I have just read what quasars are supposed to be and sadly its not what they are in game.

pls read on Wiki

Well, the game has the Star Trek version of Quasars. Remember that back then it wasn't quite well understood what Quasars really are

If I am not mistaken they are very remote in space-time - so we can see them way out there but when we got there they would be long gone.

Everything we see on the night sky is actually past, we even see the closest star four years in the past.

Even the light from the Sun is eight minutes old. If the sun blew up, we wouldn't know until eight minutes later.

The Captain is right. Back in 1999 when BOTF was created, we didn't know as much about Quasars as we do now. And even still, we aren't 100% sure of what they are. All that your link says is that there is a consensus on what they are, Zweinstein. This simply means that most, but not all, scientists have roughly the same idea of what they might be.

They're a galactic object that most people have at the very least heard of though, even if they don't actually know what they are. Supremacy is also designed to be BOTF2, so they're going to be both in the game and act in roughly the same way as they did in BOTF - they will disrupt your sensors. Besides, we have to have *something* in the game other than stars on the map to make things a bit more interesting. The more objects there are on the map, the more interesting and Trek-like the game will be.

Quasars will have some uses in the game anyway, due to some features that haven't yet been implemented in the game, such as research bonuses through undertaking surveys of space. They could even provide you with a way of hiding your fleets from the enemy, especially if used in conjunction with Subspace Jammers and/or Cloaking devices.

Yeah, could a science station near some object give a bigger research bonus, like near wormholes, quasars, or even black holes if it can survive construction.

Yeah, that's the intention mate.


*Note: I'm not sure where he got the idea of Rogue comets from, although you can find Rogue planets in Nebulas. These are already implemented in the game, but are very rare.


We've already got models to give unique science stations to each of the Empires too, thanks to Kenneth and the other modellers.

oh........................

Is some of it already implemented and if not do you know when.

No, the only part of this that is implemented is the Rogue Planets as I mentioned already lol.

This isn't one of Dafedz's random musings though, it's something we've been planning for some time, with Mike's input as well, so it's almost definitely going to be in the game. We haven't worked out the numbers or anything on paper yet though, but if you follow my link above you'll see that we've got a potential calculation worked out ready for when we start working on numbers. (Eg. Planet = 100 points, Black Hole = 1000 points, etc etc)

I have no idea *when* this will be implemented, but as I said, Mike has given his input on the system so it's almost definitely going to be in.

are you using the construction yard for the cardassian missile ships as a science station?

*snicker*

and the second one... I assume klingon.

well...
It looks like the resurrection ship from BSG.

In order, the stations are Federation, Klingon, Romulan, Cardassian, Dominion. The Klingon station is actually designed to look like a sensor platform, since the Klingons wouldn't really build a science station, hence the odd look. Any resemblance to the Resurrection ship is purely coincidental, as I believe we've had that model since before the Resurrection ship was first on BSG.

OK, here we go again. It must have been two years or so ago we had a working combat engine and a fraction of the ship models called for in the game. In order to play test we added a large number of models that people had made available online as well as our own designs.

It was later learned that the combat engine would only run in XP and not vista or W7. Even when we do get around to making more models and have a working combat engine it will still take us a long long time to replace all the borrowed designs. You are not the first person or the last since these models were added that will notice what is not quite right. We are glad, however, that you are sharp enough to notice and that you care.

So it is the Resurrection ship, Kenneth? Odd, I thought we'd had that particular model for longer than that...did BSG steal it from us?

It is possible that the modeler that let us use it contributed the design to that project as well. Good work is, as they say, good. It is on my list of models to replace at some point. For now we are ready to use it for play testing the game.

MOE -- I think you do the scientific community an injustice in your comment about its consensus concerning quasars.

First off, science (as a monolithic study of all that is physical) is *NEVER* 100% sure and it is a bad mental trap to hope it ever will be. If you have better than a 50% chance of it being right, it's probably good science. (OK. I'm pulling numbers out of my ass. What of it?) Hell! Scientists still use methodologies we 100% *know* to be *WRONG*! But it's close enough, so what the hell.

Second, a "consensus" usually means scientist have been arguing about it for decades and all but the hard-liners have finally been convinced. Which is to say, there are *really* good arguments for believing it.

(Happy B-Day, by the way.)

As I understand it, the lexicon is slowly changing so that "quasar" begins to mean any black hole with an accretion disk and is spewing out polar jets, whether or not it has a high redshift on Earth. Therefor (IMHO) the games' use of the word quasar is perfectly acceptable now-a-days, even if it wasn't when BotF-1 was first put out... Strange, that.

As a side note, as a child I remember watching the TOS episode where they divert themselves to examine a quasar and thinking, "WTF?! Even *I* know quasars are way outside the galaxy! Am I'm not even 10 yet! This is a poorly written episode!" ... Hehe! Trek was right and science was wrong.

Hey, welcome back ZDarby! Long time no see! Thanks for the birthday wishes.

I personally thought my opinion was balanced and justified, based on the information that I had read. You've demonstrated in the past that you know about these sorts of things, so I won't argue with you mate. But i'm simply saying that what I wrote is an opinion on the subject based on the limited knowledge I have from reading the subject. And when you consider my referenced source material was Wikipedia...well, that should explain my point.

Moe, my friend, I do apologize, for it seems my statements above came across a touch harsh. I do hope you'll forgive my tone as I've been dealing with teenagers of late and they grind on my nerves with their incessant weaseling, trying to get one over on me by semantics. (Insufferable little bastards!!) I do appreciate your confidence in my knowledge and I hope I do not disappoint it in the future.

The central theme of my above rant was simply to add my vote that quasars are, for the moment, perfectly acceptable as in-galaxy objects (even if they were not so a decade ago) as they are now generally believed to be active, accreting black holes viewed (by chance) from an angle close to their poles. They were noticed first as objects of high-redshift because of the circumstances of the early eras of the universe.

I lurk here often but I do not pretend to be "back". I will occasionally put in my two cents when I have something to add but, unfortunately, I am limited in my abilities to help.

Thank goodness I am only a decade out of date.