Joel Schultz

How about on the side of the Warmonger? Oh wait, we're talking RL...

Wow! Nice review, especially that it recognized that it takes time to appreciate and is not just something you can jump into cold. I really, really want to get UCAWA. I also really, really want a CPU and video card that can run it. grrrr.....

quote: Originally posted by Darkling: quote:Originally posted by Eclipse: Hmmm... this has promise... Now if we can get SC to support this I can have all of my CC's systems up on separate monitors he won't even support a dual monitor, so you can forget that one. Maybe that's because dual monitor is so done already (i.e. "mundane") and he's waiting for a more unique interesting challenge? j/k

Dumping four mining drones on a planet and then parking your cruiser with engines off on a planet for a couple of hours while you read a book gets you a lot of profit in mined goods, especially if you do it in a less-traveled system (i.e. few if any hostiles) and there's a trading post around. And if you really want to be stingy, load all the goods in a shuttle and do the trading run with it while your cruiser's parked. You don't gain much experience this way of course. But if you have a good book to read and are torn between reading it or playing the game...

I guess those U.N. meetings can get rather long... Photo Article Even Presidents need to visit the bathroom now and then. Don't ask me why I think this is funny. Probably the humanity of the moment contrasted against a serious meeting...and that it got caught...

I haven't had a chance to look at the code again. Maybe this weekend. Of course, my main reason for looking at the code is not an OO-ness analysis... Where I come from, code reuse and maintenance are important priorities. Speed is too, but not to the point where we want fast code at the expense of long-term maintenance. So that biases my perceptions.

That's a very interesting thought. OO design principles *would* tend to encourage additional function call overhead. Following data encapsulation and hiding would tend to block direct access to data in favor of accessor methods. Use of virtual functions also incur an array lookup on the way to making the actual call. Is the cumulative penalty really that great? Can the compilers/CPUs of today not optimize or predictively branch their way to near-ideal performance? I can see your point about reusability, but game engines (like Unreal) are designed to be reusable by third party. OO is supposed to assist reuse, among other things. But your point about reusability possibly not being a priority is an interesting one. (And before SC jumps on that statement reusability has NOTHING to do with OO and any good programmer can just as easily write reusable non-OO code.)

I agree with your OO comments. In the 7 years or so I've been working, I've only seen C++ used in a non-OO procedural manner once (that's probably in part due to the industry I'm in, not to mention the codebase I work with daily). So you can imagine seeing something (FS2) that looks at first glance like non-OO procedural C++ is somewhat of a novelty for me ("oooo...weird"). Hence my initial reaction, and the spark for my original post. Maybe this weekend I'll have a more informed opinion of the OO-ness of FS2 if I get a chance to read over the code in more detail. Chief areas of curiosity: AI and network code. If FS2 is not OO, well, then it's just weird to me (procedural C++). If it is OO, then it is really, really, really weird (why didn't they leverage the OO features of C++).

Agreed. I can write (and have written) C code that looks/behaves more or less like C++ code and is "OO". However, that requires more "discipline" on the part of the programmer to follow the tenets of OO, since C won't enforce them. C++ does attempt to enforce the tenents. Not that you can't get around them quite easily if you want. From that standpoint, IMHO I would think that OO would be easier in C++ than C -- it certainly is not impossible in C (or any other non-OO language), it just requires more discipline. Not to mention you get useful freebies like automatic destructor calls in C++. But I sure don't want this topic to turn into a debate on "can I do OO in language L" so... If indeed the FS2 code is OO (and I admit I have not read it in sufficient detail yet to judge this -- my post was my "immediate reaction", or "first impression" and should be taken as such -- and I will also admit I am unused to recognizing OO code in unusual guises) why would one write OO code choosing C++ as the programming language and NOT harness the aspects of the language designed specifically to accommodate OO? This to me is an even more interesting question than whether or not FS2 is OO. This may be a pretty lousy question to ask as it assumes there's a "typical" programming paradigm, but is this sort of thing seen a lot? I don't intend to quit my day-job to do games programming, for sure But...you know...sometimes you're curious about how someone else's code was put together, especially if it's kind of cool. A "Why'd they do this" sort of thing...

Recently I downloaded the Freespace 2 source code. Why? Because I'm a geek and proud of it! Besides, I never saw a real game's source code before and was curious. Besides discovering that there's something seriously wrong with my development environment at home (will need to reinstall, I think), I had an opportunity to gloss over the source code. My immediate reaction: huh? The FS2 developers used C++ (.cpp files) but this is one of the least OO C++ code samples I've seen in a while. I mean, I understand that C++ makes it easier to deal with the COM DirectX API (actually, I can't recall if the original FS2 required DX to run, and I can't find the game box at the moment). But still, I would have thought that a game with distinct objects, operations on the objects, and the need to sometimes hide various operational details (such as whether the graphics engine uses DirectX vs Glide) would lend themselves quite well to OO principles. I'm wondering why a game developer would write their code in such manner. What would drive that decision? Style? Lack of OO experience (that somehow strikes me as unbelievable)? Perceived performance benefits? (Perceived performance benefits I personally think is bunk -- C++ gets translated by the compiler into C-like code, and I would hope that the optimizer would do at least as well on C++ as with C -- the only thing I can think of which might induce a minor hit would be vtable function lookups, but unless that's in a highly frequented inner loop, how many CPU cycles would that cost? Am I way off base in this analysis?) I'm curious to peruse through some of the rest of the code to see if I can dig up interesting tidbits on why it works like it does.

OK - me too (got off eBay). Next question: I'm anxious to try playing FS2. However, I hear lots of good things about FS2_OPEN. I even went so far as to DL the source code -- I've never seen a game's source before (more on that in another topic). My big issue is I'm probably a bit of a purist when the whim strikes me and the whim is striking me now: if I put on FS2_Open on top of a FS2 install, what is that changing exactly? Is the campaign plot changed? What is being gained by FS2_Open? Am I "losing" anything?

Serious: Few want to be told anything that would require them to make changes to their life. Silly: What did he expect? I mean, come on, what guy in their right mind tells a woman she looks fat? Sure ticket to a night on a couch if you're married...

quote: On second thought, wouldn't the SC's flag ship be a carrier? Hmmmm.The SC's the SC, and if he wants his flagship to be an in-system tugboat, yer gonna like it!

Time to break out the shovels... Oops, did I type that or think that? Doh! j/k First time I installed AdAware two years ago it found a TCP/IP layer shim that didn't belong. After I got rid of that, I changed all my passwords around, particularly the banking ones. Now I have so many username/password variations, I had to type a cheat-sheet just to keep them all straight. My only question is, "How come this hasn't happened sooner?" Maybe they're just the first to get caught?

Well, I be a huntin' on eBay now. I might resort to HotU if all else fails, but would rather get the real deal if possible...

I make a mistaken decision w.r.t. what is best for myself, and come to regret it later. The decision I made results to serious harm to myself (I lose all my money, ruin my health, whatever) and I deeply regret it. Even if I learn from it, I don't think that the idea that I learned from it and that "I made the decision myself" consitute any sort of compensation that my original decision was in my own best interest. Say the decision was on financial matters, and someone more knowledgeable than I strongly advised against it and I went ahead and made an informed decision to disagree and go ahead with my plan -- perhaps I even had rational basis for the disagreement -- and I still get burned in the end. To my mind, it would have been my friend who knew what was better for myself than I in this particular case. Had my friend restrained me, it would be arguable that I would be better off -- in fact, if it later comes to light what *would* have happened had I made the decision I would undoubtely agree that I am better off. I would have learned he was right, and I would not suffer harm to myself. I would have suffered a temporary loss of that freedom. Except here's the part in such a scenario dislike quite strongly. I do not think that friend has the right to take away my right to make a decision, even if I'm wrong about my decision. I have free will, and the right to exercise it for good or ill. He has no right to take that away from me, nor I from him. I have free will, and must endure the consequences of it. To my way of thinking, that the friend (ulitimately) knew better what would come of my course of action than I would indicate that he knew better than I what was good for me. I do not see having made the decision entirely myself and the learning experience resulting from what I consider extreme harm to myself to have been "in my best interests". In retrospect, I would consider "in my best interests" to not have made the original decision. (And if one persists in the argument that I *still* know my own best interests anyway even in making the wrong decision -- in that case, I can certainly change my viewpoint on what my best interests are and then disagree that the first choice I made was in my best interests. To argue I am wrong to do so would negate the premise that I know my own best interests). So although I have a right to make a choice, it does not follow that right automatically translates into the choice being "right" or "best" for my own interests. I trust my mind that I will make what *seems* to be the best decision for myself at a given time. I do not trust that such a decision ultimately *is* the best decision for myself. I think it *is* important that *I* be the one to make a decision. I think it is questionable whether the decision will always turn out *right* even in my own eyes. And this is why group-centric thinking is equally bound to fail to discover what is "best" for an individual. If an individual can not reliably determine 100% of the time what is in their own best interest, how on earth are they going to figure out what is in someone else's? Maybe an individual has a better idea of their own best interests some of the time. By extension, perhaps a group may likewise know what the best interests of a person are *some of the time*. To say one or the other ALWAYS knows what is BEST seems to fly in the face of experience. Since this thread seems to be swinging back to cocaine/drugs again and out of the philosophical, I think I'll conclude my part in this... [ 08-05-2005, 08:15 AM: Message edited by: Joel Schultz ]

I am not convinced that either assumption is ultimately beneficial to the individual. My big problem with philosophical debates is that everyone pretends humans are rational. We're not. We do stupid things. (Recall the second most abundantly occurring resource in the universe after hydrogen). Given that irrationality and stupidity are a factor, it is not clear to me that an individual will always make the right decision for themselves. If people could do that, they would never have anything to regret or need to second guess themselves, "Should I have done this differently?" Such occur. Its why the battered wife sticks with the husband. An emotional factor is involved which may override all rational reasons to leave, even if it ends up resulting in her death. She fully knows the risks, yet at the same time wholeheartedly does not want to die. Her desires are in conflict. Does that make me know better than her what's best? No (although I think it is better to live). Does she really know what is "best" for her? I'm not sure of that either. She may regret leaving. She may also regret dying (if she could somehow regret after such an incident). If either choice leads to future regrets -- was there really a "best" choice even in her mind? It is likewise unclear to me that such factors vanish when a group is in charge. If anything, stupidity seems to be more prevalent in groups ("herd mentality"). I don't think either assumption can be defended successfully under *all* scenarios. I feel it more reasonable to conclude neither individual nor group can adequately determine "best" for all circumstances. If such were possible, I would think that somewhere there'd be Utopia. There isn't. As for what I meant by "deal with it": feel free to try to escape all groups' rules. Unless you can get to Mars, you are stuck in a group, and they are stuck with you. Does that mean some people live lives of relative slavery? Yes, since they can not escape. I do not think this is a good thing either, and is an example of the evil group-centric thinking can lead to. However, individuals don't exist in a vacuum either. If the rule is "freedom to do whatever I want so long as I don't hurt others" -- "others" is present in the equation. As is "hurt". Who determines what "hurt" is? You have your concept. "Others" -- including other individuals -- have their concept. The two are not necessarily coincident or reconcilable. The self-centric point of view would probably define "hurt" from the self's perspective. Group-centric would define "hurt" from the other's perspective. It is not clear why one side's definition of "hurt" ought to be given preference over the other. For one to be given preference implies one of the two, self or other, is the more important. It is not clear to me why self should be given preference over other, or vice versa. Where does this "rule" come from? Why should a whole group bend for a single individual? Why should an individual submit to every demand of a group? Besides, we are all "self" to ourselves and "other" to someone else. In that sense, we all occupy the same space in either way of thinking, self- or group-centric. If all individuals/groups are equal, my claim "your smoking pot is affecting me negatively" is as admissable as your claim that "my smoking pot does not affect you at all". You are not in my head, my mind. And I am not in yours. We have a difference of opinion. Not being completely rational creatures, such differences may not be resolveable (as anyone who reads this forum area knows). I don't see how such a question is ultimately resolveable without appealing to the origin of human authority. And the only answers that I have for that are either a deity or "might makes right."

You know, there are two interesting and opposing philosophical assumptions underlying some of this debate: AN INDIVIDUAL IS THE BEST ONE TO DECIDE WHAT IS OR IS NOT GOOD FOR HIM/HERSELF. A GROUP IS THE BEST ONE TO DECIDE WHAT IS OR IS NOT GOOD FOR INDIVIDUALS. Why is either assumption justifiable? For the former, there are obvious counter-examples: children for instance, and the mentally disabled probably are counter-examples of persons who are not capable. What makes a "normal" adult different? (And who defines "normal"?) But then is the latter assumption justifiable? There would seem to be counter-examples for this too: organized crime that extorts individuals, oppressive governments. (And if a group *is* best, who defines that group?) Is there any basis for believing that EITHER point of view is justifiable? Both viewpoints can lead to violations of what one may deem "rights": (Self-centric) An individual chooses to be an alcoholic. They suffer mental impairment, radical mood swings, and consequently can not hold down a job. Their spouse and children suffer financial hardship due to this individual's choice. (Self-centric) An individual decides for himself they can handle a car at 100MPH on a highway -- and they can. A less-capable motorist is startled (no contact between vehicles) as they pass, and in their startlement loses control and dies in a wreck. That one would likely be alive if they had not been startled by the first individual. (Self-centric) A person commits suicide, believing it best for themselves -- and they are correct. Yet family and friends are left emotionally devastated (emotional harm done). Since this person was a breadwinner their surviving family suffers financial hardship. (Group-centric) A group decides that all persons without exception within the group must pay $X per year for membership wihtin the group. A person is too poor to afford it and yet can not leave the group due to costs imposed by the group on leaving it. This one lives in poverty and starves to death. (Group-centric) A group decides that a particular individuals have traits making them undesirable. Such individuals are imprisoned or executed. (Group-centric) A group orders a member to carry out the extermination of a subset of the group. This member is unable to leave the group at will. The group executes the individual because to do so violates their individual conscience or religious beliefs or ethics. (Self-centric) An individual refuses to consent to a group's command to assist in providing relief for other individuals who are starving to death, because the individual deems it not in their own best interest. Several of these starving ones die. (Group-centric) Another individual consents to the same command despite it not being in their best interest, and consequently *they* die, yet many starving ones are saved. I submit that no matter which of the two viewpoints you subscribe to, one can all-too-easily come up with an example where application of the principle can lead to harming an individual (or something that is against that one's will). Reality check: If an individual decides to be part of a group, then that individual necessarily must cede certain "rights" to the group as per the group's rules. Otherwise, the group would not accept that one (and if the rules are unacceptable, why join?) I submit there are groups that one is part of not by one's own choice but by accident of birth and geography (e.g. family, country, human species). If the rules governing such a group are unacceptable, the only thing you can do at this point is relocate (if/when you are allowed). Yet this will likely place such one within yet another group's sphere of influence with its own rules. Unfortunately, there are few places one can go on this planet to form your own group if you disagree with EVERY groups' rules. Which means inevitably one has to make a decision (conscious or otherwise) to abide within SOME group. And that decision cedes individual rights which the group has claimed for itself. At that point it really is immaterial whether or not you or the group is the one that knows what is "best" for you. You're stuck in that group, with that group's rules, for better or worse, and that group is stuck with you and your needs/wants, for better or worse. (Of course, some groups allow the rules to be changed, but oftentimes one has to be join yet another group to do so, with no guarantee *that* group will always be 100% agreeable to the person). Deal with it.

So where can one get the FS2 game CD-ROM without having to sell one's own mother and spleen? I saw it going for $70+ somewhere on the 'net. That's ridiculous, especially for a game that old. I thought prices go down as a game ages...

So true...

As for me, I'm kind of bummed. My PC still doesn't even match up with the minimum requirements for this. (For UC, it was above minimum but not quite at recommended). I was kind of silently hoping during the last several months leading up to this that an absolutely amazing, unheralded (and ludicrous) miracle would occur and the minimum requirements would change to fit my PC. And me stuck midway between major upgrade cycles on my PC. Looks like I'm going to have to wait this one out until then.

quote: highs The uninstall button... lows ... the setup button. First time I've seen that in a review. BTW, did anyone see that the original BC3000AD got a dubious honor from the one review site? quote: Dungeon Lords is probably the least finished game to ever be shipped for PC, excepting Battlecruiser 3000 AD, a title that will probably hold the honour for as long as PC gaming exists.Yeah! We're #1! Yes, I'm feeling silly this morning. How'd you guess? Seriously, at least SC stuck with it and finished the game. One hopes he set a good example that will be followed by other developers (like Heuristic Park) who get whacked by the publisher.

Again?

I have noticed that any game with large data files, not just UC, can be subject to "nasty fragmentation". But this occurs during installation/patching, not general use. The only thing fragmentation seems to affect in those games are performance hits on things like splash screen/video/load times. Things associated with very large files. No crashing/instability, though. For instance, for me the effect of defragging my HD upon UC was to remove the stuttering of and speed up the opening splash video. However, the video could still run while fragmentted -- no hangs or the like. It just ran ugly (from an aesthetic perspective). (I suppose on could also reasonably attribute the above to my system not being powerful enough to compensate for the fragmenting by brute force.)

Well this stinks. It's hard enough to find a store with PC games in it and the local ones have been shrinking their shelf space for it or altogether eliminating it. Where's that leave PC games?