Matchoo

almostpilot, looking your images it looks like you and maybe some others are having problems, but insulting the SC probably isn't the best way to point them out.

I thought it would be fun to list some of the crazy things we have tried, whether they worked or not. Last night I was playing UC and I noticed that at 50.0km from earth your ship automatically planet-falls. I took my megaron to 50.1km from earth, gave it a halt command, then took my AE out for a little spacewalk to see if my AE would planet-fall. I could picture the little guy entering the planet and falling to his doom. SC thought of everything, though, because as soon as I hit the 50.0km mark, the game ended and it was reported that I was KIA.

I think WAY too much emphasis is being put on fancy graphics these days and not enough on gameplay, replayability, or even sometimes AI. I don't really care how pretty a game looks if it's boring to play it. For me some examples of this are the first two Splinter Cell games. They were fun to play the first time, but they really got old. It didn't require any real skill or planning, basically just 'enter an area....see a pipe....climb the pipe....sneak up on a bad guy....knock him out....go to next area....repeat'. (I haven't played the latest Splinter Cell, though, which is supposed to be a lot less linear.) I played each ONE time. Another one for me was Doom 3. I played through the first couple levels before I got bored and quit. Sure it scared me, but it got repetitious. I'm not saying that there aren't some games that don't get it right. I don't know how many time I have played against even just the bots in Battlefield 1942 and really enjoyed it. They do a pretty good job of fighting you. (although not as good as in Universal Combat. The first time I tried to dog-fight with an AI enemy fighter it took me about 10 minutes to finally hit it). I guess my point is graphics can only take a game so far. Pretty soon the graphics will reach a point where more developers will concentrate on gameplay and AI, and I think that is when things are really going to pick up and get interesting. Just my .02 though.

quote:Originally posted by street: Any REAL enviromental change, would leave physiological evidence of it's interaction within the enviroment. But broken up alkaseltzer wouldn't leave any physiological evidence? 'Geez' says a scientist, 'I can't figure out what's doing this....and what are all those little white things spread around the pond? Oh well, they COULN'T possibly be causing it so I won't bother checking them.' It probably is a hoax, and you probably are right, but if it keeps happening hopefully they will have people watching the pond to make sure somebody isn't playing a prank.

Sorry about the double-post. I re-read the original comments by SC and realized that I probably just need to get the boxed version, but by the time I realized this the time had expired for me to be able to delete the above post. Please delete this comment and the one above it of mine, and I understand if I receive a temporary ban.

Hopefully this isn't a stupid question. On the pre-orders page there is a warning that this version of the game requires an internet connection in order for the CD-KEY to be validated. Is the internet connection required on the computer the game is running on so that the key can be validated the first time the game starts, or can the key be validated through the internet on a different machine? I am asking because I don't have an internet connection at home, and I didn't want to buy it just to find out I couldn't play it. Thanks for all your hard work SC.

So does this mean a portion of the U.S. population who's ancestors migrated here from Europe are also safe from HIV? (Or is there also something in their drinking water that is required?)

I think what he did was right in some ways, but wrong in others. The store should have taken the software back if it was unopened, and Microsoft should have accepted back the software if it was within the allowed time limit. Since neither of these things happened, he should be allowed to sell the software on E-Bay like he did, but with a maximum limit on each at the $60 he paid for them. That way he would have his money back but he wouldn't have made any profit. Just my opinion, though. (Is is cool that he stood up to Microsoft and made them back down, even if they were partially right.)

quote:Originally posted by Darkling: As Ralph in the Simpsons would say... HA HA Not Ralph, Nelson Munce.

I thought KFC's motto, not Wendy's, was 'Finger Lickin Good'....

I watched a documentry on this one time. It was about a japanese submarine that could catapult a single plane off of it when it was surfaced. The idea was to use it to get close to the Panama Canal and then blow up the dam that holds the water that is used to move the ships from one side to the other. They never were able to attempt it, though. It also mentioned in the documentry that there is a large metal gate that can be raised in the event that the dam is damaged to prevent the water from running out, so even if they had been able to attempt it, it wouldn't have caused too much trouble.

quote:Originally posted by LostInSpace: Kept quiet until we got home. To some of you, don't hand us that crap about emergency use. I've been around cell phone people since the begining of cell phone usage and I have yet to overhear (or see) one call that was or is an emergency. All the conversations were of the inane type. I feel more like a voyeur than a pedestrian. Besides a hand held jammer (one that would be used for personal piece of mind) would have a very short range when turned on. Just because you haven't overheard or witnessed it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I've never seen a baby pigeon but I'm pretty sure they exist. Also I've used my cell phone a couple times to phone in automobile accidents that I have witnessed. Having a cell phone available can sometimes mean the difference between life and death. quote:Originally posted by LostInSpace: ...You can't do any calls, emergency or otherwise, on a cell while in the train tunnel. Hence my comment about the BS (or flimsy) argument of emergecy use. So why have a device that will jam the calls that can't be made anyway???????? I'm not saying that there isn't a problem with people relying too much on cell phones. I'm just saying that having a device that takes away their ability to use it if they NEED to is a bad idea. Hypothetical situation: A women is leaving a building alone late at night, and someone starts following her with the intentions of causing her harm. She tries to call 911 but she can't because the person chasing her has one of these devices? I know this may sound a little far-fetched at the moment, but I can see these things being used for far worse purposes than just keeping the guy next to you from talking into his cell-phone the entire ride home.

quote:Originally posted by jamotto: I don't think it is a good idea to sell this device at all. I agree. Just because you don't like people talking on their phones it doesn't give you the right to prevent that. What if there truly is a need to make the call or receive one. What then? (e.g. Your wife goes into labor and is trying to call you, you are a doctor and can't get an emergency call, you're waiting for a call from you daughter so you can go pick her up from school, etc.)

I can't wait until some idiot with a jammer in his pocket who think he is being funny gets in an accident and dies because nobody around him can call 911 on their cell phones for him. (And of course his family will sue the maker of the jammer and the people who didn't call 911 (only because they COULDN'T))

New school geek

quote:Originally posted by Wody: Hello, quote:Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: when the radio announcer says, "We are expecting 12 to 14 inches of snow today. You must park..." So? Where do they park now? I don't get it? Please tell me, the suspense is killing me. And, we might get snow here. Greetings, Wouter Dijkslag I hope you're joking, and if not

quote:Originally posted by jamotto: It would be a sad day if they abandon the Hubble. It would be sad, but on the bright side what they could do is try to get it to splash down as close to MIR as possible, and let the international community bet on how far apart the splash downs would be. Only 5 U.S. dollars per guess, and whoever gets the closest gets half the money that was collected. The other half will go towards Hubble's replacement.

quote:Originally posted by LostInSpace: quote:Originally posted by Matchoo: Me personally, if I want an excellent tour of the solar system, I just play UC. True but with the screen saver you don't have to worry about stoking the engines or better yet Resnig. You got a point. Remember, though, that Resnig and Microsoft Windows are close cousins. Whatever Resnig doesn't get around to breaking, Windows breaks for him, and vice-versa.

quote:Originally posted by LostInSpace: Personally I like Redshift 4 alot better. But if you want an excellent tour of the solar system SOLAR SYSTEM 3D SCREENSAVER v1.1 it's really cool. Me personally, if I want an excellent tour of the solar system, I just play UC.

quote:Originally posted by GaryW: quote: Second, from reading your post, the way I understand it then is if we put the main booster rockets on the moon with their noses in the ground, then they could move the moon??? Depends WHERE you put them Any space probe that is visting other worlds in our solar system needs to build up speed, the easist way to do this is by orbiting the Earth in the same direction that it rotates, by doing this it gets a speed boost from the rotational speed of the Earth (there is probably some newtonian term for it but I can't recall my Physics that well). By doing this speed boost process the space craft is now travelling faster. As every action has an equal and opposite reaction so the Earth is, in turn, spinning ever so slightly slower and orbiting just that little bit further out from the sun than it was. Going back to the moon, Those booster rockets WILL have an effect, no matter where they are, however that effect will be minute. You're right. What I meant is that they could move the moon at the same speed and acceleration as they would if they were pushing a milk carton or a cat.

quote:Originally posted by Arthur_Dent: Marvin's observation is correct: Mass does play a role in UC. (Or so it seems to me). However, Jarhead's comment is correct as well, as far as real physics are concerned. There is no drag in space. Any object, no matter how heavy, will move with the same speed and the same acceleration if the same engine is used. Imagine (for instance) the space shuttle's main booster rocket. You know, that large orange hulking thing. Imagine it pushing a small capsule through space (or a carton of milk, or a cat.. whatever, just something small). Now imagine the same booster rocket pushing the ISS. If it starts pushing while in space, the objects will accelerate and move at the same speed, regardless of their mass. Towing something through space would be the same. A shuttle in UC should therefore accellerate just as fast with a Megaron carrier or a space marine behind it. Or towing nothing at all. In UC, this doesn't happen. I guess that's for gameplay reasons and, well, that's fine by me really, since it -is- a game I'm playing, no matter how advanced. As for Binaryblade's remark about the ship speeds being to slow in normal flight-mode. Well, personally, I do find them to be a tad to slow as well. However... there's this huge manual I'm still trying to eat my way through. I find that up until now the time spent waiting can be put to quite some good use (Btw. your ship moves faster with your engine's turned up to full power. That may help as well!) First of all, the big orange thing is the fuel tank, not the main booster rocket. The two little white things on the sides of the fuel tank are the booster rockets. Second, from reading your post, the way I understand it then is if we put the main booster rockets on the moon with their noses in the ground, then they could move the moon???

quote:Originally posted by Remo Williams: quote:(P.S. Why isn't there a graemlin who's wearing a Santa hat?) The ACLU made us delete it last year!(j/k) Sorry I couldn't resist. ROFLMAO

MERRY CHRISTMAS???? It's Happy Holidays now........You guys are violating my rights........Where's a laywer......Somebody call the ACLU....... Just kidding Merry Christmas everyone (P.S. Why isn't there a graemlin who's wearing a Santa hat?)

quote:Originally posted by rvs: Perhaps Wal Mart should not have sold her the shotgun, but I suspect they were within the limits of the law--poor as it may or may not be. But if we cannot start taking responsibility for our actions--and suicide is a very personal matter--then what next? Will we get an assigned Lawyer the day we are born, much like we all get Social Security numbers? (In America on the social security numbers) rvs I agree. If Walmart had been able to check her records and see that she had a history of mental illness and decided not to sell her the gun, I am sure that Walmart would have had the girl and her lawyer coming at them with some sort of discrimination suit instead of this one.