Hazzard

Earnest question, how is this actually legally viable?

Obviously the decompilation is open source, but those are usually distributed without assets, in some kind of builder that requires a copy of the game. And clearly the original game isn't open source, or else this decompilation wouldn't need to exist.

So... has the game been released free to the public without the source code? Has Lego or the original developer blessed this project? Or is the game just... in legal limbo or something where they feel comfortable taking the risk?

We had a similar experience with our cat when she was a kitten. Got in the ceiling through our little maintenance closet, was quite an experience hearing our cat pacing and meowing in the ceiling, while trying to lure it back to the way it got in with taps and treats.

Same, I didn't realize the directory I was deleting had a symlink to some root directory, at least until my mouse stopped working....

If you look into the Hebrew a little more, the word we translate here as "God" is "Elohim", which is better translated as something like "spiritual beings". This word is also used for angels, demons, etc.

In fact, the phrase "Lord of Lords" is actually "Elohim of Elohim", making it a statement that he's the greatest spiritual being, which is a lot more distinct from "King of Kings" than we usually notice when he's referred to as "King of kings and Lord of lords".

Elohim is even used once to refer to the "ghost" of Samuel, when Saul seeks out a medium to ask him for advice in 1 Samuel 28.

The closest argument that "the Bible argues for a work week" is the first two chapters of Genesis. God created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th.

.... That's it. That's the whole reason our work week is the way it is. Jewish tradition really ran with that, and Christianity started as a Jewish sect. And of course for-profit business tried to jam as much work as possible into that framework. You can thank unions for the second day in your weekend.

Everything else here, the "10 hours a day" and whatever else, is all just embellishment, possibly citing other parts of the Bible to make it sound more plausible.

The amount of soft power he's thrown away while describing it all as a "bad deal" and "getting screwed" is astounding. Like.... the U.S. established the world order almost unilaterally, and it's remained mostly steady for decades. You're just the first president dumb enough to not understand it.

Whatever, it's probably best for almost everyone else in the world to renegotiate those terms, thanks for forcing the issue. Well, except that it seems China is the one brokering the new world order to its favour while Trump parades around like a peacock.

Interesting, I wonder if this is more stable than it is on Windows?

I find it handles controllers just fine, but I find the headset (the official Xbox one) drops out regularly. Still leaps and bounds better than Windows Bluetooth, but the drops definitely worsen the experience. Although it also did that to me on Series X.

Alright, fair enough. The brand new AAA graphical showcase doesn't run above 40FPS if you're insistent on native 4K from a 6800XT. I'm not sure that qualifies as "runs like ass" like your original comment, but it's a fine thing to qualify.

I will add however that there's no mention of XeSS issues on the "known issues" page, so I'm unsure what you're referring to. Only an issue with FSR frame generation and manual window resizing, and frankly I wouldn't recommend frame generation in any circumstance anyway. Perhaps the issue you're referring to has already been resolved?

... am I supposed to be impressed by that?

It's better than you're getting on the tier-up card from the exact same generation as what you're running, so... it pretty clearly indicates something is going wrong on your end.

And that's with the forced ray tracing. Regarding FSR, DF recommends using XeSS, which I've had no problems with even using performance mode to play on a 4K display.

It's only really fair to judge the performance cost of the ray tracing if you're actually running the game fairly. If you've maxed out every setting to ultra nightmare at native 4K or something to get that "can't go above 40FPS" figure, then I have no sympathy for you or your performance complaints.

I think you may want to look into DF's recommended settings (just skip to the table and read from there if you aren't interested in the details), touching base with my friend who I sold my previous 6700XT to, he reports a rock solid 60FPS targeting native 1080p.

That said, they don't claim a performance increase that drastic, so you may have some other performance issues?

Oh, and DF stands for Digital Foundry, often considered the best source for benchmarking new games these days. They have several recent videos on Doom: The Dark Ages, graphics nerds always take an interest in a new idTech title.

Dude, what are you on about? Sure, it's not as easy to run at 300 FPS, but it's a new boundary pushing game and for what it's doing it runs astoundingly well.

Absolutely gorgeous, and must rely on black magic because even DF reports it never has any stutter, traversal or shader, despite having massive levels with ridiculous fidelity and not even having a shader precompilation step. Hell, I can't even understand how they got Denuvo to not introduce stutter.

Not to mention it's somehow fairly light on the CPU despite huge enemy counts with good AI, raytracing, the best destruction physics I've seen in ages, and the streaming demands of massive levels. I'm completely GPU limited with a decent CPU and a 7900XTX.

Hell, it even hits 60 on consoles while doing all of this, the game's performance is witchcraft. Eager to see the path tracing and how far we'll be able to push this game a decade from now, like how I can run Eternal at native 4K/120 now.

Oh, I mean the "fight" the person I'm replying to is suggesting, that dictionaries should be prescriptive (state how English should be, in this case arguing that "literal" shouldn't be a valid word to use when you're not being literal in the traditional sense), versus being descriptive (what dictionaries currently are, describing the language as it's used without any assertions about how it "should" be).

Dictionaries have been adamantly descriptive since their inception, so they're not at all doing what glitchdx is suggesting (thus literal having a secondary definition as an intensifier), and I'm arguing for the status quo.