Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 43
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Originally posted by Duncan

sorry, decided not to spoil it for you.

What? you think I haven't read the book??? I have read all three of them in fact...

What I mean was how the movie is gonna be like, in terms of how they are going to describe the scene from the book to vision.... the way they design Isengard, Helm's Deep, Rivendell, the crater of mount doom itself, the way the landscape looks... What the battle scene looks like, what the spider that stung Frodo looks like....

No one will know until the 3rd one.... unless they release a sneak preview.

i liked the two towers, but i don't think it entertained me as much the chamber of secrets did (maybe im just a kid at heart :D) ....

that said, the special effects in the two towers were absolutely amazing. the fight scene at helms deep was tantalisingly real as it could get, some of the tactics used, such as the ladders, were just fantastic...

and the fightin trees and the water....oh how cool!

and how does appreciating a movie relate to being nerdy? :shake:

im so keen to see it i have read all the books except the 3rd one which i will read b4 the movie. I cant see it yet the cinemas are to packed and alot of tickets are prebought so im got some for sun night. I didnt like the way the story of gandolf(spelling) and bilbo was so compressed in the the first movie but to get this right they would of had to do a seperate movie so all in all they did a good job. You dont have to be a nerd to like a movie or a book thats like saying you a pervert for admiring a fine woman!!!!!!!!!:lol:

Originally posted by [MRTRBO]

I got payed to watch it :D

mad movie!  

Whats the name of the book for part three ?

I wanna read it before the movie comes out !

Anyone?

The 3rd one is The Return of the King - much better if you read them all though starting from The Hobbit.

Self confessed Tolkien fan

the film was great but i enjoyed FOTR more than TTT since Peter Jackson didn't play with Story as much in the FOTR.

He messed some of the story up big time.

Faramir, Eomer, the Elkengard (spelling), Haldir the love triangle to name afew things.

Don't get me wrong I loved the film as the effects were great and the battle was at Helms deep was amazing. Golum was awesome and I think hes portrayed better in film than in the book. I just think the few story changes Jackson made detracted from the film abit which made me enjoy it less than i would of.

Oh and a last note which twit reviewed TTT for the Sydney Morning Herald. Lol his comments made the West Australian and boy did he stuff up. Pointing out bloopers that weren't even there, from what he said it sounded like he hasn't read the book properly and doesn't know the story to well. ie he was complaining about things that where left out when there not due to shoe up till ROTK haha. Also pointed out that Jackson used his kids in the film and himself as an extra in the Helms Deep battle, why not its his movie and directors do it all the time. Man that reviewer is a tool.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
    • When I said "wiring diagram", I meant the car's wiring diagram. You need to understand how and when 12V appears on certain wires/terminals, when 0V is allowed to appear on certain wires/terminals (which is the difference between supply side switching, and earth side switching), for the way that the car is supposed to work without the immobiliser. Then you start looking for those voltages in the appropriate places at the appropriate times (ie, relay terminals, ECU terminals, fuel pump terminals, at different ignition switch positions, and at times such as "immediately after switching to ON" and "say, 5-10s after switching to ON". You will find that you are not getting what you need when and where you need it, and because you understand what you need and when, from working through the wiring diagram, you can then likely work out why you're not getting it. And that will lead you to the mess that has been made of the associated wires around the immobiliser. But seriously, there is no way that we will be able to find or lead you to the fault from here. You will have to do it at the car, because it will be something f**ked up, and there are a near infinite number of ways for it to be f**ked up. The wiring diagram will give you wire colours and pin numbers and so you can do continuity testing and voltage/time probing and start to work out what is right and what is wrong. I can only close my eyes and imagine a rat's nest of wiring under the dash. You can actually see and touch it.
    • So I found this: https://www.efihardware.com/temperature-sensor-voltage-calculator I didn't know what the pullup resistor is. So I thought if I used my table of known values I could estimate it by putting a value into the pullup resistor, and this should line up with the voltages I had measured. Eventually I got this table out of it by using 210ohms as the pullup resistor. 180C 0.232V - Predicted 175C 0.254V - Predicted 170C 0.278V - Predicted 165C 0.305V - Predicted 160C 0.336V - Predicted 155C 0.369V - Predicted 150C 0.407V - Predicted 145C 0.448V - Predicted 140C 0.494V - Predicted 135C 0.545V - Predicted 130C 0.603V - Predicted 125C 0.668V - Predicted 120C 0.740V - Predicted 115C 0.817V - Predicted 110C 0.914V - Predicted 105C 1.023V - Predicted 100C 1.15V 90C 1.42V - Predicted 85C 1.59V 80C 1.74V 75C 1.94V 70C 2.10V 65C 2.33V 60C 2.56V 58C 2.68V 57C 2.70V 56C 2.74V 55C 2.78V 54C 2.80V 50C 2.98V 49C 3.06V 47C 3.18V 45C 3.23V 43C 3.36V 40C 3.51V 37C 3.67V 35C 3.75V 30C 4.00V As before, the formula in HPTuners is here: https://www.hptuners.com/documentation/files/VCM-Scanner/Content/vcm_scanner/defining_a_transform.htm?Highlight=defining a transform Specifically: In my case I used 50C and 150C, given the sensor is supposedly for that. Input 1 = 2.98V Output 1 = 50C Input 2 = 0.407V Output 2 = 150C (0.407-2.98) / (150-50) -2.573/100 = -0.02573 2.98/-0.02573 + 47.045 = 50 So the corresponding formula should be: (Input / -0.02573) + 47.045 = Output.   If someone can confirm my math it'd be great. Supposedly you can pick any two pairs of the data to make this formula.
    • Well this shows me the fuel pump relay is inside the base of the drivers A Pillar, and goes into the main power wire, and it connects to the ignition. The alarm is.... in the base of the drivers A Pillar. The issue is that I'm not getting 12v to the pump at ignition which tells me that relay isn't being triggered. AVS told me the immobiliser should be open until the ignition is active. So once ignition is active, the immobiliser relay should be telling that fuel pump relay to close which completes the circuit. But I'm not getting voltage at the relay in the rear triggered by the ECU, which leaves me back at the same assumption that that relay was never connected into the immobiliser. This is what I'm trying to verify, that my assumption is the most likely scenario and I'll go back to the alarm tech yet again that he needs to fix his work.      Here is the alarms wiring diagram, so my assumption is IM3A, IM3B, or both, aren't connected or improper. But this is all sealed up, with black wiring, and loomed  
×
×
  • Create New...