Oolite Bulletins

Could it be that you accidentally used a shift-space in the filename?

Nope - no spaces in filenames.
Either I'm just too dyslexic to see it or there was a hidden character in there.

hmmm :/ on the TRS80, pressing shift+backspace used to move the cursor back on a line but did not erase the previous character (i.e. it would just add the BS character to the end of the string being read) so it was possible to hide an instruction under a remark ... we used to do this on the schools primitive network so that other students would have to do their own work.

Ad if you do not know how that can work, you really need to stop receiving HTML or RTF emails, no doc attachments, and put your security software on danger money baby - now.

For the sake of keeping things moving: it has been suggested that the python class cruiser should be added to this set.

Proposal for Python Class Cruiser


Trouble is - it's lost it's boxyness.
(click on the thumb for a bigger pic)

The model is unskinned.

... I see that the PCC has a shader version, is someone still maintaining this oxp?

I'll add new models occasionally because drawing special-effects textures is very boring.

Hi Simon,

out of curiosity, how's the Neolite Companion shippack coming along, or is it available already somewhere?

Already installed neolite.oxp - very satisfied with the new looks - and remembered you were talking about this other set with alternative Iguana models and somesuch.

Keep up the good work

L

And now for something completely different! Just about every single bit of the game is basically looking amazing now, apart from 1 small thing!

I know I'm being cheeky here, but is there any chance of improving the look of a station's buoy?

I've no actual idea how, but there must be some scope for improvement...

Simon B wrote:

... I see that the PCC has a shader version, is someone still maintaining this oxp?

Nope. I don’t know whether it still works.

As a former PCC pilot, losing the boxy look wouldn't bother me! I like the new design. It would be important to me to keep the shark's teeth paintjob, though. Maybe, with that in mind, the ramscoop could be extended or moved forward to give a more jaw-like profile?

Simon B wrote:

For the sake of keeping things moving: it has been suggested that the python class cruiser should be added to this set.

Proposal for Python Class Cruiser

Trouble is - it's lost it's boxyness.

That's no trouble for me, and, as usual, I like the model you did create very much! This ship also looks to me like a pretty tough one, so the cruiser designation does fit very well for me.

Screet

Lestradae wrote:

out of curiosity, how's the Neolite Companion shippack coming along, or is it available already somewhere?

Look 7 pages back, it's link is written in very large letters!

https://bb.oolite.space/viewtopic.php?t= ... &start=450

Screet

Screet wrote:

Look 7 pages back, it's link is written in very large letters!

Huh, that's me being blind again, then

Thanks!

Lestradae wrote:

Hi Simon,

out of curiosity, how's the Neolite Companion shippack coming along, or is it available already somewhere?

Already installed neolite.oxp - very satisfied with the new looks - and remembered you were talking about this other set with alternative Iguana models and somesuch.

Keep up the good work :)

L

I should probably start a wiki page.

FWIW: the companion oxp does not correct the exhaust positions... it's not too far off though because those ships are mostly along the same lines as the originals.

Just some jarring notes like the chameleon having two exhausts for one port. I'll fix it with it's shaders.

I've been stuck getting decent normals for the anaconda - I think I need to go one resolution up. Also I've been somewhat mesmerized by those circular structures griff likes to do ... not being able to get a quick preview for each tweak makes it frustrating and slow. And I'm running out of Jameson's.

Of course - if I had any kind of discipline, I'd do the effects maps first.

Kaks wrote:

And now for something completely different! Just about every single bit of the game is basically looking amazing now, apart from 1 small thing! :)

I know I'm being cheeky here, but is there any chance of improving the look of a station's buoy?

I've no actual idea how, but there must be some scope for improvement... :)

Now that gets interesting - I've been experimenting here.

The current design for the buoys is so they can be seen. The navbuoy tumbles so it's surfaces catch the light - more visible.

With shaders, that is not so important - I can make them light up as much as you want even without flashers.

Which leaves the design petty open.

I figure the buoys double as communication aids etc too. I've been playing with designs based around a wand with three or four vanes like solar panels or heat exchangers radiating out.

Also on the list are escape pods, some less square metal fragment models, cargo pods, and stations. Mostly when I get too bored paintisg blue squares, red circles and all the intricate green shading which I'm using to control specular intensity.

I have to take the dirt layer, and the blacklining, and turn them green. Holes need to be totally green. Those grills I like so much are turning out to be fiddly. But I've figured I should make those grills which sit on the hull flush with a hole behind them, while those inset in the model could be ridged. But it does mean that the effects map works harder ... otherwise they'd be big black squares with a few spots here and there.

I'm ure that's why Griff goes overboard so easily - it seems an affront to leave the space blank.

One small thing about the cargo pods. Can we have some as standard that actually fit together properly please? the 5 pointers just don't cut it.

ClymAngus wrote:

One small thing about the cargo pods. Can we have some as standard that actually fit together properly please? the 5 pointers just don't cut it.

I was thinking that. I know the design was originally made to make the shape stand out in vector graphics (because nothing else is pentagonal prism... but they do not stack!

Simon B wrote:

The current design for the buoys is so they can be seen. The navbuoy tumbles so it's surfaces catch the light - more visible.

I’ve always assumed it’s supposed to look like a corner cube retroreflector, like a radar reflector (although technically the geometry is wrong). I did make it extra shiny to catch the light when I introduced the new material model, though.

ClymAngus wrote:

One small thing about the cargo pods. Can we have some as standard that actually fit together properly please? the 5 pointers just don't cut it.

Well - following the neolite doctrine, we'd need to imagine that the shape of the model is somehow representative of the way the actual cargo pod looks.

There are loosely pentagonal storage containers in real life - picture, if you will (or, if you won't, I'm easy) a regular sea chest. This is basically a box with a rounded lid. These stack about as well as the pentagonal prism, with similar effect.

There are other awkward shapes in common use - a barrel is round, and bulges in the middle. Some are oval in cross-section. Typically containing things which can be poured - from wine to tacks. Then there's amphorae. A great deal used to be shipped in these things, yet they don't even stand up, never mind stack nicely.

Of course - by "stack" I'm guessing you mean some sort of tessellated arrangement. So you'd be thinking along the lines of hexagons, triangles, or parallelograms.

Modern shipping containers are big boxes - in a ship, they are not usually closely stacked - you need a gap for the crane. Their shape is usually to facilitate trucking to and from the ports.

The shape of the standard cargo-pod may imply existence of some sort of standard fitting for cargo-holds. It needn't be the most efficient, just commercially successful. Perhaps Cargopod Inc makes it's money selling robotic cargo management systems for installation in ship's holds (you can jettison individual containers note) and the pod shape reflects this - it could be form a kind of vendor lock-in for their system, forcing everyone to adopt a similar shape for their own pods, or just an interstellar standard for something (like the size of a CD hole).

Using the sea-chest as a model would suggest that the cargopod is intended to be accessed via two of it's sides while it rests on another side. The bottom is smaller than the overall width because it has to fit a cradle or some sort of support booms, which would also facilitate robot forklifts and waldo-units moving the cargo around.

You get decent stacking if you line up the first row, then invert the second. The resulting double row has a flat top.

But without gravity, there are other options: you get nice fractal designs by grouping five pods so one edge of each points to a common center (then repeat with the larger structure). There are star-haped holes in the first iteration - which get more complicated as you get bigger - depending on the exact arrangement. The holes could suggest some sort of structure of the hold to support them - or, maybe, are characteristic of some sort of force feild.

So you see, I've been thinking about it.