Sorry that is what i found feel free to contribute finding better videos.@Mebrilia - Could you post a video that isn't so low-FPS that it's pure judder? Thx!
Is this better?
Unless I missed an article somewhere NONE of the current fusion experiments can sustain a reaction that creates more energy then is required to create it.
Maybe, m-a-y-b-e, they'll solve that. But there's nothing currently on the horizon to suggest it.
Yep, human genetic engineering is a wonderful idea with zero probability of misuse.
I mean, if I'm going to die anyway, I'll be a test subject. If I'm old enough.
There's a big difference between "practical," "efficient," and "mass producible." The most practical forms of mass producible energy tend to be low on efficiency. Part of why we're having such trouble replacing oil is finding another energy source that has the same balance between the three it has (while it's one-third energy efficiency is often touted as abysmal, most energy sources are far worse and the few that are better have a very limited practicality). Fusion is not going to hit the same efficiency as fission when it's finally mass-produced, but then efficiency has never been the primary selling point of fusion anyway.
As opposed to everything else in medical science?
Oh?
[T]he cost of producing nuclear-generated electricity in 2007 was 1.7 cents per kilowatt-hour, compared with 2.4 cents for coal, 6.7 cents for natural gas and 10.2 cents for oil. In other words, the cost of nuclear-generated electricity was nearly one-third less than power produced at a natural gas plant. (Feb 24, 2009)
Cost =/= efficiency. It doesn't help that fossil fuel costs are, due to a combination of international actions by governments and commodities traders, almost entirely artificial at this point. The cost of oil often dips and spikes for reasons completely unrelated to supply.
You see similar showing up increasingly in solar panels, due to Chinese control over rare earth metal trade. Solar panels should be massively cheaper than they are to produce without any governmental action, but there are numerous factors preventing that which are entirely human-caused. Which is why solar power once cost 12.2 cents per kilowatt hour.
Frankly the whole supply/demand thing isn't relevant IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
The whole point is "How much does it actually cost to produce energy regardless of the method".
In a modern economy the cost to produce finished material (vice intellectual) goods is more closely related to the cost of the energy needed to transport raw materials and manufacture the item then the cost of labor (which is becoming more and more robotic).
YES, in certain cases the cost of specific materials is more important, but most material goods are made of relatively inexpensive iron, plastic, and other such materials.
Is that some kind of pony space marine?
Also, I wonder how they would model a sledgehammer affecting cybernetics?
I'm not sure I really want too much detail in my melee combat considering that CP2077 is an RPG set after 1800. Even if you set aside the fact that there's a difference between an "Action RPG" and an FPS, there are reasons you don't see many militaries fielding swordsmen these days.
Yes. Shovels and combat knives are cheaper and more utilitarian. Melee combat only became rare in warfare after World War 2. That's why the combat dagger remains a common part of military equipment. Note people still carried swords, sometimes quite heavy swords, during World War 2. World War 2 is also the last war where someone had a confirmed kill with a longbow. And the Japanese used swords quite heavily, and sometimes to the detriment of American soldiers; that's why one of the first things the American military did after that war was confiscate most of them.
So, yes. Bows and swords remained military combat weapons long after 1800. And sometimes were even effective.
Getting there but... Those are takedowns and her the easiest to make since in the end is just an animation melee impact in gameplay is another different thing and is there where you see if the first person is done right or not.
Yeah, well-said. Dishonored's melee combat is actually pretty damn simplistic and not terribly (in my opinion) interesting. It feels brutal, and that's why people like it, but it doesn't require much in the way of skill.
And that video, as you said, is just take-downs. Those are instant and don't require any fighting, so while they're neat and I would love for less-over-the-top versions of them to be in 2077 if your stealth skill (if we have a stealth skill) is high enough, I don't think they're good comparisons to make for the melee combat in general.
The only game that gives impact in melee fighting in first person while no perfect (there are still cases were your blade miss totally the target and the hit got registered) is kingdom come deliverance.
But is also not fast paced combat. And i honesltly heate the first person in dishonored the effect it have is like if the character is running with arms popping out from the side of the head. Since the game is going to be a first person rpg i hope it will be a good one, less call of duty,dishonored and more like Mirror's edge.
I dislike cheap first person when is like this it breaks my immersion a lot.
But is also not fast paced combat. And i honesltly heate the first person in dishonored the effect it have is like if the character is running with arms popping out from the side of the head. Since the game is going to be a first person rpg i hope it will be a good one, less call of duty,dishonored and more like Mirror's edge.
I dislike cheap first person when is like this it breaks my immersion a lot.
Attachments
Last edited: