Alot of old game engines loved using closed loops for the main render loop. Something similar to:
while(true) { addObjects(); doSomething(); render(); if (checkForExit()) break; }
Which would tie up one thread entirely processing that one loop and anything called off it. These types of engines are the ones that you see using 100% of a single core and leaving the other core at 2-3%. Part of the problem is that OpenGL and DirectX are largely dependent on things being done in a particular order (translate scene, add objects, translate camera, render) and anything outside that order is fatal.
Oh come on, you know Microsoft's needs come second to none. Your "choice" only matters when your Microsoft doesn't have an opinion in that matter. All for the power of your supreme ruler!
The thing about that is that you usually have more than one person/entity looking at said code and might just point it out to the rest of the world. With MS software, you have no knowledge what the hell it's truly doing.
I'm just glad they know what to concentrate on instead of putting out shoddy equipment with light rings that turn an unfavorable color after playing for an hour or so.
What I have a problem with is the fact that the hardware has a setting for "break". The hardware should have built in limiters for overheat conditions. Period. If it doesn't and it overheats, it should be the hardware manufacturers responsibility to replace the defective device. Period. If a user crams a pencil in their fan, the device should limit performance to reduce the heat output to an acceptable level. If it cannot do this, it should shut down.
Very true. I have no problem buying a game that I know will run on Linux natively. I think that's a very bad stereotype or some kind of strange urban myth that in order to survive on Linux, it must be free.
I think it has to do with ease of adding that "nifty" effect. I'm not terribly familiar with both OpenGL and DX, but I think it's easier to do the "higher-end" looking stuff in DX than it is in OpenGL. I might be wrong on this (and I'm probably talking out my ass so I don't even know why I'm posting except to get a clarification on this), but I think DX is to CISC, as OpenGL is to RISC. DX has a load of features that you simply invoke and the language takes over while OpenGL requires a few more steps to perform the same thing.
I only found it odd (that you put it the way you did) because someone else pointed it out. (The same applies for the use of "we" instead of "all of us")
If it truly is an experiment, it's been spoiled by one of your subjects for all of your subject.
That's pretty much what turned me off. The time based skill up. No matter how much you play, you can only increase skills at a predetermined pace. Your play time is spent trying to make money to buy things that you won't be able to afford later.
Don't just blame bean counters. Blame the "Me-Too" group. If Joe Sixpack gets a new Quad processor PC because he's good at writing multi-threaded applications that speed up the process and someone in the group complains that they didn't get it too... you have a problem that most companies will just say, "Fine! Stick with your single processor machines!" Because it would be too expensive and stupid to upgrade all the developers.
Obviously, that's just an example. But people who innovate usually do things different than other people. They can sometimes take a longer lunch and skip breaks. They might leave their PC and go for a walk around the building to think about what the problem is (sometimes it helps.) Lo and behold, in steps the "Me-Too" and demands that they get to leave their station at will (to go sleep in the cafeteria.) Or they want to take a long lunch and get to leave early. Then the bean counter's step in.
Either way... I did end up pricing our a 2x Quad-AMD system right after that and it was a around the same price. This whole project just looks like a way to build a cheap cluster and not really a small high performance machine for a small amount of cash.
FWIW, I was able to put together another solution around $1,322.89 using 2 motherboards and 2 quad core Xeon 2.13Ghz procs. Same amount of memory, only two of those drives, two 350W PS, the same switch, etc.
Hell, I had a teacher explain the entire first assignment on the board in class, then asked us to do it for the first lab. He pulled me and my roommate into a meeting with a committee to question why we copied each other. We both looked at the teacher and the committee and said: "You put the entire lab program on the board, how do you expect us not to use it?"...and they let us go.
If you had 200,000 tops inside a briefcase and you moved the briefcase, the the tops will attempt to stay in the same location and thus tilt. Right? Why do they do this? They have something keeping the bottom of the top in place. In this instance it's friction, but if say the known galaxies are actually spinning around a larger body of galaxies, wouldn't they tend to attract to that bigger mass? Since they could be rotating around this larger mass, they are in motion, but are being pulled back to this center point. Our viewpoint of this effect is so small though it may look as though they are all tilted the same angle, but they might be ever slightly off and "pointing" to a much larger point.
By your reasoning: One "entity" could be the shared properties, another "entity" is the collection of galaxies, and the third "entity" is space. Or am I thinking too object oriented on this?
Richard: Richard is my name. I'm the most wanted coder on my project. Except I'm not not on my project, of course. More's the pity. User: Your project? You mean Linux. Richard: Yeah. It's MINE. User: You're a madman. Richard: [Laughs] I've come to the right place then.
... after reading into it and rechecking my numbers. If the devices are on the a 32bit 33Mhz PCI bus, the transfer rate on the devices would be limited to ~127Mbps. Do these devices still rely on the same PCI bus or have the machines "needed" for vista switched their Audio processing over to PCI-Express?
I was just thinking about this myself. In the age of multi-core processors, why wouldn't the networking thread be separate from the multimedia thread?... or is it really not that simple? I mean, the buss that handles both the network and audio streams is big enough to accommodate both at the same time, right? Aren't we talking about machine with over 500Mhz FSBs and 32-bit lanes? Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't that like 16 Gbits per clock? Shouldn't this be plenty for a 100Mbs NIC and Audio and I/O and whatever else?
Slashdot Mirror
Alot of old game engines loved using closed loops for the main render loop. Something similar to:
while(true) { addObjects(); doSomething(); render(); if (checkForExit()) break; }
Which would tie up one thread entirely processing that one loop and anything called off it. These types of engines are the ones that you see using 100% of a single core and leaving the other core at 2-3%. Part of the problem is that OpenGL and DirectX are largely dependent on things being done in a particular order (translate scene, add objects, translate camera, render) and anything outside that order is fatal.
Oh come on, you know Microsoft's needs come second to none. Your "choice" only matters when your Microsoft doesn't have an opinion in that matter. All for the power of your supreme ruler!
The thing about that is that you usually have more than one person/entity looking at said code and might just point it out to the rest of the world. With MS software, you have no knowledge what the hell it's truly doing.
I'm just glad they know what to concentrate on instead of putting out shoddy equipment with light rings that turn an unfavorable color after playing for an hour or so.
What I have a problem with is the fact that the hardware has a setting for "break". The hardware should have built in limiters for overheat conditions. Period. If it doesn't and it overheats, it should be the hardware manufacturers responsibility to replace the defective device. Period. If a user crams a pencil in their fan, the device should limit performance to reduce the heat output to an acceptable level. If it cannot do this, it should shut down.
I got Err:503
I used the equation: =100/0
* Ignites bottle rockets *
* takes a few steps back *
Very true. I have no problem buying a game that I know will run on Linux natively. I think that's a very bad stereotype or some kind of strange urban myth that in order to survive on Linux, it must be free.
I think it has to do with ease of adding that "nifty" effect. I'm not terribly familiar with both OpenGL and DX, but I think it's easier to do the "higher-end" looking stuff in DX than it is in OpenGL. I might be wrong on this (and I'm probably talking out my ass so I don't even know why I'm posting except to get a clarification on this), but I think DX is to CISC, as OpenGL is to RISC. DX has a load of features that you simply invoke and the language takes over while OpenGL requires a few more steps to perform the same thing.
Well, to add to your experiment results...
I only found it odd (that you put it the way you did) because someone else pointed it out. (The same applies for the use of "we" instead of "all of us")
If it truly is an experiment, it's been spoiled by one of your subjects for all of your subject.
That's pretty much what turned me off. The time based skill up. No matter how much you play, you can only increase skills at a predetermined pace. Your play time is spent trying to make money to buy things that you won't be able to afford later.
I wouldn't like some shit, but I'll take a shit for $20 million.
-(-1) = 1 though -1 + -1 = -2
;)
It all depends on how you look at it.
Don't just blame bean counters. Blame the "Me-Too" group. If Joe Sixpack gets a new Quad processor PC because he's good at writing multi-threaded applications that speed up the process and someone in the group complains that they didn't get it too... you have a problem that most companies will just say, "Fine! Stick with your single processor machines!" Because it would be too expensive and stupid to upgrade all the developers.
Obviously, that's just an example. But people who innovate usually do things different than other people. They can sometimes take a longer lunch and skip breaks. They might leave their PC and go for a walk around the building to think about what the problem is (sometimes it helps.) Lo and behold, in steps the "Me-Too" and demands that they get to leave their station at will (to go sleep in the cafeteria.) Or they want to take a long lunch and get to leave early. Then the bean counter's step in.
Either way... I did end up pricing our a 2x Quad-AMD system right after that and it was a around the same price. This whole project just looks like a way to build a cheap cluster and not really a small high performance machine for a small amount of cash.
FWIW, I was able to put together another solution around $1,322.89 using 2 motherboards and 2 quad core Xeon 2.13Ghz procs. Same amount of memory, only two of those drives, two 350W PS, the same switch, etc.
Not exactly cheaper, but it's definitely smaller.
You could get rid of those gigabit cards and use a dual head MB @ $87.99ea. : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8 2E16813138059
Hell, I had a teacher explain the entire first assignment on the board in class, then asked us to do it for the first lab. He pulled me and my roommate into a meeting with a committee to question why we copied each other. We both looked at the teacher and the committee and said: "You put the entire lab program on the board, how do you expect us not to use it?" ...and they let us go.
If you had 200,000 tops inside a briefcase and you moved the briefcase, the the tops will attempt to stay in the same location and thus tilt. Right? Why do they do this? They have something keeping the bottom of the top in place. In this instance it's friction, but if say the known galaxies are actually spinning around a larger body of galaxies, wouldn't they tend to attract to that bigger mass? Since they could be rotating around this larger mass, they are in motion, but are being pulled back to this center point. Our viewpoint of this effect is so small though it may look as though they are all tilted the same angle, but they might be ever slightly off and "pointing" to a much larger point.
That's my guess on the whole thing.
By your reasoning: One "entity" could be the shared properties, another "entity" is the collection of galaxies, and the third "entity" is space. Or am I thinking too object oriented on this?
Richard: Richard is my name. I'm the most wanted coder on my project. Except I'm not not on my project, of course. More's the pity.
User: Your project? You mean Linux.
Richard: Yeah. It's MINE.
User: You're a madman.
Richard: [Laughs] I've come to the right place then.
** slightly modified form the original...**
It's coming just as soon as they finish putting in -1:Misandry and my newly coined -2:Misnerdiny
I wished I had mod points for you. That's the biggest problem with a monopoly, certifications, and standardization.
... after reading into it and rechecking my numbers. If the devices are on the a 32bit 33Mhz PCI bus, the transfer rate on the devices would be limited to ~127Mbps. Do these devices still rely on the same PCI bus or have the machines "needed" for vista switched their Audio processing over to PCI-Express?
I was just thinking about this myself. In the age of multi-core processors, why wouldn't the networking thread be separate from the multimedia thread? ... or is it really not that simple? I mean, the buss that handles both the network and audio streams is big enough to accommodate both at the same time, right? Aren't we talking about machine with over 500Mhz FSBs and 32-bit lanes? Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't that like 16 Gbits per clock? Shouldn't this be plenty for a 100Mbs NIC and Audio and I/O and whatever else?