A dev's log.

[AeternusDoleo]

Because I have other things to do. Such as:
- Redefining the missions difficulty levels available on all bases
- Redefining the NPCs so that they're about equally difficult in all houses
- Checking all existing models against texture and root mesh naming conflicts
- Altering asteroid cube definitions to take advantage of the bigger asteroid models

I don't have time to chase after everyone who tries their hand at modelling. I don't enjoy that kind of "managing" either. I'm someone who actually does work rather then tells other people how to do it.

Besides. If you don't ever submit a model, how is it going to get into the mod? Common sense would suggest it's kinda required once the model is done.

---

Wide awake in a world that sleeps, enduring thoughts, enduring scenes. The knowledge of what is yet to come.
From a time when all seems lost, from a dead man to a world, without restraint, unafraid and free.

Mostly retired Discovery member. May still visit from time to time.

[AeternusDoleo]

Dev update:
By popular demand, I've spent some time to make a new type of weapon animation: A "beam" gun. These aren't that hard to do actually and I can make these in any variety or color now. Proof of concept here:

The image shows the new Spatial, with 3 miner turrets, firing them. I've used the current mining turret for the test, so the default mining turret projectile is also in the test. Some obervations about this weapon:
- Using the flash to paint the gun effect carries serious limitations. The flash will only swing as far as the barrel, which requires force_ori to be set on any weapon using this. And that in turn will require that weapon model to have the correct up/down swing or they will not be able to fire in that direction at all. Basically, the 15 dgr "leeway" players get will have to be disabled with these guns.
- Also, since the flash keeps moving with the barrel, but the projectile does not, these weapons will only look proper when:
* The projectile lifetime is short (high projectile speed, low range) -> Capital ship Solaris MK1 guns come to mind, as well as the BS Battlerazor. Most Gunboat turrets could also use this effect, although setting force_ori will make their weapons track less quickly, which could be a problem. For the present, we could do just the Solaris and see how players like the new effect.
* The gun's turning speed is very slow or nonexistant (Slow turrets, fixed forward weapons with a limited projectile lifetime).

There are currently no fighter guns which have a projectile lifetime shorter then 0.8 sec - and frankly, that's already too long to look good on this type of animation. 0.6 is more or less the cutoff for smaller weapons. We'll have to see if we can make a new civvy type weapon that meets this lifetime. 450m range, 750m/s speed for instance.

---

Wide awake in a world that sleeps, enduring thoughts, enduring scenes. The knowledge of what is yet to come.
From a time when all seems lost, from a dead man to a world, without restraint, unafraid and free.

Mostly retired Discovery member. May still visit from time to time.

[Ursus]

One issue with force_ori is that the aiming reticle becomes passive when its used, and does not provide any kind of feedback when the target comes into the cone of fire. For example: the LSC FG does not provide any aiming feedback, because of force_ori.

I dont know if it will matter for a beam weapon, because you would get instant feedback from the beam anyway.

Actually it is also something to consider taking advantage of. You should put force_ori on torpedo turrets, and then SNAC and MR would lose their targeting feedback, no more TS SNAC

---

Discovery 24/7 Negotiating Tactics:

[AeternusDoleo]

That is only true if the weapon is mounted on a non-revolute hardpoint Ursus. force_ori tells the game it may fire projectiles only in the exact direction the barrel is pointing at. Many turrets and guns don't have a lot of leeway in how far they can swing - personally I feel force_ori -should- be set at all weapons except guided weapons, and the proper arcs set by setting the rotation on the hardpoints (for ships) and gun model itself (for barrel up/down).

---

Wide awake in a world that sleeps, enduring thoughts, enduring scenes. The knowledge of what is yet to come.
From a time when all seems lost, from a dead man to a world, without restraint, unafraid and free.

Mostly retired Discovery member. May still visit from time to time.

[AeternusDoleo]

Dev update:
- Implemented a clientside shipclass override. This causes ships to now appear on the buy screen with the proper ship class name. IE a Battleship will no longer be listed as a "freighter". This will hopefully clear up confusion among players as to what's what - and incidentally makes sorting ship by class in FLStat a breeze. The following classes are defined:
0 Light Fighter
1 Heavy Fighter
2 Freighter
3 Very Heavy Fighter
4 Super Heavy Fighter
5 Bomber
6 Transport
7 Train
8 Heavy Transport (>3.6K cargo)
9 Super Train (House supertrains)
10 Liner
11 Gunship (Low firepower, high maneuverability)
12 Gunboat
13 Destroyer
14 Cruiser
15 Battlecruiser
16 Battleship
17 Carrier
18 Dreadnaught (Biggest powercore vessels)

---

Wide awake in a world that sleeps, enduring thoughts, enduring scenes. The knowledge of what is yet to come.
From a time when all seems lost, from a dead man to a world, without restraint, unafraid and free.

Mostly retired Discovery member. May still visit from time to time.

[Ursus]

I did the same thing of itemizing all kinds of sub-classes when I started playing with that. The thing is though, it is only for client display and has no affect on anything important. Everything that matters is hard-points, and those are consistent for the major classes. Sub-classes do not need to be itemized because they are not sufficiently distinct.

You have five types of Transport class vessel that are all the same in terms of shields, powercore, weapon types, etc. Are they using different shields, or different transport weapons? No... why is the value of having to memorize them? Just show me the major classes that all use the same equipment.

It's also hard to be consistent with sub-classing. You have five types of transport, three tpes of cruisers, but only one type of bomber (there are presently three sub-types). What will you do when there are sub-classed LFs or something later?

Point is that there is very little reason to enumerate all the sub-classes, because it is (a) completely irrelevant to anything (b) not possible to enumerate all possible sub-classes now and future. So my suggestion is just make the major ship-classes, then people will know, ah "cruiser" has these hard-points. That is all its good for anyway.

LF, HF, VHF, Bomber, Freighter, Gunboat, Transport, Cruiser, Battleship

---

Discovery 24/7 Negotiating Tactics:

[Echo 7-7]

I did the same thing of itemizing all kinds of sub-classes when I started playing with that. The thing is though, it is only for client display and has no affect on anything important. Everything that matters is hard-points, and those are consistent for the major classes. Sub-classes do not need to be itemized because they are not sufficiently distinct.

You have five types of Transport class vessel that are all the same in terms of shields, powercore, weapon types, etc. Are they using different shields, or different transport weapons? No... why is the value of having to memorize them? Just show me the major classes that all use the same equipment.

It's also hard to be consistent with sub-classing. You have five types of transport, three tpes of cruisers, but only one type of bomber (there are presently three sub-types). What will you do when there are sub-classed LFs or something later?

Point is that there is very little reason to enumerate all the sub-classes, because it is (a) completely irrelevant to anything (b) not possible to enumerate all possible sub-classes now and future. So my suggestion is just make the major ship-classes, then people will know, ah "cruiser" has these hard-points. That is all its good for anyway.

LF, HF, VHF, Bomber, Freighter, Gunboat, Transport, Cruiser, Battleship

That's pretty rich coming from you, considering what you did to the Wiki Transports page, and were planning to do to other Wiki ship list pages.

Addendum: I like the change. It's a step forward to improving overall mod quality.

---

There was a sig here, once.

[AeternusDoleo]

Everyone's a critic. Thing is, there -are- differences between the classes. Carriers have more fighter bay hardpoints. Big liners have those as well. Heavy transports and supertrains are restricted to hauler factions - discerning between what's what there helps players consider what they may have. Eventually, I'm hoping we can forgo cargo restrictions and simply put "Allowed ships: Transports, Trains, Heavy Transports, Supertrains" on the ID to tell players what they can or can't use. And possibly, via a hook, enforce the restriction eventually. That'll make it another rule the admins won't ever have to enforce again as the server would handle it.

Dev update:
- Worked on LWB fighter and bomber, but found a possible problem with the mesh. I've asked Massdriver to take another look at it.

---

Wide awake in a world that sleeps, enduring thoughts, enduring scenes. The knowledge of what is yet to come.
From a time when all seems lost, from a dead man to a world, without restraint, unafraid and free.

Mostly retired Discovery member. May still visit from time to time.

[Veygaar]

Keep up the good work AD!

---

Veygaar for Admin Moderator 2013!!!

[Ichiru]

Are there plans for more civilian guns? :3

---

Acolyte of NoMe