Yes, every FF tool relies on the support of the kernel driver.
The patches can be found on git.kernel.log, but they are slightly large and most likely won't apply clearly to any kernel older than 3.0. The easiest way to get FF working in the native mode would be to get kernel 3.2. I'm certain that Ubuntu provides packages for the latest kernel, dunno how about other distributions.
I can google up some benchmarks that say otherwise and you could probably find yet another win of Win over MacOS; every OS can be tweaked to perform well under certain workload and BFU does not care about the raw performance anyway unless the system is really sluggish. I suggest we stop arguing about performance, if you need it, you can probably also set your computer up to get it...
So Windows 7 interface is somehow axiomatically better than MacOS X interface? I hardly think so. I have experience with quite a bit of UI's and I'm still looking for the perfect one
You took my analogy too literally. With Macs you're not paying for the hardware (although HD WebCam or multitouch touchpad are nice too), you're paying for the whole ecosystem, centralized AppStore and lots of services tied directly to the OS, autoupdates for everything - not just security patches, customer care, it's a bunch of small things you just don't get when you buy an ordinary laptop. Some people enjoy is, some don't need it, but that doesn't mean Macs are overpriced piece of turd and their users bunch of gay wackos.
Proven wrong how? This is not an objective assessment, this is an opinion. You consider Macs ripoff, some other people don't. Just because you (IMHO for no good reason) fail to understand what people see in MacOS X doesn't make that an absolute truth.
I'm sorry, but you don't have much of an idea what you're talking about, do you? Macs and "PC's" are absolutely the same basic hardware-wise. You can install and run MacOS on any modern "PC", you'll just have a hard time finding drivers for WebCams, WiFi and BT adapters and such kind of hardware. If you bothered to check some real data, you'd find that Windows and Macs are pretty much on par in terms of performance. You cannot really compare performance of two OSes, there are just too many variables.
End-users don't care that much if CINEBENCH finishes in 110 or 116 seconds anyway. Smart, intuitive and responsive user interface is what a BFU is after. A neat UI can actually more than compensate for a few percent slowdown because the user can work more effectively.
Bottomline? Macs are a higher-end devices with according price. You can buy a Corolla, or you can buy a Mercedes. Both will do a perfect job getting you from A to B, it's up to you if you want to enjoy AC'd seats and HiFi stereo while driving and pay extra for that.
Force feedback support for DFGT is available only since kernel 3.2. Unless you patch the kernel manually, force feedback won't work with DFGT in the native mode (it should work in the fallback mode though).
EDIT: It's also preferred to send FF events to /dev/input/eventX rather than jsX.
Last edited by MadCatX, .
Every firewall can be set to drop connections from certain IP, that's pretty much the whole idea of the firewall.
Exactly. Demanding games being developed for multiple platforms from the beginning is one thing, porting a pretty much complete software is another one. Get Parallels, get WINE, get VirtualBox, any of those can get LFS working flawlessly on Mac, but please stop asking for the one thing that will to all likelihood never happen. (Parallels and VBox should work with LFS even better that a native version would in some respects anyway)
Last edited by MadCatX, .
This is getting really boring. Did you actually read the article you linked? It clearly states that noone knows what kind of magic takes place in the device Rossi claims to be working. There were no independent tests done so far, no serious research was ever publicized in scientific magazines, we're all just supposed to take Rossi's word for it. When in the history of technology and science did mankind use a device without having a clue how it works?
It if works, I'm really interested what kind of phenomenon is behind it but since Rossi is much more about making money from the E-Cat, I couldn't care less.
If the figures about people ordering his devices are any correct, he might become a helluva rich man pretty soon, damn, why didn't I go study nuclear physics?
It if works, I'm really interested what kind of phenomenon is behind it but since Rossi is much more about making money from the E-Cat, I couldn't care less.
If the figures about people ordering his devices are any correct, he might become a helluva rich man pretty soon, damn, why didn't I go study nuclear physics?
It's not like that mangled sentence actually means anything, I just found it funny that running it through Bing translator 20 times twists your statement into some "what the hell" drug related thing
The code you have right now is probably correct, but it most likely doesn't take in account the situation where you need more than one MCI packet to get updates for all cars on track. Without the full source of that for cycle we can't pinpoint where the problem is. MCI.NumC contains the information of how many CompCar structures are in the currently processed MCI packet. Each CompCar structure holds info about one car on the track. You can get this from the insim.h
...20 translations later Bing gives us:
"Drug test bench and he what?"
(Couldn't resist...)
Such a viewer would have to contain all textures, tracks, car models, sounds, basically everything that makes LFS "big". Only the EXE could be stripped of some of the networking and user input handling stuff, but I fail to see the benefit of that...
That is quite good explanation of how the MCI packets work, with one exception though:
Should be more like "= if many MCI packet was too large, your server might just drop a few people out, that's why it contains only 8 CompCar structures at a time"
An alternative approach might be
<?php
Dictionary<byte, Point3D> carsPosition;
...
for(int i = 0; i < MCI.CountC; i++) {
byte _plid = MCI.CompCar[i].PLID;
int x = MCI.CompCar[i].X;
int y = MCI.CompCar[i].Y;
int z = MCI.CompCar[i].Z;
carsPosition[_plid] = new Point3D(x, y, z);
}
?>
Could someone explain to me what's going on here? Did shahroch give Patel some InSim app he wrote in exchange for an S2 account and then freaked out because he learned that trading accounts is illegal? Sorry dude, but if that's the case, the most stupid thing you could have done was posting it here....
I'm sorry, but I don't get any of this. Please try to explain it again using some punctuation and stuff, your endless multiline sentence is impossible to read...
You just probably need to calibrate it properly. You can verify the wheel is properly calibrated in the Control Panel.
I really wonder how the Energy amplifier or how is it officially called turns out. It's interesting that although Rossi and Focardi claim it works perfectly, they don't provide much details about its operation and let other scientists guess why it might work - it's not like anybody has a reasonable chance to steal their patent, is it? It is also pretty interesting that they publish their findings only in the Journal of Nuclear Physics, which is pretty much their own blog. But at least they bothered to come up with some valid explanation why such thing might work, but alas, I'm not a quantum physicist to reliably assess it. One thing caught my attention though, if they really explain the Ni + H fusion by quantum tunneling effect, what would the probability of such effect taking place be?
There is a difference between "not always reproducible" and "not reproducible at all" and even when you can't reproduce something, you usually have at least an idea why. What's the success rate of reproducing cold fusion, 0.0001 %?
You cannot prove a theory per se, but you can usually tell where do you expect it to be wrong. Valid theories have inner consistency, meaning that they don't deny themselves. During the history of physics there was always something a current theory couldn't explain, so another theory had to be devised. The difference between cold fusion and say black body radiation is that almost nobody was able to get cold fusion running and even when somebody did, the results were far from being convincing. Black body radiation and subsequent Planck's discovery of quantizing of energy was much bigger breakthrough which completely changed our understanding of the Universe, yet nobody protested against that, because he Planck presented a conclusive proof. Do cold fusion pioneers have a conclusive proof that it works? If their experimental data has been tampered with, why don't they just try again at another research facility or why don't they publish the way their experiment was conducted so somebody else can give it a go? I'm sure there will be someone willing to fund such a research if their theories and finding have merit...
You cannot prove a theory per se, but you can usually tell where do you expect it to be wrong. Valid theories have inner consistency, meaning that they don't deny themselves. During the history of physics there was always something a current theory couldn't explain, so another theory had to be devised. The difference between cold fusion and say black body radiation is that almost nobody was able to get cold fusion running and even when somebody did, the results were far from being convincing. Black body radiation and subsequent Planck's discovery of quantizing of energy was much bigger breakthrough which completely changed our understanding of the Universe, yet nobody protested against that, because he Planck presented a conclusive proof. Do cold fusion pioneers have a conclusive proof that it works? If their experimental data has been tampered with, why don't they just try again at another research facility or why don't they publish the way their experiment was conducted so somebody else can give it a go? I'm sure there will be someone willing to fund such a research if their theories and finding have merit...
Now that's an interesting load of BS. Cold fusion was first "proved" in 1989 and it looked pretty amazing. Actually so amazing that suddenly everybody around the world tried to replicate Fleischmann's and Pons' experiment. But nobody could. One of my professors was a nuclear chemist at Charles University when this "discovery" was made and he tried to replicate the experiment himself - and as everybody else - failed. He spent a whole lecture explaining us why it just won't work this way and even if it somehow did, it would mean that our current understanding of basic physics misses something pretty serious.
The fact about cold fusion putting hot fusion scientists out of business really made me chuckle. Did nuclear reactors put thermal powerplants out of business? Did hot fusion make fission reactors and the respective fields of science obsolete? Have we stopped developing internal combustion engines when we have high capacity batteries now? If the cold fusion really is such a win, why is it not being used in countries like China where the government controls all the funding?
Even though scientists have to fight for the money to fund their work, I don't believe that someone could be so dumb to think that compromising one successful experiment would stop the research in that area altogether. A scientific discovery is an iterative process, every experiment or theory is built on top of other discoveries, this is not 9/11 where the US gov could have hidden all evidence. If something really works, it will be reproduced eventually, it is not a question of "if" but "when". Every scientist knows that so such an attempt would be ultimately pathetic.
The fact about cold fusion putting hot fusion scientists out of business really made me chuckle. Did nuclear reactors put thermal powerplants out of business? Did hot fusion make fission reactors and the respective fields of science obsolete? Have we stopped developing internal combustion engines when we have high capacity batteries now? If the cold fusion really is such a win, why is it not being used in countries like China where the government controls all the funding?
Even though scientists have to fight for the money to fund their work, I don't believe that someone could be so dumb to think that compromising one successful experiment would stop the research in that area altogether. A scientific discovery is an iterative process, every experiment or theory is built on top of other discoveries, this is not 9/11 where the US gov could have hidden all evidence. If something really works, it will be reproduced eventually, it is not a question of "if" but "when". Every scientist knows that so such an attempt would be ultimately pathetic.
Wait a minute... you actually believe that cold fusion works? I'm sorry, but HOW are we supposed to take anything you say seriously if you believe crap like that?
Last edited by MadCatX, .
Reason : fission != fusion, damn me :wall:
The XNA seems to have quite rich API for some vector maths, however, I had something more LFS specific in mind. I can imagine tons of situations where you'd want to know an angle between two or more objects, their distance and such things. I was even thinking about some generic algorithm to determine if an object is within a given area of arbitrary shape and other "extras".
It will depend on how much free time I'll have, but I guess especially cruise mods programmers would be happy for that.
It will depend on how much free time I'll have, but I guess especially cruise mods programmers would be happy for that.
So the laws regarding theft (or more precisely copyright infringement in this case) should overrule those regarding freedom of speech? You can't have it both ways.
As much as I despise piracy I still think think we're much better off with billion dollar companies crying about their falling sales numbers than with the Internet controlled by the governments. People who advocate this blocking and banning policy are either stupid or know that it can't possibly work.
Moreover, the piracy itself is not a real problem. Have you ever heard of a company that had to shut down because piracy destroyed its revenue, did any of those companies that moan the most have sack some of their employees because they couldn't pay them? I don't think so. On the other hand, did any of these companies force people who legally bought their products to install poorly written backdoors on their PC's without informing them about it all or providing an uninstaller?
Fight against piracy is just an attempt to employ legal mechanisms that would allow for the governments to decide what can and cannot be on the Internet. Up until now, the Internet was the only place where you could share pretty much anything and one can guess why something "had to" be done about it. I don't want to sound like Racer X here, but just look how the DMCA works and how SOPA or PIPA is supposed to work in US.
Without knowledge of the code you use to process MCI packets and control the cop system I can't be of much assistance, but it should be pretty obvious. Your application should store cars' position by PLID, so a Dictionary sounds like the collection to use in this case.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG