View Thread

Who is here? 1 guest(s)
 Print Thread
RIP Steve Jobs
cheshiredragon
I made the video, but watched it and I SUCK! lot of 'uhh', 'umm' DUUUUUUR

Makes me feel like an idiot and I know exactly what I am explaining and talking about. I just feel so on the spot making a video and I wasn't keeping the camera still so I will have to remake it. :/
That's right, I said it...
 
cheshiredragon
fsck it, I give up on trying to make the video properly. The only thing I left out is that it is a quad-core CPU @ 2.53Ghz.



AGAIN, sorry for not holding the camera as still as I could have.
That's right, I said it...
 
Theory_Execution
If it burns extremely hot to the touch playing a game at normal or high settings, then that defeats the lap-top aspect of it.
 
seeker
Not so sure that running that hot is a good thing.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
 
cheshiredragon
True, but laptops are not gaming systems and were never meant to be. This is an extremely intense game. All the other games I run on that laptop never reach those temps. Not even slightly warm. This is also why the aluminum case is a good design. Intel procs are notorious for heat, the case disperses heat well and when the game turns off it cools down in about 15-20sec. A typical PC will shutdown when it gets too hot and will need to wait 15-20min for it to cool off before it can be turned back on. I have ran this game for 6hrs straight and it has never shut down on me.

I made so many of these videos that I don't remember if I mentioned in this one that I am going to build a PC in Feb that is going to be water cooled. It is definitely better to run games on a tower system than a laptop. However, this was just a demonstration to Bob, that Apple hardware CAN run games and intense games at that.
That's right, I said it...
 
Bob of QF
Well, chap my chain and call me severely out of date.

Smile

Or at least, my info is/was... it's nice to have one's opinion changed now and again.

Are you dual-booting Win7 on your hardware, or is it a child-process of OS10? (just curious)

As for the motion-blurring you see on your flat-screen TV? I would bet you it's your TV's video processor lagging, or perhaps it's active-matrix processing (the transparent transistor grid on the display itself) is lagging behind the intense graphical changes.

I saw you went through the industry-standard mini display port to what is probably an HDMI input on your TV? (at a guess). If you're using a passive DP-to-HDMI, then that shouldn't be the source of the blur/image-lag issues. But if you're using an active converter-box, that box may well be the source of your blur. Some of these boxes can not handle the high refresh rates generated by modern hardware.

In short, since you saw no blurring at the lower levels of graphics, I'd think it wasn't the game itself, or your Nvidia video hardware.

As I recall, both DP and HDMI are a compressed-video standard of some sort, in that you do not get a full-bandwidth video stream, but only an "updated content" sort of feed, i.e. there is no frame-by-frame video sent, but only the difference between the current image-frame and the previous frame is sent. This is all "de-compressed" by the TV's video processor, into full-frame video images.

I noticed this a couple of years ago, when I was shopping for a new flat-screen TV. I made it a point to insist on seeing live sports images for comparison (even though I couldn't care less about sports), as these feeds generate rapidly shifting, full-frame video feeds, and it's a way to see dramatically which TV's video processors can keep up, and which cannot. Sometimes, the difference in blurring between one TV and the one beside it was dramatic, especially if the camera had zoomed into a close-up of football action.

Anywho, it's cool to be proven wrong about the hardware--it appears there truly is no significant functional difference, apart from me having to purchase a high-dollar Apple hardware and also purchase a high-dollar Windoze OS to put onto it... Grin

I suppose you get what you pay for, even still.

------------------------

Sidebar: can you still purchase OS10 as a stand-alone to run on a Windoze machine and turn it into an ersatz apple machine? The so-called "hackentosh" machines. Or did apple close that down (they were making noise as if they were), by locking in their OS to only a short list of approved BIOS's.
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
cheshiredragon
Yep Macs have changed a LOT and just in the past decade they have made leaps and bounds. In the last few years when they finally dropped the PowerPC and went to Intel was the major change that leveled the playing field. I will admit that back in the mid to late 90s I had a raging hatred for Apple products. ALL OF THEM. It was when in 2002-ish when I learned that they switched to UNIX based programming(I was heavy in to Linux so this changed my view a bit) but I was still too poor to afford one at that time. Even though I had chances to use them I still always thought they were too slow and I believe that was due to the PowerPC. It was when they switched to the Intel proc that I set out to get one.


I dual-boot. I had run XP in a VM and it ran like a normal machine, but I wanted to move to Window 7 so I could learn and support it. That is when a few Mac enthusiasts here at my job informed me of a sweet little app called Bootcamp that was built right in to the OS. This allowed the Mac OS X to make a partition of your choice in size. simply put the Windows disc in and it will reboot to the disc and install windows. The other thing I really like is that Apple supplies a disc specific to the comp and installs all the drivers for the Windows OS. Not only that, but I can copy from my Mac partition over to my Windows partition. However, I can't copy back to the Mac partition from Windows. I have to go back to Mac OS and pull it from the Windows partition.


I may have thought it was the port causing the display. This is something I will have to research. However, it is a 3D TV and I would think that the TV proc or the active matrix thing you speak of(I am not knowing of what's inside TVs these days) would be able to handle it. I watch football in 3D and the TV does get warmer than when not in 3D and there is no lag or blurring. It is also a plasma @ 600hz so it should do OK. I really think it is something to do with the game itself as this is the only game, TV show or movie it does it on or quite possible the Apple hardware, but currently I don't have another capable system to test with.
The "updated content" was the same back when the DVD became standard and is also the same on most satellite and cable TV companies to save on bandwidth, so it would only make sense that the HDMI port would be the same way. You can really make not of this when you watch compressed DVD quality movies. A full quality DVD movie is roughly 4GB, but it uses this updated content to be able to be compressed down to fit on a CD-Rom. However, you will most likely only see this in the black areas of a movie while watching on satellite TV.
I have no converter box. The mini-DP is about 8in long and has a female plug for an HDMI cable that plugs directly into the HDMI 2 port.


I always have to pay for hardware, but I be damned if I have to pay 200$ for an OS when I can either get and OS for free(linux) or 30$(OS X upgrade). I didn't pay for my copy of Windows and haven't since Window 98.


OS X CAN be installed on a Hackintosh. There are two here that I know of that run it, one was the one who showed me Bootcamp. You have to get exact hardware that is installed on any given Mac and it must be an Intel proc of Core 2 Duo or greater. There are also a few tweaks that need to be done, but I don't know what they are as I have no desire to run OS X on a PC based desktop. I have a Mac so I can use OS X when I want. The two other guys I work with do not own Macs.

After you have last comments I want to go over the whole "apple way or no way." I don't understand what you mean by that as like Windows I can do just as much with Mac OS X. I would like to see if I can debunk that one for you too Smile
That's right, I said it...
 
Bob of QF
Re: your converter dongle-- a display port has power available to run electronics, if needed, not unlike a USB port. I do not know it's ratings, though.

But your dongle could be either active or passive-- I am currently using an active one myself; my Raedon video card will support 3 monitors at once, and with eyefinity, I get one virtual flat-panel, 3 screens wide. I don't think you can do that on a macbook.

Smile

But to drive 3 panels, at least one has to be a display port type-- very expensive. So I bought a dp-to-dvi, active converter (also required) to drive the 3rd screen. The other two are direct DVI monitors (standard PC screens these days). I had a passive cable, but due to the limitations of DVI and clocks and the video card's only having 2 clocks? I needed an active convertor, which has a built-in clock for the 3rd DVI screen.

I could have opted for a DP to HDMI, as the third screen has that, too, but I wanted a more flexible dongle, in case the Dell screen crashes-- then I'll just get a 3rd LG LED panel instead of the more expensive Dell. (long story how I ended up with 2 LG's and a single Dell...). But all 3 are the same resolution, so eyefinity will work, and I have a single, 3-screen wide display.

Games that can be tweaked look really cool, with 180degree FOV.

Other games? Not so much....

Smile

-----------------

Bottom line: if your converter dongle from DP to HDMI is passive, it shouldn't be the source of the blur.

But if it's active, these have to re-generate the video signals via circuitry, and they have max values for various things-video. I made sure mine was good enough to match (or exceed) my monitor's abilities.

I'd love to have a 4th panel directly above the middle one, for overhead stuff, or to just park little-used menus... but alas, my card is not that good.

Maybe next time.

Indidentally, I fabricated a 3-panel "bar" that suspends all three a little above the desk-- no stands except for either extreme edge of my table (desk). There is a central 2 x 6 backbone that also supports the center screen, then two 2x 6 arms that support either side panel, and permit making an arc, instead of putting them all in a flat plane. I used super-heavy duty hinges for support (door hinges for metal security doors, 6" high) and two support braces normally used to support a trunk's lid, which control the tension of the "swing". Sliding on these arms, are brackets made of oak/steel, and on those are simple 3 axis VESA wall-mounts, which in turn attach to the backs of the VESA-compliant screens.

In this way, I have left-to-right shifting (by sliding the brackets), control of the arc (by moving either or both arms in and out, and securing them by tightening the lid-support brackets). I also have roll, pan and tilt at each panel, such that I am able to line up all three perfectly, with a single "bezel" to either side of the center screen. The left and right panels are a tad in front of the center one, such that the bezels overlap, minimizing the black-bar effect.

I could go in and tweak the eyefinity, and actually scale the image such that this bezel acts like a window's munion, obscuring the virtual image "behind" it, keeping the image perfectly aligned and in-scale relative to the screens-- that is a 1:1 image of a tape-measure would exactly match a real tape measure held up to the screens.

But I did not do that, preferring to preserve all the desktop instead-- for example, FireFox is "spread" over two screens, with the right-hand scroll-bar just over the bezel onto the right-hand screen. Maximizing my desktop real-estate.

I'd spread it further, but it makes the reading-panel too wide, making you turn your head to read a page (in this forum, for example). Slightly wider than the single panel works well, and I can have leftover space for other browser windows, e-mail, notepad, etc.

Yeah... I won't willingly go back to a tiny, single-screen even if it >>is<< a 3D 40" plasma display...

Grin
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
cheshiredragon
Indeed, I plan on getting another TV in Feb because I definitely want a dual setup for my PC I am going to be building. The Mac can support dual monitors, but I have to get a special converter for the mini display port, but don't feel like spending the money on it when one works just fine. BtW, it is not 40" it is 50"...I don't get tiny monitors either Pfft


Bob of QF wrote:
Bottom line: if your converter dongle from DP to HDMI is passive, it shouldn't be the source of the blur.

But if it's active, these have to re-generate the video signals via circuitry, and they have max values for various things-video. I made sure mine was good enough to match (or exceed) my monitor's abilities.


It also blurs on the Mac monitor without the DP connected. I am pretty sure it is the game itself, but I will just have to wait until I build my PC.


Theory_Execution wrote:My reason for hating them - they have dragged down the complexity of PC/desktop games. The companies have moved to please the casual gamer, so the keys are limited and the game play limited so that you can pick it up in five minutes.


It took me a while to respond to this because FABLE 3 is the first game I have played that went from the original FABLE/FABLE TLC being released on BOTH computer and console then FABLE 2 was ONLY released on the console and then finally FABLE 3 going back to BOTH computer and console again.

It has changed a LOT from the original to the third(I never played the second one since I don't own an XBOX)
The differences I noticed were, less menus. This is quite common between computer to console games. Even the Deli Manager, Brett, at my local grocery store says he likes console games because the PC versions or PC games in general have too many menus to trudge through. Of course, I don't like consoles very much because I can't press 20 buttons at the same time yet I have no problem navigating a 104 button keyboard.
The next thing I noticed is in FABLE 3 there were no magic potions. In the original I would stock up on TONS of magic potions(about 200+ at any given time). There is no magic usage in F3, you just get faster the more you advanced in the game.
The other thing is that there are no experience points. In the original you did quests to gain EXP and gold. When you gained enough EXP in and area you could upgrade and there were no limits. I could get all strength built up first, or magic abilities first. You could carve yourself into a warrior or a caster type. Somewhat the same in F3, but this time it is guild seals(which is EXP) and there is a road of destiny. Each advancement in F3 will allow you to open a series of chests that have upgrades in them and there are 3 areas. Fighting ability, spells and ranged weapons. So it limits you to what you can upgrade. For example in the original I could get all fighting abilities upgraded first and become a strong warrior or I could put all my EXP into spells and magic to become a powerful spell caster or put all my EXP in skill and become a stealthy rouge. In F3 you have no choice but to move along and promote in all 3 areas relatively equally.

I think something was also brought up about 'love' in games as well. This has always been a side quest in Fable. You can get married and also be a polygamist! Can have a wife in every town and have sex with said 'wife'. In the original that was all it was. You buy a house, after many quests people start to recognize you and you get married and the wife stays at home. They also promote homosexuality. I the original you could only play a male character, but you are able to marry a man too.
I have only played the adventure part in F3 and have not had a chance to do the love thing. Apparently in F3 there are brothels, whore houses and even orgies that one can take part in. Careful though, have unprotected sex with a whore and you could get an STD or even an unwanted child =O
I played a male the first time around and now I am playing the female character to see if there is any difference. So far not much and I am almost done.
THIS brings along my next big stink of this game. You stated that they dragged down the complexity of the game. Indeed they have. I have almost beaten this game TWICE and have only sat down to playing for maybe a total of 48hrs over all. Even though there are several quests to go through to advance, they aren't at all that difficult. I like a challenge and like SimCity 4, I like to think and plan. Even though SimCity 4 is the last installment of a wonderful game series, it was never soiled and became more difficult each time. Want to talk about menus? DAMN!!

Sorry, it took so long to reply..since my promotion 2 months ago at work I have been busy there, trying to get my ass back into school, kick a drinking habit and change my diet. I have a lot going on.
That's right, I said it...
 
Theory_Execution
I think something was also brought up about 'love' in games as well.


Did I mention this here? I mentioned it elsewhere for sure- pisses me off. What is it there for? It's like game developers of these rpg's (my most recent basis for this is Dragon Age 2) spent a month on the story, two months programming the quests and then the remaining months of that year, and another year to boot masturbating over how much debauchery they can pack into a game. MMMmmmmm polygon bitches!

Games are for testing your mind and BLOOOOOODDDYYYY MUUURDDDEERR!

New favourite of mine, Mount & Blade (all three, onto the last one at the moment) so far I have spent 96 hours in the first one, 119 in the second and 3 hours into the third. There is a basic prologue in the first, its essentially a sandbox game. The later titles tried to add a more rpg/quest angle.

You can get married in the game, but when you are riding around on horse back, launching arrows at soldiers (which remain sticking in the guy, bodies remain on the field throughout the battle) and then quick switching to your balanced bastard sword and hacking and slashing, arm and horse stained red with blood - who needs a wife nagging! Haha.
 
cheshiredragon
Theory_Execution wrote:
Games are for testing your mind and BLOOOOOODDDYYYY MUUURDDDEERR!

New favourite of mine, Mount & Blade (all three, onto the last one at the moment) so far I have spent 96 hours in the first one, 119 in the second and 3 hours into the third. There is a basic prologue in the first, its essentially a sandbox game. The later titles tried to add a more rpg/quest angle.


That's what I'm talkin' bout!!! Well, for an RPG type anyway. I like the strategy game like SimCity 4 or Civilization II..I can't stand Civ 3 or 4(too much micro management). I think there is a 5 that is out or coming out, but won't even bother since the disappointment of the two successors. AND of course, for the RPGs, they don't call them hack and slash for nothing. I have to say that FABLE: The Lost Chapters has an immense game design. It has long enough quests(and many of them) which made it a great non-linear game. There is a lot to learn and if you are capable of learning the market game you can make unlimited amounts of money by playing the economics. Within the first 20min of the game I could have a full plate armor suit and a decent sword. There are multiple different paths to take.(warrior, wizard, rouge or the evil path of berserker, necromancer or thief). you can play for days on end. I don't remember how many hours I have dumped into the game from start to finish, but I can guarantee you that if I played for 4hrs a day it would possibly take about 2 weeks. So 56-ish hours. I do know that if I sat down in one weekend and played for a good 16hrs each day that I would be most of the way through, but I don't really do that with games anymore. I have other shit to do. I still have that tab open from the review for mount & blade and haven't had the time to go and get it, but I have a 3 day weekend coming up. after I clean house on Sat, I will give it a look.
That's right, I said it...
 
Theory_Execution
I suggest starting with the first one, a single guy developed it between jobs from what I have read - so you have an introduction to the world - your the son of someone, who done something which has led you to become...

Those three are options, they determine where you start in the sandbox (which nations area) but thats about it, everything else is up to you.

There are nations you can join, run errands for lords of cities/areas or directly for villagers. You can play the trade game and run between the big cities carrying commodities (thats good to do right off). If you fight a castle/city and win you become may become the lord of it, by decision of your king. From these you can get taxes, recruit more soldiers, sleep without paying bed/board.

You meet 'heroes' in the pubs of cities, some join your gang, others can be hired, and theres some interplay - some of them just dont get on together, but you can skill up and be more persuasive in telling them to shut the fuck up and get their kill on.

Your army can get huge, I am not sure there is an upper limit on the size yet (skill dependent, but you could channel them all into having the biggest army), I have seen 300+. In the first game, I ran with 60 people, me, nine other heores and the rest highly trained knights (you recruit villagers, who skill up as you fight and win). That army can beat a 300 man maybe even 450. The battle would be split into skirmishes where each group fields 60 or so people until they run out of troops - this number can be changed.

Other advice, always lead from the front, in a battle you will most likely kill half the enemy on the field - your other soldiers are really there to take flack.
 
Bob of QF
Aaaah, the nostalgia of pre-console complex games...

... anyone play the original DeusEx? That game was too complex for the limited controllers to manage-- you had skills, you had bionic power-ups, you had goals, you had multiple-paths to said goals-- you had choice.

Sure, the actual storyline was linear-- you pretty much had to go from A to Z. But, depending on which skill/powerup you had selected, you might get to Z, via C-D-E-F, or by way of G-H-B-C or even multiple, cross-over paths.

There was nearly always at least 2 ways to go from one map to the next, too-- each presenting a different set of challenges to overcome.

You could approach the game as a hard-and-fast killer of whatever you meet, or you could go total stealth, with non-lethal put-downs of anyone you just couldn't elude. Or combinations. Even your weapons had power-ups you could find along the way.

There was stealth skill, computer hacking skill, medical skill, swimming, shooting small weapons, shooting large weapons, explosives, environmental and probably some I have forgotten. Most weapons can be modified whenever you found a weapon-mod, and you could keep your pistol powerful enough (with stacking the mods) to use right to the end.

One nod to SciFi, was your back-pack of holding-- you could put within it's grid, anything you found, so long as it fit-- weight was not a factor, and the pack would've comfortably held the contents of a limousine's trunk. Obviously, they had invented both a miniaturization field and anti-gravity for your backpack... <heh>

You had a belt, too- but essentially that was just assigning the keys 1 through 9 and 0 to an item in your backpack for quick-select. However, the game engine did keep track of how long it took you to switch, and trying to get out your rocket-launcher could prove fatal, if someone was shooting at your ass.

The game engine also included reload times-- a small, rapid-reload pistol might be just the ticket over a slow-to-load shotgun, if you had a lot of enemies to put down. Especially if you'd modded the pistol for quick-reloading.

The power-ups had two angles: you had basically "slots" on your body-- eyes, lungs, torso, skin, legs and arms, I think (been a while). Anyway, you had to choose which of two items you could slot in there, and stick with it for the remainder of the game. For example, legs: running silently or jumping/falling aka Bionic Man. Arms had super-strength or Bruce Lee combat. The others had similar "magic" effects.

Each of these, in turn, had powerups-- generic canisters let you upgrade your selected power, to a higher level. You started out with a basic flashlight.

Each of these powerups consumed "bioenergy", and you needed to recharge your bioenergy level, with the help of certain robots and portable batteries (found items).

My favorite combo, I suppose, was super-jump, super-strength, bullet resist, targeting eyesight and a little robot that you created from your nanites that you could fly down a hallway to scout ahead-- you could make it detonate with a mild EMP-- devastating to electronics, but pretty much harmless to biological. Handy for taking out those bullet-proof robot guards...

Obviously, you had health as well, and either used portable first-aid kits, ate food (including booze) or located med robots. The booze had temporary side-effects, but was useful if you could afford to hold still a bit.

You could hack computers, security terminals, cash machines, door locks, electronic consoles. You had money, but it was all but useless, apart from the occasional bribe to NPCs for information. Unfortunately, once you played it 2 or 3 times, the you already knew the information they sold you-- the game did not penalize you for not getting the info legitimately, as search-and-discovery was legitimate too.

The story line was excellent, and you had a choice of endings to the whole thing, depending on which final puzzle you chose to solve.

The game had NPC factions, of course, each with a different idea of what a Utopian future might look like, and each willing to help you achieve that goal. Or to hinder, depending on what you said to their representatives.

As I said? I've played it 100's of times, varying my methods just because I could.

Alas, Deus Ex 2 was .... about 1/10 as complex, and about 1/10 as re-playable as result.

I have not yet tried 3, but I suppose I will. Eventually. When it's cheap-- since they put it on the stupid, uberlimited consoles? It's bound to have a crap-interface..... meh.
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
Theory_Execution
I played about an hour of Deus Ex in my first year of uni - I just didn't get into it, other distractions probably factored quite a bit into that - being my first year of uni an all.

The modding your body bit reminds me of Planescape Torment (I played this only very recently, I could not find a copy for years). You are some sort of revenant that can add tattoos to his body to gain magical resists/abilities - but I think instead of being tattooed on, it was already on skin and just stitched to your character.

It was a little short and linear compared to Baldurs Gate, but I still liked the strory.

Most games nowourdays do not have replayability, for two reasons - it is expensive to design a game to have depth, and two, if you did, you would harm your next years 25-40 new release price.

I try my damn hardest not to buy any games when they come out now - I think 30 is too much to pay for what seems to be 4-6hrs game play, compared to - bringing it up again - Mount and Blade, which I got for 5 and it gave me 100hrs of fun (still not 'finished' any of the three yet).
 
Jump to Forum:

Similar Threads

Thread Forum Replies Last Post
Steve Martin: Atheists Don't Have No Songs Music Discussions 19 11/16/2010 01:50
A search for Jobs gone wrong The Rant Room 22 01/24/2009 20:37