Page 2 of 6
Posted: July 31st, 2006, 23:45
by FatherJack
Gunslinger42 wrote:Since the stuff in CS:S breaks apart differently for everyone due to it being clientside, does that mean the ragdolls are the same? I'd hate to think that when I'm teabagging someones face it looks more like I'm teabagging their foot on someone else's screen

Goodness me, how embarrasing would
that be? In truth most people seem to hit the teabag target, although I have seen a few at chest or waist height. Perhaps that's intentional, though.
Posted: July 31st, 2006, 23:52
by Dr. kitteny berk
Gunslinger42 wrote:Since the stuff in CS:S breaks apart differently for everyone due to it being clientside, does that mean the ragdolls are the same? I'd hate to think that when I'm teabagging someones face it looks more like I'm teabagging their foot on someone else's screen

Yes, the bodies can/do land differently, basically only barrels (and some other stuff) will show the same for everyone
Posted: August 1st, 2006, 7:19
by spoodie
Dr. kitteny berk wrote:In short - physics processing will only be useful for client side content - details (like making water look pretty) rather than interactable content.
All makes sense. So we all need physics cards (including a very powerful one on the server) and a country wide gigabit network, get cracking BT!
Actually someone was telling me that sometime during the 80s or 90s BT were proposing to replace all the copper phone lines to people homes with fibre, but it was blocked by the Government because they didn't want BT to have a monopoly.

Posted: August 1st, 2006, 8:58
by Hehulk
spoodie wrote:Actually someone was telling me that sometime during the 80s or 90s BT were proposing to replace all the copper phone lines to people homes with fibre, but it was blocked by the Government because they didn't want BT to have a monopoly.

I'm fairly sure they
did do that. My mum use to work for BT in that time period and she swares blind they did.
Posted: August 1st, 2006, 9:58
by spoodie
Hehulk wrote:I'm fairly sure they did do that. My mum use to work for BT in that time period and she swares blind they did.
What? They
did lay fibre? Why are we all using ADSL then?
Posted: August 1st, 2006, 10:07
by Hehulk
Fucked if I know. I'm just repeating what I've been told more than a few times.
Gota ask though, if we arn't on fibreoptics, how do providers like
bulldog give us the speeds they do?
Posted: August 1st, 2006, 10:25
by spoodie
Hehulk wrote:Gota ask though, if we arn't on fibreoptics, how do providers like
bulldog give us the speeds they do?
My understanding that it's just ADSL technology, ADSL2+ perhaps. Greater compression so you can get more data down the copper line. Perhaps it's the connection between the exchanges that your Mum is referring to, they will be connected by fibre I should think.
Posted: August 1st, 2006, 11:11
by Woo Elephant Yeah
Operation thread tangent achieved

Posted: August 1st, 2006, 12:38
by Sheriff Fatman
DSL works on the frequencies that commercial voice transmisions don't use, thus it can carry boat loads of data without impacting on the normal servive.
I think BT only replaced certain parts of upper echelon infrastructure with fibre-optics, not all domestic lines. I know for sure that we still have copper because DSL doesn't operate on fibre networks

Posted: August 1st, 2006, 12:42
by pixie pie
Sheriff Fatman wrote:I think BT only replaced certain parts of upper echelon infrastructure with fibre-optics, not all domestic lines.
We can be damn sure of this.
Although I've heard that they plan to *eventually* move everything to fibre optics (Makes perfect sense really.. apart from the billions it would cost).
Posted: August 1st, 2006, 13:11
by cashy
i saw a documentary on the discovery channel once about how they made fibre optic cable, tis fucking fascinating. cant imagine it being cheap after seeing that
Posted: August 1st, 2006, 13:26
by pixie pie
cashy wrote:i saw a documentary on the discovery channel once about how they made fibre optic cable, tis fucking fascinating. cant imagine it being cheap after seeing that
If you make enough of something, the production is cheap. And to make all of Britain be covered by fibre optic, would make enough..
The hassle of having to install cables to *every* house in Britain would give you the cost. For example, if you want a cable provider to get cable to your area, it costs thousands, and if you've got thousands x lots more of thousands.. you get lots of moneys cost

Posted: August 1st, 2006, 13:37
by spoodie
cashy wrote:i saw a documentary on the discovery channel once about how they made fibre optic cable, tis fucking fascinating. cant imagine it being cheap after seeing that
That was probably
How It's Made, which is a very interesting but very cheaply made show that covers lots of stuff. The process of making fibre cables involves pulling a thread from a large block of glass, being partly a manual process you can understand why it's so expensive. This is what the show told me, may not still be true.
Posted: August 1st, 2006, 13:43
by Dr. kitteny berk
spoodie wrote:
That was probably
How It's Made, which is a very interesting but very cheaply made show that covers lots of stuff. The process of making fibre cables involves pulling a thread from a large block of glass, being partly a manual process you can understand why it's so expensive. This is what the show told me, may not still be true.
That show is terrible, i watched one episode, it was full of oversights, wrong information and pretty much skipped whole sections of some processes.
semi-educational kid's tv. nothing more.
Posted: August 1st, 2006, 13:53
by spoodie
Dr. kitteny berk wrote:That show is terrible, i watched one episode, it was full of oversights, wrong information and pretty much skipped whole sections of some processes.
semi-educational kid's tv. nothing more.
Meh. It shows as much as I want to know about how bicycle helmets/industrial pipes/foreign sweets are made. Also it has such fantastically cheesy muzak

Posted: August 1st, 2006, 13:58
by pixie pie
spoodie wrote:Also it has such fantastically cheesy muzak

Lol! THIS

Posted: August 1st, 2006, 14:00
by mrbobbins
Dr. kitteny berk wrote:
That show is terrible, i watched one episode, it was full of oversights, wrong information and pretty much skipped whole sections of some processes.
semi-educational kid's tv. nothing more.
LIES
All Discovery programs are well made and extremely well researched, only the highest pinnacle of educational televisual entertainment graces the screens of viewers lucky enough to feast their eyes on such an insightful range of informative programming

Posted: August 1st, 2006, 14:02
by Dr. kitteny berk
mrbobbins wrote:
LIES
All Discovery programs are well made and extremely well researched, only the highest pinnacle of educational televisual entertainment graces the screens of viewers lucky enough to feast their eyes on such an insightful range of informative programming

Watch How It's Made, then get back to me

Posted: August 1st, 2006, 14:23
by Roman Totale
mrbobbins wrote:
LIES
All Discovery programs are well made and extremely well researched, only the highest pinnacle of educational televisual entertainment graces the screens of viewers lucky enough to feast their eyes on such an insightful range of informative programming


But I thought you...
Posted: August 1st, 2006, 14:29
by mrbobbins
Dr. kitteny berk wrote:Watch How It's Made, then get back to me
As if I've not seen it, there's bloody millions of them so they pad out the schedule with the <a href="
http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SAADA3MW ... g/made.jpg" target="_blank">fuckers</a>
Roman Totale wrote:

But I thought you...
... were an International Space Jockey?, only on weekends.