 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2014-05-15 12:43, Nekar Xenos wrote:
> Like Minecraft with pixel-sized blocks?
Do want.
(Seriously; the only thing that turns me off of Minecraft is the
absurdly large voxels. Well, and that it's not free. Even EverQuest
Landmark is too chunky for my taste...though it does let you put things
at angles.)
--
T. Cook
http://empyrean.sjcook.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 15 May 2014 19:48:27 +0200, Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> On 2014-05-15 12:43, Nekar Xenos wrote:
>> Like Minecraft with pixel-sized blocks?
>
Maybe I should rephrase (my wording tends to be on the sparse side):
I meant that maybe their algorithm is similar to Minecrafts algorithm.
Apparently Minecraft worlds are massive. So if you take a tiny Minecraft
block and only give each side a single colour and code it in C++ instead
of Java, maybe it is possible. Maybe even add a few CryEngine tricks?
> Do want.
>
> (Seriously; the only thing that turns me off of Minecraft is the
> absurdly large voxels. Well, and that it's not free. Even EverQuest
> Landmark is too chunky for my taste...though it does let you put things
> at angles.)
>
I feel the same way. It also seems like only a select few would be able to
build stuff with Landmark if I understood it correctly. It an awesome
concept but it's not my kind of game. I would want more realism. Minecraft
+ Google Earth + physics + CryEngine + GTA + Play as a good guy - that
would be more my thing.
> --
> T. Cook
> http://empyrean.sjcook.com
--
-Nekar Xenos-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 15 May 2014 18:25:58 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 15/05/2014 05:29 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 May 2014 08:21:51 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>
>>> All the PCs at work actually *have* these.
>>
>> Nonsense. SSD drives are incomprehensibly expensive, and only the most
>> well-off geeks have them because they're incredibly rare "in the wild".
>> They must cost billions of dollars to purchase, most certainly. ;)
>
> Well *I* certainly couldn't afford one. But then, I'm not the one
> paying, so... ;-)
Only the top 1% could possibly afford them. Even then, it's little more
than a curiosity, the only ones who really benefit from them surely are
the top 0.1%.
> As I say, there's not much real-world observable performance difference,
> to be honest.
You obviously aren't using the ones that I'm talking about. ;)
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 16/05/2014 02:35, Jim Henderson a écrit :
> On Thu, 15 May 2014 18:25:58 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>
>> On 15/05/2014 05:29 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 15 May 2014 08:21:51 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>>
>>>> All the PCs at work actually *have* these.
>>>
>>> Nonsense. SSD drives are incomprehensibly expensive, and only the most
>>> well-off geeks have them because they're incredibly rare "in the wild".
>>> They must cost billions of dollars to purchase, most certainly. ;)
>>
>> Well *I* certainly couldn't afford one. But then, I'm not the one
>> paying, so... ;-)
>
> Only the top 1% could possibly afford them. Even then, it's little more
> than a curiosity, the only ones who really benefit from them surely are
> the top 0.1%.
>
>> As I say, there's not much real-world observable performance difference,
>> to be honest.
>
> You obviously aren't using the ones that I'm talking about. ;)
SSD or HDD or SSHD ? (solid state drive, hard drive (traditional), solid
state hybrid hard drive).
There is also in SSD two categories: SLC and MLC (single bit in a cell,
vs multiple bits in a cell) (as well as some other exotic ones). (in
fact, M of MLC now means 2, and the emerging TLC is with T for 3): the
more bits per cells, the less number of warranted write per cell. (but
when you change a sector's content, the SSD does not write it at the
same cells, the firmware uses some fresh cells for the new value, so the
number of actual erasure is spreads on all the available cells).
TLC has a 1000 write warrant, when MLC has between 3000 and 5000 and SLC
above 20000.
(and the market trend is to go to TLC !)
SSD vs HDD: the cost for capacity is about ten to twentyfold so far.
The top-available capacity is also lower for SSD ( current value is
about a quarter of terabyte, when three terabytes on HDD, both going for
the psychological price of 100€ )
The read performance is also about x10 in the opposite direction (SSD
has far less seek time, and faster data pump). Yet real write is subject
to caution: HDD has seek time but write 4k easily, whereas SSD has a
bigger chunk to copy even if you modify only a few bytes. If you
consider the whole chunk, the write speed is similar. but if you write
many small files, it sucks.
And if we go on the road of luxury, there is the EFD (enterprise flash
drive), a kind of SSD made for high I/O performance and more.
The SSHD (ssd within a traditional hard drive) might have a card to
play: the system can be copied/cached on the ssd, but all the
event-logger and dynamic files stay on the rotating media. And it should
be transparent to the OS, as the firmware is going to select sectors
which are read often and nearly never written... if they do it right.
--
Just because nobody complains does not mean all parachutes are perfect.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I feel the same way. It also seems like only a select few would be able
> to build stuff with Landmark if I understood it correctly. It an awesome
> concept but it's not my kind of game. I would want more realism.
> Minecraft + Google Earth + physics + CryEngine + GTA + Play as a good
> guy - that would be more my thing.
Wait until Google buys Euclideon and laser scans the planet :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16/05/2014 07:48 AM, scott wrote:
> Wait until Google buys Euclideon and laser scans the planet :-)
Hack the planet! Hack the planet!!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> As I say, there's not much real-world observable performance difference,
>>> to be honest.
>>
>> You obviously aren't using the ones that I'm talking about. ;)
>
> SSD or HDD or SSHD ? (solid state drive, hard drive (traditional), solid
> state hybrid hard drive).
Pure SSD.
For the external ones, the USB interface is obviously the bottleneck.
But for the internal SATA ones... If there *is* a performance
difference, it's not dramatic enough to notice in a typical office
environment. There may be some other workload for which it's noticeable.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14/05/2014 17:45, Warp wrote:
> Add to that the fact that comments are disabled, and it only reinforces
> the notion.
No one has mentioned the old maxim. "If it looks too good to be true
then it probably isn't."
And the accent! Cut glass but pronounces data as da-ta not day-ta.
Call me a cynical old fool (not you Dr. John) but this smells of rotten
fish.
--
Regards
Stephen
I solemnly promise to kick the next angle, I see.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2014-05-16 03:17, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
> Pure SSD.
>
> For the external ones, the USB interface is obviously the bottleneck.
> But for the internal SATA ones... If there *is* a performance
> difference, it's not dramatic enough to notice in a typical office
> environment. There may be some other workload for which it's noticeable.
I am aware that the plural of anecdote is not data, and I have to rely
on what my coworkers say, but they speak of 15-25 sec boot times.*
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 16/05/2014 14:44, Francois Labreque a écrit :
> Le 2014-05-16 03:17, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
>> Pure SSD.
>>
>> For the external ones, the USB interface is obviously the bottleneck.
>> But for the internal SATA ones... If there *is* a performance
>> difference, it's not dramatic enough to notice in a typical office
>> environment. There may be some other workload for which it's noticeable.
>
> I am aware that the plural of anecdote is not data, and I have to rely
> on what my coworkers say, but they speak of 15-25 sec boot times.*
>
>
Depends on what you call "boot time".
At work, I can get the login prompt in 25 sec or so. But access to the
email will take at least 3 minutes (including 2 minutes of "no-click").
And it's a classical hdd on XP.
--
Just because nobody complains does not mean all parachutes are perfect.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
