| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
Mattias Kreku
Magister of the Light
Joined: 13 Jun 2002
Posts: 387
|
quote:
Originally posted by Scrivener
I've spent hours playing games like "Jetpac" (in about 1983) so I'm not going to complain TOO much about Morrowind.
WOAH!! I played Jetpac too on my Spectrum ZX 16Kb back in the eighties! And don't even BEGIN to compare those two games.. Nothing beats Jetpac.
I want to build a rocket again. |
Thu Jun 20, 2002 1:52 pm |
|
|
MoonDragon
High Emperor
Joined: 25 May 2002
Posts: 1254
Location: Waterloo, Canada |
quote:
Originally posted by Joey Nipps
Once again, you make just a vague generalized comment with no specifics for me to discuss.
They weren't comments, they were axioms. I specifically stated them such that they are not available for discussion. But you seem intent on dragging this on. I got some time to kill before my meeting, so I'll indulge you. 
quote:
But in answer to your vague comment - apparently unlike you I do know something about code and execution within a computer.
This is beyond discussion. If I was incompetent in my job, I wouldn't have the luxury of having one and having enough free time to post here. But if you need my qualifications, then I'll let you know I built logic gate, counters, adders, memory switches. Coded in assembler, C and about 20 other programming languages. Have worked on C64, MacOS, several flavours of Unix and Linux as well as just about Windows platform since 3.1. I've also put computers together as a techy at some point in my past. I've worked for medium and small sized companies and currently run my own sofware department for a manifacturer of scientific instruments. I have to deal with hardware communications issues on almost daily basis. I think I'm more than qualified to claim I know why, when and how code is executed in the computer. Granted, I'm not an engineer whose profession is to build controllers and CPUs, but than again, not many people in this world are. Anyways, now that my qualifications are out of the way, hopefully we can get onto some more interesting stuff.
quote:
First, the speed of execution of any given part of a program is NOT directly related to the size of the program (lines of code) and definately not ONLY to the size of the program.
That's like saying that the buoyancy of concrete is not directly related to the color of ants. Or any other completely irrelevant comparison. The speed of execution of any given part of a program is ONLY related to the speed of your CPU and the bus between it and the memory (either cache, RAM, or any other form). How many total lines in a program has absolutely nothing to do with how many lines per second your computer can process. There is no magic about that. But, specifically pointing to something seemingly related makes it sound like there is some creedence to the claim. It's vacuous.
quote:
...For example, the number of lines of code in any program likely comprise many different 'subroutines' all of which do not run simultaneously - thus the program may be quite large, but any given portion using the processor at any given moment might be quite small in comparison - thus the size of the program will not be reflected in the speed of execution as seen by the user (which after all is what we are talking about).
'Subroutines' are only an "archiving" tool that allows for easier reuse of code as well as clarity. I can write 10000 line long program that is a single 'subroutine.' It would still run just as fine as the same program compacted in about 5000 lines and 20 subroutines. Number of actual commands executed would be the same. Code that is written by humans and executable code fed to the CPU have nothing in common but basic logic. That's what compilers are for. They translate human written code into machine executable code. How they do it, or what the end result is has almost no relation to how pretty, structure and/or organized the original human written code is. Your CPU can execute only one command at the time (I am aware this is not true for today's CPUs but that's irrelevant for this discussion). It doesn't care where that line came from. It's up to your operating system to tell CPU which line of which program to execute next. Your CPU does this at all times. It never stops. It can't. Unless you turn the power off. Size of the program that this single executable statement belongs to has no relevance how fast this statement is executed. On the other hand, this has nothing to do with perception of user either. If my code requires to execute 1 million lines of code to move a window on your screen and your CPU can execute 1 million lines of code per second, then it will require one second to move the window on your screen. If it can execute 2 million lines of code per second, then window movement will take 1/2 second. Irrelevant of how big the rest of code is. Another thing that should be noted. When I say 1 million lines of code executed, that does not mean that someone wrote 1 million lines of code in their language of choice. A program that counts from 0 to 1 million would take 2-3 lines in C. But the CPU would still have to execute 1 million lines (and some overhead) in order to actually do it.
quote:
There are at least several other contributing factors that would have to be discussed thoroughly in context to completely analyze any situation.
No other factor really matters other than the speed at which your computer can execute commands intenally. Perceived speed from the user's perspective is a whole other can of worms.
quote:
Further, even in the specific case one can make for a relationship between these two program parameters, this relationship is NOT as specific as the one held forth in the laws of physics (F=MA) which puts the relationship between the size (mass) of an object and it's acceleration (for practical purposes the speed in our car example.
I hope I showed you that those two parameters have nothing to do with each other.
"For practical purposes?" You just eliminated a whole dimension worth of data points. Acceleration is d/t^2, not d/t. You conviniently removed the one variable this whole discussion is about, namely time. I'll have to disagree with you on the point that you can do that without the loss of generality. Besides, nothing in your equation says I can't have a very heavy car that accelerates really fast. All I need is more force. Pretty much same as the code execution. You wanna execute a lot of lines of code really fast, just get a faster executing computer (please notice how I conveniently avoided saying faster CPU as it is not always the bottleneck).
quote:
From this we can see that (for any given F which means for any given car engine) as the size (mass) of the car increases, the acceleration (speed for simplicity purposes in our car example) MUST be lower - there is nothing that can be done about this.
I protest your removing a dimension from the data set again... But to keep going with your analogy, it is not erroneous from your perspective. Hopefully you will be able to extend it to the computers as follows: for any size of your computer (executing speed) if you increase the amount necessary to compute (number of lines of executable code--note that this is not synonymous with actual finished size of the windows executable, i.e. the .exe), the perceived time it takes to execute those commands MUST be lower. Still with me?
quote:
So, please, unless you wish to be more specific AND unless you wish to demonstrate either your lack of knowledge OR your intellectual dishonesty further, just drop the discussion.
How much more "knowledge" and "itellectual dishonesty" need I demonstrate? BTW, I've been trying to drop it for a while, but when I attempted to do that, my "intellectual dishonesty" got brought up. Go figure.
quote:
I have never said there was a game with ALL the functions at once - that is something you seem to wish I had said. I merely said that each of the functions that I have suggested should be in a quality CRPG HAVE been done before in other games.
In retrospect, in light of what you said here and what you said previously:
quote:
However, (in the case of a CRPG) having well written NPC scripting (or any of the other things that have been mentioned) is NOT diametrically opposed (not opposed at all) to the any of the other features in the game. Again, this is supported by the fact that other games HAVE accomplished these very things.
it is becoming clear that you were somewhat unclear. It seems both Garon and I (not trying to draw Garon into this by any means) misunderstood your post which seemed to say that even though all individual aspects of Garon's dream car were made, you cannot put them together, unlike all the aspects of your dream software which have been put together previously. Your proof of it being possible was in the sentence "that other games HAVE accomplished these very things." This seemed to imply acomplishement of actual merging of features. Woe be on us for assuming and trying to see reason in that post.
Anyways, this is long enough of a lecture for now and I do actually have to go apply some of my supposed expertise now. Please don't take this post in a hostile manner, it was not meant to be as such. Some parts may be greased by irony, but overall it was meant as a friendly "clear up some misconceptions" type of a post. Hopefully that's how you'll take it.
_________________
(@) |
|
Thu Jun 20, 2002 2:48 pm |
|
|
sooth
Head Merchant
Joined: 20 Jun 2002
Posts: 55
Location: http://folksites.com/hollowpath/ |
gosh, that is one hell of a post. i think it took me, uh ,ten minutes to read it. i just hope my "cpu" up top can handle that many operations per second. i'm gonna have an aneurysm...
seriously, moondragon, i agree with you. people shouldn't spout off about something they read on the backcover of "Computers for dummies"
some of these kids are like sponges, they soak up info-even bad info. they don't know any better.
_________________
-puts pinky to lower lip and raises brow- |
|
Thu Jun 20, 2002 3:07 pm |
|
|
Shadeling
Head Merchant
Joined: 21 May 2002
Posts: 64
|
Garon! Well said. You put it so eloquently I know I couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you.
_________________
=Member of the Non-Flamer's Guild
"Those who dream by day are cognizant of many things which escape those who dream only by night." - Edgar Allen Poe |
|
Thu Jun 20, 2002 3:11 pm |
|
|
Mephisto
Leader of the Senate
Joined: 05 May 2002
Posts: 300
Location: Holland |
As we have said a thousand times, MW is not for everyone. You dont like it? Fine. Plenty of other rpgs around that you might like better instead. I am not going to explain why I feel MW is more alive as Gothic, which I honestly think. |
|
Thu Jun 20, 2002 3:27 pm |
|
|
es3addict
Head Merchant
Joined: 11 Jun 2002
Posts: 62
|
i really find it hard to believe that gothic or whatever is better then MW cus MW is the single greatest game ive played in a loooooooooooooong looooooooooong time and no im nota pc gamer i play consoles and personally i like them better then pc's but its my choice i dont see why evry one whines and moans about MW's npcs and how lame the game isif u dont like it hw cares play somethig else and further more when u can produce a better game then MW tell me cus id like to play it |
|
Thu Jun 20, 2002 11:07 pm |
|
|
Mattias Kreku
Magister of the Light
Joined: 13 Jun 2002
Posts: 387
|
Full stops anyone..?
. . . . . . . . . |
|
Fri Jun 21, 2002 12:52 am |
|
|
Lordr31z
Captain of the Guard
Joined: 11 May 2002
Posts: 190
Location: United States of America |
Not another one of those quote posting toolz. Chill man everything is going to be ok. Just put down the quote and everything will be just fine.  |
|
Fri Jun 21, 2002 1:13 am |
|
|
Mattias Kreku
Magister of the Light
Joined: 13 Jun 2002
Posts: 387
|
Not another one of those "toolz" using teenz. Chill man everything is going to be ok. Just put down the toolz and everything will be just fine. |
|
Fri Jun 21, 2002 1:18 am |
|
|
Lordr31z
Captain of the Guard
Joined: 11 May 2002
Posts: 190
Location: United States of America |
  |
|
Fri Jun 21, 2002 1:33 am |
|
|
Scrivener
Noble Knight
Joined: 20 Jun 2002
Posts: 223
Location: Australia |
quote:
Originally posted by Mattias Kreku
quote:
Originally posted by Scrivener
I've spent hours playing games like "Jetpac" (in about 1983) so I'm not going to complain TOO much about Morrowind.
WOAH!! I played Jetpac too on my Spectrum ZX 16Kb back in the eighties! And don't even BEGIN to compare those two games.. Nothing beats Jetpac.
I want to build a rocket again.
Admittedly, the combat was more fun in Jetpac, but the weather effects weren't that great... |
|
Fri Jun 21, 2002 4:05 am |
|
|
Danicek
The Old One
Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 5922
Location: Czech Republic |
quote:
Originally posted by Scrivener
quote:
Originally posted by Mattias Kreku
quote:
Originally posted by Scrivener
I've spent hours playing games like "Jetpac" (in about 1983) so I'm not going to complain TOO much about Morrowind.
WOAH!! I played Jetpac too on my Spectrum ZX 16Kb back in the eighties! And don't even BEGIN to compare those two games.. Nothing beats Jetpac.
I want to build a rocket again.
Admittedly, the combat was more fun in Jetpac, but the weather effects weren't that great...
And monsters were much uglier :]. |
|
Fri Jun 21, 2002 6:09 am |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14
All times are GMT. The time now is Tue Apr 16, 2019 8:25 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
