April 9, 2011 at 11:07 pm #58305robnParticipant
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!April 11, 2011 at 2:20 am #79274
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.April 11, 2011 at 4:27 am #79275BrianettaParticipant
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.April 11, 2011 at 10:14 am #79276
Hey 🙂Quote: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.
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.April 11, 2011 at 11:04 am #79277BrianettaParticipant
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. (-:April 11, 2011 at 11:17 am #79278
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?April 11, 2011 at 12:15 pm #79279Brianetta wrote: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. (-:
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-foundationsQuote:
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.April 11, 2011 at 3:46 pm #79280April 13, 2011 at 6:10 pm #79281ollobrainParticipant
no this is a good ideaMay 14, 2011 at 8:12 pm #79282
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/256mbMay 14, 2011 at 9:56 pm #79283
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…May 14, 2011 at 10:17 pm #79284
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! 😀May 14, 2011 at 10:29 pm #79285Potsmoke66Participant
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.May 14, 2011 at 11:09 pm #79286Potsmoke66Participant
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.May 14, 2011 at 11:11 pm #79287
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.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.