[Admiral Nelson]

Opening a thread for Warzone discussion here.  Still no sign of any activation mail for me at Lt Gen Mobius' other forum.

Overall:

Warzone often seems to have trouble with failure debriefings.  For instance, in the mission "Dusk Hour", the Warlock was destroyed in one of my run throughs.  I was taken to a debriefing congratulating me on successfully protecting Warlock.  Similarly in the mission"Northwest Passage"  one of the four convoy ships was destroyed, but I received a success briefing but could not progress.  Additionally, quite a few missions give you a return to base directive, which is then followed by plot critical dialogue.  I missed a good bit of this dialogue until I opened the missions themselves and saw it there.  The RTB directive should come only after such dialogue is over.

Misc.

In mission "Mystery of the Deep" you are directed to investigate an "unknown ship."  The unknown ship shows up in the escort list and your HUD quite clearly as the "GTE Vidar."

In mission "Northwest Passage"  you get messages that the Shivan frigate is "right behind" the GTC Nicholas, yet the Nicholas itself never appears in the mission.  Sometimes the Shivan frigate can pass out of the Vasudan destroyer's firing arcs and escape destruction.

In mission "Myths and Legends" you are told to fly to a nav buoy, but the buoy is not added to your escort list and can only be targeted by cycling through all friendly targets.

In mission"Stacking the Deck" Terran fighters are available in the ship selection screen.

I have added LS backgrounds now to all missions, and m2258734a's stars to Kaus Borealis, Gienah Cygni and Naos.  That leaves Sirius and Regulus to be done.  I have to add his stars to the Mintaka nebula missions.

[Bob-san]

I activated you. It's actually my forum; Mobius is only a mod... he didn't know how to properly use Admin CP so I disabled it so he didnt f*** up the forum. (sorry Mobius; you said you had no idea before)

Anyways... I haven't even played Warzone yet, so I don't know too much about it.

[Admiral Nelson]

Please help test this WIP release, and/or pick up one of the to do items below!

WIP Download

TO DO:
Locate any missions with plot critical messages that come after a RTB directive is issued and move them to come before said directive.  The player can easily miss out on important information, as one tends to jump out immediately after the RTB notification is given.
Create GTC Nicolas nameplate
Create high rez custom planets to replace the low res ones supplied with the campaign
Adjust backgrounds to make use of said new planets properly
Create high rez textures and shine/glow maps for the GTE Vidar (the model isn't too bad but its textures are terribly small and blurry)
Test all missions to ensure that failure notifications and AWOL debriefings work properly. 
General testing.  Play all missions and report anything strange.

Change Log (26/03/07):

Warzone is a pretty solid campaign overall (with the exception of one mission); below are the things I have changed to date:

I have added LS backgrounds / skybox to all non nebular missions, and m2258734a's stars to Kaus Borealis, Gienah Cygni, Naos and Mintaka. (Sirius and Regulus stars are not yet available).

Grammar fixes (primarily its vs. it's and Incorrect Use Of Capital Letters)

A handful of spelling errors / typos

Added some text to explain how Mintaka is now a supernova remnant when it isn't in reality.

In mission "Mystery of the Deep" you are directed to investigate an "unknown ship."  The "unknown ship" shows up in the escort list and your HUD quite clearly as the "GTE Vidar." Changed to "Unknown Vessel."

In mission "Myths and Legends" you are told to fly to a nav buoy, but the buoy is not added to your escort list and can only be targeted by cycling through all friendly targets. Added buoy to escort list. Buoy disappears when no longer needed.

In mission "Stacking the Deck", the team loadout was not customized, meaning that any fighter with any weapon can be selected.  Choices restricted to be the same as in the previous mission.

Mission "Northwest Passage" had many issues:
   Primary and secondary goals conflicted with one another. If any one convoy ship was destroyed, the primary goal would remain true and a secondary goal false.  Result was a success briefing, but mission failure.  Now all convoy ships must survive to get the success briefing (which matches the campaign file).
   No abort mission directive was present.  Now if the player fails the mission, he is notified of the fact in mission and told to RTB.
   Aries wing had an incorrect destroy directive; has-arrived-delay was used instead of is-destroyed-delay
   Some messages in the mission were never used.
   The Remehas is supposed to be "right behind the GTC Nicolas", yet the Nicolas never appears in mission even though it has messages.  Added the Nicolas; keeping it alive is now a bonus goal.  the Nicolas will fly in a straight line away from the Remehas and then jump out.  It is just close enough to get one blast from the corvette which reduces it to around 25% hull integrity.  The player needs to help it survive the Manticores until it can jump.
   The Remehas will always make a hard turn to starboard when the Tatenen arrives.  This often resulted in the corvette passing behind the destroyer and thus out of its firing arcs.  Turned the Tatenen to starboard so that the Remehas is always destroyed.

[Sarafan]

 

Can someone write Hard Light or GTVA on that image?

[Raven2001]

Added some text to explain how Mintaka is now a supernova remnant when it isn't in reality.

You mean in a briefing? Please dont do it, if the original makers didnt feel the need to say that, then you shouldnt either

As far as im aware, thi is meant to make the campaign FSO level and fix bugs. If im getting that sentence right, that isnt any of them

[Admiral Nelson]

Well, Mintaka is a real star, and it clearly isn't a supernova remnant.  Therefore something must have happened to the star relatively recently.

The original read

If we were to return to Capella the view outside would be very much the same.  Perhaps this nebula is the result of the destruction of yet another sun by the Shivan Sathanas fleet hundreds of years ago.

the revised reads:

If we were to return to Capella the view outside would be very much the same.  Terran scientists were puzzled by the supernova of Mintaka Ab some 700 years ago, long before the star was expected to perish.  Perhaps this nebula is the result of the destruction of yet another sun by the Shivan Sathanas fleet hundreds of years ago.

This doesn't really change anything of any consequence.

[Herra Tohtori]

Is the small star supposed to have completely blinding glare spot on it in the first missions (don't remember which system)?

Otherwise, lookin' good. Up till the first transfer to bomber unit, only one small bug encountered - in one briefing text there was some "XTRS(" stuff in the front, or something similar. HAven't played further yet.

The only thing that disturbs me now is something entirely unrelated to Warzone but instead to FS2_Open in general (and I hope it'll be fixed soon): the way some things move differently in relation to other things on the background. Retail stars, subspace nodes and stars for example have a tendency to move in relation to other things when you change your attitude. And they move a lot, especially if you're using something like -fov 0.60 or -fov 0.55.

Does the coder department know about this issue? Is it/should it be posted to Mantis?

[Admiral Nelson]

Yeah, the XSTRs are my fault, they come from grammar fixes in which I placed a semicolon into mission dialogue.  I have to go back and remove any of these.  Please just note any mission in which you find them.

Regulus and Sirius; the systems in the first missions, don't have custom stars made by m2258734a, just the retail ones.  Therefore luminosity for every star in those missions is 1.0.  This will be changed when he finishes those stars.

The background problem sounds like something for Mantis.

[m2258734a]

I'm not too sure if the issue has been reported to Mantis, either way I hope it gets fixed.

Yeah, Admiral Nelson and I were discussing the inconsistencies with Mintaka being a supernova remnant in the "Stellar enhancements" thread. It's just a way to make the causes of the events sound reasonable.

TO DO:

Create high rez custom planets to replace the low res ones supplied with the campaign

Let's see, I attacked Terran1 not to long ago.

Before:
                                                       

After:


What do you think? If something needs to be done just let me know. Also, what size should these planets be? I currently have them saved as 512x512.

Also, sorry about the hold up on the main sequence stars. I'm busy every week with coursework so I try to fit in time for FSSCP when I have an opportunity.

[Admiral Nelson]

Looking a lot better.  Let's see what Herra has to say.

No worries on the star timeline....

[Herra Tohtori]

Well... since you asked...

-> m2258734a:
If you're interested in making planets as well as stars, there was a thread in Hard Light Art (since renamed Fan Fiction and Art forum) which gathered some interesting links to different techniques involved in making 2D planets.

Regarding the re-worked Terran1 planet: Good work, but I would use much higher resolution to begin with and the nreduce the resolution to preferred size... that is, if your computer has enough memory. I usually work at 4096x4096 and since I only have 1GB of memory, it tends to cause some problems sometimes. Regarding techniques...

...in both those planets the terminator (line of shadow and light) is b0rked. There's much more than half of that planet illuminated. Also, I could suggest using less radiant green (reduce the saturation of green colour perhaps) and perhaps apply some kind of filter to cloud layer to make it more... cloudy. IWarp tends to work fine in GIMP for making relatively good looking clouds. Currently they look more like ice caps thrown everywhere around the planet, no offense. Also, atmospheric blur generally is bluish, not grey for planets that are habitable.

Don't get me wrong here. It looks good, but I'm just a perfectionist about planets... you can ask Adm. Nelson about different coloured stars reflecting from ocean, for example. If you want any advice on the planets, give me a shout... I might not have time to make any, but I'll gladly offer help.

But, I think that's beyond the actual topic at hand in this thread. We can continue here on this thread if you deem it all right, or at the thread I linked, or via PM's (though they tend to go unnoticed...). Your call.

[MP-Ryan]

As I've probably illustrated elsewhere, I'm a bit of a grammar/spelling nazi.  I'm not much when it comes to technical aspects, but I'd be happy to play through the missions and identify any bugs in them as well as identify and correct grammar/spelling/writing issues.

Provided, of course, that we are willing to go beyond merely fixing these campaigns and instead work towards improving them as well.

This is similar to what I mentioned in the TLM thread; which, I might add, has not been commented on 

[Admiral Nelson]

Grammar nazis are certainly welcome.

The real issue here, I suppose, is what exactly constitutes "improvement."  Warzone, for instance, is a pretty solid, classic campaign.  It could stand minor bugfixing, voice acting, bringing its graphics up to date, and a few tweaks here and there.  Not too much extra improving, really.  Now the early Lightning Marshal campaigns are a different matter.  There is quite a bit of improvement that could be done.  Given where community interest seems to lie, perhaps the best thing to do is to play through the WIP Warzone and note down any and all issues / grammar problems or any other suggestions you might have. I am especially interested in the integrity of the failure / AWOL debriefings in this campaign.  These suggestions will in turn produce some steps to fix, some of which can be assigned to you.

[Goober5000]

Yeah, the XSTRs are my fault, they come from grammar fixes in which I placed a semicolon into mission dialogue.

Are you aware of the $semicolon feature in SCP?  Or are we keeping this retail compatible?

[Admiral Nelson]

It remains retail compatible for now, though that isn't really necessary since a retail user can always play the original Warzone.

What is the $semicolon feature?

[jr2]

It inserts a semicolon into the text, so you can use a semicolon in a briefing or whatever; like so.
If you tried that without using $semicolon, it would comment out the rest of the text.

[MP-Ryan]

Grammar nazis are certainly welcome.

The real issue here, I suppose, is what exactly constitutes "improvement."  Warzone, for instance, is a pretty solid, classic campaign.  It could stand minor bugfixing, voice acting, bringing its graphics up to date, and a few tweaks here and there.  Not too much extra improving, really.  Now the early Lightning Marshal campaigns are a different matter.  There is quite a bit of improvement that could be done.  Given where community interest seems to lie, perhaps the best thing to do is to play through the WIP Warzone and note down any and all issues / grammar problems or any other suggestions you might have. I am especially interested in the integrity of the failure / AWOL debriefings in this campaign.  These suggestions will in turn produce some steps to fix, some of which can be assigned to you.

Sounds like I have a project for Friday =)

I'll wanr you, I'll have bursts of productivity... between papers and midterms, mostly

[m2258734a]

No offense taken whatsoever, Herra.

Since our comments are related to a planet that is in this campaign, I would guess that it is fine to talk about it in this thread. I do think that it would be better that from now on I'll comment on your thread if that's ok.

Let's see, my intention was to make the improved Terran1 look very similar to the original, only higher resolution and much more realistic-looking with a touch of some artistic license. So making a totally realistic habitable planet was not on my mind when I was recreating this planet, .

When you talk about the borked terminator line, is the problem that the shadow does not blend too well? I wasn't quite sure what you meant by borked other than I ****ed up somewhere, . The same goes for the illuminated percentage of the planet. I was trying to make the total illumination very similar to the original. Should I make the planet less illuminated to better match the original? As for the green, I was trying to keep the colors original, too. I noticed that on the original Terran1, there is a bluish region that I assumed to be a polar ice cap. So I did the same to the improved version. I also did the same with the vivid green hue of the terrain. If you would like, I can ease up on the green for a more realistic appearance.

The clouds.... same case . The original planet does not seem to have a tremendous amount of cloud cover, so I tried to do the same for the improved planet. I'll go back, add more cloud cover, and make the clouds more wispy. Finally, the atmospheric blur is a very light blue. I'll go back and add some more blue when I can.

Don't worry, feedback and ideas are always welcome. I am still a rookie, so I appreciate your replies and help.

[Herra Tohtori]

Okay then.

Let's see, my intention was to make the improved Terran1 look very similar to the original, only higher resolution and much more realistic-looking with a touch of some artistic license. So making a totally realistic habitable planet was not on my mind when I was recreating this planet, .

Ah. In that case it's even better work. 

Note that I base almost everything I do for realism, as I tend to see it produces just as pretty end results as using more artistic lisence, and won't disturb the heck out of those who are even more realism freaks than me. Using more artistic lisence is not in itself worse or better way to do stuff, just different. So don't assume my opinions to be better in themselves.

When you talk about the borked terminator line, is the problem that the shadow does not blend too well? I wasn't quite sure what you meant by borked other than I ****ed up somewhere, . The same goes for the illuminated percentage of the planet. I was trying to make the total illumination very similar to the original. Should I make the planet less illuminated to better match the original?

Well, it all depends. If you want to keep it close to original, it's rather good as it is, because the original is almost similarly flawed in that part.

What I'm talking about is that a terminator line practically always divides a sphere in half: dark and illuminated sides. That means that looked from the side, the shadow line starts from the exact opposite sides of the planet; how it curves then is up to the placement of light sources. Blending is not an issue here - although I personally make the terminator lines a bit differently. I make a square layer, paint it half white, half black, then blur the transition area with preferable amount of Gaussian Blur. After that I wrap the texture into sphere and rotate it until I have it at the attitude I want my planet to be illuminated with. Then I place that layer on top of the planet and make white transparent, leaving the black shadow on top of the planet.

I can post images of the shadow layers if you want.

As for the green, I was trying to keep the colors original, too. I noticed that on the original Terran1, there is a bluish region that I assumed to be a polar ice cap. So I did the same to the improved version. I also did the same with the vivid green hue of the terrain. If you would like, I can ease up on the green for a more realistic appearance.

It's not the colour of the green per ce, it's that the albedo (brightness) of those locations seems tremendously bigger than their immediate surroundings. It's like someone spread bright green enamel paint on some parts of the planet. The original planet is more uniform colour as far as I can see.

The clouds.... same case . The original planet does not seem to have a tremendous amount of cloud cover, so I tried to do the same for the improved planet. I'll go back, add more cloud cover, and make the clouds more wispy. Finally, the atmospheric blur is a very light blue. I'll go back and add some more blue when I can.

No, don't add cloud coverage, theres already slightly more than in the original as far as I can see. The thing I meant is that for the most part, your clouds look rather solid and thick with relatively sharply defined edges. It's not bad either, but real clouds are stretched and bent by the winds into vortices and other kind of formations, and that's what you can also see in the original Terran1 image, albeit with very low resolution. Here's an example of what I mean with the clouds:



Although there's not too much cloud coverage on that one, you can see what I mean by wind bending the cloud formations.

I usually simply make an uniform cloud, then change the resolution so that there is more black than white visible. Then I apply IWarp filter, which is an excellent tool but takes bloody long time to complete with higher resolutions. After it finishes, I wrap the layer to a sphere again, rotate until I found satisfactory cloud patterns, then place it on top of the planet's surface and make black transparent. Then I usually apply some bump mapping to the cloud layer to make it appear to be in the atmosphere, which I can also see you have done.

[jr2]

That pic... is awesome!!!.  The only beef I have with it is that the rivers are too bit, IMHO.  Unless that's supposed to be that way (bigger rivers than Earth).  Howsabout I post an image from Google Earth, and a few from NASA (or someone else can), so we can compare with the real thing?  I think that pic comes extremely close to being indistinguishable from Earth by Sattellite.
Oh, and I think the cloud cover is just fine... Earth has that much sometimes, doesn't it?