ticei

I just upgraded to a TP-Link ax3000 wireless router in order to have it host an openVPN server for my network. It's been quite successful. I have the VPN connection working perfectly where I can log in to my printers and router via the VPN, I can even remote desktop into my network computers. However, I can only access the computers via their IP address. They do not show up in windows explorer. I know that this has something to do with the fact that the router places the VPN on a separate subnet, but I'm not sure if it's an issue with Windows or the routing. (I already had to spend countless hours figuring out that Windows Defender doesn't like connections from other subnets) I already created a blanket policy to allow connections from the VPN's subnet, this enables me to access my smb shares by entering the host's IP address but if I try and use the host name I get nowhere. all computers involved are running Windows 10 Pro.

Right now I'm looking at the Galaxy A20 which is $160 for the international version and $250 for the "US version" I've also considered the Moto G7 which is $190 for the international and $280 for the US

I am currently in the market for a mid-range unlocked Android smartphone but I am really torn whether to get the "US version" or the $100 cheaper international version. As I see it the primary difference is that the US version has a warranty and CDMA capabilities. I use TracFone as my carrier and while they use both GSM and CDMA carriers, as far as I can tell I primarily use ATT (GSM) so I don't think that the CDMA really does that much good. Ultimately my question is, is it worth paying a third more for a one year warranty. For further context, I a moving from an Axon 7mini (which I have minimal complaints about) that was replaced twice under its two year warranty because of a failed charging port. This charging port failed again now out of warranty and the phone has been flaky since I installed a replacement.

PHYSX might just be your problem BUT, I would be a little bit surprised if it was actually PHYSX because the original game was developed before PHYSX was an in my cursory look at the BMS website I don't see any mention of it. Even if it isn't PHYSX I wouldn't be surprised if it was some other alternate processing routine that was being slowed down by the 660. The most useful data in understanding what is going on would be utilization of each GPU. Sorry that I don't have a magic bullet or cheat sheet for you but, I hope this helps.

This was really just a shot in the dark but initially I was thinking that it might have been a similar situation to mixing ram speeds where everyone operates to the lowest clock speed. Upon further thought this specific reasoning doesn't make much sense. However, based on the bit of information I could find on YAME it sounds like it is tied fairly closely to falcon 4 so there might be some type of blocking code implemented to ensure that the screens don't get out of sync (although this doesn't explain it very satisfactorily for me). An easy way to partially test this theory would be to temporarily move one of the touch screens back up to the 980 and then test it with YAME on the 980 touchscreen and Helios on the 660 and then reverse them. if the games communication between the 660 and the 980 is the bottleneck I would expect to see your original performance returned when you are running YAME on the 980. (I strongly doubt that Helios is the culprit anyhow)

I presume that the content on your two touch screens is generated by the same application that is generating the content on your primary monitors. If so here are my theories: Generally you are being bottlenecked by your interconnect when using display extenders such as the USB one that you mentioned all of the processing is performed by the 980Ti and then sent out to the USB device. By adding a second graphics card I think that it is trying to distribute the processing between the two and so either the 980 is being handicapped either by the maximum performance of the 660 or the interconnect speed of the PCI bus [compared with performing everything on one card]. From what I've heard about DX12 it sounds like there might be more hope for a performance boost from this type of setup once the platform and applications using it have matured.