|
Post by Longisquama on Aug 3, 2016 13:53:39 GMT
Within the bin folder, delete the file ogre.cfg and you'll get the Ogre setup menu next time you start the game...I think. That worked. Thanks! (Although maybe in future versions it should work without having to delete anything?)
|
|
|
Post by Longisquama on Aug 1, 2016 14:43:47 GMT
In my monitor it shows up like this, any idea how can I fix it?:
|
|
|
Post by Longisquama on Jun 7, 2016 23:34:20 GMT
Here we are. The microbes in the upper layer (above) are transparent, and microbes close enough to the camera are invisible. Microbes in the back layer (below) are slightly unfocused. (or maybe just transparency would work?) The deepest ones are hidden. In reality, the microbes would of course be more varied and move around and stuff. I love how it looks. I think it would be great it something similar was implemented
|
|
|
Post by Longisquama on Jun 5, 2016 13:52:58 GMT
I would have made it so everything is full 3d, but that would mean changing all the current game, so it is not viable at this point.
|
|
|
Post by Longisquama on Jun 2, 2016 1:57:56 GMT
Longisquama was a weird triassic reptile. I like prehistoric animals, the weirder the better.
|
|
|
Post by Longisquama on May 25, 2016 9:26:04 GMT
My nucleus turned white also... but then after dying, my nucleus had the normal texture but the nucleus of other cells became white
|
|
|
Post by Longisquama on May 13, 2016 10:05:30 GMT
About the Fermi paradox, I suspect the technological singularity plays a big role in it.
|
|
|
Post by Longisquama on May 13, 2016 10:00:10 GMT
Y'know I always had trouble imagining the scale of just how large the universe is, but this just made me think about age too. It took about 300 million years for life to evolve and become as complex as it is today right? That is approximately 2% of the age of the universe. It didnt take Earth that long (relatively) for life to evolve, so I disagree with age being the biggest factor. 300 million years? What do you mean? Life has been for around 4 billion years, almost as much as the Earth itself, and around 30% of the age of the universe. It took1.5 billion for the first eukaryotes to evolve, 3.5 billion for the first animals to evolve, 4 billion for sapient ones. I would say time is a pretty important factor.
|
|
|
Post by Longisquama on May 4, 2016 20:35:34 GMT
Amazing work! But here are some bugs: -Mouse too small - The game crashed after a while, for no apparent reason -New game, crashed again after reproduction -I thought you were putting a new endoplasmatic reticulum model, but it is only seen the old.
|
|
|
Post by Longisquama on Apr 20, 2016 8:16:57 GMT
Hey Alex, I'm Atrox! Welcome to the forum! I don't really have a favorite animal. However, I do tend to become slightly obsessed with a certain group of animals and tend to research the hell out of them for a good week or two before my interests change again. As of late I've been fascinated unicellular organisms. I could tell you that my favorite protozoan is Lacrymaria Olor on account of it's shape and the way it finds its food I just read the wikipedia article about it en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lacrymaria_olorI want to do it in Thrive, with a neck like that and with the ability to " may sometimes tear chunks out of larger ciliates."
|
|
|
Post by Longisquama on Mar 15, 2016 20:23:59 GMT
I have seen that Nanu is doing a Nucleus texture, and although it is better than the current model without texture, it is not realistic Real nucleus have have pores, which are used by the ARNm to go in and out of the Nucleus. Like this:
|
|
|
Post by Longisquama on Mar 14, 2016 8:57:46 GMT
then we better make a machine to evolve everything through those stages evoution dosnt work that way there is no fair game the only thing that matters is survival Colourful lizards don't make machines. I know there is no fair game in evolution, but sapience is very improbable, and as the effect of a sapient species is impossible to predict, and you would be powerless against it ( making the game no fun anymore) I don't think we should let any species reach sapience before yours.
|
|
|
Post by Longisquama on Mar 14, 2016 4:37:31 GMT
its your job to keep up with evolution A species take 2 million years to get throw Awakening, Society, Industrial and even Space. If you are in aware in the same time you can get from being a lizard to being a slightly more big and colourful lizard. You don't have a chance.
|
|
|
Post by Longisquama on Mar 14, 2016 2:28:18 GMT
I don't think that anything should evolve beyond your stage in any difficulty (timelines at different speeds and all of that) Sharks have been the same for millions of years so they should be able to. Yeah but they shouldn't start a nuclear war when you are still a fish.
|
|
|
Post by Longisquama on Mar 13, 2016 22:34:42 GMT
Fastest Evolution(Nothing advances beyond your stage)- E I don't think that anything should evolve beyond your stage in any difficulty (timelines at different speeds and all of that)
|
|
|
Post by Longisquama on Mar 11, 2016 10:49:57 GMT
Well the points at which you can start a new game are not necessarily at the beginning of each stage. For example, the current concept lists three starting points. - Microbe : You start as a single cell. The classic start. - 3D/Late Multicellular : You start as a simple and miniscule organism. In case you want to skip cell gameplay. - Awakening : You start as a species that has just gained sapience. In case you want to skip evolution. These three starting points are the same regardless of where the stages are defined to begin and end. Also, as an aside, the reason these were picked is because of assumed restrictions with world generation. It would be hard to allow the player to start a new game in the Industrial Stage, because the game relies so heavily on your history of decisions since you start Awakening, and there is not really any feasible way we could generate that randomly, it has to be played and created. I see, although it is a same you can't start directly at the space stage. I think it would be feasible to start in the Industrial Stage, in Civilization, for example, you can start at any age, so Thrive could have a similar system. The last point that I have to make in favour of having the stages corresponding to gameplay changes is that it will be confusing for new players. Otherwise, i don't have much problem with the current concept. (Maybe space starting with interplanetary/interstellar travel, and not with Sputnik?)
|
|
|
Post by Longisquama on Mar 11, 2016 7:25:22 GMT
I thought that, once you reach a stage, it will be unlocked in the main menu. So, if you feel like playing like playing the development of a civilization, you don't have to repeat the whole game, microbe to awakening, you can just start a new game directly in society.
If that is the case, it has an effect in gameplay, and having the stages corresponding to changes in gameplay would be more important.
Also, I guess a tutorial is needed each time you adquire new controls (3d movement) or a new editor is unlocked (organism editor). So, as the game will slow down for a bit, it would be better if we explain that the reason for this is that a new stage has been reached.
Seing a message or some kind of notification (achievement unlocked?) each time you reach a new stage would also be good rewarding the player for his effort, and may help giving the player more motivation to play.
|
|
|
Post by Longisquama on Mar 11, 2016 1:12:57 GMT
Although I like the idea of Aware, and starting a new stage when you develop a nervous system, maybe it would make more sense gameplay-wise and organizational-wise to start a new stage when you can't distinguish new cells and the camera starts being 3d. The game changes so radically with the new 3d movement and even the editor will stop being about making specialized cells and putting them around the organism, to start being about organs or at least tissues.
So, late multicellular could be merge with Aware in a new stage . I am not sure about how to name it. Aware sounds very good, but is not as accurate as in the beginning you won't have a nervous system, and you could evolve to a plant. Sentient has the same problem. Macroscopic perhaps is the most accurate, although I don't like the sound of it. Organism is too vague.
|
|
|
Post by Longisquama on Mar 10, 2016 5:26:53 GMT
just to remind you feathers evolved long before the dinosaurs in LIZARDS such as longqsquama (rings a bell dosnt it) back then they were alot like fur with a few exceptions Nobody knows much about longisquama, although the only thing preserved that could be interpreted as feathers are not at all like fur. And I wouldn't say 3.6 million years is "long before" (longisquama 235 MYA, eoraptor 231.4 MYA) It is possible that is a close relative to dinosaurs, and that is the reason it has those weird structures in its back, it is possible it is a true lizard and they evolved independently. As interesting and weird as it is, longisquama remains are not good enough to being able to help scientists discover the origin of feathers or endothermy. In any case, only dinosaurs tegument are considered feathers, even pterosaurs ones are different enough that they have their own name: pycnofibres. Their closest common ancestor probably had integument too, although it is probable it is more primitive than both protofeathers and pycnofibres. It is also possible that it was endothermic and the function of the integument was insulate it. Longisquama could have evolved from the same common ancestor, or be related to it.
|
|
|
Post by Longisquama on Mar 10, 2016 1:18:12 GMT
Oh ok then... I always thought dinosaurs were cold blooded for some reason :/ Dinosaurs lived for a really long time period, many millions of years. It honestly depends on when you start looking at them. The first dinosaur were likely cold-blooded. No, the first one was likely warm-blooded. There are dinosaurs both saurischians and ornithischians with protofeathers, which are of no use without endothermy. Furthermore, the closest relatives to dinosaurs, pterosaurs, were covered in hair-like structures, probably evolved from the same tegument as the feathers of dinosaurs. And pterosaurs were probably warm-blooded, both because of the tegument and because they were able to fly, which spends a lot of energy, which requires endothermy. So, the first dinosaur probably had feathers (or something similar) and was endothermic.
|
|