For information and discussion about Oolite.
https://bb.oolite.space/
You don't want to see me being non-diplomatic.
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/artifactWildeblood wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 12:54 pm(BTW, artefact is spelt with an E. Artificial is derived from artifice, not artefact.)
Wildeblood wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 9:54 amThe eight charts (yawn, "galaxies")... should have always been near the top of the list of things to get rid of.
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.Cholmondely wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 11:17 amI 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...
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).Cholmondely wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 11:17 amWe could also hide systems (Raxxla) and start adding in any non-GalCop registered ones!
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?Cholmondely wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 11:17 amPersonally speaking though, I see a 3-D F6 screen as more important...
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.
Yuck. Disabuse yourself of that habit immediately.phkb wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 1:02 pmUnless 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/artifactWildeblood wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 12:54 pm(BTW, artefact is spelt with an E. Artificial is derived from artifice, not artefact.)
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.
So why don't we agree to not correct each other's spelling, going forward?
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.Wildeblood wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 1:59 pmYou 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.
Well, it's 12am here in Sydney at the moment. But I'm going to have to call it quits now - work tomorrow!
You want to take away my only remaining source of joy in this miserable world?
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.phkb wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 2:04 pmBut 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.Wildeblood wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 1:59 pmYou 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.
1. You're keeping Kiwi time.Cholmondely wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 2:09 pmYou chaps are having this discussion at c. 3am on your side of the planet?
Wildeblood wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 2:25 pmI can't sleep, knowing there's an axe-murderer on the loose.
What on earth is the "family minister of a minister"?
Probably all of them. If we had equivalent Jukebox OXPs then we could mix and match, but without any others....hiran wrote: ↑Sun Aug 18, 2024 8:20 amNow 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?
