http://insomnia.ac/books/
So this is my little burgeoning publishing house. Now let's see how many of those deadlines I'll manage to keep, lol.
Moderator: JC Denton
by icycalm » 04 Apr 2011 14:27
by icycalm » 01 Dec 2011 21:59
by icycalm » 01 Dec 2011 22:05
by icycalm » 02 Dec 2011 04:34
by icycalm » 28 Dec 2011 17:01
by icycalm » 23 Jan 2012 02:09
Let him who has two pairs of trousers turn one of them into cash and purchase this book.
by icycalm » 10 Apr 2012 21:07
by immersedreality » 11 Apr 2012 00:30
by icycalm » 11 Apr 2012 21:35
Wikipedia: "In the United States, the United Kingdom and Scandinavia, titles are usually written top-to-bottom, and this practice is reflected in an industry standard;[18] when the book is placed on a table with the front cover upwards, the title is correctly oriented left-to-right on the spine. In most of continental Europe, the general convention is to print titles bottom-to-top on the spine."
Now let’s take the book from the shelf and lay it on the table. Here we see something. When the book lies face up, we see the front cover and which one book it is. However, when we put it face down, the Continental method has a clear advantage – the text on the spine is easy to read and we still know which one book it is. The English method presents us with a back cover and an upside-down name on the spine. Therefore, with the same quantity of symbols on the book, the cover of the Continental book carries more information and is more convenient – on the shelf and on the table.
But wait – is this always true? If I use single books, it is very much so. But put ten books in a pile on the table, like usual, with the face up. Now it is more convenient for the text to go the English way, so we can see straight where the book stays in the pile. The books are in a chunk, so I don’t care about one book facing down with an upside-down name on the spine. Are you following? We arrive at the conclusion that Continental format of the text on the spine is more convenient for single books, and the Island format – for books piled one over the other.
Here we reach the question: what does it tell for the way they are used, for the needs and habits of people, the fact that books are usually used singularly or, the reverse, in a group. What books do you read one at a time? You take it off the shelf, carry around, put here and there, read in bed, on the bus and so forth? Or – the easier question – what books do you read in a chunk, several at the same time? Well, obviously these are books you read selectively, only in parts, making connections between, with a topic in mind. With a specific problem. Like in the university, for example – if I have to research the problem of aggression, I would take at least five or six sources, put them on the desk, and start scanning them. It is the problem that guides me, not the content of the book. I am not interested in the whole book, the author’s logic, etc. I am only interested in this particular problem. That is why we can call this type of reading “problem-oriented”, or pragmatic. The last word might have already rung a bell and a small neuron thread in your head might have linked it to your notion of “English” and “American”.
On the other hand is reading a book from cover to cover. Indeed, it is possible for pragmatic books as well (textbooks, science books, manuals), but is mandatory for literature. When we read fiction books, we immerse in the work from beginning to the end. This is absolutely necessary in order to fulfill the author’s intention and to relish his art. For crime stories – still more. So, if our readers use more often literature than pragmatic books, it is better to publish books in the Continental manner.
This string of reasoning leads to the simplistic conclusion that in Great Britain and USA (plus the Netherlands) people read more pragmatic books – textbooks, science, manuals, guides, encyclopedias, how-to books. On the Continent people read more literature. Pragmatic books are read in a problem-oriented way, with more sources at a time; literature is read in a content-oriented way, one book at a time. In the first case it is more important to be able to read the spine text when the book is in a pile with others, face up. In the second – it is more important for the spine text to enable book recognition in all positions – alone.
Finally it came to me that this hypothesis is easy to check, and I searched statistics of book publishing in USA and Europe. What it showed – for 2004 in the US literature had a share of between 1/4 and 1/3 of published books. In Europe – it is way over 50%. Well! I wouldn’t shake my head – I’ve had enough already of these books!
by icycalm » 11 Jul 2012 22:17
by icycalm » 20 Oct 2012 00:46
by icycalm » 23 Oct 2012 21:07
Stu Horvath wrote:But paradigms are shifting: Cheaply developed mobile titles and an unforgiving economy have cast doubt on the future of the blockbuster game. Why go big and risky when you can be safe and profitable? Unreal 4 is Epic’s answer to that question. With it, the company is staking its existence on a bold prediction: that the future of the industry depends on ever-more realistic visual spectacle.
Stu Horvath wrote:It’s late February, a week before the Game Developers Conference in San Francisco, where Epic will be unveiling UE4 for the first time outside of the office. Reps from Microsoft, Sony, Nvidia, and the most influential game developers in the industry will be seeing the demo behind closed doors; the NDA-only affair will be Epic’s first and best chance to convince them that the future of gaming is unlike anything they previously imagined. “There is a huge responsibility on the shoulders of our engine team and our studio to drag this industry into the next generation,” says Cliff Bleszinski, Epic’s design director. “It is up to Epic, and Tim Sweeney in particular, to motivate Sony and Microsoft not to phone in what these next consoles are going to be. It needs to be a quantum leap. They need to damn near render Avatar in real time, because I want it and gamers want it—even if they don’t know they want it.”
Stu Horvath wrote:In other words, Epic has seen the specs of proposed new consoles and is actively lobbying for them to be more powerful. It could be a bad sign for the industry if new, relatively underpowered consoles make an appearance at this year’s E3 consumer show (as is popularly rumored about Sony’s PS3 successor, the alleged specs of which leaked in April).
Stu Horvath wrote:Here’s what the Unreal guys are hoping will singe the eyeballs of executives, hardware engineers, and game developers when they see it at GDC: A heavily armored demon knight sits frozen to his throne in a ruined mountain fortress. As he awakens, lava begins to flow around him and flames engulf the world. A magma vent spews a column of smoke and smoldering embers. He stands, sending up showers of sparks that dance, fall out of focus, and fade into ash. The knight hefts a massive hammer that glows with an inner fire. As he stalks down an empty corridor, a deep rumble sounds and masonry falls from the ceiling—this is no mountain but a volcano on the verge of eruption. When the knight steps outside, we see a range of snow-capped peaks in the far-off distance, rendered in stunning clarity. Behind him the volcano belches black smoke, while burning embers mix with swirling snowflakes.
In previous engines, one floating ember was enough to slow performance considerably; a shower of them was impossible. With Unreal Engine 4, there can be millions of such particles, as long as the hardware is potent enough to sustain them. Game developers overuse features of every new engine, because they are suddenly so easy to implement. In the original Unreal Engine, for example, the ability to render colored lighting led to a rash of games that employed the effect. The same may prove true for UE4′s particle effects, for better or worse. (“Mark my words,” Bleszinski says, “those particles are going to be whored by developers.”)
In one 153-second clip, the Epic team has packed all the show-off effects that have flummoxed developers for years: lens flare, bokeh distortion, lava flow, environmental destruction, fire, and detail in landscapes many miles away. Plus, it’s breathtakingly photo-realistic — or would be if demon knights were, you know, a real thing.
Stu Horvath wrote:In June, UE4 will be revealed to the gaming public. The reactions will likely be as spontaneous as staged lighting effects used to be. It’s all pre-scripted at this point: Fanboys will wet their pants, contrarian analysts will wring their hands, message boards will explode in either fury or collective orgasm. In all of the clamor and fanfare, though, the simple truth will be lost. Epic has redefined gaming before, and with Unreal 4 the company is doing it again.
Stu Horvath wrote:But here at GDC, the engineers and executives don’t gasp or cheer—these are hardware guys, after all. They came to see the future, and having seen it, they walk out of the room with disbelieving smiles on their faces. They have a lot of work to do.
by icycalm » 23 Oct 2012 21:21
I wrote:But look again at the greatest game designers, and you will see that every single one of them feels exactly the same way I feel.
by icycalm » 24 Jan 2014 19:00