I'm still amazed/puzzled by these zero parallax views. The laser entity (as a big flickering cross all over your screen) just looks like s**t, so why anybody would want to optically ruin their game by this is beyond me.CommonSenseOTB wrote:... to change the core player ship custom views to 4 different ones representing gun camera/zero parallax views each with one of the 4 weapon facings defined.
Progress
Moderators: winston, another_commander
- Commander McLane
- ---- E L I T E ----
- Posts: 9520
- Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 9:08 am
- Location: a Hacker Outpost in a moderately remote area
- Contact:
Re: Progress
- CommonSenseOTB
- ---- E L I T E ----
- Posts: 1397
- Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 10:42 am
- Location: Saskatchewan, Canada
Re: Progress
Commander McLane wrote:I'm still amazed/puzzled by these zero parallax views. The laser entity (as a big flickering cross all over your screen) just looks like s**t, so why anybody would want to optically ruin their game by this is beyond me.CommonSenseOTB wrote:... to change the core player ship custom views to 4 different ones representing gun camera/zero parallax views each with one of the 4 weapon facings defined.
The interesting part about my previous post is that I need the views for the 4 different weapon facings only and after the automatic test the scripting takes over and and displays whatever I choose to show. As some people want a straight gun camera with a zero parallax then having the four custom views displayed this way makes sense to me. To each his own Commander.
Take an idea from one person and twist or modify it in a different way as a return suggestion so another person can see a part of it that can apply to the oxp they are working on.
CommonSense 'Outside-the-Box' Design Studios Ltd.
WIKI+OXPs
CommonSense 'Outside-the-Box' Design Studios Ltd.
WIKI+OXPs
- CommonSenseOTB
- ---- E L I T E ----
- Posts: 1397
- Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 10:42 am
- Location: Saskatchewan, Canada
Re: Progress
cim, thanks for adding this.
rev5080:
Allow setCustomView to specify weapon direction
Add resetCustomView to return to normal view
many, many thanks, downloading...
rev5080:
Allow setCustomView to specify weapon direction
Add resetCustomView to return to normal view
many, many thanks, downloading...
Take an idea from one person and twist or modify it in a different way as a return suggestion so another person can see a part of it that can apply to the oxp they are working on.
CommonSense 'Outside-the-Box' Design Studios Ltd.
WIKI+OXPs
CommonSense 'Outside-the-Box' Design Studios Ltd.
WIKI+OXPs
Re: Progress
It is now possible to assign multiple docks to a station or carrier.
Docks can be set up as launch-only, dock-only, or the default dual-use, and traffic control will reasonably intelligently route traffic to the appropriate docks for best docking and launching rates. Player docking can be explicitly allowed or disallowed at a particular dock. Docks can be given labels, which will be used when instructing the player on where to dock (unless the station only has one dock).
Docks which are set launch-only will repel and damage ships trying to dock with them.
A quick example OXP which adds the pictured ship to high planetary orbit - beacon M - and has it launch and recall traders.
Docks can be set up as launch-only, dock-only, or the default dual-use, and traffic control will reasonably intelligently route traffic to the appropriate docks for best docking and launching rates. Player docking can be explicitly allowed or disallowed at a particular dock. Docks can be given labels, which will be used when instructing the player on where to dock (unless the station only has one dock).
Docks which are set launch-only will repel and damage ships trying to dock with them.
A quick example OXP which adds the pictured ship to high planetary orbit - beacon M - and has it launch and recall traders.
Re: Progress
Wow, this is excellent stuff! You could now then, in theory, have a massive space hub orbiting the planet or in deepspace that has multiple docks, with exits and entrances, and a large amount of traffic surrounding it I'm assuming? Would be good to have, maybe in corporate high tech level systems. Good stuff!cim wrote:It is now possible to assign multiple docks to a station or carrier...
Desktop PC: CPU: Intel i7-4790K Quad Core 4.4GHz (Turbo-Charged) GPU: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080Ti RAM: 32GB DDR3
Laptop PC: CPU: Intel i5-10300H Quad Core 4.5GHz (Turbo-Charged) GPU: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1650 RAM: 32GB DDR4
Laptop PC: CPU: Intel i5-10300H Quad Core 4.5GHz (Turbo-Charged) GPU: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1650 RAM: 32GB DDR4
Re: Progress
Thank you cim, this provides for one idea I have for HIMSN.oxp. Your new formations cover a few others.
Now, how about scriptable systems (sun included), thargoid free, mapable to charts by script, in interstellar space. (Would provide for a few other ideas.)
Now, how about scriptable systems (sun included), thargoid free, mapable to charts by script, in interstellar space. (Would provide for a few other ideas.)
"A brilliant game of blasting and trading... Truly a mega-game... The game of a lifetime."
(Gold Medal Award, Zzap!64 May 1985).
(Gold Medal Award, Zzap!64 May 1985).
Re: Progress
Haha yes please! Though I don't think its possible, can't just spawn suns but I'm sure with enough tweaking of the code it would be possible, surely? In fact, and I've never tried this, can you even spawn planets in interstellar space?Gimi wrote:Thank you cim, this provides for one idea I have for HIMSN.oxp. Your new formations cover a few others.
Now, how about scriptable systems (sun included), thargoid free, mapable to charts by script, in interstellar space. (Would provide for a few other ideas.)
Desktop PC: CPU: Intel i7-4790K Quad Core 4.4GHz (Turbo-Charged) GPU: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080Ti RAM: 32GB DDR3
Laptop PC: CPU: Intel i5-10300H Quad Core 4.5GHz (Turbo-Charged) GPU: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1650 RAM: 32GB DDR4
Laptop PC: CPU: Intel i5-10300H Quad Core 4.5GHz (Turbo-Charged) GPU: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1650 RAM: 32GB DDR4
- Cody
- Sharp Shooter Spam Assassin
- Posts: 16081
- Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2009 9:31 pm
- Location: The Lizard's Claw
- Contact:
Re: Progress
Yes... there are several in OXPs.Pleb wrote:In fact, and I've never tried this, can you even spawn planets in interstellar space?
I would advise stilts for the quagmires, and camels for the snowy hills
And any survivors, their debts I will certainly pay. There's always a way!
And any survivors, their debts I will certainly pay. There's always a way!
- JensAyton
- Grand Admiral Emeritus
- Posts: 6657
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 2:43 pm
- Location: Sweden
- Contact:
Re: Progress
Is it possible to assign categories of ships to particular docks (where “category” could mean roles, or the special cases like defence ships)? For example, you might want, say, a battlestar to launch fighters from quick-launch tubes, transports and general traffic from forward-facing bays, and accept docking in rear-facing ports (fnarr). Just idle curiosity, of course. :-)
E-mail: [email protected]
Re: Progress
Not yet, though it would be relatively straightforward to add, I think.Ahruman wrote:Is it possible to assign categories of ships to particular docks (where “category” could mean roles, or the special cases like defence ships)? For example, you might want, say, a battlestar to launch fighters from quick-launch tubes, transports and general traffic from forward-facing bays, and accept docking in rear-facing ports (fnarr). Just idle curiosity, of course.
Though, you could simulate that particular case reasonably well without it:
- set the forward-facing bays launch-only
- set the rear-facing ports dock-only
- set the quick-launch tubes launch-only, and make their dimensions small enough that only fighters will fit.
- place the quick-launch tubes earlier in the subentity list than the forward-facing bays.
If you try to launch more fighters at once than you have quick-launch tubes, it'll start using the forward bays as well. But then, if you need that many fighters launched at once, it probably should...
- JensAyton
- Grand Admiral Emeritus
- Posts: 6657
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 2:43 pm
- Location: Sweden
- Contact:
Re: Progress
Further considerations given the battlestar example:
- Ideally, you’d want to be able to disable docking bays and retract the flight decks. Could
allowsDocking
/allowsLaunching
reasonably be made read/write? Obviously incoming traffic would need to be redirected, and you’d need to consider the case where an incoming ship is very close to the bay (there is already a case like this for the player when aborting docking). Possibly disabling docking would have to be a method that takes a callback which is called when it’s safe to consider the dock fully closed. - When a carrier has its ports disabled like this, it should still be able to consider docking requests. Suggestion: an event handler
canOpenDockingPort() : boolean
is called if a docking request is sent to a station with no open docking ports. If it returnstrue
, then: if there is now an open docking port, dock as normal. Otherwise, put the incoming ship inshipsOnHold
and send itABORT
, then wait for a dock to open up and start processing the hold queue as normal. (Wart: what do to if the ship can’t fit in the opened port? The docking AI would need to be updated to handle a refusal in the aborted state.DOCKING_REFUSED = ( "exitAIWithMessage: DOCKING_REFUSED" );
in the standard dockingAI would probably cover most cases. Alternatively, the event handler could return the port that will eventually be opened instead of a boolean.)
E-mail: [email protected]
- Smivs
- Retired Assassin
- Posts: 8408
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 11:31 am
- Location: Lost in space
- Contact:
Re: Progress
You know you miss it reallyAhruman wrote:Gosh, it’s fun not being on the receiving end of these.
Commander Smivs, the friendliest Gourd this side of Riedquat.
Re: Progress
Should be safe to make them read/write. true->false on launching if the launch queue has contents is mostly harmless as the ships just won't get launched. true->false on docking can call the abortAllDockings method safely (as long asAhruman wrote:Ideally, you’d want to be able to disable docking bays and retract the flight decks. CouldallowsDocking
/allowsLaunching
reasonably be made read/write? Obviously incoming traffic would need to be redirected, and you’d need to consider the case where an incoming ship is very close to the bay (there is already a case like this for the player when aborting docking). Possibly disabling docking would have to be a method that takes a callback which is called when it’s safe to consider the dock fully closed.
allowsPlayerDocking
remains true, no-one will get hurt if they're too close to stop, and even if it doesn't NPCs should be travelling slow enough to be bounced off in time to get out of the way)Temporary reject of docking is already possible, so that should be okay. Just needs a way to convert a permanent rejection for reasons of dock closure into a temporary rejection, which that event handler should do.Ahruman wrote:When a carrier has its ports disabled like this, it should still be able to consider docking requests.
That should be fine - it'll come out of the ABORT state, request new docking coordinates, be told TOO_BIG_TO_DOCK, and leave.Ahruman wrote:Wart: what do to if the ship can’t fit in the opened port?
- JensAyton
- Grand Admiral Emeritus
- Posts: 6657
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 2:43 pm
- Location: Sweden
- Contact:
Re: Progress
*pokes the young’uns with cane*Smivs wrote:You know you miss it reallyAhruman wrote:Gosh, it’s fun not being on the receiving end of these.
E-mail: [email protected]
Re: Progress
Okay, as of r5090:Ahruman wrote:Further considerations given the battlestar example:
-
allowsDocking
and allowsLaunching
are read/write- Station now has ship script event
willOpenDockingPortFor(dock,ship)
which can return true to convert a permanent reject due to lack of ports allowing docking into a temporary one while the "doors opening animation" or whatever is run.- Docks now have ship script events
acceptDockingRequestFor(ship)
and acceptLaunchingRequestFor(ship)
which can return true or false to handle requests on whatever rules you want. If no function exists, defaults to 'yes'.