Eclipse

Very cool though I'm a little saddened with losing the massive universe.

hmmm... /me battons down the hatches.

do a search, it'll be much more educational than my orignal three word answer was going to be

back when I started playing, we only had one ship to choose from in ACM and Roam and that was a commander career. You could launch a fighter and play from that but I just stuck with the CC. that or play the instant action onslaught mission

87 bucks isn't much compared to winning a customers loyalty. Especially considering the circumstances involved this behavior is unacceptable.

Do you check the fighters to see if they still have the attack order? Also check their loadouts to see if tehy have any ATS missile. finally they might not be very good at their jobs when they are low ai. Some of what you are talking about almost sounds like you have messed up your environment. I've never run into problems with marines transporting in and doing nothing.

I can't reproduce it either.

sc posted a nice thread in the tips and tricks section abot how to assault an enemy base that should answer your question.

quote: Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: No, I don't want a Fraps capture. Its a driver problem. The 32Bit Z buffer on some of these cards is not enough precision (which is why the game will use a W buffer if the card has one) and thats what causes these artifacts. There is NOTHING that I can do about it. I assume by this statement you don't want the data I was collecting?

No new species moths or finches came about, kinda similar to how people have many different genetic traits in their DNA but not all are dominant.

Retail version up through latest RC. No, it hasn't gotten worse, and it only seems to show up on Starstations and Jumpgates. I'll do some more searching when I get home tonight on ranges from objects types of objects and views this happens in.

I have a ATI 9600pro and I also get the flicker, however it only happens at particular ranges and views(eg, FP). I've just been chalking it up to driver issues that will eventually get ironed out eventually.

quote: Originally posted by Jaguar: quote:Originally posted by Eclipse: Jag, a clarification please, Science may look at evidence first but all men have presuppositions and unless you are conscious of them they WILL bias your conclusion. This also applies to religion. That is why we have peer review, NO hypothesis can become a theory without a THOROUGH double checking by his peers, and there are as many different suppositions as there are people, so the presuppositions get weeded out in the peer review process. If someone tells you that it's a theory, but has not been peer reviewed or published in any scientific journals, then they are lying to you. Such as the "Theory" of intelligent design. At most, it MAY be a hypothesis, but it most definitely is NOT a theory, it has never been published in ANY mainstream journal, as a matter of fact it has never been given to a journal TO publish. It has NEVER been peer reviewed, and they will not allow it to be. Interesting that. they came up with the ID theory, and immediately went public with it, created a foundation, a website, but NEVER gave it to a scientific journal to be published, they created their own, never was it available for Peer review, they just got the scientists that agreed with them, about 4, and brought them into the foundation, and call that peer review. Does that answer your question? yes, your original post sounded like you were discounting presuppositions.

for a good understanding of why God created the universe and us, do a study on Ephesians. Quite interesting to see how we all play into His plan. Jag, a clarification please, Science may look at evidence first but all men have presuppositions and unless you are conscious of them they WILL bias your conclusion. This also applies to religion.

yeah, trying to find a good webhost.

1. You guessed right, you need the ship docked at a starstation, starbase, or CC to effect repairs. I'll hazard a guess this has been covered before though... if you haven't already try reading the manual its full of good info.

1. I try to capture station if possible, if otherwise then I just destroy them. 2. I use to use enemy mission zones as EP bait with OTS missiles, but it been quite some time since I've gotten around to launching one. On another note you can't really capture planets, only destroy the structures in enemy mission zones.

hehe, I decided to have a little fun today, I transported the entire crew of my Firestorm to a remote location on earth(SFM's are loyal to the end, forgot about em too until after they transported to the surface and died) and then landed the ship. Let me tell you having nearly 115 character models in the same place at the same time with my carrier landing behind them was pretty impressive at killing my framerate. I'm pretty sure the three intruders still on board are wondering what happened to everyone by now, though when I last looked they were only just starting to venture outside of shuttle 3... oh well not to see how they react to my saluting and other antics I'm beginning to think my crew is wondering what kind of crackbrained idiot is running the ship with the way they all stare at me when I run around the ranks all out there in the woods.

quite interesting on that fan made mod. they start those missions pretty tough if you don't keep tabs on things.

1. no. 2. no. no. BC3K allowed you to abandon ship and you were given a new one but that's ancient history by now, and everything recent just ends the game on abandoning ship.

quote: Originally posted by Wolferz: [QB] Looks like you boys are having fun in here. Evolution is happening as we speak. Want Proof? I will put forth a statement but I will not provide proof ,simply because I do not have access to the research, but, always the big but, Take a look at the organism that causes the Flu, Every year they seem to discover a stronger strain of the virus, therefore that virus is adapting to it's environment so that it may proliferate it's species.Evolving if you will. Evolution has been nothing more than a species adapting to it's environment so that it can survive and continue the species. Homo Sapiens is not an exception to the rule. We too are evolving, adapting, and taking from nature what we need to survive, sometimes to excess and the detriment of our environment, so we again will adapt to these changes. That is not the issue here if I've read things correctly. No one will disagree that microevolution occurs, as your example pointed out, but where the issue lies is when one organism becomes a totally different organism.

quote: Here's something that evolution predicts, and an example, now show one example that shows that it is NOT true. Darwin pointed out that the Madagascar Star orchid has a spur 30 centimeters (about a foot) long, with a puddle of nectar at the bottom. Now, evolution says that nectar isn't free. Creatures that drink it pay for it, by carrying pollen away to another orchid. For that to happen, the creature must rub against the top of the spur. So, Darwin concluded that the spur had evolved its length as an arms race. Some creature had a way to reach deeply without shoving itself hard against the pollen-producing parts. Orchids with longer spurs would be more likely to spread their pollen, so Darwin's gradualistic scenario applied. The spur would evolve to be longer and longer. From the huge size, the creature must have evolved in return, reaching deeper and deeper. So, he predicted in 1862 that Madagascar has a species of hawkmoth with a tongue just slightly shorter than 30 cm. The creature that pollinated that orchid was not learned until 1902, forty years later. It was indeed a moth, and it had a 25 cm tongue. And in 1988 it was proven that moth-pollinated short-spurred orchids did set less seed than long ones Isee not problem with this statement since it's microevolution, the orchid didn't become a new type of plant, just the plant with the more effective trait became more common. Just because Darwin used some reasoning to guess the existance of the moth doesn't make it evil.

Jag, this doesn't sound like you. Normally you are blasting away with evidence to support your point, but here you are reiteriating w/o providing supporting evidence. It seems to me that this discussion isn't going to go far either way until the one on whom the burden of proof lies posts his evidence for examination, For the Creationist, we already accept that it is not scientific but requires faith, though we beleive that the evidence seen in nature points toward intelligent design as opposed to mere happenstance. For this I'm sure that Darkling can point you towards information. For your point, where should one begin to look for the mounds of evidence you are implying exists? Please don't take this the wrong way folks, but you both need to show more than beaning the other over the head with words.

I own it as well, pretty good overall.

Other note: please define if you are speaking of macroevolution(species a becomes something new) or micro(variation within the genetic code of species a, does not become something new). Many Christians jump on all things evolution as inherently evil but some fomrs of evolution are scientifically viable, where I draw the line however is at macroevolution of which I've yet to see solid evidence.