Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

We know how to make them and they're useful, mainline production.

4 (33.3%)

They seem out of place and run rather counter to a fantasy setting, avoid them.

2 (16.7%)

Get outta here, nerd, nobody finds guns that interesting.

1 (8.3%)

Go ahead and have the NPCs make em, but not worth player input.

1 (8.3%)

Support, but they shouldn't be the standard weapons.

4 (33.3%)

Total Members Voted: 12

[endlessblaze]

I would be careful not to be sueish....

im an elf. why do you think I wear armor? but I guess you make a point.....

[Amperzand]

I have no problem with you being intelligent enough to get yourself good gear, or being able to use magic. Of course, this apparently being a version of realworld-you stuck in an elf, the question of where/how you learned to do all this does come up.

I mean, I'm an actual roboticist and have known the approximate formula for black powder since I was twelve, so I've got some amount of justification for being able to improvise shitty firearms out of an entire dwarven metalworking industry, FishNet is using a character who probably spent decades learning things before even showing up where I first encountered him, Hache is a necromancer, and they apparently learn everything they need from a magic book...

Anyway, I'm regulating you like everybody else, and while I've done some minor railroading I do intend not to do so in future.

[TheBiggerFish]

Howdop?

[Amperzand]

Nowdop.

[TheBiggerFish]

Wowdop.

[Amperzand]

Hehdop.


Thanks.

[Dustan Hache]

Wutdop?!

[Amperzand]

Whichdop?

[TheBiggerFish]

Wait, what order do those 5 Ws and H go in again? 

[Amperzand]

I don't even. Wut?

[TheBiggerFish]

What Where Why blah etc.  I thought we were doing that.

Anywho, back on topic, I kind of expect Spark to get the language sooner rather than later, as it has enough in common to be understandable somewhat without prior linguistic exposure.  Eh.

[Amperzand]

Nope. Spark didn't even have enough bandwidth to catch all of it, let alone decode it, or render it compatible. When I said impossibly complex I did mean impossible complexity. You could get the gist of the first layer, you can probably codebreak the second within a week or so, and below that you didn't even get enough compatible data to tell if there is a code.

Don't worry, it won't stay like this.

[TheBiggerFish]

Nope. Spark didn't even have enough bandwidth to catch all of it, let alone decode it, or render it compatible. When I said impossibly complex I did mean impossible complexity. You could get the gist of the first layer, you can probably codebreak the second within a week or so, and below that you didn't even get enough compatible data to tell if there is a code.

Don't worry, it won't stay like this.

Ahem.  There is like half a cubic meter of storage to catch things in.  Plus my head.
Note the order of the adjectives.
That is, assuming a reasonable volume of storage is maybe 500 GB per volume of an average external hard drive, and devoting maybe a tenth of that to RAM, multiple terabytes of storage.. And I have rather good lossless compression methods.

...Holy carp I underestimated Moore's law.  8 TB (even in powers of ten) in 2.1 in^3?!
Just 1 TB of storage in that space results in 13,100 TB of data.
105,000 if we assume 8 TB drives.
Wow.

[Amperzand]

Bandwidth, not storage. It was transmitted in like a five-millisecond burst, then stopped. Even if Spark dedicated all available input ports, including those for main senses, it'd probably only be able to catch most of it. You just couldn't download it fast enough.

[TheBiggerFish]

Bandwidth, not storage. It was transmitted in like a five-millisecond burst, then stopped. Even if Spark dedicated all available input ports, including those for main senses, it'd probably only be able to catch most of it. You just couldn't download it fast enough.

Ah.  I see.  One, magic, two, how much data was IN that packet?  (Seriously.  There is no WAY some random creature has yottabits of throughput.), three, if the packet all hit, it all went in.  I will point to humans with absolute memory as an example and point out that there is probably a similar granularity in the FB's communication, and even at that, if a processing cycle (read-write) takes 100 ns, that's 50,000 cycles.  I used numbers for dynamic RAM.  I think.

You know what, data dump because I don't even get it.  (Wikipedia)

...Minimum random access time has improved from tRAC = 50 ns to tRCD + tCL = 22.5 ns, and even the premium 20 ns variety is only 2.5 times better compared to the typical case (~2.22 times better). CAS latency has improved even less, from tCAC = 13 ns to 10 ns. However, the DDR3 memory does achieve 32 times higher bandwidth; due to internal pipelining and wide data paths, it can output two words every 1.25 ns (1600 Mword/s), while the EDO DRAM can output one word per tPC = 20 ns (50 Mword/s).