econundrum1

Yes detailed space battle viewing they have said is likley to not be in until one of the later betas.

There is a reason we don't have 100 meter high 1000 ton robots they are total impractical for ground combat to because; 1) for the same reason we don't have 100 meter tall humans because the bones e.g. stress structure couldn't take it as size increases mass and hence forces stressing the support structure increases cubicly but the cross sectional area of the stress structures would only be squared. Result giant mega mechs arms and legs snap and crumple. 2) A 1000

My idea was for a spore like species editor allowing players to easily create their own race visuals for custom races and allowing them to easily include advisors from your race on all sorts of advisor and information screens but again maybe in the expansions as I admit the up front outlay on assets and programimg would be high.

There is a journal post comparing various versions of GALCiv that tells you.

Im not convince presumably humanoid mech suits in space for combat do in fact make any sense in reality and I'm not a big fan of giant mechs anyway. Pacific rim made no physical sense. That said small mechsuits for boarding actions could make sense being able to function in space and in grasping and gaining entry to enemy ships.

I also would not assume a stratergy game 3d engine would require less power than an fps, they have talked about that before an fps is generally showing realtivley few detailed objects at once. A stratergy game has to display a relatively large selection of different objects at generally lower gpu. However from what they have said the alpha engine is extremly non optomised so would expect substantial performance gains in later versions.

They have mentioned this is an alpha and the engine needs a lot of optimisation still one of the reasons the current build is still limited to the smallest two map sizes at the momement. At the moment I belive the batching in the 3d engine is really poor they mentioned something along those lines I believe that is due to be drasticly improved as they go into beta I believe.

Vistas fine if you have a powerful machine with plenty of memory it will run ok. Of course if you then install another os even windows 7 you are suddenly going to realise how badly vista was crippling your machines performance.

In software development if you say a platform is not supported it means you don’t intend to test against that platform and that while your product may or may not work on that platform you will not be expending effort to fix issues found by people attempting to run it on that platform. I think this is pretty clearly the case here and certainly requirements on Steam are clear that Vista is not a supported platform.

Why stop at planet destroyers? I want to be able to Nova stars.

Indeed as a founder there is no bad news here and I can see the point of waiting until you are more feature complete before the beta. Looking forward to the next update.

I too like the concept, but it enormously increases scope for the developers particularly in terms of art assets, always expensive and time consuming probably beyond the scope of DLC and into expansion territory but expansions normally significantly impact actual gameplay so I think there would have to be some elements that actually impacted gameplay built into it to make an expansion worthwhile.

I agree Good and Evil are not ideologies, while Pragmatism is an ideology at least; Good and Evil are value judgements not ideologies. To misquote someone, “No one chooses evil knowing it to be evil”. That said it’s just a game and clearly they’ve decided not to mess with the complexity of real life ideologies, but maybe they should rename the system to something other than ideologies, so as not to confuse people.

I sort of agree although I would use the term simple not necassarily a bad system and then replace it in the expansion with the more complex system they have in mind.

[quote who="Borg999" reply="2" id="3465059"]So, only people who are willing/able to pay $100 for a game are the only ones committed to the game's concept? Casual gamers are not worthy? Why is it crazy to say people are paying for the priviledge of beta testing?[/quote] You kind of answered your own point here casual gamers by definition are not committed to a particular game, nothing wrong with that but as they say they aren't the people they want feedbac

Yes not much of an evil plot to hide the missing espionage system in the base game indeed, since they openly spoke about it in an interview and you’ll also notice no mention by them of an espionage system in the base game. I suspect it’s really down to scope as they say; they have some great ideas for a complex espionage, system but unless they drop something else it would push the scope of the project too far and mean not being able to deliver to budget/timescales. So the

Yes made me chuckle too so you aren't alone in your nerddom.

Ah I think I see what you mean; since you only have a single 3d view to place the part on you have restricted the placement to placement along two axis. In wjich case ok I can see why offset still makes sense. I'll get a chance to use the ship builder again latet today so it should make thw limitations of the free placement obvious thanks.

Great to hear that you will have a toggle for hardpoints, also now I've seen part of the stream also pleased to hear you already planned to have 3D gizmos or widgets as I've called them. Generally I'm very excited about the ship designer loved it in GC2, but I'm probably going to be one of those people who is a pain always asking for you to add to the scope [e digicons]^_^[/e] so Ill apoligise now for getting carried away.

The problem I found with off-set was that dragging the bar moved it in too greater steps so I had to click on the numbers and keep reguessing offset numbers until I got it about where I wanted it. That wasn't easy or intuative though I know they are working on the UI. My question here is that if holding ctrl enables you to drag a part to any position ignoring hard points which is what I was told but haven't yet tested, how can positioning a part on a hard point then offsetting

Having watched the first 23 minutes of the stream now I'm really pleased to see that they are already working on the UI and adding 3D gizmo's. I still think that getting rid of hardpoints and just allowing us to move parts into alignment freely is the way to go but if I can do that anyway by holding ctrl hardpoints are no skin of my nose.

Given that I can hold down control and position a part anywhere I like without reference to a hardpoint, what is the point of an offset. It's a great feature if you insist in only allowing placement of parts on hard points but want them to appear somewhere slightly different. However given I've been told that holding down ctrl will let me place a part where I like to start with. Isn't it just a hardet two step way of doing that. They have said also that hardpoints

Not sure I've fully understood your suggestion. But in any case they have so far said spying won't be in the initial game but rather an expansion.

Good feed back one thing I forgot to mention in my feed back was a request for an undo key or button, for when I break my ship. [quote]Selecting “Proportional Scaling” causes X/Y/Z axis to be set to same dimension. Would prefer setting X/Y/Z dimensions myself and have a “Lock Aspect Ratio” function instead.[/quote] Goog idea I agree though I also think the whole UI for doing this is currently rather clunky in general.

Having refreshed myself on theories of how a warp drive would work the problem is that a mas of 0.1kg hitting you warp front is likley to be completely converted into radiation by the hudge tidal forces literally ripping the matter apart that means total conversion to energy e=mc^2 and given he speed of light that would be a very great deal of energy to shield yourself against indeed even 1g of mass converted to energy is a very large amount of energy. Check out this article for how I