This set assumes that the bridge seen in Yesterdays Enterprise was actually a battlebridge or auxilliary control room, and NOT the main bridge of that ship. I think that is far more logical considering it's place in the design lineage and it's size. The set seen in that episode was way too utilitarian even compared to the TMP bridge.
Wth any luck, there will be a twenty second walk-through animation ready for posting on monday (everyone pray!).
[ August 04, 2002, 16:42: Message edited by: Topher ]
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
Awesome, really terrific. Certainly can't fault the modelling/rendering. Some of the consoles are perhaps a little too close to the Galaxy Class style, but that aside, it really is great.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
I like it. You think the E-C's bridge was a battle bridge or a secondary bridge? Do you have a pic or the layout for it?
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Am I imagining things, or is that a redress of the ST:V bridge?
Not that I'm complaining... just observing. Posted by seanr (Member # 277) on :
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: Am I imagining things, or is that a redress of the ST:V bridge?
Not that I'm complaining... just observing.
That's exactly what it is. I would argue that that is exactly what it _should_ be, as the ST5 bridge was _way_ ahead of its time and didn't fit into the era for which it was built at all. It makes a lot more sense when you push it back fifty years and make it an intermediate design between the more utilitarian style of the late 23rd / early 24th century and the more comfortable style of the late 24th.
Compared side-by side, you can see that the Ent-C bridge is clearly a step backwards. It is too small for the ship and far too utilitarian for the era. It doesn't make a damn bit of sense at all until you start thinking of it as an aux. control room.
The ST5 set looks much more modern than the Ent-B set even, so it was the logical choice for the base of a true Ambasssador era bridge.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
It's.. Sean! A tear rolls down mi'eye.
Yes indeedy, I like the concept. And I'd never thought of the E-C bridge as a battle bridge / aux control set instead of the main bridge. I actually don't think that it was ever mentioned in dialogue that they were in fact on the main bridge!
Mark
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Hmm... I didn't like the design at first, probably in part because of the extreme negative connotations associated with "Star Trek V."
But you make an excellent case there. And I also never liked the "Yesterday's Enterprise" bridge -- as you say, the layout makes absolutely no sense.
I wonder, though, why the Enterprise-C would even have a "battle bridge" in the first place? The reason the Enterprise-D had one was because the ship could separate and conduct independent operations. That's (most likely) not so with the "C."
Still, nitpicking/rationalizing aside, it's a wonderful design! Posted by Vice-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
But even Federation starships need aux. control rooms just in case the main bridge is destroyed or rendered inoperable. Sure, the vessels of the 24th century can be controled just about anyway such as in main engineering (TNG) or at environmental control (Voy), but still I would think there still would be similar to what the Constitution Class had in the middle of the 24th century.
Posted by seanr (Member # 277) on :
Thanks.
There is indeed a precedent for having alternate control rooms dating all the way back to the Auxilliary Control room abord contitution class ships in the 2260s. There is no logical reason to assume that they would not have continued that trend throughout Starfleet's history, and plenty of reasons to assume that they would. The main bridge abord a federation starship is in a very exposed location; they'd have to have a backup in case the main ever took a direct hit (which is undoubtedly a fairly common tactic among the Fed's enemies by now). It is likely that the Ent-C's aux. control room is located somewhere near the center of the suacer section, in a similar location to that depicted in Mr Scott's Guide to the Enterprise for the Constitution refit (dead center of G deck).
It is likely that the term "Battle Bridge" is specific to the Gallaxy class alone, or perhaps just that and the Sovereign class, since those ships were design to be able to function as two seperate entities when necessary. Each section would need a fully functioning bridge with identical but completely seperate support systems. The earlier/smaller ships would not need that kind of full redundancy, but would instead have the bridge and the auxilliary control room operating off the same computer core. The auxilliary control room would serve only as a backup in case of physical damage to the main bridge itself. It wouldn't need its own seperate computer core since the ship can't function seperated.
It is likely that even the Galaxy Class starships have not one but _two_ such rooms, _in addition_ to the battle bridge - one for each section, in case either the main bridge or the battle bridge (or both) should become disabled while the ship is seperated. It is likely that such redundancy also exists on the Sovereign class, though we'll almost certainly never see it.
Posted by Tahna Los (Member # 33) on :
Sean, I like your work and all that jazz, but don't take this the wrong way: PLEASE link your images. Not everyone has a T1 connection around here!!!!!
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Eric has a point. Images linked.
Posted by seanr (Member # 277) on :
Actually, no he doesn't:
I appreciate and understand your concern (I myself am a modem user here at home), but I must disagree. I see changing the images to links as a moot point, as users will inevitably click the links and download the images anyway. I think it deserves noting that this is an art forum, people browsing this forum _expect_ to be downloading images. If they wish not to wait on the images, they may certainly choose to browse only the other forums. Similarly, if they tire of waiting for my images to load when they do load the page, they are free to click the stop button at any time and read the posts without downloading the images. As a concession, however, I will of course change the old images to links when I upload new updates, as the old images will have become obselete and not need to be downloaded anyway (with newer images further down the page, it is unlikely anyone will even click the old links).
That being the case, I respectfully request you return them to embedded images as I originally had them, until such time as I post an update (when I myself will change the images to links).
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Actually, I think that Tahna was talking more about return visits, whence a low-bandwidth visitor would have to download pictures he's already seen all over again, thus slowing up the process of reading new posts...
Mark
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Actually, yeah. Sean, I love your work, but I more often than not make it a habit of avoiding your posts because I don't want to have to wait for 18 images to load inline. It makes things very difficult to read, espeically since I have a small monitor that runs at 800 x 600, & your shots are frequently larger than that.
Like I said, I love seeing your work, & I feel like a cad having to pass up the posts most times.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
It should be noted that Sean won't be able to edit his messages after 2 hours have passed since the posting.
Posted by seanr (Member # 277) on :
quote:Originally posted by Topher: It should be noted that Sean won't be able to edit his messages after 2 hours have passed since the posting.
You need to fix that. I post at SFM and 3DG frequently and neither one has that limitation.
BTW, enough of this kind of stuff and I just won't post here anymore. It's hard enough posting stuff at six different boards in the first place. Now you want me to remember which ones griped about image posting and which ones didn't - the result is I'll just post at the two that I have _never_ had a problem with. They don't complain, why do you?
Posted by Prismatic EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
Posted by Magnus Pym Eye (Member # 239) on :
Google image searches for "High Horse" unfortunately return too few relevant matches.
Posted by Colorful Cartman (Member # 256) on :
On the other hand, searches for "Anality" return hundreds of useful hits.
Posted by seanr (Member # 277) on :
DivX 5.0.2 (how the hell do you encode in an older version?), 3.75MB
Cartman, STHU please, that was just lame.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Sean, the reason that places like 3D Gladiators have no problem with posting images like that is because that's what they're there for -- their primary purpose is the artwork. But don't tell me that some people don't ask you to use thumbnails or something like that, with a link to the full-size image.
The point is that at a board like 3DG, people go there for the artwork. They expect to have to spend time downloading the images. But here, people are looking to read and interact in a text-based medium. That's why the links are more convenient. And when you're on a 56K modem (or worse, a 28.8), you're not going to want to spend loads of time waiting for all the images.
On top of that, I find it very annoying when these huge images distort the layout of the page. When the image is wider than my browser window (and I use a 1024x768 resolution), then I end up having to scroll across the page to finish reading the line of text. Scrolling back and forth horizontally gets real old, real fast.
I'm not trying to insult you here, or anything like that. I'm just trying to say that different places have different purposes, and different preferences. I like your artwork a lot -- it's some of the best fan-based designs I've ever seen. But it's also courteous to be aware of the preferences of other members -- and the rules of the different boards. If you have problems with that, then please, go ahead and move elsewhere.
Posted by seanr (Member # 277) on :
MM:
You're forgetting one key point. Even though Flare as a whole may not be for art, the "Designs, Artwork, & Creativity" most certainly _IS_. Anyone who comes in here expecting not to download images is an idiot.
Posted by seanr (Member # 277) on :
And no, I don't get thumbnail requests on SFM or 3DG. I've only ever even seen people request that once or twice, and that is only when people post images much bigger than mine. My images are only around 150K, normally less. If people can't handle that, they should stay the heck out of the art forum.
Posted by Colorful Cartman (Member # 256) on :
My previous post was not directed at you, Sean. *I* don't mind the loss of a few kilobytes of bandwith.
Posted by seanr (Member # 277) on :
quote:Originally posted by Colorful Cartman: My previous post was not directed at you, Sean. *I* don't mind the loss of a few kilobytes of bandwith.
OK, sorry.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
The two-hour limit thing was not established by myself. I believe it to be a feature of the current UBB version we are using.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
But why do you even post the picture in the first place? Why not use a link?
Edit: Also my computer for some reason shrinks all the pictures down to what fits on the screen, if I want it to be bigger I click on the lower right corner. I don't know how it works, or who did it to the computer, but I like it.
Posted by seanr (Member # 277) on :
quote:Originally posted by Matrix: But why do you even post the picture in the first place? Why not use a link?
Why should I require viewers to make unnecessary clicks?
quote:Also my computer for some reason shrinks all the pictures down to what fits on the screen, if I want it to be bigger I click on the lower right corner. I don't know how it works, or who did it to the computer, but I like it.
This feature is included in Internet Explorer 5.5 (or 6.0, I forget which). To turn it on/off, check/uncheck the option called "Enable Automatic Image Resizing" in the Multimedia section under the Advanced tab in the Internet Options window.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Nah that's ok. I like it. I find it better because it takes less time to load the picture.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: On top of that, I find it very annoying when these huge images distort the layout of the page. When the image is wider than my browser window (and I use a 1024x768 resolution), then I end up having to scroll across the page to finish reading the line of text. Scrolling back and forth horizontally gets real old, real fast.
And what about this, hmm?
My point is that these huge pictures, while very nice, can cause problems in several different ways. Not everyone will have the same problems. But unless all of the proper conditions are met -- like having a sufficiently large screen resolution -- one is bound to be annoyed somehow.
Is it really that big of a deal to use a link instead? I don't see why you've got a problem.
Posted by seanr (Member # 277) on :
I've got a problem because both of the two forums I use most often _don't_ have a problem.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Well, it should be noted that this is Flare. Different rules apply here. Now, I'm sure all of us would appreciate it if you stayed and posted your artwork here, but around these parts we prefer links, thumbnails, or small resolution images as opposed to large resolution images.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
Really nice work, Sean. That's Truespace, huh? Any special radiosity pluggins? Really solid rendering...
Posted by seanr (Member # 277) on :
trueSpace has Radiosity built into it (since 4.0), but I never use it as it is a tremendouse waste of RAM and processor power. As long as you know the basic principles involved, it's very easy to fake it using standard lighting techniques (I could probably even get TS2 to render something of similar quality with the right lighitng setup).
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
I could have sworn there was Radiosity going on. Those soft shadows are truly pro. Is it the textures? How many lights did you wind up using? Really, really great job.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Very nice work, all it needs is some Ambassador-class graphics and a dedication plaque.
Also, didn't the E-C miniature's bridge, feature a set of windows in the ceiling? that would be an interesting feature if you could incorperate it into you interior.
Posted by seanr (Member # 277) on :
I don't believe so. Here's a shot of the bridge module on another ship of the same class:
Ah, but need I remind you that the Yamaguchi was a refit? Posted by seanr (Member # 277) on :
Please show me a photo of the original, then. I know it was a refit, but I've got no reason to believe they changed something that minor until I see a pic to the contrary. Posted by Prismatic EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
there really aren't any good pics of the top of the original E-C config. however, sci-fi art seems to think that there was a window on top, and i think i can almost see one in this pic. there is a little indentation on top of the bridge module (here is the bridge module blown up a little bit, which makes the indentation easier to see). maybe someone else has a better shot. the Yamaguchi definitely does not have a window on top. i would say, until we see a better pic of the E-C, that there is circumstantial evidence for the orginal configuration Ambassador class ships have a bridge window, but nothing definite.
Posted by seanr (Member # 277) on :
I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation of those pictures. It's probably just a spec of dirt, or even just a slight ridge (like the rings on the dome of the Enterprise refit bridge).
Posted by Prismatic EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
my interpretation is simply that their might be a window. as i said, the pics of the original E-C really aren't good enough to tell. i doubt it's a quarter inch spec of dirt, though. Posted by seanr (Member # 277) on :
Considering te ammount of battle damage on that ship, it could be. Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I was actually going by the schematics. There seams to be a series of little windows along the front edge of the dome. However looking at the miniature, I can't tell whether they are supposed to be windows or just superficial notches.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Did people know that the Voyager also had ceiling windows - although they were 'upright' and in the 'alcove' of the ceiling - not just a dome like the E-D.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote: Nah that's ok. I like it. I find it better because it takes less time to load the picture.
Actually, no, it doesn't. It still has to load the entire picture, so the length of time taken to download it is the same. It just means you can fit it all on one page, if you desire (although I find it pixellates it badly enough to make enlarging the picture mandatory).
It's a new feature for IE5.5, BTW.
I have to agree too, the Ent-C bridge is a bit of an anachronism compared to the STVI Ent-A, Excelsior, and Generations Ent-B sets. The ST V one would be fine without those later ones, but as it is, this is a nice solution. It fits in greatly with the Ent-B and Ent-D, although I think it terms of comfort it possibly leans slightly too much towards the Enterprise-D. Roddenberry (and early dialogue) seems to imply that the Galaxy class was the first to go all out for the "technology unchained" thing, to increase comfort levels and all that.
And I know it's a dead point, and this is all I want to say on the matter, but Sean, people were being fairly reasonable. Yeah, people expect lots of images here, but downloading lots of large images at once over a slow modem is a pain, especially if there's a cut off point which means you don't get the whole image. And the other complain - about it messing up the board layout - is also fairly valid. Although I don't think there are any hard and fast rules about embedded pictures, a generally accepted rule is that if the picture is so large that people are having to scroll across to read the text on posts, then it is too big.
And finally, yeah, the two hour thing is a new feature if this version of UBB. It's not a bug. The idea is that, basically, Charles hates changing the past. I think he read 1984 a lot, or something. You can edit a post 10 minutes after you've made it, and it won't mention that it's been editted (if you are correcting spelling mistakes, or whatever). People have posted stuff before, others have responded to it, and then the person has changed their original post, leading to all sorts of confusion and madness. Hence, you can't edit your posts ages after you posted them.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Seanr - I've loved your posts here since like 1999? with your transporter room set... please stay and ignore the bitching.
Simple solution people complaining about pictures... TURN OFF PICTURES! Then when you want to view a picture... right click and view it. Or just stop the whole page from loading.
After the plastic comments that I have received about my problems viewing the updated board with NS4.7 It seems that everyone who wants to read/look at the Flare forums must be running a 1.5GHz 512Mb Fibre-optic/broadband connection. Oh and it better all be microsoft.
Posted by Prismatic EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: It seems that everyone who wants to read/look at the Flare forums must be running a 1.5GHz 512Mb Fibre-optic/broadband connection. Oh and it better all be microsoft.
i'm running a 2.4gHz, 1.5GB, DSL system, thank you.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: After the plastic comments that I have received about my problems viewing the updated board with NS4.7 It seems that everyone who wants to read/look at the Flare forums must be running a 1.5GHz 512Mb Fibre-optic/broadband connection.
Er, no, we're not. If everyone was, there would be no problem if all the pictures were embedded. But because a lot of people are on dial-up modems, links are better. And they also stop the board format from mucking up.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Hand on EdipisChopis, 1.5 gig what? That's far too small to be a hard drive, but if that's your RAM, then it's frankly obscene.
Posted by Colorful Cartman (Member # 256) on :
I have two gigabytes of system memory. Bye-bye swapfile.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Since they don't make Athlons that fast, that must be a P4 system thus 1.5 gigs of Rambus RAM thats just gross. Thats about $1200 of RAM, thats worth more than my entire computer.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Indeed. For pity's sake people, I understand that you like to keep your computers up-to-date, but there's cutting edge, and then there's falling off the front of the blade.
I mean, what possible performance difference are you going to get from having 1 gig of memory compared to 2 gig? You could have spent that money on CDs, or food, or going out, or something even remotly useful.
Posted by Magnus Pym Eye (Member # 239) on :
But think of the power, and prestige! And running Quake III at five more frames a second! We're in admirational overload!
Posted by seanr (Member # 277) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: I mean, what possible performance difference are you going to get from having 1 gig of memory compared to 2 gig? You could have spent that money on CDs, or food, or going out, or something even remotly useful.
If you're running a dual processor system (i.e. enough processing power to keep up with the RAM), 2GB would be enormously usefull for rendering 3D stuff like my bridge sets. These sets currently are taking between twenty and thirty minutes to render, five to ten minutes of which is blown on generating shadowmaps (a very RAM intensive process). It takes that long because even with 256MB of RAM, the damn thing swaps CONSTANTLY. With 2GB of RAM, that'd never be a problem. Then, the problem would be enough processor power to keep the computer working fast enough to utilize all of the RAM.
In short, I'd _KILL_ for a machine like that!!!! Think what I could do if I could get the render time for this set at 1152x864 down to a mere five minutes per frame! Of course, the ultimate goal is to be able to render in real time at at least 640x480 (imagine playing Quake or UT on one of my sets!). Posted by Magnus Pym Eye (Member # 239) on :
Well, it'd be remotely useful for someone like you, but for those whom running AOLIM and Frontpage at the same time is their only activity, they mightn't get the best usage out of it.
Posted by Colorful Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Such as yourself?
Posted by Magnus Pym Eye (Member # 239) on :
Sure, why not?
Posted by Colorful Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Then what exactly is your problem with people who run more demanding programs (such as 3D Studio / Lightwave), and upgrade their computers to meet those demands?
Posted by Magnus Pym Eye (Member # 239) on :
Huh? I don't recall that problem of mine. Those are the people who do need the power. Or something.
Posted by seanr (Member # 277) on :
I think he's trying to point out how sacastic you were about it in your first message ("But think of the power, and prestige! And running Quake III at five more frames a second! We're in admirational overload!"). Posted by Prismatic EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: Hand on EdipisChopis, 1.5 gig what? That's far too small to be a hard drive, but if that's your RAM, then it's frankly obscene.
yeah, it's ram . i got a good deal on 3 512 MB sticks of samsung pc2700.
Posted by Prismatic EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Since they don't make Athlons that fast, that must be a P4 system thus 1.5 gigs of Rambus RAM thats just gross. Thats about $1200 of RAM, thats worth more than my entire computer.
it's ddr, not rambus. the CPU is a [email protected], 100% stable. and 1.5 GB of PC-800 Rambus would only be about $700. it's gotten a lot cheaper. pc-1066 is still pretty expensive though, but it's fairly brand new.
Posted by Prismatic EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: I mean, what possible performance difference are you going to get from having 1 gig of memory compared to 2 gig? You could have spent that money on CDs, or food, or going out, or something even remotly useful.
i like having a lot of photoshop and illustrator windows open at the same time. 1.5 GB maxes out my motherboard, and like i said, i got a good deal on the ram (it was only $148 a stick, so it would have been stupid not to buy it).
Posted by Colorful Cartman (Member # 256) on :
See, Magnus, there comes a point when extreme sarcasm, mocking commentary, incessant reference to genital measurements, or condescending tone abruptly loses much of its charming, humorous nature.
That point is near.
[ August 08, 2002, 09:42: Message edited by: Colorful Cartman ]
Posted by seanr (Member # 277) on :
quote:Originally posted by Colorful Cartman: See, Magnus, there comes a point when extreme sarcasm, mocking commentary, incessant reference to genital measurements, and condescending tone abruptly loses much of its charming, humurous nature.
That point is near.
ROTFLMFAO
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
There is no point, it's an asymptotic curve. We can never reach the point where I will not derive a hearty laugh from the misfortunes and failings of others, as pointed out by someone in the disguise of sympathy. This is where It Is At.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote: (it was only $148 a stick, so it would have been stupid not to buy it).
quote: 1.5 GB of PC-800 Rambus would only be about $700
Am I the only person confused by the use of the word "only" in these sentences?
Posted by Prismatic Faye Valentine Fanboy (Member # 510) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam:
quote: (it was only $148 a stick, so it would have been stupid not to buy it).
quote: 1.5 GB of PC-800 Rambus would only be about $700
Am I the only person confused by the use of the word "only" in these sentences?
well, $148 for a 512 stick of a particular and very rare batch of samsung pc2700 is very good (this particular batch can run at 400 mHz as opposed to the stock 333 mHz, which gives gonzo bandwidth) and Rambus used to be crazy expensive, so $700 for 1.5 GB of PC-800 RDRAM is comparatively cheap.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Damnit tell me where you bought those. I am stuck on two computers working on crappy 128 and 192 MB ram. I can't even play Warcraft 3 nor Armada or any other new game that looks good.
Posted by seanr (Member # 277) on :
quote:Originally posted by Matrix: Damnit tell me where you bought those. I am stuck on two computers working on crappy 128 and 192 MB ram. I can't even play Warcraft 3 nor Armada or any other new game that looks good.
That sounds more like a graphics card issue than a ram issue.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Nope. The graphic card is fine. It's that the game skips which usually means that not enough ram, or barely enough. Everything is fine except for the ram. I might have to upgrade the speed and memory but for right now they are within acceptable limits.
One computer I have was totaly rebuilt a few months back by my cousin. He says the only possibility of that computer not being able to run any games is probably because the motherboard is shot. In fact on Monday he's going to take a look at the other two computers.
Posted by Prismatic Faye Valentine Fanboy (Member # 510) on :
quote:Originally posted by Matrix: Nope. The graphic card is fine. It's that the game skips which usually means that not enough ram, or barely enough. Everything is fine except for the ram. I might have to upgrade the speed and memory but for right now they are within acceptable limits.
One computer I have was totaly rebuilt a few months back by my cousin. He says the only possibility of that computer not being able to run any games is probably because the motherboard is shot. In fact on Monday he's going to take a look at the other two computers.
if the motherboard was shot, the computer wouldn't work. the motherboard has no bearing on graphics performance (beyond the memory bandwidth that the chipset allows) unless it has onboard graphics. what are the specs of the systems?
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Not shot as in not working totally. What I mean is that the connections to the hard drive and so on are shot. I mean I can use it as long as I am not saving on or using the removeable drives.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Yeah, uh, I was talking in Canadian dollars. Booya.
Matrix: If your connections to your hard drive and so forth are "shot", wouldn't you have kinda noticed *before* trying to play the hip new computer games on the block? I mean, what were you doing with your computer? Speluncking around the BIOS menus?
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
maybe he was running dos off a pci based rom chip.
quote:Yeah, uh, I was talking in Canadian dollars
do they sell computer parts in canada now?
Posted by Magnus Pym Eye (Member # 239) on :
Har! Those backward Canadians! With their country and stuff.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
quote:Originally posted by Magnus Pym Eye: Har! Those backward Canadians! With their country and stuff.
they have a country now?
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Mucus, I ahev three computers all of them out of date. One of them was recently upgraded by my cousin. He told me something before that some of the connections were 'burnt', but he was able to clean it up and fix it. It worked, but still is underpowered to play any good game out now.
The drives just suddenly one day decided that they won't work. The computer just does not recognize them anymore.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
192 mb really should be enough memory for Warcraft II and Armada. What graphics card are you using anyway? And have you got hard drive space? You could be low on that, causing swap file churning madness.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Could be. I mean it skips like if I have a problem with the RAM. Besides I think it's time to merge those three computers into one anyway and get a new one to replace one of them. So does anyone have a $1,000 laying around they can give to me?
Posted by Colorful Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Yes and no, respectively.
Posted by seanr (Member # 277) on :
my Compaq notebook computer has a P4 2.2Ghz processor, 256MB SDRAM, and a Mobility Radeon 7000 32Mb graphics card, plus 30GB of HDD along wit an internal FDD, and a DVD/CD-RW combo drive
all true
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Er, well done.
Posted by Vice-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
Groovy, baby. Very shaggadelic!!! Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
My early-warning system is malfunctioning *thwaps Liam upside the head* so here we have a perfect opportunity to insult a poster for being too full of himself, and by the time I get here it's all blown over.
No matter. SeanR, you, sir, are a complete and utter. . . holy shit, that bridge is amazing! It's got, like, shadows, and differing texture in the carpets. . .
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Seanr - again lovely.
Just a thing - it looks sorta too close to the E-B/E-A side of things and less towards the Galaxy Class design... Weren't displays a little different? Was there a little less 'generic console appearance' that you've got there - which seems to be from the other Movie era designs? Maybe panelling them in with more bulkhead like on the E-D?
Very nice though - like the roof - fits very nicely.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
