Possibly the most stable version to date.

Yaay! Its Friday AND Alpha 20 is out! Weekend sorted! 😎

Is there a reason that you don't post the changes on the news announcement page?

It means that to see what is changed, people have to go to the forums, then find the relevant thread. It would make it a lot more convenient for "readers and observers" to just include the full text of the first post in the announcement OR link to this thread directly.

A release notice is posted to http://pioneerspacesim.net/news . It explicitly says that the changelog can be found on the download page, which it links to. If that's all you're interested in it then you have it right there. I also post details to this forum because its where the community hangs out, as well as posting to Google+ and Twitter.

If you have suggestions on how release communications could be improved, we'd be happy to hear about it. Double points if you're willing to help with it (a release currently takes me a couple of hours).

Not sure what you mean. The news page shows only a couple of lines (with new feature highlights), and links to the download page, which has links and the full text of the changelog. It even says as much. There's absolutely no requirement to come to this forum to see that.

You ninja, Rob...

Thanks for the new release, can't wait to run out of fuel 😀

It 's been a few versions i wanted to mention this, but always forgot as it's not a place i visit usually.

On the Epsilon Eridani start, there's the gaz giant Hercules

But when i fly somewhere nearby, what i see is that :

Is the texture supposed to be that dark by design ?

someones tried large ship, >500 t ?

the fuel cunsumption is horrible, i like that they need a lot but that's far to much, imo.

i tried to test my "Terra" ship (250t,750t,drive7) i loaded 100t of water after using ~50t i still didn't made it into space!

i guess i need all 750t capacity for fuel to get to the next spacestation. 😆

edit: very sensitive to the power of used drives, sorry!

with the standard eagle all is clear

else

"looks fantastic!"

[/hr]

@Robsoie

obviously you're on the backside?

but i can be wrong

You're in a procedurally-generated universe, so very little is "by design". But yes, right now Hercules has an incredibly dark, dense atmosphere, so its yellow-orange surface doesn't show through.

Ah ok, i asked because in the other screenshot that i uploaded (the one in which you can see every planet, moons and space stations of a system), the gaz giant didn't showed with that dark color.

A "real" massive ship would likely require a lot of fuel. Bring water 🙂

Have you added the new fuel attributes to your ship_defs? For example, the Hammerhead has:

If you don't have these attributes set appropriately for your ship the defaults will be used, which if I remember correctly are nearly always using too much fuel.

Would there be a replacement for the HDR??

I know that this was mentioned in another post and I concur that the HDR made some objects and textures look ugly. But

colors and effects (especially daylight in planets) actually improved with HDR. I don't actually miss it but would be great if there are plans for something better.

There are plans, though not much in motion yet. Basically we'll be looking at each visual in isolation and figuring out how to make it look the way we want it, rather than trying to make a one-size-fits-all solution that ends up not really working properly in most places. No ETA - volunteer projects are like that 🙂

I noticed that now those #*&#%s! at the spaceports are now charging a docking fee like they did in Frontier. Thanks a lot! 👿

I missed that! 😎

Yeah, you might want to go somewhere cheaper than Sol...

yes, i noticed it quickly after, that's why the "edit:" (sorry)

that's fine so far.

BUT

i noticed one (small) other problem 🙄

it's the new deliver package script, first you get rewarded 10 time to much imo, but i guess that's a deniable and easy to fix error.

second, it looks like you invested a lot in calculating the durance of a flight, but the result is unsuitable, mildly said.

you would need a "stargate" to get in two days to the next system. 😉

can't it be kept as simple as before? it has worked fine, some you could reach some not, that's enough imo. and screwing up the average durance a bit has helped to make them a little less periculous (before it was also often impossible to reach most systems in time even with the "eagle".

We're aware of the issues with the new script. Those rewards aren't 10 times too much - if you can get those packages delivered on time, you deserve every cent. Also, my admiration. I do know that it's possible.

Needless to say, we're working on that.

edit: ok, i take that back 😉

the rewards have a very wide span from 400 to 40'000 for interstellar deliveries, reachable they seem both, if it's true what i get as travel time (before alpha20 i noticed i had to add 20% at least compared to what is calculated, i.e. if 30days it needs 40days for the hyperspace travel, i assume this is for a empty ship, if loaded it will take some time extra).

i'm still busy with updating all my models 😉

edit2: not quite true

already the estimated travel time exceeds all interstellar delivery missions, and still you had to add 20 - 30% for a travel because of the additional mass a ship will have with it's equipment.

can't made it even with the "ADC-44", which is a real fast ship due to it's low mass (30ly range loaded = 12t total mass).

this can't be made in no way, imho.

common start with the eagle, selected a average delivery mission. (rewards "only" 3900.00)

[attachment=1099:Bildschirmfoto 2012-03-12 um 15.43.22.png]

[attachment=1100:Bildschirmfoto 2012-03-12 um 15.43.27.png]

[attachment=1101:Bildschirmfoto 2012-03-12 um 15.43.55.png]

what ship do you think can get there in 9days? the hyperspace travel needs already four times of that, and you still need to fly to the target.

even if i take my "ADC-44" i will need 20 days at least to get there.

until i haven't found one that is possible, low or high rewards.

btw, interplanetary deliveries are scarce in time but ok.

New alpha looks great!

New fuel system... is going to be great.

I think you need to dial it back a bit/tweak it over the next couple of versions.

Buy an Eye, try flying to Neptune, orbiting Triton then flying to Pluto... holy crap it eats through the water (actually it probs better to say 'gulps down the water')!!!!

I know there'll be counters to this saying 'well that's realistic etc'... I agree fuel should be a factor, but I think it burns through it too quickly currently and you just need to dial it back a bit.

Frontier ships burned fuel to get around the systems too (the same fuel as what u used to jump) but its km per tonne ratio across the entire gamut of ships is way more user friendly than the current KPT of the Pioneer ships.

Great idea though! I look forward to future tweaks.

PS: is it worth doing a blank 10 tonne capacity increase across the entire range of ships... ur having to carry even more fuel now, so its even less room for cabins, shields and commodities ?

The Eye has an edge - it's very light. Most of its mass was turned into fuel tank. So, if you're ever really low on propellant, ditching cargo will very likely give you additional delta-V you need to dock or land safely.

For now local nav on manual is very hard, it is nearly blind flight. No idea when to brake, so if the computer is not effective dosifying the propellant whe are going to be floating lost in space a lot of times... 😀

Not sure what you mean. I always use less propellant than the autopilot, but I don't reach my destination as quickly. I'm certainly not flying blind.

i guess that's the trick 😉

no idea when to break? get experienced or take a calculator... (i prefere the first, usually approx. half of the way, turn the ship around and break with forward thrust, the needed way to break is the same as the way needed for acceleration).

i can't tell you exactly how pioneer handles this right now.

BUT i can tell you exactly how FE2 handles it, i need less fuel or i arrive earlier, depends on how long i accelerate.

in case of accident you can also perform a sling shot, good luck commander

fortunately (and i mean fortunately this time) the autopilot will run out of fuel.

you are the pilot, not the machine!

it's no fun when all runs automated (even if i'm aware that some might like that and that such would be reasonable in 3200, but i guess i speak for all the FE2 cracks here).

i hope that will stay (forever).

@trumpet

need a pimped up eye? something that get's you anywhere?

i can do that for you and if you like only for your actual saved ship.

either i fix you a script for the eye (will change all eye) or i edit your savegame (tunes only yours), but you would have to send a savegame to me.

I guess The idea of manual navigation is to be more effective on propelant use. But without aids, the effectiveness is not so good as it could be. Games like Orbiter uses a lot of flight info stuff to make the flight very close to a real manual flight, this is, flight to orbit in a less automatised way than NASA or ESA do. And it is hard!

Of course, Orbiter uses less propellant and it burns easily fast. No Scifi there or very close to reality.

So my point of view is: Or Pioneer implements some kind of nav aid (Orbit shown, etc..,), or the automatic pilot is more effective, or the ships uses more prop, or the waste rate is lower.

My idea would be more nav aids. lke a ship´s Orbit in the system screen. very visual, no numbers like in the Orbiter Space Sim screens, but enough. I think it has been discussed before.

All of this is to own a rational idea of the nav choosing in every moment. Help the player to have the concept idea of the game, "To be effective with propellant Fly in manual, here is all the info you need. In the screen."

Now a step forward is done with the lock direction system. It helps to know at least where are you pointing in orbit exactly. Was it neccesary? In a newtonian sim the answer is yes.

Greetings.