A still more glorious dawn awaits. Not a sunrise, but a galaxy-rise, filled with 400 million stars.Acemaster27

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgiXGELjbc

:)

[QUOTE="Pikdum"]

[QUOTE="PunishedOne"]

sSubZerOo

Exactly. We need to focus on colonising the Moon as a first step into space exploration. Interest in space exploration right now isn't too high among the majority. If we take the easier step to colonise the moon we would grasp the peoples attention. People would want to begin a venture to Mars seeing with what we are doing with the moon. This would really help funding.

This just isn't gonna work, the moon has low gravity.. Your going to see adverse health effects on people that intend to stay there for a long time.

Ok, feel free to call me out on this, but this is solved via sci-fi: Rotating stations. (Science fiction generally becomes science)

The colony doesn't have to be ON the Moon, it could be orbitting it with a rotating cylinder that provides artifical gravity. The centrifugal forces generated by the rotation are enough to give a feel of gravity. See here in this fan-made model of the Babylon 5 station:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd4VHNQZpiw

As others have said, the possibility to going to Mars is in our lifetime. The probability however, is being hindered by red tape and greedy politicians of the day.

Although it will be unfortunate, but the current system won't change unless something extremely drastic occurs. For example, say that the effects of global warming are more intense than anticipated, and entire countries become engulfed in conditions that cannot sustain life (drastic example indeed).

However, colonizing the Moon is the most logical step to take. Why?

Well then..

1. It's right next to us. We won't need to have as much resources to start an expedition to colonize the Moon compared to Mars.

2. We know how to get to the Moon already.

3. Once we know how to build a sustainable colony (complete with a breathable atmosphere and maybe some terraforming) on the Moon, we can modify the construction and procedure for the expedition to Mars. When this occurs, we should have better technology.

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

From the start of deveopment on Crysis 2 I was so happy to hear about it been on consoles and I knew it would be less than the original but still good. And then I heard the engine would optimise each platform to its max potential and push conosles further than anything, and that the PS3 was showing more prowess than the 360. Then we were assured the PS3 version looked the exact same as the 360. But in the end Crytek lied about all this because it doesn't crank more out of the PS3 over the Xbox, It doesn't look the same because its a lower resolution and it hasn't really pushed the consoles that far. PS3 owners really got shafted with this game.

CarnageHeart

I was always kind of skeptical about the notion that Crysis 2 would shine as brightly on consoles as Crysis shined on PC. Crysis on PC shined not because Crytekwere better programmers than everyone else, butbecause of its insane hardware requirements (which played a big role in the game's relatively low sales).

On consoles quality graphics are produced by making better use of the same hardware everyone else is using. While a lot of third parties restrict themselves to licensed engines like UE 3.0, there are several teams out there who code as close to the metal as possible, and it struck me as unlikely that Crytek was going to leapfrog past such developers.

Also, while I'm not a programmer, by all accounts programming for the PS3 is different and tougher than programming for the X360 (programming for that is very similar to programming for the PC) so its not deeply shocking that a PC developer like Crytek did better work on the X360.

So selling 3 million copies is a low amount, even when EA and Crytek both stated that they got more than expected?

Crytek became greedy. Very greedy. They flipflopped on the PC gaming industry.

[QUOTE="PunishedOne"]

Here's what popped out to me immediately:

- Lack of actual gameplay.

- Music is what sets the theme, not the game itself. The music is the source why people claim it's epic.

- It really does look like standard fantasy theme with Vikings stapled on. Not enthused.

Seriously, the standard fantasy crap is getting very stale. Give it some flavor that is NOT related to Vikings. The Witcher is a damned good example of said flavor, or Dragon Age. Yes, I'm completely aware of the fact that Skyrim is meant to be a sandbox, but it is still standard fantasy garbage.

StrawberryHill

I get what you're saying, but Dragon Age? It's a good game, but it doesn't get much more generic than that in terms of fantasy.

Edit because of glitchspot

Dragon Age has a sense of flavor because of the plot itself. Fereldin is under internal political scrutiny, under attack from all sides by the Darkspawn, there's a lot of shades of grey. When I meant "standard fantasy", I mean things that don't tread farther than the formula that LOTR laid down, regarding to the world that is.

Here's what popped out to me immediately:

- Lack of actual gameplay.

- Music is what sets the theme, not the game itself. The music is the source why people claim it's epic.

- It really does look like standard fantasy theme with Vikings stapled on. Not enthused.

Seriously, the standard fantasy crap is getting very stale. Give it some flavor that is NOT related to Vikings. The Witcher is a damned good example of said flavor, or Dragon Age. Yes, I'm completely aware of the fact that Skyrim is meant to be a sandbox, but it is still standard fantasy garbage.

probably because the copies are heavily used in their rental service, and might not be in the best of quality when you purchase them. that would be my guess.

Dead-Memories

Incorrect. They only sell games that are in playable condition, they also send along a brand new case and manual. I've had zero issues with condition, and I've used GF on and off for 5 years.

If you say that nothing can go faster than the speed of light, then you imply that the speed of light is always the same, no matter what.

Now if this is true, then that means if we were able to measure the time it takes light to reach a certain object,the time it takes to reach the object will change depending on the speed of the origin of the light and the object that it is intended to reach if you assume the two entities always remain in the same relative location in relation to each other.

So that means that we can measure our precise velocity not in relation to the sun, not in relation to other planets, but in relation to light? How is it NOT possible to go faster than the speed of light?

brandontwb

The speed of light is constant at about 300,000 m/s.

The speed of the object that is emitting light is NOT added to the speed of light. You're confusing Newtonian Physics with Relativity.

It's not possible to go faster than the speed of light due to mass. I'm sure you know of E = mc^2

E is energy, m is mass and c is the speed of light.

Now, remember that the speed of light is about 300,000 m/s. So, in order for a, say a 100 kg object to be at the speed of light, it needs how much energy?

E = (100)(300,000)^2

E = 9 *10^12 J or 9,000,000,000,000 J.

In order for a 100 kg object to reach the speed of light, it needs 9 TRILLION joules of energy. With current technology, it is impossible to hit even 1% of that energy requirement (90,000,000,000 J) at an instant.

That's also not including the fact that as an object gets closer to the speed of light, it increases in mass, requiring more energy. This calculation assumes the mass stays constant when it obviously does not, as it gets more massive the faster it gets. When it hits the speed of light, it has infinite mass, which is impossible.

However, take the word "impossible" with a grain of salt in Physics. Electromagnetism and tons of other things were deemed impossible by head scientists of their day, yet due to electromagnetism, I am capable of giving you this information.

[QUOTE="acsam12304"]

i have the same kind of card (look at my sig) i can max out crysis and mretoo 2033 with no problem.

i want to upgrade my card too. but if i were you wait for the next line of cards. or save a bit more and get a GTX 480 or 470

V4LENT1NE

Um, maxing out is maxing out. There's no differentiations of the terminology unless he's pulling our legs. However, resolution does play a big factor though. If it's less than 1440x900, he can get away with it.

"Peace" tends to involve "Not fighting."Theokhoth

Sic vis pacem, parabellum.