Crispy

Yay, more characters!

Well, I don't call myself "an animator" since I don't consider animation to be one of my core skills. I dabble; I took 3 semesters of digital animation as electives at uni, which is why I know as much as I do. I had to quit the stream early due to increasing workload in year 3 of my degree. So I'm no beginner, but I'm no expert either. I'd like to practice more, just don't have the time these days... bloody Honours year. (Replying to an old post, I know - must have missed this thread earlier due to my forum hiatus.)

All seasoned watchmen fear Gareh's mighty baguette. So soft on the inside, yet so hard and crusty on the outside - a perfect accompaniment to any unfriendly cranium, and it makes a tasty post-mission snack, too. French battle bread: So tasty! So deadly! Accept no substitutes.

Indeed! Excellent teamwork, guys.

Nah - still too similar. How about Attic? What an ironic typo you have there.

I only did high school physics, and we didn't cover quantum mechanics at all. So much of the physics here is completely over my head. I did do a couple of years of university mathematics though (the high-end undergraduate stream, the same one as done by people going for an Honours in maths). So that's where I'm coming from; basically a pure mathematics perspective, without having any understanding of the underlying physical processes. I do understand where you're coming from, and by the sound of it you do have valid reasons for doing what you're doing. I still think it's dodgy though. Chalk it up to the old theory vs. practice divide; i.e. mathematicians are to theoretical physicists as theoretical physicists are to experimental physicists.

Well, OK - it doesn't need or want to be perfectly symmetrical, that's true; what I meant was, it looks more lopsided than it needs to be. I think you're right, it's the eyebrows. But you know that and it's WIP, so I'll shut up now. Cool, looking forward to seeing the hair. I thought it looked relatively slicked back and thus might be doable with polygons... I could be wrong though. Whatever works best. @Fidcal: Yes, I noticed the lab coat looked pretty modern. I figured I was just having that reaction because it's untextured and thus has a very modern-looking white colour, but it's equally possible that the stylings are part of it. Reserving judgement until I see it textured.

You're using j=sqrt(-1), I take it? As numbers 0 and 2*pi are of course different, yes. But when considered as angles in a geometrical context they lose all distinction; and by using polar coordinates, you are implicitly importing that context. My point is you're trying to overload the notion of "phase" to also include the notion of "particular distance travelled to achieve that phase". Surely there's a cleaner way to formulate that which sidesteps these issues; and if you can find it, your problem might disappear. Of course not. I'm not saying they are. I'm saying that the fact that the phases are identical means that you can't shoehorn in the notion of distance and expect the resulting formulae to make any sense. Sure, I get that. I'm merely responding to your question by questioning the foundations of your formulation. Since they're angles, I reckon you can equate them without needing to perform any mathematical gymnastics if you can show that they only differ by a factor of 2*pi. It would read something like: "...formula 1 equals A*exp(j*phi1), and formula 2 equals B*exp(j*phi2). We can show that A=B. And, since phi1 and phi2 differ exactly by a factor of 2*pi, they are the same angle. Therefore formulas 1 and 2 are equal." If you also need to prove something about the distance travelled as well as the phase, I'd argue that you need to show that separately. OK, OK, I'll try to answer your actual question then... Time to break out the trig... *45 minutes later* Eh, I got nothing. Drew some diagrams and got enmeshed in trig for a while, but I can't find any obvious way to relate the angles without putting them through a trig function first.

Awesome, good to have you back in action. I feel like I'm stepping on Springheel's toes by giving this kind of detailed feedback (most of this stuff is really his call as art lead), but here goes anyway. Anything he says overrides anything I say. First up: I bet that coat would suck to rig and animate. Is it even possible to walk in that thing? I suppose it's not buttoned up near the bottom, which would give the legs freedom of movement, but that makes the animation trickier. I guess the new skeleton does have "skirt" joints though. Something about the face seems off. Doesn't look symmetrical, or maybe it's just the light. Rather small chin. If that's supposed to be a neutral expression, it's pretty glum and dour too! I want fancier hair like in the concept art, too. I know, I'm demanding... He's coming off to me very much like a modern scientist, whereas the concept strikes me as more neo-Victorian somehow. More "swashbuckling", for lack of a better word. I can just picture the guy from the concept art bustling around his lab with the light of inspiration in his eye, doing something worthy of backing with music by Vernian Process (fantastical, awe-inspiring, strong mechanical overtones, "steampunk"). I guess that's kind of at odds with the idea of a theoretician, though, so I could be totally off base here... Ignore me, I'm ranting. @Springheel: He's called a theoretician, yet the concept art has a ruler/protractor thingy in his pocket and alchemical gear in the background - what kind of work does this guy do? In the modern era theoreticians are mostly concerned with mathematics, but pre-modern-science I guess it could also mean someone who works in a lab trying to discover theories, doing what we would now consider "practical" work, but without any particular practical purpose in mind. Am I on the right track here at all? As for colours - if he's doing lab work with nasty chemicals I'm guessing he would want a leather coat and leather boots. The shirt underneath could be almost any colour - maybe this yellowish colour? He could also have a vest, perhaps. Just some ideas, nothing to take too seriously.

Hmm, that's a tricky one. Seems to me you're trying to do something which doesn't make sense in the standard complex number paradigm; angle 2pi is not just "equivalent" to angle 0, it's actually defined to be the same angle. Put another way, the Cartesian form of a complex number is its canonical representation; if you can't distinguish two complex numbers based on their Cartesian form, then they are quite literally the same number. You can't say that one instance of 2+4i has a property which somehow differs from another instance of 2+4i. It's simply axiomatically untrue. Overloading the polar representation to encode additional information might be possible, but strikes me as hackish. It's certainly not mathematically well-founded. Perhaps there's some other way to achieve what you're trying to do? Maybe you'll just have to forget about encoding distance travelled using the phase angle, and use an additional parameter instead. I'm not familiar with your project, or indeed with the entire field of physics in which it resides, so I'm afraid I can't be more help than that. Maybe these guys can help you more?

Is there any other kind?

I forget how it got packaged, but it's probably in a PK4 somewhere. (PK4s are just renamed zip files, so open them with whatever program you use to open zip files.) What's the error you get when you try to load the map?

That's slightly different - I believe that logs D3 console output to a file. NH was probably referring to the separate TDM-specific logging system which is enabled by editing darkmod.ini (I think). Both may be useful. Right. That's what the second part of my post meant to imply. I thought you were saying that the bug you're experiencing makes it unusable? Since you can't see anything in the editor views.

Might help if you kept a static image for most of the logo (omitting the flicker on "The Dark Mod" which I'm not a huge fan of personally) and just used a GIF for the flame part. You can then use CSS positioning to put the flame over the top of the base image. That gives you much smaller file sizes and more freedom with the palette.

But should DR have to read the old format, or should QuArk have to write the new format? (Either way works in principle of course.) Anyway, it sounds like Albert can't use DR at all, so this method won't be very helpful beyond brushwork. He either needs DR to work for him (and it's hard to say why it's not working now) or QuArk to have full DarkRadiant support. As long as QuArk can be used to make working D3 maps now, I reckon there's nothing stopping him from using it. He'd just have to enter various complicated schemes of spawnargs by hand instead of using the special editors which are built into DR (objectives, stim/response, etc.). It'd be a pain but it'd work. The Dark Mod will be released when it's done. The release date we're aiming for internally is... speculative.

Interesting point demagogue. I hadn't considered that. The modern explosion of digital data will eventually make the amount of public domain stuff available from our time period much higher than that available from other time periods, if only because it's easier to access. That's assuming people will even be able to read the file formats we use! Serious problem - librarians are pretty worried about it. Hieroglyphs painted on stone can be deciphered and read thousands of years later, but will anyone be able to read files off DVDs in, say, 4000 years? DVDs will be ridiculously obsolete by then, even if they don't physically deteriorate beyond recoverability in the meantime. Tels: It won't happen in our lifetimes, to be sure, but perhaps one day the political climate will shift and the people in charge will realise that having copyright extend for 200+ years (or whatever it ends up being) is stupid, and stop extending it. So maybe stuff made in the USA will start entering the public domain again in the year 2300 or so... Not much use to most of us now! In Australia it's only author's death +70 years, though that did get upped from +50 years in 2005. Australia and other countries are not quite as silly about copyright extensions as the US, so that should help to grow the public domain.

Yeah, the licencing terms on that site are even more restrictive than usual. I even contacted the author of a piece I wanted to buy and asked him if he could provide it in a format that works with any other 3D app besides DAZ, and he said no, because they're not allowed to offer their stuff in any other format!!! It's apparently a condition of having your stuff in their store. Moronic if you ask me. Cool-looking model though (which just makes the licencing even more of a shame).

Eidos owns the copyright on burricks; therefore there are not, and will never be, any burricks in TDM. On a completely unrelated note, you may be interested in this search: http://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?act=S...ite=%2Bbelchers Belchers are on the "maybe v1.0" list mentioned earlier.

Have you tried greebo's suggestion? In other words, do this: 1. launch TDM 2. open the console 3. type: dmap saintlucia 4. quit TDM 5. launch TDM again 6. attempt to start the mission

My CV is so good, I call it my uber-resume! (Simultaneously mangling words imported from two different languages gets you bonus points. ) In German, maybe. English doesn't have any such rules for transliteration. No, there's no standard US keyboard layout with dead keys. The standard US keyboard layout works perfectly, thanks very much. I could equally say that your language is broken for requiring such characters. I beg to differ...

It's not pressing the keys, it's remembering all the character codes. I usually just copy and paste from Character Map.

Yes! We plan to ship basic zombies with v1.0, which work basically how you'd expect. An alternate zombie model, giant spiders, and one or two other undead/woo-type AI are on the "maybe v1.0" and "leave to later" lists due to being in various states of incompleteness. For example, spiders are basically working but need checking over, might need a new ragdoll, etc. so they may not get shipped in v1.0.

We do spell it "kindergarten". I reserve the right to drop umlauts and other decorations from words appropriated into the English language, on the basis that they're a pain to type on our keyboard layouts. e.g. I usually spell "resumé" as "resume" unless I'm being formal, just because I have to jump through hoops to get the é.

Eigenface is a great word. It just sounds so hilarious. Eigenface eigenface eigenface. Eigenface. Bwahaha. Because we borrowed yours?

Last time I looked they didn't. No reason in theory why they couldn't if we decided we wanted some, though. It would need a coder to look at implementing it, and the animation would have to delay the bottle-throwing part of their behaviour; otherwise it would get interrupted by the throwing animation. There are still plenty of other animations to do, I'm sure?