Topic: Identify terrain
Ron_of_Nord![]() |
Posted at: 2025-04-02, 07:19
Tribal, yes, to the point of some fun pranks played on users of other systems
Not as good as you think, most people though they were some sort of drinks coaster which if used that way would ruin the disk
Might be helpfull to new players, but it also may be on the grey side toward cheating. Brains and knowledge is was edited by janus Edited: 2025-04-02, 11:30
The aussies are coming, ya ho! ya ho! ![]() ![]() |
kaputtnik![]() |
Posted at: 2025-04-02, 17:53
The only map where trees are a problem is Last Bastion imho. But this might also be intended by the maps author, i don't know Personally i am not convinced about the idea. It might force players to click around on the map to find good terrain for trees. But this information can also be misleading in case where two (or more) terrains adjoin, because then the result is unpredictable then… on the next node there might be only one terrain around (or other terrains adjoin) and the result is totally different. So to get a good idea of the chance of tree growing clicking on one node might not help. BTW: The problem of different terrains and the unpredictable chance for tree growing was a reason to implement the "Automatic Trees" functionality in the editor, which places "good" trees depending on the terrains around a node. Side note: As the intention was to implement the "terrain affinity" for trees i was against the idea. And it turned out that it produced a lot of other problems (like map authors who do not know on which terrain trees grow well). Anyway, today i think most problems are solved and having e.g. dry terrains where trees grow very bad adds a lot of atmosphere to the game. Although i am also not satisfied with some settings, e.g. trees on winter forested mountains do grow too bad in my opinion. ![]() ![]() |
Ron_of_Nord![]() |
Posted at: Yesterday 02:52
As someone who LOVES automatic trees in the editor, I don't think much about specific tree placement when I create a map The aussies are coming, ya ho! ya ho! ![]() ![]() |
mxb2001![]() Topic Opener |
Posted at: Yesterday 17:39
That's crazy! I also used Redhat and have a 386sx but I never tried to install it there. 2 MB RAM and a 105MB HDD, Ooof, no thanks. I did install Redhat on my Pentium 166mmx with 32 GB. Heh, after the old HD died I eventually reinstalled the same old redhat on it on the replacement HD. Netscape browser... it doesn't get to many sites now... That PC is a TRIPLE boot btw. MSDOS 6.20/Win95C/Redhat6.2
Oh cool, see a lotta TI99's in the old mag. I should look up the SX-64, gotta say I don't really recall that model. I recall there was a Plus 4 and a C=65 (I think) as well as the C=128D but SX-64 just doesn't seem to ring a bell. Friends of mine had a C=64 and 2 1541's. They actually modified them with extra switches that overrode something. Man, I've forgot what. : ( Maybe it was the write protect. -- ![]() ![]() |