David Aitken

Hoo boy, first 3Dfx goes bust, then a local PC shop orders a bunch of Mac cards by accident! Me's getting a Voodoo 5500 for peanuts!

Lorak wrote: > Would you guys like a picture page at the cesspool site to post an on-line picture of yourself? If so I'd be happy to do it. I am happy to announce that this would be feasible solely on account that the hideous visages of most of those present would be counterweighted by the unfettered masculine beauty of yours truly. PawBroon wrote: > Between Poolers we cover pretty much every nation in CM and we can thus do some dubbing. For the Poles we can still use some of Senility best quotes for they are most of the times not making sense at all. I've been thinking that my unhinged ravings would be extremely appropriate for such a purpose. I also think the British need more than just a bunch of Cockney soundbites. Those who have been following OGSF's posts will appreciate the goldmine of possibilities for insult and derision offered by the Scottish dialect. As a master of many variations of both the Scottish and English accents, I would be honoured to provide some samples for the British troops. Madmatt wrote: > It was meant to have said "I have seen"...So there! Oi was loik hangin' raound the boahd, an' wot did oi saw, well I seen a banch of off-topic freads from this Meeeks geezah. Saow I paid mistah Meeeks a visit, an' oi sed, look 'ee-ah Meeeks, if yew'e gaowin'a keep paostin'ese stewpid freads, oi'm gaowin'a havta in'rahdewce yew tah sam of moi fellahs, and guess wot Meeeks, they daown't loik geezahs oow poahst off-topic freads, naow they daown't Meeeksy moi man. Saow oi sahgest yeow toddle off back ta wheah yeow came from, and daown't let me see yew're pretty face raownd'eah agoain, knaow wot oi meahn?

jasoncawley wrote: > The point is it leaves the impression that the sea wall and safety from the MGs was safety period, when this was most emphatically not the case. Hmm... I remember scenes from the movie where shells landed behind the sea wall and blew men into the air. And remember the radio operator who had his face blown off. It didn't seem safe at all.

I don't know about French villages, but in this country there are churches everywhere. It's not at all uncommon to have two or more churches in close proximity. There is actually a junction in Edinburgh called Holy Corner because there are like four churches next to each other. I'll be going in to Edinburgh soon with my digital camera, so watch out for the reappearance of my "Photography Mission" thread. =) David

I noticed a while ago that GameSprockets 1.5 had disappeared from Apple's website, but it's still available on FTP. GameSprockets_1.5.smi.bin My thread on the subject: Mac users - read this NOW!! [This message has been edited by David Aitken (edited 01-20-2001).]

Jeff Heidman wrote: > The way I remember the scene, the track was between Miller and Ryan. Both of them were hiding in the grass, unaware of the other. > Ryan pops the track. Miller and Co. immediately get up and Miller runs *around* the track (so now he is on the side with Ryan), and shoots the Germans coming around that side. 251 approaches. Miller yells, "Halftrack, cover!". Up to this point, what were Ryan and co doing? Presumably watching for the enemy probe they were expecting, in which case they would have seen Miller and co before they saw the 251. They would certainly have heard Miller. Ryan takes out the 251, which veers round between the two parties. Germans jump out of 251 towards Miller and are shot. Mellish (I think) shouts, "watch out, make sure they're down!". Miller moves round to Ryan's side, Germans run out towards Ryan and are shot. The only problem which crosses my mind is that Miller might accidentally have shot Ryan while firing at the Germans. Ryan and co had plenty of time to see Miller coming, hear Miller's lot shouting, hear their American firearms, and see the Germans being killed. They sensibly would have kept their heads down until they were sure Miller and co were friendlies. And no, I did not watch the scene in question in order to make this post. =)

Hiram Sedai wrote: > Mr. Poopy Pants I bloody well said NO INSULTS, you pathetic excuse for a stuffed replica of a mindless halfwit!!

CavScout wrote: > One was a HE load with training rounds mixed in. The thought was to have the solid training rounds bust through walls and such so the HE could be effective. Imaginative... =) Here we go, from Cornelius Ryan's A Bridge Too Far. Captain Mackay was in command of the British paras holding the buildings on the opposite side of the Arnhem bridge ramp from Colonel Frost. ----- Almost immediately Mackay heard a cry from the floor below, 'Tiger tanks are heading for the bridge.' (It was exactly 7 p.m. German time; 6 p.m. British time.) Two of the huge 60-ton tanks were heading in from the north. On his side of the bridge Frost saw them, too. 'They looked incredibly sinister in the half light,' he noted. 'Like some prehistoric monsters, as their great guns swung from side to side breathing flame. Their shells burst through the walls. The dust and slowly-settling debris following their explosions filled the passages and rooms.' One complete side of Mackay's building was hit. 'Some of the shells must have been armour-piercing,' Lieutenant Peter Stainforth says, 'because they went through the school from end to end, knocking a four-foot hole in every room.' Ceilings came down, walls cracked and the 'whole structure rocked.' Staring at the two tanks on the ramp Mackay thought the end had come. 'A couple more rounds like that and we'll be finished,' he said. Still, with the stubborn and fearless resistance that the fighters at the bridge had shown since their arrival, Mackay though that he might 'be able to take a party out and blow them up. But just then the two tanks reversed and pulled back. We were still alive.' -----

Flipper wrote: > sorry jeff but when people target buildings with thanks parked next to it knowing dam well that a gun hit is more than likely the norm I call that crap! soooo...you PISS OFF! I can't see what the problem is here. You can just as easily target the tank itself with artillery and take out the gun or immobilise it. Maybe that's what your opponent was doing. And will those who cannot engage in this discussion without flinging insults please refrain from posting. David

Madmatt wrote: > So the Engineers just covered a few mines i nthe living room with an oriental rug and a chair instead of twigs and brush. Dare I say no soldier is going to step on anything bumpy inside a house. Once you've got a bit of debris though, avoiding bumps becomes pretty difficult. jasoncawley wrote: > Incidentally, there should be more mines in CM, and fewer Jadgtigers. Last I checked, the number of the latter made, barely had 3 digits, while the number of the former deployed by the Germans alone, had 8 digits. However, (1) you need mines where you expect the enemy will be, not where he is, and (2) you can't relocate them if you don't use them. I'm not sure tanks and mines is a good comparison. tss wrote: > So he booby-trapped the kitchen firewood storage box. He put 5-6 AT mines (25-30 kg explosives) in the bottom, constucted a false floor over them, and filled the box with wood. The trigger wire was attached to the piece of wood that would be the last one to be taken out. Sounds like the A-Team. =) The wonders of human ingenuity...

Jeff Heidman wrote: > I am betting though that the moment they ran around that track they would have been lit up by Ryans scout team. They had no idea there were other Amis around, and they were almost certainly jacked up with rather itchy trigger fingers. Maybe something to do with Miller's lot having wasted the squad from the halftrack? Ryan and co. would be wondering who was shooting at whom, and would also probably recognise American firearms. Assuming they didn't see Miller approaching in the first place.

Lordfluffers wrote: > should I upgrade to a GeForce2MX or whatever ATI equivelent or should I hold out 6 months for a much better card. Never wait more than a month for new computer technology. There will always be something new to wait for, and you'll spend your life hanging around. Get the best hardware you can afford, unless you know that something better will be out in a few weeks.

Maximus wrote: > Let me get this straight, you have to set your resolution that high to clear up the images? If so, then that's your problem. What kind of video card do you have? A Voodoo 1? If not, then it sounds like you are running CM in software mode. As I've said above, I use an ATI Nexus (RAGE 128 32Mb). What I'm talking about is a totally different issue from texture rendering. Unless you have FSAA, an object in the distance occupying a small number of pixels will appear to "swim". Give it more pixels and it becomes much clearer what it is and what it's doing. Sure, you can zoom in to check this, but then you narrow your field of view. A halftrack in the distance could be occupying an area of 10 pixels by 5 pixels in 640x480, whereas to make that 20 pixels by 10, you need to go all the way up to 1280x960. This is why I play at maximum resolution. I don't just want an overall view of the battlefield – that is pretty useless in CM, as everything is tiny – I want to be able to see the units and what they're doing. David

In general, 17" or 19" monitors are the best value, depending on whether you want a medium or large monitor. Apparently a good shadow mask monitor is comparable to a Trinitron, so if you're not obsessed with image clarity (like me), that would be good value (shadow mask monitors are distinguishable by their compound curve, whereas Trinitrons are either horizontally curved or flat). There are not too many tube manufacturers, so the brand of monitor you buy is not particularly important. For example, you will get a monitor from X company with a Sony tube. If it's a Trinitron then it's Sony anyway. Mitsubishi competes with the Diamondtron. One rather important aspect of a monitor is its resolution. Where I used to work (a graphics company), there were people who had their 21" monitors running at a lower resolution than the 17" I use at home. My 17" tops out at 1600x1200 @ 60Hz, although 60Hz is a bit flickery – you want at least 70Hz. I've currently got my eye on a 21" monitor which maxes at something like 1800x1440. However, this is pretty high res – normally I use my 17" at 1280x960, which is higher than average for the size. You will find a manufacturer offering different models, and the more expensive models of the same size probably support higher resolutions. You probably want at least 15" @ 1024x768, 17" @ 1280x960, or 21" @ 1600x1200 (19" would be somewhere in between the latter two), but it should be able to go higher. So the main factors to look out for are size, tube, resolution and price. A cheap monitor is not a good idea. Remember it's your interface with the computer, and trust me – a good monitor can completely transform your computing experience! (I write this using a scabby Compaq monitor while my Apple 17" is connected to the PC.) =) David [This message has been edited by David Aitken (edited 01-19-2001).]

Hakko Ichiu wrote: > Stenhousemuir 1 Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogogoch 0 Ha ha, my parents used to live in Stenhousemuir.

von Lucke wrote: > He saw all these landing craft plow in and drop their ramps --- and then nobody got off! Most of 'em where gunned down right as the ramps dropped (just like in the movie), and this guy thought to himself "oh, f**k! We're supposed to win! Where is everybody? I have to go into that?" Those are the kind of anecdotes that really get to you. They have a kind of surreal, ghostly quality which is appropriately bizarre. It's the kind of thing the human mind has difficulty coping with, which is a fundamental part of war. In terms of my attitude towards war – I just know that I wouldn't like to be shot, and therefore I couldn't possibly endorse it. However, there are a lot of stupid and evil people in this world, and unfortunately some of them are in positions of power. If a lunatic controls an army, and decides to start killing or suppressing people, then someone's got to fight him. That said, I might add that there are a lot of people who would seem to be asking for a war. Football hooligans are an obvious example. In Britain we constantly hear about violence surrounding football (soccer) matches – either a Rangers mob stabs a Celtic fan, or England supporters riot at a match with Germany or something. What they are betraying is the tribal instinct which war feeds upon. Jingoism. Your government can tell you to fight, but you're not going to unless you have something against the 'enemy', and xenophobia is ideal. Most people don't deserve to die, but some of them act like their lives wouldn't be much of a loss to the world. David

Forever Babra wrote: > I don't know if they were real Loath as I am to discuss this topic, I do have to say that they seem to have picked the bustiest girls they could find for Ryan's granddaughters. Catering to a wider audience, I suppose... =) phil, I think the general consensus is that SPR is the most realistic war film, in terms of pyrotechnics and violence – but that doesn't make it realistic. It gives you an idea, but it's not a reliable reference. David

Simon Fox wrote: > Mmmm.....*doing mental arithmetic* Wow, 34 minus 24? Without a computer? Are you a physicist or somefink?? Personally, I wouldn't marry a girl 86 years older than me, but it's up to you Stukes...

Let's hear it for Meeks, our very own message board terrorist. We need to tie his shoelaces together to make sure he doesn't wander into the main board and start raving again.

Stuka wrote: > Well first off, yes she is a peach. Blonde hair/blue eyes etc.... I'm 34, she's 24, Okay, so you got yourself a cute girl. Would you still like her if she weren't cute? =) David Managing Director Cynicism-Is-Us

Michael Dorosh wrote: > My first computer was a CoCo 2 by Radio Shack - the monitor showed 32 characters across by I think 16 down or something like that. Hell, I was only talking about last year. =) My first computer was a Sinclair ZX Spectrum which took five minutes to load up a game. I often think that the main distinction between the present and a decade or two ago is the sophistication of computers. Maximus wrote: > refusing to use hi-res mods for fear of lose of framerate while running in 1600x1200 just does not bring sympathy upon you. I'm not refusing to do anything, I'm just explaining why I haven't yet decided to install texture mods. =) > So why not use hi-res mods to make it super-silky? Because your ability to see the mods depends on your screen resolution. Sure, even at 640x480, if you zoom in, the mods look great. But I spend most of my time, yes, in view 4. I do zoom in on complex action, but I relish the ability to sit back and see what is going on across the entire battlefield. I regard low res as like lace curtains or something – the view is still the same, but you can't make out the detail. I'll give you the example which sticks in my mind. Playing Last Defence in the beta demo as the Americans, sitting down at ground level (view 1 or 2) looking up the road at the advancing Germans, a halftrack would be a mass of pixels which, if moving, would swim around. Since I got my graphics card, that halftrack is now clear, and moves instead of 'swimming'. In other words, high res lets you pick out detail in the distance, which frankly is one of the most important battlefield practices. Not an argument for high resolutions or anything, just thoughts concerning my point of view. David

Flipper wrote: > my case in point was a hetzer that was parked next to the building the shell that collapsed the building came on a parallel angle from where the tank was parked it just strikes me as odd that the gun should be taken out i've seen this more than once too. As discussed in the first thread I linked to, what you assume to be the cause may not be the cause. You see a building collapse and something nearby takes damage, but this does not mean the collapse itself has caused the damage. For example, the explosion which caused the collapse may have taken out the Hetzer's gun, or another simultaneous explosion, or something completely different. And always remember that what you see is dependent upon what your units see. It's not at all unrealistic to suggest that an enemy squad could be right next to your Hetzer without you knowing it. David

The Sneak command used to be "move carefully and quietly and hold your fire". Now it is "move carefully and quietly and return fire if fired upon". Babra, how do you know your platoon wasn't spotted? If the enemy was Sneaking their spotting ability should have been good. David

Mace wrote: > Kitty is perhaps the most gorgeous creature ever to lead men to certain death in battle, and her adoption of the ways of the Aussie without reproach (big word! like it? I do!) > She gets my Top Sheila Spunk rat rating of 9 out of 10, which I will amend to the perfect 10 out of 10 once I get the job of towelling her glistening body off! Now I see where Costello is coming from.

Whoa there, steady on fella! If you've just slogged your way through Costello's dissertation from beginning to end, I think you'll be in need of a rest. Take a few deep breaths, have a cup of tea, lie down for a while. That really takes a lot out of you. ------------------ we don't give a hoot about whether the game engine runs on unleaded or a gas-oil mix, or if the sum of the sides of an isocolese triangle really do gramafritz the 77mm post hoc do-hicky on the prefarkle calculation of the thing that does the trajectory for ausf higgity coneshaped dirt clods in a semi armored cod piece. – MrPeng