Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.
Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).
Why are we getting excited? Have we seen any evidence? Any concrete evidence? Anything real? Know how easy it'd be to photoshop that above screenshot if you were good at using Photoshop? Pretty easy. So, be careful of putting all your hopes into this. It could easily be a hoax, or a prank in the world's worst taste.
I agree Shlim. However, I have seen and heard a few things that make me wonder... So I will wait and see.
Don't get me wrong. EV4 would be great. And if- _ IF_ -there's anything to this massive hint-fest, then I'll be very, very, VERY HAPPY. But I can't think that there is, because if there isn't then the pain of the hope being quashed would be too much to bear.
Therefore I must play devil's advocate. Keep your salt in hand and remember that they haven't given you a reason to believe them yet.
Plus, something just occured to me-Why on earth would CTC work on a new engine, without being completely rewritten? Look at the amount of effort it takes to get an EVC plugin to work with the EVN port of EVC.
@shlimazel, on Jul 26 2008, 06:54 PM, said in New EV Override port:
Maybe it just takes less effort to implement a scenario for this engine in general.... Maybe there's software floating around to automatically convert a Nova scenario (which both EVO and CTC are, at the moment) to an EV4-compatible format, even if hand-tweaking is necessary to make it work appropriately. Either way, it's no less plausible that CTC can be ported than that EVO can be ported.
Don't fool yourself. If "EV4" is as different from EVN as we're led to believe, then it would take a massive effort to port something from EV3 to EV4. Qaanol mentioned something about "EV4" handling sounds differently, Guy's on to something about UI tweaks, we know that it's got 32 bit graphics capability, and maybe even a 3D map. Even for something as small as CTC-F, that's all going to leave a crick in the neck.
I still believe that EV4 has become a code word for EVN 1.1, and Qaanol and Guy have given us a really good cover up of the Real Dealย to try to blow us off track. I wouldn't put it past Qaanol to mastermind it...
EV4 is completely different from EVN 1.1, which is rudy's bailiwick. You're on the wrong track.
Says you.
@jacabyte, on Jul 26 2008, 11:11 PM, said in New EV Override port:
Don't fool yourself. If "EV4" is as different from EVN as we're led to believe, then it would take a massive effort to port something from EV3 to EV4. Qaanol mentioned something about "EV4" handling sounds differently, (...) we know that it's got 32 bit graphics capability, and maybe even a 3D map. Even for something as small as CTC-F, that's all going to leave a crick in the neck.
These capabilities are a superset of what's required by EVO and CTC. And again, so long as the differences between the EVN and EV4 data formats are well-documented, it should be easy to write an automatic converter that takes the aforementioned feature additions into account.
Quote
Nonsense. If EV4 does exist, it's a separate project altogether from the EVN engine in any form.
@jacabyte, on Jul 26 2008, 10:47 PM, said in New EV Override port:
Knows me. Read some of my earlier posts in this thread.
I suppose that it's possible that they have implemented easy conversion of old plugins. But what about the multiplayer they purport to have implemented? Why do you expect us to believe that you can quickly and easily implement a feature that did not exist in Nova CTC in CTC?
And, Jaca, we know nothing. They have given us no proof. Period. Mackilroy talks of posts made earlier in this topic being somehow proof-it isn't. Talk is cheap.
If you want us to believe there's something to this, then give us a reason to.
Y'know, I just realized something this morning that I didn't bother to ask earlier, so I figure I should mention it now.
So, if we're in a 3-D environment, that means that we'll need Pitch and Yaw controls to deal with the (now critical) different levels of altitude. But something else came to mind: are there going to be Stars, Black Holes, or other navigational hazards we may have to avoid?
And, uh, for the Pitch/Yaw setup, are we going to do a WASD-type setup, or is something else planned?
Ah, one last thing I wanted to ask. Cameras: will angles be adjustable, or is it fixed?
@shlimazel, on Jul 27 2008, 08:41 AM, said in New EV Override port:
I'm aware of that. That's why I think EV4 = EVN 1.1.
I can't, really... :ninja:
Reading through this topic from beginning to end, two things occur to me that make this smell of hoax.
1: Geek apparantly is not associated with this project. Quaanol, however, tried to say that he was. WTF? Geek does not look to be associated, so if Quaanol is trying to say that he is then this makes me suspicious.
2: Why in hell would you put something this secretive out in the open? It's ridiculous. To expect us to believe that this is somehow a secret project and then post it out in an open forum?
Makes sense. It's possible-but I believe that this is looking more and more like a hoax. And if that's the case, it's not damned well funny. A hoax perpetuated this long and involving this many people is just cruel.
I can't, really...
No, no, the other you.
You expect us to believe anything you fellas say on the subject? You haven't given us a reason to. I believe in LNSU's DOI project because I'd seen it being developed when Captain Bob was in charge. But this is just talk, and less and less convincing talk the more I think about it.
I'm serious. Ask rudy if you don't believe me - EV4 is not EVN 1.1.
Well, that's not really the point. The point is not whether EV4 and EVN 1.1 are the same. The point is that there's no proof that you are working on EV4. There's more reasons to believe that you are not , in fact.
You want proof? I've just uploaded EV Override for EV4 to the EV4 addons pages :ninja:
@guy, on Aug 2 2008, 08:47 AM, said in New EV Override port:
Link?
URL please, or it never happened.
I think it's a joke. Has anyone else noticed that they seem to have gotten aweful quiet since I called them out on this?
hell, it's been a joke since the thread started in may. it's jsut a joke that everyone wants to believe is real