Alpha Centauri Forums
Old Test Forums
Map Size & # of Turns in SMAC
|
|
Alpha Centauri Forums
Old Test Forums
Map Size & # of Turns in SMAC
|
| Author | Topic: Map Size & # of Turns in SMAC |
| DJ RRebel |
posted 11-07-98 01:14 AM ET  
Does anyone know the max size of SMAC maps ??? Civ2 had a limit of 10,000 map points !!! 100*100 or 200*50 or 400*25 ... or anything else you wanted !!! I hope SMAC will let upto 40,000 map points or something like that! In Civ 2 the number of turns varied on the level you played at I think !!! From what I remember well over 300 turns if not 4 or 5 hundred !!! I hope to see that double as well !!! But I've also heard that a multi game could be played out in as little as a half hour ??? That's sounds a little crazy to me !!! Oh well .. I hope that we are presented with a wide range of possible variables !!! If any of you have any info on these topics please let me know !!! |
| MikeH II |
posted 11-09-98 11:58 AM ET
A topic about the game!!!! Wow. I hope there will be a lot of possibilities for map building including large size maps. If the multiplayer turns are simultaneous with a time limit you could play speed SMAC but I think 30 mins would be too quick. You'd really need to be good, I quite like that sort of challenge and it would be especially good online (We have to pay for local calls in the UK) |
| Steel_Dragon |
posted 11-09-98 12:01 PM ET
get to big and that would reduce interaction between players. Although they could add a few more players  I don't know how to make the other smile face  |
| Steel_Dragon |
posted 11-09-98 12:02 PM ET
Hey neat it made it for me cool. my hats off to the guy running this forum |
| DJ RRebel |
posted 11-10-98 11:32 AM ET
  I wonder if each player will get like 3 TIME-OUTS a game to go to the bathroom or something like that ??? 30 second turns sounds insane !!! We still haven't gotten a clue as to how multi will actually work as well !!! |
| BigER |
posted 11-10-98 11:35 AM ET
Because these maps seem to be more sophisticated topographic wize, I think the size limit will be smaller. Just a guess mind you. |
| MikeH II |
posted 11-10-98 11:37 AM ET
The processor and memory requirements will be higher so perhaps the maps will be the same size. |
| DJ RRebel |
posted 11-10-98 11:46 AM ET
No way, they have to make it at least a bit bigger !!! Don't forget, I'm just talking about the MAX size .. if you want to save you processor, just make a smaller map !!! And I wonder what sort of timeframe they'll use !!! How far apart will the turns be ??? Years, Months, Weeks ??? |
| MikeH II |
posted 11-10-98 12:02 PM ET
Definately less than a year. Can't remember where I read that but something implied it. I think my processor can handle anything SMAC throws at it, so i'm up for bigger maps. |
| DJ RRebel |
posted 11-11-98 11:04 AM ET
Mhhhn .. I only have a lowly 166MMX ... I plan to upgrade early next year, but not in time for SMAC !!! What kind of systems do all of you have anyways ??? |
| DJ RRebel |
posted 11-16-98 02:24 PM ET
Judging from your replies, none of you have computers !!! You better ask for one for X-Mas then !!! |
| DJ RRebel |
posted 11-25-98 01:06 AM ET
hmmmn .. Intel is still better than AMD, but I guess it's a deadlock when you consider price:quality .. don't rule out Intel .. those guys aren't about to give up control of the market ... but AMD is dooing superbly well !!! Early induction of K7 as opposed to the delays in Merced will hurt Intel alot !!! What are your views on the Intel vs. AMD battle ??? Does anyone use a CPU from another company ??? |
| DJ RRebel |
posted 11-25-98 01:12 AM ET
it's really anoying when my new posts end up in the middle of the thread !!! |
| Roland |
posted 11-16-98 02:41 PM ET
Ok, Ok, my brother in disbelieve! An intel pentium 166 with 64MB ram or what that stuff is called... see, I'm not really an expert on that... And asking for it at X-Mas... well, gotta ask myself, that's the problem when you earn your own energy credits... even worse, I may say no (?) |
| DJ RRebel |
posted 11-16-98 02:51 PM ET
I know the feeling ... I only have 32 megs of ram though, I need a faster system !!! I need a better monitor too ... I'm still using my monitor from my 286 that I bought in 1990 !!! I want to splurge for a 17", but if I do that and upgrade my system, I'll be dead broke !!! |
| DJ RRebel |
posted 11-25-98 02:36 AM ET
I thought the Merced and the K7 were both going to be 64bits ??? Granted, the Merced would be high end at first, but soon enough, it would make its way to the mainstream !!! Most likely sooner than later !!! |
| DJ RRebel |
posted 11-25-98 02:58 AM ET
I thought the Merced and the K7 were both going to be 64bits ??? Granted, the Merced would be high end at first, but soon enough, it would make its way to the mainstream !!! Most likely sooner than later !!! (aaaaaarrrrrrrgh ... I hate it when posts get mixed up) |
| Roland |
posted 11-16-98 02:53 PM ET
Well, I got that 17" at home, and it's really great. Money for an upgarde would be no problem, I'm just wondering if it's worth... now, I don't think so. My computer should be able to handle SMAC... or won'it ? AAAAAARGHH! |
| DJ RRebel |
posted 11-25-98 03:46 AM ET
of course though .. any basic improvements to any chip wont see any benifit for almost a year after it is released until the software can catch up to the hardware!!! Look at what happened with MMX !!! Although, I heard that there are already a couple of OSes in the works for 64bit processing !!! |
| Gord McLeod |
posted 11-16-98 06:26 PM ET
Jeeze, am I the only one who really really hates the graphical smilies? Gah. I want an option to turn them off and use a flame thrower on 'em. As far as the time and map scales go, turns will be 1 year, that was already stated pretty clearly. I'm not sure about map sizes, but I think maybe(?) that they'll have larger sized maps than were possible in Civ2, but don't quote me on that one. Due to recent successes in my web design efforts, I've got two computers I can play SMAC on now. One is an AMD K6 233, 128 megs EDO RAM. The new one is an AMD K6-2 300, 128 megs of SDRAM. |
| DHE_X2 |
posted 11-16-98 06:30 PM ET
Daoomn, Gord, you'll be able to kick Spartan ass in style!! |
| Spoe |
posted 11-25-98 03:55 AM ET
I'm assuming Linux and BeOS will be two of them, seeing how Intel has invested in both recently. |
| DJ RRebel |
posted 11-25-98 12:14 PM ET
What's going on over at Cyrix ??? Have they all just died ???? For a while, they were supposed to be #2 !!! |
| Spoe |
posted 11-16-98 06:34 PM ET
No, I detest them as well. The break up the flow of text and have the feel of a BIC "feature". Should be an option to turn the damn things off so we can't see them. Anyway, I've a Celeron-A o/ced to 450, 128 Mb ram, 17" monitor and a partially cannibalized P-120 o/ced to 125, 48 Mb ram, no monitor at this point. |
| Gord McLeod |
posted 11-16-98 06:59 PM ET
Yup, and don't think I won't be kicking spartan ass. They're networked, so if I can coerce..er... invite friends over, it'll be all the better. I'm setting the older machine up as a server so I can practice a few things I wasn't able to effectively work on with a single system, but the gaming potential wasn't lost on me either.. |
| jonesEv |
posted 11-25-98 12:32 PM ET
I heard from one of my hardware friends that Intel patented their P6 pinout or something annoying like that, and that's why AMD can't build processors for Intel boards. The same guy told me that Cyrix, through some legal shenanigans, has the right to produce chips for Intel boards, but can't. In his opinion, Cyrix engineers are basically chimpanzees with soldering irons, can't compete, and will soon drop off the face of the Earth. To those who care: |
| DJ RRebel |
posted 11-25-98 12:41 PM ET
The new pin out started with Pentium II's !!! It's called Slot 1 and Slot 2 !!! (Don't ask me for the difference, I'm sure someone here could !!! I think it has to do with bus speeds though !!! I also remember reading somewhere that some company (prob AMD) will have a similar standard called Slot A ... Anyone know the details ??? How do you like your SBLive ??? Cable is awsome .. but trust me, you wont hit 10 megs/sec !!! |
| Gord McLeod |
posted 11-16-98 07:01 PM ET
Those things are going to drive me absolutely up the wall... grrrrrrrrrrrrrr... Testing: : ) :-) |
| Gord McLeod |
posted 11-16-98 07:02 PM ET
Aha! It seems we have a viable alternative or two. It only parses the two-character versions... :^) |
| Spoe |
posted 11-25-98 03:56 PM ET
Yeah, I'll agree, Slot 1 was Intel's first mainstream proprietary socket. Socket 7(later Pentiums(after the 60/66 MHz parts?)) and Socket 8(Pentium Pro) were both open. And yes, Slot A will be the connector for the K7. It will use the many of the same mechanical parts as Slot 1 to ease manufacture, but will be functionally different. According to the most recent CPU roadmap(30 June 1998) at Tom's, at the end of Q2 next year, Intel will have 500 MHz Katmai and Tanner parts out and be close to release on 533+ MHz Cascades, Coppermine, and Katmai parts(All listed for 2H/99). Some of this latter group may be 600 MHz parts. At this point, Intel will be running on a 133 MHz bus compared to the 200 MHz on the K7. Also from what I have seen, the introductory price for the K7 will start at ~$800 and move on up, based on how much L2 cache is used(up to max of 8 Mb). I also agree that it will be a bit had to break into the server market, perhaps it's targeted at the workstation market contrary to the report I've seen? |
| Octopus |
posted 11-25-98 10:05 PM ET
Spoe: "perhaps it's targeted at the workstation market" I'm sure that AMD would LOVE to sell into both the workstation and server markets (the margins are HUGE in these markets), I'm just skeptical that they'll pull it off. I think that the people who purchase workstations are just as conservative as the people who purchase servers. I do think that the K7 will be a force to be reckoned with on the desktop, though, as long as AMD doesn't screw anything up. (AMD has a history of shooting themselves in the foot). Slot 1, Slot 2, and Slot A: As Spoe says, the only thing that are similar about Slot 1/Slot 2 and Slot A are the mechanical parts. The Alpha bus is EXTREMELY different from the P6 bus. It is a point-to-point interconnect, and it is supposed to have a lot more bandwidth than the current P6 bus (on the Pentium II). This could easily be a problem for AMD, though, since they will need to get chipsets that work with this new bus (the K6 uses a socket-7 connector, so it can work in a Pentium motherboard). DJ RRebel: I believe that Cyrix was acquired by National Semiconductor. They have been focusing on integration to produce extremely low-cost parts (they target the low-end of the market). I believe, for example, that they have some processors with memory controllers and graphics controllers integrated into the CPU. This is supposed to reduce system cost, since you need fewer parts to build the PC. A lot of people think this is a trend in the microprocessor industry. |
| Spoe |
posted 11-16-98 07:17 PM ET
Doesn't parse the backwards ones either... (: |
| jfrazier |
posted 11-16-98 07:28 PM ET
It is funny hearing from all of you about your computers. I work no more than a few miles from an actual Intel plant that led the way in the pentium production. WOW! How a good thing can spread! I guess we can call that free enterprise. I would like to see SMAC develop more on this terrain effects that has been talked about. My image is that you would use something similar to a settler unit to continuosly develop the terrain. Should be interesting. As for the map size, how about underground living?
|
| Gord McLeod |
posted 11-16-98 08:00 PM ET
LOL.. if you call Intel processors a good thing I guess... they still are for the moment, but just wait'll next year. Early in January AMD is releasing the K6-3 using sharptooth technology... a new core in the processor that'll finally make the K6-series chips as fast or faster than Intel, and I won't even get into K7, which is poised to smoke anything Intel can offer... |
| DJ RRebel |
posted 11-25-98 01:10 AM ET
hmmmn .. Intel is still better than AMD, but I guess it's a deadlock when you consider price:quality .. don't rule out Intel .. those guys aren't about to give up control of the market ... but AMD is dooing superbly well !!! Early induction of K7 as opposed to the delays in Merced will hurt Intel alot !!! What are your views on the Intel vs. AMD battle ??? Does anyone use a CPU from another company ??? Let's see if this works now ??? I thought they fixed the problem !!! |
| Octopus |
posted 11-25-98 01:26 AM ET
DJ RRebel: "Early induction of K7 as opposed to the delays in Merced will hurt Intel alot !!!" Merced and K7 are not competitors. The target market for Merced is workstations and servers. AMD is targeting the desktop market, where it will be competing with Intel's 32-bit product line (IA32 aka x86, not IA64). AMD is intending some higher-end features for the K7 (like the Alpha bus, which is supposed to allow for MP), but AMD has never delivered a part like that, so it is premature to believe that they'll make an appreciable dent in that market. IA64 is not expected to have an appreciable share of the market for cpus for quite a while. |
| Octopus |
posted 11-25-98 02:51 AM ET
"I thought the Merced and the K7 were both going to be 64bits ???" No. K7 will be running the x86 instruction set that we're all familiar with. (Well, most of you probably aren't familiar with it, but the programs you run are). AMD also supports 3DNow, but it has yet to be seen how that will play out when Intel introduces its SIMD FP instructions. "Granted, the Merced would be high end at first, but soon enough, it would make its way to the mainstream !!! Most likely sooner than later !!!" No, Merced will probably never be a very high volume part, and it will almost certainly never make it into the volume desktop market. Intel thinks that the market will shift to IA64, but not for many years to come. By the time that happens, Merced will not be a product anymore. The IA32 product line still has a lot of life left in it. |
| Spoe |
posted 11-25-98 03:32 AM ET
Octopus: I beg to differ. The news I've seen from Comdex says that the K7 is slated for release next summer(end of Q2) as a 500 MHz part to compete against the Xeon. When Merced comes out at the end of 99/early 2000 it will also be targeted at the server market. The desktop(and cheaper) version of the K7 is not slated to be released until October, according to my sources. Techweb also reports AMD had it running a DVD movie _well_ without any hardware decompression. Granted, this would be a prototype, but it does show promise. I do agree that IA64 will probably be a while filtering down to the desktop. The most interesting feature of the K7 to me(for physics modeling) is the improved FPU. I just hope they don't have the same problems they did with getting the K6 to market. |
| DJ RRebel |
posted 11-25-98 03:48 AM ET
Why are only my post being throwen into the middle ??? Argh .. here's a copy of my last post .. hopefully it'll go to the botrtom !@! of course though .. any basic improvements to any chip wont see any benifit for almost a year after it is released until the software can catch up to the hardware!!! Although, I heard that there are already a couple of OSes in the works for 64bit processing !!! |
| Octopus |
posted 11-25-98 12:07 PM ET
"500 MHz part to compete against the Xeon" K7 is basically a small improvement over the P6 architecture. I believe that Intel's best of class P6 will have a higher clock rate than 500 MHz by the time K7 is released. Performance will probably be roughly equivalent (assuming that K7 lives up to its billing). Also, the server and workstation market is different than the desktop market. The people who buy these systems are extremely paranoid, and are a lot less likely to switch to an "untested" processor than a mainstream consumer. The K7 has a number of features that AMD has never done before, so expecting it to be flawless is not a very wise goal. In addition, getting MP right is HARD. MP problems are very hard to find. AMD is also going to have to deliver its own chipset, because their bus is not compatible with anything. If AMD is able to 1) deliver a completely bug-free part and 2) convince businesses to use their parts then they won't be a big player in the server and workstation market. I don't think that will happen for several years. There will be no compelling reason to switch, since Intel chips will offer roughly comparable performance, and price is not much of a factor in servers/workstations (otherwise NOBODY would use any of the RISC-based workstations and everybody would be using Intel processors right now). "The most interesting feature of the K7 to me(for physics modeling) is the improved FPU." "any basic improvements to any chip wont see any benifit for almost a year after it is released until the software can catch up to the hardware!!!" |
| DJ RRebel |
posted 11-25-98 12:15 PM ET
This out of place posting is going to kill me ... I know it !!! ========================================= What's going on over at Cyrix ??? For a while, they were supposed to be #2 !!! |
| jonesEv |
posted 11-25-98 12:33 PM ET
This is a repost/ test of out of place posting. I heard from one of my hardware friends that Intel patented their P6 pinout or something annoying like that, and that's why AMD can't build processors for Intel boards. The same guy told me that Cyrix, through some legal shenanigans, has the right to produce chips for Intel boards, but can't. In his opinion, Cyrix engineers are basically chimpanzees with soldering irons, can't compete, and will soon drop off the face of the Earth. To those who care: I have a PII 266 with a 17 in monitor,SBLIVE, CL TNT, and 160 MB ram. As soon as I moved I'm a gonna have a 10 MB/s down, 3MB/s up cable connectiones... |
| DJ RRebel |
posted 11-25-98 12:42 PM ET
This out of sinc posting is nuts !!! ========================================= The new pin out started with Pentium II's !!! How do you like your SBLive ??? Cable is awsome .. but trust me, you wont hit 10 megs/sec !!! |
| Spoe |
posted 11-25-98 03:59 PM ET
Eh, my post went to the middle. |
| Octopus |
posted 11-25-98 10:07 PM ET
Now my posts are showing up in the middle, too! |
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).  |
Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.