[sixtimesnine]

I seem to have a graphics problem when running FS2 open with the mediaVPs files - the textures for smoke particles (when you shoot at an exposed hull) have little black squares around them. Same for missile trails, and shield effects.

Anyone know what the problem is?

[Turey]

hey 42, have you tried the search feature?

it might be related to this.

[Polpolion]

This happend to me. You need the alpha patches for the newer VPs.

http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,41891.msg854724.html#msg854724

They are at the bottom of the first post.

[Cobra]

hey 42

psst, it's 54.

This happend to me. You need the alpha patches for the newer VPs.

Psst. (x2) I think it happened to everyone before the alpha patches were released.

[Turey]

hey 42

psst, it's 54.

No, it's 42.

6 * 9 = 42

[leeisl]

hey 42

psst, it's 54.

No, it's 42.

6 * 9 = 42

Dude, what are you smoking? More importanly, where can I get some?

9 * 6 = 54

[Ghostavo]

Cobra and leeisl, 6*9=42 in base 13.

[sixtimesnine]

I'm afraid so. It's 42, or it's supposed to be 42.
Tell you what, if you see any hyperintelligent shades of the colour blue, you can ask them, they might know. And while you're at it, get the weapons locker open

EDIT sorry guys, thanks for all the help, really. Fastest response on any forum i've seen, ever. But I need to ask a really pain-inducing question. What do I do with mp-710_effects.vp?

[karajorma]

Stick it in the mediavps folder along with your other media VPs.

And if you don't have a mediavps folder I will be forced to tut and shake my head at you.

[Polpolion]

Only people who live in a hole belive that 6*9=54.
EVERYONE who is ANYONE knows that 6*9=42

[Mathwiz6]

6*9 = 54. 54 = 4 * 13 + 2 = 42

One of my computers can't even run the graphics without insane lag. So I transfered my joystick to the other computer.  Max all the graphics, still works great  I love my PC 

[Aardwolf]

I don't think Mr. Adams had base 13 in mind when he came up with that.

[aldo_14]

I don't think Mr. Adams had base 13 in mind when he came up with that.

"nobody writes jokes in base 13 [...] I may be a pretty sad person, but I don't make jokes in base 13."

"The answer to this is very simple. It was a joke. It had to be a number, an ordinary, smallish number, and I chose that one. Binary representations, base thirteen, Tibetan monks are all complete nonsense. I sat at my desk, stared into the garden and thought '42 will do' I typed it out. End of story."

Douglas Adams

[Flipside]

Though, conincidentally enough, it looks like there's a rare sequence of numbers that are something to do with the gravitational constant, and it is looking quite likely that the next number in the sequence is in fact 42.

Things like that often make me wonder whether Schrodinger was, in some undetectable way, wrong. Not so much that we exist to make sure the Universe happens, but that we do shape the Universe around our own 'stories', as it were.

[Herra Tohtori]

Check my sig...

I'll even make it easier to read by typing it here, too:

There is an important sequence of numbers called "the moments of the Riemann zeta function." Although we know abstractly how to define it, mathematicians have had great difficulty explicitly calculating the numbers in the sequence. We have known since the 1920s that the first two numbers are 1 and 2, but it wasn't until a few years ago that mathematicians conjectured that the third number in the sequence may be 42—a figure greatly significant to those well-versed in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

It would also prove to be significant in confirming the connection between primes and quantum physics. Using the connection, Keating and Snaith not only explained why the answer to life, the universe and the third moment of the Riemann zeta function should be 42, but also provided a formula to predict all the numbers in the sequence. Prior to this breakthrough, the evidence for a connection between quantum physics and the primes was based solely on interesting statistical comparisons. But mathematicians are very suspicious of statistics. We like things to be exact. Keating and Snaith had used physics to make a very precise prediction that left no room for the power of statistics to see patterns where there are none.[/quote]

 

[aldo_14]

Though, conincidentally enough, it looks like there's a rare sequence of numbers that are something to do with the gravitational constant, and it is looking quite likely that the next number in the sequence is in fact 42.

Things like that often make me wonder whether Schrodinger was, in some undetectable way, wrong. Not so much that we exist to make sure the Universe happens, but that we do shape the Universe around our own 'stories', as it were.

We certainly shape the 'visible' universe based upon our vision.

[Flipside]

I suppose we look for 'links', that's why one in a million chances turn up all the time, as Terry Pratchett would put it, it's not really that surprising.

I suppose if Jupiter had 42 moons, people would cross-link it with 2001 and make an even more 'amazing' coincidence out of it.

[Unknown Target]

What in the name of candy-coated **** are you people talking about?!

[S-99]

Talking about 54 obviously
Speaking of which, now as of 5:18 am...i am now 22

[aldo_14]

What in the name of candy-coated **** are you people talking about?!

42!!