User talk:Fyzixfighter

You added the list of stars and constellations that do not have basic in reality. I have some memory loss, so I dont want to change the page without someone double checking, but I seem to remember Wolf 359 is a real star with a companion black hole, so Wolf could be removed from the list

True, but in the SC2 universe, Wolf is a constellation, whereas the in real life Wolf 359 is a single star. Are there other Wolf stars, like a Wolf catalog of stars? There's also a type of stars called Wolf-Rayet. Imho, since its not a star-star or constellation-constellation correlation, I think that it would belong on the list. We can always include a mention of Wolf 359 in the entry, also. --Fyzixfighter 06:09, 17 Nov 2005 (CET)

I seem to recall it being documented somewhere that the HyperSpace starmap shows stars that are actually different from the way that we (in reality) see and name stars in "TrueSpace". Stars in HyperSpace are different from those stars in TrueSpace, even if they have the same name. What we see as Betelgeuse in the HyperSpace map is actually not the same Betelgeuse star that we see right now in the 21st century. I think it's explained as humans, when they see the stars as they appear from HyperSpace, assign their own familiar names to these stars. --Phoenix (t) 07:16, 17 Nov 2005 (CET)

On the hyperspace star map that came with the game: "The positions are based on HyperSpace coordinates, which may be unsettling to some students of TrueSpace astronomy. Defined long ago by Chenjesu stargazers, the constellations are now accepted by all Alliance races as the standard. Due to the great diffuculty in pronouncing the Chenjesu language, each race has translated the names into their own tongue. When it came time for Earth to adopt this system, the United Nations decided to use traditional astrological designations at random." I think I might need to be more explicit on that list, to say that these are the names that are neither real constellation names or individual star names. --Fyzixfighter 08:01, 17 Nov 2005 (CET)

Hi there. In the Probe article, I think you left a sentence dangling: "Unlike catalog item 2419, this". I'd finish it myself if I knew the rest. :-) --Doubleyou 00:11, 2 Dec 2005 (CET)

Blast, guess I forgot something when I was moving everything around. IIRC that sentence fragment was part of an intermediate draft of that paragraph and is now redundant. Fixing... --Fyzixfighter 00:37, 2 Dec 2005 (CET)

Cargo images

FYI, people complained that my old cargo images taken from the UQM content were too tiny. We should probably use the wiki software to scale those up 2x (and the new ones you uploaded) for wherever they are used in articles, unless somebody wants to scale them manually and upload new versions. -Fadookie 01:37, 16 January 2006 (CET)

Thanks for the reminder. Yeah, I remember seeing the comments about that and agree the raw images are much too small. I believe <crossing-fingers> that I uploaded copies of all the raw images, except those that had already been uploaded. Not being a really aesthetic person, I avoided figuring out the right scale but, like you've already noted, the wiki software can easily resize them to whatever we d

1000 ecide on. I hope I didn't offend anyone or step on anyone's toes when I made those uploads, but I kind of agree with Svdb that it's more honest to present the raw material instead of enhanced images, unless we all agree on how to enhance those images - just my R$ 0.0456600. --Fyzixfighter 04:20, 16 January 2006 (CET)

I agree with you and SvdB about using the straight game content, and not only out of laziness. :)

There are other places for enhanced images... i.e. PONAF. Back when the Ultronomicon was a bit younger, there was discussion about using PONAF's animated gifs of each race's comm screen, but I was against this (as was SvdB if I recall). There is a place for everything, and I don't think that the Ultronomicon is the place for 'enhanced' content, especially if it is scaled to an arbitrary size with an arbitrary resizing algorithm that tries to make the graphics appear smoother than they actually are.

The only kind of pre-upload scaling I would support for the Ultronomicon is nearest neighbor 2x (basic, pixelated scaling), although screenshots of UQM using its internal scalers for purposes of comparison may be appropriate.

-Fadookie 07:08, 16 January 2006 (CET)

Footer nav plate.

What are you planning to do with those footer nav plates? I think they're nice, but main Ultronomicon pages shouldn't refer to pages in the User namespace.