SpaceSimCentral

[attachment=774:Hamiltonworld10.jpg][attachment=775:Hamiltonworld11.jpg][attachment=776:Hamiltonworld12.jpg]

I want to build a castle here.[attachment=777:Hamiltonworld13.jpg][attachment=778:Hamiltonworld14.jpg][attachment=779:Hamiltonworld15.jpg]

have one of those minecraft mining guys drop em off to build ya castle

that's a cool world, all terrains in one raised gamma by 1.6[attachment=780:Zwischenablage-2.jpg]seems to be different, you used what of seed for it, none?, mine?, a different one?or after all a different build?

potsmoke66 wrote:


Quote:
Not to my knowledge. There were a specific set of bugs in alpha 10 that have all been fixed. What are you referring to?
nothing exact, only a feeling in my tommy, after stumbling over the many misbehaves like interrupted jumps (pirates.lua could be a reason, but not the source of it, i never have seen one pirate, only attackers when trying a classified delivery), non loading gamesaves, stating it couldn't load when the game is not running, only when started a mission.
As you know these have long been fixed in development and will be available in alpha 11.
Quote:
deadends after late arrival or similar. never ending jumps (2-3 months) until the game halts.
I'm not familiar with either of these. We can't fix bugs we don't know about.
Quote:
time seems to have changed to and after the first month only seconds will be counted, which has lead to several non working animatons at my models which depend on fractals of seconds (i have to use now os.clock() to make them work in all cases, but it won't be then reflecting game time, sometimes wanted; position lights, scanner, look stupid when the rotate fast, sometimes not wanted; pulsing lights on hyperdrive engines, clock(s) and such). after the first month all these animations stop or work only in 1 frame per second stepping. sometimes, i guess even due to that, the bulletin board didn't get updated no more, no matter how long you wait.
This interested me because I've also noticed that landing lights don't always blink at the same rate. After some experimenting I've come to the conclusion that using os.clock is the culprit. The OS clock is not locked to the frame rate so you get a differing number of frames across a particular time period. In the case of the lights, the solution is simply to replace calls to os.clock() with get_arg(1). It also makes things look much nicer - the lights stop when the game is paused and go faster when timeaccel is active. The next step will be to remove all mentions of os.clock through all the models.As you say though, things do slow down/stop as the game progresses. I looked into this and found its a simple loss of precision. The game time is a double-precision float, as are all Lua numbers. get_arg() however operates entirely in single-precision floats. After a month (some 3 million seconds) there's only two fractional bits in a float so only get 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75 for each second. Not long after that it goes down to one bit and then you lose the fractional component all together. The fix for it is simple - use double-precision floats in get_arg. I've made that fix and it will hit the repository this evening. It will be available in alpha 12 (its missed the merge window for alpha 11).So, in the future, avoid os.clock for timing functions - use the functions provided to you by the engine. And please, report bugs - this problem has existed since the beginnings of the Lua model system, and we didn't know about it. Workarounds are well and good but surely its better to fix the problem properly? That could have been done easily if you'd taken the time to report it properly. As I've said repeatedly, posting in this forum is not the right way to report problems. I personally try to read everything posted here, but some days I'm tired or don't have time, so I skip over things. The issue tracker however is something where every word is read in detail to try and tease out the issues. Don't expect anything posted here to get any movement if you haven't brought it to the attention of the devs.

Quote:
raised gamma by 1.6
Why didn't I think of that? That's what it looked like in the game. I'm running fabea7a-win32 unaltered.

Look at all the pretty lights![attachment=806:UV Ceti A 01.jpg]

Just for a second there Marcel, I thought your picture showed lensflare. Nice picture though

I see what you mean. That's actually the other star in a binary system. I thought it looked a bit like the nebula backgrounds that everyone around here hates.

Quote:
nebula backgrounds that everyone around here hates.
Hey I don't

Is discussing non-photorealistic space background forbidden? 'cos embedding something like [url]http://alexcpeterson.com/portfolio/spacescape[/url] ... with a more "realistic" twist of course, might be nicer than the current white points.

Quote:
Is discussing non-photorealistic space background forbidden?
It is something of a taboo yes ;)But on the other hand, the most beautiful nebula I ever did see, was a real one So lets add in real nebula.. eventually.Im not sure exactly but I reckon if you were only a few LY away from a nebula you would probably be able to make out a lot of details and colours provided you had an IR camera.s20dan covers his face to protect himself from the maniacal stone throwing

The nebulae are already there. They just don't show up at your resolution. (-:

hehe Damn my choice of cheap shoddy equipment.

"Chewie, We seem to be a long time from now in a galaxy far, far away..."[attachment=807:YT-1300-01.jpg]Gotta love that YT-1300. Thanks potsmoke!

s2odan wrote:


Quote:
Is discussing non-photorealistic space background forbidden?
It is something of a taboo yes
I'm so happy! At last people who feel like me. Ever seen Star Trek Online? They even put large drapes of blue nebulae around Earth! What a disaster.Maybe there's room for a few exceptions for systems far, far away. Maybe towards the galactic core. But otherwise ... I mean ... where's the nearest nebula anyway? Pleiades?

some of the best places I have seen yet,the main star in the picture is 2.73AU away

That illustrates nicely how far we have to go when it comes to rendering bright things. Those background stars should be invisibly dim with that thing in sight. Depending on the atmosphere, the sky probably shouldn't be black either...Still, it's an awesome sight.

Quote:
That illustrates nicely how far we have to go when it comes to rendering bright things.
Well considering HDR does that for you, then its not far at all (Its(star dimming) already there)But if HDR is in-fact active then there's a bug and it should be reported.Edit// Forgot to mention those pics are bloody awesome, except of course for the 'bug?' with hdr.

So where is Canbewa?