Board Index | Search | Profile |
Page 1 of 4 |
[ 59 posts ] | Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next |
Print view | Previous topic | Next topic |
Author | Message |
---|---|
Main: Spartan 141
Level: 3448 Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 1:00 am Posts: 392 |
So i saw this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ul-MiX1Qge0 id like to sugest that we put the unique engine trails back in, so the grape is pink and tiny eddison is long and bubbly ect. that way my engine trail is based on my engine and not this tiny glowing blob in the back of any ship i have. also a docked ui option with the ship centered in the middle of the undocked space would be a brilliant addition to the SS client that many of us old players and some new would like. i currently hate how i have to have my inventory/map/star systems in the middle so i can click on floaties and have that space practically wasted if i want to use it to click on something. PS: sorry about my horrible grammar i dont write papers for a living so i dont use it correctly i type how i speak. if enough people sign these ill put them up in the sugestions page _________________ anilv wrote: Visorak wrote: I thought everyone was secretly a Trader operative? Absolutely no comment. |
Tue Jul 29, 2014 10:20 am |
|
Contributor
Team:
Rank: Soldier Main: Hober Mallow Level: 4886 Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 3:08 pm Posts: 3191 |
I made a big fuss about engine trails more than 6 months ago, talked to Jeff and Bageese directly about it. Talked to Jey too. Basically, they told me they didn't know how to make it work without causing more problems.
Long story short, we're going to be stuck with shitty excuses for engines for a long time. _________________ http://www.starsonata.com/suggestions |
Tue Jul 29, 2014 11:41 am |
|
Team:
Rank: Soldier Main: LemonPrime Level: 8087 Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 10:14 pm Posts: 5747 |
MasterTrader wrote: I made a big fuss about engine trails more than 6 months ago, talked to Jeff and Bageese directly about it. Talked to Jey too. Basically, they told me they didn't know how to make it work without causing more problems. Long story short, we're going to be stuck with shitty excuses for engines for a long time. I miss Arrow Zest. _________________ Lemon/Meo |
Tue Jul 29, 2014 11:45 am |
|
Main: Mow
Level: 9759 Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:57 pm Posts: 4731 Location: Kuratovo, Russia |
ELITE wrote: MasterTrader wrote: I made a big fuss about engine trails more than 6 months ago, talked to Jeff and Bageese directly about it. Talked to Jey too. Basically, they told me they didn't know how to make it work without causing more problems. Long story short, we're going to be stuck with shitty excuses for engines for a long time. I miss Arrow Zest. _________________ |
Tue Jul 29, 2014 12:13 pm |
|
Team:
Rank: Soldier Main: LemonPrime Level: 8087 Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 10:14 pm Posts: 5747 |
Tomzta09 wrote: ELITE wrote: MasterTrader wrote: I made a big fuss about engine trails more than 6 months ago, talked to Jeff and Bageese directly about it. Talked to Jey too. Basically, they told me they didn't know how to make it work without causing more problems. Long story short, we're going to be stuck with shitty excuses for engines for a long time. I miss Arrow Zest. _________________ Lemon/Meo |
Tue Jul 29, 2014 1:09 pm |
|
Main: Spartan 141
Level: 3448 Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 1:00 am Posts: 392 |
Tomzta09 wrote: ELITE wrote: MasterTrader wrote: I made a big fuss about engine trails more than 6 months ago, talked to Jeff and Bageese directly about it. Talked to Jey too. Basically, they told me they didn't know how to make it work without causing more problems. Long story short, we're going to be stuck with shitty excuses for engines for a long time. I miss Arrow Zest. _________________ anilv wrote: Visorak wrote: I thought everyone was secretly a Trader operative? Absolutely no comment. |
Tue Jul 29, 2014 1:39 pm |
|
Team:
Rank: Director Main: Biggee Level: 3017 Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 4:27 pm Posts: 659 |
Is the issue the particle engine being inefficient for performance?
_________________ uhmari wrote: When i look at uhmari, I can see clearly the problems in it |
Tue Jul 29, 2014 2:11 pm |
|
Dev Team
Team:
Rank: Officer Main: Jey123456 Level: 4359 Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 11:51 pm Posts: 3366 Location: who knows ? |
Performance isnt "too" much of a problem anymore since there are control in places to automatically tune particles depending on load.
The main obstacle left to get proper engine look is to actually design them. We have the engine definitions C1 used, we just need to somehow convert those into a particles engine definition parameters sets and use it instead of the current one. This is already what the current one do to an extent, but it doesn't cover all the old params. Getting it to look right is a whole other story tho, its easy to get it looking right with orthogonal camera, but with isometric view, you need a whole lot more definitions in your particles for them to look ok. _________________ One of the first and proud flight controller. Visit our website: http://www.ef-team.com |
Tue Jul 29, 2014 2:38 pm |
|
Main: Spartan 141
Level: 3448 Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 1:00 am Posts: 392 |
Jey123456 wrote: Performance isnt "too" much of a problem anymore since there are control in places to automatically tune particles depending on load. The main obstacle left to get proper engine look is to actually design them. We have the engine definitions C1 used, we just need to somehow convert those into a particles engine definition parameters sets and use it instead of the current one. This is already what the current one do to an extent, but it doesn't cover all the old params. Getting it to look right is a whole other story tho, its easy to get it looking right with orthogonal camera, but with isometric view, you need a whole lot more definitions in your particles for them to look ok. So i am guessing that the engines in the demo video were only a couple very specifically created engines? _________________ anilv wrote: Visorak wrote: I thought everyone was secretly a Trader operative? Absolutely no comment. |
Tue Jul 29, 2014 3:08 pm |
|
Contributor
Team:
Rank: Soldier Main: Hober Mallow Level: 4886 Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 3:08 pm Posts: 3191 |
Jey123456 wrote: Performance isnt "too" much of a problem anymore since there are control in places to automatically tune particles depending on load. The main obstacle left to get proper engine look is to actually design them. We have the engine definitions C1 used, we just need to somehow convert those into a particles engine definition parameters sets and use it instead of the current one. This is already what the current one do to an extent, but it doesn't cover all the old params. Getting it to look right is a whole other story tho, its easy to get it looking right with orthogonal camera, but with isometric view, you need a whole lot more definitions in your particles for them to look ok. So it sounds like the issue I brought attention to, and the fix you implemented as a result, really helped? I'm assuming it will take a LONG time to get each engine looking right, and that the only reason this isn't being done is because of a lack of staff... Right? _________________ http://www.starsonata.com/suggestions |
Tue Jul 29, 2014 3:58 pm |
|
Team:
Rank: Director Main: Biggee Level: 3017 Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 4:27 pm Posts: 659 |
I think the biggest issue is that the C1 particles were not volumetric and that there isn't an easy way to convert 2D particles to 3D volumetric particles while retaining the same look and feel throughout.
For example, the arrow zest would volumetrically be a cone, whereas another engine might just be an amorphous cloud shape. That data isn't in the C1 particles, so it would take someone going through each engine to make sure it looks appropriate from top-down and isometric view. _________________ uhmari wrote: When i look at uhmari, I can see clearly the problems in it |
Tue Jul 29, 2014 4:36 pm |
|
Dev Team
Team:
Rank: Officer Main: Jey123456 Level: 4359 Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 11:51 pm Posts: 3366 Location: who knows ? |
assuming your talking about the "fix" where i reduced the length of smoke engines then yes it really helped, but its only a quick thing. A proper fix is on the table for it, just not on the stuff I'm currently working on yet.
And yes, 2d particles convert very badly to a 3d system hence why if the game was ortho camera only it wouldn't be a problem since i could just emulate the 2d result, but it look very wrong when you start playing with the camera angle xD. _________________ One of the first and proud flight controller. Visit our website: http://www.ef-team.com |
Tue Jul 29, 2014 5:59 pm |
|
Contributor
Team:
Rank: Soldier Main: Hober Mallow Level: 4886 Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 3:08 pm Posts: 3191 |
Jey123456 wrote: assuming your talking about the "fix" where i reduced the length of smoke engines then yes it really helped, but its only a quick thing. A proper fix is on the table for it, just not on the stuff I'm currently working on yet. And yes, 2d particles convert very badly to a 3d system hence why if the game was ortho camera only it wouldn't be a problem since i could just emulate the 2d result, but it look very wrong when you start playing with the camera angle xD. There literally is no reason to use any other camera angle... _________________ http://www.starsonata.com/suggestions |
Wed Jul 30, 2014 3:32 am |
|
Team:
Rank: Soldier Main: LemonPrime Level: 8087 Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 10:14 pm Posts: 5747 |
MasterTrader wrote: Jey123456 wrote: assuming your talking about the "fix" where i reduced the length of smoke engines then yes it really helped, but its only a quick thing. A proper fix is on the table for it, just not on the stuff I'm currently working on yet. And yes, 2d particles convert very badly to a 3d system hence why if the game was ortho camera only it wouldn't be a problem since i could just emulate the 2d result, but it look very wrong when you start playing with the camera angle xD. There literally is no reason to use any other camera angle... The tilted view still looks like ass to me as most ships are far too flat and it makes it hard to aim. _________________ Lemon/Meo |
Wed Jul 30, 2014 3:40 am |
|
Main: Spartan 141
Level: 3448 Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 1:00 am Posts: 392 |
ELITE wrote: MasterTrader wrote: Jey123456 wrote: assuming your talking about the "fix" where i reduced the length of smoke engines then yes it really helped, but its only a quick thing. A proper fix is on the table for it, just not on the stuff I'm currently working on yet. And yes, 2d particles convert very badly to a 3d system hence why if the game was ortho camera only it wouldn't be a problem since i could just emulate the 2d result, but it look very wrong when you start playing with the camera angle xD. There literally is no reason to use any other camera angle... The tilted view still looks like ass to me as most ships are far too flat and it makes it hard to aim. Personally id like to start a petition to just remove angled cameras _________________ anilv wrote: Visorak wrote: I thought everyone was secretly a Trader operative? Absolutely no comment. |
Wed Jul 30, 2014 7:43 am |
|
Page 1 of 4 |
[ 59 posts ] | Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next |
All times are UTC - 5 hours |
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests |
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum |