Fair call^
Since I started with the S1 demo and up until I stopped racing regularly there have always been enough Aussie servers. I visited the Oz Bee guys more than once and would've continued with the AAL were it not for my shocking dialup lag. Now I have decent broadband I can hit Conedodgers or CTRA or nearly any foreign server for a quick scrap with no major issues. The point is even if there aren't any local servers up, there's still plenty of racing available for us Down Here. And even if there was a consistent lack of servers for us it certainly wouldn't be the fault of the developers.
On topic, I just don't think a GT5/LFS comparison is a valid one, regardless of the hardware you use. I haven't played GT5 yet, but it'll have to be a truly massive step up from GT4 physics-wise if it's going to come anywhere near being a true simulator. For example: in GT4, with a tweaked 500+hp Dodge Charger, I couldn't get it to lose traction and spin. I couldn't even lightly 4w-drift it into a corner let alone kick the back all the way out and power-oversteer through it - all I got was ploughing understeer like I was driving my girlfriend's old Corolla. Maybe it's due to me just using the analog pad, I dunno, but I doubt it (I may load GT4 up tonight and just confirm that). So please do post a vid of you and your best hardware doing exactly what you can in an LFS car, ie affecting something approaching real car behaviour, because I'd be interested to see it. Being able to kick the back out realistically isn't the be-all and end-all of car games of course. I used that as my example because the one thing I expected to be able to do with a monstrous FR muscle car was lose traction at the rear very easily under heavy braking and into corners, which did not happen.
Since I started with the S1 demo and up until I stopped racing regularly there have always been enough Aussie servers. I visited the Oz Bee guys more than once and would've continued with the AAL were it not for my shocking dialup lag. Now I have decent broadband I can hit Conedodgers or CTRA or nearly any foreign server for a quick scrap with no major issues. The point is even if there aren't any local servers up, there's still plenty of racing available for us Down Here. And even if there was a consistent lack of servers for us it certainly wouldn't be the fault of the developers.
On topic, I just don't think a GT5/LFS comparison is a valid one, regardless of the hardware you use. I haven't played GT5 yet, but it'll have to be a truly massive step up from GT4 physics-wise if it's going to come anywhere near being a true simulator. For example: in GT4, with a tweaked 500+hp Dodge Charger, I couldn't get it to lose traction and spin. I couldn't even lightly 4w-drift it into a corner let alone kick the back all the way out and power-oversteer through it - all I got was ploughing understeer like I was driving my girlfriend's old Corolla. Maybe it's due to me just using the analog pad, I dunno, but I doubt it (I may load GT4 up tonight and just confirm that). So please do post a vid of you and your best hardware doing exactly what you can in an LFS car, ie affecting something approaching real car behaviour, because I'd be interested to see it. Being able to kick the back out realistically isn't the be-all and end-all of car games of course. I used that as my example because the one thing I expected to be able to do with a monstrous FR muscle car was lose traction at the rear very easily under heavy braking and into corners, which did not happen.
The key difference there is that Trekkers know Star Trek is fictional and watch it as entertainment without basing their entire lives on it. Well, most of them do anyway. At least hardcore Trekkers don't blow themselves up at Star Wars conventions to kill Jedi infidels in order to join Kirk in the Nexus and bonk green-skinned space sluts for eternity.
Last edited by Hankstar, .
Are you shiny-side in or shiny-side out? I don't trust these guys who have the shiny side in - how are you meant to reflect the CIA mind-control rays with dull tin-foil? I reckon they're in on it!
Jeebus.
*puts on foil hat to protect from t3h sto0pid*
Halfway through Iain M Banks latest, "Matter". The Culture rules 
And thus concludes the OP's baptism of fire. I think he's got the point.
Although, if he'd searched for "tunning" I doubt he would've found much. "Tuning", however...
Although, if he'd searched for "tunning" I doubt he would've found much. "Tuning", however...
True, the Pope was basically an emperor in all but title, such was his influence (which rested on a healthy fear of damnation and promises of the eternal jackpot) among the powerful of the day. I'm sure Popenfuhrer Ratzinger would like to be able to wield that kind of power these days, but unfortunately all he can do is issue half-truths, admonishments and vague sentiments about getting along while dooming millions of illiterate poor people to slow AIDS-related deaths with the official Vatican anti-condom mythology (as well as his refusal to condemn those of his command structure in stricken African nations who propagate lies about the HIV virus being able to pass through condoms). But that's slighty OT.
Last edited by Hankstar, .
SamH, I'm with you there (despite your squid-based rejection of me - just remember all who deny the squid overlords shall be ensared in the tentacles of truth and cleft in twain by the beaks of ultimate knowing).
Memory's a tenuous, subjective and unpredictable thing and I long ago gave up relying on mine. Hence, my wife.
de Souza, I'm with you there too. Extremism of any form is one of our worst enemies. Extreme religious beliefs give you Crusades, Inquisitions, fundamentalist Christian doctor-killers in the US, suicide bombers in the Middle East, and fundamentalist Wahhabi Islam such as employed by the Taliban and Saudi Arabi; extreme nationalism gives you Bush & Cheney; extreme socialism gives you Stalin & Mao. Any dogmatic belief system or narrow ideal strengthened by the simple and unshakeable faith that it's the one true path will invariably lead to injustice & oppression. And, while it may be very true to say the extremists of any position, religious or otherwise, are the ones to watch out for, you must recognise that they wouldn't exist at all but for the system they subscribe to in the first place. Without the core beliefs that had my dear departed grandma going to church every Sunday without fail, you wouldn't have fundy Evangelists pipe-bombing abortion clinics. Without the beliefs of the gentle & kind immigrant muslim ladies that work in my office, there wouldn't be repressive Islamic theocracies for them and people like them to escape from in the first place. While it's the fringe fundamentalist groups that give the moderates a bad name, it's their shared beliefs that allow the fundamentalists to exist in the first place.
I sure don't mean to just target religion though, clearly a charge of extremism applies to any narrow & unquestioning adherence to a particular worldview, ideology, philosophy etc. Compare the tactics of Sea Shepherd & Greenpeace regarding Japanese whaling vessels! Same ideals, very different ways of expressing them. Some people consider Greenpeace to be extreme environmentalists, but compared to Sea Shepherd they're as moderate as they come. So no, it's not just religion, but narrow-minded belief that you not only possess absolute truth but also the knowledge that anyone who disagrees with you is an enemy that is the danger. Although, regarding religion: someone who maintains they're absolutely certain about something which cannot be proven should be regarded with suspicion.
edit:
Believe what you like in the privacy of your own mind, it's none of my business or anyone else's - except when you storm in make it our business with your off-topic flaming. The truth of religious belief isn't the subject of the discussion and you've just made a giant tool of yourself. Well done!
Memory's a tenuous, subjective and unpredictable thing and I long ago gave up relying on mine. Hence, my wife.
de Souza, I'm with you there too. Extremism of any form is one of our worst enemies. Extreme religious beliefs give you Crusades, Inquisitions, fundamentalist Christian doctor-killers in the US, suicide bombers in the Middle East, and fundamentalist Wahhabi Islam such as employed by the Taliban and Saudi Arabi; extreme nationalism gives you Bush & Cheney; extreme socialism gives you Stalin & Mao. Any dogmatic belief system or narrow ideal strengthened by the simple and unshakeable faith that it's the one true path will invariably lead to injustice & oppression. And, while it may be very true to say the extremists of any position, religious or otherwise, are the ones to watch out for, you must recognise that they wouldn't exist at all but for the system they subscribe to in the first place. Without the core beliefs that had my dear departed grandma going to church every Sunday without fail, you wouldn't have fundy Evangelists pipe-bombing abortion clinics. Without the beliefs of the gentle & kind immigrant muslim ladies that work in my office, there wouldn't be repressive Islamic theocracies for them and people like them to escape from in the first place. While it's the fringe fundamentalist groups that give the moderates a bad name, it's their shared beliefs that allow the fundamentalists to exist in the first place.
I sure don't mean to just target religion though, clearly a charge of extremism applies to any narrow & unquestioning adherence to a particular worldview, ideology, philosophy etc. Compare the tactics of Sea Shepherd & Greenpeace regarding Japanese whaling vessels! Same ideals, very different ways of expressing them. Some people consider Greenpeace to be extreme environmentalists, but compared to Sea Shepherd they're as moderate as they come. So no, it's not just religion, but narrow-minded belief that you not only possess absolute truth but also the knowledge that anyone who disagrees with you is an enemy that is the danger. Although, regarding religion: someone who maintains they're absolutely certain about something which cannot be proven should be regarded with suspicion.
edit:
Believe what you like in the privacy of your own mind, it's none of my business or anyone else's - except when you storm in make it our business with your off-topic flaming. The truth of religious belief isn't the subject of the discussion and you've just made a giant tool of yourself. Well done!
Last edited by Hankstar, .
Reason : blatant attention-troll!
Objectivism & existentialism are all well & good as mental exercises (and I indulge in them regularly), but as it stands, much of verifiable reality or truth is the same for everyone. The fact that the earth is round, for example. That the sky appears blue (for reasons of refraction and because we've decided to name things commonly in order to facilitate the communication of various concepts to each other, but still, it's blue). That we can't talk to giant squid (yet). We hold all these simple things to be absolute truths as much as any other thing that's verifiable to our five senses. We could be wrong about everything, this could all be a simulation and there might not be a sky at all and we may even be giant squid participating in our own squiddy experiment in objectivism, but to our limited awareness, as it stands, what we have & what we can see is what there is. We must do our best to learn what we can about what we can see (and what our little three-dimensional ape brains can comprehend) and that is precisely what science is for. Objective, verifiable & falsifiable testing of what we refer to as "reality", "truth" and "fact".
While it's always interesting to indulge in conjecture about whether all we perceive as true is actually "true" (or even "there" at all!), in the end it doesn't actually accomplish a great deal, save for giving us pause to reflect on the nature of existence. Which is fine by me as existentialism is no more a pointless pursuit than any other of my hobbies - why shouldn't I, an apparently grown man, collect LPs and play video games and play in a freakin band and generally act like I'm back in 1995 if all this is some bollocks simulation and we're mere figments of some squiddy imagination? You never know what those mega-cephalopods are getting up to in their deep-ocean lairs, y'know...
ALL HAIL OUR SQUID OVERLORDS!!
While it's always interesting to indulge in conjecture about whether all we perceive as true is actually "true" (or even "there" at all!), in the end it doesn't actually accomplish a great deal, save for giving us pause to reflect on the nature of existence. Which is fine by me as existentialism is no more a pointless pursuit than any other of my hobbies - why shouldn't I, an apparently grown man, collect LPs and play video games and play in a freakin band and generally act like I'm back in 1995 if all this is some bollocks simulation and we're mere figments of some squiddy imagination? You never know what those mega-cephalopods are getting up to in their deep-ocean lairs, y'know...
ALL HAIL OUR SQUID OVERLORDS!!
Yes, the quantum singularity turd at the centre of it is only the size of a Mars bar but has the density of ITV's James Allen! Oh the gravity!
Why this thread is in general LFS discussion and not the Off Topic bit is beyond me.
As soon as GT includes such obvious race-related things as damage (and the associated ability to use opposing cars as brakes without consequence), rollovers and ditches arcade crapness like the "Stage 3 Turbo" it'll be close to worthy of the title "driving simulator". Right now it's little more than an elaborate & lengthy showroom simulator & screenshot generator.
That's not to say GT isn't fun though. Beer-fuelled 2-player stock Viper or GT40 battles at Trial Mountain for the ultimate win!
As soon as GT includes such obvious race-related things as damage (and the associated ability to use opposing cars as brakes without consequence), rollovers and ditches arcade crapness like the "Stage 3 Turbo" it'll be close to worthy of the title "driving simulator". Right now it's little more than an elaborate & lengthy showroom simulator & screenshot generator.
That's not to say GT isn't fun though. Beer-fuelled 2-player stock Viper or GT40 battles at Trial Mountain for the ultimate win!
Racer X, the problem is exactly how you describe: people use religion to justify their hideous actions. There probably isn't a passage in the Torah or old testament that specifically says "expel the Palestinians and treat them like prisoners in their own land", but the entire reason Israel exists as a country in the first place is because of the desire for a Jewish homeland, the location of which is given right there in, or at least was gleaned from, those old books. However, while people will always treat each other like shit and kill each other for whatever reason, it takes religion - or a similarly faith-based, dogmatic belief - to get people to do the most unspeakable things to each other. Blaming religion for everything is unfair, but blaming religion for those things religion is responsible for is merely stating the facts. Belief - solid, unwavering and unfounded belief - that you are in posession of absolute truth is a powerful weapon. Marinate a child in that environment from an early age and you can influence them to do anything in support of that belief. The various theistic religions are the most pervasive and common faith-based belief systems on this planet. They must take responsibility for actions done in their name and, where appropriate, must categorically denounce them!
Aside: as for "ignoring bits of the old testament", that's quite eye-opening considering it's the foundation document of the Abrahamic religions. In Numbers 31 for example, Moses is commanded - by god - to not only kill all the Midianites, but to destroy all their towns & settlements, take all their livestock & wealth and kill everyone including the women & children: "but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." So, go ahead & destroy & rob these people, but you can rape their daughters. My point in bringing this up is that when religious people choose to "ignore" bits of the old testament (or even the new testament, with its talk of hell and eternal damnation, which was too sick even by old testament standards ), it's because their own morality is superior to that expressed in parts of the bible, indeed superior to the god depicted in it in many, many cases - or at least no worse than that god. If that book is god's word and is true (as the book itself maintains it is, in logic so circular it rivals an actual circle) by what right does any self-described faithful person have any right to ignore any of it? In order to get to any bits about love and charity in the old testament you have to wade through oceans of dead Midianites, Jerichoans, Egyptians etc. You don't have to just ignore bits of it, you have to ignore so much that it quickly becomes redundant.
Aside: as for "ignoring bits of the old testament", that's quite eye-opening considering it's the foundation document of the Abrahamic religions. In Numbers 31 for example, Moses is commanded - by god - to not only kill all the Midianites, but to destroy all their towns & settlements, take all their livestock & wealth and kill everyone including the women & children: "but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." So, go ahead & destroy & rob these people, but you can rape their daughters. My point in bringing this up is that when religious people choose to "ignore" bits of the old testament (or even the new testament, with its talk of hell and eternal damnation, which was too sick even by old testament standards ), it's because their own morality is superior to that expressed in parts of the bible, indeed superior to the god depicted in it in many, many cases - or at least no worse than that god. If that book is god's word and is true (as the book itself maintains it is, in logic so circular it rivals an actual circle) by what right does any self-described faithful person have any right to ignore any of it? In order to get to any bits about love and charity in the old testament you have to wade through oceans of dead Midianites, Jerichoans, Egyptians etc. You don't have to just ignore bits of it, you have to ignore so much that it quickly becomes redundant.
Last edited by Hankstar, .
Crafty a species as humans are, we're still posessive, territorial apes easily driven & controlled by fear. While a lot of things can make us afraid or angry enough to trigger violence (competition over territory, mates, resources; threat of invasion or attack - real or not), religion has the ability to raise the level of fear to extremes. Raise a child to believe it'll burn in hell for doing the wrong thing and, understandably, anything the resulting adult has to do to avoid such torment is justifiable. Certainly, bribing the same person with promises of eternal life, heavenly reward and sitting at a god's table is also a potent motivator, but the fear of just missing out on such rewards is arguably as potent as a fear of eternal punishment.
Not all wars or genocides or atrocities have been religiously motivated and I'm unsure what the proportions are when it comes to comparing religious conflicts with those of a more secular nature. However, those wars with religious motivations, hidden or blatant, often display the most depraved forms of violence and torture. We're probably all familiar with the Crusades, launched by European kings to wrest control of the holy land of Palestine from the infidel Muslims, resulting in hideous brutalities and massacres. So too with the conflict in Ireland which felt like it would last forever and claimed the lives of many innocent people (Omagh will stick in my mind forever) - a crystal-clear demonstration that even people of the same religion can hate one another with a burning passion that eclipses all reasonable thought. Hitler's invasion of Poland may not have had religious roots, but his loathing of Jews definitely did. Though a Catholic by birth (a faith he never renounced; he was also never excommunicated by the Vatican) he drew venomous inspiration from Protestant Martin Luther's vicious rants against Jews. Though it could be argued he wasn't even a faithful man (despite his pseudo-Norse god worship strengthened by old myths and the Wagnerian operas based on them, mashed up with Neitchze's ubermensch concept), he at the very least knew how to use it to motivate and mobilise his supporters and followers. The SS, after all, had "Gott mit uns" (God is with us) on their belt-buckles.
Add to this the examples of Israel/Palestine (ruthless territorial expansion based on belief of cultural superiority, combatted with suicidal martyr attacks); the Inquisition, which featured tortures and privations that would make the Abu Ghraib torture squads look positively tame (though the Abu Ghraib criminals use many of the same tactics); the 9/11 attacks, seemingly carried out by Islamic martyrs; Bush's response to 9/11, alleged to be at least partially divinely motivated - though I suspect his own decision-making capabilities had very little to do with actually kicking it off, considering his considerable difficulty even in deciding which word to say next.
There are more examples of religiously motivated conflict of course, and many examples of purely secular human conflict. Even if all religions were declared officially false and bogus and outlawed tomorrow, people would always desire to kill each other. There would still be conflicts over ideas as well as physical things like territory. There would be still dogmatic beliefs, immune to reason or logic, which elevate a single idea or goal above all else in a very fundamentalist way and there would still be ruthless dogmatists ready to pursue those ideas without regard to humanity or reality.
Stalin, Pol Pot and others are often used by the faithful as bats to beat atheists with, as if to say "religion kills millions but so does a lack of it!" This is a classic strawman attack though - it wasn't their professed lack of belief in gods that drove them to put millions to death and decimate their countries, it was their dogmatic, unfounded belief (their "faith") in their narrow ideals and singular vision (and unquenchable thirst for sheer power) that drove them beyond reason and into fundamentalist dogma which eclipsed all else. Even if you remove god-belief from an equation, any unfounded belief, any faith, held strongly enough and made immune to reasonable, logical challenge can lead to unspeakable horrors - and quite often, in an Orwellian reversal, under the flag of utopianism.
So, while it's true that religion has been the root cause of many unthinkable injustices, murders and genocides, what really needs to be addressed are the issues of faith: the belief in something with no foundation or reason to do so; and dogma: the solid, blinkered adherence to that belief in the face of contradictory evidence. Whether you believe the creator of the universe wants you to destroy infidels to hasten a new age or Armageddon, or you believe you yourself (or your leader) to be the ultimate power on earth, your blind, unquestioning faith in either of those things is the most dangerous weapon in your arsenal.
Not all wars or genocides or atrocities have been religiously motivated and I'm unsure what the proportions are when it comes to comparing religious conflicts with those of a more secular nature. However, those wars with religious motivations, hidden or blatant, often display the most depraved forms of violence and torture. We're probably all familiar with the Crusades, launched by European kings to wrest control of the holy land of Palestine from the infidel Muslims, resulting in hideous brutalities and massacres. So too with the conflict in Ireland which felt like it would last forever and claimed the lives of many innocent people (Omagh will stick in my mind forever) - a crystal-clear demonstration that even people of the same religion can hate one another with a burning passion that eclipses all reasonable thought. Hitler's invasion of Poland may not have had religious roots, but his loathing of Jews definitely did. Though a Catholic by birth (a faith he never renounced; he was also never excommunicated by the Vatican) he drew venomous inspiration from Protestant Martin Luther's vicious rants against Jews. Though it could be argued he wasn't even a faithful man (despite his pseudo-Norse god worship strengthened by old myths and the Wagnerian operas based on them, mashed up with Neitchze's ubermensch concept), he at the very least knew how to use it to motivate and mobilise his supporters and followers. The SS, after all, had "Gott mit uns" (God is with us) on their belt-buckles.
Add to this the examples of Israel/Palestine (ruthless territorial expansion based on belief of cultural superiority, combatted with suicidal martyr attacks); the Inquisition, which featured tortures and privations that would make the Abu Ghraib torture squads look positively tame (though the Abu Ghraib criminals use many of the same tactics); the 9/11 attacks, seemingly carried out by Islamic martyrs; Bush's response to 9/11, alleged to be at least partially divinely motivated - though I suspect his own decision-making capabilities had very little to do with actually kicking it off, considering his considerable difficulty even in deciding which word to say next.
There are more examples of religiously motivated conflict of course, and many examples of purely secular human conflict. Even if all religions were declared officially false and bogus and outlawed tomorrow, people would always desire to kill each other. There would still be conflicts over ideas as well as physical things like territory. There would be still dogmatic beliefs, immune to reason or logic, which elevate a single idea or goal above all else in a very fundamentalist way and there would still be ruthless dogmatists ready to pursue those ideas without regard to humanity or reality.
Stalin, Pol Pot and others are often used by the faithful as bats to beat atheists with, as if to say "religion kills millions but so does a lack of it!" This is a classic strawman attack though - it wasn't their professed lack of belief in gods that drove them to put millions to death and decimate their countries, it was their dogmatic, unfounded belief (their "faith") in their narrow ideals and singular vision (and unquenchable thirst for sheer power) that drove them beyond reason and into fundamentalist dogma which eclipsed all else. Even if you remove god-belief from an equation, any unfounded belief, any faith, held strongly enough and made immune to reasonable, logical challenge can lead to unspeakable horrors - and quite often, in an Orwellian reversal, under the flag of utopianism.
So, while it's true that religion has been the root cause of many unthinkable injustices, murders and genocides, what really needs to be addressed are the issues of faith: the belief in something with no foundation or reason to do so; and dogma: the solid, blinkered adherence to that belief in the face of contradictory evidence. Whether you believe the creator of the universe wants you to destroy infidels to hasten a new age or Armageddon, or you believe you yourself (or your leader) to be the ultimate power on earth, your blind, unquestioning faith in either of those things is the most dangerous weapon in your arsenal.
Whole new tracks ftw. I couldn't be more over new layouts for existing tracks if I tried.
My two cents
Joseph, Tristan may well drive a "can", but I don't think anyone who spells their name with a five and a three should hand out proofreading advice 
As long as James Twatting Allen doesn't leave ITV and follow the F1 to the Beeb, I suppose this is a good thing
I agree with the above three posts.
Hell, during a race my pet hate is a car sitting stationary on the side of the track, lap after lap. Anything to reduce the load that useless hunk imposes is fine by me. What are you doing sitting around in MP for so long doing nothing anyway? If you're chatting, you don't need your engine to be on. You don't even need to be in your car if you're not driving it, really. It's not such an imposition to just fire it up and be on your way when you need to be either Like Woz said, you need to optimise within the environment you have.
Like Woz said, you need to optimise within the environment you have.I've heard that Las Vegas may be actually the centre of some kind of warp in the space-time continuum - a paradoxical, prime material plane-based planetary quantum singularity overlaying a pan-dimensional null-geodesic segment - for it seems that whatever happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas.
:up: Good point!
I guess the best way to avoid a smart-ass answer is to ask a relevant question, suggest something new, use constructive criticism and, most importantly, make sure that whatever you're saying hasn't already been asked, answered and discussed to death already e.g. improvement suggestions regarding tuning, body kits, drift/touge tracks, real-life cars, console ports, free-roam cities, giant squid etc.
You can never guarantee a polite response from people online, especially frequent forum-dwellers (!), but taking a few seconds to think before hitting "post" will avoid the worst of it.
Really, it's for the poster's own good! Of course noone wants to be flamed, but (for example) asking for the Nordschleife or the AE86 in a popular racing game that's five years old - and thinking you're the first person to have thought of it - is a great way to get it done.
I guess the best way to avoid a smart-ass answer is to ask a relevant question, suggest something new, use constructive criticism and, most importantly, make sure that whatever you're saying hasn't already been asked, answered and discussed to death already e.g. improvement suggestions regarding tuning, body kits, drift/touge tracks, real-life cars, console ports, free-roam cities, giant squid etc.
You can never guarantee a polite response from people online, especially frequent forum-dwellers (!), but taking a few seconds to think before hitting "post" will avoid the worst of it.
Really, it's for the poster's own good! Of course noone wants to be flamed, but (for example) asking for the Nordschleife or the AE86 in a popular racing game that's five years old - and thinking you're the first person to have thought of it - is a great way to get it done.
Official F1 song:
Born To Be Mild - Steppenwolf feat. Max & Bernie
Born To Be Mild - Steppenwolf feat. Max & Bernie
Apart from his many brilliant books (both fiction and non-fiction), I believe Arthur C Clarke is the only man ever to have both an asteroid and a species of dinosaur named after him as well as co-write a film with Stanley Kubrick (I'm so jealous). 2001: A Space Odyssey (made in 1963) is still a benchmark scifi movie and is one of the best, easily recognised, most-quoted and heavily-referenced of any genre ever made (watch the Simpsons often enough and 2001 references crop up quite a bit, as do references from many other Kubrick films). Clarke & Kubrick, what a collaboration - roughly equivalent to Iain M Banks making a film with Martin Scorcese (*drool*).
Arthur C Clarke - too many levels of awesome.
Arthur C Clarke - too many levels of awesome.
This won't ever happen (with LFS or any other small indie game) unless generic, compatible consoles with common OS's - making it possible for indie developers to make their own console games - become a reality. Fortunately, IBM compatible PCs exist to make us all happy in that regard
And, as luck would have it, they already come with internet connectivity and the appropriate ports to plug things like wheels into.
And, as luck would have it, they already come with internet connectivity and the appropriate ports to plug things like wheels into.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG