Replacement of the basic ship set - building a dream team.

[Captain Hesperus]

That is a yup, the anaconda in fact trades in 'futures' of actual stock that is yet to arrive in the system.

Ahh, the scales fall from mine eyes. Pork Futures.

Captain Hesperus
"Is it me or is that pig carcass slightly see-through?"

[Arexack_Heretic]

See? you can be quite quick!

Chief Heretic of Arexack
"the 'spell of planar division' turns out to be quite handy at preparing very thinly sliced ham"

[ovvldc]

I have seen many pretty ships coming along. Have they been collected into an OXP or a new Oolite release yet?

Having these sit on the hard drives of developers only is a terrible waste of eye candy .

Best wishes,
Oscar

[Arexack_Heretic]

*Refers to the second thread of this name*
https://bb.oolite.space/viewtopic.php?t= ... &start=135

Slez has compiled his ships up to the CobraMk1 into a single OXP, but has not posted it yet.

[Selezen]

The reason I've not made them available yet is cos I'm not happy about the exhaust placement and stuff. maybe I should put together a beta release though.

[julyy]

Hm what distracts me is, all models for them alone are rather good, but if you put them together the game will get a little "unsteady" look.

The Textures should be out of one box.

Such design things should do only one hand. Or totally overseen by a supervisor. Sorry, but thats my look on it, hm ... :/

What i didnt like: Changing the size of ships.

[Uncle Reno]

Hm what distracts me is, all models for them alone are rather good, but if you put them together the game will get a little "unsteady" look.

The Textures should be out of one box.

Such design things should do only one hand. Or totally overseen by a supervisor. Sorry, but thats my look on it, hm ... :/

What i didnt like: Changing the size of ships.

I can see your point but I don't agree. In RealLife(TM) cars are built by many different manufacturers which result in cars that look differently, obviously because they have different designers, and so in Oolite, I do think that we should have different looks to the ships as they too are built by different companies.

As for the changing in size, I think the Anaconda is the only one changed and that is to make sense of its cargo capacity.

[ramon]

no, in the end the Anaconda stayed the same size.

[Lestradae]

Commander McLane kindly pointed me to a thread with Beta-OXP`s including thing`s like an alternate Krait, Boa and metal fragments that actually look like metal fragments.

This stuff looks awesome

Resurrect the Dream Team, I say. You can`t let this slip away ...

Doesn`t believe eyes

L

[pagroove]

I agree,

This stuff looks indeed awesome! Still like the idea of a basic replacement set.

[Leroy Boyce]

Woah - this is a long thread!

Can I be lazy, and ask if anyone has created a new set of "realistic" textures for the standard ships and space staion?

I've seen some cracking screen-shots, but can't determine if there is an OXP yet.

I quite like the "non-ad" space stations, and the type of textures demonstrated on the "how to skin a jabberwocky" article.

I'm not bothered about changing the ship shapes, just making them look more realistic, with battle scars, and dirt and such like...

Cheers.

[LittleBear]

I think the Hotrods, Racers and Rusty OXPs would be the ones for you then. These are all classic ships with new skinns. For stations try the Gritty Corollis and Pangroove's Station Textures.

[Leroy Boyce]

Great! I'll have a look... Thanks very much.

[JensAyton]

Since this thread has been dredged up (which is a good thing), I should point out this post on the first page. A year ago, I was talking about the abstract possibility of “fully usable shader support”. Now we’re basically there. In 1.70, you can specify specular mapping, glow mapping and illumination mapping without even using a custom shader. There’s one niggling little feature stopping normal mapping and parallax mapping (like bump mapping only better) from being on that list, and that’ll be in 1.72 (probably not in 1.71, though).

In short, if you’re still designing textures as a single blob of colour (a diffuse map) especially if it has “baked-in” lighting effects, stop it. That approach is obsolete. If your ship has spotlights shining on the hull, use an illumination map. If it has glowing lights, use a glow map. (If it has both, and the spotlights are white, you can use a combined glow and illumination map to save memory.) If it has areas of varying shininess, which most objects do, you should be considering either a specular map or using multiple materials with different specularity settings. (The latter will work even with shaders disabled.)

It’s a brave new world and all that, but it’s time to start carping the diem. (Of course, some practical examples using the effect map attributes might be useful. Perhaps these can be provided by the community? *glances at Griff*)

[JensAyton]

Lazy community, not jumping into action action on my whim. Bah.

Here’s the specular-mapped scarred alloy which will be in 1.71 (and also works in 1.70). It uses a specular map texture to mask out the parts of the texture that shouldn’t be shiny on account of being charred. The shipdata.plist is commented. A video demonstrating the difference has been uploaded to Youtube and is being processed in this very moment.