Not to mention the new starfield map. All community members trying to complain about it have been silenced. It's no secret, consequently, that I will do whatever I can to make sure that the projects I'm working on will use the old starfield map and/or a modified version other than the one released with the new MVPs.
There also are designation prefixes. Let's forget the NTSc matter for now - the mere fact of adding prefixes to ship's names is a very debatable choice. In FS2, it was very, very rare... and now I see prefixes in the names of all ships.
Not to mention the new starfield map. All community members trying to complain about it have been silenced. It's no secret, consequently, that I will do whatever I can to make sure that the projects I'm working on will use the old starfield map and/or a modified version other than the one released with the new MVPs.
My message is: we appreciate and love the FSU team and its efforts, but we'd like you guys to consider different opinions and undo some of your changes should they turn out to be unappropriate. Doing so would surely be a wise move.
If you have any doubts, post a poll and see what the other community members have to say. In any case, just don't make radical changes without asking...
One thing that does bug me is that the suns in the system are always monochromatic. Blue suns make everything blue. They seem to emit a very thin band of the EM spectrum, whereas in reality, they should cover a massive range with a maximum at the main color it's supposed to be.
I'm not the first one who claims that the FSU makes changes many community members don't agree with.We're not exactly going to put up a poll and have committie meetings to discuss and debate each and every 'change' we make before we make it. :p
Although the FSU is a superb team, there are some... drawbacks in the way it works. When freespaceking made a new Ursa map for INFA, I proposed Woomeister to share the map with the FSU team. That was a polite and correct move, inspired by my respect towards the FSU team and the result of your work. I do remember FSU team members blaming me and saying stuff like "What's the point in focusing our attention to a map that might be better than the original one?". Weirdily enough, dare I say, that map made it straight to the MVPs.You said 'Use this map! Your current one is disgusting :ick:'. We said 'If you want some other map that we haven't yet seen, then YOU at least find it for us to compare, and if we like it we'll put it in'. Eventually you did that, we did think it was a bit better, so we put it in. Here you seem to be puffing it up into some kind of noble quest you undertook on our behalf, but it was simply that we were too busy to run around chasing up maps because a single member said we should use them. :p
Not to mention the new starfield map. All community members trying to complain about it have been silenced. It's no secret, consequently, that I will do whatever I can to make sure that the projects I'm working on will use the old starfield map and/or a modified version other than the one released with the new MVPs.So it's a conspiracy now? Come on! It's a starfield map, not proof that FSU team was involved in the JFK assassination. :p
There also are designation prefixes. Let's forget the NTSc matter for now - the mere fact of adding prefixes to ship's names is a very debatable choice. In FS2, it was very, very rare... and now I see prefixes in the names of all ships.That's mainly Zacam's department, so I'll leave it up to him to decide what to do in the patch. I've not kept up with the details there so for all I know it may have already been reverted in the patch.
My message is: we appreciate and love the FSU team and its efforts, but we'd like you guys to consider different opinions and undo some of your changes should they turn out to be unappropriate. Doing so would surely be a wise move.While we do appreciate that we are appreciated, as a project we just don't work like a political system. We make what you describe as 'radical' changes (quite honestly I would call them trivial changes) as we see fit in line with what the FSU is doing, and see if the community likes them. If so we leave/improve them, if not we take them out or fix them till they are liked. Sometimes the person making the change will post a poll or a feedback thread, sometimes not, but that's really all there is to the process.
If you have any doubts, post a poll and see what the other community members have to say. In any case, just don't make radical changes without asking...
Not to mention the new starfield map. All community members trying to complain about it have been silenced. It's no secret, consequently, that I will do whatever I can to make sure that the projects I'm working on will use the old starfield map and/or a modified version other than the one released with the new MVPs.Mobius, this particular comment concerns me slightly. Although HLP moderators and administrators are forced to remove posts or lock threads I can assure with some certainty that none of the people I work with here will attempt to silence someone for expressing a comment or opinion on something like an artistic matter. Not unless that comment crosses the lines of acceptable behaviour in the usual forms (i.e. personal attacks, inflammatory comments, etc.). Do you have any examples of people being "silenced"?
That's a retail FreeSpace 2 feature, there are some pretty exotic lighting environments in the campaign and changing that too much would be - albeit more realistic - a bit further from the original FreeSpace 2 feel than we're quite willing to do.
There are also no green stars in reality, but there you go...
For example, the second mission usually starts with killing a wing of hercs. I was instead greeted by a wing of lokis.
Also, the mission where you fail to catch the Iceni gives wingmen Prom R as a weapon. I'm quite positive that up to that point, your wingmen don't have enough clearance for that weapon."The Romans Blunder", all ships that have a defined primary weapon are using Subach HL-7's. Unless you mean a different mission. I am only assuming "The Romans Blunder" because that follows "The Place of Chariots" mentioned above.
The campaign plays fine. I have no issues, if someone wants to re-imagine the campaign, that's great :D
Anyways, I never really noticed how retail suns were monochromatic, possibly because the lighting back then was so bad. Anyways, I'll make no further gripe about this, since it's pretty minor.I think its a good point though. FSO/FSU *really* emphasizes the monochromatic effect (never noticed it much in retail either). IIRC, some people new to FSO have even thought it is a bug :)
Uh. There are no light settings in Retail. It is just retail.
I can run Retail and take screenshots. I can run without MediaVP's and take screenshots. I can run with no commandline options and take screenshots.
In short, I can screen shot any viable configuration.
I'm not talking about star bitmaps - I was refering to the starfield map.
By "silenced" I mean that FSU team members are quite sensible when someone complains about the changes they made, so they "silence" that (or those) member(s) by replying ad nauseam. You don't need to lock someone's thread if you have 3-4 people all against the person who's complaining.
I don't really know what to tell you, at this point. It seems pretty obvious that some of your changes were totally unappropriate, but yet still you're trying to claim that they weren't. I'm asking you to collaborate with the FSCRP when it comes to FRED changes (I don't have any texturing abilities) so it's up to you to accept the proposal.
Herra Tohtori: That's a good example of the typical and vague post FSU team members usually come out with when it comes to complaints. The fact that the number of people complaining about your changes is limited doesn't mean that you're right.See now you're angrily picking the nits off the nits.
You have no way to prove that "Sc" is a correct designation, do you understand? It's "SC", period. Are you going to correct the error or not? How many members should be complaining about this issue to attract your attention?
It's quite annoying to learn that you consider complaints valid only if there number of members behind them is noticeable. That's one of the most stupid excuses I've ever read, because (as I stated above) some of your changes are absolutely wrong. There's no need to discuss them.
Also, it would be logical to cooperate with the FSCRP.
General Battuta: I will no longer complain about the new starfield map (or, at least, in a formal and direct way). I'm quite sick of the replies I got, I'm getting and I will surely get.
FRED changes are another matter. There are errors of obvious relevance so I'm asking the FSU to cooperate with the FSCRP when it comes to changes of that kind. People are free to say that the new starfield is so much better, but I don't tolerate people doing the same when discussing FRED changes.
Among the changes, some are to be considered errors ("Sc" designation, prefixes in ship names) while others are to be considered unnecessary changes (replacement of the Carthage in "A Lion at the Door").
Uh...Mobius, about that Sc thing - if it's really bothering you that much, why don't you just fix it yourself.
I'll bet you it'll take a grand total of about 30 seconds.
Wait, what happened to the GTD Carthage?
Uh...Mobius, about that Sc thing - if it's really bothering you that much, why don't you just fix it yourself.
I'll bet you it'll take a grand total of about 30 seconds.
Read above. I formally asked the FSU team to cooperate with the FSCRP team in order to fix the problems.
If we're talking about retail only, then I apologize for misinterpreting. If we are talking about the current mediaVP stars, I'm not understanding the issue.You can scratch at least my previous comment on this issue. I must have been remembering some older release, since after a short test fly through the missions I must say that lighting there was great. Vastly improved from what I remembered - good work! Only in the mission "Into the lion's den" there is still excessive blueness to my taste, but thats it.
Yet again, I'm getting vague replies about morals and other stuff that has nothing to do with the matter we're discussing.
Do you realize that the problem here is the FSU team's arrogant behavior? This discussion is becoming annoying mostly because of that.
Well then, FSU should cooperate. They don't even have to fix the stuff themselves...
Don't be an ass.
The FSU team has been discussing your requests and working to fix things. I've seen it on IRC.
Furthermore, the reason you're getting vague replies about morals and other stuff is because, while people agree with you about many of these changes (myself included!), you're being such a jerk that I don't want to agree with you.
As someone on IRC said, you have a point, but you're delivering it all wrong.
In fact, I've never seen you admit you're wrong. You've clearly decided the newer skybox is better, but you never apologized to Herra for the whole kerfuffle. It would mean a lot to him if you did.
Calm down. You're getting upset about things like the capitalization of a single letter. You'd get a lot more done in this community if you'd just chill out instead of acting like a prima donna.
Herra Tohtori: That's a good example of the typical and vague post FSU team members usually come out with when it comes to complaints. The fact that the number of people complaining about your changes is limited doesn't mean that you're right.
You have no way to prove that "Sc" is a correct designation, do you understand? It's "SC", period. Are you going to correct the error or not? How many members should be complaining about this issue to attract your attention?
It's quite annoying to learn that you consider complaints valid only if there number of members behind them is noticeable. That's one of the most stupid excuses I've ever read, because (as I stated above) some of your changes are absolutely wrong. There's no need to discuss them.
Also, it would be logical to cooperate with the FSCRP.
General Battuta: I will no longer complain about the new starfield map (or, at least, in a formal and direct way). I'm quite sick of the replies I got, I'm getting and I will surely get.
FRED changes are another matter. There are errors of obvious relevance so I'm asking the FSU to cooperate with the FSCRP when it comes to changes of that kind. People are free to say that the new starfield is so much better, but I don't tolerate people doing the same when discussing FRED changes. Among the changes, some are to be considered errors ("Sc" designation, prefixes in ship names) while others are to be considered unnecessary changes (replacement of the Carthage in "A Lion at the Door").
You really need to answer the starfield question, Mobius. You made a big deal out of it, now wrap it up. Which one do you prefer?
Look, Mobius, General Battuta has as much of a right to post here as you do, so don't rudely tell him "You're not needed here" when he's trying to help you.[snip]Same thing for you. You're not needed here.
Same thing for you. You're not needed here.
Among the changes, some are to be considered errors ("Sc" designation, prefixes in ship names) while others are to be considered unnecessary changes (replacement of the Carthage in "A Lion at the Door").
$Name: Status
$Team: -1
$MessageNew: XSTR("This is the GTD Carthage. What's your status, pilots?", 715)
$end_multi_text
+Persona: Large Ship
+AVI Name: Head-CM5
+Wave Name: SM104_CA_01.wav
like most people, things randomly and frequently can slip my mind or my notice.
I'm posting this because General Battuta told me to via PM. Please note that I haven't read the posts that preceed this one because... [this part of the post is missing]
I prefer the old starfield map because a) it's compatible with the additional Sol map (they have to work in tandem) and b) the stars are much more prominent. The new map has more variety in terms of colors, however, and I appreciate that.
Bye.
Understood.
One of these two images. (http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/3882/starshotqu0.png)
I'll lock the thread if anyone flames you once you answer.
something I noticed playing again the main FS2 campaign, in "the mystery of the trinity" the Trinity is not dissabled, and in "into the maelstrom" the GTCV Parapet is called the GTC Parapet, and it seems to be jumping in at the wrong time, I've checked the retail file and I just got dizzy about that.. I don't understand why they made it jump in that way with the trigger II but anyways.. the GTC thing might need to be changed though.
That AoA skybox you're referencing is truly awful.
Since you guys seem to using an old version of my starfield skysphere, you might want to switch to the much improved version I recently made.
(http://i44.tinypic.com/erhba0.png)
I'll lock the thread if anyone flames you once you answer.
What, so you like the new map now? :P
First I need to ask if your in-game brightness setting isn't too low, and that your display gamma is correctly calibrated (or close enough), because there sure as hell is a difference between this starfield and the default bright stars. The Beta starfield was uniform gray stars if I recall correctly, and the one in 3.6.8zetas was the infamous splotchy blob starfield...
Incorrect gamma settings can cause stuff like starfields to becomes much less or much more prominent than the creator of the texture saw on their display, so make sure your display's colour settings are at least close to good (LCD's are never ideally calibrated) and that your brightness settings are not wrong. And that there's no rogue starfield texture somewhere in your installation. You could also open the starfield in the image editor of your choice and confirm what you see is what you get...
Again, if you have trouble seeing most of the stars in the current mediaVP texture, there's something very special about your monitor settings, because they certainly show up very well on both my home PC and my parents' home PC. They are definitely more noticeable and better defined than the 3.6.10 beta VP starfield, as you can see simply by looking at the comparision shots posted by Zacam. And they are a far cry from the 3.6.8 zeta starfield.. :ick:
If you want to increase the amount of stars that are >1px in size, I'm not gonna do it. I have tried a lot of stuff when I was making this starfield, and the end result in the mediaVP's is what by my judgement (and as far as I know, other FSU team members as well) was about the best working compromise between variety and keeping the stars from not becoming annoying blobs.
(...)
But seriously, though, check your monitor settings and driver-level gamma settings... If you can, check things on a different monitor. I don't know how things look on your monitor. I don't really even understand how you're seeing what you're describing, so I don't know if you're seeing the same as I, and thus it's a bit difficult to respond in any meaningful way. Hell, take a photograph of the starfield on your display (keep the view still, no flash or other lights in the room, use smallest aperture and sensitivity settings available, and then adjust the exposure time so that the image is accurately lit) and show that to us if it helps to convey what exactly are you seeing.
<Rick_James> Oh, for f*ck's sake.
<HerraTohtori> pretty much :D
<The_E> The voice of reason needs a megaphone....
Are there any recommended monitor settings?It varies completely from brand to brand and monitor to monitor. I'd suggest taking some general advice on settings and tweaking it from there.
Do you want us to? Has there been any changes in the model itself, or is it just the starfield map that has changed?I've upgraded both. The model itself now makes much better use of the texture space and there's no longer any stretching whatsoever. The texture itself is also much better than the old one.
Personally, I've always thought that the FS2 universe is rather more colourful than the relatively realistic effects in Galactica, and while that starfield is absolutely gorgeous for Galactica environment, I feel that the more colourful current MediaVP starfield might serve it's purpose better in FreeSpace 2 universe.Nothing a quick Photoshop job wouldn't fix. I can easily produce a version with more colorful stars.
Also, from technical point of view... what's the field of view in that screenshot? Would I be missing much if I guessed something like -fov 0.55?Default fov as I recall.
Do you want us to? Has there been any changes in the model itself, or is it just the starfield map that has changed?I've upgraded both. The model itself now makes much better use of the texture space and there's no longer any stretching whatsoever. The texture itself is also much better than the old one.
Sorry, missed your post there Fishguts. I'll send you a download link via PM when I get home.