HUD Proposition (a wish?)

n54 · Post by **n54** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 2:18 am

there's only one speed measurement for armagetron....

Deaths Per Second!

......................................................................

Sabarai · Post by **Sabarai** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 2:04 pm

lol node

ur dps:

my dps:

but still, 75 m/s is 2 fast for a bike

Jonathan · Post by **Jonathan** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 2:16 pm

Not too fast for a lightcycle.

Sabarai · Post by **Sabarai** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 3:05 pm

u dunno, u ever seen one??

never seen them driving here in holland so u can't have seen them here either

plus: it's 2 fast for anything 2 turn 90 degrees just like that..

n54 · Post by **n54** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 4:28 pm

Sabarai wrote:plus: it's 2 fast for anything 2 turn 90 degrees just like that..

No not really, it's just a stretch of the imagination. It's not that different from what can be argued to be the only truly binary natural effect in space-time (and by binary I mean strictly and precisely only two values without any time between the 0 and 1 state) which is the instant quantum fluctuations found/theorised throughout space (and especially (or most easily) in the "not-so-empty-after-all" vacum of space).

With that in mind "all" (a huuuge all but hey) that is required is that the same effect can be synchronised for an entire object and then controlled. Or there can be other methods for instanteneous movement, who knows in a million years?

Now this is if we're of the opinion that the game is real life rather than being a game about lightcycles inside a computer (and inside a computer anything reducable to abstract logic is possible, i.e. just about absolutely everything). However this is a computer game and nothing is impossible because you/we/somebody makes the rules just as they want them

(why god is a fitting title for the creator of the game)

Sabarai · Post by **Sabarai** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 4:37 pm

... U watch the Matrix 2 often... It's not possible 2 turn 90 degrees without making a turn; your wells would have 2 be "loodrecht" on ur driving axis. Plus that has 2 be stopped instantly, and the other one be started immidiately when u stopped the first axis and it should be just as fast though... IMPOSSIBLE even in space and even in a million years: We're bound 2 the natural laws and no one will change that, ever.

Jonathan · Post by **Jonathan** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:56 pm

Sabarai wrote:... U watch the Matrix 2 often...

I've seen it only once.

It's not possible 2 turn 90 degrees without making a turn; your wells would have 2 be "loodrecht" on

Perpendicular to.

ur driving axis. Plus that has 2 be stopped instantly, and the other one be started immidiately when u stopped the first axis and it should be just as fast though... IMPOSSIBLE even in space and even in a million years: We're bound 2 the natural laws and no one will change that, ever.

Computer game!=us

Sabarai · Post by **Sabarai** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:59 pm

Jonathan wrote:I've seen it only once.

You've only seen it once, but noderunner might have seen it more often

Perpendicular to.

Handy, 2 have another Dutch guy on the forums who CAN speak english in detail

Computer game!=us

I know, but still; everywhere where u go the natural laws count

Unless u create you own world (The Matrix?)

Jonathan · Post by **Jonathan** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 7:41 pm

Sabarai wrote:
Computer game!=us
I know, but still; everywhere where u go the natural laws count Unless u create you own world (The Matrix?)

Read what you just said.

Post by **Lucifer** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 8:00 pm

Sabarai wrote: Handy, 2 have another Dutch guy on the forums who CAN speak english in detail

Who was the first one?

n54 · Post by **n54** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 9:53 pm

I can't be bothered to begin searching through my Scientific American magazines to get you the issue number and article name concerning quantum fluctuations, but I could be bothered to google for it. I didn't find the specific article I was thinking of but I did find a related article (also from SciAm) here: http://www.calphysics.org/haisch/sciam.html which mentiones the same (see the quote).

article wrote:Quantum theory predicts that, on such tiny scales, random quantum fluctuations roil the vacuum, creating a soup of virtual particles. Those particles continuously pop in and out of existence before they can be directly detected.

This is what I mentioned in my other reply. It's very fascinating in that this could be thought of as 100% binary and there aren't really anything else that is binary in this way in nature (binary values in computers are just manipulated analog values, both in transmission and storage, and aren't truly instantaneous), although other quantum mechanical properties might be thought of as similar (which opens up for the fantastical theorems of Wolfram http://www.wolframscience.com/ and the possibility that the universe actually is digital rather than analog in its foundations (i.e. a program)). Btw the Matrix was at best a popularized dumbed down amalgam of stuff like this in combination with ripoffs/influence from thoughts and ideas in stuff like Ghost in the Shell.

As for things being possible in a million years realize that saying it can't be possible is a lot more presumptious than saying something might actually be possible (look at the last millenia and see the changes that have taken place within physics and science). Do we really have any reason to think that we'll learn less than a thousand times more in the next million years than we did the the last thousand, especially conscidering the exponential-to-logarithimic acceleration in knowledge so far? Do we have any reason to think that scientific paradigms will change less than they did with the arrival of Newtonian physics which were more or less reworked/changed and massivily added on and expanded into Einsteinian relativity? No, a lot of things seemingly "impossible-because-of nature" in Newtonian physics became not only possible but understandable and "easy" (everything is easy once you know how to do it) under Einsteinian physics

Oh and:
- the Matrix 2&3 sucks (but the first was entertaining except for the superlame ending)
- never forget that science is an approximation of models that best fit current knowledge and perception

Your_mom · Post by **Your_mom** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 11:20 pm

Lucifer wrote:
Sabarai wrote: Handy, 2 have another Dutch guy on the forums who CAN speak english in detail
Who was the first one?

i think he ment

nice to have another Dutch guy on the forums, and one(refering to jonathan) who can speak english in detail.

yeah my grammers bad. but if you look at it a second time i'm sure you'll see what he was trying to say

reread what i wrote and it still might be uncomprehendable... , whatever, i understood him.

Post by **Lucifer** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 11:30 pm

Your_mom wrote: i think he ment

nice to have another Dutch guy on the forums, and one(refering to jonathan) who can speak english in detail.

My cheap shot, in case anybody missed it, was that Sab uses so many abbreviations that make his posts nearly nonsensible to me that I don't even read his posts anymore unless they're only one or two lines. "2" and "ur" instead of "to" and "your", you know. That's not English the way I learnt it in class....

subby · Post by **subby** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:06 am

Sabarai wrote:my comp failed on me yesterday so that why i only post it now. I c there's a number in the center, but shouldn't there be a unit? like km/h, miles/h, or m/s???? i think it's not so obvious a speed indicator

Hi everyone, I agree it needs units but I hate to tell you guys that m/s can't be true, because, well, the space in the game is virtual and not real (I know this may be hard for some to comprehend hehe).

Thats why I didn't include the speed units.

First we need to define the distance measurement which at the moment is an arbitary floating point number so perhaps we call it floats/s or something. Depending on the relationship between the size of the arena and how this number relates to the distance travelled.

Z-man probably will know at the top his head

I hope that makes sense

Post by **Tank Program** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 5:55 pm

I coulda sworn I remembered reading ms^(-1) somewhere in the code...