put the contents of this >> http://vegastrike.sourceforge.net/wiki/Manual:Tutorial
in the PDF that installs with the game
i've got some other (proper) suggestions too, but they'll come later
i've got an idea
-
Statick
- Merchant
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 7:59 pm
right i'm gonna start posting my ideas. i've had a look over the first few pages of this board, and i've read the wiki, and none of these ideas seem to have been discussed. apologies if i've missed something and this stuff's been talked about already.
i'll also mention that i've come more from an elite/frontier background of space games rather than WC (although i have played the original 3 WC games), which has definitely influenced these ideas
mouse movement & cursor
i'm aware this one has been mentioned a little, but i'd like to expand upon it. at the moment, inverted mouse glide is unusable, simply because of the mouse cursor. i find the WC method of flight to be hard to control, because "pilot controls" seem so much more natural to me. but seeing the mouse cursor move around the screen normally when the mouse movement has been inverted makes my brain hurt !
and as it happens, the mouse cursor achieves nothing - it's not as if you can click on anything with it, or aim guns with it. in normal mouse glide, it indicates where the ship is moving to, but in inverted mouse glide it does nothing of any use. ALSO it's rather large and detailed, and easily gets in the way of things, especially if it's near the centre crosshair. there should be an option to simply disable the mouse cursor (and default to disabled in inverted mode). also, in inverted mouse glide, mouse left/right should also roll the ship as well as turn it.
centering the mouse can be difficult - it requires pixel perfect accuracy (and, i should mention, the centre is actually one pixel off what should be centre. the mouse cursor and the centre crosshair need to be 1 pixel apart for no movement). i've seen a suggestion that a button could be used to centre the mouse, but i think that's overcomplicating - perhaps a 5 pixel "dead zone" in the centre, that automatically drifts towards the centre point (drifts, not locks) would be better.
i'll also mention that i've come more from an elite/frontier background of space games rather than WC (although i have played the original 3 WC games), which has definitely influenced these ideas
mouse movement & cursor
i'm aware this one has been mentioned a little, but i'd like to expand upon it. at the moment, inverted mouse glide is unusable, simply because of the mouse cursor. i find the WC method of flight to be hard to control, because "pilot controls" seem so much more natural to me. but seeing the mouse cursor move around the screen normally when the mouse movement has been inverted makes my brain hurt !
and as it happens, the mouse cursor achieves nothing - it's not as if you can click on anything with it, or aim guns with it. in normal mouse glide, it indicates where the ship is moving to, but in inverted mouse glide it does nothing of any use. ALSO it's rather large and detailed, and easily gets in the way of things, especially if it's near the centre crosshair. there should be an option to simply disable the mouse cursor (and default to disabled in inverted mode). also, in inverted mouse glide, mouse left/right should also roll the ship as well as turn it.
centering the mouse can be difficult - it requires pixel perfect accuracy (and, i should mention, the centre is actually one pixel off what should be centre. the mouse cursor and the centre crosshair need to be 1 pixel apart for no movement). i've seen a suggestion that a button could be used to centre the mouse, but i think that's overcomplicating - perhaps a 5 pixel "dead zone" in the centre, that automatically drifts towards the centre point (drifts, not locks) would be better.
-
Statick
- Merchant
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 7:59 pm
radar
again, my issue is with the WC style of radar. there's no way of knowing how far away anything is, so things that are thousands of km apart end up right next to each other on the radar. now, in a small region of space with a handful of ships in it, this is great as it lets you quickly and easily pinpoint your foes in a dogfight.
but in the large vega systems with their many jumpgates, docking stations, and huge numbers of ships, the radar becomes a meaningless jumble of dots. it tells me basically nothing - there's a whole bunch of dots behind me, and a whole bunch in front. it gives me no idea of the layout of what's out there, because distances cannot be represented - a few seconds pressing 't' and watching the targetting cursor and the distance shown gives me a fairly good idea of what's out there. but surely this is what a radar should do ?
so again i'd like to see an option for the elite-style 3D radar, with objects shown as being higher or lower than a central plane - i find this gives a much clearer idea of what's out there.
again, my issue is with the WC style of radar. there's no way of knowing how far away anything is, so things that are thousands of km apart end up right next to each other on the radar. now, in a small region of space with a handful of ships in it, this is great as it lets you quickly and easily pinpoint your foes in a dogfight.
but in the large vega systems with their many jumpgates, docking stations, and huge numbers of ships, the radar becomes a meaningless jumble of dots. it tells me basically nothing - there's a whole bunch of dots behind me, and a whole bunch in front. it gives me no idea of the layout of what's out there, because distances cannot be represented - a few seconds pressing 't' and watching the targetting cursor and the distance shown gives me a fairly good idea of what's out there. but surely this is what a radar should do ?
so again i'd like to see an option for the elite-style 3D radar, with objects shown as being higher or lower than a central plane - i find this gives a much clearer idea of what's out there.
-
Statick
- Merchant
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 7:59 pm
targetting
i think the targetting system is pretty good, but still has a few odd quirks. when switching from one type of target to another, the first target selected should be the one that was last selected of that group. for example - i'm currently targetting a jumpgate, when a friendly ship makes communication. i target them so i can respond. when i'm done, i press 'n' to target the jumpgate again - but often this brings up a different target, and i have to keep pressing to find the jumpgate.
also, now i appreciate that the cheap radar systems deliberately cannot tell the difference between neutral and hostile ships, and that this is an upgrade you get later in the game - but i find it odd that even though the radar cannot tell the difference, the targetting system can. logically, on any starship these systems will be using the same computers, the same circuits, etc (the targetting system would surely be dependant on the radar). i think that if the ship isn't equipped with a radar that can tell the difference, then the targetting system should reflect this as well. this might make for very difficult gameplay in the beginning, not being able to quickly choose hostile ships - so it might therefore be an idea to make even the basic radars capable of differentiating.
in any case - i think it's fairly important that the targetting system's capabilities reflect the capability of the radar system
also, can we make the targetting arrow (for when the target is off-screen) green instead of white? it's easy to lose a white arrow in the heat of combat.
i think the targetting system is pretty good, but still has a few odd quirks. when switching from one type of target to another, the first target selected should be the one that was last selected of that group. for example - i'm currently targetting a jumpgate, when a friendly ship makes communication. i target them so i can respond. when i'm done, i press 'n' to target the jumpgate again - but often this brings up a different target, and i have to keep pressing to find the jumpgate.
also, now i appreciate that the cheap radar systems deliberately cannot tell the difference between neutral and hostile ships, and that this is an upgrade you get later in the game - but i find it odd that even though the radar cannot tell the difference, the targetting system can. logically, on any starship these systems will be using the same computers, the same circuits, etc (the targetting system would surely be dependant on the radar). i think that if the ship isn't equipped with a radar that can tell the difference, then the targetting system should reflect this as well. this might make for very difficult gameplay in the beginning, not being able to quickly choose hostile ships - so it might therefore be an idea to make even the basic radars capable of differentiating.
in any case - i think it's fairly important that the targetting system's capabilities reflect the capability of the radar system
also, can we make the targetting arrow (for when the target is off-screen) green instead of white? it's easy to lose a white arrow in the heat of combat.
Last edited by Statick on Tue Apr 10, 2007 1:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Statick
- Merchant
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 7:59 pm
in-flight communications
communications are tricky with the current targetting system. i've seen a suggestion for a keypress that targets the last received communication, which i think is sensible. however, it's also frustrating to have to switch your target away from something in order to use comms. i think the comms system in general is far too simplistic to be of much use.
my suggestion here would be to have an entirely separate system for targetting communications. before you shriek at the horror of this complication, i think it could be made effective and simple if done well.
my idea is to have a comms "channel", which in many respects would work in a similar fashion to the current targetting system. the cruical bit is to integrate it so it doesn't become cumbersome or overcomplicated.
this would work by having a small area in the top left of the HUD used for the comms. importantly, this only appears when comms are used, so that the display isn't too cluttered, and should be kept as small and unintrusive as possible. like the comms text that currently appears, it appears when comms are received, then disappears from view after a short time.
when a communication is received, the text and name/callsign of the sending craft appears as it currently does, however an image of the ship should also appear in the top left corner, similar to the one on the targetting display (although i'd suggest make it at least half the size, if not even smaller)
this indicates that the comms channel is open with this ship - which, crucially, is not necessarily the current target. so any 0-9 keypress will fire off comms at this ship, rather than the current target (which could be a jumpgate or piece of cargo, or just another ship)
a keypress would need to be assigned (let's say 'c' for arguments sake) which would control the comms channel. pressing 'c' or 'C' would cycle through possible comms targets in the same way the current targetting system does. the small image in the corner would change accordingly as you switched comms channel.
there are several important differences however, from the normal targetting system
- switching comms channel doesn't switch your current target. the two are completely separate.
- any comms received will automatically switch your comms channel to the relevant ship - so you can reply quickly and instantly.
- when pressing 'c' to cycle through comms, jumpgates and cargo wouldn't get picked, and things out of range of comms would also be ignored
- there's no visible HUD cursor like there is with targetting (no need, and would complicate things)
- if no comms are sent/received for say, 10 seconds, the comms area closes down so as not to clutter the display. pressing the 'c' (or whatever chosen comms key) to cycle the comms channels would open it again.
- if the comms channel has been opened manually by pressing 'c', then the comms channel should be targetting the current target if relevant (i.e. not a jumpgate)
- another keypress could be assigned which would switch the current target to the comms channel, so if someone sends an insult you can target them then launch missiles
- the key '0' can be reserved for other things as well. when comms are open with a spaceport / planet / etc, then docking clearance is what it shall be used for. we don't need to changet that. however, if comms are open with a ship, then '0' will allow you to type your own message. this will be crucial for network play. it also saves assigning yet another keypress to achieve this.
i appreciate this suggestion is probably quite a lot of work, but i think it would greatly improve upon this aspect of the game, especially if network play is being worked on - network gaming is nothing without the ability to communicate.
communications are tricky with the current targetting system. i've seen a suggestion for a keypress that targets the last received communication, which i think is sensible. however, it's also frustrating to have to switch your target away from something in order to use comms. i think the comms system in general is far too simplistic to be of much use.
my suggestion here would be to have an entirely separate system for targetting communications. before you shriek at the horror of this complication, i think it could be made effective and simple if done well.
my idea is to have a comms "channel", which in many respects would work in a similar fashion to the current targetting system. the cruical bit is to integrate it so it doesn't become cumbersome or overcomplicated.
this would work by having a small area in the top left of the HUD used for the comms. importantly, this only appears when comms are used, so that the display isn't too cluttered, and should be kept as small and unintrusive as possible. like the comms text that currently appears, it appears when comms are received, then disappears from view after a short time.
when a communication is received, the text and name/callsign of the sending craft appears as it currently does, however an image of the ship should also appear in the top left corner, similar to the one on the targetting display (although i'd suggest make it at least half the size, if not even smaller)
this indicates that the comms channel is open with this ship - which, crucially, is not necessarily the current target. so any 0-9 keypress will fire off comms at this ship, rather than the current target (which could be a jumpgate or piece of cargo, or just another ship)
a keypress would need to be assigned (let's say 'c' for arguments sake) which would control the comms channel. pressing 'c' or 'C' would cycle through possible comms targets in the same way the current targetting system does. the small image in the corner would change accordingly as you switched comms channel.
there are several important differences however, from the normal targetting system
- switching comms channel doesn't switch your current target. the two are completely separate.
- any comms received will automatically switch your comms channel to the relevant ship - so you can reply quickly and instantly.
- when pressing 'c' to cycle through comms, jumpgates and cargo wouldn't get picked, and things out of range of comms would also be ignored
- there's no visible HUD cursor like there is with targetting (no need, and would complicate things)
- if no comms are sent/received for say, 10 seconds, the comms area closes down so as not to clutter the display. pressing the 'c' (or whatever chosen comms key) to cycle the comms channels would open it again.
- if the comms channel has been opened manually by pressing 'c', then the comms channel should be targetting the current target if relevant (i.e. not a jumpgate)
- another keypress could be assigned which would switch the current target to the comms channel, so if someone sends an insult you can target them then launch missiles
- the key '0' can be reserved for other things as well. when comms are open with a spaceport / planet / etc, then docking clearance is what it shall be used for. we don't need to changet that. however, if comms are open with a ship, then '0' will allow you to type your own message. this will be crucial for network play. it also saves assigning yet another keypress to achieve this.
i appreciate this suggestion is probably quite a lot of work, but i think it would greatly improve upon this aspect of the game, especially if network play is being worked on - network gaming is nothing without the ability to communicate.
-
Statick
- Merchant
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 7:59 pm
planetary stuff
gas giants should not be landable-on. for obvious reasons. missions should not end by landing on a gas giant. this is just silly !
jump gates should not be anywhere near planets. massive spatial anomalies, you would imagine, would be somewhat disrupted by a planet's orbit. or a planet would be somewhat disrupted by a massive great jump gate passing right by. these guys should appear in the deep empty areas of a system, far from planetary orbits (i'd suggest, take the diameter of a planet and not allow any jumpgates within a distance equal to at least 10 times that diameter)
the current system of landing on a planet is a bit clumsy. i think putting a few bases on the planet would make a bit of sense, and the player would target a base if they wanted to land (like in frontier).
moons !
moons would be great. i've not seen any moons ! planets should have moons ! they should orbit ! they could have their own bases and orbiting space stations !
moons would be awesome !
gas giants should not be landable-on. for obvious reasons. missions should not end by landing on a gas giant. this is just silly !
jump gates should not be anywhere near planets. massive spatial anomalies, you would imagine, would be somewhat disrupted by a planet's orbit. or a planet would be somewhat disrupted by a massive great jump gate passing right by. these guys should appear in the deep empty areas of a system, far from planetary orbits (i'd suggest, take the diameter of a planet and not allow any jumpgates within a distance equal to at least 10 times that diameter)
the current system of landing on a planet is a bit clumsy. i think putting a few bases on the planet would make a bit of sense, and the player would target a base if they wanted to land (like in frontier).
moons !
moons would be great. i've not seen any moons ! planets should have moons ! they should orbit ! they could have their own bases and orbiting space stations !
moons would be awesome !
-
loki1950
- The Shepherd
- Posts: 5841
- Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 8:37 pm
- Location: Ottawa
- Contact:
What about the rlaan they actually live on methane gas giants. and jump gates are not natural they are artifacts of the ancients the whole network is artificial and for the convenience of the traveler.
Enjoy the Choice
Enjoy the Choice
my box::HP Envy i5-6400 @2Q70GHzx4 8 Gb ram/1 Tb(Win10 64)/3 Tb Mint 19.2/GTX745 4Gb acer S243HL K222HQL
Q8200/Asus P5QDLX/8 Gb ram/WD 2Tb 2-500 G HD/GF GT640 2Gb Mint 17.3 64 bit Win 10 32 bit acer and Lenovo ideapad 320-15ARB Win 10/Mint 19.2
Q8200/Asus P5QDLX/8 Gb ram/WD 2Tb 2-500 G HD/GF GT640 2Gb Mint 17.3 64 bit Win 10 32 bit acer and Lenovo ideapad 320-15ARB Win 10/Mint 19.2
-
Statick
- Merchant
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 7:59 pm
the map
really needs to be accessible when docked. i mean it. really.
when i'm browsing missions, i don't know where half the destinations are. often, i've got a mission already on the go, and i want to see if there's any others going to the same destination, or somewhere along the way.
to find out, i've got to launch my ship to check the map, potentially dealing with combat in the process, then dock again if i decide i want to accept the mission.
also, i think the map in general could really be improved upon. firstly, the viewable area is too small really.
next, the symbols used for planets and things are too large and complicated - things quickly get cluttered. i get the impression it's trying to look like a "simple" computer, but this is pointless when it's set in the future. i've got a simple computer in my pocket (my phone) and it has a much nicer display than that map. planets could be represented by nice little coloured planet icons (like the ones in the targetting display), and should be maybe a quarter of the size of the current wireframe circles. again, stars could look like stars, stations could look like stations, etc. and make the things small !!
also, how is it that the map can tell me about ships, cargo, etc drifting around space, when my radar cannot tell what is what ? again, these onboard systems would logically all be interdependant. the map should be just that - a map. it should tell us what things are known about in the system, being planets, jumpgates, space stations, etc.
something should be done about the amount of text that appears in the map too. it currently names everything visible in the map all at once, and the screen quickly fills up with a mess of text. i'd suggest if there's a lot of information to be shown in a very small area (say, 10 jumpgates all near the same planet), that a separate box be used for this. a single jumpgate would be shown on the map, and clicking on it would list all 10 of them in a box on the side (of course, if you zoom in far enough then all 10 would be seen separately).
can the 'up' and 'down' buttons be renamed to 'sector' and 'system' (or whatever)
and can the chosen view for each be remembered when revisiting the map ? for the system map i prefer the 3D projection view (elite-style again), but i always have to re-choose it when i come to the map.
really needs to be accessible when docked. i mean it. really.
when i'm browsing missions, i don't know where half the destinations are. often, i've got a mission already on the go, and i want to see if there's any others going to the same destination, or somewhere along the way.
to find out, i've got to launch my ship to check the map, potentially dealing with combat in the process, then dock again if i decide i want to accept the mission.
also, i think the map in general could really be improved upon. firstly, the viewable area is too small really.
next, the symbols used for planets and things are too large and complicated - things quickly get cluttered. i get the impression it's trying to look like a "simple" computer, but this is pointless when it's set in the future. i've got a simple computer in my pocket (my phone) and it has a much nicer display than that map. planets could be represented by nice little coloured planet icons (like the ones in the targetting display), and should be maybe a quarter of the size of the current wireframe circles. again, stars could look like stars, stations could look like stations, etc. and make the things small !!
also, how is it that the map can tell me about ships, cargo, etc drifting around space, when my radar cannot tell what is what ? again, these onboard systems would logically all be interdependant. the map should be just that - a map. it should tell us what things are known about in the system, being planets, jumpgates, space stations, etc.
something should be done about the amount of text that appears in the map too. it currently names everything visible in the map all at once, and the screen quickly fills up with a mess of text. i'd suggest if there's a lot of information to be shown in a very small area (say, 10 jumpgates all near the same planet), that a separate box be used for this. a single jumpgate would be shown on the map, and clicking on it would list all 10 of them in a box on the side (of course, if you zoom in far enough then all 10 would be seen separately).
can the 'up' and 'down' buttons be renamed to 'sector' and 'system' (or whatever)
and can the chosen view for each be remembered when revisiting the map ? for the system map i prefer the 3D projection view (elite-style again), but i always have to re-choose it when i come to the map.
-
Statick
- Merchant
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 7:59 pm
i wasn't aware of this - i thought they were naturally occuring anomalies. a gas giant is made of gas - how can you land on it ? there's no "land" to land on.loki1950 wrote:What about the rlaan they actually live on methane gas giants. and jump gates are not natural they are artifacts of the ancients the whole network is artificial and for the convenience of the traveler.
Enjoy the Choice
-
Statick
- Merchant
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 7:59 pm
cool stuff
when docking, landing, or going through a jump-gate, how about a brief (maybe 2 seconds) shot from outside the craft showing this happening ?
the starfield - i'm a bit confused. why do the stars go blurry when using the SPEC drive, when they don't actually move? i think the distant stars in the background should always remain still. but if you had space dust (like the old fashioned starfields people used to program) moving past the ship all the time, this could become blurry, and whiz past at high speed. that would be cool.
oh, and moons !
moons are cool !
when docking, landing, or going through a jump-gate, how about a brief (maybe 2 seconds) shot from outside the craft showing this happening ?
the starfield - i'm a bit confused. why do the stars go blurry when using the SPEC drive, when they don't actually move? i think the distant stars in the background should always remain still. but if you had space dust (like the old fashioned starfields people used to program) moving past the ship all the time, this could become blurry, and whiz past at high speed. that would be cool.
oh, and moons !
moons are cool !
-
loki1950
- The Shepherd
- Posts: 5841
- Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 8:37 pm
- Location: Ottawa
- Contact:
there is a solid surface we humans just would not survive there no oxygen and hi gravity and pressure gas giants are also major resources most of the rlaan bases are in very low orbit for visitor's convenience.no "land" to land on.
Enjoy the Choice
my box::HP Envy i5-6400 @2Q70GHzx4 8 Gb ram/1 Tb(Win10 64)/3 Tb Mint 19.2/GTX745 4Gb acer S243HL K222HQL
Q8200/Asus P5QDLX/8 Gb ram/WD 2Tb 2-500 G HD/GF GT640 2Gb Mint 17.3 64 bit Win 10 32 bit acer and Lenovo ideapad 320-15ARB Win 10/Mint 19.2
Q8200/Asus P5QDLX/8 Gb ram/WD 2Tb 2-500 G HD/GF GT640 2Gb Mint 17.3 64 bit Win 10 32 bit acer and Lenovo ideapad 320-15ARB Win 10/Mint 19.2
-
jackS
- Minister of Information
- Posts: 1895
- Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2003 9:40 pm
- Location: The land of tenure (and diaper changes)
Not methane gas giants. methane-nitrogen atmosphere rocky-bodies. Generally with ammonia seas.loki1950 wrote:What about the rlaan they actually live on methane gas giants. and jump gates are not natural they are artifacts of the ancients the whole network is artificial and for the convenience of the traveler.
Enjoy the Choice
One can currently land on gas giants for the same reason that one can land on stars - we don't check (yet).
-
Shissui
- ISO Party Member
- Posts: 433
- Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:27 pm
There is no solid surface to any gas giant in *this* solar system. Or, at least, not before you reach a gas pressure of at least 1000 MegaPascals. (To pick a relatively arbitrary boundary pressure.)loki1950 wrote:there is a solid surface we humans just would not survive
It would be inconsistent to expect that there would be a solid layer on any gas giant elsewhere.
I want to live in Theory. Everything works in Theory.
-
Captain{}Blood
- Mercenary
- Posts: 111
- Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 5:27 pm
- Contact:
If anyone has had experience with the Terminus 3d radar, it gives you a flat plane with oblects above or below youur lateral axis. I have used this in dogfighting a swarm of matian patrols and was able to keep tabs on the locations of all and was able to concentrate on the closest threat. There was also a small number by each target that was able to tell how close you werer to detection.
My Rig
EVGA 780 SLI
Intel Core 2 Quad 9450 clocked to 3.4 GHz
4 Gigs OCZ SLI DDr2 800 memory
2X EVGA NVidia 8800 GT OC 512 SLi
ABS 800 watt modular supply
All stuffed into a Lian Li A05 case
EVGA 780 SLI
Intel Core 2 Quad 9450 clocked to 3.4 GHz
4 Gigs OCZ SLI DDr2 800 memory
2X EVGA NVidia 8800 GT OC 512 SLi
ABS 800 watt modular supply
All stuffed into a Lian Li A05 case
-
Statick
- Merchant
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 7:59 pm
apart from the number, that sounds the same as the elite/frontier radar. works very well IMO. i'm not suggesting that the current one is ditched in favour of the other, but that an option to toggle between them would be nice.Captain{}Blood wrote:If anyone has had experience with the Terminus 3d radar, it gives you a flat plane with oblects above or below youur lateral axis. I have used this in dogfighting a swarm of matian patrols and was able to keep tabs on the locations of all and was able to concentrate on the closest threat. There was also a small number by each target that was able to tell how close you werer to detection.
-
Statick
- Merchant
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 7:59 pm
setup
how about a title screen, with "start new game", "load saved game" and "options" on it. the option to name the player on starting a new game would be nice, i don't like being referred to as "llama.begin"
the "options" page could contain the various choices currently presented by the setup program, which would save having to exit and re-launch the game every time you changed a setting
how about a title screen, with "start new game", "load saved game" and "options" on it. the option to name the player on starting a new game would be nice, i don't like being referred to as "llama.begin"
the "options" page could contain the various choices currently presented by the setup program, which would save having to exit and re-launch the game every time you changed a setting
-
Statick
- Merchant
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 7:59 pm
randomly generated things
i've noticed that if i die near to completing a mission, then when i respawn the mission destination has changed. presumably the exact location i have to visit in the mission is decided when i enter the system. this should have been decided when the mission was accepted.
if the exact location hadn't been decided because the system itself also needed to be generated, then this generation should have happened when the system was first known about i.e. first appeared on the sector map, and not left until actually entering the system.
oh, and did i mention moons ?
i've noticed that if i die near to completing a mission, then when i respawn the mission destination has changed. presumably the exact location i have to visit in the mission is decided when i enter the system. this should have been decided when the mission was accepted.
if the exact location hadn't been decided because the system itself also needed to be generated, then this generation should have happened when the system was first known about i.e. first appeared on the sector map, and not left until actually entering the system.
oh, and did i mention moons ?
-
ace123
- Lead Network Developer
- Posts: 2560
- Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2003 9:13 am
- Location: Palo Alto CA
- Contact:
We have done some work on making an initial loading screen start up.
Having some configuration options might be nice... however the problem is fairly complicated, and this would require reworking the configuration system...
This is something that needs to be done at some point (I have been saying this for years, but as network support and a new graphics engine approach, this is becoming increasingly important)
About "randomly generated things"...
The problem is that we have 5707 systems defined. Generating sector files for all 5707 of them (even though they are only approximately 6 Kb apiece would add up to 35 MB of XML files. Not too much considering the number of systems available, but many more than you would want eating up space in your home directory.
Right now, we only generate systems you are in. If I understand your post, you would like surrounding systems (how many levels?) to be generated.
However, if I understand your post, maybe you would like to "generate" systems that missions refer to, and then be able to choose a target in that system? Actually, the game generates the dynamic flightgroup information on startup (hence the 7MB save files).
Having some configuration options might be nice... however the problem is fairly complicated, and this would require reworking the configuration system...
This is something that needs to be done at some point (I have been saying this for years, but as network support and a new graphics engine approach, this is becoming increasingly important)
About "randomly generated things"...
The problem is that we have 5707 systems defined. Generating sector files for all 5707 of them (even though they are only approximately 6 Kb apiece would add up to 35 MB of XML files. Not too much considering the number of systems available, but many more than you would want eating up space in your home directory.
Right now, we only generate systems you are in. If I understand your post, you would like surrounding systems (how many levels?) to be generated.
However, if I understand your post, maybe you would like to "generate" systems that missions refer to, and then be able to choose a target in that system? Actually, the game generates the dynamic flightgroup information on startup (hence the 7MB save files).
-
Statick
- Merchant
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 7:59 pm
i think surrounding systems should be generated
in fact, i think all systems visible on the map should be generated already, and not as you happen to enter them. how/when this happens i don't know. when do systems appear on the map? when jumpgates to them are discovered?
so yes, in that respect, i would suggest that when entering a system, all of it's surrounding systems are also generated. just one level. this would ensure that all systems visible on the main map will already have been generated. this would also be an appropriate time to generate some moons
this would make finding information about a system prior to visiting it feasible - for things such as getting trade prices (to make cargo trading a viable game route) and basic information about planets and inhabitants.
in fact, i think all systems visible on the map should be generated already, and not as you happen to enter them. how/when this happens i don't know. when do systems appear on the map? when jumpgates to them are discovered?
so yes, in that respect, i would suggest that when entering a system, all of it's surrounding systems are also generated. just one level. this would ensure that all systems visible on the main map will already have been generated. this would also be an appropriate time to generate some moons
this would make finding information about a system prior to visiting it feasible - for things such as getting trade prices (to make cargo trading a viable game route) and basic information about planets and inhabitants.
-
Moe479
- Merchant
- Posts: 57
- Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 7:13 am
gasgiant has no surface or gas means gas, it means the state of aggregation of bodys mass is gas. If the state of aggregation changes to fluid or/and solid at any depth of the planet into a surfacelike form its no longer a gas-body, than its a normal planet with an athomosphere of what ever. the term giant comes only from the fact that usualy gas-bodys cover a wider volume and grater mass than the other fluid/solid objects within the system.
afaik only orbital platforms might be thinkable as base for operarations, those could be within the gas, but those could only exist without steady propulsion on stationary orbits, stationary means here acrordingly the movmentspeed of the gaslayer they are located in, otherwise the gas would stop the platform/rock/whatever and it cant hold its orbit.
in general it might be difficult to find places where the speed of an gaslayer is enough to keep an orbit with an object of an serios mass ...
afaik only orbital platforms might be thinkable as base for operarations, those could be within the gas, but those could only exist without steady propulsion on stationary orbits, stationary means here acrordingly the movmentspeed of the gaslayer they are located in, otherwise the gas would stop the platform/rock/whatever and it cant hold its orbit.
in general it might be difficult to find places where the speed of an gaslayer is enough to keep an orbit with an object of an serios mass ...
-
Shissui
- ISO Party Member
- Posts: 433
- Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:27 pm
NO.Moe479 wrote:gasgiant has no surface or gas means gas, it means the state of aggregation of bodys mass is gas. If the state of aggregation changes to fluid or/and solid at any depth of the planet into a surfacelike form its no longer a gas-body, than its a normal planet with an athomosphere of what ever.
As you descend into a gas giant, pressure & density become greater. At some point, this will (necessarily) result in a change of state.
I want to live in Theory. Everything works in Theory.
-
Statick
- Merchant
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 7:59 pm
-
vegavest
- Merchant
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 5:37 pm
- Location: England, britain
about that cool stuff you were talkin about
along with the moons maybe you could maybe blow them up! but of course not for just some pointless reason, but maybe you could start a faction of your own! start off earning money to buy a ship thats combat efficiant and take over a moon (instead of blowing it up) and you could earn money by some random expensive rock formation that happens to be there! then you could order to build stuff like shipyards to build up your own fleet to take over more moons, or maybe even take over a planet! along with the planet cold be defences like laser beams, or interplanetry missles. and if you take over enough planets and moons yo could be able to make lotsa money to buy a capship, just to be used on more assaults! of ourse it would transform the game compltely, and change the point of it, but it could be though about...
along with the moons maybe you could maybe blow them up! but of course not for just some pointless reason, but maybe you could start a faction of your own! start off earning money to buy a ship thats combat efficiant and take over a moon (instead of blowing it up) and you could earn money by some random expensive rock formation that happens to be there! then you could order to build stuff like shipyards to build up your own fleet to take over more moons, or maybe even take over a planet! along with the planet cold be defences like laser beams, or interplanetry missles. and if you take over enough planets and moons yo could be able to make lotsa money to buy a capship, just to be used on more assaults! of ourse it would transform the game compltely, and change the point of it, but it could be though about...
... just don't eat it!
-
targ collective
- Bounty Hunter
- Posts: 237
- Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 2:57 pm
I can't see that working. However:
You are the only member of the Privateer faction. Being able to buy a system (or better yet, get awarded a system for clearing it of Aera) might be possible, in which case buying orbital installations to defend it and choosing where they orbit could, one day, be implemented. Not anytime soon, though.
Another possibility is mining bases generating profits in one of your systems, a whole macro-scale economy that you have to follow in building up and defending your territory, the stress of defending personally your extensive gains... What a wonderful thought! But a pipedream for now, nothing more. It would require a lot of work to implement, and Vega Strike is not yet ready to take things to that level.
Frankly, the costs involved would make a fleet of Clydesdale look like small change, even for one mining base. Profits would be a long time in paying off, too - you'd need really deep pockets to fund just one system, the costs would take time and lots of it to be eclipsed by profits and you'd end up letting friendly factions build facilities in your space for one-off payments to help make ends meet. Bah... Why couldn't running a star system be simple.
You are the only member of the Privateer faction. Being able to buy a system (or better yet, get awarded a system for clearing it of Aera) might be possible, in which case buying orbital installations to defend it and choosing where they orbit could, one day, be implemented. Not anytime soon, though.
Another possibility is mining bases generating profits in one of your systems, a whole macro-scale economy that you have to follow in building up and defending your territory, the stress of defending personally your extensive gains... What a wonderful thought! But a pipedream for now, nothing more. It would require a lot of work to implement, and Vega Strike is not yet ready to take things to that level.
Frankly, the costs involved would make a fleet of Clydesdale look like small change, even for one mining base. Profits would be a long time in paying off, too - you'd need really deep pockets to fund just one system, the costs would take time and lots of it to be eclipsed by profits and you'd end up letting friendly factions build facilities in your space for one-off payments to help make ends meet. Bah... Why couldn't running a star system be simple.
-
grendel0226
- Merchant
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 9:43 pm
- Location: Ohio
- Contact:
Wow.... Nobody's thought of this? Am I REALLY the only person this bugs?
Well, when cycling through targets, I find it beyond irritating when I'm searching for the first dockable/jumpable target in a system for a clean sweep or whatever, and just miss it by one keypress, and do this about 5 times over because there's at least 20 units in the system to cycle through.
A simple solution: Reverse cycle targeting. Basically, the targeting cycle goes in the opposite direction with a different key, preferably adjacent to [t] or in combination with [t] (like [shift+t])
I'll probably come back with more suggestions...
Edit1: Another possible solution: A button to cycle through dockable/jumpable units used in clean sweeps/system scans. A bit harder to make, but easier on the user's side. Programming-wise, I think all you'd need to do is use a tag for regular target cycling to exclude ships, or if the docking to capships thing is actually going to be implemented in the future, exclude ships below a certain size-class to be included in the target cycle.
Well, when cycling through targets, I find it beyond irritating when I'm searching for the first dockable/jumpable target in a system for a clean sweep or whatever, and just miss it by one keypress, and do this about 5 times over because there's at least 20 units in the system to cycle through.
A simple solution: Reverse cycle targeting. Basically, the targeting cycle goes in the opposite direction with a different key, preferably adjacent to [t] or in combination with [t] (like [shift+t])
I'll probably come back with more suggestions...
Edit1: Another possible solution: A button to cycle through dockable/jumpable units used in clean sweeps/system scans. A bit harder to make, but easier on the user's side. Programming-wise, I think all you'd need to do is use a tag for regular target cycling to exclude ships, or if the docking to capships thing is actually going to be implemented in the future, exclude ships below a certain size-class to be included in the target cycle.