The neo-standard thread- Standardising additional hull sizes.

[dogscoff]

OK, It think we're making real progress=-)

IMHO, the important ships to discuss are the ones already in use:

Infantry (Storm troopers, bio fanatics. Maybe or maybe not drop pods.).
I think the standard name for this image should be "TroopInfantry"

Big Round Grey Things (death star/ battlemoon).
I think the standard name for these images should be "PlanetoidSmall/ Medium/ Large)

Mining Ships & Stations (S_J's nomad resource hulls)
I think the standard names for these images should be "Prospector" and "MiningStation")

Fighters. S_J says he doesn't need extra fighter images after all, so I think just "FighterBomber" for Andres' TIE bomber.

Does this cover all your extra hull sizes? Would you guys be happy to make the above changes to your vehiclesize.txt files? Should we vote on "planetoid" vs "worldship" or "prospector" vs something else?

Like I say, these are the important ones since they are the ones actually relevent to your mods. I think we should agree on these before we discuss tiny fighters, stellar manip barges, corvettes, troop transports and whatever else. They can be added afterwards - the standard can grow and evolve to accomodate them as necessary.

Oh, and thanks for your support with all this, guys=-)

BTW, I still haven't had any response from other modders=-( but it is the weekend. Good news about Devnullmod though=-)

------------------
SE4 Code:
L GdY $ Fr- C- Sd T!+ Sf-- Tcp-- A% M>M+ MpD! RV Pw Fq+ Nd- Rp+ G-
/SE4 Code
Go to my meagre SEIV pages to generate your own code.

[Suicide Junkie]

quote:

---

Mining Ships & Stations (S_J's nomad resource hulls)
I think the standard names for these images should be "Prospector" and "MiningStation")

---

I don't have resource hulls anymore; I replaced that with 1% maintenance, plus the minimum production, plus trade/thefts.

As for the prospector/miningstation, I'm thinking we want to get across the idea of "big ship with scoops/loading bays"

- Some sort of Scavenger, Collector type idea.

[Andrés]

quote:

---

Infantry (Storm troopers, bio fanatics. Maybe or maybe not drop pods.).
I think the standard name for this image should be "TroopInfantry"

---

I repeat that IMHO InfantryTroop is unnecessary redundant, just Infantry is enough. But if you insist in that pic name, I’ll follow.

quote:

---

Fighters. S_J says he doesn't need extra fighter images after all, so I think just "FighterBomber" for Andres' TIE bomber.

---

Neither I do. I made three fighter sizes TIE Fighter, TIE Bomber and TIE Advanced using the Small, Large and Medium fighter pictures (they match the fighters I used in the SW-Emp1 shipset). In my mod they come with the SW racial advantage, and are smaller but this similar performance compared with standard fighters which they make obsolete and not worth researching.
Fighters I think could be useful to modders are smaller and bigger than standard, a FighterTiny and a FighterMassive.

quote:

---

Does this cover all your extra hull sizes?

---

It exceeds my extra sizes, but that’s not important. My mod adds very few sizes, and its not a great mod by itself.
What we need to do is to make enough ships pictures for modders to use. We can even create a simple mod using all the “standard” pictures.

quote:

---

Would you guys be happy to make the above changes to your vehiclesize.txt files?

---

I said that I haven’t updated that mod in a loooong time, but yes, next time I update it I’ll make it compatible.
But as I said in my previous post, it will be more important to create compatible shipsets.

quote:

---

Should we vote on "planetoid" vs "worldship" or "prospector" vs something else?

---

I would vote for “PlanetCraft” or “WorldShip”, something that makes clear that it is a ver big sized ship and not a stellar body.

quote:

---

As for the prospector/miningstation, I'm thinking we want to get across the idea of "big ship with scoops/loading bays"

---

What about a “SpecialShip” and “SpecialStation” that could have different functions in different mods.

This is the VehicleSize file from Hadrian Aventine's Ultimate Mod (about to be updated), in case you want to take a look at the extra sizes there.

[Suicide Junkie]

quote:

---

What about a “SpecialShip” and “SpecialStation” that could have different functions in different mods.

---

The problem with that is "special" could mean so very many things.
The filename should describe the picture, but not limit the use too much.
Its all about balance.
"Big scoopy ship"
"Little scoopy ship"
"Civilian Craft"
"Superbig round ship"
"People with guns"
I think that's about the level of detail we need to specify with this image name standard.

--------------------

"Worldship" sounds good.

[This message has been edited by suicide_junkie (edited 18 November 2001).]

[geoschmo]

Hey, I am all for standardization and anything that makes it easier on people creating new shipsets. But I am not totally clear on the idea here. I appologize for my ignorance. I took on the task of updating the DevNull Mod mainly because I am such a fan of it and wanted to see it included in the CD. I am not really very proficient at the art of modding. My Trek Mod was just replacing images, I didn't really add anything.

I can see how there could be a problem if the mod has new images it's looking for and the shipsets don't have those images. But I don't see what needs done to the Devnull Mod. I looked through the vehiclesize.txt file and while he has added several new hull types, they all use the exsisting default images. How would this cause a problem for anyones shipsets? Wouldn't your special images jsut not get used and not give you any kind of error?

I am loathe to remove any of the hull sizes in Devnull Mod. I can see all sorts of problem with research and vehicle designs that I am not sure I am qualified to correct. And I don't see the need if they won't cause problems in the first place.

If you could clear me up on this I would be more than happy to get on board.

Geoschmo

[Andrés]

quote:

---

"Big scoopy ship"
"Little scoopy ship"
"Civilian Craft"
"Superbig round ship"
"People with guns"

---

Well it should describe the picture but not so literally.
Not all resource ships will have scoops,
Not all worldships will be round, maybe they are cubes
Some infantry can be monsters that fight without weapons, or small sized mechanized troops.
Civilian craft... No, don’t think there can be any civilian crafts (they shouldn’t be controlled by players, but by civilians in the pop) do you mean weaponless ships?

The idea of the special ship was just a ship like looks different. Although some carriers have visible fighter bays, most are just small, medium and large ships that match the shipset but look different than standard ships. The same happens with transports. So what about a third kind of ship that matches the shipset but looks different. Doesn’t matter exactly what function it performs, (it can be a resource ship, a specialized satellite layer, or whatever-a-modder-can-think-of) just that it looks different from other ships, and that there can be small, medium and large variations.

[Andrés]

You’re right Geo, DevNull mod adds new vehicle sizes, but uses the standard pictures, new shipsets should work alright.
But, when you’re creating a shipset, either if you’re drawing it from scratch, or using pictures compiled from some sci-fi source, can easily make or find pictures for those extra sizes.
But what would be the point of creating for example a Prospector picture, if it’s never going to be used.
Modification of the mod would be that, once we agree on a standard, use s_j’s proposed program or manually duplicate pictures and modifying the vehiclesizes file to use at least some of them. That way if you add shipset with extra pictures, the new sizes will use the new pictures. (I’ve been experimenting about creating extra pics for standard shipsets look at the attachments)
I hope this makes our objective clearer.

We’re dealing with pictures here getting the AI to research and design according to the mod is a completely different problem, and I don’t think that that can be standardized.

[This message has been edited by Andrés Lescano (edited 18 November 2001).]