Jump to content


Alpha Tester
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About vertex

  • Rank
    Novark Citizen

Profile Information

  • Location:
  • backer_title
    Ruby Founder
  • Alpha

Recent Profile Visitors

851 profile views
  1. Important edit in front of this posting: I just learned more about the topic and need to relativize. When I looked at that "voxel library", I took it as some kind of "ingame construct" that lets you copy individual voxels to use somewhere else. But now I've found the "Voxel Element Library" on trello, which actually sounds very useful and is currently listed as "should make it to beta" - so all of my following concerns already are largely accounted for. Still I'd like to see an option to manipulate vertices (not me of course, please) individually, but that library would be a huge improvement already. I hope for a voxel editor too, since that "voxel library", while surely being a great achievement, really looks awful for what it implies and makes building a virtual world almost harder than building the same thing in the real world. It basically is the opposite of what I am looking for when using a computer to get creative. When I have an idea, the computer shall aid me achieve it - not add artificial barriers, solely based on technology limitations and lack of development. For this developers should be the ones creating comfortable interfaces for humans to make the software do as desired/intended. If the human needs to run the code in their brain over and over again, because the developer failed to provide a proper tool, it invalidates the whole concept of computing, where you find software algorithms for repeated tasks like these. I agree that, in my past too, there was a time when I was still "discovering computers" and considered myself soo witty while hacking one workaround for the lack of tools after another into my machine - but today I know this should not even be necessary, because the pleasure in creativity and construction neither least nor last scales with the use of proper, professional tools and should never become a dull chore. If it's the tool that makes it hard to create what you desire and the game designer can't find another way to "challenge the player", then (in my personal opinion!) the concept is just seriously flawed. Another side to this is that yes, as already said, it makes the people capable of going through such a hassle, somewhat rare and special. But that is not what you want for "emergent gameplay" and a "player-built world", because everyone wants to get creative at some point and if the most basic shapes are this hard to achieve, then yes, you may have one very beautiful construct in a thousand, but it also means 999 others, that look like mashed potatoes, clutter the whole scenery On the other hand, a beautiful work of art does not just come for free with professional tools - the artists still need a sense for aesthetics - but then they could focus on this, instead of becoming some kind of hybrid between borderline OCD and what they originally wanted to do @Tordan I can see why you've got mixed feelings about this, but I really think that proper tools just make the whole world more beautiful and enable many more artistic people to get creative. In my opinion this outweighs the glorified elitism for a small handful of so-called "voxelmancers" by far
  2. discordauth:TuZRD7c0sqP3Ayk6XrfmOifOHtqN_NbT2buLAAE512E=

  3. Update: fixed it on my end using Stylish. Here's the simple CSS solution to remove only the <a> tag that contains the "Mark Read" action: .cForumList .cForumRow div.ipsDataItem_icon.ipsDataItem_category a[data-action="markAsRead"] { display: none; } ...and because it looked so empty... .cForumList .cForumRow.ipsDataItem_unread div.ipsDataItem_icon.ipsDataItem_category:before { content: '=)'; } Done!
  4. vertex

    RGB lights

    Yarr! But seriously - alpha could be applied to other elements, like screens or windows, too. Next thought: from a technical perspective it would work for lights too - reducing alpha on light radiation would enable us to "fake" the "lightness" part of HSL in RGBA, because alpha would serve a similar idea as lightness, at least keeping the hue the same. To calculate a soft pulse for three channels is more work than just shifting alpha up and down, always using the same values for RGB. If alpha on light-emitting elements doesn't work out engine-wise, one could always translate the fourth channel internally - or just not add this method to the LUA object of these DPUs. But maybe they'll just go for setPower() with a 0 to 1 factor. Or 0 to 255. Or 0% to 100%. Alpha, power, lightness... in the end the results are similar for light emitters
  5. They're white when there's something new to read and grey when there's nothing new. Simple: I'm a moron. I see white - I click
  6. Regarding the icon layout and functional consistency of these forums... There are these "voice bubble" icons in front of thread titles that look very similar to the voice bubbles in front of forum area titles. Issue: Inconsistent behavior The icon in front of the forum titles marks ALL threads inside that forum read. The icon in front of the thread titles jumps to the first unread posting. Multiple times now I accidentally marked whole forum areas read, because I intuitively clicked on that icon. Possible solutions, ordered by personal preference descending: disable the "Mark forum as read" on the forum area index - the function would still be accessible from inside the forum, where we have a button on top to do the same add a confirmation "You're about to mark the whole forum as read. Continue?" on the forum area index (maybe in combination with 3.) significantly change the design of those two functions that are very different from each other (however still, the similar layout/position would lead to intuitively target that area for the wrong reason...) make the icon in front of thread titles (that now do "Go to first unread post") do "Mark this thread read" instead (but as "mark something read" is a very destructive and afaik irreversible(?) function, I strongly feel against this solution - it's just an "at least it would be consistent" kind of thing...) Thank you for your consideration
  7. vertex

    RGB lights

    I like the general idea But I don't think we need three inputs. LUA scripting should be way more sophisticated than wasting 3 connectors for 24bit color settings. I guess if this will be realized, we'd rather get proper light setting methods for the LUA object on the DPU for key,value in pairs(self.StatusLights) do self.StatusLights[key].setColorRGB(230, 32, 8) end <edit> Regarding the code: to change the color of all your status related illumination, you'd first add all those lights to a table and then use a method to go through all of them and set the color. I've put fixed values for RGB above, but you could pass them as arguments to your method and use something like self.SetStatusLightRGB(230, 32, 8) on a button element labeled "Enable Alert!". </edit> Or .setColorHSL() maybe? What happens on .setColorRGBA() then? Do we get octarine!?
  8. Mmh, ich steh auf #Einhornkotze Another thought regarding double names: whoever names a ship "Millenium Falcon" doesn't care about originality anyways. My guess is that original names will emerge on their own - for original constructs.
  9. Maybe it's not worse at all if the name is accompanied by the names of the designer, builder and owner? So it's not just some "Hammerhead Corvette", but the Hammerhead Corvette, Property of Dorlas by SirDrinksalot built at Gamma Curill Prime Constructions
  10. TheBlender: Ya, me ken! I wos jost doin a pun.. Vellnn: Hey, what's wrong with that? In fact I already thought about a small orbital glider named "CVAN Megalore" and designated as "Multipurpose Carrier of Ark-Battlestar Class". Later maybe a capital ship called "Rural Speeder MK 2¼" classified as "Medium Sized Hovercraft". I'm especially fond of the "one quarter" part in the designation. No?
  11. I don't think the idea is to have predefined classes that players *have* to chose from - or is it? I wouldn't like that very much As I understand it "the idea" is to have a thread (about ship classes) that will serve as general chit-chat, right? Quote: "I think there should be a thread" - okays, nice idea, do it, I think the thread should go into the General Discussions forum tho Anyhow, since we are here now, I think the classes will be... Hovercraft (can't cloud) Plane (can't space) Shuttle (can't... errr... outperform other classes) Spaceship (can't atmosphere) ´
  12. vertex

    Raming ship

    Oh, post scriptum: aye, this is a cool aspect! But I don't think you need the ram option for this. The boarding capsule could be realized without it doing high damage to the construct from impact. Sure, you could say it's Kyrium on the outside - but whoa that's expensive! If you don't have Kyrium, the impact would be bad for the boarding crew too - so just carefully attach your boarding capsule to the ship, pressurize it and weld your way through the hull. Will work just as well for entering constructs. No need for goating =)
  13. vertex

    Raming ship

    Just a note of personal preference: I really don't like ram tactics for sanbox games where players design their own ships. True, I am a strong supporter of the #edprotestgoat (Goat will ram you anyways, David!), but in ED the ship designs are fixed. In a game where the ram tactics option would make "ram capability" a single valid construction goal, it would directly oppose the micro management of the weapon and defensive equipment options NQ will give us. It's a bit difficult for me to put this in English... but it's about balancing combat. You'll have weapons and counter measures. The more complex these are, the more tactical depth we will experience as players. Introducing the option to ignore all of this implied gameplay, by building voxel torpedoes and such, is not only about trolling, but about what players will/can chose to do. As I said - it's a personal preference and you may disagree. I can even see your point there - freedom of choice and all. But, on this very personal level and for this very topic, I really disliked the "Throw a construct at em!" tactic that is possible in other games with player built constructs. In my opinion it leads to low-end warfare (mediocre at best, because I really want to use the term "mediocre") and a dull snowball fight experience overall. Design of a battleship should be more complex than just slamming dem hammer plates in the front and get dem biggest drives in da back, yo
  14. Intel from the videos: you have a tool to select, copy and paste sections of voxels, so you should be able to nanoform/create such a section without the need of a projector - given that you created it before. I'm confident this will consume materials as if you were building it voxel by voxel. I don't know tho how or if blueprints will be able to transfer Section A from Construct A to Construct B - but I've read somewhere that you could create a blueprint from "just voxel parts" to have someone else fit in the elements - sounds kinda like it. My guess is that the current concept already provides similar possibilities
  15. I don't know either if artificial gravity has been idea'ed before - but in principle I like the option to manipulate gravity. My first reaction was similar to that of Miamato - to have gravity generators for which we could configure the size, strength and shape of the generated field. But I guess if one can connect plating to a DPU to define the height of the field effect, plating should work too. It's just that a voxel, meaning the plating that can span/fill a certain area, would act like an element in that case - my guess would be that this would imply some difficulties, as (as far as I know) they're using voxels purely for shape and only elements to provide functionality. Nonetheless, I like the idea of defining my own gravity fields. Have a like By the way: have you seen the video where JC comments on running around on the station? Maybe it's just a placeholder mechanic for this station, or the gravity from the planet, but walking around a station implies artificial gravity. You never know with pre-alpha footage, but I think we'll have "some kind" of artificial gravity, because their own control room is built in a way that just looks like it. Without further ado, here's the video: [edit] as it has just been linked, I'll just paste the link now, not embed the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dPmVdMU434[/edit] And you can see people running around in that control room in the Dual Universe Pre-Alpha Teaser 2017. Of course, nothing of this is final - but if they had the vision to let people float around on space stations, I guess they would incorporate it into the demonstration videos. Just wildfire guessing, as always. Maybe for a start they will just define "up and down" for each construct and have every avatar in proximity linked to that. /edit/ps Here are some blog posts that mention gravity: DUAL UNIVERSE (PART 3) LUA SCRIPT AND DISTRIBUTED PROCESSING UNITS DUAL UNIVERSE (PART 4) Not much tho - use [Ctrl]+[F] to quickly find the place. The last one even mentiones anti-gravity technology - their solution to the problem of players constructing with "real materials" and "real masses" while avoiding to run a billion times between storage and construction site in order to carry all the material there.
  • Create New...