Originally posted by Del:
I never said the opposite, from the start I've been trying to tell them how I think they should be referred to as neutral. This is not something that can be argued.
(emphasis added)Originally posted first by Del:
Actually ships are referred to as neutral, so as "it" unless you're an ubernerd who believes they have souls .
I was responding to the point you first made, and apparently continued to argue.
Turg (please disregard if your text was not directed at me): yes, I am aware of that, but Del was criticizing Chariot's English, so I responded to that. Ships can be called "it" in English, and while it is generally accepted, it is not technically correct.
Z, how are you making the rings rotate? With mads? If you get it working, and the animation matches up with the firing (suggestion: fire events can trigger mad animations, right? So having one or two "guns" that triggered a rotate-by-one animation should replicate the effect, I think), that would be extremely cool .
On another note, how accurate is the scaling between the universes? From the ss's I've seen, it looks like the ST ships are enlarged a bit.
- nickersonm, eagerly awaiting the impending SW:I release