Jump to content

MarkT

WFG Retired
  • Posts

    727
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by MarkT

  1. Ah, DOS. A dying art...

    Nate was right, a for loop will do this. Try


    cd test
    for /D %i in (*) do copy %i\*.* .

    This'll only copy the files immediately in those directories. If you want to copy subdirectories too, you'll need xcopy instead.

    [EDIT] Oh, also; if you're going to put this in a batch file, you apparently need %%i, not %i. I'm not sure if this'll work in anything below XP either - the help info says it requires 'Command Extensions' which I hadn't previously heard of[/EDIT]

  2. What's this going to be used for? I think you're probably best off ignoring the physics entirely (because it gets outrageously complicated and, as has been mentioned, nobody knows how it actually works anyway), and just assigning properties (and probabilities) to objects arbitrarily to get the results you want.

  3. My former college also did this: at one point they blocked access to MSDN which is when I decided to do something (also because I was bored. But anyway... )

    My solution was to write a program that requested pages over an encrypted link to a proxy server outside the college, and display them in an Internet Explorer control.

    Now, if this was going to work, you'd need either VB at college, or the ability to install programs there, and a proxy server - but at least it shows it can be done.

  4. Idly wondering: At the moment, the bit of Stuart's GUI that bothers me most is the minimap: the square-within-circle just doesn't look right to me.. I was thinking that it might look better if you move the minimap controls outside the orb, and use all the space within it for the minimap. This would allow a minimap that will rotate with the main view, either just top-down but oriented to the view angle, or going a step further and matching the view perspective also. (I think not too difficult, if the minimap is rendered to a texture... Matt?) I'm not sure that this'd work, but I'd be interested to give it a go.

    Oh, and:

    PS: Just had a thought - we could allow for two different GUIs and make it another option to choose which GUI the player wants to use.
    should be handled by the mod system (whichever the standard is, we could ship with an 'official' mod that'd switch it to the other)
  5. It's a good deal of fun to begin with, but I got tired of it quickly; multiplayer is fairly/very unreliable, and there's not a lot of depth to it IMO. (After you've got the hang of the basics, it seems to be either commit to learning to micromanage a rush second-by-second or be resigned to losing a lot against people who have. I'm not prepared to do the former.)

    Looks pretty, though, and the technology is quite impressive.

  6. A flat earth isn't even possible because the earth spins. People can be soooo dumb.

    Prove it.

    If you ignore certain inconvenient things (like pictures of the globe from space, which are - as we know - easily fabricated by image doctors in the covert sphericalist movement); flat-earth is not a particularly difficult thing to believe.

  7. Hmm. How about a free computer algebra system, they're rare enough... equation solver, differential/integral system and so on.

    This also has the advantage that you can extend it as far as you like while you have time; you're unlikely to run out of maths.

    Or, you could write a free 3d RTS showing the epic struggle of a dozen of history's major empires at the height of their powers in a battle for supremacy... It's not as if anyone's been crazy enough to try that already.

    Oh, as regards robots: Good idea, they're fun, and you can go and do some interesting AI stuff.

    Oh, as regards 3D engines in pure assembly: Bad idea, they're not fun, and there's no real reason to do it any more. (Hmm. Was that what you meant? Perhaps a 3D engine in a proper language that shows what assembly code does? If so, I still wouldn't recommend it... I did that a while ago, it'd be too simple to keep you occupied for 2 years)

  8. I don't know if this would apply in your part of the world, but here it'd be far easier to take Mathematics/CS and get a job in economics than it would to take Mathematics/Economics and get a job with computers. Generally speaking, employers only want a degree to show that you have the right sort of mind and general set of useful abilities for the job, actual training for the job will come later. Thus, computer science is a helpful thing to have for just about any job these days.

    Plus, if you take Mathematics/Economics, there's a risk you'll end up with a actuarial job, especially if you do well, and you wouldn't want that :P

×
×
  • Create New...