I know nothing about the merits (or lack of merits) of a "European schedule" vs any other schedule, but reading your post all I can think is...

People are screaming that flowers attract fairies and fairies are eating children's brains, to which you reply:
"Just plant European bushes outside the schools. European flowers don't attract fairies."

-

I don't want to "weaken government", I want to weaken the federal government.

Acckhh! No true Scotsman would ever drink cherry... port...I mean... eat Walkers.... no Taytos... ; More Haggis Agatha, I'veana'other swoon kim 'pon mea.

But as long as the common livestock never catch wind of it they will happy continue to graze, chew their cud and pick on of the two "different" options presented for their approval every 4 years and things will continue as they have done for decades now.

People do not have much of a chance against a system which forces them to operate by its rules. The system is dysfunctional, a failure of process has occurred. It does not matter if people are engaged in politics, the "sheeple" you disdain, or apathetic cynics like yourself.

All efforts to change a dysfunctional system from within its own rules will fail miserably. Case in Point: Occupy, an abysmal failure of a movement, based on the absurd notion that the system can be changed from within or by asking politely. Frankly I think that's worse than being sheeple or apathetic as it legitimizes the corrupt at the reigns of power.

So lay off the general voting population. Change is really, really hard, and I don't see you proposing many solid alternatives.

If you fail to deliver on your promised, you won't be able to easily earn back people's trust

So the next kickstarter campaign is in your girlfriend's name.

Do you want me to find examples of people who have gone back to the kickstarter well and never really delivered?

Incidentally, although I'm an indie developer (as one would define it),

Great. Then maybe you can explain why it seems impossible for new companies to produce something at the level of Half-Life, the Burnout series, etc etc. Games that people want to put over 100 hours into. Valve and Criterion were relatively small and little-known "indie" companies when those games were made. Why do game developers seem so allergic to giving good value for the price of their game. And why do so many have such low opinions of their own games that they go F2P? Are there no developers who realize just how badly that genre sucks?

If it doesn't work out, like the patron of olde, I'm not spending money I can't afford to spend

The "patrons of old" generally gave commissions, which the artist was expected to fulfill. And if they didn't, they'd get away with it once.

Kickstarter has become the go-to charity for game devs on their third, fourth and fifth go-round. You'd think at some point, they'd be able to get someone to pay them for their work, instead of for their promises.

It's not just "starving artists" at kickstarter, either. You'll see a lot of well-known developers with their hands out, because it's easier to promise to pay on Tuesday for a hamburger today than it is to sign a contract, where you are required to perform.

"Patron of olde" sounds a lot like sucker to me, but as you say, you're not spending money you can't afford to, um, lose.

You realize that there are ways to support "starving artists" where you actually get something? You ever think maybe there's a reason they're starving?

I don't know about you, but I'm in my 28th year of living off my own intellectual property. There are plenty of artists who actually have held down jobs in order to support their work, or got commissions (I've done both) or even (gasp!) sold stock. Roberto Rodriquez participated in medical experiments to finance his first movie. At least there is a shred of self-respect in those methods, and a higher likelihood that the artist will actually accomplish something besides making a snappy trailer for a game that will never, ever be finished.

Do they always jump in feet first with these new teaching methods or something? Don't they test it on a small control group or a dozen to make sure it's not the latest new-age garbage?

Teaching methods are almost never subjected to experimental verification. They are devised by 20-35 year old academics with little teaching experience and a desperate need to get enough publications to be put on tenure track. Experiments would get in the way of such promising careers.

what other graphical style is practical for a small team seeking to build a portfolio?

Most artists don't expect anyone to actually pay money for their portfolio.

I am well-acquainted with possibilities for artists. The notion that step #1 is, "asking people to pay, no strings attached for what you haven't made" when you haven't made anything yet is relatively recent.

If you want money to build something, then the people who invest should be in for a cut of the profits.

To be big enough to be called "apocalypse" it would probably need something like nukes taking out all major ports etc so that it's a global disaster.

One good pandemic could do it too.

An apocalypse does not have to be an industrial event.

Sure, some of those bets won't pay off, but welcome to venture capitalism.

Absolutely not. If you believe that your kickstarter donation is anything like "venture capitalism" you need to hit up Wikipedia for some definitions.

When you invest venture capital, you are getting a piece of the "venture". Your return on investment is directly tied to the success of the venture. The more success, often, the more return.

In crowdfunding, you are basically giving someone on the money based on a promise that gosh, they will try their best to maybe get around to building a game. Or not.

And crowdfunding has led to "early access" which has led to a whole bunch of crappy, unfinished games. Maybe requiring developers to get real investors who will hold them accountable is a good way of self-limiting what's past off as "development".

If you've ever been to an "indie game conference" you'll know what I mean. It's a bunch of navel-gazing hipsters comparing trailers and kickstarter campaigns who will never, ever create a game that's worth anybody's time. It's a way of paying the bills while they effectively prolong their undergraduate experience and avoid like hell having to actually produce. It's the equivalent of the magnificent ideas you come up with when you're smoking pot with your friends. They're so grand but they never see the light of day.

I think it's a pretty exciting time for the gaming industry, and I'm happy I'm in the middle of it.

I think you just explained your comment. You're an indie game developer, so you're in the middle of the milieu I described above. It's great for you. I wish I could come up with a cool idea and have people give me money with no strings attached and little expectation that I'll have to do anything. It's kind of like having rich parents, except you don't have your dad complaining about your grades. For people who just love games, it kind of sucks.

My only hope is that there are some people who are actually developing some skills so when the inevitable shakeout in the "indie gaming community" comes and most of those people have become baristas, the ones who are capable will go on to create some great games. But they won't do it on kickstarter.

I understand, but I also believe that a game that is really engaging and top-level in terms of production values can be worth more than the $50 price tag. I don't mind dropping a few dollars here and there for a game that I've been playing >100 hours, because I'm getting value (as long as the DLC is more than just a fancy hat or a new skin for my shotgun).

I just want some developers to go back to the model where a good game had a good price and it was a good experience all around. Instead of this underhanded "F2P" and "Early Access" and so on.

How's your quad record?

Not nearly as good (or nearly as long.) No dead kids. One live and very stupid adult (ten hours), a lost cow. about 15 minutes, poor thing was stuck in a mudhole --- getting it out was a lot more challenging than finding it, and two dogs, one of which was seriously snakebit and down hard, but survived. They were both pretty hard to find. Size matters. And yes, this is all pretty new to me. Which is not to say it's not worthy. It's rewarding as all get out.

Quad's do not have the range, period.

You can cover a square km -- which is a *lot* of area -- perfectly with a pair of quads in rotation, regardless of terrain, with 99% uptime and plenty of reserves using some very simple procedures. Move 1km, repeat. It's reasonably efficient, and the search is much more fine grained -- it's almost impossible to miss something of reasonable size, those dogs notwithstanding. More below; see the other replies. I don't feel like explaining all this twice.

It is common sense, called glide.

You know what glide is? It's continuous motion, which loses detail, requires faster cameras for the same quality image (higher shutter speed, higher ISO), and raises the noise level in lower light. You know what glide requires? Height. You know what too much height does? Reduces detail. And that's not even all of the issues. You see, it's not that obvious after all. The task is to find, not just to fly long distances. When distance methodologies compromise seeing, as they tend to do, other options offer useful compromises.

You'd be a lot better off asking questions than you are pooh-poohing without knowing what you're talking about. Of course, this *is* slashdot, sigh.

They are only popular because they are mechanically simple WITH MODERN ELECTRONICS. You can not fly a quad without computer augmentation.

Yes, and? I didn't suggest attempting this with obsolete, unstable old hardware. I really don't see your point. Quads with camera mounts and "modern electronics" (meaning GPS, compass, active pitch control/tilt sensors, altimeter, rock solid XYZ hover with no control input, auto-return) start at about $470. They get even better from there. A trunk full of them is within the budget of almost any S/R group with the willingness to stand in intersections for a day or so with hats and signboards out. Or courtesy of one or two kind benefactors. First thing I did after flying my first one was pull my jaw off the ground and go right back and buy the rest they had in stock. Had to be done, really.

I can take one up, hover it, take a stable high resolution image, move it, take another stable high resolution image, etc. This means even when it's getting dark, I have better detail -- and lower noise -- because I don't have to have such fast exposures. Bring it back (no landing strip required), swap quads and go back out on the next radial, while the crew pops a new battery into the just-returned unit, repeat every ten-fifteen minutes or so, and keep doing that while the images are checked over carefully. Out on one radial, in on the next. Full circle till you repo to the next GPS indexed location. Works great.

Gimbals... the quad can spin in place. While hovering in an extremely stable manner, for that matter, or spinning/panning while working through any set of heights I choose. Be nice to just have a tilt control. More weight. It's really not seriously limiting, nothing like that yet. Should try it though. Tilting the quad itself isn't really possible without it moving, or at least, not the ones I'm using.

While the range/duration would be wonderful, fixed wing requires far too much for this area -- your seaplane is great in some ways, but there's no body of water around here worth talking about for the vast majority of the area. There's nowhere to land. Nowhere to take off. "Wet grass takeoff"? Grass? How about rocks and cactus and nasty, sticky sand? Kind of puts a crimp in fixed wing efforts. Quad simply doesn't care. Put it down (on a rock, on your 4x4 or snowmobile, or just open your hand), up it goes, and you're off and hunting.

Then there are the badlands. Even worse. Not only is there no water, nowhere to take off, nowhere to land, the bloody ground wants to break you -- it's unstable everywhere, either collapsing under you or falling on top of you. Which is part of why people get stuck out there in the first place (wish to heck they just wouldn't go.) With a FW, how do you work down a twisty arroyo that's too complex to follow at speed, and too deep to get a camera angle into because you can't stay over it long enough to make it count? I can just go there and drop right into it and work it right along at whatever rate is convenient. Success? Pop-up and strobe. Awesome.

Battery reload is not the critical issue when you can see better, navigate better, have a more stable platform, get looks into places like arroyos and caves and under-hangs and under trees and bushes that would otherwise completely block your view, and remain on station instead of having to fly by repeatedly when it's called for. You can hover and think instead of getting further from a point of interest with every moment. Battery reload is nothing. You bring em back, instantly take another one off, while that one is reloaded, charge packs as required, no problem. Preparation is key, of course -- but it certainly isn't a problem or even a challenge. You still get essentially 99% active search time without overlap -- or underlap. I throw a trunk in, grab my crew, and go.

Aerobatics... that's an interesting undertaking, but not relevant for my use. Although I've seen people do some crazy things with quads, my own interest is strictly useful camera work. I have shots you simply can't get from a FW platform. Impossible. Quads are *wonderful* already. And of course, like everything else, they keep getting better. And with practice, so does the pilot, although they are about a zillion times easier to fly right out of the box than FW r/c aircraft, or at least any FW r/c aircraft I've ever had the pleasure of flying.

Best of luck in your endeavors. Don't rule out quads!

I'm told that Tito wanted schools to teach both Latinate and Cyrillic, to keep the Croatians happy, but in practice it turned out to be one or the other.

My wife was the daughter of academics and descendant from old royalists and Orthodox, so she learned the cyrillic, mainly.

I'll tell you, Belgrade is one interesting place. That country has seen a lot of trouble, and there's a great deal of unhappiness and dissatisfaction, but through the eyes of someone like me who grew up in the US, it's a complex stew, and so different from other European capitals.

The time I've spent there has taught me how complicated most of the world is.

Four games, in two years.

I understand Hotline: Miami was a critical success, because lo-res, 2D games equal coolness with indie developers, but it's nothing but a twitch game for hipsters.

And the same Rock Paper Shotgun hipsters who have a ball slaughtering prostitutes in Hotline: Miami are lecturing us on why AAA games are sexist and too violence oriented. Irony will only take you so far, you know?

Hotline: Miami is gaming for fashion victims.