A) everyone is very well aware of starlancer as it is only one of the very few space sims so it just seems weird how you are refering to it like it's some obscure thing
B) you have no idea how any of this stuff works do you? what you are sudjesting is that we decompile starlance and look at assembly code in order to figure out a structural feature, that's like looking at somethings DNA to try and figure out what it looks like when you could just as easily look at it and get as good if not better understanding. it's not how something is done else weare it how are we going to wedge it into our game that is the problem. think of the code as a car, if your alternater goes out in your car you can't just go out and get any replacement you need one made specificly for your car, if you just rip one out of a ford and try to jamm it into a honda your probly going to have some problems, if you ever do manage to get it to work odds are it's going to have a lot of duct tape and it's not going to be very stable. the same is true with programs, unless a bit of code is designed to work outside of a specific code base you can not simply cut and paste. I can tell you how starlancer made it's cutsceens, it had a complex camera and keyframe system integrated into it's low level object higherarchy system and spline paths and scripted events, does that help implement it into our game, no, becase we lack a means by wich to stop a game them move the veiw point (becase the veiw point in FS is basickly welded to the player object wich can't be changed easily in game) and have it follow a smoth animated path, we have however alowed for some mission hacking of the player's ship position and movement allowing mission designers to make basic cutsceenes...
C) hmmm... that came off a bit harsh, but I spent too much time typeing it to simply eraise it, I'm tired and cranky
