1
Modding / Re: [0.98a-RC5] Space Rave
« on: April 01, 2025, 07:04:44 PM »
i give this mod an 8/10 and it kicks ass
Fractal Softworks Forum
- May 14, 2025, 01:34:48 PM
- Welcome, Guest
News:
Starsector 0.98a is out! (03/27/25)
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
Suggestions / Re: Support for 5120x1440
« on: March 09, 2025, 11:16:10 AM »
Good timing, I was about to post something similar about the sound problem.
The game seems to enforce a hard distance limit of 2500 (maybe 1800?) world units between the emitted sound and the listener's position (center of the screen). However, best I can tell, this distance limit is not modified by the current viewport's zoom. Everything works fine at low zoom levels, but the more you zoom out, the more likely it is that sounds being emitted on the edges of the screen get cut entirely. I'm on ultrawide as well (3440x1440), and the aspect ratio definitely worsens the problem since the distance from the center to the horizontal screen edge can be extreme.
It gets much, much worse if you've increased the max combat zoom distance in settings.json.
I suspect the problem isn't as straightforward as "always play all sounds emitted from within the bounds of the viewport," as there could be some concerns with blasting way too many sound effects at once.
The naive solution would be just dynamically setting the SFX cutoff distance to be *at least* the distance between the viewport's center and the furthest edge of the screen -- as well as ensuring the viewport's zoom level multiplies that distance.
If that creates a cacophony, the possibly-less-naive solution would be scaling a sound's volume by a function of its distance to the cutoff range *and* a multiplier based on zoom level. That way, distant sounds still play but are quieter.
Don't know if this affects the campaign too... if so, it's a lot less noticeable.
A setting in settings.json and/or some API function to adjust the hardcoded cutoff range would be greatly appreciated. We already have the OpenAL max SFX sources settings, so the cutoff distance hopefully isn't too much of a leap.
The game seems to enforce a hard distance limit of 2500 (maybe 1800?) world units between the emitted sound and the listener's position (center of the screen). However, best I can tell, this distance limit is not modified by the current viewport's zoom. Everything works fine at low zoom levels, but the more you zoom out, the more likely it is that sounds being emitted on the edges of the screen get cut entirely. I'm on ultrawide as well (3440x1440), and the aspect ratio definitely worsens the problem since the distance from the center to the horizontal screen edge can be extreme.
It gets much, much worse if you've increased the max combat zoom distance in settings.json.
I suspect the problem isn't as straightforward as "always play all sounds emitted from within the bounds of the viewport," as there could be some concerns with blasting way too many sound effects at once.
The naive solution would be just dynamically setting the SFX cutoff distance to be *at least* the distance between the viewport's center and the furthest edge of the screen -- as well as ensuring the viewport's zoom level multiplies that distance.
If that creates a cacophony, the possibly-less-naive solution would be scaling a sound's volume by a function of its distance to the cutoff range *and* a multiplier based on zoom level. That way, distant sounds still play but are quieter.
Don't know if this affects the campaign too... if so, it's a lot less noticeable.
A setting in settings.json and/or some API function to adjust the hardcoded cutoff range would be greatly appreciated. We already have the OpenAL max SFX sources settings, so the cutoff distance hopefully isn't too much of a leap.
3
Mods / Re: [0.97a] Ship Mastery System (+Miscellaneous Features) (12/4/24)
« on: December 05, 2024, 11:06:14 AM »
Wanted to say that I'm enjoying the new "Reroll" and "Enhance" features in the new version. Makes story points much more relevant again, and also provides a reason to keep engaging with a ship's mastery after it's fully leveled.
A thought on possible interactions between ship mastery and officers:
It could be interesting to have a new skill for officers that increases the mastery bonuses of their piloted ship by a significant percentage... maybe ~50%? Some of the mastery bonuses are really great, and having an assigned officer enhance them could offer a lot of meaningful depth. Heck, it could even open the door for using officers in a logistics role, if needed: stick them on a freighter with a bunch of cargo space masteries and get a bunch of extra storage. Maybe the elite version of the skill enables any "Flagship only" mastery effects for that officer's ship.
Might be tricky to balance with the current bonuses provided by BotB, plus the new enhancement system. But I wanted to toss the idea out there. Maybe it would make sense going in the opposite direction too, with some mechanic that makes ships lacking officers see a larger bonus in their mastery effects to keep them competitive.
A thought on possible interactions between ship mastery and officers:
It could be interesting to have a new skill for officers that increases the mastery bonuses of their piloted ship by a significant percentage... maybe ~50%? Some of the mastery bonuses are really great, and having an assigned officer enhance them could offer a lot of meaningful depth. Heck, it could even open the door for using officers in a logistics role, if needed: stick them on a freighter with a bunch of cargo space masteries and get a bunch of extra storage. Maybe the elite version of the skill enables any "Flagship only" mastery effects for that officer's ship.
Might be tricky to balance with the current bonuses provided by BotB, plus the new enhancement system. But I wanted to toss the idea out there. Maybe it would make sense going in the opposite direction too, with some mechanic that makes ships lacking officers see a larger bonus in their mastery effects to keep them competitive.
4
Mods / Re: [0.97a] Ship Mastery System (+Miscellaneous Features) (4/25/24)
« on: August 15, 2024, 11:38:38 AM »Knowledge constructs seem purpose built for the concealed stations. If you haven't found one, it's a relatively tough fight against a fully smoded level 9 mastery remnant fleet. After you win, you can slot in one of your ships and it will get some minor random stat changes, bonus timeflow, and lose all its cr. After that you get to loot the station which will always have 3-5 constructs of the ship you slotted in as well as some constructs for other ships and possibly other rare loot.Ah, thanks for correcting me on that. I'm currently playing with a handful of new mods, and I didn't realize concealed stations were a part of this. From what you said, I think this justifies the existence of knowledge constructs. I haven't been able to crack open a concealed station just yet with my fleet.
It's because they gain a mastery point at every non combat exp, regardless of how small the exp gain is. Stumbling upon a ship graveyard gives you like 10 mp on the spot even though each ship is only worth 1k exp or something. So the mp gain ratio of combat ships and civ ships is really proportionate to how much exploration you do. If you do a lot of exploration and not a lot of combat, yeah your civ ships are going to be fully mastered very quickly, especially if you only have a few types. On the plus side, this means keeping a bunch of random civ ships in your fleet is a nice way to rack up mastered ships for cyber augmentation skill.Yeah, I was playing last night and figured out the "any non-combat XP == MP" mechanic for civ ships. I'm still of the belief this is too frequent, though. I get in plenty of fights, but all my civ ships are 90% - 100% mastered while most of my combat ships are below 50% mastered.
Meanwhile combat ships get a semi random amount of mp from combat. Killing a huge doomstack of remnants might give you 10 mp or it might give you 30 mp, it's kind of ridiculous how big the range can get. There's also the problem of the random distribution of mp. It is affected a bit by how much mp the ship already has but it is quite annoying to solo 80% of the enemy fleet but half the mp goes to a different ship.That explains why MP gain on my combat ships is so inconsistent... I'd agree that this needs to be re-thought. I'm fine with some randomness applied to ships that participate in combat but don't do much damage -- that'll ensure ships that play supporting roles don't get neglected. But I do think damaging enemy ships should be the largest metric for granting MP, especially if the ship is piloted by the player. It's disappointing to perform super well but only get like 1 MP for my flagship.
My biggest criticism of earning MP in general is that it seems to reward you more just for using certain ships, rather than using certain ships *well*. I recognize how "well" a ship performs is a nebulous metric. But, I do think this mod would benefit from weighing MP gain on even a naive interpretation of how "well" a ship performs, and then falling back to the current system as a catch-all for the various weird niches that might exist.
One other note: I appreciate the LunaLib settings. I tried scaling down the s-mod cost to 0.75 and I think that value is pretty fair for early-game. I'll likely raise it back up to 1.0 when I've got profitable colonies.
I also cranked up the setting that causes NPC fleets to spawn with more s-mods, and the increased difficulty is a fair but enjoyable challenge.
5
Mods / Re: [0.97a] Ship Mastery System (+Miscellaneous Features) (4/25/24)
« on: August 14, 2024, 10:50:07 AM »
I've been playing with this for a while now and wanted to provide some feedback. I never had much of an issue with how vanilla handles s-mods, but the mastery system really adds meaningful complexity. S-mods now feel very much like they're being earned, and I love all the various mastery perks that exist, even if not all of them are relevant 100% of the time.
I have a few points of feedback to give after playing for maybe ~6 hours now, in the pre-colony early-game.
1. Story points are less valuable overall.
I generally horde story points and use them sparingly so that I've got a bunch to use for s-mods in the late game. However, with the ship mastery system, the game's largest story point sink is gone. I'm sitting on like ~30 right now; I just don't have many reasons to use them. Of course, story points under vanilla conditions aren't super hard to come by, but s-mods were arguably one of the best ways to use them. Every time a story point was used, I'd be weighing its worth against a future s-mod.
I'd love to see a way to have story points play a more meaningful role in ship mastery. While I understand that the design philosophies of mastery and vanilla are sort of at odds (mastery being "earn the s-mods by using the ship" vs "spend green tokens to make ship good"), I'm convinced there needs to be a middle ground. What that middle ground is... I don't know, but I have a couple half-baked ideas:
- Spend story points to increase a ship's XP gain. Like mentoring officers. I'd use this -- sometimes gaining mastery for a ship feels pretty slow, and I'd have no qualms occasionally fast-tracking a particular hull. That said, this becomes a bit less relevant later in the game after you've mastered a lot of hulls.
- Story points can unlock "elite" effects on some mastery tiers. Some (or all, maybe?) mastery tiers could contain a small, locked bonus effect that gets activated if you spend a story point on it, just like elite skills for the player / officer. I'm inclined to argue that the bonuses should be small and that there shouldn't be a limit to the number of "elite" tiers. That way, there are a lot of opportunities to spend story points, but the sheer number of mastery tiers makes it impractical to make all of them elite. I'm not super fond of this idea as I presented it, but the overall spirit fits the bill for a new place to sink tons of story points.
- I'd pay story points for increasing a ship's max number of flux vents/caps. 1 story point equating to +2/3/4/5 more vents or caps would be awesome if I could repeat it 2-3 times.
2. Building in s-mods is expensive early-game.
I don't think s-mods should be cheap, but as it stands, I've only built in maybe 3 s-mods total in my ~6 hours of playtime. I recognize that those costs will become trivial once I get a profitable colony up and running, but I'm wondering if there's some way to keep costs down enough to make it more viable without a reliable income. Honestly, I'd pay a story point to reduce the cost by half in some cases, and this adds some mitigation to issue #1.
3. Minor UI/UX gripe: not a fan of the "double-click to perform action" stuff.
I'd rather just have a dedicated, one-click button for advancing a ship's mastery. Similarly, for building-in a hullmod, I'd prefer either a dedicated button at the end of the hullmod's row, or a more vanilla-like approach where you can select multiple and then confirm to pay and build them in. None of this is a huge deal, but it was a bit jarring to get used to at first.
4. Knowledge cubes aren't particularly useful.
If I were playing just vanilla + this mod, I'd probably feel different, but with a huge roster of ships from various different mods, the cubes don't drop often enough to provide meaningful benefits. I'll realistically only use a small fraction of hulls in the modded game. They're fine to sell for credits, sure, but it's not particularly interesting. I don't think the answer here is to make them drop more often, as that just makes more clutter.
Perhaps something like:
- Cubes simply grant more MP. I'd say around ~20-30 MP is meaningful considering their rarity. The few I've seen seem to grant like 5-10? Which isn't useless, but more often than not I'd rather just sell it for credits. If it were 20+ MP, it'd make me think twice about selling it. Maybe I'd even go seek that ship out if I don't own it, since the cube would give me a non-trivial head start.
- Some way to exchange them for more MP with ships more relevant to you. Something like Nex's blueprint exchange at Prism Freeport, perhaps. Or, a random bar event with an engineer/combat instructor type NPC that lets you sacrifice the cubes you don't want and that somehow translates to gaining more MP with ships in your fleet, or some other ship of your choice.
5. Civilian ships gain mastery really fast.
Or maybe combat ships gain mastery too slow? Eh, I think it's the civilian ships being the problem. I like the idea of combat ships taking a non-trivial amount of time to work through the levels. Civilian ships, on the other hand, gain mastery like crazy. I've got a few fully-leveled buffaloes that give more cargo space than a colossus, which is sort of hilarious. I don't really feel like I've earned it, though. I can't think of a better system for giving civ ships MP, so for now, I'd recommend dropping their gain down by at least 50%. It feels like every time I get to a port, I need to go through all my civ ships and unlock 1-2 new mastery tiers on them, and it's a little tedious. Maybe civ ship XP can be slightly modified by the player's level -- slower gain from levels 1-10, and then a bit faster afterwards so late-game players don't need to waste too much time flying around with something in order to level it up.
All in all, great job on creating this. The mastery trees are engaging and advancing through them feels meaningful. I hope this is something you continue working on; despite the issues I raised, I'm having a lot of fun with it. Thanks!
I have a few points of feedback to give after playing for maybe ~6 hours now, in the pre-colony early-game.
1. Story points are less valuable overall.
I generally horde story points and use them sparingly so that I've got a bunch to use for s-mods in the late game. However, with the ship mastery system, the game's largest story point sink is gone. I'm sitting on like ~30 right now; I just don't have many reasons to use them. Of course, story points under vanilla conditions aren't super hard to come by, but s-mods were arguably one of the best ways to use them. Every time a story point was used, I'd be weighing its worth against a future s-mod.
I'd love to see a way to have story points play a more meaningful role in ship mastery. While I understand that the design philosophies of mastery and vanilla are sort of at odds (mastery being "earn the s-mods by using the ship" vs "spend green tokens to make ship good"), I'm convinced there needs to be a middle ground. What that middle ground is... I don't know, but I have a couple half-baked ideas:
- Spend story points to increase a ship's XP gain. Like mentoring officers. I'd use this -- sometimes gaining mastery for a ship feels pretty slow, and I'd have no qualms occasionally fast-tracking a particular hull. That said, this becomes a bit less relevant later in the game after you've mastered a lot of hulls.
- Story points can unlock "elite" effects on some mastery tiers. Some (or all, maybe?) mastery tiers could contain a small, locked bonus effect that gets activated if you spend a story point on it, just like elite skills for the player / officer. I'm inclined to argue that the bonuses should be small and that there shouldn't be a limit to the number of "elite" tiers. That way, there are a lot of opportunities to spend story points, but the sheer number of mastery tiers makes it impractical to make all of them elite. I'm not super fond of this idea as I presented it, but the overall spirit fits the bill for a new place to sink tons of story points.
- I'd pay story points for increasing a ship's max number of flux vents/caps. 1 story point equating to +2/3/4/5 more vents or caps would be awesome if I could repeat it 2-3 times.
2. Building in s-mods is expensive early-game.
I don't think s-mods should be cheap, but as it stands, I've only built in maybe 3 s-mods total in my ~6 hours of playtime. I recognize that those costs will become trivial once I get a profitable colony up and running, but I'm wondering if there's some way to keep costs down enough to make it more viable without a reliable income. Honestly, I'd pay a story point to reduce the cost by half in some cases, and this adds some mitigation to issue #1.
3. Minor UI/UX gripe: not a fan of the "double-click to perform action" stuff.
I'd rather just have a dedicated, one-click button for advancing a ship's mastery. Similarly, for building-in a hullmod, I'd prefer either a dedicated button at the end of the hullmod's row, or a more vanilla-like approach where you can select multiple and then confirm to pay and build them in. None of this is a huge deal, but it was a bit jarring to get used to at first.
4. Knowledge cubes aren't particularly useful.
If I were playing just vanilla + this mod, I'd probably feel different, but with a huge roster of ships from various different mods, the cubes don't drop often enough to provide meaningful benefits. I'll realistically only use a small fraction of hulls in the modded game. They're fine to sell for credits, sure, but it's not particularly interesting. I don't think the answer here is to make them drop more often, as that just makes more clutter.
Perhaps something like:
- Cubes simply grant more MP. I'd say around ~20-30 MP is meaningful considering their rarity. The few I've seen seem to grant like 5-10? Which isn't useless, but more often than not I'd rather just sell it for credits. If it were 20+ MP, it'd make me think twice about selling it. Maybe I'd even go seek that ship out if I don't own it, since the cube would give me a non-trivial head start.
- Some way to exchange them for more MP with ships more relevant to you. Something like Nex's blueprint exchange at Prism Freeport, perhaps. Or, a random bar event with an engineer/combat instructor type NPC that lets you sacrifice the cubes you don't want and that somehow translates to gaining more MP with ships in your fleet, or some other ship of your choice.
5. Civilian ships gain mastery really fast.
Or maybe combat ships gain mastery too slow? Eh, I think it's the civilian ships being the problem. I like the idea of combat ships taking a non-trivial amount of time to work through the levels. Civilian ships, on the other hand, gain mastery like crazy. I've got a few fully-leveled buffaloes that give more cargo space than a colossus, which is sort of hilarious. I don't really feel like I've earned it, though. I can't think of a better system for giving civ ships MP, so for now, I'd recommend dropping their gain down by at least 50%. It feels like every time I get to a port, I need to go through all my civ ships and unlock 1-2 new mastery tiers on them, and it's a little tedious. Maybe civ ship XP can be slightly modified by the player's level -- slower gain from levels 1-10, and then a bit faster afterwards so late-game players don't need to waste too much time flying around with something in order to level it up.
All in all, great job on creating this. The mastery trees are engaging and advancing through them feels meaningful. I hope this is something you continue working on; despite the issues I raised, I'm having a lot of fun with it. Thanks!
6
Mods / Re: [0.97a] Second-in-Command | A full-scale skill system rework
« on: August 11, 2024, 06:35:50 PM »2.Awarding permanent effects on player level-up is a good solution; I agree that it'd help with the "in-between" levels that don't give skill points.
Understandable, and it is part of my design ethos to avoid such skills when possible. This is why those hard limits stats are pretty much almost only available in Management, aside from Limit Breaker in Automation and as you mentioned Flux Regulation. I did not want to remove those skills, as they are iconic vanilla effects, but since i already figured that they could get in the way of fun, im not really planning to do anymore of the same kind.
At some point im planning to add some "Level up" effects, mostly to fill out levels where you dont get a skillpoint. Those would include things like
- Extra XO XP Gain
- +1/2 Officers in Fleet
- +1/2 Officer levels
- +1 Officer Elites
Using those i could replace some of the current "permanent" effects and give Management some new ones, still officer related, just more fitting to the system. However i think il keep "Best of the Best" as it is, as i think i did a good job at not making that one inconvenient (The inactive s-mods just reactivate when you re-assign the officer).
I wasn't properly considering that the officer limit increases and Best of the Best were both in the management aptitude... that does make any hard-limit changes less severe. I'll have to give Best of the Best a shot when I've got enough XP to pick it and I'll see how swapping out the management XO goes.
7
Mods / Re: [0.97a] Second-in-Command | A full-scale skill system rework
« on: August 11, 2024, 12:56:33 PM »
Wanted to briefly say that I'm thrilled this mod exists. I've fantasized about a similar system in the past, but never bother to attempt it. This definitely fulfills the dream.
I've only played with it for a few hours now, but I'd like to provide a few bits of feedback.
1. Echoing what has already been said, I do agree with the sentiment that some aptitudes are too laser-focused on certain areas ("Support," "Small Craft," and "Automation," as you've stated). Sounds like from your earlier response that you're considering some ways to address this, and I think that's the right move. I'm unopposed to the concept of a specific playstyle each having an "optimal" aptitude for players who want to go all-in on something (carriers only, mass frigates, automated ships, etc), but I don't think said aptitudes should horde all of the relevant skills. Spreading things out a *bit* more would probably foster some more interesting builds and prevent situations where players lock themselves into a specific set of XOs for the whole run.
2. I'm concerned about the aptitudes with skills that that modify hard limits: s-mod count, officer limit, flux caps/vents, etc. These were fine(ish) when they were attached to the player: speaking for myself, I'd never even reassign/swap those skills as they were not only powerful, but also a hassle to change. SiC seems to be a lot more accommodating to the idea of swapping skills/XOs more regularly than a player would reassign their skills in vanilla (which is a great concept). So, if I pick a skill for an XO that allows +1 s-mod -- yes, that skill is fantastic, but now it's also a pain to remove that XO because, after enough time, I've probably built my whole fleet around that one skill.
Personally, I'd prefer any skills that adjust hard limits to exist on the player's skill tree rather than an XO's. Or, maybe a hot take: those limit-adjusting skills can just be removed entirely. 3 s-mods per ship is insanely good. With the power that 3 leveled-up XOs give to a fleet, more s-mods just isn't needed. Though, I'd still like some way to field up to ~10 officers... if it were me, I'd probably just set the limit at 10 and call it a day. Officers are just too good and interesting mechanics-wise for me to not immediately choose to go all-in on them.
Thanks for all your work in creating this; SiC is a huge breath of fresh air. While I appreciate and respect all the effort that Alex has put into the vanilla skill system, no iteration of the base game's approach has really "clicked" for me as well as SiC has. I may toss some more thoughts your way as I go through my current playthrough.
I've only played with it for a few hours now, but I'd like to provide a few bits of feedback.
1. Echoing what has already been said, I do agree with the sentiment that some aptitudes are too laser-focused on certain areas ("Support," "Small Craft," and "Automation," as you've stated). Sounds like from your earlier response that you're considering some ways to address this, and I think that's the right move. I'm unopposed to the concept of a specific playstyle each having an "optimal" aptitude for players who want to go all-in on something (carriers only, mass frigates, automated ships, etc), but I don't think said aptitudes should horde all of the relevant skills. Spreading things out a *bit* more would probably foster some more interesting builds and prevent situations where players lock themselves into a specific set of XOs for the whole run.
2. I'm concerned about the aptitudes with skills that that modify hard limits: s-mod count, officer limit, flux caps/vents, etc. These were fine(ish) when they were attached to the player: speaking for myself, I'd never even reassign/swap those skills as they were not only powerful, but also a hassle to change. SiC seems to be a lot more accommodating to the idea of swapping skills/XOs more regularly than a player would reassign their skills in vanilla (which is a great concept). So, if I pick a skill for an XO that allows +1 s-mod -- yes, that skill is fantastic, but now it's also a pain to remove that XO because, after enough time, I've probably built my whole fleet around that one skill.
Personally, I'd prefer any skills that adjust hard limits to exist on the player's skill tree rather than an XO's. Or, maybe a hot take: those limit-adjusting skills can just be removed entirely. 3 s-mods per ship is insanely good. With the power that 3 leveled-up XOs give to a fleet, more s-mods just isn't needed. Though, I'd still like some way to field up to ~10 officers... if it were me, I'd probably just set the limit at 10 and call it a day. Officers are just too good and interesting mechanics-wise for me to not immediately choose to go all-in on them.
Thanks for all your work in creating this; SiC is a huge breath of fresh air. While I appreciate and respect all the effort that Alex has put into the vanilla skill system, no iteration of the base game's approach has really "clicked" for me as well as SiC has. I may toss some more thoughts your way as I go through my current playthrough.
8
Mods / Re: [0.9.1a] Hyperdrive 1.0.0 (BETA) - Fast and engaging long distance travel
« on: December 09, 2019, 07:26:53 PM »
That's totally fair, I appreciate the additional clarity on that. Not sure what idea that might have sparked, but here's hoping it's successful 
9
Mods / Re: [0.9.1a] Hyperdrive 1.0.0 (BETA) - Fast and engaging long distance travel
« on: December 09, 2019, 05:47:39 PM »
I'm always happy whenever a mod comes along that lets me spend less time in hyperspace. This is fantastic.
As other people have said though, it is pretty tedious when it comes to fine-tuning. Out of curiosity--would it be possible to aim the jump just by using your fleet's currently set destination? With point A as the player's fleet and point B as their destination, I'd imagine it couldn't be too difficult to run the numbers to try to drop the fleet out of warp as close as possible to where the player is trying to go.
As other people have said though, it is pretty tedious when it comes to fine-tuning. Out of curiosity--would it be possible to aim the jump just by using your fleet's currently set destination? With point A as the player's fleet and point B as their destination, I'd imagine it couldn't be too difficult to run the numbers to try to drop the fleet out of warp as close as possible to where the player is trying to go.
10
Bug Reports & Support / Graphical Artifacting on Ships
« on: November 16, 2018, 02:00:57 PM »
I'm encountering some strange artifacting with some ships in the game. I've attached an image to clarify. (The hammerhead on the left is the normal sprite, scaled up for comparison. Take a look at the middle "neck" section.)
From what I can tell, it seems to only appear on ships that have d-mods associated with them. It will appear in the refit screen, as well as in combat. I'm not sure if this is intentional (it does make the ship looks a bit messed up if it has d-mods), but I thought I'd bring it up regardless because it has a similar appearance to what I'd consider rendering artifacts.
0.9 is awesome btw, excellent work.
(If these are rendering artifacts, my GPU is a GTX 980 with the latest 416.94 drivers, if that helps at all).
[attachment deleted by admin]
From what I can tell, it seems to only appear on ships that have d-mods associated with them. It will appear in the refit screen, as well as in combat. I'm not sure if this is intentional (it does make the ship looks a bit messed up if it has d-mods), but I thought I'd bring it up regardless because it has a similar appearance to what I'd consider rendering artifacts.
0.9 is awesome btw, excellent work.
(If these are rendering artifacts, my GPU is a GTX 980 with the latest 416.94 drivers, if that helps at all).
[attachment deleted by admin]
11
General Discussion / Re: Been a few weeks now, have you killed one? [Spoilers]
« on: May 15, 2017, 05:32:50 PM »
In my experience, getting a bunch of cheap carriers (drovers & moras mainly), loading them up with a good mix of bombers and a few interceptors, and then giving a single "engage" order on the battlestation that your whole fleet is assigned to makes pretty quick work of it. Make sure you load up your carriers with as many missiles as possible, mainly sabots. Giving an engage order will make all your carriers close to weapons range, and the battlestation just can't handle the pressure of ~10 drovers worth of sabots. This takes down their shields, and lets your bombers start doing some serious damage to the modules. After a few modules go down, it's basically a snowball effect from there and the rest of the fight is no longer a challenge. Officers with carrier-related skills are a plus, and might even be necessary to a certain degree.
Note: this is likely only possible with the largest battle size setting. If you can't field enough carriers at once, my guess is that things won't go very well for your fleet.
Note: this is likely only possible with the largest battle size setting. If you can't field enough carriers at once, my guess is that things won't go very well for your fleet.
12
Blog Posts / Re: Ship Recovery
« on: January 23, 2017, 02:55:49 PM »@ Psiyon:Derp somehow missed that.
[overlay rendering stuff]
Alex: Solid reasons, that stuff definitely takes a lot of tweaking to get right. Didn't know how performance intensive it was, though--that's a pretty good reason to not do it.
13
Blog Posts / Re: Ship Recovery
« on: January 23, 2017, 02:03:51 PM »If I might offer a potential idea: Why not utilize a overlay to signify that a ship is a (D) variant? Something like the standard battle-damage overlay, but probably a lot more subtle. Seems like the (D) variants in general seem a bit desaturated, and have some basic wear and tear on them--at least in my mind, it doesn't seem too crazy to accomplish those visuals with an overlay on the ship sprite. Added benefit: (D) variants can be randomized a bit so they don't all share the same sprite (and will no longer lack visuals indicating degradation), and the intensity of the overlay could be ramped up based on how many (D) mods it has--could allow some interesting moments in combat where players can quickly take out hostiles that are clearly degraded.Another reason why I have wanted the the hand crafted D hulls to be seperate from the generated ones: Modder burn out. The reason why I say this is because several modders are now lamenting the fact that they will basically HAVE to make D skins for ALL of their ships because vanilla has some hand built D skins. And knowing how perfectionistic some of these guys get, I know that it will just lead to more and more stress for them
... but vanilla mostly doesn't have custom D skins for everything. And for started-normal-but-became-(D)-from-being-recovered ships, all of them are currently using the basic default sprite.
So right now actually the hand-made D hulls are separate from the generated ones, in the way you're thinking. Unless I'm missing something?
Doing stuff like that is never going to produce as pretty results as hand-painting everything of course, but this would be the first way that I'd try to solve this problem.
14
Modding / Re: Spriters judgement thread [non-sprite art allowed]
« on: January 18, 2017, 08:28:38 PM »
Yay sketches, continuing the redesigns.
Spoiler
[close]
15
Modding / Re: Spriters judgement thread [non-sprite art allowed]
« on: January 07, 2017, 07:29:15 PM »
No context:
Nothing is final and repaints should be considered WIP.
Edit: Forgot one
Old versions are always rightmost.
Spoiler
Nothing is final and repaints should be considered WIP.
Edit: Forgot one
Old versions are always rightmost.
[close]