Re: we sux
Posted: 06 Nov 2010, 00:31
fixt wrote:Why would people armored vehicles?
All you need is a sort of improvised explosive and boom 10mio $ armored vehicle is broken.
Seen this "iraq war" or how its called?
Page 5 of 7
Re: we sux
Posted: 06 Nov 2010, 00:32
Wasnt meKarl wrote:Oh fuck i've read that similar discussion somewhere on ppmsites befor CNC3 got releasedMachete234 wrote:Why would people build mechs?
All you need is a tripwire, boom 10mio $ mech is broken.
Seen this "star wars" film or how its called?
Anyways a tank is harder to destroy than a mech and its probably cheaper.
Re: we sux
Posted: 06 Nov 2010, 00:39
lol.
Re: we sux
Posted: 06 Nov 2010, 00:41
On Real Life but many games are using non-realistic physic so... but i am tired of that discussion
Re: we sux
Posted: 06 Nov 2010, 01:34
LOL plasma gun is less realistic than giant bipedal weapon platform.
Re: we sux
Posted: 06 Nov 2010, 05:13
Fuc realism, it's shit anyway. Make something more kool than the real wolrd
Re: we sux
Posted: 06 Nov 2010, 14:01
Realworld exists? The Myth, the legend, and now after years, i learn the truth, that windows is not showing some crashed 24 h -screensaver.
Re: we sux
Posted: 06 Nov 2010, 20:54
This is very true. Plasma cannot be compacted in any meaningful form long enough to hold together for any length of time. By comparison, microwave guns are more logical.smoth wrote:LOL plasma gun is less realistic than giant bipedal weapon platform.
Suits, as envisioned in real world applications today are simply armored exo skeletons. In fact, the US is supposed to have some exoskeletons put into use in the coming years. The idea is that while you lose some mobility, you gain many more times the strength, and with correct armor you essentially have tin soldiers that are that much harder to kill. At some point, you would need armor piercing bullets just to kill troops.
Re: we sux
Posted: 06 Nov 2010, 22:49
Afaik , Plasma Guns are do able but
-It needs lots of Energy
-Its lifetime would be too short
unless you can do somehow that the Plasmas are in a Jar, in a Toaster or with a hull that got a small Energy generator
-It needs lots of Energy
-Its lifetime would be too short
unless you can do somehow that the Plasmas are in a Jar, in a Toaster or with a hull that got a small Energy generator
Aim for the Head men. Also some bandits could manage to kill some of those just with an PMm!Forboding Angel wrote: At some point, you would need armor piercing bullets just to kill troops.
Re: we sux
Posted: 14 Dec 2010, 18:12
If you guys approached a publisher(say someone like steam) code win32/64 decently bugtested (even locked to single player only) that was bound to the content(also decently bugtested given the reliance on content based management(lua)) it came with i believe you would be able to sell product. You guys could make money now. I'd suggest initially kernel panic, no spring lobby, exe bound to the release of KP sold for 9.95 or somthing on steam or somthing. Using this method authors of content could also be compensated.
Now if we could just talk about some of the white elephants in various corners......
Now if we could just talk about some of the white elephants in various corners......
Re: we sux
Posted: 14 Dec 2010, 23:44
Please, refine your ideas by educating yourself!id10terror wrote:If you guys approached a publisher(say someone like steam) code win32/64 decently bugtested (even locked to single player only) that was bound to the content(also decently bugtested given the reliance on content based management(lua)) it came with i believe you would be able to sell product. You guys could make money now. I'd suggest initially kernel panic, no spring lobby, exe bound to the release of KP sold for 9.95 or somthing on steam or somthing. Using this method authors of content could also be compensated.
Now if we could just talk about some of the white elephants in various corners......
Some sample topics you may want to look up and learn about:
- GNU GPL (General Public License )
- Steam game application process
- Lua
- Spring's use of Lua
- Indie game development
- Polishing game titles
- QA/bug testing processes and information about how we could get Spring tested.
Thank you! Happy posting!
Re: we sux
Posted: 14 Dec 2010, 23:50
ever seen how humans move on battlefield, trying to keep low? Bipedal form is very sub optimal for warfare.
Re: we sux
Posted: 15 Dec 2010, 10:07
A: bi (quadro) pedal form is good for mobility over rough terrain
B: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ix62_oBGtg <- WOOOOOOO
B: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ix62_oBGtg <- WOOOOOOO
Re: we sux
Posted: 15 Dec 2010, 10:20
dont know if you guys are keeping track of your next gen military hardware, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Combat_Systems, but the next gen tanks are going to unmanned. that is to say, no need for humans inside so a fuckload more room for armour and weapons and a muchmuch lower profile. I dont see what possible good a mech could be in comparison to what can basically be a super-armoured low profile brick, except maybe tread on it and fall over.
the only mech I have seen that looked halfway viable in RL were the baller avatar mechs, and even then only for their mobility.. armour of those was effectively non-existant.
the only mech I have seen that looked halfway viable in RL were the baller avatar mechs, and even then only for their mobility.. armour of those was effectively non-existant.
Re: we sux
Posted: 15 Dec 2010, 10:42
Personally, I think the biggest downfall of mech warfare mentality is simply expense. There is coming in the near future an era where swarms of missles will be circling the battlefield and anything that gets a little lazer pointed on it for more than a few seconds will be quite obliterated. The thing is, in the end of the day, the only weapons system cheaper than a missle is a guy with a gun. Manned vehicals aside from basic transport I believe are going the way of the dinosaur, although ultimately the whole battlefield will be a huge rock paper scissors scenario. If you're fighting in range of missles, your vehicals will be wasted, if you're fighting outside of the range of missles your dudes will get mowed down by vehicals, if you spend more money on equipping infantry better then your dudes are more attractive targets for missles, however, they will be more effective in the field against other dudes.
We're very quickly approaching a time when expense of fighting rules the battlefield far beyond any other factor.
We're very quickly approaching a time when expense of fighting rules the battlefield far beyond any other factor.
Re: we sux
Posted: 15 Dec 2010, 11:07
I disagree. Maybe today a missile is more expensive than an guy, but ultimately, missiles will become cheaper, while guys still require expensive raising and maintenance.The thing is, in the end of the day, the only weapons system cheaper than a missle is a guy with a gun.
Oh, and the potential of cheap drone has only started to be explored. I mean, why pay a half million dollar for a military-grade cruise missile, when for a few hundred dollar you could just glue a camera to a RC plane?
Anyway, I bet wars of the future will be more economical or legal, and less about guns and explosions.
Re: we sux
Posted: 15 Dec 2010, 11:20
in reality, warfare today (and likely in the future even more) is not like BALANCED annihilation (as you picture it), but like Collateral Murder. which war today is not apache vs AK47, or AK47 vs stones, air superiority + tanks vs AK47, ... ?
Has there been a war with high-tech vs high-tech since WW2?
it seems to me like you are living in a dream world.
*nock, nock*
Has there been a war with high-tech vs high-tech since WW2?
it seems to me like you are living in a dream world.
*nock, nock*
Re: we sux
Posted: 15 Dec 2010, 11:26
I disagree with your disagreeing.zwzsg wrote:I disagree. Maybe today a missile is more expensive than an guy, but ultimately, missiles will become cheaper, while guys still require expensive raising and maintenance.The thing is, in the end of the day, the only weapons system cheaper than a missle is a guy with a gun.
Oh, and the potential of cheap drone has only started to be explored. I mean, why pay a half million dollar for a military-grade cruise missile, when for a few hundred dollar you could just glue a camera to a RC plane?
Anyway, I bet wars of the future will be more economical or legal, and less about guns and explosions.
Those drones are actually carrying missiles not just cameras these days, and blowing up dozens of people in each strike. So drone plane strategical worth > human life worth.
I mean it's a pretty depressing thought but human lives are worth almost nothing.
We have nearly 7 billion people on this planet, let's face it people breed like rabbits, and seem to not have much value to the people who make the decisions. In the future, they will breed human soldiers in test tubes. Humans with machine guns and rocket launchers attached to them like in Quake. Raaa!!!
Okay my post kind of ran off track there..
Re: we sux
Posted: 15 Dec 2010, 12:03
Altho the guys who fly the drones have to be worth more than the drone. They are remote operated by I *think* its 4 personel.
MidKnight GPL's the best reason for me to respond to you so:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FS ... e_licenses
I'm certain given certain provisions you could achieve this, however if you do not want to, i'm sorry i brought it up.
MidKnight GPL's the best reason for me to respond to you so:
And.\DOCS\LICENSE.html wrote:Spring is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License
But i expect your public source may be combined with a private licence.Compatibility and multi-licensing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FS ... e_licenses
I'm certain given certain provisions you could achieve this, however if you do not want to, i'm sorry i brought it up.
Re: we sux
Posted: 15 Dec 2010, 13:22
human cost is HUGE, training costs for ppl ++ hit in popularity you take with each soldier dead. If the afghani war was being fought only with drones and shit, with 0 US casualties and the same afghan casualties as currently, noone in the US would give a fuck about it.