It's easy, you just hold down the lock button, and then press the other buttons to cycle between targets. I'm not sure exactly where those buttons are on a real gun, but it shouldn't take long to find them.
Are we still going to be using 8bit sRGB or low dynamic range YUV, and 8/10bit DACS or 6/8bit LCDs? At some point isn't that going to become a better avenue than resolution to achieve more realistic images?
This is a copy of a post I made on evil avatar. I figure people here might actually care.:)
I found it a little bit disappointing so far (I know it's a beta).
The biggest problem is that there is no content pipeline. Apparently this was due to be included, but got delayed until the next version. This would be less of a problem if they still had support for D3DX meshes, but they've removed all that stuff without replacing it. Since the content tools are coming soon (hopefully) I'm really not inclined to build my own temporary pipeline, and I seriously doubt people who are new to game programming want to mess about making pipeline tools when the whole point of this thing is to let them focus on making games.
You should be able to fire up the spacewar example and easily replace the ships with some.x files you've created and exported with an exporter provided with XNA (or using.fbx, which they plan to support). As it stands, the models are all in an undocumented bespoke format, for which there are no tools, so you'd have to follow the loading code and write your own converter, or write a bunch of code to support another format.
The documentation references DxTex and XACT, tools you need for all but simple textures, and for any kind of audio respectively, but they aren't included (as far as I can tell), so to get them, you need to get the full DirectX SDK as well. I can see DxTex being replaced by the content pipeline, but why isn't XACT included? Perhaps I'm missing the point, but I saw this thing as being an alternative to the full SDK, not complementary to it.
They call it 'XNA Game Studio', so I was expecting some IDE integration, with GPU debugging, or PIX integration, or anything DirectX related. Unfortunately it just seems to have added some new project wizards, and that's it.
The framework is pretty much the same as previous versions of Managed DirectX, with a whole lot of stuff ripped out, some new helper classes, and the rest cleaned up nicely.
I'm still excited about the XNA Framework and XNA GSE, and I can't fault the direction they are taking with this stuff. My main problem is that there's barely anything here that you can't do just as well with the old version of managed DirectX and the same copy of VC#, and with that you can at least use the.x stuff to get some content in your game. Anyway, I look forward to checking out the next release, especially the content pipeline, which sounds very cool from what I've read about it.
Shouldn't PS3 be the shallow, sexy one? I appreciate that they are making a point about the size of the console itself, but it would be much more insightful (and a much better analogy) to look at the direction the content is taking on each platform, or even the intended audience. Anyway, if it's a choice between living with fatty and brain-dead bimbo, I'm just going to take the 360 right now (please don't be a dude, please don't be a dude).
It may be small, but I don't see how you can call something that shape sleek; the PS3 better fits every definition of the word. The Wii just looks like a DVD-ROM taken out of a PC and painted black. Personally I don't give a fuck, and I'm happy to have one anyway, I just don't think it's an interesting or attractive design (the controller is much better, aside from the nunchaku).
To be fair (since you are nitpicking), he said 'GPU shader processors', which to me doesn't specify the memory subsystem. Also, if infinite memory is required, how can the instruction set be considered Turing complete on its own if it's incapable of addressing infinite memory?
It might be more keys (I certainly don't find it akward), but at least it's consistent. Having shift reverse all tab iterations (just tab for controls, alt for applications, ctrl for tabs/mdi) makes a lot of sense, partially because of how it works with case in text.
I haven't really looked into it, but what if instead of checking a key, they just put the software on a ROM? They could even put a GPL OS on a ROM and then have a signed non-GPL userland image on flash. Sure it's probably not practical, but would it work? It would take a hardware mod to bypass, but that's all most DRM systems would take anyway. Does that fail the GPL3 test, and if so, does that mean all devices using GPL have to be field updatable?
They can't stop you legally from doing anything you want with the device (or let's assume that for now), but there's no reason for you to expect that it is capable of anything other than what the manufacturer intended. They are perfectly free to cripple their product for whatever reason they like, so long as it is sold as such.
You could still have dedicated GPU memory onboard, the only difference it makes is that it gives you the ability to build an architecture that isn't PCI, AGP, PCI-X, etc. Most game consoles do something similar. The Xbox GPU was competitive when it came out, without even having any dedicated memory, and while sharing a bus with the CPU.
It's about time made a serious effort, and this is a nice little gesture that isn't going to hurt them. I think it would be great if GPUs were, if not fully open, documented at the hardware level to the same degree that Intel CPUs are. ATI and NVIDIA give you nothing on the actual hardware, and only expose functionality through DirectX, OpenGL, and a few OpenGL extensions if you are lucky.
I've also heard in various places that Intel could be the first to release DX10 capable hardware. "programmable vertex, geometry, and fragment shaders" sounds like DX10 to me.
AFAIK it works by treating the RGB elements of an LCD display as having independent positions. It only works if your LCD matches the layout it expects.
With a subscription model they might allow portions of the game to be freely distributed, but in order to make money they still need to enforce copyright on something (server code, server based content). If they were to freely release the server, they would have to compete with service providers who didn't have to make the investment in development.
Actually, I specifically didn't mention Fable because I don't think it suffers from the same problem at all. I thought it was quite a good game, with a strong narrative and decent gameplay. It's an example of how to take an impossible concept and turn it into something 'fun', instead of 'interesting'.
I get your point, but I think you can come up with a better example.
Slashdot Mirror
It's easy, you just hold down the lock button, and then press the other buttons to cycle between targets. I'm not sure exactly where those buttons are on a real gun, but it shouldn't take long to find them.
Are we still going to be using 8bit sRGB or low dynamic range YUV, and 8/10bit DACS or 6/8bit LCDs? At some point isn't that going to become a better avenue than resolution to achieve more realistic images?
Madden and Mario Strikers (or whatever it's called) off the top of my head. Also Metroid (or any first person game) if it has any sort of multiplayer.
To give Microsoft 95% of the market.
That's another hundred million or so mips based machines out there.
This is a copy of a post I made on evil avatar. I figure people here might actually care. :)
.x files you've created and exported with an exporter provided with XNA (or using .fbx, which they plan to support). As it stands, the models are all in an undocumented bespoke format, for which there are no tools, so you'd have to follow the loading code and write your own converter, or write a bunch of code to support another format.
.x stuff to get some content in your game. Anyway, I look forward to checking out the next release, especially the content pipeline, which sounds very cool from what I've read about it.
I found it a little bit disappointing so far (I know it's a beta).
The biggest problem is that there is no content pipeline. Apparently this was due to be included, but got delayed until the next version. This would be less of a problem if they still had support for D3DX meshes, but they've removed all that stuff without replacing it. Since the content tools are coming soon (hopefully) I'm really not inclined to build my own temporary pipeline, and I seriously doubt people who are new to game programming want to mess about making pipeline tools when the whole point of this thing is to let them focus on making games.
You should be able to fire up the spacewar example and easily replace the ships with some
The documentation references DxTex and XACT, tools you need for all but simple textures, and for any kind of audio respectively, but they aren't included (as far as I can tell), so to get them, you need to get the full DirectX SDK as well. I can see DxTex being replaced by the content pipeline, but why isn't XACT included? Perhaps I'm missing the point, but I saw this thing as being an alternative to the full SDK, not complementary to it.
They call it 'XNA Game Studio', so I was expecting some IDE integration, with GPU debugging, or PIX integration, or anything DirectX related. Unfortunately it just seems to have added some new project wizards, and that's it.
The framework is pretty much the same as previous versions of Managed DirectX, with a whole lot of stuff ripped out, some new helper classes, and the rest cleaned up nicely.
I'm still excited about the XNA Framework and XNA GSE, and I can't fault the direction they are taking with this stuff. My main problem is that there's barely anything here that you can't do just as well with the old version of managed DirectX and the same copy of VC#, and with that you can at least use the
You missed the best part of the quote.
Any reason to belive you can't just use any USB mass storage device? I would be suprised if you couldn't use the PSP in mass storage mode.
Shouldn't PS3 be the shallow, sexy one? I appreciate that they are making a point about the size of the console itself, but it would be much more insightful (and a much better analogy) to look at the direction the content is taking on each platform, or even the intended audience. Anyway, if it's a choice between living with fatty and brain-dead bimbo, I'm just going to take the 360 right now (please don't be a dude, please don't be a dude).
It may be small, but I don't see how you can call something that shape sleek; the PS3 better fits every definition of the word. The Wii just looks like a DVD-ROM taken out of a PC and painted black. Personally I don't give a fuck, and I'm happy to have one anyway, I just don't think it's an interesting or attractive design (the controller is much better, aside from the nunchaku).
To be fair (since you are nitpicking), he said 'GPU shader processors', which to me doesn't specify the memory subsystem. Also, if infinite memory is required, how can the instruction set be considered Turing complete on its own if it's incapable of addressing infinite memory?
At least DirectX gives you a start on Microsoft consoles, OpenGL gives you close to nothing on consoles.
Oh right, I forgot about that insane law. I wonder if just using a ROM could be considered DRM. It's just another way of locking down the system.
It might be more keys (I certainly don't find it akward), but at least it's consistent. Having shift reverse all tab iterations (just tab for controls, alt for applications, ctrl for tabs/mdi) makes a lot of sense, partially because of how it works with case in text.
I haven't really looked into it, but what if instead of checking a key, they just put the software on a ROM? They could even put a GPL OS on a ROM and then have a signed non-GPL userland image on flash. Sure it's probably not practical, but would it work? It would take a hardware mod to bypass, but that's all most DRM systems would take anyway. Does that fail the GPL3 test, and if so, does that mean all devices using GPL have to be field updatable?
You did a good job of making the point I was trying to make in my last post.
They can't stop you legally from doing anything you want with the device (or let's assume that for now), but there's no reason for you to expect that it is capable of anything other than what the manufacturer intended. They are perfectly free to cripple their product for whatever reason they like, so long as it is sold as such.
n/t
You could still have dedicated GPU memory onboard, the only difference it makes is that it gives you the ability to build an architecture that isn't PCI, AGP, PCI-X, etc. Most game consoles do something similar. The Xbox GPU was competitive when it came out, without even having any dedicated memory, and while sharing a bus with the CPU.
It's about time made a serious effort, and this is a nice little gesture that isn't going to hurt them. I think it would be great if GPUs were, if not fully open, documented at the hardware level to the same degree that Intel CPUs are. ATI and NVIDIA give you nothing on the actual hardware, and only expose functionality through DirectX, OpenGL, and a few OpenGL extensions if you are lucky.
I've also heard in various places that Intel could be the first to release DX10 capable hardware. "programmable vertex, geometry, and fragment shaders" sounds like DX10 to me.
AFAIK it works by treating the RGB elements of an LCD display as having independent positions. It only works if your LCD matches the layout it expects.
When would you ever use that much bandwidth for a game? If it were a server app using that much, it should certainly be a dedicated machine, right?
With a subscription model they might allow portions of the game to be freely distributed, but in order to make money they still need to enforce copyright on something (server code, server based content). If they were to freely release the server, they would have to compete with service providers who didn't have to make the investment in development.
Please try to understand how currencies work.
Actually, I specifically didn't mention Fable because I don't think it suffers from the same problem at all. I thought it was quite a good game, with a strong narrative and decent gameplay. It's an example of how to take an impossible concept and turn it into something 'fun', instead of 'interesting'.
I get your point, but I think you can come up with a better example.