AWKWARD ZOMBIE

That one file could have the been the .exe, for example, so yeah even one file is enough to ruin anything.

Whoops doublepost~

I'd like to learn to play piano, but we don't actually own any analogue besides computer keyboards.
I got thinking, and I'd like to try making my own 'piano' program. I just want to make a Python program that will play a specific frequency as long as the corresponding key on home row is pressed.

Anyone know how I'd go about doing that?

There are free python piano programs around on the internet. A quick google search turned up some good results.

As to writing a python script to do it I don't know. But I know there are libraries that do certain functions so you might be able to cobble something together there.

Can you link me to a few of those programs? Everything I can find through google is actually a shitty how-to trying to convince me I want my midi keyboard to sound like a moneky.

http://www.ioremap.net/node/451
http://code.google.com/p/keyboard-piano/
http://pypi.python.org/pypi/PlayerPiano

I haven't tried any of them. I just looked at them and they seem to do what you want.

I noticed a few people asking about building a gaming PC earlier (athough that wsas some tim ago now), so I'm just dumping this here.

After noticing the reddit logo at the top, it didn't come as a surprise that the 'guide' was filled to the brim with pointless meme faces

lelelelelelelele

some fellows from /g/ put together some guides as well a while back
they're now outdated, and as said themselves, imperfect, but still a good reference

I've never gotten why people care so much about graphics in games. Especially not when the difference between console and PC isn't even noticeable.

Because 720p, 30 fps, no AA and 60 fov are not acceptable. And if you can't tell the difference between the PC and console version of a game, it either means that the graphics were dumbed down from the start for consoles or you're blind. Most of the time console versions run on low-medium settings along with jaggies everywhere and a small resolution. Take a game like BF3, it looks like booty on consoles compared to what it can look like on PC.
Or how about Crysis?

to be fair, only nasa and future space warriors have computers capable of playing crysis on even the lowest settings

in fact both of those are just artists rendering of what it may look like, and even then the easel needed a high end graphics card taped on it just to handle it.

The only real difference I'm seeing between those two is lots of sharper plants and shadows. That doesn't seem like something worth the extra $800 or so more than a console. Especially not when I turn the sliders for both of those as far off as I can make them go when playing games.

You may not be able to accept those specs you quoted, but I would happily accept even half that quality.

Also you picked a game released in 2007, when the current examples would be more like PC Skyrim to Xbox Skyrim. And Xbox Skyrim looks more like the second than the first, despite being on the same console. Over the years developers learn how to harness a lot more of the console's power, closing the gap between it and a PC.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o921p4TIzH4

And your own example of BF3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iVeKIAE ... ure=relmfu

"
The "only" difference? Half the picture is high-detail lightning and shadows, for god's sake. The Xbox version seems empty and doesn't give you any sort of a 'woah' feeling compared to the PC one. It doesn't deliver nearly the same amount of beauty and enjoyment.
And it doesn't take a 1200$+ enthusiast tier command center to pull off these kinds of graphics. You can run Crysis on high/ultra with a good 900$ self-built computer. You're acting as if you can directly compare console and PC prices when most people already have a 500$ computer in addition to a 300$ console - just that it's a crappy prebuilt HP or Dell that can't do shit for gaming. The jump from your average household PC to a good gaming one costs only as much as a console. Believe it or not, but console gaming can easily end up more expensive than getting a proper gaming computer. Depending on how many games you buy, you can end coughing up a hundred or two more than on PC on games alone, not to mention controllers and other accessories, along with a possible monthly fee.


I... what? You'd voluntarily settle for the Xbox version's graphics even if you could get better, or what?


...yes, and Crysis is still one of the best looking games, even though it's over 4 years old. It was ported to Xbox last October, you know, when devs had had years to "harness a lot more of the console's power and close the gap between it and a PC", like you mentioned... which doesn't even make sense, because PC graphics and hardware are constantly getting better while consoles' remain restricted by hardware from 2005. The gap is only getting bigger, because if consoles were more powerful, so would PC ports' graphics be because devs would have more reason to push for better overall graphics. Graphics are artifically limited because consoles would not be able to handle the level of detail that can be achieved with modern hardware, so devs have to produce worse graphics than they could. There's little reason to push them for PC, which is only one platform and a smaller one at that, when devs can settle for worse graphics than can be produced with a smaller budget and can be handled by consoles.

I don't get why Skyrim would be a better example than Crysis. Skyrim's scenery looks great but overall its graphics are nothing special.



1) The video was filmed during the beta where true ultra setting were not achievable. It was an old build and some settings were restricted to medium, for example.
2) How is stationary video from one spot any indication of the game's true graphics? Give me moving image from several locations, give me water, dust clouds and weather effects, not a dark tunnel. You can't tell the level of detail without movement, which is one reason Crysis probably looks even better on PC than the image I linked shows.

And I'm not a graphics whore in the least. I built my PC for less than 600€ and it runs most new games on high and I get by just fine without ultra quality texture packs and 16x AA. A game doesn't need to resemble real life to look good, it's the other shortcomings consoles have that irk me. Low resolution, low fps, no AA and a limited fov are all default for console games, and I hate that.

Why is this even being argued, console's hardware is shit compared to current gen gaming PC's. Ofcourse the graphics are going to be tons better. The hardware in consoles is still the same from when they were released years ago, and at that point they had hardware that could compete with high end PC's. But hardware has advanced leaps and bounds since then, like it always does and consoles have just been left in the dust.