Oh, give the man a break, it was out of his scope. His function clearly only accepts input from it's parent and is completely oblivious to the point of the entire program. I thought all OOP (Object Oriented Posting) was supposed to be this way?
You also have to consider that some textures are wrapped around objects. If you only view that object from one side, you either need one texture for each side, or a texture that you can stand next to and still see it as clear as the artist intended. Instead of breaking up a billboard into several small blocks, you might be able to use one large texture to cover the whole thing. It makes for less polygon calculation as well. The Unreal Engine 3 uses texture tricks to make things look more detailed than they actually are. This requires higher quality textures as opposed to higher quality models. This is where I see the big difference between the PS3 and 360 games. The 360 is geared toward a slightly higher capacity for textures and texture "tricks" and the PS3 I think is geared toward more of a high poly-count, low texture resolution, but we'll have to see how the studios manage.
I understand where your coming from, but I thought I'd note some reasons why you'd want bigger textures.
Well for starters, when texture resolution approaches TV resolution, you're done. Second, sound quality can only get so high before further improvements become negligible.
Texture resolution and screen resolution are two different things... Right now their are cards with support for 4096 x 4096 pixel textures but most textures will be in the 256x256 or 512x512 range to keep the disk requirements to a minimum. Simply using 1920x1080 textures will not magically fix the world's gaming issues.
Another note on this is when someone brings up adaptive generation of textures. These are generally small textures with repeating patterns and take longer to generate than they would to load off a bigger disc. It's all a balancing act in the end, but you can't stick with DVD/DVD9 forever.
That's funny, cause my PC gaming is RTS or RPG, real life friends over the Internet with my light on. And my console gaming, I prefer long story driven content on the big screen alone in the dark...
There are those of us that still like the "Classic Menu" in Windows. (The one from 95-2000) I can categorize my programs in any way I want, it takes up little to no space, and it pops up while using little to no computer resources. I don't have to deal with "Most Common Functionality" moving my icons around on me and I can find and select most applications blindfolded if I had to. I can also turn off Help, Documents, and Search and use small icons to create a nice simple no-nonsense menu.
Familiarity.
It's a good thing. Why does the interface of the computer have to have flowers and fancy borders to be considered user friendly?
Nice try. Trying to make me out as a kid who knows nothing. Immediately resorting to Personal attacks... great. I should ignore you, but since you decided to try to put words in my mouth, let me explain.
Microsoft started it's buy-up early on with DOS, but being as you remember it all too well, I won't go over all the details, but this is where I tied IBM into the mix. Microsoft even went so far to insist that all versions of DOS be labeled MS-DOS even though they were being cross developed.
Now, as far as Apple is concerned, it gets very grey (to me, as I was working with other machines at the time). From what I understand of it, Xerox basically gave the interface to Apple. Bad business move, sure. But Xerox had it's mind on other things and didn't see the interface as important at the time. Windows was clearly modeled after Apple's OS, but as Microsoft was well on it's way to fortune, they also had their hands on some top dollar legal council. Apple didn't stand a chance.
I never said IBM wasn't bad though. Again, you insert information into a small paragraph of mine. But Microsoft used that power to promote DOS 1.0 if you remember. Microsoft was formed and maintained it's shady practices all through it's life. Denying that, you support it.
Does the fact that most of this work is already done in Open Source Projects totally bypass your discussion? The sound drivers and these other things are already out there and freely available. You don't have to code them for the most part.
You are quick to point out though how Microsoft abuses it's Monopoly by providing "incentives" to groups coding for their operating system. Thanks for pointing that out, but not understanding why this is a bad thing.
Market share could change rapidly if standards were used. Look at Firefox. It's gained a tons of the market share IE/Microsoft had on the web. Since HTML is standardized, using Firefox is transparent (for the most part) to every user, and rightly so. If operating systems had to follow a list (even a minimal list) of standards, market share might quickly change too. However, thanks to Microsoft, users are forced into their recreational habits on one OS. I say Microsoft should be forced into opening up DirectX and providing the API specs to anyone that wants to use them. Then we'll finally see who has the "best" operating system or as you put it, the operating system with the most market share.
Does this mean galactic Olympic tournaments would be weighted? I mean, if someone grew up and worked out on this higher gravity planet, wouldn't that be a little unfair to the Earth grown athletes?
It was a bad example, sure. But you never know what is going to happen. You can't plan for every contingency, but you can definitely plan for those that are the easiest to resolve up front instead of trying to track them down later. By expecting the loop to end on an exact number and not planning for the loop to go beyond your planned iteration, your not doing a very good job.
In his example, what would happen if another thread changed the size of that array after it checked his condition? It would never end. As I said, unlikely, but it could happen.
You know... I was previously asked to do a project in.NET so I chose to use C# as a learning experiment of sorts. So I figured I would reference a book published by Microsoft Press, considering.NET is Microsoft's baby.
Microsoft® Visual C#®.NET Step by Step: Version 2003
By John Sharp, Jon Jagger
I was skimming along and found an interesting little note and attached code:
Iterating Through an Array
You can iterate through all the elements of an array using a for statement. The following sample code writes the array element values to the console:
int[] pins = { 9, 3, 7, 2 };
for (int index = 0; index != pins.Length; index++)
{
int pin = pins[index];
Console.WriteLine(pin);
}
At first I was thinking. Maybe he did it as an example of what not to do in a loop. (referring to the "!=") but the next "note" states:
Some programmers prefer to use the != operator instead of the <= operator in the termination condition because that index represents an invariance (meaning something that's always true). In this case, index represents the number of digits written to the console. At the start of the iteration, the value of index is 0, which means that no digits have been written to the console. At the end of the iteration, index should still identify the number of digits that have been written to the console. If you use a != operator, without even looking at the body of the iteration, you know exactly what the value of index will be when the iteration ends--it will be pins.Length (because if it wasn't, the iteration would still be going). On the other hand, if you use a <= operator, you can conclude only that, at the end of the iteration, the value of index will be greater than or equal to pins.Length.
Now, I don't know about you, but I don't know ANY programmers that would do this. What would happen if something happened to your hardware (surge, heat, solar flare, misbehaving thread, etc.) and during your precious array loop something happened and your computer mis-interpreted your array length. You could have yourself a very fun infinite loop. But no worries. When the world is perfect, this will never happen and you should be more concerned that the index coming out of the loop is exactly the Length of your array. That seems to be more important than a possible infinite loop. Granted, if you have one of these stray events dogging your memory, you might have greater issues, but we all know computers today are not 100% accurate all the time. I guess that's why this guy stressed using try/catch for everything
Now, I don't claim to know about Microsoft's internal programming staff, but if this guy is on the team... that would explain a lot of things in Windows land.
This is what worries me about the recent patent I read about on some other sites. The patent deal with connecting devices throughout the home and allowing content to be displayed or run on any device from a central point. This is basically Sony's strategy with the PS3/PSP connectivity, remote play and LocationFree.
Honestly though, like stated above, once you understand that Linux basically treats everything like a file... you can fix pretty much anything. As far as a good reference or tips site. Google. 99% of the time, a quick cut and paste of an error will direct you to the right place. (That is if you don't understand it right away.)
I love when people say they are waiting for SP1 or (enter x revision) of software like it has any bearing on the stability (especially in Window's case.) Let's say Microsoft releases Vista SE tomorrow. They hear an outcry of people that say they won't buy it until SP1. Microsoft comes back next Friday and says, SP1 available for download! When all they really did was change the default color of the menus. I try to at least identify a problem with the system and determine the point at which it's enough of a change to consider the item. Sure, history states that general SP1 fixes improve a lot of the stability and performance in Windows, but it's not always been the case. NT4 went though SP1 pretty quick. (I think it was something like 2 months.)
Lawful evil (as I understand it) doesn't mean they obey the laws set forth by some governing body. It means that they obey the laws of evil. Being Lawful Evil as about as evil as you can get. Lawful Evil will never group with a Good class unless they mean to kill them somewhere along the way. Lawful Evil will usually never let a Good class "get away". Neutral Evil accepts some good in order to advance themselves, and Chaotic Evil you really have no clue what side they will be on next. At least, that's how I always work it out.;)
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, give the man a break, it was out of his scope. His function clearly only accepts input from it's parent and is completely oblivious to the point of the entire program. I thought all OOP (Object Oriented Posting) was supposed to be this way?
Most likely the cable providers will start charging per IP, and most of us using routers with NAT will still use routers with NAT.
That really is a shame, the device is rock solid stable for me and the build quality is great. We just need the games.
Also, the numbers presented there are wrong: [ gamedaily.com ]
And Carriers and Fighters will win the game for you no questions asked. That's my only problem with it, but I still love everything else about SE4.
I was waiting for the inevitable "doo-doo head" insults to start flying. Guess I'll have to wait for another thread.
You also have to consider that some textures are wrapped around objects. If you only view that object from one side, you either need one texture for each side, or a texture that you can stand next to and still see it as clear as the artist intended. Instead of breaking up a billboard into several small blocks, you might be able to use one large texture to cover the whole thing. It makes for less polygon calculation as well. The Unreal Engine 3 uses texture tricks to make things look more detailed than they actually are. This requires higher quality textures as opposed to higher quality models. This is where I see the big difference between the PS3 and 360 games. The 360 is geared toward a slightly higher capacity for textures and texture "tricks" and the PS3 I think is geared toward more of a high poly-count, low texture resolution, but we'll have to see how the studios manage.
I understand where your coming from, but I thought I'd note some reasons why you'd want bigger textures.
Another note on this is when someone brings up adaptive generation of textures. These are generally small textures with repeating patterns and take longer to generate than they would to load off a bigger disc. It's all a balancing act in the end, but you can't stick with DVD/DVD9 forever.
That's funny, cause my PC gaming is RTS or RPG, real life friends over the Internet with my light on. And my console gaming, I prefer long story driven content on the big screen alone in the dark...
Except when dealing with Windows gaming, VMWare doesn't handle DirectX as well as you'd think a VM should.
There are those of us that still like the "Classic Menu" in Windows. (The one from 95-2000) I can categorize my programs in any way I want, it takes up little to no space, and it pops up while using little to no computer resources. I don't have to deal with "Most Common Functionality" moving my icons around on me and I can find and select most applications blindfolded if I had to. I can also turn off Help, Documents, and Search and use small icons to create a nice simple no-nonsense menu.
Familiarity.
It's a good thing. Why does the interface of the computer have to have flowers and fancy borders to be considered user friendly?
Microsoft started it's buy-up early on with DOS, but being as you remember it all too well, I won't go over all the details, but this is where I tied IBM into the mix. Microsoft even went so far to insist that all versions of DOS be labeled MS-DOS even though they were being cross developed.
Now, as far as Apple is concerned, it gets very grey (to me, as I was working with other machines at the time). From what I understand of it, Xerox basically gave the interface to Apple. Bad business move, sure. But Xerox had it's mind on other things and didn't see the interface as important at the time. Windows was clearly modeled after Apple's OS, but as Microsoft was well on it's way to fortune, they also had their hands on some top dollar legal council. Apple didn't stand a chance.
I never said IBM wasn't bad though. Again, you insert information into a small paragraph of mine. But Microsoft used that power to promote DOS 1.0 if you remember. Microsoft was formed and maintained it's shady practices all through it's life. Denying that, you support it.
Does the fact that most of this work is already done in Open Source Projects totally bypass your discussion? The sound drivers and these other things are already out there and freely available. You don't have to code them for the most part.
You are quick to point out though how Microsoft abuses it's Monopoly by providing "incentives" to groups coding for their operating system. Thanks for pointing that out, but not understanding why this is a bad thing.
Market share could change rapidly if standards were used. Look at Firefox. It's gained a tons of the market share IE/Microsoft had on the web. Since HTML is standardized, using Firefox is transparent (for the most part) to every user, and rightly so. If operating systems had to follow a list (even a minimal list) of standards, market share might quickly change too. However, thanks to Microsoft, users are forced into their recreational habits on one OS. I say Microsoft should be forced into opening up DirectX and providing the API specs to anyone that wants to use them. Then we'll finally see who has the "best" operating system or as you put it, the operating system with the most market share.
That's alright, all I understood was the word "hope".
"No potty breaks."
... potty breaks are not a problem.
When your vehicle is the size of a few buses, has built in facilities, and practically drives itself
Your problem comes when your kids want to stop and check out Yellow-Dwarf Park.
Does this mean galactic Olympic tournaments would be weighted? I mean, if someone grew up and worked out on this higher gravity planet, wouldn't that be a little unfair to the Earth grown athletes?
I'm just saying...
I think you and I agree here... I stated hardware issues, but generally it's bad practice to expect a singular condition for a loop.
It was a bad example, sure. But you never know what is going to happen. You can't plan for every contingency, but you can definitely plan for those that are the easiest to resolve up front instead of trying to track them down later. By expecting the loop to end on an exact number and not planning for the loop to go beyond your planned iteration, your not doing a very good job. In his example, what would happen if another thread changed the size of that array after it checked his condition? It would never end. As I said, unlikely, but it could happen.
Microsoft® Visual C#®
By John Sharp, Jon Jagger
I was skimming along and found an interesting little note and attached code: At first I was thinking. Maybe he did it as an example of what not to do in a loop. (referring to the "!=") but the next "note" states: Now, I don't know about you, but I don't know ANY programmers that would do this. What would happen if something happened to your hardware (surge, heat, solar flare, misbehaving thread, etc.) and during your precious array loop something happened and your computer mis-interpreted your array length. You could have yourself a very fun infinite loop. But no worries. When the world is perfect, this will never happen and you should be more concerned that the index coming out of the loop is exactly the Length of your array. That seems to be more important than a possible infinite loop. Granted, if you have one of these stray events dogging your memory, you might have greater issues, but we all know computers today are not 100% accurate all the time. I guess that's why this guy stressed using try/catch for everything
Now, I don't claim to know about Microsoft's internal programming staff, but if this guy is on the team... that would explain a lot of things in Windows land.
This is what worries me about the recent patent I read about on some other sites. The patent deal with connecting devices throughout the home and allowing content to be displayed or run on any device from a central point. This is basically Sony's strategy with the PS3/PSP connectivity, remote play and LocationFree.
Link
LFS (Linux From Scratch) is another way.
Honestly though, like stated above, once you understand that Linux basically treats everything like a file... you can fix pretty much anything. As far as a good reference or tips site. Google. 99% of the time, a quick cut and paste of an error will direct you to the right place. (That is if you don't understand it right away.)
...like you can't sue [no one] for the improper use of English...
I love when people say they are waiting for SP1 or (enter x revision) of software like it has any bearing on the stability (especially in Window's case.) Let's say Microsoft releases Vista SE tomorrow. They hear an outcry of people that say they won't buy it until SP1. Microsoft comes back next Friday and says, SP1 available for download! When all they really did was change the default color of the menus. I try to at least identify a problem with the system and determine the point at which it's enough of a change to consider the item. Sure, history states that general SP1 fixes improve a lot of the stability and performance in Windows, but it's not always been the case. NT4 went though SP1 pretty quick. (I think it was something like 2 months.)
Find a service online that supports Firefox and give them your money instead of the other guy.
There's no sense worrying about one site when there are usually at least 3 more to replace it.
Lawful evil (as I understand it) doesn't mean they obey the laws set forth by some governing body. It means that they obey the laws of evil. Being Lawful Evil as about as evil as you can get. Lawful Evil will never group with a Good class unless they mean to kill them somewhere along the way. Lawful Evil will usually never let a Good class "get away". Neutral Evil accepts some good in order to advance themselves, and Chaotic Evil you really have no clue what side they will be on next. At least, that's how I always work it out. ;)