Alan, >Just writing to se what ever became of the old Net SF group. Did it ever go >anywhere? I hope everyone didn't take off and do some development without >me - after all, I was a major contributor. As far as I know, no one has gone off doing their own development. So no, it did not go anywhere -- yet. >But I summise it just sort of petered out - but I hope that someone's >interested in it still. Yeah, it appeared to start dying out. I sent out an email asking whether people were still willing to work on it. I didn't get a response which lead me to two conclusions: a) No one was still interested in working on it. b) No one got the email. All in all, I felt it was (b) which meant I should have followed up the email with another one just in case, but at the time I was let-go my job, had college placements and orientation to worry about, and numerous other more important matters to attend with, so I didn't follow it up. I never wanted to have it come to an end. It has come to mind quite a few times, but I didn't want to go ahead and work on it by myself. So would you be in on getting re-started? In case if you're wondering, I still have most of the info that was discussed until the messaging came to an end. Hopefully, you would be willing to continue working on it. James --- "Wake up, time to die!" - Blade Runner maelstrom@csnet.net >To: hwkwnd@poky.srv.net (Alan D Kohler) >From: James Arendt >Subject: Re: Remember the NET SF group? > >Alan, > >>Just writing to se what ever became of the old Net SF group. Did it ever go >>anywhere? I hope everyone didn't take off and do some development without >>me - after all, I was a major contributor. > >As far as I know, no one has gone off doing their own development. So no, it did not go anywhere -- yet. > >>But I summise it just sort of petered out - but I hope that someone's >>interested in it still. > >Yeah, it appeared to start dying out. I sent out an email asking whether people were still willing to work on it. I didn't get a response which lead me to two conclusions: a) No one was still interested in working on it. b) No one got the email. > >All in all, I felt it was (b) which meant I should have followed up the email with another one just in case, but at the time I was let-go my job, had college placements and orientation to worry about, and numerous other more important matters to attend with, so I didn't follow it up. > >I never wanted to have it come to an end. It has come to mind quite a few times, but I didn't want to go ahead and work on it by myself. > >So would you be in on getting re-started? In case if you're wondering, I still have most of the info that was discussed until the messaging came to an end. > >Hopefully, you would be willing to continue working on it. > > >James > --- "Wake up, time to die!" - Blade Runner maelstrom@csnet.net At 12:59 PM 8/19/96 -0600, you wrote: >James, > >Well, I never got an email - too bad, I had most of the summer off. That's >okay, I'm getting hyped about making a SF game again. I know you sort of >held a form of "carte blache" in the old group, but there are some definite >directions that I want to go in, so we can either live with the idea that we >may go in different directions, or if you decide you like the direction I'm >going in, then great for all! But I definitely can use some fresh perspectives. Carte blanche... Did I really have that much power? Besides email distribution, I didn't want that to be the case. If anything, it was the two of us that held the power since we both pitched in the most ideas. :) I'm willing to follow your lead this time around. Not a problem. I was thinking... It might be better to start almost from scratch and going off in directions that we (but more you) would like to go in. We can draw some ideas and concepts from our past work. I say that because I've gone off in a different direction than that and it sounds like you have also. >As you may or may not remember, I'm mainly a hard SF (ala Niven/Pournelle) >and militaristic SF fan, and I pretty much run my MegaTraveller campaign >that way. But alas, a 4th edition of traveller has just come out, and while >they did some things better than the previous edition (Traveller: The New >Era), it's still a little short of excellent, so I decided to go back to the >drawing board on my own game. Hard SF is fine, so is militaristic. I'm for both concepts. I also would like to see more of a cyber (without the punk... he he he) influence too - plus heavy influences with genetic engineering and other similar sciences. Nano sciences would be very interesting also. >I do go back to school next week, but I don' work, so I should still have a >bit of time. I will probably spend a majority of my time on a planetary >generation and growth system's mechanics - I know we had decided to do the >background first and system 2nd, but considering a lot of the questions that >got raised in the old digests, it probably is a good idea to develop a >system generation system concurrently with the background. I go to school next week also. I leave on Monday 26th. I'll be there the 27th. Hopefully, I will be able to get into my account at school shortly thereafter. Time -- I should have quite a bit. (I know I said I would last time, but I didn't expect all of those things to happen either.) Mechanics for system development is okay. What I would like to avoid is working on other mechanics right away. >Anyway, let me know if you get a hold of anyone else - if if you want to (or >want me to) put a post up somewhere on usenet. So far no word from everyone else. In reference to putting a post on usenet, don't atleast not yet. I say that because I think we would be able to work quicker if it was just the two of us. We both came out with ideas quickly and responded quickly. The others seemed not be able to respond since there was too much for them to have to read and respond to. We can always go and recruit more people, especially when we need them to direct their attentions to a specific area. Besides, it leaves room for some of the old members of Net SF to jump back in. Well, let me know what you think. By the way, of all the things I misplaced (it's somewhere on my cluttered drive) is the information about your Internet capabilities. Here's what I need to know: 1. Operating system (not too important, but it helps...) 2. Browser (Netscape, IE, etc. Don't forget version #!) 3. Browser cache size (more of a curiousity, but can be helpful...) 4. Typical screen resolution and # colors (or palette etc.) 5. Preference (Text, Low/High # graphics, etc.) 6. Other (anything you can think of... could even be software that you normally use or something else. Whatever...) Again, that gives me an idea if I post a site how to design it. Also, it allows us to know what kind of info can be shared the easiest. Here's the run down for me: 1. Windows 95 2. Netscape 2.01 3. 1024 KB mem 5000 KB disk 4. 1024 x 768 x 16 bit 5. Low # graphics/fast loading graphics. Text is good since it loads fast. Granted, I will have a faster connection at college, but I still don't want to spend lots of time to check a site out - especially if it is a work in progress that I'm working on! :) 6. Well, I remember a while ago you mentioned you use MS Word, right? Well, I have the whole MS office suite, including Word. What else... That's about it right now... As I said, let me know your feelings and I will be back to you. Talk to you soon... James --- maelstrom@csnet.net