I was also surprised on the comeback of Ned Stark, great stuff in this first ep.

Buuuump!

0.19 is great, managed to land a rover on Duna today.

Quote from Beaver08 :

This decision was a difficult decision to make as many people enjoy cruising on our servers and i'm sure it will be a great loss to the LFS Community.

Oh, yeah. I'm sure. Totally. Mm-hmm.

Less cruisers pretending to play smokey and the bandit on race tracks = less pointless childish drama on the forums and IRC = GOOD.

Uhh, T500 goes as low as 249€ now?





I rest my case.

The F1 wheel is shit, I agree. The normal one is decent, with the exception of the rubbery surface. Did you even drive with the wheel? I think you're letting your Fanatec fanboyism skew your bias as usual here.

I was also worried jumping in with Thrustmaster, but they've really engineered this thing to take a nuclear blast. I've given it nothing but total abuse since december and it has only thanked me for it.

Yes, plastic covers make the whole wheel totally worthless.

Atleast it looks and feels like a real wheel when driving, rather than like a toy.

T500 RS? Much cheaper than CSR while still packing a powerful motor with belt drive and 1080 degrees.

If there ever was a perfect game for a Yahtzee "review", then this is it.

http://www.escapistmagazine.co ... -punctuation/7053-SimCity

Quote from John5200 :

Am I the only one that ATM has really trouble to find a lot of fun in gaming? I rarely buy games, because the main focus of pretty much every single game is to make the most profit possible, to make a awesome game seems to be prittey much one of the least important things (who would buy the followup game the next year?!)

From the main publishers, I prittey much only love valve. 1 They show love for linux (A massive from me) 2 When they release a game, it is at least great (IMO) 3 DLC? shure you can have it for free (Not all DLC's have to be free, but at least make the pricing anywhere close to reasonable. Most of the production cost is writing the core stuff like MP coding, balancing, optimising etc etc. But for some wired reason, the content in DLC's is usually like 3-10 times more expensive then the stuff in the core game).

Back some many years ago, people tried to make great games, taking PC's to the max and put effort into stuff. Now the budgets are like 100 times bigger, but you get 99% games that you can easily finish in a day. (and usually are HEAVILY similar to other games. No you don't need to reinvent the wheel, but at least TRY to make something better/different to other games)

All game companies do it for the profit, both developers or publishers. That doesn't mean they don't want to make a great game or have fun while doing it, but the primary reason in the end is always to make money and make a living. As a side effect, many publishers want the developers to push their games out unfinished to meet the release schedule for vacations/holidays to make the most money at launch. The actual games we get now are still great and have improved a lot (with some consolitis affecting them like QTE's and general dumbing down) compared to what we had 10-20 years ago.

Valve are great, definitely my favourite developer and publisher at the moment, but they aren't as perfect as most of the gaming community think of them. Steam still has the dreaded $ = € pricing model (before you say it's only because third party publishers wanted it, Valve does it too) and the reason they are pushing Linux so much lately, is so they can maximize their own profits without having to compete with the integrated Windows app stores in the future. Another reason for their Linux development is the upcoming hardware they are cooking up. Running a free OS on it is much more profitable than having to license Windows for each machine. Having said all that, I have nothing against Linux gaming and in fact I wish it great success. It's truly fantastic that Windows is finally getting some competition on the gaming front that they've held in a monopoly.

The problem with modern gaming is largely to be blamed on the horribly outdated console generation. There's only so much you can get out of eight year old hardware, which wasn't that great even when it came out. That's why games that are pushing the PC boundaries to the max are rare to come by, as consoles are still the lead platform for most publishers as they make them the most money with the least efforth. That said, there has been a shift towards PC gaming lately, as PC's have gained more and more traction in the last couple years as console gamers want a better experience than what nearly decade old consoles can offer.

I wanted to get the new SimCity because it does look pretty nice and fresh graphically, but a few things prevented me from doing that:

• Origin only, which is an instant nope. One would think EA should have learned from Steam and improved own service by now.
  
• Always online DRM, and in continuation to that...
  
• The lies of EA/Maxis regarding the "mandatory" simulations they claimed to run on their online servers but were proven to be false like many suspected pre-launch - it's all just anti consumer DRM.
  
  
• Tiny cities, or villages more like it.
  
• simcity.GetFudgedPopulation
  
• It's buggy as hell and quite a broken game from what I've read.
  

If they happen to fix the game and push it to Steam or any other DD platform than Origin, then I might get it when it goes real cheap on a sale.

Quote from bmwe30m3 :

Well... Samsung Galaxy Tab 2 7.0 supports calling.

Reading comprehension? I said it's not optimal to call with a tablet, I know you can do it. Imagine having to grab a 7-10" device from your pocket/backpack just to call/answer someone.

Smartphone doesn't replace a tablet and tablet doesn't replace a smartphone. They both have their purposes and best use scenarios. Reading books from a phone screen isn't optimal for example, neither is calling someone with a tablet.

Time to retire the old and tired 6 year old Logitech G5.. you served well, old friend. New:



Also got another NF-P12 PWM for the H100i radiator (snatched the other one from backup D14).

Quote from matijapkc :

It wasn't my One X and I don't know what would you have to do to slow a quad core so much, but I was trying to open a webpage on it (it was yahoo answers or something similar to it, so a very simple website) and it took it about twice as much as it would take my Mini to open the site. Also, as the site was loading, I wasn't able to do anything, because the phone was completely frozen for a few seconds. I could only do anything with it, when the site completely loaded. Talk about being twice as fast.

And you honestly thought that's normal behaviour of a modern high end phone? Stuff windows full of crap and browser quickbars running in the backround and see how snappy that'll be, same thing can happen with Android.

Quote from matijapkc :

Oh, and btw, specs do not equal performance, so just because it has a quad core doesn't mean it's twice as fast as a dual core.

Which is why I linked Antutu benchmarks that pretty much tell you straight up how snappy a device is in real use from all aspects.

Anyway, I don't want to start a thermonuclear war here, but stating S3 Mini to be faster than a One X or a One is plain silly.

HTC One is a completely different phone with a completely different SOC... only thing in common with a One X is that it uses the same Sense OS theme.

And you must have had something screwed up on a One X for it to be slower than a S3 Mini, as the HTC is pretty much twice as fast in real world use even with the bloated stock OS.

AND most importantly, it has a hole in the floor for ice fishing!

I'm pretty sure there aren't any precisely 1200 pixel wide screens available for consumers in a standard form. 1152x864 4:3 is as close as I can think of, that would of course result in black bars. The next step would be 1280x960, which doesn't match either.

Quote from Klouczech :

I think 17" (5:4 portrait) is right?

Don't know really, you'll just have to research which 17" screens you have in mind to make sure they match your vertical resolution and physical height when rotated to portrait. Dot pitch should also be as close as possible to the main screen.

Quote from Klouczech :

Can one GPU handle two side portrait monitors and one landscape?

Depends entirely on your GPU and combined resolution you'll be running.

20" (4:3 portrait) 30" (16:10 landscape) 20" (4:3 portrait)

It's alright for racing, 3x 16:10 screens would propably be better for a wider FOV and less hassle to setup. That would be too wide for any other kind of gaming if you ask me though, this is a nice compromise for all genres.