The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Barseps.

Perhaps, but not necessarily. Different studios -- Bethesda (Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim) and ZeniMax Online (parent corp., so they can borrow art assets and TES IP, but whole different set of developers and from what I've read I don't think they'll be transferring any of the dev staff between studios).

Take heart, all is not lost for single-player TES.

Epic bearded guy would be wearing Nordic Carved Armor. So, yeah, Ebonheart Pact.

I completely agree about Elder Scrolls being a single player experience. For me anyway. I've never enjoyed MMOs and there's no chance that this is going to sway me. About the only thing I'd like added to the TES games is a little more micromanagement of my companions. Dragon Age: Origins got that right.

Wow! A pretty trailer that shows absolutely no gameplay. Really neat if I want to watch a CGI movie about TES.

I'm kind of conflicted about this one. As someone who has logged something like 600 hours on Skyrim, I'm a pretty big fan of TES games. However, the last thing the world needs is another PvE/PvP grind-fest WoW-clone. It's just not TES.

I doubt that I will partake.

Your link missed an important bit, and showed me ALL the TES factions, then I realized that it should point here:
http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Factions_%28Online%29

Anyhow, I bet you're correct and the 3-way faceoff was between:
Aldmeri Dominion (SW corner of map)
Daggerfall Covenant (NW corner)
Ebonhart Pact (NE corner)

...Presumably to allow for PvP control zones, etc. Interesting, thanks.

Still, the MMO nature will make it difficult or impossible to include many if not most of the key things that I enjoy in a TES game, so I still think that this is a long shot for me personally.

Edit: Oh boy, wall of text crits for 10k.

His explanation was rather short and somewhat misleading. Maybe they thought a proper explanation would have been too dry or too lengthy to be of any interest for a sufficient number of their viewers.

tl:dr

If all rotor settings are indicated to be correct, a feedback loop within the circuit indicated a subset of correct connections on the plugboard, even if the initially assumed connection turned out to be wrong. It didn't show all connections, but enough to run it through a modified Enigma to determine if it's a false positive or in fact the correct setting. If it was correct, the rest could be done by hand.

----------------------- Long version -----------------------

Apologies in advance. We had to recreate parts of the Bombe as a simulation, but a) it's been a while and b) it was in German. I'll try to explain the concept behind it, hopefully without screwing it up entirely.

The combination of clear message and code snippet (2:25) is called a crib. This can be used to create a graph, wherein letters are the vertices and connections together with their numerical positions are the edges.

For example, at position 1, "A" corresponds to "W". So you'd create an edge between "A" and "W" and mark that edge as "1". At position 4, "B" corresponds to "T", so there's the edge marked as "4". All edges are bidirectional, the transformation at a specific position can go either way.

Once your graph is finished, you check for loops. These are essential. Without loops, you're boned. In this case, one loop can be found at positions 2,3,5 in form of "T->E->Q->T".

Here the Bombe comes into play. It uses scramblers, each combining all three rotors plus reflector of an enigma into one segment. This way, one Enigma setting is functionally equal to a single scrambler.

Now you can use those scramblers to create an electrical circuit that corresponds to your graph -- scrambler = edge. All scramblers are set to the same initial configuration. The first scramber remains at in the inital configuration, while the second and third get configurations in relation to their edge's numerical value. Configuration in this case means the value of their internal three rotors, so there are 26*26*26 possible settings within each scrambler.

It's basically a sequence of three encryptions.

Example: in our little TEQ triangle, the first scrambler (TE, 2) gets a random starting position. The second scrambler (QE, 5) gets turned three notches, the third scrambler (QT, 3) gets turned one notch. The initial configuration might be wrong, but only the relation between the scramblers matters. A wrong result simply tells you to turn all scramblers another notch, until you get it right.

You have a possibly correct setting when the output matches the input. Specifically, a voltage is applied to the wire of letter "T", leading into the first scrambler. And on a test register attached to the last scrambler, the wire of letter "T" should have a voltage on it as well. If the setting is incorrect, a different letter will light up. Similarly, all incorrect inputs for this particular setup will always light up a different letter at the the end, never the same (thanks to the reflector). If output equals input, you're golden. And if several loops are used, all with the same input/output letter, each of their outputs must equal the input.

To reduce the number of false positives, you need as many connected loops within the crib as possible.

So far, that's an Enigma without a plugboard. To account for that, they introduced feedback loops into the circuit. In our small scale case, the output of the third scrambler would be coupled back into the input of the first scrambler. The number of loops determines the number of possible outcomes with each specific setting. All of these are fed back into the first scrambler of each loop.

The plugboard, however, changed the input into the system of rotors. Instead of a "T" in our example, it might be a "Z", if those two letters were connected on the board.

A random hypothesis is made and fed into the machine. If the scramblers are set incorrectly, a different letter comes out at the end of each loop and is in return fed back into the first scramblers. Result: (almost) everything lights up. If you start with a good graph, everything will light up.

-----
A key element for this was the "diagonal board", which represented a) all possible connections on the plugboard and b) the bidirectional nature of those connections (AB = BA). Maybe it can be explained without pictures, but I sure as hell can't, so "a grid of all possible connections between scramblers and letters + forced reciprocity" will have to suffice.
-----

If, however, the setting was correct, a wrong hypothesis for the input connection merely meant that everything except the right connections was lit up.

Let's say the fix point of the loops in our graph is the letter "T". We assume that it's connected to the letter "Z" on the plugboard. A voltage is applied to "Z" on the test register, and thereby inserted into the circuit at the first scrambler. Loop #1 applies voltage to the letter "A" on the test register, #2 lights up "B", #3 lights up "F". These three outputs are now fed back into the first scrambler, so now the scrambler has voltage on ZABF, which in return lights up ZABF+GEK on the test register.
This goes on until everything except "U" is lit up on the test register. That means three things: a) the settings are correct, b) the hypothesis is wrong, c) "T" is connected to "U".

Reasons:
a) if the settings were incorrect, the entire register would be alive
b) if the hypothesis was correct, only the letter "Z" would be alive on the register
c) due to the feedback loop, the only way for the output to be "U" is if the input was also "U", and the reciprocity within the system makes it impossible for any other input to generate the output "U". Since "T" was the fix point for our loops, "T" is connected to "U".

Similarly, if the initial hypothesis is correct, everything on the test register except "U" stays dead.

The diagonal board provides registers for every single letter and allows the user to pick one as a test register. During operation, all the other registers serve as visual representations of the deductions based on the initial hypothesis. So you actually get to see more than just the initial connection, all based on the same concept.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by kulpims.

Lyrics to Ma Mélodie :
(-M-)
J'aimerais trouver les mots
Les mots justes, les mots qu'il faut
Mais tous les mots sont démodés
Tu sais

Alors j'écris je cherche encore
Le mot vrai
Le mot plus fort
J'ai l'impression qu'j'trouverais jamais
C'est vrai
Je sèche comme tu vois
Et toi

Tu me dis qu'elle est mélo
Tu me dis qu'elle aimait l'eau
Ma mélodie

Tu me dis qu'elle est mélo
Qu'elle aimait l'eau ma mélodie
La musique de tes mots
S'impose
S'installe sur ce thème
Je t'aime

Tu me dis qu'elle est mélo
Tu me dis qu'elle aimait l'eau
Ma mélodie

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

That is pretty much exactly what I said, he does not have an ideology of his own except for the one he was spoon fed his entire life but when that fails he is just a business man and he can weave in and out of it as long as his writers queue him up for it. Romney is a total right winger though, when I have heard him being himself is when he is making vast generalizations with conviction... that is a staple for that sect of thought.

>> ^messenger:

This isn't about conservative/liberal. Te point is that Romney himself is nothing. He's not conservative. He's no liberal. He's just a politician out to get votes any way that he can. Nothing else.
"These are my principles! And if you don't like them, I have others.">> ^shagen454:
The problem with conservatives is that they are supposed to stay the same. Which is why most of them that never leave the farm are about just as good as the cows eating the feed and then they get all tangled up in the masses who have all of these opinions and culture... ITS SO CONFUSING being an elitist, rich piece of right wing turd.

This isn't about conservative/liberal. Te point is that Romney himself is nothing. He's not conservative. He's no liberal. He's just a politician out to get votes any way that he can. Nothing else.

"These are my principles! And if you don't like them, I have others.">> ^shagen454:

The problem with conservatives is that they are supposed to stay the same. Which is why most of them that never leave the farm are about just as good as the cows eating the feed and then they get all tangled up in the masses who have all of these opinions and culture... ITS SO CONFUSING being an elitist, rich piece of right wing turd.