This 15 page thread has some people who say they've had melted cards. A lot of the problems seem to be with laptops. As a corollary, people are reporting that the "fix" also helps with Alt+tab speed if anyone cares about that.
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/starcraft2/show_msgs.php?topic_id=m-1-55785055&pid=939643&page=2
Since I haven't seen anyone else post the fix, I will:
Add the following lines to your "Documents\StarCraft II\variables.txt" file:
frameratecapglue=30
frameratecap=60
You can add them to the beginning, end, or wherever. The game doesn't care.
Not necessarily. Again you're saying because 1+1 comes out to 2, that 1+1 is the formula and ignoring 4/2. Perhaps with a little more research, we'd find 8/4 as another completely scientific explanation. What then? Then we'd debate on slashdot about 8/4 vs 1+1.:-) Usually we start looking for 8/4 only after some scientist concludes that 1+1=3 for large values of 1.
Switching gears a little, there are several theories that, despite not being demonstrable, are commonly accepted because they're the only theory we have other than "God did it". Some of those theories have so much effort put into them to make them work, that the results for most of us has become faith that the scientist got it all right.
I can't help but wonder in some cases, if the scientist who went to such great lengths just accepted "God did it" and moved onto something more important, what new discoveries he might have made.
I see a lot of sentiment here that religion and science have no business together, because religion says "God did it", but that sort of thought leaves out a big "what if".
What if God did do it?
That changes everything. That means that despite there being evidence that "something" could've happened one way, it actually happened a different way - God did it.
In other words, a lot of times we see a result (the way things currently appear), then derive the formula to get there. We see 2, and we scientifically prove 1+1=2. But 4/2 also equals 2.
I can feel the heat coming already.:-)
We do ourselves a disservice to stop at 1+1 and say that has to be the formula when its entirely possible we're wrong.
Google already has a social networking place called Orkut. They also have Google Profiles which lacks a lot of social networking functionality, but it has some of the same features...
I don't recall hearing about this technique for producing energy before. I wonder how useful it would be to make a similar device to produce energy and send it back up...
I have a theory for that last conundrum. It's a long shot, but here it is:
You offer "buy one, get one 50% off" and Jane Doe thinks "Wow! That's a good deal!".
You offer "buy one, get one free" and instead of thinking "Wow! That's a really good deal!", she thinks "That's just a marketing ploy! They can't actually afford to do that. They must have inflated the price first! Grrr..."
This reminds me of something that happened when I was in highschool that I found really funny. I was selling candy bars for some reason or another, and had this silly joke.
"Buy one for 50 cents a piece or buy one for a dollar and get one free!"
My art teacher was shocked that I would offer the 2nd deal and without joking wanted to know how I could afford to give such an offer. I told him I was just a generous guy. ^_^
The trick is, you know that $45 that someone else paid? Game companies want that guy to pay $60 as well. The used game market prevents them from having that $15. At least that's what the game company thinks. Chances are, he may not buy the game new anyway. But game companies don't know that, yet. They'll have to crush the used game market and find out.
I just had to give an estimate the other day. Not for programming, but for designing a program for others to write.
As asinine as it is to estimate programming time, I think estimating a design might be worse.
What I did was looked at the requirements and tried to figure out what the different pieces of the system were, then gave each one 3 weeks. That came out to about 10 months...which seemed kinda big to me, but how many people are guilty of over-estimating?
As expected, the project manager thought that sounded high, so she found someone who she thought had more experience and asked him to help me make a more detailed estimate. Over the course of a week, we spent probably 5 to 10 hours pouring over the details of the project, breaking it down further and giving an estimate to each little detail. I let the "expert" give estimates to each piece. It came out to two years! (If I gave each of the new tasks 1 day a piece, it'd come out to 7 months)
Needless to say, the project manager didn't like that either and wants me to revise it to make it smaller. I should just say "write down what you're going to say anyway and I'll make a plan around that", but I haven't.
I've actually done vector graphics in javascript via 1x1 pixel divs, generated with absolute positioning. I merely used it to make a few dozen lines, though
Unfortunately, using real vector graphics in javascript is comparatively slow to using images when you have the choice. It's also a lot more complex.
For 2D games, images are the way to go in javascript for now. I honestly think this is just about the lowest barrier to entry for someone who wants to make a "game".
I've heard of a 3D javascript library being invented, but I can't imagine that it's actually efficient enough for even today's computers. Perhaps I'm wrong though. I haven't looked into the canvas object you speak of.
This reminds me of a time in college when a guy who was heavy into assembler and Basic asked me "So how do I plot a pixel in HTML?" I paused to take in his question, then I opened Paint, drew a dot, then made an HTML page with the image in it.
He responded "Whoa! That's way too much overhead!"
I replied, "No, check this out." I opened the image file with the dot and made a smiley. Then, I refreshed the page. He was elated. "No vector graphics needed?! This is awesome!"
I tell this story to preface the statement that I know from first-hand experience that a noobie programmer can make Pong in javascript/html in less than 100 lines of code with minimal difficulty compared to other languages. That being said, QBasic was actually MY first language...
Slashdot Mirror
Interestingly, it's just "Documents" in Windows 7. They're not mine anymore apparently. :-)
I've read reports that using vsync helps as well.
This 15 page thread has some people who say they've had melted cards. A lot of the problems seem to be with laptops. As a corollary, people are reporting that the "fix" also helps with Alt+tab speed if anyone cares about that. http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/starcraft2/show_msgs.php?topic_id=m-1-55785055&pid=939643&page=2 Since I haven't seen anyone else post the fix, I will: Add the following lines to your "Documents\StarCraft II\variables.txt" file: frameratecapglue=30 frameratecap=60 You can add them to the beginning, end, or wherever. The game doesn't care.
How much cooler would this story be if he actually used a fake lightsaber to threaten people with?
What I hate is when those bastards insert smiley-icons into code that I am emailing.
No I do not want a winking-smiley face in the middle of a method declaration.
My mind's drawing a blank on why your code would have a semi-colon followed by a parenthesis. Can you give me an example?
Only if you're in Arkansas. ;-)
Rad Racer for NES FTW!
I'm pretty sure it was a joke... ;-)
One time I made a perpetual motion machine car with Legos. Unfortunately, it rolled off a table and broke. :-(
I never could get it right again, but I swear it happened!
Small correction, but it was Mark 16:17 ;-)
Not necessarily. Again you're saying because 1+1 comes out to 2, that 1+1 is the formula and ignoring 4/2. Perhaps with a little more research, we'd find 8/4 as another completely scientific explanation. What then? Then we'd debate on slashdot about 8/4 vs 1+1. :-) Usually we start looking for 8/4 only after some scientist concludes that 1+1=3 for large values of 1.
Switching gears a little, there are several theories that, despite not being demonstrable, are commonly accepted because they're the only theory we have other than "God did it". Some of those theories have so much effort put into them to make them work, that the results for most of us has become faith that the scientist got it all right.
I can't help but wonder in some cases, if the scientist who went to such great lengths just accepted "God did it" and moved onto something more important, what new discoveries he might have made.
I see a lot of sentiment here that religion and science have no business together, because religion says "God did it", but that sort of thought leaves out a big "what if".
:-)
We do ourselves a disservice to stop at 1+1 and say that has to be the formula when its entirely possible we're wrong.
What if God did do it?
That changes everything. That means that despite there being evidence that "something" could've happened one way, it actually happened a different way - God did it.
In other words, a lot of times we see a result (the way things currently appear), then derive the formula to get there. We see 2, and we scientifically prove 1+1=2. But 4/2 also equals 2.
I can feel the heat coming already.
Google already has a social networking place called Orkut. They also have Google Profiles which lacks a lot of social networking functionality, but it has some of the same features...
I don't recall hearing about this technique for producing energy before. I wonder how useful it would be to make a similar device to produce energy and send it back up...
I have a theory for that last conundrum. It's a long shot, but here it is: You offer "buy one, get one 50% off" and Jane Doe thinks "Wow! That's a good deal!". You offer "buy one, get one free" and instead of thinking "Wow! That's a really good deal!", she thinks "That's just a marketing ploy! They can't actually afford to do that. They must have inflated the price first! Grrr..."
This reminds me of something that happened when I was in highschool that I found really funny. I was selling candy bars for some reason or another, and had this silly joke. "Buy one for 50 cents a piece or buy one for a dollar and get one free!"
My art teacher was shocked that I would offer the 2nd deal and without joking wanted to know how I could afford to give such an offer. I told him I was just a generous guy. ^_^
Son, haven't I told you to stop playing with those magnets?
The trick is, you know that $45 that someone else paid? Game companies want that guy to pay $60 as well. The used game market prevents them from having that $15. At least that's what the game company thinks. Chances are, he may not buy the game new anyway. But game companies don't know that, yet. They'll have to crush the used game market and find out.
I just had to give an estimate the other day. Not for programming, but for designing a program for others to write. As asinine as it is to estimate programming time, I think estimating a design might be worse. What I did was looked at the requirements and tried to figure out what the different pieces of the system were, then gave each one 3 weeks. That came out to about 10 months...which seemed kinda big to me, but how many people are guilty of over-estimating? As expected, the project manager thought that sounded high, so she found someone who she thought had more experience and asked him to help me make a more detailed estimate. Over the course of a week, we spent probably 5 to 10 hours pouring over the details of the project, breaking it down further and giving an estimate to each little detail. I let the "expert" give estimates to each piece. It came out to two years! (If I gave each of the new tasks 1 day a piece, it'd come out to 7 months) Needless to say, the project manager didn't like that either and wants me to revise it to make it smaller. I should just say "write down what you're going to say anyway and I'll make a plan around that", but I haven't.
I've actually done vector graphics in javascript via 1x1 pixel divs, generated with absolute positioning. I merely used it to make a few dozen lines, though
Unfortunately, using real vector graphics in javascript is comparatively slow to using images when you have the choice. It's also a lot more complex.
For 2D games, images are the way to go in javascript for now. I honestly think this is just about the lowest barrier to entry for someone who wants to make a "game".
I've heard of a 3D javascript library being invented, but I can't imagine that it's actually efficient enough for even today's computers. Perhaps I'm wrong though. I haven't looked into the canvas object you speak of.
This reminds me of a time in college when a guy who was heavy into assembler and Basic asked me "So how do I plot a pixel in HTML?" I paused to take in his question, then I opened Paint, drew a dot, then made an HTML page with the image in it.
He responded "Whoa! That's way too much overhead!"
I replied, "No, check this out." I opened the image file with the dot and made a smiley. Then, I refreshed the page. He was elated. "No vector graphics needed?! This is awesome!"
I tell this story to preface the statement that I know from first-hand experience that a noobie programmer can make Pong in javascript/html in less than 100 lines of code with minimal difficulty compared to other languages. That being said, QBasic was actually MY first language...