OrbWeaver
-
Posts
8649 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
67
Posts posted by OrbWeaver
-
-
I bought a Geforce 7600GT a few weeks ago, and it cost me $200, yet I definitely wouldn't consider it "decent" given my FPS crawls below 50 more than not. Despite the fact that I always run 800x600 for the extra frames per second, the card has trouble with new and several year old games (HL2). I don't really expect next year's to be playable on it.
If your 7600GT is having difficulty playing HL2 at 800x600 you have some serious configuration/driver issues.
-
You know, how often I heared during the development of this mod, that this or that can't be done, or it is to hard for such noobs and whatever.
I think the idea is that since such a feature would be very desirable from a realism and gameplay perspective, the fact that it has not been implemented in any major game suggests that the effort required to implement it is prohibitively high.
It's more a question of development time than competence.
-
It's a very easy tweak, shouldn't require anything more than a boolean statement.
Not exactly. Unless the core functionality has been overridden, the "climbable" property is set in the material definition for the texture applied to the ladder object. Enabling this option would require duplicate materials to be created, confusing the author and cluttering the texture selection tools.
-
I've seen some posts of people who thought they could come there with just an idea and ebcause the idea for a game is the most important thing, everbody would have to immediately jump on the train. One posting I saw was rather ridiculous, because the guy posted along the lines, he already did all the important work (thinking of the gameidea) and now he is 'just' looking for some programmers who can code it.
Wow, Kingers gets around a bit doesn't he?
-
That doesn't help their case much.
There is not much that can. Their case is based on superstition which is not supported by any rational argument
Proving it's 'natural' doesn't necessarily mean it's good or right. Since nature works on a system of random mutation, and the vast majority of those mutations are not benefiical , and even detrimental to the unlucky recipient. Homosexuality certianly has been detrimental to many men who've been beaten up, put in jail, or killed for it, and you could never argue that it's more[/]i beneficial to be gay than straight. so the net result is negative.I was not suggesting that there is some evolutionary advantage to homosexuality. I am fairly sure it is little more than random chance, as you say, but concern for evolution is not what inspires the invective. In fact, the sort of person who rants about the evils of homosexuality is usually the same sort of person that believes the world was created in six days.
-
I used to have one, I'll gladly reopen it if people want to send me free money...
-
You can train it like anything else. I'm sure that you might be able to enjoy and even desire it after some time, but that depends on your contact and your perception of it.
They could probably train themselves to be bisexual, but not to be non-gay.
There are plenty of examples (ancient Greece etc) of people being conditioned to ADD sexual desires, but I have never heard of a successful example of conditioning AGAINST a desire (although it can be wilfully controlled or suppressed in some cases).
-
I think the "gay conditioning" stuff is basically an attempt by the homophobics to deny that homosexuality has any kind of natural and/or genetic basis, as this would undermine their superstitious belief that homosexuality is "unnatural" and "wrong".
-
But what constitutes an idea? Thief as a whole – or its parts? Does Eidos own the intellectual property of burricks? Does having burrick-like creatures that belch red toxic fumes and are instead called "ruffians" avoid copyright?
The precise definition depends on the country and jurisdiction, but in general copyright does not protect ideas but the expression of ideas (writing, photographs, art, music etc.).
This is certainly the way it works in the UK; there was recently a case where a couple of authors tried to sue the publishers of The Da Vinci Code for "copying the central idea", and they lost quite spectacularly because ideas cannot be protected.
-
I have heard it said by my psychology teacher that according to some survey or other 80% of homosexual men admit to being homosexually molested as children.
You can find a survey that will prove anything you want. I do not believe for a minute that this statistic is true in the general case, in fact it sounds a lot like the sort of Freudian propaganda that certain classes of "psychologist" are all too fond of.
-
Of course, if the competition was really about musical talent and not showmanship, the performers would be hidden behind a screen and identified only by numbers until the judging was over.
As it is, I am always put off such competitions because they inevitably favour the Most Attractive Female rather than the Best Musician.
-
As I recall you couldn't actually move the camera in T3 independently of moving Garrett, it was just that there was a slight delay before the body turned to follow the view.
-
I think he means "Can I improve the 3rd person perspective with the Doom 3 edito?", to which the answer depends on how much you want to change.
You could change the model and skin using the editor (and 3D app and image editor and text editor), but I would guess you can probably not do much about the camera's behaviour.
-
The movement of tha camera, making it more accessible. The camera becomes useful and not a frustrating hindrance.
You can't change this in a level editor, you would need to modify the game code in order to do this.
Level design == creating the INPUT to the game engine
3rd person modifications == adjusting the OUTPUT of the game engine (which requires access to the source code).
-
But won't it help with level design aswell as 3rd person viewpoint?
It won't help with level design that much, because it is used differently. It would be like trying to learn to fly a plane by driving a car - although some things may be similar, it is much better to train on the tool you will be using.
I'm not sure what you mean by "3rd person viewpoint" - this is nothing to do with level design, it is a function provided by the final game which you can't control unless you rewrite the game itself.
-
I've planned what I'll do now. I'll obtain the PC version of Thief3, having the XBox version already, and design levels first. I'm going to look at the modelling stuff aswell as ligthing then start to read the DOOM3 stuff later on, closer to the Dark Mod time, where I'll obtain Doom3 PC and hopefully have a bit of experience by then.
If you want to learn Doom 3 editing, learn it now. There is absolutley NO point in learning the T3 editor first because it is completely different (and a lot less powerful).
-
Ok, maybe not so absurd after all. But doesn't it really reduce the usefulness of a merge function if you can't use solid brushes?
The Merge function is used to merge two shapes into a single convex shape, e.g.
+------+ +------+ | | | | +------+ -> | | | | | | +------+ +------+
-
Ive constructed as simple building in D3ed and now Im trying to merge all the separate walls and stuff into one object.
You can't.
All brushes in Doom 3 are solid and convex. If you want a concave shape (such as a room) you have to make it out of separate solid brushes.
-
Also, the way you traditionally go about plotting road and paths textures onto a terrain is either to cut poly's into the terrain to accomodate where the path goes, which is not an option if your collision engine expects a uniform grid mesh for the terrain, in which case you use the technique Carmack described, where you specify 2 overlapping repeatd texures (eg. grass and road) and then supply a low res alpha map with paths drawn on it, where the road texture shows through.
I wonder if it would be possible to do something similar with the current Doom 3 material engine. As you can already blend between two textures based on the vertexcolours applied to the mesh, perhaps you could write a shader to do the same thing but based on an extra image stage in the material definition.
-
-
I would much rather see real procedural textures, rather than huge 32,000 pixel images (how the hell are you going to edit that in GIMP/Photoshop?).
Imagine a fully programmable object-oriented shader programming engine, where you could define objects that generated "signals" that could be fed into other objects to mix and produce textures on the fly.
E.g.
SineModulator sm(MODULATE_SINE_2D, xscale=2, yscale=3.5); ImageTexture it1("textures/natural/moss"); ImageTexture it2("textures/wall/brickwall2").addModulated(GL_BLEND, it1, sm);Or something.
-
Learning Dromed before Doom 3 would be like learning C before C++. Unhelpful and counterproductive.
Playing a lot of Thief-style levels is certainly a good idea, as well as developing fundamental skills in modelling and texture creation.
-
There's an EDITOR for THIEF ????!!!!!
-
Nobody even considers doing a total conversion anymore?
I noticed that one as well. I think he's right in as much as modding becomes increasingly time-consuming as the standards set by the original game go up, but I hope that Carmack doesn't adopt a "it's too complex for you" attitude towards modders the way Warren Spector did with T3.
Voice Acting
in The Dark Mod
Posted
Either that or Sir Ian McKellen.