Topic: New cloak not working as advertised (Read 16849 times)

EmeraldEdge · « **Reply #60 on:** July 23, 2003, 11:49:31 am »

Quote:

The only thing that could bring me out of retirement is a CTD, and unfortunately
you have found one.

Thanks,

Dave

THANKS!

Ifrit · « **Reply #66 on:** July 23, 2003, 02:30:55 pm »

Dave, any chance we could add a setting for anistropic mipmap filtering, if the patch is going to be patched? That could really improve the appearance of the lightmaps, and it probably requires only one line of code. It might even improve the appearance of, er, cloaked ships?

I had to at least try to keep this on topic... seriously, though, mipmap filtering makes a big difference when rendering light maps.

Dogmatix! · « **Reply #69 on:** July 23, 2003, 03:36:31 pm »

I agree with just about everything you say, Pestalence. I just don't agree with your chracterization of posts regarding the cloak damage table and PPD-related CTD problem. If people were doing as you say, then you would be absolutely right to call them on it. However, I guess I've just missed all these personal attacks you're talking about. Perhaps they have occured in the past, but I don't see them happening now. I believe that the majority of respondants are of Cleaven's (and my) mind...that of just figuring out the nature of the problem and, in the case of a show stopper, requesting it be fixed.

The phrase "Cloak not working as advertised" need not mean anything more than "it doesn't work the way it says it does in the readme.txt file." If you read something more into it than that, then you do so of your own volition and not necessarily in accordance with the intent of the author. Righteous indignation seems neither warranted or helpful in this case. In fact, it only serves it elicit posts of Cleaven's, your response and then this post's nature. None of which do anything to shed any further light or solve and problems at hand.

If somone wishes to refer to the augmented cloak as "the new cloak," it may be imprecise, but there's really nothing wrong with doing so since we all know what is being discussed.

I personally and monetarily thanked Dave Ferrell for this patch. I believe I thanked the testers on a couple of occasions, too. In an unofficial capacity I helped test the various patch builds as a rank-and-file player. I'm very thankful for the patch and the work done on it. If anyone had let me be a beta testor, I would have loved to have done the job, regardless of what comments by the consumers came my way.

As I said before...thanks VERY MUCH to Dave Ferrell for agreeing to work on fixing the CTD issue. That's the only thing I was looking for in this entire discussion.

FireSoul · « **Reply #70 on:** July 23, 2003, 03:38:31 pm »

Continuing the argument is pointless. You did your part, Tar. Do continue and report any problems, but ..
.. do not add fuel to the flame by adding opinion with your posts. Stuff like "why was this missed" and "I would have caught it". are NOT wanted/appreciated.

-- Luc

TarMinyatur · « **Reply #71 on:** July 23, 2003, 03:55:26 pm »

You're right, FS. I should stick to the facts. Ego battles are fruitless.

I'm off to document a Plasma/Admin CTD bug now.

FireSoul · « **Reply #72 on:** July 23, 2003, 04:06:50 pm »

Plasma/Admin CTD? If this is for real, I suggest a new thread.

Cleaven · « **Reply #75 on:** July 23, 2003, 05:03:32 pm »

Pestalence, you were telling people to suppress FACTS.

I'm not at all keen on some of the potential inuendo that goes with some of the facts but they are facts none the less. You may NOT insist that people suppress these facts. And especially when those facts are required " to get use to this patch version and play accordingly". I don't care if you want to ignore the info but I want to know as much as I can about how the game works, and I am insulted when somebody comes and says thou shalt not explore the game in one sentance, and "just enjoy the game" in the next, as if I am some mindless drone who has to be told when he is having fun and when to have some soma. You may not intend the insult but you did anyway.

And nothing you may say, insulting or otherwise abusive of facts, will make me less grateful for the game I have.

Jwest · « **Reply #76 on:** July 23, 2003, 05:07:32 pm »

Well, having played a cloaking warbird for two day now, I has definitively say that phasers, disruptors, photons, and plasma on bare hull while cloaked don't crash to desktop. I'm pretty sure they do too much damage, but I can't blame that on the program team unfortunately - <G>

DONOTDELETE · « **Reply #77 on:** July 23, 2003, 05:20:30 pm »

It would appear that pointing out to Taldren that a CTD exists, even AFTER they have stated that this is the FINAL patch IS an effective and worthwhile undertaking. So suggesting that it is pointless was a rather poorly thought out statement.

Also, suggesting that someone posting about a bug so closely on the heels of the release of the patch is baffling. Would waiting longer make it more likely that Dave would want to undertake more patching of the FINAL patch?

This was the final of the SFB "BASED" titles (approx 99.99% based on SFB) and as such the cries of "SFB Purists" should have died out long ago IMHO. As this is the last attempt to actually make the game work as "Advertised" in the game manual, it would seem that those who wish for changes to be made bear the brunt of the load of requesting those changes on their own shoulders.

Certainly those who are NOT "SFB Purists" and are more Trek/TNG fans are not going to be as dedicated in their requests to Taldren to leave OP as close to both SFB and Taldrens own specifications as stated in the manual as possible.

These flame wars should be relagated to things of memory, as the SFC series is in a coma and the only thing that may keep the plug from being pulled is Activisions silly actions concering the rights to Trek and the lawsuit they have filed pertaining to those very rights.

Eric has flatly stated that if there ever is another SFC title, it will most likely be years down the road, and likely never.

Now we have a TNG version as well as an approximately 50% finished TOS/SFB version, and we as a community of gamers should realize that with no new titles coming out that our numbers are already rapidly decreasing and pointless attacks on one group or another simply work to further weaken the already waning numbers of available gamers.

Just my opinion, feel free to agree with me or flame me. I personally am viewing the Acti vs Viacom lawsuit as the only possible hope for more SFC games, either by Taldren or possibly another entity.

Perhaps with the total decline of all things Trek that has come about since TNG was most stupidly discontinued Viacom/Paramount will move Trek off the cash-cow list and greatly reduce the restrictions they place on who can do what with the intellectual properties that are Trek.

Im looking forward to seeing a game on the shelf at CompUSA that has the intials SFB and SVC right next to each other on the box, directly under a picture of the NCC 1701 Enterprise.

(Sounds good, eh Hyper?

)

HAND!

Sethan · « **Reply #79 on:** July 23, 2003, 05:22:58 pm »

One caution - not to put words in Taldren's mouth - but people shouldn't get their hopes up about any non-CTD bugs getting fixed at this point.

Identify and report them if possible, but don't be upset if non-CTD bugs remain after the next final patch.

We are already way past the point where Taldren stopped getting paid for the work they are doing on OP.

News:

Topic: New cloak not working as advertised (Read 16849 times) var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};

EmeraldEdge

Dogmatix!

jimmi7769

SPQR Renegade001

Pestalence

Sethan

Ifrit

FireSoul

TarMinyatur

Dogmatix!

FireSoul

TarMinyatur

FireSoul

Toasty0

Corbomite

Cleaven

Jwest

**DONOTDELETE**

Corbomite

Sethan

Topic: New cloak not working as advertised (Read 16849 times)

DONOTDELETE