"at terminal velocity" is a laughable phrase in your statement. Terminal velocity is a concept that applies differently to different objects of different sizes. Not to mention that objects can (and do) actually enter the atmosphere at much higher speeds than their normal 'terminal velocity'.
Also, terminal velocity has nothing to do with anything -- the issue is simply the fact that at any speed, there is friction and enough friction for enough time causes enough heat to melt, deform or destroy the object.
The question becomes whether the object will cause enough of and/or resist this heat.
Depth of field doesn't bother me when its done properly (see Metal Gear Solid 4). In a lot of games its annoyingly imprecise though. In MGS4, it only applies when aiming through the sight of a weapon or using binoc's, not (noticeably) when just running around the environment.
More importantly, the lack of accountability the private companies who offer this service to the government have. While I distrust government, I distrust private enterprise even more.
There's a bunch of underpaid "security guards" with no accountability monitoring your every movement. Does anyone think this is a good idea?
I missed an episode of 24 last week and decided to download it, and it came in at 350MB in about 20 minutes. Sure, it could be faster, but if your download speeds suck, blame your ISP and not the technology.
A new PS3 will run you less than $500 and it has full media streaming for photos, music and video with full official DivX support in HD. If you lived in Europe, it can also record TV, but there's nothing stopping you from using MythTV or FreeVO to record TV on another machine.
And you'd be correct. Doom and Doom 2 were not fantastically interesting games. They were just a lot of fun blowing stuff up. It hadn't been done much before, so they were new and exciting.
What's interesting like you said is how they work, what the engines can do this time that they couldn't do before, etc.
Your problem is called FSAA and other smoothing techniques. Anti-aliasing is a curse when improperly used. Just look at a few screen shots of Fallout 3 on the PC, 360 and PS3. The PS3 has no FSAA enabled for technical reasons, and distant objects are much easier to see and identify as a result. Sure, there's visible aliasing in specific circumstances, but its not distracting and I'd much rather identify objects than have no jaggies.
As for darkness, buy a CRT or some other screen with true black levels. Plasma and low-priced LCDs can't do low light levels properly, its a pain and it makes these games look washed out and undetailed.
I have a 30" 1080i CRT that I game on and find the visibility of dark textures not to mention the brightness levels much much better than anything I've seen on affordable flat screen technologies to date.
Granted, the new Sony OLED TV looks just as good or better, but at a quarter of the pixel resolution.
You have seen Sony's Eye of Judgement webcam game, correct? Use a high resolution camera with a larger surface and you've got a visual feedback loop for the computer. Now make the surface drawn by rear projection and you've got the user information loop. Do it at 120fps with LCD shutter glasses and you've got a 3D role playing game table.
Dominating the console space is irrlevant to shareholder value. Look at how much money the Xbox program has LOST Microsoft since it began. Billions. The first Xbox NEVER made money, the second was in the red for two years before making money. And the money they're making now is no where near enough to justify the R&D spent getting to this point.
PS, the PS3 is almost selling the same as many units as the 360 at a higher price point. That means it has much higher consumer value.
And I've heard lots of people refer to "Newton's law of gravity" not just "Gravity"... or "Einsteinian..." when discussing differences in traditional and relativistic views of the universe.
Obviously you either can't read or are trolling -- Windows 7 was benchmarked against Ubuntu. Ubuntu is a Linux distribution, and because of how Free Software works, that means it comes with dozens of applications.
In contrast, because Microsoft is capable of making money up-selling you a copy of MS Office after you've bought or while you're buying your PC, they ship it separately and charge more for it. Microsoft couldn't sell Internet Explorer for real money, so they don't. They couldn't sell Outlook separately, so they bundled it with Office, and so on. These issues were true/before/ the anti-trust suits, so don't bother with that FUD.
At any rate, someone then said in the thread above my post that Windows comes with more software than Ubuntu, so I replied as I did. You did nothing to refute my reply, you just felt like rambling on about the reasons for why I'm right. Good for you.
So you have a console that runs Windows? That's fine. That doesn't justify the existence of Windows at all. That just justifies making a new version of the XBox every year to keep up with video card specs.
Photoshop works on Linux already, and there are more 3D design programs using OpenGL than DirectX, so while I recognize 3D Studio Max, it hardly falls in the camp of 'typical productivity software'.
The programs need to be redesigned implicitly, whether the underlying OS changes or not. Software 'understands' save files and static configuration files, and that would have to be re-written.
Anything by John Allen Paulos makes excellent side reading. His "A mathematician reads the newspaper" books are presented very simply for non-genius people as a way of presenting mathematics to ordinary people.
Teaching students to deeply understand the applicability of their math knowledge should be just as helpful as the raw data.
From another angle, that's a 'spoiler' I'd like the game reviewers to give me. For example:
"In Singstar, all songs are unlocked and playable from the start, and even if one doesn't sing, the song will always complete."
"In Brain Age, while the initial few games are fun, you won't get to play the more enticing games until you've... which takes about... days of playing."
Singing in tune is a lot harder as a performer on a regular basis than you make it out to be. Go ahead, score me a 100 on hard on Singstar and then tell me how easy it is to sing in tune.
I mostly agree with you, but your point is not entirely valid and you proved it in your own example: American Idol.
If marketing were the answer, there would be no need for a contest of any form, they'd simply pick a random idiot and market them into radio plays. This isn't in fact the case -- even the mediocre 'crap' on the radio is a lot better than the vast majority of the population could pull off in studio.
There are very very few musical geniuses and finding them is always a problem, and marketing the moderately talented ones to death is not so bad, when you consider they're not that bad (compared to your neighbour in the shower).
After all, how would you or I find out about the good talent, the truly good talent, before they're dead and gone for a hundred years if not by marketing of some form?
There was a very exciting interview on CBC Radio last year about various artists who do or don't use pitch control software and why they do or don't.
The expert being interviewed pointed out that of all the singers analyzed, Bob Dylan has nearly perfect pitch. You may not like the tone of his voice, but his pitch is spot-on.
Slashdot Mirror
"at terminal velocity" is a laughable phrase in your statement. Terminal velocity is a concept that applies differently to different objects of different sizes. Not to mention that objects can (and do) actually enter the atmosphere at much higher speeds than their normal 'terminal velocity'.
Also, terminal velocity has nothing to do with anything -- the issue is simply the fact that at any speed, there is friction and enough friction for enough time causes enough heat to melt, deform or destroy the object.
The question becomes whether the object will cause enough of and/or resist this heat.
Don't confuse the poor zealots with facts :-)
Depth of field doesn't bother me when its done properly (see Metal Gear Solid 4). In a lot of games its annoyingly imprecise though. In MGS4, it only applies when aiming through the sight of a weapon or using binoc's, not (noticeably) when just running around the environment.
More importantly, the lack of accountability the private companies who offer this service to the government have. While I distrust government, I distrust private enterprise even more.
There's a bunch of underpaid "security guards" with no accountability monitoring your every movement. Does anyone think this is a good idea?
I hope you bought a copy for each child to read along in :-)
j/k
I missed an episode of 24 last week and decided to download it, and it came in at 350MB in about 20 minutes. Sure, it could be faster, but if your download speeds suck, blame your ISP and not the technology.
A new PS3 will run you less than $500 and it has full media streaming for photos, music and video with full official DivX support in HD. If you lived in Europe, it can also record TV, but there's nothing stopping you from using MythTV or FreeVO to record TV on another machine.
You mean like the CBC here in Canada? :-)
If they're flickr links, then post them. Flickr can handle the bandwidth.
And you'd be correct. Doom and Doom 2 were not fantastically interesting games. They were just a lot of fun blowing stuff up. It hadn't been done much before, so they were new and exciting.
What's interesting like you said is how they work, what the engines can do this time that they couldn't do before, etc.
You want to hog-tie the demons?
Granted, it would be entertaining.
Your problem is called FSAA and other smoothing techniques. Anti-aliasing is a curse when improperly used. Just look at a few screen shots of Fallout 3 on the PC, 360 and PS3. The PS3 has no FSAA enabled for technical reasons, and distant objects are much easier to see and identify as a result. Sure, there's visible aliasing in specific circumstances, but its not distracting and I'd much rather identify objects than have no jaggies.
As for darkness, buy a CRT or some other screen with true black levels. Plasma and low-priced LCDs can't do low light levels properly, its a pain and it makes these games look washed out and undetailed.
I have a 30" 1080i CRT that I game on and find the visibility of dark textures not to mention the brightness levels much much better than anything I've seen on affordable flat screen technologies to date.
Granted, the new Sony OLED TV looks just as good or better, but at a quarter of the pixel resolution.
Most LCD screens are simply not made for gaming.
You have seen Sony's Eye of Judgement webcam game, correct? Use a high resolution camera with a larger surface and you've got a visual feedback loop for the computer. Now make the surface drawn by rear projection and you've got the user information loop. Do it at 120fps with LCD shutter glasses and you've got a 3D role playing game table.
Dominating the console space is irrlevant to shareholder value. Look at how much money the Xbox program has LOST Microsoft since it began. Billions. The first Xbox NEVER made money, the second was in the red for two years before making money. And the money they're making now is no where near enough to justify the R&D spent getting to this point.
PS, the PS3 is almost selling the same as many units as the 360 at a higher price point. That means it has much higher consumer value.
And I've heard lots of people refer to "Newton's law of gravity" not just "Gravity" ... or "Einsteinian ..." when discussing differences in traditional and relativistic views of the universe.
Bah, whatever.
Obviously you either can't read or are trolling -- Windows 7 was benchmarked against Ubuntu. Ubuntu is a Linux distribution, and because of how Free Software works, that means it comes with dozens of applications.
In contrast, because Microsoft is capable of making money up-selling you a copy of MS Office after you've bought or while you're buying your PC, they ship it separately and charge more for it. Microsoft couldn't sell Internet Explorer for real money, so they don't. They couldn't sell Outlook separately, so they bundled it with Office, and so on. These issues were true /before/ the anti-trust suits, so don't bother with that FUD.
At any rate, someone then said in the thread above my post that Windows comes with more software than Ubuntu, so I replied as I did. You did nothing to refute my reply, you just felt like rambling on about the reasons for why I'm right. Good for you.
So you have a console that runs Windows? That's fine. That doesn't justify the existence of Windows at all. That just justifies making a new version of the XBox every year to keep up with video card specs.
Photoshop works on Linux already, and there are more 3D design programs using OpenGL than DirectX, so while I recognize 3D Studio Max, it hardly falls in the camp of 'typical productivity software'.
The programs need to be redesigned implicitly, whether the underlying OS changes or not. Software 'understands' save files and static configuration files, and that would have to be re-written.
Bah, send it home with a copy of "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" and call it a comparative religion course :-)
PS I'm a Christian and was a theology student for two years, arguments aren't proofs. Teach your kids to think.
Anything by John Allen Paulos makes excellent side reading. His "A mathematician reads the newspaper" books are presented very simply for non-genius people as a way of presenting mathematics to ordinary people.
Teaching students to deeply understand the applicability of their math knowledge should be just as helpful as the raw data.
From another angle, that's a 'spoiler' I'd like the game reviewers to give me. For example:
"In Singstar, all songs are unlocked and playable from the start, and even if one doesn't sing, the song will always complete."
"In Brain Age, while the initial few games are fun, you won't get to play the more enticing games until you've ... which takes about ... days of playing."
Singing in tune is a lot harder as a performer on a regular basis than you make it out to be. Go ahead, score me a 100 on hard on Singstar and then tell me how easy it is to sing in tune.
I mostly agree with you, but your point is not entirely valid and you proved it in your own example: American Idol.
If marketing were the answer, there would be no need for a contest of any form, they'd simply pick a random idiot and market them into radio plays. This isn't in fact the case -- even the mediocre 'crap' on the radio is a lot better than the vast majority of the population could pull off in studio.
There are very very few musical geniuses and finding them is always a problem, and marketing the moderately talented ones to death is not so bad, when you consider they're not that bad (compared to your neighbour in the shower).
After all, how would you or I find out about the good talent, the truly good talent, before they're dead and gone for a hundred years if not by marketing of some form?
There was a very exciting interview on CBC Radio last year about various artists who do or don't use pitch control software and why they do or don't.
The expert being interviewed pointed out that of all the singers analyzed, Bob Dylan has nearly perfect pitch. You may not like the tone of his voice, but his pitch is spot-on.