Nightly builds

[ollobrain]

GAlex wrote:
hi to all in this forum, i'm new here, but i've tested this project since alfa8 and i find all this an impressive piece of software and a good promise for an awesome full and expandable game. for this i want to thank all that have worked and those who still works on this project.BUT, since i've seen you are opened to ideas, here's my 2cents on scanner ranges: in 21th cen. we have radars that scans hundreds or thousands km away. i think that at the end of 32th cen. a ship should be able to scan the space in the range of ... say 100000 km minimum in deep space (surely much less near planets, where altitude is displayed). more, there could be some sort of mass scanner (like the sonar in a submarine) able to identify the mass signature of bodies in space.so you will have, like old fe2 & ffe a color scale brief indication of the mass of other ships. plus you'll have system bodies echos on the scanner.maybe, for practical use, a ship could have long range (say 100000km to 1000km) less accurate scanners for navigational purpose and early alert of proximity, and a more accurate 2way short range scanner for final approach (1000km to 50km) & combat (less than 50km) purpose.in that case, a ship will be "plotted" on the hud as soon as it enters the long range scanner perimeter, and a first alert is then raised: at this point no more info is available, only the ship transponder signature ("unknown" or "no response" for hacked pirate or secret military ships).as soon as it enters the 1st short range perimeter, the "mapper" (if fitted) should begin retrieving raw data from the targeted ship (class of the ship) and the mass scanner should identify the level of the "threat". if signature is available, given the ship class, the main compute of the ship could query the naval database and search and display the eventual bounty.in the 2nd short range perimeter, full data is displayed by mapper (if fitted), plotting hull and shield integrity and maybe scanning some cargo signature, like animal/human/radioactive/chemical/metallic presence; the short distance could permit the mass detector to precisely "weight" the target ship mass and display it (to give us, the pilot, a brief information on opposite inertia and thus reactivity in navigation manouvres).(again i write too much... sorry for this!...)
No i like this idea some sort of ranged radar-scanner. Gives u basic details and if u want to investigate further then u get closer higher risk higher detail of target

[Brianetta]

GAlex: That's an excellent suggestion, and it really belongs on the issue tracker, where it won't get overlooked or forgotten. The link's in my sig, just down there. You'll need a Github.com account, but they're free and harmless.

[GAlex]

@brianetta: done.er.. how do i add the requested feature label? or it's up to you?

[Brianetta]

GAlex wrote:
@brianetta: done.er.. how do i add the requested feature label? or it's up to you?
That's my job. All new issues are emailed to me, and I tag them up for the devs.

[robn]

10 May 2011 - 18f049eThere's been a flurry of activity over the last few days as we prepare for the alpha 10 release (just a few days away hopefully!). Lots of bugfixes and other minor tweaks are in this build, but the main thing you'll notice is that the female faces are now working.I look at that and think that if the future looks like that then perhaps I'm quite happy to stay here, but that's just me

[ollobrain]

is there any planned changes as far as donations to the various charities ie to arms dealers will this lead to more illegal guns on markets, will donating to travel agencies lead to more potentially moving passanger missions and so forthFemale faces are looking good

[robn]

ollobrain wrote:
is there any planned changes as far as donations to the various charities ie to arms dealers will this lead to more illegal guns on markets, will donating to travel agencies lead to more potentially moving passanger missions and so forth
You already know the answer - no plans, ideas welcome, working code even more welcome. Alpha 10 is sporting a sweet (and heavily documented) module/mission API so you'll have lots chance to experiment with this sort of thing very soon.

[s2odan]

They're just as frightening as the men....Well ok, maybe not quite as frightening

[Subzeroplainzero]

robn wrote:
I look at that and think that if the future looks like that then perhaps I'm quite happy to stay here, but that's just me
Haha you picked quite a freak out there! Somehow though, I think I still would.......

[GAlex]

is there a change in data/ or in the seed or algorithm used for planetary generation?'cause many interesting places (planets) just disappeared since 5d61822... in this build there's a lack in earth-like planets (ST "M-class")...as an example: where is the habitable planet in Altair gone?and there are some odd spiky planets (mostly small rocky balls) scattered around, ugly to see and very difficult to land on (seen also in 5d61822 in Alioth system).more, i noted an inconsistency in planet's data: 1 - how could a planet orbiting at 0.027AU from it's type G or K star be icy and at -273°C when a rocky one much more distant give a +50°C or more?2 - how could a planet with atmosphere be colder than its rocky moon (encountered many times in my travels)3 - volcanic planets should have a plus in temperature given their naturethese are only neutral consideration from what i saw jumping around in the neighborhood of Sun.thanks in advance.

[Brianetta]

GAlex wrote:
is there a change in data/ or in the seed or algorithm used for planetary generation?'cause many interesting places (planets) just disappeared since 5d61822... in this build there's a lack in earth-like planets (ST "M-class")...as an example: where is the habitable planet in Altair gone?and there are some odd spiky planets (mostly small rocky balls) scattered around, ugly to see and very difficult to land on (seen also in 5d61822 in Alioth system).more, i noted an inconsistency in planet's data: 1 - how could a planet orbiting at 0.027AU from it's type G or K star be icy and at -273°C when a rocky one much more distant give a +50°C or more?2 - how could a planet with atmosphere be colder than its rocky moon (encountered many times in my travels)3 - volcanic planets should have a plus in temperature given their naturethese are only neutral consideration from what i saw jumping around in the neighborhood of Sun.thanks in advance.
The Pioneer universe is not fixed yet. With the exception of a small number of hand-made systems, it's not possible to rely on specific planets existing. They have changed, and they will change again, and this remains the case as long as Pioneer is in an alpha version.Hand-made systems are supposed to be rare exceptions. Rather more numerous are the 1,000 or so nearby stars, which are only defined in terms of location, name and star type. The rest is psuedo-random. Work is on-going on the balance of planet types and so on. It's chaotic; even a minor change to the number of gas giants to rocky planets, for example, will probably render every system very different. The last of these, I believe, came when white dwarfs were tweaked so as not to have unrealistically close planets.Other work is taking priority right now, but the balance of the system generator is something that will be tweaked until it's right. Until then, don't buy any real estate.As to your numbered points:1. Atmospheric conditions, perhaps? Venus is hotter than Mercury because of this. You're probably right, though, if there are lots of obviously extreme cases.2. Reflective atmospheres (or any high albedo surface) means less absorption of radiation, and lower temperatures.3. Not always, but mostly, sure. Triton has cryovolcanos, and isn't warm at all.

[GAlex]

Brianetta wrote:
As to your numbered points:1. Atmospheric conditions, perhaps? Venus is hotter than Mercury because of this. You're probably right, though, if there are lots of obviously extreme cases.2. Reflective atmospheres (or any high albedo surface) means less absorption of radiation, and lower temperatures.3. Not always, but mostly, sure. Triton has cryovolcanos, and isn't warm at all.
1. yes, but mercury is NOT an icy planet at absolute-zero. Venus is "hotter" than mercury (the goddes of Love surely is "hotter" than a carrier pigeon) because of it's atmosphere? Yes, and this bring us to...2. make ANY atmosphere the most reflective (pure carbon-dioxyde atmosphere should work) but infrared pass through the clouds, warms the soil that radiates part of the heat received plus what comes from the interior of the planet itself (radioactive elements, volcanism, tidal effects) and create some "effetto serra" (i can't translate in english, sorry, it's the heat feedback from the atmosphere to the soil). moreover, atmosphere helps distributing the gradient of temperature from the lighted hemisphere to the dark one, thus raising the medium temperature at the surface.3. cryovolcanos are present on moons of massive planets and are caused by endothermal heat that the moon receive via tidal effect from orbital resonance with the planet and other moons (the case of Io, Enceladus, Triton). this results in an increment of the body temperature respect to other bodies orbiting at the same distance from the sun. a planet or moon doesn't have to be warm to be volcanic, but if it is volcanic is warmer (Io is warmer than Europa, Enceladus is warmer than Rhea but colder than Titan given Titan dense atmosphere).I think i've been correct in my assumptions, but i'm waiting to be denied. if not i think the engine should make use of these simple criteria.

[robn]

GAlex wrote:
I think i've been correct in my assumptions, but i'm waiting to be denied. if not i think the engine should make use of these simple criteria.
As Brianetta quite clearly stated, the system generator will be worked on before the final release of Pioneer, whenever that may be. At that time it will be studied, the relevant research considered, and something produced that provides a reasonable balance of realism and fun.If you want to expedite that process, you're quite free to download the code and implement your ideas - I'd love to see some live tests. Until then, you're free to discuss your ideas but please do not insist that it be done your way.

[ollobrain]

other bits, comets, asteroid belts, keipeir belt objects.

[Feenicks]

ollobrain wrote:
other bits, comets, asteroid belts, keipeir belt objects.
They all sound very nice.

[GAlex]

robn wrote:
If you want to expedite that process, you're quite free to download the code and implement your ideas - I'd love to see some live tests. Until then, you're free to discuss your ideas but please do not insist that it be done your way.
@robn & @brianetta: please, forgive my bad use of english language... i was thinking in italian and writing in english, a mistake i should not do anymore...i'm very sorry you had the feeling i was trying to impose my ideas. i wasn't insisting at all, only arguing what was supposed to be a suggestion... you know, italian (and tuscan much more) are talkative and polemic... i'll control myself better for the future.as for coding my thoughts ... i'll give it a try!

[robn]

23 May 2011 - fabea7aThis is a huge build! A whole bunch of stuff was finished off over the weekend so you get it all at once.* New fonts and font configThe font rendered has been heavily updated and the fonts have been switched to Titillium Text for the GUI font and Cousine Bold for the world (ie ship model) font (though the latter was chosen to sort out some potential licensing troubles, and looks the same). Of particular interest in font configuration files in data/fonts that allow you to modify some of the details of how the fonts are drawn. This is foundation work for some bigger changes that are coming down the pipe (like use of multiple fonts in the interface).* New open-air ground stationsPhilbywhizz has put together some great new open-air ground stations. There's four variants of the pad station, with 1-4 pads. There's also the beginnings of an airport/runway station, though its not fully working yet. Undoubtedly this will uncover a raft of problems as we've never had ships docked outside a station before, but this is an exciting way to start finding those!* Thruster control in set-speed modeThis is one of those things that is trivial to implement but gives fantastic results. Now, while in set-speed, you can use the thruster controls to temporarily override the set-speed mode. When you release the controls, the ship will correct itself again. This allows very fine positional adjustments and is great for manual landing.* Heaps of fixesThere was a bunch of small issues in the tracker - crashes in odd cases, layout problems, starports not quite in the right place, that facegen power-of-two bug that stopped it appearing on some graphics cards, and so on. Lots of them are fixed in this build. See the Changelog for full details.

[Marcel]

Just took fabea7a for a spin. Looking good guys! My saved games work and I can see faces again! It's great to be able to land outside, and that runway thingy is... interesting. I assume the pads and runways have to be elevated to keep them above ground level. No, that wrong. Ground not level. So I'm wondering, after I land on a pad and get out of my ship, how do I get down from up there? An elevator, or am I supposed to use my jetpack? Hm... jetpack... interesting thought. I've been waiting for mine for years. I hear that we may be able to exit the ship eventually. Orbital skydiving, anyone? Thanks everybody!

[Guest]

Gudadantza wrote:
-The same with the open hangars and runways. It will add a lot of diversity to the game.
Thanks for the feedback guys.To answer some of your questions, yes the runway and landing ports are 'up in the air' because I was finding that when the ground was uneven (like Brasilia) v(0,0,0) was underground.The 'runway' idea is more of a proof of concept while I was playing around the lua scripts and learning how pioneer does its modeling. My aim would be to when you autopilot to the station it will look like your aircraft is landing, and when you take off you take off on a horizontal direction with a little bit of 'lift' instead of launching vertical.Always looking for feedback.

[robn]

Philbywhizz wrote:
To answer some of your questions, yes the runway and landing ports are 'up in the air' because I was finding that when the ground was uneven (like Brasilia) v(0,0,0) was underground.
There's an open issue about this. Ideally we want the terrain under the station to be flat, either by searching for the optimal area or excavating the space under the starport.