The game has undergone at least one complete change to its game engine during the course of development. Originally utilizing id Software's Quake II engine, the 3D Realms team switched in 1998 to Epic's Unreal engine 1.0 [6], forcing a revision of all previous work except for the game's textures, which were later replaced anyway.
It's worse than that, actually. From a PC Gamer article I read back in the 90's, DNF started with the Quake I engine, then moved to the Quake II engine. They thought it would be an easy transition until they realized that the higher resolution of the Q2 engine meant that they needed to add more detail to all their models. By the time they got to the Unreal engine, everyone was already starting to wonder if it was going to ship.
So in short, they've been picking up and throwing away their work for a long time now.
Re:It's a good thing they beta tested it
on
Google Calendar
·
· Score: 1
That's not geekery, that's comedic nonsense.
Undecimber is a real month often used in the Lunar Calendar. You'll find it in many time keeping APIs such as java.util.Calendar and the International Components for Unicode. Anyone who's done even a cursory study of alternate calendars should know that.
*huff* More geekery, indeed!
Re:It's a good thing they beta tested it
on
Google Calendar
·
· Score: 1
Setup a quick electricity generator in the middle of nowhere. But for trains? They go on tracks, so installing a few wires isn't too expensive or difficult, making the electricity transportation far more efficient trought wires than fitting fuel cells on every locomotive, and then carrying all that hydrogen and.. sheesh!
For what its worth, most commuter trains in the US (e.g. Amtrak, Metra, etc.) run on Diesel fuel. The engine burns the fuel to produce electricity for use in an electric transmission. They used to use mechanical linkages for the transmission, but apparently it was hard to make parts that would withstand the force of over 300 kilowatts of power.
The notable exception to the use of onboard diesel engines is the San Francisco BART system, which uses an electrified third rail to transmit power to the train. However, the requirement for high speeds yet low power usage makes the system unique enough to where they've had a lot of technical problems with it. Since they don't want to be transmitting over 300KW of power through the third rail (!) the trains have to be nearly as light as the local trains are in cities like Chicago. The problem is that most local trains don't travel 70 miles an hour over long distances.
The BART third rail, BTW, is electrified at 1000 volts DC. (Which is actually rather high.) To reach the 300+ KW put out by most diesel locomotives, the rail would need to shunt 300 amps of electricity. While that's possible to do, it's one hell of a lot of electricity to be moving. Apparently, the BART system is talking about moving some of the trains to diesel power.
In other words, H2 + O2 -> H2O can be used to drive combustion engines and fuel cells.
Except that fuel cells don't combust per se. Which was my point. The hydrogen acts as the Anode, the Oxygen as the Cathode, and the plates between them strip off the hydrogen electrons to create a voltaic imbalance. The actual combustion of the two is secondary to the energy generation, and is not directly used by the process. The only thing used is the attraction between the hydrogen and oxygen atoms.
A combustion engine on the other hand, uses the pressure developed by the combustion to produce mechanical energy which can then be translated into electrical power through the use of a dynamo or generator.
The point I'm getting at is that the article feels incredibly imprecise. There is an electrochemical reaction occurring that produces power output, but the actual chemical reaction is not harnessed. Or at least, that's the one way of looking at it. You do still end up with a recombination of the electrons, protons, and oxygen to produce water in the end so I guess I can't entirely fault the article.
Wikipedia calls it an "Electrochemcial" reaction. Which sounds a little more reasonable to me, though I suppose it can still be referred to as a plain "chemical" reaction. It just doesn't seem very precise.
The fuel cells, which generate power from a chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen
That doesn't sound right. Usually "chemical reaction" infers that new molecules will be formed. As I understand it, in the case of most fuel cells, the electron is stripped from the hydrogen to produce electricity. If these cells were utilizing the combustion of H2 and O to form H2O, wouldn't that make them a powerplant rather than fuel cells?
Or am I totally off base here? (Feel free to mod me down if that proves to be the case.)
Your reply is far more insightful than the OP. Seriously.
Apparently I'm more insightful than myself. *sigh*
And, concur on needing to study more -- always need more knowledge....
There you go. No need for the "this is not insightful" baloney. You didn't understand the context. That's fine. But it's not the fault of Slashdot -or- the moderation system.
Example 1: At the end of the day, the tank was damaged by an IED. There's a big difference.
Example 2: The loss of an entire tank crew is interesting, but still not enough info.
Example 3: All I see in the video is a bunch of guys standing over what appears to be a sawed off warhead, then a camera cut to an overhead angle just before the video ends. *shrug*
Anyway, it doesn't show the aftermath of the attack but shows what they are up agaist as it does show the explosion and what at least seems to be tons of tank pieces tossed into the air.
We need to see the aftermath. Those pieces could be from the bomb, ablated chunks of armor, or from nearby objects or debris. While I could see a powerful IED possibly flipping a tank, I have a hard time believing that a tank capable of withstanding multiple hits from 120mm depleted uranium slugs is going to break apart from an improvised explosive. (M1A1 Armor)
Example 1: A bomb the size of an entire truck blew the tread off the tank. The crew was unharmed.
Example 2: Not enough information. Was he inside the tank? Manning the gunnery position? Walking along side it? Inside the tank, but got nailed by something heavy inside? We don't know. The blurb doesn't say.
Example 3: Where's the beef? All I see is some camera work on a bomb. I don't see the claimed tank ambush at all.
Can it block 6 RPGs coming from 3 different directions?
According to the article: Yes.
The system can simultaneously engage several threats, arriving from different directions, is effective on stationary or moving platforms, and is effective against short and long range threats (such as RPGs and ATGM).
Of course, there's got to be a breaking point. Or at least, the possibility of lucky shots. But 6+ RPGs letting loose on a single tank is a lot of firepower to be using. Especially given the tank's inner defenses (such as Uranium supports and reactive armor). What's going to happen is that 90% of your forces are going to get shredded by that tank before you manage to disable or destroy it. Not exactly a good tradeoff.
I guess I would Improvise an Explosive Device of some sort.
IEDs have little to no effect on an armored tank. You'd need an actual anti-tank mine to penetrate.
IEDs have mostly been deployed against Humvees, Supply Trucks, and Police vehicles. As we've been shipping more armored Humvees over, the insurgents have been forced to get more creative with the IEDs to target more vulnerable areas of the vehicle.
All of which leads to the questions: What does 'open' mean in hardware, and which approach will work?
I think you're confused. "Open" has traditionally been shorthand for "Open Standards". Thus your hear terms like "OpenWindows", "OpenLook", and "Open Group". They're all referring to the standards being available to all, and not any sort of Open Source Software take on those standards. Open Standards make the world spin 'round, and are a key reason why we have so much compatibility in our daily lives.
What you're thinking of is "Open Source", also known as "Free (as in freedom and game show prizes) Software". This is a very different category of of openess that relies on a developer to give up some of his rights to support the greater good. This is a laudable goal, but it is often not shared by coorporations and businessmen.
For what its worth, Wikipedia has a fairly good article on the concept of Open Standards.
It looks more like a point defense system for tanks and other armored vehicles. Very cool, but not as cool as a real force field.
Still, you've got to admit that this would be a huge psychological deterant. I mean, if I fired RPGs at a tank, and the RPGs (seemingly without cause) pre-detontated before they ever reached the tank, I'd be looking to get the hell out of there and warn all my friends! There would be a lot of "how can fight something like that?" discussions going on that night.:-)
It stands for "Display List List", which is a list of the Display Command Lists used by your Atari 7800 to render graphics to the television. This amazing technology is based on arcade hardware, making the 7800 the most advanced Atari ever! Just imagine, you'll soon be able to play such amazing titles as:
* Ninja Golf * Fatal Run * Desert Falcon * Scrapyard Dog * Plus all your favorites like Ms. Pac Man, Donkey Kong, and Mario Bros.!
And that's not all! With your new Atari 7800, we'll include the arcade hit Pole Position II at no extra charge! Isn't Atari just amazing?
Sure it didn't always help play the game, but it helped to set the mood and give the universe a little bit of depth.
Correction: It didn't help you play the game. I, personally, studied the specs so that I knew when to open fire, how much playing chicken my ship could take, and just what I could expect out of the engines during regular and afterburn acceleration. And yes, they printed real values. Or at the very least, my maximum effective weapons range seemed to be the number of clicks the blueprints said it was. As were the KPS values for speed.:)
I really missed the blueprints in WC2, because I had to use a lot more trial and error to get a feel for the ships. The manual had a few figures, but they were all glossed over rather than hard numbers.
One of the most publicized occurrences was with BMX XXX - Wal-Mart didn't want to sell it because of its nature, so they toned it down to fit within Wal-Mart standards.
The problem is, this effect appears to be entirely unintentional. Walmart has always tried to maintain a family friendly "Bible-belt" image. As a result, they have never in their history carried games that didn't meet their current criteria. As gaming moved away from Shareware and into Hollywood-style productions, they obviously started needing bigger outlets to sell their games. Now since Wal-mart is the biggest consumer shopping center at the moment, that means that producers are going to follow Wal-mart's rules to maintain profits.
If this was still the 80's, game producers would be complaining about K-Mart or Sears instead.
On the flip side of this, Walmart has done some good. The smaller packaging of games has made them easier to store, produced less waste, and has generally been good for consumers as a whole. Which is nice, because the GIGANTOR boxes was really getting out of hand for awhile there. Especially as game producers packed less and less in the box. Anyone remember how Wing Commander included Blueprints, a manual, offers, etc? Good luck finding that stuff in a modern game.:-/
I am so glad that we have legions of Security Experts to protect us against every possible Rube Goldberg attack out there. Thanks to their tireless commitment to security, I can sleep safer at night by knowing that no one will take a blowtorch to my processor, install custom software, and then override the security safeguards that they could have gotten through by booting into safe mode. These people are truly a God-send. </sarcasm>
Slashdot Mirror
Undecimber is a REAL month used in computer science for 13 month Lunar Calendars. Why does everyone insist on following up with made up names?
The game has undergone at least one complete change to its game engine during the course of development. Originally utilizing id Software's Quake II engine, the 3D Realms team switched in 1998 to Epic's Unreal engine 1.0 [6], forcing a revision of all previous work except for the game's textures, which were later replaced anyway.
It's worse than that, actually. From a PC Gamer article I read back in the 90's, DNF started with the Quake I engine, then moved to the Quake II engine. They thought it would be an easy transition until they realized that the higher resolution of the Q2 engine meant that they needed to add more detail to all their models. By the time they got to the Unreal engine, everyone was already starting to wonder if it was going to ship.
So in short, they've been picking up and throwing away their work for a long time now.
That's not geekery, that's comedic nonsense.
Undecimber is a real month often used in the Lunar Calendar. You'll find it in many time keeping APIs such as java.util.Calendar and the International Components for Unicode. Anyone who's done even a cursory study of alternate calendars should know that.
*huff* More geekery, indeed!
What was the 13th one called?
Undecimber
Do I get geek card bonus points now?
Setup a quick electricity generator in the middle of nowhere. But for trains? They go on tracks, so installing a few wires isn't too expensive or difficult, making the electricity transportation far more efficient trought wires than fitting fuel cells on every locomotive, and then carrying all that hydrogen and .. sheesh!
For what its worth, most commuter trains in the US (e.g. Amtrak, Metra, etc.) run on Diesel fuel. The engine burns the fuel to produce electricity for use in an electric transmission. They used to use mechanical linkages for the transmission, but apparently it was hard to make parts that would withstand the force of over 300 kilowatts of power.
The notable exception to the use of onboard diesel engines is the San Francisco BART system, which uses an electrified third rail to transmit power to the train. However, the requirement for high speeds yet low power usage makes the system unique enough to where they've had a lot of technical problems with it. Since they don't want to be transmitting over 300KW of power through the third rail (!) the trains have to be nearly as light as the local trains are in cities like Chicago. The problem is that most local trains don't travel 70 miles an hour over long distances.
The BART third rail, BTW, is electrified at 1000 volts DC. (Which is actually rather high.) To reach the 300+ KW put out by most diesel locomotives, the rail would need to shunt 300 amps of electricity. While that's possible to do, it's one hell of a lot of electricity to be moving. Apparently, the BART system is talking about moving some of the trains to diesel power.
In other words, H2 + O2 -> H2O can be used to drive combustion engines and fuel cells.
Except that fuel cells don't combust per se. Which was my point. The hydrogen acts as the Anode, the Oxygen as the Cathode, and the plates between them strip off the hydrogen electrons to create a voltaic imbalance. The actual combustion of the two is secondary to the energy generation, and is not directly used by the process. The only thing used is the attraction between the hydrogen and oxygen atoms.
A combustion engine on the other hand, uses the pressure developed by the combustion to produce mechanical energy which can then be translated into electrical power through the use of a dynamo or generator.
The point I'm getting at is that the article feels incredibly imprecise. There is an electrochemical reaction occurring that produces power output, but the actual chemical reaction is not harnessed. Or at least, that's the one way of looking at it. You do still end up with a recombination of the electrons, protons, and oxygen to produce water in the end so I guess I can't entirely fault the article.
Wikipedia calls it an "Electrochemcial" reaction. Which sounds a little more reasonable to me, though I suppose it can still be referred to as a plain "chemical" reaction. It just doesn't seem very precise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_Cell
The fuel cells, which generate power from a chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen
That doesn't sound right. Usually "chemical reaction" infers that new molecules will be formed. As I understand it, in the case of most fuel cells, the electron is stripped from the hydrogen to produce electricity. If these cells were utilizing the combustion of H2 and O to form H2O, wouldn't that make them a powerplant rather than fuel cells?
Or am I totally off base here? (Feel free to mod me down if that proves to be the case.)
Your reply is far more insightful than the OP. Seriously.
Apparently I'm more insightful than myself. *sigh*
And, concur on needing to study more -- always need more knowledge....
There you go. No need for the "this is not insightful" baloney. You didn't understand the context. That's fine. But it's not the fault of Slashdot -or- the moderation system.
Example 1: At the end of the day, the tank was damaged by an IED. There's a big difference.
Example 2: The loss of an entire tank crew is interesting, but still not enough info.
Example 3: All I see in the video is a bunch of guys standing over what appears to be a sawed off warhead, then a camera cut to an overhead angle just before the video ends. *shrug*
Anyway, it doesn't show the aftermath of the attack but shows what they are up agaist as it does show the explosion and what at least seems to be tons of tank pieces tossed into the air.
We need to see the aftermath. Those pieces could be from the bomb, ablated chunks of armor, or from nearby objects or debris. While I could see a powerful IED possibly flipping a tank, I have a hard time believing that a tank capable of withstanding multiple hits from 120mm depleted uranium slugs is going to break apart from an improvised explosive. (M1A1 Armor)
Thanks! Feel free to help these projects by spreading the word! :)
Example 1: A bomb the size of an entire truck blew the tread off the tank. The crew was unharmed.
Example 2: Not enough information. Was he inside the tank? Manning the gunnery position? Walking along side it? Inside the tank, but got nailed by something heavy inside? We don't know. The blurb doesn't say.
Example 3: Where's the beef? All I see is some camera work on a bomb. I don't see the claimed tank ambush at all.
According to the article: Yes.
Of course, there's got to be a breaking point. Or at least, the possibility of lucky shots. But 6+ RPGs letting loose on a single tank is a lot of firepower to be using. Especially given the tank's inner defenses (such as Uranium supports and reactive armor). What's going to happen is that 90% of your forces are going to get shredded by that tank before you manage to disable or destroy it. Not exactly a good tradeoff.
I'll bet it can't...
* MadMorf has been fragged by UberTank
I guess I would Improvise an Explosive Device of some sort.
IEDs have little to no effect on an armored tank. You'd need an actual anti-tank mine to penetrate.
IEDs have mostly been deployed against Humvees, Supply Trucks, and Police vehicles. As we've been shipping more armored Humvees over, the insurgents have been forced to get more creative with the IEDs to target more vulnerable areas of the vehicle.
All of which leads to the questions: What does 'open' mean in hardware, and which approach will work?
I think you're confused. "Open" has traditionally been shorthand for "Open Standards". Thus your hear terms like "OpenWindows", "OpenLook", and "Open Group". They're all referring to the standards being available to all, and not any sort of Open Source Software take on those standards. Open Standards make the world spin 'round, and are a key reason why we have so much compatibility in our daily lives.
What you're thinking of is "Open Source", also known as "Free (as in freedom and game show prizes) Software". This is a very different category of of openess that relies on a developer to give up some of his rights to support the greater good. This is a laudable goal, but it is often not shared by coorporations and businessmen.
For what its worth, Wikipedia has a fairly good article on the concept of Open Standards.
It looks more like a point defense system for tanks and other armored vehicles. Very cool, but not as cool as a real force field.
:-)
Still, you've got to admit that this would be a huge psychological deterant. I mean, if I fired RPGs at a tank, and the RPGs (seemingly without cause) pre-detontated before they ever reached the tank, I'd be looking to get the hell out of there and warn all my friends! There would be a lot of "how can fight something like that?" discussions going on that night.
I have no idea what a DLL is.
It stands for "Display List List", which is a list of the Display Command Lists used by your Atari 7800 to render graphics to the television. This amazing technology is based on arcade hardware, making the 7800 the most advanced Atari ever! Just imagine, you'll soon be able to play such amazing titles as:
* Ninja Golf
* Fatal Run
* Desert Falcon
* Scrapyard Dog
* Plus all your favorites like Ms. Pac Man, Donkey Kong, and Mario Bros.!
And that's not all! With your new Atari 7800, we'll include the arcade hit Pole Position II at no extra charge! Isn't Atari just amazing?
Have you played Atari today?
Why would you want to install the worst text editor known to mankind on your... err...
:-P
Oh wait. You said loadlin. My bad.
Heh, I'm really not helping the argument for Windows here, am I?
Not in the slightest. On the upshot, VLC is sounding better than ever!
And thus it is proven that most Windows users don't actually need Windows. They need an XBox instead.
Wait...
Hold on...
Uh huh...
This just in: XBoxes suck too. Most Windows users need a Mac and a Nintendo Revolution. That is all.
There you have it folks. The definitive answer to why you [don't] need Windows.
Here, let me fix that for you:
VLC Media Player is a fantastic media player for Linux, Mac OS X, and Windows.
It's hardly a reason to run Windows.
Now that I have a chance to painlessly dip into the Windows world, what I'd like to ask you is, what Windows software amazes you?
:-P
Java. Because it means that I can move the hell off of Windows and use a Mac instead.
Whoops. Did I just say that out loud?
Sure it didn't always help play the game, but it helped to set the mood and give the universe a little bit of depth.
:)
Correction: It didn't help you play the game. I, personally, studied the specs so that I knew when to open fire, how much playing chicken my ship could take, and just what I could expect out of the engines during regular and afterburn acceleration. And yes, they printed real values. Or at the very least, my maximum effective weapons range seemed to be the number of clicks the blueprints said it was. As were the KPS values for speed.
I really missed the blueprints in WC2, because I had to use a lot more trial and error to get a feel for the ships. The manual had a few figures, but they were all glossed over rather than hard numbers.
One of the most publicized occurrences was with BMX XXX - Wal-Mart didn't want to sell it because of its nature, so they toned it down to fit within Wal-Mart standards.
:-/
The problem is, this effect appears to be entirely unintentional. Walmart has always tried to maintain a family friendly "Bible-belt" image. As a result, they have never in their history carried games that didn't meet their current criteria. As gaming moved away from Shareware and into Hollywood-style productions, they obviously started needing bigger outlets to sell their games. Now since Wal-mart is the biggest consumer shopping center at the moment, that means that producers are going to follow Wal-mart's rules to maintain profits.
If this was still the 80's, game producers would be complaining about K-Mart or Sears instead.
On the flip side of this, Walmart has done some good. The smaller packaging of games has made them easier to store, produced less waste, and has generally been good for consumers as a whole. Which is nice, because the GIGANTOR boxes was really getting out of hand for awhile there. Especially as game producers packed less and less in the box. Anyone remember how Wing Commander included Blueprints, a manual, offers, etc? Good luck finding that stuff in a modern game.
I am so glad that we have legions of Security Experts to protect us against every possible Rube Goldberg attack out there. Thanks to their tireless commitment to security, I can sleep safer at night by knowing that no one will take a blowtorch to my processor, install custom software, and then override the security safeguards that they could have gotten through by booting into safe mode. These people are truly a God-send. </sarcasm>