The goal was to gain as
much early feedback on the game as possible during the «pre-alpha» stages of development.
Not exact matches
You see, the game was originally envisioned as a mobile title but ultimately launched first on Steam
Early Access since it was
much easier to gather
feedback and iterate with updates on that platform.
If
early feedback is any indication, many of the problems of the first film have been corrected and this is a
much stronger entry.
One thing often unsaid (or unconsidered) about receiving
feedback is that
much of it comes from ourselves, from our own internal voice (the one that poses those clearly worded questions on
early morning walks...).
With little
feedback you have to build up trust that the G will negotiate the next turn, particularly given the extra brake pressure you need to haul off sometimes considerable speed, but the newfound predictability and relatively
early onset of scrubbing and squealing noises from the front axle give decent indication of how
much the tyres have left to offer.
All the
feedback from veterinarians performing
early - age spay / neuter emphasize how
much easier and faster the procedure is when done at very
early ages.
However, there was some good news as Noah Hughes, the Creative Director for Tomb Raider, mentioned this in reply to a question: «We are definitely hearing some consistent
feedback that we feel we can address, but it is too
early to really answer too
much about the next game.»
It's still very
much in development and comes with all the subject - to - change warnings you'd expect - but
early reports suggest the module is already «too exciting» for coherent
feedback.
«Our goal is to extend this type of testing and iteration to a
much larger audience to hopefully perfect RONIN and Steam
Early Access is the perfect method and forum for honest
feedback.»
First unveiled at The Game Awards in December 2014 and delayed until 2017 as the devs rejig the game to address
early playtester
feedback, not
much is know about Tacoma.
My question is: Since these
earlier relatively slight forcings prompted such considerable carbon
feedbacks that drove warming
much further than it would have gone otherwise, should we not expect some sort of carbon
feedback to kick in from our considerable «artificial» forcing / warming?
There's also a number of interesting applications in the evolution of Earth's atmosphere that branch off from the runaway greenhouse physics, for example how fast a magma - ocean covered
early Earth ends up cooling — you can't lose heat to space of more than about 310 W / m2 or so for an Earth - sized planet with an efficient water vapor
feedback, so it takes
much longer for an atmosphere - cloaked Earth to cool off from impact events than a body just radiating at sigmaT ^ 4.
Feedbacks are also kicking in
much faster than
earlier expectations, show these should also steepen the curves a bit at least.
1) CO2 is not rising significantly compared to
earlier in the 20th century (Beck, Segalstad, Jaworowski) 2) OK, so CO2 is rising, but human sources are but a minor player (Howard Hayden, Spencer on WUWT) 3) OK, so human CO2 is significant, but its temperature effect is nonexistant (Heinz Hug) 4) OK, so CO2 has a temperature effect, but it is dwarfed by water vapour (Lindzen, Reid Bryson, Tim Ball 5) OK, so the CO2 temperature effect is not completely dwarfed by water vapour, but the sun is
much more important (Svensmark, Shaviv, many others) 6) OK, so the solar output has been flat since the 50ies, but there are no net positive
feedback (Lindzen again, Spencer again) 7) Actually, there has been no significant global warming (Watts, Singer + more), 8) Hey, all this warming is a) unstoppable anyway (Singer again) b) good for humanity (Michaels).
Microsoft Wallet with Tap to Pay: We heard your
feedback about how
much you wanted this and as announced
earlier today, tap to pay with Microsoft Wallet is now available to Windows Insiders (Build 14360 or higher).