text:
Bike the Neck: New parks may lead to new route for bikeway
By Jackie R. Broach
A new Bike the Neck route under discussion might detour off of Highway 17 in Litchfield to cut through Stables Park and connect it with Parkersville Park.
"That's the key element," said Paul Battaglino, Georgetown County's capital projects coordinator. "Essentially we're creating a strong recreation way with this configuration."
Plans show the path extending 3.5 miles from Gilligan's, along the side of Lakes at Litchfield and through a portion of Santee Cooper's right of way to the park. From there, it would go down Parkersville Road (all of which should be paved by then), exiting Parkersville Park at Pettigru Drive and connecting to another trail segment on Waverly Road. Easements from several businesses would be required.
There's no funding in place for the project and discussions about obtaining easements haven't started because the route for the path might change.
"It's strictly in the concept stages," Battaglino said.
The idea came up as officials with Georgetown County and Bike the Neck, the organization dedicated to expanding the bikeway, started looking at ways to extend it south. Plans are for the bikeway to eventually reach the Georgetown bridge.
"The other thing we're trying to do is come up with an alternate plan from having it right on Highway 17, where there are obvious concerns about heavy traffic and numerous curb cuts, particularly on the west side from Willbrook Boulevard to Waverly," Battaglino said.
The plans are a compromise between a route along Kings River Road once proposed by an area transportation study committee and the East Coast Greenway, and the route originally delineated, which came straight down Highway 17.
"But that was done so many years ago that it predated all the development and curb cuts for all these residential communities and commercial properties," said Linda Ketron, chairwoman of Bike the Neck. "It would be very dangerous now to use that route."
With the county moving forward with plans to develop Stables Park and build a recreation center at Parkersville Park, Ketron said a path that linked the parks seemed like a perfect solution. Not only would it provide a safer, more scenic route, it would give cyclists a destination.
"It connects recreation facilities where there will be park benches they can stop and sit on or they can bike to the park and have a picnic," Ketron said. "And it establishes a safe loop, so they don't have to ride from Kings River to Waverly and just turn around and ride it back again."
The county expects to start construction on Stables Park in October with an opening following in September 2012. The recreation center should open in December 2012.
The trail would also "serve all this new development that has happened on what used to be basically wetlands and the internal communities that have been there for years, like Parkersville," Ketron added. "Those communities have a bike riding population and were very disappointed when we had to abandon the route we had planned."
The idea to move this part of the trail off the main drag has been "bouncing around for a couple of years now," according to Battaglino.
"We came up with the layout when Fresh Market was in the planning stages," he said. "There was a portion of the bike path that was supposed to have been provided by Fresh Market in front of their property and we thought, 'Here we go again, another section of path with curb cuts on either side and heavy traffic.' That's when we returned to the planning process, but we still wanted to achieve the same goal, to link it up with Waverly.
"It's just a concept, but it's one that we — the county and Bike the Neck — feel is workable."
However according to Ketron, it could be 2020 or later before that part of the path gets built.
Three other sections of the bikeway that are nearing construction are under review by the state Department of Transportation.
Paths will be constructed from Willbrook Boulevard to the north side of the parking lot at All Saints Church, from the parking lot to the junction of Kings River and Waverly roads, and from Waccamaw Elementary School to Martin Luther King Road.
The Georgetown County School District, working with Safe Routes to School, is in charge of the segment of the path that runs in front of the school, but the other two segments are county projects. All are being managed by DOT.
"I just saw an e-mail this morning that they made another minor change on the configuration," Battaglino said. "Once we've arrived at a final design, and it's acceptable to all parties and we're able to get easements south of All Saints, we'll be able to get a final estimate of probable cost."
About $1 million is on hand for the three sections, but a preliminary cost estimate from the engineer came in at $1.3 million, according Mark Hoeweler, assistant executive director for Waccamaw Regional Council of Governments.
"We're hoping to reduce the scope of the project or we'll have to find other funding sources," he told a group of Waccamaw Neck property owners last week.
DOT won't release the project for bids unless all of the funding is in place.
Whether to build the sections in phases or all at once is still under discussion. It would be cheaper to build them at once, but "if there are major obstacles with one section, it would hold up everything," Battaglino said.
He would like to see at least the Kings River Road section complete as soon as possible, because of the danger to cyclists along that roadway, he said.
Benjamin Thomas, a 13-year-old from Florida, was killed by a truck while bike riding with his family on Kings River Road in July 2005. He was struck head-on by a Coca-Cola truck trying to pass a golf maintenance tractor on the road. His family was vacationing on Pawleys Island.
When Thomas was killed, "the path was already a year behind schedule," Ketron said.


text:
I used to love hiking through the California forest when I was growing up because in the cool shade of the redwoods patches of moss would pop up and ferns would grow wild. Perhaps in heaven I will be surrounded by viridescence. Right there between blue and yellow I feel my shoulders relax and I can breathe deep and easy.
As we drove on I noticed big, yellow-white drops dotting the trees. I asked Dan what they were. He pulled the car over to the side of the road, told me to stay in the car, jumped out, and plucked one of those buttery flowers right off the tree. When he returned he gave me a kiss and held it up to my nose. The scent was sweet and citrusy and filled up the car in an instant.
Ever since then, I've thought of the Magnolia as our flower.
Jenna opened an Etsy shop recently (appropriately named Call Her Happy) and filled it with the most creative, charming necklaces I've ever seen. She hangs mini embroidery hoops from a chain and with her needle and thread fills them with pictures of bluebonnets, peacocks, Sacred Hearts, bicycles, and the sweetest little foxy faces you've ever seen.
I asked her recently whether she might be able to create one for me of a Magnolia nestled into a grassy green. She replied that but of course she could and before I knew it a tiny package was waiting for me in my mailbox. Inside it was my Magnolia and it was just perfect. See…
Then Jenna, who's sweet like this, offered to give one of her beautiful necklaces to one of you! A coupon code for 15% off, too (just enter MOXIEWIFE at checkout).
You know the drill. Rafflecopter away, girlie girls!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Last week, Chinese Communist Party member Lei Zhengfu was forced out of his role as the boss of Chongqing's Beibei District after a tape showing him having sex with an 18-year-old mistress circulated online.
The tape was apparently made in 2007, and though Lei had claimed it was doctored, the party decided that it was not and he was sacked.
But there may be more than just the sexual proclivities of a politician in this story.
Now the citizen journalist who broke the story, Zhu Ruifeng, is claiming that the girl was offered up to Lei as part of a bribe for contracting work.
Shanghaiist summarizes Zhu's claim:
Between 2002 and 2006, while Lei was Dianjiang County Party Secretary, he allegedly took advantage of his position to grant a number of lucrative contracts to his brother's construction company, pocketing a large sum of money for himself in the process. By 2007, after Lei had been promoted to Vice Party Secretary of Chongqing's Jiulongpo District, Lei's personal fortune had grown to the extent that developers effectively found him impossible to bribe.
One developer discovered Lei's weakness for women however, and set about hiring a number of attractive young girls, all under 20 years old, and using them to set a "honey trap" for Lei. The women, after becoming Lei's mistresses, would secretly video themselves having sex with the corrupt official, giving their employer leverage over Lei.
Zhu also claims to have sex tapes showing 5 other party members.
Even more intriguing is that Lei apparently went to his former boss Bo Xilai (whose name you should know) a few years ago, and confessed the whole thing to get out in front of the story.
Bottom line, this story could end up being about a lot more than sex.
More from GlobalPost: Lei Zhengfu sacked over sex tape
More from our partner Business Insider:
Business Insider: How the US planned to blow up the moon to win the Cold War
Business Insider: Bank of Canada head named Bank of England head
Business Insider: Higher taxes bad for stocks, biggest fiscal cliff myth
Business Insider: GOP admits Florida voter laws were meant to keep out Democrats
Business Insider: Supreme Court paves the way for another Obamacare fight


text: NEW YORK - Municipal Credit Union is launching an enhanced internship program that will reach out to approximately 110 colleges and universities in the tri-state metro New York area. The concept has been in place since late 2004. Now marketing and outreach is being beefed up to make more potential participants aware of the Intelligent Thinking project. The idea enjoys support from top credit union staff including President/CEO William Porter, VP/Human Resources Kim Thompson, and human resources recruiter Daniel Belmonte Belmonte emphasizes the plan provides college credits. In fact, "I believe we may be the only credit union that offers accredited internships," he says. "We did some research and found there are a few credit unions that offer internships, but they are paid." Under the accreditation approach, although students aren't paid they receive academic credit. In addition, they gain skills and experience that can make their resumes stand out when they seek jobs after graduation. The program will be marketed through career services and internship offices at the colleges. College clubs such as those in business and accounting and professional fraternities will also be contacted. On August 18 MSN staged a job fair at the credit union. Intelligent Thinking isn't restricted to finance majors. Positions are available for students in liberal arts, information systems and natural sciences. Interns may find themselves working in branch operations, the contact center, internal audit, credit operations, business development, human resources and technology. "We need open communication and cooperation from our managers to place students in their departments," Belmonte says. "When I get a college student in here for an interview, within the interview process I present various areas within the company I see as a good fit for them. "If they tell me they like a particular idea, I call the manager of that department and set up an interview. A lot of students don't know what a credit union is. My job is to sell the whole package. Then they become interested." Actually, some departments contact Belmonte to alert him they are looking for interns. Examples are the Elmont branch and IT/MIS. The internships run for one semester and are available year-round. Belmonte cautions other credit unions interested in the concept to bone up on the labor laws governing unpaid internships, including the Fair Labor Standards Act. "It can become very dangerous for someone to work for a company as an unpaid intern and tell the company, `Yes, I'll get credit for it,' but not provide proof. They can turn around and sue us for back pay," he says. "Do as much research as you can on the laws. Go to human resource sites and learn what other companies are offering. I sometimes call the school first or, when interviewing a student, I ask them to provide a letter or other proof of eligibility to receive course credit for the internship. Once they're accepted, then I sign the intern up and give them a window of time to provide proof they are they are indeed now registered for course credit." -


text:
Four Stone Sapphire Ring with Granules
A cluster of four different sized sapphires in pastel tones of chiffon yellow, pink peach, sky blue and aqua green are carefully selected to sit harmoniously alongside one another in this alternative engagement ring. The sapphires are nestled amongst granules of yellow gold on a gently textured band that contrasts beautifully against the sparkling gemstones.
14ct yellow gold, sapphires
*Please note that gemstones are natural materials and each stone is unique which means slight variations in colour may occur
Band width: 2.1mm; setting detail: 19mm x 7.7mm
Sapphires: 2.1ct total
Delivery times
All pieces are entirely handcrafted and unique, please allow around 5-10 working days for delivery.


text:
"We are not clinging to any political figures," Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov said in brief comments reaffirming the country's official position.
"And anyone who claims otherwise is distorting the picture," Gatilov told the Interfax news agency.
Yet he also signalled that Russia would block any new UN Security Council efforts to put pressure on Assad after 17 months of violence that activists say has claimed more than 27,000 lives.
"It is only through the political process – and not through any decision of the UN Security Council – that the Syrians should determine the future of their state and its make-up," he added.
Russia and China jointly vetoed three rounds of sanctions against Assad after having earlier effectively giving the go-ahead to an air campaign on Libya that they strongly opposed.
Both countries said they were tricked into the Libya decision and vowed to fight for a political solution to the Syria crisis despite growing diplomatic pressure.
Gatilov said Russia would respect any decision on Assad's future reached by the Syrians themselves.
"We will respect any agreements reached in the course of this (internal Syrian) dialogue," said the diplomat.


text:
In an effort to update the community on its public actions, the Kent Board of Education will post the agenda and "Board Briefs" of its regular board meetings, normally scheduled for the third Tuesday of the month.
Kent Board of Education Meeting Agendas and Board Briefs
Kent Board of Education Policies | 2013-2018 Strategic Goals & Objectives | 2012-2017 Bullying Incidents
Back Row: Ryan S. Ferrara and Brian K. Boykin
Front Row: Dr. Marlene Dorsey, Rebekah Wright Kulis, Pamela Ferguson
Contact Us
Brian K. Boykin, President
Email: email@example.com
Pamela Ferguson, Vice President
Email: email@example.com
Ryan S. Ferrara
Email: email@example.com
Dr. Marlene Dorsey
Email: email@example.com
Rebekah Wright Kulis
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
Deborah A. Krutz (Treasurer)
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
The Kent Board of Education has adopted its 2017 meeting schedule:
2017 Board of Education Meeting Dates, Times and Locations
Agendas are available at the meetings. For information on how board meeting agendas are prepared, contact the Office of the Superintendent at (330) 676-7610.
Anti-discrimination Policies
The Kent City School District complies with all federal rules and regulations, and does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex or handicap. Questions regarding the application of these laws should be directed to Tom Larkin, 321 N. Depeyster St., Kent, OH 44240. Phone 330-676-7630.


text:
EC20 - Technical Medical Associate I
State Specifications:
General Nature of Work:
Performs technical work using specialized equipment in a laboratory or clinic; conducts education programs; provides basic life support to critically-ill patients being transported via helicopter or ambulance; maintains, repairs and modifies a variety of
Guidelines for Class Use/Distinguishing Characteristics:
Examples of Work:
(Note: The examples of work listed in this class specification are not necessarily descriptive of any one position in the class. The omission of specific statements does not preclude management from assigning specific duties not listed herein if such duties are a logical assignment to the position. The intent of the listed examples is to give a general indication of the levels of difficulty and responsibility common to all positions in this class.)
Fabricates and repairs dental prosthetic restorations.
Constructs and repairs dental appliances; assists in the treatment of maxillofacial patients.
Administers routine respiratory therapy treatment.
Operates blood gas analyzer and performs basic pulmonary function tests.
Conducts educational programs in dental hygiene for school children, dental students and other client groups; performs dental hygienist duties.
Operates X-ray equipment; assists in performing specialized X-ray procedures.
Assists in the design, fabrication or modification of electronic laboratory instruments.
Processes tissue for microscopic examination; stains and sorts microscopic slides; provides skilled histological technical support to professional personnel.
Provides basic life-sustaining treatment to critically ill patients being transported via helicopter or ambulance to the MUSC Medical Center.
Operates, maintains, repairs and performs simple modifications of electronic, and mechanical equipment.
Performs standard and complex electroneurodiagnostic examinations; operates and maintains laboratory equipment; collects information pertinent to interpretation of examinations.
Operates scanners and gamma cameras and positions patients for scheduled organ imaging procedures.
Performs in-vivo lab and radioimmunoassay procedures.
Knowledge, Skills and Abilities:
(Note: The knowledge, skills and abilities listed are not necessarily inclusive of the requirements for every position in the class.)
Knowledge of the procedures, equipment and techniques one must use in the position.
Knowledge of modern methods and techniques in fabricating and repairing dental appliances.
Knowledge of anatomy, physiology, hygiene, chemistry, biology or physics.
Knowledge of the basic principles of leadership and team building.
Knowledge of the theories and principles of electronics and mechanical and electrical circuitry.
Skill in the operation and maintenance of various types of equipment such as dental equipment, respiratory therapy equipment, electron microscopes, X-ray equipment, histology equipment and electroneurodiagnostic equipment.
Ability to control the distribution of supplies, materials and equipment and maintain appropriate records.
Ability to lift moderately heavy items (approximately 30 pounds) and engage in a considerable amount of walking, standing and bending.
Ability to perform arithmetic.
Ability to pay attention to detail, maintain high levels of concentration, work under pressure and meet deadlines.
Ability to communicate effectively.
Ability to interact effectively with severely ill patients, patients' families and medical personnel.
Ability to exercise initiative and make independent decisions.
Ability to develop and present educational material to groups and individuals.
Ability to read, write and follow detailed written and oral instructions.
Ability to train subordinate personnel.
Ability to perceive colors correctly and have eyesight sufficient to permit extended microscopic examinations.
Ability to perform precision tasks requiring good eye/hand coordination.
State Minimum Training and Experience
State Necessary Special Requirements:
Some positions require licensure by the South Carolina Board of Dentistry.In Some positions, an individual's weight cannot exceed 5 percent of the maximum weight-to-height standard as established by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company.Some positions require certification as a paramedic by the State of South Carolina and certification in BCLS, ACLS and BTLS.
Minimum Requirements:
(Note: Additional requirements may be applicable for individual positions in the employing agency.)
A high school diploma and experience or training within the specific work area.
MUSC Minimum Training and Experience Requirements:
A high school diploma and one year experience or additional training and certification within the specific work area. Some positions require licensure by the South Carolina Board of Denistry. Some positions require certification in BCLS, ACLS and BTLS.
4452 Dental Assistant III
A high school diploma and three years of dental assisting experience. Certification in Radiation Safety required for positions responsible for dental x-rays. (Special Hire Rate - $30,794)
4453 Dental Assistant IV A high school diploma and four years of dental assisting experience. Certification in Radiation Safety required for positions responsible for dental x-rays. (Special Hire Rate - $32,334)
4427 Dental Lab Technician I
A high school diploma and two years experience or additional training and certification within the specific work area.
4428 Dental Lab Technician II
A high school diploma and two years experience or additional training and certification within the specific work area and one year of related experience.
4412 Imaging Associate I
4425 Dental Hygienist I
Licensure as a dental hygienist by the South Carolina State Board of Dentistry. Certification in Radiation Safety required for positions responsible for dental x-rays.
4538 Biomedical Equip Tech
MUSC Physical Requirements:


text:
Contact Info / Websites
Entry #1
wow, i was gone from NG for a few months cause ive been on DA and SA all the time. XD lol, i like that i have my own page here on NG now, its very neat. i might spend mor etime here on NG again since all these coll changes are here. if you really want to talk to me, go to my Deviantart page im there all the time. ^^ well, bye peeps and have a nice day i guess. :)
- 12 comments
You must be logged in to comment on this post.
2007-07-31 19:36:11
It sure has gotten more interesting certainly, hi Coy!
2007-08-09 13:52:37
Also, thank you for the fav on 'Mario's Secret Weapon" old bean!
Your best of welcomes old chap, it was an awesome flash to say the least mek o'l buddy! :D
2007-08-22 22:32:42
Hey CoyCoy, you should submit that Tundra Flash you made for DeviantART here!
Lol, I would but, i never got to finish it .. ^^; ppl on NG dont take to kindly to seeing unfinished submissions on NG, i learned that from experience.. ^^; plus it wasnt the best flash, lol its not tht great... ^^; but hey thanks for the thought. :)
2007-09-19 07:49:59
Hi! *Waves*
2007-09-23 05:17:45
hi ^_^ guess who X3 *hugs tightly*
2007-09-28 22:02:41
2007-10-21 06:45:36
Well. CoyCoy mah booooi
Me thinks your Flash that you're working on will go down well here
2007-11-24 00:13:00
How you are? Taco am please seeing you not dead! Are your life good? Taco's life am good! You should going Newground more. Wait, go Newground less. This place am sucking. Play World of Warcraft on Mok'Nathal! Taco am very much wanting speaking to you again! Replying soon, hopefully! Giving you Taco's love, RobotTaco!
2008-03-25 11:36:31
yep we have all been very impressed by it!
2008-05-07 04:59:55
So your saying you made a flash based on a video game?
Holy shit man, I've never heard of that before.
2008-05-07 17:08:15
How could you second-guess yourself that you want a nice day?
2008-05-08 00:14:16
hay coycoy have u thought of makeing a game for Newgrounds?


text:
Due to changes in the RSI website introduced with the launch of Spectrum, the dev comment scraping provided by Parted Veil is no longer possible for the new Spectrum forums. For now, the site will remain and archive comments made on the old RSI forums until I have sufficient time to re-engineer it for Spectrum support.
|Real World VG acceleration values
2016-03-12 09:31:06
The 1/root(n) limit is for all thrust modes. If you're in decoupled mode, you can still engage in maneuvers where a thruster will generate thrust in as many as three different axes. The truth is, realistic design would favor multiple fixed thrusters rather than multi-axis thrusters, but the multi-axis thrusters are just more interesting. Anyway, it's really all relative. The designers are tuning ships for a set of performance goals, and this will determine how much thrust a particular thruster will use on any given axis. If a ship was tuned on each axis using the full capacity of the thruster, then the ship would often underperform relative to its intended flight behavior. It would only perform up to the goal accelerations for simple single-axis actions like strafe-left or strafe-right. So it's better to always get the full acceleration on every axis regardless of the control action than to only get the full acceleration for a single-axis maneuver. I hope that makes sense.
|Real World VG acceleration values
2016-03-12 08:10:48
Hey, Vincent asked if I would post some feedback on your observations. First of all, thanks for taking the time to analyze the ship and let us know that it doesn't seem correct. You very well could be right. I haven't personally even flown the Vanguard, and haven't had a chance to look it over to make sure everything is tuned properly. We're midway through a ship tuning refactor, so things are a bit messy right now, I'm afraid. So I will definitely put the Vanguard through some diagnostics and make sure it's performing according to expectations.
But assuming it is properly set up, there are a few things that might be factoring into the discrepancies that you're seeing. Part of the refactor that's taking place is a move away from set thruster capacities and toward a model where all thrust is generated by the main engine and shunted to the individual thrusters which act as conduits. So the thrust capacities that are currently in the thrusters are really being phased out. At the moment, there are scales that are used that allow designers to define performance goals for each ship per axis. When this is all finished, it'll be possible for the designer to specify how fast a ship should accelerate on each axis independently, both linearly and rotationally, and IFCS will determine the thrust level calibrations for a reference thruster set in order to achieve the desired performance goals. Then different thrusters will have higher or lower efficiencies relative to this reference thruster set, so as you upgrade your thrusters, you'll increase your ship's performance. The point of all this is to say that even though we're midway through this refactor, we're already using these per-axis scales, and these will limit the amount of thrust that you'll actually get from a given thruster relative to what you see in those xmls. In other words, the xml thrust levels are no longer accurate. More important is what performance our designers have tuned a ship to with its default thrusters. If the designer intends for a ship to stop on retro burn in 5 seconds, we expect it to stop in 5 seconds, regardless of what the current thrust level is in the thruster xml.
So that could be why you're seeing less acceleration than you expect from the thruster capacities. But there are some other ways that a ship can get less than its ideal thrust during real flight. You mentioned an imbalance around the center of mass. That's a big one. I'm not sure if this is something you accounted for, but there's also a safe allocation of thrust per-axis for multi-axis thrusters. So if a thruster can potentially thrust simultaneously on 3 different axes (like a Hornet top thruster), IFCS only allows each thrust axis to utilize 1/root(3) of the max thrust available. Otherwise, the system might utilize all of its thrust on one axis, leaving nothing for other axes. A thruster can always count on at least 1/root(3) thrust for each axis (really it's 1/root(n) where n is the number of axes it can simultaneously hit), so that's all IFCS allows. Prior to release 2.0, this was not the case. A thruster would use all of its thrust on any axis, which meant that a ship would favor the axes that were first in the flight control calculations, and this caused a ship to sometimes slide out during more complex control actions. This new approach makes ships more stable and predictable at the expense of some lost performance. It's possible that this safe allocation of thrust could be what's behind the discrepancy. But again, we'll look at the ship to make sure it's performing according to expectations.
|Flight Model IFCS 2.0 Feedback and Discussion
2015-11-24 21:41:32
As to the debate about how SCM is calibrated, I think it's good to have this debate. Obviously the system will work with truly dynamic calibration. It's just a question of what's best for gameplay, and there are many sides to that. It's not really a question of what's most realistic, because ultimately this is an artificially imposed speed limit anyway, so it's just a matter of how we choose to impose it, which, again, is entirely about best gameplay.
But this is a step forward, not back, because what we had was a static max velocity regardless of any changes to your ship. We're just trying to decide where best to draw that line. We do want to allow players to have some control over SCM max speed, but we also want to make sure there's a cost associated with any benefit. Dropping missiles, I can see that as a cost that buys you increased speed. But dropping some cosmetic chunk of your ship, with a raw SCM calibration, that's all gain. The reality is, I don't think a lot of design thought has gone into the value-to-mass ratio of items and parts on our ships, and I'm not sure it's possible to achieve that kind of balance anyway. But without that, we'll have a situation where people are stripping down their ships to achieve higher SCM velocity. That's more of a loophole than interesting gameplay.
I'm all about more flexibility and letting the simulation define behaviors, but then I'm reminded that this is not just a space simulation, it's a game that needs to be balanced, and designers want to account for every possibility as they establish that balance. There will always be a conflict between those two goals, sim vs game And the deciding factor will usually be fun gameplay over realistic simulation. In this particular case, realistically we shouldn't have speed limits at all, but we choose to have them because it serves gameplay. If it's better for the game to have more dynamic SCM velocity (and it's possible to balance the game with dynamic SCM), that's great. Let's just explore it and see. What we have now (or what's intended) comes out of our internal debate over the balance between simulation and gameplay, but we all agree that it's only speculation until we get it in the game and start getting feedback.
|Flight Model IFCS 2.0 Feedback and Discussion
2015-11-24 19:22:57
There is nothing about the introduction of jerk that forces any given ship to have a particular amount of drift in either linear or rotational motion. What I did was replace a non-tunable control lag with a tunable control lag. Now it's just a matter of finding the right flight behaviors for each ship. Our goal was to attempt to tune the ships to be close to their original flight behaviors, which in theory we should be able to do. But it's a work in progress and we clearly haven't hit the mark just yet. In some cases, there could be a bug at play. But regardless, that's just a starting point, because now we have a lot more flexibility and greater precision in how we tune, so we'll be adjusting every ship's performance as we move forward.
The main purpose of jerk in the system is to smooth out responsiveness for certain ships. High performance ships should have a high jerk value so every change in input is felt immediately and aggressively. For ships where we want less jerky motion and a more smooth ride, lower jerk will smooth out those changes. Jerk is not meant to be used to introduce a greater sense of inertia. Acceleration does that just fine. In practice, we are now tuning the ships based on a "time to goal" value. So for any given axis, we look at the time to stop from maximum velocity along or about that axis. When we define a ship's flight performance, this is the dominant trait. Then jerk is used to determine how responsive a ship is to changes in velocity during that time. A ship that stops from 100 m/s in 5 seconds might do so with a deceleration ramp-up of 0.1 s to max deceleration, hold at max deceleration for 4.8 s, then ramp-down for 0.1 s to 0 deceleration, or it might ramp up to max deceleration over 2.5 s, then immediately start to ramp back down to 0 deceleration for 2.5 s. The first case feels much more responsive than the second, even though it achieves the change in velocity in the same amount of time. It jerks into a change in motion suddenly as you change your input. The second case will be a much more smooth, gradual change in motion. But it's shouldn't be so unresponsive that it's uncontrollable.
This is an improvement over the previous system where jerk was a part of the system, but it was not at all tunable.
So the point is, this is not an issue with the new control algorithm, it's just a matter of proper tuning, and that's going to be a ship-to-ship decision. At this point, we can tune jerk completely out of the system if that's what we want for a particular ship. Or we can make jerk a more significant factor for a ship if that's appropriate to its purpose. It's up to the designers. And we will use this to give each ship a unique feel, but obviously we want every ship to be an enjoyable flight experience under ideal conditions. So if a particular ship has bad flight characteristics, unless that's just an intentional design, we can and will fix it.
|Flight Model IFCS 2.0 Feedback and Discussion
2015-11-24 17:56:34
Dropping mass on the ships makes a noticeable difference in performance. SH sans canard and missile racks (and missiles) hits 250 in SCM. It's maneuverability increases significantly. Same goes for Gladius.
SCM functionality is not yet complete. The way it currently functions is not consistent with the way it will function in the game. Currently SCM is fully dynamic, looking at the instantaneous mass and acceleration of a ship to determine its maximum velocity using the SCM algorithm. But SCM speed will be an IFCS calibration based on a ship's static loadout (attached ship items but not cargo, ammo, etc) and the ideal accelerations of the installed thrusters. It will update when you change thrusters, add or remove items, but it won't change dynamically as you're flying around, taking damage, picking up cargo, etc. You'll just end up with more or less inertia based on changes in mass and acceleration, while SCM speed stays constant.
|Flight Model IFCS 2.0 Feedback and Discussion
2015-11-24 17:29:23
PTU 2.0 Feedback:
Since I'm still very busy finishing the features we've planned for 2.0, I don't have time to read over all of this feedback. But whenever someone brings a post to my attention that I can quickly respond to, I will do that. And then after 2.0 is finally out, I would like to get more involved in the forum to answer questions, listen to feedback and continue to refine the systems.
To answer this question, the component of g-force from rotations about a ship's center of mass is not yet functional. There is a bug in the reporting of the position of the player relative to the ship that can cause it to be out of sync, and this can cause extremely high g-forces during rapid rotation. In practice, a rotation that is normally in the 10-20 gee range can spike up into the 1000 gee range. Once that's fixed we'll turn on rotational gees and start to account for them.
|Potential Flaw in Ship Pointing Control Strategy (Technical/Aiming Related)
2015-08-11 05:06:32
I completely misunderstood the point of your graphs. Yes, I can see what you mean about pilot response.
I think all of the things I talked about are still relevant to varying degrees, but even with the changes I'm making, there will still be the issue of non-linear velocity. And if the time to accelerate to or decelerate from maximum angular velocity is large, it will be difficult for the pilot to avoid overshoot and oscillation. One thing I've proposed to address this is to have two rotational modes. One would be for ease of maneuvering, where the maximum velocity is such that it only takes about a half a second to reach maximum or decelerate from max to zero. This guarantees that you have a quick enough starting and stopping response time that you can reasonably control the ship. Then the second control mode would allow you to hit a higher maximum rotational velocity when you need it, with the understanding that it will take awhile to reach maximum velocity, and awhile to return to zero. I think this would address the issue you're describing. The key is that the time from 0-max velocity and from max-0 would be consistent for any ship, depending on its actual acceleration rates, so you'll be guaranteed to have a consistent and (hopefully) well tuned control response.
It's definitely something we are looking at. And I do hope that we can find ways to make ESP less necessary by improving pilot control.
|Potential Flaw in Ship Pointing Control Strategy (Technical/Aiming Related)
2015-08-11 00:05:26
I'm not exactly sure where to put this post, as it is primarily directed at @Jpritchett_CIG and @CIGCalixReneau
Hi, Helmholtz! Thanks for the input.
First, I'd like to simplify the topic by pointing out that it's not specifically related to ESP. Your point may be that ESP would be less necessary if not for the behavior you describe, and that may be a valid point. But let's look at the behavior itself independent of ESP, because it's a more general control behavior.
First, I'm curious if you'd say this has been the behavior all along, or if this became an issue at some point in the series of patches?
You are definitely correct that IFCS works by tracking a forward vector when you're turning. More specifically, the pilot is controlling a "virtual frame" which determines the goal orientation of the ship at any time. When you provide input, you're telling IFCS how to orient the virtual frame, and then IFCS works to orient the actual ship to that frame, what I call the "control frame". This isn't just happening when you control the ship. If there's an external force that hits the ship, changing the attitude relative to the control frame, IFCS will work to correct the attitude back to the desired attitude. This is a reaction control system, and it uses feedback control logic. This is where the transient response comes from. And I agree with you that this is not ideal as a way to handle pilot input. More on that later.
I've been pushing to get a special reticle on our HUD that shows you the control frame forward vector and roll relative to the normal nose-forward cross. I have this on my personal build in a debug mode, and I hate to fly without it. Understanding how IFCS works in relation to this control frame is very important. If you don't understand this, and especially if you don't have any visual cues to the state of the control frame, you end up fighting against IFCS.
Now, taking all of that as expected behavior, what you're describing, if it's happening, would be a bug. It is my intention that there should be a limit in the actual angular acceleration possible during rotation, as well as the maximum velocity. Assuming I understand what you're saying, you're not seeing these limits? The angular acceleration that your ship is capable of is very realistically determined based on the actual thruster mechanics, and it will change as thrusters take damage, center of mass changes, etc. But I suppose it's possible that those acceleration limits are somehow not being used to limit the requested attitude correction accelerations. I will take a look to make sure that's happening. The other possibility is that IFCS is not enforcing the maximum angular velocity for these corrections. Again, if that's the case, it's unintentional. But I will take a look. There should never be excessive overshoot or any oscillation in the system, by design, and if there is, that's a bug.
But (this is the "more on that later part"), as I said, I've never been satisfied with the motion control system anyway, and have been working toward an update that expands on the current system, keeping all of the behaviors it was designed to provide, but adding in greater stability and responsiveness.
Here's an overview of how the current system works, and what I'm changing.
The goal of the initial design was to create a system that could be dynamically adaptive to unexpected conditions. Most games would make a wide range of assumptions about ship control, not the least of which is that if the ship thinks it's in a certain state, it will be in that state. This game doesn't make that assumption. It assumes, like any real world system, that it has incomplete and/or imperfect data. For example, you might take damage and have a bent thruster. IFCS doesn't detect this. So it behaves as though the thruster is functioning properly. As a result, the way the ship moves would always be different from the way IFCS told it to move. There could also be unexpected external conditions, like an energy wave from an explosion. We can throw any kind of unexpected condition at the ship without needing to account for it in the ship's flight logic, because it was designed to be adaptive. That's why I based it on a feedback control system. Feedback control is constantly working to zero out errors between the expected state of the system and the actual state of the system. It's considered the optimal control method for cases where the system being controlled is complex or not well known.
So that was phase one. Creating an adaptive, reactive control system. But as everyone knows from playing the game, a purely feedback-based control system tends to be laggy. It trades response time for stability. Phase two is all about adding in feedforward control. That's the predictable behavior that you can expect under ideal conditions. IFCS doesn't need to neglect this predictable behavior, it just needs to be prepared to deal with the possibility that this behavior is not achieved at any given time. One example of this is high-speed turning. With feedback-only control, as you turn your nose, your velocity on the forward vector pulls down from the current set-point (your cruise speed), while the velocity on your side, top or bottom, depending on the nature of the turn, increases. The feedback control system kicks in to zero out the errors in these velocities, attempting to return forward velocity to the cruise speed and the sliding velocity to 0. But it does so with the best acceleration response curve it has, a critically damped exponential, which has a settle time related to the jerk limit for the ship. The delay associated with this settle time could be avoided by estimating the amount of acceleration necessary to maintain a controlled turn and setting acceleration directly to that value. Taking this approach, then under ideal conditions, there will be no error for the feedback control system to correct, and control will be far more responsive. Only if some unexpected condition caused the ship's actual state to differ from the expected state would the feedback system kick in for correction. Note that this change was introduced in the latest patch.
This will also come into play for direct pilot control. When turning or throttling, IFCS will calculate the ideal accelerations, based on its available acceleration levels, in order to optimally achieve the requested control. I have this functional on my local build, and the difference is, as expected, quite obvious.
Anyway, the point of all this is, whether or not there is a bug in what you're presenting, I expect all of this to be changing in the near future anyway. The changes I'm describing are part of a major refactoring of IFCS to better support ship tuning and itemization that has been ongoing for several months. I can't say when it'll be ready, but it is progressing.
|Thrusters stronger than main engine RE:Gold post
2014-12-31 23:19:00
I don't have much time to respond to the additional comments, but there is one I wanted to get to:
"If you took this approach, would operational speeds be defined by the player? Say I feel comfortable flying at 280 m/s instead of the manufacturer's suggested 250?"
I think it would be. The goal is for operational speed to be a real consequence of ship design. It's rated to fly at a given speed because that's the speed that the ship can maneuver well at, accelerate and decelerate in a reasonable time, etc. It would all be based on a set of performance goals like how long to accelerate, decelerate, arrest a slide, etc. This would give you a particular operational maximum velocity beyond which the ship would suffer too much from inertia. But how much a player is comfortable dealing with that inertia should be up to each player. That's my personal opinion.
Oh, also, I wanted to respond to Paldren's latest post about damage. Maximum speed isn't currently a physical limit. In reality, a ship with any amount of thrust can eventually approach the speed of light given enough time to accelerate. At the speeds our ships fly, a ship could have something like 1/100th the amount of thrust of a typical ship, and it would take 100 times as long to reach maximum velocity. But you'd still reach that velocity. Then it would take 100 times as long to come to a stop. What we've talked about doing is defining an IFCS-imposed maximum speed limit based on the amount of time it takes for your ship to come to rest using its strongest thrust vector. But this is more of a regulation than a physical law. What we're also talking about is a propulsion technology that would have a real physical limitation, relying on some hand-wavium, of course, and I think that would be more interesting. But either way, I would expect speed limits to eventually be subject to damage states. You're correct that they currently are not.
Ok, gotta run for awhile. I'll try to check in again after the new year. Thanks for all the good feedback and the opportunity to provide some detail about this stuff. And just keep in mind that this is all a work in progress. CR could call for a completely different approach and I'll happily roll with it. I'm just explaining how it currently works and what's currently planned (or what I hope to do).
|Thrusters stronger than main engine RE:Gold post
2014-12-31 21:37:23
One of the things that honestly bothers me about the way the flight model and ships have been developed is that it seems like nobody has taken the lead. I'm a mechanical engineer by trade, and one of the most important things for us is designing to a set of requirements. The worst thing that can happen from a design perspective is that we develop something, the requirements change, and we're forced to rework a significant portion of our systems to accommodate the new requirements. It seems to me like the flight model suffers from that same experience. It would be like trying to design a car while God tinkers with the physics of friction.
Two good points in this post.
It is definitely a challenge to be as isolated from the early concept and design work. There are ships in the game now that I haven't even seen myself. The Cutlass is an example of a ship with new demands/challenges that I was not able to address before it went live in the game. I would love to be more of a guiding influence in the design of ships, both to make sure they're fully utilizing the features available to them and to make sure they're not doing something that isn't supported in the current system (or, if it is, that I have time to add support for it). But this is a difficult situation. I'm not in the office to work directly with the designers. I've provided basic guidelines, but nothing beats being there in design meetings and giving direction, and that's difficult.
It's definitely true that there are gameplay decisions and realism decisions that are not always consistent. It has been a challenge to attempt to remain as true to a realistic system as possible while accomplishing the goals of the designers in terms of gameplay. The simplest solution, in this case, isn't the best. The proposed idea of using gyros for attitude control does not seem as interesting to me as providing fixed thrusters. Gyros are very difficult to damage and don't have interesting damage states. Fixed thruster sets can provide a very large variety of damage conditions to play through. It's just so much more interesting, to me at least. I think if SC went with an entirely gyro-based control system, the game would tend to feel a lot like other games, Elite for example, and we're going for something unique here.
To your other point, I don't want to get into details about the proposed thruster tech that I've been discussing with other designers, but what you're suggesting is along the same lines. We don't want "air resistance" in space, but it would be nice to have a system where it takes more acceleration at higher velocities. I've developed such a system, and we'll discuss it as an option. I certainly can't say with any confidence that we'll do anything like that. But I do like the idea.
|Thrusters stronger than main engine RE:Gold post
2014-12-31 20:04:02
What about moving thrusters? Seems they currently ignore the delay you need to turn them, the turn happens after the fact, noticed that on the aurora, it does maneuvers you'd need the thruster in a certain position to do, but the thruster moves after the maneuver starts. (Even wonkier on the cutlass but I'm guessing it's far from finished flight-model wise).
There is no reason why we cannot support accurate behavior for gimbaled thrusters, but that comes down to proper ship design. For ships that currently do not function well with true gimbaled thrust, we allow the action of the thruster to begin before the thruster is gimbaled into the desired vector. I've discussed this before. It's the only "cheat" currently in the system, and I consider it a temporary situation. What's held me back from providing proper support for gimbaled thrusters is a) thruster gimbaling is currently not multiplayer synched. It's handled by the renderer. I need to bring gimbal motion into the physics simulation to resolve this issue. And b) some ships, like the Hornet, use gimbaled thrusters for attitude control. Gimbaled thrusters are not well suited for attitude control. They are best suited for maneuvering, and for allowing a thruster to be multifunctional, including maneuvering, main and retro functionality. Attitude control thrusters need to be able to provide small, quick corrections, often switching direction in a fraction of a second, and that's not something a gimbaled thruster can do. Fixed thrusters are best suited for attitude control. So until we have additional fixed thrusters, or some additional gyro support for attitude control, on ships like the Hornet, they will continue to have some degree of gimbal "cheat" to keep them stable. But the goal is to have the gimbal rate fast enough that the cheat is minor. It sounds like the Aurora gimbals might be too slow to provide the response time they need.
I would still expect to the ship speed/maneuverability to diminish with damage ... but it seems binary atm. Either you are in a damage state where you have no control or you have everything.
In my tests, this hasn't been the case. There has been a transition from full control to no control over a variety of damage states. But this is going to be different for each ship. A major factor here is thruster redundancy. How many ways can a ship achieve a given control action (pure translation or pure rotation)? If one thruster is critical to every control action, and that thruster gets blown off, you're going to suddenly lose a lot of control. So it's a ship design concern.
Something else; why don't the main engines all have thrust reversers? If the goal is to provide gross, imprecise thrust for large movements, then it would make a lot of sense to provide a means for those big engines to rapidly adjust thrust in the opposite direction. This is another relatively low-hanging fruit that would dramatically improve the gameplay experience.
None of the current engines support this, but it could be a feature of a future engine. I hadn't personally considered it, but I wouldn't be surprised if the ship designers have considered it. It's not something that I would introduce without a thruster that's specifically designed to provide it.
|Thrusters stronger than main engine RE:Gold post
2014-12-31 20:02:27
Lots of good feedback here. I'll try to address as much as I can.
does this mean that the 4x TR3s of the Cutlass will only be used when you boost? I mean will it only fire when you boost and only the 2x TR4 will fire? I am referring to the forward/backward thrust of the Cutlass.
The Cutlass is still a work in progress. The child thrusters off of the mains are currently non-functioning because the system has never needed to support thrusters on thrusters before. It increases the complexity a bit. I have some plans for how to deal with it, but we'll have to see what's feasible. There also need to be improvements with how gimbaled thrusters work, now that we have a massive gimbaled thruster. Aside from wanting to support greater realism with the response of gimbaled thrusters, I also want to account for the torque generated on the ship when these massive thrusters gimbal. I think the basic design goals of the Cutlass are there, but it needs to be refined.
All that said, it seems still like the maneuvering thrusters are more powerful than they should be.
I agree.
One question regarding your system: Isn't usually high efficiency and high precision coupled with low thrust? In that regard, low efficiency and low precision are for high thrusts. It's like a car, when you go faster you burn more fuel and the usage increases not in a linear way but rises.
I'm basically using precision as the control for balancing these thrusters. Having less precision allows a thruster to have more efficiency in terms of thrust per unit power/fuel. Having more precision results in less efficiency. Whether or not that makes sense with real modern thrusters isn't really the issue. We actually have not made a final determination of how these thrusters function, what technology they use, etc. This is more about making realistic physics serve the gameplay needs of the game, which is a tricky balance. We do have some room to play with future tech. My goal is to avoid using "magical" technology as much as possible, but I can't say that it will never happen. We want a game that uses realistic thruster mechanics in terms of forces and torques generated by a set of thrusters, and that takes into account the real center of mass and mass distribution of a ship, but how those thrusters generate thrust may be defined in a way that best serves gameplay rather than the one that's most like modern thruster systems.
I would Like to share my Test Results with the Avenger in Arena Commander here, given the mentioned "priorisation" of the main Engine, i feel that The current IFCS implementation in Arena commander Blends Both The Main Thruster and the maneuvering thrusters for Acceleration...
I have not actually had a chance to look at the Avenger myself. There was too much to do before the 1.0 release, and that ship seemed to fly well enough out of the box that it didn't need my attention. I will take a look at it to make sure it's properly using the thruster logic that I've described.
Given that the size of the maps in the PU are aiming to be "millions of kilometres", in a non-quantum/jump drive situation, what do you envision to be the top speed of a ship to be? Will it be different between ships via a limiter, or will acceleration be the determining factor? In other words, will an Aurora only be able to reach X speed no matter how long it thrusts for, or will it be able to reach the same speeds as something like an M50, but over a much, much longer time frame?
I have actually not been consulted much on the 0.2c drive system. I'd like to get involved in that. But I do know that there are limitations on what we can do, based on game engine limitations. We currently have a maximum velocity of 500 m/s. We can treat this as a relative velocity, so a group of ships could be in a shared frame of reference that's moving 0.2c, and then within that frame, they can move relative to each other at speeds of up to 500 m/s. But you can't have a ship moving at 0.2c that is interacting with an object that's stationary relative to that ship. This means that the 0.2c flight mode does need to be isolated from normal game modes. But I know there is still a lot of discussion going on about how to handle that.
The other part of your question is whether all ships could have the same maximum speed, but different acceleration performance, etc. I've been talking to some others about ways that we can allow ships to have basically two flight modes for normal flight, one being an operational speed mode and the other an unlimited speed mode. So one ship might have a lower operational flight speed than another, but you could switch into unlimited speed which would allow the ship to reach the same velocity that any other ship could reach, only it might take longer to accelerate into that speed, longer to decelerate to a stop from that speed, and would slide much more at that speed. There would still be a hard maximum of, currently, 500 m/s, because the game engine cannot exceed that speed. So that would be the speed beyond which you'd enter the 0.2c flight mode (however that transition occurs). That would be my goal, to provide this kind of dual-mode approach. I do know that CR is asking for the ability to exceed the current speed limits when in boost mode, so he's definitely interested in allowing ships to exceed their speed limits in one way or another. So I know this is something we will be revisiting.
More to follow...
|Thrusters stronger than main engine RE:Gold post
2014-12-31 07:44:50
Oh, and real quick, there is always the backup torque generated by the gyros (as mentioned in a post above). This is more a capitulation to gameplay than a realistic system, I'm afraid. It's just simply necessary to have some attitude and rotational control even if you've lost all of your thrusters. Otherwise you'd just spin out of control. And when a ship starts losing thrusters, it has a small amount of torque to fall back on to provide attitude control and stability. Without it, ship control would degrade much more quickly as you take damage. But the gyro torque is relatively small. If you're rotating under nothing but gyro torque, you'll know it. Even a Hornet feels like a capital ship. It takes forever to spin up to top rotational speed, and just as long to spin back down.
So, yes, gyros are the last fallback for control. If all else fails, you'll have that. Unless you completely lose power (but the power supply for gyros is not yet implemented).
|Thrusters stronger than main engine RE:Gold post
2014-12-31 07:33:39
Something I didn't get into in my original post is multipurpose thrusters. At this point, most thrusters in SC are multipurpose. What that means is that they can provide a variety of functions. Typically you'll have a thruster, such as an upper Hornet thruster, that can function as both a maneuvering thruster and an attitude control thruster. In fact, the front upper Hornet thrusters can function as maneuvering, attitude control and retro. For this type of thruster, it can use 100% of its capacity for maneuvering, but maybe only 50% for attitude control/rotation, based on thruster efficiency. The thrusters have always had designations for thruster modes of main, retro, maneuver and orientation (what I call attitude control). Every thruster in the game today can function as one or more of these types. I'm adding support for strafe thrusters as well so we can provide more control over strafe characteristics of ships independent of other thrust actions like maneuvering which is otherwise very similar. As it is, ships all tend to behave basically the same in strafe control modes. We'd like some ships to be superior at strafe, and some inferior.
Once we get the power triangle balanced, the give-and-take between thrusters and other systems will be significant. If you want to fly with all maneuvering thrusters and forego mains (assuming that's even an option within the game), the trade-off is likely going to be less firepower or shield power, etc. There will be consequences. Ships are designed this way for a reason.
It will be challenging to properly balance ships with thruster specialization, but without the ability to isolate thrust actions and tune them independently, it would be impossible to achieve the unique control behaviors we're after with so many different ships.
Just to illustrate the challenges of treating all thrusters the same, let's look at the Hornet. Suppose you want the Hornet to stop in half the time it takes to reach maximum forward speed. The Hornet uses the four front thrusters for retro. This defines the thrust capacity for these thrusters. Let's say they're all the same, so 4xManeuver=1/2*Main where Maneuver is the thrust of each maneuvering thruster and Main is the thrust of the main thruster. So each maneuvering thruster has 1/8th as much thrust as the main. Now look at side thrust for arresting a turn. Two thrusters come into play for a pure yawing turn. So you have 1/4th as much thrust in the turn as you have for forward acceleration, which means you'll arrest a 90 degree turn in 4x the amount of time it takes to accelerate to full speed. Say you reach max speed in 2.5 seconds (and I consider that too fast), it'll take you 10 seconds to stop sliding in a 90 degree turn. That's generally considered too much slide. And in addition to that, you're going to have massive rotational acceleration because those powerful maneuvering thrusters are also what turns the ship (this depends to some degree on distance to center of mass, of course). It would be impossible for a ship to have any sense of rotational inertia unless we also want it to slide all over space.
The problem here is that thrusters can serve multiple roles, and if we treat them all the same, then we have no way to independently tune various control behaviors. We'd like to be able to say that a ship is highly maneuverable but has more inertia in a turn, can accelerate forward quickly, but takes longer to come to a stop, etc. If all of these actions are interdependent, you can't adjust one without changing the others. What we'd end up with is a bunch of ships that look different but basically perform the same.
|Thrusters stronger than main engine RE:Gold post
2014-12-31 05:09:11
I hope everyone had a great Christmas!
The behavior you're seeing does make sense within the design of the ships, but since it's a work in progress, the functionality isn't as obvious as I hope it will be. I'll give an explanation of how IFCS manages ship thrusters to hopefully shed some light on this.
We're just now adding additional characteristics for thrusters, including power usage, possibly fuel usage as well for the PU, and also thruster precision. So the raw capacity of a thruster isn't the whole story. To achieve thruster specialization, thruster efficiency, as a measure of thrust per unit power/fuel, is greatest with mains and retros, but they have the least precision. They're great for pushing the ship at high acceleration, but not so good at keeping the ship stable. At the mid-level are the maneuvering and strafe thrusters. They are less efficient than the mains and retros, but have greater precision, allowing the ship to maintain stable maneuvers. They tend to have lower capacity than the mains, but in groups can provide a significant amount of thrust, but at lower efficiency than the mains/retros. So if you have mains and retros, IFCS will favor them for forward and reverse thrust. If those are offline (or if you boost, which means you want everything you can get out of the ship), then IFCS will use the maneuvering thrusters as well. Then the next level is the attitude control thruster. It has very low efficiency, tends to support much less capacity, but has the greatest amount of precision. This precision is necessary in order to keep the ship in a stable attitude. The reaction control system uses the attitude thrusters first, but if they're unavailable, will fall back on the maneuvering thrusters or mains to get any thrust it can. The precision aspect of thrusters is not yet implemented, but when it is, you'll find that a ship is less smooth in its rotations and tends to be less stable when it uses maneuvering thrusters, strafe thrusters, mains or retros for attitude control.
What you're seeing here is thruster prioritization. If you're thrusting forward, IFCS will favor mains in order to be optimally efficient. It's not just about raw power. If the mains are gone, it'll fall back to the maneuvering thrusters, which, in the case of the Hornet, because of the way it is designed, will give you more raw thrust in the forward direction than the main. But once this is fully implemented, there will be an obvious enough cost that you won't want to use the maneuvering thrusters for forward thrust unless you absolutely have to, in which case you'll want to boost. And, as with everything, it would be nice to make some of this configurable so you can make your own decisions about how the ship functions, whether it's optimal or not. If you want to dump power and fuel for greater thrust, that's a trade-off I'd like the player to be able to make. But when this is fully implemented, I would expect to see significant repercussions for changing the way IFCS manages the thrusters on a given ship.
So, to summarize, when you're thrusting forward, IFCS uses mains and only mains, unless it is unable to achieve sufficient thrust. If necessary, it will fall to maneuvering thrusters. If it is still unable to generate sufficient thrust, it will fall to the attitude thrusters. Likewise, if you're maneuvering, IFCS will favor maneuvering thrusters, but if they are not available or significantly damaged, it may fall back on mains/retros or attitude control thrusters. And for attitude control, or when rotating the ship, IFCS will favor attitude control thrusters first, but if none are available, it will fall back on maneuvering thrusters, then mains/retros.
I hope this makes things more clear.
|Thank you Star Citizens!
2014-12-19 22:34:42
Since I was unable to be in Santa Monica for the livestream today, I wanted to take a moment to thank everyone for your support of this game, the first true Universe Sim. I've been working on SC for just over a year now, and it's been an amazing experience. There's no way I could be doing the work I'm doing if not for the SC community funding this game and supporting it with feedback both positive and negative. So I appreciate that.
I hope you all have a great holiday season and I'll talk to you in the new year! My New Year's resolution is to be more involved with the community next year, to share more details about the work I'm doing, what's planned, etc. With Arena Commander reaching maturity, I expect to have a bit more time to spare. But, of course, we will see!
|Your thoughts about E.S.P?
2014-12-19 22:26:15
I haven't followed up much from the last patch to see where we are with the ESP behavior, because with the 1.0 release, there will be many changes. So once 1.0 is out there, let's step back and take an overview of ESP, try to figure out where it's working and where it's broken, etc. The main goal at this point is getting it to be consistent for everyone, so there aren't some people who have a very different experience than the rest. Then we can start to look at fine-tuning to deal with things I've seen some comments about, like that it sometimes feels like the aim point is sticking before it's on the target.
I think it will be easier to limit our focus to just gamepad ESP for now, since that's what it's primarily designed for. There are so many other places it's being used, and each one requires its own tuning and can break in a number of ways, so if ESP is working poorly for mouse players in a particular mode, that doesn't mean that ESP is broken or flawed, but that it's not working for that mode. Often this is caused by input issues in general, because we're still working out problems with all of our input devices. Having greater customization is going to be a big step forward in that respect. If your mouse is really hard to move, that's likely a configuration issue, because on the machines we're testing with, it isn't hard to move. You can't just put out a one-size-fits-all setting for devices like a mouse. So I'm interested in hearing feedback for ESP on the gamepad. Once that's working universally as designed, I'd like to shift the focus to joystick and mouse. That doesn't mean you shouldn't report issues with joystick and mouse control. It's just that those are not necessarily ESP-specific issues. The gamepad is a more universal control, so it'll be easier for us to isolate issues specifically to ESP.
I guess there's some discussion about whether ESP is related to the flight model. It isn't. It's about pilot interface. It's about how a particular device is interpreted. Most vehicles in the real world provide some filter between raw input and vehicle control. That's what ESP does. It doesn't change the flight model at all. The flight model, at its base, is a very simple system. It sums up the forces and torques generated by each thruster on a ship, then applies the total force and torque to the ship's center of mass. Period.
|Tradewars 2002 Server for SC Community!
2014-12-19 22:00:34
It's great to see some SC players enjoying TradeWars. It's especially good to see people playing the game as it was intended, without scripts.
I was actually working on a major update when the opportunity to join the Star Citizen team came along. Since then (just over a year now), I haven't had a moment to work on TradeWars bugs or features. Hopefully I will get back to it sometime.
Anyway, thanks for setting the game up, slowreflex.
|I'm absolutely done with ESP
2014-11-27 01:19:30
Ok, looks like we can't get the fix out until the next planned patch. I was hoping we could do some kind of micro-patch and get the fix out sooner, but that's a no go.
And yes, once we get to a point where it's clear that everyone's experience is consistent and as-designed, we'll make it a slider so you can turn down the effect or even turn it off.
|I'm absolutely done with ESP
2014-11-26 22:13:20
I have a bit of progress to report. I did introduce a new bug in ESP with the last patch, and this resulted in another case of framerate dependence, where, once again, the behavior of ESP varies from player to player depending on the conditions of their setup. I've fixed it and am hoping to get it tested soon. We'll have to see how quickly we could get this out to you.
I'm very sorry for having missed this!


text:
This star rating is the opinion of the property owner only. A Self-Rated hotel has not been assessed by the AA or Visit Britain, whose official star ratings we use across LateRooms.com.
The Rose and Crown3 Self rated
Price FromView Rooms
- Excellent
- 5 guest reviews
"Beautiful room in courtyard, friendly welcome from staff, excellent dinner, fluffy towels and really comfortable bed...."
"Lovely location and everyone on staff was excellent, friendly, helpful and professional. We loved that we were able to bring our dog, and we..."
"Lovely building in a handsome setting - my apologies to the Fitzhugh family for the Scots killing their ancestor in 1305, though I'm sure he..."
"Sorry to say food not quite up to the overall standard of the hotel/price...."
"Booked this hotel for an overnight stay for my husband and I. We were taking a trip down memory lane and staying at this hotel was somethin..."
About the hotel
The Rose and Crown at Romaldkirk is an AA red star hotel situated in the north east of England, close to Barnard Castle in Teesdale County Durham. Offering free broadband, 2 AA rosette restaurant and ample free parking. Discover the undiscovered.
Teesdale a land of stunning contrasts. High fells and lush meadow, whitewashed farms and stone built cottages, dramatic waterfalls, wild flowers and wonderful birdsong. The Rose and Crown is an 18th century coaching inn set on the middle of three village greens in a picture postcard village overlooking the stocks and water pump next to the Saxon church, known to the locals as 'The Cathedral of the Dale'. Step inside the front door and discover lots of polished panelling, old beams, gleaming brasses, fresh flowers and maybe even the odd creaking stair. Savour the buzz of the bar; an oak settle with daily newspapers plus 'the local rag', old prints and carriage lamps with a crackling fire in the dog grate. Retreat to the quiet of the lounge; books, magazines, comfy wingchairs, the ticking of a grandfather clock, where you can enjoy a cup of tea or maybe one more brandy before bed. There are twelve en suite bedrooms, each different in style. Seven are located in the Main House, some with beams and antique furniture others with private sitting rooms. Five are located in the Courtyard offering a more modern and contemporary style. Delightful fabrics, comfortable beds and smart bathrooms, plus lots of extras including Molton Brown accessories and Bose music systems provide the perfect setting to ensure a restful nights sleep. Indulge yourself in the award winning restaurant. Polished oak panelling, crisp white tablecloths, candlelight and sparkling silver. A daily changing menu, delicious food – the table is yours for the night. Relax in the Brasserie with its intimate atmosphere, candles in waxy old bottles and big pictures. Guests of The Rose and Crown will enjoy a tasty meal whilst soaking up the surroundings. Forget your car and explore from the inn, footpaths leave in every direction from the village. Wander along the old railway line or maybe join the Teesdale Way as it winds its way along by the river. Nearby are old market towns and castles, the world famous Bowes Museum, spectacular Raby Castle, charming Eggleston Hall walled gardens. Further afield is Durham Cathedral, Beamish Open Air Museum, the Yorkshire Dales, the High Pennines of England, even Hadrian's Wall and lots lots more. Guests can indulge in their favourite pastimes in this area of outstanding natural beauty with superb walking in river valley or on the fells – The Pennine Way, Coast-to-Coast Walk, Teesdale Way and lots more walks are nearby. Try mountain biking par excellence or just gentle cycling along the local country lanes. There are wild flowers in abundance and fantastic bird watching, game shooting on some of the world's most famous moors plus river and reservoir fishing.
Read MoreLess
Facilities Show/hide
- Main
- Hotel Non-Smoking Throughout, Disabled Facilities, Tea/Coffee making facilities in each room, Hairdryer in each room, Telephone In Each Room, Laundry/Valet Service, Pets Allowed, Ground floor bedrooms
- Parking
- Car parking available onsite
- Dining
- Restaurant, Bar
- In Room Entertainment
- Video/DVD Player, TV, Radio
- Accessibility
- Disabled Access Public Areas, Disabled Access Bedrooms, Disabled toilets on ground floor, Wheelchair Access, Wheelchair Access To Reception, Wheelchair Access To Restaurant, Wheelchair Access To Bar, Wheelchair Access To Disabled Car Parking Spaces
- Business
- In-room Broadband
- Leisure
- Video/DVD Library, CD Player, CD Library
Can't find the facilities you're looking for?
- Call us on 0333 300 1007 and we'll help find the perfect hotel for you
- Call
Useful Info Show/hide
- Between 14:00 and 23:00
- By 11:00 hours
- Up to 14 years old
- The price shown is based on the occupancy and dates you have searched for. Prices and availability are subject to change based on the arrival date, number of nights and occupancy searched for. All prices are inclusive of all local taxes.
- Pets are allowed
Customer Reviews
Our reviews are from genuine LateRooms.com customers. We verify that the customer has stayed before leaving a review.
80% would recommend it to a friend
Customer service
Food quality
Room quality
Perfect relaxing bolt- hole
Beautiful room in courtyard, friendly welcome from staff, excellent dinner, fluffy towels and really comfortable bed....
Fantastic service and accommodation in a lovely location
Lovely location and everyone on staff was excellent, friendly, helpful and professional.
We loved that we were able to bring our dog, and we...
Read More Less


text:
Firefighters from Banbury will join others across England and Wales to take part in a 24-hour strike over pensions after the government confirmed it would implement a new scheme without further negotiations.
The strike is the longest yet in the three-year campaign, and will take place from 9am on Thursday, June 12, with another strike set for Saturday, June 21 from 10am-5pm.
Matt Wrack, general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union (FBU), said: "The fire minister Brandon Lewis has decided to bury his head in the sand, but he must accept that firefighters simply will not give up fighting for their futures — and our fire and rescue service.
"Concerns over these unworkable proposals remain as valid and grave as ever, and the government has ignored all the evidence including it's own reports.
"It is as ever a difficult decision for us to take, but the only way for us to resolve this unnecessary and costly dispute is for the government to start listening to reason."
In addition between the two strikes firefighters will not carry out any voluntary overtime — which is routinely needed by many fire and rescue services to maintain fire cover — or conduct training of strikebreakers between the beginning of the first strike and from 9am on Sunday, June 22.
On May 23, Mr Brandon Lewis opened a 'consultation' on their proposals, signalling an end to discussions with firefighters over the scheme. On Tuesday FBU officials met with Mr Lewis in the hope that discussion could continue, although their appeal fell on deaf ears.
However, the Department for Communities and Local Government is still refusing to publish alternative, fully-costed proposals that they have admitted to being in possession of Wednesday, March 19.
As a result, the FBU argues that the firefighters, the public and other parties — including ministers in the Welsh and Scottish governments — are being kept in the dark, and the consultation being rendered meaningless.
Before 2010, firefighters already contributed one of the highest proportions of their salary towards their pensions (11 per cent), and in April this increased for the third year running.
Firefighters typically now pay more than £4,000 a year from a £29,000 salary, and the government has announced they will impose another increase in 2015.
The two strikes will be the 13th and 14th over pensions.


text:
First Citibank blocks fabulis, a new social networking site that "connects gay men with amazing experiences down the block and around the world," for "objectionable content" (we're guessing the banking company thinks Fabulis is some kind of skeevy porn site?) and now Amtrak is following suit.
Recently, when using Amtrak's free wireless service on a trip from New
York City to Washington D.C., a rider received the above error message after trying to load fabulis. Gay.com and Queerty.com were also blocked
but Out.com and Towleroad.com managed to sneak through.
While we love a bit of porn as much as the next gay -- and we're sure some of fabulis's users feel the same way -- there's nothing even remotely salacious about the new social networking site. Let's help get fabulis unbanned on Amtrak (and anywhere else, for that matter) -- head here and take a moment to send Amtrak a hysterically angry note.
And then calm and reward yourself for fighting institutionalized homophobia by joining fabulis.
Previously > fabulis Coming Soon to a Computer Near You


text:
Chicago — As a retired 96-year-old surgeon who practiced for over 50 years, I am, I believe, qualified to read the handwriting on the wall.
I have seen numerous advancements in medicine that defy the imagination. And because of these outstanding achievements, we live longer.
So my gripe is this: To have medical clinics in such places as food and pharmacy giant stores that will provide medical care, diagnosis and treatment for a limited number of diseases, such as the flu, allergic reactions, common cold, bladder infections and sore throats, is absurd.


text:
SEATTLE -- Playing with the poise and patience that have become staples of their October success, the New York Yankees were charged up from the get-go.
And that meant real trouble for these Seattle Mariners.
Andy Pettitte pitched eight sharp innings, Paul O'Neill homered and the three-time defending World Series winners opened the AL championship series with a 4-2 victory Wednesday that was not nearly as close as the scoreboard showed.
''We're used to playing big games,'' O'Neill said. ''We've got jitters and nerves like everybody else. But when we take the field, we've been successful''
The Mariners scored a run off Mariano Rivera in the ninth, bringing up Edgar Martinez as the tying run. But Rivera broke Martinez's bat on a game-ending groundout.
The Yankees, meanwhile, were ready from the first pitch -- even before it.
While the Mariners were still in the dugout preparing to take the field, Chuck Knoblauch and Derek Jeter already had sprung to the on-deck circle. Swinging their bats and studying Seattle starter Aaron Sele, they even nodded at each other, confident.
Knoblauch singled on the first pitch and Jeter followed with a long fly that had the sellout crowd of 47,644 at Safeco Field groaning. The ball was caught, but it was clear -- the Yankees were on their way.
Taking advantage of plate umpire Ed Montague's tight strike zone, the Yankees worked the count all afternoon. The slumping O'Neill hit a two-run homer in the fourth inning on Sele's 66th pitch.
This article published in the Athens Banner-Herald on Thursday, October 18, 2001.
© 2017. All Rights Reserved. | Contact Us


text:
With the deadline looming for raising the debt ceiling, there's one important thing to understand about the debate over the Constitutional status of the debt limit: if Congress does not act soon, and if the Treasury Department cannot come up with any more tricks and gimmicks to avoid default or technically taking on more debt, then Barack Obama will have no choice but to violate the law — and, perhaps, the Constitution.
First, the law. On August 2 or thereabouts, the United States Government will hit the statutory debt limit, and therefore not be allowed, under the law, to borrow more money. Paying the government's debts is a legal obligation. But the president is also legally obligated to spend money on government programs: On Social Security, Medicare, regular annual appropriations, and anything else that Congress has mandated. There isn't enough money to do both unless the U.S.A. can keep borrowing — which would become illegal if the debt ceiling isn't raised. Therefore, if it isn't raised, Obama will have no choice but to violate one of those obligations.
The desire to avoid this predicament is why people have been rethinking the constitutionality of the debt limit. Here there are two competing provisions. Article I, Section 8, Clause 2 says that Congress has the power "to borrow money on the credit of the United States." The debt limit is Congress's way of doing that; it authorizes borrowing money up to a certain point, but no farther. However, as Bruce Bartlett has been pointing out for a while now, the 14th Amendment says that "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law…shall not be questioned." Put the two together, and this may mean that Congress may not, under the Constitution (since the addition of the 14th) authorize spending and revenue levels that will produce debt but then tell the president he may not borrow. For those who want (a lot) more, see here, here, and a dissenting view here .
Can Article I and the 14th Amendment be reconciled? I don't know. What I do know is that Congress will have put the president in an impossible position if there's no debt limit increase by the deadline. If he chooses to interpret the 14th as invalidating the debt limit — along with an interpretation that Congress, by obligating spending without revenues to pay for it, in effect de facto asked for more debt regardless of the statutory limit — well, it's certainly not an unreasonable position.
On top of that, I agree with Jonathan Zasloff:if the president does choose to ignore the debt limit (as opposed to ignoring the legal obligations to spend and pay debts — remember, he has to do one or the other) then it's relatively unlikely that anyone would have standing to take the case to court. At least, that's what Zasloff argues that recent Supreme Court decisions would imply. As we all know (ahem, Bush v. Gore), the Supremes have been known to adjust when the politics of the situation called for it, in their view. If that's correct, the only real recourse for Congress would be impeachment, and note that at least some conservatives already see trying that as a legitimate response. (Not that they could get conviction in the Senate.)
Regardless of your interpretation of the legal situation, Congress is about to leave Barack Obama no choice but to violate some obligation. That's the crucial context you need to understand the legal arguments that you're going to hear plenty of in the next few weeks.


text:
Study on the Political Involvement in Senior Staffing and on the Delineation of Responsibilities Between Ministers and Senior Civil Servants
Political involvement in administration is essential for the proper functioning of a democracy. Without this an incoming political administration would find itself unable to change policy direction. However public services need protection against being misused for partisan purposes, they need technical capacity which survives changes of government, and they need protection against being used to impair the capacity of future governments to govern.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
|Date of creation:
|01 Jul 2007
|Contact details of provider:
| Postal: 2 rue Andre Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16
Phone: 33-(0)-1-45 24 82 00
Fax: +33-1-18.104.22.168
Web page: http://www.oecd.org
More information through EDIRC
No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.
This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oec:govaaa:6-en. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ()
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.


text:
SILVIS, Ill. - Defending champion Zach Johnson shot a 7-under 64 and is tied with Camilo Villegas for the lead after Thursday's opening round of the John Deere Classic.
It was the 17th straight round in the 60s at TPC Deere Run for Johnson, who grew up roughly 100 miles away in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
Matt Bettencourt made the field as a late alternate and shot a 6-under 65. He's tied for second with Daniel Summerhays and Brendon de Jonge.
Boo Weekley is among a pack of players at 5-under 66.
Three-time tournament champion Steve Stricker is at 4-under 67 heading into Friday's second round.
U.S. Senior Open
OMAHA, Neb. - Kenny Perry shot a 3-under 67 on Thursday and is tied for the lead at the U.S. Senior Open, putting together a solid start in his bid for a second straight win in a senior major.
Perry, who won the Senior Players Championship two weeks ago at Fox Chapel, Pa., made five birdies against two bogeys at Omaha Country Club.
He has plenty of company atop the leaderboard.
Michael Allen and Jay Don Blake also shot a 67 in the morning, and Gary Hallberg, Mark O'Meara, Tom Lehman and Fred Funk posted the same score in the afternoon.
There had never been as many as seven co-leaders after the first round at a U.S. Senior Open. The previous record was five in 1997.
LPGA Tour
WATERLOO, Ontario - Angela Stanford and Catriona Matthew shot eight-under 63s to share the first-round lead at the Manulife Financial LPGA Classic on Thursday, two strokes ahead of top-ranked Inbee Park.
Park is trying to become the first golfer to win four straight LPGA Tour events since Lorena Ochoa in 2008.
Park was joined by American Irene Cho, Spain's Belen Mozo and South Korea's Hee Young Park and Meena Lee at 65. American Ryann O'Toole and South Koreans Jenny Shin, Amy Yang and Ji Young Oh were three shots off the lead at 66. Defending champion Brittany Lang opened with a 69.
Scottish Open
INVERNESS, Scotland - Phil Mickelson eased back into links golf with a 6-under 66 at the Scottish Open, leaving him behind two Englishman after a low-scoring first round on Thursday.
John Parry, ranked No. 471, held the clubhouse lead after a bogey-free 64 and Simon Khan (65) also tamed the Castle Stuart course to finish alone in second.
Mickelson is tied for third with six others after quickly hitting his stride in the warm-up event for next week's British Open, finding his range on and around the greens to produce six birdies and an eagle.


text:
The Click-East project was divided into two main stages. The first stage was about developing an educational iPad app for young children with autism, and the second stage tested whether it is a successful learning aid. This second stage was a rigorously-designed randomised controlled trial, registered on both the UK Clinical Research Network study portfolio and on the National Institute of Health clinical trials register.
Recently we were delighted to be awarded the runner-up prize in the Rosalind Frankline Appathon 2016 Challenge 2: "To recognise leading women in STEMM who have pioneered new apps for research, societal good and enterprise" This gave Sue the opportunity to record a short video about the app and our related work.
If yo're interested in the results of the formal app evaluation, the report has now been published and is free to download from the journal Autism. You can also watch this 3 minute video in which we summarise the findings and what they mean.
Designing the app
The first stage of the project involved a range of different people who contributed to the development of the game in different ways. At the University of Edinburgh the project received contributions from computer programmers and human-computer interaction specialists in the School of Informatics and from animators at the Edinburgh College of Art, as well as myself, a developmental psychologist. We collected a lot of feedback on the game from typically-developing children, parents of children with autism spectrum disorders, teachers and nursery nurses providing specialist provision for children with autism spectrum disorders, speech and language therapists and young adults with an autism spectrum diagnosis.
There's a description of the design process in more detail in this poster and you can also hear me talking about methodological issues associated with designing and evaluating technologies in this two minute video clip which was recorded at one of the Digital Bubbles seminars. For a more detailed description of the design phase here is a video of me presenting our work at the ITASD conference in Spain in 2012.
Evaluating the app
In Stage Two we tested whether the app we designed had a beneficial effect for children with autism. It was our hope that by learning and practising basic social and communication skills in a safe and fun way, children will start to show these skills in real life too. Using a computer game as a learning tool plays to the strengths of children with autism, who often show a strong preference for technology and a lot of ability in this area.
We recruited 54 children aged under 6 years old who all had a diagnosis of autism, and they were randomly sorted into intervention (working with the iPad™ for 2 months) and control (no special support) groups. The game was enjoyed by the children and rated highly by parents – children played for about ten minutes per day consistently across the 2 month period, and they got better at the game, regardless of their general ability level. However the assessments we did with children before and after working with the iPad™ showed that the game didn't change children's social behaviours in the real world. We measured this using parent questionnaires and also by observing children while playing with their parent.
We recommend caution about the potential usefulness of iPad™ apps, especially for teaching interactive skills. However, positive attitudes among participants, lack of negative effects and the potential of apps to provide cheap, accessible learning opportunities suggest this approach is worth pursuing further, perhaps targeting other types of learning.
Commercial Partnership: Interface 3
Interface 3 is our commercial partner. To give the app a life beyond the research project (both in terms of lifetime and quality of life) we engaged in a partnership with this award-winning Edinburgh based company. For more about this decision, have a look at this post on the Blog page. Alongside the research project detailed above, Interface 3 have published the app for worldwide consumption – it is called FindMe and available on iTunes for iPhone and iPad in both Lite and Pro versions. There is also a version available for Android devices and on this platform Interface 3 (under the brand name Tigerface Games) also made three more apps for children with autism based on our theoretically-motivated designs.
If you have already purchased the app, we'd love to hear your feedback. Please follow this link to complete a short survey. Your responses will be incredibly valuable in helping us to continue our work on this app, and in proposed future research continuing to explore modern technology-based education and therapy for people with autism spectrum disorders.


text:
Stole this bit from my post on Tropical Tea Co's Pai Mu Tan:
I'm not a huge fan of unflavored white tea, as it tends to be a little more… delicate than I think I truly appreciate at this point. It's good, it tastes good, but it's not quite the tea I want to drink, you know?
It holds true here, and since I'm comparing two teas against each other, I'm being efficient and plagiarizing myself! And then being inefficient by explaining my self-plagiarism. It's my prerogative!
(my apologies if you're perfectly in the like seven year age demographic span to now have a song stuck in your head)
This tea, much like the Tropical version, is very light, sweet, and grassy. The grassy flavor is a little more subdued on this version, leaning more towards the cucumber-y flavor. The somewhat spicy peppery notes take more center stage real estate in this tea, instead of lingering slowly along in the aftertaste.
Together, the flavors seem to be a little more smooth and cohesive. This does add to it's delicacy somewhat, but still produces an overall more enjoyable brew. I still don't think I'll be making this a permanent collection tea at the moment, but I was definitely glad to get to try it again.