4 goodness sake

[N35t0r]

Originally posted by N35t0r
Since civ IV will not work on my machine due to flisshy-flashy graphics, no.

Which is now actually not true

[duke o' york]

You don't need a new machine for flashy graphics - you just need one of Curt's scenarios.

Or, to be honest, one of pretty much everyone here's.

[N35t0r]

nono, there's a difference between great, amazing, unbelievable graphics (which can, as proved here, be 2d sprites of visible resolution); to flisshy-flassy graphics, which can be 3d and all that stuff, but still be a load of cr4p...

[Broken_Erika]

Originally posted by N35t0r
nono, there's a difference between great, amazing, unbelievable graphics (which can, as proved here, be 2d sprites of visible resolution); to flisshy-flassy graphics, which can be 3d and all that stuff, but still be a load of cr4p...

depends on the texture artist,

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by fairline


Actually you didn't - you had a rotary (****el) engine in your RX-7 (stop s******ing at the back - I said ****el!).

You'll find V-12's in the bigger-engined Ferraris (512s etc) for example.


EDIT: ROTFL, the damned Apolyton censor won't let me say W ankel

True, I was referencing the rotary engine on the Mazda, not the V-12!

IIRC the E-type Jaguars had a V-12 though. Ex-gf from a while back had one of those!

[fairline]

Ah right, sorry.

Hang on, no you didn't!

You had a rotary engine, not a radial engine etc etc.

(Apologies for this know-it-all crap but I do engines for a living)

A G/F with an E-type is worth keeping, even if it was the straight-six version not the later V-12 MkIII (damn, there I go again. Ignore me).

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Well, that was about 20 years ago... I hope the car's in the same shape it was then, but I doubt that she is, unfortunately!

Radial v rotary - never did know what the exact difference was.

[fairline]

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man
Well, that was about 20 years ago... I hope the car's in the same shape it was then, but I doubt that she is, unfortunately!

Radial v rotary - never did know what the exact difference was.

Oh no, I can't help myself....

A radial engine is a conventional reciprocating engine like a straight-four or V12, where the pistons move up and down in a cylinder and are connected to a crank-shaft by con-rods. The aero-engine radials had their cylinders arranged in a circular fashion around the crank which rotated the propeller, and were air-cooled rather than water-cooled as in a conventional straight-four.

The W ankel or rotary engine is a radically different concept; the triangular-shaped 'piston' or rotor itself rotates in the 'cylinder' and translates power directly without the need for con-rods.

Well you did ask. I'll shut up now

[biru biru]

heh heh

[duke o' york]

Originally posted by fairline
EDIT: ROTFL, the damned Apolyton censor won't let me say W ankel

Just use italics boxes with nothing in between them, and the autocensor won't detect it. You can also make "posts of silence" to remember any tragedies.

Thus: W a n [ i ] [ / i ] k e l without the spaces becomes Wankel.

Beware: Abuse this, and the mods will not be in the least forgiving.
In fact, I shall edit this post (if I remember) to remove its contents within a day or two, if the mods don't do it first. If you're desperate to use such words, just ask the mods to add them to the list for the autocensor.

[fairline]

Oh OK, thanks for that. I can't think I'll need to use the word wankel too many times in future though

[techumseh]

OT - curiosity. Why has the wankel not really caught on, Gareth? It delivers more power, is simpler and lighter than a piston engine - am I right?

[fairline]

Yes, they produce more power for a given swept volume, they're smaller, lighter and contain fewer moving parts.

The downsides are huge difficulty with maintaining effective sealing without using fairly exotic materials. HC emissions and BSFC (fuel consumption) are much higher than a reciprocating engine as well, which are the real killers. Mazda seems to like them though.

[techumseh]

I know I'm pushing the patience of the mods, but is there some reason why they're not used in aircraft? It seems that the advantages would be more advantageous and the disadvantages less so in that application.

[Case]

Re: 4 goodness sake

Originally posted by biru biru
GameDeveloper Magazine is excited, but costs money to read the article.

Has any computer magazine not been excited by an uncoming release of anything?

Anyway, just currious; if the scenario tools (and game itself, i suppose) are good enough in civ 4, would you consider abandoning civ2?

Definetly. Civ 2 is a great game, but it's almost 10 years old!