Messages

481

Linux / Re: playdeb net and 12.04

« on: April 02, 2012, 09:23:52 pm »

Playdeb repos for precise appear to be coming on right now (now downloading ufo:ai).

482

Linux / playdeb net and 12.04

« on: March 30, 2012, 09:20:13 pm »

any word on when playdeb might begin to support the latest ubuntu release?

483

Linux / Re: 3D grief with ati cards (ubuntu lucid 10.04)

« on: March 25, 2012, 11:55:07 am »

Coming back to this... turned out the ati hd series cards that are of the agp variant, are not supported by ati catalyst so one is pretty much stuck with the default drivers - which aren't very supportive either. Old radeon 9800 isn't supported by catalyst either, but seems to work better with default drivers.

484

Discussion / Re: can't research particle beam weapon?

« on: December 24, 2011, 11:39:58 pm »

disassembled another alien ship, now particle beam weapons appear in my storage and I can research them too.

485

Bugs in older version (2.3.1) / health over maximum

« on: December 18, 2011, 06:33:20 pm »

sometimes a soldier's health is more than the maximum, for an example 86/81 or something like that. I *think* this might have something to do with having used medikits in the field?

486

Discussion / Re: can't research particle beam weapon?

« on: December 18, 2011, 08:13:03 am »

any ideas on this?

487

Discussion / Re: can't research particle beam weapon?

« on: December 16, 2011, 09:51:34 pm »

Well I'm on 2.4 - not sure what kurja is on.. 

wishful thinking

488

Discussion / Re: can't research particle beam weapon?

« on: December 16, 2011, 09:31:47 pm »

which version it is?

-geever

2.3.1, running on ubuntu lucid.

489

Discussion / Re: can't research particle beam weapon?

« on: December 16, 2011, 08:19:17 pm »

Well if you have scientists available and labs at the base where the disassembly took place, you should be able to research the weapon.

PBWs appear in my Transfer list ok.. maybe you are at the wrong base?

So I would have thought, but I *can't* research the darn weapon. I tried it from an earlier savegame, fast forwarded to when the ufo disassembly was completed, and it's as if the gun just wasn't there.

490

Discussion / Re: can't research particle beam weapon?

« on: December 16, 2011, 11:51:44 am »

Transfer the Particle Beam Weapon to the base where your scientists will do the research.

I would have assumed it to have been researchable at the base where it was disassembled from the ufo, if not, where the heck did they put the darn gun? In the transfer menu I can see some propulsion, navigation etc components from the ufo, but not the gun.

Speaking of transfers, is there a way to see stuff that's on it's way, between bases, and when they'll arrive?

491

Discussion / can't research particle beam weapon?

« on: December 16, 2011, 08:00:53 am »

So I disassembled a ufo fighter, and got a "research proposal" email about the fighter's particle beam weapon. But when I go to the research menu to put those scientists working on it, particle beam weapon is shown in the group of items that can't be researched at that base because those items are stored elsewhere. When the ufo was disassembled I also got a message about having lost antimatter because that base didn't have an antimatter storage, is this related?

492

Discussion / Re: Unavailable Automissions

« on: December 13, 2011, 01:28:43 pm »

Feature, and it doesn't have anything to do with crashed UFO. Simply there are mission types which cannot be done automatically (even if UFO flying to such a mission was shot down).

-geever

Care to tell which missions can not be done automatically, and what is the logic behind this?

493

Discussion / Re: hit probability and movement

« on: December 08, 2011, 07:23:23 am »

Right, but my point is that we've already got a fundamentally unrealistic situation—the target remains motionless during the attacker's entire turn, and for that matter the attacker's team's entire turn. This proposal would end up with us acting as if the target is stationary part of the time (if you move or shoot at something else, the target will still be in the same square in the same posture when you finish), but acting as if it's moving at other times (when the attack gets the target-moved penalty). The end result doesn't feel any more realistic to me.

That said, the way combat works now renders such philosophical discussions moot.

~J

For me the turn-based combat system is a presentation of a reality (albeit a virtual, fictious one) where events occur simultaneously, as they would in the real world, it's just the represantation that happens to be turn-based; viewing it any other way would deny player's immersion in to the game world. To that effect, we already have reaction fire, allowing action during the opposition's turn which is a huge step away from purely turn based action.

As a side note I recall that in the original x-com, movement during the opponent's turn was also possible (when a soldier panicked). Seeing it was possible to move, I always wondered why soldiers and aliens alike would not take cover when under fire if they had TU's left, even simply crouch when unexpectedly shot at - or turn to look where the fire came from, if a fellow combatant nearby just recieved a hit.

But then of course it's just a game and not a hard simulation of reality, if you take my meaning, and like any game it's to be taken for what it is and to be played by it's rules which are what they are.

Moot or not, now it's said

494

Discussion / Re: hit probability and movement

« on: December 07, 2011, 08:19:38 pm »

Non-simultaneous movement is such a big departure from realism in this area that I don't really see target movement helping. I think a better way to model this, if it's desired from a gameplay perspective, would be to permit reserving TUs for evasion (or simply applying a penalty to hit based on remaining TUs, subtracting the appropriate amount for Reaction Fire reservations).

I beg to differ, as in reality one doesn't dodge bullets - but it is more difficult to hold a steady aim at a target that's moving rather than staying still.

Now that I think about it, the big issue with this kind of thing is that to-hit is done by having the target occupy a stationary volume and the attacker's shots emerge in a cone. Either of our suggestions would basically mean that shots spread variably depending on the characteristics of the target. Also keep in mind the ability to aim and fire at empty space in front of a target—I think the whole concept of having to-hit vary on anything about the target other than its silhouette is a non-starter without completely changing the combat system.

Well, in that case

495

Discussion / Re: hit probability and movement

« on: December 07, 2011, 12:40:20 pm »

No, I don't think there is a penalty for moving. It's not that complicated (IMHO). The different fire modes (with different TU usage) model the "How difficult to aim" problem. Soo simple.

-geever

I agree. But what about target movement? I think it should matter, for benefit of both gameplay and apparent realism.