Sunanta

Hopefully the ability to map keys for fp will be re-implemented by the time mp is out, as well as inverting the mouse for aiming. [ 02-08-2002, 02:21: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

lol- haven't tried that one yet... Anyway, CTAS is Component Target Acquisition System, I believe, allowing you to target specific components- it was dropped from BCM. [ 02-07-2002, 23:47: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

quote:Originally posted by T-WOPR: Yeah. .. If we could detatch the saucer section and there were trees. . . it would be perfect. . .LOL- That's exactly the kind of landing I was thinking of!

Accurate Newtonian physics is typically a bit too much to handle in a game (and would be especially difficult in a game like BCM with so many systems to manage), but some semblance of intertia is always welcome in any game that involves flight of some sort- imagine losing your engines right before you enter a planet's atmosphere, emerging at 10,000 feet careening at very high speeds at an angle that will take you into the ground, unable to slow and barely able to turn... it's that slightest touch of intertia that allows this classic sci-fi crash-landing. [ 02-03-2002, 19:29: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

Playing playstation games for 7 hours a day?! I'd expect a lot more to be wrong with that kid...

1) Cambridge Soundworks DTT2200 5.1 2) SB Audigy MP3+ 3) Helps a whole lot during DVDs

Star Trek is a morality play in addition to a TV series...

You guys are forgetting something... da physics! It's infinitely easier, I'm sure, to create photo-realistic graphics than it is to simulate actual physics- especially since we don't even have a complete theory yet...

Is it possible to invert the mouse's y axis (the up and down one, right?) for mouselook in FP? If not, it would really, really really nice if it appeared sometime in a patch, or xp1, or xp2, or bco, or BCTC... (no, wait, I'm allergic to atmospheric decompression, please, noooooooo!!!!!) [ 12-12-2001: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

Thermidor, I think game_ender was talking about Einstein's relativistic physics, which madmen wouldn't dare to simulate in a game . Newton himself didn't say anything about the speed of light being some sort of limit- you can go as fast as you want without any sort of barrier or time-slowing relativistic effects according to him. [ 12-04-2001: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

quote:Originally posted by Fractux: [QB]Too bad, I was hoping to find the duck, sports car and WWII bomber hidden in my BC. LOL! You're about 600 years too late there buddy

I'll have to say the Megaron for the carriers. Just look at its turning stats and fighters. Its sharp lines are even kinda klingon, and with a little imagination one might say that it even looks like a mini-firestorm. [ 12-07-2001: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

Yep, I've also been getting random crashes that I can't seem to reproduce (except in saves), once when a stormcarrier was hyperjumping towards my megaron, another when a bcmk2 was hyperjumping to my megaron (different game), and at various other times- being attacked by a fighter in a megaron again, destroying another stormcarrier, etc. I've been going over the stability section of the troubleshooting faq, seems to help a bit, but anyway, there seems to be a collision detect issue. When I fly up in front of a station's path and stop moving (speed = 0), the station will pass through my ship instead of triggering a collision. I've so far tried this in a Megaron, bcmk3, and in first person outside that bcmk3- I'd stop right in front of the station and it would drift right through me. Only seems to happen with stations (since I started looking, it's happened with every station I'd test this with- Galcom HQ, Pixan, Sygan, Wraith), though. I tried to stop in front of those orbiting supply stations but when it hit me it triggered such a collision that I ended up in null space . This is with the 1.0.01 patch. [ 12-02-2001: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

Well, if your CC's tractor beam is still working you could tractor the disabled craft- if it's yours you'll get a prompt to recover it, I think...

quote:Originally posted by Cmdr Nova: You know, if it was updated November 1, then it's based on either a Press Copy, a Master Copy, or (the most likely) a bunch of plain and simple sh*t. Errr, I agree, except it says "11/2001," not 11/1/2001," so if this is in fact true, this could be based on either the game itself or a beta (though I doubt the latter possibility). EDIT: I guess we posted at the same time . This was in response to your first post. But otherwise, yep, a show this will be indeed. [ 12-01-2001: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

yep- braggin' about your haxor skillz is gonna get you real far here. I somehow doubt that SC'll let you walk all over him like some other forum admins might just because you sound '31337.' But if this is true, we sure appreciate your heads-up, but otherwise, well, (even if it is true, with those first lines in your post, well let's just say that threatening Derek Smart is probably not the ideal way of, ah- ego preservation...) heh- I won't want to be here when the cavalry arrives... [ 12-01-2001: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

"...it should go like silk on a PII 300" LOL! That's the bare minimum. Someone didn't read the system requirements... [ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

Not to worry... I hear the next patch (you can get the beta version here) drastically increases performance in that area. I would personally wait until the complete version comes, but if you can't wait, go ahead and grab it. [ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

I'm leaning towards AW, since it'd be kind of nice to use commander's village as a sort of 3d forum.

I think that you are referring to the docking bays (stations have them too, btw) that are holdovers from a time when SC planned to implement manual docking. The idea was nixed, but the ships and stations were already modeled, so the bays remained.

Errr, that's BCM...

Gotta go with the Garid; red is good...

On the issue of prayer in schools, it is clearly unconstitutional. The government may not respect the establishment of religion- all religion, not just one or a few in particular. Just as the government cannot build a non-denominational place of worship, it cannot use taxpayer dollars to pay for time in school devoted to religion. Even if prayers are rotated so as to respect all major religions, religion itself is still incorporated into the school. There should not be a time set aside for whatever prayers one might offer either. If someone wants to pray, so be it; they can do it in their spare time. Whether a student choses to (and to whom to) pray is their buisiness, not the school's. As for government employees wearing religious items on their person: I have no problem with that. So long as they aren't actively proselytizing on the job, their right to free expression is protected by the first amendment. The government may not prevent one of their employees from saying or wearing whatever they wish so long as it does not interfere with their job. The right of free expression, in my opinion, is more important than the principle of the seperation of church and state (related though they may be), which in itself is quite important. [ 10-20-2001: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

Jaguar, the constitution is routinely interpreted by the supreme court to mean things outside the breadth of the language used. And yes, the constitution does apply everywhere- it does now. Before the supreme court effectively ruled that it applied to the states as well, it did not. This seemed reasonable at the time simply because that is what the constitution appeared to say (i.e. "Congress shall make no law...). It is also how the constitution was applied during the time of the founding fathers.

The current interpretation of the seperation of church and state is essentially that the government may not sanction the advancement of religion (in particular or as a group). This is, of course, much broader than what the 1st amendment literally says. The problem with taking the constitution word for word is that it is quite limited in that sense. The founding fathers designed the government to be flexible, so that it might keep pace with the progress of society. The constitution, for example, was considered to apply only to the federal government in the 18th and 19th centuries. The first amendment does specify congress as the lawmaking body it pertains to, after all. It was not until the supreme court ruled otherwise (even though the constitution appears only to apply to the federal government in many places) that the states were also prevented from infringing on these collection of rights that they often previously ignored. The spirit of the 1st amendment is that religion and government should remain seperate institutions. Many of the extreme liberal persuasion take that to mean that the government cannot give the appearence of sanctioning religion at all. They do have a point. If you walk past a house and a cross is prominently displayed on it, you would probably assume that those who lived there are Christian. If you then passed a state building with a cross displayed on it, you might suspect a religious tilt there as well. The state, which is supposed to be seperate from religion, should not have a religious tilt. While the display of the Ten Commandments is a ways away from this, it is essentially the same thing, but scaled down. The people who oppose any religion whatsoever in government might argue that one thing leads to another; a small thing like a poster of the Ten Commandments could lead to something much more prominent. The conservatives might then say that a large cross on a public building would cost the government money, and spending money on anything of the sort is explicitly prohibited in the 1st amendment, so an allowance for the display of religious documents would never escalate to that level. Assume the government does not pay for it, however. Say some rich guy donates the money for the symbol. Then what? This is why I believe that the extreme liberals have a point, just as I think the conservatives have one as well (I'd be out there marching with everyone else- conservative and liberal alike should the ACLU try to take away my weekends ). [ 10-20-2001: Message edited by: Sunanta ]