I understand what you're saying, there have been features I'd really like to have seen go into the game which were rejected for reasons I disagree with. Take my military drives work for example. I personally thought there was some demand for that, several people downloaded and played it when I offered it as a binary, offered suggestions and really seemed to like it. I had further plans to restrict access to them in Federal systems, but allow them to be bought - illegally perhaps - in others, all that sort of thing that would flesh out the gameplay.

The trouble is that whilst my idea might actually be ok, I didn't go about getting it discussed and agreed with the main devs - even that isn't always a problem but with something like adding new equipment that changes gameplay it can be and if I'd discussed it first I'd have known before doing it that there were changes which might make it a lot less desirable to do at all!

Now an open source project with "main developers" might sound like a contradiction but all open source projects must eventually have someone, or some group of people, who make sure that the project doesn't become a dumping ground for completely random ideas and crap contributions. Work must meet a level of quality to get into the project otherwise it can become a burden to the project.

Sometimes that means an idea just doesn't make it, sometimes an idea - like my example above - just doesn't fit with the direction that the project is heading in.

It's a shame but that's the way it goes.

The only other option if it's really bothering you is to fork to project, call it something else and try to attract developers, perhaps unsatisfied ones from Pioneer itself.

The posts you've been making lately here, with new stations, interesting images of ships and planets and guide for new players have been really good and are at least as valuable as any of the code I've ever written - probably more so.

This is all contributing, directly, to Pioneer.

I believe that this thread is Gernot's reaction to our closing issue #1115 on the issue tracker. Anybody who is interested can go and read why it was closed. if they're interested.

If people wish to avoid disappointment, they really need to engage with the developers. Most of the developers do not follow threads on this forum. A great deal of the details of Pioneer are worked out on IRC, and the conclusions of discussions there appear on GitHub, either in the issues tracker or on the wiki. We're not "executives," we're just elsewhere.

Rob has already tried to reach out to Gernot, but either there's an impenetrable communication barrier, or Gernot wasn't interested. Either way, it's an impediment to progress. A threat to end participation is empty, when participation isn't fully entered into.

snakes, erm thanks 😀

this is understood and offense.

but to lead means first to follow...

at least worth to think about...

well, it's not that i really wan't to stop to contribute to pioneer, neither i like "plagiates" even if a forked new project isn't this, but personally i would feel as it is.

perhaps i just stay away from from active participating and will present my stuff only here.

not because git gives me still a headake, using the terminal to participate really isn't comfortable.

but let's say to be "off", simply to counter some which isn't kept proper imo.

people can download it and decide what they like or not themselfes, of course that means i have no influence to the ongoing of the project, but i havn't much anyway.

and perhaps i didn't wan't to, i mean i like to make models, i'm interested in coding but i have very little knowledge about.

cool reply 😎 , man

[/hr]

i play elite, but dislike elite in reality, perhaps i am elite, but i would hate myself for it.

if you had my forefathers, perhaps you would feel the same.

take it easy brianetta,

i'm not angry, robs answer to issue 1115 is correct, but also a misunderstanding.

nothing has to be changed, it's fine. but it should be respected how it works at least.

it's true it hasn't changed since the start.

i only thought this once, because all was turned upside down, i mean all zbias has been moved from the sub-models to the call of the sub-model, i was simply assuming it has changed.

i was already on the way to change all to the way you used it, until i noticed "hey, that still don't works this way!"

is it so hard to accept a given behave?

i didn't made the rules, i only follow the results.

if something didn't turns out like suggested, go another way to see if that will work.

if that wouldn't be a fact, we would have no computers, not even electricity.

empirical knowledge is the base of all science, after we can ask for the WHY.

BUT it is a simple fact that it didn't works that way, so why not respect that, why hang on to something that won't work?

it's true i had no idea about the purpose of the zbias setting before tomm explained it to me once.

consequently i used it and found out that a zbias set in front of a model call does simply nothing, it has no effect, that's all.

which has lead to the problem that a sub-model like the decals, which isn't used exclusively, must have a preassumed relatively high zbias to fit to many models as possible but to have a minimum print-through.

it doesn't have to be fixed and apart of that i believe it can't be fixed, not because yours not clever enough, because it's a logical problem.

to me it's really offense that a model can't have a zbias, because it's a MODEL and not a single geometry or mesh.

i've made myself a big head about that, also why .obj meshes don't need a position neither a vector for the zbias setting (you can say now WRONG, but also experience, before you shout WRONG, try and check the results, or do you think i'm only fantasizing?).

my guessing is that .obj have per face normals and every tri has it's given normals, position, directional vectors, i guess the position and vector for the zbias get's determined by this in the case of wavefront objects.

now to the problem of zbias for models (not geometry),

a model is (will be mostly) assembled from various meshes or geometries,

now tell me which is the reference plane the zbias will have to work to?

there is no such for a assembled model, unlike to a single geometry or a mesh.

imo, this explains (at least to me) why a zbias can't work for models and have to be set when the geometry gets generated or the mesh gets loaded.

further i know by experience that some gfx cards have no proplems at all with overlayed geometries while others start flicker heavy.

so if your gfx card shows no problem that didn't means it doesn't exist.

i'm by myself was trapped by that, and it took me a little while to understand what tomm has ment then, BECAUSE i couldn't see the difference on my machine (or only little, no flickering, only "sunken in" from certain view angles).

experiences of users like marcel has helped me then much to understand the problem, because he can see the heavy flickering on his ATI, likewise i can see it now on the MAC (even ATI powered).

i would be already happy if it would be accepted as a given fact, and not longer changed what i have made. it's not made without a reason, no coincidence or to little knowledge about the matter.

it's simply experience, nothing else.

to disregard me is ok. but to disregard a offense fact is...

to me this is a little like a broken cybernetical model, which continously runs in the same obstacle because it's sensors are blocked.

but humans are no cybernetical models, humans can learn by experience (in the worst case ).

or will you ever touch a fire after you recognized it burns you?

if something is hard to believe, make it proof, try to find out what's behind*.

if one (who ever) made once the little mistake to use the zbias in front of a model call, it shouldn't be dragged all along as a proper use, it should be revisited then imho.

btw, if i wouldn't respect experience more then theory i couldn't do my job.

theoretically if i use a spirit level for my work all must be perfectly levelled, practically it's not true, i need a lot of experience and a good eye or a laser level (today they are cheap, when i started 20 years ago far to expensive, experience is better in price. and still i only trust my eye and no laser level, still my constructions are perfectly levelled or even better, all in the same alignment, only experience can do this).

*

as programmers u can always just go ahead and create another branch of code and see where it goes, continue development and offer it as a mod, see if u can flesh it out and expand it and it might be intergrated later on, the military drives idea was reasonable needs some balancing. Perhaps corporate versions of different drives

Ah don't leave! You have taken the crazy lua scripted model system to heart, and made beautiful models with it!

Comrade, I couldn't agree more

“If the workers took a notion they could stop all speeding trains; every ship upon the ocean they can tie with mighty chains.” - Joe Hill

id suggest taking what u can do thats currently within the projects task list and just assist there create mods and branches as u think it can be useful. LUA work has been good so far.

tomm you know, i would give my right arm for you 😀

Remember though its usually this style of thinking , emotional outcomes from having effort knocked back by a centralised system of culling to fit a certain development style. So pots another option might be to take a step back attempt to help program some of the outstanding issues perhaps just the easy to do stuff. And see where it leads. Or see if u can get other contributors from outside to expand the breadth of the contribution list, the graphics with pioneer are good, the empire-colonisation-empire influence have been pushed back so where does the game go from here, more game enhancements continued graphics, an empty universe, a mission system that is sputtering along however it is making progress. A lack of new modules, AI is half done, back story, actually vega strike is doing all of the stuff thats missing here its graphics are low

It goes to show progress is possible though you might perhaps go across to vegastrike and encourage them here or contribute there. Alpha 21 coming up soon looking forward to the graphics and any other changes, just want to see a busy universe rather than a beautiful but empty version of space engine -.9.5 as that has already been done

Uh what influence

factors of influence, ie assiasinate the governor of a system and watch it fall into a more unbalanced political situation, blow up 20% of incoming trade traffic and watch the value of the system drop down. Build a pirate base in system and watch more pirates flock in. Build a colony and then supply it and watch it expand that sort of influence system

Not so much "pushed back" as "never part of the plan"

Never part of the plan for perhaps a couple of high up developers working on it currently thats quite ok. Player base seems to like the idea and other developers who may wish to contribute are quite able to start their own branch or submit their ideas and code along the way. The original posts on this forum were for long term open thinking and a lack of constraints on what goes into the game lets hope we move back toward and forward to that ideal

Ollobrain, you've been told before. It really isn't going to happen. Of course you're free to take Pioneer and start your own game based on it. You would need to, because the game you seem to want isn't the game we're making.