Peter Cairns Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 What attracted me was the fact that it is such a simple ( if not great in terms of performance) solution. You plug it in at night and the compressor fills the tank. In that respect it's like an electric car, but it doesn't have the issues with batteries or fuel cells. For city driving without having to use oil, it may well have a future, as for long distance and hauling loads I don't it. Howver this could change if they come up with a custom built engine as opposed to an adated petrol one... Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drusus Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 It was stated somewhere on the page that they get 44MJ out of 300 litres of 300 bar air. That is equivalant to one litre of gasoline. I don't know what is the efficiency of the motor, but cars run at around 40% or so. So equivalant to ~2.5 litres of gasoline at max. A 300 litre container able to withstand 300 bars is going to be quite big. So they don't have the issues with batteries or fuel cells, but they do have an issue with a big container holding compressed air. The car is going to have exactly the same problem battery powered cars have. Not enough miles before a need for refill and the air container is going to take a lot of space. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 Drusus, Range quoted is about 100 miles, fine for city driving/living, as to tank size, if you built it in to the floor pan,and had it 4" thick, and a car say 6ft by 8ft, that would give you about 450 litres with no loss of space at all. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drusus Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 From the page: Minicat: 2.65*1.62*1.64. Weight 750kg Mileage 200-300 km Top speed 110 km/h I say this is BS. Interestingly enough all of their models have same mileage, top speed and weight. Some hold 6 persons, some 3. There is one problem with the quoted 100 miles range. You can't know if it is true. It might be or it might not be true, it is impossible to verify. But that site seems to have so much information which seems to be based on nothing that I don't think it is credible source. Mileage varies from 100 miles to 300 km, it should have been in mass manufacturing two years ago and in year 2000 first factories were installed in France and Mexico city should have been using them from 2002. BBC news. To me it seems that they are continuously coming to the market next year. I think this is really offtopic. So I think I will leave this alone unless I have some good reason to believe that the cars are infact working as advertised. I might be wrong, but atleast I have a good reason to believe that they won't be as good as Guy Negre says. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronic Max Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 No idea what the upper player limit will be when we get CoPlay in. Hoping for at least 20 on a side, which would allow for a full battalion on each side commanding all the platoon and higher commands.Steve, no doubt you've already thought of this, but just in case... With that many people in a multiplayer game, allowing dedicated servers would be a very good idea. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 Regarding bones: I can only hope that CMx2 will look better than the present state of "Wartime Command": Wartime Command at Gamespot Actually, the screenshot do not improve all too much over Squad Assault any more (low-res terrain texture)!? And they started out sooo way ahead of their time when the first screens were released. I hope that the real time approach will not yield the same graphical compromises in CMx2 ... Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pvt. Ryan Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 The main difference is that CMx2 will eventually be released. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 Originally posted by Rollstoy: Regarding bones: I can only hope that CMx2 will look better than the present state of "Wartime Command":Present state?!? Those screenshots are dated 2004... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronic Max Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 Er, maybe I'm crazy, but those shots from WC look just fine to me. Yeah, it's not Unreal 3 or Oblivion level, but so what? They look good, even if they aren't bleeding edge. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Max, I agree they look okay and a lot better than CMBO, I quite like the fact that they have a sort of "drawn" quality, rather than photo realism. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronic Max Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 I quite like the fact that they have a sort of "drawn" quality, rather than photo realism.To me it's more a matter that current and next-gen (and probably next-next-next-next-gen) engines don't have photorealism. The more advanced graphics get, the less impressed with them I am. Yeah, we've got pixel shaders, vertex shaders, trilinear filtering, 32 bit color, and 1600x1200 resolution, but the stuff just don't look real. All the more advanced graphics do is emphasize the difference between real (just glance away from the screen for half a second and see the difference) and game. Not that having a clear demarcation between fantasy and reality is a bad thing, mind. If the companies are going to talk about photorealism, I'm not going to be impressed until they actually deliver. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 WoW, is deliberately "cartoonish", and has 5 million subscribers, so you can do a lot of things other than going for photorealism. I think what you want to go for is a kind of graphic "feel" that suits the game or period. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronic Max Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Absolutely. Unfortunately, every big-name engine (Source, Doom 3, Unreal 3, whatever the Oblivion engine is called, or even, going back, Max Payne) that comes down the pipe gets praised as being photorealistic and oh-so-lifelike--and they never are. Hence my irritation with them. I'd be perfectly content if graphics had never advanced past the stage they were at in 2000, but I realize in a very slim minority there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 Oddly enough if you look at movies like "The Incredibles", as opposed to "Final Fantasy", avoiding photoraelism can often give you something as rewarding. Some of the games that have gone for less graphic demand by adopting a style, are actually better for it. I think there is a fairly new "spiderman" game that has gone for a deliberately comic book style and has been a hit. If I have a worry about WW2 RTS, it isn't graphics but it being too "gamey", a bit like a 1:4 scale Battlefield 1942, as opposed to CMBB. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenris Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Thanks for the bones. When is a WW2 ETO version slated to come out? Cheers 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Folbec Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Originally posted by Peter Cairns: Oddly enough if you look at movies like "The Incredibles", as opposed to "Final Fantasy", avoiding photoraelism can often give you something as rewarding. I think that "suspension of disbelief" is easier when you do not try too hard to look realistic (like for instance on a stage), otherwise the instictive brain kicks in and starts being troubled by very minor defects that would have been neglected otherwise. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 mmmm Bones still tasty! -tom w 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.