How Often...

Wiki pages · Post by **Thargoid** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 5:46 pm

I just tried a few systems including the one A_C told me he had problems, and on the last one got a crunch too. I'll do some other checks and sort things out to see if things can be made a little more reliable.

Not quite sure what the collision is with though, when it just happened to me I was staring out into space, as should be...

Rustybolts · Post by **Rustybolts** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 5:48 pm

When it happened to me i seemed to be sideways viewing horizon of planet.
I escaped it on a few other occasions by re-orienteering my vessel and hitting injectors before my shields depleted.

Website · Post by **Cody** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 6:22 pm

I've never crashed into a Witchspace Beacon yet.
As you always exit the wormhole at low velocity, regardless of your entry velocity, it must just be a numbers game (or should be) and it shouldn't need to be adjusted.

edit: mind you, I'm flying a standard ship. It may well be different for others.

Rustybolts · Post by **Rustybolts** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 6:56 pm

El Viejo wrote:
I've never crashed into a Witchspace Beacon yet.
As you always exit the wormhole at low velocity, regardless of your entry velocity, it must just be a numbers game (or should be) and it shouldn't need to be adjusted.

edit: mind you, I'm flying a standard ship. It may well be different for others.

Its not that you have time to react. The problem lies in actually exiting witchspace onto beacon. You just exit and explode. But since using 1.73.2 i haven't had this since (fingers crossed).
The problem i am currently disscussing though is launching from planet surface using planetfall.oxp where no beacon is involved it is just the altitude it launches you at.

Wiki pages · Post by **Thargoid** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 7:17 pm

If you want a quick test-fix, open the file script.js within the config directory of planetfall using a text editor (not notepad or word!) and search and replace "4000" with a larger number, for example "10000" (without the quotes in both cases).

It's only in the file in one place, and is the distance in metres that you get moved away from the surface at launch (the line starts let launchPosition =... and ends with a comment explaining what it's doing).

I don't have time tonight, but will have a play with it myself tomorrow night if I get chance and will update the OXP accordingly.

Rustybolts · Post by **Rustybolts** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 7:20 pm

If you want a quick test-fix, open the file script.js within the config directory of planetfall using a text editor (not notepad or word!) and search and replace "4000" with a larger number, for example "10000" (without the quotes in both cases).

kk ty

Alex · Post by **Alex** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 10:18 pm

Hi Commanders,
Flying a Caduceus, very rarely at less than full speed, Though exit from which space is always much lower.
Running 1.72.2 and have YAH.
The allowed distances explain why the instant collisions.
Only ever actually see the bill board as floating away from it after big bang.

Now the Q is, Any ideas on where I find these distance parameters?
So I can at least change them to allow more space.

Never had a problem taking off from a planet.

Post by **Eric Walch** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 8:07 am

Alex wrote:
Now the Q is, Any ideas on where I find these distance parameters?
So I can at least change them to allow more space.

This distance is hardcoded. But collisions with those billboards in 1.73 should be more rare than before.

Post by **Kaks** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 7:39 pm

You could of course do an oxp that moves the billboard during anshipExitedWitchspace() event. you can then move it closer or further away, depending on the billboard name. That way you could even have different billboard sizes placed at different distances... You can have a look at the way farsun repositions the sun, to see how that would work...

Alex · Post by **Alex** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 7:49 pm

Hi Commanders,

This distance is hardcoded. But collisions with those billboards in 1.73 should be more rare than before.

I'm a bit wary about taking new software, Thank Micro Scuzzbags for that.
Is 1.73 stable? Will it run happy on 1G ram, 1.2GHz cpu and 6200 Nav graphic card.
Version 1.72.2 with the oxpers I like are taking TDM (This Damn Machine) to it's limits.
I can only just run shipyards after taking out a whole heap of stuff from it, like taxi's and religious head jobs, black monks (which I can't run as a oxper, even as non shader, locks up TDM).

Any idea what lingo the core is wrote in? Maybe I can get a compiler to let me change my version.
That's probably the biggest thing about Oolite, You can go in and change your version.
Not as easy as it sounds;
Still trying to get my super cobbys aft Mil laser to auto lock and fire on baddies.
By the looks of my trash can, recon that may be wishfull thinking.

Happy hunting
Al

Website · Post by **DaddyHoggy** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 7:50 pm

Ahruman implied on another thread related to low spec machines that 1.73 is less intensive than 1.65 - whether it is less intensive than 1.72.2 I don't know - sounds like "suck it and see" to me...

Post by **Cmdr James** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 8:00 pm

Oolite itself should be just as runnable at 1.73 as any previous version. You might not want to enable all the shaders, but then this will still give you an experience as good as you have currently.

If I understand your question correctly, the core is written in objective C.

Alex · Post by **Alex** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 8:10 pm

Objective C, mmm, is that the same as C, C+, C++??
I'll get on to family and friends and see who has a compiler.
Thanks Commanders.
As always, a great help.

Happy hunting
Al

Post by **Eric Walch** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 8:20 pm

DaddyHoggy wrote:
Ahruman implied on another thread related to low spec machines that 1.73 is less intensive than 1.65 - whether it is less intensive than 1.72.2 I don't know - sounds like "suck it and see" to me...

In my experience I see no difference between 1.72 and 1.73 in terms of speed. Comparing with 1.65 is more difficult. On my previous low end machine it was clear that 1.72 could set up space on entering a new system much faster than 1.65. But in some systems it was impossible to fly in full screen mode with 1.72. (I could in 1.71). After touching a rudder key for a brief moment resulted in a complete loss of control in my flying. It took seconds before it recognised I released the key. Changing to windowed mode always solved that problem.

Alex · Post by **Alex** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 8:54 pm

Hello Commadore Walch

But in some systems it was impossible to fly in full screen mode with 1.72.

I always fly in windowed mode with the control toolbar on auto hide. The only difference is that there is a little blue strip at the top telling what prog is running. Oh, and...
I have instant access to ClymAngus's vector maps which sit in the back on min till needed.
Makes choosing random hits so much easier. Speacialy when your taking some Precious metals or gems somewhere.
No harm making some spondoolies on the way.

Happy hunting
Al