afaik these countries (excluding russia) are all part of the same US plan.,
russia is not a world power anymore in that sense, focus is much more on china as an economic world power and controll in the middle east is key in aquiring leverage in that economy.,
anyway, the oil motives dont seem to be that important at the moment since scientists say we have about 10 years of (reasonably) cheap oil in the ground., also, alternative power sources are comming up big time.,
so this at least leaves some questions unanswered as to why this US government is sticking it's fingers in a hornets nest when they KNOW they'll have a hard time,.,
and all this under the pretext of w.m.d..,.
btw., i've got no evidence for nutting so dont take my word for anything..,
with the use of the vocorder principle (wich is very old indeed) you can get voice down to 60 BYTES PER SECOND or so.,
say, you need to encode 3 frequencies to get intelligible voice (most simple voice synhesizers dont use more than 3 tones to generate speech so 3 analisys bands seems ok)., and you use one or two bits for encoding noise.,
and if you assume the brain accepts aural information maybe 20 times a second or so.,.,
then you could encode the frequencies of the lowest 3 bands of the voice with just 3 bytes (intelligible voice has a very limited bandwidth so you can easily encode that frequency in just one byte)
just an idea., but 60 bytes per second, people!,.:)
ooh, and dont forget about magnetic tape as a storage medium.,., you can put A LOT A LOT of calls on an analogue tape, this is because of our brains capability to pick out information from very dirty sources (like noise and flutter and stuff) so they make the tapes spin realy slowly and can record about an hour of lo-quality audio on an inch of tape., (not sure exactly tho)
to add to his, an eye can move so that the placement of the cones and rods is different than a moment ago., your brain can interpolate this difference information and thus enhances resolution even further.,
i think that the guy that wrote the article has no idea of what he's talking about.,
one of the things he mentions is that it's cheaper to hire an orchestra than to use synthesizers.,
he promptly forgets that a lot of games include synthetic sounds/music. this kind of music obviously cannot be made with a real orchestra.,
yes, IF you want to emulate an orchestra then it's cheaper to get a real one., but most music i hear in games today is synth based., so i dont see his point.,
furthermore, there are lots of tools available today ( they are called SAMPLERS, not synthesizers ) that will alow you to create an instant orchestra., definitely cheaper than to rig up a real one.,
another thing is that by using a medium like DVD you can deliver incredibly complex music which would otherwise be impossible to generate in real time (especially while a game is struggeling for resources to execute simulation code).,
i'm not sure if the writer ever attempted to write a synthesizer but it munches cpu cycles away like the coockiemonster., well, you get the idea.,
he also forgets that the audience is expecting studio quality music., something which may not be true for him but sure is for most games consumers.,
i think the article is bogus and the guy should download a sid emulator or something., much more effective.,
games in general are getting more mass market., you cannot put too much 'new' stuff in there., that's why some of the companies opt for the orchestral sound., nothing to do with not using the potential of the hardware.,., it's all about cash., most people like orchestras.,
also, he propably doesnt understand that if one would like to generate a score in real time with the use of the hundreds of channels of audio on offer the results would sound like sh?t., mixing algorithms, effects quality, resampling quality, available cpu cycles,etc, etc, all affect the final sound., and unless your style is industrial/glitch music then you shouldnt try.,
furthermore, you've got no controll over the kind of system the music will be heared on and it's capabilityies.,
so the safest bet is to pre-produce everything and just play the final 2 or 6 channel audio., this way you get a consistent quality.,., something we all want..,
so there are, at least at this time, enough reasons to do stuff the way it's being done.,
i think that we will be heavily populating mars long before any terraforming attempts will be made,.
our problem on earth will be mainly overpopulation., so the cheapest solution to this will be to colonialize other planets., not nessesarily terraforming.,
once a sufficient economic force will have been built up on mars (with workers, medics,etc, you know, the stuff of societies) people will start thinking about actually terraforming the place.,
"And since you always have to measure with tools, there's a limit. "
to our measurements, not nessesarily to the universe.,
"Or are you planning on using your ESP to "sense" where the particles are going?":)
"According to our best, most successful theories, yes, it is exactly like that. "
that's what newton said about his gravity formulations.,:)
"That is the nature of scientific theory. It organizes, models, and predicts measurements. "
yes, i agree, but what heisenberg had also done is explicitly exclude anything not measured. he went even further and denied EXISTANCE to everything not measured., extrapolating from that i can safely say that you and all other/. readers do not in fact exist since i cannot measure either your location or spin:) see where i'm getting at?
i understand that within the boundries of quantum mechanics we can produce good predictions., but it doesnt mean that there is nothing beyond those boundries.,., it's just that heisenberg and the copenhagen interpretation decided that it would be better not to think of anything beyond that because we cannot measure it,. i'm with einstein about his one.,., even heisenberg didnt exclude the possibility that there is more.,. he just excluded it because current measurement techniques do not alow us to make better assesments that we currently do., but those are just assumptions., and i agree with them that the copenhagen interpretation is at least incomplete, especially because i would deny everyone their existance., i'm a social person:)
"If there's a property of reality that does not cause observable effects, as far as science is concerned it doesn't exist."
that what we observe can easily be the compound effect of properties that are much finer in structure than we are able to detect.,., just look at the scale between 'normal' structures in this universe and atoms.,., the universe tends to jump quite far in terms of scale before the next workable structures emerge., in other words there seems to be no continuity in the scale of structure., at least not in our circumstances., so one could easily argue that what heisenberg proposes is in fact only a barrier that we havent broken.,
actually, i'm a bit tired now so i'm not clear enough to reason well,:)
to finish up a bit., i have read about entanglement and i'd go for the hidden parameters side of the story., but that's just a gut feeling., not much reasoning there except that i think heisenberg is not describing reality., i've heared that the reprouced the instantanious bit., but wouldnt you agree that if something can change position faster than light speed that there is something more that we don't know?.
and i still can't cope with the implications of the copenhagen interpretation and i belive in solid cats.,;)
i will take a look at your recomended reads and just hope it doesnt throw too many formula's at me., altho i doubt that because heisenbergs relations is mostly philosophical imho.., (that's why i'm able to understand it at least partially:)
as you said it yourself : "our BEST evidence to date is that the universe is random"
i dont agree, our limit of measurement will always be a limit of our tools, whatever they may be., it's not the universes fault that we try to measure it with bits that are highly reactive to the bits that we try to measure.,!
what heisenberg described was just that with conventional tools we cannot cross this boundry and stuff will 'seem' random. that's why we need statistics to describe at least a part of what's happening., but everyone seems to forget that this statistics represents many many measurements an not just one. it is not the property of what we measure, it's the boundries of the information we CAN extract from such experiments. it's not as if one electron spreads itself out around a nucleus in a statistical fashon., it also doesnt take away the possibility that there is some underlying principle that makes individual subatomic particles behave in a particular way.., ie not behaving random
to put it short, just becaue we are incapable of seing it doesnt mean that there is nothing there.,!
heisenberg proposed a principle to describe our measurements and not the property of what's behind the thing we are trying to measure., (just putting it in a different way)
seing the history of man kind we have overcome multiple limits of measurement., i dont see why this is not another one of those limits/.
if you think i'm hopelessly wrong here then please direct me to an experiment which proves that this universe is random at it's heart.,
but did it happen as often as pc games?. there are always exceptions but we are talking general here., i've made games time on both consoles and pc in more or less same proportions., i've had about 4 crashes on consoles but countless crashes on pc., i think most ppl playing both consoles and pc games can say the same thing.,
it's not only the upgrade story, it's also the updating of the drivers, the updating of games, the tweaking of the system, the occasional game that doesnt work out of the box, the different experiance grade you get on different hardware.,., and what about the fact that you need to learn how to make a good games pc? you need to actually waste money on the fact that you don't know how to put a good games pc together,.,
it's all limiting the entertainment factor., the point is that ibm NEVER intended for the pc to be a games machine., it had the worst graphics pipeline from the start., even now a graphics card needs ridicoulous muscles to achive comparable quality to console games., a xbox can reproduce better games than a pc with the same chips., without the need to update the game or drivers., i dare you to try running splinter cell on a pc with 64mb and a gforce fx;)
this is IMO the reason why pc games are more simulation like., because a current pc will always outperform any console in brute force calculations., it's the thing pc's ARE good at., it's handling better physics and larger games worlds.,., so those became the biggest selling point for pc games.,
also, pc games force the gamer to be much more involved in the game because otherwise noone would care going through all the trouble of getting a game running., (just speaking comperatively, noone has trouble all the time but there are heaps more problems with pc games compared to console games., there are no technical forums for console games, i wonder why:) this has manifested itself in games with a rather harsh reward system., you generaly do not get things for free in pc games., actually quite a lot of games make you work ridiculously hard to achive something,.., very analogous to the process of maintaining a games pc., this is in contrast with a lot of console games that offer almost instant gratification but often lack the kind of depth that pc games offer.,
consoles are better at presenting a consistent games experience so they lend themselfes for hi level graphical content., something like sould calibour running on a pc at a steady framerate. not trying to bash pc's but it's virtually impossible to make such a game on pc due to the fact that the developers cannot be certain of the hardware the game will run on., stable framerates, same resolution to design for, no page tearing (unless you count the pc conversions for the xbox)., more experienced developers/designers.., standardisation in general., these are the strong points of consoles.
this has led to a difference in available games.,
in the end i think that both consoles and pc's will live happily next to each other for quite some time because they offer different kinds of experiences., there will be customers for both., but pc gaming takes much more dedication from a gamer and a lot more patience.,.,there is no sense in denying that,.,
personaly i play on both pc and consoles., trying to get the best from both.,:)
"Consider Heisenberg's uncertainty principle: the more precisely the position is known, the less precisely the momentum can be known"
this only exists because we have limited ability of measuring., any measurement on that level will influence the thing you are measuring., so we invented the theory of quantum mechanics to describe this phenomenon., but in fact we don't know for sure what's beyond this because we have no instruments to measure it., it's our own inability to not interact with a sample that shapes quantum mechanics! never forget that.,
this whole has led to many many proposterous theories including the collapsing states theorie and multiverse theory.,
heisenberg talks about propabilities but propability is inherently an abstraction of large quantities of things., there is always a system underneath propabilities wether we are able to see it or not.,
you also need to remember that all science is an APPROXIMATION of truth., our perception of truth will ALWAYS be limited by the quality of our measurements.,
since our measurements are imperfect so will our understanding of the truth be imperfect.,
i'm not saying that quantum mechanics does not work, just that it cannot describe the whole truth., in fact quantum mechanics 'works' because it limits itself to what we ARE capable of measuring., but there is no reason whatsoever to assume that what me measure is complete.,
the fact is that we are quite uncapable of describing every aspect of the universe we live in., live with that.,:)
the point is, i think, that NO console gamers have these kinds of problems., no need to update hardware, the game is made for YOUR system and will run as a charm.,.
hmm.,., i would disagree with some of your points., you say that a lack of standards is a console disatvantage., but the truth is that every ps2 is completely identical to every other ps2!.., so you can't be more standard., same goes for every other console., in fact lack of standards in the hardware departement is the biggest disadvantage of the PC!., if you're choosing to develop for the , say, ps2 then you need to comply to only one type of hardware., not so in the pc world., every pc has it's own specs and you need to keep that in mind when you program a game., the result is that it takes much more time to make a game that gives most users a *reasonable* experience., you won't be able to fully use the full hardware capabilities of the best pc's simply because you would have to rewrite large portions of your game and the game experience would be radically different from users with a less capable pc., XP doesnt even ALOW you to use the hardware to your liking (for obvious reasons) so you can only use the DRIVERS capabilities, not the hardware capabilities. this is all because pc are NOT standard and consoles are.,
with consoles, once you have a dev environment set up for it you're ready to go for the next 5 years or so., try telling that to the pc gaming industry that churns out gfx engine after engine after engine., with pc's there are gfx cards comming out every half years so you need to adapt your developement pipeline about 10 times 5 years., so there goes your ease of developement argument
i agree with you that initial developement startup on consoles is steeper as you're propably going to set it up from scratch jsut to cater this one type of hardware but you don't have to worry about it for years.,
another thing you say is that pc has greater compatibility., which i find a bit strange because consoles have no compatibility issues whatsoever., just put the game in the box and play.,, no driver issues, no patching issues.,
so in my humble opinion;) pc's have more disadvantages than setup and startup problems., for instance the much bigger copy scene.,
when the ps2 came out it's graphcs engine was miles ahead of anything pc., it featured pixel and vertex shaders and had very good post rendering effects., it is capable of sustained framerates (something pc's are struggeling with even today) don't forget that the ps2 is almost 4 years old!. in 2000 pc's had to do with Geforce 2.. and it wasnt untill 2002 that pc cards came more or less to standards with ps2 capabilities.,
so i think it's the other way around., console hardware is actually showing what pc's will be capable of in the comming years..,
but of course nothing is so simple., pc's work with higher resolutions so the hardware needs to be able to push quite some more to get the same kinds of effects as on consoles., consoles are streamlined for showing graphics so it has an immediate andvantage on this., but in general i can safely say that any graphical effect you see in any pc game has already been done on a consol.,
i own the original metal gear:) (it's for msx2 in fact, not msx)
it feaured way better graphics than the nes version (16 colours out of a pallette of 512);)
anyway, Konami was realy active on the MSX systems, as were most japanese game developers at that time. as mentioned we had Castlevania but also some original RPG material like SD Snatcher., And of course we had the one and only Solid Snake (Metal Gear 2):) for a list of konami's history on msx see: http://www.msxnet.org/konami/konami.txt
"When the 8.9TB holo-video discs come out, I'll be glad to be able to download the 6.2TB rip in a reasonable period of time"
have you ever SEEN the kind of compression artefacts you get on the 6.2TB holo-rips??., I mean, it's so lossy that most of what you see are little cubes floating around.,
Slashdot Mirror
afaik these countries (excluding russia) are all part of the same US plan.,
.,
,.,
.,.
russia is not a world power anymore in that sense,
focus is much more on china as an economic world power and controll in the middle east is key in aquiring leverage in that economy.,
anyway, the oil motives dont seem to be that important at the moment since scientists say we have about 10 years of (reasonably) cheap oil in the ground
also, alternative power sources are comming up big time.,
so this at least leaves some questions unanswered as to why this US government is sticking it's fingers in a hornets nest when they KNOW they'll have a hard time
and all this under the pretext of w.m.d.
btw., i've got no evidence for nutting so dont take my word for anything..,
greets.,
aka
... why 'The Grand Chessboard' is not on the list since it clearly explains the US war plans for the comming time.,.,
greets.,
aka.,
with the use of the vocorder principle (wich is very old indeed) you can get voice down to 60 BYTES PER SECOND or so.,
.,
:)
say, you need to encode 3 frequencies to get intelligible voice (most simple voice synhesizers dont use more than 3 tones to generate speech so 3 analisys bands seems ok)
and you use one or two bits for encoding noise.,
and if you assume the brain accepts aural information maybe 20 times a second or so.,.,
then you could encode the frequencies of the lowest 3 bands of the voice with just 3 bytes (intelligible voice has a very limited bandwidth so you can easily encode that frequency in just one byte)
just an idea.,
but 60 bytes per second, people!,.
ooh, and dont forget about magnetic tape as a storage medium.,., you can put A LOT A LOT of calls on an analogue tape,
this is because of our brains capability to pick out information from very dirty sources (like noise and flutter and stuff)
so they make the tapes spin realy slowly and can record about an hour of lo-quality audio on an inch of tape., (not sure exactly tho)
greets.,
aka.,
to add to his, an eye can move so that the placement of the cones and rods is different than a moment ago.,
your brain can interpolate this difference information and thus enhances resolution even further.,
the problem is not in the technology,'
it's in the time you're willing to spent to make it look real.,
and this directly translates to how much money you want to spend on the project.,
just my 2 cents.,
aka.,
i think that the guy that wrote the article has no idea of what he's talking about.,
.,
., something which may not be true for him but sure is for most games consumers.,
., much more effective.,
.,
.,
.,.,
:)
one of the things he mentions is that it's cheaper to hire an orchestra than to use synthesizers.,
he promptly forgets that a lot of games include synthetic sounds/music. this kind of music obviously cannot be made with a real orchestra.,
yes, IF you want to emulate an orchestra then it's cheaper to get a real one.,
but most music i hear in games today is synth based
so i dont see his point.,
furthermore, there are lots of tools available today ( they are called SAMPLERS, not synthesizers ) that will alow you to create an instant orchestra., definitely cheaper than to rig up a real one.,
another thing is that by using a medium like DVD you can deliver incredibly complex music which would otherwise be impossible to generate in real time (especially while a game is struggeling for resources to execute simulation code).,
i'm not sure if the writer ever attempted to write a synthesizer but it munches cpu cycles away like the coockiemonster., well, you get the idea.,
he also forgets that the audience is expecting studio quality music
i think the article is bogus and the guy should download a sid emulator or something
games in general are getting more mass market.,
you cannot put too much 'new' stuff in there., that's why some of the companies opt for the orchestral sound., nothing to do with not using the potential of the hardware.,., it's all about cash., most people like orchestras.,
also, he propably doesnt understand that if one would like to generate a score in real time with the use of the hundreds of channels of audio on offer the results would sound like sh?t
mixing algorithms, effects quality, resampling quality, available cpu cycles,etc, etc, all affect the final sound., and unless your style is industrial/glitch music then you shouldnt try.,
furthermore, you've got no controll over the kind of system the music will be heared on and it's capabilityies
so the safest bet is to pre-produce everything and just play the final 2 or 6 channel audio.,
this way you get a consistent quality
something we all want..,
so there are, at least at this time, enough reasons to do stuff the way it's being done.,
enuf for now.,
greets.,
aka.,
" The first thing that they teach students in a graphic *arts* class is to never use primary colors together."
hehe.,., go tell Mondriaan.,.,
it's just too typical for the russians to deliver an april-1 joke one day late.,.,,
but don't be disapointed if you find a 5-year old japanese girl on your doorsteps!
---
Sigs are for nerds...
i think that we will be heavily populating mars long before any terraforming attempts will be made,.
our problem on earth will be mainly overpopulation.,
so the cheapest solution to this will be to colonialize other planets., not nessesarily terraforming.,
once a sufficient economic force will have been built up on mars (with workers, medics,etc, you know, the stuff of societies) people will start thinking about actually terraforming the place.,
no sooner imho.,
and dont forget the rising popularity of dvd's.,
that's gotta hurt cd sales.,.,
"And since you always have to measure with tools, there's a limit. "
:)
:)
/. readers do not in fact exist since i cannot measure either your location or spin :)
.,. he just excluded it because current measurement techniques do not alow us to make better assesments that we currently do., :)
.,
:)
;)
:)
to our measurements, not nessesarily to the universe.,
"Or are you planning on using your ESP to "sense" where the particles are going?"
"According to our best, most successful theories, yes, it is exactly like that. "
that's what newton said about his gravity formulations.,
"That is the nature of scientific theory. It organizes, models, and predicts measurements. "
yes, i agree, but what heisenberg had also done is explicitly exclude anything not measured.
he went even further and denied EXISTANCE to everything not measured.,
extrapolating from that i can safely say that you and all other
see where i'm getting at?
i understand that within the boundries of quantum mechanics we can produce good predictions., but it doesnt mean that there is nothing beyond those boundries.,., it's just that heisenberg and the copenhagen interpretation decided that it would be better not to think of anything beyond that because we cannot measure it,.
i'm with einstein about his one.,., even heisenberg didnt exclude the possibility that there is more
but those are just assumptions.,
and i agree with them that the copenhagen interpretation is at least incomplete, especially because i would deny everyone their existance.,
i'm a social person
"If there's a property of reality that does not cause observable effects, as far as science is concerned it doesn't exist."
that what we observe can easily be the compound effect of properties that are much finer in structure than we are able to detect.,.,
just look at the scale between 'normal' structures in this universe and atoms.,., the universe tends to jump quite far in terms of scale before the next workable structures emerge., in other words there seems to be no continuity in the scale of structure., at least not in our circumstances.,
so one could easily argue that what heisenberg proposes is in fact only a barrier that we havent broken
actually, i'm a bit tired now so i'm not clear enough to reason well,
to finish up a bit., i have read about entanglement and i'd go for the hidden parameters side of the story., but that's just a gut feeling., not much reasoning there except that i think heisenberg is not describing reality.,
i've heared that the reprouced the instantanious bit., but wouldnt you agree that if something can change position faster than light speed that there is something more that we don't know?.
and i still can't cope with the implications of the copenhagen interpretation and i belive in solid cats.,
i will take a look at your recomended reads and just hope it doesnt throw too many formula's at me., altho i doubt that because heisenbergs relations is mostly philosophical imho.., (that's why i'm able to understand it at least partially
as you said it yourself : "our BEST evidence to date is that the universe is random"
i dont agree, our limit of measurement will always be a limit of our tools, whatever they may be.,
it's not the universes fault that we try to measure it with bits that are highly reactive to the bits that we try to measure.,!
what heisenberg described was just that with conventional tools we cannot cross this boundry and stuff will 'seem' random.
that's why we need statistics to describe at least a part of what's happening., but everyone seems to forget that this statistics represents many many measurements an not just one. it is not the property of what we measure, it's the boundries of the information we CAN extract from such experiments.
it's not as if one electron spreads itself out around a nucleus in a statistical fashon.,
it also doesnt take away the possibility that there is some underlying principle that makes individual subatomic particles behave in a particular way.., ie not behaving random
to put it short, just becaue we are incapable of seing it doesnt mean that there is nothing there.,!
heisenberg proposed a principle to describe our measurements and not the property of what's behind the thing we are trying to measure.,
(just putting it in a different way)
seing the history of man kind we have overcome multiple limits of measurement., i dont see why this is not another one of those limits/.
if you think i'm hopelessly wrong here then please direct me to an experiment which proves that this universe is random at it's heart.,
but did it happen as often as pc games?.
there are always exceptions but we are talking general here.,
i've made games time on both consoles and pc in more or less same proportions.,
i've had about 4 crashes on consoles but countless crashes on pc., i think most ppl playing both consoles and pc games can say the same thing.,
it's not only the upgrade story, it's also the updating of the drivers, the updating of games, the tweaking of the system, the occasional game that doesnt work out of the box, the different experiance grade you get on different hardware.,.,
;)
:) ,.., very analogous to the process of maintaining a games pc., .,
/designers.., standardisation in general., these are the strong points of consoles.
:)
and what about the fact that you need to learn how to make a good games pc? you need to actually waste money on the fact that you don't know how to put a good games pc together,.,
it's all limiting the entertainment factor.,
the point is that ibm NEVER intended for the pc to be a games machine., it had the worst graphics pipeline from the start., even now a graphics card needs ridicoulous muscles to achive comparable quality to console games.,
a xbox can reproduce better games than a pc with the same chips., without the need to update the game or drivers.,
i dare you to try running splinter cell on a pc with 64mb and a gforce fx
this is IMO the reason why pc games are more simulation like., because a current pc will always outperform any console in brute force calculations., it's the thing pc's ARE good at.,
it's handling better physics and larger games worlds.,., so those became the biggest selling point for pc games.,
also, pc games force the gamer to be much more involved in the game because otherwise noone would care going through all the trouble of getting a game running., (just speaking comperatively, noone has trouble all the time but there are heaps more problems with pc games compared to console games., there are no technical forums for console games, i wonder why
this has manifested itself in games with a rather harsh reward system., you generaly do not get things for free in pc games., actually quite a lot of games make you work ridiculously hard to achive something
this is in contrast with a lot of console games that offer almost instant gratification but often lack the kind of depth that pc games offer
consoles are better at presenting a consistent games experience so they lend themselfes for hi level graphical content., something like sould calibour running on a pc at a steady framerate.
not trying to bash pc's but it's virtually impossible to make such a game on pc due to the fact that the developers cannot be certain of the hardware the game will run on.,
stable framerates, same resolution to design for, no page tearing (unless you count the pc conversions for the xbox)., more experienced developers
this has led to a difference in available games.,
in the end i think that both consoles and pc's will live happily next to each other for quite some time because they offer different kinds of experiences., there will be customers for both.,
but pc gaming takes much more dedication from a gamer and a lot more patience.,.,there is no sense in denying that,.,
personaly i play on both pc and consoles., trying to get the best from both.,
grts,
aka.,
"Consider Heisenberg's uncertainty principle: the more precisely the position is known, the less precisely the momentum can be known"
:)
this only exists because we have limited ability of measuring.,
any measurement on that level will influence the thing you are measuring.,
so we invented the theory of quantum mechanics to describe this phenomenon.,
but in fact we don't know for sure what's beyond this because we have no instruments to measure it.,
it's our own inability to not interact with a sample that shapes quantum mechanics! never forget that.,
this whole has led to many many proposterous theories including the collapsing states theorie and multiverse theory.,
heisenberg talks about propabilities but propability is inherently an abstraction of large quantities of things.,
there is always a system underneath propabilities wether we are able to see it or not.,
you also need to remember that all science is an APPROXIMATION of truth., our perception of truth will ALWAYS be limited by the quality of our measurements.,
since our measurements are imperfect so will our understanding of the truth be imperfect.,
i'm not saying that quantum mechanics does not work, just that it cannot describe the whole truth., in fact quantum mechanics 'works' because it limits itself to what we ARE capable of measuring., but there is no reason whatsoever to assume that what me measure is complete.,
the fact is that we are quite uncapable of describing every aspect of the universe we live in.,
live with that.,
the point is, i think, that NO console gamers have these kinds of problems.,
no need to update hardware, the game is made for YOUR system and will run as a charm.,.
hmm .,.,
;) pc's have more disadvantages than setup and startup problems.,
i would disagree with some of your points.,
you say that a lack of standards is a console disatvantage.,
but the truth is that every ps2 is completely identical to every other ps2!.., so you can't be more standard., same goes for every other console.,
in fact lack of standards in the hardware departement is the biggest disadvantage of the PC!.,
if you're choosing to develop for the , say, ps2 then you need to comply to only one type of hardware.,
not so in the pc world.,
every pc has it's own specs and you need to keep that in mind when you program a game., the result is that it takes much more time to make a game that gives most users a *reasonable* experience.,
you won't be able to fully use the full hardware capabilities of the best pc's simply because you would have to rewrite large portions of your game and the game experience would be radically different from users with a less capable pc., XP doesnt even ALOW you to use the hardware to your liking (for obvious reasons) so you can only use the DRIVERS capabilities, not the hardware capabilities. this is all because pc are NOT standard and consoles are.,
with consoles, once you have a dev environment set up for it you're ready to go for the next 5 years or so.,
try telling that to the pc gaming industry that churns out gfx engine after engine after engine.,
with pc's there are gfx cards comming out every half years so you need to adapt your developement pipeline about 10 times 5 years.,
so there goes your ease of developement argument
i agree with you that initial developement startup on consoles is steeper as you're propably going to set it up from scratch jsut to cater this one type of hardware but you don't have to worry about it for years.,
another thing you say is that pc has greater compatibility., which i find a bit strange because consoles have no compatibility issues whatsoever., just put the game in the box and play.,, no driver issues, no patching issues.,
so in my humble opinion
for instance the much bigger copy scene.,
when the ps2 came out it's graphcs engine was miles ahead of anything pc., it featured pixel and vertex shaders and had very good post rendering effects., ..
.,
it is capable of sustained framerates (something pc's are struggeling with even today)
don't forget that the ps2 is almost 4 years old!.
in 2000 pc's had to do with Geforce 2
and it wasnt untill 2002 that pc cards came more or less to standards with ps2 capabilities.,
so i think it's the other way around., console hardware is actually showing what pc's will be capable of in the comming years.
but of course nothing is so simple.,
pc's work with higher resolutions so the hardware needs to be able to push quite some more to get the same kinds of effects as on consoles.,
consoles are streamlined for showing graphics so it has an immediate andvantage on this.,
but in general i can safely say that any graphical effect you see in any pc game has already been done on a consol.,
the cell technology is an IBM technology and it's propably not going to be implemented in the ps3.,.,
i own the original metal gear :) (it's for msx2 in fact, not msx)
;)
:)
it feaured way better graphics than the nes version (16 colours out of a pallette of 512)
anyway, Konami was realy active on the MSX systems, as were most japanese game developers at that time.
as mentioned we had Castlevania but also some original RPG material like SD Snatcher.,
And of course we had the one and only Solid Snake (Metal Gear 2)
for a list of konami's history on msx see:
http://www.msxnet.org/konami/konami.txt
now i also know why bush never signed the kyoto agreement.,.,
that should prolly be about 3.6 miliseconds, not 32.,., .,
right shift by one decimal and you should be fine.,
"When the 8.9TB holo-video discs come out, I'll be glad to be able to download the 6.2TB rip in a reasonable period of time"
.,
have you ever SEEN the kind of compression artefacts you get on the 6.2TB holo-rips??.,
I mean, it's so lossy that most of what you see are little cubes floating around
like they say, there is a suck., uuhm., reader born every second.,