SpaceSimCentral

Quote:
with realistic accel. to?, no > 10g, relation between main thrust and lateral in a realistic range? !
Problem is, no continious acceleration beyond anywhere than maybe a few mili-Gees is really in any range to be counted as realistic(TM). And you need a bloody NASA-grade autopilot to navigate at such low accelerations, so I wouldn't say that we should go too realistic with ship designs. It would completely alter the game's dynamics (apart from driving the devs crazy).I'm kind of divided on the Frontier-ports issue. Pioneer would get more of its own flavour having only original ships, but on the other hand the Frontier vessels have a wide fan-base and people are already familiar with them. And we already have a lot of them. Add to that that most of the frontier vessels are more kind of re-imaginations, since their originals only provided siluettes, and the rest is original content by the modeller (I mean, compare Steve Tylers Viper with the original Viper... It really isn't quite the same ship, is it?), and I think there's enough grounds to build on the Frontier verse.Indeed, the real question is if Pioneer should be a re-imagination of the Frontier verse (factions, background story, etc). If yes, then we can't do without the old vessels. If no, they shouldn't be in it.

i remember the timewhen pioneer was looked at as a frontier remake/re imagining .............. .......if that is still the case than to not re imagine the ships and storyline/factions would be insulting to fans of frontier since your already using the same interface and controlls/game physics enginei think if you were gonna create a game of your own out of this you should start from scratch .......but as this game stands now you are already appealing to the frontier crowd so their is no harm in re imaging these other things to make them your own (that way they become yours).......im sure if i was david braben i would be honoured by this and it wouldnt have a problembtw ........can i just state somthing here ...on the case of realism vs noti am a physics and realism fan .......but not to the point where it detracts from gameplay .......its all to easy as a sci fi fan to pick holes in ANY form of sci fi film .....saying that coloured ships wouldnt be realistic .....but im more the kind of guy to say that i dont care if somthing isnt realistic ......as long as its just fucking coolto me the whole idea that humans will be able to colonise space in the way we do pioneer is bloody stupid in the first place (its going to be a military thing TBH)..........but im not moaning about it because im a sci fi guy over a realist any day and im only a realist when it comes to the tiniest of details ...not the bigger picture i say space is dirty .....not because its real ....but because it makes spaceships look the shit .....used over sparkling any day i sayi say space is like the sea ....not because its full of space whales ....but because its full of ships, and is as unknown to us as the ocean once was, and because these ships would still need a command structure similar to the navy to be run properly ......so yeah ....having a galactic NAVY and colonial MARINES (even though their is nothing marine like about space) makes sencei say its like firefly .......a new frontier to be tamed ....like the USA once was during cowboy timesi say we will form alliances with other races in exploration and war like star trek.......because its just what we would seek to do as a race (i dont care that we cant get along with our nearest neighbours ....... i know that if extra terrestrial life existed we would form one single council representative to deal with them and come together to approach them)i say that even though space is 3 dimentional ....we will still only have ships that have the one front end and back end ........because thats what we do (i dont care if its wrong to look at it that way .......its just what we would do)i even dont care that ships wouldnt have a top and bottom .....if ships existed in a artificial gravity well so people could walk around not float ....they most certainly would ......i dont care that its not real .....i care that its fun to think of these things ..........simply because i dont want to quibble about weather it is realistic for someone to just be able to simply take a shit in spacein short ....i dont think it hurts to be real ...but i think its better to just let your imagination rule you so that a game or film you make is fun ......otherwise its not science fiction ....its just science ....and science as a whole is interesting to me (to the point i like reading the cold hard facts) .........but boring as hell to use as a fun element of your life (game wise for example)if i want facts ..i play about with celestiaif i want fun .....i play frontier

UncleBob wrote:


Quote:
with realistic accel. to?, no > 10g, relation between main thrust and lateral in a realistic range? !
Problem is, no continious acceleration beyond anywhere than maybe a few mili-Gees is really in any range to be counted as realistic(TM). And you need a bloody NASA-grade autopilot to navigate at such low accelerations, so I wouldn't say that we should go too realistic with ship designs. It would completely alter the game's dynamics (apart from driving the devs crazy).I'm kind of divided on the Frontier-ports issue. Pioneer would get more of its own flavour having only original ships, but on the other hand the Frontier vessels have a wide fan-base and people are already familiar with them. And we already have a lot of them. Add to that that most of the frontier vessels are more kind of re-imaginations, since their originals only provided siluettes, and the rest is original content by the modeller (I mean, compare Steve Tylers Viper with the original Viper... It really isn't quite the same ship, is it?), and I think there's enough grounds to build on the Frontier verse.Indeed, the real question is if Pioneer should be a re-imagination of the Frontier verse (factions, background story, etc). If yes, then we can't do without the old vessels. If no, they shouldn't be in it.
All i tried to do with the viper was take the old form (the angles of the sides, the shape and proportion is basically identical to the old model) and make it look like something that was really being manufactured, and add details to perhaps make it more functional, as well as hopefully pleasing to the eye without making it a totally new ship.... To Slightly resculpt it to make it more realistic in the context of a 'HD' version of FFE - Remember the model was actually made for FFED3D and not pioneer. (I had nothing to do with its conversion to pioneer, or its unfortunate rescaling (it was designed for the larger scale used in FFE, i had nothing to do with adding that pilot model or giving it stats that basically made it the worst ship in the game - certainly in its class... last time i looked anyway. The poor thing has been quite abused by the pioneer devs. )I see nothing wrong (for what its worth) with having reimagined classics alongside newer designs, the game will always be an homage to frontier, and has those elements simply resculpted in a more modern way - alongside newer stuff, so the philosophy should be the same with the ships.As for me, i had more stuff in mind but i'm done with this anyway, since the few things i've developed for the game have never been added to an official release I don't really see the point. Also there's a huge number of models that are in now -, unfortunately most of them look terrible, but i feel if i were to replace some of them that i perhaps wouldn't be supported by anyone - i.e. they'd never make it into an official branch because they'd be displacing someone elses model (which to be honest i don't want to do either - i don't want to ruin anyones fun or overwrite their models) or perhaps just because its me making them. I'd like to make a really awesome Cobra or Asp and i could probably execute those models better than anyone else here, but they've already been done... (I'm also not trying to piss anyone off or sound like i dislike anyone personally or suggest any deliberate persecution, I am not trolling as one or two other posters around here appear to be (whether or not their opinions are valid, there's no need to be unpleasant). i think my comments might be more cutting for one or two individuals and i don't like to feel that i'm doing that. It's why I don't comment here much either, i often feel if i'm being honest, its about stuff that people just don't want to hear, i'm not really interested in being too chummy with anyone on the (fairly small clique of a) dev team so I feel very much like i've always been on the outside looking in on a galaxy where coder is king and i think that has an effect on how i'm related to - Funny how i've made the odd suggestion in the past, it gets dismissed completely at the time (either the problem i'm talking about doesn't exist or its irrelevent or something) and months later i'll try a new alpha and see that my suggestion had been quietly implemented.)Maybe thats the same for everyone else too, but its a shame there's no one with more graphics experience in that core group. Unfortunately graphics on the whole for the models its like a bunch of stuff thats been thrown in there as quickly as possible, and it shows. Stop referencing 10+ year old games for graphics ideas, modelling standards, etc. Perhaps don't even look at todays games, go and look at movies, at high detail models and high end concept art and try and convert that standard to a realtime model instead. Get as close as you can to the source... not the interpretations... All those 20 triangle models and wireframes from the old games were not a literal form imho, they were an interpretation of something that looked a lot better and as far as the player was concerned a jumping off point for the imagination.. because you really had to use your imagination and allow the suspension of disbelief to take hold.. those 16 triangles suddenly became a far more interesting, living ship - for me anyway.. at the age of 12. But ya know it's still early days, I can see pioneer being developed for a *VERY* long time I hope that when I come back to pioneer in a couple of years then we'll see things done to a more consistently high standard perhaps more talent will come along and be granted a little more status and listened to a bit more. And if its well enough executed it doesn't matter if its entirely new or an homage to the old, as far as the ships go I just dislike the cheap conversions that are little more than the old model with new textures. I think the actual simulation of the ship needs to be looked into a lot more.. working cargo areas, 3d interior models, clickable cockpits (a bitmap overlay is so lame) and really make it the living breathing ship that forms the core experience of pioneer.. the ships are really the most important part.. they are your way of interacting with the galaxy.. and even if we can leave the ships and free-roam at some point, the ships are still the important part.. I hope we can one day free roam inside the ships and operate the doors etc... as you can inside the normandy in mass effect for example.

@CoolhandWhy haven't we gotten any of your work into the game? I'd like to help with getting any of those, or other, ships into the game!What would you need/like me to do?Andy

Quote:
As for me, i had more stuff in mind but i'm done with this anyway, since the few things i've developed for the game have never been added to an official release I don't really see the point.
That's pretty sad. I wasn't aware of that, the only things I saw from you for pioneer were the Viper (which is in) and the Sasquash, which is understandable that it didn't get implemented, since there's no place for ground vehicles. I didn't know that you did some other stuff, then again, I'm only lurking here from time to time and am currently more active because I want to experiment around with some playable content I would like to see added to the game.I was hoping from time to time that you'd donate a few more models. The current models range from excellent (your Viper) over solid medium down to bearable and finally to downright unaxceptable, or at least far from finished. The problem I could see with someone of your caliber contributing more is that it will be difficult to get a consistant quallity into the game. I simply don't think there are lots of people that could live up to the high standards, so that some models just would stick out too much. After all, you can't do all of them. Still, I think it's not a good idea to discourage such a potentially invaluable asset to the project like you.
Quote:
unfortunately most of them look terrible, but i feel if i were to replace some of them that i perhaps wouldn't be supported by anyone
That's always the trouble when you have no clearly defined project leader (or at least designated areas of responsibility among the leaders) that says what goes and what doesn't. I think personal pride of contributors wouldn't be an issue when quality standards are clearly defined. Then again, to get a project like this on the road the devs have to rely on it that a lot of people will contribute some content, and if the quality requirements are too high, it will be difficult to get anything added to the game...For what it's worth, I wouldn't mind if my model would get replaced with something more shiny...
Quote:
I hope we can one day free roam inside the ships and operate the doors etc... as you can inside the normandy in mass effect for example.
As nice as that sounds, I think it's also allways important to keep track of what takes how much effort and how much it contributes to the playing expierience. Having really good ship models is certainly worth the effort, as the ship is basically your Avatar in the game. Having detailed interiors... probably not so much, considering the effort needed for it. The Normandy was just ONE ship, after all.

Coolhand wrote:
As for me, i had more stuff in mind but i'm done with this anyway, since the few things i've developed for the game have never been added to an official release I don't really see the point. Also there's a huge number of models that are in now -, unfortunately most of them look terrible, but i feel if i were to replace some of them that i perhaps wouldn't be supported by anyone - i.e. they'd never make it into an official branch because they'd be displacing someone elses model (which to be honest i don't want to do either - i don't want to ruin anyones fun or overwrite their models) or perhaps just because its me making them. I'd like to make a really awesome Cobra or Asp and i could probably execute those models better than anyone else here, but they've already been done...
Who did you approach to have your work included? If you just posted it to the forum, it won't ever be put into the game. We don't go around the forum looking or content.All content included with Pioneer must be released under a GPLv2 compatible license. We don't assume that work showcased in the forum is licensed that way. We can't make such an assumption.The best chance you have of getting work into the game is to create an issue on the issue tracker on Github. Nothing on the issue tracker is ignored.

UncleBob wrote:
I was hoping from time to time that you'd donate a few more models. The current models range from excellent (your Viper) over solid medium down to bearable and finally to downright unaxceptable, or at least far from finished. The problem I could see with someone of your caliber contributing more is that it will be difficult to get a consistant quallity into the game. I simply don't think there are lots of people that could live up to the high standards, so that some models just would stick out too much. After all, you can't do all of them. Still, I think it's not a good idea to discourage such a potentially invaluable asset to the project like you.
+1 from me too. Steve, you are a super talented guy. I recall on the Frontier forum when you first posted your Viper and thought at the time, "that's a beautiful render". When I later found out you could actually fly it in FFE, I nearly fell off my chair! If that wasnt enough, there was that wonderful cockpit you made too. Stunning stunning work.Please reconsider withdrawing from the project Steve. It really needs people like you involved. You have the vision, you have the talent and I think I can safely say the admiration of the Elite community for the great models you have made so far. As for the variable quality of the existing models, everyone needs a benchmark to aim for. You could provide that benchmark and in so doing, raise the overall quality. Steve, I am very saddened to think those ships in your post above will never be seen in the game, they are beautiful Please reconsider. You help to make my dreams of Elite real

Coolhand wrote:
As for me, i had more stuff in mind but i'm done with this anyway, since the few things i've developed for the game have never been added to an official release I don't really see the point. Also there's a huge number of models that are in now -, unfortunately most of them look terrible, but i feel if i were to replace some of them that i perhaps wouldn't be supported by anyone - i.e. they'd never make it into an official branch because they'd be displacing someone elses model (which to be honest i don't want to do either - i don't want to ruin anyones fun or overwrite their models) or perhaps just because its me making them. I'd like to make a really awesome Cobra or Asp and i could probably execute those models better than anyone else here, but they've already been done...
This forum is not a reliable way to get hold of the devs and offer contributions. If you want something included, make an issue on the issue tracker or contact someone (me) directly, who will do that for you. Everything on the issue tracker gets remembered and reconsidered every so often. If you don't do this, then you're trusting that someone will pick up your work.For your stuff in particular, I have two of your contributions in my branches right now - some updated laser textures, and a mesh that could replace the laser point sprites. (issues #148 and #149 respectively). Those issues are still open, which means they're not forgotten. They're just waiting for someone with the time and inclination to implement them.If you've done other stuff then either it got lost in the forum, or its on the issue tracker and I just don't remember right now. If it is on the issue tracker, go and check that the issue is still open. Give it a bump if you like so the appropriate people are reminded of it.
Quote:
(I'm also not trying to piss anyone off or sound like i dislike anyone personally or suggest any deliberate persecution, I am not trolling as one or two other posters around here appear to be (whether or not their opinions are valid, there's no need to be unpleasant). i think my comments might be more cutting for one or two individuals and i don't like to feel that i'm doing that. It's why I don't comment here much either, i often feel if i'm being honest, its about stuff that people just don't want to hear, i'm not really interested in being too chummy with anyone on the (fairly small clique of a) dev team so I feel very much like i've always been on the outside looking in on a galaxy where coder is king and i think that has an effect on how i'm related to - Funny how i've made the odd suggestion in the past, it gets dismissed completely at the time (either the problem i'm talking about doesn't exist or its irrelevent or something) and months later i'll try a new alpha and see that my suggestion had been quietly implemented.)
Something that does happen from time to time is that an idea comes up and doesn't seem like something that will work, but later when we're approaching a problem from a different angle someone will remember something someone said once and it turns out to be a good solution. I don't know specifically what you're referring to, but that has happened before. Its not bad thing.Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but it sounds like you want to have lots of input into the game without the effort and responsibility that goes into that. Its just not possible. There are several people, myself included, who throw hours a day into managing and working on Pioneer - writing code, making models, discussing and fleshing out ideas, working the issue tracker and responding to feedback. Because these people are active and involved their voices are stronger than someone that makes the occasional forum post.The vast majority of the discussion happens in the IRC channel. We welcome anyone that wants to get involved to join and contribute. I can understand that from the outside it might seem like a bit of a black box but at least its a black box that everyone can get inside. I can guarantee you that if you were in there regularly prodding people to implement something you need or asking for feedback, you'd get it quickly and your work would end up being merged. If you're not visible though then you get forgotten. Its that simple.

@Coolhand, I don't think you have to worry about stepping on anybody's toes if you redo the Cobra. Seriously, please stick around. I know the GitHub thing is rather bureaucratic and counter-intuitive, but if you have something you want added, I'm sure you can make an 'issue' of it. Didn't you do that cool panel upgrade that got lost in the aether a while back? I'd like to see that in the game too. As for quality standards, I'm a total amateur at this stuff. For me this is a challenging and rewarding hobby. I'm learning as I go along, and if you leave and come back in a couple of years, I hope you'll find my stuff to be marginally acceptable. Tomm threw together some models for Pioneer so he could have something to work with, hoping that some real modelers would step up and provide content.@potsmoke66, I opened spacestations.lua and --ed all the texture calls to hull_1, deleted the cache again and still get the same error, img load: couldn't open data/models/hull_1.png. Is there a bad texture call in a sub model somewhere? The texture is in the stations folder.@spike1984, Have you flown to Gates spaceport? If you have, I may have installed this wrong, and should erase it and start over.I'm going to put this aside for now 'cause I want to get back to upgrading Philbywhizz's pad station. (almost done!)

Marcel wrote:
I know the GitHub thing is rather bureaucratic and counter-intuitive, but if you have something you want added, I'm sure you can make an 'issue' of it.
In what way? That's a serious question - if you have a better suggestion as to how we can track requests, patches, etc without things getting lost, we're interested.

Quote:
if you have a better suggestion as to how we can track requests, patches, etc without things getting lost, we're interested.
The problem is not with GitHub, the problem is that most people are not used to use it. For one it requires an additional registration, which will probably put some people off, second they're not really knowing what they exactly sign up for, and third they are used to such things being restricted to developers. You put a request on the forum, it gets discussed in length, finally the devs decide to add or not to add it to the official features request list which is usually secluded from the average board member. That's the way it usually works, and that's the way most people assume it works. They don't expect that they can just go to GitHub and plant their silly ideas directly into the Dev's schedule without any prior review. It scares the hell out of you the first time. Like you'd have to take of your shoes when going over there or something. It's Developer territory, and newcommers are usually more comfortable to stay out of it, because you never know what an enraged Dev might do to you when you mess something up over there...Of corse that's not the way you guys handle things. But it's the way newcommers expect things to be handled.The other thing is, it's called an Issue tracker. My first thought when I saw it was "great, if I ever encounter a serious bug I can post it there. There's probably a long form to fill out about occurence and reproduction of the bug etc, but that's ok with me, I have expierience in reporting bugs". That was my first thought, and I have expierience with that kind of thing (which is probably why I supposed a long form to fill out for a bug report). It needed some continous prompting by the dev's for me to get over there, register and post "here's some small Ideas I had...". It's not what you expect to do on an issue tracker. There's always the slight fear of a Dev jumping out of a corner and screaming "Thou shalt not spam in our sacred roadmap!". At least the first few times.Maybe a sticky named "how to make feature requests" and one on "how to send in contributions to Pioneer" shortly explaining the (not exactly usual) policies here would be a good thing. Sure, half of the people won't read it, but the other half will at least know exactly what they have to do, and that it's totally ok to do it.EDIT: Point in case from the Alpha 16 thread:
Quote:


Brianetta wrote:


UncleBob wrote:
I just wanted to put this up on the forum to check for confirmation before making it an issue on github.
Always stick it on Github. We have a dedicated person (me!) whose task is to find duplicate issues, categorise them and so on, so you're not actually going to be making extra work for the devs if it's already a known issue.We do know that input support isn't quite what it could be. (-:

See? That's me STILL thinking that it's common procedure to first get some confirmation for an issue on the forum before actually making it one. It doesn't come easy...

Ditto what UncleBob said. It takes some getting used to for non-programmer artistic types. That's why it takes so much coaxing to get us over there. :Dp.s. No, I don't know of a better way.

ok marcel, the solution is rather simple.somehow "data/models/spacestations.lua" isn't empty, as i've planned it to be, to work around a additional deleting of it.simply delete "data/models/spacestations.lua" it's the same file as "data/models/stations/spacestations.lua":oops: edit: i will update the file of courseground_stations_p66_nov2011_2.zip[/hr]coolhand if you move in, i can take my walking cane... i hope i didn't mismatched the scale of the viper... i can't exactly tell actually but i remember i rescaled only one fe2 conversion, the Constrictor, this only because if you compare the ships from viper over cobra to constrictor to asp the constrictor is nearly double in size as the asp, something's really wrong there. in FFE it get's even more worse and certain ships are complete out of scale, i.e. the "gyr" if i remeber right (re-scale for a ffed3d export is ~10x a little less or a little more, depending on what model you take as template, usually it's the wheel stations portal height).btw, i can see no problem keeping the viper or other rebuild Frontier ships, just my transscriptions are very, very close to the original and that could be a problem once. further a simple rescaling won't change that (i.e. for the Eagles), every vector is identical to the original data.scaling in FE2 is a lucky throw sometimes. of course it's bound to the fact that FE2 uses only integer values for the models geometry, that means you have to find a more or less fitting size in integer vector values and rescale the model to the game worlds scale, sometimes it was a bit made by choice or looks of the ship imho. on the other hand i understand that it's anything else then easy to find the proper size if the ships (all models) have very different mesh sizes and you couldn't simply compare them in a CAD like we can do now. further, by the way models get scaled in FE2 i'm not sure if all models get drawn or exported in the proper scale by FFED3D, the scaling in FE2 is dynamic, means a model can be easely rescaled for different purposes, i.e. the courier body is certainly scaled up for the trader, but you can't see this difference in FFED3D's export (scaling in FE2 is still a riddle to me, you got at least two values to scale a model in the objects section, but i found none of them is compliant to the next model ???, which brought up the idea that there must by something like a scaling table by which the models got scaled finally and the "values" are adresses or point to the value in the table directly).keeping FE2/FFE ship specs was always a problem, personally i used them for all Frontier conversions, but i know also that they don't match to how it was planned, if you look at the early releases of pioneer and the contained "templates". (in my actual files they are still kept as alternative ship devs).another reason why i would like to see Frontier ships get divided from Pioneer ships.i guess, keeping the specs in a comparable range is up to the devs.but please keep as much of the original idea a modeler had. i mean, if one gives a ship a certain mass/capacity relation or a special thrust setup, he usually had a idea behind that and that's a part of the model to, imo.

Quote:
if one gives a ship a certain mass/capacity relation or a special thrust setup, he usually had a idea behind that and that's a part of the model to, imo.
There are plenty of reasons why thats just not always possible. All ships were re-adjusted a few months ago to ensure some kind of balance in combat, its why so many smaller ones were nerfed, I mean check out the Talon(one of mine) its nerfed so much to be practically useless, but what can you do? I could moan but that solves nothing, theres a reason for the nerfing, and its so that you can hit the thing with a weapon
Quote:
i hope i didn't mismatched the scale of the viper...
He's likely referring to myself or JohnJ, since we are the ony ones who have worked on this ship, IIRC your model/version is not included.I couldn't disagree more with the sentiment about it being the worst ship in the game, its just no longer the best one anymore.@Coolhand, I wonder if you realise that to contribute to a project it helps to get down from that big white horse, we just cant see or hear you up there... ;)I dont mean to insult you Im only haveing a joke, believe me when I say we would very much like to have some of your pother ships included, that cobra there Ive seen it before on your site and wondered why it was never contributed.....Here are some guidelines that you can follow to ensure that your models are included:https://github.com/pioneerspacesim/pioneer/wiki/Discussion.Modelling-GuidelinesThe most important information is up the top of that discussion.

Quote:
@Coolhand, I wonder if you realise that to contribute to a project it helps to get down from that big white horse, we just cant see or hear you up there...
hey, that's not quite fair from my pov,to me he never was upon a "big white horse", he IS a brillant modeler imo (many will agree) and he never was to eager not to share his knowledge with us (as i remember).looking up is always better then looking down (you get a headake ).after all, to me it doesn't matters how good or experienced one is, i like to see all of them.

Not fair? Its a jibe and totally just in my opinion.Like Robn said the only way to have your voice heard is to participate.If your not invloved than theres no-one there to push your ideas forward... Everyone has their own goals.
Quote:
he IS a brillant modeler
Im not disputing that, never. Now the problem is that many artists expect the devs to bend over bnackwards on command to implement ideas. Thats not how things work outside of a paid working relationship.Edit// just to clarify this point: "he IS a brillant modeler"I would go further and say that infact he is among the best that I know of... if not the best. I am not disputing skill here as clearly there is a lot on offer.

of course a model posted here is no warranty to be placed in the release.it never was ment that way, i presented here new stuff even to get some critics before any was included into the game (in what way ever).it's understood that after the dev team had been grown everything has changed a bit and i guess starting a issue is a acceptable alternative to a full participation via github.[/hr]even lumpy "wing commander" had a cockpit view !

Quote:
even lumpy "wing commander" had a cockpit view !
I'm actually one of the few devs here that would love, did I say that loud enough.. LOVE in-ship interaction and cockpit views. I would spend time implementing such a thing, it just requires a lot of thought since I'm not a professional coder I find things that much harder ;)The only way of implementing cockpits right now that I have in my head, is a 2d overlay with regions to be clicked and changed on click, very similar to what we have now but using an actual cockpit graphic like in Xplane or Orbiter.But a full interactive 3d cockpit I wouldn't know where to begin... But that doesnt mean its not wanted at all

s2odan wrote:


Quote:
even lumpy "wing commander" had a cockpit view !
But a full interactive 3d cockpit I wouldn't know where to begin... But that doesnt mean its not wanted at all
Well lets go then! We'll need:1) detailed 3D model - nothing scripted, just a boring, but textured model of a generic cockpit, something with windows up/left/right & forward.2) camera that is located where the "forward" view currently is.3) place model centred at ForwardView location.4) probably best to render it first, need to play with depth settings I bet, maybe disable testing/writing, and shuffle it around to correct position.5) need to control, keypress + mouse look(?), and constrain the camera so it can't look "too far" in any direction.6) ???7) Profit!Best to try this sort of approach out on something with a bubble style cockpit.Anyone got any suggestions?Other than: "Andy you're an idiot why haven't you made this a separate thread?" andy

Cool.The bit that I have no idea about is how to actually pick up clicks on a region of the 3d object and animate that region on click, like pressing a button down or flicking a switch.Edit// Like for a 2d overlay you would likely use the position on the screen, but with a 3d cockpit when the camera moves, its posistion changes...
Quote:
Best to try this sort of approach out on something with a bubble style cockpit.
Yeah agreed, that would seem to give a nice open view of the scene. Although I woulnd't really know until we try it for real @Coolhand, You've obviously been through this with the Ravenstar for Orbiter, although perhaps that was different as Orbiter already has the framework in-place for 3d cockpits.. So any thoughts on requirements?