Skip to content

Rob Griffiths

The ridiculous economics of Real Racing 3

I used to play a lot of Real Racing 3 (RR3), an iOS auto racing game. Like, quite a lot. At one point, I owned all 132 cars available at that time, and had completed all the events.

To reach that point, I spent about $60 on in-app purchases—RR3's in-app purchases were really expensive. And yes, that's a lot, but I didn't own a console at the time, and I judged the app worth the cost of a console racing game. (I also took advantage of some programming glitches that enabled occasional free in-app purchase items; without these glitches, I doubt I would have made it as far as I did.)

Once I'd spent $60 and could go no further without spending more, I stopped playing; $60 was my limit. I did keep my iCloud save game file in case I wanted to revisit it someday. That someday was yesterday.

Since I left, the game has grown a lot: There are now 171 cars available, or 39 more than when I stopped playing. To finish the game again, I'd need to acquire (and upgrade) all of those cars (and race a huge number of new races). I thought "maybe it's OK to spend another $60 or so; it's been a few years."

But as I looked into what it might cost to finish the game, I found that the economics are still absolutely ridiculous. How ridiculous? About $3,665 ridiculous. Yes, I estimate it would cost me $3,665 to finish RR3. At that spending level, though, there are some other purchases I could consider…

Instead of finishing RR3, I could purchase a commercial-grade 48" gas range. Or I could buy a loaded Touch Bar Retina MacBook Pro with a 2.9GHz Core i7 CPU, 1TB SSD, and upgraded graphics.

The third option, though, is the best comparison: For $129 less than what I think it would cost me to finish RR3, I could purchase all of the following:

That's a full console-based driving setup, including a 65" 4K TV, for less than what I'd probably have to pay to finish (temporarily, until the next expansion) Real Racing 3. Yes, I'd say that's ridiculous.

But where do my numbers come from, and how could I possibly think it'd cost that much to finish the game?! Read the rest if you'd like the nitty-gritty on my $3,665 estimate.

[continue reading…]



Speed up your Mac via hidden prefs

Over my many years of running Mac OS X Hints, a huge number of defaults write hints were published.

For those who aren't aware, defaults write is a Terminal command that can be used to modify applications' settings. While you can use these commands to modify settings that are present in an app's Preferences panel, the more-common use of this command is to set non-visible (hidden) prefs that you won't find in the GUI.

Here are three of my favorites—three that not only perceptually but actually increase the speed of your interactions with your Mac. I still, to this day, execute these commands on any new Mac I set up.

Don't worry if you'd prefer to stay away from Terminal: I'll also show how to use the long-lived1The first reference to TinkerTool that I could find in the Mac OS X Hints archive was in March 2001. TinkerTool to set each of these options using a (relatively easy if crowded) GUI interface.

Tip 1: Change the sheet animation speed

Sheets are the attached windows that roll down from (and up into) the title bar of windows, such as the Save dialog in most macOS applications. The animation of these sheets, while visually appealing, does take some time.

Using this tip, you can basically eliminate the animation, greatly speeding the appearance and disappearance of sheets. Given how pervasive sheets are, this tip can save a lot of time each day. While the other tips offer actual speed improvements, they're nothing like the change you get by changing the sheet animation speed.

As a test, I opened and closed a Save sheet in TextEdit five times, both before and after applying this tip:

If you're scoring at home, that's a 47% reduction in the time required for just five cycles of a Save sheet.

[continue reading…]



At the 2017 Mac Pro launch event

Having sat through the introductory movie (great as always), the crowd hushes as Tim Cook strides to the stage…

As you know, I told everyone we had some great desktop Macs on the roadmap, and I'm here today to reveal our work to you: The 2017 Mac Pro.

First, let me say we know that this took too long for many of you. It's been three years since we last updated the Mac Pro, but we've been working super hard on it. Years and years of work went into what I'm about to show you. This thing is packed with amazing technology, and we think you're going to love it! So here it is…



Create an iTunes song info window using Keyboard Maestro

For those who aren't aware, Keyboard Maestro is a macro-creation tool, designed to help you automate routine tasks. But its powers let you do some really cool stuff, not all of which could be classified as automation. Such is the case with this project: Creating an iTunes song info pop-up window.

There are lots of apps out there—including Many Tricks own Butler—that can do this for you, and my Keyboard Maestro version is worse than most of those in many respects. However, I wanted to teach myself more about Keyboard Maestro, and this seemed like a good project with which to do so.

I use Buter's iTunes pop-up info window, which looks like this:

I wasn't really interested in the rating or volume controls (though they should be doable), but I wanted to see if I could get the album art and song info in a window via Keyboard Maestro. After some struggles, here's what I came up with in Keyboard Maestro:

My window is larger by design, so I can have somewhat more visible album art (aging eyes). And I can't decide on a background color or gradient, so it keeps changing—this was the look when I snapped the screenshot, but it's since changed again.

Read on if you'd like to know more about Keyboard Maestro, and how I used it to create this iTunes info window. (Note that this write-up assume some familiarity with Keyboard Maestro, though I try to explain each step in the process.)

[continue reading…]



A spreadsheet to track full-year running miles

2020 update: Everything here is out of date now, and has been replaced with my post on the 2020 version of the worksheet. In there you'll find a download link and full instructions. I'm leaving this article up only because it may be linked to from other places.

 
Update: I've created a much nicer run tracking workbook. Please use that version, as this one is out of date and is no longer maintained. I'm leaving it here because some of the "how to" bits are still applicable to the new version (and it's linked from that post), but I've removed the download link.

To help with my 2,016 miles in 2016 running project, I created an Excel workbook to track my progress. A couple people have asked for the workbook, so here it is…with some caveats and instructions.

First off, this was written for Excel 365, though it should work fine in recent versions of Excel. There is no Numbers version, there is no Google Sheets version…this is it. Start by downloading the worksheet and opening it in Excel.

The first thing you'll notice is that this is a really ugly workbook. The only thing I spent any time "prettifying" at all was the actual vs. goal chart, as that's the thing I tended to look at most often. The second thing you'll notice, depending on when you open the workbook, is that it appears nothing is working. The formulas will not work properly until January 1st, 2017.

[continue reading…]



A year on the run…literally

As I discussed in my first—and last—marathon completed post, I set a fairly outrageous goal way back in January: I decided I’d walk or run 2,016 miles in 2016. If you do the math on that, it means averaging 5.5 miles a day—for all 366 days in the year. I set this goal despite running probably no more than five miles in all of 2015. In my old "real world" job, my boss would call that a BHAG.

But as of yesterday, I have—amazingly to me—reached my goal, a full two weeks before year end. 2,016.74 miles in 352 days, or an average of 5.73 miles per day. (That'd be if I ran every day, which I didn't. More on that later.) After looking at this graph all year, it was incredibly satisfying to see it cross the goal line, even if by just a smidge—though there are two weeks left in the year.

I honestly can't believe I did it; it seems like a ridiculous amount of running to do in one year, unless you're a world-class marathoner, which I am definitely not.

If you'd like to see all sorts of geeky stats about a year's worth of running, as well as some of my thoughts on the experience, keep reading…

[continue reading…]



Detailed instructions for installing the transcode-video tools

My method of ripping Blu-ray discs relies on Don Melton's video_transcoding tools. While these tools work great, they are command-line only (i.e. Terminal required). In my guide, I glossed over the installation bit, referring back to Don's basic guide. But for those new to Terminal, even Don's instructions may be too light on the details.

Hence this detailed installation guide for Don's video_transcoding tools. This guide walks a new user through every step of the process, hopefully getting even someone brand new to Terminal up and running with Don's tools. This will only be of interest if you're having trouble getting the video_transcoding tools installed. If that's you, though, hopefully this will be helpful.

The entire installation of the video_transcoding tool set and all its dependencies will take place in Terminal, which is the direct line to the Unix core of macOS. Open Terminal, which you'll find in /Applications > Utilities, and you'll be greeted by a window with some text; something like this:

This lovely interface is where you'll spend the next chunk of time, installing the video_transcoding tools, and all the programs it uses to get its work done.

Note that this guide is not a detailed introduction to Terminal or Unix. (There are many such guides on the net, and if you're interested, they're well worth reading.) This guide is focused solely on how to use Terminal to install the video_transcoding tools, not how to use Terminal on its own. So let's get started…

[continue reading…]



Remap non-modifiable keyboard shortcuts in any app

Ever run into a program that has some pre-defined keyboard shortcuts you don't like? In most cases, they're associated with a menu item, which means you can use macOS' built-in keyboard shortcuts function to fix them. (In System Preferences > Keyboard > Shortcuts > App Shortcuts.)

But what if the shortcut isn't associated with any menu item? Such is the case in Excel 365, which replaced a couple easy-to-type shortcuts (⌃I and ⌃K for inserting and deleting rows and columns) with much harder to type versions: ⇧⌃= and ⌃-. If there's no corresponding entry in the app's menus, it seems impossible to remap the shortcuts—unless the app itself offers that feature, which Excel did in prior versions.

The good news is that it is possible to remap any keyboard shortcut in any app, as long as you're willing to add one more program to the mix: Some sort of macro app. My example uses Keyboard Maestro, but any app that can send a key sequence in response to another key sequence will do the trick.

[continue reading…]



Apple Mail: Classic or modern layout?

To me, the modern view in Apple's Mail app is basically useless: I keep my Mail window at 1,020 pixels in width, because really, there's no need for it to take up more space than that. But at that width, the modern view's message preview is so tiny as to be basically worthless:

Obviously, that's classic view on the left and modern view on the right. With the classic view, I can read each email as soon as I select it in the list; with modern, I have to double-click a message to open in a new window, which is a waste of time and screen space. Modern only gets truly usable if I'm willing to make the window roughly 1,500 pixels in width.

So which layout do you use? Vote in the Twitter poll for the next day (well, 23 hours and counting).



Revisiting ripping Blu-ray discs

A couple years back, I explained how I rip Blu-ray discs. A lot of time has passed, and I now use a slightly different procedure that results in much faster rips—with the caveat that the resulting file will be larger than the "slow" method, and is technically of slightly lower quality, though I can't visually distinguish the two.

The new method uses Don Melton's amazing video transcoding tools, a set of Unix programs that optimize video conversion in ways you cannot do (or easily do) in the Handbrake GUI. If you're new to Unix, but would still like to try these tools, I wrote a detailed set of instructions that should help get you up and running.

Using these Unix programs, you can rip a disc with various parameters, including one to optimize for speed (with good image quality) and another that tries to minimize the file size.

Here's a quick comparison of all three methods, as tested with the three-hour Hamlet Blu-ray. The 'Handbrake GUI' rip was done using, well, the Handbrake GUI as described in my original article. The second and third rows use Don's tools set to quick and veryquick modes, and the final row uses Don's tools set to optimize the file size.

MethodData CopiedConvert (hrs:mins)File Size
Handbrake GUI47.5GB3:526.8GB
transcode - quick40.1GB2:209.2GB
transcode - small40.1GB3:126.5GB

Tested on a late 2014 27" iMac with a 4GHz Core i7 and 24GB of RAM.

Using Don's tools in "quick" mode, you save time two ways: 7GB (15%) less data is copied to the hard drive, and the conversion process is over 90 minutes (38%) faster. The downside is that the final file size is 2.4GB (35%) larger. And that's what they call a tradeoff.

Using the "small" mode in Don's tools, you still save the 7GB (15%) of data copy, and still save 40 minutes (17%) over the original method. In addition, the file size is smaller than the Handbrake GUI version.

To summarize, regardless of whether you care more about file size or ripping speed, Don's tools provide an advantage over the Handbrake GUI: Either method is notably faster, and the small option generates smaller (or probably at worst, very similar) file sizes. (There's also a "big" option, if you don't mind somewhat larger files at a higher quality level.)

Keep reading to see some examples of the image quality of each method, and information on how to install and use Don's video transcoding tools.

[continue reading…]