A quick googling reveals this guy to be A WoW player and YTMND member with a posting history that makes me think he's incapable of wiping his own ass, let alone using your application correctly.
Just ban him, as killing him will be too much work and might be frowned upon.
Not having propellant to blow up would make damage control easier, but chances are you're still going to have at least some of your shells utilize explosive warheads, especially in the case of multirole guns that are used for antiaircraft work.
I'm sure the capacitor setup a rail or coil gun would require would be less vulnerable to fire and explosion than chemical propellant, but if it's not rugged enough or too heavy you haven't improved survivability all that much.
The Crusader got canceled back in 2002. The $9 billion it would have taken to complete the program didn't seem like a good buy once it seemed like they wouldn't have 50,000 T-55s to shoot at after all.
Larger field guns have traditionally used separate powder charges in fabric bags, but a liquid or gaseous propellant would give things like tank guns and 5inch/73mm/whatever naval guns greater flexibility.
It's PR spin. I really think they're hoping to get a contract to develop this technology for tank and naval guns, but are finding it a hard sell since the navy has a hard-on for rail guns for their future ships.
This technology really doesn't see best suited for hand weapons. A single external pack of liquid or gaseous propellant really doesn't seem like a good idea for an infantry weapon. At best it adds a further degree of complication to cleaning and maintaining the weapon, and at worst makes it more dangerous to use than current designs.
Police use? The money would be better spent on more training, I'd suspect.
Now a tank or naval gun might be a very interesting environment for a system like this. Because the propellant would be pumped separately from the projectile, shells would be smaller/lighter than conventional shells of a similar caliber. The autoloader could be smaller and lighter, thereby making the turret smaller. Likewise, it would be easier to compartmentalize the propellant separately from the fighting compartment. The tanks could conform to available space, taking up less interior room. Guns could fire in either a flat or arcing trajectory as well, making them more flexible.
The problem of having the propellant under pressure could be a serious fire hazard, of course...
I do 3D/CG artwork as a hobby. Whenever I do a render, or the polygon count in a scene gets over 300,000 or so, things take longer to render.
with a decent multi-threaded render engine and enough cores and RAM laying about, I can easily build far more complex scenes without having to set aside hours (or days) on end just to render the thing (esp. concerning animation, which averages at least 24 renders per second of runtime).
I'm sure that as game engine coders get comfortable with multi-core, the framerates will rise appreciably as well, without a sacrifice in eye-candy or physics. (Indeed - where once you were stuck with a maximum of 150 non-player polys viewable in an old Unreal Tournament map, you can now stretch that out by orders of magnitude... and eventually with multi-core, get some very nice physics and eye-candy out of the deal.)
/P
I think it's more likely that in the next two years we'll see additional cores being given to different tasks than rendering. The Crytek engine does something interesting in that at least some character animation is procedural, which is to say something like a walk cycle is calculated in terms of engine physics rather than keyframing. Nice looking, but computationally expensive. Procedural animation and other physics calculations are prime candidates to offload onto another core. More sophisticated particle effects and even creature AI would be well-served by this as well.
I think in the medium term, getting comfortable with multicore CPUs will involve dividing currently monolithic tasks (like rendering and physics) into a series of smaller tasks running in parallel within the game engine. I'll be curious to see where it goes.
Go look on ebay before you say that. No kidding. Picked up a Toshiba Portege M200 convertible tablet there last week for $250 and I couldn't be happier. The prices are so low on new low-end laptops it drives down prices on used machines that often have more features.
So that's why the miracles came to an end. God got tired of maintaining his spaghetticode.
Or maybe just the service contract with earth expired, dunno. God opened the source 2.5 million years ago, but his documentation was incomplete and confusing.
Slashdot Mirror
How the fuck did you arrive at the conclusion that debit cards are somehow more evil than credit cards?
I'm guessing the brain tumor had something to do with it.
compared to dirty jobs, tougher in Alaska, ice road truckers, ax men, and deadliest catch, Mythbusters is a show for the gods.
Compared to being shot or stabbed, a toothache feels great as well.
I don't get it. What is not to like about pot smoking, gun toting, anarchists?
The smell.
Now that I would pay to see.
Apparently, though, JFK tried to hide the fact that he was wheelchair-bound during the campaign the best that he could.
Aren't you thinking of FDR?
Oh well, at least they can be easily removed.
A: You kill him.
What's number #24?
You're posting on it.
A quick googling reveals this guy to be A WoW player and YTMND member with a posting history that makes me think he's incapable of wiping his own ass, let alone using your application correctly.
Just ban him, as killing him will be too much work and might be frowned upon.
Probably for our naivete, though.
Not having propellant to blow up would make damage control easier, but chances are you're still going to have at least some of your shells utilize explosive warheads, especially in the case of multirole guns that are used for antiaircraft work.
I'm sure the capacitor setup a rail or coil gun would require would be less vulnerable to fire and explosion than chemical propellant, but if it's not rugged enough or too heavy you haven't improved survivability all that much.
The Crusader got canceled back in 2002. The $9 billion it would have taken to complete the program didn't seem like a good buy once it seemed like they wouldn't have 50,000 T-55s to shoot at after all.
Larger field guns have traditionally used separate powder charges in fabric bags, but a liquid or gaseous propellant would give things like tank guns and 5inch/73mm/whatever naval guns greater flexibility.
Quit teasing the college students. They might spit in your food.
It's PR spin. I really think they're hoping to get a contract to develop this technology for tank and naval guns, but are finding it a hard sell since the navy has a hard-on for rail guns for their future ships.
This technology really doesn't see best suited for hand weapons. A single external pack of liquid or gaseous propellant really doesn't seem like a good idea for an infantry weapon. At best it adds a further degree of complication to cleaning and maintaining the weapon, and at worst makes it more dangerous to use than current designs.
Police use? The money would be better spent on more training, I'd suspect.
Now a tank or naval gun might be a very interesting environment for a system like this. Because the propellant would be pumped separately from the projectile, shells would be smaller/lighter than conventional shells of a similar caliber. The autoloader could be smaller and lighter, thereby making the turret smaller. Likewise, it would be easier to compartmentalize the propellant separately from the fighting compartment. The tanks could conform to available space, taking up less interior room. Guns could fire in either a flat or arcing trajectory as well, making them more flexible.
The problem of having the propellant under pressure could be a serious fire hazard, of course...
That sounds like a front organization for Aperture Science.
I do 3D/CG artwork as a hobby. Whenever I do a render, or the polygon count in a scene gets over 300,000 or so, things take longer to render.
with a decent multi-threaded render engine and enough cores and RAM laying about, I can easily build far more complex scenes without having to set aside hours (or days) on end just to render the thing (esp. concerning animation, which averages at least 24 renders per second of runtime).
I'm sure that as game engine coders get comfortable with multi-core, the framerates will rise appreciably as well, without a sacrifice in eye-candy or physics. (Indeed - where once you were stuck with a maximum of 150 non-player polys viewable in an old Unreal Tournament map, you can now stretch that out by orders of magnitude... and eventually with multi-core, get some very nice physics and eye-candy out of the deal.)
I think it's more likely that in the next two years we'll see additional cores being given to different tasks than rendering. The Crytek engine does something interesting in that at least some character animation is procedural, which is to say something like a walk cycle is calculated in terms of engine physics rather than keyframing. Nice looking, but computationally expensive. Procedural animation and other physics calculations are prime candidates to offload onto another core. More sophisticated particle effects and even creature AI would be well-served by this as well.
I think in the medium term, getting comfortable with multicore CPUs will involve dividing currently monolithic tasks (like rendering and physics) into a series of smaller tasks running in parallel within the game engine. I'll be curious to see where it goes.
If you want to kill everyone on a particular planet, vapourising its surface is way more efficient than trying to blow apart the planet.
But its not as pretty.
It depends where you put the cameras.
Yeah... because I'm sure you could do better while at the size Blizzard is. Bitch bitch bitch, but do you people do better? never.
Not wasting your time playing shitty clickfests would be the ultimate way of doing better.
Maybe we're the bootloader, if you want to go on a Teilhard de Chardin kick. :)
Or maybe just the service contract with earth expired, dunno. God opened the source 2.5 million years ago, but his documentation was incomplete and confusing.
Or 'The Artist Formally Known as Prince of Persia'.