BC is BS
monte
Something is seriously wrong with the physics in this game, must be the
Treknology.
Flying an Akira against the Klingon Bird of Prey in QB. I divert all my
power to engines, hit the 9 key and get to a nice speed of 5197kph and head
directly away from him. The BOP can only reach a speed of 4700 kph and I
get some seperation of about 130 km. That's fine for a few moments but then
the BOP starts to close the distance down to 50 km, but he's still only
going 4700 according to the lockon while I'm travelling at 5197. What the
hell is going on here? Hello McFly.
Also, where in the manual does it give the ranges of your weapons? Photons
etc. Must be in the strat guide or too important for a captain to know.
Also, where's the intrasystem warps in combat? I want to warp around on the
battlefield.
Where's the lateral thrusters at low speeds? If these big boys get in a
tight jam how can they maneuver? Call in a tug I suppose.
Why's a planet only 100 km in diameter? A moon should be bigger than 30 km
and further than 120 km from it's planet. The scale is f'd up too.
~monte
Jukka T. Paajanen
> Bridge Commander is BS. Yes, this is ridiculous.
>
> Something is seriously wrong with the physics in this game, must be the
> Treknology.
You're claiming BC is BS on the basis that it does not have realistic
physics? Ridiculous indeed.
>
> Flying an Akira against the Klingon Bird of Prey in QB. I divert all my
> power to engines, hit the 9 key and get to a nice speed of 5197kph and head
> directly away from him. The BOP can only reach a speed of 4700 kph and I
> get some seperation of about 130 km. That's fine for a few moments but then
> the BOP starts to close the distance down to 50 km, but he's still only
> going 4700 according to the lockon while I'm travelling at 5197. What the
> hell is going on here? Hello McFly.
>
It's simple - what's going on is the developer of the game making a
compromise, sacrificing realism in order to improve gameplay, or for
technical reasons. They're not displaying the actual speed in the game
world, but instead a number that "looks good". But of course, you
already knew this.
> Also, where in the manual does it give the ranges of your weapons? Photons
> etc. Must be in the strat guide or too important for a captain to know.
>
> Also, where's the intrasystem warps in combat? I want to warp around on the
> battlefield.
>
Again, warping around on the battlefield is definitely one of those
things that would have made the game more frustrating at best. Go
further into that direction, and you'll have the "enjoyable" combat of
Frontier Elite 2 in your hands. No one wants to shoot a beam weapon at a
pixel sized spacecraft zooming by 200 000 kilometers per second.
> Where's the lateral thrusters at low speeds? If these big boys get in a
> tight jam how can they maneuver? Call in a tug I suppose.
>
> Why's a planet only 100 km in diameter? A moon should be bigger than 30 km
> and further than 120 km from it's planet. The scale is f'd up too.
It is extremely difficult to simulate space using real-world distances.
For instance, even double-precision floating point is not accurate
enough as a coordinate system (I'm using 3x 64bit int + 3x 32bit float
for coordinates, and still run into accuracy problems). There are also
issues with the depth buffer. This is why only very, very few
3D-accelerated games have attempted to simulate real distances and scale
in space - in fact, only I-War 2 and BCM come to mind. Obviously the
designers of BC decided to dedicate their time and resources onto the
other aspects of the game. And judging by the reviews BC is getting,
that decision was the correct one.
>
> ~monte
>
>
>
In my view, realism is often (but not necessarily) inversely
proportional to the fun factor of a game. Some compromises have been
made with Bridge Commander, but this applies to every successful game
ever made. X-Wing and Wing Commander had airplane-like physics in space,
and unlike space sims today, they were among the most enjoyable AND best
selling games of their day. In Doom, the marine guy ran at approximately
100kph and he couldn't get past a knee high edge - the game was arguably
the most successful and influencal PC game to date.
Why is it that so many space sim players are so eager to find flaws in
the game's metrics? I've read countless postings in the usenet and on
BBSs on the subject. In other words; isn't it the touted gameplay all
that matters?
--
Jukka T. Paajanen,
JP-Production Finland Inc.
StarFight game series is still growing!
http://sfcomrades.cjb.net
monte
just don't matter. Right?
> It's simple - what's going on is the developer of the game making a
> compromise, sacrificing realism in order to improve gameplay, or for
> technical reasons. They're not displaying the actual speed in the game
> world, but instead a number that "looks good". But of course, you
> already knew this.
No I didn't, thanks for informing me. I mistakenly assumed that the
phrasing "space sim" on the box meant space simulation.
> > Also, where in the manual does it give the ranges of your weapons?
Photons
> > etc. Must be in the strat guide or too important for a captain to know.
> >
> > Also, where's the intrasystem warps in combat? I want to warp around on
the
> > battlefield.
> >
> Again, warping around on the battlefield is definitely one of those
> things that would have made the game more frustrating at best. Go
> further into that direction, and you'll have the "enjoyable" combat of
> Frontier Elite 2 in your hands. No one wants to shoot a beam weapon at a
> pixel sized spacecraft zooming by 200 000 kilometers per second.
You don't know this unless you've tried it yourself.
> > Where's the lateral thrusters at low speeds? If these big boys get in a
> > tight jam how can they maneuver? Call in a tug I suppose.
> >
> > Why's a planet only 100 km in diameter? A moon should be bigger than 30
km
> > and further than 120 km from it's planet. The scale is f'd up too.
> It is extremely difficult to simulate space using real-world distances.
> For instance, even double-precision floating point is not accurate
> enough as a coordinate system (I'm using 3x 64bit int + 3x 32bit float
> for coordinates, and still run into accuracy problems). There are also
> issues with the depth buffer. This is why only very, very few
> 3D-accelerated games have attempted to simulate real distances and scale
> in space - in fact, only I-War 2 and BCM come to mind. Obviously the
> designers of BC decided to dedicate their time and resources onto the
> other aspects of the game. And judging by the reviews BC is getting,
> that decision was the correct one.
>
IWar did it also. I apologize if my expectations increase from game to
game. Last I checked PC technology was getting better.
At least Star Fleet Command explained the metrics in the manual and noted
that the onscreen representation of the ships were not to scale. Faster
ships have the mysterious ability to outrun slower ships. An amazing
feature.
> In my view, realism is often (but not necessarily) inversely
> proportional to the fun factor of a game. Some compromises have been
> made with Bridge Commander, but this applies to every successful game
> ever made. X-Wing and Wing Commander had airplane-like physics in space,
> and unlike space sims today, they were among the most enjoyable AND best
> selling games of their day. In Doom, the marine guy ran at approximately
> 100kph and he couldn't get past a knee high edge - the game was arguably
> the most successful and influencal PC game to date.
>
> Why is it that so many space sim players are so eager to find flaws in
> the game's metrics? I've read countless postings in the usenet and on
> BBSs on the subject. In other words; isn't it the touted gameplay all
> that matters?
id never sold Doom as a 'Soldier Sim'
Don't call it a space sim, just call it what it is which is a Space Arcade
Game.
I could live with all the other issues for the sake of gameplay, but the
simple fact that a ship moving slower can overtake a ship moving faster
flies in the face of SANITY. I don't understand how anyone can defend that
gameplay decision. Please make this make sense. Your rationalization is
inadequate.
If this is gameplay then I'll get $40 worth of quarters, go to the arcade
and get it out of my system.
~monte
Jukka T. Paajanen
> <snip>
>>It is extremely difficult to simulate space using real-world distances.
>>For instance, even double-precision floating point is not accurate
>>enough as a coordinate system (I'm using 3x 64bit int + 3x 32bit float
>>for coordinates, and still run into accuracy problems). There are also
>>issues with the depth buffer. This is why only very, very few
>>3D-accelerated games have attempted to simulate real distances and scale
>>in space - in fact, only I-War 2 and BCM come to mind. Obviously the
>>designers of BC decided to dedicate their time and resources onto the
>>other aspects of the game. And judging by the reviews BC is getting,
>>that decision was the correct one.
>>
>>
>
> IWar did it also. I apologize if my expectations increase from game to
> game. Last I checked PC technology was getting better.
The technology that makes real-world scale simulation of space
complicated, namely number accuracy, has remained unchanged for some 15
years. Just because something has been done in a game in the past
doesn't in my opinion justify expecting the same thing from every title
after that game. For instance, seamless integration of planets and space
has not been done since Frontier: FE.
>
> At least Star Fleet Command explained the metrics in the manual and noted
> that the onscreen representation of the ships were not to scale. Faster
> ships have the mysterious ability to outrun slower ships. An amazing
> feature.
>
>
>>In my view, realism is often (but not necessarily) inversely
>>proportional to the fun factor of a game. Some compromises have been
>>made with Bridge Commander, but this applies to every successful game
>>ever made. X-Wing and Wing Commander had airplane-like physics in space,
>>and unlike space sims today, they were among the most enjoyable AND best
>>selling games of their day. In Doom, the marine guy ran at approximately
>>100kph and he couldn't get past a knee high edge - the game was arguably
>>the most successful and influencal PC game to date.
>>
>>Why is it that so many space sim players are so eager to find flaws in
>>the game's metrics? I've read countless postings in the usenet and on
>>BBSs on the subject. In other words; isn't it the touted gameplay all
>>that matters?
>>
>
> id never sold Doom as a 'Soldier Sim'
>
> Don't call it a space sim, just call it what it is which is a Space Arcade
> Game.
X-Wing and Wing Commander were classified as space sims, even though
they did not seriously attempt to simulate real world spaceflight. Same
applies for Star Trek Bridge Commander.
>
> I could live with all the other issues for the sake of gameplay, but the
> simple fact that a ship moving slower can overtake a ship moving faster
> flies in the face of SANITY. I don't understand how anyone can defend that
> gameplay decision. Please make this make sense. Your rationalization is
> inadequate.
What you described is clearly a bug in the game, I really should've
properly read your original post before replying in such a knee-jerk
reaction fashion. I apologize for that outburst, I just found BC
incredibly enjoyable, and felt the need to bravely rush into it's defense :)
oik
Trek [universe] Simulation. not a real world/space sim.
Star Trek physics are already screwey [it is of course the stuff of sci-fi
fantasy afterall] [y did it take Kirk until Star Trek 2 to figure out that
they've only been thinking in 2D tactics? and then y have the tv series
since ignored this discovery? well, voyager and enterprise have addressed
this now..]
i think, compared to previous Trekkie big ship game outings, that BC is the
closest to a sim [a sim in any genre] for the Trekkie fan.
the previous efforts were either more arcade fighter-style arcadey stuff or
2D tactical battle games stuff.
Derek Smart (3000AD)
<n...@availab.le> wrote:
>This is why only very, very few
>3D-accelerated games have attempted to simulate real distances and scale
>in space - in fact, only I-War 2 and BCM come to mind.
heh, IWar2 doesn't even come *close*. :D
A *single* space region in BCM measures about 2 *million* km
edge-to-edge.
The galcomhq station in orbit around Earth (which has a diameter of
12756km) measures about 12km (H) x 27kmm (W) x 27km (L)
If you have the game, start a new game, then go into Tacops and set
two waypoints for your CC on opposite edges of the region. The number
in between (in km) is the distance between the two of them.
>Obviously the designers of BC decided to dedicate their time and resources onto the
>other aspects of the game. And judging by the reviews BC is getting,
>that decision was the correct one.
Yep. And they were right in doing so, since thats the kind of game
they wanted. I can't understand some people; bitching about lack of
realistics physics, rather than just playing the game for what it is
----> a *fun* Star Trek game. *sigh*
Derek Smart Ph.D.
Designer/Lead Developer
www.3000ad.com
"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build
bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce
bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning." - Rich Cook
Derek Smart (3000AD)
<n...@availab.le> wrote:
> For instance, seamless integration of planets and space
>has not been done since Frontier: FE.
It depends on your definition of 'seamless'. Since 1992, BCM has had
seamless space<->planetary transition. The external cut-scene is only
there to simulate planetfall and to process any waypoints etc etc
Bill Huffman
"Derek Smart (3000AD)" <dsm...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:3t578u4kt03u9aap3...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 04 Mar 2002 01:04:15 +0200, "Jukka T. Paajanen"
> <n...@availab.le> wrote:
>
> > For instance, seamless integration of planets and space
> >has not been done since Frontier: FE.
>
> It depends on your definition of 'seamless'. Since 1992, BCM has had
> seamless space<->planetary transition. The external cut-scene is only
> there to simulate planetfall and to process any waypoints etc etc
Congratulations, you've finally admitted the truth that BC3K and BCM are the
same game.
> Derek Smart Ph.D.
Too bad you're still a fraud and can't admit the truth that you don't even have
a bachelor degree let alone this PhD which is a total fraud. Where did you buy
your diploma?
Stephen Robertson
> <n...@availab.le> wrote:
>
>
> >This is why only very, very few
> >3D-accelerated games have attempted to simulate real distances and scale
> >in space - in fact, only I-War 2 and BCM come to mind.
>
A solar system in I-War 2 encompasses a single space region approximately 3
billion km in radius (about 20 AU). This is actually quite small compared to
our own solar system, as Pluto orbits about 6 billion km out (about 40 AU).
When developing the solar systems for I-War 2 we had to reduce their size to
ensure proper numerical precision, and to keep travel times down. Even then
we had to speed up the LDS 'planet hopping' drive by several orders of
magnitude to ensure speedy journey times.
Best regards,
-- Steve
Stephen Robertson
Senior Designer
Particle Systems
http://www.particle-systems.com
http://www.independencewar.com
http://www.edgeofchaos.net
Ethel the Ardvaark
> It's simple - what's going on is the developer of the game making a
> compromise, sacrificing realism in order to improve gameplay, or for
> technical reasons. They're not displaying the actual speed in the game
> world, but instead a number that "looks good". But of course, you
> already knew this.
There's sacrificing realism, and then there's stupid. Having a slower
ship be able to catch a faster ship falls into the stupid category.
Xan
news:tivg8.31676$ZC3.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> I could live with all the other issues for the sake of gameplay, but the
> simple fact that a ship moving slower can overtake a ship moving faster
> flies in the face of SANITY. I don't understand how anyone can defend that
> gameplay decision. Please make this make sense. Your rationalization is
> inadequate.
Don't you know about the intercept [Ctrl+I] feature? Your ship can zip to
within 50km of a target this way, as you have noticed the BOP do. I assume it
is really just low-speed warp flight. It has a neat motion blur effect too. As
for the number not reflecting the actual flight mode, that is a simple
programming oversight, but what can ya do.
// Xan, Ph.D.
// I worship His Shadow.
Memnoch
wrote:
>On Mon, 04 Mar 2002 01:04:15 +0200, "Jukka T. Paajanen"
><n...@availab.le> wrote:
>
>> For instance, seamless integration of planets and space
>>has not been done since Frontier: FE.
>
> It depends on your definition of 'seamless'. Since 1992, BCM has had
>seamless space<->planetary transition. The external cut-scene is only
>there to simulate planetfall and to process any waypoints etc etc
Is there a way to turn it off so we can have it the way we want it?
When?
>On Mon, 04 Mar 2002 01:04:15 +0200, "Jukka T. Paajanen"
><n...@availab.le> wrote:
>
>> For instance, seamless integration of planets and space
>>has not been done since Frontier: FE.
>
> It depends on your definition of 'seamless'. Since 1992, BCM has had
>seamless space<->planetary transition. The external cut-scene is only
>there to simulate planetfall and to process any waypoints etc etc
I love Derek's bull. Seamless - except for the unavoidable cutscene in
the middle.
--
"Until you confirm that you have uninstalled, re-installed, patched to
1.0.05 using the *latest* patch file, do NOT post on this forum. Any
deviation in the above will result in your posting priviledges being
revoked - WITHOUT - warning or ANY hopes of having said priviledges
restored. EVER." - Derek Smart, 3000ad.com tech support forum
Espen Berntsen
<dsm...@pobox.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 04 Mar 2002 01:04:15 +0200, "Jukka T. Paajanen"
><n...@availab.le> wrote:
>
>> For instance, seamless integration of planets and space
>>has not been done since Frontier: FE.
>
> It depends on your definition of 'seamless'. Since 1992, BCM has had
>seamless space<->planetary transition. The external cut-scene is only
>there to simulate planetfall and to process any waypoints etc etc
Then the planets do looke the same on ground as from space?
--
Name, the fame
Jukka T. Paajanen
I wholeheartedly agree - my original hasty comment was a result of lack
of reading comprehension on my part.
Ethel the Ardvaark
> It depends on your definition of 'seamless'. Since 1992, BCM has had
> seamless space<->planetary transition. The external cut-scene is only
> there to simulate planetfall and to process any waypoints etc etc
"external cut-scene " and "simulate planetfall" - that doesn't fit
with my definition of seamless, but then we all know that you use a
different dictionary than the rest of the world.
Allan Parent
millions right?
Allan
"Derek Smart (3000AD)" <dsm...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:g9578u8jd5pseakla...@4ax.com...
Allan Parent
Allan
"Derek Smart (3000AD)" <dsm...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:3t578u4kt03u9aap3...@4ax.com...
KillPhilter Man
> On Sun, 03 Mar 2002 01:17:41 +0200, "Jukka T. Paajanen"
> <n...@availab.le> wrote:
>
>
>>This is why only very, very few
>>3D-accelerated games have attempted to simulate real distances and scale
>>in space - in fact, only I-War 2 and BCM come to mind.
>
> heh, IWar2 doesn't even come *close*. :D
>
> A *single* space region in BCM measures about 2 *million* km
> edge-to-edge.
>
> The galcomhq station in orbit around Earth (which has a diameter of
> 12756km) measures about 12km (H) x 27kmm (W) x 27km (L)
>
> If you have the game, start a new game, then go into Tacops and set
> two waypoints for your CC on opposite edges of the region. The number
> in between (in km) is the distance between the two of them.
Looks like I-War 2 has you beat by a 2.8 billion km. You're such a moron
Derek.
Jukka T. Paajanen
> A solar system in I-War 2 encompasses a single space region approximately 3
> billion km in radius (about 20 AU). This is actually quite small compared to
> our own solar system, as Pluto orbits about 6 billion km out (about 40 AU).
>
That's still quite impressive. I don't think even 64bit floating point
numbers would be accurate enough for plain old absolute type coordinates
of that magnitude, might I ask what type of coordinate system were you
using?
monte
object then hit the Intercept button from the helm then your ship will rev
up to 47,000 kph and literally warp across the map to that location.
I've had several wily vets do this to me as I was about the whackem. It
didn't bother me too much.
Also, if you launch a probe then lock on to the probe and hit intercept when
it reaches a great distance you can get the same effect.
IMHO, if you have the power and health by all means warp your heart out.
It's kind of cool but I would've preferred the direct approach and give the
user more control.
~monte
Crelox
> Stephen Robertson wrote:
> > A solar system in I-War 2 encompasses a single space region approximately 3
> > billion km in radius (about 20 AU). This is actually quite small compared to
> > our own solar system, as Pluto orbits about 6 billion km out (about 40 AU).
> >
>
> That's still quite impressive. I don't think even 64bit floating point
> numbers would be accurate enough for plain old absolute type coordinates
> of that magnitude, might I ask what type of coordinate system were you
> using?
>
>
What's even better is that the IWar 2 guys are reading the flamewar!
Imagine how many times they've bitten their lips at all this. IWar
crew: thanks for providing a quality game; Derek: Thanks for providing
an insight into the mind of a mentally unstable person!
Crelox
Allan Parent
With the 2 million km comment, Derek once again puts his foot in his mouth.
Allan
"Crelox" <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.16edf26ae...@netnews.mchsi.com...
Bill Huffman
Mr. Kevin-Smart is a superior ... ah a superior ... ah ... yea ... a superior
being in his own mind. The rest of us are merely commoners. (Or at least in
particular, he's declared that I'm a commoner.)
You see from the perspective of the being that's superior in his own mind,
there's five levels of beings on this Earth.
5. Game publishers are at the very bottom and should all be exterminated with
extreme prejudice.
4. Commoners must sometimes be tolerated because games are purchased by this
group.
3. The next level from the bottom consists of game programmers/artists (Derek
refers to them as farmhands) and game journalists (they generally don't know the
difference between their ass and a hole in the ground).
2. The pinnacle that mere mortals can hope to achieve is to be a game designer.
1. Far far above the other levels is the one and only Derek Kevin-Smart.
I actually have documented proof that the proper position of Derek Kevin-Smart
is as the greatest of all.
http://follies.werewolves.org/greatness.html
Bill Huffman
"KillPhilter Man" <filter...@lycanthropes.net> wrote in message
news:a60scr$3a2$1...@suburbia.werewolves.org...
2 *million* km compared to 3 billion km means that he's been beaten by 2.998
billion km.
It is amazing that the Derek can manage to put his foot in his mouth so often.
His foot is there so often that I bet his toes are perpetually in a wrinkled
state from being continually wet.
Stephen Robertson
"Jukka T. Paajanen" <n...@availab.le> wrote in message
news:3C83FD0C...@availab.le...
> That's still quite impressive. I don't think even 64bit floating point
> numbers would be accurate enough for plain old absolute type coordinates
> of that magnitude, might I ask what type of coordinate system were you
> using?
>
I'm not sure exactly - that's one for the programmers to answer.
I should clarify that I-War 2 solar systems are 3 billion km in radius -
that's 6 billion km in diameter, of course.
--
Chris McMullen
It can't be as f***ed up as Starfleet Academy, where the Starships
handled like X-Wings... bloody hell, since when can starships turn on
a sixpence?
Derek Smart (3000AD)
<n...@availab.le> wrote:
>Stephen Robertson wrote:
>> A solar system in I-War 2 encompasses a single space region approximately 3
>> billion km in radius (about 20 AU). This is actually quite small compared to
>> our own solar system, as Pluto orbits about 6 billion km out (about 40 AU).
>>
>
>That's still quite impressive.
For an entire galaxy. Yes. But the **entire** BCM galaxy still
eclipses it - by a factor of x2.3 if I'm not mistaken. :D
Derek Smart (3000AD)
Not if you don't know math, you moron.
Steve said the entire IWar2 galaxy.
I said a *single* BCM space region. There are 110 space regions on a
24x24 edge-to-edge 3D grid. Idiot.
>You're such a moron
>Derek.
Pathetic Jak, that you would have to change your alias just so that
I'd get to see what you wrote. Pathetic.
*plonk*
Derek Smart (3000AD)
<n...@availab.le> wrote:
>Ethel the Ardvaark wrote:
>
>> "Jukka T. Paajanen" <n...@availab.le> wrote in message news:<3C815D95...@availab.le>...
>>
>>
>>>It's simple - what's going on is the developer of the game making a
>>>compromise, sacrificing realism in order to improve gameplay, or for
>>>technical reasons. They're not displaying the actual speed in the game
>>>world, but instead a number that "looks good". But of course, you
>>>already knew this.
>>>
>>
>> There's sacrificing realism, and then there's stupid. Having a slower
>> ship be able to catch a faster ship falls into the stupid category.
>>
>
>I wholeheartedly agree - my original hasty comment was a result of lack
>of reading comprehension on my part.
Not entirely. I have large numbers, yet the real numbers (and ranges)
are displayed in BCM just fine. Target an object that is one million
km away and that range will be diplayed in the Tacscan, cvd, tacops
etc etc
IF the ranges are not important (they are *irrelevant* in IWar2), then
the developer is right in using approximations (e.g. IWar2).
Derek Smart (3000AD)
>IMHO, if you have the power and health by all means warp your heart out.
>It's kind of cool but I would've preferred the direct approach and give the
>user more control.
>
>~monte
Exactly. Which is why BCM (and all BC games) gives you the best of
both.
I Love Derek
> On Mon, 4 Mar 2002 22:27:39 +0000 (UTC), KillPhilter Man
> <filter...@lycanthropes.net> wrote:
>
>>"Derek Smart (3000AD)" <dsm...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 03 Mar 2002 01:17:41 +0200, "Jukka T. Paajanen"
>>> <n...@availab.le> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>This is why only very, very few
>>>>3D-accelerated games have attempted to simulate real distances and scale
>>>>in space - in fact, only I-War 2 and BCM come to mind.
>>>
>>> heh, IWar2 doesn't even come *close*. :D
>>>
>>> A *single* space region in BCM measures about 2 *million* km
>>> edge-to-edge.
>>>
>>> The galcomhq station in orbit around Earth (which has a diameter of
>>> 12756km) measures about 12km (H) x 27kmm (W) x 27km (L)
>>>
>>> If you have the game, start a new game, then go into Tacops and set
>>> two waypoints for your CC on opposite edges of the region. The number
>>> in between (in km) is the distance between the two of them.
>>
>>Looks like I-War 2 has you beat by a 2.8 billion km.
>
> Not if you don't know math, you moron.
>
> Steve said the entire IWar2 galaxy.
Quote from Steve:
"I should clarify that I-War 2 solar systems are 3 billion km in radius -
that's 6 billion km in diameter, of course."
Note: SOLAR SYSTEMS
> I said a *single* BCM space region. There are 110 space regions on a
> 24x24 edge-to-edge 3D grid. Idiot.
Yes, you are. SOLAR SYSTEMS
>>You're such a moron
>>Derek.
>
> Pathetic Jak, that you would have to change your alias just so that
> I'd get to see what you wrote. Pathetic.
And yet a totally valid email address too. Oh Derek: SOLAR SYSTEMS.
> *plonk*
Hey. I'm still waiting for those emails to my "admin" and provider to shut
Bill's site down. When can I expect those again? Oh, btw: SOLAR SYSTEMS.
Jukka T. Paajanen
use a 3D-grid for the regions, is the entire coordinate system relative
(to the regional origo) then? That would somewhat easen the problem with
accuracy, and 64bit floating point math might just be enough.
Relative coordinates don't explain how on earth you're rendering that
kind of scale though, I'm still left scratching my head figuring that
out. In my current project I'm using two Z depths (1 near and 10^7 far
range for normal objects, and ~10^7 near range for distant objects), but
this approach is obviously far from optimal (doesn't work well for
objects >> 10^7 units in diameter, for instance).
Allan Parent
"Derek Smart (3000AD)" <dsm...@pobox.com> wrote in message wrote:
> >> On Sun, 03 Mar 2002 01:17:41 +0200, "Jukka T. Paajanen"
> >
> >Looks like I-War 2 has you beat by a 2.8 billion km.
>
> Not if you don't know math, you moron.
>
No Derek, you are the moron. If BCM has 110 of these 2 million km regions,
then that gives BCM a total of 220 million km. One solar system in I war2 is
3 billion. That still leaves you 2.78 billion km short. Nice try. You didn't
have to do a lot of math to get that "PhD" did you?
Allan
Memnoch
wrote:
I would imagine it amounted to being able to count out the right amount of
cash to pay for it.
Mark Collins
> Not if you don't know math, you moron.
Neither do you, aparantly (See later in this post)
> Steve said the entire IWar2 galaxy.
Noooo, Steve said "solar system", which is considerably smaller than
a galaxy.
>
> I said a *single* BCM space region. There are 110 space regions on a
> 24x24 edge-to-edge 3D grid. Idiot.
So, a single BCM space region is 2 millions kilometers across (source:
an earlier comment you make in this thread), and there are 24 of them
across, giving you a total of 48 million kilometers.
You're still down a few billion on I-War2, Derek.
You really are a tit, aren't you? No, I take that back, tits are
useful.
Nurgle.
Mark Collins
> "Jukka T. Paajanen" <n...@availab.le> wrote in message
> news:3C83FD0C...@availab.le...
>
> > That's still quite impressive. I don't think even 64bit floating point
> > numbers would be accurate enough for plain old absolute type coordinates
> > of that magnitude, might I ask what type of coordinate system were you
> > using?
> >
>
> I'm not sure exactly - that's one for the programmers to answer.
I'm a programmer, and here's one solution to getting larger numbers
(with a floating point)...
Instead of using a traditional floating point number (such as a float
or a double in C), you could use 2 seperate integer based numbers, one
for the major number (everything before the decimal point), and one
for the minor number (everything after the decimal point).
In effect, this gives you a 128bit number, with pretty decent
precision, as long as you don't want to perform and division or
multiplication on the numbers, which isn't very likely if you're just
doing simple vector-based movement (which most space games would do)
You'd also have pretty fast arthimetic on it, as well as decent
precision.
Nurgle
oik
its like trying to turn RISK into an FPS for the Quake crowd or something
[sorry cant think of much at this hour]
the Star Fleet Command series went some way to correct that, but you still
had a 'board game' feeling from the 2D map..
and it still didnt feel like you commanded a big starship.
"Chris McMullen" <Chr...@DELETETHISSPAMBLOCKINGBITlspace.org> wrote in
message news:3c84f6b3...@news2.fast24.net...
fabio
> On Tue, 05 Mar 2002 02:47:19 GMT, "monte" <ne...@monte.net> wrote:
>
> >IMHO, if you have the power and health by all means warp your heart out.
> >It's kind of cool but I would've preferred the direct approach and give the
> >user more control.
> >
> >~monte
>
> Exactly. Which is why BCM (and all BC games) gives you the best of
> both.
Now if you fixed the bugs, instability, multiplayer, made it a fun
game to play, gave decent support etc people may actually buy and
enjoy it!
And I noticed over at the Taco Palace you boasted at
http://www.3000ad.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=001790:
"posted 03-05-2002 15:57
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I stopped playing BCM several years ago once the novelty wore off
>
> Derek Smart Ph.D.
> Designer/Lead Developer
> www.3000ad.com
So you had a WORKING version of BCM several years ago, and still have
not been able to fix the bugs or get multiplayer working!!!
Bill Huffman
"fabio" <fabi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7cd92981.02030...@posting.google.com...
> "Derek Smart (3000AD)" <dsm...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:<4t7a8ugamsg74i92b...@4ax.com>...
> > On Tue, 05 Mar 2002 02:47:19 GMT, "monte" <ne...@monte.net> wrote:
> >
> > >IMHO, if you have the power and health by all means warp your heart out.
> > >It's kind of cool but I would've preferred the direct approach and give the
> > >user more control.
> > >
> > >~monte
> >
> > Exactly. Which is why BCM (and all BC games) gives you the best of
> > both.
>
> Now if you fixed the bugs, instability, multiplayer, made it a fun
> game to play, gave decent support etc people may actually buy and
> enjoy it!
>
> And I noticed over at the Taco Palace you boasted at
> http://www.3000ad.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=001790:
> "posted 03-05-2002 15:57
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> I stopped playing BCM several years ago once the novelty wore off
> >
> > Derek Smart Ph.D.
> > Designer/Lead Developer
> > www.3000ad.com
If one of the Peewee Commanders said the exact same thing over at the warped
reality board known as http://www.bc3000ad.com, I'm sure that Mr. Kevin-Smart
would rip the Peewee Commander a new asshole and ban him for life.
Jukka T. Paajanen
>
> Instead of using a traditional floating point number (such as a float
> or a double in C), you could use 2 seperate integer based numbers, one
> for the major number (everything before the decimal point), and one
> for the minor number (everything after the decimal point).
>
This is almost what I'm using. I have a 64 bit integer as the "large"
part number, and 32bit float as the "small" part. An integer type is
ideal as the large one, since it's evenly distributed over it's entire
range, whereas float gives very good precision but only up to a certain
value.
Xan
> On Tue, 05 Mar 2002 01:02:36 +0200, "Jukka T. Paajanen"
> <n...@availab.le> wrote:
>
> >Stephen Robertson wrote:
> >> A solar system
> >That's still quite impressive.
> For an entire galaxy. Yes.
Nice semantics there.
> But the **entire** BCM galaxy still
> eclipses it - by a factor of x2.3 if I'm not mistaken. :D
That's a load of crap.
BCM = 110 regions * 2 million km^3 = 220 million km^3
IW2 = 15 systems * 6 billion km^3 = 90 billion km^3 = 90000 million km^3
BCM / IW2 = .0024 < 2.3
ROTFLMAO!!!
Yeah, you eclipse it all right. Both by size and number of planets. [The
Firefrost system alone was said to have ~300 charted bodies, IIRC.] You just
royally messed up the decimal point. That's understandable. =P
// Xan, Ph.D.
// As you command, Divine Shadow.
Xan
news:3C8549A6...@availab.le...
> How's BCM handling the coordinate problem BTW?
It's not. =)
You should try out the BCM demo. There is extremely ugly far clip mega-pop-in
for planets and stations. Whatever the hell he's doing, it's not what you
want. [Unlike that -other- space sim. <g>]
// Xan, Ph.D.
// I worship His Shadow.
Pitbull
<dsm...@pobox.com> wrote:
>For an entire galaxy. Yes. But the **entire** BCM galaxy still
>eclipses it - by a factor of x2.3 if I'm not mistaken. :D
Yes you are mistaken.
Xan
[snip]
Crap, I wrote '^3' but I didn't cube the numbers. But you get the idea. =)
Ethel the Ardvaark
> For an entire galaxy. Yes. But the **entire** BCM galaxy still
> eclipses it - by a factor of x2.3 if I'm not mistaken. :D
You are entirely mistaken. Go back and actually *READ* the post. See
if the words *SOLAR SYSYEM* appear.
monte
gameplay perspective. I would've rather they kept the metrics out of the
game and made up a new unit of measure or just used numbers.
It has some multiplayer stability issues that need to be addressed asap.
The thing has a memory leak (or something of that nature) and crashes at
pretty consistent intervals.
Also, the game needs the ability to control intrasystem warps by allowing
the commander to manually lay in a plot (add nav points) through the Map
interface. To limit abuses and overuses, one half(or more) of reserve
energy should be required for an intrasystem warp regardless of distance.
High speed manuevers such as the Picard Maneuver would then be feasable.
This, to me, would put it in the upper echelon of starship sims. Top being
the SFC series of course.
I wish I could enable the high detail model damage for LAN multiplayer
games.
All in all it's a decent game with some rough edges.
So, I apologize for my hasty BC is BS comment. I'm glad I stuck to it.
~monte
> Bridge Commander is BS. Yes, this is ridiculous.
>
> Something is seriously wrong with the physics in this game, must be the
> Treknology.
>
> Flying an Akira against the Klingon Bird of Prey in QB. I divert all my
> power to engines, hit the 9 key and get to a nice speed of 5197kph and
head
> directly away from him. The BOP can only reach a speed of 4700 kph and I
> get some seperation of about 130 km. That's fine for a few moments but
then
> the BOP starts to close the distance down to 50 km, but he's still only
> going 4700 according to the lockon while I'm travelling at 5197. What the
> hell is going on here? Hello McFly.
>
> Also, where in the manual does it give the ranges of your weapons?
Photons
> etc. Must be in the strat guide or too important for a captain to know.
>
> Also, where's the intrasystem warps in combat? I want to warp around on
the
> battlefield.
>
> Where's the lateral thrusters at low speeds? If these big boys get in a
> tight jam how can they maneuver? Call in a tug I suppose.
>
> Why's a planet only 100 km in diameter? A moon should be bigger than 30
km
> and further than 120 km from it's planet. The scale is f'd up too.
>
> ~monte
>
>
>
Jason Travis
> >>has not been done since Frontier: FE.
> >
> > It depends on your definition of 'seamless'. Since 1992, BCM has had
> >seamless space<->planetary transition. The external cut-scene is only
> >there to simulate planetfall and to process any waypoints etc etc
>
> I love Derek's bull. Seamless - except for the unavoidable cutscene in
> the middle.
"It's seamless except for this one big seam."
Bill Huffman
"Jason Travis" <jayct...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7f374271.02030...@posting.google.com...
Mr. Kevin-Smart is so full of it claiming that the game is seamless. When you're
in one location, you can't even see another heavenly body. For example, if you
are at the moon you can't look around, find the Earth and fly to it. You can't
see the sun in the center of each solar system. As a matter of fact all shading
in the game is based on the location of the Earth's sun even if you're in a
different solar system. Each little location you can go to is separate, you
cannot move seamlessly from one location to another. I don't know what the fraud
thinks is seamless about his game but it's a whole different definition than the
rest of the world.
Ethel the Ardvaark
> On Mon, 04 Mar 2002 21:08:35 +0200, "Jukka T. Paajanen"
> <n...@availab.le> wrote:
>
> >Ethel the Ardvaark wrote:
> >
> >> "Jukka T. Paajanen" <n...@availab.le> wrote in message news:<3C815D95...@availab.le>...
> >>
> >>
> >>>It's simple - what's going on is the developer of the game making a
> >>>compromise, sacrificing realism in order to improve gameplay, or for
> >>>technical reasons. They're not displaying the actual speed in the game
> >>>world, but instead a number that "looks good". But of course, you
> >>>already knew this.
> >>>
> >>
> >> There's sacrificing realism, and then there's stupid. Having a slower
> >> ship be able to catch a faster ship falls into the stupid category.
> >>
> >
> >I wholeheartedly agree - my original hasty comment was a result of lack
> >of reading comprehension on my part.
>
> Not entirely. I have large numbers, yet the real numbers (and ranges)
> are displayed in BCM just fine. Target an object that is one million
> km away and that range will be diplayed in the Tacscan, cvd, tacops
> etc etc
>
> IF the ranges are not important (they are *irrelevant* in IWar2), then
> the developer is right in using approximations (e.g. IWar2).
Derek, you must really have a reading *COMPREHENSION* problem.
Skipping kindergarten as you claimed was a bad idea. Having a
*SLOWER* ship catch a *FASTER* ship is stupid. But seeing as you are
the lead developer of BC3K/M, then stupidity must come naturally to
you.
Espen Berntsen
Collins) wrote:
>"Stephen Robertson" <st...@particle-systems.com> wrote in message news:<cD%g8.4062$eS3.2...@monolith.news.easynet.net>...
>> "Jukka T. Paajanen" <n...@availab.le> wrote in message
>> news:3C83FD0C...@availab.le...
>>
>> > That's still quite impressive. I don't think even 64bit floating point
>> > numbers would be accurate enough for plain old absolute type coordinates
>> > of that magnitude, might I ask what type of coordinate system were you
>> > using?
>> >
>>
>> I'm not sure exactly - that's one for the programmers to answer.
>
>I'm a programmer, and here's one solution to getting larger numbers
>(with a floating point)...
>
>Instead of using a traditional floating point number (such as a float
>or a double in C), you could use 2 seperate integer based numbers, one
>for the major number (everything before the decimal point), and one
>for the minor number (everything after the decimal point).
Or, if you need really large numbers, use strings :)
(we had a small competition at work to find the first number after X
which was a palindrome, or something like that where we had to used
strings to find the next number, ok, so we are nerds)
--
Name, the nerd
Derek Smart (3000AD)
<n...@availab.le> wrote:
>How's BCM handling the coordinate problem BTW? You mentioned that you
>use a 3D-grid for the regions, is the entire coordinate system relative
>(to the regional origo) then? That would somewhat easen the problem with
>accuracy, and 64bit floating point math might just be enough.
I told you before. Trade secrets, so I can't tell you. :)
>Relative coordinates don't explain how on earth you're rendering that
>kind of scale though, I'm still left scratching my head figuring that
>out.
As above
Hint: I've explained it here before. Do a search for 'dynamic
w-buffer' in my posts going back about a year or so.
>In my current project I'm using two Z depths (1 near and 10^7 far
>range for normal objects, and ~10^7 near range for distant objects), but
>this approach is obviously far from optimal (doesn't work well for
>objects >> 10^7 units in diameter, for instance).
why are you using a z-buffer? why not a w-buffer at 32bpp?
And for sorting objects of varying sizes, you pick the largest one and
draw first *without* sorting it.
e.g. scene
planet
station in orbit around planet
marine walking on station in orbit around planet
fighter shooting at marine walking on station in orbit around planet
projectile from marine's gun fired from marine to station
All of the above are different models at different sizes. Since the
planet is not z/w sorted, you draw it first, dynamically scale the
w-buffer depending on the sort range - and everything just, well,
works. :D
Dick Garage
wrote:
>For an entire galaxy. Yes. But the **entire** BCM galaxy still
>eclipses it - by a factor of x2.3 if I'm not mistaken. :D
LOL
"My galaxy is bigger than your galaxy!
--
" I can't help it if I possess a vastly superior intellect
and skillset than most. Its in my nature."" In case you were
wondering, yes, I'm a fucking genius.""I MADE ME."
"Know your place and BOW YOUR HEAD damnit!""..
remember, my comments are NOT designed to win
anyone over. I am me.
-Derek Smart, VE3D comment board, December 2001.
Russy
"Derek Smart (3000AD)" <dsm...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:a2id8ugi9oue8leql...@4ax.com...
And the magic happens -here -
Watch as I pull a rabbit out of my hat Rocky (out comes lion).
Mark Collins
> <n...@availab.le> wrote:
>
> >How's BCM handling the coordinate problem BTW? You mentioned that you
> >use a 3D-grid for the regions, is the entire coordinate system relative
> >(to the regional origo) then? That would somewhat easen the problem with
> >accuracy, and 64bit floating point math might just be enough.
>
> I told you before. Trade secrets, so I can't tell you. :)
Derek, incase you hadn't noticed, game developers general share the
bulk of their techniques with other developers, which is why lists
such as GD-Algorithms, DirectXDev, OpenGL-Gamedev etc etc exist.
If every game developer on the planet was like you, we'd never advance
in out artform. As Galileo (or was it Newton?) once said, "I see
further because I stand on the shoulders of giants".
> >Relative coordinates don't explain how on earth you're rendering that
> >kind of scale though, I'm still left scratching my head figuring that
> >out.
>
> As above
>
> Hint: I've explained it here before. Do a search for 'dynamic
> w-buffer' in my posts going back about a year or so.
>
> >In my current project I'm using two Z depths (1 near and 10^7 far
> >range for normal objects, and ~10^7 near range for distant objects), but
> >this approach is obviously far from optimal (doesn't work well for
> >objects >> 10^7 units in diameter, for instance).
>
> why are you using a z-buffer? why not a w-buffer at 32bpp?
>
> And for sorting objects of varying sizes, you pick the largest one and
> draw first *without* sorting it.
Godamnit, could you get any more ignorant?
The point of sorting ANYTHING is to speed up the processing of
selecting the largest/smallest one, then the next one etc etc. It's
all related to algorithmic complexity, and in general sorting data is
much more cost-effective than searching through it each time.
> e.g. scene
>
> planet
> station in orbit around planet
> marine walking on station in orbit around planet
> fighter shooting at marine walking on station in orbit around planet
> projectile from marine's gun fired from marine to station
>
> All of the above are different models at different sizes. Since the
> planet is not z/w sorted, you draw it first, dynamically scale the
> w-buffer depending on the sort range - and everything just, well,
> works. :D
If you "w-sort" the scene, you'll probably notice a major performance
increase, esp. if there are a large number of entities in the scene.
If, for example, all you data was in the oposite order than the
desirable (the sorted order), each time you render something, you'd
have to walk the entire list of objects, which eats valuable processor
time.
A binary sort would help speed things up.
Nurgle
Daniel Blakemore
Mark Collins <use...@thisisnurgle.org.uk> wrote in message
news:669ae967.02030...@posting.google.com...
> "Derek Smart (3000AD)" <dsm...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:<a2id8ugi9oue8leql...@4ax.com>...
> > On Wed, 06 Mar 2002 00:41:42 +0200, "Jukka T. Paajanen"
> > <n...@availab.le> wrote:
> > >How's BCM handling the coordinate problem BTW? You mentioned that you
> > >use a 3D-grid for the regions, is the entire coordinate system relative
> > >(to the regional origo) then? That would somewhat easen the problem
with
> > >accuracy, and 64bit floating point math might just be enough.
> > I told you before. Trade secrets, so I can't tell you. :)
> Derek, incase you hadn't noticed, game developers general share the
> bulk of their techniques with other developers, which is why lists
> such as GD-Algorithms, DirectXDev, OpenGL-Gamedev etc etc exist.
> If every game developer on the planet was like you, we'd never advance
> in out artform. As Galileo (or was it Newton?) once said, "I see
> further because I stand on the shoulders of giants".
He's just frightened that everyone would find out that he has no coding
skills at all.. :)
> > >In my current project I'm using two Z depths (1 near and 10^7 far
> > >range for normal objects, and ~10^7 near range for distant objects),
but
> > >this approach is obviously far from optimal (doesn't work well for
> > >objects >> 10^7 units in diameter, for instance).
> >
> > why are you using a z-buffer? why not a w-buffer at 32bpp?
> >
> > And for sorting objects of varying sizes, you pick the largest one and
> > draw first *without* sorting it.
> Godamnit, could you get any more ignorant?
He probably could... :)
> The point of sorting ANYTHING is to speed up the processing of
> selecting the largest/smallest one, then the next one etc etc. It's
> all related to algorithmic complexity, and in general sorting data is
> much more cost-effective than searching through it each time.
yeah, well...we all know how like Derek will be to take any notice...
--
Daniel Blakemore
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from
oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that
will reach to himself" - Tom Paine
Rico
"Mark Collins" <use...@thisisnurgle.org.uk> wrote in message
news:669ae967.02030...@posting.google.com...
news:<a2id8ugi9oue8leql...@4ax.com>...
> > On Wed, 06 Mar 2002 00:41:42 +0200, "Jukka T. Paajanen"
> > <n...@availab.le> wrote:
> >
> > >How's BCM handling the coordinate problem BTW? You mentioned that you
> > >use a 3D-grid for the regions, is the entire coordinate system relative
> > >(to the regional origo) then? That would somewhat easen the problem
with
> > >accuracy, and 64bit floating point math might just be enough.
> >
> > I told you before. Trade secrets, so I can't tell you. :)
>
> Derek, incase you hadn't noticed, game developers general share the
> bulk of their techniques with other developers, which is why lists
> such as GD-Algorithms, DirectXDev, OpenGL-Gamedev etc etc exist.
>
> If every game developer on the planet was like you, we'd never advance
> in out artform. As Galileo (or was it Newton?) once said, "I see
> further because I stand on the shoulders of giants".
>
Clearly Derek has nothing to offer that would qualify as an "advance." He
doesn't share his technique because it is so unskilled and lacks innovation.
Easier to keep it under some oddball cloak of mystery.
Bill Huffman
"Mark Collins" <use...@thisisnurgle.org.uk> wrote in message
news:669ae967.02030...@posting.google.com...
Someone else noticed the hilarity. He first says, "you pick the largest one" and
then says, "*without* sorting it". He is of course doing the same thing as a
sort but he's just making sure that the sort is always as ABSOLUTELY as slow as
possible.
Dan Brooks, you really need to come to your master's rescue here. He's making
himself look more stupid every day. He really needs you to step in and make him
look smart in comparison to someone.
Bill Huffman
"Rico" <Troop...@bugplanet.com> wrote in message
news:7eKh8.73$dZ4.1...@newsfeed.slurp.net...
Which is the impossible situation that Derek claims to be in. On the one hand he
claims to be a PhD which means he's pushed back the frontier of human knowledge.
Yet on the other hand he claims that he's keeping the knowledge secret. Which of
course is impossible, you can't advance human knowledge if the knowledge isn't
made part of the general store of knowledge known by humans. He (and Dan Brooks)
are just totally ignorant when it even comes to understanding what a PhD really
means.
Derek Smart (3000AD)
One LAST time, please keep this shit ON the Usenet and OUT of my
fucking email inbox!!!!!!!!!!
There is a reason that I have a killfilter. I don't respond to idiots
and I do NOT have ANY interest in ANYTHING they have to say.
Especially those who do nothing other than to harrass me and twist my
words.
The techniques below, obviously work. They work because *I* developed
and wrote them. They work as seen in BCM. Then again, wtf am I talking
about? You nut jobs don't even HAVE the fucking game!!!
The planet model (that sphere) in BCM is *not* an actual model e.g.
like, say a character, gun, craft etc. It is a mesh that is
dynamically generated in real-time, based on the scripted scale of the
planet being created. It is done this way so that the world can be
created in real-time; rather than storing over 200+ spherical meshes
of all the planets/moons in the game. Wasted time, space, assets etc.
Anyone with access to the GBS can see the world generation script in
the world.scr file.
The planet is the largest single entity in the game. It is NOT subject
to ANY sorting. It is drawn first, the buffer cleared and other
entities drawn etc etc. Just as I indicated in my previous post
(below). There is NO reason to sort it (planet) because it will always
be the largest single entity. Period. When e.g. a station is on the
other side of the planet, you cannot see it *thru* the planet, due to
the techniques being used. Everything just works as designed.
Some of you idiots think that because you know how to use a compiler,
that makes you a 'developer'. Yet, not only is there *no* evidence of
*any* of your *own* work available for critics, but you spend your
time trying to tear down something you don't understand. But I guess
its all part of 'the online game'.
There **is** a reason that NO other game on *this* planet, does what
BCM does. And that is because it takes innovation - and it also
depends on the type of game being created.
e.g. here is the world script definition excerpt for the Earth space
region.
The line with the 12756 is the line that defines the diameter of the
Earth object when created and rendered. The 3476 is for the Earth's
moon, also in the same region. The 1440 and 38880 values define the
length of day, rotation etc etc
=============
#
# EARTH / MOON
#
:Moonp.3d,p,"MOON","SOL","MOON"
:Earth.3d,p,"EARTH","SOL","PLANET 3/9"
:Earthz.3d,s,"TERRA","SOL","SECTOR D9"
Earth,p,earth,ptype03,ptype03,temp,TERRAN,1440,12756
Moon,m,moonp,mtype01,mtype01,cold,TERRAN,38880,3476
jmp-10,j,mercuryz:To..Mercury
jmp-02,j,venusz:To..Venus
jmp-01,j,marsz:To..Mars
jmp-04,j,jupiterz:To..Jupiter
jmp-05,j,saturnz:To..Saturn
jmp-03,j,uranusz:To..Uranus
jmp-11,j,neptunez:To..Neptune
jmp-12,j,plutoz:To..Pluto
fld-03,a,1500,10,0
=============
As to the size of the BCM galaxy, the one math I've seen, is just
laughable. No, its hilarious. Again, I already gave the sizes of the
BCM regions and the dimensions. BCM *does* eclipses the IWar2
*solar system* - no matter how many zeroes you add to it. And unlike
IWar2, does *not* fake the numbers due to lack of precision (yes, I
de-compiled and memory peeked it). The BCM numbers are *real*. The
IWar2 numbers are *not*.
So, whatever Stephen (who is not a programmer) tells you, is pure
exaggeration Period. Either that or he doesn't understand how their
own math works. Fact is. It doesn't work in real word numerics. At
all.
Write what you want; but the fact remains, I have a game that asserts
my comments.
That is all
Xan
news:vjbf8us1gaatddpkt...@4ax.com...
> One LAST time, please keep this shit ON the Usenet and OUT of my
> fucking email inbox!!!!!!!!!!
Sending yourself e-mail again? hehe
> The techniques below, obviously work.
LOL. Yeah, one planet visible at a time, and you still have serious pop-in.
> The planet is the largest single entity in the game. It is NOT subject
> to ANY sorting. It is drawn first, the buffer cleared and other
> entities drawn etc etc. Just as I indicated in my previous post
> (below). There is NO reason to sort it (planet) because it will always
> be the largest single entity. Period. When e.g. a station is on the
> other side of the planet, you cannot see it *thru* the planet, due to
> the techniques being used. Everything just works as designed.
And it is a very simplistic design at that.
> Some of you idiots think that because you know how to use a compiler,
> that makes you a 'developer'. Yet, not only is there *no* evidence of
> *any* of your *own* work available for critics, but you spend your
> time trying to tear down something you don't understand. But I guess
> its all part of 'the online game'.
Be careful what you wish for. =P
> There **is** a reason that NO other game on *this* planet, does what
> BCM does.
You're right. No one else is incompetent enough to do what you've done.
> As to the size of the BCM galaxy, the one math I've seen, is just
> laughable. No, its hilarious.
You bet! BCM's universe is to IW2's universe what your balls are to your ego.
[That was nasty. --Ed.]
> Again, I already gave the sizes of the
> BCM regions and the dimensions. BCM *does* eclipses the IWar2
> *solar system* - no matter how many zeroes you add to it.
Suuuure.
> And unlike
> IWar2, does *not* fake the numbers due to lack of precision (yes, I
> de-compiled and memory peeked it). The BCM numbers are *real*. The
> IWar2 numbers are *not*.
Yeah, and you have a Ph.D. too! BWAHAHAHAHA. =D
Even assuming IW2 numbers aren't real, they are still successful at providing
the feeling that a solar system really is one big place. That's more than I
can say for BCM's lame jumpgate-linked regions with one planet each.
> So, whatever Stephen (who is not a programmer) tells you, is pure
> exaggeration Period. Either that or he doesn't understand how their
> own math works. Fact is. It doesn't work in real word numerics. At
> all.
Stephen admitted it is roughly one half of real world scale. It's still way
closer than BCM is.
> Write what you want; but the fact remains, I have a game that asserts
> my comments.
You wish. I know you're talking out of your arse again since in BCM when I
travel at stellar speed I can actually SEE a nearby planet, albeit -very-
slowly, growing in size on my screen as I approach. I see no such lameness in
IW2.
> That is all
Carry on. =P
Daniel Blakemore
*yaaawn*
I guess his filter ain't working too well... :)
foamy
, dsm...@NOSPAMFORMEpobox.com wrote:
>
>One LAST time, please keep this shit ON the Usenet and OUT of my
>fucking email inbox!!!!!!!!!!
What a crock.
Ladies and gentlemen, we are now witnessing the birth of the 436th
excuse why Smart responds to posts he *cough* killfiled. No it's not
he was working on his new 12th computer and forgot to transfer his
killfile, no it's not his killfile was erased by aliens nor anything else
so sinister. It's because he was E_MAILED the posts and had to respond.
Of course this new lie begs the question, if you killfile someone and
don't wish to have anything to do with them or the topic, why would
you respond even if you did see it ?
The answer is obvious, the fraud doesn't use, has never used, and will
never use a killfile, but he's getting desperate for new excuses. Stay
tuned for # 437--it will be along shortly.
Jim
Jukka T. Paajanen
>
> why are you using a z-buffer? why not a w-buffer at 32bpp?
While w-buffer is a lot better when rendering across the entire depth
range, this advantage comes with a tradeoff. Since the accuracy is
evenly distributed between the far and near planes, at least in my
tests, intersecting objects close to the near clip plane exhibit more
depth buffer artifacts (jagged object intersection edges, polygons
flashing through each other) with w-buffering than with z-buffering. So
far I've only used rather simplistic huge objects (planets are spheres,
large asteroids have no tiny polygon detail), so the accuracy near the
far plane is not as important as it is up close.
>
> And for sorting objects of varying sizes, you pick the largest one and
> draw first *without* sorting it.
>
> e.g. scene
>
> planet
> station in orbit around planet
> marine walking on station in orbit around planet
> fighter shooting at marine walking on station in orbit around planet
> projectile from marine's gun fired from marine to station
>
> All of the above are different models at different sizes. Since the
> planet is not z/w sorted, you draw it first, dynamically scale the
> w-buffer depending on the sort range - and everything just, well,
> works. :D
Indeed, the scale seen in BCM can be rendered with this algorithm,
thanks for the peek under the hood. :)
Rico
"Derek Smart (3000AD)" <dsm...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:vjbf8us1gaatddpkt...@4ax.com...
>
> One LAST time, please keep this shit ON the Usenet and OUT of my
> fucking email inbox!!!!!!!!!!
>
Damn, you're like a little yipe-yipe-dog. Couldn't you direct this tirade
to the person(s) who sent you e-mail?
> The techniques below, obviously work. They work because *I* developed
> and wrote them. They work as seen in BCM. Then again, wtf am I talking
> about? You nut jobs don't even HAVE the fucking game!!!
>
<koff> BM doesn't work. <koff>
>
> Some of you idiots think that because you know how to use a compiler,
> that makes you a 'developer'. Yet, not only is there *no* evidence of
> *any* of your *own* work available for critics, but you spend your
> time trying to tear down something you don't understand. But I guess
> its all part of 'the online game'.
>
And then again, some people who know how to buy a compiler (like you), think
they know how to use it. But I see no evidence of you being a developer,
just some failed entertainment software guy.
On the other hand, evidence of my development surrounds you on a daily
basis. I just don't have your primal urge to brag about it. <shrug>
>
> As to the size of the BCM galaxy, the one math I've seen, is just
> laughable. No, its hilarious. Again, I already gave the sizes of the
> BCM regions and the dimensions. BCM *does* eclipses the IWar2
> *solar system* - no matter how many zeroes you add to it.
<DEREK_MATH_MODE>
assert 1 + 1 > 10 + 10 // note, this is always true
</DEREK_MATH_MODE>
> And unlike
> IWar2, does *not* fake the numbers due to lack of precision (yes, I
> de-compiled and memory peeked it). The BCM numbers are *real*. The
> IWar2 numbers are *not*.
>
Not true. I used your same decompiling and memory peeking method, and it
does not lose precision or fake numbers.
(Of course, since you didn't really decompile and "memory peek" it, neither
did I)
>
> Write what you want; but the fact remains, I have a game that asserts
> my comments.
>
Wow, you must have actually read your language manual. You learned what an
"assert" does. Neato. I'm sure your game "asserts" a lot. No wonder you
get so pissed when people turn on debug mode.
> That is all
Hehe, memories of M.A.S.H. and Radar O'Reilly saying "That is all" after the
announcements. Nice finishing touch on your messages. You do know that in
the actual military, nobody says this? You know that ... right?
Bill Huffman
"Derek Smart (3000AD)" <dsm...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:vjbf8us1gaatddpkt...@4ax.com...
>
> One LAST time, please keep this shit ON the Usenet and OUT of my
> fucking email inbox!!!!!!!!!!
Mr. Kevin-Smart, do you really have an email inbox that is dedicated to fucking?
Can you please let the rest of us now this cool inbox address? Can you please
give more details as to who/what is doing the fucking and who/what is being
fucked in this particular case?
> There is a reason that I have a killfilter. I don't respond to idiots
> and I do NOT have ANY interest in ANYTHING they have to say.
> Especially those who do nothing other than to harrass me and twist my
> words.
Thanks for responding.
> The techniques below, obviously work. They work because *I* developed
> and wrote them. They work as seen in BCM. Then again, wtf am I talking
> about? You nut jobs don't even HAVE the fucking game!!!
...
> The line with the 12756 is the line that defines the diameter of the
> Earth object when created and rendered. The 3476 is for the Earth's
> moon, also in the same region. The 1440 and 38880 values define the
> length of day, rotation etc etc
Mr. Kevin-Smart, you claim that the moon and the Earth are in the same region.
You also claim that your game is seamless.
If this is all true then why can't you see the moon from earth and just fly
there in BCM?
Now let's discuss another bogus related claim you've made. You claim that the
largest body in the view is always going to be the planet (I assume you also
meant moon). What if you are part way between the moon and the planet but far
enough away that you can see both and they're about the same size. Which do you
draw first? Oh I see the answer is that BCM is not seamless and you cannot ever
see the moon and the Earth at the same time. Don't you see Mr. Kevin-Smart that
your lies and BS are inconsistent? Don't you see that it is obvious that you
don't know what it is that you're talking about?
Xan
> Not true. I used your same decompiling and memory peeking method, and it
> does not lose precision or fake numbers.
>
> (Of course, since you didn't really decompile and "memory peek" it, neither
> did I)
Pah! What do you know, you git?! You ai'nt a developer. =)
Of course, he is itching to tell us the name of his virtual de-compiling
utility, how the numbers differ from what's displayed, and an actual example
of data he 'memory peeked' for us to verify. Oh, wait, he can't.
Come on Derek, if you're so smart [you wish =P], then what's the 'real'
diameter of Hoffer's Wake III? <snicker!>
Hell, I bet the bum doesn't even know how to display object stats in IW2.
> Wow, you must have actually read your language manual. You learned what an
> "assert" does. Neato. I'm sure your game "asserts" a lot. No wonder you
> get so pissed when people turn on debug mode.
ROFL! =D
Louis J.M
at dsm...@pobox.com wrote on 3/6/2002 9:00 PM:
> On Wed, 06 Mar 2002 00:41:42 +0200, "Jukka T. Paajanen"
> <n...@availab.le> wrote:
>
>> How's BCM handling the coordinate problem BTW? You mentioned that you
>> use a 3D-grid for the regions, is the entire coordinate system relative
>> (to the regional origo) then? That would somewhat easen the problem with
>> accuracy, and 64bit floating point math might just be enough.
>
> I told you before. Trade secrets, so I can't tell you. :)
Wow, you must have a really tight group of work-from-home coders. I wonder
if they'd talk if he gave them a $20 when their pay-check fails to clear
after 4 weeks.
.-~~-.____ Louis J.M
/ | ' \
( ) O _
\_/-, ,----' // E-Mail: Lou...@REMOVEworldnet.att.net
==== ___// AIM : Zsinj
/ \-'~; /~~~(O) ---------------------------------------------------
/ __/~| __/ | "If two wrongs don't make a right. Try three."
==(______| (_________| - Richard M. Nixon
Louis J.M
bhuf...@REMOVE-THISsan.rr.com wrote on 3/7/2002 9:51 PM:
> "Derek Smart (3000AD)" <dsm...@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:vjbf8us1gaatddpkt...@4ax.com...
>>
>> One LAST time, please keep this shit ON the Usenet and OUT of my
>> fucking email inbox!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Mr. Kevin-Smart, do you really have an email inbox that is dedicated to
> fucking?
> Can you please let the rest of us now this cool inbox address? Can you please
> give more details as to who/what is doing the fucking and who/what is being
> fucked in this particular case?
Maybe its his biological mother's account.
>> There is a reason that I have a killfilter. I don't respond to idiots
>> and I do NOT have ANY interest in ANYTHING they have to say.
>> Especially those who do nothing other than to harrass me and twist my
>> words.
>
> Thanks for responding.
Thanks from me too Derek. It's great to see you back on usenet entertaining
us, and just in time too, my new Apple was delivered last week.
> Mr. Kevin-Smart, you claim that the moon and the Earth are in the same region.
> You also claim that your game is seamless.
Is that what he calls the massive draw-in in some of those screenshots?
Louis J.M
.-~~-.____ E-Mail: Lou...@worldnet.att.net
/ | ' \ AIM : Zsinj
( ) O _ ----------------------------------------------------
\_/-, ,----' // "Go fuck yourself! If anyone is trying to fit in, its
==== ___// you and your sorry ass. What have **YOU** achieved
/ \-'~; /~~~(O) and have to show for your pitiful life on MY FUCKING
/ __/~| __/ | planet, you prick?"
==(______| (_________| - Derek K. Smart dsm...@pobox.com
Tyf
wrote:
>It is extremely difficult to simulate space using real-world distances.
>For instance, even double-precision floating point is not accurate
>enough as a coordinate system (I'm using 3x 64bit int + 3x 32bit float
>for coordinates, and still run into accuracy problems).
>The technology that makes real-world scale simulation of space
>complicated, namely number accuracy, has remained unchanged for some 15
>years.
I never realised until now how *ridiculously huge* a number 2^64 is. Unless
I've dropped a lot of decimals somewhere, 64 bits will represent a distance
the width of the solar system (80 AU = 12 trillion metres) to within less
than a thousandth of a millimetre! It gets worse, though - doing the same
with the diameter of the Milky Way (200,000 light-years) gives a
granularity of only 100 metres!
By comparison 24 bits are utterly pathetic - at 1mm base distance, you can
cover almost an entire 17 km :-) At the same scale, it only takes 98 bits
to cover the width of the entire visible universe - 30 billion light-years.
>For instance, seamless integration of planets and space has not been done
>since Frontier: FE.
That certainly wasn't the first, though - I recall a free-form Amiga
adventure game called _Damocles_ which included space travel in this
fashion.
>While w-buffer is a lot better when rendering across the entire depth
>range, this advantage comes with a tradeoff. Since the accuracy is
>evenly distributed between the far and near planes, at least in my
>tests, intersecting objects close to the near clip plane exhibit more
>depth buffer artifacts (jagged object intersection edges, polygons
>flashing through each other) with w-buffering than with z-buffering. So
>far I've only used rather simplistic huge objects (planets are spheres,
>large asteroids have no tiny polygon detail), so the accuracy near the
>far plane is not as important as it is up close.
This isn't my area of interest, so mind if I ask you a stupid question? :-)
What I was wondering was if there was any particular reason to have the
buffer be linear to depth, rather than just a monotonic function of it.
ISTM that you want a depth transform that is linear to visual size, rather
than actual size, and assuming that objects have similar measurements on
all axes, that's an exact description of a logarithm. So, would there be
any reason for not having a depth buffer that is approximately logarithmic
to w over at least part of its extent?
--
"128 bits ought to be enough for anyone."
Jukka T. Paajanen
> On Mon, 04 Mar 2002 01:04:15 +0200, "Jukka T. Paajanen" <n...@availab.le>
> wrote:
>
>>The technology that makes real-world scale simulation of space
>>complicated, namely number accuracy, has remained unchanged for some 15
>>years.
>>
>
> I never realised until now how *ridiculously huge* a number 2^64 is. Unless
> I've dropped a lot of decimals somewhere, 64 bits will represent a distance
> the width of the solar system (80 AU = 12 trillion metres) to within less
> than a thousandth of a millimetre! It gets worse, though - doing the same
> with the diameter of the Milky Way (200,000 light-years) gives a
> granularity of only 100 metres!
You're right and now to think of it, a 64 bit number with linearly
distributed accuracy would be enough for coordinates within one solar
system. In fact, Elite 2 used 64bit integer vectors for positioning.
I've got to go over my code once more, there might be an implicit
float->int type conversion somewhere that's messing up the accuracy.
> What I was wondering was if there was any particular reason to have the
> buffer be linear to depth, rather than just a monotonic function of it.
> ISTM that you want a depth transform that is linear to visual size, rather
> than actual size, and assuming that objects have similar measurements on
> all axes, that's an exact description of a logarithm. So, would there be
> any reason for not having a depth buffer that is approximately logarithmic
> to w over at least part of its extent?
I've used the exact same reasoning to myself when choosing z-buffer over
w-buffer :) However, there are situations in which needed accuracy at
certain depth doesn't behave logarithmically. For instance, two
cocentric sphere meshes need the exact same amount of numeric accuracy
from depth buffer to render correctly (i.e. larger blocking the smaller
out of view) both close to the near clip plane and far away. Of course,
this only becomes an issue when huge, distant
non-convex/nested/intersecting objects need to be rendered.
Derek Smart (3000AD)
<n...@availab.le> wrote:
>Derek Smart (3000AD) wrote:
> >
>> why are you using a z-buffer? why not a w-buffer at 32bpp?
>
>While w-buffer is a lot better when rendering across the entire depth
>range, this advantage comes with a tradeoff. Since the accuracy is
>evenly distributed between the far and near planes, at least in my
>tests, intersecting objects close to the near clip plane exhibit more
>depth buffer artifacts (jagged object intersection edges, polygons
>flashing through each other) with w-buffering than with z-buffering. So
>far I've only used rather simplistic huge objects (planets are spheres,
>large asteroids have no tiny polygon detail), so the accuracy near the
>far plane is not as important as it is up close.
If you partition it or do a depth range adjustment based on scene
extents, you shouldn't have this problem e.g. in BCM if you are
running around in fp mode, the nearZ is scaled accordingly. This way,
the weapon you are holding, or close entities, are not clipped
prematurely.
This piece of sample code may not make sense, since it is an excerpt
from a bigger piece, but basically,
r->surface indicates that you are within a planet (in a craft or
vehicle). In which case, the minz gets set to a lower value.
self->fpship is you in fp mode (after you exit the craft) and again,
different values are used. I also reduce the Field Of View in fp mode.
Outside of those values, the defaults are indicated. As you can see, I
have a high farZ range. In fact, in Tacops, that range is 80000000.0f
{
static GFXVIEWPORT vp;
{
float minz = 2.0f;
global_FOV = 60.0f;
if(r->surface) minz = 0.6f;
if(view_dir == VIEW_FP_FRONT)
if(self->fpship)
{
minz = 0.05f;
global_FOV = 85.0f/fp_look_zoom;
}
vp.fov = global_FOV;
vp.nearZ = minz;
vp.farZ = 90000.0f;
vp.viewMode = GFX_PERSPECTIVE;
vp.x = 0;
vp.y = 0;
vp.width = COLS;
vp.height = ROWS;
gfx->InitViewPort(0, vp);
gfx->SetViewport(0);
}
gfx->GetPM(g2d_ProjectMatrix);
}
Also while on the planet, I change these values when drawing the sky
etc etc
Here is the code excerpt that handles the model rendering in the CVD
camera. Since planets are rendered in wireframe (for speed), it too
has special handling.
{
static GFXVIEWPORT vp;
if(wireframe)
{
float size = 200000.0f;
vp.farZ = size * 3.0f;
vp.nearZ = vp.farZ/65536.0;
}
else
{
float size = target->shex.size*2.0f;
vp.farZ = size * 2.0f;
vp.nearZ = size/10;
}
}
>> All of the above are different models at different sizes. Since the
>> planet is not z/w sorted, you draw it first, dynamically scale the
>> w-buffer depending on the sort range - and everything just, well,
>> works. :D
>
>Indeed, the scale seen in BCM can be rendered with this algorithm,
>thanks for the peek under the hood. :)
Not a problem. Catch me on email if you need further info
Derek Smart (3000AD)
<typ...@e3.net.NZ.depart-thou-spam!> wrote:
>What I was wondering was if there was any particular reason to have the
>buffer be linear to depth, rather than just a monotonic function of it.
>ISTM that you want a depth transform that is linear to visual size, rather
>than actual size, and assuming that objects have similar measurements on
>all axes, that's an exact description of a logarithm. So, would there be
>any reason for not having a depth buffer that is approximately logarithmic
>to w over at least part of its extent?
Precision loss
Derek Smart (3000AD)
<n...@availab.le> wrote:
>You're right and now to think of it, a 64 bit number with linearly
>distributed accuracy would be enough for coordinates within one solar
>system. In fact, Elite 2 used 64bit integer vectors for positioning.
So do I, but you have to be careful of precision loss *especially* in
the positioning code (moving from A to B).
>I've got to go over my code once more, there might be an implicit
>float->int type conversion somewhere that's messing up the accuracy.
Possibly. Dunno why you'd even want to do any float->int conversions.
You can just stick with floats (if that floats your boat) since
current target platforms are fast enough (and all have a numeric
processor) to make the speed loss negligible.
>> What I was wondering was if there was any particular reason to have the
>> buffer be linear to depth, rather than just a monotonic function of it.
>> ISTM that you want a depth transform that is linear to visual size, rather
>> than actual size, and assuming that objects have similar measurements on
>> all axes, that's an exact description of a logarithm. So, would there be
>> any reason for not having a depth buffer that is approximately logarithmic
>> to w over at least part of its extent?
>
>I've used the exact same reasoning to myself when choosing z-buffer over
>w-buffer :) However, there are situations in which needed accuracy at
>certain depth doesn't behave logarithmically. For instance, two
>cocentric sphere meshes need the exact same amount of numeric accuracy
>from depth buffer to render correctly (i.e. larger blocking the smaller
>out of view) both close to the near clip plane and far away. Of course,
>this only becomes an issue when huge, distant
>non-convex/nested/intersecting objects need to be rendered.
You'll get a precision loss in the upper bits
In fact, if you play BCM, go to Jupiter. There are a lot of moons in
that single region. I am only drawing one or two at any one time. And
I only texture those that within viewing range. At other times, you
will see them rendered as simple discs. Of course, it helps that when
I build the region .3D file, I spaced them out so that you could never
really be within the same range from more than one. Fire up BCM and go
to Jupiter, then activate Tacops and take a look at the placements to
see what I mean.
At the end of the day, its all down to design decisions - and the type
of game being created.
Derek Smart Ph.D.
Bill Huffman
"Tyf" <typ...@e3.net.NZ.depart-thou-spam!> wrote in message
news:jejg8ugu8ds6nahia...@4ax.com...
Hahaha Mr. Kevin-Smart claims to have a Bachelor degree in mathematics but I
seriously doubt if he even knows what a logarithmic scale is.
Mr. Kevin-Smart, please explain the mathematical difference between a linear
equation and a logarithmic equation and what those characteristics mean in a
graph.
Espen Berntsen
<bhuf...@REMOVE-THISsan.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Derek Smart (3000AD)" <dsm...@pobox.com> wrote in message
>news:vjbf8us1gaatddpkt...@4ax.com...
>>
>> One LAST time, please keep this shit ON the Usenet and OUT of my
>> fucking email inbox!!!!!!!!!!
>
>Mr. Kevin-Smart, do you really have an email inbox that is dedicated to fucking?
>Can you please let the rest of us now this cool inbox address? Can you please
>give more details as to who/what is doing the fucking and who/what is being
>fucked in this particular case?
--
Name, the fame. Without a cool penis.com email :'-(
Memnoch
wrote:
>On Mon, 04 Mar 2002 01:04:15 +0200, "Jukka T. Paajanen" <n...@availab.le>
>wrote:
>
>>It is extremely difficult to simulate space using real-world distances.
>>For instance, even double-precision floating point is not accurate
>>enough as a coordinate system (I'm using 3x 64bit int + 3x 32bit float
>>for coordinates, and still run into accuracy problems).
>
>>The technology that makes real-world scale simulation of space
>>complicated, namely number accuracy, has remained unchanged for some 15
>>years.
>
>I never realised until now how *ridiculously huge* a number 2^64 is. Unless
>I've dropped a lot of decimals somewhere, 64 bits will represent a distance
>the width of the solar system (80 AU = 12 trillion metres) to within less
>than a thousandth of a millimetre! It gets worse, though - doing the same
>with the diameter of the Milky Way (200,000 light-years) gives a
>granularity of only 100 metres!
>
>By comparison 24 bits are utterly pathetic - at 1mm base distance, you can
>cover almost an entire 17 km :-) At the same scale, it only takes 98 bits
>to cover the width of the entire visible universe - 30 billion light-years.
>
>>For instance, seamless integration of planets and space has not been done
>>since Frontier: FE.
>
>That certainly wasn't the first, though - I recall a free-form Amiga
>adventure game called _Damocles_ which included space travel in this
>fashion.
I remember Damocles. And the original games, Mercenary: Escape from Targ and
Mercenary: The Second City. I first played these on an Atari 800 I think.
There was supposed to be a third title called The Dion Crisis but apparently
only a demo was release. You could take off from the planet and fly into a
spacestation in the original game and there were no cutscenes but then it was
wireframe back then. :-)
Memnoch
wrote:
Why do I get the impression he just copied this out of a book?
Daniel Blakemore
> Why do I get the impression he just copied this out of a book?
<snicker...> You too, huh? :) Shall we ask him if he can understand it
all without the jargon?
Memnoch
<dan...@blakemore81.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Memnoch <mem...@nospamforme.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> Why do I get the impression he just copied this out of a book?
>
><snicker...> You too, huh? :) Shall we ask him if he can understand it
>all without the jargon?
Trouble is I am not a programmer so he could whinney on about any old crap and
I would have to take his word.......except I wouldn't because I know better.
;-)
Bill Huffman
"bp" <6b...@home.com> wrote in message
news:yP6IPJvsO+xnry...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 08 Mar 2002 15:20:08 GMT, "Bill Huffman"
> <bhuf...@REMOVE-THISsan.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >> to w over at least part of its extent?
> >
> >Hahaha Mr. Kevin-Smart claims to have a Bachelor degree in mathematics but I
> >seriously doubt if he even knows what a logarithmic scale is.
> >
> >Mr. Kevin-Smart, please explain the mathematical difference between a linear
> >equation and a logarithmic equation and what those characteristics mean in a
> >graph.
> >
But of course however, I suspect that most people that have taken all of the
high school level math courses could answer that without opening a book.
Rico
"Derek Smart (3000AD)" <dsm...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:j2fh8u473kn89levs...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 08 Mar 2002 00:34:26 +0200, "Jukka T. Paajanen"
> <n...@availab.le> wrote:
> Here is the code excerpt that handles the model rendering in the CVD
> camera. Since planets are rendered in wireframe (for speed), it too
> has special handling.
>
> {
> static GFXVIEWPORT vp;
> if(wireframe)
> {
> float size = 200000.0f;
> vp.farZ = size * 3.0f;
> vp.nearZ = vp.farZ/65536.0;
> }
> else
> {
> float size = target->shex.size*2.0f;
> vp.farZ = size * 2.0f;
> vp.nearZ = size/10;
> }
> }
>
> >> All of the above are different models at different sizes. Since the
> >> planet is not z/w sorted, you draw it first, dynamically scale the
> >> w-buffer depending on the sort range - and everything just, well,
> >> works. :D
> >
> >Indeed, the scale seen in BCM can be rendered with this algorithm,
> >thanks for the peek under the hood. :)
>
I disagree. He's using IEEE float representation, which will leak precision
like a sieve if we're talking true interstellar range values. 23 bits in a
mantissa just isn't enough to represent the value range required. He
certainly can't strut around yapping about low precision in IWAR2 with code
like this!
Need a demonstration? Pump this through VC++:
int main(void)
{
float f = 79311290.0f; /* within his 80000000 tacops range */
printf("Before: %f\n",f);
f = f+1.0f;
printf("After: %f\n",f);
return 0;
}
Hard to believe he posted this code here. It's ridiculously amateurish.
Several easy-to-spot problems:
1. Use of low-precision floating point representations
2. Lots of hard-coded values (magic number syndrome)
3. Invariants. For example, the true condition in the above statement
resolves to 3 constants. Why is he computing two of them at run time?
4. This statement: float size = target->shex.size*2.0f; ... either he's
not doing any object-oriented programming, or he's allowing public access to
attributes (that's a bad thing).
5. What the hell is up with the static variables? Didn't those go out with
plain vanilla C?
No wonder BM is plagued with bugs.
Bill Huffman
So in other words, Mr. Kevin-Smart probably did post code from his game rather
than a book. The question is did Mr. Kevin-Smart write the code or did an
amateur "farmhand" write the code and Mr. Kevin-Smart is not a competent enough
programmer to realize how bad the code is? I guess it doesn't really matter
because the bottom line is that Mr. Kevin-Smart is a poor programmer but we have
known that for years.
Mark Collins
> 1. Use of low-precision floating point representations
> 2. Lots of hard-coded values (magic number syndrome)
Put down the "Coding Practices" book and try and do something in the
real world. There will be times when you need to ignore the standards
to get something done.
> 3. Invariants. For example, the true condition in the above statement
> resolves to 3 constants. Why is he computing two of them at run time?
> 4. This statement: float size = target->shex.size*2.0f; ... either he's
> not doing any object-oriented programming, or he's allowing public access to
> attributes (that's a bad thing).
Or maybe it's a struct? From personal experience, many game developers
store the worl state in a big off struct, as it has several advantages
(like being able to save very easily (just dump the memory to disk)
> 5. What the hell is up with the static variables? Didn't those go out with
> plain vanilla C?
Static variables are still in common use (I use them in idle
functions, for example), but I sure as hell can't tell why he's using
them there.
> No wonder BM is plagued with bugs.
There is no code above that would imply a major bug. Granted it's
horrible code, but it's bug free.
Nurgle
Lance Art
Collins) wrote:
>There is no code above that would imply a major bug. Granted it's
>horrible code, but it's bug free.
Mark,
Since you were referring to programming in the real world, then you
must realize that "horrible code" and "bug free" don't go together
very well.
Horrible code is unlikely to have worked correctly the first time
through. To reach a working state (such as the sample above), the
progammer is likely have gone to enormous effort to do so. Making
horrible buggy code into horrible running code is not a small effort.
Horrible code has a tendency to exhibit side effects when being
modified. Ramifications of changes are neither obvious, nor
contained.
Regardless of the evaluation that the code snippet is "bug free", the
fact that it is horrible explains why it took Mr. Derek Smart so long
to develop his game.
Rico
"Mark Collins" <use...@thisisnurgle.org.uk> wrote in message
news:669ae967.02030...@posting.google.com...
> "Rico" <Troop...@bugplanet.com> wrote in message
news:<avgi8.186$Zz6.1...@newsfeed.slurp.net>...
>
> > 1. Use of low-precision floating point representations
> > 2. Lots of hard-coded values (magic number syndrome)
>
> Put down the "Coding Practices" book and try and do something in the
> real world. There will be times when you need to ignore the standards
> to get something done.
>
Actually, I've been doing things in the "real world" for 20 years. Losing
precision isn't just about coding practices, it's also about introducing
serious errors into computations. Fortunately, this is entertainment
software, so it can't hurt anyone. Remember though, Derek was deriding
IWAR2 just a few messages ago about their lack of precision. Turnabout is
fair play!
The occasional constant isn't a bad thing in code, but just this tiny little
snippet is PACKED with them! Anyone who has worked outside of their living
room knows this a seriously bad practice (not everything "written in a book"
is a bad thing).
> > 3. Invariants. For example, the true condition in the above statement
> > resolves to 3 constants. Why is he computing two of them at run time?
>
> > 4. This statement: float size = target->shex.size*2.0f; ... either
he's
> > not doing any object-oriented programming, or he's allowing public
access to
> > attributes (that's a bad thing).
>
> Or maybe it's a struct? From personal experience, many game developers
> store the worl state in a big off struct, as it has several advantages
> (like being able to save very easily (just dump the memory to disk)
>
Which means he's not doing object-oriented development, as I stated above.
Nothing wrong with that, lots of people are still using structured
programming. But he's the one yapping about how modern his technology is.
> > 5. What the hell is up with the static variables? Didn't those go out
with
> > plain vanilla C?
>
> Static variables are still in common use (I use them in idle
> functions, for example), but I sure as hell can't tell why he's using
> them there.
>
Static variables make no sense in object-oriented systems. I usually see
them showing up in legacy code. Structured programmers generally have a
difficult time understanding why they are no longer needed in OO systems.
Once again, if he's doing structured development, that's fine. But he's
always yapping about how modern his systems are. Clearly, they are not.
> > No wonder BM is plagued with bugs.
>
> There is no code above that would imply a major bug. Granted it's
> horrible code, but it's bug free.
>
I never said their was a bug in the code. But the style of programming is
amateurish and reminds me of a lot of what my rookie programmers send to me
before they get some experience under their belt. It's prime breeding
ground for bugs, and that's why I'm not surprised he has so many problem
reports showing up on his website.
Anyone care to start a pool on how many hours it will be until Derek
declares me "not a real developer?" LOL
Rico
> store the worl state in a big off struct, as it has several advantages
> (like being able to save very easily (just dump the memory to disk)
>
Oh, forgot to mention: This same saving procedure is easily done with
objects using serialization. Most C++ frameworks provide some version of
it.
aa
And horrible code would also explain his inability to do all the
features promised etc like multiplayer and the reason for so many
patches.
Bill Huffman
"bp" <6b...@comNOSPAMcast.net> wrote in message
news:8DGKPCvXCyvlBV...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 09 Mar 2002 02:20:12 GMT, "Bill Huffman"
> <bhuf...@REMOVE-THISsan.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"bp" <6b...@home.com> wrote in message
> >news:yP6IPJvsO+xnry...@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 08 Mar 2002 15:20:08 GMT, "Bill Huffman"
> >> <bhuf...@REMOVE-THISsan.rr.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> to w over at least part of its extent?
> >> >
> >> >Hahaha Mr. Kevin-Smart claims to have a Bachelor degree in mathematics but
I
> >> >seriously doubt if he even knows what a logarithmic scale is.
> >> >
> >> >Mr. Kevin-Smart, please explain the mathematical difference between a
linear
> >> >equation and a logarithmic equation and what those characteristics mean in
a
> >> >graph.
> >> >
> >> Is this an open book test ?
> >
> >But of course however, I suspect that most people that have taken all of the
> >high school level math courses could answer that without opening a book.
> >
No that's why it was open book. However, I didn't think that he would likely
have the right book and even if he did he would have to find it and understand
it well enough to copy it it and I don't believe he could do that. Which is all
true because no one sent him the question in email so that he could answer it
and prove me wrong. :-)
noman
> Once again, if he's doing structured development, that's fine. But he's
> always yapping about how modern his systems are. Clearly, they are not.
Rico, you are an idiot. Either that, or you have just started learning
your first programming language.
Now, I understand it's an online game we are talking about, but even
considering that your posts in this thread are beyond idiotic.
That kind of consistency, I expect only from Derek and few others.
> Anyone care to start a pool on how many hours it will be until Derek
> declares me "not a real developer?" LOL
Are you ? You can answer me, once you finish reading "Teach yourself
C++ (DA MOST MODERN ONE) in 21 days".
--
Noman
PS: I'll check this thread in about 20 days.
Mark Collins
> On 9 Mar 2002 03:09:13 -0800, use...@thisisnurgle.org.uk (Mark
> Collins) wrote:
>
> >There is no code above that would imply a major bug. Granted it's
> >horrible code, but it's bug free.
>
> Mark,
>
> Since you were referring to programming in the real world, then you
> must realize that "horrible code" and "bug free" don't go together
> very well.
Have you ever worked in the games industry? While the anecdote I'm
about to give doesn't really apply to BCM, it does offer some
enlightenment into the reasoning behind my statement.
My first job in teh games industry was adding network support to UEFA
Championship League (a Silicon Dreams game). The codebase was used for
several products, and had been extened over several different versions
of the product. As a result, the code was a MESS. It was littered with
HUGE #ifdef blocks (for various platforms/incarnations of the game),
documentation was lacking, and some very important parts of the code
didn't validate the data.
The program worked pretty well regardless, and there were relatively
few bugs (most of which related to missing data, as I was only working
with a small part of the game data, so textures and player stats were
missing causing dodgy behaviour).
As a side note, if Derek needs any help getting multiplayer working
from someone who's worked on networking support for a commercial game,
he can drop me an email :)
<snip>
> Regardless of the evaluation that the code snippet is "bug free", the
> fact that it is horrible explains why it took Mr. Derek Smart so long
> to develop his game.
I couldn't agree more, but you have to understand that code gets messy
as it's worked on. Of course, that's no excuse for the state that code
was in (no comments - gah)
Nurgle
Xan
news:hcyi8.11044$Yv2.5162@rwcrnsc54...
[snip]
This must be alias #4294967296 by now?
// Xan, Ph.D.
// As you command, Divine Shadow.
Rico
"noman" <no...@ZZZattbi.YYcom> wrote in message
news:hcyi8.11044$Yv2.5162@rwcrnsc54...
>
> news:OCri8.106$HK6.1...@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>
> > Once again, if he's doing structured development, that's fine. But he's
> > always yapping about how modern his systems are. Clearly, they are not.
>
> Rico, you are an idiot. Either that, or you have just started learning
> your first programming language.
>
Care to supply any analytical reasoning to support this?
> Now, I understand it's an online game we are talking about, but even
> considering that your posts in this thread are beyond idiotic.
>
Same question as above.
> That kind of consistency, I expect only from Derek and few others.
>
What, two or three posts form "consistency?" It's not like what I'm saying
is revolutionary and untested. :-)
> > Anyone care to start a pool on how many hours it will be until Derek
> > declares me "not a real developer?" LOL
>
> Are you ? You can answer me, once you finish reading "Teach yourself
> C++ (DA MOST MODERN ONE) in 21 days".
Yes, I am. Think I'll pass on the lightweight reading though.
> --
> Noman
> PS: I'll check this thread in about 20 days.
>
That's nice Derek, see you then.
Derek Smart (3000AD)
wrote:
Can someone excerpt his entire post please? He is in my Agent killfile
and I can't seem to pull the post up on Google. I'll try again later;
just to see what he's yapping about - and not necessarily to respond.
Pitbull
<dsm...@pobox.com> wrote:
>Can someone excerpt his entire post please? He is in my Agent killfile
>and I can't seem to pull the post up on Google. I'll try again later;
>just to see what he's yapping about - and not necessarily to respond.
This is hilarious. Why bother pretending people are in your killfile?
You are desperately curious as to what people say, and your killfile
doesn't work properly anyways.
Memnoch
wrote:
>On Sun, 10 Mar 2002 00:57:49 GMT, "noman" <no...@ZZZattbi.YYcom>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"Rico" <Troop...@bugplanet.com> wrote in message
>>news:OCri8.106$HK6.1...@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>>
>>> Once again, if he's doing structured development, that's fine. But he's
>>> always yapping about how modern his systems are. Clearly, they are not.
>>
>>Rico, you are an idiot. Either that, or you have just started learning
>>your first programming language.
>>
>>Now, I understand it's an online game we are talking about, but even
>>considering that your posts in this thread are beyond idiotic.
>>
>>That kind of consistency, I expect only from Derek and few others.
>>
>>> Anyone care to start a pool on how many hours it will be until Derek
>>> declares me "not a real developer?" LOL
>>
>>Are you ? You can answer me, once you finish reading "Teach yourself
>>C++ (DA MOST MODERN ONE) in 21 days".
>
>Can someone excerpt his entire post please? He is in my Agent killfile
>and I can't seem to pull the post up on Google. I'll try again later;
>just to see what he's yapping about - and not necessarily to respond.
Talking to yourself again Delboy?
Terry "Mil" Mullican
news:669ae967.02030...@posting.google.com...
Once again, if he's doing structured development, that's fine. But he's
always yapping about how modern his systems are. Clearly, they are not.
> > No wonder BM is plagued with bugs.
>
> There is no code above that would imply a major bug. Granted it's
> horrible code, but it's bug free.
>
I never said their was a bug in the code. But the style of programming is
amateurish and reminds me of a lot of what my rookie programmers send to me
before they get some experience under their belt. It's prime breeding
ground for bugs, and that's why I'm not surprised he has so many problem
reports showing up on his website.
Anyone care to start a pool on how many hours it will be until Derek
Derek Smart (3000AD)
No point. I've pulled up the thread and all I see is the usual garbage
from twats who couldn't code their way out of a recursive function.
fwiw,
1. I did say that the excerpt would not make sense since it is a small
portion of a very **large** module.
2. Yes, I fucking wrote it (and about 90% of the BC technologies, 100%
of 'the game' itself) and it didn't come from any frigging book
because there isn't a single book ever written that shows a way around
the problem I was demonstrating a solution for.
3. I removed the comments for obvious reasons and because the ones on
the right edge would cause a premature wrap-around in Agent, making
the code itself hard to read. I was tempted to use pseudo-code (if you
jerks even know what that is), but decided against it, since it would
have taken too much time. Doing a cut and paste was much faster in
this regard.
4. Those talking crap about my code, should post *their* code for
others to critique; then again, I won't see it. This is the Net and
any twit can post anything they bloody well like.
Mark, I wouldn't hire you if you were the *last* programmer left in
the industry. I'm not even sure why *anyone* would hire you. But then
again, I don't use VectorC (neither does anyone I know). And since you
aren't even listed on the Codeplay team*, I can't fathom what you'd
even be doing there (assuming that you still work there of course -
highly unlikely) . And I don't see what makes you the judge of
someone's code. As soon as your project (or *any* project you do any
substantial work on) goes commercial, do let the others know; cuz I
don't give a shit.
Like I said to you on GG forums, jealousy is a bitch; but you wear it
well. Just like the others here. And I'm telling you this for the
*last* time - leave me the hell alone and stay away from me. I suppose
all the warnings and cautions you have received from others (including
your employers - hence the reason you stopped using your Codeplay
email), aren't enough. Eventually, you will find out just how small
this industry is. You're young; but in time, you'll grow up.
Hopefully.
Somehow I *knew* that if I pulled up this thread on Google, that I'd
see crap from you. Lessons learned : stay the fuck away from Google if
you're gonna use a killfile effectively.
http://www.codeplay.com/about/team.html
http://www.garagegames.com/index.php?sec=mg&mod=forums&page=result.thread&qt=38
Bill Huffman
"Derek Smart (3000AD)" <dsm...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:pr9p8uogrpr3hvgrl...@4ax.com...
>
> No point. I've pulled up the thread and all I see is the usual garbage
> from twats who couldn't code their way out of a recursive function.
>
> fwiw,
>
> 1. I did say that the excerpt would not make sense since it is a small
> portion of a very **large** module.
>
> 2. Yes, I fucking wrote it (and about 90% of the BC technologies, 100%
> of 'the game' itself) and it didn't come from any frigging book
> because there isn't a single book ever written that shows a way around
> the problem I was demonstrating a solution for.
>
> 3. I removed the comments for obvious reasons and because the ones on
> the right edge would cause a premature wrap-around in Agent, making
> the code itself hard to read. I was tempted to use pseudo-code (if you
> jerks even know what that is), but decided against it, since it would
> have taken too much time. Doing a cut and paste was much faster in
> this regard.
What a bunch of nonsense.
> 4. Those talking crap about my code, should post *their* code for
> others to critique; then again, I won't see it. This is the Net and
> any twit can post anything they bloody well like.
This is very true. This is the explanation as to how you've managed to keep
posting lies, fraud, libel, forged racist email, insults, nonsense, etc. for so
long.
> Mark, I wouldn't hire you if you were the *last* programmer left in
> the industry. I'm not even sure why *anyone* would hire you. But then
> again, I don't use VectorC (neither does anyone I know). And since you
> aren't even listed on the Codeplay team*, I can't fathom what you'd
> even be doing there (assuming that you still work there of course -
> highly unlikely) . And I don't see what makes you the judge of
> someone's code. As soon as your project (or *any* project you do any
> substantial work on) goes commercial, do let the others know; cuz I
> don't give a shit.
>
> Like I said to you on GG forums, jealousy is a bitch; but you wear it
> well. Just like the others here. And I'm telling you this for the
> *last* time - leave me the hell alone and stay away from me. I suppose
> all the warnings and cautions you have received from others (including
> your employers - hence the reason you stopped using your Codeplay
> email), aren't enough. Eventually, you will find out just how small
> this industry is. You're young; but in time, you'll grow up.
> Hopefully.
>
> Somehow I *knew* that if I pulled up this thread on Google, that I'd
> see crap from you. Lessons learned : stay the fuck away from Google if
> you're gonna use a killfile effectively.
I agreee that you're an idiot.
> http://www.codeplay.com/about/team.html
I have no clue what you think this link proves.
>
http://www.garagegames.com/index.php?sec=mg&mod=forums&page=result.thread&qt=38
All this link proves is that Mark is a competent professional and that you're an
incompetent fool.
Tom Beckmann
"bp" <6b...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:xsGMPIbXQFqcKw...@4ax.com...
<SNIP>
>
> Here's some
> 10 print; "Derek sucks!"
> 20 goto 10
>
> critique away !
>
What programming language is that?
Does that semi-colon really belong after the print?
Remember.... if its not tested, it doesn't work.
____________
Tom.