Personally I would like a better looking planetary setup. For the most part people from endless space are right it is a nice interface. I don't like the fact that they have one Que for the whole solar system, or they limit how many colony ships you can have. I'm not saying that the citizen setting on Endless space is superior to the exact population on Galactoc civilization is superior.

I;m not understanding something on DirectX. listening to people talk DirectX which was offered by all the games I downloaded. I'm guessing that their are strict systen requirements on how people are talking. Does that mean that DirectX 11 wont come with the game.

DirectX comes with Windows. You already have it. You can see what level you have if you run a DxDiag.

Thanks I have 11. I just remember that games used to come with the Directx's needed for the game and a lot of times replaced the one I had. My question is can't they still carry a Directx 10 to download for those that have computers with older versions than Directx? Did they change how games plat Directx sometime back that I don't know of?

Ya but it was that specific comment I quoted I didn't understand. I was curious to why DX11 over DX10 would limit people to Windows 7+ when Vista supports DX11.

I'm also still under the impression that whoever wrote that answer in the FAQ forgot about Vista or the fact it has a 64bit version and DX11 support. 

Edit: I forgot the FAQ said DX10 or DX11, I thought it said DX11 only.

Almost every game comes with whatever version of DirectX it requires to run packaged along with it. The problem is, DX10 and DX11 can't be installed on Windows XP (or below), the OS hasn't been updated to support it.

I doubt its that. Vista is out of mainstream support at Microsoft, is falling back to 4% on the Steam hardware survey, and is generally irrelevant. Most likely they just don't want to have the expense of supporting it.

Yeah, to be honest as I grow up, while gameplay is important so is graphics, After all I have an i7 2600, a GTX 660 Ti, over 8 GB of RAM, an SSD OS drive and Raid 1 Game drives (Storage) on my gaming PC. Of course running a 64 bit O/S and Have been since XP 64. I miss the days when a new game meant "buy new computer", yes I understand not everyone likes the new computer for new game concept, and most games will allow people with pathetic machines to play on low even medium. (Looking at you guys running Intel integrated Graphics) You know where a $25 Nvida/AMD card can steam roll it on performance every time!

However in a genre such as this turn based, graphics are not much more important than the overall gameplay and customizability. I'm for an adjustable UI (Like MMO level adjustable) Enable disable, add hot buttons for things you macro etc. Key Mapping (ability to assign your preferred hot keys (controller buttons).

I loved being able to edit the config files with a regular text editor (I could use notepad but I prefer Notepad ++)

Sounds good for those wondering he said min dx10 capable didn't say they wouldn't implement DX11 and Mantle. Hopefully mantle will be in there for some extreme games...I'll probably switch to an AMD if Nvidia doesn't get on the low level API bandwagon.

That's the thing, there should be nothing to support. There is no fundamental difference between Vista and 7 that I'm aware of, in fact windows 7 is basically a minor UI update to Vista. Vista is windows 6.0, while windows 7 is actually windows 6.1. It's a splash of paint on the same core OS, with different factory settings for the people who couldn't figure out how to get Vista running smoothly. A game is going to be built around DirectX, not the slightly different taskbar in windows 7.

There's lots of little differences buried in there. It's pretty likely that it's going to work, but saying "it'll probably work" and officially supporting it aren't the same thing. Supporting it means adding a test suite for Vista, and if it breaks, figuring out how to fix it. Not supporting it means not worrying about that, and is thus cheaper.

Since Vista is going to be on older hardware at this point with potentially dodgy drivers (the thing that plagued Vista throughout its life), for a tiny and shrinking share of the market, why bother with the expense?

It's been fairly common for anything that is cutting XP support to also cut Vista support. XP is supposed to die in two months, and yet it's *still* a more important part of the market than Vista is.

Wow Vista is becoming an invisible operating system just like Windows 99 or 2000.

The problem i see a lot in doing some 'ad hoc' technical support is that people on Vista are by far almost worse than people on XP. Most people on Vista are inexplicably on SP1. Many refuse to upgrade to SP2 for some reason. At least XP users were on SP3 while they were whining about the end of support.

While thre isn't any 'technical' reason you can't support Vista/Win7/Win8, I find the 'culture' Vista users to be stuck in some temporal vortex where SP1 is 'better'.

Also just like in the Linux world, yes 'major' revisions of the kernel are big, but even going from 2.4 to 2.6 certainly isn't a 'trivial kernel upgrade'.

Here's a screenshot from in-game.  It's a Yor ship built by one of the guys on the team.

We're still relatively early with our lighting and effects but as you can see, the unit is self shadowing and the light bonces off the materials. 

BTW, this is with no anti-aliasing.

That ship looks shiny!

Also I don't know what anti-aliasing does

Anti-aliasing gets rid of the jaggies.  We're still in the process of implementing that part.

Thanks Brad, hope ya feel better. Eagerly awaiting to kill time in the ship creator.