Team Fortress 2 - Now with 65 billion percent more fragmentation!
-
@Master Chief said:
UAC is just another bit in a disturbing trend, where we are using technology to address people's general lack of knowledge and intelligence, thereby encouraging people to learn less, and therefore not be as competent.
If your "fix" to a problem doesn't take into account human psychology, it's not a "fix." Humans aren't going to change to adapt to technology; technology needs to change to adapt to humans.
I'd hope that would be self-evident by now but, apparently not.
-
@Master Chief said:
a disturbing trend, where we are using technology to address people's general lack of knowledge and intelligence, thereby encouraging people to learn less, and therefore not be as competent.
This is true. Personally, I think things went downhill when we went from punch cards to them newfangled keyboards.
-
@blakeyrat said:
If your "fix" to a problem doesn't take into account human psychology, it's not a "fix." Humans aren't going to change to adapt to technology; technology needs to change to adapt to humans.
I'd hope that would be self-evident by now but, apparently not.
People need to learn to drive cars, use tools, what have you to use them properly. Why are computers exempt from that rule?
-
@b-redeker said:
This is true. Personally, I think things went downhill when we went from punch cards to them newfangled keyboards.
-
Increasing the resolution of the game means more pixels to render on each frame.
Most non-technical (and quite a few rather technical) players don't think of the impact on computation time when increasing the resolution, so most games start at the smallest resolution that will let them look decent.
-
@Master Chief said:
@b-redeker said:
This is true. Personally, I think things went downhill when we went from punch cards to them newfangled keyboards.
[img title="not sure if serious"]
Let's put it this way. I consider sarcasm tags "a disturbing trend, where we are using technology to address people's general lack of sense of hmour and intelligence, thereby encouraging people to learn less, and therefore not be as competent."
-
As for why games are as big as they are, models don't take up a whole lot of space - significant but nowhere near as much as everything else. Each surface in the game typically has a number of layers (typically 3 - diffuse/spec/normal map) at a resolution of anything between 512x512 and 2048x2048. Then that's mipmapped. (a copy at every /2 resolution down to 1x1 is stored and dynamically switched to, in order to hide the common problem of flickering when multiple details are under the same pixel) Even with DXT1/3/4/5 compression, still quite big. But then you've got the sound. Music compresses pretty well because it's usually a single stream. Voiceovers and effects don't. Think how many voice clips in decent quality there are in Oblivion or Fallout. You can't compress them too heavily because they've got to be ready as soon as the character wants to speak or the sword hits something and you probably also end up with multiple instances playing concurrently.
Animated meshes USED to take up a lot of space back when they were done by storing every single animation keyframe separately, but not any more with skeletal animation.
-
@Master Chief said:
People need to learn to drive cars, use tools, what have you to use them properly. Why are computers exempt from that rule?
Because computers can't be used to kill people. Well, not as easily. Things like guns and cars require training because they're dangerous in the hands of untrained people-- that isn't true of computers.
Additionally, since computers *are* so goddamned plastic, it's relatively easy to adapt computers to humans. It's not done, generally, because elitist prick geeks don't see the point to making software more usable-- after all, if it was usable, they might not be worshipped as the High Priest of Technology anymore! Gasp!
@anniepoo said:
Increasing the resolution of the game means more pixels to render on each frame.
Most non-technical (and quite a few rather technical) players don't think of the impact on computation time when increasing the resolution, so most games start at the smallest resolution that will let them look decent.
It's 2010, anniepoo. Blitting the pixels to the screen is now pretty much the least demanding task your video card does-- by orders of magnitude. The "impact on computation time" is almost negligible. Odds are running the game at your LCD's native resolution won't have more than a 1-3% impact on framerates. Try it. Back in 1999, when 1024x768 monitors were actually common, that would have been a good argument. It hasn't been for five years now.
I can only assume the real reason has to do either with cargo cultish behavior ("we've always shipped games this way!") or some kind of graphics engine default they're not bothering to switch.
-
Blitting the pixels to the screen is now pretty much the *least* demanding task your video card does-- by orders of magnitude.
Err, unless you're using a lot of dynamic lights or objects; every double in width/height quadruples the number of per pixel distance checks, texture fetches, dot products, multiplies and so on. Also using a deferred renderer 1024x768 requires only 1/2 of the VRAM of 1280x1024 and 1/4 of the VRAM of 1680x1050 because unless you're using the texture rectangle extensions it's gotta be power of two. I.e. this requires close to 150-200mb of static VRAM in most cases.
-
@nexekho said:
Blitting the pixels to the screen is now pretty much the least demanding task your video card does-- by orders of magnitude.
Err, unless you're using a lot of dynamic lights or objects; every double in width/height quadruples the number of per pixel distance checks, texture fetches, dot products, multiplies and so on. Also using a deferred renderer 1024x768 requires only 1/2 of the VRAM of 1280x1024 and 1/4 of the VRAM of 1680x1050 because unless you're using the texture rectangle extensions it's gotta be power of two. I.e. this requires close to 150-200mb of static VRAM in most cases.
Look, I'm not Mr. Math. I just know that if I play WOW at 1920x1200 it runs at 45 FPS, and it I play WOW at 1024x768 it runs at 45 FPS. Same with every other game I own. So I'm going to blithely declare my practical experience outweighs your math.
-
This likely means that WOW is limited not by fillrate but by other factors. The CPU can't kick out 60FPS, or the game itself is limited for consistency, I don't know. But to say that resolution has next to no impact at all is mad. Even in the most trivial of cases as long as something else isn't limiting performance fillrate is an issue. In a forward renderer (Unreal/Gamebryo/etc.) an object is rendered out in black and then overdrawn with an additive pass for each dynamic light in range. In a deferred renderer, (STALKER/GTA4) the worldspace normals/positions/colours are drawn to buffers (which in most cases need to be PO2 hence the resolution issue past 1024x1024) and then the lights are calculated far faster using the buffers at the expense of the VRAM needed for the buffers.. Does WOW do its lighting per-fragment or per-vertex and interpolate? I'd imagine the newer versions do it at fragment level... though consider also that in an engine like WOW's most of the lights are probably prebuilt to be manageable on older systems.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Because computers can't be used to kill people. Well, not as easily. Things like guns and cars require training because they're dangerous in the hands of untrained people-- that isn't true of computers.
Additionally, since computers *are* so goddamned plastic, it's relatively easy to adapt computers to humans. It's not done, generally, because elitist prick geeks don't see the point to making software more usable-- after all, if it was usable, they might not be worshipped as the High Priest of Technology anymore! Gasp!
So what? Computers have become practically an extension of ourselves in terms of importance to our daily living, and we still have a large section of the population that has no bloody clue how to use them, chiefly because of laziness or just plain stupidity. To me, that's unacceptable.
I'm not against making software usable at all. I'm saying, in the hands of a low level user, UAC isn't going to do a damn thing, because like every other dialog like it, the user instinctively finds the button that will make it go away, and won't read a word of it. This is especially true in the case of UAC, because of how annoyed people get with it.
-
@Master Chief said:
like every other dialog like it, the user instinctively finds the button that will make it go away, and won't read a word of it.
Here I totally agree. However:
@Master Chief said:
we still have a large section of the population that has no bloody clue how to use them, chiefly because of laziness or just plain stupidity. To me, that's unacceptable.
Why? And also, So?
My point of view: if 80% of the users need us to hold their hand a little, let's do it, by all means. This from a technical standpoint, from a commercial standpoint, and from every other point of view I can think of. Most people have no clue at all about any kind of technology, be it a car, a dishwasher or brain surgery. I suggest we leave the latter to the experts, but as the rest are targeted at "most people", let's make them as simple, fool-proof and yes, an extension of ourselves as we can.
I don't want to be educated about dishwashers; I just want my clothes to come out clean with the least possible hassle. Likewise, some people don't give a hoot about a computer, they just want to type a letter and read their mail. Is that unacceptable?
-
@b-redeker said:
I don't want to be educated about dishwashers; I just want my clothes to come out clean with the least possible hassle.
Ummm..... how do I say this? ur doin it rong.</education>
-
@fennec said:
@b-redeker said:
Ummm..... how do I say this? ur doin it rong.</education>I don't want to be educated about dishwashers; I just want my clothes to come out clean with the least possible hassle.
Are you saying I also shouldn't be washing my china in my washing machine?
-
I won't stop you, just be certain to video it and stick it on YouTube.
-
@b-redeker said:
Why? And also, So?
My point of view: if 80% of the users need us to hold their hand a little, let's do it, by all means. This from a technical standpoint, from a commercial standpoint, and from every other point of view I can think of. Most people have no clue at all about any kind of technology, be it a car, a dishwasher or brain surgery. I suggest we leave the latter to the experts, but as the rest are targeted at "most people", let's make them as simple, fool-proof and yes, an extension of ourselves as we can.
I don't want to be educated about dishwashers; I just want my clothes to come out clean with the least possible hassle. Likewise, some people don't give a hoot about a computer, they just want to type a letter and read their mail. Is that unacceptable?
But you're talking about maintinance that most people avoid, and I'm not advocating that every user be able to troubleshoot computer problems, I'm saying they should know how to operate the computer. As in, for instance, not just downloading free screensavers, installing them going click click click click, and then complaining when they end up on a bot net.
If someone put diesel in a car, you'd make fun of them and call them an idiot. Yet mistakes like that (for instance, CD/DVD/Bluray confusion, despite clear labeling) are somehow the manufacturer's fault?
-
@blakeyrat said:
That doesn't change the fact that to correctly write a browser, you should be using system widgets (even if you're limited to only gasp! 16,386 at once!!) And it sure as fuck doesn't change the fact that a textbox in Windows where the shift-up arrow shortcut doesn't work is completely fucking broken.
What does happen in Steam's textboxes when you press Shift+up arrow? (I don't have Steam, and I can't see any problems in Chromium)
-
@ender said:
@blakeyrat said:
On my Windows XP (yes, I know, TRWTF), Shift+Up arrow in a Steam textarea does exactly what everyone expects it to.That doesn't change the fact that to correctly write a browser, you should be using system widgets (even if you're limited to only gasp! 16,386 at once!!) And it sure as fuck doesn't change the fact that a textbox in Windows where the shift-up arrow shortcut doesn't work is completely fucking broken.
What does happen in Steam's textboxes when you press Shift+up arrow? (I don't have Steam, and I can't see any problems in Chromium)
-
@Master Chief said:
If someone put diesel in a car, you'd make fun of them and call them an idiot.
Not me. Not too long ago I managed to do that twice in under a year.
@Master Chief said:
Yet mistakes like that (for instance, CD/DVD/Bluray confusion, despite clear labeling) are somehow the manufacturer's fault?
Not necessarily; but it doesn't make it easier that they're all almost identical. On the other hand, you can't make too many costly mistakes.
Comparing the diesel/gas error to the UAC; if a carmaker introduces a popup on your car that warns you every time you open the tank and says "Warning: your car needs gas", I'm pretty sure most people would ignore it after the third time (or try to turn it off). Isn't that what you're trying to say? But if for instance the diesel nozzle would have been square instead of round, that could have saved me a lot of time and grief.
(Then again, maybe it wouldn't. I can be pretty absent minded.)
Going back to the cars, you could say: good drivers don't need airbags. If you know how to operate a car, you don't need one. As in, don't bump into other cars or trees. Still, I think they're a good thing.
-
@b-redeker said:
Not me. Not too long ago I managed to do that twice in under a year.
Then I'm amazed your car still works, you idiot.
@b-redeker said:
Not necessarily; but it doesn't make it easier that they're all almost identical. On the other hand, you can't make too many costly mistakes.
Comparing the diesel/gas error to the UAC; if a carmaker introduces a popup on your car that warns you every time you open the tank and says "Warning: your car needs gas", I'm pretty sure most people would ignore it after the third time (or try to turn it off). Isn't that what you're trying to say? But if for instance the diesel nozzle would have been square instead of round, that could have saved me a lot of time and grief.
(Then again, maybe it wouldn't. I can be pretty absent minded.)
Going back to the cars, you could say: good drivers don't need airbags. If you know how to operate a car, you don't need one. As in, don't bump into other cars or trees. Still, I think they're a good thing.
You're misunderstanding, I'm saying there shouldn't be a popup there telling you that, because as a motorist who knows the first damn few things about a car, you would know that hey, it's probably time to put some gas in. And it's pretty sad that you managed to put diesel in your car anyway (around here, the diesel button is VERY distinct from the others.)
Airbags are more akin to hardware backup in computers to me. No, if you're a good driver, you wouldn't ever need it. But sometimes catastrophe strikes and they come in real handy.
-
@b-redeker said:
But if for instance the diesel nozzle would have been square instead of round, that could have saved me a lot of time and grief.
Just a minor question here: I thought the diesel nozzle was larger than the normal fuel nozzle? I know when they went from leaded to unleaded (happened in 1986 around here) they made the unleaded nozzle smaller, so that the leaded nozzle wouldn't fit in an unleaded car. Isn't a diesel nozzle is the same size as the leaded nozzle?
-
@Zemm said:
@b-redeker said:
But if for instance the diesel nozzle would have been square instead of round, that could have saved me a lot of time and grief.
Just a minor question here: I thought the diesel nozzle was larger than the normal fuel nozzle? I know when they went from leaded to unleaded (happened in 1986 around here) they made the unleaded nozzle smaller, so that the leaded nozzle wouldn't fit in an unleaded car. Isn't a diesel nozzle is the same size as the leaded nozzle?They're a different size, but I managed to get both diesel in a gas car and gas in a diesel, so it's not impossible. Both times I'd switched a couple times between cars, was preoccupied and tired, and, well, an idiot.
@Master Chief said:
But sometimes catastrophe strikes and they come in real handy.
Exactly. And so:@blakeyrat said:
technology needs to change to adapt to humans.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@nexekho said:
Blitting the pixels to the screen is now pretty much the *least* demanding task your video card does-- by orders of magnitude.
Err, unless you're using a lot of dynamic lights or objects; every double in width/height quadruples the number of per pixel distance checks, texture fetches, dot products, multiplies and so on. Also using a deferred renderer 1024x768 requires only 1/2 of the VRAM of 1280x1024 and 1/4 of the VRAM of 1680x1050 because unless you're using the texture rectangle extensions it's gotta be power of two. I.e. this requires close to 150-200mb of static VRAM in most cases.
Look, I'm not Mr. Math. I just know that if I play WOW at 1920x1200 it runs at 45 FPS, and it I play WOW at 1024x768 it runs at 45 FPS. Same with every other game I own. So I'm going to blithely declare my practical experience outweighs your math.
Weak, very weak. The man actually knows how stuff works, but because you (one person) have experience with Wow (one game), you're going to say that he's wrong and you're right. Personally I know quite a few games that run a bit smoother on lower resolutions on my PC (let's say around 30 fps on my monitor's highest, 1680x1050, and around 40-50 fps on 1024x768). My experience outweights your experience, because it involves more games than just Wow (which runs crap at any resolution for me, especially when I'm walking around in the bigger cities). Still I think nexekho's math outweighs both of our experiences.
@Ben L. said:
@ender said:
@blakeyrat said:
On my Windows XP (yes, I know, TRWTF), Shift+UpThat
What does happen in Steam's textboxes when you
doesn't change the fact that to correctly write a browser, you should
be using system widgets (even if you're limited to only gasp! 16,386
at once!!) And it sure as fuck doesn't change the fact that a textbox in
Windows where the shift-up arrow shortcut doesn't work is completely
fucking broken.
press Shift+up arrow? (I don't have Steam, and I can't see any problems
in Chromium)
arrow in a Steam textarea does exactly what everyone expects it
to.Same with me, Shift+Up arrow in my Steam works exactly the way it works in other text boxes. I suppose Blakey's PC is messed up and he just supposes Steam is messed up for everybody else too (just like how he makes an argument with just one game as reference). :P
Btw, another thing Steam desperately needs is threads! Seriously, why does my Steam freeze for several seconds, sometimes even up to several minutes, when I install a new game? Just put it in another thread and don't block the user interface, pretty please! The UI hangs in several other occasions too (unsure when exactly), which makes me think it all just runs in 1 thread. It's pretty annoying when you're chatting with someone, for example.
-
@pbean said:
The man actually knows how stuff works, but because you (one person) have experience with Wow (one game), you're going to say that he's wrong and you're right
No, every game on my computer is that way. I only mentioned WOW as an example. If you re-read my post, and go reeeaaal slow, you might see where I mentioned that little nugget of information. (Psst, it's the part where I say every game I own behaves the same as WOW, FPS-wise.)
@pbean said:
My experience outweights your experience, because it involves more games than just Wow
Wouldn't it be great if people actually read my posts before replying to them? Man, I wish we lived in that utopia. I know it's hard, but it was only like 3 sentences.
How do you build software at work? Do you just kind of skim the requirements, then just assume you know what the client wants? Or is it just my stuff you don't read?
@pbean said:
Still I think nexekho's math outweighs both of our experiences.
You're welcome to your opinion. I'd respect it more if you were literate.
@pbean said:
(just like how he makes an argument with just one game as reference). :P
Wow, the triple-whammy! With a smug smiley, to boot! You're really climbing up the jackass ranks here.
@pbean said:
Btw, another thing Steam desperately needs is threads! Seriously, why does my Steam freeze for several seconds, sometimes even up to several minutes, when I install a new game?
Try it on Mac. The OS X version makes the Windows version look brilliant by comparison. (Actually, in Windows, I don't really notice UI lock-ups. But maybe my computer is some weird mutant special-case.)
-
@Master Chief said:
No, if you're a good driver, you wouldn't ever need it. But sometimes catastrophe strikes and they come in real handy.
I guess I really don't need to reply, since b-redeker obviously "gets it" and is doing a great job.
Here's the deal: computers are for humans to use. Not for Richard Stallman to use, but for the average human. The average human doesn't want to learn anything about computers, so they shouldn't have to. It's really that simple.
The diesel example you should be learning from, you're instead just glossing over. A real engineer would hear that and say, "obviously the pump or gas tank is designed wrong if you can make that mistake." It should be physically impossible to make that mistake. The fact that it isn't means somebody screwed up somewhere.
On the screensaver example, why shouldn't somebody expect a downloaded screensaver to run correctly without any embedded spyware? The fact that so many screensavers also install spyware means that we, as an industry, have failed our customers. Some companies, like Apple, really get this. Some, like Microsoft, have groups that get it and other groups that don't. (Fortunately, Windows mostly gets it, and I think the Office gets it, and the fucking Xbox and Windows Phone 7 teams are knocking it out of the park.) Other companies, like Oracle or IBM, haven't even come remotely close to beginning to be in the same ZIP code as getting it. Those companies need to die in a fire.
Oh and cars? Cars suck. People need to learn far too much about cars to drive them. Especially in Europe, where cars have manual transmissions by default. We shouldn't even be aiming for the car example... we should be aiming for something like, say, a water heater. It just fucking runs, perfectly, for 20+ years at a time. You can spend decades of your life never having to think about your water heater.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@Master Chief said:
No, if you're a good driver, you wouldn't ever need it. But sometimes catastrophe strikes and they come in real handy.
I guess I really don't need to reply, since b-redeker obviously "gets it" and is doing a great job.Here's the deal: computers are for humans to use. Not for Richard Stallman to use, but for the average human. The average human doesn't want to learn anything about computers, so they shouldn't have to. It's really that simple.
The diesel example you should be learning from, you're instead just glossing over. A real engineer would hear that and say, "obviously the pump or gas tank is designed wrong if you can make that mistake." It should be physically impossible to make that mistake. The fact that it isn't means somebody screwed up somewhere.
On the screensaver example, why shouldn't somebody expect a downloaded screensaver to run correctly without any embedded spyware? The fact that so many screensavers also install spyware means that we, as an industry, have failed our customers. Some companies, like Apple, really get this. Some, like Microsoft, have groups that get it and other groups that don't. (Fortunately, Windows mostly gets it, and I think the Office gets it, and the fucking Xbox and Windows Phone 7 teams are knocking it out of the park.) Other companies, like Oracle or IBM, haven't even come remotely close to beginning to be in the same ZIP code as getting it. Those companies need to die in a fire.
Oh and cars? Cars suck. People need to learn far too much about cars to drive them. Especially in Europe, where cars have manual transmissions by default. We shouldn't even be aiming for the car example... we should be aiming for something like, say, a water heater. It just fucking runs, perfectly, for 20+ years at a time. You can spend decades of your life never having to think about your water heater.
Wait, are you insulting or complimenting the xbox and windows phone 7 teams? Also, the resolution of a game only makes a huge difference with deferred rendering engines (such as S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Shadow of Chernobyl) where the engine has to do work that directly scales with the number of pixels (basically it has to render a portion of the lighting for each pixel, more pixels = more light rendering).
-
@blakeyrat said:
@pbean said:
The man actually knows how stuff works, but because you (one person) have experience with Wow (one game), you're going to say that he's wrong and you're right
No, every game on my computer is that way. I only mentioned WOW as an example. If you re-read my post, and go reeeaaal slow, you might see where I mentioned that little nugget of information. (Psst, it's the part where I say every game I own behaves the same as WOW, FPS-wise.)
@pbean said:
My experience outweights your experience, because it involves more games than just Wow
Wouldn't it be great if people actually read my posts before replying to them? Man, I wish we lived in that utopia. I know it's hard, but it was only like 3 sentences.
How do you build software at work? Do you just kind of skim the requirements, then just assume you know what the client wants? Or is it just my stuff you don't read?
@pbean said:
Still I think nexekho's math outweighs both of our experiences.
You're welcome to your opinion. I'd respect it more if you were literate.
@pbean said:
(just like how he makes an argument with just one game as reference). :P
Wow, the triple-whammy! With a smug smiley, to boot! You're really climbing up the jackass ranks here.
Oops I'm sorry for missing 7 words in your post. No need to act as if I kicked you in the balls, I'm sure it happens to the best of us. At least I tried to comment on arguments rather than attacking you personally, as you did in your respond (how come that sort of posts don't get you banned? you literally did nothing else than bash me). I'm sure you're a really nice person to argue with in real life....
Also I'm sorry to be so illiterate and stupid. I shall withdraw myself from this highly intelligent discussion at once (and I hope everyone else does so too so you're left alone :P (smiley not meant to be smug, but to indicate I'm making a joke, or at least trying)).
-
Hmm the edit button for my previous post is gone (is it only visible for a certain amount of time after posting?).
I just wanted to add to my post that I think you're a nice guy and often have good arguments, I meant no insult. :) Just trying to discuss the topic. But I just don't understand why you have to write and act the way you do. Wouldn't it be nicer to take a more friendly approach in your writing instead of seeing everyone as your enemy and just bashing them and their arguments? If you get a kick out of it, I can highly recommend most gaming forums, they are a lot more fun to bash people on. :P If that's just your way of writing I'll just keep it in mind. Though after being bashed like that I feel more like leaving the dicussion entirely than trying to come back with more arguments and continuing the discussion. xD
Anyway, again my apologies for my bad post, I hope you understand it was just a mistake that I missed certain parts of your post. :)
-
@DescentJS said:
Wait, are you insulting or complimenting the xbox and windows phone 7 teams?
Complimenting. "Knocking it out of the park" is a baseball metaphor.
-
@pbean said:
Oops I'm sorry for missing 7 words in your post. No need to act as if I kicked you in the balls, I'm sure it happens to the best of us. At least I tried to comment on arguments rather than attacking you personally, as you did in your respond (how come that sort of posts don't get you banned? you literally did nothing else than bash me). I'm sure you're a really nice person to argue with in real life....
Shockingly, in real life, if you started to respond while completely ignoring what I said last, I'd probably get upset too.
I actually think it's incredibly fucking rude to respond without reading the post first, and especially to to reference the same non-existent point *three* times in a single post without ever bothering to check back to see if I actually made that point.
I don't think it's that onerous of a requirement that people actually *read* the post they're responding to.
As to why I don't get banned, I dunno. Maybe admins here assume that posters aren't such crybabies that a few harsh words sends them running for mommy. Sticks and stones. Sticks and stones.
Oh, and by the way, I didn't "literally did nothing else than bash you"... if you actually *read* the post you were replying to that time, you'd realize that. So... bravo.
-
In this thread:
lol my hat simulator has fragments
why should we compress big files?
world of warcraft
world of warcraft
world of warcraft
baseball
-
@Ben L. said:
lol my hat simulator has fragments
They've upgraded it to a trade simulator now.
-
okay I've had it.
I wrote a nice big post, and still have it, but something int CS's formatter/parser is fucked and I can't post it.
It seems that keeping quote attribution makes it fail consistently, but plain quote tags are ok, and
maybe also word-wrapping in TinyMCE. I've added this here nonsense sentence thingamajog to make it wrap.Nope.Stay tuned.
Or do your own experiments.
-
I'm not having any luck posting long replies either.
Even normal markup is causing errors.
Even my normal replies with no markup are causing errors.
Trying to get anything through is futile, apparently... except this.
-
It seems to be related to post length. Short posts work fine. Long posts don't.
-
-
-
@Daniel Beardsmore said:
<img src="http://telcontar.net/store/hosted/fora/Community-Server-blows-goats-II.png">
Nominated for the mug!
-
-
@Ben L. said:
In this thread:
lol my hat simulator has fragments
why should we compress big files?
world of warcraft
world of warcraft
world of warcraft
baseballAll threads should be so good
-
-
@Indrora said:
TRWTF is using Steam to defrag GCF's. its a Known Fact that Nem's GCFScape does a MUCH better job.
Most informative post in the thread. Thank you....
-
@belgariontheking said:
FTFY@Indrora said:
TRWTF is using Steam to defrag GCF's. its a Known Fact that Nem's GCFScape does a MUCH better job.
Only informative post in the thread. Thank you....
-
So, err, my fountain of OpenGL knowledge wasn't informative? I hesitate to call it wisdom. :p
-
Fun fact: TF2 Dedicated Severs don't use GCF files
Shame, too, as they'd help prevent accidentally deleting hl2 dir.
-
As for increasing size, TF2 has added 100s of models, sounds, animations, plus 30ish 50-100MB maps since launch.
-
I see you'd prefer to have 119 separate filesystems as opposed to a few frequently updated ones?
-
@blakeyrat said:
@pbean said:
PS (yes another one): what kind of problems does everyone seem to have with Steam? I think it's a wonderful platform (easy to purchase games, one place to access all my games from) and I don't think the interface nor the system really is that bad.
Do you really want a list?
*) It started with -1000 points, since when it was new Steam did nothing but prevent people from playing their long-delayed Half-Life 2 purchase for 3 days due to bugs
*) The app's usability, and most of its coding is abyssimal. Until the last year or so, I'd call it borderline broken. Even now you can't use shift-up arrow to select text in a Steam textbox. (God forbid they use the OS-standard textbox widget! Then it might fucking work!!)
*) The customer service is entirely un-contact-able. Good luck trying to get the correct price if there's a pricing error in Steam's database! (And there often is-- I'm a casual user and I see pricing errors all the time)
*) Any game that ships on CD/DVD and claims to be able to install itself into your Steam library utterly fails. Fails in a way where your computer uses 100% CPU time and thrashes your poor disk for 24 hours, and the progress bar never advances past 1% (fortunately, you can usually have Steam download these)
*) About a third of the games on Steam don't work in Vista or Windows 7... some (Quake 1-based games) don't work at all. Valve doesn't care. They also don't offer refunds if your game doesn't work
*) About once every three months or so, Steam will manage to corrupt either itself, or one of its games, and require a long re-download and re-install. If you're lucky, you don't lose save games when this happensI think that Steam has *grown* to become something decent, but it's been digging itself out of a hole since launch day, and there's still too many things that Valve simply doesn't feel like fixing. That said, it's still the best of a bad bunch.
- They require you to download a custom version of Flash in order to view some content (trailers) in the steam store, why they couldn't just make use of the regular flash player that 99% of steam users will likely already have, I don't know
-
@crippledsmurf said:
* They require you to download a custom version of Flash in order to view some content (trailers) in the steam store, why they couldn't just make use of the regular flash player that 99% of steam users will likely already have, I don't know
...what are you talking about? To my knowledge, the HD trailers on steampowered.com force you to download Steam (no surprise there, you need said program to install the games, too... if you don't like that, you're on the wrong damn site to buy games), but the normal quality ones play with regular Adobe Flash.
