Boothand

Wow, cool to see a developer around. 1. What things about the gameplay in Jedi Outcast caused you (the company) to make new patches, eventually with very different combat? Asking because JK2 today has perhaps most of its active player base still in JK2 1.02, and the rest in 1.04. 2. Have you seen videos of the highly experienced players over the years? Do they play the game anything like how you imagined they would or could when you made the game? 3. Did you have to 'kill a darling' during production, any planned features that either didn't work out or got down-prioritized?

Yeah, would be 'too easy' vs only one opponent I guess. In JK2, some of the challenge is to attack them at the right time after they shoot, especially vs bowcasters, otherwise you might lose most of your HP if they get a shot while you're winding up your attack. I guess what I mean is when there are multiple opponents (not in a corridor, but in bigger rooms) they tend to spread out and you have to aim around to block them. Not sure how it's like in Jedi Academy.

Maybe something like a 'health bar' for your saber defence that restores 'health' at a set speed. The higher your force level, the faster the regeneration. When you block too many bullets and it's below 0, you get hit. Though I kind of like it when you just have to aim really well to block bullets. Like the bar fight in Nar Shaddaa in Jedi Outcast, you're surrounded and have to act really quickly and aim your saber. Maybe the difficulty level (Padawan - Jedi master) could increase and decrease the threshold needed for blocking the shot. I guess some levels could be too easy though if everyone is in front, but most of the JK2 levels are pretty challenging and spread the enemies around.

I mean, given that Peter Cushing is long dead, I see no reason why there would be a hate fandom. Replacing Sebastian Shaw with young Anakin was just rude, weird and unnecessary, since they had the original footage. I guess if they find no one that could be made to kind of resemble Tarkin, I understand their choice, but I found it weird and could immediately tell it was CGI.

I thought Tarkin looked very CGI, I'd have preferred a real actor, I think. Wasn't too impressed with the movie overall, I liked TFA better of the two. Lots of cliches. But, many entertaining scenes, at least. Loved the robot!

If you (in edit mode) select everything and press CTRL N, does it look better? CTRL N is 'Make normals consistent', and usually solves issues with inverted faces etc. If the tags are flipped, that might need fixing of its own though, not sure.

You recognize the extreme light and dark ideals as something bad. You believe it's good when the two are in conflict. Not a middleway between them, but an overall universal conflict. You don't recognize a good on either side. But if you don't then recognize a bad one, you wouldn't need to stray away from either. You try to be impartial by saying you don't belong to either, but in fact you recognize them both to be bad (on their own). Either you are impartial (no opinion on which scale the balance tips), or you believe there is something good and bad. Might not be a universal good or bad, but something good or bad in common for all who consider themselves protectors of the balance of the force. By answering why you would do the things a gray Jedi is supposed to do, you do answer what your opinion is on being a great Jedi (since you chose gray Jedi as your preferred path). The reason I'm going on with this is because there is a parallel between the real world and the Star Wars world, and I'm concerned about some of the things you say, and how your beliefs would reflect upon Earth. Interesting that you see it that way. What's the direct evidence proving that the abundant amount of (non-violent) conflicts in society are not enough to keep up progress? The Star Wars dialogues help describe what a gray Jedi is, but not why there is a need to create conflicts out of nothing. Please point out a country, culture, society that is currently growing stale. 1. So, a mixture of both. So light = good, and dark = bad. What's good about the light side, and what is bad about the dark? Not interested to hear about what's 'too extreme' in the Jedi code, but interested to hear about what you think is 'good'. 3. Same as 1, what are the essential good and evil components of humanity like? Wy should someone strive to be equally good and evil, instead of strive to be good and fight their own evil? If too much good is in fact not good, then good isn't truly good. If good = a mixture of good and bad, then the good end of the scale must be something different than good, same for bad. 4. IF the Jedi become this extreme, sure! Just note that this would arguably make both Jedi and Sith evil, and good could not be associated with Jedi. 5. Again (if you haven't already answered it above), which real world place could use some conflict because it (at some point currently or in history) was too good? Did someone cause conflict in those countries out of impartial reasons to restore balance, or was it political reasons? Let's wait until it does happen, though! The Jedi or Sith code in themselves aren't extreme, but extreme people will do extreme things based on them. The political leadership of some place isn't the same as the values held by the people. If the Jedi or the Sith made it their business to restrict people's lives to the extent you describe, they are both evil. Ideally, for me, the Jedi code would be a personal spirtual quest, not something that belongs in political leadership. But if Darth Vader wants to rule the galaxy and starts blowing up planets like Alderaan, it seems reasonable to let the Jedi go and chop his hand off, maybe help the rebellion blow up a death star or two, and I think the Jedi code can help them during such conflicts, as individuals. (Again, if not already answered) Which world is that? Are we not challenging each other right now? This is an example of progressing (and this happens everywhere). By happiness, I don't mean that there are no issues that force us to progress, or that the ruling political party in my country is the best.

I don't think the question is so much 'what is a gray Jedi?', so much as it is 'why would you be a gray Jedi?'. If it is as Ping describes and the second Wookieepedia definition describes, it's someone working to restore peace/justice/harmony outside the ways of the Jedi code. This is reasonable, to me at least. But what I get from you is very mixed: 1. Nothing is good or bad, right or wrong, all a matter of perspective, no universal truth - you are justified to do any action on your own accord, no code to guide you. 2. Every gray Jedi cares about the state of the world and should or will take actions to make it right. 3. None of your efforts matter in the great scale, it will balance out. 4. If Jedi are in control, society will eventually grow stale - an example you gave of this was Jedi suppressing people, forcing the code upon regular people, making people unhappy. 5. If things are overly good (or peaceful), society will grow stale (even if Jedi are not in control), so you should do something to disrupt the peace (and from this, we can conclude that making progress is good or desirable). 6. Gray Jedi are necessary in order to free societies or cultures from oppression (rebellion would not play a more important part, at least you haven't addressed it any of the times I brought it up). 7. Making impact on another culture than your own is disrespectful and bad, you have no right. Before you bring new pastes from expanded universe and things to help define what a gray Jedi is (if that feels important), we must clean up these arguments, because I can't see the overall connection between this at least. Some reminders about my stance here, since you haven't responded to a lot of it, so we don't go in loops: -The Jedi code isn't perfect, but it's not likely to be projected unto 'the people'. -Jedi Hitler is bad, nobody supports this. Yes, go ahead with Darth Maul and force them out of action (then make democracy). -Don't make conflicts if there is happiness. Peace does not equal lack of progress.

I can understand that purpose, for the gray Jedi, and it sounds reasonable on its own. But the way they define balance, judging by the way it was described by Cerez, feels unlogical to me. So, I guess we would need to clearly define what 'balance' means. Is it an equal (for simplicity's sake) amount of 'good' and 'bad' (as in peace vs war/conflict), or is it the ideal of finding the golden middleway between extreme light and extreme dark, and making sure any place isn't consumed by either (which would result in ridding the world of bad - tyranny, oppression etc)? Or something else? The former feels very artificial to me.

That's not what I read into that quote at all. How does it suggest that there is no right and wrong? He basically says that the right thing to do now is stopping the tyrant Malak, though questioning the greater picture importance of the war, as things will balance out eventually. But as I'll repeat below, life is more than the greater picture of the world. So, the actions of gray Jedi (people) and their views are insignificant to the balance of the force too? If the force has a natural balance, wouldn't it be, for a gray Jedi, the most unnatural thing to try to actively change that balance? If the world (or some place) is at some point 'overly good' (in lack of a better description), wouldn't it according to the quote you pasted be insignificant in the greater picture, as it wouldn't stay that way forever, and thus be insignificant to try to change that? If there's a natural balance, it would come about on its own, you wouldn't need gray Jedi to justify violence by saying it serves to balance out the force. Not saying I agree about the dynamics of things balancing out one way or the other, but I found those points problematic with what you said above. 1. There is arguably no universal right or wrong (can skip a metaphysical discussion here), but this acknowledgement means nothing to us, because we all have compassion, we understand others through our understanding of ourself. We're able to make the conclusion that what hurts ourselves hurts someone else too, and that causing others pain is unnecessary unless you're in a desperate situation. This is where we as humans can start to recognize 'good' and 'bad', or more objectively 'preferable' and 'unpreferable' (can skip a discussion on altruism too, unless you're very eager to talk about good/bad in that sense). I'll skip forward a bit and conclude that saving lives, sparing a majority from pain is ethically 'right'. 2. At this point I become more unsure what you really mean about 'natural balance'. 3 & 4. So if I understand correctly, you argue that good/bad actions are insignificant in the great scale and thus lose their meaning (and thus their importance) in the great scale as well. Can you not think of things throughout history that made a great picture change through individuals' efforts (based on what is right/wrong), whether they started on their own or combined their efforts? Not sure where you're going with this, but even if your actions never could impact the great picture (which I don't grant), the great picture isn't the only thing that matters. Someone's life may be just a frame in the infinite timeline, but to discredit their actions, morals, opinions or feelings as something without meaning for the sake of the greater (infinite) timeline is an argument for what? I could turn it around and say 'does the greater timeline mean anything in the scale of a human life?' Being right or wrong means something to us as humans, and the meaning we get out of it while we live is as important as the meaning it has from any other perspective (such as the perspective from the great scale). As you pointed out, it's about perspective, and that goes in a lot of directions - but due to our common abilities and understanding, most (!) of us can recognize the same basic principles about 'good' and 'bad'. Okay, so I took some steps back so we could do the basics first, but I think you're misunderstanding me. My logic: 1. I can save more than 1000 lives of non-participating people by stopping a war. This is good, I should stop it. I sneak in at night and switch out all their guns with bananas. 2. They find new guns the day after, also the banana industry grows inbalanced and marks the start of the Big Bloody Banana Revolution of the century. Country/City #1 loses the conflict, and it cost them 3000 soldiers, 1000 pregnant women and men, 1000 wild animals, 4 scientists and one small time criminal bantha herder as well as their cultural treasures peed on by the Country/City #2. This is bad, I should do something else. 3 A. I talk to General Gerderberg, I give him a speech inspired by Rocky, get him on a conference call with General Hatemanship, and they agree to take it easy after persuasive arguments. This is good. 3 B. I talk to General Gerderberg. He has already seen Rocky, and he can't appreciate conference calls, he needs to look his opponent in the eye as he rejects my peace attempts with a horde of pitchfork wielding toddlers riding on slaves. I ignite my righteous lightsaber and spare their lives brutally with a relaxing, mysterious provision of mother's milk. I call in my backup and we arrogantly take over. 3 of our men mistake their cultural treasures for public toilets, but we make peace with City/Country #2. The people hate us and spend the next 5 years planning and going through with a revolution to put a new leader of their own choosing on board. This is... arguably better than the devastating war. Now, don't get me wrong: I don't 'approve' of needlessly intervening. I'm saying that you have the 'right' as a fellow human being to be a part of the world, and if you can prevent great injustices, save lives, I believe there is a way to go about that, without arrogantly 'imposing' yourself on another culture with your own views. A country or culture separate from others can't just make up its own horrible rules in an enclosed bubble and automatically be safe from outside judgement and intervenance. You can live in a separate culture, but you can't separate from humanity. I agree that the above case would be abusive and wrong (hey, suddenly we're talking about taking actions against things that are perceived as wrong! Just a note for the first part of this post). The case you're presenting is basically Jedi Hitler, where the Jedi code suddenly gets seen as a recipe that every individual (not just Jedi) had to follow and fit, and the people get convinced and brainwashed into welcoming it (otherwise eliminated/hurt as you suggested). I simply don't agree that the Jedi code is intended for this purpose, like some of us have suggested earlier, nor that the Jedi are or would become that extreme even if they were to follow it to every extent. If they were, I believe rebellion would solve it over time, not galactic wars (you might not even suggest that, in this case, I'm not sure). But to get to the main point of how I see flaw in your logic: You want to remove the suppressing Jedi, but at this point, you have already recognized them to be 'bad' (your description of the extreme Jedi ways) and therefore they should be replaced by something that would, in your perspective, be considered more beneficial, or good (even if that meant involving 'bad guys' to achieve greater justice). Bottom line: You, as a gray Jedi, through the above provided example, are working towards balancing out things you think are 'bad' with things you think are 'good'. Balance, for you, is also more of the good, but you're afraid of an extreme interpretation of values held by those we consider 'good', and that the values would lead to something bad. Now, the most important part (to me): Let's pretend we're not talking about Jedi Hitler, but about the real world. There is a lasting peace in a lot of countries in today's world. Do you agree that there is meaningful progress in these countries, and that new violent conflicts are not necessary? This is, I think, the distinction we need to make in order not to misunderstand each other. Bottom side note: Happy Christmas! And yes, I started writing this reply before Ping submitted his

What I sometimes do or try is remove all saturation from the normal map, then use it as you would an ambient occlusion map.

I'm not suggesting that the Jedi, or anyone, has a world-given right to interfere with just anything and step all over cultural treasures, or to be more specific.. force all women in a city to stop wearing clothing designed to hide their skin, for example. Yes, this could lead to conflicts, wars if you take it far enough. But! Think about all the collateral damage and innocent deaths that come from war. Even if the soldiers were somehow 100% willing and not-brainwashed to carry out the will of military leaders (in which case you could say their deaths would be entirely of their own choosing, but this is rarely the case or this simple), you would as a bystander and outsider have to accept that lots of innocent people would suffer. I do not 'accept' this, and would rather support someone coming in to help resolve or put the conflict to a halt. This is not arrogantly imposing your views, it's protecting innocent people like yourself, people you recognize to have the will to live and be free from pain. This is something I hope would go pretty much without saying, and if we can agree on this (saving the lives of innocent people and also soldiers is good), then we can continue - in which case you must specify more clearly where you disagree with what I've said. Why are the people unhappy? What specifically are we talking about? What kind of thing are the Jedi blindly suppressing that a whole city cannot seek to change through democratic processes (feel free to include examples from real life)?

About knowing what is right for one culture - you might not understand their culture, their way of thinking, but you can make rational estimations about the outcome of war and conflict, and their alternatives, like Ping just did. As for the Jedi 'forcing' peace between two tribes, I don't see how this discussion helps resolve whether it's 'right' to be a gray Jedi, and the part about forcing your views and own culture upon them becomes a little niche in this scope, but even so: If the Jedi are wrong to make peace between someone from another culture, how can it be right for a 'gray Jedi' to act in someone else's culture on behalf of balance in the force? Follow-up question: If you see two 6 year old kids in China (or any culture different to our own) fighting to the death, one with a pitchfork and a buckler, another with a battering ram and riding on a slave, would you try to stop the fight? As for tradition usually coming from common sense - I disagree very much, but won't go on about it since that's an entirely different ethical discussion. To help us get on the same page about what we're talking about here, could you provide a specific example of something you (personally) would be willing to do (as a gray Jedi) in order to create conflict and war in a peaceful successful society?

This, for me, is a very big IF. It's not designed as a thing every living being should strive to follow. It's not like Yoda would go knocking on doors and lecture them about the force and the Jedi code (remember how reluctant he was to even teach Luke?). To me, the code is more like a warrior's code or meant for those who want to seek a spiritual path, something designed to keep the Jedi unseduced by the dark-side (although I don't agree with everything). Our society is colored by/inspired by christian values, yet it was used to do horrible things through history. Now we've moved past some limiting traditions such as the forbidden gay marriage. My point is, it's not that black and white. You don't need a Sauron just to make sure an entire generation doesn't decide to become Jedi. TLDR: Being a Jedi is not for everyone, it's for the few. Even if the Jedi code was like a world religion, society would adapt.

Yes, the Jedi might take things too far, like I said, but it's mostly relevant to the Jedi themselves, not an entire society, or planet. They would be like a bunch of galactic cops with a surprisingly restrictive ruleset on themselves. Whether the rules are good or bad for the Jedi is one discussion, but in the bigger picture, there will be peace and democracy and progress and more good things we have today. Luke Skywalker might be confused about being denied the feelings for his sister, and Anakin would maybe still think the Jedi are evil, but CHEWBACCA will be happy. And C3PO. And Lando's friend who says "Jaha" when they blew up the deathstar. Also Lando. And most people. Scenario: There is no wars, Jedi are in control. What extremist things do they do that impact society?

Keep in mind, rend2 is not something people are expected to use currently, as it's not finished, but if it does get finished, I'm sure a lot of people would be willing to try it. The renderer can be switched out in runtime as far as I remember, so once it's 'installed', you can easily switch back and forth between rd-vanilla and rd-rend2 for any reason, using console commands (cl_renderer) and a vid_restart.

Normal mapping works in the WIP rend2-renderer that Xycaleth is porting/working on. I'm sure seeing a nicely normal mapped character in JKA would be a good morale boost and motivation! https://jkhub.org/topic/7468-rend2-a-modern-renderer/

Do you really think an entire civilization would grow stale and apathetic just because the Jedi were in control? Say, for instance, you choose one day not to blow up some planet or murder some dogs, cows or children in order to restore balance - you still have the kind of conflicts that are in a growing, changing society such as ours. Not everyone is a Jedi/monk, and I'm sure, if it was real, the Star Wars world would have plenty of moral and political issues, regardless of galactic wars. If not, and everything was unanimously perfect, that would be severely unrealistic and thus equally less interesting in any discussion about the meaning of conflict or 'unbalance'. So, no need to go around and seek conflict for the heck of it. The Jedi might be neglecting their own potential as human beings by blatantly suppressing their humanity, but the idea of helping/supporting the Sith (power-seeking selfish violent killers?) back, for the sake of keeping things interesting, is just that: making things more interesting, because Star Wars is cool when people fight!

I think someone has a good start!

I'd start by just opening the code and using CTRL F to search for keywords, try to change simple things, see how things change when you switch out things in the code. Copy, paste, use CTRL F to find all references in the code to certain variables and structures, try to get a feel for how it works, or at least see some similarities. Try some practical learning, like CodeCademy. Maybe the Java course is a good start, since it will teach you about data types, variables and functions. You won't learn about memory management and pointer magic through Java or C#, but it's a good start if you're new I guess!

I hoped this video would count as me caring about joMME I know 2,3 others who's been messing around with it or wants me to teach them, for what it's worth.

If you're importing GLM, and your project is set up like this: C:/etc/Desktop/models/players/DonaldDuck/model.glm, set the 'Base Path' to C:/etc/Desktop. That's how I remember it, at least.

For me it works fine as long as there is a base/models/players/_humanoid/_humanoid.gla and base/models/players/someModel/model.glm. If it's outside your base folder hierarchy, I believe you can make do with only the models/players/etc structure as long as you tell the plugin which folder the 'base' folder would be (relatively).

I'm pretty sure this is not how this 'works'. This is what we have modding for (something you btw can't expect in any potential new EA JK game. This engine is still one of the best for modding!). These games all have some pretty niche gameplay, and the big-time developers are afraid of committing to something like that. You'd have better luck petitioning to the community to make something fan-made, or inspiring some smaller game company, but we all know that usually doesn't make it out the door. Closest thing is probably the MBII in Unreal Engine thing.

Use the .bat file to run it, not the exe directly.