Talk:Blade - Revision history

Fyzixfighter: /* Ship Specifications */ response - I hope it helps

2007-11-08T23:37:31Z

Ship Specifications: response - I hope it helps

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:37, 8 November 2007
Line 46:		Line 46:

	I notice that ships that aren't found in SC1 don't have the specifications for the ship, just a little screenshot. On [http://starcontrol.classicgaming.gamespy.com/sc2/shipspecs/rw-supox-spec.jpg this page], there are ship specifications for these.		I notice that ships that aren't found in SC1 don't have the specifications for the ship, just a little screenshot. On [http://starcontrol.classicgaming.gamespy.com/sc2/shipspecs/rw-supox-spec.jpg this page], there are ship specifications for these.

			:The problem with those images is that they are fan-made images in the style of the SC1 ComSim images, using the ship attributes from the code (iirc) and usually images from the 3DO spin videos. We've made a conscious effort to avoid fanfic and fan-made images, and to stick as much as possible to the star control [[canon]], hence not using those images, as attractive as they are. However, one of the distinct problems with that set of images is that they introduce a lot of non-canon names for weapons (the most painful IMO being the Chmmr Avatar's "Terawatt Laser" - see a similar discussion on this [[User_talk:Fyzixfighter#FYI\|here]]). We have created and implemented a type of shipbox with the relevant data (though not as snazzy as the SC1 images) that is located at the bottom of each ship page. Does that help answer your question? --[[User:Fyzixfighter\|Fyzixfighter]] 00:37, 9 November 2007 (CET)

75.45.213.62: Ship Specifications

2007-11-08T23:07:33Z

Ship Specifications

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:07, 8 November 2007
Line 42:		Line 42:

	FWIW, the source refers to the missile as "horn". — [[User:Svdb\|SvdB]] 16:16, 10 January 2007 (CET)		FWIW, the source refers to the missile as "horn". — [[User:Svdb\|SvdB]] 16:16, 10 January 2007 (CET)

			== Ship Specifications ==

			I notice that ships that aren't found in SC1 don't have the specifications for the ship, just a little screenshot. On [http://starcontrol.classicgaming.gamespy.com/sc2/shipspecs/rw-supox-spec.jpg this page], there are ship specifications for these.

Svdb: horn

2007-01-10T15:16:00Z

horn

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:16, 10 January 2007
Line 40:		Line 40:
	*they can be distracting		*they can be distracting
	[[User:Svdb\|SvdB]] 14:13, 28 Oct 2004 (CEST)		[[User:Svdb\|SvdB]] 14:13, 28 Oct 2004 (CEST)

			FWIW, the source refers to the missile as "horn". — [[User:Svdb\|SvdB]] 16:16, 10 January 2007 (CET)

Svdb: my view

2004-10-28T12:13:04Z

my view

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:13, 28 October 2004
Line 33:		Line 33:
	Regarding the PONAF images- Yes, they do look cooler than ours, but I think we should keep the ones that we have. First of all, animated images might be distracting. Secondly, I think it's important that we keep this wiki unique.		Regarding the PONAF images- Yes, they do look cooler than ours, but I think we should keep the ones that we have. First of all, animated images might be distracting. Secondly, I think it's important that we keep this wiki unique.
	If we had just ripped all of our info from Chad's website at the beginning, there would be no point in coming here. Instead, we wrote all the content and grabbed all the images ourselves. I think having the static images actually adds to our style- the Ultronomicon is more encyclopedic, and PONAF is more flashy. I personally like both styles. -[[User:Fadookie\|Fadookie]] 07:57, 28 Oct 2004 (CEST)		If we had just ripped all of our info from Chad's website at the beginning, there would be no point in coming here. Instead, we wrote all the content and grabbed all the images ourselves. I think having the static images actually adds to our style- the Ultronomicon is more encyclopedic, and PONAF is more flashy. I personally like both styles. -[[User:Fadookie\|Fadookie]] 07:57, 28 Oct 2004 (CEST)

			Third party images, even more than text (which can be (re)written to be objective), will show the interpretation of whoever created it, while we try to document the SC2 universe as created by TFB. Also, we would need specific permission of the copyright holder.
			As far as animated images are concerned:
			*they take up more bandwitdh
			*.gif is not an open format
			*they can be distracting
			[[User:Svdb\|SvdB]] 14:13, 28 Oct 2004 (CEST)

Fadookie at 05:57, 28 October 2004

2004-10-28T05:57:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:57, 28 October 2004
Line 28:		Line 28:

	--[[User:Nic\|Nic]] 06:47, 28 Oct 2004 (CEST)		--[[User:Nic\|Nic]] 06:47, 28 Oct 2004 (CEST)

			Really? How interesting. This also brings us back to our original topic: where do the terms "sprout gun" and "lateral thrusting system" come from?

			Regarding the PONAF images- Yes, they do look cooler than ours, but I think we should keep the ones that we have. First of all, animated images might be distracting. Secondly, I think it's important that we keep this wiki unique.
			If we had just ripped all of our info from Chad's website at the beginning, there would be no point in coming here. Instead, we wrote all the content and grabbed all the images ourselves. I think having the static images actually adds to our style- the Ultronomicon is more encyclopedic, and PONAF is more flashy. I personally like both styles. -[[User:Fadookie\|Fadookie]] 07:57, 28 Oct 2004 (CEST)

Nic: /* Re: */

2004-10-28T04:51:37Z

Re:

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:51, 28 October 2004
Line 25:		Line 25:
	Yes, I'm absolutely positive; I have a copy of the PC version of SC2, and it's not in there. But the most compelling proof would be the following footnote on the PNF databank page:		Yes, I'm absolutely positive; I have a copy of the PC version of SC2, and it's not in there. But the most compelling proof would be the following footnote on the PNF databank page:
	**Special Thanks to RingWraith who created the Star Control Ship Specs		**Special Thanks to RingWraith who created the Star Control Ship Specs
			However, I fail to see the point in rejecting fan-created content; the fan-created databank pictures are extremely well-done, and portray their subject matter accurately (and IMO, "with loving care"). What purpose can be served by rejecting them? In a similar vein, the PNF captain portraits more accurately reflect the game than what you get from the UQM content, as the PNF versions are animated. Why not use them?

	--[[User:Nic\|Nic]] 06:47, 28 Oct 2004 (CEST)		--[[User:Nic\|Nic]] 06:47, 28 Oct 2004 (CEST)

Nic: Re:

2004-10-28T04:47:04Z

Re:

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:47, 28 October 2004
Line 20:		Line 20:

	I can't say, since I don't have a copy of SC2 PC, but I believe that that image is from the game. -[[User:Fadookie\|Fadookie]] 05:19, 28 Oct 2004 (CEST)		I can't say, since I don't have a copy of SC2 PC, but I believe that that image is from the game. -[[User:Fadookie\|Fadookie]] 05:19, 28 Oct 2004 (CEST)

			== Re: ==

			Yes, I'm absolutely positive; I have a copy of the PC version of SC2, and it's not in there. But the most compelling proof would be the following footnote on the PNF databank page:
			**Special Thanks to RingWraith who created the Star Control Ship Specs

			--[[User:Nic\|Nic]] 06:47, 28 Oct 2004 (CEST)

Fadookie at 03:19, 28 October 2004

2004-10-28T03:19:59Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:19, 28 October 2004
Line 16:		Line 16:

	--[[User:Nic\|Nic]] 04:35, 28 Oct 2004 (CEST)		--[[User:Nic\|Nic]] 04:35, 28 Oct 2004 (CEST)

			Are you positive? It certainly isn't in the UQM Content, but that's different than the SC2 PC content. Since the UQM code is derived from the 3DO version which contained animated ships instead of SC1-style databank images, said images would not be included in UQM.

			I can't say, since I don't have a copy of SC2 PC, but I believe that that image is from the game. -[[User:Fadookie\|Fadookie]] 05:19, 28 Oct 2004 (CEST)

Nic at 02:35, 28 October 2004

2004-10-28T02:35:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:35, 28 October 2004
Line 6:		Line 6:

	It's taken from the SC2 [http://www.classicgaming.com/starcontrol/sc2/shipspecs/rw-supox-spec.jpg Starship Databank] image. -[[User:Fadookie\|Fadookie]] 04:12, 28 Oct 2004 (CEST)		It's taken from the SC2 [http://www.classicgaming.com/starcontrol/sc2/shipspecs/rw-supox-spec.jpg Starship Databank] image. -[[User:Fadookie\|Fadookie]] 04:12, 28 Oct 2004 (CEST)

			That image is fan-created; there is no corresponding artwork in the "official" SC2 content.

			The 3DO videos, on the other hand, say:

			Supox Blade: releases a stream of toxic globules. Features advanced maneuvering capabilities

			If there's anything in there that you think you can use, go nuts. I have no good ideas for it.

			--[[User:Nic\|Nic]] 04:35, 28 Oct 2004 (CEST)

Fadookie at 02:12, 28 October 2004

2004-10-28T02:12:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:12, 28 October 2004
Line 4:		Line 4:

	Made up is what I am afraid of. It's not from the game dialog, and it's not from the PC manual or resource guide. (I always check those, very easy to do with a Linux prompt and 'grep'). -- [[User:Svdb\|SvdB]] 00:48, 28 Oct 2004 (CEST)		Made up is what I am afraid of. It's not from the game dialog, and it's not from the PC manual or resource guide. (I always check those, very easy to do with a Linux prompt and 'grep'). -- [[User:Svdb\|SvdB]] 00:48, 28 Oct 2004 (CEST)

			It's taken from the SC2 [http://www.classicgaming.com/starcontrol/sc2/shipspecs/rw-supox-spec.jpg Starship Databank] image. -[[User:Fadookie\|Fadookie]] 04:12, 28 Oct 2004 (CEST)