Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Not only graphics (Score 1) 568

by Kisai (#35435150) Attached to: How the PC Is Making Consoles Look Out of Date

I've played ME/ME2 on both the PC and the Xbox and I can tell you that the PC was easier. Mainly the sniper rifle in ME was a pain to aim on the Xbox version, in ME2 it wasn't so much of a problem. (I played ME on the PC the first time as a character that couldn't use it. But the same character type on ME2 on both versions.)

However the aiming precision in other games is equally as bad (eg GTA IV), if not tedious (Final Fantasy XIV) to use a controller with, regardless of it being on a console or PC (I use a wired Xbox 360 controller on both the xbox 360 and the PC when the option exists if the keyboard/mouse is too much of a pain.)

I think what is generally missing from the "Keyboard and Mouse" in console games is the lack of being able to use two hands independently. The Wii's controllers and even the Kinect force you to use one hand for doing everything, and the optional second hand is given a highly inflexible input.

Consider for a moment if the Wiimotes were wireless pairs/triplets instead of cabled together. One hand controls aiming, while the second hand should also have a 3-way accelerometer to tell which direction you want to move, or pivot/strafe. But it should also have buttons.

  So FPS game might simply have two "nunchuck" types with two buttons on each (left having physical movement, and turning/tilting/rotating the controller controlling the camera plus weapon/power cycle up/down, while the right nunchuck would actually aim the weapon (holding both nunchucks together would make the game react like if you were holding a single weapon with two hands), firing/reload.) To play other games, you'd then attach the button pad to the left/right part of the controller and you get the additional 6-8 buttons like on xbox/snes pad. Combine all three to have all the buttons. The only reason I see for this design not to happen is the weight/batteries would be a pain. A work-around for that would be to run the power packs of the three components in parallel when hooked together, so they run down equally. Thus charging them could be done the same way.

Comment: Re:Not at all right (Score 1) 1118

by Kisai (#35364896) Attached to: IPad 2 33% Thinner, 2x Faster, iOS 4.3

The sandbox issue is what makes it a pain in the behind, but trying to do professional photo work on a iPad is a joke, since the device itself is little more than a underpowered stripped down PC with a ARM processor.

That said, proper tool for the right job, the MacBook Pro is the correct tool. The sandbox method on the iPad is designed for consumer cameras, as the consumer is unlikely to do anything fancy with the photo except crop it before sending it off to others.

What the professional photographer and videographer want to do with an iPad, requires a 1920x1080 or better display first, and direct access to the device in question, or the device's storage second (eg via Thunderbolt.) You can't simply install drivers on the iPad, which is part of it's simplicity.

I could see plugging an iPad into a Canon Rebel T3i, or something and expanding the camera's user interface out onto the iPad for it to be remotely controlled, previewed, cropped and adjusted at the photo stage instead of doing extra post-processing work. Or same, but with video. But I think we're overestimating Apple here.

Apple, has NEVER been bleeding edge, just like Nintendo. They always pick the parts and technology that they can make a profit on. You can see this with the upgrade cycle Apple and Nintendo uses.

What might be interesting is for the iPad3 to be an iPad3D and introduce a retina display that can do 3D depth in landscape mode and take stereographic photos. (Everyone remember their Viewmaster's? )

Comment: Re:We had a big bang (Score 1) 497

by Kisai (#35156118) Attached to: Maximum Items You've Powered From a Single Outlet

I had a teacher do that in high school. She plugged in a portable heater into the extension cord the desktop PC was running off. Turns out that extension cord was plugged directly into the UPS and that destroyed it. Which also took down the entire (at the time "only") school districts network, and the tv cable distribution box, since the ethernet switch, server and rack of 8 or so VHS players were plugged into it as well.

The actual technician got mad that I took the server and switch off the UPS to bring it back, but it was clearly spelled out "downtime is unacceptable." *sigh unions*

Comment: Re:I've plugged around 10 or more into one socket; (Score 1) 497

by Kisai (#35155688) Attached to: Maximum Items You've Powered From a Single Outlet

I remember in the 90's the high school computer labs had all the PC's (XT's in one room, 386's in another, Pentiums in the last one) run off these light switches at the teacher's station. So some of the teachers would "end the class" by flipping the switches. Supposedly all the monitors were on one, and all the systems were on the other in pairs. I don't know exactly how this was setup, but needless to say 10 PC's per circuit, 10 CRT monitors on the monitor circuits. Needless to say, there would always be one or two systems out of commission on each circuit.

I'd rather just believe that it's done by little elves running around.

Working...