Welcome to Steelbeasts.com

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Captain_Colossus

Members
  • Content count

    1,515
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Captain_Colossus

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday
  1. Nice. I'm starting to worry about my memory or something here aren't I. sure. When i get home and have a look I'll probably have a wargasm and this sort of thing.
  2. Conditioned routes like waypoints are conditioned- the same kind of 'fire if' 'retreat back if', 'surrender if,' etc. context sensitive menu can be opened up and predicated to routes as they are to waypoints. In most cases, units don't change plans while embarked- exceptions would be the 'Scout' route where units will automatically retreat if under fire, units stopping to avoid artillery, or stopping to fire when en route when given the Engage command (as opposed to Assault command). Example: let's say I want to simulate an attacking unit to surrender or retreat back if taking too many casualties- in practice, it must endure and survive, perhaps attack through mounting casualties to reach a checkpoint before it can do that. While human players can always react and intervene when a unit is already embarked, the computer in most cases doesn't, it follows the last orders given until the next checkpoint is reached, even if it is suicidal. Rationale: Eliminate some inertia in computer behavior: especially when advancing or attacking, promote more flexibility or more complex behavior so that they don't have to necessarily reach this or that or such and such checkpoint first before changing behavior. The checkpoint system as the foundation to assign behavior favors complex defensive scripting, that is, set pieces in place defending or waiting at checkpoints, but when on the attack, the scripts tend to look more blind and plodding as units generally can only follow a route through all kinds of variables that might happen on the way before reacting to them. Therefore, a conditioned checkpoint-route system permits the computer more complex behavior on the attack or on the march about as much as it can be scripted on the defense. I do see however at least one difficulty in attaching an 'embark if' command to a pre-existing route like they are to checkpoints (in other words attaching a route to a route), so maybe that wouldn't be replicated the same way or at all.
  3. That data doesn't reveal too much to be useful for modelling purposes. Does the accuracy rate rule out human intervention, for example, in 1973 Arab gunners were subjectively reported as bad shots compared to their Israeli counterparts (I have several materials explaining how even at very close ranges with every advantage- the superior IR sights of T-55s and T-62s would still fail to detect or hit Israeli tanks which didn't have them at dusk or light conditions), how much of the tally is extrapolated from bad training and this sort of thing versus the accuracy of the machine and the gun system? Likewise, on the Syrian front in 1973, Israelis were able to do well despite overwhelming odds not simply because of the accuracy of their machines but because they had presighted range tables of the approaches rehearsed and insinuated into their drills so well so that when the real thing happened, it probably worked out much better than if the whole thing went down completely unprepared. If you see what I mean, you just get a crude figure without much context there.
  4. Simply a matter of erasing the parts in the template in Gimp (which is the same as converting these parts to transparent alpha layer). With other paint programs, this may be a different process.
  5. From my sources, there are both 2 tone and 3 tone schemes in 1973 as well. I have done both 2 types with the T-62 and T-55 (in previous versions of SB). I'm going to do another 3 tone pattern for the T-55, since the T-55 in 4.00 uses a new model over 3.00.
  6. You're right. My mind is definitely getting slower.
  7. Can you please tell me where the snorkle attachment point is below- I can't find the location for the part(s).
  8. I converted the pre-existing Syria template into Egypt in 1975 (top images). Bottom image is Iraq T-55, with 3rd regiment markings.
  9. You did a good job erasing the snorkle, I still see little tiny outlines of it here and there after I did it. It's not easy.
  10. Here is praise for a nice new touch I recently noticed: the leaves and branches and things breaking off from trees when you shoot into them. It feels different now because of polish like this.
  11. Yes. I'm not talking about how practical it to build technology beyond my understanding of how it could possibly work, but rather if someone else did it and it more or less functioned like in Star Trek- if that happened, then the practical effects on the human race would look like such and such or this or that. If technology got to the point that solved the problems of hunger, poverty, disease, people may just start fighting one another just to stave off the boredom, like the gods in mythology which war with one another, there's simply nothing else to do. Only the most primitive animals seem immune to boredom, they live in the moment rather than really paying attention to the past or the future- you can hold them captive and they seem none the least content. As beings become more sentient, there's a problem with this. If you could give people holodecks, that could create a very decadent type of culture. Human beings would become nothing but miserable and spoiled. To this extent, there are symptoms of this now in more affluent societies being brought on demand anything they can think of. I haven't seen the animated film Wall-E, but I came across this clip, and what does it show- assume the future where there is nothing left to do but consume: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1BQPV-iCkU Schopenhauer was known to possess such an acumen for the human condition expressed in the most articulate way. Basically life necessarily operates between two poles: want and boredom. It's in us to desire- that is a basic reality of life, to want. However, the curse of this all is once the object of desire is obtained, something else is desired, this apparently is how life moves and evolves. If a sentient race ever evolved to the point like they show in the movies where they are they appear to be very enlightened and passionless and completely rational and omniscient and this sort of thing and what have you- likely they would be bored out of their skulls for lack of anything to do. Perhaps they would start to hang themselves. The lack of want would extinguish life, no one would desire- if reproduction for example were just a passionless activity, who would bother with it? That's why it exists the way it does as an irrational desire or compulsion, that is fundamentally why people want to do it, not because it's just simply rational to create the next generation. Just as poor people, once they recognize their condition, of course don't want to be poor, they want more- security, stability in their economic situation, very rich people don't have this problem but the opposite: their wealth gets taken for granted, comfortable and boring. If someone could have whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted it, life becomes boring- if someone's favorite food just prepared itself and flew into their living rooms, or they could attract anyone they wanted with their wealth, all these things lose their significance.
  12. I think I am discussing the practical relevance (not that I am not discussing the actuality of when and how it might exist, or how it would work). Assume that it does exist at some point, say- 5,000 years from now, and that of course presumes the human race still exists, which I can't really predict. But assume it does: then I am talking about the practical relevance of it as it relates to us as a species if that were to happen. Of course there are technologies that might become available between now and then that I am not aware of, just the same way video games could not have possibly been imagined to the ancient Egyptians who have no frame of reference for something like that. This may be the challenge of life: if the universe is set to extinguish the conditions for life billions of years from now, maybe life has to evolve to become godlike in order to vercome this apparent conclusion of the story. Everything up until that is the preparation for that. Maybe that is what this is all about, after all our species compared to simpler organisms is comparatively godlike: we're not there yet, that stage of evolution won't happen in our time, but this is the whole story about life (and apparently Kubrick's message in the film 2001: A Space Odyssey to evolve- from the primitive ape like beings at the beginning of the film to the star child at the end). If not us, maybe a different species may get there after a cataclysm erases life on the planet and starts over again like it has done before. What I can't imagine is what near omnipotent being looks like or does with its time- the cosmic boredom of eternity is a kind of hell, maybe nothingness is actually a respite from that, and that's what some views about consciousness argue. An intelligent being which has solved all the existential problems in life suffers from eternal boredom. So it's always a no win situation. In other words, we are talking about the possibility of a fundamentally different type of evolved life in the far future (or even in the relatively near future in some respects)- and that may mean at some point merger of life and technology as we've seen earlier in this thread. When the modern theories of evolution were first introduced to world, many people were horrified- not just because of where we apparently came from, but the implication that we are not a fixed species and we're not done evolving, as all things that came before, we're a bridge rather than a finished product. We see this happening now: the average height of humans is taller, the average life span is longer, but they are also less physically robust and with weaker jaws not suited for battle and for grinding tougher food as more primitive hominids- but which has the advantage of supporting a larger braincase since the smaller jaw muscles allow for more wiggle room in skull development to allow for larger brains. Where is this going? Already technology profoundly shifted human relationships and things like this, it has taken over our lives and appears to be on the verge of merging with life itself to the point where the distinction becomes less pronounced.
  13. To the extent the technology becomes practical enough that anyone can own it, I don't think it quite compares to a theme park. That would be like comparing an Xbox to a theme park, that is, if at some point people could set these up in their living rooms, it would be a major time filler. Go outside or stay at home and spend time in the holodeck? The way we conceive of the technology, there's no real difference insofar as convincing the brain is concerned, except that the holodeck can produce experiences you can't get in the 'real world'. If you see what I mean, for all practical purposes, that sort of technology becomes the defeault way people spend their time. How habits start and become 'addictions' - our brains actually restructure and rewire with any such habit so that life feels like it is missing without it. The draw to spend time in the holodeck would be so natural so as to feel a major part of life were missing when not spending time in it. Whatever activity someone can imagine- go to the park, read a book under a tree- the holodeck should be able to do that, plus anything else you'd be interested in doing. So why would someone elect not to do it in the holodeck (this presumes that the technology is comparable to something like Star Trek- not simply holograms, but tactile sensations and perceptions so that you could interact with places, objects, people generated are for all practical purposes like the real thing).
  14. That's an interesting point you raise- should we want that, it may in time come whether we want it or not. The holodeck will likely not just be for mere entertainment but replace reality altogether- it's just something that people will be immersed in whenever they're not sleeping or in some kind of down time. Why should they turn it off? I'm finding it more and more difficult to argue against determinism, that is, whatever is going to happen can't be changed, every possible combination of events, exchange of matter and energy already exist in a sense and have been seeded, and like dominoes knocking one another, everything falls into place in time. If one were omniscient and could see the past, present and future, they would see all things that could possibly exist all at once, and no other way around it- by being omniscient, the future would cease to look like the future and would look as real and as cemented and as certain as the present in the same frame. I don't think free will exists, that is to say, there is only the illusion of freedom, since our limited perspective, cognitive abilities and sense data impressions simply do not show us everything and therefore the limited scope of our perspective gives us the impression that reality isn't already over-determined, or predetermined, if you like. Crudely, we aren't perceptive enough to see the universe for what it is and will be (although we have access to calculations for example that the Andromeda galaxy is on a collision course with our own, the outcome is a certain as anything provided no technology is developed to divert an entire galaxy- certainly a Newtonian understanding makes this inevitable). So if you were painting your fence this evening, let's say- all of cosmic history had been waiting for this event to happen right here and now: everything in the past has been a chain of causation that had led up to this moment, all the pieces fell into place: your 'choice' to be there really is another link in the chain which has been moved by something prior, which had been determined by something prior still, and so on- not an independent event. By extension, this is existence- your genes are inherited from parents, grandparents, down through the line over billions of years of evolution, the same sort of concept, you did not choose any of this at all. And so therefore, take this idea to extend into the future- a chain of causation from past to present to future, all things which could possibly exist will exist, and it can't be that they won't exist: if we some day evolve to perfect our intellect and perception of things, it would be like humanity becomes gods which sees everything. Maybe the future sucks and there is no way around it- if heat death is inevitable and programmed into things already, maybe that indicates it wasn't 'meant to be.' But then again, no one would be around to complain, no one would be around to perceive anything wrong with that.