Don't treat it as a religion, especially when dealing with stuff that can contaminate things unrelated to your "scientific experiment". Or with "safely modified, strengthened, disease resistant food".
I don't want your GMO "food" to mix with my food. I don't want my food to even have a chance to be contaminated with your food, even if you think it isn't dangerous.
You're free to do things as long as you don't infringe on my freedom. And at this time in my life, I want freedom to eat non-GMO food.
Could another effect be lowering of their transaction fees? You're no longer paying $0.99, you're now paying $9.99 or so. Plus, this allows easier sale of prepaid cards, doesn't it?
So, they're not ONLY trying to affect your mind, they're also making it cheaper and/or easier for themselves to take your money.
BSD license is more free, but does not preserve the freedoms.
Choice of license should depend on your goals. If one of them is philosophy, so be it. If one of them is business, so be it. I always pick the license that I feel best for a project.
Whats so different from an App Store than downloading from a corporate website
Centralized autoupdate for all apps bought off the store. A bit of quality checking.
(like you do with Windows Service Packs which is what Lion feels to me - just like Snow Leopard was before it... etc)
Service packs, yep. Small incremental improvements. However, Lion will for me be a step back, UI-wise, as no service pack could be. What they're doing with buttons, with tabs, with scrollbars makes me think that Snow Leopard will be the pinnacle of the UI design. Maybe in a year or two I'll disagree with myself and I'll like it. Let's wait and see. There are only a few announced Lion things that I want in Snow Leopard, such as improved Expose.
What game do you find compelling that uses 3D on mobile, and that its design depends on 3D and could not be done with 2D?
Have you actually seen the latest games for the latest smartphones/tablets?
Yes, but I have not seen any 3D game that makes me want to really play it. I find the 3D aspect interesting professionally, and from a technological perspective, but I don't find it adding entertainment value.
Yes I'm a 2D fan myself, I really like 2D platform games and adventure games and don't think 3D adds anything to it, but when I have to create a new game the customers expect 3D these days,
I disagree that customers demand 3D on mobile. In fact, I disagree that they demand it on desktop, for many game concepts. Despite what my personal tastes say about it, tons of people play stuff from casual vendors such as Big Fish Games especially from the "Hidden Object" category.
Does 3D add significant value and (more importantly) improved visuals to puzzle games, to hidden objects? Do you think people wouldn't play Torchlight if it were 2D? 3D games we already very strong back in 2000, yet Diablo II was mostly 2D.
I don't think people's tastes are all that radically different today. Games can be improved by 3D, but it might be unimportant, and it may significantly hinder the visuals of the games if they have the same budget. A game with 2D sprites, background et al can take advantage of excellent renderers in 3D modeling packages and only then be touched up in Photoshop to improve the look. A game with 3D environment has to have great texture artists, great modelers, great shader writers and display the entire good looking 3D environment quickly on even poor machines.
It all depends on what your market is.
so it's very nice if you have an engine that works on all platforms and you don't have to change your workflow constantly.
I agree with this one completely!
It does depend, however, on how complex is it to implement your ideas with an off-the-shelf game engine, and sometimes it may even be so with an off-the-shelf renderer. Just sayin'.:-)
Interesting! Thanks for the info! I'm pretty sure if one sat for a while and thought about it, one could come up with a way to easily implement wrinkle maps with Ogre. On the other hand, there may be many such tricks in CryEngine.
In the end, it all comes down to this: how much of those tricks does one need for most games?
What a silly comment. You don't need any of that to use CryEngine. Sure you might not be making the most out of it but who cares really?
If you're not using 90% of the features of the engine, why use it at all? I'd prefer using something that's easier to understand.
That's right!
You can still get a lot of handy features out of it.
Yes, your development will still suffer, because the engine is so complicated as soon as you step one millimeter out of the Sandbox editor (I know what I'm talking about, I've been using CryEngine3 for a while now).
Nice to hear from someone that actually used the engine to confirm my suspicions:-)
There are numerous libraries typically combined with Ogre3D to provide it physics and audio. AI can be written relatively easily, and reusability is limited. Networking can be difficult to reuse.
I'm sorry but Ogre3D or any opensource engine doesn't come even CLOSE to UnrealEngine3 or Cryengine
Crappy stuff can be made with any of those. So can good stuff. I'm talking about erosion of market because major stuff is available in all engines for free. Open source engines are mostly missing fancy editors, since they work primarily with rendering.
Since you are obviously knowledgeable with all three systems, when you work with them, what major thing is missing from Ogre3D? What major thing do you think Unreal Engine 3 and CryEngine include that cannot easily be done with Ogre3D? Feel free to be subjective, if you need to be.
Can you also say a few words on flexibility of UE3 and CE when developing a new idea?
But it also all depends on the license the freeversion of CryEngine will ship with, if it's just as interesting as the UDK it might be VERY interesting, only CryEngine doesn't run on Mobiles, whereas UDK does...
For most stuff on mobile, you don't need a 3D engine. In fact, 3D games I have played on mobile are all far less compelling than 2D, but fancy, stuff I have seen. What game do you find compelling that uses 3D on mobile, and that its design depends on 3D and could not be done with 2D?
That's what I meant -- rendering engine. In Ogre3D, input handling is practically bundled (OIS). AI is not and can not be universal; that piece of the puzzle is definitely game code, not engine code. Audio is easily integrated.
It may not be a complete solution, but for rendering (which is one of the hardest pieces of the puzzle) it's surely good.
Looks like market for selling engines off-the-shelf is generally badly hit over the last few years. You can get a quality engine (and SDK!) for free, and you only buy extras.
Engines and SDKs that I know of and that are free, or require payment for commercial development or upon release: Unity3D, Unreal, now CryEngine.
Not to mention Ogre3D and other open-source engines (without editors, though).
The US wasn't threatened militarily in Korea or Vietnam, either. Israel is small, but influential with a very strong military and they are a nuclear power(supposedly).
Who gave them that?
They also have the itchiest trigger finger. If Israel goes to full-scale war, it will send the whole region down the shitter
Are you saying that Israel is the problem? I am not that actively tracking the status in the region, but they never seemed like a major troublemaker to me. If they are, what is the logic in destroying everyone around them?
and invite countries like Russia to get involved since they do a lot of business with other countries in the region(thus protecting their interests, same thing the US does).
Russia is not half-way around the world.
Israel only comes up because it is one of the reasons why countries like the US intervene. Ultimately, you want to keep the issues within the country. Manageable. The larger the conflict within the country, the greater the potential for it to spread. Israel is attached because of that, but so are other countries that major countries have major interests in
I'm afraid I do not understand how all this justifies entering the conflict in Libya. If Gaddafi was mad enough to openly attack Israel, he had over 40 years to do so. I'm also not sure that bringing US' "sons of bitches" into power to replace one who was previously US "son of a bitch" is the solution. You should observe problems in political transition of countries from socialism to capitalism. Even worse scum comes to power.
There's an insightful campaign slogan for local elections in one small town in Croatia: "Vote for us; we already stole what we wanted." If other people come into power, you have no idea who you'll be dealing with.
It is interesting that in less than a month since the first uprisings, a rebel "government" has been organized in Libya. It has already organized a "central bank" (with what money?) and secured oil export contracts, not to mention armed itself. Hmm.
Everything always must come down to Israel, doesn't it? This seems like an ironic twist on the Godwin's Law.
United States is on the other side of the world compared to the Middle East. It is not directly threatened. Israel does not seem like a natural ally. United States is not threatened militarily and it's not really threatened by the Middle Eastern countries at all, and should not look at small countries as its allies. United States should feel much more threatened by the China.
Government of the Gitmo Nation West should more closely try to end the dependence on the Chinese products and the Chinese market, work on economic ties with the rest of the world, kickstart manufacturing and science, and overall regain its economic and cultural strength. Gunning everyone that dares to oppose the "world's last standing superpower" and its wishes is not a solution.
And it will bring neither stability nor democracy. Instead, United States are for the last decade turning into the very monster whose creation they are trying to prevent.
The embargoes affected everyone in the former Yugoslavia including Serbia and Montenegro.
Which, even despite I'm in one of the attacked countries, does not make me happy.
It's just unfortunate that the victims were more strongly affected than the aggressors. But that's how conflicts are peacefully resolved. Big fish eats little fish.
Rather odd way at looking at things. Denying defensive weaponry and other things to build up a resistance surely is an effective way to resolve a conflict. Because then it cannot even be called a conflict; if there's only one properly armed side, how can you call it a conflict?
If you however think there is someone who is defending himself, and has a right to defend himself, just help or don't interfere. Imposing a weapon import embargo on a state that cannot defend itself means its citizens will be "dealt with" by the other side.
When comparing things to the other wars, people seem to miss one important thing: insurgents in Libya have insisted that there is, really, no division among Libyans. In that way, the situation is unlike the one in Yugoslavia: supporters of Gaddafi are "artificially" separated from insurgents. Not by difference of tradition, difference of language, difference of customs, but by their opinions of the current leader. Is there a religious difference, as in Iraq? What are their differences?
Why not attempt a diplomatic solution? Why not first just threaten Gaddafi to deploy troops, and demand negotiations and observers? Perhaps I did not track the events enough, but I don't remember anyone making such demands. It was immediately "They're suppressing a rebellion, lets attack them".
Nobody went into Libya to prevent a conflict, but to encourage one. If lives were all the world worried about, they would have let Gaddafi go when he wanted to take the money and run, instead of telling him "no".
The bigger issue is that as soon as you start putting that kind of money into the DoD people want to see the military do something.
Why put the money into DoD at all?
Libya is a much better user of resources than Iraq was, albeit, a much cheaper conflict to get involved in. Even if they don't give us access to their resources, having an unstable regime headed by a dictator isn't in our best interest.
Violating sovereignty of another nation state (even the one led by an unstable dictator) is in the interest of the world's "pinnacle of freedom and democracy"? Taking sides in an internal conflict is right and justified? I don't remember the United States being so proactive during the war in my homeland. In fact, I remember certain embargoes while we were attacked. It must be just my memory.
For some reason, my logic must be screwed up as well, since I don't see anyone talking about bringing down the regime of Kazakhstan, where Nursultan Nazarbayev won with alleged support of 95% of citizens. Which is quite an ordinary thing after 20 years of rule, right? What about Sudan, Yemen? Oh, let's not forget the Democratic Republic of Kampuchea and its leaders, who, after they lost power, were supported by China and the United States.
It seems I'm a pretty much messed up person, for opposing the senseless war. Since you worry about universal healthcare and education, you are probably a pretty messed up person yourself. Since of course the "security", "stability" and "spread of democracy" are a priority, right?
Slashdot Mirror
Don't treat it as a religion, especially when dealing with stuff that can contaminate things unrelated to your "scientific experiment". Or with "safely modified, strengthened, disease resistant food".
I don't want your GMO "food" to mix with my food. I don't want my food to even have a chance to be contaminated with your food, even if you think it isn't dangerous.
You're free to do things as long as you don't infringe on my freedom. And at this time in my life, I want freedom to eat non-GMO food.
Duke Nukem Forever, Linux 3.0... what is this world coming to?
Or made in Pakistan
Just because it's Google, music labels won't let a piece of the pie to go to waste. Sadly.
Could another effect be lowering of their transaction fees? You're no longer paying $0.99, you're now paying $9.99 or so. Plus, this allows easier sale of prepaid cards, doesn't it?
So, they're not ONLY trying to affect your mind, they're also making it cheaper and/or easier for themselves to take your money.
BSD license is more free, but does not preserve the freedoms.
Choice of license should depend on your goals. If one of them is philosophy, so be it. If one of them is business, so be it. I always pick the license that I feel best for a project.
Whats so different from an App Store than downloading from a corporate website
Centralized autoupdate for all apps bought off the store. A bit of quality checking.
(like you do with Windows Service Packs which is what Lion feels to me - just like Snow Leopard was before it... etc)
Service packs, yep. Small incremental improvements. However, Lion will for me be a step back, UI-wise, as no service pack could be. What they're doing with buttons, with tabs, with scrollbars makes me think that Snow Leopard will be the pinnacle of the UI design. Maybe in a year or two I'll disagree with myself and I'll like it. Let's wait and see. There are only a few announced Lion things that I want in Snow Leopard, such as improved Expose.
What game do you find compelling that uses 3D on mobile, and that its design depends on 3D and could not be done with 2D?
Have you actually seen the latest games for the latest smartphones/tablets?
Yes, but I have not seen any 3D game that makes me want to really play it. I find the 3D aspect interesting professionally, and from a technological perspective, but I don't find it adding entertainment value.
Yes I'm a 2D fan myself, I really like 2D platform games and adventure games and don't think 3D adds anything to it, but when I have to create a new game the customers expect 3D these days,
I disagree that customers demand 3D on mobile. In fact, I disagree that they demand it on desktop, for many game concepts. Despite what my personal tastes say about it, tons of people play stuff from casual vendors such as Big Fish Games especially from the "Hidden Object" category.
Does 3D add significant value and (more importantly) improved visuals to puzzle games, to hidden objects? Do you think people wouldn't play Torchlight if it were 2D? 3D games we already very strong back in 2000, yet Diablo II was mostly 2D.
I don't think people's tastes are all that radically different today. Games can be improved by 3D, but it might be unimportant, and it may significantly hinder the visuals of the games if they have the same budget. A game with 2D sprites, background et al can take advantage of excellent renderers in 3D modeling packages and only then be touched up in Photoshop to improve the look. A game with 3D environment has to have great texture artists, great modelers, great shader writers and display the entire good looking 3D environment quickly on even poor machines.
It all depends on what your market is.
so it's very nice if you have an engine that works on all platforms and you don't have to change your workflow constantly.
I agree with this one completely!
It does depend, however, on how complex is it to implement your ideas with an off-the-shelf game engine, and sometimes it may even be so with an off-the-shelf renderer. Just sayin'. :-)
Interesting! Thanks for the info! I'm pretty sure if one sat for a while and thought about it, one could come up with a way to easily implement wrinkle maps with Ogre. On the other hand, there may be many such tricks in CryEngine.
In the end, it all comes down to this: how much of those tricks does one need for most games?
Rendering engine means nothing without good artists. Otherwise, insightful -- here's a cookie :-)
Business move is smart, indeed. How useful to other developers - this remains to be seen.
What a silly comment. You don't need any of that to use CryEngine. Sure you might not be making the most out of it but who cares really?
If you're not using 90% of the features of the engine, why use it at all? I'd prefer using something that's easier to understand.
That's right!
You can still get a lot of handy features out of it.
Yes, your development will still suffer, because the engine is so complicated as soon as you step one millimeter out of the Sandbox editor (I know what I'm talking about, I've been using CryEngine3 for a while now).
Nice to hear from someone that actually used the engine to confirm my suspicions :-)
There are numerous libraries typically combined with Ogre3D to provide it physics and audio. AI can be written relatively easily, and reusability is limited. Networking can be difficult to reuse.
So, nitpickers are making me say "Ogre3D + additional libraries typically used with it"? :-)
Sure, those few generic classes for AI can be taken off the shelf. Is that among the things that CryEngine offers?
I'm sorry but Ogre3D or any opensource engine doesn't come even CLOSE to UnrealEngine3 or Cryengine
Crappy stuff can be made with any of those. So can good stuff. I'm talking about erosion of market because major stuff is available in all engines for free. Open source engines are mostly missing fancy editors, since they work primarily with rendering.
Since you are obviously knowledgeable with all three systems, when you work with them, what major thing is missing from Ogre3D? What major thing do you think Unreal Engine 3 and CryEngine include that cannot easily be done with Ogre3D? Feel free to be subjective, if you need to be.
Can you also say a few words on flexibility of UE3 and CE when developing a new idea?
But it also all depends on the license the freeversion of CryEngine will ship with, if it's just as interesting as the UDK it might be VERY interesting, only CryEngine doesn't run on Mobiles, whereas UDK does...
For most stuff on mobile, you don't need a 3D engine. In fact, 3D games I have played on mobile are all far less compelling than 2D, but fancy, stuff I have seen. What game do you find compelling that uses 3D on mobile, and that its design depends on 3D and could not be done with 2D?
That's what I meant -- rendering engine. In Ogre3D, input handling is practically bundled (OIS). AI is not and can not be universal; that piece of the puzzle is definitely game code, not engine code. Audio is easily integrated.
It may not be a complete solution, but for rendering (which is one of the hardest pieces of the puzzle) it's surely good.
Looks like market for selling engines off-the-shelf is generally badly hit over the last few years. You can get a quality engine (and SDK!) for free, and you only buy extras. Engines and SDKs that I know of and that are free, or require payment for commercial development or upon release: Unity3D, Unreal, now CryEngine. Not to mention Ogre3D and other open-source engines (without editors, though).
Someone refresh my memory on why something like twitter, starting from scratch in the smart phone era is STILL limited to 140 characters.
To keep posts short and to the point.
Thanks!
I'm curious what's the problem with Speex for voice transmission? (A non-rhetorical question.)
The US wasn't threatened militarily in Korea or Vietnam, either. Israel is small, but influential with a very strong military and they are a nuclear power(supposedly).
Who gave them that?
They also have the itchiest trigger finger. If Israel goes to full-scale war, it will send the whole region down the shitter
Are you saying that Israel is the problem? I am not that actively tracking the status in the region, but they never seemed like a major troublemaker to me. If they are, what is the logic in destroying everyone around them?
and invite countries like Russia to get involved since they do a lot of business with other countries in the region(thus protecting their interests, same thing the US does).
Russia is not half-way around the world.
Israel only comes up because it is one of the reasons why countries like the US intervene. Ultimately, you want to keep the issues within the country. Manageable. The larger the conflict within the country, the greater the potential for it to spread. Israel is attached because of that, but so are other countries that major countries have major interests in
I'm afraid I do not understand how all this justifies entering the conflict in Libya. If Gaddafi was mad enough to openly attack Israel, he had over 40 years to do so. I'm also not sure that bringing US' "sons of bitches" into power to replace one who was previously US "son of a bitch" is the solution. You should observe problems in political transition of countries from socialism to capitalism. Even worse scum comes to power.
There's an insightful campaign slogan for local elections in one small town in Croatia: "Vote for us; we already stole what we wanted." If other people come into power, you have no idea who you'll be dealing with.
It is interesting that in less than a month since the first uprisings, a rebel "government" has been organized in Libya. It has already organized a "central bank" (with what money?) and secured oil export contracts, not to mention armed itself. Hmm.
Who is trigger happy here?
Everything always must come down to Israel, doesn't it? This seems like an ironic twist on the Godwin's Law.
United States is on the other side of the world compared to the Middle East. It is not directly threatened. Israel does not seem like a natural ally. United States is not threatened militarily and it's not really threatened by the Middle Eastern countries at all, and should not look at small countries as its allies. United States should feel much more threatened by the China.
Government of the Gitmo Nation West should more closely try to end the dependence on the Chinese products and the Chinese market, work on economic ties with the rest of the world, kickstart manufacturing and science, and overall regain its economic and cultural strength. Gunning everyone that dares to oppose the "world's last standing superpower" and its wishes is not a solution.
And it will bring neither stability nor democracy. Instead, United States are for the last decade turning into the very monster whose creation they are trying to prevent.
The embargoes affected everyone in the former Yugoslavia including Serbia and Montenegro.
Which, even despite I'm in one of the attacked countries, does not make me happy.
It's just unfortunate that the victims were more strongly affected than the aggressors. But that's how conflicts are peacefully resolved. Big fish eats little fish.
Rather odd way at looking at things. Denying defensive weaponry and other things to build up a resistance surely is an effective way to resolve a conflict. Because then it cannot even be called a conflict; if there's only one properly armed side, how can you call it a conflict?
If you however think there is someone who is defending himself, and has a right to defend himself, just help or don't interfere. Imposing a weapon import embargo on a state that cannot defend itself means its citizens will be "dealt with" by the other side.
When comparing things to the other wars, people seem to miss one important thing: insurgents in Libya have insisted that there is, really, no division among Libyans. In that way, the situation is unlike the one in Yugoslavia: supporters of Gaddafi are "artificially" separated from insurgents. Not by difference of tradition, difference of language, difference of customs, but by their opinions of the current leader. Is there a religious difference, as in Iraq? What are their differences?
Why not attempt a diplomatic solution? Why not first just threaten Gaddafi to deploy troops, and demand negotiations and observers? Perhaps I did not track the events enough, but I don't remember anyone making such demands. It was immediately "They're suppressing a rebellion, lets attack them".
Nobody went into Libya to prevent a conflict, but to encourage one. If lives were all the world worried about, they would have let Gaddafi go when he wanted to take the money and run, instead of telling him "no".
That's just speculation. What's your evidence?
The bigger issue is that as soon as you start putting that kind of money into the DoD people want to see the military do something.
Why put the money into DoD at all?
Libya is a much better user of resources than Iraq was, albeit, a much cheaper conflict to get involved in. Even if they don't give us access to their resources, having an unstable regime headed by a dictator isn't in our best interest.
Violating sovereignty of another nation state (even the one led by an unstable dictator) is in the interest of the world's "pinnacle of freedom and democracy"? Taking sides in an internal conflict is right and justified? I don't remember the United States being so proactive during the war in my homeland. In fact, I remember certain embargoes while we were attacked. It must be just my memory.
For some reason, my logic must be screwed up as well, since I don't see anyone talking about bringing down the regime of Kazakhstan, where Nursultan Nazarbayev won with alleged support of 95% of citizens. Which is quite an ordinary thing after 20 years of rule, right? What about Sudan, Yemen? Oh, let's not forget the Democratic Republic of Kampuchea and its leaders, who, after they lost power, were supported by China and the United States.
It seems I'm a pretty much messed up person, for opposing the senseless war. Since you worry about universal healthcare and education, you are probably a pretty messed up person yourself. Since of course the "security", "stability" and "spread of democracy" are a priority, right?