and tidbits of code to squeek
>>
> out
>
>>>a little more speed and add cool functions. These are usually fine for
>>
> most
>
>>>applications, except for when one of these tidbits of code conflicts
>>
> from
>
>>>the standard.
>>>
>>>Thus the solution is usually to download the reference drivers which are
>>>from the manufacturer of the chip, not the card.
>>>
>>>You also have to understand that the card manufacturers know the top
>>
> games
>
>>>are Unreal, Quake, etc... and test the card on these games. I doubt the
>>>developers at ATI have ever even heard of Knifedge, so all of the
>>
> testing is
>
>>>on Knifedge's budget.
>>>
>>>
>>>"Markerbeacon" <nobody@home.com> wrote in message
>>>news:Mx3V9.50146$wQ1.255@fe01...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ok, it says everywhere you look that the ATI Radeon graphics cards are
>>>
> NOT
>
>>>>the card of choice for using RF G2. (FWIW I'm using a ATI All-In-Wonder
>>>>Radeon with the alternate drivers and it works, but performance on the
>>>
>>>rest
>>>
>>>
>>>>of my system suffers). How come is it then that the Radeon 9700 Pro is
>>>>curently ranked as the top card and the gurus at Knifedge have issues
>>>
> with
>
>>>>it???
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>-Mark
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>>>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>>>-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
>>
>
>

[Richard Kletnieks]

Touchy subject! My humour isn't always clear I guess.





"Warbirds" <thewarbirds@spam.attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3E25A286.5080302@spam.attbi.com...
>
> Can't figure out windows? The only thing I can't figure out about
winloads is
> why you have to reboot if you make any changes, my Linux router/firewall
doesn't
> require this which clearly shows better design engineering.
>
>
> Richard Kletnieks wrote:
> > The Linux community? LOL
> >
> > They can't figure out Windows, what makes them guru's?!?!
> >
> >
> > "Warbirds" <thewarbirds@spam.attbi.com> wrote in message
> > news:3E25483D.6090905@spam.attbi.com...
> >
> >>Heh, Micro$haft Guru?, isn't that an oxymoron? OTOH, ID software
> >>(DOOM/Quake), now there's where you find gurus, there and the Linux
> >>community :)
> >>
> >>Normen Strobel wrote:
> >>
> >>>Not trying to put anyone down, but when I think of Guru's I don't think
> >>
> > of
> >
> >>>Knifedge, I think of Quake, Unreal, Microsoft Flight Simulator. These
> >>>companies have a much larger audience, thus can afford guru's. And
even
> >>>these companies have problems with video cards. The thing is when
> >>>developing graphics intensive games, the developers usually go by the
> >>>DirectX or OpenGL standards. The card manufacturers use a chip that
> >>>adhere's to the standards but add options and tidbits of code to squeek
> >>
> > out
> >
> >>>a little more speed and add cool functions. These are usually fine for
> >>
> > most
> >
> >>>applications, except for when one of these tidbits of code conflicts
> >>
> > from
> >
> >>>the standard.
> >>>
> >>>Thus the solution is usually to download the reference drivers which
are
> >>>from the manufacturer of the chip, not the card.
> >>>
> >>>You also have to understand that the card manufacturers know the top
> >>
> > games
> >
> >>>are Unreal, Quake, etc... and test the card on these games. I doubt
the
> >>>developers at ATI have ever even heard of Knifedge, so all of the
> >>
> > testing is
> >
> >>>on Knifedge's budget.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>"Markerbeacon" <nobody@home.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:Mx3V9.50146$wQ1.255@fe01...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Ok, it says everywhere you look that the ATI Radeon graphics cards are
> >>>
> > NOT
> >
> >>>>the card of choice for using RF G2. (FWIW I'm using a ATI
All-In-Wonder
> >>>>Radeon with the alternate drivers and it works, but performance on the
> >>>
> >>>rest
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>of my system suffers). How come is it then that the Radeon 9700 Pro is
> >>>>curently ranked as the top card and the gurus at Knifedge have issues
> >>>
> > with
> >
> >>>>it???
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>-Mark
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> >>>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> >>>-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
> >>
> >
> >
>

[Warbirds]

Agreed.

Beav wrote:
> "Warbirds" <thewarbirds@spam.attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:3E25A286.5080302@spam.attbi.com...
>
>>Can't figure out windows? The only thing I can't figure out about
>
> winloads is
>
>>why you have to reboot if you make any changes, my Linux router/firewall
>
> doesn't
>
>>require this which clearly shows better design engineering.
>
>
> Pleeeeease let's not let THIS NG disappear in a flurry of "My OS is best"
> "discussions" (I've never actually SEEN a discussion, it always turns into a
> fuckin' war)
>
> I HATE net cops, but I LOVE heli's. I HATE computers but I NEED them.
> They're not toys like heli's so they're not fun:-)
>
> --
> Beav
>
>
> Please note my E-mail address is "beavis dot original at ntlworld dot com"
> (with the obvious changes)
>
> Beavisland now lives at
> www.beavisoriginal.co.uk
>
>

[Jan-Allard Slurink]

Hmm, I just ordered my new PC with a Hercules 3D Prophet 9000 (ATI Radeon
9000 chipset), but NOT the Pro version. Anyone knows if this card will also
work fine with G2 ?

thx.

jas.

"Warbirds" <thewarbirds@spam.attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3E24D242.2050804@spam.attbi.com...
>
> My Radeon 9000 Pro works fine. What exactly is the problem you are
having?
>
> Markerbeacon wrote:
> > Ok, it says everywhere you look that the ATI Radeon graphics cards are
NOT
> > the card of choice for using RF G2. (FWIW I'm using a ATI All-In-Wonder
> > Radeon with the alternate drivers and it works, but performance on the
rest
> > of my system suffers). How come is it then that the Radeon 9700 Pro is
> > curently ranked as the top card and the gurus at Knifedge have issues
with
> > it???
> >
> >
> > -Mark
> >
> >
> >
>

[Scott Kemp]

That is true Ed, But the ATI cards and drivers are getting much better and
we'll we be updating the web site soon to recommend these cards as well as
Nvidia's stuff. Especially after ATI sent us that nice check :) (Kidding!)

Scott Kemp
Knife Edge Software

"Ed Forsythe" <EdForsythe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Q3qdneuHo80BELijXTWcog@giganews.com...
> My 9000 Pro works fine with G2. ATI has come a long way in developing
> drivers. I think Scott and the rest of the Knifedge troops have a bad
taste
> in their collective mouths from earlier Radeon cards with atrocious driver
> support.
> --
> Happy Flying,
> Ed F.
>
> "Markerbeacon" <nobody@home.com> wrote in message
> news:Mx3V9.50146$wQ1.255@fe01...
> > Ok, it says everywhere you look that the ATI Radeon graphics cards are
NOT
> > the card of choice for using RF G2. (FWIW I'm using a ATI All-In-Wonder
> > Radeon with the alternate drivers and it works, but performance on the
> rest
> > of my system suffers). How come is it then that the Radeon 9700 Pro is
> > curently ranked as the top card and the gurus at Knifedge have issues
with
> > it???
> >
> >
> > -Mark
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Douglas Kaip]

I bought RFG2 for my brother as a Christmas present. He has a Compaq 2810
laptop (1.9 Ghz P4 Win XP pro) with the ATI 9000 Chipset in it. It performs
just fine with everything enabled. There is a warning on the box about
laptops but I guess that is for older ones that have poor graphics
performance when compared to desktops.

Douglas Kaip


"Jan-Allard Slurink" <fake.slurinkja@morefakebigfoot.kom.nothing> wrote in
message news:3e26cc62$0$802$4d4ebb8e@news.nl.uu.net...
> Hmm, I just ordered my new PC with a Hercules 3D Prophet 9000 (ATI Radeon
> 9000 chipset), but NOT the Pro version. Anyone knows if this card will
also
> work fine with G2 ?
>
> thx.
>
> jas.
>
> "Warbirds" <thewarbirds@spam.attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:3E24D242.2050804@spam.attbi.com...
> >
> > My Radeon 9000 Pro works fine. What exactly is the problem you are
> having?
> >
> > Markerbeacon wrote:
> > > Ok, it says everywhere you look that the ATI Radeon graphics cards are
> NOT
> > > the card of choice for using RF G2. (FWIW I'm using a ATI
All-In-Wonder
> > > Radeon with the alternate drivers and it works, but performance on the
> rest
> > > of my system suffers). How come is it then that the Radeon 9700 Pro is
> > > curently ranked as the top card and the gurus at Knifedge have issues
> with
> > > it???
> > >
> > >
> > > -Mark
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>

[Ed Forsythe]

Hi Scott,
Good seeing you again :) BTW, I had a problem with G2 and the Catalyst 2.5
drivers - I loaded the 3.0 drivers and all is well. I think many had
problems with the 2.5 drivers.

I running the USB version now and I love the controller it feels more like a
JR <vbg>. So now that many of us have two controllers, how about a version
of G2 that would allow two pilots to fly different (or copies of the same)
aircraft (using two controllers). It would be fantastic for practicing
combat, pylon, and formation flying. I recently saw an add for a sim that
does just that but I can't find it in the stack of model mags on my bed <s>.
Keep up the great work and answer your phone <G>.
--
Happy Flying,
Ed F.

"Scott Kemp" <scott_kemp@knifeedge.com> wrote in message
news:acDV9.9372$hl1.759@sccrnsc04...
> That is true Ed, But the ATI cards and drivers are getting much better and
> we'll we be updating the web site soon to recommend these cards as well as
> Nvidia's stuff. Especially after ATI sent us that nice check :)
(Kidding!)
>
> Scott Kemp
> Knife Edge Software
>
> "Ed Forsythe" <EdForsythe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Q3qdneuHo80BELijXTWcog@giganews.com...
> > My 9000 Pro works fine with G2. ATI has come a long way in developing
> > drivers. I think Scott and the rest of the Knifedge troops have a bad
> taste
> > in their collective mouths from earlier Radeon cards with atrocious
driver
> > support.
> > --
> > Happy Flying,
> > Ed F.
> >
> > "Markerbeacon" <nobody@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:Mx3V9.50146$wQ1.255@fe01...
> > > Ok, it says everywhere you look that the ATI Radeon graphics cards are
> NOT
> > > the card of choice for using RF G2. (FWIW I'm using a ATI
All-In-Wonder
> > > Radeon with the alternate drivers and it works, but performance on the
> > rest
> > > of my system suffers). How come is it then that the Radeon 9700 Pro is
> > > curently ranked as the top card and the gurus at Knifedge have issues
> with
> > > it???
> > >
> > >
> > > -Mark
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Carl Farrington]

The R9700 Pro is a very good card but as it is cutting-edge there are bound
to be compatibility issues.
IF you want guaranteed compatibility then you should go for something more
well established and accepted.

Also bear in mind that if you have a Radeon 9700 then you will most likely
be (or should be) running DirectX 9, which introduces another altered
variable into the equation. RF was written for DX8.1.

Still I don't think this would be a problem, but its par for the course to
have to get patches and fixes for D3D/OpenGL stuff when a new high
performance graphics card comes about. Example given: 3D Mark SE 2001, a
commonly used 3D benchmarking tool. This needs a patch to work with DX9, and
still had issues with the sis648 / Radeon 9700 Pro system I built last week.

This is the IBM-PC world! Imagine if we still had Amiga's with their
complete lack of backward compatibility (Kickstart 2.0, kickstart 1.3 ...
nuts). Things work out pretty well in the end considering. You just have to
accept a degree of problems especially if you want to use immature products.

You might also want to be aware that there is a version 1.1 and a less-buggy
ver 1.3 of the Radeon (presumably its the radeon reference board, *not* the
9700 chip itself). Possibly something worth looking into.

Carl

"Markerbeacon" <nobody@home.com> wrote in message
news:Mx3V9.50146$wQ1.255@fe01...
> Ok, it says everywhere you look that the ATI Radeon graphics cards are NOT
> the card of choice for using RF G2. (FWIW I'm using a ATI All-In-Wonder
> Radeon with the alternate drivers and it works, but performance on the
rest
> of my system suffers). How come is it then that the Radeon 9700 Pro is
> curently ranked as the top card and the gurus at Knifedge have issues with
> it???
>
>
> -Mark
>
>
>

[Mike Smith]

On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 18:03:51 GMT, Warbirds
<thewarbirds@spam.attbi.com> wrote:

> Can't figure out windows? The only thing I can't figure out about winloads is
>why you have to reboot if you make any changes, my Linux router/firewall doesn't
>require this which clearly shows better design engineering.

Wrong, you have to reboot Linux a lot. I am not sure how you can
measure which one needs more reboots. I would say that Windows is
more secure thanks to the Linux hackers trying to exploit every
Windows security hole ever discovered. There are just as many holes
or "features" in Linux as there are in Windows, maybe more. We just
don't hear about them as much in Linux.

I am not a Linux expert by any means but it has been my experience
that you have to reboot it to install things just like windows.
Sometimes a "reboot is recommended" in Linux. That tells me that
Microsoft is more careful than Linux makers with that kind of stuff.

The problem with the Linux community is that they are linux bigots who
never give credit to Microsoft for what they have accomplished. I
think both Microsoft Windows and Unix are both great products in
their own right.

Can't we all just get along......

[Carl Farrington]

Try comp.os.linux.advocacy or comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy if you want anyone
to give a shit


"Mike Smith" <mike_z@excite.com> wrote in message
news:s19o2v04qi8fikr448i4gfebc6nt1aa3r2@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 18:03:51 GMT, Warbirds
> <thewarbirds@spam.attbi.com> wrote:
>
> > Can't figure out windows? The only thing I can't figure out about
winloads is
> >why you have to reboot if you make any changes, my Linux router/firewall
doesn't
> >require this which clearly shows better design engineering.
>
> Wrong, you have to reboot Linux a lot. I am not sure how you can
> measure which one needs more reboots. I would say that Windows is
> more secure thanks to the Linux hackers trying to exploit every
> Windows security hole ever discovered. There are just as many holes
> or "features" in Linux as there are in Windows, maybe more. We just
> don't hear about them as much in Linux.
>
> I am not a Linux expert by any means but it has been my experience
> that you have to reboot it to install things just like windows.
> Sometimes a "reboot is recommended" in Linux. That tells me that
> Microsoft is more careful than Linux makers with that kind of stuff.
>
> The problem with the Linux community is that they are linux bigots who
> never give credit to Microsoft for what they have accomplished. I
> think both Microsoft Windows and Unix are both great products in
> their own right.
>
> Can't we all just get along......

[Warbirds]

Mike Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 18:03:51 GMT, Warbirds
> <thewarbirds@spam.attbi.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Can't figure out windows? The only thing I can't figure out about winloads is
>>why you have to reboot if you make any changes, my Linux router/firewall doesn't
>>require this which clearly shows better design engineering.
>
>
> Wrong, you have to reboot Linux a lot.

Ummm...just plain wrong. I have not had to reboot my Linux
router/firewall/domain controller etc... for over 3 years, when I installed it.
However, the 5 windows machines on my home LAN have had to be rebooted at very
least once a week.

I am not sure how you can
> measure which one needs more reboots.

By reality.

I would say that Windows is
> more secure thanks to the Linux hackers trying to exploit every
> Windows security hole ever discovered. There are just as many holes
> or "features" in Linux as there are in Windows, maybe more. We just
> don't hear about them as much in Linux.

I hear of them whenever they arise
www.securityfocus.com

>
> I am not a Linux expert by any means but it has been my experience
> that you have to reboot it to install things just like windows.

No, not required and I've never heard of it being reccomended, it simply works
after installing.

> Sometimes a "reboot is recommended" in Linux. That tells me that
> Microsoft is more careful than Linux makers with that kind of stuff.
>
> The problem with the Linux community is that they are linux bigots who
> never give credit to Microsoft for what they have accomplished.

Excuse me? Everything Microsoft has accomplished? You mean stole. Anything
and everything MS has done has been and is an attempt to emulate UNIX, only, it
doesn't work as well. Remember the nifty looking interface in Win98? A
_direct_steal_ of the NextStep Linux window manager. What MS has accomplished
is blinding people to the correct use of a computer and, in turn, creating jobs
for "Windows Technicians", for this, I tip my hat to them.

> I
> think both Microsoft Windows and Unix are both great products in
> their own right.

I would never claim windows has no use, as a matter of fact, when it comes to
things like word processing, gaming and others it's great.

>
> Can't we all just get along......

Sure, let's just put this thing to rest and get on with the flying :)

[Carl Farrington]

in which case could you please tell me it's IP address and which kernel it's
running so I can break into it?

I'd've applied a few updates to a 3yr old machine by now. Especially one
acting as the gateway between your private network and the public
internet... I certainly wouldn't be running a 3yr old kernel that doesn't
even do stateful packet inspection.

but hey.. that's just me and I don't mind the odd reboot as long as I'm
warned in advance that it will be necessary, and of the possible
consequences of not rebooting immediately.

but like I said, why don't you take your discussion over to
alt.os.*.advocacy , I'm sure most ppl dont wanna hear the "my o/s is better
umm I mean I just wanted to try and show off some of my technical l33tness
by telling u all that I'm a yewnicks d00d and that yewnix rules the world
and.. and.. and.. mummy is my tea ready yet? what? bedtime? oh no mummy no.
My lihnucks b0x was about to take over the world. awww.."

or something

"Warbirds" <thewarbirds@spam.attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3E2C49E1.1010109@spam.attbi.com...
>
>
> Mike Smith wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 18:03:51 GMT, Warbirds
> > <thewarbirds@spam.attbi.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Can't figure out windows? The only thing I can't figure out about
winloads is
> >>why you have to reboot if you make any changes, my Linux router/firewall
doesn't
> >>require this which clearly shows better design engineering.
> >
> >
> > Wrong, you have to reboot Linux a lot.
>
> Ummm...just plain wrong. I have not had to reboot my Linux
> router/firewall/domain controller etc... for over 3 years, when I
installed it.
> However, the 5 windows machines on my home LAN have had to be rebooted
at very
> least once a week.
>
> I am not sure how you can
> > measure which one needs more reboots.
>
> By reality.
>
> I would say that Windows is
> > more secure thanks to the Linux hackers trying to exploit every
> > Windows security hole ever discovered. There are just as many holes
> > or "features" in Linux as there are in Windows, maybe more. We just
> > don't hear about them as much in Linux.
>
> I hear of them whenever they arise
> www.securityfocus.com
>
> >
> > I am not a Linux expert by any means but it has been my experience
> > that you have to reboot it to install things just like windows.
>
> No, not required and I've never heard of it being reccomended, it simply
works
> after installing.
>
> > Sometimes a "reboot is recommended" in Linux. That tells me that
> > Microsoft is more careful than Linux makers with that kind of stuff.
> >
> > The problem with the Linux community is that they are linux bigots who
> > never give credit to Microsoft for what they have accomplished.
>
> Excuse me? Everything Microsoft has accomplished? You mean stole.
Anything
> and everything MS has done has been and is an attempt to emulate UNIX,
only, it
> doesn't work as well. Remember the nifty looking interface in Win98? A
> _direct_steal_ of the NextStep Linux window manager. What MS has
accomplished
> is blinding people to the correct use of a computer and, in turn, creating
jobs
> for "Windows Technicians", for this, I tip my hat to them.
>
> > I
> > think both Microsoft Windows and Unix are both great products in
> > their own right.
>
> I would never claim windows has no use, as a matter of fact, when it comes
to
> things like word processing, gaming and others it's great.
>
> >
> > Can't we all just get along......
>
> Sure, let's just put this thing to rest and get on with the flying :)
>

[Steve Simpson]

>
> Hey *I* give a shit!! Oops, I meant I HAD a shit:-)
>
>

The opposite of give is take, so you should say you TOOK a shit.

"HAD" a shit is a chronological reference which would only be needed if you were
trying to assure that no one assumed that you still HAVE your shit.

Now that's cleared up, lets move on . . .

Zinc Chromate is a great idea on glass fiber . . . . nothing worse than rusty
fiberglass.

Glad to see you have that Bell/Hiller thing figured out.

Linux sucks the big Donkey . . .

ATI sucks more than Linux . .

That should about cover it . .

[Beav]

"Steve Simpson" <simpsons34@NIXcox.net> wrote in message
news:xb3X9.31158$Ji6.1383485@news2.west.cox.net...
>
> >
> > Hey *I* give a shit!! Oops, I meant I HAD a shit:-)
> >
> >
>
> The opposite of give is take, so you should say you TOOK a shit.

I didn't TAKE it, I left it where it fell.

>
> "HAD" a shit is a chronological reference which would only be needed if
you were
> trying to assure that no one assumed that you still HAVE your shit.

I DON'T have my shit anymore. I left it "behind":)

>
> Now that's cleared up, lets move on . . .
>
> Zinc Chromate is a great idea on glass fiber . . . . nothing worse than
rusty
> fiberglass.

Oooh yes there is, totally termite perforated fibreglass. That's a BITCH to
work with, but using Zinc Chromate makes the termite's cough so hard, they
piss off never to be seen again (you can HEAR them, but they cough quietly)

>
> Glad to see you have that Bell/Hiller thing figured out.

I always did have, but I enjoyed winding you up.
>
> Linux sucks the big Donkey . . .

I can't imagine how you'd know THAT!!!
>
> ATI sucks more than Linux . .

Or that, but I'll take your word for it.
>
> That should about cover it . .

If not, maybe we can leave a shit on it to make sure? :)


--
Beav


Please note my E-mail address is "beavis dot original at ntlworld dot com"
(with the obvious changes)

Beavisland now lives at
www.beavisoriginal.co.uk

[Steve Simpson]

> Oooh yes there is, totally termite perforated fibreglass. That's a BITCH to
> work with, but using Zinc Chromate makes the termite's cough . . .

Actually, it seems that Zinc Chromate has gone the way of the dinosaur.

As we have a new member of the household in the form of a 1967 Ford Mustang
which needs new cloths, I have been learning to speak Mustang and also doing
some research on the PPG site to try and update myself on what's going on with
paint these days. Seems everything including primer is epoxy now . . . 'two
pack' I think you Brits call it.

No more lacquer, no more alkyd . . . zinc and chrome are bad words . . .

Last time I painted anything larger than a model heli canopy, Urethane clear
coat was new and exciting . . . . people were paining everything from off-shore
racing boats to the family cat with Dupont's wunderkind 'Imron'.

Hardener for Acrylic Enamel was brand new and stupid expensive. The paint is now
three times as expensive and the hardener is cheaper . . . . go figure . . .

Now they have primer that goes on with a roller!

A million Red Neck pickup truck paint jobs instantly legitimized by PPG!

What's next, color matched Duct Tape? . . . .LOL!

[Beav]

"Steve Simpson" <simpsons34@NIXcox.net> wrote in message
news:EngX9.44$UK2.26347@news2.west.cox.net...
>
> > Oooh yes there is, totally termite perforated fibreglass. That's a BITCH
to
> > work with, but using Zinc Chromate makes the termite's cough . . .
>
> Actually, it seems that Zinc Chromate has gone the way of the dinosaur.
>
> As we have a new member of the household in the form of a 1967 Ford
Mustang
> which needs new cloths, I have been learning to speak Mustang and also
doing
> some research on the PPG site to try and update myself on what's going on
with
> paint these days. Seems everything including primer is epoxy now . . .
'two
> pack' I think you Brits call it.

Most of the major car manufacturers use water based acrylic paints these
days, particularly base coats, which are still "cleared over" using 2 pack
iso-cyanate lacquer. (Emissions and all that)

>
> No more lacquer, no more alkyd . . . zinc and chrome are bad words . . .

Still using Zinc Chromate etch primers here, but again, they're falling from
grace due to the toxicity. The ironic thing is, a professional paint shop
gets checked for emissions at regular intervals, so they keep the use of the
"bad" paints to a minimum, but the guys who do "foreigners" and DON'T get
checked, are still using them.

>
> Last time I painted anything larger than a model heli canopy, Urethane
clear
> coat was new and exciting . . . . people were paining everything from
off-shore
> racing boats to the family cat with Dupont's wunderkind 'Imron'.

And then discovered it went yellow. Urethane's fine if you don't intend
flatting and polishing, but it's not something I use myself.

>
> Hardener for Acrylic Enamel was brand new and stupid expensive. The paint
is now
> three times as expensive and the hardener is cheaper . . . . go figure . .
..

I gave up trying to do that LONG ago:-)

>
> Now they have primer that goes on with a roller!

And lacquers that can be almost POURED onto a job with NO runs (VERY high
volume, very low pressure guns) and it's a "one-coat-only" process. It's not
gained much favour for some reason.
>
> A million Red Neck pickup truck paint jobs instantly legitimized by PPG!

And Bondo:-)

>
> What's next, color matched Duct Tape? . . . .LOL!

The next thing is colour matching a '78 Chevy Corvette Stingray when no-ne
stocks the paint anymore.
One just went through my Son's "shop" and it took longer to find the paint
than it did to put the stuff on:-)


--
Beav


Please note my E-mail address is "beavis dot original at ntlworld dot com"
(with the obvious changes)

Beavisland now lives at
www.beavisoriginal.co.uk

[Steve Simpson]

>
> Most of the major car manufacturers use water based acrylic paints these
> days, particularly base coats, which are still "cleared over" using 2 pack
> iso-cyanate lacquer. (Emissions and all that)
>

Actually, I tried some water enamel a couple of years ago for undercarriage
stuff . . .'chassis black' type of thing.

Mixing paint with WATER was kind of freaking me out! The manuf said that this
chassis paint could go on directly over bare steel (properly treated, of course)
and I imagined instant rusting from the water I was pouring into my trusy old
Binks.

Pretty amazing shit, I must say . . .made a believer out of me . . . and YOU
know how skeptical I am . . LOL!

Anyway, 4 years later (two on the salt air Florida shore) and nary a blister . .
.. .

> > racing boats to the family cat with Dupont's wunderkind 'Imron'.
>
> And then discovered it went yellow.

The big problem, as I recall is that the paint was so hard that it could not
stand any flexing at all. So it would crack badly in any application that
allowed flexing . . . . boats . . . cars . . . pretty much anything short of an
industrial storage tank!

> Urethane's fine if you don't intend
> flatting and polishing, but it's not something I use myself.
>

I have 20 year old catalized urethane clear on one of my cars and altough
rubbing it out was on my 'round-to-it' list, I never actually did it . . . so I
can't say if it is hard enough to buff as claimed.

>
> And lacquers that can be almost POURED onto a job with NO runs (VERY high
> volume, very low pressure guns) and it's a "one-coat-only" process. It's not
> gained much favour for some reason.

They tell me that there are no more laquers here in the US except the odd spray
can in a hardware store. Paint wholesale shops have none to sell.

I would love to play with one of the new guns, but I don't do enough (read NONE)
painting any more to justify replacing my trusty air poluting siphon guns.

[Greg]

"Steve Simpson" <simpsons34@NIXcox.net> wrote in message
news:nHJX9.3263$QV3.388758@news2.west.cox.net...
>
snip
> > > racing boats to the family cat with Dupont's wunderkind 'Imron'.
> >
> > And then discovered it went yellow.
>
> The big problem, as I recall is that the paint was so hard that it could
not
> stand any flexing at all. So it would crack badly in any application that
> allowed flexing . . . . boats . . . cars . . . pretty much anything short
of an
> industrial storage tank!
>
snip

I can't say I agree with you about Imron. I've used it for many years now
on cars and models and am still amazed at the resiliency of the product. On
one occasion, I was driving to a car show and took a quarter-sized stone
shot on the hood without damage. On the flexibility issue, I shoot it on
our fiberglass race models with great success. These 150+ MPH models use
very light weight cloth and are subjected to vibrations (well beyond 99% of
the models discussed here) and hold up great. Along with that, 80% nitro
doesn't touch it. I like the flow of the product too. I can use < 1/4 the
amount of Imron compared to others to achieve adequate coverage.

The only drawbacks with it I've seen are price (compared to the other
products), dry time to handle (best if left alone for at least one full day)
and toxicity (handled with appropriate equipment).

Just another opinion :o)

Greg

[Beav]

"Steve Simpson" <simpsons34@NIXcox.net> wrote in message
news:nHJX9.3263$QV3.388758@news2.west.cox.net...
>
> >
> > Most of the major car manufacturers use water based acrylic paints these
> > days, particularly base coats, which are still "cleared over" using 2
pack
> > iso-cyanate lacquer. (Emissions and all that)
> >
>
> Actually, I tried some water enamel a couple of years ago for
undercarriage
> stuff . . .'chassis black' type of thing.
>
> Mixing paint with WATER was kind of freaking me out! The manuf said that
this
> chassis paint could go on directly over bare steel (properly treated, of
course)
> and I imagined instant rusting from the water I was pouring into my trusy
old
> Binks.

Mixing freaks me out no matter WHAT I do it with. There're so many ratio's
these days it's not possible to hold them all in your (my) head. Each
manufacturer has it's own ratio's for primers, base, solids, lacquers, you
name it and they all have all the above paints in aqua, cellulose, 2 pack, 1
pack, synthetic (in a variety of types) and you can bet your arse, that if I
don't read what's on the tin, my Son will be slightly pissed off when he has
to re-do a job.
>
> Pretty amazing shit, I must say . . .made a believer out of me . . . and
YOU
> know how skeptical I am . . LOL!

Sceptical? You?? Must be a different Steve Simpson!!! ;)
>
> Anyway, 4 years later (two on the salt air Florida shore) and nary a
blister . .
>
> > > racing boats to the family cat with Dupont's wunderkind 'Imron'.

> >
> > And then discovered it went yellow.
>
> The big problem, as I recall is that the paint was so hard that it could
not
> stand any flexing at all. So it would crack badly in any application that
> allowed flexing . . . . boats . . . cars . . . pretty much anything short
of an
> industrial storage tank!

They've defiinitely moved on now though. Now they flex AND fall off:, just
like real paint -)
>
> > Urethane's fine if you don't intend
> > flatting and polishing, but it's not something I use myself.
> >
>
> I have 20 year old catalized urethane clear on one of my cars and altough
> rubbing it out was on my 'round-to-it' list, I never actually did it . . .
so I
> can't say if it is hard enough to buff as claimed.

I've never even tried buffing polyurethane paints because of others
expereinces when they did. A machine buffer would "peel" or slide the paint
instead of bringing a shine back and that's not an area I ever wanted to
find myself in, but normally if you don't flat and polish 2 pack paints
quickly, then forget about it coz they DO get too hard and the job is then
just "labour" and you get someone else to do that:-)
>
> >
> > And lacquers that can be almost POURED onto a job with NO runs (VERY
high
> > volume, very low pressure guns) and it's a "one-coat-only" process. It's
not
> > gained much favour for some reason.
>
> They tell me that there are no more laquers here in the US except the odd
spray
> can in a hardware store. Paint wholesale shops have none to sell.

Are we talking about the same thing here. Lacquer HAS become a generic term
for a clear coat which is basically 2 pack Iso-cyanate with no colour
pigment in the mix and there's plenty of shiny cars even in Arizona:-)

All Japanese and European imports to the US have a clear over of lacquer, be
it iso based or poly (usually iso) and if ever they need repairing, the
owners aren't going to accept a differnt colour/textur to the repair, so
lacquer must BE available, but maybe the factors aren't selling it to the
general public, only to those with the facilities to extract the solvents
and toxins before releasing into the atmosphere.
>
> I would love to play with one of the new guns, but I don't do enough (read
NONE)
> painting any more to justify replacing my trusty air poluting siphon guns.

I don't do any either, but my Son does. MY trusty gun is a Binks too, but
I've still got a couple of HVLP guns I WILL use if boy child needs an extra
hand. The syphon gun is ALSO almost a dinosouar these days. All the guys use
gravity guns which I personlly hate but they DO make for a superior finish.


--
Beav


Please note my E-mail address is "beavis dot original at ntlworld dot com"
(with the obvious changes)

Beavisland now lives at
www.beavisoriginal.co.uk

[Boo]

> I don't do any either, but my Son does. MY trusty gun is a Binks too, but
> I've still got a couple of HVLP guns I WILL use if boy child needs an
extra
> hand. The syphon gun is ALSO almost a dinosouar these days. All the guys
use
> gravity guns which I personlly hate but they DO make for a superior
finish.

Why ?

--
Boo

[Steve Simpson]

> I can't say I agree with you about Imron. I've used it for many years now
> on cars and models and am still amazed at the resiliency of the product.

Keep in mind, Greg, that I was talking about 20 some years ago when Imron first
hit the scene. I would not be surprised if they traded off some flexibility for
surface hardness or just improved the toughness.

There is a huge difference between a model boat and an off-shore racing boat. No
matter how much a model boat vibrates, it is unlikely that the hull would flex
and inch or more, or make contact with flotsam at 150mph.

When Imron first came out it was more of an industrial chem-resitant coating.
People loved the flow out and incredible shine and started to paint everything
with it.

It was very popular for undercarriages because it would shine like a mirror due
to it's high build and long flow-out. Any who wants to rub-out a frame?

The euphoria subsided when it was discovered that Imron was incredibly hard . .
until it reached it's limit (stone hit, flex, etc) and the thick film would come
off in big chips.

If Imron works well for you, that's great. I was only commenting on a piece of
history as I remembered it.

[Steve Simpson]

> Are we talking about the same thing here. Lacquer HAS become a generic term
> for a clear coat which is basically 2 pack Iso-cyanate with no colour

I don't know about generic terms, Beav. As you know, some of your British words
have very different meaning here. The lacquer I'm talking about is modern
acrylic lacquer that uses lacquer thinner as a solvent. No catalyst, no 'two
pack' version. In the old days (yes, even before my time), it was nitrocellulose
lacquer. "Any color you want, as long as it's black".

I am fairly certain that no Lacquer paint is used in manufacturing in the US.
It's the VOC content I believe. Water borne enamel seems to be the primary color
coat although I don't know what the clear coat is.

There won't be air cooled engines much longer either. That's a lot of the reason
Harley-Davidson now has a water cooled engine and will be using it in more and
more models. The old air cooled twin can't meet the standards for 2006 or 2008
or some such thing. The polution standards are getting tighter and tighter and
certain 'bad boys' are coming into the cross hairs.

> All Japanese and European imports to the US have a clear over of lacquer, be
> it iso based or poly (usually iso) and if ever they need repairing, the
> owners aren't going to accept a differnt colour/textur to the repair, so
> lacquer must BE available, but maybe the factors aren't selling it to the
> general public, only to those with the facilities to extract the solvents
> and toxins before releasing into the atmosphere.

They stopped selling R12 to anyone without a special license, but so far as I
can tell, it's not a case of licensing, there just is none to sell. Perhaps all
of the production is exported to countries that can still release volatile
solvents.

The technology exists to scrub the ventilation (separate the evaporated solvent
from the air), it's a matter of cost. If GM and Ford can't afford it, I don't
see a body shop installing huge scrubbers out back . . hell, you're lucky if
they throw a home furnace filer on it . . :-)

The paint suppliers I was talking to were commercial suppliers to the body
shops. They have no Lacquer to sell to anyone . . . at least that's what they
claim. I recall that in Florida a couple of years ago they were saying that they
wouldn't be able to get lacquer for much longer.

If you guys can still get it in Europe, how about sending a highly volatile care
package my way . . :-)

Of course . . . there's always that paint roller . . . .

[Fred Hambrecht Sr]

25 years ago we painted all of our Learjets with it. I can't think of a more
demanding environment. It is an every day occurrence to go from -40 to +90F
in a space of 30 minute. The expansion and contraction of the skin due to
temperature changes etc was considerable.

The only paint problems I personally observed was when we flamed out both
engines at 43,800 and had to descend through a thunderstorm. The hail within
the storm acted like a gigantic sand blaster with the expected results.
There was no paint from the nose, down the sides, and up the tail.

I don't expect any paint would have held up. We did in fact repaint it with
Imron. :>)

"Steve Simpson" <simpsons34@NIXcox.net> wrote in message
news:dd0Y9.6023$QV3.997534@news2.west.cox.net...

> Keep in mind, Greg, that I was talking about 20 some years ago when Imron
first
> hit the scene. I would not be surprised if they traded off some
flexibility for
> surface hardness or just improved the toughness.

[Steve Simpson]

> 25 years ago we painted all of our Learjets with it. I can't think of a more
> demanding environment. It is an every day occurrence to go from -40 to +90F
> in a space of 30 minute. The expansion and contraction of the skin due to
> temperature changes etc was considerable.
>

I recall that aircraft was one of the applications that it was supposed to be
good for because of the abrasion and chemical resistance. I can only imagine
that the chemical part was smog . . . or jet fuel maybe . . .


> The only paint problems I personally observed was when we flamed out both
> engines at 43,800 and had to descend through a thunderstorm. The hail within
> the storm acted like a gigantic sand blaster with the expected results.
> There was no paint from the nose, down the sides, and up the tail.
>

See there? I told you is didn't do well with stone chips . . . :-)

> I don't expect any paint would have held up. We did in fact repaint it with
> Imron. :>)

I don't recall any issues with temperature, only with flexing and chipping (via
impact). Unless the Lear Jets had skin so thin it would flap in the breeze or
made a habit of followed dump trucks down the runway at high speed, those issues
wouldn't be a huge problem.

I'm not suggesting that Imron is not a great product. I only stated the fact
that on it's introduction, a lot of people used it in applications for which (at
the time) it was not intended . . . like street rod chassis and fiberglass
boats with (predictably) less than stellar results.

For example, lets say a new paint came out that looked a differnet color from
different angles (very cool), but was relatively soft. It might look just peachy
on a Lear Jet . . . but one landing in Phoenix or Las Vegas thought the
atmospheric dust would strip it off the plane.

The issue is using a product in an application for which it was not recommended.
There was a definite flap over Imron and Dupont (very, very big in automotive
paint) took some flak and responded (gently) with the what I call the
'Vaudeville' solution . . . "if it hurts when you do that . . then don't do
that"

I wouldn't bet my life on it since it was so long ago, but I am fairly certain
that Imron was (initially, at least) in the 'industrial coatings' camp and not
touted nor sold by the automotive refinishing division.

[Greg]

Steve...it's obvious you have more experience with the product than I.
Looking over model carcasses after "accidents", I have noticed that the
Imron clear doesn't flake like the others I've used in the search for the
best. Honestly, I'll concede that there's to many factors (surface prep for
example) to say that it's been improved over the years, but it just works
well for my "style" of painting.

Thanks for the insight!

Greg

"Steve Simpson" <simpsons34@NIXcox.net> wrote in message
news:dd0Y9.6023$QV3.997534@news2.west.cox.net...
> > I can't say I agree with you about Imron. I've used it for many years
now
> > on cars and models and am still amazed at the resiliency of the product.
>
> Keep in mind, Greg, that I was talking about 20 some years ago when Imron
first
> hit the scene. I would not be surprised if they traded off some
flexibility for
> surface hardness or just improved the toughness.
>
> There is a huge difference between a model boat and an off-shore racing
boat. No
> matter how much a model boat vibrates, it is unlikely that the hull would
flex
> and inch or more, or make contact with flotsam at 150mph.
>
> When Imron first came out it was more of an industrial chem-resitant
coating.
> People loved the flow out and incredible shine and started to paint
everything
> with it.
>
> It was very popular for undercarriages because it would shine like a
mirror due
> to it's high build and long flow-out. Any who wants to rub-out a frame?
>
> The euphoria subsided when it was discovered that Imron was incredibly
hard . .
> until it reached it's limit (stone hit, flex, etc) and the thick film
would come
> off in big chips.
>
> If Imron works well for you, that's great. I was only commenting on a
piece of
> history as I remembered it.
>
>

[Beav]

"Steve Simpson" <simpsons34@NIXcox.net> wrote in message
news:Zy0Y9.6032$QV3.1010074@news2.west.cox.net...
>
> > Are we talking about the same thing here. Lacquer HAS become a generic
term
> > for a clear coat which is basically 2 pack Iso-cyanate with no colour
>
> I don't know about generic terms, Beav. As you know, some of your British
words
> have very different meaning here. The lacquer I'm talking about is modern
> acrylic lacquer that uses lacquer thinner as a solvent. No catalyst, no
'two
> pack' version.

The differences are silly when you get down to it, but "our" lacquer is
always 2 pack with catalyst (and acrylic to boot:-) and VERY rarely do you
see anyone using single pack (with thinners) unless it's a synthetic
(industrial) paint. The trouble with the synthetics is you can't flat and
buff after application, they're simply not designed for that, so the finsh,
although tough and hardwearing isn't "showcase" It's what we call
"Waggon/Lorry paint" and isn't generally used on cars unless they're bangers
given a quick "once over" for some dodgy car dealer.

In the old days (yes, even before my time), it was nitrocellulose
> lacquer. "Any color you want, as long as it's black".

Even I'm not THAT owd:-)

>
> I am fairly certain that no Lacquer paint is used in manufacturing in the
US.
> It's the VOC content I believe. Water borne enamel seems to be the primary
color
> coat although I don't know what the clear coat is.

I've no idea what it is over there Steve, but over here it's still a sprayed
on 2 pack ultra nasty lung busting pile of shite that has a finish worth
having. (Not worth one's lungs, but an airfed sorts that out) The
regulations are getting tougher though and filtering is getting better so
even though there's not much change in the actual make-up of the paint,
there's a massive change in the emmisions getting into the atmosphere.

>
> There won't be air cooled engines much longer either. That's a lot of the
reason
> Harley-Davidson now has a water cooled engine and will be using it in more
and
> more models. The old air cooled twin can't meet the standards for 2006 or
2008
> or some such thing. The polution standards are getting tighter and tighter
and
> certain 'bad boys' are coming into the cross hairs.

Is this country wide or just in some particularly eco-friendly states
(Iwon't mention California coz they're just a bunch of nutters living in a
dust bowl:-)

>
> > All Japanese and European imports to the US have a clear over of
lacquer, be
> > it iso based or poly (usually iso) and if ever they need repairing, the
> > owners aren't going to accept a differnt colour/textur to the repair, so
> > lacquer must BE available, but maybe the factors aren't selling it to
the
> > general public, only to those with the facilities to extract the
solvents
> > and toxins before releasing into the atmosphere.
>
> They stopped selling R12 to anyone without a special license, but so far
as I
> can tell, it's not a case of licensing, there just is none to sell.
Perhaps all
> of the production is exported to countries that can still release volatile
> solvents.

Maybe the imported cars are different too? Stranger things have happened
after all.

>
> The technology exists to scrub the ventilation (separate the evaporated
solvent
> from the air), it's a matter of cost. If GM and Ford can't afford it, I
don't
> see a body shop installing huge scrubbers out back . . hell, you're lucky
if
> they throw a home furnace filer on it . . :-)

You're telling me!!! My son just opened his own body shop next to an
existing "commercial" one where they paint waggons, lorries and buses. HIS
regulations are different to theirs because he's a new operation, so HIS
filtering/emmisions control has to meet current standards while his next
door neighbours don't. They don't have ANY fliters at all!!! and it's plain
to see what colour the bus is this week:-)

I won't say how much it cost for the boy chics filtering system, suffice to
say it was me who paid for it and there's NO chance of anyone guessing what
colour he's using at any one time.


>
> The paint suppliers I was talking to were commercial suppliers to the body
> shops. They have no Lacquer to sell to anyone . . . at least that's what
they
> claim. I recall that in Florida a couple of years ago they were saying
that they
> wouldn't be able to get lacquer for much longer.
>
> If you guys can still get it in Europe, how about sending a highly
volatile care
> package my way . . :-)

Anytime. Glasurit Ok? (Still the best). ICI, Sikkens, PPG, Lechler. ALL of
them still supply the nasty stuff in any quantity thou desirest.


>
> Of course . . . there's always that paint roller . . . .

I watched a rep demostrate a roller for primer and I was VERY impressed. (I
think it was a mohair roller) No emmisions, no farting about, no runs, FAST
as fuck and a good surface to follow up on. It's something me and the
boy-chic are seriously considering, but we're not convinced the primer is
compatible with all existing paints and reactions are a thing we DON'T want.


--
Beav


Please note my E-mail address is "beavis dot original at ntlworld dot com"
(with the obvious changes)

Beavisland now lives at
www.beavisoriginal.co.uk

[Beav]

"Boo" <Boo@spam_me_no_spam.net> wrote in message
news:b0pkr7$g6f$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > I don't do any either, but my Son does. MY trusty gun is a Binks too,
but
> > I've still got a couple of HVLP guns I WILL use if boy child needs an
> extra
> > hand. The syphon gun is ALSO almost a dinosouar these days. All the guys
> use
> > gravity guns which I personlly hate but they DO make for a superior
> finish.
>
> Why ?

Their nozzle dimensions make for better atomisation than with a syphon type
(JGA) so JGA don't come close the new HVLP gravity guns.


--
Beav


Please note my E-mail address is "beavis dot original at ntlworld dot com"
(with the obvious changes)

Beavisland now lives at
www.beavisoriginal.co.uk

[john alt]

In article <v315m0g9i5ae1c@corp.supernews.com>, w4jle@charter.net
says...
> 25 years ago we painted all of our Learjets with it. I can't think of a more
> demanding environment. It is an every day occurrence to go from -40 to +90F
> in a space of 30 minute. The expansion and contraction of the skin due to
> temperature changes etc was considerable.
>
> The only paint problems I personally observed was when we flamed out both
> engines at 43,800 and had to descend through a thunderstorm. The hail within
> the storm acted like a gigantic sand blaster with the expected results.
> There was no paint from the nose, down the sides, and up the tail.
>
> I don't expect any paint would have held up. We did in fact repaint it with
> Imron. :>)
>
Can I guess you wished you'd painted your underwear with it ;)

[Fred Hambrecht Sr]

Sounded like two hundred skeletons engaged in copulatory behavior on a tin
roof.

The reality is it doesn't bother you while it is happening, however once on
the ground and viewed in hindsight it dos have a monumental effect on the
nervous system.

While the drawers stayed clean, the shirt did not .It was difficult
attempting too hold a cup of coffee and keep the shaking contents in sync
with the shaking body.


"john alt" <johnaltDoesntneedSpam@charter.net> wrote in message
news:v3bsvartvat4cd@corp.supernews.com...
> In article <v315m0g9i5ae1c@corp.supernews.com>, w4jle@charter.net
> says...
> > 25 years ago we painted all of our Learjets with it. I can't think of a
more
> > demanding environment. It is an every day occurrence to go from -40 to
+90F
> > in a space of 30 minute. The expansion and contraction of the skin due
to
> > temperature changes etc was considerable.
> >
> > The only paint problems I personally observed was when we flamed out
both
> > engines at 43,800 and had to descend through a thunderstorm. The hail
within
> > the storm acted like a gigantic sand blaster with the expected results.
> > There was no paint from the nose, down the sides, and up the tail.
> >
> > I don't expect any paint would have held up. We did in fact repaint it
with
> > Imron. :>)
> >
> Can I guess you wished you'd painted your underwear with it ;)