Jump to content

Son of Random Stuff


Arthmoor
 Share

Recommended Posts

After my second time through' date=' I think I'm more of a "it all ended after Harbinger shot you in the face with a huge laser" ending fan. Not sure.

Ah well. At least the entire rest of the game is fun?

Time for more Skyrim, I guess.[/quote']You did a second playthrough?I thought once you finished the game you automatically projectile vomited and your CPU went into overdrive before exploding from the EPIC NARRATIVE LOGIC FAIL error.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. I finished Ultima IX. That was Peak Fail. Everything else isn't really even a blip on the radar by comparison.2. In spite of the OMGWTFEPICBULLSHIT ending, the whole rest of the game is actually really fun.3. I really wanted to do a second playthrough to see if the female Shepard voice acting was better (it kind of is) and if the levels in awesome Liara took in between ME1 and ME2 translated into her romance being similarly awesome (unfortunately not, and oh god is that part of ME1 awful. Ashley is totally the way to go there) and also to see if Vanguard was a funner class to play than Soldier (if biotic charging dudes and then shotgunning them in the face is wrong, being right just isn't worth my time). That mission has been accomplished.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. I finished Ultima IX. That was Peak Fail. Everything else isn't really even a blip on the radar by comparison.

2. In spite of the OMGWTFEPICBULLSHIT ending' date=' the whole rest of the game is actually really fun.

3. I really wanted to do a second playthrough to see if the female Shepard voice acting was better (it kind of is) and if the levels in awesome Liara took in between ME1 and ME2 translated into her romance being similarly awesome (unfortunately not, and oh god is that part of ME1 awful. Ashley is totally the way to go there) and also to see if Vanguard was a funner class to play than Soldier (if biotic charging dudes and then shotgunning them in the face is wrong, being right just isn't worth my time). That mission has been accomplished.[/quote']I blame the buyout, for the DRM FUBAR too."EA Games - shit on everything."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on whether or not you consider the DRM element in DA:O to be a blemish. It wasn't as in your face as Steam is, but then, not much else is.Also, I too finished Ultima IX. Bugs and all. I didn't get my patched CDs in the mail until well after I'd finished the game. Oh, yeah, they mailed patched CDs back in the day. That's how BADLY fucked up that game was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on whether or not you consider the DRM element in DA:O to be a blemish. It wasn't as in your face as Steam is' date=' but then, not much else is.

Also, I too finished Ultima IX. Bugs and all. I didn't get my patched CDs in the mail until well after I'd finished the game. Oh, yeah, they mailed patched CDs back in the day. That's how BADLY fucked up that game was.[/quote']DA:O doesn't have "phone home" DRM, or install limits, or anything like that.Yes, you can link your copy to an email address to get DLC, upload pics etc., but you don't have to, the main game, expansion and patches will all work on a machine without an internet connection with just a disk check.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's truly incredible. One would think that this is the sort of thing mathematicians should have been able to figure out centuries ago, if just so that they could better determine where to position their catapults and bowmen. Who'd believe that in today's modern world of intercontinental ballistic missiles and such, we still wouldn't even know how to calculate true trajectory with gravity and air resistance factored in. :headbang:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Conner :PYeah. That does seem slightly scary if you think about it. But it makes sense, NASA keeps telling us they don't know where those wayward satellites are coming down. I imagine this will help them pin that kind of thing down more precisely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sure hope so, it's always bothered me that they couldn't ever seem to know where things falling from the sky would land when they claim to always be in such precise control of the stuff as they send it up. Sadly, that's not one of the most concerning issues relating to that same sort of non-certainty though. Can you imagine what it must be like to have to tell the President that we need to use nukes against an enemy but can only guess about the exact point of ground zero? Let alone what it must be like to have to be that President when granting authorization for said launch?On the other hand, even without such knowledge, we've had marksmen with bows and firearms for centuries.. guess we instinctively knew how to calculate this on smaller scales without actually needing the math. It's just too bad we can't do it without the math the same way for bigger "projectiles" like missiles, air-to-ground based bombs, space vehicles, satellites, etc... what of airplanes for that matter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a reason why nukes are called city killers, and why they have such monstrously high yields. Compensation for the uncertainly. You can be certain you got the target if you've blown up the whole city :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since we can't accurately calculate the trajectory, one has to hope that the target has been struck and not the wrong city, particularly in cases where we have so-called 'twin cities' and such. ;)Besides, I wasn't talking so much about nukes as conventional bombs and missiles. (You're right, overall, a nuke has a high enough yield to sort of make up for inaccuracy issues.) Look at all the times in history that, in order to bombard a target we've had to go way over the top with the planes dropping bombs since so many would only come close to their intended targets. Missiles aren't much better, we aim missiles by taking a wide range target into account because we just can't guide them better than that. Hand grenades, arrows, bullets, etc are not really much better, though we do have individuals who can fire a bow or firearm amazingly accurately, but only individuals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GPS/Laser guidance systems would seem to be in the "good enough" range as far as bombs and missiles go. And the CEP on modern nukes is fairly low at last count.But hey, it's a Conner!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, since I was flirting around the edges of it for a while, I went ahead and started playing Mass Effect 3 multiplayer today. And it's...actually really fun. And it seems remarkably resistant to annoying fucktards and idiots, even in random match joining, so you can pretty much just focus on the OMGWTFOSHI- numbers of guys you're fighting.Surprisingly recommended.(though I wish I had somebody to play it with)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GPS/Laser guidance systems would seem to be in the "good enough" range as far as bombs and missiles go. And the CEP on modern nukes is fairly low at last count.But hey' date=' it's a Conner![/quote']Compared to what we had back in previous wars, yes, GPS/Laser guidance systems are a vast improvement, but if the folks firing the missiles & dropping the bombs could accurately calculate where they were going to go in the first place, we wouldn't need GPS/Laser guidance systems, just think how much more precise our weapons could be and how much cheaper they could be. ;)Oh no! Where?!? ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Over there! Duck!Would seem to me that the problem sort of assumes a spherical cow, so to speak. Given the vagaries of motion, fuel loads/propellant, &c, math can only take you so far, but.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Over there! Duck!

Would seem to me that the problem sort of assumes a spherical cow' date=' so to speak. Given the vagaries of motion, fuel loads/propellant, &c, math can only take you so far, but.[/quote']That's because the mathematician can't account for all variables. Accounting for how air resistence factors into trajectory is a pretty big thing.Up until now we have done it using tables and experience - you test a bullet to see how it flies, then file the information away for future use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Over there! Duck!
*Quack!* ;)
Would seem to me that the problem sort of assumes a spherical cow' date=' so to speak. Given the vagaries of motion' date=' fuel loads/propellant, &c, math can only take you so far, but.[/quote'']That's because the mathematician can't account for all variables. Accounting for how air resistence factors into trajectory is a pretty big thing.Up until now we have done it using tables and experience - you test a bullet to see how it flies, then file the information away for future use.
Sadly, I understand all too well what the problem is and what the solution has been, it just seems like something that we really ought to have been able to figure out centuries ago because of how many things it affects and how significantly it does so. Ultimately, the mathematics aren't really even trying to resolve every variable, just the impacts of air resistance and gravity against trajectory. (Actually, the fuel loads/propellant and so forth are the easy parts that we do already know how to take into account, and nearly every pilot uses that knowledge pretty regularly.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chatted with my aerospace engineer hubby tonight about this and he pointed out one important fact: the challenge presented by Newton was for cannonballs flying through the air, not inter-continental ballistic missiles. ICB's, satellites and the like don't have to deal with air resistance for their entire flight - they're in space for part of their trajectory. You also have gravitational forces. And weather. Very good that Newton's challenge was solved. But we've got new ones to deal with. Like differences in air pressure. Newton didn't postulate weapons that could send projectiles over half the fucking planet.Nuclear weapons aren't that big because they want to obliterate everything. They are that fucking big because we can't make them any smaller. The bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima was only the size of a basketball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...