Patch Project 1.2.5 Patch question

posted on January 27th, 2013, 1:59 pm

I have always lived by the maxim that "If It isn't broke, don't fix it". I originally moved from Windows 98 (via a short flirtation with ME) to XP because things just weren't working right with 98, newer games didn't really like it much and so eventually I went to XP.

i skipped from 98 straight to xp. and am i ever glad i did, ME and vista are the two whipping boys for windows. i liked 98. that startup sound was epic. like the psx/ps1 startup sound, and the imac g3 era startup sound. nobody makes good startup sounds anymore.

posted on January 27th, 2013, 9:31 pm

you are mistaken. i direct you to microsoft's page on the matter:
http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifepolicy
as it says, they will continue provide security patches for the OS during the extended phase.

I have already seen that page and it actually doesn't apply when I was going directly by the individual pages for differemt OS by Microsoft such as Windows Vista, Windows 7 and even Windows XP. What you're link is about is just the basics and gets slightly changed between the different OS and their. Security Patches WILL NOT be available for Windows Vista and Windows 7 eventually as soon as 2015, then business only for those operating systems will get Extended Support, the key to that is because only the Professional and Enterprise Versions of the OS will still be supported. After reading up on everything involving both Windows Vista and Windows 7 anyone would realize that is what Microsoft is talking about, especially if you do an extensive Google search that includes every bit of information from Microsoft on the respective OS.

feature wise, win7 is finished, it's obvious they aren't going to add new features to win7, they don't really have any new things to add. win8 has precious few new features that aren't aimed at tablets.

Microsoft more than once has said that Windows 8 is geared towards Tablet PCs and Touch Screen PCs meaning that almost everything that is with Windows 8 is geared for that. Even the new Microsoft Office 2013 is going to be geared for more Windows 8 devices but will work on Windows 7 and Vista with less of its functions.

anti virus definitions do not work that way. anti virus software is third party software, and as such its support for specific OS versions is something that microsoft have nothing to do with.

I think you failed to see what I meant. Certain Windows Updates from Microsoft protect the OS from viruses and other vulnerabilites. Hate to burst your bubble, but 3rd party anti virus and internet security work in conjunction with Microsoft updates including the built in fire walls, windows defender (on or off), and even the Microsoft Malware Removal Tool are all things that get updates for different OS that are still working inconjunction with the 3rd party software.

Plus on top of that if you haven't heard anything about it, Microsoft isn't going to even be releasing any new Service Packs for Windows 7 and that means SP1 is the only Service Pack for Windows 7. Microsoft has actually decided to get away from putting out Service Packs and gear their time towards making new operating systems for the devices they are gearing more towards now, and according to what I have read on their website, that is tablet PCs, especially since people are trying to get away from desktops and laptops and moving towards more portable computing devices such as iPads, and other tablet PCs.

there is no contest on this, it isn't of much importance here though. win7 doesn't need any more service packs, all it gets are patches now, as i said before: no new features. the only reason they'd ever want to release sp2 would be to bundle a bunch of patches together for convenience.

You partially are correct, but you actually fail to see the point about what a Service Pack is for a Windows Operating System. Part of it is a collection of all the other update and patches that have been released over the time since either the latest Service Packs' release or the release of the OS itself depending on what OS it is for.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/24 ... ows_7_sp2/
http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifean30

Like ant other company, Microsoft will go towards where the money is going to be geared towards, tablets won't be flopping they are getting more and more popular since they first started coming out and are also getting better and better
who said tablets would flop? you're putting words in my mouth. i said win8 is going to fail to meet expectations

tablets are doing fine, and right now win8 is an acceptable tablet os. the problem is how people will get win8. if you're buying a tablet, chances are it will come with an OS already installed. right now i don't see any reason to buy a win8 tablet for personal use. ios and android have many more apps, and are mature by now. microsoft's app offering is paltry by comparison. some question if there's room to squeeze in another app-centric mobile os. as that would require app makers to make yet another app version. RIM are being left in the dust, and they were the only true competitor to M$ in the businessperson market. the only reason i see someone wanting a win8 tablet, is for Microsoft's own connectivity reasons, eg exchange.

very few people will have a tablet and want to install a new OS on it..

I never said tablets are going to fail so I'd surmise that you're putting words into my mouth. You said that you believe Windows 8 will flop and yet since it is geared more to tablet PCs it will not flop because tablet PCs are becoming more indemand than other forms of computers because of the fact they are so much more portable than any other type of computer and are quicker to access. Thus any tablet or touchscreen laptop or desktop will actually be keeping Windows 8 indemand so it can not become the flop you were/are saying it would be.

Plus, you are the one that said Windows 8 would be a flop, here is your own statement to refresh your mind:

windows 8 is not designed with desktops in mind, it's aimed at tablets (that's why i think it'll flop tbh).

All I was saying is that tablet PCs will not be a flop because of Windows 8 being geared more towards them than any other operating system.

the desktop, however, is going precisely nowhere. try convince a business to ditch desktops, they'll throw you out a window then send circular emails (in lotus notes on winxp) around the office laughing about how stupid you are. if many businesses can't even be motivated to ditch xp, and that's over a decade old, how will they be convinced to completely change the office computer paradigm. businesses are sticky like maple syrup. their desktops are going nowhere. that's probably the main reason why win8 doesn't make sense for desktops, businesses won't switch, so M$ didn't care to make win8 any good for desktops.

I don't know where you are from, but I have seen may companies using Windows Vista, some have Windows 7. Many have switched away from Windows XP because of its support officially ending and since much of the software that they use being better on Windows Vista and Windows 7. Schools (namely high schools and colleges) are even switching from Windows XP, some of the computers the teachers use that connect to a server might still be running Windows XP on their own but the moment they connect to the server, the screens actually switch and I have seen them switch over to Windows Vista and in some cases Windows 7 (it can sometime be hard to tell the difference).

also pc gamers aren't ditching desktops either. the more 'hardcore' the gamer, the fewer the numbers of them, but they spend disproportionate amounts of money on computer tech like graphics cards.

For people like me, win7 is still good enough and will be for at least 3 years, probably more. right now, if you need an os for a desktop, win7 is definitely the way to go. win8's features are nearly all for tablets, the few niceties for desktops don't stack up against the problems.

There are actually many PC gamers that are 'hardcore' and are actually using laptops such as myself with Windows 7, Vista or even Windows 8. Usually, those that spend money on computer tech such as graphic cards are building or designing their own computer and are having what they want put into it for their own needs, either gaming or other things. I should know, I have friends that do such things and in all due respects to them I still would say it is a waste of money.

Eventually when it comes to how OS will be gearing towards tablets and touchscreen PCs, Windows 7 will be the way to go for any laptop or desktop.

********

Plus I'd like it if this topic gets back to what it is and originally was for, the Patch Project 1.2.5 Patch and to get away from and stay away from computers, their workings, their Service Packs, Patches and Operating Systems in general. Unless it involves a new patch for Star Trek Armada II (and Armada I) on newer operating systems.

posted on January 27th, 2013, 11:23 pm

I have already seen that page and it actually doesn't apply when I was going directly by the individual pages for different OS by Microsoft such as Windows Vista, Windows 7 and even Windows XP. What you're link is about is just the basics and gets slightly changed between the different OS and their. Security Patches WILL NOT be available for Windows Vista and Windows 7 eventually as soon as 2015, then business only for those operating systems will get Extended Support, the key to that is because only the Professional and Enterprise Versions of the OS will still be supported. After reading up on everything involving both Windows Vista and Windows 7 anyone would realize that is what Microsoft is talking about, especially if you do an extensive Google search that includes every bit of information from Microsoft on the respective OS.

you're just plain factually incorrect here.

this is the page detailing support timeline for win7:
http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?c2=14019
read the table, it matches up with the info in my previous link (they wouldn't bother publishing a general policy if they were just gonna ignore it on a case by case basis). as the table says, extended support on win7 continues until 2020. and as the previous link said, extended support includes security patches. the extended support continues for all versions (except the rarely seen home prem N, home prem proper is still 2020).

I think you failed to see what I meant. Certain Windows Updates from Microsoft protect the OS from viruses and other vulnerabilites.

yes, and these will continue during extended support.

windows defender (on or off),

you display a lack of understanding of the nature of windows defender (the version on win7). if you have a modern antivirus solution (eg avast/avira/mcafee/etc) it will come with an anti spyware component, meaning you should have windows defender SWITCHED OFF as your AV suite is doing the same job already.

the Microsoft Malware Removal Tool are all things that get updates for different OS that are still working inconjunction with the 3rd party software.

what you're trying to say is "Malicious Software Removal Tool", and you don't understand that well either. that is a piece of software designed to detect a fixed number of common malware infections. it runs once, not actively. it doesn't interact at all with third party software (by design). your AV suite doesn't care about the Malicious Software Removal Tool at all.

You partially are correct, but you actually fail to see the point about what a Service Pack is for a Windows Operating System. Part of it is a collection of all the other update and patches that have been released over the time since either the latest Service Packs' release or the release of the OS itself depending on what OS it is for.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/24 ... ows_7_sp2/
http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifean30

what you've said here is such complete nonsense, it doesn't actually rebut anything I said, you just repeated my position, but said i was wrong anyway. the funny thing is that we aren't actually disagreeing on this point.

I never said tablets are going to fail so I'd surmise that you're putting words into my mouth.

are you serious? i'm hoping you're not intentionally trying it on now. you're way overcomplicating something simple. let's break it down:

- i said i think win8 will flop
- you said this: tablets won't be flopping they are getting more and more popular since they first started coming out and are also getting better and better.
- i said: who said tablets would flop? you're putting words in my mouth. i said win8 is going to fail to meet expectations.
- now we're in the present day and you've somehow ended up saying: I never said tablets are going to fail

*shrug*, i can't really say more here.

You said that you believe Windows 8 will flop and yet since it is geared more to tablet PCs it will not flop because tablet PCs are becoming more indemand than other forms of computers because of the fact they are so much more portable than any other type of computer and are quicker to access. Thus any tablet or touchscreen laptop or desktop will actually be keeping Windows 8 indemand so it can not become the flop you were/are saying it would be.

now we're back on topic (i use that phrase very loosely). tablet demand is gonna be fine. i'll just reiterate what i said earlier: just because tablets sell, doesn't mean win8 will. if you're choosing a tablet for personal use, it will have an OS preinstalled, you won't choose win8. you'll choose iOS or Android. tablet/phones are all about apps, and MS just can't compete with ios/android on apps. don't mention touchscreen desktops, they are completely irrelevant. their sales are so low that they are invisible to MS.

Plus, you are the one that said Windows 8 would be a flop, here is your own statement to refresh your mind
All I was saying is that tablet PCs will not be a flop because of Windows 8 being geared more towards them than any other operating system.

i stand by that statement. tablets will definitely not flop. but that's not because of win8, tablets have been doing majestically since the first ipad launched. it's got nothing to do with win8, tablets are just in demand.

I don't know where you are from, but I have seen may companies using Windows Vista, some have Windows 7. Many have switched away from Windows XP because of its support officially ending and since much of the software that they use being better on Windows Vista and Windows 7. Schools (namely high schools and colleges) are even switching from Windows XP, some of the computers the teachers use that connect to a server might still be running Windows XP on their own but the moment they connect to the server, the screens actually switch and I have seen them switch over to Windows Vista and in some cases Windows 7 (it can sometime be hard to tell the difference).

oh, my favourite type of evidence: 'I've seen'. forgive me if i don't accept biased evidence. let me drop some links: 1 2 3 4
businesses only care about money, it costs a ton to switch many computers from one OS to another. there are firms making money providing that as a service.

if we're gonna do the 'i've seen' thing, then I've seen more business computers using ubuntu than vista/7. honestly, i was pleasantly surprised to see an office with some computers running ubuntu. my college ran xp, my university ran xp (even though some of the computers are actually modern enough to handle win7). the business i work for runs xp. OS upgrades are costly in time and money, and the last few years have been tough economically. there's been little appetite for ambitious tech projects.

even when MS finally pulls the plug on xp (which is in april 2014, over a year from now), some business STILL won't switch. as long as businesses are run by people obsessed with things like money and shareholders, tech projects will struggle in the era of austerity.

There are actually many PC gamers that are 'hardcore' and are actually using laptops

that's a hot potato among gamers. i'm of the opinion that a 'gaming laptop' is probably one of the more stupid things imaginable. they are usually heavy and have shit battery life, and so fail completely at being portable, and gaming on a laptop nearly always happens with the laptop stationary, so you might as well have a desktop. laptops aren't standardised as much as desktops, so customising is harder. laptops cost more to buy, and laptop components are usually more expensive. combine that with being crushed into a small space and run very hot, the lifespan of these devices is reduced dramatically. you might as well just burn your money. or buy/build a desktop for gaming.

win8 makes a bad choice presently for gaming. the compatibility issues are already showing themselves. i've experienced it myself on a family member's win8 machine. win8 has no benefit over win7 for gamers.

[b]Plus I'd like it if this topic gets back to what it is and originally was for,

no you wouldn't. if you wanted to be on topic you wouldn't have typed an attempted rebuttal. you just want the last word. sadly that's not how a debate works.

imagine a prosecutor speaking his opening statements, then running out of the court with his fingers in his ears so the defence can't rebut.

posted on January 28th, 2013, 12:26 am

I have to agree with Miles on all points, especially when it comes to so-called "Gaming Laptops". Sorry, but no-one who wants to play games more complex than Farmville would buy a laptop to do so. For gaming, you need something powerful, efficient, easily cooled and capable of being "future proofed" with room for expansion and upgrades.

Laptops offer precisely zip in those terms. They are generally not as powerful and their hardware not as efficient. They are stonkingly hot most of the time (if used for intensive applications such as games) and are virtually un-upgradeable.

You never see Disney/Pixar type people doing 3d animation on a laptop do you? Why? Hardware isn't up to that sort of load. Gaming these days is heading into that sort of territory.

posted on January 28th, 2013, 6:35 pm

I have to agree with Miles on all points, especially when it comes to so-called "Gaming Laptops". Sorry, but no-one who wants to play games more complex than Farmville would buy a laptop to do so. For gaming, you need something powerful, efficient, easily cooled and capable of being "future proofed" with room for expansion and upgrades.

Laptops offer precisely zip in those terms. They are generally not as powerful and their hardware not as efficient. They are stonkingly hot most of the time (if used for intensive applications such as games) and are virtually un-upgradeable.

You never see Disney/Pixar type people doing 3d animation on a laptop do you? Why? Hardware isn't up to that sort of load. Gaming these days is heading into that sort of territory.

I'm going to ignore Myles and let him have the last word, ha. Jokes on him, I called Microsoft and talked to a Customer Support Rep and got my answers from her and also asked to speak to her supervisor to clarify some of the things she had said. And pretty much what I had wrote in my first reply especially about Windows Vista and Windows 7 Extended Support and Service Packs was correct. So I at least heard it from the "Horse's Mouth" so to speak. So really, I just let him have his fun. Rather see my topic get back on to what it was for: "The Questions I have on the: Patch Project 1.2.5 Patch) that really haven't been answered.

When it comes to 'Hardcore' gaming I have seen many different people playing games for hours on laptops without any problems. Windows 8 PCs do have problem with games, especially older ones like Star Trek Armada I & II but with alittle tweaking, I got Star Trek Legacy to work on a friends Windows 8 PC (laptop). I even had played Star Trek Online with her laptop for awhile, namely almost all night when I had a day off from work, and my university classes.

I pretty much more on STO and less on Armada II & FleetOps because it just doesn't cut it for me when neither of them have my favorite ships, the Federation's Odyssey-class Tactical Cruiser (http://www.stowiki.org/Odyssey_Tactical_Cruiser) and the Klingons' Bortasqu' Class Tactical Cruiser (http://www.stowiki.org/Bortasqu'_Tactical_Cruiser).

posted on January 28th, 2013, 6:53 pm

I'm going to ignore Myles and let him have the last word, ha. Jokes on him, I called Microsoft and talked to a Customer Support Rep and got my answers from her and also asked to speak to her supervisor to clarify some of the things she had said. And pretty much what I had wrote in my first reply especially about Windows Vista and Windows 7 Extended Support and Service Packs was correct. So I at least heard it from the "Horse's Mouth" so to speak. So really, I just let him have his fun. Rather see my topic get back on to what it was for: "The Questions I have on the: Patch Project 1.2.5 Patch) that really haven't been answered.

oh this is so delicious. firstly because you actually think anyone will believe such an obvious fabrication, and secondly because you actually felt the need to fabricate in the first place.

oh, and passive aggressively declaring that someone else can have the last word doesn't actually count as giving them the last word.

there's only one response mature enough to rebut your well constructed argument:

posted on January 28th, 2013, 7:01 pm

Now to get this back on topic!!

(1): How come on Windows 7 Star Trek Armada I with its Patch Project Installed still has its: "Compatibility File" that links to: C:\Users\AppData\Local\VirtualStore\Program Files (x86)\Activision\Star Trek - Armada, but Star Trek Armada II doesn't? Both have their versions of the Patch project installed (the Armada 1.3.0 Patch for Star Trek Armada I) (the 1.2.5 Patch for Star Trek Armada II). Does this have anything to do with the two seperate patches or Windows 7 in general?

(2): How does the coding "maxBuildableNumber =" affect the AI in Star Trek Armada II? Or does it only affect the person playing the game?

(3): Has anyone discovered any unused coding from the Star Trek Armada II engine?
I ask this because it sounds like those creating the Star Trek Armada I Mod: Star Trek Future Tense might have done just that with Armada I. Its mentioned right on the top of this page that I am linking to:

http://futuretense.armadafleetcommand.com/features.htm

To Quote The Parts I'm Refering To:

Future Tense is known for 'proving the impossible can be done' listed below is the achievements Future Tense has achieved in bringing Star Trek Armada to new grounds...

Resistance is Futile
Borg
The Borg have been completely readdressed. For the first time, the Borg will act like Borg, and prove just as deadly. Now with the advantage of being able to adapt to selected special weapons, either in defence to the unicomplex, or to use against their enemies, the Borg will now act like the real deal, including their ignorance, of anything they deem unthreatening

(3): Does anyone actually know how this can be done in Star Trek Armada II?

New Firepower & Special Slots
All Races
Future Tense also houses new forms of weapons previously unused by Armada. After discovering an open coded game engine, that Armada initally used as a foundation and months of testing and trial and erroring, Future Tense has successfully created an entirely new working array of weaponry for useage without editing any codes or programs. Most proved to crash or add to ingame instability, but we did unlock a few weapons including, Subspace Probes, Torpedoes that give you sensor telemetry and reveal cloaked vessels and many many more. Also included is the much sought after Torpedo Bursts special weapon abilities and the deemed impossible Multi-Vector Assault Mode. To accomidate the new additions, Future Tense has the ability of more than 5 Special Weapons per ship. In some cases, vessels can have up to 7 special weapons when fully refitted or researched!

This of course is the part with my initial question before quoting involving extra coding, as in the: "open coded game engine".

After discovering an open coded game engine, that Armada initally used as a foundation and months of testing and trial and erroring, Future Tense has successfully created an entirely new working array of weaponry for useage without editing any codes or programs.

posted on January 28th, 2013, 9:08 pm

Not to cause an argument or "mud sling" but Future Tense has been in production since I started modding Armada. (or maybe it just feels like it!)

They have repeatedly claimed to "do the impossible" but they always refuse to reveal any details, it never gets any closer to release and all we see are screenshots showing very normal ordinary things in a hideously outdated engine.

Frankly, until I see proof they've done half the stuff they claim, I call foul. Modding works in the opposite way to justice; you have to prove you can do something rather than someone else having to prove you haven't.

So I wouldn't get all excited about their claims. Personally, I've seen with my own eyes (as we all have) what the FleetOps team has achieved. It's there, it's real, it's tangible. If they haven't managed some of these "impossible things" which the Future Tense team claims they have done (and several years ago to boot) then frankly I don't see that it's been done. FleetOps has always been on the cutting edge of Armada modding. Future Tense, to me, has always been about razamataz and showmanship and very little real substance.

posted on January 29th, 2013, 12:34 am

There are about a dozen flags and a few classlabels that aren't used in A2/A1, which are documented on the guide. I still don't understand the function of about 40 flags, but they are most likely relics, at least in A2. There are a few A1 commands and 1 (or was it 2?) classlabels that exist only in A1.

Maxbuildablenumber should affect the AI, but haven't dealt with that in years, given it's the patch project.

In regard to Future Tense features:

Afaik, the 'open engine' was Battlezone, which does share a few older elements. Nonetheless, looking at the executable for A1/A2 can tell you much more than looking at Battlezone.

-MVAM is done via a trick with the Pod system, which exists in FO as well. Nonetheless, there are far better ways to do that in FO.
-Sensor probes are possible via the classlabel which exists in A2 as well.

posted on January 29th, 2013, 1:29 am

Ok, thank you SquireJames and Dominus_Noctis.
I have been wondering how to make the Borg act more like the Borg seen in Star Trek The Next Generation, Star Trek Voyager, Star Trek First Contact, and Star Trek Enterprise in how they ignored anything that they didn't consider to be a threat. Is there unused coding in stock Armada II or in Fleet Ops to make this possible? Would this be something to give up in trying to achieve?

For the AI and the Patch Project's "maxBuildableNumber =" coding, how exactly does it affect the AI?
In my mod I have many different ships that use this coding, and have added them to the AI. Would this cause the game to crash if the AI has attempted to build something with the coding if the AI's numbers for the amount to build are higher than the "maxBuildableNumber ="?

Example: the AI's coding says to build 4 but the maxBuildableNumber = 2. What would/could happen?

posted on January 29th, 2013, 2:02 am

Hmm, the only conceivable way I can think of to get the Borg to ignore things that are not considered a threat would be via the AI attack and target values. However, they wouldn't really work to your satisfaction, as they are not on a per vessel basis (i.e you couldn't make a Miranda be threatening to a Borg Interceptor, but not threatening to a Borg Cube) and they are also completely independent of any racial tendencies (i.e EVERY race would act that way, be the ship Klingon, Federation etc they'd all either ignore it completely or hunt it down).

Perhaps you could "fudge it" by making separate weapons for each Borg ship and having "lesser targets" invalidated. That way, a Borg Cube would never target the Miranda, but a Borg Interceptor would. That would take some considerably coding, and I can't really see how it would work balance wise, as all your opponent would need to do is build hundreds of Mirandas, and regardless of their number or combined strength, your vaunted Borg Cube would sit and do diddly squat.

Alas I don't think there is any way to implement that concept. In FleetOps v.4 I've heard that there will be map object dependent tech trees. i.e you could program it so that you couldn't build a Borg Cube until the opponent had say, 4 Sovereigns, Negh'Vars etc. Which would nicely limit the Borg to the level of their opponents but still leave them massively powerful in the end game. Would make for an interesting dynamic. Sure, I can upgrade and start building capital ships, but then the Borg will start making Cubes, Diamonds etc.

But the details of that particular system have not yet been revealed so it is impossible to comment on whether that is possible or feasible

posted on January 29th, 2013, 6:06 am

Might have to give up on it.

I just remembered something regarding Star Trek Future Tense, there were forums on Armada Fleet Command (http://www.armadafleetcommand.com that were talking about Future Tense and I thought they said something about a 2013 release. Have they mentioned about releases before? If its true for a release and they have done what they said the mod could do then maybe it would be possible to see and duplicate what they did to the Borg to make them act like how the Borg really do.

Making individual weapons for each Borg ship and station would be adding a lot more files to the game and I'm not sure if I'd want to do that.

posted on January 29th, 2013, 8:31 pm

Although this isn't the best place for me to discuss anything relating the Future Tense mod, I will just make a brief comment on the features.

There are well known, but underused "features" in the game that FT uses to their full extent. This is no different from how fleetops uses many of the stock commands to give a very rich gaming experience. For example, a large variety of the interesting weapons are based on the uball style weapons. The most advanced of these is probably the riker maneuver, featuring the trail of gray clouds, and a delayed shockwave explosion. Another is a weapon that creates a permanent black hole, along with an initial wave that pulls in surrounding ships. However, there is no magic about any of these.

It is really upsetting to me to know that due to the excessively high expectations in regards to the features that FT will display, FT will predictably become the most anticipated disappointment.

Burst fire weapons have existed for a while. Antimatter spreads (aka, best of both worlds fireworks) is mostly on the SOD level, not in coding. MVAM is functional, but not to the level that everyone expects; it is a SOD animation with some carefully timed and placed weapons. By no means is it trivial, but neither is it revolutionary. Infact, it may be dropped from the final release due to MVAM not adding significant value to the Federation side.

The few supposedly impossible features are either that - impossible - or have indeed been discovered and improved on in fleetops. The greatest accomplishments in FT are not in discovery, or even in the implementation of existing features in prize-worthy ways, but merely in the use of available material in the fullest manner.

I doubt strongly that Future Tense can in any perceivable way influence the modding of fleetops., but I am more than glad to discuss anything related to FT and its purported features. Whether this is the correct topic for this discussion, I am not sure, especially since most of my knowledge relates to Armada 1.

posted on January 30th, 2013, 12:20 am

On the contrary, I believe that one long-time fan of Future Tense brought up the idea of pods buildable from anything - one of the first and quite important changes implemented to the Fleet Ops engine . I think there's a lot that can be learned from 'odd/non-standard' ways of coding things - many ideas we get to expose components for Fleet Ops are due to talking to other modders or examining more unused functions . Of course, as the years go buy, we see less and less ideas - but even recently, we've added flags for making anything a 'background object' for instance, after being pointed to background planets.

The only 'disappointment' for me and probably many many others is that any A1 modification will have a very low following - it's simply so difficult to run A1 on most modern computers. Would be nice to play and test them . In my personal FO mods section I have converted quite a few A2 mods to run on FO. A1 would take more effort due to the GUI and models, but shouldn't be too hard.... I think .

posted on January 30th, 2013, 3:14 pm

well im converting and A1 mod called LotF over to FO and the initial crossover was pretty easy I've decided to do it from scratch allowing me to name things easier and add FO features to it.