 |
|
|
|
Next: None Valve Games
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: May 31, 2007
Posts: 67
|
(Msg. 106) Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 12:03 am
Post subject: Re: Sammy, I am beginning to come around to your way of thinking [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: alt>games>microsoft>flight-sim (more info?)
|
|
|
On Jun 4, 4:38 pm, "Canuck" <some....RemoveThis@somewhere.com> wrote:
> Bloody hell Sammy are you a touch typist or what, the screeds you pen would
> take me forever to type out.
I am actually though my accuracy sux. When I was 18 I left uni and was
forced to go find work under less than optimal circumstances. I had a
lot of time on my hands between interviews and thought it'd be a
useful skill to have. On a good day I do about 70-75wpm. If you
counted errors the way most typing schemes do I'd be down around 60,
which is why you'll sometimes see me let errors creep in. (That and
not proof reading my messages sometimes means a sentence or two is a
bit mashed if I've had 2 goes at phrasing it). Incidentally go watch
someone like Bob run a word count on what I've said so he can ridicule
me.
> I don't know why you get into these pointless diatribes with MX its folly.
Because there are a hand full of people who will believe him and makes
judgements (and I mean buy hardware, or software, or get themselves
into a dangerous situation) based on what he says. Most of these
people have lost my respect, but a few just don't know any better than
to think what he's speaking makes sense, through no fault other than
computing not being their specialty, and some have helped me or I have
considered (or still consider) friends. I know that a lot of people
here think I'm a trouble maker and I have considered just leaving but
there are still people here whose conversation I enjoy, and every one
of us still has things to learn about simming. I don't want to
embarass people by pointing out who they are but I think they know.
On a more general note I simply hate letting bullshit stand untested.
I actually think its harmful and in extreme cases dangerous. I can
actually see someone ignoring a peanut allergy on a plane and getting
someone else killed because they believe his asinine theories about it
being "all in their head". He has the knack of being able to sound
plausible until you break it down or challenge particular points at
which time you find out the only thing real is his ego.
Take today. Some poor sod's going to come up against Mx's ridiculous
assertion that the video card doesn't make a difference to flight sim.
(This is _almost_ true at the high end since the bottleneck at the
moment is the CPU but the person most likely to follow the advice will
be the one who can't afford a dedicated video card and goes with built
in graphics, only to find the other several hundred dollars they spent
were wasted without a decent graphics card. There's no replacement for
a dedicated graphics card and decent DX9 cards can be had at
reasonable prices at the moment). |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: May 31, 2007
Posts: 67
|
(Msg. 107) Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 12:03 am
Post subject: Re: Sammy, I am beginning to come around to your way of thinking [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 31, 2007
Posts: 67
|
(Msg. 108) Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 12:04 am
Post subject: Re: Sammy, I am beginning to come around to your way of thinking [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Aug 03, 2005
Posts: 1873
|
(Msg. 109) Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 2:59 am
Post subject: Re: Sammy, I am beginning to come around to your way of thinking [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Sammy writes:
> What you're trying to say is that "things haven't got that much
> better" looking at the speed of your computer and conveniently
> forgetting that a lot of today's software does much more than
> yesterday's.
Almost everything it does is unnecessary. About 80% or more of the CPU time
consumed by Windows goes to drawing windows on the screen, for example (this
is characteristic of all GUIs, not just Windows).
> Just look at the detail in 3D gaming between the oiginal
> Wolfenstein and today's 3D marvels ...
Just look at the zero progress in gameplay and plot. More eye candy, but not
a better game.
> ... or at a flight sim.
Almost the same situation, depending on the vendor and release. But at least
flight sims have improved a lot more than most standard FPS games.
> Sure
> framerates don't skyrocket but that's because each evolution of the
> software offers a lot more detail (computationally speaking).
I'd rather just see the frame rate rise, for once.
> Please do tell me what products you've worked on.
No.
> If you're so wonderful there must be dozens of excellent products
> with your name attached.
Most of the computing work today in the world is not done by boxed PC software
products.
> Put up or shut up.
No.
> Compiling a few scripts out of an assembly manual doesn't make you
> an expert.
I disliked macros, actually.
> Well if you're such an expert, tell me is that linear growth or
> exponential?
It's fortuitous.
> You claim computers are progressing linearly.
In terms of productivity, yes, barely so.
> Ah wonderful so you're completely dismissing new optimization
> techniques, and changes to architecture. It must be true because you
> say so.
A lot of new techniques are a waste of time, and many of those that are not
(and a few that are) have been invented before, sometimes several times.
> It doesn't matter how I reply to you, you still come up with weird and
> whacky unsubstantiated cryptic rubbish and attack me whether I respond
> or not.
Then why do you reply? >> Stay informed about: Sammy, I am beginning to come around to your way of thinking |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 17, 2007
Posts: 70
|
(Msg. 110) Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 3:55 am
Post subject: Re: Sammy, I am beginning to come around to your way of thinking [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Imported from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 17, 2007
Posts: 70
|
(Msg. 111) Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 3:55 am
Post subject: Re: Sammy, I am beginning to come around to your way of thinking [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Imported from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 23, 2007
Posts: 179
|
(Msg. 112) Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 3:56 am
Post subject: Re: Sammy, I am beginning to come around to your way of thinking [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Bloody hell Sammy are you a touch typist or what, the screeds you pen would
take me forever to type out.
I don't know why you get into these pointless diatribes with MX its folly.
"Sammy" <syousef.RemoveThis@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:1180920353.342203.152000@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 4, 10:54 am, Mxsmanic <mxsma....RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Sammy writes:
>> > You don't sacrifice it. You allocate a special purpose use to it.
>>
>> No, you sacrifice it.
>
> No you don't.
>
>> Suppose you have an eight-bit field. An 8-bit field will hold 256
>> addresses.
>> If you assign them serially, you will have a capacity of 256
>
> You're talking about compartmentalizing the address space again.
> Assigning memory means assigning a value within memory.
>
>>. Now, if you
>> divide the address field into two parts, say "vendor" and "product," of
>> four
>> bits each, you've divided the field by a factor of two, but you've
>> reduced the
>> address space by a factor of 16.
>
> Except that you don't divide address space in a special purpose way
> like this unless you have to.
>
> It's a terrible example. I'd much rather talk about TCP/IP packet
> headers or something more concrete so as to pin down your definitions
> but I'll try.
>
> If you only need a single byte to hold the vendor code, your only
> reason for allocate more than that is for efficiency. That doesn't
> happen for vendors and product codes. Depending on the number of
> vendors or products you have, and on the architecture you might
> allocate anywhere between 2 and 4 bytes to hold each field. YOU DON'T
> allocate address spaces for something like this.
>
> I've already pointed out that the limitations for virtual memory on 32
> bit windows are 2Gb data and 4Gb total The address space here is cut
> into two. It makes good sense to divide up your code (instructions)
> from data (despite the limitation against self-modifying code - that's
> a good limitation). Clearly the "mistake" of breaking up the address
> space into many little pieces along byte boundaries wasn't repeated
> here.
>
> You wouldn't allocate 4 bits of the address space to vendor unless you
> needed the 16 bits to describe a possible 16 vendors, in which case
> the address space isn't wasted. So why do we do it for a network...or
> rather why was it done for TCP/IP? When this was developed computers
> were very slow, but they're faster at spliting things up on the byte
> boundaries and using bitwise operations to manipulate them
> individually. So to get the hardware to perform at a reasonable speed
> routing packets they put things on the boundaries and that did result
> in segmentation. Today the hardware is exponentially faster but the
> demands on it have also skyrocketted (at least for top end equipment,
> the likes of which you might see on a backbone). The efficiency you
> gain in speed must be traded off against the way you use space (and
> which you claim is wasted). In other words it's the price you pay for
> not having TCP packets take many seconds to be switched through the
> network.
>
>> Unless you have exactly sixteen vendors with
>> exactly sixteen products each, you will waste a tremendous amount of the
>> address space. By dividing the field in two, you encode information in
>> the
>> address, and a linear increase in encoding produces an exponential loss
>> in
>> address space.
>
> Your analogy is so bad I do wonder if you've ever programmed.
>
>> > Yes you know much better and are a true visionary.
>> That's an exaggeration, but I am surprised by how clueless so many
>> engineers
>> are (or perhaps they are too stubborn to consider their own mistakes).
>
> Okay then Mr visionary. Prey tell how on earth would you allocate
> memory for addressing, particularly if as in the networking example
> you are harping on, efficiency is of the essence. If you suggest
> holding memory addresses "linearly" ie one byte per address I'm going
> to have a good time explaining why this is a bad idea.
> >> Stay informed about: Sammy, I am beginning to come around to your way of thinking |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 31, 2007
Posts: 67
|
(Msg. 113) Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 4:17 pm
Post subject: Re: Sammy, I am beginning to come around to your way of thinking [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Jun 5, 6:28 am, "Tilly" <nos....RemoveThis@willbeletin.com> wrote:
> So saving my pennies for a SLI machine, and either the best SLI I can
> afford (and get second one later when it's cheaper!) or two SLI's at
> same time - can't make my mind up on that. Tempted to wait for DDR3
> memory; but suspect it's too early for that yet and will be flaky as
> hell when it comes out 
Just be aware at the moment MS flight sim does not support SLI. >> Stay informed about: Sammy, I am beginning to come around to your way of thinking |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 31, 2007
Posts: 67
|
(Msg. 114) Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 4:22 pm
Post subject: Re: Sammy, I am beginning to come around to your way of thinking [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Jun 5, 6:12 am, "Tilly" <nos....DeleteThis@willbeletin.com> wrote:
> Progammers are touch-typists, well the older ones are
Some are and some aren't. Personally I believe it helps, but others do
argue that you usually think slower than you need to type when you
code. I have known some excellent programmers who are single fingered
typists.
I tried a quick web test (1 paragraph) yesterday. It reported 76wpm
with 4 errors per minute and reminded me that anything over 1 error
per minute wasn't considered acceptable...as I'm not in a job where
it's important I've never spent the time required trying to improve my
error rate. I've never really been able to break the 80wpm barrier,
but again I've never really dedicated the time to trying. >> Stay informed about: Sammy, I am beginning to come around to your way of thinking |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 31, 2007
Posts: 67
|
(Msg. 115) Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 4:26 pm
Post subject: Re: Sammy, I am beginning to come around to your way of thinking [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Jun 4, 11:04 am, Mxsmanic <mxsma....TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just because they've retired doesn't mean they've disappeared from the
> profession.
And when they're dead their legacy lives on. Your point?
> > History repeats? How cliche.
> The truth hurts.
You must be pain free.
> Actually they look pretty much the same. PCs of today use the same
> architecture they used nearly 30 years ago; and that in turn was based on
> architecture that is around half a century old already.
So what you're saying is technology builds up over time. What a
revelation.
There's been huge innovations in PC architecture. From new instruction
sets to changes in the way memory is addressed. When's the last time
you had to worry about base memory vs. extended.
> It has bloated, but it has not substantially improved.
Oh yes because I remember playing doom on my Symbian mobile in 1980.
You really do say such stupid things.
> Most non-experts, that is. There are very few experts, and not enough to go
> around.
Yes. You're not one of them though. >> Stay informed about: Sammy, I am beginning to come around to your way of thinking |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 31, 2007
Posts: 67
|
(Msg. 116) Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 4:31 pm
Post subject: Re: Sammy, I am beginning to come around to your way of thinking [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Jun 4, 11:02 am, Mxsmanic <mxsma... RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:
> Not entirely, and it's foolish to try to predict everything in advance.
It's even more foolish not to have any kind of plan at all.
> > I think they did remarkably well with IP addressing.
> They did so-so, and they made some very serious early mistakes.
TCP/IP was not envisioned to be used for what it is used for today.
The fact that there is a need for more IP addresses at all is a
testament to how successful it's been.
> If its original design were open-ended, it would not be outgrown.
This too is a common mistake. Try to make something too open ended and
you end up with bloat because you're trying to account for every
possible use in the fture.
> > What would you propose?
> See above.
As I said what would you propose?
> > That engineers NOT try to predict how a product is going to be
> > used and cater for it?
> In part, yes.
Probably one of the dumbest things you've ever said. Quite an
achievement.
> > If you're so good at so many damned things, why don't I see your name
> > in the computer journals?
> You haven't read them all.
You can't point at one.
> > Why aren't you doing things better? Why aren't you rich and famous.
>
> Solving grand problems usually doesn't provide a salary. Most people just
> want the current fires to be extinguished, and won't pay for anything else.
What a load of rubbish. History's full of people who've innovated and
profitted from their innovation. You're only good at playing saturday
quarterback. >> Stay informed about: Sammy, I am beginning to come around to your way of thinking |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 31, 2007
Posts: 67
|
(Msg. 117) Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 4:42 pm
Post subject: Re: Sammy, I am beginning to come around to your way of thinking [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Jun 3, 7:32 am, Mxsmanic <mxsma....DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> Think in terms of address fields vs. address spaces.
How about you try and use some precise language instead of vague
gibberish that confuses terms.
> > Also note that network addresses are NOT the same thing as memory
> > addressing and there are differences you have to consider.
> They are identical in this context.
You mean your ever shifting context?
> > If Mx wanted an intelligent conversation about how address spaces
> > are carved up he could have one. That's not what he wants.
> Are you sure you want to say this?
Yes. You wouldn't be playing guessing games, using vague language or
refusing to back up what you're saying with references if you wanted
to have an intelligent conversation. Perhaps we should start with the
definition of intelligent. >> Stay informed about: Sammy, I am beginning to come around to your way of thinking |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 31, 2007
Posts: 67
|
(Msg. 118) Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 4:49 pm
Post subject: Re: Sammy, I am beginning to come around to your way of thinking [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jun 03, 2007
Posts: 32
|
(Msg. 119) Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 5:56 pm
Post subject: Re: Sammy, I am beginning to come around to your way of thinking [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jun 03, 2007
Posts: 32
|
(Msg. 120) Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 5:56 pm
Post subject: Re: Sammy, I am beginning to come around to your way of thinking [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Sammy wrote:
> > Engineers make several key mistakes, again and again:
>
> Yes Mx, you know much much better than all these people and should be
> put in charge of the world
Know he does not know any better. However, he does know how to get you
rattled
Mx - Engineers make several key mistakes, again and again. Agree with
you. So do Doctors, as do Pilots, as do Architects as does any
profession. The reason being it's a condition of the human species.
Anyone, and this includes you, who says that that *they* have not made
mistakes and continue to make mistakes throughout life are deluding
themselves. >> Stay informed about: Sammy, I am beginning to come around to your way of thinking |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
| Related Topics: | Ping Sammy - Didn't you want someone to make a movie for you about something? Crash Lander -- I'm not always right, But I'm never wrong!
PING Sammy ... An Apology - Sammy, Sorry our discussion got so wildly off target and started to get (to say the least) contentious. Obviously the events 9/11 go so far beyond the pale of what one group of humans should be willing to inflict on another that the mind almost can..
And this is just the beginning! - Spend $24.00 total for a two-day boarding pass to a flight sim convention? ....... and then spend @36.00 for gourmet canape's, bacon-wrapped scallops, and roasted steamship round of beef at the Saturday evening dinner and awards banquet with door-priz...
Thinking ahead (video cards) - Currently I drive three monitors in a wrap-around configuration with a 3072x768 resolution using a Matrox Parhelia 128Mb AGP video card. I get around 25fps from most environments, going down to 10-15 fps in dense scenery. This is with 1Gb RAM and an..
Adjusting Joystick Sensitivity - Newbie - I'm using FS2004 with a Logitech Wingman Force Feedback Joystick. I finally got the FS "Settings" joystick calibration setting to complete successfully. My original problem was that the joystick was very "sluggish". That ... |
|
Game Forums (Home) -> Flight-Sim |
All times are: Ekaterinburg, Islamabad, Karachi, Tashkent (change)
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
|
| Page 8 of 10 |
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
