Is there any broad information available that can be disclosed? IE, is this an SFB-based game or SFC3ish?
We are all going to work hard to make the Best damn tactical simulator that the Trek Universe has to offer with the technology we have today.
That is one of the Ideas that I was having as well.. as Frey said.. the game will be highly modifiable, and as such, that would definitely be a feature we will look into. I'm not sure of how much of the functionality you are asking for that we can put in.. but we will check it out.
I have an interesting question.. What new things will work with the other SFC games, Will SFCers be able to access the q3files? and other files that were denied access too?
I know this is a stupid question, but is this really for real??? I'm not calling anybody a liar, but this sounds too good to be true.
If it id true, I will be whipping out my check book, to do my part. ( No BS)
Starfleet Command 4 will continue to utilize the methodology that made the SFC series of games one of the best selling Star Trek games ever.
SFB provides the perfect background framework to handle the combat stuff, management, etc. IN regards to the GUI, we're going to offer the SFC3 style UI OR the EAW / OP UI.
Bottom line. It's the GUI. Please read the posts and don't start a SFB or nuthin crusade when we've just announced that we're going to do this.
Regards,
I'd love to help, but I have zero programming skills.
I can help test it though!
I'd love to help, but I have zero programming skills.
I can help test it though!
Same here...whatever I may contribute... ;D
I'd love to help, but I have zero programming skills.
I can help test it though!
Same here...whatever I may contribute... ;D
Starfleet Command 4 will continue to utilize the methodology that made the SFC series of games one of the best selling Star Trek games ever.I wouldn't mind a bit of both of SFC3 and SFC2 and officers would be nice addition as well possibly refit in the era of when the ships come out.It would be nice as well to se it in windows format so you can minimise/maximise the screen or even close it.
SFB provides the perfect background framework to handle the combat stuff, management, etc. IN regards to the GUI, we're going to offer the SFC3 style UI OR the EAW / OP UI.
Bottom line. It's the GUI. Please read the posts and don't start a SFB or nuthin crusade when we've just announced that we're going to do this.
Regards,
Starfleet Command 4 will continue to utilize the methodology that made the SFC series of games one of the best selling Star Trek games ever.
SFB provides the perfect background framework to handle the combat stuff, management, etc. IN regards to the GUI, we're going to offer the SFC3 style UI OR the EAW / OP UI.
Bottom line. It's the GUI. Please read the posts and don't start a SFB or nuthin crusade when we've just announced that we're going to do this.
Regards,
I'm not starting an SFB or nuthin crusade, I think it totally possible to make a great ST combat game that has nothing to do with SFB. It's just that SFC3 (out of the box, some of the mods were actually pretty cool) wasn't it. That's what I meant but embrace SFB or totally abandon SFB. Taldren developed themselves into a corner by leaving in a lot of SFB element while taking away others that made the whole system "work."
There's a lot more to it than the GUI. EW versus Angular velocity, how does the Cloak work, attrition units, seeking weapons, 4 shields versus 6, etc . . . Starship Customization never sat well with me either, this is a Military Naval simulation, not "Pimp my Ride." Starship CONVERSION however would be really cool! Imagine buying an F-NCL and getting it converted to whatever variant you could afford after X amount of time.
The best bet, IMHO, is leave the game moddable enough so a server admin can make the call.
Starfleet Command 4 will continue to utilize the methodology that made the SFC series of games one of the best selling Star Trek games ever.I wouldn't mind a bit of both of SFC3 and SFC2 and officers would be nice addition as well possibly refit in the era of when the ships come out.It would be nice as well to se it in windows format so you can minimise/maximise the screen or even close it.
SFB provides the perfect background framework to handle the combat stuff, management, etc. IN regards to the GUI, we're going to offer the SFC3 style UI OR the EAW / OP UI.
Bottom line. It's the GUI. Please read the posts and don't start a SFB or nuthin crusade when we've just announced that we're going to do this.
Regards,
Starfleet Command 4 will continue to utilize the methodology that made the SFC series of games one of the best selling Star Trek games ever.I wouldn't mind a bit of both of SFC3 and SFC2 and officers would be nice addition as well possibly refit in the era of when the ships come out.It would be nice as well to se it in windows format so you can minimise/maximise the screen or even close it.
SFB provides the perfect background framework to handle the combat stuff, management, etc. IN regards to the GUI, we're going to offer the SFC3 style UI OR the EAW / OP UI.
Bottom line. It's the GUI. Please read the posts and don't start a SFB or nuthin crusade when we've just announced that we're going to do this.
Regards,
Starfleet Command 4 will continue to utilize the methodology that made the SFC series of games one of the best selling Star Trek games ever.
SFB provides the perfect background framework to handle the combat stuff, management, etc. IN regards to the GUI, we're going to offer the SFC3 style UI OR the EAW / OP UI.
Bottom line. It's the GUI. Please read the posts and don't start a SFB or nuthin crusade when we've just announced that we're going to do this.
Regards,
I have to agree the fully moding a ship wasn't a strong suit for me. But being able to get the refits and conversions without having to buy a whole new ahip and selling the old would be nice.
But then depending on how complicated you want your code you could set a server side switch to pick SFC2/OP style or SFC3 style (as how ships are handlled for modifing). It would add alot of code and testing, but would include more players under it's belt. And who knows, with a new way of running, maybe both sides of this would like the others for a server or two (specially if you don't have to load different programs)
SFB purist (Commander's Edition II) here,Thank you for your inquiry in regards to the licensing for Starfleet Command 4.
Not to be negative or anything, but what's the legal/licensing status? 'Under-the-radar' abandonware? Some kind of 'grandfathering' or extension clause of the previous license? Some kind of o.k. from You Know Who in La La Land (official, verbal, or otherwise?) How much of this is now in the public domain, how much do you own outright, etc.
Wishlist:
Call me a moron, but I never could get my numeric keypad to properly manipulate my shields, etc. Better keyboard controls, and even the ability to remap every (really every) function.
I'd even vote for a hex-grid and 32 impulses, should anyone get real ambitious with this...
Chaos
I know this is a stupid question, but is this really for real??? I'm not calling anybody a liar, but this sounds too good to be true.
If it id true, I will be whipping out my check book, to do my part. ( No BS)
Just hold on to that checkbook, but yes, this is REALLY for real.
Like I said, we'll be making the "press release" soon.
Regards,
Where do I sign up?
I already am working on a SFC4/ B5Wars type project. Strip out the Babylon 5 stuff, add SFC resources and off we go.
See screenshots in the OP forum and in other games.
The Q3 breakout? We can develop similar graphics with a new-tech engine, and reverse-engine SFB once again. Programming is not the hard...
If SFC4 is going to use the already established MOD format for the ship models, which is a safe bet since we're all familiar with the format, and it allows ships already in existence to just be put into the game, then specular and bump mapping won't really work.
If the graphics engine is updated enough, bump mapping, or a work around to achieve similar effects, could work. However, the MOD format for models doesn't support specular mapping. A new model format would have to be adopted or created to take advantage of specular maps.
btw ent isnt exactly the 'best' era to focus on. i fear if you base it solely around the ent era you might not get the feedback you are hoping. however if including all eras you may find a happier crowd on ur hands :)
I'm not much of a game programmer...
I'm not much of a graphics artist...
I'm not much of a grammar checker...
I'm one heck of a game breaker
I can get an official website going if you want it. just need a domain ($7/year from 1&1) and I will provide hosting until the site expands to the point where it goes beyond my web hosting package's capabilities.
I can set up and manipulate phpBB 2 and 3 forums, as well as Drupal with precision because I have a tone of experience in those areas
I can provide public relations if necessary.
I can spread the word through many star wars communities (huge communities).
I am TheDestroyer, hear me roar. If you want my help just send an e-mail to me. thedestroyer@swdroids.com
I've never talked like that ^^ before :P.
-TheDestroyer, leader of clan N-MOO and ameteur website programmer.
I'm not much of a game programmer...
I'm not much of a graphics artist...
I'm not much of a grammar checker...
I'm one heck of a game breaker
I can get an official website going if you want it. just need a domain ($7/year from 1&1) and I will provide hosting until the site expands to the point where it goes beyond my web hosting package's capabilities.
I can set up and manipulate phpBB 2 and 3 forums, as well as Drupal with precision because I have a tone of experience in those areas
I can provide public relations if necessary.
I can spread the word through many star wars communities (huge communities).
I am TheDestroyer, hear me roar. If you want my help just send an e-mail to me. thedestroyer@swdroids.com
I've never talked like that ^^ before :P.
-TheDestroyer, leader of clan N-MOO and ameteur website programmer.
Dynaverse.Net is the Official site as well as the Dynaverse Gamers Association site which is a branch of Dynaverse.net.. the sites are covered.. as well as developers forums on these boards here.
Spreading the word would be fantastic.. just copy the first and second post on this thread and direct people to this forum board.
As for game breakers.. there is a section set up on these boards for Public Beta testing and everyone will be welcome to test their heart out as different builds are released to the Dynaverse.net Forum
Hail D.net !!! :notworthy: 'bout time !!!!!
another tidbit... as the ideas/suggestions roll in... make sure SFC4 is vista compatible, or any other goofiness microsoft can throw out, and get rid of the gamespy login for the dynaverse... these 2 items alone would greatly improve the game. 8)
I wonder how much of the officer system is still in SFC:EAW from SFC1? It might not be that hard to bring back online in the game.
You say that it will be highly moddable. Does that include editing and adding weapons? The debate about SFB could be largely solved by making almost everything editable. That way non-purists could have seeking photon torpedoes, or different powered disruptors, or even totally new weapons for Gorns and Tholians, while purists can have their drones and energy photon torpedoes. If the map is editable, then cannon purists can have Ferengis and Cardassians along with Lyrans and Hydrans.
One of my fantasies, if I won the lottery, was to commission an SFC based game that would be completely customizable, but would be distributed with some original races and ships, so as to skirt most legal issues. Players would have the freedom to make the game into almost anything they want, a computerized SFB, a cannon simulator, etc. They would even be able to change the effectiveness of the cloak, so SFB purists could have their half hearted cloak, while cannon purists could have perfect invisibility. There could even be different types of cloaks, to simulate the evolution from TOS to TNG invisibility. Maybe even the Mauler could be edited to take energy from the warp or impulse generator, with a cooling off time, to make a realistic Wave Motion Gun.
Are you sure this isn't a joke? Why is this not in the SFC Open Source forum, since that would seem the proper place for it? Why does the little announcement in that forum end with "snicker"?
I will be retiring from Nightsoft in a few months. I would be happy to assist in the design of the game, including ship designs and meshes. Just let me know if you would like my help.
Raven, Sorry to hear about Nightsoft... But i don't suppose i could grab you? Your skills and experience would be highly appreciated.
You say that it will be highly moddable. Does that include editing and adding weapons? The debate about SFB could be largely solved by making almost everything editable. That way non-purists could have seeking photon torpedoes, or different powered disruptors, or even totally new weapons for Gorns and Tholians, while purists can have their drones and energy photon torpedoes. If the map is editable, then cannon purists can have Ferengis and Cardassians along with Lyrans and Hydrans.
One of my fantasies, if I won the lottery, was to commission an SFC based game that would be completely customizable, but would be distributed with some original races and ships, so as to skirt most legal issues. Players would have the freedom to make the game into almost anything they want, a computerized SFB, a cannon simulator, etc. They would even be able to change the effectiveness of the cloak, so SFB purists could have their half hearted cloak, while cannon purists could have perfect invisibility. There could even be different types of cloaks, to simulate the evolution from TOS to TNG invisibility. Maybe even the Mauler could be edited to take energy from the warp or impulse generator, with a cooling off time, to make a realistic Wave Motion Gun.
Are you sure this isn't a joke? Why is this not in the SFC Open Source forum, since that would seem the proper place for it? Why does the little announcement in that forum end with "snicker"?
Frey doesnt post jokes about new projects... ;)
That forum is actually called "OP open source"...the forum was set up by myself in regards to information that the Op scource was to be released...which has proved to not have been the case...
The only reason it still exists is because there are still several ongoing projects having to do with Orion pirates...
You clearly didnt notice that there is now a NEW forum:
[url]http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php/board,3303.0.html[/url]
SFC4 Galaxies at War is to be built upon SFC2 Empires at War code...more of a stand anlone expansion of SFC2 than a new game...the code for EAW is now in the care of DV.net...
That's what we got...so that's what we'll build upon...
I''ll be making a post later on this weekend about some ideas we're currently planning to implement in regards to SFC4.
Consider it a kinda "to whet your whistle" thing.
We can then do a Q/ A.
Regards,
I'd be happy to do some music composing for the game, if you want. I could give sound effects a go too, though I don't have much experience with them.
[url]http://www.mediafire.com/?xsky8ny5zvo[/url]
^^A demo of some of my music^^
Great googly moogly. Time to plot shoving Hex out an air lock.
I have a question for the Project Manager:
Why haven't you consider NanoFX Game Engine ([url]http://www.nanofx.org/phpBB2/album.php[/url])?
Have a look at it ([url]http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=77WKHW-fYoo[/url]), shouldn't SFC 4 look like that?
For those offering to help on SFC 4.. Please put an application in with Braxton in accordance with the first post..
You do not have to be just a programmer.. you can have graphics experience, Music experience, etc.. the initial posting was just for an example to fill out for your skills.. Scripters, writers, so forth.. put your apps in.
What I would like to say about this game is to keep it on par with all other new games coming out.This is so that others don't have hand up keeping the features the saame as SFC2 or SFC3.This is like me vs players like say Dizzy on a server who have more exprience or Crim.It is why I can't compete no matter how much time I put in practicing they know the shiplist off by heart.
When I went over to play GW I was ona level playing field with others as it was a new game.
Honestly guys...the only way to get any better is to play people much better than yourself...get the snot beat out of you....dust yourself off...smile...and beg them to play again....
When I got SFC1 in 11/98...I almost took it back....it took me two weeks to learn how to beat a damn frigate controlled by the AI...the game was so different to anything I had ever played before...I just couldnt get the concept...
When I found M-player...it was demolarizing...After bangin on the AI for month or two I thought I was king...I was in for a very rude awakening...I got my hat handed to me so many times I lost count...again..I almost gave it up...
It was Dennis Green (SFC Shadow) and Scott Bruno (Captain Krumb) who taught me the basics...Taught me to think of SFC as I think of chess...
I got beat by the best of them...over and over...OscottyO..NTDN, sfaret, Crimson Knight, Kirk Jr, the masters...I didnt know at the time they were all the inner circle team...
This is when I decided to concentrate on one race...until I mastered it...as you can see...I'm still flying Klingon...partly because of my fleetmates...partly becuase I still dont feel that I have mastered Klingons...I'm dangerous...but even after ten years...I'm no ace...I still get smacked around a bit..There are guys I've never beaten....but it's a GAME...I have no fear...fear is the mind killer..
If you can get you hands on one of Dennis Greens' strat guides....he has some excellent drills to hone your skills...
If you cant get one or dont have one...I can post some drills in the tactics section...
Another good thing to do is to find a sparing partner, a person with the same skill level, and simply play battles with the same ships...over and over...this is relaxing and much less pressure than trying to get a good game together on the Dyna...
And quite often...some of the guys offer training sessions...Die Hard is an excellent pilot and a master of the federation...Just ask him..he'll find the time to help you guys out...
Much like chess...you will never advance your own skills if you only want to win and play people of lessor skills just to beat them up...
One cannot become a master...unless one can beat a master...
The fun is in the battle itself...not the outcome...
If the only fun I had was winning....I'd have given up long ago... ;)
I've said this so many times I can't count, but I positively stank at this game for years. But the KBF has always stuck with me and helped out whenever possible. I've got a decent record against the AI, pretty good hex flipper, but to my recollection have only one (and it was disputed) PvP victory. But I enjoy it, and I appreciate the fact that I'm welcome in the KBF despite my record of battle..... winning is great, but I'm pretty happy just playing....
Kapact
I've said this so many times I can't count, but I positively stank at this game for years. But the KBF has always stuck with me and helped out whenever possible. I've got a decent record against the AI, pretty good hex flipper, but to my recollection have only one (and it was disputed) PvP victory. But I enjoy it, and I appreciate the fact that I'm welcome in the KBF despite my record of battle..... winning is great, but I'm pretty happy just playing....
Kapact
I used to have the same problem back when I played on game spy with the GFL. But the more I played the better I became.
I also played allot of "Training games" in single player. I turned up the game speed to 11 and cranked the game up to hardest difficulty as well. This really helped me think fast,and improved my skills. Because you get used to the faster speed. And your reaction time becomes better,it becomes instinct ,because you don't have time to over analyse the situation..
The only drawback I have now is I think game speed 9 is too slow and boring. :)
I've said this so many times I can't count, but I positively stank at this game for years. But the KBF has always stuck with me and helped out whenever possible. I've got a decent record against the AI, pretty good hex flipper, but to my recollection have only one (and it was disputed) PvP victory. But I enjoy it, and I appreciate the fact that I'm welcome in the KBF despite my record of battle..... winning is great, but I'm pretty happy just playing....
Kapact
I used to have the same problem back when I played on game spy with the GFL. But the more I played the better I became.
I also played allot of "Training games" in single player. I turned up the game speed to 11 and cranked the game up to hardest difficulty as well. This really helped me think fast,and improved my skills. Because you get used to the faster speed. And your reaction time becomes better,it becomes instinct ,because you don't have time to over analyse the situation..
The only drawback I have now is I think game speed 9 is too slow and boring. :)
I never really thought about that. I'll have to try it. Thanks ;D
Kapact
I've said this so many times I can't count, but I positively stank at this game for years. But the KBF has always stuck with me and helped out whenever possible. I've got a decent record against the AI, pretty good hex flipper, but to my recollection have only one (and it was disputed) PvP victory. But I enjoy it, and I appreciate the fact that I'm welcome in the KBF despite my record of battle..... winning is great, but I'm pretty happy just playing....
Kapact
I've said this so many times I can't count, but I positively stank at this game for years. But the KBF has always stuck with me and helped out whenever possible. I've got a decent record against the AI, pretty good hex flipper, but to my recollection have only one (and it was disputed) PvP victory. But I enjoy it, and I appreciate the fact that I'm welcome in the KBF despite my record of battle..... winning is great, but I'm pretty happy just playing....
Kapact
Being a part of KBF isn't always solely based on player aptitude. ;D
And, IMOHPO, you'll never get better at PvP fighting AI.
That's theory vs practical application.
Practice and teamwork is the key.
Wing up on ATOK 4, Kapact, we're still there for ya... ;)
Or you could try out the OP Hardcore server.. I have it running the OP + v4.0 using the stock Conquest game map, but my settings will toss some serious opposition at you.
If it still seems too easy, just let me know and I will increase the chances of 2 or 3 AI coming at ya.
Or you could try out the OP Hardcore server.. I have it running the OP + v4.0 using the stock Conquest game map, but my settings will toss some serious opposition at you.
If it still seems too easy, just let me know and I will increase the chances of 2 or 3 AI coming at ya.
Yum yum !!! :) that sonds like fun!! is it in downloads section??
I need to get back into the swing of things,and kill some Flat Heads.
Or you could try out the OP Hardcore server.. I have it running the OP + v4.0 using the stock Conquest game map, but my settings will toss some serious opposition at you.
If it still seems too easy, just let me know and I will increase the chances of 2 or 3 AI coming at ya.
Yum yum !!! :) that sonds like fun!! is it in downloads section??
I need to get back into the swing of things,and kill some Flat Heads.
[url]http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php/topic,163380514.0.html[/url]
Wow, this is the best news I have heard in a long time. I started playing sfc1 back in the mplayer days and it was a blast. Voidwar and I would team up and smack peep around daily. mmm magic photons.....
What I would like to say about this game is to keep it on par with all other new games coming out.This is so that others don't have hand up keeping the features the saame as SFC2 or SFC3.This is like me vs players like say Dizzy on a server who have more exprience or Crim.It is why I can't compete no matter how much time I put in practicing they know the shiplist off by heart.
When I went over to play GW I was ona level playing field with others as it was a new game.
What I would like to say about this game is to keep it on par with all other new games coming out.This is so that others don't have hand up keeping the features the saame as SFC2 or SFC3.This is like me vs players like say Dizzy on a server who have more exprience or Crim.It is why I can't compete no matter how much time I put in practicing they know the shiplist off by heart.
When I went over to play GW I was ona level playing field with others as it was a new game.
Niot true, compared to the old timers I'm a "n00b." My first D2 server was CW6: Storm Season. You can learn, you just have to grasp the fundamentals and listen.
Sure I played SFB and bought ton of book, read all the tactics, but I SUCKED!!!! My brothers used to kick my ass all the time. I think I'm like 1-37 in lifetime SFB games.
I learn how to fly by training with the 9th Fleet for one of the turn-based campaigns, reading Mu's SFC blog, and reading the 3rd Fleet's Bible on Starcaslting. Ghish was the master, as were Mu and Kruk and radically different styles.
I've also had a couple of epiphanies when flying on the frontline. I learned so much from watching Ghish fly an F-DNH against hoard of PFs. I learned when Madelf's killed my F-BCV while he was in a K-C7V. And I learned a hell of a lot from KBF-Saxxon from the multiple battles we fought on various servers.
Back in the day the FPF used to practice 6-10 hours a week. It worked, we got good. We flew ISC in a PBR cycle to learn plasma, that made us better at fighting against it because we learned it's limitations.
That is not nessaraly true though you get into a good guild and they can tech you wonders in a 4 vs 4.When you get better then you can move on to 8 vs 8.This is strickly pvping though no killing AI it is also a team game.the only way it can feel like SFC is if you are going on a 1 vs 1 in hero battles and even that is different.What I would like to say about this game is to keep it on par with all other new games coming out.This is so that others don't have hand up keeping the features the saame as SFC2 or SFC3.This is like me vs players like say Dizzy on a server who have more exprience or Crim.It is why I can't compete no matter how much time I put in practicing they know the shiplist off by heart.
When I went over to play GW I was ona level playing field with others as it was a new game.
Niot true, compared to the old timers I'm a "n00b." My first D2 server was CW6: Storm Season. You can learn, you just have to grasp the fundamentals and listen.
Sure I played SFB and bought ton of book, read all the tactics, but I SUCKED!!!! My brothers used to kick my ass all the time. I think I'm like 1-37 in lifetime SFB games.
I learn how to fly by training with the 9th Fleet for one of the turn-based campaigns, reading Mu's SFC blog, and reading the 3rd Fleet's Bible on Starcaslting. Ghish was the master, as were Mu and Kruk and radically different styles.
I've also had a couple of epiphanies when flying on the frontline. I learned so much from watching Ghish fly an F-DNH against hoard of PFs. I learned when Madelf's killed my F-BCV while he was in a K-C7V. And I learned a hell of a lot from KBF-Saxxon from the multiple battles we fought on various servers.
Back in the day the FPF used to practice 6-10 hours a week. It worked, we got good. We flew ISC in a PBR cycle to learn plasma, that made us better at fighting against it because we learned it's limitations.
Thing is go into GW now and new players don't stand a chance against the older players either, works that way in all of the games. I keep plodding along because I enjoy the few people I get to wing with. Also no local players anymore so this is my SFB fix also.
Name:to Braxton.
Address:
Job (IE: Programmer):
Skills (IE: C++/SQL):
Contact Email:
MSN Messenger (If applicable):
Please include a piece of sample of your work as an attachment.
Were still short on C++ programmers, please apply if you have good C++ skills (even if you are a bit rusty)
Remember to submit:QuoteName:to Braxton.
Address:
Job (IE: Programmer):
Skills (IE: C++/SQL):
Contact Email:
MSN Messenger (If applicable):
Please include a piece of sample of your work as an attachment.
Have offered up my musical composition talent. Other than network engineering skills can't see anything else I would possibly be useful for :-)
GE-Raven
Have offered up my musical composition talent. Other than network engineering skills can't see anything else I would possibly be useful for :-)
GE-Raven
Play-testing, you're an excellent plasma pilot.
Have offered up my musical composition talent. Other than network engineering skills can't see anything else I would possibly be useful for :-)
GE-Raven
Play-testing, you're an excellent plasma pilot.
LOL was... can't even recall the last time I played. Speaking of which I really should load it back up again... maybe it is like riding a bike.
GE-Raven
Had offered to help with some minor meshing and a bit more texturing.. no word back yet though..
Were still short on C++ programmers, please apply if you have good C++ skills (even if you are a bit rusty)
Remember to submit:QuoteName:to Braxton.
Address:
Job (IE: Programmer):
Skills (IE: C++/SQL):
Contact Email:
MSN Messenger (If applicable):
Please include a piece of sample of your work as an attachment.
Had offered to help with some minor meshing and a bit more texturing.. no word back yet though..
Yes, it's been eerily quiet since the 1st announcement. :-\
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Text;
namespace CreatStruct
{
class Program
{
struct Person
{
public string firstName;
public string lastName;
public int age;
public Genders gender;
public Person(string _firstName, string _lastName, int _age, Genders _gender)
{
firstName = _firstName;
lastName = _lastName;
age = _age;
gender = _gender;
}
public override string ToString()
{
return firstName + "" + lastName + "("+ gender + "), age " + age; //.ToString();
}
public enum Genders : int { Male, Female }
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Person p= new Person ("Tony", "Allen", 32, Person.Genders.Male);
Console.WriteLine(p);
return;
}
}
}
Were still short on C++ programmers, please apply if you have good C++ skills (even if you are a bit rusty)
Remember to submit:QuoteName:to Braxton.
Address:
Job (IE: Programmer):
Skills (IE: C++/SQL):
Contact Email:
MSN Messenger (If applicable):
Please include a piece of sample of your work as an attachment.
Which flavor of SQL?
Were still short on C++ programmers, please apply if you have good C++ skills (even if you are a bit rusty)
Remember to submit:QuoteName:to Braxton.
Address:
Job (IE: Programmer):
Skills (IE: C++/SQL):
Contact Email:
MSN Messenger (If applicable):
Please include a piece of sample of your work as an attachment.
Which flavor of SQL?
Should be MySQL.
Alot of this is still to be determined.
Likely, if SQL support is included (which I intend it to be) then it will be set for MySQL.
This is still to be determined, as are so many other things.
Regards,
Is this a for sure. MS SQL comes in a free flavor as well which is the reson for my question.
Is this a for sure. MS SQL comes in a free flavor as well which is the reson for my question.
If it is on MS SQL you limit the platforms that people can choose to run it on compared to using MySQL. Also can you be sure that there will always be a free version of MS SQL?
As long as MySQL is opensource it can be kept available even if the project were to shutdown. Since it was released under the GPL those versions will always be open even if Sun were to take later versions totally proprietary.
Is this a for sure. MS SQL comes in a free flavor as well which is the reson for my question.
If it is on MS SQL you limit the platforms that people can choose to run it on compared to using MySQL. Also can you be sure that there will always be a free version of MS SQL?
As long as MySQL is opensource it can be kept available even if the project were to shutdown. Since it was released under the GPL those versions will always be open even if Sun were to take later versions totally proprietary.
If cross platform compatibility is a concern to the development group, it will mean they will have to develop two, three, or more executables for those who wish to host/play on other platforms. That is a lot to ask of volunteers whose plate will be full enough hacking out the windows compatible executable.Is this a for sure. MS SQL comes in a free flavor as well which is the reson for my question.
If it is on MS SQL you limit the platforms that people can choose to run it on compared to using MySQL. Also can you be sure that there will always be a free version of MS SQL?
As long as MySQL is opensource it can be kept available even if the project were to shutdown. Since it was released under the GPL those versions will always be open even if Sun were to take later versions totally proprietary.
Is this a for sure. MS SQL comes in a free flavor as well which is the reson for my question.
If it is on MS SQL you limit the platforms that people can choose to run it on compared to using MySQL. Also can you be sure that there will always be a free version of MS SQL?
As long as MySQL is opensource it can be kept available even if the project were to shutdown. Since it was released under the GPL those versions will always be open even if Sun were to take later versions totally proprietary.
The answer to that question is yes.
MS has , and I am sure will always provide a free copy of their SQL server for public use.
The difference? It will only run on a single CPU , virtual or physical.
Regards,
If cross platform compatibility is a concern to the development group, it will mean they will have to develop two, three, or more executables for those who wish to host/play on other platforms. That is a lot to ask of volunteers whose plate will be full enough hacking out the windows compatible executable.
If cross platform compatibility is a concern to the development group, it will mean they will have to develop two, three, or more executables for those who wish to host/play on other platforms. That is a lot to ask of volunteers whose plate will be full enough hacking out the windows compatible executable.
Well, somewhat true. You will have multiple executables, but they can all come from the same source code if written correctly for crossplatform compiles. Crossplatform doesn't always mean a ton of more work, mainly working towards that goal from the start. A few #defines and pulling machine specific code into seperate modules. Good planning can save alot of work.
If cross platform compatibility is a concern to the development group, it will mean they will have to develop two, three, or more executables for those who wish to host/play on other platforms. That is a lot to ask of volunteers whose plate will be full enough hacking out the windows compatible executable.
Well, somewhat true. You will have multiple executables, but they can all come from the same source code if written correctly for crossplatform compiles. Crossplatform doesn't always mean a ton of more work, mainly working towards that goal from the start. A few #defines and pulling machine specific code into seperate modules. Good planning can save alot of work.
I hope that there will be those who wish to create exe for Mac, or Linux, and are given the opportunity.
Is this a for sure. MS SQL comes in a free flavor as well which is the reson for my question.
If it is on MS SQL you limit the platforms that people can choose to run it on compared to using MySQL. Also can you be sure that there will always be a free version of MS SQL?
As long as MySQL is opensource it can be kept available even if the project were to shutdown. Since it was released under the GPL those versions will always be open even if Sun were to take later versions totally proprietary.
The answer to that question is yes.
MS has , and I am sure will always provide a free copy of their SQL server for public use.
The difference? It will only run on a single CPU , virtual or physical.
Regards
Is this a for sure. MS SQL comes in a free flavor as well which is the reson for my question.
If it is on MS SQL you limit the platforms that people can choose to run it on compared to using MySQL. Also can you be sure that there will always be a free version of MS SQL?
As long as MySQL is opensource it can be kept available even if the project were to shutdown. Since it was released under the GPL those versions will always be open even if Sun were to take later versions totally proprietary.
The answer to that question is yes.
MS has , and I am sure will always provide a free copy of their SQL server for public use.
The difference? It will only run on a single CPU , virtual or physical.
Regards
The limits on MS SQL are the best reason to use MySQL.
After what they did with PlaysForSure ([url]http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=11585[/url]) I wouldn't want to count on them keeping anything going if there isn't money in it.
What would make MS SQL a better choice?
I don't get it. Once DL-ed, what do we care what MS does about free software releases?
I can think of 5 concerns that far outweight any consideration about MS' continued support of free software releases.
I don't get it. Once DL-ed, what do we care what MS does about free software releases?
I can think of 5 concerns that far outweight any consideration about MS' continued support of free software releases.
1/ Compatibility with future versions of Windows. Not everyone will have old versions of Windows to run obsolete software
2/ Patching security flaws (or any flaw for that matter) that might arise after support was dropped.
3/ Acquisition. Does the MS license allow for distribution by others? If not then someone who wanted to run a server after MS stopped distribution would have the choice of illegally acquaint one or not running a server. The same applies to someone who had a legal copy but had it destroyed or lost in some fashion.
I don't get it. Once DL-ed, what do we care what MS does about free software releases?
I can think of 5 concerns that far outweight any consideration about MS' continued support of free software releases.
1/ Compatibility with future versions of Windows. Not everyone will have old versions of Windows to run obsolete software
2/ Patching security flaws (or any flaw for that matter) that might arise after support was dropped.
3/ Acquisition. Does the MS license allow for distribution by others? If not then someone who wanted to run a server after MS stopped distribution would have the choice of illegally acquaint one or not running a server. The same applies to someone who had a legal copy but had it destroyed or lost in some fashion.
1.) Doesn't wash.
2.) Isn't that what is being done here is the team is trying to develop SFC4? I see their work in part as trying to adopt and extend legacy software (Q3) to run on future versions of windows and extend it to embrace other OSs?
3.) Let's hope that the development team has the foresight/and or time to write the application in such a manner that future versions of the database application can be implemented with as little recompiling of exe as possible. But, no matter which base SQL Server solution is chosen, it is going to age and will need to be updated and modernized.
I don't get it. Once DL-ed, what do we care what MS does about free software releases?
I can think of 5 concerns that far outweight any consideration about MS' continued support of free software releases.
1/ Compatibility with future versions of Windows. Not everyone will have old versions of Windows to run obsolete software
2/ Patching security flaws (or any flaw for that matter) that might arise after support was dropped.
3/ Acquisition. Does the MS license allow for distribution by others? If not then someone who wanted to run a server after MS stopped distribution would have the choice of illegally acquaint one or not running a server. The same applies to someone who had a legal copy but had it destroyed or lost in some fashion.
1.) Doesn't wash.
2.) Isn't that what is being done here is the team is trying to develop SFC4? I see their work in part as trying to adopt and extend legacy software (Q3) to run on future versions of windows and extend it to embrace other OSs?
3.) Let's hope that the development team has the foresight/and or time to write the application in such a manner that future versions of the database application can be implemented with as little recompiling of exe as possible. But, no matter which base SQL Server solution is chosen, it is going to age and will need to be updated and modernized.
all three of your points link into one thing. MS SQL is released for use, but not the source code. Thus is they drop support for the free version.
1) as windows come out with new versions it is possible it will not work with it.
2) We can't update it without the source code
3) Following the coding specs of the SQL package will mostly illiminate the need for updating or moderizing the source, as you just install the newer version of SQL that is being maintained by someone else and you are up to date. If some of the coding specs change then you will have to update the software to handle that.
I don't get it. Once DL-ed, what do we care what MS does about free software releases?
I can think of 5 concerns that far outweight any consideration about MS' continued support of free software releases.
1/ Compatibility with future versions of Windows. Not everyone will have old versions of Windows to run obsolete software
2/ Patching security flaws (or any flaw for that matter) that might arise after support was dropped.
3/ Acquisition. Does the MS license allow for distribution by others? If not then someone who wanted to run a server after MS stopped distribution would have the choice of illegally acquaint one or not running a server. The same applies to someone who had a legal copy but had it destroyed or lost in some fashion.
1.) Doesn't wash.
2.) Isn't that what is being done here is the team is trying to develop SFC4? I see their work in part as trying to adopt and extend legacy software (Q3) to run on future versions of windows and extend it to embrace other OSs?
3.) Let's hope that the development team has the foresight/and or time to write the application in such a manner that future versions of the database application can be implemented with as little recompiling of exe as possible. But, no matter which base SQL Server solution is chosen, it is going to age and will need to be updated and modernized.
all three of your points link into one thing. MS SQL is released for use, but not the source code. Thus is they drop support for the free version.
1) as windows come out with new versions it is possible it will not work with it.
2) We can't update it without the source code
3) Following the coding specs of the SQL package will mostly illiminate the need for updating or moderizing the source, as you just install the newer version of SQL that is being maintained by someone else and you are up to date. If some of the coding specs change then you will have to update the software to handle that.
You can't update what without the source code?
I don't get it. Once DL-ed, what do we care what MS does about free software releases?
I can think of 5 concerns that far outweight any consideration about MS' continued support of free software releases.
1/ Compatibility with future versions of Windows. Not everyone will have old versions of Windows to run obsolete software
2/ Patching security flaws (or any flaw for that matter) that might arise after support was dropped.
3/ Acquisition. Does the MS license allow for distribution by others? If not then someone who wanted to run a server after MS stopped distribution would have the choice of illegally acquaint one or not running a server. The same applies to someone who had a legal copy but had it destroyed or lost in some fashion.
1.) Doesn't wash.
2.) Isn't that what is being done here is the team is trying to develop SFC4? I see their work in part as trying to adopt and extend legacy software (Q3) to run on future versions of windows and extend it to embrace other OSs?
3.) Let's hope that the development team has the foresight/and or time to write the application in such a manner that future versions of the database application can be implemented with as little recompiling of exe as possible. But, no matter which base SQL Server solution is chosen, it is going to age and will need to be updated and modernized.
all three of your points link into one thing. MS SQL is released for use, but not the source code. Thus is they drop support for the free version.
1) as windows come out with new versions it is possible it will not work with it.
2) We can't update it without the source code
3) Following the coding specs of the SQL package will mostly illiminate the need for updating or moderizing the source, as you just install the newer version of SQL that is being maintained by someone else and you are up to date. If some of the coding specs change then you will have to update the software to handle that.
You can't update what without the source code?
The SQL if MS drops their version you are stuck with whatever it was at that time. MySQL is opensource and has people updating it, so even if support is dropped for it, you could work on it yourself.
Any SQL Admin worth his salt can upgrade to the current iteration of MS SQL any MS SQL server database and or server going back to SQL Server 6.5. And yes, just like MS SQL, there will be sp_xx and Datatypes that will need conversion or replacement. 8)
Any SQL Admin worth his salt can upgrade to the current iteration of MS SQL any MS SQL server database and or server going back to SQL Server 6.5. And yes, just like MS SQL, there will be sp_xx and Datatypes that will need conversion or replacement. 8)
no you miss the point. If MS drops the free SQL versions, then you would have to buy the it for whatever MS wants to charge. Thus for the free version you are stuck with that one forever, and it may not work on the next OS (MS might change things anough that it will brake)
Thus it isn't just installing the new version (yeah that is easy) as there will not be any current iterations for you to use if support is dropped. Thus you would be left to maintain it yourself and without the code you can't do that.
And if you hardcoded in MSSQL then you would end up having to rework your old code to support a new SQL you could work with.
What's the reason(s) to use MS SQL instead of MySQL? I know servers have been run on MySQL. Seems that it would be easier to continue on with that work, but maybe not. Is there a reason to switch to MS SQL that might be an improvement or help somehow?
What would make MS SQL a better choice?
What would make MS SQL a better choice?
:-X
Any SQL Admin worth his salt can upgrade to the current iteration of MS SQL any MS SQL server database and or server going back to SQL Server 6.5. And yes, just like MS SQL, there will be sp_xx and Datatypes that will need conversion or replacement. 8)
no you miss the point. If MS drops the free SQL versions, then you would have to buy the it for whatever MS wants to charge. Thus for the free version you are stuck with that one forever, and it may not work on the next OS (MS might change things anough that it will brake)
Thus it isn't just installing the new version (yeah that is easy) as there will not be any current iterations for you to use if support is dropped. Thus you would be left to maintain it yourself and without the code you can't do that.
And if you hardcoded in MSSQL then you would end up having to rework your old code to support a new SQL you could work with.
So, I guess it boils down to nothing more than being open source or not?
What's the reason(s) to use MS SQL instead of MySQL? I know servers have been run on MySQL. Seems that it would be easier to continue on with that work, but maybe not. Is there a reason to switch to MS SQL that might be an improvement or help somehow?
Ron--
Dunno. I'm not on the development team. I do know that what little I do know of the development, I would not be as quick as some to dismiss MS SQL 2005 Express as a viable option.
I wish I could say more...
What would make MS SQL a better choice?
:-X
Ah, it's a secret! Fair enough. I guess we'll see? 8)
I have an interesting question.. What new things will work with the other SFC games, Will SFCers be able to access the q3files? and other files that were denied access too?
Well, Q3 is half broken out now, just need to get the image files to work out and that would be modifiable.
I have an interesting question.. What new things will work with the other SFC games, Will SFCers be able to access the q3files? and other files that were denied access too?
Well, Q3 is half broken out now, just need to get the image files to work out and that would be modifiable.
Did you finally crack this nut or not?
SFC 4 will be a stand alone production and will not require EAW, OP or SFC 3 installed to play.
Wow, interesting. A friend pointed me back at this site - feel like I haven't been here in ages.
Sure seems like you have quite a bit of help coming in from the community on this one. A thought or two I had from the fellow who mentioned ST: Supremacy. I like the idea of open source - a lot of what was stated - however, that may not be available for SFC4. As I recall, ADB picked up the license to do SFB on the cheap - before Paramount figured out what they had in their inventory. The rights to do SFC at all was sort of a miracle in that the groups finally agreed to do anything and not continue to argue. I do not know, at all, what happened to the SFC1/2/OP/3 rights although I remember the names of some of the people who had full code access (like Mags!)...but I suspect they're still locked up a little between ADP & Paramount. I wouldn't even be surprised if Activision (or their successor) still had a piece.
Second, I wouldn't be surprised if the whole SFC4 project weren't much more than a tweak/update of one of the earlier generations of the series. Basically, they work. Why reinvent the wheel if you've got something that meets the technical criteria. I've always felt that's been why the modding community did so well with this game...and how things like simply re-writing the shiplist worked.
That doesn't mean vast sections wouldn't be updated/altered. Flatfile databases just plain stink for performance - I believe that was the point of the late conversion attempt to using MySQL for the Dynaverse play.
Keep in mind, these are just my guesses from information that was current...oh...4 or 5 years ago.
Sadly, my relevant credentials are limited to having been a Taldren beta tester (and then one of the few in the Activision Visioneer program)...
I have no idea if I'll make the time to play this game, however, I can guarantee I'll buy the darn thing just to support the effort. I can't even guess how many thousand(s) of hours I put into playing back when these games were live.
I do have one request/suggestion. I suspect you're probably already on this. My opinion was that EAW and then OP was pretty much complete from a SFB point of view. The only real missing component was the Dynaverse. Yeah, it's there - and it works - we all remember the problems. Loved it when it was up - but frankly, the dynaverse really was just an enhancement of the campaign/single player system.
This is the area where the game would shine - this is the point that would re-sell me on the game. Design and build a multiplayer campaign system along the lines of the best community driven efforts (not dynaverse) - I mean the actual campaigns. Remember Starlance? GamerZ? Design a system that allows the flexibility of providing that kind of campaign mode AND then the option of a much more dynamic Dynaverse type approach.
Nax
I'm in my degree year, of Games Software Development. My programming prob isn't at the required level yet, however we program in C++ and C#. We also study games design, development, marketing and testing in detail. If i could help with anything i'd be more than happy to.Send in an application :)
If you would like to help out with this project, please fill out the form below and submit it to frey@xenocorp.net. All information is required. Your name and address will be kept confidential and are only required to send the required paperwork.
The current plans on the table have the project being written in either C++ or C#, so programmers who would like to join the team must be fluent with the C/C++ language.
Name:
Address:
Phone# :
Job (IE: Programmer):
Skills (IE: C++/SQL):
Contact Email:
MSN Messenger (If applicable):
Please include a piece of sample of your work as an attachment.
I just read this been deployed overseas for a while....
Holy Crap!!!!!
Keep charging - I wish I had the skill set you guys need but all I can do is standby to buy the game when it comes out.
Outstanding.
I just read this been deployed overseas for a while....
Holy Crap!!!!!
Keep charging - I wish I had the skill set you guys need but all I can do is standby to buy the game when it comes out.
Outstanding.
No purchase will be required.
Hey all!
My opinion is this. The reason SFC3 and ST Legacy were so dismal is they were dumbed down
Done by an angry, angry man? That's why when I used to test out a ship in SFC3 my first officer at the time constantly insulted me and threatened to superglue my toilet seat to my butt. ;D
J/K
But in all honestly, hell, if you can program, trust me, the SFC4 project needs you.
Oh, and one more thing. I like SFC3. Wish it had the chance for further development before release, but that's Assavision's fault.
If only we had the SFC3 game code and some of the original people that worked on the SFC3 code, well, imagine the possibilities.
Done by an angry, angry man? That's why when I used to test out a ship in SFC3 my first officer at the time constantly insulted me and threatened to superglue my toilet seat to my butt. ;D
Oh, and one more thing. I like SFC3. Wish it had the chance for further development before release, but that's Assavision's fault.
Done by an angry, angry man? That's why when I used to test out a ship in SFC3 my first officer at the time constantly insulted me and threatened to superglue my toilet seat to my butt. ;D
Heh :)QuoteOh, and one more thing. I like SFC3. Wish it had the chance for further development before release, but that's Assavision's fault.
No, it's really not. Up until the squabble over that patch, you can blame us for everything that was wrong with that game. Any reports to the contrary were damage control -- or to be blunt about it, bullsh*t. The Powers That Be'd (quasi-humorous past tense) were pulling people off of SFC3 left and right to go to work on Black Hole -- I mean Black 9 -- all along. Hell dude, I don't even think I was on SFC3 when it shipped. It might only have been Dave F. at that point and I know he gave it all the love he could. Don't blame Activision.
...But in all honestly, hell, if you can program, trust me, the SFC4 project needs you.
...But in all honestly, hell, if you can program, trust me, the SFC4 project needs you.
Truly! If nothing else maybe you could give them a hint at how to make the OP/SFC3-like modifications they need to make to the EAW code. Sigh, I wish just one of you had saved the OP code.
...But in all honestly, hell, if you can program, trust me, the SFC4 project needs you.
Truly! If nothing else maybe you could give them a hint at how to make the OP/SFC3-like modifications they need to make to the EAW code. Sigh, I wish just one of you had saved the OP code.
I'm not even sure if we preserved a branch of OP. Well I'm sure we would have archived it to disc at some point but Clapton only knows where that might be. As a company, our process was a little flaky sometimes. Like, for the first few weeks of its life OP existed only on my computer. Madness.
I do remember that there were some fairly fundamental changes between OP and 3. In some cases, systems were burned pretty much down to the ground in order to support the new design. Honestly I wouldn't worry too much about how we did a given thing. Without the code to refer to you'll get a bigger payoff by solving those riddles your own way.
In fact... oh boy, here we go. Ok. Even with SFC3's modability factor there were still certain things we wanted to achieve but couldn't for lack of time. We never reached total end-user mod capability. Most notably (from memory) was the weapon code... which by extension blames the overall architecture of the engine. Generally speaking we never achieved a true separation of engine and game which is why there are severe limitations in modding it. Now I think Marc did a terrific job with the refit system (Marc was one of the good guys who really cared) but even so, there's so much more you could do.
We talked about pushing certain things out into one or more "game-specific" dlls but we never got around to it. The theory was that only the generic interface & internals would live in the .exe, while all game-specific implementations would get pushed out into a .dll. Well, I'm not sure any of those discussions actually made it that far but that would have been the theory if they had.
What are you guys doing with the renderer? It's not even DirectX 9 is it? From EAW? I think hardware acceleration was even optional back then. Unfortunately I remember AFN about how the renderer works in that game. When I went to Shiny I had to purge the SFC engine from my brain to fit Shiny's in there. Taldren... render... absolute blank. Whatever, it's ancient and it's likely the whole thing has to go if you really want to make use of DX9/10.
I'm pretty sure the network code was a big pile of suck, too. That caused so many problems dude, it's not even funny. We so badly wanted to up the player limit per game. I mean come on, six people per game in the 21st f*****g century? Really? Six? I call shinanegins (is there a right way to spell that?). The network code should be cast into the hellfire from whence it came.
Oh no wait, I'm sorry. It's not the network that came from yonder hellfire. It was that mu********ing UI... that blood-sucking, soul-stealing thing called QUIL, and all its minion code that came with it. Wow, I had totally blocked it out. My advice? Dispose of it. As UI theories go, QUIL is right up there with the flat earth people. I mean, anything that begins by hacking some commercial app's file format probably isn't going to end well, you know?
Have you guys considered leveraging existing technology with free licenses that would be 100% compatible with your project? Like, using Ogre as the renderer or something. Ogre is seriously f*cking over-engineered if you ask me (and I realize you didn't) but, I can almost see in my head right now how you could adapt it to SFC fairly easily. And poof, you have a cross-platform renderer.
Man, maybe it's because I just burned a doob but suddenly the idea of turning out an SFC with modern visuals just gave me geekwood.
Damn you guys for making me think about this stuff! :D
I call shinanegins (is there a right way to spell that?).
Hot damn, that was a fun read. Thanks dude!
I'm pretty sure the network code was a big pile of suck, too. That caused so many problems dude, it's not even funny. We so badly wanted to up the player limit per game. I mean come on, six people per game in the 21st f*****g century? Really? Six? I call shinanegins (is there a right way to spell that?). The network code should be cast into the hellfire from whence it came.
Oh no wait, I'm sorry. It's not the network that came from yonder hellfire. It was that mu********ing UI... that blood-sucking, soul-stealing thing called QUIL, and all its minion code that came with it. Wow, I had totally blocked it out. My advice? Dispose of it. As UI theories go, QUIL is right up there with the flat earth people. I mean, anything that begins by hacking some commercial app's file format probably isn't going to end well, you know?
The next one who says the word 'pay' gets a torpedo for his trouble; I would never take a dime from you people. By the end, and like most people, I hated the company. But I always loved this game.
Also, I forgot that my normal, sailor-inspired speech patterns were against the forum rules here. By way of apology I’ll have myself agonized later.
To be honest, about a year ago Frey did ask me if I would be interested and I passed. It was a little bit because I wasn't sure of the legal situation, a little bit because I was really fed up with the game industry at the time and I couldn't fathom taking more work home with me, and a little because I didn't think I wanted to do it if it was just going to be the Mother of All Mods rather than a full-tilt project.
Part of me (a few parts) would love to tear into it and replace the whole darn renderer. So much has changed since then and the thought of applying what we’ve learned to SFC is very exciting to me. One of the truly neat things about a space game is that most of the world is empty space. You’re not spending all that time drawing walls, trees and waving blades of grass. You don’t have a screenful of human-ish skeletons to update. You can therefore go hog-wild on the relatively few things you are drawing; especially today, with the state of hardware being what it is.
I don’t know. I don’t know what the plan calls for but it seems too exciting not to go for it.
You have no idea how much trouble this has caused us. There is a whole thread devoted to cracking it. AFAIK they barely scratched it.
You have no idea how much trouble this has caused us. There is a whole thread devoted to cracking it. AFAIK they barely scratched it.
I have alot of it figured out so far the Q3 part, I think the Quil part is coded in the main program somewhere or in the chernobyle box part.
working on the RLE of the images now. Slow, slow.
But still no word if it is all for naught when SFC4 does come out.
I'm not sure if we even had the source. I thought the real bowels of SWIL lived in a library or two that we linked with. I could be wrong; it's been quite a while. There was some kind of goofy wrapper added later on that really didn't change anything, but that would have been SFC3 code anyway.
Have you guys considered leveraging existing technology with free licenses that would be 100% compatible with your project? Like, using Ogre as the renderer or something. Ogre is seriously f*cking over-engineered if you ask me (and I realize you didn't) but, I can almost see in my head right now how you could adapt it to SFC fairly easily. And poof, you have a cross-platform renderer.
Wondering how hard it would be to get Ogre to use the MOD format (guess we can always port the models over to other formats also).
Wondering how hard it would be to get Ogre to use the MOD format (guess we can always port the models over to other formats also).
Assuming the project went that way, new mesh & material formats would be a given. There are far better ways to do models that have options like animated bits and destruction anyway.
The next one who says the word 'pay' gets a torpedo for his trouble; I would never take a dime from you people. By the end, and like most people, I hated the company. But I always loved this game.
Also, I forgot that my normal, sailor-inspired speech patterns were against the forum rules here. By way of apology I’ll have myself agonized later.
To be honest, about a year ago Frey did ask me if I would be interested and I passed. It was a little bit because I wasn't sure of the legal situation, a little bit because I was really fed up with the game industry at the time and I couldn't fathom taking more work home with me, and a little because I didn't think I wanted to do it if it was just going to be the Mother of All Mods rather than a full-tilt project.
Part of me (a few parts) would love to tear into it and replace the whole darn renderer. So much has changed since then and the thought of applying what we’ve learned to SFC is very exciting to me. One of the truly neat things about a space game is that most of the world is empty space. You’re not spending all that time drawing walls, trees and waving blades of grass. You don’t have a screenful of human-ish skeletons to update. You can therefore go hog-wild on the relatively few things you are drawing; especially today, with the state of hardware being what it is.
I don’t know. I don’t know what the plan calls for but it seems too exciting not to go for it.
Wondering how hard it would be to get Ogre to use the MOD format (guess we can always port the models over to other formats also).
Assuming the project went that way, new mesh & material formats would be a given. There are far better ways to do models that have options like animated bits and destruction anyway.
that is true, was just looking at the Ogre page, and thoughts of ships that would twist and bend as they took damage came to mind.
Well it's not up to me. It's not my game or my plan and I have no idea what they have in mind. All I'm saying is, I'm willing to help out.
[I mean your sample work is the freakin' game! ;D
Hey all!
My opinion is this. The reason SFC3 and ST Legacy were so dismal is they were dumbed down
Thanks! And I'm sure the last couple years' worth of whatever work you do were complete sh*t.
Hey all!
My opinion is this. The reason SFC3 and ST Legacy were so dismal is they were dumbed down
Thanks! And I'm sure the last couple years' worth of whatever work you do were complete sh*t.
WTF is that all about?
You know, I've spent more time thinking about this today than about work.
Plus he cant fly any better than ensign crusher... ;D
Thanks for changing your mind.
Well I offered; doesn't mean they want me along. For all I know they're ten minutes from done, you know? Mostly I'm just dying to see some new life in the old girl. I've often thought about what it would be like to take a whole new stab at it.
My fav quote from your site Scott: Scott: "Oh yeah. I forgot we don't live in a sci-fi movie."
There a bunch more gems, but for some reason I don't quite understand that one stood out.
Hey all!
My opinion is this. The reason SFC3 and ST Legacy were so dismal is they were dumbed down
Thanks! And I'm sure the last couple years' worth of whatever work you do were complete sh*t.
WTF is that all about?
Scott was on the SFC development team. He helped create SFC3. You insulted the game, and by default, the time and effort he put into the game.
You figure it out.
Ram,
In all honesty, you don't really have any idea what your talking about. Taldren wanted to make SFC3 everything it could be - it was Activision that screwed that pooch. So your basically pouring salt in a wound that's likely almost closed, then rubbing it with a steel bristle pad and going "DOES THAT HURT!!! DOES IT!!!"
So please drop the attitude and show some respect.
Thanks.
Now - :woot: this is so damned exciting that I can't believe it.
Wow!
See, I didn't know that all I know is the result as an end user and consumer. So Activision screwed the game to hell eh? Well I tell you what guys if you are looking there used to be another star trek combat system by FASA back in the day that actually was pretty damn cool. Sorry, I am NOT trying to make someone feel bad about anything. What is done is done and I am pleased make that estatic about ANYONE that is looking to make a better SFC series game.
Let's just all drink a toast to blowing the crap outta' your friends in space. []?
If you know of anyone I can contact for the sfc3 code let me know and I will get it done.
If you know of anyone I can contact for the sfc3 code let me know and I will get it done.
I wish. No, I don't know of anyone who still has that code. I suppose there's a CD sitting in a box somewhere in Activision's closet but it would probably be easier to get your hands on the Colonel's secret recipe.
If you know of anyone I can contact for the sfc3 code let me know and I will get it done.
I wish. No, I don't know of anyone who still has that code. I suppose there's a CD sitting in a box somewhere in Activision's closet but it would probably be easier to get your hands on the Colonel's secret recipe.
Isn't Mr. Yeast (I believe that is right) one who might, I know he was offering to help when the servers were taken offline.
Alright, I'll talk to Frey.
This is awesome news!!SFC rocks! I loved the first one when it came out,and liked SFC3 even better! No other game has made my heart race so in pvp! Thats the part I miss the most. I dont know if it was all the different mods that came out that split up so much of the playerbase,or people just lost intrest? But I'd hate to see this great game die.... Its too darn fun!! I'd be happy to offer my time for any play testing that may be needed.
This is awesome news!!SFC rocks! I loved the first one when it came out,and liked SFC3 even better! No other game has made my heart race so in pvp! Thats the part I miss the most. I dont know if it was all the different mods that came out that split up so much of the playerbase,or people just lost intrest? But I'd hate to see this great game die.... Its too darn fun!! I'd be happy to offer my time for any play testing that may be needed.
If anything I'd say it's the mods that have kept it going this long. Without them I don't think the game would still have a pulse today.
About 10% of SFB is in SFC. There's lots more that could be added. More races with all new ships, systems and weapons, just for starters. If I were making it, which I realize I'm not, I'd add boarding party and ground combat. There could be a whole strategic level added. Any of these things would make it a whole new game with lots of reasons for new players, as well as disenchanted old players, to join in.
8) Thanks for the explanation and the subsequent pique to my interest... I can do audio, but if anyone can script, program, model or texture, audio is second-rate to them. Nonetheless, I'll be around.
Godspeed, good fellows.
8) Thanks for the explanation and the subsequent pique to my interest... I can do audio, but if anyone can script, program, model or texture, audio is second-rate to them. Nonetheless, I'll be around.
Godspeed, good fellows.
Not true. Nothing is insignificant. True C++ scripters will be the biggest demand/lowest supply. Considering all of the non technical work that needs to be done, the scripters don't need to worry about that as well, if that makes sense the way I'm saying it? Hopefully there'll be enough people so no one has to wear too many hats.
If anything I'd say it's the mods that have kept it going this long. Without them I don't think the game would still have a pulse today.
Soon.....sounds good
I really hope you avoid the pitfalls that plagued previous modification projects.
Soon.....sounds good
I really hope you avoid the pitfalls that plagued previous modification projects.
Don't forget to check the date of that "soon" post. 9-1-2009. Today is 11=6=2009.
Hope for the best, but don't hold your breath on things. :skeptic: :skeptic:
Soon.....sounds good
I really hope you avoid the pitfalls that plagued previous modification projects.
Don't forget to check the date of that "soon" post. 9-1-2009. Today is 11=6=2009.
Hope for the best, but don't hold your breath on things. :skeptic: :skeptic:
Well, it's apparently "soon" in the biblical sense. As in, "Judgment day is coming "soon".
Literally, within days.
Regards,
Admiral, if we go "by the book". like Lieutenant Saavik, hours could seem like days.
Literally, within days.
Regards,
Hmmm? Maybe it's some sort of code?QuoteAdmiral, if we go "by the book". like Lieutenant Saavik, hours could seem like days.
:huh:
It might be in this thread or another, but does anyone know the status of the SFC2:EAW source code? I thought that Dynaverse.net still had it. If so, what are the chances that SFC4 would be based off of that source code -- and what legal and technical (if the EAW engine is a sound basis for computers running Vista, 7, and beyond) issues are getting in the way?
Although a similar but non-Trek game would be neat, I think that EAW already has 90% of what SFC4 would need. So unless it were completely necessary -- the only legal way to make a SFC4, even if it's not named that or even Trek-based -- what's the point in remaking most of the game? I've read posts about users who would love simply a version of OP that worked reliably with modern computers and networks. How far from this is EAW? Just a thought ...
It might be in this thread or another, but does anyone know the status of the SFC2:EAW source code? I thought that Dynaverse.net still had it. If so, what are the chances that SFC4 would be based off of that source code -- and what legal and technical (if the EAW engine is a sound basis for computers running Vista, 7, and beyond) issues are getting in the way?
Although a similar but non-Trek game would be neat, I think that EAW already has 90% of what SFC4 would need. So unless it were completely necessary -- the only legal way to make a SFC4, even if it's not named that or even Trek-based -- what's the point in remaking most of the game? I've read posts about users who would love simply a version of OP that worked reliably with modern computers and networks. How far from this is EAW? Just a thought ...
Because open source would mean they could not sell this game, which I am thinking they are intending?
But hey, an update would be great.
Literally, within days.
Regards,
So where is this SFC4? A 3 year post about this and absolutely 0 product. Does anyone here know that Star Trek has a MMO out? Yes, a Star Trek MMO that has been developed from scratch in less time than all bs in this post alone. What a crock!
I've been waiting and will continue to wait... In the end I know it will be completed and well worth it... Until then I will practice my skills with OP 4.1... ;-)
Adam
I've been waiting and will continue to wait... In the end I know it will be completed and well worth it... Until then I will practice my skills with OP 4.1... ;-)
Adam
Don't forget to play some EAW also as that will be the base of the new release.
Cool. Send Frey a PM with your contact details and interests. I will be contacting several people in September.
A lot has changed since I started work on this in January, first and foremost, the name. We have set realistic goals and are making real progress and may need more hands soon.
OP has the advanced weapons. Maulers, MIRVs, X-phasers, Heavy Heavies. The Orions are more detailed. Other things are that there is more ship spots available for OP. I think EAW ship upper limit is 64 per class, while OP is 128 per class. (something along those lines anyway, OP has 2x as many ship slots available). What that means is there's more room for variants and conjectural ships in the shiplist for OP, EAW the list would need to be pared down further because there just isn't enough room for them. There also a few other minor differences, given that OP is the later of the two and was improved further than EAW. The two games play (mostly) the same, and use the same technology. OP was sold as a stand alone expansion, that didn't require EAW to play, but the game is by and large the same, with just some minor differences, and of course, the extra weapons.