The Greatest Lie ever told?!?!

[FAK3R]

Not sure if they lied about displacement maps, but they did lie about how good the AI was.. for instance in traptown when the soldier kicks down the door that is a scripted sequence

 

[mortiz]

hehe, even Physics state that men couldn't get to the moon, because of a radiation belt that surrounds the earth.

Why do you think the Russians never got a man on the moon?

Just the US government managed it, I wonder why?

Maybe it's just that the astronaughts never left the Nevada desert perhaps?

It's so obvious that it was a crock of shit, I mean NASA couldn't even put an argument against all the anomalies that appeared they just said "It was bad science" or "Damaged Footage", haha yea right.

Flaming me because you are too ignorant to look for the facts through all the bullshit put up by the government.

 

[Driftlight]

Nope.

mortiz, look at the site Non-Sequitur posted. If you are willing to look beyond your own little conspiracy filled world, you might learn something.

 

[Brian Damage]

There are also supposed to be a set of reflectors on the moon that, by means of precisely-directed laser beams emitted from earth, are used to measure the distance of the moon from earth at any given time. I think they were left there by one of the lander missions.

Thats's what I read, anyway.

Seeya.

PS: Oh, yeah, and the radiation belts? Alpha and beta radiation, dude. Can you say "About as penetrative as an ice cream bullet"?. Seriously though, the radiation in the belts is mostly stopped by the cumulative thickness of the craft's hull. And I don't know if it'd be heavy enough to be dangerous, anyway.

Oh, and hey guys, if the grenades don't leave craters (which is realistic) do you think whatever the HL2 equivalent of the HL1 detpacks turns out to be, will?

 

[RhapSidious]

Originally posted by vetebulle
Frag grenade - Fragmentation Grenade

It doesn't rely on sheer explosive power. A Frag grenade is fitted with shrapnel that will tear anything soft (a human body, for example) into meaty pieces. The main purpose of the explosive charge is to blow out the pieces of shrapnel.

A frag grenade blowing away a huge chunk of a street, now that would be the greatest lie ever told...

100% true. A frag gernade isn't designed to produce a huge explosion. The explosion merely projects shrapnel at high velocities in all directions.

A HE (high explosive) gernade or sachel carge (large brick of c4) rely on having the explosion's shockwave and concussion for kiling power.

 

[Hexx]

ugh, have any of you ever seen a grenade explode in real life? Have you ever seen a grenade detonate on pavment? their IS NO CRATER! Grenades are not a particularly powerful explosive. 'Little Balls of Devistation' is that the army calls them. the M67 Frag Grenade. They are designed to kill and not leave craters The will leave a small crater on dirt but thats about it kids.

 

[Chode]

Ugh....

Mods, may I recommend the editing of 99.9% of posts in this thread?

Sublime asks a simple question about deformable surfaces in the game, and he gets flamed for it. Are you all morons? How about you answer the question without needing to randomly insult people or discuss irrelevant conspiracy theories!

Sublime, apparently the game will not handly dynamic deformable surfaces. More the pity, because it will look wrong for several points of the game. For example, a blast from a rocket launcher should do more than scorch the wall. And in the e3 movies, when that big flying thing comes down to earth, it should do more than just scratch the ground and knock a few cars around. Oh well, the game looks cool nonetheless, but could use something similar to the Geo-mod engine.

If you want deformable surfaces, then I still think that Red Faction is the best (only the first one, the second one is horrible).

 

[manny_c44]

Originally posted by Chode
Ugh....

Mods, may I recommend the editing of 99.9% of posts in this thread?

Sublime asks a simple question about deformable surfaces in the game, and he gets flamed for it. Are you all morons? How about you answer the question without needing to randomly insult people or discuss irrelevant conspiracy theories!

Sublime, apparently the game will not handly dynamic deformable surfaces. More the pity, because it will look wrong for several points of the game. For example, a blast from a rocket launcher should do more than scorch the wall. And in the e3 movies, when that big flying thing comes down to earth, it should do more than just scratch the ground and knock a few cars around. Oh well, the game looks cool nonetheless, but could use something similar to the Geo-mod engine.

If you want deformable surfaces, then I still think that Red Faction is the best (only the first one, the second one is horrible).

You can't have a heading like "The gReatest Lie Ever Told" and expect to not be flamed when you're post is semi-retarded. He deserves the flames, let him burn.

 

[Mountain Man]

I can only assume the folks in this thread arguing that NASA faked the moon landings are being playfully tongue in cheek simply because I refuse to believe anybody is truly that ignorant.

 

[liminal]

Originally posted by Mountain Man
I can only assume the folks in this thread arguing that NASA faked the moon landings are being playfully tongue in cheek simply because I refuse to believe anybody is truly that ignorant.

People have walked on the moon? Yah, right. The next thing you're going to tell me is that the Earth isn't flat.

 

[Brian Damage]

Yeah. Or that it's not hollow.:E

 

[obsidian]

even red fact isnt that great with the geo mod. u blast some concrete walls, door etc they dont even get a dent in them. just a black mark. it would be cool if u could shoot a door, buckle it and then kick it down.

 

[Brian Damage]

Yeah, but they'd have to limit the number of high-destruction weapons, so that you couldn't just blast your way past every puzzle and locked door.:E

Seeya.

 

[Thadius Dean]

for once a guy is resonable, and you guys flame him.

lol only at halflife2.net...

 

[Mr Neutron]

Originally posted by Brian Damage
Yeah. Or that it's not hollow.:E

Well the earth isn't solid. :dork:


As for deformable sufaces, the Source tech supports it, but it will make a limited appearance in Hl2 as far as weapon damage is concerned. Simulating metal bending and stretching is a very difficult problem: my guess is that the form present in Hl2 only works correctly on thin sheets of metal; more complex and thicker shapes behave quite differently to the point that including them would probably result in all kinds of Tresspasser-esque wackiness.

 

[Dsty2001]

Actually, it depends on what type of grenade it was. Although I doubt this is it

Grenades are very different from each other, some use shrapnel, some use concussion, some use force, some use heat, and some use all.

I do know of grenades that use force that release all of there pressure to the horizontally (Don't ask me how, I've not figured it out yet) so maybe this is one of them. Who knows

 

[Slayertime]

If you want to blow up walls and make craters then play Red Faction.

 

[Mr Neutron]

What's the difference between "force" and concussion grenades?

 

[Stryyder]

Originally posted by mortiz
hehe, even Physics state that men couldn't get to the moon, because of a radiation belt that surrounds the earth.

Why do you think the Russians never got a man on the moon?

Just the US government managed it, I wonder why?

Maybe it's just that the astronaughts never left the Nevada desert perhaps?

It's so obvious that it was a crock of shit, I mean NASA couldn't even put an argument against all the anomalies that appeared they just said "It was bad science" or "Damaged Footage", haha yea right.

Flaming me because you are too ignorant to look for the facts through all the bullshit put up by the government.

Your talking about the Van Allen belt here is your answer now go away.

Now let's take a little more substantial look at my first answer. The idea is to outline the basic facts of the case, and give you the materials you need to verify my statements, to whatever level of detail you wish. This is the traditional scientific way of answering a question. There are three basic issues.

What is the actual amount and nature of radiation present in the Van Allen Belts?
How long would an astronaut be exposed to that radiation while passing through the belts on a lunar trajectory, and what dose of radiation would he receive?
What would be the likely health effects?
Regarding the Van Allen belts, and the nature of the radiation in them, they are doughnut-shaped regions where charged particles, both protons and electrons, are trapped in the Earth's magnetic field. The number of particles encountered (flux is the technical jargon, to impress your friends!) depends on the energy of the particles; in general, the flux of high-energy particles is less, and the flux of low-energy particles is more. Very low energy particles cannot penetrate the skin of a spacecraft, nor even the skin of an astronaut. Very roughly speaking, electrons below about 1 million electron volts (MeV) are unlikely to be dangerous, and protons below 10 MeV are also not sufficiently penetrating to be a concern. The actual fluxes encountered in the Van Allen belts is a matter of great commercial importance, as communications satellites operate in the outer region, and their electronics, and hence lifetimes, are strongly affected by the radiation environment. Thus billions of dollars are at stake, never mind the Moon! The standard database on the fluxes in the belt are the models for the trapped radiation environment, AP8 for protons, and AE8 for electrons, maintained by the National Space Sciences Data Center at NASA's Goddard Spaceflight Center. Barth (1999) gives a summary which indicates that electrons with energies over 1 MeV have a flux above a million per square centimeter per second from 1-6 earth radii (about 6,300 - 38,000 km), and protons over 10 MeV have a flux above one hundred thousand per square centimeter per second from about 1.5-2.5 Earth radii (9,500 km - 16,000 km).

Then what would be the radiation dose due to such fluxes, for the amount of time an astronaut crew would be exposed? This was in fact a serious concern at the time that the Apollo program was first proposed. Unfortunately I have not located quantitative information in the time available, but my recollection is that the dose was roughly 2 rem (= 20 mSv, milli-Sievert).

The time the astronauts would be exposed is fairly easy to calculate from basic orbital mechanics, though probably not something most students below college level could easily verify. You have perhaps heard that to escape from Earth requires a speed of about 7 miles per second, which is about 11.2 km per sec. At that speed, it would require less than an hour to pass outside the main part of the belts at around 38,000 km altitude. However it is a little more complicated than that, because as soon as the rocket motor stops burning, the spacecraft immediately begins to slow down due to the attraction of gravity. At 38,000 km altitude it would actually be moving only about 4.6 km per sec, not 11.2. If we just take the geometric average of these two, 7.2 km per sec, we will not be too far off, and get about 1.5 hours for the time to pass beyond 38,000 km.

Unfortunately calculating the average radiation dose received by an astronaut in the belts is quite intricate in practice, though not too hard in principle. One must add up the effects of all kinds of particles, of all energies. For each kind of particle (electrons and protons in this situation) you have to take account of the shielding due to the Apollo spacecraft and the astronaut space suits. Here are some approximate values for the ranges of protons and electrons in aluminum:


Range in Aluminum [cm] Energy
[MeV] electrons protons
1 0.15 ~ nil
3 0.56 ~ nil
10 1.85 0.06
30 no flux 0.37
100 no flux 3.7

For electrons, the AE8 electron data shows negligible flux (< 1 electron per square cm per sec) over E=7 MeV at any altitude. The AP8 proton compilations indicates peak fluxes outside the spacecraft up to about 20,000 protons per square cm per sec above 100 MeV in a region around 1.7 Earth radii, but because the region is narrow, passage takes only about 5 min. Nevertheless, these appear to be the principal hazard.

These numbers seem generally consistent with the ~2 rem doses I recall. If every gram of a person's body absorbed 600,000 protons with energy 100 MeV, completely stopping them, the dose would be about 50 mSv. Assuming a typical thickness of 10 cm for a human and no shielding by the spacecraft gives a dose of something like 50 mSv in 300 sec due to protons in the most intense part of the belt.

For comparison, the US recommended limit of exposure for radiation workers is 50 mSv per year, based on the danger of causing cancer. The corresponding recommended limits in Britain and Cern are 15 mSv. For acute doses, the whole-body exposure lethal within 30 days to 50% of untreated cases is about 2.5-3.0 Gy (Gray) or 250-300 rad; in such circumstances, 1 rad is equivalent to 1 rem.

So the effect of such a dose, in the end, would not be enough to make the astronauts even noticeably ill. The low-level exposure could possibly cause cancer in the long term. I do not know exactly what the odds on that would be, I believe on the order of 1 in 1000 per astronaut exposed, probably some years after the trip. Of course, with nine trips, and a total of 3 X 9 = 27 astronauts (except for a few, like Jim Lovell, who went more than once) you would expect probably 5 or 10 cancers eventually in any case, even without any exposure, so it is not possible to know which if any might have been caused by the trips.

Much of this material can be found in the 1999 "Review of Particle Properties", (see below) in the sections on "Atomic and nuclear properties of materials", on "Radioactivity and radiation protection", and on "Passage of particles through matter".

By this point I have no doubt told you more than you really wanted to know about the Van Allen belt and the Apollo radiation problem! Nevertheless, I have barely scratched the surface, and waved my hands a bit, to make it seem likely that I'm not full of baloney. But in the end you always have to either do it all yourself, or trust a stranger completely, or try to find some path in between: which means understanding a little science, so you can judge for yourself if my arguments make any sense at all, check a little, think about it, maybe do a bit of research on your own from the references if you are interested. The only alternative is to trust no one and do everything, which is simply impossible for anyone; or really give up all your judgements to other people, who may be saints or crooks, wise or insane. I hope you will try to find the possible but not perfect in-between path by learning some science. It is hard, but it is fun and interesting, and it gives you your own power to think and evaluate for yourself, albeit in a limited and imperfect way.

 

[Brian Damage]

Originally posted by Dsty2001
I do know of grenades that use force that release all of there pressure to the horizontally (Don't ask me how, I've not figured it out yet) so maybe this is one of them. Who knows

I reckon that'd be a shaped-charge explosive.

 

[Parasite]

Originally posted by Sublime_Guy
So it's not the greatest lie ever told, BUT you have to wonder why Gabe said that they were finished and in the playtesting process, and the hacker getting everything valve had done up to that point, yet it was absolutely nothing compared to what Gabe has been telling us.

Dont change the subject...now your just trying to justify this stupid post.

 

[Spiff1333]

Grenades don't make craters in concrete.

/thread

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Oh yeah, farging dolts, brainwashed by the government! I didn't have sexual relations with that woman.

 

[ferd]

fragmentation grenades dont leave craters in a street

 

[Chode]

Mods, sorry to bump the topic, but I was offline for the week (studying interstate)

Originally posted by monster facial
CHODE = SUBLIME_FU*KHEAD = UNNAMED_SUCKER = SUBCONSCIOUS

It's the same guy.

Yep, this guy loves having various screen names so he can talk to himself and suck the crap out of his own ass.

Genius, man, pure genius

Dude, what is your problem? Do you see that little bit of text at the bottom of each post which reads "IP Logged". If I was the same person, then I think that the moderators could easily enough verify/deny this.

Or you can just sit there and say I am the same person because I happen to ANSWER THE QUESTION HE ASKED.

Idiot.

 

[synth]

Cleaned the thread, banned some people.
By all means, if you see something against the rules, click the "report this post". It helps us out.

 

[SupaKoopa]

Originally posted by Sublime_Guy
So it's not the greatest lie ever told, BUT you have to wonder why Gabe said that they were finished and in the playtesting process, and the hacker getting everything valve had done up to that point, yet it was absolutely nothing compared to what Gabe has been telling us.

so i wonder who's lying...an anti-valve theif and extortionist or gabe newell..

 

[GhostValkyrie]

The thief.

-Ghost.

 

[Azzy]

i dont know if its been posted already
but he said when the levels were being designed displacement maps could be applied to surfaces to create bumpy terrain, these maps can also be applied in real time so simulate an earthquake or other sort of geological event

nothing at all was said about being able to deform terrain using the weapons, all he was talking about was a new function of the engine

 

[BoA_Wrath]

As many people have already stated having a grenade distort the ground would be a waste of processor power. If you want terrain to deform with weapons go play red faction/2 now theres an example where that ability gets out of control and you end up getting stuck in self made craters. Valve have more interesting effects to work on.



:sniper:

 

[Gaemon82]

Originally posted by BoA_Wrath
As many people have already stated having a grenade distort the ground would be a waste of processor power. If you want terrain to deform with weapons go play red faction/2 now theres an example where that ability gets out of control and you end up getting stuck in self made craters. Valve have more interesting effects to work on.



:sniper:

That doesn't mean it's a waste of power. In Far Cry they have that feature too and you can use it on open spaces so you can take cover in the crater. Just because Red Faction did it not well it doesn't mean it's worthless. And it doesn't cost much processor power.

 

[the_prodigy]

I'm quite sure this has been posted, but anyway...

During the E3 video Gabe tells us that the Source can dynamically morph terrain (then in the video we see the ground getting raised and stuff). That means one can change the shape and form of the map surfaces. He didn't mean grenades leave depressions and all that crap (that can obviously be done quite easily, it's a design decision not to implement it).

To call this, "the greatest lie ever told" is not only an overwhelming exaggeration and moronic, it's also wrong. You probably misunderstood Gabe.

 

[Aknot]

hmmmmm but you could put a trigger ona spot and toss a nade and have it "create" a crator. Not the same thing but gives the desired effect. OR you could make the surgace of the ground a "breakable" layer and only let it be broken by grenade or higher. Im tired....

 

[Kadayi]

Certainly it should be possible to code in dynamically morphable terrain, but naturally it would make it very hard for the developers to be able to predict the resultant consequences with regard to a story arch.

Certainly it would be quite interesting to see such things in a deathmatch situation though, where the changes would be in isolation. grenades certainly wouldn't cause craters, but rocket launchers could.

 

[BreathE]

can't the people in hl2.net forums ever control their patience? tut