[IPAndrews]

So you're suggesting 3.6.9 retail made warp vortices bigger?

[Asprin]

warp vortices bigger

Yes.

[IPAndrews]

The vortexes I have ingame are MANY TIMES the size of the one you see in his beautiful vid.
So, I wondered if I just have a strange bug.

Well let's see. Take a screenshot of a ship warping in at a distance in front of the player. Tell me everything I need to know to recreate the exact same warpin scenario. THe ship used, distance, screen res... and I will take a screenshot. Then we can compare.

[IPAndrews]

warp vortices bigger

Yes.

So would scaling your warpin model pof smaller counter this change and return the vortices to a more accurate size?

[Skullar]

will try to, but making a screenshot is something I haven't succeeded in ever since I installed from msi
I will try to deliberately make this \screenshot folder and try again. I just don't get it.

[IPAndrews]

will try to, but making a screenshot is something I haven't succeeded in ever since I installed from msi
I will try to deliberately make this \screenshot folder and try again. I just don't get it.

If you can't do the test then maybe someone else reading this can.

[Asprin]

return the vortices to a more accurate size?

Vortex size depends on ship size, not on vortex pof model. If ship smaller then jump gate->vortex will has minimal size (such as in video); if bigger then jump gate->vortex will be created based on ship size.

[IPAndrews]

Yes but the vortex itself is a pof, with a scale.

[Asprin]

Yes but the vortex itself is a pof, with a scale

Anyway, Ian, our warp in/out POF MODEL (not current pof) will be make physical effects like in IFH, not visual.

[karajorma]

your 3d warp pof

Ian, it is not pof model. It is cpp changes.

Post up a diff and I'll do some testing.

[IPAndrews]

Yes but the vortex itself is a pof, with a scale

Anyway, Ian, our warp in/out POF MODEL (not current pof) will be make physical effects like in IFH, not visual.

That's good for you, but I'm investigating an apparent problem with TBP which uses standard game engine builds.

[Asprin]

That's good for you, but I'm investigating an apparent problem with TBP which uses standard game engine builds.

Nothing keep us from making builds for TBP.

[karajorma]

It would be a very bad idea to start down that path. Believe me. I have experience with the BtRL build and I'm going to be happy once we get everyone back to using 3.6.10 Official.

[IPAndrews]

TBP will not be moving to non-standard builds.

[Asprin]

Nothing keep us from making builds for TBP.

Looks like i have stated the idea incorrectly. Well, i do not mean the non-standard full-builds, i mean our CODE MODIFICATIONS that possibly could be use in standard builds...when "-tbp" flag is active.

[karajorma]

The -tbp flag is on it's way out though. It's pretty stupid to have something that can screw up missions in a launcher flag where any idiot can get at it.

And that's before we get to the point of how it's rather unfair to have code which other projects could use locked up in a single all or nothing flag.

[Asprin]

Anyway, is this possible:

i mean our CODE MODIFICATIONS that possibly could be use in standard builds

[jr2]

Hmm... possible solution: ?

Put it so that the TBP features are all mission flags / SEXPs... I imagine this is what you are doing when you say you are phasing out the -tbp flag.  But couldn't you include a master -tbp or -wcs or -btrl flag IN THE MISSION CONFIG that enables all TBP or WCS or BtRL flags, instead of having them off by default?  Or do I not know what I'm talking about?  (Not sure I do.)

[taylor]

Just took a look at the 3d warp scaling, and it is indeed off by a little (should be "radius / 25" rather than "radius / 20").  That isn't a "change" though, merely how it's always been.

I double checked in normal FS2 that the 2D and 3D effects are scaled the same now for the same ship, so I'll add this change to CVS for inclusion into 3.6.10.

[karajorma]

Put it so that the TBP features are all mission flags / SEXPs... I imagine this is what you are doing when you say you are phasing out the -tbp flag.  But couldn't you include a master -tbp or -wcs or -btrl flag IN THE MISSION CONFIG that enables all TBP or WCS or BtRL flags, instead of having them off by default?  Or do I not know what I'm talking about?  (Not sure I do.)

There will never be a BtRL flag (not while I draw breath at least.) BtRL started up much later than WCS or TBP and the idea of having a flag that turned on specific features for that mod had already fallen out of favour. From what I understand WCS are already in the process of unbundling stuff from their flag and turning it into table entries.

So that just leaves TBP. And the question here is whether to make all the tables need fixing for 3.6.10/3.7 (where ever we unbundle) or just to add a master switch to ai_profiles.tbl.