Messages

16

Banter and Chit-Chat! / Re: Politics: Rock the vote!!!

« on: November 08, 2014, 01:07:01 PM »

But the allies were already on the offensive against the Germans in the second world war before the Americans joined the fight. To say that America saved Europe is wrong. Without US intervention, the USSR would have been enough to crush Germany but we'd have had a totally different map of Europe. American intervention shortened WW2 and also put constraints on Soviet expansionism, who went from ally to enemy within a minute of the retaking of Germany.

Well yes and no. While America's role in WWI is not that significant in comparison to what Britain and France did, WWII is a different matter. Germany had beaten back the Allies. France and many other European nations had fallen and Britain had been driven off of the continent at Dunkirk only to face being pounded by the Blitz. True They eventually broke the Blitz, but in no small part by being supplied by the US and those Merchant ships did face the threat of the U-boats. This is not at all to diminish the heroic role of the Spitfire pilots in this part of the war.

The US also was heavily supplying China (the Flying Tigers) and as mentioned, the Soviet Union (one small quibble, the Warsaw Pact was and artifact of the Cold War and was not formed until 1954). And this was before America's official entry into the war after Pearl Harbor. Then on D-Day, the Americans faced the brunt of the German forces and by that suffered the heaviest casualties.

Again, I am not saying that the rest of Allies did little or paid no costs, just that it is as inaccurate to diminish America's role as it is to disregard that of Britain's. Every nation involved paid a terribly heavy price.

17

Banter and Chit-Chat! / Re: Greetings

« on: November 03, 2014, 08:08:47 PM »

The 3.0 version of KQ3 would have had all new backgrounds and most of the sprites overhauled as well as a more "Freddy Pharkas" style of spell creation. But the days of free remakes are past now unfortunately, I think the effort people put into something like that should be rewarded and I wouldn't do another remake unless I was given a good budget to do it.

Regrettable, but perfectly understandable. Sometimes people don't realize the amount of work that go into many of the free projects the they feel they are entitled to have.

18

Banter and Chit-Chat! / Re: Greetings

« on: November 03, 2014, 03:03:48 PM »

Facebook et al have devastated so many forums. There are only a couple of forums from the Sierra communities that are still active and even those see less that they had at one time. Pity, since it far easier to have a real discussion on a proper forum.

19

Quest for Infamy / Re: Re: QFG 4.5 Discussion Part XVIII

« on: October 09, 2014, 05:44:28 PM »

how did ya do it!?

Just like all of my installers. In case you didn't know, I do have some internet fame for my installers and patches. I am the one who did the installers for QFI and the demos.

20

Quest for Infamy / Re: QFG 4.5 Discussion Part XVIII

« on: October 09, 2014, 04:33:47 PM »

I was asked for an installer for QfG4.5, so here it is:

http://sierrahelp.com/DL/QfG45Setup.exe.php

21

Quest for Infamy / Re: Re: QFG 4.5 Discussion Part XVIII

« on: October 05, 2014, 10:36:05 AM »

I found my CD version of QFG4. Installed dosbox on both win7/64bit and winxp/32 bit and installed the game CDless. The game looks so much better on 32 bit vs 64 bit. And on 64 bit the mouse is very sensitive. Guess I could slow it down somewhat. Anyhow, even though QFG5 has an exported paladin from QFG4, thought I'd play through QFG4 and export as paladin and compare it to what is on the QFG5 disk.

Just use the new installers http://sierrahelp.com/Patches-Updates/NewSierraInstallers.html#Q

22

Banter and Chit-Chat! / Re: Just Another Old Game

« on: October 03, 2014, 10:54:19 PM »

urmm

win 95/98 runs on dos mate..
lol

As I said, 9x used DOS to bootstrap the OS. It did not run out of it.

MS-DOS served two purposes in Windows 95.

• It served as the boot loader.
• It acted as the 16-bit legacy device driver layer.

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2007/12/24/6849530.aspx

23

Quest for Infamy / Re: Re: QFG 4.5 Discussion Part XVIII

« on: October 03, 2014, 01:10:37 PM »

??
what kinda comment is that collector!!

me wants!

i mean i can get it to run but hey! if you can build it... we will .. come?

I only said it since there were no replies to my offer. I don't care enough for the game to do an installer if there is no demand. Either way I am fine.

24

Quest for Infamy / Re: Re: QFG 4.5 Discussion Part XVIII

« on: October 03, 2014, 01:01:36 PM »

Graphics aren't as good as a regular windows installed game, but still pretty good.

It is the same graphics as the original Any differences you might notice have more to do with the differences between your current system than the one you had when the game was new. Perhaps you had a smaller monitor back then?

The "Quest For Glory 5.exe" is just a launcher I wrote and included for a number of reasons including to use a higher res icon without further editing the game's main EXE even more than what I already had.

As to the GOG package, it is nearly the same as what you will get using my installers since I was the one who designed their QfG package. And like my QfG5 installer, it includes my fix for the QuickTime lockups.

25

Banter and Chit-Chat! / Re: Just Another Old Game

« on: October 03, 2014, 12:45:11 PM »

That was not directed at you, Kaldire. I was responding to DosboxLetsPlay, who asked for clarification.

And only Win 3x and earlier were running out of DOS. 9x only used DOS as a bootstrap for loading Windows. The NT line has always been completely independent of DOS.

26

Quest for Infamy / Re: QFG 4.5 Discussion Part XVIII

« on: October 01, 2014, 12:28:18 PM »

Well since no one has said they want an installer for it, I guess I won't bother.

27

Banter and Chit-Chat! / Re: Just Another Old Game

« on: October 01, 2014, 12:24:55 PM »

@Kaldire I run win7 64 bit and unfortunately nope, not working yet.

@Collector sorry? I'm not sure that I quite got it. 

Some games from the end of the DOS era had Windows setups, but you had to play the game from DOS. The installers created a PIF shortcut to the game that would exit Windows and boot to DOS to start the game. If the game itself is a DOS game it can be played from DOSBox, but if the installer or setup is for Win, you will have to manually set it up to do so.

28

Banter and Chit-Chat! / Re: Just Another Old Game

« on: September 30, 2014, 02:27:44 PM »

A few DOS games from the end of the DOS era sometimes had Windows installers and configuration utilities, but were still DOS games. I have encountered this several times when creating some of my installers. If there is not script file to parse out, the easiest thing is to run it on a machine or VM that it will work on and monitor what it does so you can replicate its functions.

29

Banter and Chit-Chat! / Re: Just Another Old Game

« on: September 29, 2014, 02:01:18 PM »

@Kaldire, I was mostly referring to your statement about the use of that list, especially about "which ver of dosbox you use".  The list is mostly meaningless and you should always use the latest.

30

Banter and Chit-Chat! / Re: Just Another Old Game

« on: September 29, 2014, 07:56:16 AM »

i got it working on dosbox, just make sure to visit the dosbox site to see its compatibility to which ver of dosbox you use

No, that list means very little. It is by user contribution, not by any official declaration. The DOSBox version listed is merely an indication of the version use for the entry. If a game is listed as having been tested with 0.65, it just means that no one has retested the game since 0.65 was the latest. Anyway, DOSBox has reached a point that you can expect nearly all DOS games to run. There are occasionally the odd ones that pop up, but most simply work. The few that have issues are usually because the game itself is broken. There is a long running thread in the beta tester's forum of possible broken programs. If it is because of a problem with DOSBox, DOSBox usually gets patched. If it a problem with the game itself, someone may create a fix just for that game, usually in the form of a TSR to be run in DOSBox along with the game.

I cannot stress it enough, ALWAYS use the latest. While it is possible that something can be broken in newer versions, that is relatively rare. Also, if there has been a regression, it is better to report it. Each new version represents a substantial improvement in compatibility and performance. And never ask for help on VOGONS for an old version of DOSBox.

Using unique configs can be a good solution for the games that do not like the default settings. Usually it it is more for the convenience of automating the mounting.