Hi-Res units ambition.

[Baak]

An easy way to back stuff up that works really well:

(1) Zip up your stuff. Use a naming scheme you can live with that makes sense, is simple, and keeps things organized. Stick the date in the name.
(2) Upload one copy of said zip to your ISP/host or email it to yourself@yahoo.com or gmail.com as an attachment. This gets a copy of it to a different physical location - tada!
(3) Make a CD/DVD when you accomplish something major and don't want to lose it.
(4) If it's really important, then make a second CD/DVD (they're like 25 cents or less) and mail it to someone you trust who will put it in a stack on a CD/DVD spindle so it doesn't scratch.

Amazing fact: I've been doing backups to floppy/IomegaZip/CD/DVD for 13 years for personal/work stuff and have yet to scratch/break/destroy a single one. Just handle them with reasonable care and have a small area where you store them (CD/DVD's properly on a spindle - don't just chuck 'em in a box or a drawer or the floor). It's really hard to scratch 'em when you handle them properly.

[William Wallet]

I found out I live in the same state as William, at first I liked that but there is something about him that deeply offends my soul.

Don't worry; I didn't drink from the bottle, I poured myself a small glass.

I'm not a total savage.

[Death's Avatar]

CDs are teh suck, no matter how careful you are...

Some sort of cloud storage is nice, but out of your hands, and often unfeasible due to size constraints.

The only way to go is a RAID 5 at home a RAID 5 at work, a RAID 5 at your parent's house, and a RAID 5 somewhere in Mexico. Synced nightly of course!

[vinylrake]

CDs are teh suck, no matter how careful you are...

Some sort of cloud storage is nice, but out of your hands, and often unfeasible due to size constraints.

The only way to go is a RAID 5 at home a RAID 5 at work, a RAID 5 at your parent's house, and a RAID 5 somewhere in Mexico. Synced nightly of course!

or like baak said, just email everything to your google account. as soon as google ups their account storage limit to 100 GB that's what I will do - zip my HDs once a week and email them to myself. Of course it wil probably take 2-3 days to zip that much data, so that will have the added bonus of making me spend more time away from the computer.

[Eddaweaver]

Good grief, just buy a USB hard drive

[Pyro]

CD/DVDs are too fragile, of course they won't scratch easy if you treat them like a fragile grenade that will go off if you drop it. Blu-Ray on the other hand, I can't wait until those are more commonly used and cheaper. They will be more scratch resistant and will be able to store many more gigabytes of stuff.

CD = 700MB
DVD = 4.7 GB (I forget exact number)
DVD DL = 8.5 GB (I forget exact number)
Blu-Ray (BD for short) = 25
Blu-Ray DL (BD for short) = 50

*DL = Dual Layer

[Baak]

Yeah, but if you're scratching CD/DVD's, then the Blu-Ray ones will mean foobaring tons more information all at once!

[vinylrake]

CD/DVDs are too fragile, of course they won't scratch easy if you treat them like a fragile grenade that will go off if you drop it. Blu-Ray on the other hand, I can't wait until those are more commonly used and cheaper. They will be more scratch resistant and will be able to store many more gigabytes of stuff.

I admit to not understanding all the finer points of digital storage on different mediums, but my understanding is that while some _mediums_ of the storage themselves (CD < DVD < BR-DV) might be more scratch resistant than others, that benefit is largely cancelled out by the much higher storage density of the newer format. Unless I am missing something (distinct possibility), the more densely packed data is more prone to misreads due to imperfections/scratches. so... you have a medium that is more resistant to scratches but paradoxically it's also MORE prone to be effected by smaller scratches. e.g. a .1 cm scratch on a CD reader might be readable, but a .1cm scratch on a BlueRay DVD would be a catastrophic failure. (numbers pulled out of thin air for illustrative purposes only, please don't go home and make .1 cm scratches on important backup CDs/DVDs to test my theory)

note: I don't really know what I am talking about, just extrapolating from past storage medium trends.

ps. How come none of the storage options are for dual/quad bands of data? (or do they?) ex. Back in the days when recording studios were analog and used audio tape, wider tape was more desired because the same data was stored on more of the physical recording medium - it was much less susceptible to dropoffs or 'data loss'. If DVD data writers or dual-sided burners could be configured to burn the same thing in more than one location the reader could skip to the duplicate copy of the data if it encountered an error.

[Renwood TWA]

I save ALL my data as Binary text files, and store them on my circa 1980 Speak and Spell.

BTW just how hard is it to keep you Discs in good shape? put them in a CD case and stick them on a shelf or in a drawer and just never mess with them again untill needed. i have burnt CD's that are from the 90's that still work fine.

-Renwood

[Pyro]

No one is saying it is hard to take care of discs. It is just that sometimes things happen. I know my discs would be in perfect shape if it wasn't for friends or family members messing with them. Besides, discs don't last forever. Well at least not the data on the disc. Even in the best shape, discs will eventually fail just like all other forms of storage. It lasts longer of course.

[Fortified Hooligan]

Anyone here still feel like talking about hi res units?

[A-Red]

The proportions could use some work--he looks like a dwarf. textures are fantastic, though the skin bugs me a little--the skin on the hand looks completely different from the skin on the face, and they both look like they're textured in a different style from everything else--more photorealism by comparison. Definitely a good start.

[Fortified Hooligan]

Yeah, it's the thick boots.

Once i slim em down a bit they will look less stubby. The 3/4 overhead enhances the distortion.

[vinylrake]

that was my thought - that the camera angle was a lot more acute than the normal myth ingame view of units so _any_ unit viewed from that angle would look more stocky that we are used to seeing in-game.

[Graydon]

For reference Hooligan, depending on where your camera is zoomed to in-game, I believe Ozone calculated one time that units need to be rendered at between 22 and 25 degrees off the ground plane. More often than not people use a more zoomed out camera, so a final render of around 24 degrees usually pans out perfectly.

Try that angle for future screenies. Fucking stellar work mate. From scratch? That's definitely impressive. I'd be interested to see a shot from the rear.