[Sticky] Issue tracker now available
Pioneer has an issue tracker! Please post bugs, feature requests and other things here:
Brianetta has kindly volunteered to take on the important task of regularly checking the queue and testing and following up and making sure the devs can get on with fixing the code. That is a huge job and will be a huge help. Thank you!
Please give as much information as you can when you create a new bug report. A simple report is good, but if its a reproducable issue please tell us how as this makes it much easier to track down. And always tell us which version you're working with (eg "alpha 9" or "nightly e71494f") and on which platform (Windows, Linux, etc).
If its a feature request, be as descriptive as you can. Tell us how your idea works, under what circumstances its triggered, what the HUD/UI looks like, all that stuff.
In both cases, the more info we have the easier it is for us to take make sure your contribution counts!
First of all, there is some error with adding new issues, possible temporal ("An unexpected error seems to have occured. Why not try refreshing your page? Or you can contact us if the problem persists.")
But whatever, this is the issue: Bentley Starport (Canqu [-2,-4]) is in wrong position. There is no possible to land in bay 2 due to collision with the planet surface. Alpha 9.01.
Mysibrat, that's probably temporary. There have been a few glitches like that since GitHub released a new issues tracker about five minutes after we started using their old one.
I've logged the issue for you; it is number 7.
The bug there is really in the placement of the star port, we could stop ports being placed like that, but it would stop cities appearing on cliffs which can look pretty cool sometimes...
Tom did have a branch which may even have fixed this by placing the cities onto a large platform, this would actually raise them up from the terrain slightly, which might give enough room to land in a situation like this.
That's quite a neat solution; perhaps easier than the possibility which Rob put onto the issues tracker about excavating a site suitable for the starport. (-:
Well, cliffs star ports are very cool, i agree. I would like see only port fixed rather than all city on the platform.
I think this is good moment to consider where is the optimal place for star ports.
IMHO not in the city. All possible arguments (from the real life point of view) telling that ports should be somewhere outside the city. Possibly on the crater centre (if we are speaking about Bentley Starport). Whou could imagine Panther Clipper navigating above dense populated areas?
Yes I think it would be easier. I was also thinking that it might be possible to ensure that the starport is built on a 100mx100m section of flat terrain based on the terrain slope, but only the starport should be checked, which should still allow cities on cliff edges. It would check the slope, if its too high, it could pick some random co-ords and try again....
Its different to the other idea you mentioned in that it does not alter the terrain in any way.
Ah, here's Tom's branch which I was referring to : https://github.com/tomm/pioneer/tree/city-foundations
All possible arguments (from the real life point of view) telling that ports should be somewhere outside the city. Possibly on the crater centre (if we are speaking about Bentley Starport). Whou could imagine Panther Clipper navigating above dense populated areas?
I think the current system we have now is fine for smaller population worlds. With those worlds it makes sense to me that the cities would be near the starports, as thats where all the commerce would take place.
But for larger established worlds, like our own pretty blue marble, I think its best to seperate cities and starports, like you suggested. Perhaps they are nearby, but the starport shouldnt really be the central piece of the city.
@s2odan I think the current system(...) piece of the city.
OK, thats sounds good.
no this is a good idea
I have an issue with alpha 10. The faces in the station video screens are not visible to me. I see the "video link established" message blinking on the screen but otherwise the screen is black. This occurs windowed and full screen. All the other space port icons, etc. seem fine.
XP Home sp3, Athlon 2500+, ASUS a7n8x, 1gb ram, ATI Radeon 9550 w/256mb
Oh dear, thx for reporting that Marcel. Hmm I have perhaps one idea, have you tried using the parts from the previous release?
The parts were recently compressed and although its a very remote possibilty perhaps your Gcard doesn't like that, it's the only reason I can think of for that...
Which parts from the previous release do you mean? My latest version is 5d61822-win32. I see a lot of differences between that and 10. I can go to the Pioneer site and download the latest version prior to alpha 10, but it'll take about 5 hours on my dial-up. I'm sure it'll be worth it if this works! 😀
marcel, do you remember the lanner? without textures, i have a ghost of a idea, where that can come from....
developers should read there self the wiki from time to time... 😆
it's exactly what i guessed, they forgot the power of two rule.
do you got a useful program to quickly convert the bitmaps?
else, i can do that in no time
it's good you reported that, because i can't see such i have no problems with irregular textures, but i know since then that this can happen with certain GFX cards.
it's a old rule, but is still valid.
uploading right now....
they might have lost a little quality perhaps, XnView has some limits (they get displaced to the upper right corner by 1 or 2 pixels, due to the bi-linear filtering), but it's great to do such jobs automated.
I thought of that and checked the background texture sizes in 5d61822-win32 (which works for me) and alpha 10 and they appear to be the same. They're not powers of two, but 5d61822-win32 shows the faces perfectly on my machine.
nonetheless try these
they was located under icons, them are even not 2^2, perhaps due to a rescaling of the content of the icons folder?
i don't know, just try the ones i uploaded, and tell us if it has worked out.
perhaps a little up and down is allowed, i can't neither tell, but as example that the odd ffed3d icons appear in 1600x1024, as well as in 1680x1050, it results into not exactly the same relation but still works in both, FFE is 320x200 or 8:5
i can see now what you mean it's true they was irregular to, but nonetheless, it could be that, until they got sort it out where that comes from, take the rescaled ones.
i would be really surprised if that didn't helps.
i know it's a fact, you will have to respect the power of two rule, of course a texture can be rescaled internally when caching to memory, which cost's a little extra time then i guess.
marcel, guess how a texture... no, how a mesh gets distributed to a texture, the texture has ALWAYS the size and RELATION 1:1.
i guess otherwise it isn't possible to handle them, but of course can a GFX card rescale to, i guess that's perhaps a reason why my ATI could produce different sized texture patches on a landscape, it makes then a "chaotic" look, small tiles, 8x8 up to big tiles 32x32 mixed, with using always the same texture. while my NVIDIA can't do such.
but you can't have everything, i guess either you can use irregular textures by default or you can mix scales but irregular texture are then not to handle (sounds logical no?) how should the card arrange them then? with quadratic i can imagine how that works, because you will always have a fitting value then (e.g 1st tex 32x32, on one side bordered by 8x8+8x8+16x16, next side perhaps 8x8+16x16, next 32x32 tile... and so on, can you imagine such, looks great for carpet golfing :lol:. while regular like i have now it looks like a checkerboard.
btw, chaotic arranged was only possible with OpenGL, when i run the game via DirectX i had checkerboard look to.
therefore i could add mower lines (is that right?) by pressing of a key under DX, which wasn't possible with OpenGL (also logical, how should that work when they are arranged chaotic?).
Thanks a lot man! I'm downloading them now and I'll try it out tomorrow. 😀
just as example, has not much to do with space sims but with texture use
ordered use of texture
disordered use of texture
fairway texture is exactly the same in both cases
all textures made by potsmoke66 😉
I can't think why the compression would make a difference. The pieces are loaded, decompressed and assembled into a face before being converted to a texture and pushed to the card.
I also have no idea what all this power-of-two business is about.
no it's not the compressing (by compression i mean the huffman table).
it's the regular or irregular size that makes the difference.
we had this problem 3/4 years ago, if i am right first reported by Marcel, because i posted some pictures of the lanner and he said he has no textures on the lanner. soon one or two followed and said, yes we haven't to, but we thought it's normal.
then i got after it, first i was assuming the wrong thing (compression, sorry my fault, i mixed up things already then), like often. and i guess it was Coolhand who gave me the hint, that this rule (8,16,32,64,128......) always has to be kept (it's good to have such a experienced modeler aside who isn't to eager to let himself down to our degree 😀 ).
then i remembered, yes i cut the texture for the lanner at midst, to make different color stripes possible, but i didn't wanted to use the whole texture for it. bottom and top had then each a texture size of 512x1024.
o.k, i made them quadratic again, and everybody was satisfied.
since that i always kept this rule, and also marcel did so, because he knew his problem and apart from that he would have been the first who noticed it. 😉
btw, coolhand is a freelancing modeler, so he knows "industrial standards" well.
you don't have to care where that comes from as modeler, just keep the rule if you like to sell your models to a release on the market.
really i can't explain, why they worked in the nightly builds, they was irregular the same way. i don't know, but i assume, the content of folder icons gets rescaled to 1:1.
if you got a little bit time to offer for it...
I also have no idea what all this power-of-two business is about.
I was clutching at straws offering the compression as a reason, but the other reason mentioned is to do with image dimensions. Certain dimensions cause issues with some cards. Its not 'power of two' as many current image dimensions are not to the power of two such as star and planet graphics some of which have odd dimensions.
But regardless what it is, certain dimensions for some images can cause issues on older cards as was evident with the lanner a few months back.
blender team is again cool,
if i look at nvidia for such they only telling me about their OWN IMPORTANCE to that evolution, eager you could say 😆
That probably is it. Gui::Image has code that rounds the size up to the nearest power of two before building the texture, and that is the one that is used for all the icons and the old facegen. The new facegen doesn't do the power of two rounding, it throws a single 295x285 texture into GL. I'll open an issue to fix this up as soon as Github comes back.
Somewhat amusingly, the code that I cribbed from in GuiImage.cpp has a comment reading "gl textures must be POT, dim > 64". If it had defined "POT" I would have got it right. Please everyone, make your comments explain the code 🙂
have you read the katsbits article?
if i follow what they mention, rescaling is bad for framerate, simply said.
POT'smoke man... 😆
i would have guessed anything except power of two.
not to long ago someone answered me at sci-fi meshes with something like
i was completely overwhelmed CGI? ok, computer graphics and some i, RTS? i googled for results: Radio TÃƒÂ©lÃƒÂ©vision Suisse, nah, can't be that guy was from the states or, Revue Technique Suisse RTS, Real Time Strategy what was he meant.
i told him then not to use to much abbreviations, i am not a native english speaking.
but POT is a hammer man!
btw, "Revue Technique Suisse" or in german "Technische Rundschau", my father was subscribed to, a very thick piece of "newsletter".
marcel, he was one of the guys in white overcoats, hopping around those giant machines.
everything i know about physics, math, geometry or electronic i know from him.
i guess i was aged 9 when he explained me the functions of "and" "or" and "nor" gates.
i wasn't much older when i build my first flip flop 😎
and it's really a shame i "wrecked" my millenium falcon with all the flashing LED's on it 😳
we was one of the first families in our county* that owned a electronic calculator, using nixie tubes for the display, build by my father of course, we wouldn't have had the money then to buy one.
*Glarus is not very big and populated foremost by "cowboys" and textile workers, like i was educated in.
don't ask me now why i never made it to electronics or computers then, they simply said i am to bad in math's.....
well, imo, someone should beat them everyday with sticks, until their back get's as bent as mine is, from working as "bob the builder".
that was really a good time back then, we used to sit together in his workroom, he was smoking permanently his gauloise bleu and soldering all this magical gimmicks together.
i know a word for my father and you as well i guess :ugeek:
Ah then that would make some sense then....
Edit// hehe I'm being dumb again 😉
Ya power of two seems like a reasonable requirement for textures, in fact I have never commited a 'texture' to pioneer that was not in those dimensions myself, UI stuff though was not needed to be in those dimensions at the time....