Magister Lajciak

Interesting - I had been under the impression that the P4 architecture was robust and merely had a problem with power usage/heat generation. The P4 microarchitecture was designed to allow clock speeds to shoot through the roof at the expense of less work done per clock cycle (IPC). At the time it was introduced, it was probably a sound tradeoff (except at the *very* beginning... the clocks weren't high enough to trump the performance of the P3). But the engineers knew that as manufacturing tech improved, their new design would allow clock speeds to scale very well. And it did work. Don't forget that AMD's superiority only started emerging with the Athlon64. Before that, the P4 was doing just fine competing against (and often trumping) the Athlon XP. By the time the Athlon64 came to life, the P4 design philosophy had begun to show diminishing returns. Manufacturing realized that pushing beyond 3GHz with the technology they had in those days led to massive heat, power and reliability issues. Another interesting problem was that pushing the processor's clock speed sky-high was leading to a huge disparity between processor and memory speeds, and Intel's lack of an integrated memory controller started to hurt more and more. They should have quit and changed tactics then instead of trying to milk it to 4GHz. The P4 wasn't altogether a terrible idea. The designers just couldn't foresee the manufacturing constraints they would hit at the 3.8GHz region. On the other hand, the entire process probably gave them experience in handling high clock speeds, which would have come in handy with the C2D. Thanks for the rundown on the P4. I have learned something new today.

Yes, that may have been the name. I cannot comment on the quality, as I do not remember playing it, even though I might have done so once or twice (I don't remember any more).

Interesting - I had been under the impression that the P4 architecture was robust and merely had a problem with power usage/heat generation.

Mike Lescault has posted the links to the various D&D Experience presentations: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=997610

Fair enough - it sounded as if you actually did the 3D calculations...

am able to tell that you gots every limited grasp o' geometry... which is a good thing. is better that everybody in group is equally unsophisticated. however, all it takes is one joker to point out the flaws in a sand type approach... What makes you say that? He only uses d6s to measure height, above the square the character is over at the moment - I think it is actually a pretty neat innovation. He still has to deal with hypotenuse calculations and so on, but at least it helps him track the current positions of characters in 3D. Note: 3D movement and effects are actually one area where 4E simplification eliminates significant amounts of complexity. No more hypotenuse calculations.... though the cost is high in terms of realism/simulation/verisimilitude.

This is a respectable approach. unfortunately it not address any of Gromnir's problems. can have multiple critters and players occupying the same hex/square... at different altitudes and going in different directions. can be a chore simple to keep track o' folks with a 2d map. also, as noted previous, distance on the hypotenuse is annoying to us. take even a second to consider spell effects with a range o' 30' sphere... if you got multiple characters in air. can be a real pain in our arse. oh, and don't get us started 'pon gust o' wind (a spell we now see almost as often as fly) and some joker's suggestion that using vectors would be the only reasonable solution. In cases where the situation becomes too complicated to track, why don't you just fudge it? I mean D&D can be played without any board at all - the DM can adjudicate on the basis of his best estimate. It is not an ideal solution, but when you feel the game is being slowed down too much by 3D vector calculations and trigonometry, it may be your best choice. The rules are, of course, still useful for those times when you can/want to/need to track 3D positions.

I know... and what's more, it wasn't meant as a joke! I feel disturbing your sleep, so I found an article for you:

Glad to help!

I don't really think that hexagons make the game significantly more complex. No they do not make the game significantly more complex, but WotC is clearly keen on simplifying the game as much as possible, so every little bit of complexity adds up for them. Also, hexagonal grids are less familiar to non-gamers and thus can pose greater barriers to entry through a simple lack of foreknowledge. You will have to deal with fractional grid spaces regardless of whether the grid uses squares or hexagons, but the issue is the frequency of having to deal with these cases. Since most rooms do tend to be rectangular, it comes up less often with a square-grid. It is telling that you placed the word "hard" in inverted commas. I feel the same way - it was actually quite easy to track. Indeed - I am not at all enthusiastic about this particular simplification. Perhaps, but as I have already mentioned, the emphasis on simplification of the game means that this is essentially out of the question for WotC.

Interesting - I wonder what was the IP it so closely resembled.

If I remember correctly, one of the Star Wars RTS games actually used the engine from Ensemble Studios' Age of Empires: Age of Kings

The flow of time can be slowed/paused sufficiently to make it almost a TBS game in practice.

I just want to point out that Star Wars RTS games already exist.

This is a respectable approach. When flight is dispelled, though, the downward movement can be much faster.

I know... and what's more, it wasn't meant as a joke!

Of course not. Usually, droids are not sexy. Those that are, well they're droids. What, are you gonna hook up with a machine? Don't care how good the AI, I'd never love a machine in that way. Heh, this reminds me of some recent predictions of some futurists that people will marry robots in 50 years or so...

Alright, I voted for X-Box 360, since it seems to have the most commonality with the PC in terms of games.

I have not managed to find any information at all about project New Jersey apart from its cancellation. BTW: I really like the naming of projects after U.S. states.

Cylindrical or spherical coordinates I strongly urge the usage of Cartan parabolic geometry! Your players will not only cease thinking in terms of flat surfaces, but will probably cease thinking altogether as their brain fry from their attempts to calculate movement. Really, though, you are best off by just using the normal grid and presenting obstacles that need to be climed/jumped/flown over to simulate the 3D aspect of the battlefield.

Perhaps it was the cancelled KOTOR 3? Nah, I think the cancelled KOTOR 3 was started (and ended) as an in-house LA production. That does seem likely, but we don't know for sure. Heck, we don't even know for certain whether it was started and cancelled in the first place.

That's interesting. I would suspect that Quake 4 is using one core and the other core runs the various backround processes of the operating system. Otherwise, I simply cannot explain it. The performance gap you show is huge.

Perhaps it was the cancelled KOTOR 3?

I am thrilled to see rationality spread. The triangular grid paradigm will take over all gaming soon!

You know there is a discussion on Alien crossovers going on in the "Is Alien(s) a suitable franchise for an RPG" thread on the Aliens board. Something tells me you would fit right in!