I’ve had this for about a year - I took the GPU out last night to clean it and now it’s doing this loop.
I’ve reset the CMOS, I’ve removed the RAM and tried one stick at a time in different slots, I’ve tried just using the onboard GPU. Nothing has worked.
Any tips?
I’m using an X2D with PETG in one nozzle and PLA in the other using one for the support interface and one for the supports and build.
Bambu Studio enables the prime tower by default and cautions against turning it off. But it seems like SUCH a waste to me when I’m only using 2 filaments on 2 separate nozzles.
Is it necessary to keep the prime tower enabled?
As the title says, I'm looking for something that essentially looks like an AR10 body compatible with a VSR 10 internal system.
I want to make the charging handle the bolt by removing the safety mechanism thereby enabling a straight pull.
Deleted my previous post because I misspoke - I did not mean punitive damages but PENALTY CLAUSES.
How is APCOA’s fine of €125 for a €10 spot in line with Irish jurisprudence? It’s a penalty clause and we haven’t had a case decided here like in the UK.
I downloaded GAMMA on GOG a while back and only getting around to playing now but it looks quite bad - PS4 level graphics.
I've seen vids online of the game and it looks phenomenal so I'm definitely doing something wrong here. I havent messed with the default mods or anything, just left everything as it was save for maximising graphics settings in game of course.
Can anyone help?
Also - a bonus question is how tf do I enable Debug mode in DX11?
Has anyone good recommendations for mods that are Game Master modes but already prepared and ready for play?
The only reason is because I wanna play offline as much as possible and so I can’t Host Server and become GM all the time, I know I can play GM mode but i kind of want a few plug and play scenarios rather than setting up for myself.
Just wondering if Reforger has any single player scenarios where you start with a squad on a conquer the map style game?
Ideally, I would love if there’s a WWI / WWII version of this but I can’t seem to get that working… it seems weirdly more convoluted than Arma 3.
I’m just looking for useful tips on how I can push or exaggerate colour while painting representationally. I’m thinking of the likes of Turner, Payne, Mitchell Albala, Loriann Signori, David Mensing.
I really really struggle to paint anything other than the colours I see directly in front of me - but I want to paint more vivid and less literal colour. Every time I try, it ends up looking fairly gaudy / out of sync.
I know the general tips - get values right and get temperature relationship right and exaggerate it.
But I’m looking for more practical tips, if I’m looking at a landscape, how do I go from painting what I literally see to painting what I want to paint - Turner’s paintings, for example, are not literally correct - they’re inaccurate to real life but in a way that really works.
Would appreciate any help on this.
I’m just looking for useful tips on how I can push or exaggerate colour while painting representationally. I’m thinking of the likes of Turner, Payne, Mitchell Albala, Loriann Signori, David Mensing.
I really really struggle to paint anything other than the colours I see directly in front of me - but I want to paint more vivid and less literal colour. Every time I try, it ends up looking fairly gaudy / out of sync.
I know the general tips - get values right and get temperature relationship right and exaggerate it.
But I’m looking for more practical tips, if I’m looking at a landscape, how do I go from painting what I literally see to painting what I want to paint - Turner’s paintings, for example, are not literally correct - they’re inaccurate to real life but in a way that really works.
Would appreciate any help on this.
I’m just looking for useful tips on how I can push or exaggerate colour while painting representationally. I’m thinking of the likes of Turner, Payne, Mitchell Albala, Loriann Signori, David Mensing.
I really really struggle to paint anything other than the colours I see directly in front of me - but I want to paint more vivid and less literal colour. Every time I try, it ends up looking fairly gaudy / out of sync.
I know the general tips - get values right and get temperature relationship right and exaggerate it.
But I’m looking for more practical tips, if I’m looking at a landscape, how do I go from painting what I literally see to painting what I want to paint - Turner’s paintings, for example, are not literally correct - they’re inaccurate to real life but in a way that really works.
Would appreciate any help on this.
I’m just looking for useful tips on how I can push or exaggerate colour while painting representationally. I’m thinking of the likes of Turner, Payne, Mitchell Albala, Loriann Signori, David Mensing.
I really really struggle to paint anything other than the colours I see directly in front of me - but I want to paint more vivid and less literal colour. Every time I try, it ends up looking fairly gaudy / out of sync.
I know the general tips - get values right and get temperature relationship right and exaggerate it.
But I’m looking for more practical tips, if I’m looking at a landscape, how do I go from painting what I literally see to painting what I want to paint - Turner’s paintings, for example, are not literally correct - they’re inaccurate to real life but in a way that really works.
Would appreciate any help on this.
I was chatting to someone who said they owned a plot of agricultural land with trees surrounding it and that they plan to build something on it like a prefab or log cabin or whatever just so they can use it as a second house/holiday home.. I said they were mad and that they’d get told to rip it down by the CoCo as it’d be a change of use and unauthorised development.
They laughed at me…
I was under the impression the CoCos monitored that kind of thing closely - even if you are surrounded by a bunch of trees in a secluded spot. Don’t they use drones?
Just curious what people here thought.
I've been reading Scorners of Death - which attempts to reconstruct a Gaelic fighting style as best it can from the dearth of sufficient evidence.
It mentioned that many of the Galloglass warriors themselves in the employment of the settled Galloglass families (those Hiberno-Norse/Scottish who came over initially as hired mercenaries for Irish aristocracy) were Irish (i.e. descended from native Irish and not actually "Galloglass" in the truest sense).
I just wanted to see if there's any truth behind this.
Additionally, I'm really curious to see if there is any evidence of native Irish Gaels (rather than Scottish Gaels or Anglo-Irish) using the longsword (two handed sword) - I couldn't find much in this regard other than Andrew Halpin's article on Irish swords which doesn't concretely say one way or another.
Myself and my wife are trying to teach ourselves solo Bolognese Sidesword. It's fine so far, but we're struggling to bridge the gap between 1) knowing the concepts (like the names and general functions of the guards, how to throw strikes, tempi, provocations and invitations, footwork, etc.) and being able to physically perform these things - that's all fine - and 2) putting these elements into practice and being able to refer to them.
I feel like we're missing a middle part which I am trying to address by introducing isolation exercises, gamification, and restricted choice drills (eg both in CLS and agent throws a Man. Sq.; patient can respond with any of 3 options). I'm trying to use dall'Agocchie for this which is fine but we're finding ourselves wanting both more flowing drills and a bit more prescriptive direction.
I have Robert Rutherfoord's book on Meyer rapier and was wondering what people think about supplementing potential gaps (as I see them anyway for the at home couple teaching themselves without an instructed) in the Bolognese sources with some Meyer content? Would this be a good way to go about things?
Also, if people have a list of good drills or exercises to do, I'd appreciate it. What I'd really like is something that can easily branch for both fencers - for example:
Both Fencers start in x guard
In this scenario, out of two initial strikes in one guard, there are 8 variable outcomes. This to me, would most efficiently lead from "I know my guards, strikes and parries" to "I can lightly spar".
I've attempted to do this myself, but god only knows if I'm even correct in what I'm doing.
Cheers in advance - I know a few of you have really helped me alot already!
My wife is having a hard time throwing strikes and I am just looking for a resource for how to go through the physical motions of the cuts in bolognese sidesword
As per title.
Something I've been wondering is how Becca Cesa and Becca Possa tie into the Bolognese Guards. I know people put them alongside Guardia d'Alicorno but I was wondering if they functioned instead more like dall'Agocchie's Guardia di Testa (point down) where they slope more towards the floor - essentially hanger or half hanger guards.
Whereas Alicorno always seems to be directly pointing to the opponent. @
Not sure what people think, but it has me thinking a bit.
There are two main reasons I'm thinking this and it's because 1) I just find the Becca guards to have more in common (the way they appear) with dall'A's GdT than with Gd'A; and 2) I think the fact that Marozzo glosses over them as additional guards but dall'A gives serious attention to Gd'A but equally uses his version of GdT a lot.
The second point is really the important one - given dall'A came later, would it be possible that, by that time (and at least by dall'A's crowd), the Becca guards had been combined with the function or subsumed the position of the previous "point up GdT"?
Sorry if this doesnt belong here and apologies if it's more half baked than many of the projects - I'm only in the conception phase and I am a complete noob - so if I'm saying things that sound silly or unrealistic, they quite possibly are..
So, I have this idea for a fantasy adventure board game that would be heavily inspired by TTRPGs, traditional Free Roam Video Game RPGs and other Board Games that I feel come close (mostly Runebound).
I've outlined below my main ideas so far. Moreso on how the game would work rather than the content, lore and theme as I find them a little bit more easy to create. The main theme would be high fantasy inspired by European (mostly Irish mythology) with races, magic, monsters, loot, collectibles, etc.:
I would like it to play similar to DnD but without many of the (what I would consider) cringier TTRPG elements. That's not meant pejoratively, I just cannot get into TTRPGs and I wish I could and envy those who can but I can't. I love the freedom but dislike the lack of structure (I know they conflict somewhat). I want hard parameters in which to exercise freedom rather than making a "made up" or "imaginary" story. I'm aware the initial conception and fabrication of the board game would be made up and imaginary and I'm totally aware of the double speak here, but I feel like creating something first and having the game occur naturally is what I'm after as opposed to a more "improv" vibe I find in TTRPGs.
I would like character creation to be a thing and I think this could be achieved by taking the video game route of having set characteristics, traits, qualities, abilities, backgrounds, classes, races, etc. as I do want a set lore and some constraints on what can and can't be done (while obviously not wanting to constrain too much).
I think the ULTIMATE point of the game would be conquest or domination of the land - so like Risk or the video game Crusader Kings III. Where, if all or most areas of the map come under a particular player's control, they would be "crowned" the Conqueror. I would obviously need a very fleshed out system here including - how do control/conquest battles occur, can conquest be achieved in other ways (secrecy, diplomacy), what happens when control of other territories is not held by a player (ie PvE) and what happens when it is held by a player (PvP), what factors affect control/conquest (I think it should be relatively complex).
In saying the above, I want the main focus of the game to be a casual adventure, doing sidequests and meandering through easy going plots. Basically, I want it to be an Elder Scrolls game where the last thing anyone does first is complete the main story. I'd like ambient radiant quests like "you stumble across a farm, kill the monster or avoid" and the option you pick affecting your character. I'd also like deeper "guild" quests where you join a faction trying to get up the ranks.
I would like for the game to not have an ending in the traditional sense, I'd like if the ultimate point (conquering the realm) was a natural end point, but only if agreed by the players - I think it'd be a good idea and fun to leave it so that everyone can continue their adventure, either continuing to play at casual quests or one or more of the other players could try and usurp the throne (either jointly or separately).
I think there needs to be some kind of random quest generation. This might involve just making 3 or 4 pots of variables where pot 1 is the scenario, pot 2 is the enemy, pot 3 is the difficulty and pot 4 is the outcome or something - if each pot contained 10 variables, that's 10,000 quests (however, I think the outcome and scenario pots should probably have more variation than the other two).
I think the Conqueror needs to have a distinct function once achieved by one of the players - they can maybe take on bigger affairs or put out jobs for the other players to undertake or something.
I want it to play similarly to video games like Bannerlord II, Baldur's Gate III and TES.
I also want it to be similar to Talisman and Runebound in its execution and maybe even Folklore - but definitely nowhere as convoluted and overly complex as Folklore - I'm not a fan of that large multi-layered, multi-board behemoth style of Board Game where it takes everyone like 4 hours of reading to play it. I wouldn't want to have to spend hours setting it up and everything.
I think Runebound's or Talisman's combat is really good and I like the way they both treat items and spells, for example.
I'd like for there to be a large overworld map - something like the big GoT board game (like maybe 9-16ft2). I'm open to smaller local maps also, but they'd have to be done right and I don't really like the idea of opening up a smaller map just to move along a zoomed in grid.
Open to suggestions and hit me with criticism.