[FUBAR-BDHR]

Created a test mission and it worked just fine. 

[FUBAR-BDHR]

Zathras RC3 now available.  To install just delete your old Zathras directory (save any files/missions you may want of course) and extract in your TBP directory.

Included in this version.

A few more bug fixes
Z_Multi.vp containing multiplayer missions & voice files
Xmas2008_0rph3u5.vp:  This is 0rph3u5's 2008 Xmas Fredder pack minus some duplicate files and head .ani files.
Revan.vp:  This is where the head .ani files went to along with a bunch of new ones from Reven. 

I wouldn't go deleting the Fredder pack directory just yet.  There is one duplicate fixed planet used that isn't in Zathras.  Basically 1_p_gas7.dds is no longer needed since p_gas7.dds works now but a few missions still point to 1_p_gas7.   So if you used that planet in one of your missions please take a few seconds to edit it for your next release. 

[FUBAR-BDHR]

A bug was found with Ultimate Gauntlet.  Well it's not the mission itself but the number of ships.  Apparently there is a 39 ship limit in the loadout screen.  Version without the maint bot will be in RC4. 

[captain-custard]

thanks fubar

[FUBAR-BDHR]

RC4 now available.  Includes FS2_Open 3.6.10 RC3 Inferno builds.

Fixes: 
Ultimate Gauntlet
<none> primary weapon

Additions:
0rph3us's textures from the Recolored Civs pack.  Can be used via texture replacement.
Nova nameplate ability and several nameplates
Additional Explorer nameplates
Poseidon nameplates

Removed:
Blueish landscape.  Can be used via texture replacement of the Earth Landscape. 


Few pics:

[Vidmaster]

 

[The E]

Question: Is this on the List of things to be fixed?



[attachment deleted by ninja]

[FUBAR-BDHR]

It wasn't but it is now.

And fixed.  Will be in the next release.

[Vidmaster]

2 things.

Could you add a Poseidon nameplate called "Charlemagne" ?
The table file I send you (you know, FH2261 M4) is missing.

[attachment deleted by ninja]

[den5]

Will be in the next release.

Maybe you need to use these entries for Shadows and the ships/fighters which have not own jump engines. It works with fs2_open_3_6_10_RC3_INF. It is checked up.

$Warpin type:                  Hyperspace
$Warpout type:                Hyperspace

To add it after $Slide decel or after $Glide for fighters/bombers. It will be cool for fighters arrival/departure from a jump gate or with cruiser.

More about warp:

http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/Ships.tbl

[FUBAR-BDHR]

2 things.

Could you add a Poseidon nameplate called "Charlemagne" ?
The table file I send you (you know, FH2261 M4) is missing.

I can add any Poseidon/Nova/Explorer nameplates anyone wants.  I'll make one tonight and get it to you and add it to the next version. 

Thought I sent you an email on why I left that out.  No problem adding it as it's already been tested.  Can do that anytime. 

[FUBAR-BDHR]

Will be in the next release.

Maybe you need to use these entries for Shadows and the ships/fighters which have not own jump engines. It works with fs2_open_3_6_10_RC3_INF. It is checked up.

$Warpin type:                  Hyperspace
$Warpout type:                Hyperspace

To add it after $Slide decel or after $Glide for fighters/bombers. It will be cool for fighters arrival/departure from a jump gate or with cruiser.

More about warp:

http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/Ships.tbl

This is something we would have to really take a good hard look at before doing.  One of the things we are trying to do is preserve all backward compatibility.  Changing the tables like this could break mission compatibility.  The only way I would feel comfortable doing it is if there are no completed campaigns/missions it would effect. 

Of course this does not mean that people can't make a .tbm for those ships for their campaigns with the effect.

[chief1983]

Hyperspace isn't currently used by TBP is it?  I thought that was the one created for FotG.

[FUBAR-BDHR]

Just the hyperspace.pof not as a warp effect.

[captain-custard]

hi this post stems from a discussion the other day in IRC and a little bit of testing myself ...

i have alredy podted this here http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,58230.680.html

but i would like to continue the discussion here as i feel eventualy if the cas e is roven and with the developement of zathras in a rolling mode i would like to here your thoughts....

basically it stems down to something as simple as

i believe that the larger the vp the more chance that there is some performance drop in low to mid ranged systems....it seems to be ok with vps up to 650mb , but vps over the 1gb seem to give a loss of up to 10fps + in game with lots going on , ie  asteroid fields huge battles (maybe) etc

as the core file in TBP is 1.3gb  i was wonderig what size zathras will get too atm i see it staying small but as developement moves on and maybe we go down the root of mvps etc i was just looking to exchange ideas and thoughts about it ..;

anyway be glad to here your thoughts

[karajorma]

There is also an issue with large VPs not working in VPView once they contain over a certain number of files.

[Skullar]

Well, cant you just make 2 vps instead of one then ?

[karajorma]

Yep. That's exactly what should be done.

[captain-custard]

ok i dont want to cause a flame war or political backlash but just for testing purposes would it be possible to reduce the main TBP vp into 2/3 smaller vps to see if there is a boost in the fps of the game, i would really like to try this as i think, not just for TBP but for the game in general if we can keep the vps as small as posible (without having 20 of them) then with a few ppl testing them we could come up with something that works better on lower powered systems........

anyway tell me to shut up now

[Vidmaster]

my killer gaming rig (QuadCore, one GB of VRAM, 4 1066 RAM, blabla) still goes down one some insane missions I fredded for TBP