aka_tom_w
-
Posts
8,130 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by aka_tom_w
-
-
I KNOW there are some folks here who are very talented at taunting and trash talking during online games and seemingly 24/7 in online posts in the various Peng Challenge Threads.
It should not be all that hard to capture some of their "abuse" (or entertaining "patter") and load it into the game for the AI to spew forth for fun and for entertainment.
And of course this idea will never fly, but it won't only be tolerable if the player could toggle it off (of course
)
-tom w
[ January 26, 2006, 09:20 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]
-
Tarquelne
Member
Member # 8422
Now, how about a "trash talk" window where auto-generated barbs from the computer opponent appear? I figure something with an 80's gangsta rapper vibe. You guys want to be on the forefront of wargame design, am I right?
Tom W replies:
Oh Yeah! ROTFL
Thats a good one!
"auto-generated barbs from the computer opponent appear? "
No no, I want to hear them live in real time from the AI and the computer Taunting you and trashing talking its way to AI glory and AI computer victory!!!! LOL!
Oh yes.....
PLEASE let the AI taunt players who are losing badly!! (or just losing)
yes
yes I can see it now
Real live audio files (a good variety of them may be extracted directly from the Peng Threads (lots of Material there!) if I am not mistaken) that speak to the player trash talking and taunting!
Who here would NOT volunteer to record trash talking, taunting sayings for the AI to "speak"/bark to the player when triggered by obvious bone head moves!! (or JUST bad luck).
This is such a GREAT feature I can't believe it has only come up now SO LATE into the development cycle..
This idea has SO much potential it really deserves its very own thread! ...... really,
LOL
One possible example: (please submit more I am sure there are FAR more creative "taunters" out there than myself!)
AI to the player:
"Hey LOSER!... WHAT!?!? :eek: ... you didn't think I would see that column of Strikers on my left flank!? Mu HA Ha ha.... See they are all in flames now, bet you can't guess what smoked them!/brewed them up!?."
(or something)
-tom w
[ January 26, 2006, 09:19 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]
-
Oh Yeah! ROTFL
Thats a good one!
"auto-generated barbs from the computer opponent appear? "
No no, I want to hear them live in real time from the AI and the computer Taunting you and trashing talking its way to AI glory and AI computer victory!!!! LOL!
Oh yes.....
PLEASE let the AI taunt players who are losing badly!! (or just losing)
yes
yes I can see it now
Real live audio files (a good variety of them may be extracted directly from the Peng Threads (lots of Material there!) if I am not mistaken) that speak to the player trash talking and taunting!
Who here would NOT volunteer to record trash talking, taunting sayings for the AI to "speak"/bark to the player when triggered by obvious bone head moves!! (or JUST bad luck).
This is such a GREAT feature I can't believe it has only come up now SO LATE into the development cycle..
This idea has SO much potential it really deserves its very own thread! ...... really,
LOL
One possible example: (please submit more I am sure there are FAR more creative "taunters" out there than myself!)
AI to the player:
"Hey LOSER! WHAT?! you didn't think I would see that colomn of Strikers on my left flank!? See they are all in flames now, bet you can't guess what smoked them!/brewed them up!?."
(or something)
-tom w
[ January 25, 2006, 07:42 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]
-
Why is it that the only thing I can think of to add to this thread is:
"People who live in glass buildings shouldn't points their weapons."
Sorry
just being silly
carry on
-tom
-
WOW!!
Now all I want to know is when can I play it on the next Generation Intel Mac laptop?
I for one, am not underwhelmed.
-tom w
-
OKThe Editor in CMx2 is "holistic" unlike the Editor in CMx1. What I mean by that is you enter a single Editor interface that allows you to change *everything* about the scenario. This doesn't really improve core functionality, but it makes the whole editing experience a lot nicer to go through.
Does this mean the Map editor or map maker or terrain editor is in "The Editor" ?
How does this impact WHEN the player gets to see the map for the first time?
I am not sure I understand how the Terrain Editor can be in the Unit editor? (a very clever interface I suppose?) So I am left to wonder if in the Editor there is a button or selection or "window" for units in the OOB and the TO&E and then another button or window for the terrain editor. OR am I confused and there is infact two seperate programs? ONE for "The Editor" for units and another whole program or application or UI window for "The Terrain Editor" ?
:confused:
-tom w
-
Full-On Tech GEEK forum about with the latest news on windows boot problems with intel macs
First a word of caution. You can leave your system in a state where Mac OS X won't start up again. You can fix it by booting with the install CD (hold down C as you turn on your computer) then using the Start-up Disk utility).Now, on to the instructions.
1. Download the EFI Sample Implementation from Intel.
2. Unzip the file to /efi (or anywhere else, but /efi is what I'll be using)
3. In terminal do 'sudo bless --folder /efi --file /efi/Binary/BIOS32/Bin/GraphicsConsole.efi --setBoot'
4. Reboot your computer.
5. You'll get the familiar chime and gray screen, wait about 10 seconds then hit the spacebar.
6. You're now in EFI!
Let's head over to the shell...
1. Select Boot Maintenance Manager
2. Select Boot From File
3. Select the option that begins with "NO FILE SYSTEM INFO", this is your start-up volume
4. Navigate your way to /efi/Binary/BIOS32/SHELLBios32/Shell.efi
To get your machine booting Mac OS X again, you have a few options. Probably the easiest is to put the restore CD in the drive, and reboot while holding down C. Once in Installer, go to Utlities, Start-up Disk and select the System folder on your hard drive. Another way to boot back in to OS X from the EFI menu is to follow the same steps as for launching the shell, except navigate to /usr/standalone/i386/boot.efi. Once back in OS X, change your start-up disk back to the system folder on your hard drive using system preferences.
Important system recovery instructions: Thanks to a commentor and Dave Schroeder's testing, I am able to give you this information for restoring your iMac should it refuse to power on. Unplug your iMac and wait 10 seconds. Hold down the power button as you plug it back in. You should now be able to boot from the restore DVD.
-
since when are old Board Game, wargamers that used to play ASL and spend more time argueing about the rules than playing the game... "sane persons" ?? :confused:
-tom w
Originally posted by Battlefront.com:I figured someone would pick on that
Remember that I was speaking of more than just CM:SF. Currently the game is capable of handling many battalions on a single side. It's just you'd need a computer that doesn't exist to play it on, and more patience than any sane person has.Steve
-
Battlefront.com
Administrator
Member # 42
posted January 14, 2006 07:50 PM
This new development is great! CM:SF is slated to run on OSX regardless of the chip set, but now we are more sure that we can make something that will run equally well on PowerPC and Intel chips. We were holding off from starting on a MacOS version until we were reasonably sure that Apple wasn't going to deal us another last minute "gotcha" like they did with RAVE support under OSX.
Unfortunately, due to problems with compilers on the Mac and the uncertainty of the new Intel Macs, we held off making anything for OSX thus far. Because of where we are in development we aren't going to stop and port to the Mac right now. What we will instead do is continue to make the game and then evaluate our porting options when it is nearly finished. It might mean no simultaneous release. We don't know yet. But a release for MacOS is certain to happen no matter what. Worst case a few months after the PC version.
Steve
-
MacWorld news page on Mac games and mac game development from MacWorld SF 2006
Other news:The Elephant in the Room:Taking the long-term view, once Windows Vista is released, will dual-boot Macs doom the development of Mac games? After all, what’s to make a game publisher support the Mac if they can just sell them a Windows game instead?
This doesn’t seem to be an overwhelming concern for many of the Mac game developers with whom I spoke last week. They certainly recognize that some “hardcore” gamers may indeed create dual-boot systems (something they can’t, as I understand it, do easily today thanks to Apple’s use of Extensible Firmware Architecture, or EFI, in place of the BIOS that Windows XP expects).
But people who identify themselves as “gamers” make up a relatively small percentage of the overall Mac-using population. By comparison, if you ask the average Mac user if he plays games, you’ll more likely get an affirmative response.
Game developers and publishers understand this, and we’re seeing fewer and fewer “hardcore” Mac games with each passing year. More and more of those folks have defected to video game consoles from both the Mac and the PC, or are building (or buying) PC systems to run the games they want to play.
Instead, we’re seeing more games like Zoo Tycoon 2 and The Sims 2, which are more likely to appeal to a broad base of gamers, as well as a massive expansion in the number of casual games that we can all play between meetings, on commutes, or when we have a few spare minutes.
The market evolves
An informal count shows that in 2005, more than 100 game titles shipped for the Mac that incorporated 3D graphics acceleration — a new record. Interestingly, though, the number of games that emerged as “A” or “AAA” titles — a loose definition applied to major, commercial releases — dwindled from more than 50 in 2004 to less than 30 in 2005.
This is indicative of a continued shift in the marketplace. Major game publishers simply can’t afford to port a lot of games to the Macintosh every year — certainly not in the volume they have in years past. People aren’t buying them in large enough quantities to justify further expansion of development teams and marketing and licensing efforts.
The good news is that original Mac game development, and parallel development with Windows and console games, is a continuing trend that shows no signs of abating any time soon, with more tools to aid developers in creating multi-platform games being released and updated continuously.
Aspyr Media led the way with an early announcement that it is porting Call of Duty 2 to the Mac. This is a hotly anticipated World War II-era first person shooter that’s sold like gangbusters since it was introduced with Microsoft’s new Xbox 360 game console. The Mac version isn’t expected out until Spring, but it will ship as a Universal Binary, which means that it’ll run natively on PowerPC or Intel-based Macs. Aspyr has similar plans for its already-announced Mac conversions of Quake IV and Civilization IV. -
that is sort of sad
I think we should leave Scientology completely out of this thread
Sure John and I have posted about some controversial issues and YES none of it is clearly within the realm of "proven science" but at no point did any one talk about paying money for "enlightment" or spiritual "wisdom" as in the (crooked) case of those theives from the Scientology cult.
(I better watch out now, I know that they are after me because on the internet you can't say anything bad or disrespectful about the "religion" of Scientology or they will come after you, its true look it up and do a search of Scientology and freedom of speech on the internet or Scientology and harassment. IF you are really interested I am sure there is a GREAT article somewhere on wired.com about their freedom of speach battle with the Scientology gag police!)
Right John?
-tom w
-
There is more here
with Pics on the B2 <a href="http://www.only1egg-productions.org/AltScience/Electrogravity/LifterPage.htm" target="_blank">web page,
another</a> web page with B2 model pics
Is this an anti gravity model of the B2?
What do you think?These B-2B Spirit Lifters have since been safely tested with a maximum >5cm emitter wire gap, powered up to >26KVs @ 0.3ma, while exhibiting only infrequent, minimal arcing between wing and emitter wire in this configuration. Thus, after diligent fine tuning, have completed five measured speed run tests. Observing an average 37rpm, making a sustained velocity for these B-2B wings calculated to be 6.384mph. Although not exactly "earth escape velocity" please consider the following: The full size USAF B-2B Bomber has a 172 foot wingspan, which would equal 123.5 of my tiny Lifters. That would establish a scale speed of approximately 788mph for this humble pair of high voltage toys! Now we're talking some serious Electrogravitic progress being make... Onward to that next experiment!-tom w
-
Just how crazy is this:
Is Antigravity Technology
being Employed in the B2 Bomber?
contributed by Chalcedon
very special thanks to
www . NANODATA . com
Nanotechnology, Biosciences and Femtosecond
Return To Lifter Page
Retired Air Force Colonel Donald Ware has claimed that a three star general revealed that "the new Lockheed-Martin space shuttle (National Space Plane) and the B-2 (stealth bomber) both have electro-gravitic systems on board" and that "this explains why our 21 Northrop B-2s cost about a billion dollars each."
I feel that it is also worthy to note that the Selected Acquisition Report (with which United States lawmakers track the cost of major U.S. weapons projects) valued the B-2 program at $45 billion. With 21 aircraft built, that works out at $2.14 billion each, twice the cost as stated above.
After taking off conventionally, the B-2 has the option of switching to anti-gravity mode. It has been said that using it's anti-gravitic technology, the B-2 can fly around the world without refueling.
The F-117 stealth fighter also has hybrid propulsion and lift technologies which may be electro-gravitic systems. Utilizing conventional thrust for public take-offs and landings, switching to anti-gravity mode would allow an extended cruising range, lightning fast maneuverability, and for shrouding the airframe in invisibility (by having its local counter-gravity field bend light around the airframe).
How are anti-gravity systems controlled?
It has been known for sometime now by "Black World" technologists that the key to controlling gravity is Element 115 on the Periodic Table - Ununpentium. The most important attribute of this heavier, stable element is that the gravity A-wave is so abundant that it actually extends past the perimeter of the atom. These heavier, stable elements literally have their own gravity A-field around them, in addition to the gravity B-field that is native to all matter. By controlling the gravity A-wave, you can control gravity. By fuelling an aircraft reactor with ununpentium, you have an aircraft capable of utilizing anti-gravity propulsion.
Electrogravitic (antigravity) technology, under development in U.S. Air Force black R&D programs since late 1954, may now have been put to practical use in the B-2 Advanced Technology Bomber to provide an exotic auxiliary mode of propulsion. This inference is based on the recent disclosure that the B-2 charges both its wing leading edge and jet exhaust stream to a high voltage. Positive ions emitted from its wing leading edge would produce a positively charged parabolic ion sheath ahead of the craft while negative ions injected into it's exhaust stream would set up a trailing negative space charge with a potential difference in excess of 15 million volts. According to electrogravitic research carried out by physicist T. Townsend Brown, such a differential space charge would set up an artificial gravity field that would induce a reactionless force on the aircraft in the direction of the positive pole. An electrogravitic drive of this sort could allow the B-2 to function with over-unity propulsion efficiency when cruising at supersonic velocities.
For many years rumors circulated that the U.S. was secretly developing a highly advanced, radar-evading aircraft. Rumor turned to reality in November of 1988, when the Air Force unveiled the B-2 Advanced Technology Bomber. Although military spokesmen provided the news media with some information about the craft's outward design, and low radar and infrared profile, there was much they were silent about. However, several years later, some key secrets about the B-2 were leaked to the press. On March 9, 1992, "Aviation Week and Space Technology" magazine made a surprising disclosure that the B-2 electrostatically charges its exhaust stream and the leading edges of its wing-like body. Those familiar with the electrogravitics research of American physicist T. Townsend Brown will quickly realize that this is tantamount to stating that the B-2 is able to function as an antigravity aircraft.
"Aviation Week" obtained their information about the B-2 from a small group of renegade west coast scientists and engineers who were formerly associated with black research projects. In making these disclosures, these scientists broke a code of silence that rivals the Mafia's. They took the risk because they felt that it was important for economic reasons that efforts be made to declassify certain black technologies for commercial use. Two of these individuals said that their civil rights had been blatantly abused (in the name of security) either to keep them quiet or to prevent them from leaving the tightly controlled black R&D community.
Several months after "Aviation Week" published the article, black world security personnel went into high gear. That sector of the black R&D community received VERY STRONG warnings and, as a result, the group of scientists subsequently broke off contact with the magazine. Clearly, the overseers of black R&D programs were substantially concerned about the information leaks that had come out in that article.
To completely understand the significance of what was said about the B-2, one must first become familiar with Brown's work. Beginning in the mid 1920's, Townsend Brown discovered that it is possible to create an artificial gravity field by charging an electrical capacitor to a high-voltage. He specially built a capacitor which utilized a heavy, high charge-accumulating (high K-factor) dielectric material between its plates and found that when charges with between 70,000 to 300,000 volts, it would move in the direction of its positive pole. When oriented with its positive side up, it would proceed to lose about 1 percent of it's weight. He attributed this motion to an electrostatically-induced gravity field acting between the capacitor's oppositely charged plates. By 1958, he had succeeded in developing a 15 inch diameter model saucer that could lift over 110% of its weight! Brown's experiments had launched a new field of investigation which came to be known as electrogravitics, the technology of controlling gravity through the use of high-voltage electric charge.
As early as 1952, an Air Force major general witnessed a demonstration in which Brown flew a pair of 18 inch disc airfoils suspended from opposite ends of a rotatable arm. When electrified with 50,000 volts, they circuited at a speed of 12 miles per hour. About a year later, he flew a set of 3 foot diameter saucers for some Air Force officials and representatives from a number of major aircraft companies. When energized with 150,000 volts, the discs sped around the 50 foot diameter course so fast that the subject was immediately classified. "Interavia" magazine later reported that the discs would attain speeds of several hundred miles per hour when charged with several hundred thousand volts.
Brown's discs were charged with a high positive voltage, on a wire, running along their leading edge and a high negative voltage, on a wire, running along their trailing edge. As the wires ionized the air around them, a dense cloud of positive ions would form ahead of the craft and corresponding cloud of negative ions would form behind the craft. Brown's research indicated that, like the charged plates of his capacitors, these ion clouds induced a gravitational force directed in the minus to plus direction. As the disc moved forward in the response to its self generated gravity field, it would carry with it its positive and negative ion clouds and their associated electrogravity gradient. Consequently, the discs would ride their advancing gravity wave much like surfers ride an ocean wave.
Dr. Mason Rose, one of Townsend's colleagues, described the discs principle of operation as follows: The saucers made by Brown have no propellers, no jets, no moving parts at all. They create a modification of the gravitational field around themselves, which is analogous to putting them on the incline of a hill. They act like a surfboard on a wave... the electrogravitational saucer creates its own "hill", which is a local distortion of the gravitational field, then it takes this "hill" with it in any chosen direction and at any rate.
The occupants of one of [brown's] saucers would feel no stress at all no matter how sharp the turn or how great the acceleration. This is because the ship and its occupants and the load are all responding equally to the wave like distortion of the local gravitation field.
Although skeptics at first thought that the discs were propelled by more mundane effects such as the pressure of negative ions striking the positive electrode, Brown later carried out vacuum chamber tests which proved that a force was present even in the absence of such ion thrust. He did not offer a theory to explain this nonconventional electrogravitic phenomenon; except to say that it was predicted neither by general relativity nor by modern theories of electromagnetism. However, recent advances in theoretical physics provide a rather straightforward explanation of the principle. According to the novel physics of subquantum kinetics, gravity potential can adopt two polarities, instead of one. Not only can a gravity field exist in the form of a matter attracting gravity potential well, as standard physics teaches, but it can also exist in the form of a matter repelling gravity potential hill. Moreover, it predicts that these gravity polarities should be directly matched with electrical polarity; positively charged particles such as protons generating gravity wells and negatively charged particles such as electrons generating gravity hills. (Thus contrary to conventional theory, the electron produces a MATTER-REPELLING gravity field. Electrical neutral matter remains gravitationally attractive because of the proton's G-well marginally dominates the electron's G-hill.)
Consequently, subquantum kinetics predicts that the negative ion cloud behind Brown's disc should form a matter repelling gravityhill while the positive ion cloud ahead of the disc should form a matter attracting gravity well. As increasing voltage is applied to the disc, the gravity potential hill and well become increasing prominent and the gravity potential gradient between them increasing steep. In Rose's terminology, the craft would find itself on the incline of a gravitational "hill". Since gravity force is known to increase in accordance with the steepness of such a gravity potential slope, increased voltage would induce an increasingly strong gravity force on the disc and would act in the direction of the positive ion cloud. The disc would behave as if it was being tugged by a very strong gravitational field emanating from an invisible planet sized mass positioned beyond its positive pole.
Early in 1952 Brown had put together a proposal, code named "Project Winterhaven", which suggested that the military developed an antigravity combat saucer with Mach-3 capability. The 1956 intelligence study entitled "Electrogravitics Systems: An Explanation of Electrostatic Motion, Dynamic Counterbary and Barycentric Control", prepared by the private aviation intelligence firm, Aviation Studies International Ltd., indicates that as early as November 1954 the Air Force had begun plans to fund research that would accomplish Project Winterhaven's objectives. The study, originally classified "Confidential", mentions the name of more than ten major aircraft companies which were actively involved in the electrogravitics research in an attempt to duplicate or extend Brown's seminal work. Additional information is to be found in another aviation intelligence report entitled "The Gravitics Situation". Since that time much of the work in electro-antigravity has proceeded in Air Force black projects on a relatively large scale.
One indication that Brown's electrogravitics ideas were being researched by the aerospace industry surfaced in January 1968. At an aerospace sciences meeting held in New York, Northrop officials reported that they were beginning wind tunnel studies to research the aerodynamic effects of applying high voltage charges to the leading edges of aircraft bodies. They said that they expected that the resulting electrical potential would ionize air molecules upwind of the aircraft and that the resulting repulsive electrical forces would condition the air stream so as to lower drag, reduce heating, and soften the supersonic boom. (Although the author of that article speculated that Northrop might be negatively charging the aircraft's leading edge, the sonic barrier effects can also be accomplished with a positive charge, as Brown originally suggested.)
Although this sonic cushion effect is purely electrostatic, Northrop apparently got the idea for investigating this effect directly from Brown, for his electrokinetic flying disc patent explains that the positively charged leading edge electrode would produce just this effect. Brown states: By using such a nose form, which at present appears to be best suited for flying speeds approaching or exceeding the speed of sound, I am able to produce an ionization of the atmosphere in the immediate region of this foremost position of the mobile vehicle. I believe that this ionization facilitates piercing sonic barrier and minimizes the abruptness with which the transition takes place in passing from subsonic velocities to supersonic velocities.
Also in his 1952 paper on Brown's Saucers, Dr. Rose stated: The Townsend Brown experiments indicate that the positive field which is traveling in front of the saucer acts as a buffer wing which starts moving the air out of the way. This field acts as a entering wedge which softens the sonic barrier.
Interestingly, in 1981, the Pentagon contracted the Northrop Corporation to work on the highly classified B-2 Advanced Technology Bomber. Northrop's past experience in airframe electrostatics must have been a key factor contributing to its winning of this contract, for "Aviation Week" reported that the B-2 uses "electrostatic field-generating techniques" in its wing leading edges to help it minimize aerodynamic turbulence and thereby reduce its radar cross section. The same article mentions that the B-2 also charges its jet engine exhaust stream which has the effect of rapidly cooling its exhaust and thereby remarkably reducing its thermal signature.
Although these disclosures were framed in the context of enhancing the B-2's radar invisibility, in fact, they are part of the B-2's antigravitic drive capability. With a positively charged wing leading edge and a negatively charged exhaust stream, the B-2 would function essentially as an electrogravitic aircraft. Just as in Townsend Brown's flying discs, the positive and negative ion clouds would produce a locally altered gravity field that would cause the B-2 to feel a forward-directed gravitic force.
The design is also very similar to the saucer craft that Brown described in his electrokinetic generator patent. The craft Brown proposed was to be powered by a flame-jet generator, a high-voltage power supply that had the advantage of being both efficient and relatively lightweight. His generator design utilizes a jet engine with an electrified needle mounted in the exhaust nozzle to produce negative ions in the jet's exhaust stream. The negatively ionized exhaust is then discharged through a number of nozzles at the rear of the craft. As the minus charges leave the craft in this manner, an increasingly greater potential difference develops between the jet engine body and the negatively charged exhaust cloud behind the craft. By electrically insulating the engines and conveying their positive charges forward to a wire running along the vehicle's leading edge, the required positively charged ion cloud is built up at the front of the vehicle. A metallic surface of wire grid positioned near the exhaust stream exit collects some of the high-voltage electrons and this recycled power is used to run the exhaust ionizers. Brown estimated that such a generator could produce potentials as high as 15 million volts across his craft.
Rumors circulating among people close to the project allege that the B-2 does utilize antigravity technology. So, our conjecture, that the B-2 incorporates an electrogravitic drive, appears to be substantially correct.
Although the black world scientists mentioned nothing about electrogravitics in their "Aviation Week" disclosure about the B-2, they did admit to the existence of very "dramatic, classified technologies" applicable to "aircraft control and propulsion". They were especially hesitant to discuss these projects, noting that they are "very black". One of them commented, "besides, it would take about 20 hours to explain the principles, and very few people would understand them anyway". Apparently what he meant is that this aircraft control and propulsion technology is based on physics principles that go beyond what is currently known and understood by most academic physicists. Indeed, by all normal standards, electrogravitics is a very exotic propulsion science. source web page cached as the original no longer exists
-
Doesn't Bush have twin daughters?
So then doesn't that Assad kid need to wisk them BOTH back to Syria and then post porno pics of himself and the twin "hotties" at the prince's palace on the internet!
(that should about do it to cause an invasion I think)
he he
-tom w
-
Thanks Wicky!
great link
" posted January 14, 2006 07:09 PM
Intel Macs may boot XP after all"
good article!
So, as long as Apple has included a Compatibility Support Module, Intel-based Macs should be able to boot XP.It seems unlikely that Apple would have left this out. It has already said it isn’t doing anything to prevent Windows from booting on a Mac.
A Mac that can legally run Windows/Linux/OS X on the one box is the ‘ultimate PC’ in compatibility terms, which should further drive hardware sales. Considering Apple includes the operating system with every Mac purchase, its OS revenue isn’t endangered by allowing people to install Windows on a Mac post-sale. And it seems very unlikely that US Department of Justice will force Apple to sell Macs without an operating system anytime soon.
Of course, Apple can’t condone or encourage running Windows on Macs, because that would cause Mac developers to question whether they should continue investing in the OS X platform if Apple is not fully committed.
It’s a ‘wink wink, nod nod’ situation, where Apple must know that allowing users to run Windows on a Mac can only help boost Apple’s bottom-line.
-
For Most folks here I think the Syrians would realistically have to be considered "the underdog".
That said, some folks like the handicap or the challenge of playing the underdog, but Steve is right I doubt there will be very many here who will consider the Syrians the "Good Guys" (White Cowboy hat and all ..... NOT!)
-tom w
[ January 12, 2006, 08:14 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]
-
Karch says this in the other thread in the general forum:
interesting...
Reading at some geek sites. it looks like it will be quite a chore getting XP running on a new intelMac, but Vista should install pretty easily. I just found the quote. I don't know it's for real, but it makes sense.But XP *won't* work with the new Macbooks. It requires a PC BIOS, and the Macbook uses EFI BIOS. This is *not* a trivial issue to work around!
Windows Vista supports EFI bios, so it will be fine... (XP 64-bit supports EFI, too, but Yonah can't run XP64)
I hope it works. I might be able to get a Mac as my next laptop for home and work.
-
Thats the BIG questionOriginally posted by Matchstick:I know this is probably heresy, but even if CMx2 can't/won't be made MacIntel compatible you will at least still have the option of installing Windows on the machine and dual booting to that when you need a CM fix (also provides a fix to the CMx1/OSX problem).
My understanding of the situation is that in the past year (sometime) Apple has stated (for the record I think) it won't "support" windows on its intel Macs BUT more importantly, it won't do anything specific or intentional to PREVENT a Windows OS from being installed on a Mac Intel machine. (lack of software drivers for video cards and periferal devices are always a problem, even in the windows world, so Apple is just saying IMHO, the won't make it "easy" like running OS X on an Intel Machine which won't be dead simple either until all the software an drivers (i.e. video drivers scanner drivers, printer drivers, (at additional user expense) are upgraded for the Intel chip so they does not have to run on the Rosetta emulation software layer.)
Does anyone else have any further clarification about that?
-tom w
[ January 11, 2006, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]
-
-
-
Just this one if it works...
looks like its gone
it was a pencil art sketch of a "block tank with a block turrent"
-tom w
Originally posted by Gpig:Sneak peak screenie!!!
Gpig
[ January 10, 2006, 06:00 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]
-
well if we are not even getting BMP-2's then I guess it looks like BMP-3's are out of the question. Its their decision so they can do what ever they like
but the "they'd all be destroyed by airpower" line of logic sort of makes me scratch my head when it does not include all syrian AFV types? :confused: oh well
-tom w
-
from this web page
.The purpose of this study (edit: this study is NOT the RAND Corp. study Steve is refering to it is another one) is to determine if the United States Transportation Command has the capability to meet the mobile demands of Army transformation objectives and place a Stryker Brigade Combat Team on the ground anywhere in the world 96 hours after liftoff.Having considered the SBCT’s deployment configuration, available strategic airlift as it pertains to PAA, and throughput requirements, the Army’s transformation objective of deploying a SBCT anywhere in the world 96 hours after liftoff is depicted in appendix 2. 12 Appendix 2 illustrates CONUS based deployments of SBCT’s traveling a maximum distance of 1,325 nmi, with an allocation of 60 C-17s per SBCT going to a destination with a throughput capacity of nearly 5 C-17s per hour.
It is clear based on this illustration that the Army’s transformation objective of deploying a SBCT anywhere in the world 96 hours after liftoff will require additional consideration.
Toward an Expeditionary
Army
New Options for Combatant
Commanders (from March 2004)
more SBCT deployment study info here
.
Originally posted by Battlefront.com:RAND did an interesting study about the realities of SBCT deployment. They advocated a strategy of forward deployments as soon as even a hint of trouble was sensed. The report detailed where these areas should be and went into great details about the different lift scenarios. It is clear that SBCTs are far more deployable in a pinch than heavy units and not all that much slower than light units. However, even with forward deployment they are a lot slower than the Army said they would be. The reason is the air lift capacity just doesn't exist (yet). I guess the Air Force is working on that.
It remains to be seen what will happen in the future. However, in our backstory I have used the RAND figures (and others) to help develop the timeline. It's a good study, though typically dry. Can be bought at Amazon.com.
Steve
[ January 07, 2006, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]
-
interesting comment
Do the Syrian's really have 200 BMP-3's?
What impact would they have on the battle or the combat simulated in CM:SF?
Its a good question
-tom w
Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:I have no problem with the MGS being included, but I do think it odd that 72 of them are enough to warrent inclusion, but the 200 BMP-3s the Syrians have don't make the cut.
Auto generated AI taunting Thread (new feature request)
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
oh OK
I was just promoting Tarquelne's orignal idea because it sounds like it has potential for GREAT humour in the game
It will never make it into final design of the game because it is a totally unnecesary FRILL, I just wanted to see what new "taunting and trash talking" phrases and sayings folks would come up with on the forum. (for fun)
he he
-tom
[ January 27, 2006, 10:11 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]