Jump to content

Home

Kurgan

Members
  • Posts

    13545
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Kurgan

  1. Sadly, bots are here to stay. Be honest, do you really want to sit in spectator mode at the "waiting for players" screen on each siege map until you have at least 2 humans? People drop in/out all the time and so you'd be seeing that a lot. Most of us would rather just get into the game and let it flow until other people show up. If it were just us playing and we wanted a "fresh start" I could easily arrange that. I could even set it so you could "vote" to restart the map, though we've had problems with voting in the past screwing things up when I'm not there to monitor. Next thing, on some of the maps the bots really don't do much, due to bad AI, and so it's almost as if they're not even there after a few minutes (see for example the poor bot pathing in some of the larger ctf maps). So I'll tell you what, if you can ensure there will be 4+ people there every day playing on the server for most of the day, I would consider taking them out. If you've got a better AI routine, I'll be happy to try that too. Otherwise, deal with it.
  2. Nice, thanks for releasing this (might be a good idea to mirror that sucker as well)! I'll have to check into it next holiday season...
  3. I thought it was indeed a sentry gun/turret you needed to man to destroy the walkers, double checked our walkthrough and that's the solution. (**Warning: Link Contains Spoilers**) In any other situation, say, multiplayer, you may not have such a luxury, and will be forced to use other tactics, like lightsaber to the legs (while circle strafing to avoid being stomped and crushed!), rockets or other heavy weapons, td's thrown with care, and even the DEMP gun. Force push can be used to send rockets back at the vehicle, and the saber may be able to block some of its shots.
  4. For those who didn't know, here is the "revamp" of the once popular alternative to JED.* http://www.jkhub.net/project/show.php?projid=375&section=downloads Apparently this file doesn't create new levels well, but it can edit and save existing levels. So I figure you could just start with a bare bones deal and go from there (it comes with a sample level after all). *I know there's nothing wrong with JED, I just preferred the ease of use of this one.
  5. Since the page is down, here is a backup, thanks to the ever-helpful Wayback Machine . https://web.archive.org/web/20050312215541/http://www.jediknight.net/darkfall/jkarts/cuttutor.html MTFBWY
  6. Well it's been a few years, and my original plans fell through but I am once again pondering the idea of the multi-OS LAN party. Any new info surface since then?
  7. Tech help forum? PS: Wow, where have I been that I missed the release of the full source code for JKA/JK2 (back in April)??? I expect good things people!
  8. This looks promising. I recently joined my server to find just bots, but there are some servers out there being used plenty. The problem is lack of good siege maps. Maybe I should start testing these? Let me know! http://www.jkasiege.com/phpBB3/portal.php I'm all for better feedback...
  9. The latest version on the site is XL_Engine_Release_02 and the executable inside the zip archive is dated 6/17/2011. Here is what the page says: http://xlengine.com/downloads/ I don't have Daggerfall or Blood so I can't comment on the progress of those games (and I haven't played Outlaws since LucasArts released the last official XP patch many years ago). I played through Dark Forces in DarkXL and I thought it was great. It felt pretty awesome playing it. It wasn't 100% but pretty close to the original game and looked great, comparable to upgrading the original "Doom" from DOS into 3d-accelerated windows (ZdoomGL, doomesday, etc). The only thing that really was goofed up was in the later levels when you face the Dark Troopers. Some of them are just standing there like cardboard cutouts. The Final Boss is super, duper easy... pushover easy. And the final door didn't open for me, so I had to cheat to "win." So it was pretty unsatisfying there, but otherwise a very worthy effort. The official website (and the "blog" where news is posted) was last updated a few weeks ago (Nov 10, 2013) and the latest updates have been about DaggerXL. On the forum I saw this: I don't know how many years it will take to finish or even if it will be finished (DaggerFall probably will take the longest) but I wish Lucius luck!
  10. Great topic. I wish I had more time to interact with it. Essentially I would start off by saying that you are not going to get "scientific proof" of any God's existence (unless we are talking about little "g" gods, who are physical beings who live in the universe, as opposed to some kind of ultimate being, which is what most of us westerners mean by "GOD"). Rather, you are only going to objectively "prove" God's existence in the arena of philosophy. Anything else will simply be subjective (visionary experiences, private revelations, or whatever... non-transferable ecstatic or mystical experiences). I don't reject "Science" (most Christians accept mainstream science, including evolution & the big-bang, which incidentally was a theory first developed by a Catholic priest in good standing). But "science" has changed since the time of Aristotle. It no longer can answer such ultimate questions. Philosophy and science have divided and so it remains for philosophy to answer such questions. So any "proofs" for God will be philosophical proofs. Sure, people continue to attempt scientific proofs of God, but I would say most of us don't rely upon such things. But that's fine, because all truth does not lie in "science." If it did, most of us would not live our lives the way we do (including atheists). All of our morals, ethics, ideals and even the basis of our laws, social structures, etc. are based upon philosophical ideas, not "science." Science itself is founded upon philosophical principles of intelligibility, general reliability of our senses, uniformity of nature, etc. Now then I wanted to comment on a few things: Either you or your "Christian teacher" (sadly, simply being a Christian or a teacher doesn't make you an expert) is "completely wrong." If they had a doctorate degree in Scripture studies or something, I would take their view more seriously, but I'd ask for evidence for why they hold that position. In any case, here is the answer... The earliest texts we have about Jesus are the letters of Paul (aka Saul of Tarsus), written from about the year 49 through the year 67. As Jesus died in about 30, that's a mere two decades after his death that we have writings preserved by contemporaries. According to Paul, some of Jesus's original disciples (namely "Cephas" aka Simon Peter), James ("the brother of the Lord") and John were still alive and he interacted with them. The four canonical Gospels are thought by most scholars to be the earliest documents with the designation "Gospel" (but recall, they were written after the letters of Paul) and appeared between 65 and 95 CE (most scholars consider Mark to have been the first, then Matthew and Luke-Acts, followed by John). A few scholars put them earlier, a few put them later, but most would say right around 70 CE is when you get a bunch of Gospels about Jesus. the "Gnostic" writings and so forth do appear centuries later, but almost nobody of any academic standing considers them the least bit reliable in comparison. In about the year 90 we have independent testimony of the Jewish historian Josephus to the historical existence of Jesus and his brother James (and while one reference is questionable, most scholars consider it at least partially genuine and another reference which includes the mention of James, is not disputed by modern historians). Tacticus and Suetonius (pagan writers), near contemporaries of Josephus also attest to Jesus and his movement, but within a century or a bit later than Jesus himself. The argument that the Biblical writings cannot be used as sources is a strange one, of course but it is often thrown out by skeptics without justification. All historical writings are fragmentary and biased. Another objection is that Paul "never met Jesus" but that's not really an issue because he knew Jesus' inner circle, and he fought against Jesus' movement (why would he do that if he didn't at least know who Jesus was or what he stood for?) prior to his conversion. Paul in his letters writings to already existing communities of disciples (including ones he did not found) as if they already know the basic story of Jesus and beliefs about him. He cites what scholars identify as early "hymns" and "creeds" (for instance in Philippians 2:1-11). In short, the argument (made by some) that Paul "invented' the Christian faith is laughable at best. Likewise there is clear indication in the undisputed letters of Paul that other letters of his were written that are now lost to us. This means there was more information out there than just is recorded in the letters (unless I suppose he simply repeated himself). We know that the early apostles did most of their teaching orally, rather than in writing. However there is a robust "Tradition" preserved in for example the early Church Fathers and in the ancient creeds and liturgies of the Church. So one should not think "I can't find it clearly in the bible, therefore it must not have happened." The original audiences had more information than is recorded in these texts. But that doesn't mean we can't figure out what it is they knew, most likely, as any historian could determine. As an aside: For anyone who argues that Jesus was not a historical figure, I would point you to (agnostic biblical scholar) Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" which provides a thorough summary of the consensus view of modern scholarship on Jesus and demolishes the "Mythicist" position. Not all founders of religions are equally attested in the historical evidence. Of course Ehrman caught lots of "heat" from other (less credentialed) atheists but has responded to them on his blog. I do get tired of the arguments that the bible has been "translated and re-translated" or "written and re-written" so we "can't know what the texts really said." I also get tired of pointing out to some skeptics that nobody is using the "bible said it, so it must be true" argument in these types of debates. As a Catholic, I don't accept "sola scriptura" anyway (a theory held by a minority of Christians no earlier than the 14th century). I have to normally explain to those same people that the bible is a library, not a single book, and there's no evidence it was created by "illiterate bronze age desert dwellers" or "by the establishment for political power." Yet those kinds of things keep getting thrown around. There is nothing unbelievable about a preacher and faith-healer who was crucified, that some of his followers considered the Messiah and somehow divine. There is also nothing unbelievable about such a man viewing himself as the Son of God in a divine sense. Such people exist today, and such people existed 2,000 years ago. Unfortunately many of the skeptics one hears are still dealing with their own emotional issues against a fundamentalist Christian upbringing and are unaware of the studies out there beyond popular apologetics and counter apologetics. Rant aside... It's true, a bunch of people dying for their beliefs is not proof (by itself) those beliefs are true. It does however indicate that the people were sincere. Who would willingly die for a lie? That is, the common argument that Christianity began as some kind of plot or ploy to control the masses with an invented lie doesn't really pan out. It would have to be a vast conspiracy (we can't assume a conspiracy without evidence of that conspiracy). You could argue that all the disciples and early followers were deluded, but that's different than claiming it was a deliberate lie. One can't compare followers of Muhammad 1300 years later dying in suicide attacks to the early followers of Jesus. Another difference there is that these guys were terrorists (or guerrilla fighters waging a "war") vs. those who had nothing to gain (in earthly terms) by their deaths. Muhammad and Jesus are very different characters. The idea that Christianity was invented for political power doesn't really fly since the religion didn't have political power for the first three centuries of its existence (and it wasn't Constantine who made it the state religion, that was Theodosius, fifty years later in about 381 CE). In any case, Thomas Aquinas would argue that one could reason their way to the existence of a creator God, and admit the possibility that that God could reveal Himself to His creation if He so chose. But to accept the truth of the Christian faith, one still would have to accept the claims of divine revelations themselves. A skeptic could still say Jesus and his followers were sincere, but deluded, and provide a naturalistic explanation for everything and say either God doesn't exist, or God didn't reveal himself through this religion. Jesus quotes Psalm 22 in his native Aramaic. The Quran tells stories of Jesus that were apparently unknown to the early Christians, in the 7th century, a much longer space of time since Jesus' earthly life than the canonical Gospels. The early Christians considered all of them true and preserved them for that reason. Modern people want one version of the story. Information was simply preserved differently back then. The Torah also contains multiple versions of the same story, often side by side (just not seperated out into different "books" as in the New Testament). There are also variations of the Quran, though this is an emerging field, because Islam has long resisted this since the Uthmanic "reform." Some would argue that we have more reliable evidence for the existence of Jesus than for Muhammad as historical figures. Of course I accept the existence of both and I am even willing to grant that both were sincere in their beliefs. However from the point of view of "which one is true" one could come at it from many different angles, but the general Muslim position is that Christianity is a corruption that Muhammad and the Quran came to restore. The trouble is much the same for Muslims as for Mormons. Where is the evidence of this corruption? Presumably in the Muslim view there was an "original faith" that more closely adhered to Islam than to Christianity. So surely there should be evidence of this. If we say all evidence was destroyed, how do we know the claim to restoration is correct? That doesn't even begin to answer the question of whether God exists of course (and doesn't even answer which religion is true, only which is closer to the "earlier faith" they both claim lineage from). Of course the claim of Muslims is that they have the same God as Jews and Christians. So if our God doesn't exist, then neither does theirs (I would not say different understandings of the same God equal different Gods). The Trinity doctrine is a key difference between Christian and Jewish or Muslim understanding of God, but I would just say for now that it has its roots not only in the revelation of Christ, but in ancient Jewish theology of the personification of "Wisdom," the "Angel of the Lord" and so forth, out of the Old Testament (remember that the Jewish TaNaKh and the Protestant "old testament" is smaller than the book of Scriptures used by most Jews in the first century). It is not, as some have alledged, some kind of "borrowing" from pagan mythology. Trinitarianism is a form of monotheism, not polytheism. This sadly is a big misunderstanding by many critics of Christianity. It's simply reasonable to believe in the Christian God. You could say it's also reasonable not to. But one can't simply dismiss it, especially with the excuse "I don't understand" or "it sounds silly to me," or "I never really studied it." But without some kind of personal investment through an experience or act of faith, one could freely doubt it or accept it but not allow it to have any kind of impact on one's life. Most Christians live the way they do because they think it's the right thing to do, and it gives them joy (not happiness per se, as that's a fickle emotion). It's the best thing going, so they accept it. [Edit: fixed tags]
  11. I just thought I'd throw up a reminder to any old timers (or new comers!) who still play this game (I see 149 active players on Qtracker right now), or wanted to try it out online. I have a full time job and a lot going on, so I haven't played in a long time, but I'd be happy if people used it even in my absence. And as for complaining about "the bots" I know, I know. I wish they were better, but in the meantime, I'd rather not have the server just sit there empty. Think of it as keeping the seats warm. Enjoy! And please report if the server is down and you can't get it going (unless it's 4am CST in which case it's just restarting). I'll restart it as soon as I can. (JA Server: 108.178.55.189:29070 ) Official patch required. OJPBasic and star wars skins optional. MTFBWY
  12. Got any screenshots of it working? Image links are broken...
  13. I think in terms of the way it sucked me in and kept me coming back for more, JK (Dark Forces II) was the best. It came along at just the right time i my life to do that. In terms of graphics, technological advancement and such, JK2/JA are the best. Dark Forces is probably the most challenging.
  14. Hard to believe that it's been a decade since we got a new JK installment! I hope LA hasn't given up on this series for good. After all, this is the longest we've waited for a sequel... But then I seem to recall that they went into a much more conservative direction with the company around that time, focusing on console games, prequel based stuff and titles targeted at a younger audience that could be produced in a shorter development cycle and churned out to coincide with a dvd release... with PC gaming relegated to a niche market and most of their energy focused on these titles (and MMORPG's), it seems unlikely we'll get one anytime soon. To be honest I never really gave mods like this an honest try. I guess part of me saw them as a poor man's Battlefront, and as quickly as I tired of that game, it didn't put me in the mood to really try them. Then again, I always felt the FPS combat and swordplay in the BF series to be pretty light and forgettable compared to the JK series. It was mostly about getting into the biggest vehicle you could find and wrecking havoc on the enemy base... just a different kind of game. I think the Force Unleashed series showed what could be done with the force physics and graphics, but the sword play and multiplayer was very dumbed down to non-existent, and there wasn't any first person or gunplay. Modability was also extremely minimal. So JK fans are still waiting for something new. In the meantime, I guess mods like this are all that is keeping people's interest. Another issue is the hassle required in acquired these mods and setting them up, but I guess that's a small price to pay if it's an experience you enjoy. So have at it!
  15. I figured each time a new game came out they just wanted to change it up for variety's sake. I believe though that the reason it is blue in JK2 and JA was explained by one of the Raven developers awhile back was being because at the time LucasArts was going through another one of their "be true to the canon" phases, and so basically as a "good guy" Kyle had to either have green or blue, and since he'd already had green (and to contrast with Luke) they gave him blue. Funny thing is that around the time that these games were coming out, they were already breaking that rule in the films. I'm referring to something Lucas said during the production of Episode II that the "new rule" was that "good guys have green or blue and bad guys have red" (and then, as on the documentary Sam Jackson says "Can I have purple?" and he thinks for a second and then says "you might be able to have purple" or something like that). The EU always had multiple colors, and that was before Lucas said that. Of course in Episode III, suddenly you have bad guys using blue and green. Another reason might be that it seemed like when the Prequels were coming out that every game featured somebody using blue (a lot of games were prequel based and featured Obi-Wan or Anakin, using blue as in the movies, so I guess blue was on everyone's mind). Personally that made me get a little bit tired of blue, even though it looks cool and was originally going to be the dominant color in the movies (the sabers all started out as white, then they gave vader red to contrast with Obi's blue, and green looked better on the backgrounds in ROTJ so Luke got that color, etc). When I played JK2 and JA, as soon as I knew how, I used cheat codes to change the saber color to orange for Kyle, to match MotS. I guess in storyline terms you could make sense of it by saying that if you follow the light side ending of JK1, Kyle has Yun's gold saber, but as he is completing his training and working for the New Republic, then starting to train Mara Jade, he makes his own saber and it's orange. Then after the events of MotS, when Kyle "gives up" on being a Jedi for awhile, he retired his orange saber, and during the events of JK2 he builds a new one that's blue (or was he issued it at the training academy? I forget, it's been so long since I played the single player campaign). Why a different color each time? Depends upon what EU stuff you believe about what causes the color to change. Whether it's a deliberate design thing in the construction or its affected by the color of the "crystal" inside it, whatever. The Prequels lead us to believe that blue and green are really popular but never tell us why (in-universe). Maybe it was a symbol of the Jedi, or maybe those "crystals" were more popular or that technique for construction was more common. I guess make up whatever excuse you want. I think visually each development team just decided what looked best. I bet if they made a new Jedi game, the color would be different yet again. The "going through sabers like pencils" thing gets put over in the Prequels, so who knows.
  16. Try this: http://www.jkhub.net/project/show.php?projid=375&section=downloads
  17. The problems you describe are known limitations of those mods (at least in their present form as of this writing), sorry.
  18. JKhub.net is another great place to find stuff (recent too).
  19. Glad to find out years later that both TFU ("Ultimate Sith Edition") and TFU2 were ported to the PC. Sadly, still no official JK sequel... and the multiplayer was left out of the PC ports anyhow (and the saber combat is basically button mashing, nothing too special compared to the JK series), though the force control is great... and there's no first person viewpoint and no real gunplay. And as far as I know, JK/MotS still haven't been ported to any consoles, not even by homebrewers. Pity. We'll probably see them ported as part of some mobile gaming app before we see it on the Xbox360, wii/U or ps3.
  20. Yeah, 3d Acceleration is much better. Without it, the game will be stuck in "software rendering mode" which tends to be slower (at least on older machines), and the graphics will look "muddier" and more pixelated (even at higher resolutions, which you'll have fewer to choose from), giving it a more primitive look.
  21. Also just choosing dark side (red) powers will put you into dark side territory. Of course if you really want the "secret" powers on either side, you need to stick with that path and be "True" to it.
  22. Good tip, I was wondering that myself! I was going to suggest "XP mode" in Windows7 professional, but a replacement program is a better solution.
  23. JKhub.net and massassi.net are the best that are still updated semi-regularly. Multiplayer should work, all you need to do is make sure that somebody is hosting a game, and that the players you want to join have your IP address. That, or else you need to all be on the same LAN together to play. JKEnhanced can be easily installed by using this Noob friendly package. There is an "upgrade" for MotS, but it is in very early stages and so is not nearly as "complete" a change as the one for JK. You can find it here. Find another one here. This looks promising, but not no downloads yet!
  24. 1. I believe so. Try the disc version first, I say. Not sure how to tell if it's successful. 2. Yes. Get the Alternate Installer from JKhub. 3. It should be. 4. Yes. You need to enable ports (see the sticky) and trade IP addresses with somebody you intend to play with (one of you needs to host, the other connects, you can have up to 8 players, but everybody should have decent connections). Alternatively, you should all be on a LAN together.
×
×
  • Create New...