BBT,
It'll always be a personal preference- as you say you're used to a lower FOV, so it's maybe not so much of a big deal. Racing games in general are probably suited to lower FOVs (being inside a racing car must be pretty claustrophobic), I also use a much lower FOV in LFS than I do in the typical FPS. If I'm running around an open world, I find I need that openness the greater FOV gives or I feel like I'm missing out on something, it will almost translate as a visual disability. The default of 55 in BF2BC is way too low personally.
It'll always be a personal preference- as you say you're used to a lower FOV, so it's maybe not so much of a big deal. Racing games in general are probably suited to lower FOVs (being inside a racing car must be pretty claustrophobic), I also use a much lower FOV in LFS than I do in the typical FPS. If I'm running around an open world, I find I need that openness the greater FOV gives or I feel like I'm missing out on something, it will almost translate as a visual disability. The default of 55 in BF2BC is way too low personally.
Probably one thing which can be said in everyone's favour about console games is that they're actually helping to keep studios alive.
Having said that (and being a PC only gamer) I agree that PC ports of console games usually do end up disappointing from a graphical standpoint. My pet peave of the moment is not even texture resolutions/polycounts but the insanely low FOV's that recently made games get shipped with by default.
The last three games I've played (more like looked at)- Mass Effect 2, Bioshock 2 and Battlefield Bad Company 2 all suffer from this. It always makes the graphics look horrible because it's like you're moving through the game with your nose pressed up against all the objects in front of you- there's no breathing space or sense of depth and openness to the world at all- it can actually be pretty uncomfortable from a gameplay perspective.
Apparently you can change the FOV in Bad Company, but for some people it doesn't work and I happen to be one of those. It basically ruins the game for me (not that I have any time to be playing games at the moment anyway). The odd blurry texture pales in comparison to this problem and most likely if PC games were shipped at more respectable FOVs, then a lot of the criticism of textures would probably fade (as you're pulled way back into the scene, the texture issue becomes less noticeable).
Anyway.. PC games for innovation, console games for keeping the ball rolling.
P.S.
Having said that (and being a PC only gamer) I agree that PC ports of console games usually do end up disappointing from a graphical standpoint. My pet peave of the moment is not even texture resolutions/polycounts but the insanely low FOV's that recently made games get shipped with by default.
The last three games I've played (more like looked at)- Mass Effect 2, Bioshock 2 and Battlefield Bad Company 2 all suffer from this. It always makes the graphics look horrible because it's like you're moving through the game with your nose pressed up against all the objects in front of you- there's no breathing space or sense of depth and openness to the world at all- it can actually be pretty uncomfortable from a gameplay perspective.
Apparently you can change the FOV in Bad Company, but for some people it doesn't work and I happen to be one of those. It basically ruins the game for me (not that I have any time to be playing games at the moment anyway). The odd blurry texture pales in comparison to this problem and most likely if PC games were shipped at more respectable FOVs, then a lot of the criticism of textures would probably fade (as you're pulled way back into the scene, the texture issue becomes less noticeable).
Anyway.. PC games for innovation, console games for keeping the ball rolling.
P.S.
Last edited by Electrik Kar, .
I thought this had been out for a while already (the beta that is).
I needed Powerpoint for a presentation a couple of days ago so I downloaded it. Here's a tip- don't use H.264 compressed .mov files in your slides as they will crash Powerpoint
We ended up using photo jpg compression and it seemed to work ok back here.
Didn't work on the school's computers though, did it?!
I needed Powerpoint for a presentation a couple of days ago so I downloaded it. Here's a tip- don't use H.264 compressed .mov files in your slides as they will crash Powerpoint
We ended up using photo jpg compression and it seemed to work ok back here.Didn't work on the school's computers though, did it?!
There are several issues here. One is a welcome confirmation by the committee that more transparency is required by UEA CRU and the climate community in general. There was an astounding admission by Jones here that providing data was not standard practice in climate science (I think that would set climate science apart as the only field in which it is ok to not show your work). Amazingly, even under peer review, the reviewers (Phil's friends) apparently would never ask for any supporting data- this means that this stuff has been taken on faith for a very long time. It certainly gives new meaning to the term 'peer review', ie- it's basically a meaningless term when applied here.
The panel stressed that this was not an inquiry into the science. Yet it's conclusion is that the science is robust. How can they come to that conclusion if they have not done proper investigation?
The committee disappointingly fell for the offical version of 'the trick' emails. They concluded that this was nothing more than a "colloquialism for a “neat” method of handling data." This has been shown to be a false reading by Steve McIntyre who has gone into this issue in great detail. Steve was able to show clearly that the 'trick' was indeed a trick (in the normal sense of the word)- you can read his latest thoughts on the committees findings, here.
I would agree with others here that the inquiry wasn't really anything other than a performance, a whitewash. But if nothing else comes out of it, there is acknowledgement now that climate science must become more transparent. This is good progress. It's what most sceptics want and have been calling for for a long time... simply the re-establishment of the scientific method in climate science (or the ability to replicate or falsify anothers work).
In other words, normal science.
The panel stressed that this was not an inquiry into the science. Yet it's conclusion is that the science is robust. How can they come to that conclusion if they have not done proper investigation?
The committee disappointingly fell for the offical version of 'the trick' emails. They concluded that this was nothing more than a "colloquialism for a “neat” method of handling data." This has been shown to be a false reading by Steve McIntyre who has gone into this issue in great detail. Steve was able to show clearly that the 'trick' was indeed a trick (in the normal sense of the word)- you can read his latest thoughts on the committees findings, here.
I would agree with others here that the inquiry wasn't really anything other than a performance, a whitewash. But if nothing else comes out of it, there is acknowledgement now that climate science must become more transparent. This is good progress. It's what most sceptics want and have been calling for for a long time... simply the re-establishment of the scientific method in climate science (or the ability to replicate or falsify anothers work).
In other words, normal science.
Last edited by Electrik Kar, .
Clogs - On the Edge
The Clogs - Lantern
The music was great (fairly large list of wonderful 20th C composers providing music here) but I'm not so sure about the movie itself. Nothing sat right for atleast 3/4 of the movie (explained away of course by the tepid ending revelation)- because of this I pretty much disengaged from the whole story after the first half hour and found myself focused almost entirely on DeCaprio's bizarre facial contortions, a slightly different pained expression in almost every shot. This didn't help the drama at all and was actually pretty funny to boot. I don't think comedy was the intention here so I rate the film a fail. Cinematography was great, music was great (although strangely placed in a couple of scenes), DeCaprio's face was great... I like the water/fire theme- the rest of it, not so good.
Last edited by Electrik Kar, .
Faun Fables - Mother Twilight album
Fred Frith - Cap the Knife
False (Mathew Dear) - 2007
Front page updated-
Thanks
I don't think there's any reason to be too upset over the way community events are handled by the dev team currently. Most of this stuff is taken care of via the forum- the top section on the main page relates to community events- 'LFS News Headlines', for instance, which mirrors news posted over at LFS World. 'LFS in the News' is also the top sticky in the main discussion section (mostly outside promotional news). The forum is a service provided by the LFS team, and in most instances it works well. I don't think the devs can really be blamed for not imagining that this isn't enough to satisfy the various community developments.
lfs.net serves its function well by acting as the primary source of information on LFS the game, itself. Minutiae such as Bawbag winning the latest championship wouldn't be of much to interest to new players who have never heard of Bawbag to begin with. Similarly, there are probably very few examples of former/current LFS players who have gone onto success in real life racing careers and as such, again probably doesn't justify placement on the main site. As forums naturally represent the domain of community activity- probably the best place to talk about community stuff is on the forum.
Other people have maintained very good LFS related sites over the years. Master Skinnerz, LFS-Database, Team Inferno's Setup Field, various fan and related news pages, etc. These are well known sites. I think if the devs wanted to draw attention to a kind of 'best of' of the various community projects via a new site- they would have. I would agree with you here that the active portion of the LFS community doesn't get the look in it sometimes deserves by the devs, but that is for the community to deal with. Not every software company is enthusiastic about or even interested in their community making their game for them.
Your argument that the forum has become tainted by 'an heterogeneous melt of trolls, perverts and kids' has been well discussed. I won't go into it here- all I'll say is that if someone wants to start seperating 'wheat from chaff' then there's nothing really stopping them. As mentioned above, there are good examples of sites already existing catering to various LFS interests. These sites don't need dev sanctioning, they just need community input and support.
lfs.net serves its function well by acting as the primary source of information on LFS the game, itself. Minutiae such as Bawbag winning the latest championship wouldn't be of much to interest to new players who have never heard of Bawbag to begin with. Similarly, there are probably very few examples of former/current LFS players who have gone onto success in real life racing careers and as such, again probably doesn't justify placement on the main site. As forums naturally represent the domain of community activity- probably the best place to talk about community stuff is on the forum.
Other people have maintained very good LFS related sites over the years. Master Skinnerz, LFS-Database, Team Inferno's Setup Field, various fan and related news pages, etc. These are well known sites. I think if the devs wanted to draw attention to a kind of 'best of' of the various community projects via a new site- they would have. I would agree with you here that the active portion of the LFS community doesn't get the look in it sometimes deserves by the devs, but that is for the community to deal with. Not every software company is enthusiastic about or even interested in their community making their game for them.
Your argument that the forum has become tainted by 'an heterogeneous melt of trolls, perverts and kids' has been well discussed. I won't go into it here- all I'll say is that if someone wants to start seperating 'wheat from chaff' then there's nothing really stopping them. As mentioned above, there are good examples of sites already existing catering to various LFS interests. These sites don't need dev sanctioning, they just need community input and support.
Last edited by Electrik Kar, .
Yup, .flac is a compressed but lossless (ie, no degredation in quality) audio format.
Pipe organs! 
(bought a Bach CD for some subwoofers I want to audition soon).
(bought a Bach CD for some subwoofers I want to audition soon).
Christopher Willits and Ryuichi Sakamoto - Cold Heat
enduser vs soundmurderer - revolution ep
Have you seen.. Silence of the Lambs?
Yeah. It's just that when I think of T2 I always think of it within that particular experience.. how surprised I was to learn that the value of something could change so radically once you're presented with new information.
Off the top of my head I can't think of anything that really stands out. Maybe I'm not an action movie person. I loved Die Hard 3 (or was it 4?) - the one where the car is speeding through the park to stop a bomb going off?
PS... Blues Brothers!
Last edited by Electrik Kar, .
I've no bone to pick with Aliens, but T2 only worked for me the first time I saw it. At the time I thought that no movie would be able to top it- it was 'awesome'.
A couple of days later my parents bought Silence of the lambs home on VHS. I begain to watch but after about 5 minutes I turned the movie off, as no movie could possibly compete with T2!
Anyway I gave 'Lambs' another shot later on that night and totally forgot about T2 after about the first hour. The next day I kept thinking how shallow T2 was as a movie experience compared to something like Silence of the Lambs and how dumb I was to raise it to such an inflated level. Long story short... erm... T2 ain't so great.
Last edited by Electrik Kar, .
Some addictions are pleasurable. Others not so much.
I await the Sawyer vs Sawyer fight to the death over the remaining Juliet from the alternative timeline.
I await the Sawyer vs Sawyer fight to the death over the remaining Juliet from the alternative timeline.
Last edited by Electrik Kar, .
The problem is that due to modern demands placed on portable computing there are too many gaps which apparently need filling now. We have the home computer for big tasks and serious work/entertainment. Then the less powered laptop for mobile computing, a netbook for light web browsing/emailing, a smaller gadget still for music and phone, and none of these work as good replacements for each other but each is somehow deemed necessary for proper societal functioning. Also now there are the eReaders arriving, beginning life as another seperate device. I can imagine people buying an iPad for web surfing (on the couch) and a Kindle or similar for ebooks. We'll justify this somehow but it's still stupid. It's just techno fetishism.
I reckon an iPad sized computer which doubles as an eReader (e-ink or similar) and is powerful enough to be a laptop replacement... that would be a great little gadget...
(I know we're not there yet but I will definitely hold out on any of this stuff until we are)
To be fair Apple has got the tablet form totally right. Too bad it's an Apple. If this was a PC and I was spending my life on a train or a plane I would probably love a device like this. The iPad makes laptops look like clunky dinosaurs by comparison.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG