Ask HMF anything

But what difference does that make? When referring to a change to the color of the sky in a map, you’re not taking care to differentiate the sky from something else? Whether it’s actually a box or not is irrelevant; when you are assessing the sky of a map, that’s… the sky. There’s nothing else up there that requires you to use the box qualifier to distinguish it from something else up there that also looks like the sky but is not part of the “box.” Even if it is a box, you don’t need to actually say box when referring to it in order for people to know what you’re talking about.

Fuck, I got the answer for this but it’s hard for my brain to process it in english

1 Like

It’s a 3d modeling term. To differentiate the Sky, from maybe the cloud layer, the mist layer and other lighting/environmental effects.

Edited to add: The sky texture and usually other environmental effects are usually mapped to a box or sphere, that has some kind of opacity, so it looks like a real sky/environment with the illusion of it being infinite while still being small enough to not kill people’s systems.

4 Likes

Ok, so then tell me this? If all of those things change color, are they all part of the “sky box,” or is only the actual sky part being referred to, with clouds and mist and other effects being separate things from the sky box? If they are part of the sky box, then I can see where you’re going, but if they are a different thing entirely, or even if they are the same, but they didn’t change color, then you’re still just referring to the sky itself as the point of interest, making the box add-on redundant. “Sky” is enough. Just say the sky looks different. If the “ground” on a map were texture overlaying a grid, you wouldn’t call it a ground grid, would you? You’d say something had changed with the ground.

I edited my comment, while you were posting. So that may help answer your question here.

1 Like

As did I.

The ground is just the ground. It’s a single textured layer with scattered clutter on it like plants, rocks, buildings etc. The Sky box is just that, a box that surrounds the playable environment. Like an invisible wall with the illusion of infinity.

1 Like

Yes, but that box is the sky. There’s no need to refer to it in its technical term when asking a general question. “Did they change the sky box on this map?” “Did they change the sky on this map?” Both convey the same question, while one includes an extra word to make the term seem more important than it really is. If you’re going to focus on the technical term, then why say sky at all? “Did they change the box on this map?”

There’s no need to use both words in the question unless the nature of the question involves spreading the map’s component parts from one another. Any of the above questions do not involve a nap’s component parts, they refer to one very specific piece of the visible map, and whether that piece happens to be the inside of a box or not is irrelevant. That box encasing the map is a stand-in for what we in the real world call the sky, so in the context of the map, it is simply the sky. No need to say sky box. If you’re wanting to be technical, just say the box. If you’re gonna call it by what it is in relation to the map, sky is enough.

Not really. It’s a more specific term than just “sky”, because the “sky” technically includes the cloud layer, distance mist, and other atmosphere effects. But when people, usually modders, reference the “sky box” as changing that’s the specific thing that is being edited/referenced in this instance. The cloud layer, distance mist and other atmosphere effects are not usually being edited, it’s just the “sky box”.

It’s like saying that all convertibles are cars, but not all cars are convertibles.

1 Like

It’s probably just a case of “that’s the technical term even if it doesn’t make sense to use in normal conversation”. Casual gamers wouldn’t likely care whether the lighting is coming from the sky, the clouds, some nebulous light source, or a box in the air, but that’s the term.

I have to deal with Agile project managers at my office and they insist on using Agile terms like Epics and Stories… just say requirements! Why constantly invent new terms for things that already have perfectly fine terms associated. Not really worth complaining too much because “ain’t nothing changing”.

3 Likes

Nevermind, I was able to fix it :blush:

I don’t know where else to put this question… but who is Penelope Graves talking to on the phone in the greenhouse?

I actually never really followed the targets in Colorado and started with that and was confused. I know that one time Rose talks to Alma and Grey, but I don’t understand who Graves talks to? I mean when she talks about Rose.

5 Likes

I’m not sure. She refers to whoever it is like he is her direct boss. Graves is said to have switched sides just “all of a sudden.” Maybe she is still working for Interpol and is reporting back?

Alternatively she is talking to Grey bc he recruited her to assess Rose and his ability to run the militia?

4 Likes

Thank you for the answer :heart:

But I think the first one makes no sense, since she is very surprised when that guy does that test with her, that interpol found her and why, since she was so careful to disappear. So why still working for them?

I think the second one seems more likely, even when there is no hint that Grey doesn’t trust Rose :woman_shrugging:

2 Likes

It would imply nativity or stupidity on Grey’s part to not be wary of Rose and his erratic nature, and Grey is neither. He doesn’t really trust any of his people completely, except maybe Olivia, and Graves may have bad potential, but otherwise he knew he was working with bad people. It makes sense that he would want a profile like Graves to give him an assessment of what she noticed going on while he’s away.

2 Likes

I guess you are right. Seems it’s Grey than she is talking to on the phone.

Thank you for answers @Yacob and @Heisenberg :smiling_face_with_three_hearts:

3 Likes

Has anyone learned anything or taken anything from the WoA games that’s helpful in everyday life?

Oddly enough, probably the most helpful or useful thing I’ve taken from it is Edwards’ quote:

“If it seems like a conspiracy, it probably isn’t.”

I’ve actually been able to use it in conversation with several of my coworkers when explaining to them how “classic” conspiracy theories, like JFK’s assassination being a multi-actor operation and the moon landing being faked, are not actually true, and I’ve left them with that quote as a bit of advice to follow when confronted with disputed events. It’s come in pretty handy.

5 Likes

There is almost always more than one way to solve a problem. Some of those ways are better than others.

Also,

When you’re doing things right, most people won’t know you’re doing anything at all.

Also,

Most people don’t pay nearly enough attention to what’s going on around them - a simple uniform change is often enough to get places you should not be.

8 Likes

Why did you sound so spooky saying all that? :cold_sweat:

5 Likes

The best answer I can think of, are targets/NPCs who are stereotypical enough to innately desire or loathe at. At best their storylines make their intentions clear so it’s easy to illustrate what kind of character they are and what their philosophy entails.

The problem being is that not all characters are memorable. That is alternatively best served for the suspension of disbelief. I find it easier for these characters being drawn parallels to real world events in order to follow a story line.

1 Like