Alpha Centauri Forums
  The Game
  Ok Sid you've had nearly 10 years to fix this problem and it is STILL in SMAC!

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Ok Sid you've had nearly 10 years to fix this problem and it is STILL in SMAC!
Darkheart posted 03-04-99 04:03 AM ET   Click Here to See the Profile for Darkheart   Click Here to Email Darkheart  
The problem is simple: in SMAC it is impossilbe to traverse the planet North to South or vice versa. Does this not seem a
little antiquated to anyone...?

Also the map is miles & miles out, how on earth does your oblong map WORLD map wrap round the planet...?

Or is Planet perhaps a spinning cube...?

It seems amazing that although this was an original flaw of the Civilisation it still hasn't been fixed! I mean here we are with Fusion Helicopters but we can cross the North Pole...?

So tell me again how intricate and accurate this model of a planet & it's ecosystem is when Sid obviously still thinks the Earth is flat!

Fraxis answer this one!

Darkheart

P.S. With such an obvious flaw like this in the game what on earth did you bother filling the manual with all that planet stat cr*p...?

KJohnstone posted 03-04-99 04:16 AM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for KJohnstone  Click Here to Email KJohnstone     
Actually, if you were to go up on the map you shouldn't wrap to the bottom of the map... Instead you should appear somewhere east or west. Ie., going north from Canada won't lead you to antartica eventually. Probably not implemented because it is to hard to visualize, and would lead to unexpected attacks.

The map is shaped more like a cylinder, rather than a sphere. There should be more tiles on the equator than at the poles. This actually seems easier to do with SMAC, everything being 3D.

I think back to the way XCOM handled the planet, would be neat if you could zoom back in SMAC and actually see the planet's edges, then zoom in.

KJ

iratheous posted 03-04-99 04:32 AM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for iratheous  Click Here to Email iratheous     
Why do you feel this strongly over a simple game play descision? Are your strategies really ruined that bad by not being able to leave the screen at the top only to reapear a few squares over? Mabe instead of focusing all of your energy on a trivial game design descision you could spend it playing the game and finding things you DO like. if as many people posted this adamantly about things they DID liek with the game mabee the world woudl be abetter place and we could all sit in a big row holding hands and singing campfire songs attempting to relive the memories of eating marshmellows and telling gost stories miles from civilization with only rocks and sticks to protect you from the dark furry bears interested in eating you and your leftovers from the hot dog cook out... I'm sorry where was I?
Darkheart posted 03-04-99 04:37 AM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for Darkheart  Click Here to Email Darkheart     
I still think it's quite amazing that they never even bothered to consider this or deal with it.

Yes, using a true sphere would have made naviagtion a little more difficult but it would have made it a LOT more realistic! For at the moment the geography of the planet is just a joke!

I think the reasons for Fraxis not including this feature are one of the following:

1) They think we are too stupid to notice.
2) They WERE too stupid to notice.
3) They were too lazy to bother.

Darkheart

iratheous posted 03-04-99 05:03 AM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for iratheous  Click Here to Email iratheous     
Well my guess is that they hold us in pretty high reguard. We are thier worst critics after all, why do something intentionally because you want nothing other than to applaud yourself for pulling a fast one on a stupid audience. If they did indeed think we were stupid I think they would have just hired a better artist, pull all the money out of 'research and development', and given us a real shallow piece of crap.

As far as them being too stupid to notice, i am guessin gthat durring thier brainstorming sessions some where along the line there was a descision to be made on the type of world they wanted to make, And I am guessing they decided to make it in the traditional sense rather than have a map that would probably beef up system requirements & require a much longer production time. Besides it isn't like they decided to remove half the technologies in the attempt to make the game real tmie or something.

As far as them being lazy, well if anything I am sure there were many many 12+ hour days (16-18 hours+ as well) that were put in on this game (if game design journals I read on the net are anything to go by). Unfortunately they have deadlines imposed. They can't do everything. And they can't keep delaying the product just because they want to add a feature as trivial as a 'globe-like' map. I dont think it was cost effective anyhow for the bennifetts it would add. I haven't played populous 3 but I hear that has the type of map you are looking for. Mabee if you go play that game you'll get the gaming experience you have been looking for in a game since civ 1.

jig posted 03-04-99 05:09 AM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for jig  Click Here to Email jig     
This has been discussed before some time ago and apparently the reason the world is mapped out as a hollow cylinder is because it's impossible to map a round world with sqare tiles. It was said that it would only be possible with tranigular or hexagonal tiles.
Darkheart posted 03-04-99 05:23 AM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for Darkheart  Click Here to Email Darkheart     
Please don't try and tell me the left this flaw in because otherwise it would have boosted the system requirements. X-Com works just fine on a 386 and has a full globe with zoom...

I don't think having a globe map is a trivial feature, if you are supposed to be developing a civilisation on a planet with an ecosystem I think it is a pretty major feature. It will effect everything that takes place there: Climate, Weather System, Flora, Fauna, everything!

I'm not saying I don't enjoy playing SMAC, I do and I think it's a pretty good game. I just feel this is one place were they really could have done MUCH better and didn't for no good reason.

I would still like to see this acknowledged & patched...

Darkheart

iratheous posted 03-04-99 05:47 AM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for iratheous  Click Here to Email iratheous     
Well I have never played x-com or any of it's kin, so I guess you're right, if a game on a 386 can do it, so should smac. I think they should just liscense the x-com engine and be done with it. Do it exactly as x-com did. While they're at it i want to see this game run on my 386 dammit! In dos 5.0 no less! These guys are obviously just taking us for fools. They must have some pretty big balls thinking they could get away with this. Hell they might as well ad caravans that I can stalk and kill. I want to ruin the trade of my enemies dammit, like in seven kingdoms!! Why can't I go slaughter a camel?
LackOfKnack posted 03-04-99 06:05 AM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for LackOfKnack    
I think this should have been put in as well. Better still, they could have you play on a globe and you can just rotate it any which way, zoom in and out, that'd be neat. If they designed it from scratch anyhow, why not have triangular squares? I didn't the diamonds since Civ II anyhow.

Just my $.02.

Maybe in the sequel?

Lack

gremalkin posted 03-04-99 06:22 AM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for gremalkin  Click Here to Email gremalkin     
As far as I understand it, they attempted to explain this away by saying that the area above and below the map is inhospitable (and presumably uncrossable) polar region. Furthermore, the squares closer to these polar regions represent a smaller physical area than those at the equator. Therefore: A Sphere. QED. If a little dubious....
mic posted 03-04-99 06:32 AM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for mic  Click Here to Email mic     
It's a feature, not a bug

mic

MoSe posted 03-04-99 07:21 AM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for MoSe  Click Here to Email MoSe     
To DarkHeart:

may I assume that if I come to visit you at your house I will not find any atlas or map, those books with flat maps painted on flat sheets of flat paper to awkwardly try to represent a spherical world, but only, er, howdyasay mappamondo, earthglobes, those big balls with a map of the earth painted on its surface?

Indeed if you WEREN'T allowed to zoom out (not too much at least) the idea could be viable: you see on a flat screen only a portion of spherical surface, that seems flat, but you can realistically travel around the planet in any direction, tho you'd need a compass onscreen.
That would come neat to be coupled with another forgotten issue: why do we have to look only northwards? If I want to look clearly behind a ridge, why can't I rotate my point of observation without flattening orography?

Saluti
MariOne

Spartacus posted 03-04-99 07:33 AM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for Spartacus    
This feature puzzled me at first too, but after thinking about the geometry, it is the best way to do it IF A CONDITION IS THAT YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO SEE THE WHOLE MAP AT ONCE.
If we drop this condition, a possible alternative could be to see HALF the globe at a time, e.g. with the North Pole in the centre and the equator around the edges. Then you could navigate the globe, but you would not suddenly appear on the left when leaving on the right as you do today. You would always see the terrain as seen from space with your current location as the new "pole" and the new "equator" on the edges. Actually, it might be fun to try this, with half of the world always hidden. Most people would probably find it confusing at first. But the current design is definitely not a bug subject to an easy fix.
Sauce posted 03-04-99 07:47 AM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for Sauce  Click Here to Email Sauce     
Excuse me!?! What flaw are you talking about Darkheart. Like KJohnstone said: You wouldn't and SHOULDN'T end up at the bottom of the map if you walk off the top.

And how is the map in Civ, Civ II, or SMAC any more of a joke than any world map you see. It is not the only way to generate a two dimentional map from a globe but it is by
far the best way for this purpose.

TheHelperMonkey posted 03-04-99 08:26 AM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for TheHelperMonkey    
Who cares?!
Darkheart posted 03-04-99 09:13 AM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for Darkheart  Click Here to Email Darkheart     
Ok I'll deal with all the points one at a time...

1) It's perfectly possible to use a glove perspective and a flat screen map together.
If you've ever looked at a map of the world you'll notice it is Oval because there is more area at the equator than there is at the poles. Now you could still allow a Zoom out to see the spherical planet and use an oval map for reference to units across the whole globe (players choice).

2) Sauce I think you definatly need to have another look at a map or globe, maybe just engage your brain for a couple of seconds.
If I am 1 mile away from the North pole & facing North, then I move 3 miles in the current direction I am facing what happens...?
Guess what I have gone onto the other side of the planet and am now heading towards the South Pole!
The SMAC map is all over the place, it is either not showing one side of the planet or the poles are in completely the wrong place. As I said in SMAC at the moment the geographical system is a joke.

Anyway enough already with trying to justify this stuff Fraxis obviously screwed up or just blatently ignored geography to make the game. What gets up my nose is that they have tried to lay us off with the lie that this is an accurate planet with stars,moons,ecosystem, weather, climate & sea changes and all the other guff when their planetary model is obviously a load of bollocks.

It's closer to Prachett's discworld than any kind of planet!

Darkheart

Gorth posted 03-04-99 09:30 AM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for Gorth  Click Here to Email Gorth     
I wonder why the poles are even needed... In a strategic sense, they are completely useless. When is the last time you've seen a war over territory in Antarctica, I never have.

I think the decision not to worry about N/S wrapping was to simplify the map and avoid having to waste effort creating a new way to display the map so a portion that is never used can be displayed.

Rong posted 03-04-99 10:09 AM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for Rong  Click Here to Email Rong     
Has anyone played Populous: The Beginning? They have exactly the same thing we need, a true 3D sphere to play on! You can rotate, zoom in/out. It's even got a horizon. IBHO, if SMAC uses that model, it'll be at least 183% more realistic.
futRtrubL posted 03-04-99 10:09 AM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for futRtrubL  Click Here to Email futRtrubL     
You say X-Com ran so well, well yes it had 6 type of terrain, well 6 tilable bitmaps, no 3d apart from the sphere, MAX of 15 units around at one time, no unit pictures in the map, no path finding you go in a straight line not sticking to roads or anything, no resources on map, how many faction were in x-com again ahhh.. 2.
If you start 1mile from the pole on the west, face north then travel 2miles you will be facing south but you will still be 1mile from the pole just on the east side.
Also the game was suposed to be FUN, and not nescesarily realistic, if it were realistic it wouldn't be on alpha centauri. A compromise has to be struck. I'm sorry if you feel that it kills the feel of SMAC, if it realy does then go play X-Com and stop whining.
Dredd posted 03-04-99 10:20 AM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for Dredd  Click Here to Email Dredd     
The shape of the map has never bothered me. It's an abstraction, just like the time scale.

And the units.

And the economy.

And the diplomacy.

Darkheart posted 03-04-99 10:38 AM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for Darkheart  Click Here to Email Darkheart     
futRtrubL,

I was using Xcom as an example to show that it would not require enermous system requirements idiot!

Dredd,

The map is not abstraction but a direct invention a flat earth would radically change every other variable and factor. The idea of the game was to have it's roots in reality and extrapolate to give technologies, climate, diplomacy etc.
By leaving this path at the very start much of the realism is lost in SMAC.

Darkheart

Sauce posted 03-04-99 10:58 AM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for Sauce  Click Here to Email Sauce     
Darkheart, No need to get rude. I know excactly what a map or a globe looks like. If you'd move those 3 miles you would be 1 mile from the north pole, facing south. In the map of SMAC you'd end up somewhere to the east or west but still on the top of the screen. Now thet've decided to skip that sudden shift of the unit's position. It doesn't bother me. It make the gameplay better the way it is.

Playing on a cylindrical world is fine. You just have to imagine that the distances next to the poles are much shorter than the one's along the equator.

zaz posted 03-04-99 12:45 PM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for zaz  Click Here to Email zaz     
It is possible to simulate a globe in 2 dimesions. It is hard to desribe without aid of a pencil, but has anyone ever seen the giant Geodesic dome at Epcot Center at Disney World, or a soccer(foot)ball. A perfect geodesic dome consists of hexagons and a minimum of 3 pentagons. This can easily be translated to a flat screen. The entire collection of hexagons are arrainged into a larger hexagon with two of the points as the poles etc. Of course when moving East-West above 30 degrees North or South would cause units to 'jump' to the corresponding spot on the other side.

Why not just play on a 3-D globe. Intel will have a 1GHz chip in 2000. If you start designing now it will be ready by then.

dan posted 03-04-99 03:14 PM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for dan  Click Here to Email dan     
I'd rather see a total departure from tiles to one where units can move within a radius of Xkm/turn, and attack anyone within Ykm/turn. Bases would have a circular area around them, etc. This is like that new populus. This way there would be no wories about smaller tiles towards the poles or anything like that.

The biggest problem the way it is now is that it's possible to be isolated. Imagine North America on a SMAC map. Great position, right? But in the real world, we are right beside Russia. Look at a globe from the North pole.

Shadwhawk posted 03-04-99 03:54 PM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for Shadwhawk  Click Here to Email Shadwhawk     
Darkheart, have you noticed a bit of a difference between X-Com and SMAC?
Here, I'll tell you.
X-Com: Two or three texture world, very blocky, very angular, very imprecise. The most you see are some moving squares, and the occasional city/nation name with a couple of rivers.
SMAC: Gigantic world, able to have a gameplay map of 1000x1000 squares easily, maintaining the same degree of refinement as a 100x100 map. Dozens of different terrain graphics, along with improvements. Dozens of cities, hundreds of units moving on said map. Sorry, but a 386 couldn't even hope to make a spherical world with the complexity SMAC has.
While having a spherical world would open up some new stratigies, it's essentially window-dressing.
And, no, you couldn't combine a 3d spherical world with a flat map; it just doesn't work that way. You can zoom in a lot, but it still ain't flat (there's still a horizon).
If you've noticed, on oval-shaped maps, the land masses get heavily distorted the further north or south you look. Sorry, Greenland isn't as large as the US. Antarctica isn't larger than Eurasia.
Insulting people or the Firaxis team (they're either stupid, stupid, or lazy? C'mon, now.) won't win you any points.

zaz: Just remember, a geodesic globe isn't a sphere. While it would lend itself to a flat map, there would be large gaps and 'arms', thanks to the pentagrams needed to create the sphere (I'm pretty sure about this; but not totally). Fallout used hex-based flat maps, but there were no pentagrams.

Shadwhawk

Darkheart posted 03-04-99 05:17 PM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for Darkheart  Click Here to Email Darkheart     
Good grief you SMAC ardents are incredibly zealous about defending your beloved game arn't you!

I make a sensible observation that you cannot traverse the planet N to S and everyones saying:

"Oh it would be too difficult if you could do that!"

Next about the map, the fact it simply will not, and cannot wrap around a sphere.

"Well, it would be too difficult for the poor computer to do, can't be done!"

So well how about X-Com released about the same time as Civilsation and it had a sphere. Surely with the imporvments of the last 10 years SMAC can manage it...?

"X-Com only has 2-3 textures etc. etc."
Well you would think they would bring it up to date I was just saying it obvisouly is possilbe. Far too many idiots comparing X-COM which is 8 years old to SMAC. I wasn't suggesting for a second SMAC should run a 386 DUH!

Next back to the map, "If Fraxis haven't done it, then it just can't be done". What kind of crap is that...? Masses of things considered impossible are now possible and this isn't even considered impossible, it's already been done.

Can't you guys take critism of this game at all...?

Personally I think units look pretty damn awful and extremely similar. I enjoy playing this game but I don't think its any kind of "landmark achievment" or that Sid is some kind of God.

Could it be Fraxis made a mistake or simply sidestepped the problem because it would have delayed release...? If they never intended it to be any kind of planetary model why the hell include all the stats and other junk in the manual...?

Try taking your "SMAC is my shrine and my sole purpose in life" helmet off for a second have a really good look and you'll see the game does have lots of flaws and while still quite good to play there is PLENTY of room for improvment...

Darkheart

Rong posted 03-04-99 05:41 PM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for Rong  Click Here to Email Rong     
Like I said earlier, it HAS been done in Populous: The Beginning. Granted it is only a RTS, nowhere near the complexity of SMAC, but anyone saying it can't be done is, shall I say it, an idiot. You have your giga-hertz cpu giga-byte memory sitting there computing what? A flat planet? I wouldn't call that progress.

I've heard of lots of people complaining they can't get "into" the game, it is so emotionally detached. If you've played Populous you'd know, a sphere would do wonders in that respect.

Shining1 posted 03-04-99 05:59 PM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for Shining1  Click Here to Email Shining1     
It would actually be quite cool to see it done properly.

Having a 2D map that 'flipped' to four different sides, showing the north, east, south, and west poles repectively would make the game easier to understand, especially if it only moved to the north or south pole (which show HALF the world each - i.e a top down view of each pole down to the equator) when a unit was very close to 'crossing over'.

Having a rotating graphical display of the world map would also be a neat wee idea.

Basically, it can be done, and would make the game more interesting, with missile/naval attacks coming over the north pole at you. It's a good idea. How 'bout it, Sid?

Xentropy posted 03-04-99 06:20 PM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for Xentropy  Click Here to Email Xentropy     
the reason people are slamming you, Darkheart, isn't because of your criticism, it's the fact you aren't *constructively* criticizing... calling Firaxis, or SMAC players, idiots, isn't a good way to make friends and influence people...

As for the "bug", it's a design decision, not a bug... The way you've described it, yourself, isn't even correct... The north edge of the map does not connect to the south edge of the map on a true globe... The only way to come *close* to spherical realism on a flat map using squares would be to have less squares across the top and bottom than across the center (a sort of irregular oval made of squares)... Really, since the basis is squares, the shape would be more like two cones placed bottoms together, with the tips cut off...

like this, basically, assuming each . is a SMAC square:

........
..........
............
..............
................
..............
............
..........
........
12345678

Obviously, hexagons would be better, but I regress... I've numbered the squares at the south pole for illustration of how the poles should work... moving south from square 1 would put you at square 5, 2<->6, 3<->7, and 4<->8...

At any rate, this is no *small* design decision, and the easiest to understand and use is the one they chose... They decided to focus on tech and other game design instead of spending half their alloted design time getting the world to work, and even the above is no more realistic than what they used...

If you want to be concerned with issues of realism, figure out why a plane has two *years* of fuel, yet still has issues getting back to home base... or why it takes decades of marching for some infantry to march across a medium sized continent... Personally, I believe turns should have been set to tenths of years like they were in Master of Orion II to solve this problem...

At any rate, your problem with the realism of the map is easily solved by making a concession, yourself... Assume one of the following:

1) Chiron is a ringworld. Ignore the information in the manual. Voila, problem solved.

2) Huge sections at the north and south ends of the globe, leaving only a 90 degree strip along the equator, are *so* totally overrun by fungus and native life, it would take 100 years to move around a pole, and death would be likely at the hands of mindworms on such a march. This doesn't even conflict with the information in the manual, and explains the map *completely*. This is the way I think of it... "Whoops, there's the south edge. Mindworm chaos down there. If I want to move to the other side of the world, it'd be faster marching *around* than across that sea of fungus."

You're making a huge deal out of a design issue that's meaningless to most people, not because they're idiots, but because they realize creating a game is about giving up trivial issues to focus on the important things.. Try designing a game, yourself, and I'll put more credence in your words.. A friend and I are working on designing something now, and it's a much more involved job than it seems on the surface..

This is an unpatchable issue on Firaxis' end (*), but easily patched in your *own mind* by just picturing the globe covered throughout 50% of the northern and southern hemispheres by completely impassable terrain of some kind...

(*) It isn't simply a matter of moving halfway across the world by wrapping across the poles; that'd leave it just as unrealistic.. they'd have to change the entire map shape to more hexagonal instead of rectangular... This would likely require a patch upwards of 20 megabytes, and definitely leave you with a completely unbalanced game... Asking for a patch is pointless...

Shining1 posted 03-04-99 06:26 PM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for Shining1  Click Here to Email Shining1     
Xenotropy: Ummm... the designer DID actually spend a lot of time getting the world to work. You notice how the greenery is always on the south east side of the mountains? Well, making new mountains in front of those will turn the green areas arid (rain can't get to them).

I don't think it's accurate to dismiss the designers attitude to the world in that way. They are starting to take it into account.

Xentropy posted 03-04-99 06:32 PM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for Xentropy  Click Here to Email Xentropy     
whoa, I never said they didn't spend time on the world... read my post again... I'm praising the design because the designers know when to go for realism and when to step back and let fun play take over... my statement about half the design time spent on getting the world to work was in regards to the *extra* time (and lots of it) it would have taken to add realistic shaping and polar-wrapping... They probobly would've had to leave out the climate control design elements due to the time constraints created by spending so much time making Darkheart happy...
Shining1 posted 03-04-99 06:45 PM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for Shining1  Click Here to Email Shining1     
Xeno: Point taken. But despite all the negativity generated by this thread, it's still a cool idea (except darkheads dumb N to S bit) to have a real globle and not just a 2D pattern. And maybe even a wind generator algorithm.

I certainly miss those polar regions, too. Some icy blue/white caps would be a great help in breaking up the monotone colours of planet. And watching my marines trudge through the polar north to reach the Hive on the other side would be something fun to see as well.

Yeah, I could really go for a 3D world, polar ice caps, and mountain ranges with snow on them. *sigh* Planet would look so beautiful...

Mo posted 03-04-99 07:43 PM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for Mo    
If you tried and changed the map into a sphere you could no longer move units with the keyboard because you would have to use hexagons or something like that. And when is the last time you saw an army moving through antartica or the north pole. Have you tried to flatten out a sphere on which you could play realisticaly? And unless this one missing feature ruins the whole game for you why are you arguing so much, your point has been made.
Q Cubed posted 03-04-99 10:28 PM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for Q Cubed  Click Here to Email Q Cubed     
Against my better judgement, I'm here on the Game forums.

a) Not all of us old-timers are zealots. I have no psi-blades, nor am I willing to give my life for Chiron. however, I really am tired of all of these people, including you, Darkheart, who are PMSsing over SMAC not being "realistic" enough. It's a game. Deal with it. If you're going to complain about it, go right ahead. I just wish the lot of you would be polite about it, have some semblance of respect, and not go shooting off your mouths and attacking/insulting the makers, the "zealots" and such.

This goes for you defenders, as well.

b) Firaxis could have implemented that. They didn't. Not because they were stupid, not because they thought we were stupid, and not because they didn't give a hoot, but because they simply thought that it would break the game.

c) The game, and the information on the planet, are works of FICTION. FICTION is almost never REAL. if you want REAL stuff, go experience it yourself. Board one of the landing pods, and see how long you'll stay in power with flagging morale, alien environmental problems, hazardous lifestyles, and your own friends trying to kill you over some theological or ideological point. As for the "cr*p" about the planet in the manual: what...did you think it wouldn't be "cr*p"? Firaxis researched this deeply, but in the end, their best guess about the planet is no more as correct or logical as your best guess. There's even some doubt to whether a planet could form in the AC system. So, most people have a willing suspension of disbelief...they realize it's a game, and if they find that it's fun, they go on with it.

d) Really...you're all insulting each other like six-year-olds who want to be talk show hosts: "You're an idiot if you don't agree with me!" - which is what a lot of your character assassinations boil down to you. Step back, and try to be more reasoning...

e) Some of you may think i'm a zealot, even though I'm not, simply because I would rather enjoy the game than argue some point which cannot be corrected; Read my words: Yes, I know the game has flaws in it. So do almost every other great game: Civ2 - moronic AI; Civ1 - engine was awful, AI was awful; X-COM - stupid AI; Populous(the Original, which I have) - interface takes a lot of getting used to; Populous Beginning - 3D world appears too small for actually playing. (Is that realistic?); SC2K - Llamas being worshipped; weak water distribution engine; Poor disaster damage engine;
If these flaws bother you that much, return the game and go by yourself something else.

Imran Siddiqui posted 03-04-99 10:39 PM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for Imran Siddiqui  Click Here to Email Imran Siddiqui     
Hmm, I'm suprised that no one mentioned that perhaps it wasn't instituted because it is better for gameplay! Maybe going around the poles aren't good for gameplay. Until you have a sphere map (and not a flat one) you won't get what you want (I'm betting CTP won't include it either).

Imran Siddiqui

Vger posted 03-04-99 11:09 PM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for Vger  Click Here to Email Vger     
Geez,

This is an exceptionally silly thread and should die a painful and lingering death. If it was a lawsuit it should be thrown out of court as frivolous. A waste of electrons.


Why ask why?
V'ger gone

martintravel posted 03-05-99 12:15 AM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for martintravel    
Darkheart, depending on your understanding of cartography you are completely wrong (therefore silly) or completely right (therefore insightful).

As everyone has tried to explain; usual map projections represent the poles as the line at the top and bottom of a flat page. You can not go past this point without turning around. This is exactly how the game is played; you go to the bottom of the screen and then have to turn around.

However, if the projection had a pole in the centre of the page, the opposite pole would be represented by all four boundaries of the flat page, hence you could, as you so desperately want, move from any edge to the opposite edge in one move.

So it is a question of map projection types.

It doesn't make a jot of difference to the game play as all players are working within the same environment, which is the most typical projection.

(There are better ways of sneaking up on other players than jumping out from the edge of the map!)

Glak posted 03-05-99 01:00 AM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for Glak  Click Here to Email Glak     
Darkheart you are wrong, not just by a little either. Everyone has been so polite trying to explain it to you. Since you don't seem to get it I'll be blunt: A sphere cannot be used, it is that simple.

I started up writing reasons why it couldn't be done but then I just got sick and deleted them. There is no point arguing any more. Enough people have given you good reasons, and you only need one reason. I don't think that anyone should waste anymore time on this worthless thread.

If you really wanted people to agree with you then you should have started off telling everyone how your idea might work, not blaming firaxis for not using it. Then people could point out the flaws and maybe they would come up with ways to fix them.

Instead you talk about ovals and other crazy things. It never seems to occur to you that flat maps of round things are always, by definition, inaccutrate thus you come to the discussion without the ability to understand arguments against your idea.

Please do not reply, I want this discussion to end.

Gee posted 03-05-99 02:12 AM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for Gee  Click Here to Email Gee     
Darkheart.
You should show some class. Where do you get off calling anyone stupid, dumb, lazy. Have you ever written a game the size of SMAC?
I admit your argument has merit but you don't have to be a jerk! The people who made this game are just that PEOPLE just like you and they deserve the courtesy of being treated as such. I'll bet a million bucks that you wouldnt be so brave and call Sid stupid or dumb to his face!

You have your opinion about this game and i accept that but it would be appreciated if you were more civilized upon expressing it.
thanks.

Krikkit One posted 03-05-99 02:39 AM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for Krikkit One  Click Here to Email Krikkit One     
OH goody a dead horse! WHACK WHACK WHACK

Anyways, my thoughts
1) yes it is unrealistic

2) they meant it that way

3) because this is probably the most realistic map one can make out of squares.

4) In my opinion it is also the Most realistic part of the game (forced ignorance of the poles is nothing compared to all the other approximations in the game)

5) In my opinion it is also the thing which making more realisic would have the least effect on fun (the only advantage I can see is the ability to found a city on the actual N/S pole instead of near it)

6) PS There is a way to go from the N to the south pole. 1-Go North,2-When you get to the pole move east/West until you are north of the path you want, 3-Go south, reitterate, because this is what one does in real life except that in this case it takes movement points to turn around.

In any case, when they make the next version of the Civ line,I hope that they make other features more realistic beforeworrying about something as minimal to overall realism and gameplay as poles, (obviously Darkheart disagrees but that is his right)

Zoetrope posted 03-05-99 03:49 AM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for Zoetrope  Click Here to Email Zoetrope     
A perspective view of a sphere would be good.
Zoom could raise or lower the altitude of the
view (horizons, as someone mentioned).

Continuous movement would solve the question about how to map the squares or hexes onto a sphere, by hiding the distortions inside the
rounding error of the computer.

But then the Replay would only show most of
one hemisphere.

The Empire family of games (and my old favorite Diplomacy) have traditionally been
played on flat maps, because they began as
board games. Civ and SMAC have continued that
tradition, because it suits strategy games.

Whereas Darkheart and company wish that they
could play xbattle on xearth, but with
better unit graphics and without the world
spinning. That's fine, and I'd also like to,
but the only way I can see us getting that
dream game is for one of its enthusiasts to
write it.

Presumably, DH, you have a grudge against
MOO1, MOO2, BOTF, SE3, etc, etc, because
they're played in two dimensions, but space
is obviously three dimensional. (For that
matter, why do all aircraft in Civ and SMAC
fly at ground level?)

There are 3-D space empire games, such as
Universe which I'm following the development
of, but one must ask why are these still in
the minority?

The issue for both spherical maps and 3-D
galaxies is not technology but human
perception. A rotatable 3-D starmap was
tried in Microprose's Star Trek: A Final Unity. Personally I loved it, but most
people can't relate to the very realism of it
because they're so used to flat maps.

If aircraft in SMAC flew at different
altitudes, over cities, ground units, ships,
and other planes, then everyone would
complain that they couldn't see what was
going on underneath the planes, and that it
was too complicated changing the altitude of
a fighter to attack an incoming bomber.

And if the map were a sphere, then there'd be
complaints that the whole world map wasn't
available.

If movements were continuous, the complaint
would be: `Where did the simplicity of
discrete moves go? Now the game's turned
into hunt-the-pixel!'

As Sid and a zillion other people have said,
a game's meant to be fun. Indeed, pursuing
the Moby Dick of obsessive realism can lead
to the quick demise of the Captain Ahab of
enjoyment of the game.

In the Universe discussions, I'm on the side
of strict realism (wherever feasible), but
one has to recognise that the other side of
the debate has a very reasonable view when
they say that non-core issues must be
simplified if a game is to be fun.

Moreover, insults are no argument.

Horus posted 03-05-99 10:34 AM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for Horus  Click Here to Email Horus     
Darkheart,

I believe you readily admitted that changing the map into a globe would probably change the whole process of the game, since it would be one of the earlier decisions made (if I am wrong about this please correct me). Basically Alpha Centauri would have been a completely different game if that one decision had been made.

In another thread, there was discussion over the tiles. If you went with a globe, I would argue tiles would probably have to be eliminated altogether. The city resource scheme would probably have to be redone. In fact the game would probably have to be converted into some sort of quasi realtime game.

I also think that this would be do-able. It would have probably taken more time due to the fact that they would pretty much be changing the entire engine and interface. But the biggest effect it would have, is that it would not be any kind of successor to Civilization (which I belive you mentioned in you initial post). I think Sid and Brian made conscious effort to court Civ veterans. I think these changes would have alienated quite a few of them. Plus, you also have to think how buggy and counterintuitive a completely new engine would be. And lastly, I think the ability to see the whole map simultaneously is a necessity in a game like this.

There is a saying: "If it ain't broke; don't fix it." I know you do think this is a broken aspect of the game. But from all the heated responses (and my own opinion) I don't think it is. I think this is something that was concsiously chosen because the ramifications of changing it could change the game into something completely unfilimiar to its fan base and something that would have a greater chance to fail.

Personally, I would kind of like to see an empire game built on a globe with the complexity of a Civ or a SMAC. It's something to look to the future for.

Zoetrope: Dimplomacy! I miss playing that game. Also, Ascendency made a really cool and fairly intuive 3d space map (both tactical and strategic) but then made really bad abstract planet maps. The game was mixed bag but there were some very well done aspects to it.

slimylawyertype posted 03-06-99 06:34 PM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for slimylawyertype  Click Here to Email slimylawyertype     
Just a not-so-quick thought (even though I'm about post 4,000,000 in this thread):

If you're really concerned about realism, ask this question: Why are distances for air units the same as distances for land units? Same question for subs.

Here's the point: flying 1,000 miles on Planet Earth doesn't actually take you 1,000 miles.

Draw a circle with a 6" diameter on a piece of paper (how lo-tech!). Then draw a 1" straight line directly perpendicular to the arc of the circle at one point. Then draw a circle. The first thing you should notice is that the new circle has a diameter significantly larger than 6" (actually, 8").

Now draw a 2" line along the arc described by the 8" circle (i.e. not parallel to the circle, but measured along the circle).

Now draw a line perpendicular to the 6" circle to the end of your 2" arc on the 8" circle. (For those geometry geeks like me, you've just described a section of the circle.)

Now, what you should notice is that, on the 6" circle, the arc described by the section is significantly smaller than 2".

What I've just shown is that, if you describe an air unit as having 3 moves per turn, the actual distance covered on a spherical earth would depend on factors such as:
1) the altitude of the air unit
2) the altitude of the base from which it took off
3) the altitude of the target area
4) you get my point.

(By the way, exactly the same point works for the sub units, just in reverse.)

I went through this elaborate process to show you that the decision to make the earth a sphere would have *much* more far-reaching ramifications than simply being able to cross over the poles. As it stands, SMAC works well because you know how far your air unit will go without having any concern for any of those factors. Since I'd rather not have to file flight plans for each of my air units, I don't think this is a bad tradeoff. You may disagree. If so, then go program another game. If not, then play this one.

Rasputin posted 03-08-99 04:14 PM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for Rasputin    
The game was designed much like a board game; this works fine. However, it does introduce an unrealistic bit to the globe. Consider how the U.S. built nuclear missile detection sites in Canada 40 years back or so: It was the shortest path for Soviet missiles to take to reach American cities! However, this is a game, and a flat world map is a game mechanic, and there are many ways to explain why air or land units cannot traverse the poles.
FalconQ posted 03-08-99 05:33 PM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for FalconQ  Click Here to Email FalconQ     
Look, Get it into your head, If you go north, you don't appear on Antartica, HOW IS THAT MORE REALISTIC??? And why do you people focus on little trivial things that have little to do with game-play. I mean does it reall matter? Fine, be that way, but you are NOT going to get the rest of us protesting in front of Fraxis wearing T-shirts with pointless slogans on them. WHO CARES???
Shining1 posted 03-08-99 09:05 PM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for Shining1  Click Here to Email Shining1     
Umm, SLT, you've mangled the scale of you geometry somewhat. Air units don't travel much further than ground units. Even at 10km, which is a common altitude for most air travel, the extra distance is only around .01% (10km/6000km *100%)

In effect, your two circles are the same size.

It's a small world?

Mortis posted 03-13-99 05:20 AM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for Mortis  Click Here to Email Mortis     
We had the exact same discusion (minus the inmmature insults) a few months back. The made it a flat 2D map and their not going to change it now, so it's useless to be whining about it. I think they made the right chioce and that anything esle would male the already compex game even more complicated.

And for those who keep crapping on about SMAC no being realistic... If you want realism the go play a sim. TBS was never meant to be 100% realistic. And until I see "Jane's Alpha Centauri" on the shelf, this is as realistic as your going to get.

phoenix116 posted 03-14-99 02:26 AM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for phoenix116  Click Here to Email phoenix116     
To everyon who has been folowing this post,

Well, I would like to start off by saying that I think SMAC works just fine the way it is right now, and does not need to be changed. It is actually one of my all time favorites, and I am not bashing it at all. I just want to put in my thoughts on this complaint.

Responding to Darkheart's complaint,

After reading Darkheat's complaint I thought he had a point. Now, I agree with people like KJohnstone when they say that it is imposible to move into the north pole, and come out on the south pole. But, I also think that there may be the posibility for change in the movement at the top of the map. For example if you visulize a top down view of the north pole, you see how the north pole is in the center, and the land and ocean can be seen until the equator. Now, if you have a unit at the equator, and a unit on the north pole, lined up on the same latitude, and they start out traveling at the same speed the unit at the nort pole will get around the Earth much faster than the one at the equator.
A simple solution to this complaint could be to allow the units at the top or bottom of the map to move farther than the units at the equator. For example a colony pod at the equator moves one square a turn, whereas a colony pod on the ice caps moves 3 or 4 spaces a turn.
Just seems like a simplier solution that making a 3D model of the planet.
Anyways, just wanted to throw in my thoughts on the subject.

Phoenix

Silt posted 03-14-99 03:40 AM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for Silt  Click Here to Email Silt     
I find it amazing that there are so many people on the internet today that have nothing better to do than to come up with some lame reason to put something down. There's not a single game made that you couldn't find some type of fault with. Inside of trying to find faults, why don't you just play the blasted game and have some fun. Geez, next you'll be saying how fake this game is because there is no way we can travel to other planets and colonize them.

Silt

yin26 posted 03-14-99 04:40 AM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for yin26  Click Here to Email yin26     
Silt--

If the world were run by people as intellectually demanding as you, we'd still be playing Pong--and you'd tell us all to shut up because we think it would be nice if the little block (a.k.a. ball) actually looked round.

"C'mon--Can't you guys just accept that it's a ball! Just have fun. Geez!"

I am stunned at the number of people on the Internet who seem to be encountering criticism for the first time in their lives.

Criticism is what got us this far. And criticism is only way to get this SMACtastrophy on the right track again.

Silt posted 03-14-99 02:21 PM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for Silt  Click Here to Email Silt     
Yin26:

You opinion matters zero to me. The first 10 or so of your posts I read when I first came to this board were flames or insults of some kind. You're just like the great majority of users on the internet. You use the anonymity the net gives you to be an @ss. Too bad this forum doesn't have a filter...

Silt

Q Cubed posted 03-14-99 04:16 PM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for Q Cubed  Click Here to Email Q Cubed     
yin, silt: both of you, grow up.

silt: Yes, people should be intellectually demanding. Intellectual integrity is one of the things that moves a society forward.

your point is somewhat valid; but accept the fact that criticism, when constructive, benefits us all.

also: the notion that it's unrealistic because of the colonization method: it's already been mentioned.
======
yin: No, people should not be intellectually demanding in your manner. Your definition of being intellectually demanding is insulting, demeaning, and destroying everything that is not a realistic model nor a viable creation of the world. This means that all of the games you are possibly enjoying now are pieces of crap that are so unrealistic, that nobody should ever play them. MechWarrior 2, which many thought was an excellent game, isn't realistic because, even though it simulates many things that could possibly happen, the PPCs wouldn't work because of the Heisenberg principle. The Lasers wouldn't be visible at all. Civ2 wasn't realistic, nor historically accurate. The tech tree system is flawed, because nobody in real life discovers things in such a manner. discoveries take a period of time, and during this period of time, advances are made; who's to say when the discovery actually takes place? especially with things like Literacy and Mathematics.
If people WERE that intellectually demanding, we'd all thing quoting 700-line passages from Shakespeare was entertainment.

I forgot...we wouldn't HAVE Shakespeare. He's too flowery in his language, and his situations can't happen in real life.
We wouldn't have art, nor would we have an entertainment industry.

finally: you could have made your point without insulting silt.

tfs99 posted 03-14-99 11:47 PM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for tfs99  Click Here to Email tfs99     
For Yin26 -- actually for you, criticism seems to be the only way for the *critic* to get any self-satisfaction and attention.

Artists, game designers and implementers normally welcome criticism as a means to improve their future work. But this constant and repetitive yammering. Aieee! It constitutes harassment more than it does criticism.

And if the game was so easy to alter after the fact to add features and, yes, bug fixes, don't you think that effort would already be done by now?

I'm going to do my best to enjoy what I have now, point out something that hasn't been harped on a few hundred times and hope that improvements will be made in the future. There is no guarantee of this, nor do I expect a guarantee.

I would like improvements and I expect they are forthcoming. But it takes time, energy and resources to accomplish this. Not the harassment, discouragement and disdain that you heap on them.

Actually, you have become such a characiture (sp?) of yourself that maybe they get a laugh or two from your posts in the Development meetings at Firaxis.

So I take back what I said. Keep up the blather so that we all can start to find humor in your acid tipped tongue.

Shining1 posted 03-15-99 01:42 AM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for Shining1  Click Here to Email Shining1     
Q^3: On an almost totally unrelated point, can I ask why the Heisenburg principle prevents the PPC's from working? And why the lasers would be invisible. If you've ever seen a real high energy laser, you'll know that it's quite visible, no matter what angle you view it from.

Not that I agree with Silt, whose dull witted sycophancy ("nothing is perfect, therefore nothing should be criticised") makes itself irrelevant without needing any reply.

tfs99: Good call .

Biddles posted 03-15-99 01:51 AM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for Biddles  Click Here to Email Biddles     
A spherical map, like in XCOM, would be a great idea, except for one thing >>>

>>> Think of the computational power required to map sphere (as compared to the cylinder-rectangle mix currently used) with the weather generation still in place. Even the basic mathematical formula for the surface area of a sphere is a hell of a lot more complicated compared to the ones for cylinders and rectangles.
On top of that, the entire hex based system would be thrown out the window. You cant replace it with a series of pentagons and hexagons for two reasons;
1) The only way to move would be using the mouse, as the number pad doesn't have 10 to 12 keys, and
2) It's just plain stupid to have different shaped hex "squares".

Also a more complex weather generation system would have to be written, taking into account polar temperatures, which in turn would affect ocean currents, which in turn would affect nutrient distribution and tidal harness efiiciency, which in turn ...... well you get the message.

Bring the idea up when the following things happen;
1) We create personal computers that can handle this type of processing
(Optical Computers: D3)
2) We discover a system that can move the units without wasting time a t the mouse
(Mind/Machine Interface: C6)

-Biddles

(P.S. I am not criticizing Darkheart here, just stating reasons why it wouldn't work.)

yin26 posted 03-15-99 02:06 AM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for yin26  Click Here to Email yin26     
Q-Cubed,

I always loved the "Grow Up" line.

"Grow up because I'm superior."

Just say it. It's O.K. You'll feel better. Here, watch me:

We all (well except for a few total idiots) want a better game. Some make teeny tiny hints because they are afraid of Brian. Some throw every statistic they can get their hands on at the forum and hope the math tells the truth. Some just accept the problems and would love to talk about anything else but the problems. Others say the game should be warezed because it's that bad in their opinion. Still others, like me, I guess, criticize more than they should. They piss people off with their opinionated style. For the record, I do not think I'm superior to anybody on this board. But, let's face it, Firaxis just drop the ball on this game. Is it a good game? Yes. Is it great. Not even close. Now, if all it took were a bunch of very vocal gamers to let Firaxis know that it can't just give us an O.K. game and go on to the next project, don't you think it's worth it?

Anyway, whatever you think, just sit back, relax, read the posts or don't. Flame me or don't. It's just a conversation--so pull up a chair and give us your two cents (which is about all your comments are worth--see, now, that was a joke )

MrSparkle posted 03-15-99 03:52 AM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for MrSparkle  Click Here to Email MrSparkle     
Hey hey hey!

That'll be just about enough denouncing of XCom outta youse!

Lifebane posted 03-15-99 02:54 PM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for Lifebane  Click Here to Email Lifebane     
Darkheart,
Due to the fact that you're SUCH a frigging pessimist and can't possibly come up with a constructive solution, I'll take a stab at it for you.

All that would be necessary, in the short term, is to first make the statement, "The north and south poles are uninhabitable." Then, when the player attempts to move upward, into the black (uninhabitable) void, they are placed at a point relative to the exact opposite of their position, yet still on the top of the map. This would require an airborne craft due to the fact that the north/south poles have volitile and dangerous crevaces, which would consume any land based travellers. For example, if the world grid was 100 squares wide, and the aircraft was at say square 25, then when he enters the void, a confirmation would appear, "This action will require 10 movement points to complete." If confirmed, after the equivalent turns of 10 movement points, the ship would appear at square 75.

Simple solution?
Jack Harmon

Spoe posted 03-15-99 08:38 PM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for Spoe  Click Here to Email Spoe     
"On an almost totally unrelated point, can I ask why the Heisenburg principle prevents the PPC's from working? And why the lasers would be invisible. If you've ever seen a real high energy laser, you'll know that it's quite visible, no matter what angle you view it from."
Especially considering that a battlefield is dusty, smoky, etc. The laser beams would be quite visible(assuming they aren't using x-ray or infrared lasers...).
I also doubt that the PPC would not work due to Heisenberg's principle. ISTR reading in Physics New Update that physicists have created a coherent beam of electrons analogous to a laser. If it did prevent PPCs from working, it would also prevent CRTs from working(after all, the image is drawn by a tightly controlled beam of particles).

----
Back to the map bit.
My guess(and it is only a guess), is that a flat map was chosen:
a) Because it lends itself to a flat display in a more readily understandable format than does any projection of a sphere that accounts for the poles.
b) Because it's easier to program. It allowed the programmers to focus on the other game mechanics.
c) Because it's the accepted standard for this type of game. I'm not saying that this means a game of this type on a spherical map should never be done. I'm saying that given the timeframe the Firaxis team had to work in they had to choose which features to implement. Basically, IMHO, they could either have done Civ 2 on a spherical map(i.e. putting all their effort into changing the map) or they could do a new game on a flat map(i.e. putting all their effort into advancing the rules of the game).

In summary, while I understand your point, Darkheart, it is not so much a problem with the game as a tradeoff of features.

Q Cubed posted 03-15-99 09:47 PM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for Q Cubed  Click Here to Email Q Cubed     
PPCs, according to the game, are large spherical groups of baryon particles. keeping these particle inside of this sphere, while keeping them at a constant temperature and direction, is in violation of the Heisenberg principle. You can know which direction the ball is traveling, but you can't know where it is. Therefore, you can shoot it off, but you have no idea whether or not if the particles in the ball will ever actually hit and do damage.

As for high-energy lasers. they aren't visible unless you're looking at them straight on or in a dusty room. why? because lasers are coherent beams of energy, and for you to see them, the beams would have to be going every which way.
the dusty battlefield? yes, that might account for it. but that would mean there would be places in the beam where you wouldn't see it at all.

and yin: my comments aren't worth 2 cents. they're worth 200 won, thank you very much.
yes, maybe that did sound a bit wrong. what i meant was that you two seem to be going about it like, how shall we put this, six year olds with some spat. "I'm right, you're wrong, Nyah-nyah" not necessarily you, i'll admit, because you've improved a lot from your initial posts (which i thought were atrocious), but it seems as if that's all the criticism is on these forums nowadays.

yin26 posted 03-15-99 10:00 PM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for yin26  Click Here to Email yin26     
Q Cubed--

Is that 200 won after IMF or before? (Living here during that crash was NOT fun.)

See, I'm glad that you and I can agree to disagree sometimes. That's what these forums are for (in part, at least).

BTW, did I see your name on the D Club rosters? And when we were just becoming friends...

Q Cubed posted 03-15-99 10:19 PM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for Q Cubed  Click Here to Email Q Cubed     
yin-
yes, i'm on the D club rosters.

but that's because the D club is an offshoot of my favorite bar, the I club.
care for a Pholus Mutagen? it glows.

hope we're still friends.

as for the IMF, yeah, i hated it too.
all ofmy pocket money went down the drain. (ugghh...)
and dollars are just so green.
anyway, the W200 would be after, i'd say, if i did my math well.

i like these smilies.

Shining1 posted 03-15-99 11:07 PM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for Shining1  Click Here to Email Shining1     
Q^3: Have ever actually seen a decent laser running full bore. I assure you, in normal, indoor atmospheric conditions, you can clearly see a beam just from the tiny amounts of dust in the air. No matter how well focus your laser, in atmospheric conditions you will still get scattering from the dust.

As for Hadrons, these are particles which can be quite happily held and fired, being composed of quarks and such. When composed into large spherical groups, they become atoms, unless I'm really way off beam (I don't think I am).

You basically only require Newtonian mechanics (i.e not relativistic, and certainly not quantum) at these kinds of masses, and so certainly don't require a knowledge of quantum mechanics in any great depth. Basically, unless you're a philosopher, you only apply Heisenburg to particles of electron size and below.

Furthermore, Heisenburg only sets an absolute limit on the accuracy of any measurement (which is very small, BTW). Which means you can get both position and momentum quite nicely down to very good accuracies for big particles, like protons.

yin26 posted 03-15-99 11:12 PM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for yin26  Click Here to Email yin26     
Q-Cubed,

I'm sorry I ever hated you .

I left you question about the North Koreans on the "Yin" thread. Let me know what you think.

Spoe posted 03-15-99 11:22 PM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for Spoe  Click Here to Email Spoe     
Q^3:
Let's look at this a little more closely.

First, let's define a cylindrical coordinate system. x will be along the axis of the cylinder, r is the distance from the axis. We can ignore the angle from vertical for our purposes.

Assume you are firing protons at, say, 0.5c.

Now, the main uncertainty in velocity we would be concerned with is radial, as minor differences in arrival time are unimportant.
With:
delta r * delta rho = hbar
(rho is momentum)
Let's assume a small uncertainty of 1 nm.
delta rho = hbar / 1 nm = 1.05*10^-25 kg*m/s
Divide this by the mass of a proton to get velocity:
1.05*10^-25 kg*m/s / 1.66*10^-26 kg = 63.5 m/s
This is exceedingly tiny compared to the velocity along x.


As far as the high power lasers, I'll attest that you can indeed see the beam, even in relatively clean rooms. Another factor is humidity in the air.

Spoe posted 03-15-99 11:59 PM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for Spoe  Click Here to Email Spoe     
Meant to also point out that you'll probably get more beam spreading from electromagentic repulsion between the particles that the uncertainty principle.
426hemi posted 03-16-99 10:49 AM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for 426hemi  Click Here to Email 426hemi     
The point of SMAC is that it is accessible to those without an understanding of planetary dynamics as well as those of you with degrees in astrophysics. Sure, they could have made Planet a sphere, but imagine how confusing new players would find it. SMAC aims to blend realism with accessibility, but naturally accessibility supercedes realism, as the most realistic game ever would be a waste of time if no one could understand how to play the darn thing.. : )

Will J

4Horses posted 03-16-99 11:37 AM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for 4Horses  Click Here to Email 4Horses     
Who cares?
SmartFart posted 03-16-99 08:27 PM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for SmartFart  Click Here to Email SmartFart     
what game you playing anyway?

you CAN cross the poles.just press 'up' key when you reach the top of the map.
if you've followed precised and detailed instruction written above and it still doesn't works try this:

a) buy a new set of keyboard
b) clean the old one
c) ask your dealer to replace that non-working-properly-game-of-yours
d) whatever

how can you be so sure that map isn't realistic?
did you ever been on alpha centauri?
or even on north pole earth?

i did.
there are some black triangles like this:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
and they prevent you to going any further.


CEO SmartFart

Shining1 posted 03-17-99 06:40 PM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for Shining1  Click Here to Email Shining1     
Hmmm. You could do a bug fix for the pole crossing thing quite easily, actually.

First of all, paint the poles white, i.e add some nice polar caps to the tile set. Next, ban naval units from crossing the poles. Require ground units to have a 'survival' special ability, and Air units to have an 'all weather flying' special ability - and missiles can always cross.

Next, charge the traveling air unit 6 movement points to complete its journey. Ground units take 3 turns regardless, and cannot be contacted to have their orders changed during this time, due to the weather conditions and planet's extreme electromagnetic interference. Units with drop pods can make the journey in one turn.

Now, the location. Moving straight up into the arctic region moves your unit halfway across the world, i.e they come out at the same latitude, but say 40 squares to the left on an 80 square map. +/- 3 squares. Moving left or right takes you quarter of the way around, about 20 squares +/- 2. Jump pods can be knocked off course, landing up to 2 squares either side of their destination.

So now you can cross the poles, launch missiles over the polar axis, etc. Just for a laugh, it might pay to also include the first ground unit to cross the poles as part of the timeline ('Gaian's cross Planet's north pole in 2204 - the first faction on planet!')

Arcane posted 03-17-99 06:55 PM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for Arcane    
Man this is just nit-picking. To correctly represent a world in 3D takes a lot of processor power. Keep in mind SMAC has occeans, cities, mountains. Representing all of this in 3D would be quite a tax on the system. Also of course the tiles would have to be hexes or something instead of squares.
As you may notice, most of the game with the exception of the units are not 3D. This would have to be changed, and our cities would look like icky polygons. Now perhaps the whole thing could have been done in 3D, and required a P2-400 with a Voodoo card. I still think it would die once you got a couple of dozen units into play (try it with your favorite 3D engine. Watch it slow to a crawl). As for the fellow who pointed out that his 386 could do it... You couldnt do it with detail and mountains and all the other cool stuff. So either you have a simplistic sphere, or a rich flat world. I'll take the later for now.
Shining1 posted 03-17-99 07:19 PM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for Shining1  Click Here to Email Shining1     
Nitpicking? Maybe, but those little bugs can be really annoying...
yin26 posted 03-17-99 07:31 PM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for yin26  Click Here to Email yin26     
Shiny,

[Mocking one of the recent salvos shot at me on another thread...]

"Boy, it sure sounds to me like you just want another game entirely. Listen, if you didn't play the demo or ask for personal e-mails from Jeff about the map BEFORE you bought the game, I really don't see what right you have to complain AFTER you bought the game. I mean, Caveat Emptor, right? Oh, and another thing, the map design IS NOT A BUG. It's design decision. If you take the time to understand the difference, I'm sure you'll be a happier person."

Wow. That was creepy. I'm never doing that again [insert face with absolutely no expression].

Polar Explorer,

Yin

Shining1 posted 03-17-99 11:24 PM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for Shining1  Click Here to Email Shining1     
Yin,

You're right. I feel kinda violated, having my (hopefully) rational argument subjected to such nonsense. Please don't do that again.

Shiny

HolyWarrior posted 03-18-99 02:25 AM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for HolyWarrior  Click Here to Email HolyWarrior     
So you want a 3D globe, Darkheart? It's been done. There was a game called Destiny, put out by Interactive Magic. It was a civ-type game with real combat on a 3D globe.
Guess what? It was total crap!
The best thing about the game was the uninstall feature and that I only paid $15 for it in the bargain bin.
3D globes aren't everything, Darkheart.
TBox posted 03-19-99 07:09 PM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for TBox  Click Here to Email TBox     
First, Darkheart's last post was the 4th of March, people.

Second, I agree, it ISN'T a bug. It's a feature.

Third, the real point of posting to the thread that really should die, but can't:

Spoe's post on uncertainty and velocity.
1nm!?! I dunno what YOU are shooting at, but according to MY rulebook, mechs are roughly 12m tall. . .now my technical readouts are at home, and I'm at college, so I don't have any horizontal dimensions "on hand," but 4m seems like a safe bet. (Personally I'd use 6m, but that seems a bit squat) It seems to me we could go with a radial uncertainty of up to 25cm, maybe 10cm for a top-of-the-line model, and still get incredible accuracy, especially for the ranges we're shooting at. . .which of course allows for a MUCH greater accuracy in momentum, in all directions.

Visions of probability cones projected by battle scanners from ppc ports. . .

And, finally, I've never seen a high-powered laser go full bore, and am willing to accept that they would be visible in typical atmospheric conditions. But, beyond mechwarrior, how about in space?

Spoe posted 03-19-99 07:58 PM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for Spoe  Click Here to Email Spoe     
I intended to overestimate the precision to maximize the uncertainty in velocity, to enhance the point. Basically, the uncertainty in radial position would be proportional to the bore of the PPC, not the size of the target.
samal posted 03-19-99 08:49 PM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for samal  Click Here to Email samal     
If you have a spherical, or a four part flat globe you would have to constantly flip to see, or go to certain areas. The usefullness of a flat map overcomes any realistic problems.
Logen posted 03-19-99 11:24 PM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for Logen  Click Here to Email Logen     
I think Populous' new game handles the problem very well. There is a globe, and you can zoom out and see it spin, or stay xoomed in and think your scrolling the map. The worlds are much smaller though.
Shining1 posted 03-20-99 09:57 PM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for Shining1  Click Here to Email Shining1     
TBox: Lasers in Space? Well, you're correct that they don't get seen normal. But they have other problems, in that any beam of light will spread out over distance - especially astronomical distances. The spread of a small (<< 1m diameter) laser beam from the earth to the moon was about 3 kilometres - over a distance of only 450 000km. Not very useful for your average instellar conflict, unless you use it to highlight your target.

This is where the idea of 'singularity lasers' comes from, i.e using a very heavy mass to focus the light into a coherent beam. I don't know if you can do this, however, there seems to be some problem with photon-photon interactions that crops up at high densities - one of the reasons we aren't using optical computers yet!

Krushala posted 09-06-99 08:20 PM ET     Click Here to See the Profile for Krushala  Click Here to Email Krushala     
never thought of this

Thread ClosedTo close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.