I thought it would be an excuse to drink copious amounts of Newcastle Brown... or is no excuse needed for that?
Likewise there isn't really air moving through this system at all, as it's not air tight and some of the passages are fake, but it sounds quite like the real thing despite being really only mechanical sound (and plastic at that)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JPplxM0hGk
Finally got to try some MP racing on the weekend. The netcode seemed quite good now in terms of smoothness/lag etc. But are my eyes failing me or do other's cars seem to not point into the corner properly??
Picked this up a while back and finally started playing it last week, it is quite fun actually.
My only gripe is that it doesn't really seem to feel like you're driving a rig - no sensation of weight, really fast steering, corners seem to be really sharp, braking seems really fast. I don't know anything about the inner workings, is it supposed to have actual driving "physics" or am I expecting too much from it? Starting from a stop feels a little awkward too.
But other than physics, the game seems really fun and it is pretty relaxing and looks pretty decent as well. I've installed pro-mods and a few of the mods linked in the last few pages.
My only gripe is that it doesn't really seem to feel like you're driving a rig - no sensation of weight, really fast steering, corners seem to be really sharp, braking seems really fast. I don't know anything about the inner workings, is it supposed to have actual driving "physics" or am I expecting too much from it? Starting from a stop feels a little awkward too.
But other than physics, the game seems really fun and it is pretty relaxing and looks pretty decent as well. I've installed pro-mods and a few of the mods linked in the last few pages.
Actually, it hasn't turned into that at all - if you read the post before yours; that (non)topic is a very minor theme. There's a tremendous amount of misinformation, and a handful of useful information in this odd thread so far - but it is an interesting read nonetheless.
1) Yes; there is a plethora of "vulnerabilities" that don't require one to outright click on an executable to run it (websites don't ask for permission to "run" all the time and many exploits look for that principle: java, html, asp, and every other standard is what you need to be thinking about here - and running 10 year old software firewalls on a 10 year old OS is akin to sitting in a strong oak tree 40 feet above ground and feeling safe in a lighting storm because your feet don't touch the ground. (as long as you're net connected)
2) What the hell is this hardware argument about XP? The hardware you're running; or more specifically what OS you're developing on, don't really cross paths here. Scawen could develop on DX9 for years to come (which is a wise decision; considering the lower path of every modern game defaults to that) with no consequences - unless you count cross platform compatibility as a consequence (which he rightly counts as a benefit). Run, for example, Metro 2033 in DX9 vs DX11 - you'd be hard pressed to spot the difference.
3) What is the difference? NOTHING - Unless one takes advantage of the newer features, which are few. IE; a DX9 using game gains nothing by moving to DX11 (or 10) unless specifically made to do so as in Tesselation (the major feature) or other minor ones. This is simply an API; not necessarily a feature-set. In an abstract way, it's like painting a picture with Red, Green and Blue instead of Cyan Magenta Yellow and Black (although that difference might be more noticeable).
Anyway this may not make sense tomorrow so whatever. Race on.
1) Yes; there is a plethora of "vulnerabilities" that don't require one to outright click on an executable to run it (websites don't ask for permission to "run" all the time and many exploits look for that principle: java, html, asp, and every other standard is what you need to be thinking about here - and running 10 year old software firewalls on a 10 year old OS is akin to sitting in a strong oak tree 40 feet above ground and feeling safe in a lighting storm because your feet don't touch the ground. (as long as you're net connected)
2) What the hell is this hardware argument about XP? The hardware you're running; or more specifically what OS you're developing on, don't really cross paths here. Scawen could develop on DX9 for years to come (which is a wise decision; considering the lower path of every modern game defaults to that) with no consequences - unless you count cross platform compatibility as a consequence (which he rightly counts as a benefit). Run, for example, Metro 2033 in DX9 vs DX11 - you'd be hard pressed to spot the difference.
3) What is the difference? NOTHING - Unless one takes advantage of the newer features, which are few. IE; a DX9 using game gains nothing by moving to DX11 (or 10) unless specifically made to do so as in Tesselation (the major feature) or other minor ones. This is simply an API; not necessarily a feature-set. In an abstract way, it's like painting a picture with Red, Green and Blue instead of Cyan Magenta Yellow and Black (although that difference might be more noticeable).
Anyway this may not make sense tomorrow so whatever. Race on.
If you like to play multiple sims then it deserves a spot in the list, especially if you have no problem playing Race 07 etc.
It's not AC or maybe even LFS physics wise, but if you take the GTR out at night on old SPA for example, it gives you an experience you don't get in other sims. The rain and RealRoad tech are quite nice as well.
It's not AC or maybe even LFS physics wise, but if you take the GTR out at night on old SPA for example, it gives you an experience you don't get in other sims. The rain and RealRoad tech are quite nice as well.
Oh no, please don't do that...
nVidia 3D Vision doesn't run with OGL at the moment.
How come you run it at 110 instead of 120?
Do you find that fixes the minor ghosting issues? (trees against a bright sky etc)
Do you find that fixes the minor ghosting issues? (trees against a bright sky etc)
Indeed, disaster with the F40 for sure but "normal" cars seem to drive well like the 1M, M3 which I tested.
Good to have this to screw around on until MP, and eventually the official release though.
Welcome to the next big thing for sim-racing Fordie
Must be exciting to have that new gear installed and firing up AC for the first time in anticipation, thanks for sharing that. Good times.
Right, there's nobody getting killed for their belief all around the world. :rolleyes:
I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Uhh no, no I'm not Jewish, that would mean I didn't believe Jesus was the messiah. I believe he was the Christ, hence I'm a Christian. I 'm not even bothering with the rest, this is so ridiculous
I understand the hatred of all the suffering on this planet, I really do. But blaming it on God is bizarre, when He's not doing it, once again, the abuser is a PERSON. God is not obligated to intervene in the atrocities humans DO TO EACH OTHER - what is so hard to understand about that? If you want someone to blame, blame the rapist. Simple apologetics, you cannot have it both ways - you want the freedom to do whatever the hell you want but now you're pissed that everyone else has the some right, unimpeded. That's just like the hypocrisy you claim to hate.
nonetheless it is consequence of how quickly the scientific community changes it's mind on subject X.
Maybe I should just pull out the Donald Rumsfeld "knowns vs unknowns" soliloquy it seems fitting here.
So if a good friend of mine, who I know is not in cahoots with a crooked preacher (unfortunately yes it happens - really frustrating to me), receives a miraculous healing for bone spurs right in front of my eyes, confirmed by x-rays, does this count as God having an effect on the universe? While he was getting prayed for he said he felt a warm sensation in his heel, and all I know is he could not really walk without wincing in pain, and he left pain free. I guess that's just a strange coincidence though. This kind of stuff actually does happen fairly often, but again because of a few really bad choices by dudes like Peter Popoff, everything gets discredited.
exactly my point, there's also plenty of intelligent folk without post secondary education. I do regret not having some sometimes, but I've done just fine for myself without it as well.
Jesus had the goal of reconciling the world to God, period.
Yes, "the book" states that, the Jews were not able to "do it themselves" so they used fear to get Pilate to do it. I didn't mean to say the Jews literally did it, but rather than they were responsible for it, which is true.
They tried on numerous occasions and he'd always manage to escape. Read the books if you're going to talk about them.
But honestly guys, we could do this until the cows come home and it's draining. Fundamentally, this is a spiritual issue not an intellectual one, so you will always corner me in the end on an intellectual debate of this stuff. It's been fun.
Last edited by Ball Bearing Turbo, .
Oh I bet, and I bet there's never an exception to that, and I bet science is the only branch of humanity immune to ... humans.
edit: thanks Racer for the post
I think we're (talking? you sound more like you fighting to be honest) about a few different things here.
great, but you can't totally separate them because one comes from the other. The information comes from somewhere.
I made sure to qualify my comments before I made them. And I never said I was expecting to be offended, I did say I was expecting backlash, which you've provided
And I'm not offended by it, in fact I stated that I understand why it happens! Chill out!
how in the world does it not???I think believe God created the universe is a lot less dangerous than say... flying planes into buildings and otherwise killing people
I didn't look, because it's not relevant to what I said. I said what I believe, which is based off of reading and studying "the book" for over 20 years. The individual in the video is free to have a different opinion than me so I have no idea why what I said would have to explain his point of view. I'm speaking for myself and nobody else.
RIGHT - you said it - as far as WE are concerned. But there is implication and shortsightedness in that statement, because again, it implies that we have the capacity observe "everything". Nothing wrong with trying to learn, but when talking about "God" for example, if we could understand God on an intellectual level He wouldn't be much of a God in my estimation.
pretty big assertion considering you have a very small insight into exactly what I believe?
I do like how you brushed off the my point about guys with PhDs being Christians.
LOL! Do you really want to get into playing "quote the Bible"? This really shows YOUR ignorance on that particular topic, I'm not here contextually shifting your scientific journals am I? What did else did he say right around there that you left out? He summed up the law and prophets with two commands: love God and love people. But you left that out. Jesus hated religion, and loved people. He hated the institution of religion and the hypocrisy of the leaders (generally Pharisees and Saducees) and the greed and all that stuff that most people dislike about organized religion today. The context here is that people used to look on those leaders as some sort of standard, but they were corrupt (heck the whole reason they crucified Him was because He called them out and started to erode their power of the people!) That's where that comes from, and in fact bibically speaking when one "accepts Christ" or whatever you want to call it, He becomes "their righteousness" which is what he was foreshadowing in that statement at the end.
It may be time to leave the thread for me, I wasn't trying to get you all incensed.
Thank you sir, and I do 100% understand where you're coming from.
Nice, another case of throwing the baby out with the bath water. I'd never in a million years go and knock unannounced on someone's door. On missions trips, our goal is to help people. Bring them food, make wells, that sort of thing. If people ask about our beliefs we tell them, but we're not there to bulldoze or coerce people. The way I look at it, how I live my life should speak for itself, no "evangelizing" required. Generally if people ask I tell them, I'm not here to impose anything on anyone despite entering this thread. .
.Thanks Shot!
Sorry for not being more clear in my statement.
I have a very good idea how much a researcher makes; in fact my aunt (Laura Kormos) is a professor of particle physics at Lancaster University http://www.research.lancs.ac.u ... 1-9276-7edc7b260ff9).html
Nonetheless, at the risk of sounding like Racer X_NZ (which I probably will at various points if I respond to all of you), those in higher places often... "influence" said publications, or fund them in the first place expecting a certain conclusion. Don't pretend this doesn't happen, it's just a more subtle form of advertising with a different audience sometimes.
The issue I have is that every new "discovery" is treated in culture like it's the new concrete truth. Perhaps not within the scientific community itself, but the "facts" communicated to us lowly uneducated imbeciles are purported to be all but infallible. Diets change, new products are generated to profiteer off of every amazing new discovery, and round and round we go.
Ok - well if you read what I said instead of constructing condescending retorts, you'd note that if I meant what you're saying that I'd have directly contradicted myself - I was referring to the attitude of the public at large towards every released scientific "fact". Again sorry for not being clear I was in a hurry.
Again I stated previously that I'd only watched snippets of the video.
Fair. But you have to keep in mind that we really have no idea what our limitations really are. What if we have the capacity as beings to observe is relatively nothing more than grain of sand on a beach? That is to say; if somehow, someday, humanity reached some theoretical limit (which must exist unless our capacity to discover is infinite - I don't think so), it could very well be so small compared to what "is". Aaaand we'd still likely act like the know-it-alls of the universe.
Fixed.
Yes, I do. The Vatican is know more for it's internal crime and corruption, and Catholicism is not, on a very very basic level, Christianity in practice. I'm not saying that a Catholic individual cannot be a Christian but they're not necessarily synonymous with each other, but that takes some basic Biblical knowledge to understand.
No, not at all.
Extremism is dangerous. Christians should be extreme in their love for others, nothing more.
re: 1, yes it is a massive assumption if you read the words he wrote and what I responded to. He literally said that "if it exists, we can discover it". He did not say "if I can observe it I can discover it". Maybe you interpreted it that way, but that not what he said - read what he said, and how I responded again.
Shot, if science was as conclusive as you say, and scientific education is the end all be all to disprove what you so vehemently seem to desire to disprove, there wouldn't be guys with PhDs that believe what I do, but there's plenty of them. I have a feeling that you haven't read their books though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F ... logy#In_Christian_thought
In Christian theology, God is described as omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent; a notion which some people, Christians and non-Christians alike, believe implies that not only has God always known what choices individuals will make tomorrow, but has actually determined those choices. That is, they believe, by virtue of his foreknowledge he knows what will influence individual choices, and by virtue of his omnipotence he controls those factors. This becomes especially important for the doctrines relating to salvation and predestination.[/quote]
Nowhere is scripture does it state that God has determined our everyday choices, despite what Wiki says. In fact, it does say ANYWHERE, that he controls those factors - in fact, quite the opposite; it states Satan as the "prince of the power of the air" and as the ruler of the "present age" of humanity; which means that the much of what we call the "world system" is influenced by evil. That seems to jive with the greed and injustice, hunger and pain I see every day. If God was influencing everything as that article states (which is NOT what the Bible states) then He'd be doing a pretty crappy job.
These are fair questions.
Firstly, the New Testament completely fulfills the Old Testament and a Christian who attempts to follow "the law" has missed the point of the NT completely. These people are often legalistic and judgmental.
Part of the challenge of correctly interpreting scripture is knowing what context something was said in the original languages, and sometimes having a familiarity with idioms of the culture. In terms of cherry-picking I apologize if it comes across that way. I do agree that a lot of people do that and it drives me nuts, and in fact the Bible states that that's exactly what people will do! 2 Tim 4:3 states this clearly.
Also we don't stone people because the spiritual requirement for punishment was poured out and completed once and for all on Jesus at the cross. That's the whole point of Christianity. This is why we Christians don't have Priests. Biblically, no "hail marys" or any other "action" on our part is necessary for salvation. Simple acceptance of the atonement. That's it, that's why it's called the "Gospel" or "Good News" - not that mad news, the "you better behave news" etc. This is where Catholicism has diverged into a culture of fear and religiosity that most often completely misrepresents the Gospel, and the Bible, and God.
I also better point out that I don't believe I could ever "reason" someone into faith in Christ. Deluded as you may think I am, I am not *that* deluded
.However I've seen things on missions trips that you cannot explain with your science journals, that's for darn sure.
I agree; just like there's engineers who can't build a bridge that doesn't leak rain on my head when I go to a Canucks game. I get it. Sorry if it was an invalid example but I didn't think most kids could write a university level test having no formal education in the language - but this is a moot point going forward so I'll leave it at that.
Except they don't say that the belief is stupid, they say; as Becky alluded to, that the individual is stupid. Don't try to slant the semantics away from what's being intimated!
So what you've literally just told me, is that humans have the capacity to discover everything. "If it changes anything we can discover it" - this is exactly where your argument falls flat on its face, as I said in my previous post. That - dear reader - is a MASSIVE assumption! If you don't see why then I'm not sure how to make it clear to you that it's very, very, very unlikely to be the case. That viewpoint means basically that "everything" revolves around a human point of view which in the context of something as massive as the universe, is rather a bit beyond self-centered.
Take "life" for example. We humans have a method and criteria for defining life as we know it. In fact that phrase as wisely often use - life "as we know it". If conscience and "life" were defined by any parameters we have a flying clue about, we wouldn't be writing journals (which you discuss flippantly later on) decades later that say "gee - perhaps these individuals we thought were brain-dead (comatose) actually were feeling and receiving stimulus the whole time - shit, our bad" in the last 2 months. The main issue here is that we give ourselves way too much credit.
To address the latter part of your argument, I would never propose the cessation of research if that's what you're trying to imply. It's excellent and I enjoy it. My only point here is to perhaps, get someone to try to see things from a slightly different point of view.
Well this was pretty much what I was expecting, and I'll save the exhaustive reply for when I have the drive to do so...
I'll answer your questions on a basic level for now I guess (though I told myself I wasn't coming back to this thread... but I can't NOT, I stuck my head out).
Shot, I'll pretend your comments weren't laced with a little bit of "matter of fact style aggression".
NO I don't have a post secondary degree. But I'm not a proponent of education the way it is today. I passed "high school" as it is here in Canada, no formal post secondary education. I did exactly no homework and got mid to high 80s consistently. Good but not amazing grades with almost no work.
That being said I was teaching university students C and Assembler when I was in grade 8; one family friend thought was ridiculous. Years past that I was still able to write one co-worker's wife's university assignment for a C++ program being only self taught in my teen years which got an A. edit: again this is no claim to fame, but I can "think".
I still enjoy learning on the subjects I enjoy on my own time, and I don't think that our (civilized) education systems function as well as they should. They force the regurgitation of facts rather than the understanding of the fundamental principles behind them - a cursory glance at Veritasium's channel on Youtube displays a plethora of "university students" that have no bloody clue about the basics you and I take for granted, so let's not get too high on the "education" high horse.
Besides which, how many great "discoveries" are shrouded in monetary greed and fictional facts? Every medical journal that arises seems to contradict the last - "cholesterol is BAAAD" - 2 years later "wait... NO, actually some is good"... 2 years later "WAIT NO - it depends on that ratio of the bad and good! really! we have it sorted now!". Confidence inspiring.
We're so shallow into the scientific waters that I have little confidence in the concrete absolutism of what we call "science", despite the fact that everyone acts like humans have discovered everything there is to know (displayed in the attitude that what we know couldn't have been created), and even more unreasonably; have the capacity to do so. Read that again: if you think we even have the capacity as human beings to "discover all that there is to discover", then I think the arrogance of us humans has reached it's pinnacle.
And who cares about the Vatican? It simply personifies everything you think you know about Christianity, when in fact in has absolutely nothing to do with it; which is why you use it as an example.
Catholicism has little to do with simple, Biblical Christianity but that's a whole different ball of conversations.
Come on
You're free to believe what you want obviously, and I never come here to impose my belief system on people (I've only ever discussed my faith in one thread before), but when people play that card, like SamH did years ago on me, that bothers me.
I have an over Mensa-level based IQ based on three different tests (not that I think that IQ tests are the end all be all, it just means I can retain information well, maybe not much more but I don't know what other "measurement" to pull out for even a scrap of credibility)
I'm also a Christian, and I 100% believe in my faith, and my viewpoint used to be just like yours years ago. So call me what you like, deluded, nuts, but calling me stupid just lights me up a little bit.
I've been in these debates and they go nowhere, and it's just too fashionable and hip to hate on Christians in modern culture.
I understand 100% why people feel this way though. The unfortunate thing is that just like with absolutely everything else in life, a fraction of group X do something stupid, and now the whole group is labelled as a bunch of morons. I get the dynamic.
Most of the reason I DON'T share my faith with people who aren't close to me is for precisely this reason - I feel like I have to apologize for the conduct of the church at large. I'm not denominational (the first sign that something is wrong is when a group that is founded on a single belief diverges into "compartments") I simply follow Jesus and read my Bible and attend church. I've learned to accept that this is a mystery to most people especially those with above average intelligence like many on this forum. But that certainly doesn't make me stupid
Although I saw snippets of the debate (I don't have the stomach for them because I know the creationist will eventually say something that will be unfortunate) and some dubious things were said.... not everything he said is over the top.
I think we do need to keep in mind that we really don't fundamentally understand the nature of either life OR the universe, this context that we exist in. Time itself is a physical property of the universe, and we've been around such a short time in the grand scheme of things. I mean what are the implications on time(tm) from our current frame of reference flying through the cosmos at these speeds, compared to the matter that burst into existence (again nobody can tell you "from where" because we're not infinite beings like God is) Think of how limited we are in the scope of our observational abilities - being limited by the speed of light is humbling in my opinion. Really, we could be in for all of celestial hell to break loose and we'd have no idea until it was too late
Whenever a creationist (which I am, yes), is asked "so... do you believe the universe was created in 7 literal days?" (you can hear the chuckles of the "atheists") .. the guy pauses and goes "yeah... uh that's what the Word of God says so I believe it!". I die a little inside. There would be no "days", and now POW every Christian is stupid because of that. That's just as intolerant as every other type of prejudice. The problem is that we're all humans and we all fail. Look at the state of the planet folks - I see people all the time wondering "if God is so good blah blah why is the world in the shape it's in?"; all the while HUMANS made it that way. Indeed, what brilliantly advanced beings and highly evolved creatures we are just look at the state of affairs today, go us. What is God supposed to do? Remove our free will so we're not equally free to shoot someone in a movie theatre as we are to give $1000 to a family in need?
In any event, enough ranting from me. I have way too much to say and not enough time to say it all.
I could be way off base here, but would the steering geometry of different vehicles make quite a big difference to what you'd feel in your wheel when recovering slides? Or is that not a big factor compared to others?
This is a known issue - the physics engine actually STOPS when you slow almost to a stop, and when you slam on the brakes all the way to a stop the physics cut out before rebound occurs.
I have no idea in the world why the physics aren't just running all the time but hey...
I thought the profile picture changed this week
I must have these filters turned off, I get passed on both the high side and low side all the time! 
yes that was a really really lame joke...
yes that was a really really lame joke...
Ha!
Too funny. These places have a bad reputation? I figured everywhere in the UK would be brimming with witty folk, and everything would be like Monty Python movies
The fellow I'm travelling with (company owner / my boss / long time friend) has a sister who live there. She owns & runs a pub called Hegartys
My interests are pretty mild, I'm not a rowdy guy.
If I go to a pub it'd basically be just to experience the atmosphere, which I'd prefer to be very "historic". And enjoy a pint of Guinness
. Good to know there's a few about though, I eat Pho several times a week... That stuff is amazing
Canadian's don't either
Unless it's to apologize for bumping your shopping cart or something.Thanks for all the tips. I've never been over so I'm looking quite forward to it.
Last edited by Ball Bearing Turbo, .
Now there's a guy I haven't seen post in a long time!
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG