Oolite Flavours

[phkb]

How very diplomatic.

You don't want to see me being non-diplomatic.

(BTW, artefact is spelt with an E. Artificial is derived from artifice, not artefact.)

Unless you read a lot of American fiction growing up, in which they all tended to spell it "artifact", and thus so do I. Sometimes. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/artifact

[Wildeblood]

The eight charts (yawn, "galaxies")... should have always been near the top of the list of things to get rid of.

I presume that changing the Vanilla Game Code to allow more than Classic Elite's 256 systems per galaxy would solve this.

If we could have thousands/millions per galaxy than the Classic Elitists could stick with their 8 x 256, you could have your 1 x 613,248,365 and the rest of us could gaze on in awe and admiration...

Don't be sarcastic, Cholmondely. Leave that sort of unseemly behaviour to me. Having more than 256 systems per chart is something I've seen you mention several times. But I think that's an unproductive suggestion. Your computer screen won't grow any larger. Adding more systems just increases the density of dots on the chart screen. Soon enough the chart would lose any obvious structure, i.e. every chart would look the same and there would be no isolated systems. So, to increase the number of systems while maintaining the current density, what you're really suggesting is a physically bigger chart, pixel-wise, i.e. a chart that extends <- out there -> and is always scroll-around-able. That would require a lot of coding that you won't do, and I won't do, and I wouldn't expect anyone else to do.

We could also hide systems (Raxxla) and start adding in any non-GalCop registered ones!

You can do all that now with javascript, it's just that no-one has bothered (presumably, because it would be a time-consuming and thankless task).

Personally speaking though, I see a 3-D F6 screen as more important...

When you say a 3-D screen, what exactly are you thinking of? Do you imagine all the systems on the chart are lying in a 2-D plane? What would need to be different to allow you to believe they are not? Some "lollipop" display like the IFF scanner, with lines showing systems ostensibly "above" or "below" the galactic plane? Is that what you mean?

[phkb]

You can do all that now with javascript

There are limits to what can be achieved with JS. You could create a space (reachable by misjumping between two planets), turn off the Thargoids, add a planet or two, some stations, even get some traffic moving around. But you can't add a sun via JS.

[Wildeblood]

(BTW, artefact is spelt with an E. Artificial is derived from artifice, not artefact.)

Unless you read a lot of American fiction growing up, in which they all tended to spell it "artifact", and thus so do I. Sometimes. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/artifact

Yuck. Disabuse yourself of that habit immediately.

(There's a helicopter passing overhead, and there were police sirens about 20 minutes ago, I should probably load the shotgun in case there's an axe-murderer on the loose in my neighbourhood.)
(Oh wait, this is Australia. I don't have a shotgun.)

While I'm picking on your spelling, you habitually misspell the pronoun its as the contraction it's. Unremarkable in itself, many people do. But I've seen you correct someone else on exactly the same point, so I know you know it's wrong.

(The current premier of Western Australia is the grandson of a notorious serial murderer. If you wrote that family's history it would read like one of those "epic" 1970s American TV miniseries.)

[Wildeblood]

You can do all that now with javascript

There are limits to what can be achieved with JS. You could create a space (reachable by misjumping between two planets), turn off the Thargoids, add a planet or two, some stations, even get some traffic moving around. But you can't add a sun via JS.

You can redraft all the details of all 256 systems, and present chart 1 as chart 9 the second time around. The only new thing we'd need for that would be the ability to change the screen title from JS.

[phkb]

so I know you know it's wrong.

So why don't we agree to not correct each other's spelling, going forward?

You can redraft all the details of all 256 systems, and present chart 1 as chart 9 the second time around. The only new thing we'd need for that would be the ability to change the screen title from JS.

But I don't think you can change the positions of any of the systems. You can change the name and such, but galaxy 1 will always look the same on the long range chart.

[Cholmondely]

You chaps are having this discussion at c. 3am on your side of the planet?

Talk about dedication!! I'm impressed!!

[phkb]

3am on your side of the planet?

Well, it's 12am here in Sydney at the moment. But I'm going to have to call it quits now - work tomorrow!

[Wildeblood]

So why don't we agree to not correct each other's spelling, going forward?

You want to take away my only remaining source of joy in this miserable world?

You can redraft all the details of all 256 systems, and present chart 1 as chart 9 the second time around. The only new thing we'd need for that would be the ability to change the screen title from JS.

But I don't think you can change the positions of any of the systems. You can change the name and such, but galaxy 1 will always look the same on the long range chart.

You don't show all systems. You hide enough systems to alter the memorable topography of the chart. When I started experimenting with (you'll need to remind us what the system property is called, sorry) I saw that hiding a few key systems quickly changes the overall look and feel of the chart. You certainly don't need to hide half, as I had previously suggested.

[Wildeblood]

You chaps are having this discussion at c. 3am on your side of the planet?

1. You're keeping Kiwi time.

2. I can't sleep, knowing there's an axe-murderer on the loose.

[Cholmondely]

New Flavour: Exploration

Ideas.

Include:

1) Either

Here be Dragons hides the unexplored systems on the F6/F7 pages (2012-19). Unexplored systems are still shown on the map but all F6/F7 details of them are hidden.

or

Zero Map - Explore the galaxy hides the unexplored systems on the F6 charts: customisable (2016) Only neighbouring and local systems (within 7ly) are shown on the map (this is customisable). On the F7 screen, vanilla game details are hidden, but details from Smugglers, Diplomancy, Galactic Almanac etc. are still displayed.

2) Explorers' Club OXP - updated/modified to include Aquatic's Aqualina stations, Isis's Cebior station, Draven's Veisin station. And depending on what Littlebear gets up to with his rejig of The Assassins Guild, some of those worlds, too.

3) Famous Planets

4) Stuff to explore:
G1: TOGY/TCA/Lave/Tianve/Riredi/Taranis
G2: Isis Interstellar Station OXP
G3: Aquatics
G6: Draven
G7: The Assassins Guild
G8: Iron Raven

There will probably be other mission OXPs which add things of interest, but I've not played them/don't know them

It would be nice to include the HIMSN naval stations, but we would need to come up with some way of dropping hints as to where to find them!





Exclude:
?


We might wish to consult the Life President of our Explorers' Club. Paging Mr Wildeblood! Come in, Mr Wildeblood, over!

I can't sleep, knowing there's an axe-murderer on the loose.

[Wildeblood]

Paging Mr Wildeblood! Come in, Mr Wildeblood, over!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yu_Rang

[Cholmondely]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yu_Rang

What on earth is the "family minister of a minister"?

[hiran]

Now that the contextual jukebox is easily available I'd like to it widespread. After all it makes playing a lot more fun without changing Ooniverse, gameplay or else.

Which flavours would it fit in?

[Cholmondely]

Now that the contextual jukebox is easily available I'd like to it widespread. After all it makes playing a lot more fun without changing Ooniverse, gameplay or else.

Which flavours would it fit in?

Probably all of them. If we had equivalent Jukebox OXPs then we could mix and match, but without any others....