|
Finished work for the day... scanned the daily posts... looks like CIG can even gently caress up going extinct. You genius crypto nerds please figure out the EightAce code so we get some real news up in here - thanks! EDIT: <cat pic>
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 09:55 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
Can Solar Plebeian use this for a ground map?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
Parpman's Plateau
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
What's with the sprinkles?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
did it ELE yet????
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
i had a busy day at work what's the scuttlebutt?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
Skellybones posted:Can Solar Plebeian use this for a ground map? Lol if Toops downloads 3d builder (free) then he can do whatever the heck he wants, I can't get the export to work but i'm sure he could figure it out,it's good fun, especially on craggy faces. Edit : my answer is hell yes!
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
StarCitizen 2.3 is live = Sniper Rifle added to a Cryengine game CR is taking PC gaming to the next level
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
orcinus posted:What's with the sprinkles?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
Ash1138 posted:i had a busy day at work what's the scuttlebutt? Derek is uncharacteristically silent on Twitter and here. Beer is needling Sandi on Twitter about their whitewash of Donutgate on YouTube. (It's still in their Twitch archive, for the moment.) AtV was predictably awkward and boring. But the discussion of the upcoming in-game stores got a great deal of attention during the Austin segment. They showed a Star Marine running on a PG planet that wasn't really. It's working in-engine, which means crap all for when it might see release. SataBall, Star Marine, Jump Gates, PG landings -- half the real action is in the in-engine footage that gets thrown away or quietly buried. Otherwise steady state. ELE remains unconfirmed but Derek promises we will see signs soon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
Can someone post the terrifying geography of Ben's face images again. I miss them
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
SirPhoebos posted:Morbid thought: Chris and Sandi are hoping Ben eats himself to death because that's the only way they can get new coverage that's sympathetic. The Hull G Memorial Freighter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
ELE is Microsoft buying the whole shebang and turning it into a Quantum Break - like 'event' Gotta do something to keep that money in offshore accounts - those high class gangbangs don't pay for themselves!
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
This looks exactly like some nameless rocky world in ED but with a commando instead of a buggy and a fog effect added. E: actually it looks worse cause there's no terrain texture and the shadows flicker
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
hey friends, how goes it. i havent logged into the 'verse in a while, whats the scoop?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
orcinus posted:Depends on what you mean by "photoshop effects". I know absolutely nothing about photography outside of jpegs being lovely quality. What i meant was, was the picture taken and then just converted without running it through filters for that effect minus converting to a jpeg? The picture just looks incredible. I love the way the colors pop on it, especially when i looked at it with my S7 edge's super amoled screen. I wish i could photography 
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
my guess is, another boring space corridor that i could clip through
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
No Mods No Masters posted:Can someone post the terrifying geography of Ben's face images again. I miss them   
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
im the guy who's hoping this staircase leads my dreams, a finished game
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
That's pretty....................... bad :edit: I thought they spent literal months and years on making the ships take actual damage states etc etc, and it just ends up looking like a static picture being drilled into with sparks out the other side lol Blue On Blue fucked around with this message at 01:16 on Apr 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
holy poo poo those effects! (are terrible)
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
Skellybones posted:Can Solar Plebeian use this for a ground map? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
 caught up with the thread!
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
Thank you friend. They are to me a treasure
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
Beet Wagon posted:
Can we get a gif of the dogge playing with a hitlerbaby?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
grimcreaper posted:I know absolutely nothing about photography outside of jpegs being lovely quality. What i meant was, was the picture taken and then just converted without running it through filters for that effect minus converting to a jpeg? jpegs use a lossy compression algorithm (although you can run it as a loss less), meaning that it will add artifacts to an image. Halo and ringing effects, most people would not really see them and as such its fine for most people who just shoot photo's on your phone or even just for fun. But if you are going to do any post effects or editing you don't want those artifacts, if you are going to print really large formats you don't want to have them either. Because most random images a person will take will contain a "messy" random pattern those artifacts are "hidden". Jpegs are really bad at high frequency transitions, for instance text on a page, going from white to black is high frequency content and as such jpegs really screw them up. But in any case unless you are a pro/simi pro photographer, or you are going to do image processing on the image jpegs are just fine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
VealCutlet posted:Can we get a gif of the dogge playing with a hitlerbaby? Yes but it'll have to wait until Monday. I'm not making a special trip to work just to get the hitlerbaby lol.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
Actually can you do one with these? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/325209/birds-why-waiting-is-good/p6 figures
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 01:27
|
|
|
Beet Wagon posted:Yes but it'll have to wait until Monday. I'm not making a special trip to work just to get the hitlerbaby lol. Good man! Great Dogge (no offence)
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
1500 posted:jpegs use a lossy compression algorithm (although you can run it as a loss less), meaning that it will add artifacts to an image. Halo and ringing effects, most people would not really see them and as such its fine for most people who just shoot photo's on your phone or even just for fun. But if you are going to do any post effects or editing you don't want those artifacts, if you are going to print really large formats you don't want to have them either. Because most random images a person will take will contain a "messy" random pattern those artifacts are "hidden". Jpegs are really bad at high frequency transitions, for instance text on a page, going from white to black is high frequency content and as such jpegs really screw them up. But in any case unless you are a pro/simi pro photographer, or you are going to do image processing on the image jpegs are just fine. For example this is a very lossy image: 
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
A Neurotic Jew posted:https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/325209/birds-why-waiting-is-good/p6 Karl really hasn't been the same ever since they were probated/banned from /r/DerekSmart.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
Differo Cathedra posted:I recognize Sandi, who in the hell are these other losers? 6 dudes, dana scully, and some brunette
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
Skellybones posted:For example this is a very lossy image: 
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
1500 posted:jpegs use a lossy compression algorithm (although you can run it as a loss less), meaning that it will add artifacts to an image. Halo and ringing effects, most people would not really see them and as such its fine for most people who just shoot photo's on your phone or even just for fun. But if you are going to do any post effects or editing you don't want those artifacts, if you are going to print really large formats you don't want to have them either. Because most random images a person will take will contain a "messy" random pattern those artifacts are "hidden". Jpegs are really bad at high frequency transitions, for instance text on a page, going from white to black is high frequency content and as such jpegs really screw them up. But in any case unless you are a pro/simi pro photographer, or you are going to do image processing on the image jpegs are just fine. So that's a yes, then?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
Good Dumplings posted:So that's a yes, then? no, it just depends on what you are doing and how you use it. Most quality cameras are not compressing the data that much, so depending on the content of the image you are talking, you will not even see the compression artifacts introduced. If you don't shot jpeg you will be shooting in raw (its not really raw, but meh stupid companies), this means that you will not have any lighting effects or compensations, producing a lesser visual quality image unless you spend the time in an image editor to adjust the light spectrum. Something that most people will not want to do, and some times its just not worth doing. Edit: if you move past cameras and into the world of the PC, then you are better off saving in PNG (one of the better lossless image compression algorithms), so that you do not introduce even more artifacts into the image you are messing with. Just try saving a jpeg (as a jpeg) over and over again, and it will look like really crap over time (unless you have it set up to be loss less jpeg) 1500 fucked around with this message at 01:43 on Apr 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
VealCutlet posted:Can we get a gif of the dogge playing with a hitlerbaby? I second this motion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 09:55 |
|
|
A Neurotic Jew posted:https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/325209/birds-why-waiting-is-good/p6 ... the gently caress? I read through the whole of that page and two things struck me: 1) That had nothing to do with what was being discussed. 2) More worryingly, no one responded to it. Are they that used to the nutbar randomly spouting about chemtrails that it doesn't even register any more?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 01:44
|
|