Joel Schultz

quote: Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: quote:Originally posted by Joel Schultz: the AI didn't seem to be able to figure out that it needed to go underwater to tow my ship). Shuttles float above water - they don't travel under water. True, true... Except when you use the invincibility cheat Using that you can get an afterburner-powered power-dive into the ocean with enough velocity to crack you into the sea-floor, at which point your shuttle taxis and can be driven around until you use VTOL to take off and it begins a slow, boring float the surface. Normally, that kind of power dive will kill you. Back on topic, I'm still no further ahead on the solar reactor project.

"E6" "You sank my Battlecruiser!" . . . Actually, that's what I just tried. Thinking that maybe involuntary shutdown of the reactor would have an effect on solar reactor behavior, I plopped my cruiser down in the middle of the ocean. After about two minutes, it started to pitch wildly, then kind of pointed nose up and sank below the waters. While it was undergoing these radical orientation changes, the solar reactor meter varied wildly. But once it settled to the sea floor (beached) the output stabilized at about 78 -- again due to its orientation. Messing with the Logistix power setting had no discernable effect. After about a half hour my ship blew up. Shuttles seem to have limited underwater maneuvering capabilities, but it's hard to get them not to go into "float" mode. That makes it hard to rescue a ship sunk in, say, 7000 ft of water. Next time I try this I'll have to do it closer to the coast in shallower water (it took my AE 8 minutes or so to swim to the surface where I had commanded a shuttle to put down -- the AI didn't seem to be able to figure out that it needed to go underwater to tow my ship). Another aside: ocean water must be ridiculously clean in 3030AD, since the solar reactor got that much sunlight in 7000 ft of water

OK, I've been meaning to post about this for a while (since before I got UC) but I kept forgetting. So, did this game kick butt or what? What can I say? It had an engaging story, likeable characters. A bit confusing of an ending, but hey, they left themselves a wide door for a sequel. All in all - I really, really liked it. I think that's going down as one of my favorite games. So anyone else play this and have an opinion?

I always have one marine assigned to each shuttle. That way, if I want a quick launch for a cargo pod sweep, the shuttle is always ready. And if any intruders get that far, not only do they find launch control shut down they get a nasty surprise as they walk through the shuttle door. Of course, if there's more than one intruder at the shuttle, I sometimes order that marine to make a beeline out of there. He who fights and runs away lives to come back with his angry and well-armed comrades another day...

SC? Hint? Please????

There's a reason I tend to trust AVault reviews. IMHO they seem to be rather unbiased and honest. More importantly, 90% of the things they like I like too

quote: Found myself in space and can't for the life of it locate the source (other than a very bright nebula) in any other means than alignment.Actually, if you get to 99% output, then pitch 90 degrees up, notice the lens flare. Eventually, it centers and the screen whites out a bit. Presumably that's a star, and the source. Yeah I'm with you on waiting for a hint from SC. I'm so clueless on this one some of my theories are starting to border on halucinogenic.

quote: Originally posted by TheBunny: I really hope that KB will also be for PC. I read at the bottom of that press release that it is likely that a PC release will follow the XBOX release. AMEN! SC's got my $$$ as soon as the PC version comes out. quote: Originally posted by TheBunny: When i read that it was an XBOX game i was about to go jump off a cliff. But i just realized that it may be easier to just buy an XBOX.... Please permit me to respectfully disagree with you; see you at the bottom. I can count on one hand the number of console games I like (Dynasty Warriors III, SSX Tricky, um, um... see?) So -- can I ask if this (KnightBlade) is how that once-upon-a-dream-now-dead BC 3030 with the ability to walk in your cruiser ended up? (I do remember the (pre-alpha?) demo of that ability floating around out there a long time ago).

What? Has no one thought to use ye olde yet still venerable BCM MP3's?

quote: I had some similar thoughts and tried them out last night. Just had my ship sit tight for around 15 mins and radine dropped from 1000 to 990. Turned off solar reactor completly and had the ship realigned so the solar input was 0, after another 15 mins radine level was 980. So just to do some kind of confirmation I turned solarpanels up to 10 and had the ship realigned so the solar input was 98, and waited for yet another 15. Guess what, Radine level 970. I just ran a similar experiment tonight. I ramped up the solar reactor to full 10 units of power. Over a 16 minute period I burned through 10 units radine. Set to 0 power, over 13 minutes I burned through 9 units radine. Roughly, thats about .69 - .75 radine units per minute. That range is OK for the amount of error in my measurements. Still -- I probably should do the runs over a longer time period (30 minutes, perhaps) -- and with engines turned off (see below) -- to tighten up those numbers and ensure that the range is just my experimental error. I also tried a control step: running up the solar reactor to full 10, but taking away 10 units of power elsewhere. In doing so, I discovered the source of the radine drain. The 10 units of power I took from elsewhere were the launch control -- and main engine. With the main engine off, radine consumption was zero after 10 minutes. The only lessons that can be taken away from this are (a) the engine/reactor combo is a radine hog and ( the solar reactor does not seem to have any bearing at all on radine consumption. Which, if memory serves, is what some manual or appendix said regarding (a) somewhere, sometime... Drat. Back to square one again. You know, I'm going to cry if I find out that this is some inside joke of SC's -- a feature that was meant to be, but never was, implemented...since BC3K...even though he's had years to put it in... I guess that sounds kind of ludicrous, huh? I must be getting tired. Let's try this. Here's a list of all the facts I know about the solar reactor. 1. Solar reactor provides power, regardless of power setting in Logistix. 2. Solar reactor power seems to follow ship orientation to solar source. 3. Logistix displays "reactor power" and "reactor output" for both solar and nuclear reactors. Hm. Now there's an interesting implication. That it separates "power" from "output" would imply that the two quantities could differ. I never really paid attention to that detail before -- only the min/max/current/available numbers at the end. I suppose this means we need to define what those two guys mean. Since "output" is used also in "current power output" I would take that to be what power is actually dumping onto the electric grid. So that leaves "power". I'm getting tired, so I'll have to wait for tomorrow (wait, it is tomorrow) to test this out. But maybe "power" refers to maximum available power that the reactor could produce. "Output" could theoretically be less due to damage. Easily testable -- I just joyride a fire and shoot up my ship some around the engines -- that ought to do some reactor damage. That or wander into a firefight shields down for a minute before getting out of there. Of course, if that's the difference between them, it still doesn't answer the question of what the power setting for the solar reactor in Logistix is. Drat it. I can probably cook up experiments all night -- and none of them will answer that question. If there's an answer to this question, there's got to be an experiment that would reveal it. I just can't think of one right now. Anyone else have anything to report? I hope we figure this one out soon; I swear my profile will get promoted to the next rank from the number of posts I'm putting in this thread if we don't catch a break... [ 03-12-2004, 01:47 AM: Message edited by: Joel Schultz ]

I have the latest Acrobat reader (6.0). The HTML pages that had the controls (e.g. "trade items" and "upgrades") have them in Acrobat reader, but when I push them there I get error messages, like "button not supported in this version". Anyone know why?

quote: Edit: I think I may recall having read somewhere that the only things that effect radine consuption are the engine power setting and your engine/reactor combo. Not 100% sure , I'll see if I can find the thread again.I think you're right. I could've sworn that was in one of the appendices at one time, in some Battlecruiser version, but can't seem to find it in the UC one. I'll probably do some more solar reactor poking tonight...

quote: Originally posted by Soul_Apparatus: It seems to me that if you allocate more power to the solar reactor it creates a lag between the drop in power if you orient yourself away from the systems sun. It's still not very usefull though, execpt in highly specialized situations. You sure that isn't just the way you turned your ship? The power drops I saw were pretty quick and always to zero after my ship traversed through 90 degrees (I think) of pitch or roll.

Well, no luck tonight. Parked cruiser with solar reactor power level @ 10, pointed solar panels at sun (power level 99). My hopes were that if this were time-related somehow, spending an hour away would charge up something or other. Went on an hour-long cruise of the solar system with two flight engineers. BTW, impressive nebulae and planets. And I'm starting to figure out FPS controls a bit better (found zoom function I had forgotten on DIE). Returned home, had to stop at sickbay because the food on Mars disagreed with me and one of the engineers; blowing cookies on the bridge detracts from the aura of command. Still, that Vacpak only took care of the bugs in the food. That'll be one mighty crap in the head tomorrow; I pity the engineer assigned to latrine duty. Went back to bridge and shut down main reactor. According to Logistix, power output is now 99. Rotated ship away from sun. Power output 0. Not what I was hoping at all. I'm running out of ideas here. I've got to be missing something here. Maybe I didn't wait long enough? DennyMala, count me in on the "this is driving me nuts" team. Do you suppose SC will have pity on us eventually? Right now, this commander is dead tired. Signing off for now.

When I played BCM I started out as an unarmed transport commander of commercial or trader caste. It was rather interesting. Since you don't have weapons or cloaking, raiders are a serious threat when they appear and go after you. It made you think about how to approach new territory safely. It was also good for developing defensive technique. You pretty much had only your wits to survive and the odds stacked against you -- no weapons, no cloak, weak shields/armor, an engine/reactor that guzzles Radine like there was no tomorrow, and not too many credits. I also like the UC 1.00.02 RC 7 roam mode with no automatic NPC generation. You can brush up on planetary assault techniques without worrying about someone blindsiding you in space while you practice (provided you're in friendly/neutral territory).

OK -- I've just finished experimenting for a half hour. I need help I powered down everything on an LRT-10 (figuring its one of the three simplest vessels with Logistix power control). All you really need is a mere 10 power units to survive (main and aux life support). Then I shut down the main reactor (interesting observation: no main power = no computer systems). I then experimented by orienting the ship differently while having the solar reactor set to various power levels. All I discovered is that solar reactor power is throttled back first, followed by aux life support, followed by main life support when power levels dip too low. Available power output in Logistix followed current power output in lock-step. The two values always matched. Do I need to wait for a significant time period or something to notice the difference? As in waiting for batteries to charge or something? I executed orientation changes immediately on the heels of power allocation changes. I'm feeling kind of dumb now. Hints appreciated. /me finds and dusts off my old n00bie hat

Hey, I said it in another thread elsewhere: thank you for the "Roam - no auto-NPC generation" scenario you added in RC 7. That's worth its weight in gold. (With apologies to Guiness) No evil intruders or being shot up while I figure out the keyboard chart? BRILLIANT!

quote: Originally posted by TheRedComet: quote:P.S. BTW, is the city Dreamcatcher is based in locateable on Earth in the game somewhere? Heh heh heh... lol now there's a use for a bugnor OTS. Apparently some of the GALCOM races are telepathic - TheRedComet seems to read minds.

quote: Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: quote:Originally posted by Joel Schultz: Applause to whomever thought that one up! ahem, that would be yours truly I added that in the latest RC7 patch. Thank's SC! This is why it pays to be up-to-date on the latest patch. That feature alone would've made my day when I started messing in UC. That's up there on my "all time best enhancements to BC" list. With that feature, you almost don't need a tutorial because you aren't bombarded by attack NPCs right off the bat...

Count me in too. This has been a puzzle to me since BC3K 2.0...

My first impressions: Before reading manual(!) relying on old BCM knowledge... Crap! Why isn't my fighter moving? Argh! KABOOM While reading manual... Hey, when did WASD get introduced for ship motion control? After reading manual... Ok, a few of the control changes really threw me for a loop. But hey, that's what the manual is for, right? Heh. Positives: EDIT - gameplay goes without saying on a 3000AD title. I don't know any other game that lets you do so much. BC & UC are in a class of their own this department and set the standard, IMO. On to the rest of the stuff... Space graphics are prettier than in BCM (FYI, I didn't buy BCMG, I waited for UC instead). No where close to my aesthetic standard bearers (Homeworld & Riven) but not expected to either unless SC develops a UC port for a Cray. For a BC title (call UC what you will, it's still a BC title to me) they were excellent. On a planet, I had the black cloud layer glitch mentioned in the VCF -- bummer there. But I have no doubt we'll see a fix for it sometime in the future. It was kind of neat watching a starbase attack of mine begin at day and it go to dusk to night over the next couple of hours. Rain effect was cool. Quite pleased with the look and feel, especially since I know I'm running with a less-than-recent graphics card. And did I mention how cool it is that Earth is recognizably Earth from space? I can't wait to do a tour of the solar system. The music wasn't quite as hyperactive as in BCM -- not that BCM's was bad; I really liked it. UC's music is slower, moodier. Given that battles aren't frenetic frag-fests until you get into the thick of them, I thought it appropriate. It takes time to get places in the game, time in which you can plan your attack (or retreat) or in which to cringe at one's stupidity for getting in over one's head. The music was reminiscent of Total Annihilation's slower non-battle music (TA is one of my standards for excellent game music), while still retaining elements that reminded me of BCM's score. Nice job Vanethian! Sound effects were good. Some were integrated so subtly I didn't notice -- I went to check to see if I left a TV on before I realized that background chatter I heard was the game. I dunno, I'm not to good at rating sound effects unless they are pretty bad or detract. UC's did not. The interface has improved significantly since BC3K 2.0 and BCM. Still daunting , but improved nonetheless. The keyboard chart is pretty helpful. Having a ROAM mode without NPC generation was a really good idea! Finally, a chance to familiarize with general CC ops without having to worry about hostiles until you want to worry about them. Applause to whomever thought that one up! Also, the shuttles finally seem to have much improved landing/deployment AI. No more deploying marines to their death from 3000 ft. Speaking of improved AI, my marines seem to have gone to college and learned tactics. Some out-of-the-box low AIs dispatched a boarding party pretty effectively without getting horrendously chewed up. Hey, maybe someone cloned a brain for Resnig too; can't wait to find out... Other nicities: anyone who says there's no tech support is flat out lying or misinformed. I DL'ed 1.00.02 RC 7 patch no problem -- yes there's been 7 updates to the game available for owners thus far. And as for general support, I had a question regarding Logistix and solar reactors answered by none other than SC himself, along with two other community members. Price/value: definitely worth more than the $20 my wife paid for it. What was DC smoking? On the negative side: Clutter level is a bit high in the "alert" radar mode. All those tags in an area with lots of entities make it hard to see what's where. I like to do "blind" strafing runs on ground bases -- no target selected, just fire at anything I see on the ground. I need "alert" on to see targets at a distance, but there's so many... If I switch to "active" I can see again but then it's harder to spot some of the smaller ground targets visually. Speaking of clutter, the keyboard chart really suffers from this. If some stuff could be recategoriezed or another page added, maybe that wouldn't have been as hard to find stuff on it. I never really liked first person shooters that much (I doubt this'll ever be a UC feature I'll use too much) so I admit to some bias against. Anyway, I thought it was a bit difficult. In order to see a marine to shoot at you seem to have to move in too close to see them. I'm probably forgetting a zoom feature somewhere, probably on the DIE -- I could've sworn BCM had one in there. Also, trying to use the tactical radar in the DIE seemed difficult. Commands I was used to using in space didn't work the same in FPS. I kept hitting "R" to change radar mode and instead I reloaded my weapon (yeah, it's documented on the keyboard chart). I just don't like FPS even when a game is designed to be a pure FPS game; that the UC interface has to do so much more than a "pure FPS game" does made my FPS experience that much more frustrating to me. Again, I must point out I have a pretty strong bias against FPS in general; I can count on one hand the number of FPS games I actually enjoyed playing. During a major starbase attack on planet, framerates tended to stutter a bit too, particularly when my CC would bank and the viewscreen swing around bringing the starbase buildings into view -- there'd be a pause right before all those went visible. But that's likely my fault -- I have a 1.33 GHz machine, but I think my graphics card is dated (GeForce 3 Ti200). Nothing hardware can't cure. Also, I noticed that shuttles need a pretty long "landing approach" for any kind of landing/deployment operation. Not a big deal -- you set a first planetary entry waypoint about 4+ km out and then the "action" waypoint where you want it. However, if you set the waypoints too close, the shuttle has insufficient time to glide down. Instead, it settles into an agonizingly slow spiral around the landing waypoint, losing altitude at maybe 500 ft/minute. It'd be nice if the pilot realized he was sitting smack over the waypoint and just switched over into VTOL and dropped vertically from 6500 ft to ground level in seconds rather than spiral for what would likely be half an hour. (If you get stuck in this situation, BTW, to get your shuttle down just go to TACOPS and manually drag the waypoint a few km off to the side -- the shuttle will follow it and lose altitude doing so. Once it's low enough, drag the waypoint back to where you wanted it and the shuttle will follow again but be low enough for the pilot to initiate VTOL landing cycle). Alas, the only snag in what I thought was a marvelous improvement in shuttle piloting AI. Overall: very impressed. All the improvements were worth waiting for. What flaws there were didn't really detract from the overall experience. Nice work. P.S. BTW, is the city Dreamcatcher is based in locateable on Earth in the game somewhere? Heh heh heh... [ 03-08-2004, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: Joel Schultz ]

Huh, this is like deja vu all over again... Anyway, I know a bit more now than I did then. But I am still fundamentally confused as to the role Logistix power allocation plays in the utilization of the solar reactor. GIVEN: 1. The solar reactor is a power source -- given your ship is oriented properly. Its power is added to the total power available to the ship (see p. 40 of UC manual). 2. The Logistix-Power allocation permits routing power to the solar reactor, in the values of 0 (off), 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. OBSERVATION: 1. From messing around in the game, I have noticed that the solar reactor seems to generate power as per GIVEN #1 regardless of how you allocate power to it as per GIVEN #2. MY QUESTION: What's the point of allocating power to it if it does the same thing regardless? Did I miss something?

Hm. While I'm waiting for my copy my wife ordered for me as a surprise, I checked out a local EB -- I wanted to look at the box art before it arrived. All I can say is that I'm disappointed by the DC mess. Guess how many UCs were on the shelf? Zero. The guy at the store said they had returned the two they did have(!) I asked why. He said (his words) that the guy who made UC was sueing the publisher and that it was part of that mess. Well, I got to hand it to that EB employee to actually know that much details within his job. My hat's off to him! But I'm wondering -- has anyone else seen this at their stores? Or is that particular EB just being weird? (Before anyone points out the obvious, some stores must be carrying it else there wouldn't be people posting "I just bought it at my store" around here or people having tech support issues. I'm just wondering if anyone else has observed this kind of problem.)

...she tells you that as a surprise she's ordered Universal Combat for you! Woo-hoo! And here I thought I would be waiting until sometime in March...

Name: Joel Schultz Age: 25-30, closer to 30 Occupation: Software Engineer Homeowner. Married. No kids. Hey, who's this "Supreme Commander" guy who posts all over this site? Why don't I see a post from him in here? j/k we know who you are!