[Master_of_the_blade]

This looks a whole lot better. I wonder if FSO supports animated textures on skyboxes.

[The E]

Yes, that picture looks somewhat better than what we have ingame. Unfortunately, as has been said, it's just a photoshoped image a fan did.

As for animated skyboxes: They're possible, but infeasible from a performance standpoint.

[Qent]

Am I the only one who want's to see Simms die in WiH P2?

Yes, go awaaaaaaaaaaay.

[QuakeIV]

Eh I never particularly liked Simms either way.  She just seemed like a kinda odd/crazy person to me.

I'd be pretty crazy/odd if every damn person I got to know for quite some time outside of a few people died on me within the month, I'm just saying it doesn't produce a very likable character for me.

[Luis Dias]

Yes, that picture looks somewhat better than what we have ingame. Unfortunately, as has been said, it's just a photoshoped image a fan did.

As for animated skyboxes: They're possible, but infeasible from a performance standpoint.

Magic poffing could do the trick? For instance, what happens regarding the subspace tunnel?

[The E]

The subspace tunnel consists of a rotating model with a secondary rotating texture overlaid on top. This technique (or rather, parts of it) can be used in skyboxes; you could for example do a ringed gas giant skybox by modelling the ring as a moving subobject.

However, I understood the original question to ask about whether it's possible to animate a background texture (that is, play an animation on the surface). This is a really really bad idea, given that the only way to do it with acceptable levels of quality would involve having quite a lot of animation frames, all at the same skybox-sized resolutions, all of which have to be loaded into memory and then streamed.

[redsniper]

Someone should make a troll starfield.pof that very slowly rotates, so all the joystick players will think somethings frakked on their sticks.

[Klaustrophobia]

are we talking about swirly suns like in mass effect?  cuz to be honest, i thought those were bad.

[SaltyWaffles]

Swirly suns? Where was that featured in ME?

Also, about the TerSlashBlueAAA--what's with the name? It's not a slashing beam (IIRC), it doesn't fire from the TSB beam emitters, and it's a completely different beam (being entirely point-defense, as opposed to a heavy anti-ship armament).

[The E]

Swirly suns? Where was that featured in ME?

Every single scene featuring TIM as a non-hologram.

[Black_Yoshi1230]

I was digging through the F3 list, and any developer care to explain what the "Angel Flare" was supposed to be? I get the feeling it's supposed to be a capital defense weapon...

[MatthTheGeek]

Yes it's a capship CM.

Also, about the TerSlashBlueAAA--what's with the name? It's not a slashing beam (IIRC), it doesn't fire from the TSB beam emitters, and it's a completely different beam (being entirely point-defense, as opposed to a heavy anti-ship armament).

It is a slashing beam. Try again.

[SaltyWaffles]

Swirly suns? Where was that featured in ME?

Every single scene featuring TIM as a non-hologram.

Oh, that. I thought it looked great, but it was jarringly bizarre/unrealistic. I kept wanting to ask him 'what the hell IS that thing behind you?'

Yes it's a capship CM.

Also, about the TerSlashBlueAAA--what's with the name? It's not a slashing beam (IIRC), it doesn't fire from the TSB beam emitters, and it's a completely different beam (being entirely point-defense, as opposed to a heavy anti-ship armament).

It is a slashing beam. Try again.

Ah, so it is. *smacks self in forehead* I don't know how I misread it before...

I wonder, will the TSB-AAA be replacing the AAAf entirely? At least on the next-gen TEI warships? What is the gist of the weapon's existence in the lore--is it an actual, distinct weapon, or some kind of different configuration of the AAAf, or just overloading the AAAf in a specific way, etc?

[MatthTheGeek]

AFAIK, it was used as a Combat Evaluation prototype in the Carthage's battlegroup (the Leviathan and some Deimoses used it). It isn't actually any better than the AAAf, so I don't expect it to replace it.

[SaltyWaffles]

AFAIK, it was used as a Combat Evaluation prototype in the Carthage's battlegroup (the Leviathan and some Deimoses used it). It isn't actually any better than the AAAf, so I don't expect it to replace it.

Really? I thought the big weakness with the AAAf is that it fires at the same target three times, with a longer cooldown in between bursts. With warhead intercept, that means that it intercepts one warhead per burst + cooldown, whereas the TSB-AAA (supposedly) usually hits one warhead per shot, but has a much shorter cooldown and only fires once per 'burst'. Does it not live up to that in practice?

And come to think of it...the Leviathan is barely more durable than the Aeolus, and the Hyperion is roughly the same as the Leviathan--so what's the big deal about making a cruiser with the Aeolus' speed along with the Levi's armor?--the Aeolus already does that (referring to the Hyperion's tech description). If anything, the Aeolus has an advantage in durability due to its vastly smaller target profile--it's roughly half the size, with better turret coverage too.

[borizz]

Oh, that. I thought it looked great, but it was jarringly bizarre/unrealistic. I kept wanting to ask him 'what the hell IS that thing behind you?'

I always thought the observation deck shots to the sun was some kind of radiation filter, so people could stare into that sun and not go blind. But I think there was a shot in ME3 that showed it from outside and it looked pretty much the same, so that doesn't work.

[-Norbert-]

borizz you are putting too much stock into table information. With armor classes and AI profiles alone ship performances can change drastically and that doesn't even take mission scripting into account. If a mission requires the Hyperion to be better than it's predecessors it will be, no matter what the tables say about hitpoints, speed or weapondamage.

As for the ME sun:
Maybe it was a sun close to going out or an ignited gas giant or something other than your "average" sun.
Either way, there were so many things wrong with ME2 and 3 that my complaints never reached as far as the background animation...

[SaltyWaffles]

Maybe it was a sun close to going out or an ignited gas giant or something other than your "average" sun.
Either way, there were so many things wrong with ME2 and 3 that my complaints never reached as far as the background animation...

Problem is, it was actually *foreground* animation in several points, and it was a major focus point in several main-story cutscenes. It was also present in most of one of the main character's scenes, being one of the core elements of them visually.

It gets worse when the color of the star is completely different depending on your last-second choice in the suicide mission...yeah, not one of ME2's bigger problems, I know, but still....


----

Also, I'm not really referring to table data at all. The Aeolus, Hyperion, and Leviathan cruisers make several notable appearances in BP's campaigns, and if anything, the Leviathan makes the weakest showings in terms of durability.

[The E]

Enough Mass Effect talk.

[borizz]

borizz you are putting too much stock into table information. With armor classes and AI profiles alone ship performances can change drastically and that doesn't even take mission scripting into account. If a mission requires the Hyperion to be better than it's predecessors it will be, no matter what the tables say about hitpoints, speed or weapondamage.

As for the ME sun:
Maybe it was a sun close to going out or an ignited gas giant or something other than your "average" sun.
Either way, there were so many things wrong with ME2 and 3 that my complaints never reached as far as the background animation...

I never said anything about table information.