Miscellaneous Bugs And Questions That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread

just wondering if organism mode will be played in 3rd person.

alduin2013 wrote:

just wondering if organism mode will be played in 3rd person.

We are still on microbe stage, not organism, but here is your answer:
answer

I saw on the wiki that there was section called concept races, only Uteen's work was in there so that made me wonder, can we have a section on the forum on concept races?

As I asked earlier, is the attack system going to be a hit and miss, like Mount & Blade or Men of War or The Elder Scrolls, or is it going to be selective attack, like WoW or Age of Empires or Spore? I personally prefer the former.

Raptorstorm wrote:

I saw on the wiki that there was section called concept races, only Uteen's work was in there so that made me wonder, can we have a section on the forum on concept races?

An off-topic section has already been discussed, and decided against, and a concept races section is quite definitely off-topic. To be honest, I don't know why we even have a concept race section on the wiki.

NickTheNick wrote:

As I asked earlier, is the attack system going to be a hit and miss, like Mount & Blade or Men of War or The Elder Scrolls, or is it going to be selective attack, like WoW or Age of Empires or Spore? I personally prefer the former.

Of the games you mentioned, I have only played Spore, so I'm mostly guessing what the attack systems are, but it will (if possible) be hit and miss, and will use the complex damage system.⁽ᵗʰʳᵉᵃᵈ⁾

Relevant threads:
https://thrivegame.canadaboard.net/t608-aiming-system
https://thrivegame.canadaboard.net/t629-aware-stage-combat

I'm pretty sure that it was decided on a while ago that the attack system would be hit and miss, sort of like Skyrim/The Elder Scrolls series. That would make for a much better game in organism mode. I think that it would be better to have the latter system of combat for the society and industrial stages (which really ought to be merged), simply for the sake of programming ease.

Thanks The Uteen, that's exactly what I meant.

Hoe are you going to handle animal noises and sounds (barks and stuff)???

decelis93 wrote:

Hoe are you going to handle animal noises and sounds (barks and stuff)???

We intend to use free sound database website thingies. To put it another way, sites which distribute un-copyrighted sounds for free. Once used, we will (hopefully) make a note of the website, incase we need to add them to the credits in the future.

If we can't find the sort of sound we want in that way, we can also record some sounds ourselves, if anyone has some good recording equipment.

The Uteen wrote:

decelis93 wrote:

Hoe are you going to handle animal noises and sounds (barks and stuff)???

We intend to use free sound database website thingies. To put it another way, sites which distribute un-copyrighted sounds for free. Once used, we will (hopefully) make a note of the website, incase we need to add them to the credits in the future.

If we can't find the sort of sound we want in that way, we can also record some sounds ourselves, if anyone has some good recording equipment.

I was meaning about how you are going to assing the sound to the creatures, what factors are implied on the different sounds and stuff

decelis93 wrote:

I was meaning about how you are going to assing the sound to the creatures, what factors are implied on the different sounds and stuff

It was said in another thread that that will be decided by the shape and size of the top breathing system of an animal. It will probably be some sounds pitched up or down depending on the type.

Daniferrito wrote:

decelis93 wrote:

I was meaning about how you are going to assing the sound to the creatures, what factors are implied on the different sounds and stuff

It was said in another thread that that will be decided by the shape and size of the top breathing system of an animal. It will probably be some sounds pitched up or down depending on the type.

That's generally it, yes.

The mouth type (or shape & size, if there aren't separate ‘parts’) decides the sound used, the shape and size of the chest and throat, or whatever equivalents are present, changes the pitch and volume.

So which thread will we be deciding on the compounds for the microbe stage and their significant properties?

Also, same question for organelles.

NickTheNick wrote:

So which thread will we be deciding on the compounds for the microbe stage and their significant properties?

Also, same question for organelles.

We don't seem to have any threads for those purposes; we could do with a thread for microbe stage compounds.

Organelles will be linked to the types of proto-cells we include in the cell stage (excluding the nucleus and membrane), so I'd recommend just one thread for deciding both. Although, I was under the impression the proto-cells, and thus organelles, were already decided upon.

There are fairly few organelles we can actually have, so that should be fairly straight forward to decide. You might want to combine that with a discussion of other 'attachements' we might have, such as flagella, cillia, ionic pumps etc.

The compound system and resource system threads already contain a good list of compounds and their interactions, so you could use those as a base (but please don't use either thread to discuss the compound list, they're still needed for discussion of the actual systems).

Besides the actual compounds, what we really need is the reactions between them, including weightings (e.g.: 6 oxygen + 1 sugar -> 6 water + 6 co2 + 38 ATP).

I have a bug. It's been bugging me for a while (no pun intended), but now it really is starting to get on my nerves.

When I copy and paste things, they turn out like this. (This is a sample from a random paragraph from one of Seregon's posts)

The chart also gives some process names, though no weightings. The
second page of that thread also explains how reaction rates will be
calculated, based on the concentration of input and output compounds,
and an intrinsic rate. That intrinisic rate is all we need for each
reaction, and it should be a simple number, not an equation. For
example, if (I'm making these number up, at some point they need to be
researched) aerobic respiration happens twice as fast as photosynthesis,
aerobic respiration may have an intrinsic rate of 1 reaction per
millisecond, and photosynthesis 0.5 reactions per millisecond.
(actually, reading above, Hz is a good unit for this).

See all the spacing gets messed up and the post gets doubled in size.
Why does it do this? Am I the only one who gets this? How do I fix it?

Oddly, no, I don't get the same problem. Copying the same paragraph gives me:

The chart also gives some process names, though no weightings. The second page of that thread also explains how reaction rates will be calculated, based on the concentration of input and output compounds, and an intrinsic rate. That intrinisic rate is all we need for each reaction, and it should be a simple number, not an equation. For example, if (I'm making these number up, at some point they need to be researched) aerobic respiration happens twice as fast as photosynthesis, aerobic respiration may have an intrinsic rate of 1 reaction per millisecond, and photosynthesis 0.5 reactions per millisecond. (actually, reading above, Hz is a good unit for this).

It might be your browser (I use firefox), you could also try quoting the post and copying the text from the post box, rather than directly from the forum.

EDIT: it's worth pointing out that if I copy what you posted above, it stays split. Also, an alternative way of fixing it (which may be a little heavy handed) is to paste the text into notepad++, selecting it, edit->line operations->join lines.

I've used Safari and Chrome on Mac OS X and have never had that problem, if it helps.

I remember in a past thread roadkillguy explicitly stated that he was thinking of only coding in about 6-7 compounds. In the list I made on another thread we already 14. Should we worry about complexity, or is this fine?

Also, regarding the line spacing issues, I'm on Firefox as well. I guess notepad is the solution then.

EDIT: No actually, quoting works quite well unless what I want to copy is not in the same thread.

Could it be a problem about the OS? For example, linux uses "\n" to code a new line, but windows uses an aditional character (something like "\n\g"). That makes the only \n texts have no line changes in windows but have several lines in linux (the other way works fine). Are you on linux?

You can always quote something from any thread, copy it and not send it, then go to any other thread and paste.

About the compounds, i would have to see why roadkillguy said he didnt want more than 7 compounds, but i would say that that quantity is variable, we can use more if we really need them.

The issue of having too many compounds has been raised and discussed in the compound system thread. As I explained there, we're not coding in any compounds. Rather, we build a system in code which reads compounds in from files. That way, we can very simply change the detail of the system without touching the code.

The plan was to start with a relatively accurate and details system, test it, and then simplify as needed.

One reason for this is that the more compounds we have, the more mutational options species have. Having just 5 or so compounds (probably air, water, energy, nutrients, and possibly protein), would severely limit the complexity, and probably diversity, of the game.

To what extent will physics be simulated in game? I remember Bashi said there will be physics in the first place, but how much?

NickTheNick wrote:

To what extent will physics be simulated in game? I remember Bashi said there will be physics in the first place, but how much?

Quick list:

• Newtonian gravity (for large-scale objects only, I would guess, not organisms)
  
  
• Some simpleish organism physics, for movement, strength, combat, etc.
  
  
• Tech Object strength, tension, weight, elasticity, maybe a few more things
  
  
• Speed of sound (Undiscussed, but would look impressive)
  
  
• Speed of light (maybe just in observer mode, but something to consider as an optical effect)
  
  
  
  • To go with the above, possibly time dilation of some kind, at great speeds/gravity fields, to emulate relativity, but probably not
    
  
  
• Dynamic atmospheric temperatures (not really physics, it's just a simple version, but perhaps noteworthy)

How "crazy", "unorthodox" or "cartoon" Can we be?
Could i have instead of a limo for my kind a really unsafe fast unguided rocket system?
Or a sand house for my "white house"?
Or maybe a wooden space ship?
Or maybe even a glass bullet?

The Uteen wrote:

NickTheNick wrote:

To what extent will physics be simulated in game? I remember Bashi said there will be physics in the first place, but how much?

Quick list:

• Newtonian gravity (for large-scale objects only, I would guess, not organisms)
  I would say yes, my demo program does it and it isn'e hart to do. The problem would be that with Newtonian physics we will have a harder time creating spacial events for the player (like being threatened by an asteroid)
  
  
• Some simpleish organism physics, for movement, strength, combat, etc.
  I would say yes, in the shape of "stats". For example, stronger legs means more strength when jumping, and so higher jumps.
  
  
• Tech Object strength, tension, weight, elasticity, maybe a few more things
  We can probably do it, the problem i see is that it can get overwhelming for the player
  
  
• Speed of sound (Undiscussed, but would look impressive)
  If you mean sound barrier, we could harcode something like that. I dont know what else would you want to simulate about this
  
  
• Speed of light (maybe just in observer mode, but something to consider as an optical effect)
  If you mean signals taking some time to get to far places, or exponential need of propulsion in order to get to speeds closer to speed, maybe. I dont know what do you mean with optical effect
  
  
  
  • To go with the above, possibly time dilation of some kind, at great speeds/gravity fields, to emulate relativity, but probably not
    If for fast travel we are going to use things like FTL, teleportation or hyperspace, There in nothing in that related with relativity
    
  
  
• Dynamic atmospheric temperatures (not really physics, it's just a simple version, but perhaps noteworthy)
  To some extent

nziswat wrote:

How "crazy", "unorthodox" or "cartoon" Can we be?
Could i have instead of a limo for my kind a really unsafe fast unguided rocket system?
Or a sand house for my "white house"?
Or maybe a wooden space ship?
Or maybe even a glass bullet?

I would say yes for all of this, but as material determines the propierties of the object, they wont work. They will be possible, just not usefull