Boogle's Blog

Playstation Move

2012-01-23T14:36:00.001-08:00

I’ve been using the Playstation Move for some time now with various games, and I’ve got to say that I love it. In most games it adds an extra layer of immersion, drawing you further into the world. I completed inFamous 2 on hard using the Motion controller and can definitely say the controller helped immensely. I also tried two times to get into Killzone 3 (loved 2) with the pad and utterly failed. It seems third time’s the charm, because it’s brilliant with the Move controller. It’s almost like playing a console FPS with a mouse, but better because pointing is much more intuitive – especially when dealing with guns.

There are variations in the Move’s reliability and functionality when it comes to pointing. There are definitely two distinct pointing ‘revisions’, possibly three. The first revision as seen in Dead Space: Extraction results in horrific drift unless everything is set up perfectly (which is rare). inFamous 2, Killzone 3, The Shoot and Child of Eden are a later revision and this is where it gets a bit hazy. inFamous 2 and The Shoot can suffer from a little drift that corrects itself by shaking the controller. It’s subtle, but definitely there. Child of Eden is peculiar in that you need to use bigger and bigger movements as the game goes on, although I’m not sure if this is intentional. Killzone 3 however, has perfect pointing control that doesn’t really drift.

The other issue with pointing is that regardless of which game you play, you will always be aiming slightly off-centre. With the Wii you always aim up or down depending on the sensor bar position – the Move doesn’t suffer from this problem. Instead the Move’s centre is always slightly left or right and slightly up or down. This means using the controller with a gun attachment is largely an exercise in frustration since the gun makes it obvious you aren’t really aiming at all. The controller on it’s own is vague enough that it doesn’t matter so much, and even when you’re fairly far off the mark (as can happen in inFamous 2 and Child of Eden) it doesn’t seem to matter as much.

So the Move still isn’t perfect, but it definitely has potential. Suffice it to say I’ll always play future FPS games with the Move controller – it’s even better than keyboard and mouse for immersion. If you have a PS3 I highly recommend you pick it up – just be wary of the large number of Move titles that are just Move cash-ins.

Console and PC Gaming

2012-01-02T16:27:00.001-08:00

I’ve been gaming far too much over the Christmas break and wanted to share my thoughts on the various platforms. I played on the Wii, the PS3, a high-end PC and briefly with an Xbox 360.

The Wii (or more accurately the DS, then the Wii) can certainly be credited with revolutionising input methods for games; even if Sony were researching the same input methods before Nintendo. The Wii does exactly what it set out to do, entice casual gamers and be drop-dead easy to use.

However, I must say I much prefer the Playstation Move, it’s harder to set up properly but the payoff is much greater. The motion interpretation of the Wii can be very haphazard and doesn’t seem to be that fine-grained. Meanwhile the Move controller is much, much more accurate and feels the more mature for it. Unfortunately it takes a long time to get everything positioned correctly to get this accuracy. Some games have clearly been patched with new code from Sony since some games are remarkably resilient while others require you to stay in perfect position indefinitely. So in some ways you could say it’s a wash with Sony requiring lengthy setup and Nintendo having haphazard motion detection. Still, I would give a firm nod to Sony since once you’ve got it set up the tracking is borderline perfect all the time whereas Nintendo is never quite right.

And this is really the crux of the matter – now consoles have got these unique input devices they’ve acquired a unique feature the PC doesn’t. These controllers could in theory be hooked up to a PC since that’s what PCs are good at, accepting all sorts of peripherals. However a PC is set up on a desk with no room for you to swing a controller around. It’s clear developers are still getting to grips with these new input methods, but the writing is definitely on the wall.

Another great thing about consoles (for now…) is the second-hand market. It’s easy to buy and sell games without worrying about DRM. This is a major, major boon since it can save you a lot of money long-term. I’ve got games on my Steam account I don’t like, but I’m stuck with them. Meanwhile my Xbox 360 collection is tiny since most of the games end up sold once I’m done with them.

But we mustn’t forget the PC’s greatest asset – overwhelming power. All games, even straight ports look much better on the PC, always. You can go into your graphics card’s control panel and jack up the AA/AF and improve the graphics of any game, old or new. Which is another asset of the PC – immense backwards compatibility. I still play the original Half Life which came out in 1998, when the PSX was in it’s final third of life. I can take the game and run it at 1920x1200 with great gobs of AA and AF. Meanwhile if I want to play a PSX game I’m stuck with 320x240, no AA and seriously blurry images – that’s if I’ve even got a PS3 with backwards-compatibility at all. In theory you can keep your consoles around for perfect backwards-compat, but that only lasts until the console breaks. Also as mentioned, you can’t improve the graphics at all which is unfortunate to say the least.

However, we’re steaming ahead to the next generation of console, and for me this next generation could be the one that finally weans me off of my PC kool-aid. The thing I like most about the PC is the resolution, I live and breath resolution. I don’t mind Half Life 1 graphics at all since I can run them at a high resolution – it’s all about resolution and gameplay for me. If the next gen consoles stick to 1080p as a hard and fast rule then I think I may well be game as I’m sure a lot of other people will. No need to buy expensive graphics cards, no need to worry about DRM, no faffing about with driver bugs, etc. Consoles have a lot going for them, and I hope that the next generation to enforce 1080p. But I have my doubts, there are plenty of sub 720p games for the PS3/Xbox 360 and they look atrocious.

Hopefully Sony can also fix the Move issues. It’s an incredibly immersive and fun control method that just needs some extra refinement. Having seen the Kinnect and having used the Wii I firmly believe in the Move. It’s much more versatile than Kinnect which seems to be more versatile as a robot device than a gaming one, and it’s more usable than the Wii. It’s a fantastic little device that’s very underrated due to appearing to be a rip-off of the Wii. It doesn’t help that it looks like some sort of kids toy or possibly even a sex aid. Still, I have high hopes – there’s plenty of games that support it and it seems to be selling moderately well.

Playstation Move Drift Fix

2011-12-28T17:50:00.000-08:00

After some recent trouble with Dead Space: Extraction, I spent a fair amount of time trying to fix the infamous drift issue with the Move. To give you an idea of how bad it was, I've uploaded a video to YouTube.

Fortunately fixing it is relatively straightforward if you understand how the Move works. To track where you are pointing the pointer, the Move system uses the following information:

Orientation of the controller itself
Magnetic north
Position of the ball as tracked by the camera

So this means to fix you need to:

Point directly at the Playstation Eye camera when it asks you to as part of calibration. This means the whole controller must point at the eye, having the glowing ball directly in front of the camera isn't enough since the orientation of the controller matters.
There can't be any strong magnets around the controller, also just to labour a point - the controller during initial calibration must point directly at the camera. If it's incorrectly angled, this will throw off the compass just as much as a magnet.
Some games display the picture the camera sees (such as the Kung Fu Rider demo). Use one of these games to set up your camera angle. The centre of the camera should be exactly where the glowing ball is in your 'standard' gaming position.

These steps will ensure the Move tracks true, however it won't result in the most comfortable play style. For gun games the first port of call should be a pistol attachment such as this one. Next you can start to play with the camera itself. Once you've got the tracking down you can play with the position and angle of the camera to try and make for a more comfortable gaming position.

Finally I want to clear up a few myths I've seen mentioned in the forums:

WiFi / Bluetooth devices will not affect drift - if your controllers work fine other than the drift then you don't have an interference issue
Shining a torch or otherwise playing around with the camera's view of the world will not affect tracking. The system tracks the glowing ball which means the camera can track in pitch black or a bright sunny day. As long as a strong light isn't shining directly into the lens then there's no problem.

Super Mario Galaxy

2011-12-12T14:49:00.001-08:00

I’ve been a bit naughty and bought a Nintendo Wii to have some gaming fun with the highlights reel for the Wii. First on the list has been Super Mario Galaxy, and I’ve got some very really impressions.

It’s strange how few good ‘proper’ platformers are out there – the FPS genre seems to be taking over consoles now that they have dual analog sticks on the pads. Anyway II digress, for me the Ratchet and Clank series and Conker are what I consider perfect platformers. Well, Conker is a bit brutal in the difficulty department – especially since once you run out of lives you have to start again. However, both sets of games offer plenty of humour and great variety in gameplay and environments. Ratchet & Clank in particular has immense production quality.

Anyway, let’s start talking about Super Mario Galaxy. For me the graphics are about right for the game they’re trying to create – they don’t blow me away like R&C on the PS3 but they’re certainly not poor. The character design is very fun, a staple of any good platformer.

Level design is to a very high standard, albeit sometimes a little confusing due to heavy use of 3D – this isn’t your garden variety platformer! If you’ve played Prey you’ll know what it’s like walking on a mini planet with 1G gravity. R&C: Crack in Time has largely ripped off this puzzle format for the little puzzle moons you can play. Levels are nicely varied and very pleasurable to play, they have that certain something the best platformers have.

In fact the whole game is great except for one drawback. It feels very sterile, almost greyscale. The NPCs are fun, the environments fun & varied. But the character you play is utterly boring, like a plate of cheddar cheese. There’s absolutely no humour, no fun, nothing. R&C has great personality in all characters. Conker, well, Conker is Conker and let’s leave it at that. Quite often the game feels like it’s using Mario simply as a sales tool: ‘it’s Mario, you’ll love it!’. It’s like design choices are there to try and skirt around the issue that your character is bereft of any sort substance. Quite frankly when the character dies I just don’t care.

It’s a very enjoyable game, I would liken it to an ‘experience’. But I’m not immersed, I don’t get an emotional response like I do from games with real characters that draw you in. I’m always aware I’m playing a game with a controller – I’m not inside the game.

Fun Amazon Review 'Discussion'

2011-12-09T16:21:00.001-08:00

I stumbled on a book on Amazon about making a compiler for .NET, seemed like a fun little book so I had a look at the reviews. There were only 2 UK reviews, one a one-star and another a five-star from the author himself - always a good sign. It's the US reviews where things got interesting, someone commented with some very specific criticisms and the author actually responded. Go have a read here.

I don't think I'll be buying the book...

Agile Principles, Patterns and Practices in C#

2011-11-26T14:53:00.001-08:00

What an unbelievably brilliant book this is - it takes all of the little things I've been doing or experimenting with and puts them into a cohesive whole. To say it's going to revolutionise my code is an understatement.

.NET is entering a golden age of ability and to be at the forefront of this change is incredibly exciting.

Code Monkey Knowledge

2011-11-20T15:26:00.001-08:00

At work we've been interviewing a few code monkeys at various levels. To gauge their knowledge I ask a few questions about C#, the programming language we use about 95% of the time. The questions vary and the 'pass' criteria varies with the salary requirements of the interviewee. One question I ask all potential employees is what does the 'virtual' keyword signify in C#. Knowing the answer to this question isn't make or break, but it's certainly an advantage.

Now for you non-code monkeys, virtual is an important part of polymorphism - which is a fancy phrase for objects that can pretend to be other objects. For example a cat may pretend to be a mammal or an organism. The virtual keyword is important in that it means you can 'override' functionality. For example for a cat you would override 'sound' with 'pur', while for dog you would override 'sound' with 'woof'. There's important technical ramifications going on behind the scenes, but ultimately it lets you override stuff further down the inheritance tree.

As you can imagine virtual is a critical part of class inheritance, something everyone interviewed claimed to understand. Now I am biased in that I absolutely love the C# language, it's evolved to become in my opinion, the most complete & versatile programming language available. For this reason I know a great deal about the language and I consider the 'virtual' keyword to be at best, intermediate knowledge if not basic. You shouldn't be messing with class hierarchies without knowledge of it - otherwise the class hierarchy could end up brittle and difficult to maintain pushing a programmer to use really bad constructs like new.

No one, regardless of salary requirements & experience (some are high) has been able to answer this question yet.

Intel Z68 Caching Follow-Up

2011-11-08T14:03:00.000-08:00

I've been using the Z68 SSD cache for a while now so I think I can provide some comments on its performance. In short: spectacular. My PC at work has an SSD as its only means of local storage - all long-term storage is either in the cloud or a NAS. This means I can directly compare the responsiveness of an SSD-based system to a HDD-based system with an SSD cache provided by Intel.

In terms of absolute speed, native SSD is indeed faster and its always faster. However the drawback is the lack of storage space - I'm constantly performing due diligence to not only ensure I've got space left, but sufficient space so that the SSD's performance doesn't degrade badly. Win7 means I do get TRIM support, but since each SSD controller is different I don't think you can be too careful - especially after Anandtech managed to make a Crucial SSD (the kind in my work PC) run slower than a traditional HDD.

However, in general use I couldn't tell you whether the PC I was using had an SSD or a HDD with SSD cache provided by Intel. Intel's caching algorithm seems to be very intelligent and it has cached pretty much everything I use regularly to the point that the few apps I load from the HDD are barely noticeable as such. Think about it - how often do you open an app that accesses over 20MB of data in a short period of time? All of the big apps I use somewhat regularly, which means they're all cached. The rarely used apps tend to be small and therefore load just as fast off of the mechanical HDD anyway (although being small they tend to stay resident in the SSD anyway).

The caching algorithm is also clever in that it caches blocks, not files. This means if you're playing a game with massive resource files on the HDD (looking at you Steam...), then only the blocks you actually use are cached. This means you've got more cache space free for other regularly used blocks elsewhere.

But let's be a little more specific - how has the SSD made a big difference? Well big stuff like Office, games, Visual Studio etc. open almost instantly - even directly after bootup. I am consistently the first person to spawn in Battlefield 3 after a map change. Firefox opens instantly after logging in to Windows.

This is the difference you get with an SSD. While with the cache you may not get quite the speed of a native SSD - you just can't tell the difference. About 90% of the time I'm using my computer it's (subjectively) no slower than a native SSD. Bargain!

Intel Z68 – Smart Response Technology First Impressions

2011-10-23T15:49:00.001-07:00

I recently bought a Z68 motherboard with an SSD for trying out the new caching system (Smart Response Technology) that Intel have included. I strongly believe in using an SSD as a large buffer / cache for several reasons:

SSDs aren’t reliable

The problem with SSDs has been their unreliability – the controllers are unreliable with several data loss issues and numerous recalls. The underlying technology also has a finite number of read/write cycles, something traditional HDDs don’t suffer from.

SSDs cost a fortune

SSDs still have a hefty price premium over a traditional mechanical disk. We’re around £1 / GB, which is somewhere around 17x more expensive per GB than my 2TB mechanical drive. Of course the performance makes up for the price – but if you need a lot of space then it’s going to get expensive fast.

SSDs don’t come in high capacities

This is an extension of the high-cost issue mentioned above. OCZ are going to release a 1TB SSD for about $1000, but that's still rather pricey. If the drive would last the long-haul I could probably just about justify it. But if it only lasts 2yrs, then it's just not worth it. Plus with Steam 1TB won't last that long unless I start uninstalling games and/or transferring them to a mechanical drive.

Using an SSD as a boot drive only is awkward

A lot of people get an SSD as a Windows boot drive, and then install only performance-critical apps to this drive. A traditional HDD handles the rest. The problem with this approach is it’s labour-intensive and requires you to jump through quite a few hoops with Steam should you want your game to run off the SSD. I don’t even consider this philosophy an option – a computer should make life easier not harder.

So, SSDs are very fast yet flawed. If you could guarantee reliability it may well be worth investing in 1TB of SSD space to gain the astronomical performance boost. You could overclock your 8-core CPU to 10Ghz and still not get the kind of responsiveness an SSD would give on a 2Ghz dualcore. But I don’t know about you, I’m not spending $1,000 every year or so just because the drive isn’t reliable. Not to mention that SSDs can’t be recovered in the same way a mechanical drive can when it starts to break.

So, this leads me on to caching. The idea is you have a mechanical drive for storing all of your data, and an SSD as a high-speed cache for all of your frequently accessed files. The best of both worlds, the drawback of neither. Now I’m not going to talk about raw performance, you can check Anandtech for that. What I am going to do is give some very, very early first-impressions of caching as offered by Intel.

I’ve paired a Crucial m4 64GB SSD with an Hitachi 2TB 7,200rpm Deskstar 7k3000. I store a LOT of Steam games, as well as all my dev tools, files, etc. Given the manner I use my PC, having an SSD boot drive would result in more time spent transferring files than time-savings from the SSD speed.
Setting up SRT is easy enough – you set the SATA controller to RAID mode in the BIOS, install the perquisite drivers and enable acceleration. I found the UI utility would crash if the driver hadn’t quite loaded. It also seems to interfere with the graphics card, enabling / disabling SRT crashes my AMD driver with 100% consistency.

Now on to the performance. Windows boot up is appreciably faster – not native SSD fast, but faster nonetheless. The big difference is post-boot after you’ve logged in. I’m sure everyone is used to the HDD thrashing away, and Firefox showing up 10mins after login. With caching enabled I can use the system straight away – Firefox is up almost instantly. I also found Zune loads near-instantly too, where before the disk would thrash and all other operations would be interrupted constantly.

Applications on initial load all take the same time as before (but not longer, so there doesn’t seem to be an overhead when caching new data), but on subsequent loads they’re much faster. I was expecting more performance in games if I’m honest, but it’s still a nice improvement. Normal Windows apps gain the most from the caching, and it’s very noticeable.

So my biggest pet peeve with Windows is resolved – the hideous boot time (I of course include the lag after you've logged in which MS seem happy to ignore). The other pet peeve is not, however. When accessing the HDD, if anything needs to access IO it will completely halt. There seems to be a somewhat serial nature to the data fetch which means if the HDD is thrashing – even cached data will take a while. So for example if the HDD has to server 10 file requests, it’ll go through them all before file 11 (on the SSD) is retrieved. In essence, if the HDD is thrashing, the SSD cache will not help. On the plus side this is less likely to happen in the first place, but it is annoying when it happens. Tasks you often do are performed with haste, but if you throw in a single non-regular task your system grinds to a halt just like all non-SSD systems.

Ultimately I’m pleased with the SSD caching system Intel have. I would really like them to invest heavily in the software. I’m not sure if this is possible with the Windows IO subsystem (which is atrocious, seems stuck in the ‘80s) – but if the driver could pick large queues of data and serve SSD cache blocks as a priority that would be grand. I haven’t used the caching enough to know this, but I also hope the cache strategy is similar to the generational strategy used by the .NET runtime. In short, I hope it’s not just a stack where the last used data is cached, and old data is just discarded to make space. While that seems logical, it means if you installed a 20GB app, it would clear out 20GB of cached data. The new app may only be used once or twice a month, but the cleared data may be accessed every day.

Would I recommend it? Well I was considering spending £80 on an i7-2600k rather than the i5-2500. That £80 covered the SSD, and it’s provided substantially better performance than the minor boost the faster CPU would have provided. So if you’ve got the cash ‘spare’ I would say it’s well worth it. Let’s face it, HDDs have terrible performance and drag the whole system down. Anything that can alleviate that has got to be worthwhile.

Eurotrip Day 4

2011-09-14T10:59:00.000-07:00

Awesome day of almost back to back mountain passes. My favourite by far is the San Bernadino Pass, a wonderful stretch of road giving good views far ahead for traffic spotting along with being almost completely devoid of other vehicles. I enjoyed it so much that I went back up and did the east side again straight after. The brakes were already a bit whiffy after the first go, but after the second they absolutely stank. Unfortunately I had failed to remember and/or notice that there's the Spluga Pass afterwards... my brakes were squealing all the way to the hotel. Good times :)

The sat nav played up again today. I've had a quick listen of the video taken today, and a lot of it is me verbally abusing the sat nav - I think I'll remove the audio track before letting anyone watch... In my defence, it totally deserves it. Not only does it fail to route correctly, it quietly crashed / turned off while on the motorway. If I hadn't been following the signs I would have ended up in missing the San Bernadino Pass entirely - the best road of the entire trip!

I had been looking forward to the Susten pass most of all. Unfortunately it was covered in a low-flying cloud / thick fog. The scenary is a big part of the Susten Pass so this was rather disappointing. The video is probably good though.

Eurotrip Day 3

2011-09-13T10:08:00.000-07:00

Quite a few mountain passes today, took some nice snaps with the phone:

Eurotrip Day 2

2011-09-12T14:15:00.000-07:00

Surprise sunshine made this day much more special than expected - managed to have the roof down for about 60% of the journey. The temperature outside has now increased to a peak of about 26c, which was plenty warm enough for me, although the weather man is saying Aosta, Italy is going to be a toasty 28c. Also a surprise was the route taken today - a healthy dose of country roads. In particular while passing through Switzerland a mini mountain pass, great fun! Switzerland has the most stunning scenery I've ever seen, I just can't describe it. I drove next to Lake Geneva and pulled over to quickly take a few snaps, unfortunately they're a mere shadow of the real thing.

This is one of those 'you have to be there' to appreciate it. It's just absolutely stunning. right now as I type this I'm about 20 miles behind the tall mountain to the right of the image.

Driving today was a little 'scarier' than I would have liked, twice I was worried about having a very, very serious accident. The first was while passing a car @ 85mph, he decided to move into my lane. This is the first time I've hit the brakes as hard as possible at that kind of speed, and it's very scary - it was difficult to keep control while evading the other car. The second time exactly the same thing happened, except at a slower speed... and with a lorry. All caught on camera, so should make for some interesting footage.

My laptop is rapidly running out of space for storing video, and the camera won't capture at a lower quality. This is disappointing since it means I'll probably have to skip videoing the journey after the alps, that is if I want to capture the mountain passes in at least 720p (I do).

I'm not getting tired driving for extended periods of time (about 10hrs driving today), so I'm going to increase the number of hours planned for the next few legs of the journey. MPG according to the on-board computer is currently at 38.6mpg, this despite driving at high speed, revving on the mountain pass with the roof down... I'm surprised actually, it's rather good considering my usual MPG of 34.4. Also had more people staring at the car, including one woman who said 'wow, nice car!'. There is a dearth of nice cars in France though. Switzerland had a few hot hatches, many modded with alloys, paint jobs, and de-badging. Car highlights today are an Aston Martin Vantage, Ferrari F430, and a few nice looking Jags.

The sat nav almost went out the window early on. It gave poor directions, mixed with a hefty re-calculation time. Basically when you went wrong due to poor directions it would recalculate... the whole route. This would mean that if you went wrong, you would be without navigation for about 3-4 minutes. If it wanted you to take a junction just as you passed it (because it was re-calculating) it'll start recalculating all over again. I came very close to pulling over and just getting the map out. I don't think I'll get another Navigon sat nav.

Eurotrip Day 1

2011-09-11T11:42:00.000-07:00

A rather boring day today, just powering down the motorway. As expected sleep was low quality the night before so the stop-over was a good idea. The Z4 is holding up brilliantly, and the new tyres were an extremely wise move - they're particularly good in the wet which has been just as well. Most of the journey today has been in the rain, with the last 60 miles or so in torrential rain - I haven't seen rain this hard in the UK without accompanying thunder and/or lightening. Luckily it's all been caught on the video camera, including my straddling the hard shoulder and slip-road because I couldn't see the markings. Also shamefully captured is me changing lane without realising it, clearly I wasn't following the white lines. Europe really needs to adopt the cats eyes the UK has on all major roads - in poor weather the lane markings are near invisible.

French drivers are probably bonkers, the speed limit is not so much a limit as a 'guideline'. Roundabouts are attacked with particular gusto - I really didn't know super-minis were capable of such grip, especially in the wet. On the plus side their haphazard approach to driving means my random movements as I try to navigate around appear to be 'native'. Driving on the right has been easy this time, but keeping to the speed limits is much harder. As mentioned the French exceed them anyway so you get carried away - but also this time I don't have a digital speedo. It's much harder to gauge your exact speed, and it's easy to be out by 10km/h.

Unfortunately the video camera didn't capture my brief excursion to an ATM. It's a shame since French residential areas are particularly interesting - the houses aren't depressing and oppressive like in the UK. I'm not sure if I like the architecture or not, but at least it's different. It was when navigating the one-way system of the residential estate that I came across the most humorous incident so far. Two cats were just sat in the middle of the road, and watched as I drove past. Not a single fuck was given.

I really wish I had caught them on camera, it would have been great to share.

On the plus side, the French seem to really like the Z4. It's similar to the reaction I got with the Civic, but to a larger degree. I haven't seen either car in France so far, so they must appear quite different to the typical cars you see around. I have seen a 370Z though! Sounded great... also wasn't caught on the camera since it was on the way back from the ATM.

New Mini

2011-08-29T09:34:00.000-07:00

I recently had a chance to play around with a Mini Cooper while BMW did some minor work on my car. I must say, one of the perks of having a 'prestige' car is that the courtesy car can only ever be something rather nice. This article is merely my thoughts from a short duration with the car, and I'm comparing largely to my Z4 - this makes it an obvious unfair comparison.

I would like to comment on the engine first, since that's what I noticed first of all. For the first 10 miles I thought it was a diesel, it wasn't until I noticed the rev counter went to 6.5k that I realised it was just a rather unrefined petrol. According to Wikipedia it's a PUG engine, further developed by BMW. I'm going to hazard that the BMW engineers were either fresh out of school, or PUG engines are just lacking in refinement.

The clutch is heavier than the one I had in my 2.2 diesel Civic, and that engine had an excuse in the form of an overwhelming wave of torque. On the plus side, the little 1.6 engine does handle the clutch well - even when raised far too quickly it darts forward rather than stalling. This just further reinforces this engine really should be running on diesel. With the engine sufficiently warmed up, I decided to try out the full rev range. Up to about 4k rpm, the engine is typical straight-4 affair. After 4k the engine becomes increasingly harsh, it doesn't like nor reward expeditions into the upper rev range. The power band is low-down, just like diesel engines. Finally it has lag just like a turbo diesel. If you're out of the power band and press your foot down, nothing will happen for a few seconds. It's like the car is making sure you really want to accelerate, are you sure you want to do this most crazy endeavor?

However, I can't be too harsh. For an engine that is meant to give a claimed 52mpg, it's fantastic. Once past the lag, it doesn't feel that much slower than my 2.0 Z4 (admittedly this isn't exactly a 'fast' car). As a 'sport' model, I think it's right on the money for the target market. It's easy to get the most out of it, it gives the best performance where the vast majority of people put the rev counter and it actively stops you using excessive fuel by adding lag. It's not a fast car, but it does make good progress while giving (if the claims can be believed) outstanding fuel economy for the power.

The car itself is very stylised, and that could be good or bad. The square shape makes it the easiest car I've ever driven. You know where the boundaries are, you have brilliant visibility and parking it is almost too easy. The seats are moderately comfortable - they could do with better lumbar support. The windscreen is most odd in that it ends too early - the windscreen doesn't wrap around you. In essence rather than the A pillar being off to the side, it's almost in your direct vision. This is a side effect of the rather boxy shape, and you being sat too far away from the windscreen. You can get away with it in a car where the windscreen is raked back, but the windscreen is almost vertical. The rear space for passengers is totally acceptable, and it's somewhat comfortable. Visibility out of the windows is great due to the square nature of the car itself. The boot however is tiny, extremely tiny. How people can call a mini more practical than a roadster is beyond me. Sure you have 2 extra seats, but even the smallest roadsters seem to have a bigger boot.

The interior quality is very good, and I especially love the switches. It feels like I'm in the cockpit of a high quality 'analogue' car or aircraft. There's even switches in the roof (next to the light) to seal the deal. Instead of a handle on the driver's side, there's a sun-visor for when the sun shines in through the side window. A lot of attention to detail and it's really paid off.

The ride is very comfortable. Bumps just glide by, cambers are barely noticed - it's supremely comfortable. Outstanding for such a small car to have such a refined ride. The steering is direct, not overly light and offers a modicum of feel. The wheel itself is better than almost all other super-minis, but it's not a match for the M wheel on my Z4. It feels like it was designed to be sporty wheel for smaller hands. The gearbox is great, albeit the clutch way too heavy. It's not a visceral experience, but it is a nice enough action. There's no vagueness so you know you've got a gear.

The handling is good enough, but the turning circle is disappointing. Both the Z4 and the Jazz have it totally licked, which I really wasn't expecting. Also the comfortable ride means you get body roll. I'm sure the handling is very good, but it was much harder to position on the road than the Z4. Grip from the wheels was lower than the Z4, but this is expected given the much, much larger tyres on the latter.

Ultimately the car was better than any supermini I've driven with the exception of the Abarth Grande Punto. The Abarth also had a 1.6 petrol, but it had a turbo and still had much less lag than the Mini. The Abarth also had utterly fantastic seats.

The most telling feature of the Mini is that I didn't want to drive it because I felt like it. It got you to your destination with minimum fuss, and for that reason it just blended in with the background. There's no event, no hook to keep you interested. For that reason I would get the Cooper D - 72mpg, only slightly slower (but probably faster in actual driving) and save a fortune in fuel long-term. Although I would just wait for the VW BlueSport Roadster with the diesel engine. Engineered by Porsche for the thrills, but with a diesel engine to save the pennies.

Unit Testing

2011-08-09T15:23:00.000-07:00

I've been working on a new project over the past 6 days, and have gone with unit testing in a big way. I've got a few initial impressions, and they're decidedly mixed.

First of all unit testing requires a massive time investment, and if we're honest - a major architecture change. Unit testing can only test public methods and classes, with internal as an option in .NET (you can let specified assemblies access internal methods of this assembly). In .NET, due to the internal modifier, this isn't a big issue - however it does still leak implementation details within the containing assembly. It's not the end of the world, but it is an issue.

Additionally the architecture changes unit testing requires are also a mixed bag. It ensures your methods are concise and focused. However, it does mean you end up creating numerous unneeded interfaces that are merely there so you can mock the classes the interface represent. The end result is any public changes to a class means changing in two places - at the very least some additional work. This leads me on to the massive time investment - unit tests tend to take longer to write than the class they're testing. Immediately your productivity is at least halved, in terms of churning out functionality. Also unit testing as a 'de-facto way of programming' requires TDD, otherwise you're simply writing tests that may or may not be useful - at most they're simply there to make sure you don't break something in the future.

TDD means writing tests, then writing code, then re-factoring, then writing tests, then writing code, then re-factoring, and so on. It's incredibly labour intensive, and I can just taste the RSI on the horizon. However, TDD does mean you have a fully functional module right out of the bat - and it'll stay that way unless someone messes up the tests in the future.

This is what unit testing does best - it ensures your code behaves exactly how you want it to. It doesn't verify that it works under all circumstances, just that it behaves in a certain way. I like to think of unit tests as a contract on your code. The end result of this is that there's little guess work involved, and you don't have to worry about other code at all. You can focus on your little bit and that's it. Additionally the unit tests are brilliant at ensuring that code changes, or re-factoring doesn't break code elsewhere. It's a fantastic sanity check. I put this to the test by changing a core module deep in the centre of my codebase. I could find all the usages of the module, so I thought it a good test to see if the unit tests pick these usages up as well. I changed the module and then fixed all of the issues the unit tests brought up - the end result is that no code used the old module any more (which had a dummy stub). It may not seem like it, but this is a big deal - you can make radical changes to a codebase, and not break some little-known obscure functionality out in the fringes.

However, unit testing isn't perfect. It doesn't perform integration testing - so when you come to using the code 'in the wild' you will still get bugs. One big one I had was LINQ-to-SQL. I had some code that performed a function on each result from the DB. Unit testing demonstrated that the code ran fine, and returned the expected results. Unfortunately when used for real LINQ couldn't translate the code into SQL and I had to adjust things slightly. With ASP.NET MVC, you don't trigger the ModelBinder, or numerous other .NET features which means you still get a lot of the errors you would have anyway.

Of course you can also add integration testing to your solution if you have the tools. But this means you need to write a whole load of extra tests. Now you're spending at least 60-70% of your development time writing tests. Add to this that you're re-factoring all over the place and therefore re-writing tests constantly - you're not making much progress in the same timeframe.

I think software development is still immature. It seems every year, patterns are turned into anti-patterns, new techniques replace old ones, and then old ones come back and replace the new ones. I believe unit testing will end up disappearing within the next decade or so, like it did in the past. This isn't because it's bad - but because it's too time-consuming. Instead I think we'll have an automated tool that does the unit testing instead. It'll look at your methods, and using heuristics it'll create the unit tests for you - all you'll need to do is tweak them from time to time. We'll also have automated integration testing too.

How do I know this? Because programmers are lazy, and writing thousands of lines of code that you'll just throw away is too much hard work. It's already happening to a degree. The early mocking frameworks required excessive amounts of setup, and were really complicated to use. Now you can mock a class in 2-3 lines and be on your way.

Mango Development

2011-07-17T14:56:00.000-07:00

No, not growing Mango trees! Developing for Windows Phone 7 'Mango' aka. WP7.1. I'll be honest, I was starting to thing I was getting a bit rubbish at development, what with the troubles with Android and the horrendous troubles with WP7.0. Fortunately Mango seems to be really rather good - the development tools have matured massively to the point that I don't worry about them working at all. Mixed with some community tools & frameworks I'm embracing the MVVM pattern and things couldn't be going better.

Sockets in Mango are either perfect or anemic depending on your stance. For me, they're rather anemic since you only get very low-level access and only asynchronous operations are supported. This is great as an API since the maximum number of connection types are supported - I expect to see a lot of native apps for things soon after Mango's launch. The disadvantage is that for common usage - that is general TCP and UDP usage, it takes longer to implement. Oddly for Microsoft the documentation isn't outstanding, merely 'good'. It does mention requirements for certain operations, but it doesn't go into detail so you know you have to do something, just not how.

The demo apps provided by MS are some of the best I've ever seen produced by MS. They're almost ready to launch on the store out of the box, which I'm sure some people will do. The Apple and Android sample apps have a tendency to appear on their respective app stores...

I've been working on a networked game with the new Mango sockets and progress can best be described as brisk. Actual programming & thinking time is comparable to Android (although UI dev is much faster for WP7), but overall development time is much, much faster. This can be put down to the debugger which in typical MS affair is borderline faultless. The 7.0 dev tools had less reliable debugging, but they seem to have worked things out brilliantly. I can't comment on Silverlight issues since I haven't had any so far (wow!), but given comments on forums it seems Silverlight is still cryptic as ever. However, code debugging is fantastic. I even had Visual Studio crash, but the debugger happily located the problem and pointed me right at the line in my code that caused VS to be a very unhappy IDE. This is much better than Android where you have to look through the LogCat and various stack traces to find where the problem was.

I really, really hope WP7 becomes popular. As a developer this is definitely a best-case scenario for me, since the platform with Mango has by far the best development tools in the business.

I LOVEFiLM App Launched

2011-07-12T10:52:00.000-07:00

My app is finally live! It's a LOVEFiLM client for Windows Phone 7 that supports pretty much any feature you care to name. OK it won't make you tea, but it can recommend some titles for you to rent...

So in summary, it offers:

New releases
Coming soon
Lists (genre, famous actors, famous directors, format, 100 best, language, production year, etc.)
Search by keyword
Add to default rental list or a specific list
Remove from rental list
Change title priority
Rating
Find all of the films / TV shows by your favourite actor, actress, or director
Find similar titles to the one you’re currently viewing
Play trailer for the title you’re viewing
Actor/Director information

Download the free version now! Or alternatively, download the full advert-free version using the link below:

Android Not So Bulletproof...

2011-07-10T17:20:00.000-07:00

So it seems Android isn't quite as bulletproof as I had hoped. Applications for Android are broken down into 'Activities', you can think of these as maybe 'screens' or 'modules'. Each Activity is distinctly separate, and applications aren't really just containers for Activities - each Activity can be an app in it's own right. This provides some serious power to the platform, since any application can make use of public Activities, you can literally include things like the native Google maps directly into your app.

The only problem is that they don't seem to be totally reliable. I've got a consistent issue where the OS opens an activity, closes it, then opens it again. It took hours and hours to track this issue down since it's both completely unexpected, and the ramifications were just 'odd behaviour'. This is one case where the Visual Studio debugger would have made this issue blatantly obvious almost immediately. It's unfortunate that the Android debug tools are a little anaemic and incredibly unreliable.

On a related note, I'm not sure I'm going to be able to complete this project I've embarked on. While Android is great, the different screen sizes, poor debugging tools (this is a big one), and general fracturing of the ecosystem means making games is a very tricky proposition. I should clarify this - making games for Android is relatively straightforward. Making multiplayer games for Android, is decidedly not.

I think I may transition my code to WP7 Mango. The extra functionality of C# mixed with the excellent dev tools should dramatically reduce my development time. Or alternatively, I could just drop the multiplayer functionality.

Android Networking Layer

2011-07-08T17:58:00.000-07:00

I've finally made some major headway into a reliable networking layer for my games. It's taken longer than I would have liked - but I'm quite happy with the result. It's very weird where a screen change on one device, triggers a screen change on another. I guess I've always been fascinated by networking (it's black magic I tell you!), so I guess it isn't so surprising I found it cool.

Android development has an uncanny ability to make you feel really stupid. The API itself is pretty bulletproof, so any and all issues are almost always your own fault. I've have more than a few typos cause some rather strange bugs. I do wish the debugger was more reliable though - unhandled exceptions don't break on the throw statement like in other development environments - and the debugging service likes to crash quite often.

While the API itself is pretty bulletproof - networking is decidedly not. Lots and lots of things can go wrong (for obvious reasons), and I've found multicast sockets to be particularly troublesome. I'm not sure if packets are actually being lost, or taking an exceedingly long time to be sent. Java's networking implementation is very slow by default and it takes a fair bit of messing to get even TCP packets to be sent with any kind of urgency. Without a few performance flags being sent, it was taking up to a second for a packet to even be sent.

Windows Phone 7 Development Overview

2011-06-26T14:21:00.000-07:00

Having now 'finished' two WP7 apps, I wanted to write some comments about the development process. WP7 development is... frustrating. But first some good points. The SDK itself is much better and more fully-featured than the initial SDKs for both Android and iOS, in fact it's light years ahead of Android 1.x development. The simulator is 'good enough' for most development, but unlike the iOS emulator it isn't good enough that you can make almost any app using it exclusively. Visual Studio is as always very good, but the latest 2010 version has shocking help - it's entirely online and the second 7.1 came out the documentation was replaced with 7.1 documentation making 7.0 development that much trickier. Also I've had more than a few problems referencing other assemblies, with Visual Studio insisting on using different assemblies or refusing to access some until I close & re-open Visual Studio itself. It's not a deal breaker, but it's not what you expect from the premier programming IDE.

The UI for WP7 is both uncanny in its smoothness, and awful in its performance. It's the oddest duality I've ever seen in a UI. For example, most of the time scrolling is silky smooth - if you've used WP7 you'll know all about this. It makes the relatively old hardware outperform the latest Tegra 2 Android devices in UI smoothness. However, adding content to the UI causes multi-second slowdown. List boxes can vary from silky smooth, or juddering messes. Animations between screens can be silky smooth, or drop frames like they're going out of fashion. It's extremely tricky as a programmer to balance numerous factors that contribute to slowdown in the UI. I'm sure all of this will be fixed in time, and for a first release it's an incredible feat by MS.

Of more of a concern is the inconsistency of Silverlight. This I'm not sure is so fixable - since Silverlight is a technology that's been around for a (relatively) long time now. Sometimes things work, other times they don't. The false error messages appear to be a Visual Studio thing (and are a problem with HTML5 or CSS3 tags in MVC web applications too), so I'm guessing these will be fixed over time. The bigger problem is just how unreliable accessing elements can be in the visual tree. Sometimes you can find them, sometimes you can't. Sometimes DataContexts are cascaded, sometimes they aren't. Sometimes font colours are cascaded, sometimes they aren't. This inconsistency is even mentioned in 'Programming Windows Phone 7' by Charles Petzold - who works for MS. It may seem I'm having a bit of a downer on Silverlight, and you'd be right. However, when Silverlight works it's an incredible technology. The flexibility it offers you, along with the dynamic sizing of the UI means you can make incredible UIs with great speed that look beautiful and have all sorts of fun animations. I just fear it was rushed out too soon and the poor design decisions that should have been polished out are affecting the improvements MS could have made as the technology matures. However, Silverlight is core to the unique UI experience WP7 offers. I just can't see how Android or even iOS can offer dynamic UIs like WP7 can without a major revamp. It's like comparing Windows 95 (Android) to OSX (WP7). Sure Windows 95 is completely serviceable and the performance is great - but OSX offers so much more.

Finally WP7 is very forward-thinking. If you're not confident with multi-threaded programming, I would recommend getting a good grounding on the desktop first. To increase UI performance there are effectively 2 UI threads (the UI thread proper - or main thread, and the render thread) as well as multiple background threads that are spawned as you perform certain operations. Suffice it to say, WP7 apps will probably fly when we finally get dual and quad core processors into WP7 devices. The API in Mango improves the separation of the UI, so less work is performed on the UI thread. I'm hopeful that in another couple of years very little work will actually happen on the UI - making the UI incredibly responsive.

App Submitted

2011-06-26T13:54:00.000-07:00

So I've finally submitted my app to the MS Marketplace. According to the timestamps (can't be trusted) I first started the project on Monday 23rd May at 20:58, which I work out as about 5 weeks of development time. The app uses the most 3rd party libraries I've used in any project, I'm not sure if that's a testament to the brilliant community, or the lack of functionality built into the standard SDK. Total lines of code in the app is 16,951 which would also make it the largest (by lines of code) mobile app I've ever created.

The biggest problem I've had with the app, is knowing when to stop and just get it sent off to the store. There's always something you wish you could change, or a piece of functionality that needs smoothing out. I can understand indie developers taking harsh reviews particularly personally, for they put their heart and soul into each app and on a shoestring budget. The most annoying thing, especially on WP7 is when the issues are largely outside of your control. The LongListSelector as part of the WP7 Silverlight Toolkit has been a particular bug-bear of mine, with numerous bugs and issues. Right now I know I'm shipping an app where a list can randomly stop working - and even when it works it's not the smoothest control in the world. It's only a matter of time before this issue appears in a negative review. There's also issues with touch consumption and popups / context menus.

Still, all said and done I'm still pleased with the app. It's taken a lot of hours to produce, and if I'm honest is one of the most polished programs I've ever produced. Small scale apps definitely give the advantage that you have more time to polish and smooth out issues. I've had time to add extra animations that are both subtle, and gratifying. I'm also unaware of any application beyond a few thousand lines that doesn't have an issue the developer would like to spend more time fixing.

I would like to take some time to thank Ben Reeves for helping immensely with some subtleties of the UI, and especially the graphics. I didn't have the time (and dare I say, skill) to implement all of the changes but I think enough were made to vastly improve the user experience. UI is a subtle art, and programmers are rubbish at it.

WP7 Sample Errors

2011-06-05T11:05:00.000-07:00

Just in case anyone thought the idea that an MS development environment offered anything but blatantly obvious errors was laughable:

These are both errors I've had over the last couple of days. The first error was due to a problem with a Border control. The content within the border was too small, and the corner radius on the border too high. This is a fairly serious problem because if you don't test with all sizes of possible content, you can have a runtime exception lurking in your app and you not even know it. This error appeared during testing with empty dummy data for the purposes of picking up these kinds of exceptions.

The second had nothing to do with the code itself, albeit that's what's highlighted. The problem was a toolkit control wasn't in the correct place in a DataTemplate.

As I mentioned earlier, if the problem isn't blatantly obvious you have to start removing code until the error goes away, then add it piece by piece to narrow down the issue. Not something you would expect in 2011.

Mobile Development

2011-06-04T16:47:00.000-07:00

Having programmed for WP7, Android and iOS; I wanted to get some of my thoughts down. I might as well start with WP7 since that's been the platform I've been most recently programming for. WP7 is the 'oddest' of the three mobile platforms I've developed for, and that can be put entirely down to the use of Silverlight. Silverlight lets you make a pretty UI in record time, it's really rather incredible how quickly you can throw together a fully functional UI around any data you may have. The problem is, the flexibility & speed comes at a hefty price. I can best describe Silverlight as 'inconsistent'. Sometimes things will work, other times they won't and there's not always a clear reason for the inconsistencies. The databinding in particular can be hit & miss, for example the DataContext is meant to cascade down to child elements... except for when it doesn't. Sometimes you can reference the root databound element, sometimes you can't. Usually the UI is totally flexible, but sometimes it'll crash with a runtime error that will never point you in the right direction. The error reporting of Silverlight is diabolical, if an error occurs with Silverlight it will not tell you where the problem is - or even what the problem even is. The fix is to remove & add XAML markup until you can narrow down the error to a small area, then start tweaking values until the error goes away. It's time-consuming and quite frankly unacceptable for something that's 4 versions in now. Silverlight is wilfully wasteful with resources - the XAML files being compiled at runtime on a per-file basis. The memory footprint of Silverlight is also astronomical, it's a struggle to keep memory usage down with rich UIs. There's a major duality thing going on with MS at the moment - you have really fast and useful features like LINQ that are extremely concise and easy to use. Then you have other features (large parts of Silverlight in fact) that require excessive amounts of code & CPU time to perform the most trivial endeavours.

WP7 is also very much future-thinking in terms of the development tools. Everything is heavily multithreaded, and of course .NET offers useful multithreading language tools and libraries. The memory usage, which is extortionate now, should make for faster apps in the future when memory isn't quite so limited. The UIs you generate can be very rich and dynamic, all features that will really distance the OS from the others once hardware performance is sufficient. Given the tech demos of Kal-El, I don't doubt that the performance gripes we have now will be largely, if not completely gone in 2-4 years time. I really hope Silverlight's (5th time's the charm?) problems disappear in a similar timeframe.

Now let's talk a little about Android. Android is by far the fastest platform, the UI is lightning fast. Cynics may say that's due to the stark nature of the UI, but I disagree. The existing controls could be skinned and the performance would remain exactly the same - which is faster than lightning. I'm utterly amazed how Google have managed to make Java, an historically slow as sin language, run faster than even Obj-C in many cases (although definitely not as fast as C). For example you can freely use Java's collections class without worrying about performance, whereas with Obj-C you have to think carefully before using the Obj-C collections classes willy nilly. The UI XML files are all compiled to save space and dramatically increase performance.

To put this performance into perspective, in one app I've written for all 3 platforms, I have a loading screen when a quiz is loaded in from XML and dynamically displayed. Both WP7 and iOS take roughly the same time to load which is about 5-15 seconds depending on content. The UI is fairly meaty due to multiple web browsers being deployed. To speed things up, the content is automatically scanned for HTML and a basic text box is used if no HTML has been used. Now, the Android version of the app running on an older 600Mhz ARM11 CPU (WP7 is a 1Ghz Snapdragon remember)... without any optimisations (so all content is in web browsers)... needs no loading screen. The content loads within a second.

The only drawback with Android is that the framework is still fairly small, and the UI controls are missing some basic functionality. On the plus side the framework offers all of the core features you need to make your own implementations of any missing functionality. This is an interesting difference to iOS and WP7 where the frameworks are larger, but certain critical hooks are missing stopping you from doing absolutely anything you want. I'm hesitant to say Android is my favourite platform to develop for, but it is the least frustrating. It's totally reliable, and totally consistent - and that's important.

Finally let's talk about iOS. I don't have as much to say about this one because it just doesn't have any standout features or drawbacks. I was initially quite worried about the fact that Apple basically put a desktop-class UI on the phone (with major use of doubles and the like). However, WP7 shows that Apple were positively restrained. Obj-C was a wonderful language when it came out, offering some seriously dynamic features on top of C - but that was then and this is now. Obj-C is clunky compared to Java/.NET, and its performance when using the libraries (such as NSMutableArray) is very poor. Of course underneath Obj-C you still have C which, quite frankly, has no peer in terms of performance. But Java/.NET let you get comparable performance in a fraction of development time. Of course if you have the time and skill, you can do some incredible things - and the triple-A titles on the platform prove this.

iOS's UI is looking very dated now, and implementing it can be very restrictive. Many UI elements won't work together nicely, even though they should. It can take a lot of time and effort to work around major limitations within the UI framework. The documentation is also relatively poor, requiring heavy use of Google when treading on unfamiliar ground. I'm unfamiliar with multithreading in Obj-C, but I highly doubt it's as easy to use as with .NET/JAVA. All of this said, programming for iOS is still a pleasant experience, and the world is a much better place due to the original iPhone's release.

If I'm honest, I don't have a personal favourite mobile platform from a programming perspective. From a user perspective I prefer WP7 because it looks very pretty, and everything is rather slick. WP7 is the most frustrating platform simply because it has so many good points on its side - it's possible to put applications together with incredible speed. Sadly it's been tarnished in the typically MS way, which means you end up creating apps quickly, then spend a much longer time testing & debugging. In many ways, it would have been better if a version of Silverlight were used (akin to WPF) than Silverlight actual. Similar to how iOS has a framework like Cocoa on OSX, but it's mobile-focussed. Although I suppose MS were desperate to get something out, and porting Silverlight (warts 'n all) was the quickest way. If Google manage to make Android as pretty as Metro though, MS are screwed.

AMD Radeon

2011-05-27T12:11:00.000-07:00

It had to happen sooner or later, a driver bug has finally arrived that truly irritates me. Credit where credit is due, usually with ATI/AMD drivers it takes mere days, whereas the 5870 has lasted 1yr and 4months (almost to the day). That's actually pretty incredible given how dreadful the drivers used to be.

So what driver bug has irritated me? Graphical corruption in Visual Studio 2010 when editing XAML files. Fortunately you can fix it by disabling hardware acceleration, but I don't have one of the most powerful graphics cards around to have the CPU do all of the rendering. I am disappoint.

5800 series is explicitly mentioned here (along with pretty much every single Intel GPU).

MVVM Pattern

2011-05-22T14:37:00.000-07:00

Update: I think if constructs similar to ASP.NET MVC could be offered, then the pattern would be perfect.

I've been trying out the MVVM pattern over the weekend, and I've got some thoughts on it. First of all the pattern in theory is great - a simplified MVC pattern is always welcome. The problem is, I think down to the immaturity of the platform and a somewhat conflicted view of how it should work in practice. Bear in mind that MVVM is a Microsoft-only pattern at this stage for WPF and Silverlight.

First of all, let me go through the MVVM Light Toolkit. This is one of the most publicised MVVM libraries/toolkits, and something I wanted to investigate fully. I shall be upfront, I don't think this toolkit is viable for a real project. First the advantages:

Complete separation - you can unit test everything, even down to commands from the UI (in exactly the same manner as the UI would call them)
Some great utility methods to aid multithreading
Fantastic snippets for the most tedious aspects of the architecture chosen
Can populate the design view (ie. Blend) with dummy content (use my port of NLipsum!)

Now let me go through the drawbacks:

Heavy use of INotifyPropertyChanged. This is very necessary because you databind on the properties of the ViewModel. However, I've never been a fan of this interface. Basically it requires a lot of extra code on each property, additional variables and is very unforgiving if you miss something out. The toolkit provides a useful snippet, however it still requires customisation. For auto-generated code the interface is fine, but if we're going to be using it a lot in production use (like the toolkit requires) then it should be a language construct - ie. a property that automatically notifies on change without requiring extra code.

The ViewModel itself. The toolkit follows the MVVM idea that the ViewModels are completely separate. This allows for complete unit testing - unfortunately it also means that you have absolutely no access to any instances (such as the NavigationService, NavigationContext, the views themselves). To get over this you need to add code to the code-behind of the XAML to pick up messages sent from the ViewModel. This is a clear weak point and very open to bugs. I can imagine that for all the bugs you pick up from unit testing, just as many will be found in real testing as a result of the messaging. This use of code also means the code-behind and the ViewModel need to be programmed in tandem - somewhat removing the MVVM ideal that you can switch views around without worrying about code.

Performance. There's a lot of databinding going on (for good reason) which isn't the fastest thing to do in the world, but it's a necessary evil. The problem is due to the nature of the ViewModel itself, you tend to have copies of data slightly reformatted or other such trinkets. Without direct access to the view optimisations on data usage can take a great deal of code and communication between the view and ViewModel (through messaging). Ultimately the toolkit can dramatically increase memory usage and CPU usage.

A lot of extra work. Ultimately implementing all of this extra glue code, the additional abstraction and making sure everything is hooked up makes for a lot of work. It took me at least 2-3x longer to program for the toolkit's MVVM implementation than if I programmed with my usual n-tier approach. Whether this is an issue depends on how much you value the easier UI development (although this is somewhat arguable) and the better unit testing.

This does bring me on to my ultimate point. The toolkit's sole purpose seems to be to make unit testing possible for the UI interaction. This is a worthy goal, but I think the problem is with unit testing itself. There's all these hacks and kludges going on simply so you can unit test. The problem isn't the methods we use for UI dev - it's with the unit testing itself. There needs to be a proper construct for testing the UI, and quite frankly hacking code around to support the existing unit testing solution isn't correct. For me on Windows Phone apps, I can't see the toolkit being used with anything I program myself. It's useful as a reference point on MVVM, but I don't think the solution it provides to the MVVM pattern is the correct one.

However, all is not lost. The MVVM pattern itself doesn't not specify what the ViewModel is. As far as I'm concerned the code-behind for the view is the ViewModel. You lose a level of abstraction, and radical changes to the UI are more difficult. However development itself is fast, and the vast majority of the bugs are in the model or deeper - the UI tends to be fairly bug free (the bugs are usually blatantly obvious the second you open the app). You can still use databinding for most of your content, but the code-behind can perform some of the logic for data if necessary for performance or functionality. This isn't that different from doing the same in the ViewModel of the toolkit, and specifying a load of messages - except it's a lot faster to program.

I know my idea isn't strictly what MS have in mind for MVVM. But until there's proper standardisation of MVVM along with the necessary constructs to support it - it's as close as I think is viable for mobile apps. There simply isn't the development time or hardware resources to warrant such a heavy pattern. Of course the problem is the pattern doesn't scale well with extremely large applications either. It's too big for small applications, too limited for big ones - I think it could do with a little more work.

Windows Phone 7 Take Two

2011-05-18T14:31:00.000-07:00

So I've been using an LG Optimus 7 for a little while now, and it's definitely growing on me. But first, some retractions / updates on my previous statements:

Most built-in functionality can't access resources in the application, so you have to copy to isolated storage (doubles storage space usage for numerous apps) - Seems only the web browser suffers this limitation
No access to motion sensor - Incorrect, you can access the accelerometer and it seems to be high quality
You don't need credit card info to download free apps / trial apps (not sure what happened there on the HTC phone?)
You can view downloading apps if you go to the marketplace homescreen - there's a downloads link that appears if something is downloading. User error mixed with what could be a better UI.
Also the phone didn't ask me for account details, while it did on the HTC

There definitely seems to be a gap in user experience between the LG and HTC phones I've used despite them using an identical OS. The differences between them are I'm using different accounts, and the LG is running the latest updates (although the HTC was updated pretty quickly).

Either way I was very wrong about many WP7 features, which is good because it means the OS is better than I expected & reported. But also bad because I was very, very wrong.

The LG itself is built extremely well, only the Sony Ericsson k800i I had came close to the build quality, but still doesn't match the LG. It's metal all round, with rubber covering around the edges and gorilla glass on the front. The rear batter cover I particularly like - it's metal, and you press a button to release it. I really dislike the natty plastic phones where you have to leverage off the rear plastic with your nail. The screen is extremely good, especially for a mobile. It's not TN, but other than that I'm not sure exactly what it is. I'm tempted to say it's probably IPS, but the viewing angles aren't quite good enough. Like both LG phones I have, a screen protector was pre-applied. I think the LG Optimus 7 at £214.99 represents the best value smartphone on any platform at the moment, with the exception of the Orange San Francisco (£99 - Android 2.2 Froyo, requires custom rom). Update: The phone is back up to £400 making it nowhere near a bargain - you can get the LG Optimus 2X for a little under £400 and that's a dualcore.

Anyway, let's talk a little about WP7. The UI of WP7 (Metro) forces apps to follow some pretty strict guidelines. The advantage is the vast majority of apps look great, simple, but great. This is a massive improvement over Android, and in my opinion and improvement over iOS. The iPhone is great, but it has some clunky elements - and through the benefit of hindsight MS have covered them up. Unfortunately the Silverlight implementation is missing a lot of controls, so we're still at a stage where apps have simplistic layouts and over-use of some elements in the toolkit MS released. Whether this is good or not is up to the user, I'm on the fence with this one. Notifications are handled better in WP7 than iOS, but nowhere near the functionality of Android which has the best notification system by a country mile. MS are improving the LiveTile functionality in Mango, but that still means you need to have the app pinned to the home screen for it to provide notifications. Still, much better than iOS which to be frank is atrocious, pop up messages are not a notification system - they're a blatant hack.

The quality of the games on WP7 is outstanding. I still haven't found a game I really like on Android - not a polished game anyway. iOS as the lead platform has some great games, sadly I don't have a device capable of playing that at a reasonable pace. This leaves WP7 which has some crackers already, most provided by Microsoft themselves. I was dubious about the whole 'Xbox on mobile' thing, but I think they've got it. It's certainly better than Sony's poor Playstation service they've launched on Android. Of course the quality of the best games in WP7 makes clear to the user that there's a large number of atrocious games out there. There's very little in the middle, it tends to be either a great game or mediocre - at least in terms of production values.

Leave my car alone!

2011-05-15T12:01:00.000-07:00

This is a message to birds and other road users. First the birds. Stop taking a dump on my car, especially the ones with diarrhoea. It's not fun removing pieces of bodywork to remove your faecal matter from all of the various crevices you've managed to desecrate with your poop. Also leave the roof alone, it's a soft top - it's much harder to clean and much more vulnerable.

Now for other road users, stop scraping my car! I've got blue on the side, red on the front and silver on the back. My car is grey! I get that it's small and low, but that's no excuse for scraping the bumpers or opening your door into mine.

I've never had so much happen to my car in such a short period! These roadsters are a magnet for 'incidents'.

Windows Phone 7

2011-05-09T14:23:00.000-07:00

I want to like WP7, I really do. Sadly Microsoft seem to have gone down a certain path and refused to deviate from it. First of all for a developer the initial SDK is missing large pieces of functionality along with numerous odd restrictions. Let me give you a brief summary to give you an idea:

No access to the camera (so no augmented reality or fun camera apps)
No access to the network (no multiplayer gaming, no peer to peer fun, etc.)
Most built-in functionality can't access resources in the application, so you have to copy to isolated storage (doubles storage space usage for numerous apps)
No access to motion sensor
No built-in database (so applications that need to store lots of data, such as twitter, email, etc. have to roll out their own)

So from a developer's point of view, WP7 is extremely limited. As a user, it's similarly... basic. The problem is really difficult to pin down since it's a user experience thing and I just don't have the skills or language to really describe it. The best way I can put it is 'difficult'. With Android you're always aware of what's going on due to the notification system, but with WP7 it's not as easy. I was downloading numerous apps at the same time and there was a handy page that listed them all, along with the order of download. I then left that page to work on something else and couldn't find it again. Previously apps I was downloading had a 'show status' button, unfortunately this button was no longer present.

Also to even get to downloading apps you have to jump through a LOT of hoops. With Android or the iPhone you can just enter your username & password if you already have an account. Given the size of Windows Live, chances are most people will already have an account for use with their Windows phone too. Unfortunately before you can download any apps you have to login, then fill in a few lengthy forms, then enter your credit card details and THEN you can download apps. I don't know why you have to enter credit card info to download free apps, but you do. Also free apps are still considered 'purchases' which I find to be somewhat over-engineered. Android it just puts the app on your phone and you're done, it merely keeps track of apps you've paid for. This is better since you usually go through a large number of free apps, so don't want 'my apps' full of apps you no longer care about.

The browser is also irritating. It's not very feature-rich, and resizes text to make it stand out on the small screen. This is a good idea, but in practice it's far from perfect. It makes pages look ugly, and doesn't always pick up the correct text to resize. All good websites use larger text for headings anyway, so I can't say this functionality offers anything that I've wanted on other platforms.

To be honest it could just be that WP7 is strange and I'm not used to it. You would probably be right. But here's the thing, I didn't particularly like Apple and without having even seen the iPhone in real life I didn't like it. Then I used someone else's and was immediately hooked - it's extremely intuitive and offers masses of functionality. Android I find extremely ugly on phones, but it is easy to use and very functional. I particularly like how open Android is, putting the user firmly in control of their own device.

So if Android and iOS are pick up and play, why is WP7 seemingly so difficult? Maybe it's best to reserve judgement until Mango comes out, which will improve the user experience (and dev experience) extensively. Android when it first came out wasn't brilliant either, but the first major update brought about a revolution in terms of usability.

The Difference a Screen Makes

2011-05-09T13:59:00.000-07:00

Top: LG Optimus One P500, 3.2" 320x480 (245.51 ppi)
Bottom: HTC Trophy 7, 3.8" 480x800 (180.28 ppi)

It's remarkable how much difference there is in the quality of the text. The Optimus in this case is extremely rough, you wouldn't want to look at it for very long. The Trophy on the other hand offers relatively clean text - although it's still far too small to be comfortable longer-term.

As an aside, the Optimus is running ezPDF, while the Trophy is running the official Adobe Reader for WP7. ezPDF on this baseline spec Android phone is very responsive (the PDF is 13MB, 1013 pages) and completely usable apart from the obvious screen deficiencies. Meanwhile the official reader on WP7 is very laggy, slow and lacks almost all essential features for navigating around PDF documents. I couldn't recommend the reader on WP7 whatsoever. I'm utterly gob-smacked ezPDF is only 60p (59p for iPhone, £1.19 for iPad).

WP7 Sockets

2011-05-08T06:59:00.000-07:00

So I wanted to quickly port across my game to WP7 for a bit of fun. Sadly MS don't provide sockets until the 'Mango' update in September. I really wish MS had provided at least a baseline of functionality to developers before releasing WP7, it's very tricky to program for with all of it's odd limitations and restrictions.

On the plus side, it does appear that all phones get all updates. This is a massive selling point - all the other platforms tend to force users to stick with a single major revision of each platform. If Mango really does get released for all existing WP7 phones, that's a serious boon for developers and users alike.

AV Referendum

2011-05-07T15:11:00.000-07:00

So AV lost, most people voted no causing a landslide victory. Interestingly Cambridge and Oxford were 2 of only 10 districts that had a yes majority.

Also Labour is gaining seats like crazy. UK, you really do get what you deserve. I guess FPTP works afterall!

Android Network / Multiplayer Library

2011-05-01T10:58:00.000-07:00

So I've finally completed the library...ish. It's completed and it works, but it hasn't been tested in anger yet with the game. It also hasn't been fully tested yet, there's every chance I'm leaking resources and memory - especially given the complex nature of the library and networking.

The goal has been simple: Provide very easy to use methods to join devices together, and then send messages between them. The user should by notified through callbacks should any packets be received - this allows the user to avoid messy multithreading to avoid blocking calls. In the end it's as simple as this:

Automatic hookup of nearby devices:

_p2p = new P2PTester(this);

            _p2p.setAppIdentifier("P2PTest");
            _p2p.setIdentifier(UUID.randomUUID().toString());

            _p2p.startAcceptingIncomingConnections();
            _p2p.startBroadcasting("Hello");
            _p2p.startReceivingBroadcasts();

@Override
    protected void onBroadcastReceived(P2PReceivedPacket packet)
    {
        if (!this.createConnection(packet.getSourceInetAddress()))
            Log.v("P2PTester", "Could not create connection to " + packet.getSourceAddress());
        else
            Log.v("P2PTester", "Connection established to " + packet.getSourceAddress());
    }

Sending a message:

_p2p.sendMessage(_p2p.createMessage(_editText.getText().toString()), address);

Receiving a message:

protected void packetReceived(P2PReceivedPacket packet)
    {
        _textView.setText(packet.getMessage().getMessage());
    }

When I'm happy with the library I'll probably release it under an open source license (currently looking at GPL and Apache). The Android community is a good one, and I'm hoping to contribute to it as much as I've gained from it.

Multiplayer Programming

2011-04-30T16:06:00.001-07:00

So I’ve spent many, many hours researching & programming the multiplayer code for my game. Or rather, trying to. The biggest problem is there is no good multiplayer library for Android, or Java for that matter. There are two major libraries from what I can tell, one based on JXTA (PeerDroid) and the other on SIP (Sip2Peer). PeerDroid is massive, somewhat complicated and very much overkill. It also requires a central server for all clients to connect to before it’ll work – hardly ideal. Also the example application refused to work, with numerous other people suffering the same issues.

Sip2Peer seems more promising, it’s much lighter in terms of weight and it’s architecture in terms of implementation is rather solid. Unfortunately I couldn’t get this one to work either, and it too seems to need some sort of arbiter to link clients up with one another.

For my game I need anyone to be able to connect with anyone else as long as they’re nearby. In the future I’ll scale it to use the Internet, which will mean central servers – but for now I just want people to find games near them and simply join up. Of course without a library readily available I’ve had to make my own. If I’m honest, I wasn’t expecting it to be quite so difficult. The low-level API offered by Java is suitably low level, and it necessitates a lot of multithreaded programming to ensure fast operation for the user. This is in itself a big problem – I’ve barely worked on multithreading in the past because it’s extremely painful. When you’ve got shared resources, race conditions, thread blocking and all sorts of synchronising going on… things end up very tricky to debug. Also Android won’t let you update the UI from any thread but main because the UI isn’t thread-safe. This means you need to write extra code to synch everything up so that the user of the library isn’t even aware there’s synching going on at all – the user shouldn’t have to query variables, they should just be able to hook up a few methods and everything is done for them.

The end result is a lot of code to do not very much. For my efforts today I’ve got an app that will show other nearby clients. That’s about it. On the plus side it works very well, but that’s all it does. So far I haven’t had any multithreading mishaps despite three threads all talking to each other at random times. There’s a lot I could do to clean up the code, but quite frankly unless there’s a performance problem I’m not going to spend the time and effort until the whole library is complete and functional.

What has surprised me though, is how unreliable networking is. Using UDP the packet loss (in terms of non-delivered packets) can be as high as 80%. I’m hoping I’m missing something obvious, because this could potentially be a serious issue – especially since all devices are hooked into the same switch and on the same subnet.

Multiplayer

2011-04-29T15:21:00.001-07:00

As part of the game I’m making, multiplayer is a fairly critical component. I could just leave the user with the AI, but that would take away a key selling point. The ‘Lite’ version can contain the AI and a few other missing features – but ultimately multiplayer is the big feature that you want to pay good money for. The problem with multiplayer is simple: latency. Well, that and the fact that it’s a complicated thing to program for with Android, especially when mixed with routers (aka. NAS).

Anyway, back to latency. Latency is the time it takes a message from one computer to reach another. Generally speaking this will vary from 30ms to a couple of seconds. Realistically you’re going to have a maximum latency you’re willing to support, for me my target is 500ms. But for the moment, let’s assume we have a latency of 200ms. This means if I press a key on my computer to move the character, the other user won’t know my character is moving for 200ms. If my character moves at a rate of 200 pixels a second, my character will have moved 40 pixels before the other computer is even aware my character has started moving!

This is a serious issue, because if the two characters aren’t totally in sync, then any time they get close the users will know something is up if the other character is picking up items that they’re clearly not reaching first. But wait, it gets worse! If you need to confirm any actions, the latency is doubled since it has to reach the other computer, and back again! This means our 200ms increases to 400ms – almost half a second!

For my game, I’m going to use a few techniques. The first was pioneered by the developers of Age of Empires II – users don’t notice latency of up to 100ms (as in the time from them clicked to the character doing something). Furthermore as long as the latency is consistent you can get away with up to 250ms of command latency. In the aforementioned example, the 200ms delay can be masked entirely by simply delaying commands. What you do is send the command to the other computer, but don’t act on it until 200ms has elapsed. The other computer will hopefully receive the command and start the action at the precise moment your computer starts the action. Finally the second part of this masking is to make-up for any delay in getting the actions. So for example if the action was meant to start 500ms ago, you can perform the action as if it occurred at that time, moving the character by the perquisite amount to be in the correct place at the current time.

The other technique I’m going to use is a simply brute force one. At a regular interval, all computers will send the important gamestate to each other. This ensures everything is synced and any errors that may have occurred don’t start increasing in size. For example there may be a rounding error which causes the movement to be out by 1 pixel every 500ms. That would be a disaster after a few minutes (the character could be out by 120 pixels after 2 minutes!). Of course there’s still the latency issue with this one – the gamestate is invalid the second it’s been sent out, and especially invalid by the time it’s received. I’ll probably use the updates as a sanity check, rather than something to start shifting objects around.

So next time you play a complex game online, spare a thought for the developers. They’ve spent a massive amount of effort in making the game appear real-time even though your Internet connection definitely isn’t. Especially thing about Eve Online where over 40,000 simultaneous users worldwide all play on the same server in Iceland – in a real-time game.

Actually while I’m at it, I can tell you a major feature all MMOs use to mask latency. Cast times. When you cast a spell and it takes a while to charge up – that’s masking the time it takes for the command to reach the server, executed and sent to all nearby characters. You’ll also notice animations and other features also mask latency. The enemy character needs to respond to your commands, yet doesn’t know about them even if you may have entered them on your computer. The character will actually have a few different options lined up, but the animations for all of them will start the same (so if the desired option is changed after receiving the user’s command, you won’t notice) and take a certain amount of time – all to mask the latency without you realising. Those MMO developers are seriously smart.

Game Progress

2011-04-28T15:43:00.000-07:00

Well my game has come on leaps and bounds since I finally sorted all of the tricky maths. It was worth the effort though, getting the movement just right has had a profound impact on the playability of the game - it works really well if I do say so myself.

Making this game has really brought into focus my atrocious geometry knowledge. I've got a book I'm going through to learn the basics all over again - amazing how much you forget over the years. I feel like I want to do entire sections of GCSE maths again, along with some A level lessons. Fortunately 2D does make the maths easier, everything on the same plane is always helpful (and quite frankly I would be lost if we starting talking about planes).

I must say though, it really shows how out of touch school lessons are. If I was shown how mathematical concepts could be applied, I would have been much more willing to spend the effort learning them. For example all secondary school students learn about quadratic equations. To a student that's just an annoying complicated equation you have to balance. But in application, it lets objects follow complex curves, or renders the very text you're reading right now. I'm not saying these examples would bring everyone in, but it would certainly bring in more than 'this is an equation'.

I've also finally bought a tablet. I was going to go for an Asus Transformer, but really can't justify that kind of cost. So I've got an Advent Vega with custom rom (Corvus5). Surprisingly I found Froyo just as easy, if not easier to use than Honeycomb. Honeycomb adds a lot more functionality to make life easier for the average user, but that gets in the way of advanced users. The browser even renamed a .pdf to .htm, it took a surprising amount of time to rename the file back in the file manager.

Anyway, back to the game. I'm hoping to test it a little more, gameplay-wise then maybe get some graphics added to make it acceptable to the general populace. Might even have a demo video before long!

Eclipse Guide & Android Tutorial

2011-04-25T15:57:00.000-07:00

As I alluded to earlier, I have written a guide and a tutorial. I've decided to put the guides on a separate blog for more serious musings, given that this one seems to have devolved into random rants and pictures of cars. The new blog is here, with a direct link to the Android Cocos2D Tutorial here and the Eclipse Customisation Guide here.

Android Development

2011-04-24T14:18:00.000-07:00

I've been playing around with Android development some more, and I've got to say it's pretty fun. The biggest headache is getting everything working, along with getting Eclipse to work just how you want it to. Programmers are notoriously fickle and like to have their environments set up just how they like it (and everyone else's preferences are wrong).

As you can see, I've elected to make Eclipse look like Visual Studio 2010 - the one true IDE. I've also updated the code hinting in Eclipse to appear instantly, just like in VS. There's no reason I should have to memorise every single method in every single API I use when the computer can happily remember for me - and reduce the keystrokes necessary while it's at it. I'll write a blog post at some point on customising Eclipse, it's very worthwhile.

Anyway back to Android. It's a very clever system Google have set up, they clearly thought ahead with many aspects of the system. It's not perfect, and supporting multiple devices is still time-consuming - but it could have been so much worse. The documentation could be better, however. It has improved immensely as time has gone on, but I learn best through sample code and there simply isn't any with the vast majority of the methods on offer. I can understand why - it's extremely expensive to provide sample code along with a brief description of what the method does. But I've been spoilt by the MSDN and now I want my examples!

Java performance is much better than I expected, much better. Unfortunately Google decided to go down the route of emulation rather than simulation. It means you get a very close approximation of any device you wish to mimic, but you pay for it in performance terms. The emulator is so slow as to be almost useless, only if you really want to test on another device you don't have is it worthwhile. Apple's simulator on the other hand while imperfect, is super-fast so you can get development done quickly without constantly switching to the device for testing. I'm not sure about WP7, it runs in a virtual machine so it could be MS have got native testing of the OS, but no emulation of the device itself (possibly a perfect half-way house between the two approaches from Google & Apple).

The Java language is very close to C#, which is unsurprising since C# is very much inspired by Java. Of course being the 'original' language means Java has a few rough spots that C# smoothed out through the advantage of hindsight. The only thing I really miss from C# other than Lambda expressions & LINQ (which I really miss) is the formatting methods. Java is a kind of half-way house between C-style formatting and C# formatting - gaining disadvantages from both and I'm not sure it's really gained any advantages from either. The lack of a .toString() method on all objects, plus the fact not all types derive from Object is also a minor irritation. Still, I prefer it to Obj-C if I'm brutally honest, and it appears to be much faster than Obj-C. This is more down to the work of Google than Java though, which is an inherently slow language. I'm quite simply shocked that Google have managed to get so much performance out of Java on small ARM-based devices. I don't think they even use the ARM extensions for Java to accelerate the bytecode.

Finally I would like to finish with Cocos2D. I've always ended up making my own engines / using APIs directly because most off the shelf engines either cost a fortune or are rubbish. Cocos2D is a total breath of fresh air, not only does it do things exactly how I would do them - but it does many of them better than I ever could. The developer's commercial experience shines through and the engine he's produced could easily have been sold for very large sums of money. The Android port of the iPhone port is extremely good, a simply massive amount of work has gone into it and I'm absolutely thrilled the effort was spent. The games I make with it will definitely have credits along with donations to the developers, they deserve a massive pat on the back. I'll be writing some Android tutorials (ports of the iPhone ones) for Cocos2D in due course.

Killzone 3 Review

2011-04-04T12:35:00.000-07:00

Killzone 3 plays like this:

Get into cover
Start shooting
Grenade thrown at you, you can:
- Run out and try to get into different cover
- Die
Or you can:
- Stay in cover
- Die

No matter what you do, you're gonna die. Great graphics, good story, good characters, nice cover system, good feel to the weapons. Shame the grenades spoil all the fun.

Gliptone Liquid Leather

2011-03-20T08:21:00.001-07:00

This is just awesome stuff, can’t recommend it enough. I tried Autoglym Leather Conditioner and it worked in so much that it made the leather softer – it didn’t really do anything beyond that. This Liquid Leather really is leather in a bottle – the scuff marks are almost entirely gone and the leather itself looks brand new. Really wish I took before and after photos now, but regardless this is some great stuff. I thought I wasn’t going to like the smell, fortunately my fears were unfounded. It has a stronger smell than other conditioners but it’s far from unpleasant. The AG conditioner smells better, but just don’t condition the leather well enough to warrant using it over Liquid Leather for the smell it offers over and above Liquid Leather.

iPhone Splash Screen Works On Simulator - Not Device

2011-03-09T02:07:00.000-08:00

This problem is due to the case sensitivity of the iPhone device. The splash screen must be named 'Default.png', capital D included. Once you've renamed the file you need to remove the app from your device. You also need to go into the project folder and delete everything within the 'Build' folder.

New Ride

2011-03-07T12:04:00.000-08:00

My new ride:

Runflats

2011-02-21T14:23:00.001-08:00

So I had a close call with a flat, only for it to be a false reading (phew!). But it did make me realise the value of the runflats. It’s a fantastic idea, albeit one for us lazy people. My car doesn’t have a spare wheel, and in fact nor to many other new cars nowadays. This means you have three options with a flat:

Fill the tyre up with the gunk you can get from various outlets and limp to the nearest tyre place. Inevitably they will dislike you since the gunk is very messy.
Call for assistance. You’ll have to do this if the tyre is shredded regardless.
Keep on driving to the nearest tyre place.

The runflats give you option 3. Basically when the warning light came on, it was a case of ‘oh noes’, but at least I could carry on driving for 30-150 miles depending on the load in the car. This is pretty incredible, no emergency stop on the side of the road, no messing around with wheels in the pouring rain – just drive to the nearest tyre place.

Unfortunately this convenience costs an inordinate amount of money. Runflats are at least £80-£100 more expensive than the normal equivalent, and they’re impossible to repair. If you’re relatively wealthy they’re a no-brainer, but for us mere mortals I think normal tyres and a can of gunk will do nicely.

So I got a BMW Z4 2.0 Sport...

2011-02-14T13:52:00.000-08:00

It's taken a while to post this, since I really wasn't sure what I was going to say. The Z4 and I didn't get off to the best of starts, with the headunit refusing to play my mp3 disc, and the engine seemingly very underpowered. I really was thinking I may have made a mistake. The Civic with it's brutal diesel engine wowed me very quickly, and of course it has that tasty cockpit with digital speedo. I must say I do still think I prefer diesel engines, there's something so seductive about the torque wave the turbo diesels pump out.

I'll talk about the engine first, since it's my least favourite part of the car. Coming from a diesel it really does seem to lack torque, and even power - despite having a much better power to weight ratio than the Civic. There's enough torque to make the car easy to drive, but not enough to make it 'fast'. At least that's what my initial impressions were. The problem of course, was me. The engine is like VTEC, just without the crazy rev limit and wondrous crossover. Basically sub 4k rpm, it's a general workhorse. It gets you from A to B with minimum fuss. Above 4k rpm and it turns into a rocket ship. The sound is totally unlike a 4 cylinder, outside of genuine Honda VTEC engines I really dislike the sound of 4 cylinder petrols. I especially dislike the sound of 4 cylinder petrols with aftermarket exhausts. Now don't get me wrong, it doesn't really sound like a 6 cylinder, but it does sound almost uncannily like a 5 cylinder. There is a slight tinge of aftermarket exhaust to it, with some booming when you are around 2k rpm to 3.5k rpm and accelerating. 4k+ rpm and the engine starts to howl, it sounds very BMW. It also rewards blips with a wonderful throaty bark, it's immensely rewarding when shifting properly. Ultimately getting the best out of this engine is down to driver skill, and unfortunately I'm no where near that point yet. A single downshift with the Civic was enough to see off almost anything, with the Z4 it's going to be a good two more to get it into the power zone. Really you need to treat it like Honda VTEC.

Now on to the more positive aspects. The handling is immense, I'll run out of bravery long before it runs out of grip. I've only had one very slightly understeery experience and that was in very heavy rain. The ride quality is slightly above acceptable, in a good way. It's certainly harder than most cars, but in a perverse way it makes the whole thing more exciting - none of this boring wafting. That said, on the motorway it's the model cruiser, quiet, refined and still engaging. To say I'm pleased with the way it handles would be an understatement. The steering too is wonderfully communicative in a way that I just haven't been expecting, it's a really entertaining car to drive. More than once I've thought I was going crazy fast in license losing territory to find I'm well within the speed limit. This is absolutely fantastic.

What I'm not so pleased with, is the runflat tyres. The car tramlines so much that it's only a matter of time before the tyres find the ditch they're so fond of. It's downright frightening going down a country road with other cars coming towards you, never quite sure if the tyres are going to throw you towards the verge or the 4x4 rapidly approaching. They change their mind constantly to, so it's never a case of dialing in correction and leaving it at that. The forums say switching to other runflats (far too expensive) or normal tyres resolves the issue in its entirety. Suffice it to say, as soon as I have enough cash this is exactly what I'm going to do.

Interior comfort is scandalously good, a roadster has no right having an interior this comfortable. You've got a full automatic climate control system, mixed with heated leather seats and the most flexible air direction system I've ever seen. Basically rather than saying that the air should go to face/windscreen/feet, you can set a middle ground between them. Other cars seem to have this feature to a certain degree, but this one really works. Good job too, because with the top down it makes all the difference. You can put just the right amount of air in just the right amount of places to make the interior toasty warm, even when it's almost freezing outside. Surprisingly a wind deflector isn't critical like other roadsters, you can realistically drive at 70mph with the roof down and the windows up - however you will need raised voices. A wind deflector is on my list of things to add, so I'll comment on how much quieter the cabin is with it fitted. I suspect it'll be much like the MX-5 with the mesh optional extra - very, very civilised. With the top up, you only get a little road noise - the interior is no noisier than my Civic which is absolute incredible. Rain also makes a nice sound when stationary (no rain hits the roof when moving).

The seats are ludicrously comfortable. I tried normal Z4 seats, didn't like them. The M sport seats on the other hand are immense - albeit unsuitable for fat people. Everything is adjustable, it's crazy how much you can change on a single seat. Sadly it doesn't have lumbar adjustment, and I really would like a little more lumbar support. The seats have excellent side bolsters, an critical feature given the fantastic handling on offer. The heating is hot enough to melt bone.

The stereo system in my Z4 is the bog standard basic model, and it sounds it really. It's much better than a supermini, but it's hardly going to set your audiophile world on fire. You won't be disappointed, but you won't be pleasantly surprised either. On the plus side it is possible to hear the radio clearly with the roof down due to the strategic locations of the speakers.

My Z4 comes fitted with a few luxuries that are more commonly fitted to family cars, and increasingly superminis... but not roadsters. The first is rear parking sensors, which I thought a waste given you can basically see where the boot ends. In fact rear visibility is incredible, better than a supermini! Anyway... rear sensors... I've found them wonderfully useful. It's a bit lazy I know, but all you really need to do is look over your shoulder and let the beeping tell you when you're close enough. You could park easily without them, but I quite like the added reassurance. I've also got an auto-dimming rear mirror. I thought this would switch between two states automatically like a normal mirror - actually it's like a dimmer switch. As the lights behind get brighter, the mirror gets dimmer; it's pretty much perfect. This is far more useful than in a normal car because most people's headlights shine directly into the mirror on account of the lower height of a roadster.

I've also got auto lights - very good, and much more sensitive than the Civic which is a good thing. Auto wipers too, but these aren't as good as the Civic's - the sensor just isn't sensitive enough. The Civic would clear rain away with tenacity, while the Z4 is much more lackadaisical, despite being cranked up to max. Still, I'm a massive fan of auto wipers and lights. I think the car should do all the mundane stuff for me (climate, lights, wipers, rear view mirror), so I can focus on the fun stuff (steering, gears, engine, brakes).

The styling of the Z4 is exceptional, it's one of the most beautiful cars on the road by far. I do love the Alfa Brera / Spider, and yet I think the Z4 is better looking. The only better looking cars are Lamborghinis, Paganis, and Ferraris. Everyone who doesn't know the price of a Z4 seem to think it's far more expensive than it really is. I'm constantly getting comments on how it looks, you can see their eyes open and the first word is often 'wow'.

Despite the shaky start, I'm really starting to get attached to the Z4. We've come along way in a short time and we're forgiving each other's faults. My first commute went really well, the Z4 is easier to drive in normal traffic than the Civic was, which I found very surprising. It makes me feel very special, all the other cars are boring hatchbacks and saloons, while I'm wandering about in a tasty roadster. My view is exactly the same as it has been since I first set eyes on a Z4 - if I win the lottery I want a Z4 M as my fast sports car, not the stereotypical supercars (although if I win enough, I'll have a Lamborghini Gallardo Spyder as well :p).

New Photo

2011-02-13T01:56:00.000-08:00

That is all.

BMW Z4 (E85) Test Driven

2011-02-10T14:57:00.001-08:00

So I’ve finally test driven a BMW Z4, a car I have looked at with interest for many, many months. The Z4 is unlike many other BMWs in that the interior finish & quality is below that of any other BMW – it’s pretty much on par with the MX-5… maybe slightly worse. Other than that, it’s a very tasty piece of kit with outstanding design and equally outstandingly-expensive wheels – 255/35R18 & 225/40R18!!!

Anyway, I might as well get to the nitty gritty of the car itself and how it drives. As a passenger the ride can best be described as ‘hard’, on average to below average roads the ride is ‘acceptable’. On poor roads, it’s obviously unacceptable. The cabin with the top up is also claustrophobic, and the front view is utterly dominated by the long bonnet. View out the side windows is ok, but not exactly expansive as you would get with a supermini. On the plus side the heated seats are very good, and the seat itself is very adjustable – just make sure you’re not fat. Seriously, fat people will not fit in M Sport seats – don’t even try. Interior noise is more than acceptable, the noise doesn’t seem to change much no matter how fast you go. You get a sort of echo sound in the rear behind the seats, presumably due to the lack of sound proofing there. Motorway cruising is totally acceptable, similar to a supermini and vastly superior to superminis of the 90s. For a soft top, this is incredible. There is almost no wind noise!

The Z4 is totally geared towards the driver, the car is utterly different just be sitting on the right-hand side rather than the left. The ride seems somewhat smoother, and the engine noise that little bit sweeter. The handling is very, very good – easily on part with a sport MX-5. Despite testing the 4 cylinder engine, it was utterly smooth with a slightly raw note. This engine means business, it’s not trying to be anything other than itself – real personality on offer here. I realise the whole system has probably been tuned from induction to exhaust, but I just don’t care! The noise the engine makes is sporty, yet quiet, the perfect level that keeps you involved but doesn’t drive you nuts. It’s got 2 sides to it as well, with a certain amount of ‘booming’ like you get with after-market exhausts; but the second you engage 6th the engine becomes totally silent. This is a sports car that can eat motorway miles for breakfast, incredible! The torque is simply amazing as well, this is a 2 litre naturally aspirated engine that has enough torque to keep things civilized around town. If I didn’t know better, I would have said it had a small supercharger.

Gear changing is a real dream, I was starting to give up on a nice gearshift outside of Honda. It’s got maybe a slightly long travel for a sports car, but it somehow gels the riflebolt action of Hondas with the knife-through-butter feel of a Ford/VAG. It’s utterly charming to use, and the clutch is fantastic. In the Civic I’ve never quite mastered properly smooth changes – diesel engines are difficult to rev match at the best of times and the clutch was very ‘bitey’. The MX-5 clutch suffered from the lack of torque from the engine, so while once going it was ok; starting off could be tricky. The Z4 clutch however makes things so very entertaining – it’ll get the job done when you just want to go from A to B – but also provide just the right feel to make heel & toeing almost orgasmic. I was almost thinking I should start seriously looking into automatics if I found the ‘amazing’ MX-5 gearbox ‘ok’. I’m so very glad the Z4 gear change has shown me that the truth is out there, and BMW are peddling it.

I should still mention the ride again. I was expecting suspension made out of granite, but it wasn’t anywhere near that bad. If you think the MX-5 sport is ‘harsh’, then this is positively ‘back breaking’. However, for me I found it added to the excitement. It is overly-harsh for the handling it offers, but it’s certainly acceptable. If your only complaint is that the ride is too hard – just get an SE and fit standard tyres, it’ll ride smoothly I promise you. Steering is very light, yet seems to provide a good amount of feel through the steering wheel. I should confess that I’ve never felt much through the steering of any car I’ve driven (MX-5 included), so I can’t really comment. All I can say is the Z4’s steering is a country mile ahead of everyone else, to my mind. The wheel itself is also wonderfully sculpted, extremely comfortable to hold. Driving position is ludicrously flexible, you really won’t find it a problem unless you’re very oddly proportioned. This is the first car where I moved the steering wheel away from me, rather than as close as it’ll go. Driver involvement is very high, with the car responding to your inputs with enthusiasm.

Still, it’s not all positive. The interior is dreadful in my opinion, it’s too dark and depressing with style added almost for style’s sake. I find the MX-5 interior more welcoming, despite being more ‘basic’ and offering much less artistic flair. Also interestingly with the MX-5 1.8SE and 2.0 Sport Tech, I was inexplicably disappointed when the test drive ended. The Z4 I was rather indifferent, and I’m not sure why, although I can certainly have a guess. The MX-5s were tested on sunny days, the Z4 in the pouring rain; convertibles only really make total sense with the sun is out and the top down.

So if I had to choose, which would I go for? That’s easy, the Z4. It’s less reliable, more expensive to buy & run, and people immediately think you’re a cock. However, the MX-5 just doesn’t ‘do it for me’, which has taken me a great deal of time to accept. In every measurable way, the MX-5 is the ideal car for me. But the Z4 has that spark that I’ve found only in my Civic, Abarth Grande Punto, and MX-5 1.8SE (not the 2.0). I guess it’s true, the best cars are also the worst (Civic being the exception that proves the rule).

Chris Harris Dislikes The MX-5

2011-02-07T15:17:00.000-08:00

So Chris Harris has been rather brave, MX-5 owners seem to be fiercely loyal to their cars. More than once has a previous owner of MX-5s I've looked at, owned 2+ MX-5s previously. I think Chris has been rather extreme in his viewpoint - however it is honest. He banks enough that he can spend on cars what a lot of people spend on houses, so obviously he's used to cars with over 200bhp. He's quite right about the engine, the MX-5 is under-engined, no matter what the enthusiasts say. When a 'warm hatch' has the same bhp as a sports car, then something isn't quite right. The 1.8 base model has the same performance as an econo box! Brilliant handling can only be exploited if you have the power to back it up, otherwise you might as well say a Proton has 'brilliant handling' because it quite simply lacks sufficient power to ever challenge the level of grip on offer.

That said, I still don't agree with Chris on the handling. I'm sure a RS Clio 200 will out-handle it, however that's a car with a strong trackday focus. It has big tyres, Brembo brakes, fat anti roll bars and so on. The MX-5 handles brilliantly on all road surfaces, it isn't too hard to take down any road. The Civic Type-R is arguably the best hot hatch for the track (ok, the latest Renaultsports excepted), but the engine needs to be on boil, and the suspension is too hard for many UK roads. For normal driving, a basic Ford Focus is easier to live with than a Civic Type R. This is where the MX-5 comes in, it's a road car that is as easy to live with as a Focus, yet provides a strong sense of the excitement a more track-focussed car offers.

It's all about compromise. If you want supreme handling, you have to pay for it one way or another. A Clio 200 gives you supreme handling, but the cost is a hard ride. The MX-5 doesn't offer the same level of handling, but gives a smooth ride almost all of the time.

Me, I don't mind a somewhat hard ride really. Many reviewers have stated that the MX-5 Sport is a little too 'hard' - which implies Mazda know their target market well. Personally, I would like the ride slightly harder still. For me the MX-5 offers something almost as important as the performance/handling: A 'sportscar' that's cheap to buy and cheap to run - about the same as a family hatchback, and utterly reliable. I don't know of any sports cars that can match that.

MX-5 Mk2 Rough/Bouncy Ride Solved!

2011-01-25T10:02:00.001-08:00

It was the '65mph shimmy'.

Seems they're ultra reliable, until you hover around 65mph. Mk3 doesn't suffer from the problem.

BMW

2011-01-24T13:49:00.001-08:00

Warning: Serious car bore post.

I have a confession to make… I much prefer the Z4 to the MX-5. In fact after the Z4 there aren’t any cars I would rather have until you start looking at Lamborghini Gallardos, and even then I’m not sure I would actually prefer the Lambo to the BMW. I love the styling of the Z4 (new one, not so much), and I especially love the engine. The sound it gives makes me feel all fuzzy inside, and causes a grin that just won’t quit. I haven’t driven a Z4.

The problem with the Z4 is simple: the badge. The whole BMW aura is that of business, and not just business but middle management. I can’t stand middle management, and I can’t stand everything they stand for. It’s this air of undeserved superiority, with undertones of inadequacy. All BMWs are ‘subtly’ aggressive, yet prim and proper – just like middle management. The dealerships are all spacey and airy, with lots of people in expensive suits. They talk in a middle management way, with their middle management customers who only understand things in Powerpoint form.

It extends to the road too. BMW drivers push and prod their way through, believing they’re superior yet secretly know they’re not. Nobody let’s them in when there’s a traffic jam, nobody gives way to BMWs. More people have mentioned their car being vandalised on the BMW forums than any of the other forums I frequent – combined. Running costs for a BMW are higher simply because they’re BMW – they’re not even more reliable than other cars.

Compare this to the Mazda MX-5, quite possibly the least offensive car on the road today. People wave, people give way; no body seems to dislike the little car. The only place it’s out of its depth is the motorway where the repmobiles dislike it going into the third lane, they seem to think the little car has got lost. The car itself is utterly honest, it doesn’t pretend to be anything it isn’t. It doesn’t have aggressive styling, it doesn’t have a big shouty engine. It gets on with the job at hand – entertaining driving, nothing more, nothing less.

I think the feeling I get when sitting in the cars is the most telling. In the Z4 I feel like the bonnet is a penis extension, and immediately feel superior to everyone else – and that I must drive in a way that proves it by exercising the engine. The MX-5 makes me feel special, but in a non-threatening way. I don’t find traffic frustrating anymore when I’m behind it, I just pootle along at the speed limit with a big grin. And sometimes, that is more important than playing around with a car that is ‘cool’.

MX-5 Mk2.5 (1.8i Arctic) Test Drive

2011-01-22T05:39:00.001-08:00

I decided to take a test drive of a Mk 2.5 just on the off-chance it was good enough to run as a second car. Due to the nice cheap insurance, reasonable fuel economy and fairly bullet-proof reliability it makes a pretty good second car… from a financial point of view. I found a very nice example at a nearby Mazda dealer, and went about having a look around and a little play.

First of all the car looks better in real life than photos, but the rear is still awful. It was awful in the Mk 1, and it’s awful 2 decades later on the Mk 2.5. Anyway, the interior is nice, with soft-touch plastics that Mazda inexplicably dropped in the Mk 3. The interior reminded me a lot of the Mk 4 Golf, oddly. The driver has more room in the footwell than in the Mk 3, with the pedals wonderfully positioned; you can’t help but heel & toe with the positioning of the accelerator and brake. The seats are initially comfortable, but desperately need more lumbar support – this will ache after an hr or so. The heated seats also weren’t up to much sadly. Ultimately the interior is pleasant and welcoming enough, it’s much more pleasant than you would expect.

Sadly the drive is the opposite of what you would expect. Now full disclosure, I wouldn’t be surprised if someone told me the suspension was broken. A quick dual carriageway blast involved the car bouncing around, enough to make me feel unsafe. The gearbox was alright, but for some inexplicable reason I found it ‘distant’. I didn’t feel at one with it, and my repeated missing of gear 4 when accelerating was the biggest symptom. I didn’t miss any gears in the 6-speed in the Mk 3. The clutch was much, much too light, I have no idea where the biting point is whatsoever. The engine also seemed to lack the charisma it has in the Mk 3, it’s a bit rougher and doesn’t pull away as easily. It revs well though, better than the new 2.0 does. Road & wind noise was as expected, noisier than you would like but acceptable as far as it goes. Sadly the suspension was atrocious. Maybe the previous owner fitted harder suspension, or the shocks were leaking. It was much too hard, and didn’t inspire confidence whatsoever. The Mk 3.5 suspension just glides over bumps, but firms up nicely for the corners – this car felt even worse than the Mk 3. The Mk 3 just felt uninvolved, the Mk 2.5 felt downright dangerous.

I just don’t have the words for how disappointing I found this car. Apart from the awful rear, the car when sat statically seemed great. Second I got it moving though, it all fell apart quite badly.

Travels

2011-01-08T15:57:00.000-08:00

On my travels I like to take piccies, here's some from my most recent outings:

Nice parking at the services. Decided against 'straightening up'.

Same services, I'm guessing a little 'rubbing' on the motorway

I got a little lost in Leicester and stumbled across a rather sorry looking area. I turned around in a car park and noticed there was a lot of rubbish all over the car park - I was actually worried about running over drugs needles. It soon became clear why there was so much rubbish when opposite the junction I saw this.

Clean vs. Filthy

MX-5 2.0 Sport Tech

2011-01-08T15:40:00.001-08:00

Had a little spin in an MX-5 2.0 with soft top. First of all let me tell you the car is set up for one purpose: total optimisation of the driving process. Every control is close at and for the driver, even the gearstick is barely a hand away from the steering wheel. The seats are also awfully comfortable, better than most Recaro seats I’ve sat in.

The chassis is outstanding. What I didn’t know was the tyres were brand spanking new, otherwise I would have driven slightly more gingerly (new tyres don’t grip as well, they need running in). I went round a roundabout at a speed that would have had my Civic understeering wide – the MX-5 went round no problem. I snap changed direction to see if in the wet the car would under/oversteer. Instead it just changed direction. The car doesn’t roll whatsoever, and the steering is ultra-precise. You can place the car exactly where you want it, rather than vaguely in the right direction which you get with the Civic. I must also commend the tyre profile – no mush as the sidewalls take up the slack of any direction changes. The suspension was also supreme, soaking up bumps, yet hard enough that handling is utterly superb.

I also had a play with the top down with an ambient temperature of 3c. I had 3 layers on and was still cold when just walking around outside. Yet with the top down and the heated seats on I was happy as Larry – no buffeting (the car had an optional mesh windbreaker – 60mph was pleasant), and warm as you like. In fact, there was little difference between top up and top down.

Which was actually a problem. There’s a lot of wind noise at motorway speeds, yet oddly very little tyre roar. It’s not a relaxed cruiser even at the base 70mph motorway speed. Oddly however, at 60 the car is completely capable of cruising smoothly and quietly. At neither speed was the engine intrusive – it’s purely wind noise which I found very surprising. It is almost like the top is down even when it’s up.

The engine however, is awful. the 1.8 is this sweet rev-happy little thing that really thinks it’s an S2000 engine. The 2.0 on the other hand has a dull engine note, an overt lack of power, but a pleasing amount of torque at low revs. It makes progress, but it never feels ‘sporty’ or ‘fast’. It ruins the whole car really, because the chassis is a true gem. Without the right engine however, the package ends up feeling almost ‘average’. I was disappointed when the test drive ended, but nonetheless I wouldn’t want to spend hard-earned money on a car that is only a little better than my current car on normal roads, but much worse on big ones.

On twisty country roads the MX-5 is utterly unmatched, certainly in this price bracket. The close-ratio gearbox always offering the right gear for the situation. Sadly on the A roads and motorways the little 2.0 engine gets out of breath, and the cabin becomes too noisy for the car to compete with the ever popular hatchbacks. This isn’t a criticism, the car is clearly designed for the B roads and mission accomplished. As an only-car however, you have to look at the bigger picture.

All that said, if you put the Civic Type-R engine in, this car would be outstanding. The wind noise really wouldn’t matter because you would be having an utter blast. I think the MX-5 could be a better S2000 than the S2000 was.

Just had a little thought. The supercharger kit offered by BBR/Cosworth could make this car exceptional. A little supercharger whine to make the engine seem like it’s alive mixed with a good chunk of extra bhp to make the car actually fast is just what the doctor ordered.

Science vs. Belief Systems

2011-01-07T15:13:00.001-08:00

I have no problem with belief systems, they are a requirement of any modern society at the current stage of human evolution. There is a large percentage of the population that requires a belief system to function day to day. Largely belief systems don’t have that much harm, when they keep to themselves.

However, I do take issue when belief systems intrude on science going about its work. Science is the cornerstone of human development, it makes life last longer, makes it simpler, and provides our future. To put it in an extreme vein – either science gets us to the stars, or we all die when the sun turns into a red giant.

The cornerstone of science is evidence and repeatable results. To get published in a journal of any repute, the evidence must be reproduced by multiple 3rd parties. A good example of this is ‘water with memory’. Water memory is a requirement for homeopathy to function full stop. Homoeopathists will happily tell you about the first initial experiments, and how they were successful. What they fail to mention is that the experiment has never been repeated, and it was down to ‘cherry picking’ by the scientists involved (consciously or otherwise). This I find is the two-faced nature of belief systems. They’ll disregard science as being ‘against’ their beliefs, but the second something comes even remotely close to confirming their beliefs they’ll shout from the roof tops how science has validated their view point. Let me be clear, science itself does not pick sides or hold vendettas – the scientific method is designed specifically to avoid bias. Our knowledge changes over time, and it is only through observing and testing that we can make progress. Holding on to ideas with no evidence does little more than cause wars and hold back progress. This does not mean scientists as individuals are unbiased, just that the method weeds the bias out before the theory goes into the ‘mainstream’.

I shall now pick on Christianity for no reason than I’m most familiar with it.

Many Christians make a big deal about the tiny slivers of evidence that exist to support the stories in the bible. One such piece of evidence is that Roman records show that a man names ‘Jesus’ existed at about the right time. This is not evidence, this is entirely circumstantial. We don’t know how many people were called Jesus back then, there could be many. Additionally he may just have been a person who provided inspiration for the writers. There are no records outside of the bible (or other ‘religious’ scriptures) that mention a man (of any name) causing miracles.

Writing was in its infancy as the bible was written. It was seen as borderline ‘magic’. Remember it’s only since the Industrial Revolution that humanity has started to leave its seriously superstitious mindset behind – and it still lingers on to this day. Anything written down tended to be religious / superstitious because writing itself was almost magic. This is where ‘spells’ come from, the idea that written words have special power.

This may seem like a crazy idea to us, given that for well over a thousand years we’ve been used to reading and writing. But think about it, when first invented writing provided the ability for information to be stored long-term without data loss (aka forgetting bits / twisting others). It’s an even bigger mind-blow than storing 10,000 CDs on a little memory card the size of a fingernail. Many people even now think computers are the dark arts. So hopefully you can imagine just how radical and magic writing was when it was first invented.

So this is why the bible gained it’s special status. Outside of the weight people place on it through tradition, and its age, the bible is utterly unremarkable. It’s a compilation of stories, none of which can be substantiated with evidence. It’s little different to a compilation of short stories in any book shop. Yet people go to war over it, they have big debates, they hold back human progress, they burn people alive. For you see, religion and belief systems aren’t ‘harmless’ – as soon as an irrational belief is given real power it becomes a serious problem. A belief system in theory is just a harmless idea, but when that idea is ‘non believers are sinners’ and there is no neutral power to stop these beliefs enlarging then problems occur.

Religions provide something the human mind craves – simplicity. They provide a nice black & white view of the world, yet are vague enough (I still find this incredible) that you can construe them to support anything you want. They work on two levels, on the surface they really are utterly black & white. Believers go to the after-life, non-believers are damned. But under this surface is a really vague set of instructions, which means the people in control of the religion can use it as backup for absolutely anything they want. None of it has any evidence. Eventually once whittled down, any Christian when asked why they believe something will respond ‘because it says so in the bible’. This is a terrifying thought. Rather than have ideas shaped by reality and repeatable evidence – they choose to believe a book that has no corroborating evidence whatsoever. What’s worse is that stories within the bible contradict irrefutable evidence widely available. Most museums have dinosaur bones on display. There is no mention of dinosaurs in the bible because it was written ~3,500 years ago but dinosaurs were only formally discovered in the 1800s. The bible says the age of the Earth is 6,000 years (+3,500 for bible age?), to a human that’s a seriously long time. However, the real age of the earth is 4.54 billion years – a time unfathomable to early humans. If the bible is the ‘word of god’, surely the age would be accurate? It’s not like you can exactly misinterpret 4.5 billion as 6,000.

Top Gear USA Special 2010

2011-01-02T07:47:00.000-08:00

I just noticed something after watching the special again. The guy in the tyre shop wearing shorts... he has a Honda badge tattooed to his left arm, just below the shoulder. I'm guessing he likes VTEC 'yo.

Cardinal Sin

2010-12-28T05:34:00.000-08:00

My car has just committed the cardinal sin - left me stranded. Fortunately it's left me stranded at home, which isn't the end of the world I guess. However, I think it's about time I accepted that I bought a lemon.

Clutch failed prematurely (fixed by warranty, common issue)
Full geo is impossible - rear wheel camber is completely out and not fixable without a specialist replacing the fixed parts with adjustable ones (design issue)
Alarm doesn't make a sound (common issue)
Battery died after one and a half weeks of non-use (common issue)

Hondas are meant to be legendarily reliable, and to be fair it's not like anything serious has gone wrong (apart from the clutch @ 35k miles!!!). But people with supposedly less reliable cars have had fewer issues. I'm not angry, I'm disappointed.

Update: So jumping it didn't work, so I've had to badger the RAC. I feel awful calling out the RAC for something as trivial as a flat battery.

Unreal Sickness

2010-12-14T12:52:00.001-08:00

OK this is officially the most sick I’ve ever been in my life – which I guess makes me rather fortunate. The worst, subjectively, was the norrovirus which had me chain vomiting for almost 24hrs. However, this ‘flu’ has kept me under its yoke for 4 days now – I’m never properly sick for 4 days. I only get brief periods where I can stand to look at a computer screen. Sadly I didn’t realise this initially so I was still trying to dabble with the PC for the first few days – getting in a little Star Trek Online or Warhammer 40k. This is probably why on those days I ended up flying back into bed with an unbelievable headache. Turns out the best option is watching American TV on the projector is the best. Most likely because it keeps my attention just enough that my mind doesn’t wander, but is simple enough I just don’t have to engage my brain.

Solving my brain melting has been a big help. If only I could find a way of properly hydrating. I’m drinking more water than I ever have, and I’m still almost constantly feeling dehydrated. The boss mentioned his wife was sick and she found Tropicana helped – unbelievably it has been a revelation. Unfortunately I have to take it very sparingly because mixed with the Paracetamol and my stomach’s natural crapness, means the lining has been exceedingly sore.

Still I think (hope!) that I’ve turned a corner. The extreme lethargy and sensitivity is starting to dissipate. I’ve even managed to have (almost) a night’s sleep. Mind you to get that took prescription nasal spray I had left from a while back, mixed with the max does of Paracetamol allowed, topped off with Tropicana. Still, I’m thinking positive. Only major symptom left is a particularly nasty cough – which goes away on its own if I stay absolutely still.

Going to have to phone the doc’s tomorrow to get a sick note. I’m not sure if it’s 3 days or 4 days off before one is req, but better safe than sorry. This is going to officially be my first sick note ever, that I’ve actually used anyway.

Sick Again

2010-12-12T02:08:00.000-08:00

How on earth can I be sick again, so quickly after being sick already? It's like a really brutal flu, which isn't the most pleasant. Paracetamol is helping, to a certain degree. The problem is the number of doses allowed within any 24hr period - normally not a problem since you sleep through half of any 24hr period. This flu won't let me sleep, I'm absolutely knackered. Friday night I got basically no sleep, last night I think I managed about 4hrs.

I've definitely got man flu.

Car Balance

2010-12-09T14:48:00.001-08:00

Honda spent a great deal of time and effort on their first diesel engine. Not only is it one of the smoothest diesel engines around with a very broad power band, but a lot of effort was spent making it as light as possible. They used aluminium wherever possible, creating a special alloy that can take the immense heat and pressure where normal aluminium would just warp. They developed a new manufacturing process to add strength and allow as little material to be used as possible. Their efforts speak for themselves – it’s by far the heaviest engine in the Civic line-up.

This adds some interesting ‘dynamics’ to the driving process, especially in less than ideal conditions. Usually the weight at the front is manifested by an initially strong turn-in, followed by an equally strong understeer drift into the second lane. However mix in cold conditions and tyres designed especially not for cold conditions, and you get interesting braking behaviour at ‘reasonable’ speeds too. If you gently apply pressure to the brakes, you can slow smoothly from very high speeds to a standstill in a very short period of time. However, hit the brakes hard and you’ll initially get some powerful braking; quickly followed by the front dipping with the full weight of the engine being thrown forward. The inertia quickly causing the wheels to lose traction and the whole car flying forwards at great speed.

So you see, the pressure on the pedal is the difference between easily slowing as cars change lane, or an engine flying towards a pedestrian casually walking across a road.

Forza 3

2010-12-07T15:03:00.001-08:00

I know I’m very late to the party on this one, but I guess ‘better late than never’ would be the correct response at this juncture. Anyway, Forza 3 – what an immense game! I’ll be honest, I didn’t like the first two and I’m a total Gran Turismo fan. The problem with GT is that it’s going down the simulation route a little too closely, to get anything out of it you need a steering wheel. That’s fine, but to be able to use a steering wheel properly you need a proper seat & mount. It ends up all rather expensive, and to be brutally honest the game just isn’t interesting enough. Real life racing is exciting because you’re actually experiencing it, the Gs the adrenaline, etc. In a game it’s just so far removed that it’s doing OTT driving that keeps things interesting.

This is where Forza comes in, it’s got just the right balance of realism and craziness. Each car handles remarkably realistically in my humble opinion, with each car having a character of it’s own. For example the FN2 (‘new’ Civic Type R) really does handle a lot better when you fit an LSD. The cars I’ve driven in real life, by and large feel broadly similar in the game. The game does make certain concessions though (probably to appease the manufacturers) where a newer car will often be better than the older one – even if it isn’t. I was pleased, however, to see that the hatchback Subaru Impreza WRX STI isn’t ‘as good’ as the previous models. So it certainly looks to me like some manufacturers had ‘requirements’ before the car could be put in the game. I’m looking at you, Honda.

You have to drive properly in this game, no late braking and just sliding round & bouncing off the bumpers like in Need for Speed. If you miss your braking marker, you will slide off the track. If you try to corner while braking, the car will respond how it should (FWD = understeer into the verge, RWD = spin or slide, possibly backwards, into the verge). In essence you drive properly, or not at all. However, the game does temper the realism in the name of fun. You can powerslide far more easily than you could in real life. The handling and braking is better than it would be in real life, so you do get more ‘fun’ out of the experience – although I would argue this is required to get something approaching the experience of' ‘actually being there’.

The AI is good. It will close off overtaking opportunities, but you can do the same back. The game is nicely balanced that you can brake late to try and sneak through, or brake early and try and push past on the exit. The only problem is corners – just like in real life are a real hot spot for action. The AI plays it’s part well. Unfortunately you can’t quickly glance at your wing mirrors so it’s easy to trade paint by accident. The game discourages ‘aggressive’ driving in, I think, the best manner in any racing game. Your winnings are deducted to match the amount of damage, just enough to make it sting a little but not enough to punish you for genuine mistakes or ‘I had to push him into the gravel trap’. If you try to go off-road on purpose the game picks it up and kills your speed big-time. This is much better than just penalising your time – I much prefer instant results rather than waiting and wondering.

In short I think Forza is the new Gran Turismo – the best racing game out there on any platform. Such a shame it’s an Xbox 360 exclusive.

Car Post #two million and three point five

2010-12-06T15:21:00.001-08:00

Time for another post. Now’s the time to skip it, leave while you still can.

I’ve been thinking, something I do a lot of. The problem I have is I want a nice daily runner, and the problem with those is that they can never be super-interesting. Interesting and novel quickly become tiresome and irritating – just ask any Alfa owner. The best CPU I ever had was a Phenom II, it was utterly rubbish in terms of both performance and to be brutally honest, reliability. The CPU lasted a month before it died. Yet a day didn’t go by when I didn’t encounter something interesting or novel. The problem is, when you just want to get some work done and it just wants to play; you will lose.

And so it is with cars. For example, if I just wanted a toy car I would buy an S2000. A really easy choice, it’s cheap enough to buy & run, reliable and totally banzai. Just the ticket for a really fun car to have. Problem is living with it is another matter, you have to rev it to get any torque which is utterly tiresome in traffic. It’s noisy as hell, so after a long journey you’ll have a pounding headache. And finally it’s got no features at all to make life easier beyond a radio. I have no idea why it has keyless entry, given that’s usually icing on the cake of a car that borderline drives itself.

But then you have the other side of the coin. If you get a car that insulates you from the whole aspect of driving, then what’s the point? I see people in cars whose sole purpose is to make the driving ‘chore’ as minimal as possible – and I wonder, why? Surely it would be easier and cheaper to just take the bus.

I personally think my Civic is the perfect car for cruising, it’s what I bought it for originally. I had a Skoda Fabia which is far from the last work in dynamism, and it was awful for long-distance. So I thought ‘well I want to go to multiple EU countries, so I’ll get a car that eats miles cheaply and in comfort’. I certainly got that, what I didn’t quite expect was the brilliant feel the car has (compared to a Fabia before anybody goes crazy). This mixed with my experiences in some Honda Type-R cars, and a little excursion in the Civic meant my focus has totally changed. Instead of touring, I want to drive for driving’s sake.

So herein lies the problem. A test drive gives you a brief, muddy experience in a car which costs a small fortune. From that you have to extrapolate whether the car will be any good for your needs. When I test drove my Fabia I found it ‘adequate’, and long-term experience I found it to be a little better than I expected. When I test drove my Civic I thought it felt ‘good’ and had untapped potential. In the long-term I’ve found it to be outstanding. So there is a certain logic that a car I really like on a test drive may well be outstanding once you get the hang of it.

Which means I’ve been focussing on what I’ve experienced thus far. Specifically I’ve been thinking about the two stand-outs and what made them special. First up is the Abarth Grande Punto, a thoroughly enjoyable car to drive – unfortunately it has serious reliability problems. The Abarth was much the same as the Corsa VXR, but with much better seats, a much better engine, and something else that I can’t quantify. The Abarth just makes you happy, and it really thinks it’s a supercar or something. If you watch Clarkson’s review of the Abarth 500 – I felt much the same. The only problem is that at slow speeds it felt like you were going 5mph. Unless you’re pushing it, it just didn’t come alive, I struggled to stick to 40mph more so than any car I’ve ever driven. The fact it was a blatant license loser mixed with the reliability issues scared me off. That said if I had to buy a supermini it’s the only one I would buy.

The other stand out, and by far the best car I’ve ever driven, is a little MX-5 1.8 SE. It felt totally unlike any car I’ve ever driven. I should clarify that I’ve driven two other MX-5s, a 2.0 sport with a soft top and a 2.0 sport with a hard top – both Mk3s. Well this SE is a Mk 3.5 and it behaved in a totally different manner. The handling is totally balanced and neutral, you can shift the weight to any wheel you want to point the car exactly where you want it to go. The engine while rubbish, is totally eager. It thinks it’s a Ferrari V8, not a little inline 4. The gear shift is smooth yet mechanical, making you feel totally part of the action. Unlike any other car, it felt totally cohesive – you don’t so much as drive the MX-5 as just experience it. It’s the only test drive where afterwards I was speechless – I even almost ‘accidentally on purpose’ missed the turning for the dealership. On the drive home, every corner I just thought ‘the MX-5 would be so much more visceral here’. It’s not quite the same feeling as when jumping from a go-kart into your proper car, but it’s along those lines.

The problem with the 1.8 MX-5, is that it has no traction control – so I’ll crash it. It also has all of 120hp, it barely beat’s 0-60 in 10s. It also has no cruise control, and aftermarket kits are rather clunky. I realise that cruise isn’t exactly the kind of thing that should be in a roadster, but the MX-5 is unique in that I reckon it will cruise quite happily on the motorway to get to a few mountain passes… in the alps. Also it has the smallest boot on Earth. In fact the whole car is a little cramped.

So finally my last worry is cash, like everyone else. I need to have a cheap to run car that I can buy as cheaply as possible. This leaves maximum funds for both a 2-week trek through the EU and money for a house. I’ve modified my list slightly to be 2 cars, the MX-5 and Audi TT Roadster Mk2. The Z4 is no better than the MX-5, just more expensive so it’s been discounted and replaced by the MX-5 Mk3.5 which seems to refuse to go away (it always ends up back on my shortlist). The Audi TT is a perfect compromise, but at a price. It’s expensive(ish) to run, not as reliable as an MX-5, and it’s a lot more expensive to buy. I’m not sure I can afford it to be brutally honest. I think the best thing to do now is test out both cars and see how big the gap between them is. It may well be that the MX-5 still drives better, which would be pretty ideal because it’s the best option financially. Just pack light…

Fortune Telling

2010-11-23T15:00:00.001-08:00

I would love to know why so many people insist that fortune tellers are the real deal. Seriously, if someone could tell the future they wouldn’t be messing around with telling random stranger’s ‘fortunes’ for a few quid. If you could accurately predict the future, you would be the most powerful human on the planet. Forget winning the lottery – that’s merely seed money to become seriously wealthy. You would play the stock market, over the course of a decade you would end up richer than the richest nation on your lonesome. You would get as close to immortality as is possible with our current level of technology, simply by knowing your own ailments, and the best time & method to combat them. Or maybe you use your abilities for good - ‘predicting’ all manner of catastrophes, one after the other allowing people to prepare / evacuate.

Yet these people who can see into the future do nothing more than earn less than middle management.

Same goes for people who ‘speak to the dead’ aka psychics. Rather than asking the really meaty questions, they just seem to want to see if the dead are ‘alright’ and ‘feeling better’. I’m guessing the fact they don’t have a physical body anymore means they feel pretty damn good in terms of health. Mentally – who knows? Without a brain they might not even ‘think’ in the traditional sense which kind of spoils the ‘are you alright?’ question before it even got going.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/may/12/psychic-claims-james-randi-paranormal

Proper HTML Custom Menu in Moodle 2

2010-11-21T12:52:00.001-08:00

If you’re developing a theme for Moodle 2, you probably want to support the new custom menu functionality. Problem is it uses YUI3 to make the menu ‘work’ rather than CSS alone. This means it’s a) Harder to style and b) results in a nasty ‘jump’ as the JS kicks in – you have to style both pre- and post- JS menu. Instead why not just output a normal nested unordered list and use CSS to provide the functionality? Well, you can! You need to add a little PHP first though. Create a file ‘renderers.php’ in your theme directory and add this code (make sure to change <theme name> to the name of your theme):

<?php

class theme_<theme name>_core_renderer extends core_renderer
{
    /**
     * Renders a custom menu object
     *
     * @staticvar int $menucount
     * @param custom_menu $menu
     * @return string
     */
    protected function render_custom_menu(custom_menu $menu) {
        static $menucount = 0;
        // If the menu has no children return an empty string
        if (!$menu->has_children()) {
            return '';
        }
        // Increment the menu count. This is used for ID's that get worked with
        // in JavaScript as is essential
        $menucount++;

        $content .= html_writer::start_tag('ul', array('class'=>'custommenu'));
        // Render each child
        foreach ($menu->get_children() as $item) {
            $content .= $this->render_custom_menu_item($item);
        }
        // Close the open tags
        $content .= html_writer::end_tag('ul');
        // Return the custom menu
        return $content;
    }

    /**
     * Renders a custom menu node as part of a submenu
     *
     * @see render_custom_menu()
     *
     * @staticvar int $submenucount
     * @param custom_menu_item $menunode
     * @return string
     */
    protected function render_custom_menu_item(custom_menu_item $menunode) {
        // Required to ensure we get unique trackable id's
        static $submenucount = 0;
        if ($menunode->has_children()) {
            // If the child has menus render it as a sub menu
            $submenucount++;
            $content = html_writer::start_tag('li');
            if ($menunode->get_url() !== null) {
                $url = $menunode->get_url();
            } else {
                $url = '#cm_submenu_'.$submenucount;
            }
            $content .= html_writer::link($url, $menunode->get_text(), array('title'=>$menunode->get_title()));
            $content .= html_writer::start_tag('ul');
            foreach ($menunode->get_children() as $menunode) {
                $content .= $this->render_custom_menu_item($menunode);
            }
            $content .= html_writer::end_tag('ul');
            $content .= html_writer::end_tag('li');
        } else {
            // The node doesn't have children so produce a final menuitem
            $content = html_writer::start_tag('li');
            if ($menunode->get_url() !== null) {
                $url = $menunode->get_url();
            } else {
                $url = '#';
            }
            $content .= html_writer::link($url, $menunode->get_text(), array('title'=>$menunode->get_title()));
            $content .= html_writer::end_tag('li');
        }
        // Return the sub menu
        return $content;
    }
}

Then go into your config.php file and make sure $THEME->rendererfactory is set like so:

$THEME->rendererfactory = 'theme_overridden_renderer_factory';

And now you should have nice plain HTML output ready for styling the proper way!

Setting the PATH in OSX Leopard or above

2010-11-20T23:39:00.000-08:00

Apple added a very handy .d (daemon?) directory in Leopard+ for appending to the global PATH variable. You can add to the path easily using the terminal:

sudo sh -c 'echo "[newpath]" >> /etc/paths.d/[pathname]'

For example to add the Android SDK to your path, you can enter the following command in the terminal:

sudo sh -c 'echo "/Developer/android-sdk-mac_x86" >> /etc/paths.d/AndroidPath'

OSX goes through each file in that directory, appending what it finds to the PATH. Makes installing / uninstalling utterly trivial.

All credit to dhaveconfig.

Extra Terrestrials

2010-11-16T15:04:00.001-08:00

Something has been bothering me recently – the portrayal of extra terrestrials in movies. I should probably preface this by acknowledging movies are intended to primarily entertain, and therefore require certain liberties to be taken. But for the purposes of this blog post, let’s ignore that requirement.

Why is it, that in all movies ET is either an overlord, or a cowering wreck. Basically ET either tries to take over the planet, or requires human help. Let’s put this into perspective, for a human to come into contact with an ET at this time, would require ET to have a ship capable of faster than light travel. Meanwhile our technology hasn’t yet created a working fusion reactor – something that happens by chance trillions and trillions of times by ‘accident’ in the universe. The closest example of course, is our very own sun.

Now what does that mean? Well ultimately it means if ET really was intent on conquest, we’ve got zero chance. Nadda. If you took a current aircraft carrier from right now, and sent it back in time; it could quite easily (assuming it had enough fuel, ammunition, and related logistics) completely change the outcome of WW2. So 50 years of technological advancement can in effect, nullify the combined forces of a superpower. The US and Russia right now have the capability to kill (almost) all life on this planet, many times over. So if that can happen in 50 years, imagine what can happen in a thousand.

So given all of this technology, how is a human meant to ‘help’ an alien race? I can’t see it happening, beyond the kind of help animals provide humans in the field of medicine.

Sadly I doubt this will change for many decades. Until we start closing in on faster than light travel, quite frankly humanity won’t even seriously consider the chance there is even life out there. Short-sighted? Sure. Human? Totally.

Detect WordPress Home Page / Front Page

2010-11-15T13:38:00.000-08:00

Chances are you want to have slightly different content for the home page of your WordPress blog. In theory it should be easy enough, use is_home() or is_front_page(). Sadly these methods are hit and miss to say the least. Instead try using:

if ($_SERVER["REQUEST_URI"] == '/' || $_SERVER["REQUEST_URI"] == '/index.php')

It's not ideal, but it works.

Application failed codesign verification when building for App Store

2010-11-15T06:19:00.000-08:00

When building for the App Store you may get this error. First thing to do is check you've got the right certificate selected in the project settings. If you're still having trouble, the target probably has the incorrect certificate selected. Expand 'Targets' and right-click on your target. Select 'Get Info', follow the same process as the project to set the correct certificate to use for signing.

Nslookup and /etc/hosts

2010-11-05T11:35:00.000-07:00

Having trouble checking your /etc/hosts records with nslookup on your Mac/Linux PC? Use traceroute instead, nslookup purposely bypasses any local config. Traceroute acts like a 'normal' application and will pick up your /etc/hosts records.

Car Reliability

2010-11-04T15:28:00.001-07:00

I would like to comment on car reliability, based on countless hours of scouring car forums. Yes I really have nothing better to do, especially since I’ve been off sick. Sadly still sick really, but hey-ho. Anyway, car reliability. First of all, the French make cheap cars, and they’re cheap for a reason. Generally the electronics have the most issues, but any par can fail at any time really. That said, the engines they make seem to be bulletproof same as Honda.

The Germans are an interesting breed. VAG makes generally reliable cars, they’re well put together and stuff doesn’t tend to fall off. Unfortunately their engines are rubbish, utterly rubbish. They lack character first of all, but back this up with unreliability. The turbo engines in particular have issues, they’re over-engineered and tend to suffer air leaks quite often. Some people never manage to track down the leaks, meaning the engine runs as if it doesn’t have a turbo, permanently. Issues in VAG cars tend to go on and on and on. There does seem to be a tendency to get a ‘good’ one or a ‘bad’ one. I definitely wouldn’t buy a car with the new 1.4 super + turbo engine. The basic models are OK though, which is probably where the solid reputation comes from. Audi’s paint seems to be unique in the industry now, in that it’s far more resistant to swirl marks and chips than just about any other manufacturer.

I don’t know much about Mercedes, but I do know a little more about BMW. If you have an old BMW you’re on your own. If you have an issue that’s a design fault, BMW don’t care if it breaks after the shape is out of production. Quite often they’ll fix the issue in a ‘facelift’ and not support the older cars (because invariably the issue rears its head after 3yrs from sale…). A case in point is the Z4 steering, the first generation car has an issue with the rack where it will ‘stick’, so you push harder and then it suddenly gives way causing you to potentially change lanes. BMW engines are far ahead of the competition, with much greater power outputs, greater mpg, and lower CO2 for any given engine size. Things don’t often go wrong, but when they do it’s usually expensive.

Which brings me on to Japanese cars. These seem to be the safest bet, with reasonable repair costs mixed with strong reliability. When an issue does occur, usually it’s a single fix and you’re done. This single fix can be expensive though, making servicing / repairs seem expensive compared to French cars. Engines tend to be a mixed bag. The Japanese love revs, which explains the Wankel rotary engine, Honda’s legendary VTEC, and a strong desire to avoid turbos in other manufacturers. They also don’t copy the Germans so their interiors are often different to what you may be used to. However, they don’t seem to be the best at getting the most out of an engine like BMW, so the economy and CO2 emissions aren’t as good as they could be. However, you do save money on having a cheaper car from the outset – that will pay for a lot of fuel and road tax.

The Italians make shocking cars in terms of reliability. Issues drag on and on, while it’s non uncommon for pieces of trim to fall off even on cars under a year old. Lamborghini seems to be bucking the Italian trend, probably as a result of being part of VAG now. The Gallardo in particular is surprising, there is one with over 150k track miles still going strong.

So what about the Americans (Ford/Vauxhall)? In truth I just don’t know. They seem reliable enough, and Vauxhall now offer a lifetime warranty. I’m guessing they’re pretty good, it’s not like you hear of Focuses breaking down all over the place despite crazy mileage from use as repmobiles and minicabs.

I Got Overtaken Today

2010-10-24T15:44:00.001-07:00

I got overtaken today, not that it’s a big deal at all; I get overtaken all the time. But this is the first time it’s been with such speed this side of Maserattis. I was following two slow moving cars, just waiting for a nice straight to overtake. The second car (a 4x4) went to overtake, so I decided to follow in hot pursuit. As usual I did a quick mirror & blind spot check before I made my move, that’s when I saw the following Audi TT slide to the right and roar past. I’ve only ever been overtaken with such ferocity by a Maseratti Quattroporte. He went with such speed that I could continue the overtake manoeuvre anyway and continue to follow behind. I’m not sure if the TT was remapped or not (it was a 225, but they can be remapped to 260+ easy), but it was ludicrously fast. I’m just in total disbelief over how fast it was. I’ve been in and experienced fast cars before, but in that situation the torque advantage of my engine nullifies their power advantage. In this case the TT made my car look like it was standing still. Amazing.

Good Problem To Have

2010-10-17T10:54:00.000-07:00

Yep, a good problem to have indeed

Maximising Chrome in OSX/Mac

2010-10-16T06:43:00.000-07:00

By default the maximise behaviour of Chrome is the same as Safari - aka. useless. Fortunately Google provided a workaround:

Press SHIFT + MAXIMISE (Green Button)

European Road Trip

2010-10-15T13:43:00.001-07:00

It’s getting closer, I can almost taste it. Soon I’ll be driving through the mountain passes, top down, wind in my hair and not a care in the world. Depressingly ‘soon’ in this instance is 8 months, but hey – that doesn’t mean I can’t have a few mini trips in the meantime…

Leather Seats

2010-10-08T11:40:00.000-07:00

Had a play inside an Audi TT Roadster today, very, very nice. The first roadster that hasn't immediately made me feel claustrophobic, and given me confidence with heel + toe shifts. But this is all another topic for another day, one of the biggest things I noticed was the smell, or lack thereof. The vast majority of roadsters are leather, and for good reason - leather won't water stain like cloth, and ultimately it's probably easier to take care of in the context of possible leaks. But also, roadsters are 'upmarket' and therefore have upmarket features. To be honest I've never been totally sold on leather seats, they look ugly cause your fat arse always stretches the leather after sitting in it for excessive periods of time. They get hot & cold, and smell funky. To me, the only reason I can fathom that leather has become 'upmarket' is because it's expensive, not because it's better.

Both the Z4 and MX-5 (especially the MX-5) had a very strong smell of leather, and to be brutally honest it did put me off a little. The crazy thing is that you can only have cloth on the basic models. In the case of the MX-5, that means no traction control and a weedy engine. In the Z4 it means the 2.0 engine, but almost no cost savings in the second hand market. I think if you're spending £30k+ on a brand new car, the least they can do is offer a cloth seat option - even if it means no cost savings and additional wait time.

In fact, these leather seats are a lot like bread. In the past 'white' bread required more processing, and therefore was more expensive. This meant white bread was the provision of the rich, while the poor had 'brown' bread. Nowadays, white bread is the cheap option (despite more processing) and brown bread is the expensive option - simply down to 'perceived' value.

Idiot Programmers

2010-10-03T04:35:00.001-07:00

OK I’ve had enough, I’m at the end of my tether. There are simply a hideous number of ‘professional developers’ who wouldn’t know decent code if they were beaten to death with the MS coding standards. If you hack stuff together it will fail, and it will fail catastrophically. Not only that, a decent programmer will then be drafted in to fix your hideous mess and the bosses of this programmer won’t understand why most of the application has to be scrapped.

I’ve moved multiple large-scale apps I’ve produced from server to server with no hassle at all, copy site over, copy DB over, update reference to DB. Meanwhile much smaller applications are an exercise in tedium. Why not hack in some stuff that just about works on this particular version of .NET? Why not litter connection strings throughout all of the code pages? The end result is I spend hours and hours making the new server mimic the old one as close as possible, all because some idiot couldn’t be bothered to do things properly.

Quite frankly if you can’t program to MS standards, then you don’t belong programming. I’m sure there are other jobs you can do, maybe a guard for drying paint. You can sit there making sure people don’t touch the paint – and the great thing is when you inevitably mess it up, it’s an easy fix with an extra layer of paint.

Worst of all these clowns give us all a bad reputation. Applications come in over-budget, don’t function correctly, aren’t maintainable. It’s a ridiculous state of affairs, and only because if you’ve read ‘VB for Dummies’ you’re suddenly a VB expert. Never mind that 90% of the VB applications I’ve seen are written by complete retards. It’s becoming a primary flag for ‘will be written by a dumbass’, if it’s VB it’s gonna be a pain to maintain.

I think it’s fairly safe to say if you’re in development, your job is utterly disrespected by the people in charge. They seem to think programming is just using a WYSIWYG interface like Word and everything is ‘quick and simple’, and design is just scribbling on paper. Good programmers and designers aren’t a commodity, but they’re certainly treated like one.

Holidays

2010-09-24T11:29:00.000-07:00

I don't get holidays, I really don't. You spend an inordinate sum of money to visit some far-off land, and potter about admiring the scenery. I could understand this, if maybe you had explored the full extend of your own country - but most people only venture over 100miles from their house when they're on their holidays in another country. Ibiza really takes the biscuit, it's just like England only with more clubs.

So you can probably guess how my holiday in Bruges has gone. I've not learnt anything useful (well beyond that I don't need a car capable of touring any more), and I haven't really seen anything I've never seen before. From what I can tell I've lost a lot of money, a day of my life, and gained a little perspective on my next car purchase. That's about it.

Actually this isn't true. While Bruges itself is deathly dull, it does at least have good food. The 'frites' (chips) are exceptional, best in the world by a wide margin. The salad itself was very good, but ultimately for the same price I can get the same quality in the UK. The 'street food' is hideously fattening, but also very tasty. Sadly I'm a little restricted in what I can risk eating, so street food was largely off the menu. Shame.

Really it's my own fault for listening to other people too much. I had a hunch I would get rather bored, after all I only visit Bath for maybe 3hrs or so at most, and Bath is significantly more interesting than Bruges. I did know I would enjoy the driving, and that has definitely come true. It's been weird, frustrating, and utterly annoying - and I've had a total blast doing it. But all this does is reinforce my concerns that I should save the cash now, and spend it on a tasty convertible and then come to Europe to spend days on the mountain passes. I can only hazard a guess that it would be one of the most exciting things I'll ever do. I could also tie it in with a forum, to meet up with similar like-minded people.

So this is the good that has come out of the trip. I know exactly what I want to do next time, and I also know I can drive to Bruges, and get back home within a day. It's somewhat of a slog, but completely do-able via the Eurotunnel.

People who do traditional holidays can carry on, I understand why they do it. But for me, I can't slow down, I can't just admire the scenery. I have to be powering along strange roads guided by the voice of the sat nav, while looking over the edge of the road hoping I don't roll down it.

Bruges Trip Day #1

2010-09-23T13:03:00.000-07:00

There's my car, right at the front of lane 40 for loading onto the ferry. It's safe to say I was rather nervous at this point, having rarely ventured beyond UK borders. So far I'm finding driving a much better method of transport than taking the train or an aircraft. For a start, everything is just loaded into the boot - much better than lugging everything around. Better still due to everything going in the boot I can load it up with all sorts of stuff that may or may not be unnecessary. Furthermore, you don't have the stress of times and deadlines, or finding where you need to board. Everything is already in the car, and the satnav takes you directly to your destination. You literally drive on to the ferry in England, drive off in France and you're good to go. So much less hassle. I now also have a car that I can use to take me anywhere I want, so I'm not stuck or in need of a hire car. Lovely.

That's not to say this is the cheapest method... It would have been cheaper to have boarded a Eurostar in London, taken it all the way to Bruges and just walked into a pre-booked hotel.

Driving has been easier than expected, by and large French/Belgian roads are just like UK roads... just not quite as well maintained. I've got a little plastic windscreen label that reminds me I need to drive on the right, and also take roundabouts anti-clockwise. It's the roundabouts that are causing me the most grief, it's really weird. Also getting close enough to the roundabout itself is also a little odd, I'm often slightly too far over to the right. The speedo is obviously reading in km/h (Civic, digital speedo), but that's had the odd knock-on effect that I'm not as sure as I normally am as to when to change. I've been changing based on revs so far, and that seems to be working out well. Definitely don't drive around the EU if you're not confident with both your ability and the car. There are some narrow roads, and when you're on the right your spatial awareness is out. Non-confident drivers could easily stray over the central reservation without realising it.

The hotel is really swanky. To be brutally honest it's too swanky, next time I'll go for a cheaper hotel I think. This time, since it's my first visit I thought I'd go for a safe option. I can't say I've seen much of the country so far. From the motorway everything looks the same as the UK. The residential area I drove through was interesting though, with poor markings, plenty speed bumps and almost no room for two cars to pass each other.

The ferry was much bigger than expected. I was disappointed with the amount of movement of the ship, they've found an odd level between perfectly still, and rocking. I didn't care for it much to be honest, I prefer a rough ride when on the sea - instead it was similar to the movement of a train. This was in rough weather too... Still it was quite cool tracking the ship on the GPS in my mobile, which reminds me: Ovi maps on the N900 are useless and rubbish.

Stuff for sale!

2010-09-20T10:11:00.000-07:00

I'm having a clearout of my unwanted 'stuff'. First batch of items are DVDs and Games, and most are on ebay. However, some items aren't really profitable to put on ebay when you add in postage, packaging, ebay fees, paypal fees. Those items are shown below, if you want one cheap just give me a bell:

This offer only applies to friends and family. Sorry great unwashed, but it's just too expensive to ship things to you guys - you're better off buying off of the bay rather than me.

Well this is disappointing...

2010-09-17T06:18:00.000-07:00

I was hoping to go to Disneyland Paris for my hols. Looks like that won't be happening. I would like to just say 'shame', but I'm actually oddly really disappointed. I wouldn't go as far as 'devastated' but maybe 'upset' or 'letdown' covers it.

Black corners on UITableView cells

2010-09-16T04:18:00.000-07:00

Getting black corners on your table cells on the iPhone with a nice background image? You're probably setting the background colour of the table to clearColor, however this needs to be done in viewDidLoad rather than IB or at init. It seems that the background isn't initialised quickly enough, so the background appears as black.

- (void)viewDidLoad
{
    table.backgroundColor = [UIColor clearColor];

    [super viewDidLoad];
}

You'll need to set up an outlet for the table, in this case I chose a property with the name 'table'.

OSX Gaming

2010-08-31T14:42:00.001-07:00

OK I can’t help myself – another quick OSX post. The Mac has never exactly been a bastion of gaming, but with its rise in popularity along with Intel processors, gaming was inevitably going to become more popular. The problem is, with no gaming heritage performance is going to suffer. Both in the optimisations in the drivers, and the OS itself. With Macs now using standard PC parts (IBM compatible teehee), it’s unlikely the drivers will be terribly slow. Especially given OpenGL is cross-platform, so the major parts are largely the same between PC and Mac.

I installed Steam to have a little play around. Now I have a Radeon 5870, and I can tell you it makes a massive difference from the Mini’s mini GeForce when it comes to the OSX UI. Expose in particular is silky smooth rather than notchy and annoying. So first impressions are good. Anyway back to Steam; I downloaded HL2, Torchlight and Portal – basically the only games in my sizeable Steam library that supported the Mac. Torchlight ran silky smooth, but that’s expected since it’s an extremely lightweight application. Next up: Half Life 2.

In windows I can run HL2 maxed out with 8x AA easypeasy, it’s a Radeon 5870! Problem is, it’s not smooth on the Mac at all. the framerate absolutely dives the second you leave the train station. Worse still the mouse which is always irritating on Macs, is even more irritating in HL2. There’s just no smooth motion (mouse acceleration should be illegal) making it hard to aim properly.

So, top marks for Valve for making the movie – and it’s an almost flawless move. Everything works as it should, and not charging extra for Mac versions is utterly inspired and really caring for the customer. Unfortunately Apple have really dropped the ball, when the latest in high-performance GPUs can’t run a game that’s almost 6 years old smoothly you know you have problems.

OSX and Obj-C

2010-08-31T14:30:00.001-07:00

So I’m back on the OSX train, huzzah! Some iPhone work at work meant I needed to brush up on the iPhone, and by extension OSX. I had forgot how pleasant OSX is to use, for want of a better term; using it makes me feel slightly ‘happy’. Don’t get me wrong, OSX is seriously flawed in many areas, but that’s what makes it feel so much more alive. With Windows you can feel how it’s designed completely by committee, nothing is offensive, it does absolutely everything; yet there’s no flair. Windows is only as attractive as it needs to be, only as featured as required. Windows has a feature for doing just about anything, it can bend to your every whim. It’s the handyman who comes over, knows exactly what he’s doing, get’s the job done and then leaves with a bill that’s just about right.

OSX on the other hand is the slightly eccentric specialist who does things in a specific way, and no matter what you ask/demand, it’s getting done in that way. If he doesn’t know how to do what you ask of him, he’s not gonna help you whatsoever – but will still probably charge for the privilege of turning you down.

OSX is downright pretty, there’s no doubt about it. Windows Vista and 7 added colour and special effects to try and match this aesthetic ideal and only managed to get part-way there. The problem is Vista/7 are trying too hard, they’re not comparing themselves to an ideal of their own making. OSX on the other hand clearly has a strong design language, and everything in the OS is designed to try and realise that ideal. Each new revision of the OS get's closer and closer, until one day the Messiah Jobs will say ‘lo and OSX was complete’.

To be frank, in the real world where things need to get done, I prefer Windows. It’s much better suited to business, and games which means it’s downright perfect for my use. The OS never gets in my way, it almost always provides just the right features at the right time; and just ‘works’. Ironically 7 is now probably easier to use than OSX, but I don’t think this is neccesarily in a good way. It hides you from what’s happening far too much, modern Windows users don’t even seem to know about files. Meanwhile OSX forces the user to at least get to know the basics, so maybe there is some merit in providing a slightly less automated OS that’s trickier to use.

Now on to Obj-C, my arch nemesis. I can see the merit behind the language, I really can. I especially like how it’s 100% dynamic, a feature that .NET is only just on the cusp of realising despite promising from the outset. The problem I have with Obj-C is two-fold. The first is performance, the entire premise behind Obj-C means it’s going to be a lot slower than almost any other language, and the built-in libraries really don’t help matters – they’re slow as sin. Secondly Obj-C code is ugly.

Obj-C is a superset of C, providing an extremely dynamic layer and the all-important object oriented programming. To be truthful, it’s not genuine OO, but that’s a topic for another time. There’s nothing wrong with extending C – look at C++, a true wonder language that’s super-fast but also extremely flexible. However, Obj-C went about it all wrong by changing the syntax. Looking through an Obj-C program you could be forgiven for thinking that you’re looking at two distinct languages intertwined – because basically you are. You mix and match the syntax all over the place, and it just results in something far less readable than just using one or the other.

The idea with Obj-C was to make code more readable, by making it flow like genuine English sentences. For example:

C++: car->Drive(30);
Obj-C: [car driveAtMph:30];

Now clearly you have more information with the Obj-C code, albeit at the cost of a lot more keystrokes. The problem is, in practice you end up mixing the two anyway. The designers should have scrapped the C base entirely and gone with their new-fangled syntax, rather than bastardising C with it. Every programmer I’ve shown iPhone code to has had the same first reaction ‘wtf?!?’. Of course the trade-off is you can use any C/C++ library you like. But I can’t help thinking they should have dropped the new syntax entirely (ending up with the much more popular C++), or done the right thing and made a completely new language in its own right.

Aston Martin Vantage Spotted

2010-08-29T11:09:00.000-07:00

Spotted in Tescos the exact car I would buy if I had a lot of money. As in millions.

Yes, an Aston Martin Vantage Roadster with a brutal V8 under the bonnet. For some reason the idiot is letting the guys at Tesco wash his car. Better than an automatic car wash I guess.

The Future

2010-08-29T11:01:00.001-07:00

I fear for the future, I really do. That movie ‘Idiocracy’ isn’t so much a funny comedy to me, but more of a ‘this is the future, like it?’ kind of movie. You could (and probably should) say I’m over-reacting. But read this:

I went to Waterstones to buy some programming books. In the past an entire row of shelves was dedicated to computing, a total of 5 or 6 distinct units. Now that section has been replaced with Spiritual books, aka. ‘New Age’. The computing section? Just two sets of shelves. I had a look around, and shockingly the self-help section has grown too. Additionally the computing section was mostly on how to use a computer, use ebay, play with ipods, etc. etc.

Now I don’t blame Waterstones, they respond to the customer. I blame the customer. And their customer clearly wants to believe in fairy tales and think that thinking positively will make them multi-millionaires. Welcome to the future.

‘Exam’ Movie

2010-08-22T12:19:00.001-07:00

Just watching the movie ‘Exam’ right now, and just can’t contain myself. I hope I’m wrong and it’s not so simple, but the answer appears clear to me. Basically the guy at the start gives them all the necessary info, and pretty much spells out the solution to their little debacle.

He said that if you soil your paper on purpose, or accidentally – you are disqualified. This is further reinforced when someone writes on their paper, and is predictably… disqualified. So the solution is simple, go up to each candidate and soil their paper. They all get disqualified, leaving you as the winner by default.
Sure it’s not sporting, but this scenario doesn’t appear particularly sporting to start with.

Edit: Movie ended up much better than expected. One guy tried to play it how I probably would have, he sadly lost at the final stretch due to a technicality. The very end could have been better, but overall a worthwhile watch.

Spotted

2010-08-20T13:36:00.000-07:00

Guess what I saw on the walk to my car?

Yes, a brand new Nissan GT-R parked in Tescos car park in the rain. I wouldn't say it's a looker, but it's big and has strong presence. I have seen a Monaro VXR parked in exactly the same spot, maybe the owner upgraded?

6.5k rpm limit

2010-08-17T13:34:00.001-07:00

BMW’s new Valvetronic and VANOS systems for continuously variable are very clever, and add some much-needed torque to the low-end of NA engines. The problem is they add a large amount of mass in the wrong places – limiting the maximum revs to 6,500, at least in the first generation engines. This raises a big problem, at least to nutters like myself who love the sound of 6 cylinder + engines, especially BMW, Lamborghini, Ferrari, and Aston ones.

You see the engine sounds fantastic when over 4,500 revs or so, it’s utterly addictive. I’m even sad enough to have a Youtube clip bookmarked so I can listen to it at will. The problem is the engine is so powerful it pushes through the revs to the redline so quickly that you never get to really savour the sound. The result is you quickly shift through the gears and before you know it, you’re doing very, very illegal speeds. It’s a license looser to say the least.

I think this is where cars like the S2000 can prove very advantageous – a 9,000rpm limit mixed with not so good torque means you can accelerate from relatively low revs and really savour the sound up to the legal limit.

On the plus side, the Z4 2.0 is nice and slow while offering a nice growl… for a 4 pot. Maybe for the sake of long-term license keeping, I best keep away from anything truly fast, I don’t think I would be able to resist the call of the straight 6.

I think this is a fundamental difference between myself and a lot of other people, especially those with hot hatches. I have driven a few hot hatches, and yes they’re fast… but they’re missing something critical for me. I don’t really mind if the car isn’t super-fast, as long as it can beat your average family car then I’m happy. What it must do is be an experience, something where your senses are almost overwhelmed. Something typically only roadsters offer, they’re about making the drive itself the pleasure rather than racing random people on the road (which is a bit illegal I might add). Who can say no to a sunny day, no roof, a great car, and the open road.

Cadence Braking

2010-08-17T13:18:00.001-07:00

Just saw an episode of Police Interceptors and it was snowing. Suffice it to say, some people crashed into the back of other people and there were other minor accidents. Sadly in the UK, neither the driving test, nor even the instructors teach you what to do when the brakes lock the wheels up and you start to slide forwards out of control. Normally this isn’t a problem, after all almost all EU cars have ABS unless your car is ancient. Sadly there is a slight problem with the reliance on ABS…

… Almost no ABS systems work on snow / ice. This is where the old-school method of braking comes in: Cadence Braking. Basically cadence braking involves applying the brakes with force, but in brief ‘bursts’. This is almost exactly what ABS does – except ABS does it at a much higher frequency (too high to really work on ice/snow). You can see it in the video below:

Oh and consider winter or all-weather tyres. Not a requirement in the UK, but recommended. If you have a rear-wheel drive car, you should definitely be using winter or all-weather tyres in the winter.

Ongoing Car Search

2010-08-01T15:36:00.001-07:00

So the search is still going on, and it’s getting rather tedious. Oh I should probably mention I didn’t pick up the Abarth in the end, not sure if that was foolish or not.

I went up to a Mazda garage earlier today to look at an MX-5 2.0 Sport Tech Roadster Coupe – the exact car I wanted. The drive there takes about 2hrs and 20mins, and it’s really rather boring. A mix of 50mph single carriage ways, dual carriageways interspersed with roundabouts and the odd town. The journey was a great match for the car itself – it literally blended in with the background to the point I had to actually try to find it amongst all of the other cars. While I’m sure it drives wonderfully – if it’s a slightly more powerful 1.8 SE then it really will. The problem is, I need to have a car that I walk out, see it parked in the car park and just can’t believe how fortunate I am.

The Abarth did this, it jumped out even as I was first trying to find a car park space and in a car showroom a car has to be really rather special to stand out. My Civic is pretty similar, I find it stands out in car parks and on the road holds a real presence. Although the presence could be down to its sheer size…

So suffice it to say, I drove back home without the bank account taking a hit. They did have a glorious 1.8 SE in Aurora Blue (20th Ed), and that really jumped out. Sadly it’s just not quite right, probably. The problem is while it’s very willing and eager, it’s just not quite able to provide the performance I want.

I think, given the amount of money you pay, a car should feel special as well as making you feel special. Otherwise you may as well drive around in some supermini, just driving from A to B. How boring.

Mahara Installation

2010-07-31T07:58:00.001-07:00

[ENV] b0 Your server does not have the mime_magic extension enabled. Mahara may have trouble detecting file types.

Getting that error? You need to enable or install the fileinfo extension. If you’re on Windows, open up the php.ini file and uncomment:

extension=php_fileinfo.dll

You can now install Mahara! The mime_magic extension is no longer available in new versions of PHP.

On the clearance block

2010-06-16T12:23:00.001-07:00

I’m not sure why, but the ‘Must Sell – Offer Ending Soon’ text next to an MX-5 1.8 SE (Mk3.5) makes me feel a little sad. It remains the best car I’ve ever driven, yet no one wants it. I can understand why – but it’s still a little sad. I hate to say it, but I think I’ve grown a little emotional attachment to the little fella.

Split Second

2010-06-12T10:14:00.001-07:00

What an utterly fantastic game. I love racing games, and I’m fortunate in that I like ‘arcadey’ racers as much as serious ones. I’ve never been a fan of the racers with weapons though, the idea of picking up weapons and then deploying them never really struck a chord with me. Full Auto on the other hand, I found to be utterly immense – it seems I’m innately designed to be able to play Full Auto since even online no one really ended up being that challenging. The problem with Full Auto was that the weapons were still direct-fire and therefore you could predict how different cars would play.

Split Second goes for the Hollywood approach – the track is literally laced with explosives (or traps), and you must activate them at the opportune times. The demo gives you an extremely brief overview of how it works – the actual game is much more hectic. This is probably the only racing game I’ve ever played where you can go from back of the pack, to leader, to the back again, and then just scrape the win at the end with a well placed & timed explosion.

However, for me the best modes of the game aren’t the races, but the Survivor and Air Strike game modes. These are pure Hollywood, and the game really helps make you feel like an action superhero. In Survivor you drive around in a circuit accompanied by nameless sports cars, and some long articulated lorries. The lorries release barrels, some slow you down / knock you around, others are explosive! The idea is to pass lorries to gain points – the more you pass the higher your score multiplier.

Air Strike involves racing around a circuit, dodging missiles the helicopter fires in front of you. The secret to this game mode is to find a rhythm, along with pattern recognition. You need to quickly find the safe path between the missile strikes, while keeping the rhythm between the strikes so the car doesn’t slide or otherwise end up in the path of a missile.

However, all is not perfect. The game has the extremely annoying ‘elastic’ speed for your rivals – if you get ahead, they get a speed boost. It’s extremely aggravating when on the final stretch, a load of cars blow by you – despite being slower. I can understand the reasoning for having elastic speed, however it could be handled much better. Once the cars are within a certain distance of you, they should go back to their nominal speed – not keep it up until they’re far ahead.

£30 very well spent.

Abarth Grande Punto

2010-06-08T11:01:00.001-07:00

So the secret’s out – I got an Abarth Grande Punto. Yes, yes it’s a Fiat underneath and probably unreliable. Still, it’s only 6 months old so there’s a nice 2.5yrs of warranty left to cover the inevitable problems. Why the Abarth Grande Punto then? Well let’s look at my requirements:

Small and easy to manoeuvre
Capable of long-distance cruising
Fun to drive
Actually interest me, must have that ‘can’t help but look back’ feeling when walking away after parking
Climate control and glass/no roof.
Affordable
Eminently reliable or covered by a long enough warranty

The Abarth only just scrapes by on the last point, but the forums seem to imply that the big stuff isn’t going wrong on them, unlike the normal Grande Punto. To be honest, the AGP (Abarth Grande Punto) was barely on my list, it was nice but not really on my radar due to its limited performance and probable build quality issues. I went up to Rockingham Mazda to look at an MX-5 they had up there, but on the way in to park the AGP jumped right out at me. The photos really don’t give you a good impression of the car. Like how some people don’t photograph well, the AGP doesn’t really either. If I’m brutally honest, it was the alloys and brake callipers that really did it for me – and I’m not sure why. Maybe it’s because the Megane 250 has almost identical wheels and brakes, and I do really like the Megane 250.

The interior is nice, but it has a lot of contradictions. Basically it comes down to this: The new Abarth stuff is all universally nice, while the rest is natty Fiat tat. There’s this leather covered dash, but right next to the leather is natty hard plastic. The seats are very supportive – in particular I like the shoulder support, something I didn’t realise I missed until I had a brief encounter with it. Rear space is pretty poor, but I am comparing to a Civic which has an immense amount of room. The leather seats are more pleasant if I’m honest – but they don’t quite offer the same support, and seem to be somewhat slippery. They aren’t heated either (from what I can tell) which means they’ll be pretty horrific in the winter. My car has standard cloth seats, and I really didn’t have much choice in the matter – leather seats or a panoramic glass roof. I can’t be without my glass roof.

I should preface this paragraph with the following: This is all based on an extremely short test drive. To drive the car is surprisingly non-supermini like. I can’t stand superminis, I find them horrible to drive with an awful driving position. The Abarth manages to just about give you a decent enough driving position, it’s still a little too supermini-like, but at least you don’t feel like you’re sitting in a high chair… too much. The cabin wraps nicely around you, so you don’t get that super-airy feeling many superminis provide. The steering is extremely speed-sensitive. At manoeuvring speeds the steering is super-light, you could probably turn the wheel with your tongue. I’m not sure if I like this or not to be honest, but I can see the advantages. At greater speeds the steering firms up and you can feel what’s going on to a certain degree – it’s certainly not on the same level as an MX-5, but it’s not like a stereotypical supermini either. The gear change is somewhat ‘spongy’, mostly due to the rather long-throw. In the past I would have quite liked this, but I’ve got rather used to the rifle bolt action of my Civic, so it feels like a step backwards. The engine, clutch and brakes are utterly brilliant. This car manages something few do – you feel like you’re going a million miles an hour and accelerating at the speed of light, when you really aren’t. It’s more to do with the acceleration, it’s extremely effortless and feels quite violent. I’ve driven two cars that are under 7s 0-60 (Corsa and Astra VXR), and subjectively this felt faster than either. The great thing is turbo lag seems to be pretty much non-existent, unfortunately the turbo sound is also non-existent. Brakes are predictably good, with good initial bite and strong linear performance. I didn’t get anywhere near to the full travel on offer. The pedals are also perfectly sized and positioned for heel & toe shifting – I shall have to practice this later on. I’ll post again when I’ve driven the AGP more, since it’s hard to really gauge a car in a test drive other than if you’ll get on with it or not.

Ultimately, in all of my searching I only found 2 cars where I instantly liked the drive. A Mk3.5 Mazda MX-5 1.8, and the AGP. The Mazda was unfortunately not fast enough, and I couldn’t afford a Mk3.5 Sport Tech Coupe – at least given it’s a 2-seater and you never know what’s ahead. I think it says something when I test drove multiple MX-5s, looked at numerous other cars – that a deposit was down for the Abarth about half an hour after first taking the keys.

The biggest problem with the MX-5, is that as soon as getting it I would want to perform two engine mods straight away. Add to that, the car is extremely impractical. I want to take the car around Europe, and the boot really can’t fit much and there’s no back seat. Worst case with a car, I think you should be able to sleep in the back for a few hours if you end up in the middle of nowhere. Also unlike most other people, I very much enjoy being the designated driver – this isn’t quite so easy when you don’t have some back seats.
Oh yeah – there are going to be less than 400 Abarth Grande Puntos registered in the entire UK, now that makes it a rather special car.

Low quality photo taken with my phone

Nice Small Cars

2010-06-04T17:32:00.001-07:00

Just spotted an out-of-hours MSN message asking about small / medium cars. Now there’s a question and a half. The problem with all of the superminis I’ve been in is simple to define: target market. The target market is women who hate driving, and apparently are ultra-weak. The brakes tend to be hideously over-servoed, the steering lighter than a feather, and the driving position akin to a highchair in the middle of a van. This means that a genuinely nice car is pretty damn rare – still there are some out there.

The new Fiesta looks awesome, and apparently isn’t the worst car in the world to drive. I’m going to see one tomorrow (not going to drive it though), so might have more info on this car later. The old Fiesta looks so interesting that you may fall into a coma if you accidentally glance at it.

The Skoda Fabia VRS is an immense car, 0-62 figures are abysmal (barely under 10s), but the subjective performance is astounding. Sadly, they hold their value exceedingly well. Being diesel and VAG they’re very reliable though.

Renault Clio Renaultsport. Nice and cheap second-hand because they’re French. Not unreliable like the normal Clios, they’re built in a separate factory to greater tolerances. The normal Clio is a ‘eurobox’.

VW Polo (and by extension Skoda Fabia and Seat Ibiza). Average drive, easy on the pocket.

EP3 Honda Civic – nice to drive (apparently), and super-cheap second hand.

Mazda 2 Sport – genuinely good car to drive (say Evo), and second hand prices should be coming down now the car is approaching 3 years on the market. The engine won’t set your world on fire, but at least the interior is pleasant and the exterior hides the supermini box shape to a certain degree. I almost bought one when they first came out, but couldn’t justify the expense of a new car.

The rest in my opinion, are all pretty abysmal. They’re either awful to drive, or not reliable enough to be worth the effort. For example the Grande Punto is a nice car to drive and the 1.4 16v peppy – but you just know after 6 months of owning it the door will fall off. You could get a Honda Jazz, but it’s horrendous to drive with no zest and no feel. Don’t even get me started on the train wreck that is the Peugeot line up since the 306 was axed.

On the plus side, the supermini sector is looking up if you look at new(er) cars. The new Fiesta is awesome (new ST version excepted, a bodykit does not a hothatch make), the Abarth Punto and 500 are brilliant, the new Citroen DS3 DSport is fantastic, and so on. It’s almost like the car industry is in its last hurrah before the hybrids and auto-driving boxes (Minority Report, other Sci-Fi) take over.

New Car Bought!

2010-06-04T17:16:00.001-07:00

Or should I say… hefty deposit put down. I’ve certainly learnt from the experience, and the biggest lesson is simply thus: Car dealers are scum, to use the words of someone I know. I had the naive impression that, in terms of main dealers that only a few bad eggs ruined it. But the majority are the same – salesman that vary from indifferent to excessively pushy.

I’m possibly the worst nightmare for a salesman who wants to make a fortune, I basically go into the garage having done a lot of homework – including the list price for my car, the going rate for the car I’m looking at, how much monthly instalments should be, and so on. Basically if the dealer’s figures don’t match mine, they’re not getting a sale because it means their either outright ripping me off themselves, or the finance company is. One dealer was most irritated that I wouldn’t ‘swim the last few metres’ when he had crossed the channel. It’s not my job as a customer to throw money at the garage because they had gone from daylight robbery to only petty theft. If the figures aren’t correct, then they’re not correct.

Still some garages are OK, including the one I bought my new car from. I had visited it earlier, but went away to think about what they had on offer. I came back a few days later, took some cars out for test drive (salesman was happy to do so, didn’t demand to see my car first, etc. etc.). Afterwards it was simply ‘would you like me to work some figures up?’, no push into it, no ‘give me money’ rubbish. I was mighty impressed with the test drive, so we went through everything – without any negotiation I had a value that was under my own sums by a sizeable amount. Suffice it to say, things went well from then on.

I pick up the car on Wednesday evening, looking forward to it very much. Which car did I go for in the end? Well that’s the surprise! I’ll take some photos on Thursday.

Derren Brown Psychics

2010-06-03T17:16:00.000-07:00

There's a great vid on YouTube where Derren Brown investigates a psychic. Great as always from Derren and I won't spoil how it goes - other than to mention Derren Brown is a master when it comes to mentalism and is quite possibly the best mentalist on the planet.

However, a lot of people when talking about psychics and fortune tellers, talk about 'accuracy' and 'hits'. Quite frankly if you can talk to the dead, then the accuracy should be 100% (Derren's is remarkably close to this and he's not psychic). Also if you can talk to dead people I don't care that they're well and happy (of course they are - they don't have any worries anymore, and are immortal) - I want to know what the afterlife is like, which (if any) of the religions are correct, etc. etc.

Basically if a psychic ever has to ask me 'is this correct?' or 'am I on the right lines?' then I know they are de facto not for real. Those are 'fishing' questions, plain and simple.

New Driving Test Elements

2010-06-03T16:45:00.000-07:00

So the practical driving test is going to add a 'navigation' element. It begs the question: Why are they bothering with adding this extra element to the test, rather than revamping the whole thing?

The first problem is while there are no quotas, there are pass rates. I had first-hand experience of this 'quota' system in action in one of my tests, the examiner basically hit the dual brakes to stop me hitting a pedestrian... on the pavement... on the other side of the road. Passed too many people? Better start failing some others. This is further panned out on student forums where, for example, mounting the kerb is a 'minor' for some people, 'major' for others.

Next up is the test itself - it's rather obtuse. The maneuvers are good, in fact they're pretty golden - shame they're not tested enough. You only have to pass one maneuver under the proposed changes, rather than two. In some test centres, some maneuvers aren't even tested for 'practical' reasons. In Cheltenham you don't have to bay park because the test centre doesn't have any parking bays - what's wrong with the local Tesco I don't know. All maneuvers should be tested.

The test has a tendency to fail students for mistakes that aren't necessarily their own, there is a real luck factor - you could get a lucky run, or you could get a very bad run. Causing another car to slow down shouldn't in itself be an immediate fail - if you pulled out in front, fine. But if the other car was speeding, or something was misjudged slightly and they only had to tap the brakes - then there shouldn't be a problem.

Finally the police should have the power to add points for careless driving. People who consistently fail to indicate, indicate incorrectly, use lanes incorrectly, or otherwise drive in a way that hinders other road users. Yes this includes people driving at a constant 40mph everywhere.

I’m Hideously Shallow

2010-06-03T15:51:00.001-07:00

I recently spotted a car in a showroom next to the showroom I was visiting – I car that impressed me immensely (no I didn’t test drive). It seems all it takes to stir my soul is fancy gunmetal alloys with red 4-pot Brembo callipers and a glass roof.

Mmmm Brembos.

Ghost Photos

2010-06-01T08:01:00.001-07:00

Just watched Derren Brown’s Investigations into ghosts, a brilliant show with a lot of footage and a pretty inevitable result – there is no evidence. But what did prick my interest was the ‘ghost’ photos. The particular photos used in this show all featured mist or shadows on irregular surfaces – so basically not ghost photos at all, but they were interpreted as such. This was interesting because normally you get ghost photos with a somewhat clearly defined ghost somewhere in frame, even if it’s just a head. I’ve taken a lot of photos in grave yards and not once have I ever captured a ghost, and I seriously doubt I ever will.

The misconception is that most ghost photos are manipulated in Photoshop or use smudges on the lens, etc. The thought is old photos done with film cameras are the real deal – very wrong. In fact old film cameras make your full-blown ghost images even easier than nowadays simply because the film isn’t as sensitive. In essence, to make a ghost photo you need a low-sensitivity film, and a long exposure time. If you want you can use a flash to make it appear as if the photo was taken quickly without a long exposure. You set the camera on a tripod looking at something innocuous, then you set the exposure for say, 10 seconds. You need to have your chosen ‘ghost’ pose for say 3-5 seconds, then run/jump/leap/walk out of shot depending on the effect you want. The end result is a photo of a ‘ghost’ that is either fairly well-defined or somewhat wispy (this depends on how the person left the frame).

For the simple reason that photos are hideously easy to fake – I’ll never, ever believe a ghost photo. The other ‘evidence’ for ghosts is similarly flaky so I seriously doubt ghosts exists and that we’ll ever get any evidence. The argument ‘we can’t explain everything’ is completely invalid. Fireworks were considered ‘magic’ because most people couldn’t explain them – now we know it as a ‘simple’ chemical reaction.

Top Always Down

2010-05-26T15:02:00.001-07:00

Look what I found on the Internets:

Bonus points if you can identify the car.

Volcanic Ash

2010-05-20T10:49:00.001-07:00

A little while back I noticed some gritty stuff on my car, not sure if it was volcanic ash or not – but I’m assuming it is. Pictures below:

Seems to come down with the rain, and for some reason, loves to settle on my car (none of the cars around had the same issue, but I had been off driving around in heavy rain).

T-Cut

2010-05-19T11:48:00.001-07:00

OK this has been bothering me a lot. If your car has water-based paint (if it’s less than 5 years old it is almost certainly water-based) do not under any circumstances use T-Cut. T-Cut is for lead-based paint, and on your paint it’ll remove too much lacquer at best, scratch your paint to hell at worst.

Use Meguiar’s ScratchX – if this isn’t strong enough then either research some more or get a professional to look at it.