I wonder if these three new films are actually the DVD-release of the first three episodes. From what I have heard they certainly look to be totally different films from the original release.
* Lots of innocent people die in any war. Probably more this time than in the last Gulf war.
* Weapons inspectors where making progress, why abort?
* The US/Coalition do not have UN support. What unsupported action will they take next time? And what kind of signals does this send to other countries?
* The US using their immense power to justify going against the majority of the world community.
* Blaming the french when they where representing the majority.
* Media reporting is censored both on US side and IRAQI side.
* Distasteful media reporting. Slogans, countdowns, "selling the war", etc.
* Western people sitting in their safe homes following the Hollywood type production of the war, cheering on the troops that are about to KILL PEOPLE.
* That the US actions will only spur more bitterness and terrorist action around the world.
* That North Korea thinks that they are next.
* That Saddam Hussein will use chemical weapons against US/Coalition troops or/and his own people.
Damn, this is really a big disappointment. I mean, Bioware basically had us believe that the Linux client would ship with the Win release. Now they have revised their plans continuously. I am starting to have second thoughts about my investment in NWN, which I bought because Bioware let us believe that we could play it under Linux a couple of months after the retail PC/Win release. Now I have a three useless NWN CDs that are only collecting dust.
A lot of what mr Carmack says sounds nice and may very well be true, but in my view Carmack masters technology in game design, not content. Technology alone does not make a good game (although it is almost true in Carmack's case). For good game content look a companies like Valve and Bioware, I bet they actually do a lot of planning in advance.
RAW sockets in WinXP do not shut down Internet by themselfs. But by Microsoft allowing access to them by normal users, it opens possibilities for someone to write a serious DOS virus or worm. Until someone does, there should be no problems. But just because WinXP has been around for a few months doesn't mean the flaw will have no impact. Only the future can tell.
Actually this terrorist attack was not very technological, but very primitive. Hijacking planes is not something new. The new thing is flying them into skyscrapers, but it it is not very sophisticated, though apparently very efficient.
Why try to get hold of cruise missiles or other high tech weapons with long distance attack capabilities that can easily be discovered and intercepted, when you can easily hijack a plane without to much suspicion and fly it into the most vulnerable place you can find.
For me this puts a missile defense in a very questionable light, since missile attacks doesn't seem to be a very big threat... Put the money on something else that prevents real terror acts, like good security intelligence.
Unfortunately, missile defence advocates will use the WTC attack to their advantage and try to justify the missile defence plans. I say this will only put the USA in the spotlight of more controversy and thus more possible terror attacks.
Apparently you don't know your history that well. It is commonly known and recogniced that the atomic bombs were dropped in a very late stage of the WWII. Many agree that Japan was about to surrender anyway. You can easily find statements by high generals and historians (mostly americans) that agree that dropping the nukes was entirely unnecessary, just by browsing the Internet.
The public has a short memory indeed. While MS no doubt uses Direct3D to compete with OpenGL, its not D3D's main reason for existance. D3D was created to keep Glide from becoming the de-facto Windows 3D API. MS had lost a lot to Apple when Quicktime became the major media format on Windows, and Bill wasn't having a competing propriatory API on his platform. OpenGL wasn't even an issue until Carmack decided to use it for GLQuake, and even then, it didn't become popular until NVIDIA introduced full-blown ICDs into the consumer market.
############
And where was Direct3D at this time? Was Direct3D even usable? Again, why re-invent the wheel with Direct3D when OpenGL was available?
...just look at the Quake-engine games and the upcoming Doom... OpenGL had this when Direct3D didn't even exist and was clearly the better API for a long time.
>>>
Keyword, "was."
#############
Ok, with this reasoning we can re-invent many APIs, and then when our new API after several years doesn't suck any longer compared to what was already available before, we can conclude that the effort was worth it because the older API "was" better...
What do we gain here?
It is robust, also cross-platform and not controlled by a gigantic "closed" company. So the choice should be a no-brainer, right?
>>>>>>>>
Not for Microsoft! Or have you changed the subject somewhere and I just missed it?
##############
No apperantly OpenGL wasn't the right choice for Microsoft even though developers tried to make them embrace it. And everyone who knows Microsoft knows why they didn't...
I believe the developers are to blame. Tim Sweeney once chose to replace the ageing proprietary Glide API in his Unreal engine. He decided (about the time of DirectX5) to go with Direct3D, citing better driver support. This is just such a bad argument... Direct3D drivers may have been better back then, but OpenGL support is today as good as Direct3D. OpenGL was back then already a mature, proven API. How would driver support be for OpenGL today if OpenGL was the only (or favored) API?? Just think about it....
>>>>>>>>>
I don't know how bad a decision it was for Sweeny. A lot of people will say that D3D is technically superior to OpenGL today, and 99% of UTs users are on Windows anyway, so I don't think he's lost much.
#############
I believe the conclusion was that it may have been a good choice for Sweeney, short term. But bad for the gaming community as a whole in the long run, due to fragmentation. But that goes for all developers that chose Direct3D at the time. Besides, Unreal's Direct3D performance hasn't exactly been stellar throughout the history. Had more developers gone with OpenGL, hardware manufacturers would have focused on OpenGL instead of Direct3D. I believe it was an important breakpoint for the success of Direct3D when Epic chose it.
>>>>>>>
Let's get this straight. Gamers run Windows. Consumer D3D drivers, in general, are better than consumer OpenGL drivers. D3D is also more powerful, for game development anyway. If developers want to help gamers, they should use the API that runs their game best on the user's hardware. Right now, and for the forseeable future, that API is Direct3D. Now whether or not it is good for the OS market in general is another issue entirely.
###############
Again, you are missing the point. What would OpenGL-drivers be today if we OpenGL was the API of choice? Is it the "was"-reasoning lurking again?
Yes, gamers mostly run Windows/D3D, but I believe that fact was the issue up for debate and questioning? Windows users could run OpenGL without sacrificing any gaming experience.
The OS market may be another issue, but the fact that Direct3D limits the choice of platform (and freedom of people), is highly related to this issue.
So, my question to game developers is: Why choose Direct3D? It's not as if OpenGL won't run on Windows...
>>>>>>>>
Its more compatible. Only a few vendors have really good OpenGL drivers, even today. Its more powerful, since it has more default features. It is easier to support, since there are far less problems caused by buggy OpenGL drivers, and the extension mechanism (which developers detest by the way) isn't present in D3D.
########
Define compatible? I believe being cross-platform and being used for other stuff than gaming is being compatible....
How many vendors are there today...? I bet most people use Nvidia hardware and they have great OpenGL-drivers. And I haven't heard that Direct3D has more features, taking OpenGL's modularity into account. Stick to the facts!
And read John Carmack's posting for his view on DirectX-releases if you believe OpenGL extensions are so bad...
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder if these three new films are actually the DVD-release of the first three episodes. From what I have heard they certainly look to be totally different films from the original release.
Are you seriously surprised about this...? It is not the first time CNN make serious errors.
This is what worries me:
* Lots of innocent people die in any war. Probably more this time than in the last Gulf war.
* Weapons inspectors where making progress, why abort?
* The US/Coalition do not have UN support. What unsupported action will they take next time? And what kind of signals does this send to other countries?
* The US using their immense power to justify going against the majority of the world community.
* Blaming the french when they where representing the majority.
* Media reporting is censored both on US side and IRAQI side.
* Distasteful media reporting. Slogans, countdowns, "selling the war", etc.
* Western people sitting in their safe homes following the Hollywood type production of the war, cheering on the troops that are about to KILL PEOPLE.
* That the US actions will only spur more bitterness and terrorist action around the world.
* That North Korea thinks that they are next.
* That Saddam Hussein will use chemical weapons against US/Coalition troops or/and his own people.
Damn, this is really a big disappointment. I mean, Bioware basically had us believe that the Linux client would ship with the Win release. Now they have revised their plans continuously. I am starting to have second thoughts about my investment in NWN, which I bought because Bioware let us believe that we could play it under Linux a couple of months after the retail PC/Win release. Now I have a three useless NWN CDs that are only collecting dust.
A lot of what mr Carmack says sounds nice and may very well be true, but in my view Carmack masters technology in game design, not content. Technology alone does not make a good game (although it is almost true in Carmack's case). For good game content look a companies like Valve and Bioware, I bet they actually do a lot of planning in advance.
RAW sockets in WinXP do not shut down Internet by themselfs. But by Microsoft allowing access to them by normal users, it opens possibilities for someone to write a serious DOS virus or worm. Until someone does, there should be no problems. But just because WinXP has been around for a few months doesn't mean the flaw will have no impact. Only the future can tell.
Actually this terrorist attack was not very technological, but very primitive. Hijacking planes is not something new. The new thing is flying them into skyscrapers, but it it is not very sophisticated, though apparently very efficient.
Why try to get hold of cruise missiles or other high tech weapons with long distance attack capabilities that can easily be discovered and intercepted, when you can easily hijack a plane without to much suspicion and fly it into the most vulnerable place you can find.
For me this puts a missile defense in a very questionable light, since missile attacks doesn't seem to be a very big threat... Put the money on something else that prevents real terror acts, like good security intelligence.
Unfortunately, missile defence advocates will use the WTC attack to their advantage and try to justify the missile defence plans. I say this will only put the USA in the spotlight of more controversy and thus more possible terror attacks.
Apparently you don't know your history that well. It is commonly known and recogniced that the atomic bombs were dropped in a very late stage of the WWII. Many agree that Japan was about to surrender anyway. You can easily find statements by high generals and historians (mostly americans) that agree that dropping the nukes was entirely unnecessary, just by browsing the Internet.
Maybe Bush can try to kill the terrorists with his latest toy: the missile defense system...
Also remember what Truman said after dropping the atomic bomb over Hiroshima:
"The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base..."
Hope the U.S. doesn't jump to conclusions and do something stupid again...
The public has a short memory indeed. While MS no doubt uses Direct3D to compete with OpenGL, its not D3D's main reason for existance. D3D was created to keep Glide from becoming the de-facto Windows 3D API. MS had lost a lot to Apple when Quicktime became the major media format on Windows, and Bill wasn't having a competing propriatory API on his platform. OpenGL wasn't even an issue until Carmack decided to use it for GLQuake, and even then, it didn't become popular until NVIDIA introduced full-blown ICDs into the consumer market.
############
And where was Direct3D at this time? Was Direct3D even usable? Again, why re-invent the wheel with Direct3D when OpenGL was available?
...just look at the Quake-engine games and the upcoming Doom... OpenGL had this when Direct3D didn't even exist and was clearly the better API for a long time.
>>>
Keyword, "was."
#############
Ok, with this reasoning we can re-invent many APIs, and then when our new API after several years doesn't suck any longer compared to what was already available before, we can conclude that the effort was worth it because the older API "was" better...
What do we gain here?
It is robust, also cross-platform and not controlled by a gigantic "closed" company. So the choice should be a no-brainer, right?
>>>>>>>>
Not for Microsoft! Or have you changed the subject somewhere and I just missed it?
##############
No apperantly OpenGL wasn't the right choice for Microsoft even though developers tried to make them embrace it. And everyone who knows Microsoft knows why they didn't...
I believe the developers are to blame. Tim Sweeney once chose to replace the ageing proprietary Glide API in his Unreal engine. He decided (about the time of DirectX5) to go with Direct3D, citing better driver support. This is just such a bad argument... Direct3D drivers may have been better back then, but OpenGL support is today as good as Direct3D. OpenGL was back then already a mature, proven API. How would driver support be for OpenGL today if OpenGL was the only (or favored) API?? Just think about it....
>>>>>>>>>
I don't know how bad a decision it was for Sweeny. A lot of people will say that D3D is technically superior to OpenGL today, and 99% of UTs users are on Windows anyway, so I don't think he's lost much.
#############
I believe the conclusion was that it may have been a good choice for Sweeney, short term. But bad for the gaming community as a whole in the long run, due to fragmentation. But that goes for all developers that chose Direct3D at the time. Besides, Unreal's Direct3D performance hasn't exactly been stellar throughout the history. Had more developers gone with OpenGL, hardware manufacturers would have focused on OpenGL instead of Direct3D. I believe it was an important breakpoint for the success of Direct3D when Epic chose it.
>>>>>>>
Let's get this straight. Gamers run Windows. Consumer D3D drivers, in general, are better than consumer OpenGL drivers. D3D is also more powerful, for game development anyway. If developers want to help gamers, they should use the API that runs their game best on the user's hardware. Right now, and for the forseeable future, that API is Direct3D. Now whether or not it is good for the OS market in general is another issue entirely.
###############
Again, you are missing the point. What would OpenGL-drivers be today if we OpenGL was the API of choice? Is it the "was"-reasoning lurking again?
Yes, gamers mostly run Windows/D3D, but I believe that fact was the issue up for debate and questioning? Windows users could run OpenGL without sacrificing any gaming experience.
The OS market may be another issue, but the fact that Direct3D limits the choice of platform (and freedom of people), is highly related to this issue.
So, my question to game developers is: Why choose Direct3D? It's not as if OpenGL won't run on Windows...
>>>>>>>>
Its more compatible. Only a few vendors have really good OpenGL drivers, even today. Its more powerful, since it has more default features. It is easier to support, since there are far less problems caused by buggy OpenGL drivers, and the extension mechanism (which developers detest by the way) isn't present in D3D.
########
Define compatible? I believe being cross-platform and being used for other stuff than gaming is being compatible....
How many vendors are there today...? I bet most people use Nvidia hardware and they have great OpenGL-drivers. And I haven't heard that Direct3D has more features, taking OpenGL's modularity into account. Stick to the facts!
And read John Carmack's posting for his view on DirectX-releases if you believe OpenGL extensions are so bad...
/Erik