The neo-standard thread- Standardising additional hull sizes.

[dogscoff]

OK, so I know this little project died way back in the spring somewhen, and the pages devoted to it on my webspace have been festering un-updated for months, but now that the viking production machine is slowing down again, I thought I'd make another effort to create some continuity between mods.

For those who missed it / ignored it the first time round...
I'm trying to create some sort of vague "standard" set of filenames for non-standard hullsizes, so that a shipset creator can make his shipset compatible with a number of different present and future mods more easily.

For example, in S_J's Pirates and Nomads mod, the battlemoon image has to be called
"massivebaseship". In the Star Wars mod though, the Battlemoon (Well, Death Star actually, but it's still a big, grey, round thing) goes by the name of "LDS". Which name should I use for my vikings shipset? I can only be compatible with just one, but I want my battlemoon image to be used by both mods.

If theese two modders agreed upon a standard file name for these big grey round things, then shipset creators might start making shipsets that include them. Then, future modders could call for big grey round thing images in their mods in the knowledge that there are already dozens of shipsets out there with images to support them.

The idea goes beyond just that one example though, obviously: Extra fighter sizes seem to be used by many different mods. Also infantry, mining / resource generating hulls and many others which may exist or come to exist in the future.

The problem comes with those shipsets which have no extra images at all and never will. This problem is solved by adding files to the generic shipset. I am willing to spend time creating new generic images if necessary.

Now that my viking shipset is almost complete and freely available, I'd like to start trying to standardise some of the non-standard images.

So, the major mods I am most familiar with, (other than TDM which uses no non-standard images anyway) are Pirates and Nomads, and the Star Wars mod. Also, you were the guys that showed an interest Last time=-) So...

S_J, your P&N mod currently calls for a pic called "massivebaseship", which is used for the battlemoon. You include a generic image for it, and another identical image titled "battlemoon". You also have extra hull sizes, but no special images for drop
pods, bio-fanatics, resource ships/ stations and 2 extra fighter sizes.

Andres, your mod calls for:
3 death star images called "sds", "mds" and "lds", & one picture called "infantry"
I'm assuming you have generic images for these.

There are also fighter sizes including a TIE bomber, which just use standard fighter images.

Here is my suggestion for a working system- and it is just a suggestion. If necessary I can create generic images to fill in any gaps. (Even if I just copy another generic image and rename it)

EDIT: Table wasn't clear, so I attached it as a text file.

If you guys were to establish this as a starting point, i think other modders and shipset creators would follow suit and we could start the ball rolling.

Would this system work? Do you think those images are compatible? Are there any changes you want made? I know it sucks using a generic fighterbomber image rather than a race-specific largefighter image, but if this idea catches on then I believe that most new shipsets will be created with race-specific images for all or most of these extra sizes, and that authors will start to update their back- catalogues. I've tried to show the way with the vikings and I seem to be getting a good response. I can even start making additional images for existing shipsets if necessary.

[ March 12, 2003, 16:24: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

[Val]

I like the idea of a system that is used throughout, would definitely make shipsets more cross-mod compatible with less work.

I would make a few suggestions to make the naming more consistant to SEIV :

Call Infantry "TroopShock" or "TroopVeteran"

Call Huge Fighter "FighterHuge" or "FighterMassive"

and add :

"ExplorerShip" - made for long range exploration
"ScoutShip" - made for speed and intel
"ColonyShipLarge" - Available before Large Transport but geared for larger colonies

I know the Last three ship types can be created from other hulls, but I think these hulls could be given different restrictions and bonuses to make them useful.

Now if you can just get everyone on the same page...

Val

[This message has been edited by Val (edited 16 November 2001).]

[dogscoff]

QUOTE:
I like the idea of a system that is used throughout, would definitely make shipsets more cross-mod compatible with less work.
/QUOTE

Thanks for saying it so concisely. Why can't I ever express this project in less than 200 words?

QUOTE:
I would make a few suggestions to make the naming more consistant to SEIV :
/QUOTE

Point taken, but the SEIV naming system is hardly consistent anyway. IE lightcruiser but transportlarge.

QUOTE:
Call Infantry "TroopShock" or "TroopVeteran"
/QUOTE

Hmm. How about "TroopInfantry"?

QUOTE:
Call Huge Fighter "FighterHuge" or "FigterMassive"
/QUOTE

I'll see what is already in use. Fighterbomber is quite a popular usage. Remember we're only naming the images, not the hull sizs. The troubl with "huge" and "massive" is that there could be some confusion as to which is the bigger.

QUOTE:
and add :
"ExplorerShip" - made for long range exploration
"ScoutShip" - made for speed and intel
"ColonyShipLarge" - Available before Large Transport but geared for larger colonies

I know the Last three ship types can be created from other hulls, but I think these hulls could be given different restrictions and bonuses to make them useful.
/QUOTE

Like I say, we're naming images, not hull sizes. In other words I don't want to tell the modders what to use these images for, I just want to make the images available for them. I'm not aware of any current mods which use those sizes (although devnull used to have an ark ship) so there's no point trying to standardising them.

QUOTE:
Now if you can just get everyone on the same page...
/QUOTE

Yeah I know...



------------------
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:

---

QUOTE:
I would make a few suggestions to make the naming more consistant to SEIV :
/QUOTE

Point taken, but the SEIV naming system is hardly consistent anyway. IE lightcruiser but transportlarge.

---

SE4 is not exactly consistent, its true. However, unless you plan to change the unmodded imagenames, we're stuck with them.
As for what you add, I like the idea of making the names follow an SE4 style.

PS: You need square [] brackets around "quote" and "/quote".

quote:

---

QUOTE:
Call Huge Fighter "FighterHuge" or "FigterMassive"
/QUOTE

I'll see what is already in use. Fighterbomber is quite a popular usage. Remember we're only naming the images, not the hull sizs. The troubl with "huge" and "massive" is that there could be some confusion as to which is the bigger.

---

In my case, the Nomads still have only 3 useful fighter sizes, so I used small/medium/large images for them. The internal game names are not important.

As a first approximation, using either mount sizes, or planet sizes would work quite nicely to expand the range of sizes.
{Tiny, Small, Medium, Large, Huge}
{(Light/Small), (Medium), Large, Heavy, Massive}

quote:

---

PlanetoidLarge -> Battlemoon or Large Death Star

---

Are you defining the standard name here?
IE. "Planetoid" is a vehicle large enough to form itself into a sphere shape?
Just wondering if that bit is finalized, or up for discussion.

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

Now, I could write a utility to go through a shipset, copying & renaming images to fill the gaps between it and your standard.

For example, the program would check to see if there is a "_planetoidlarge", and if not, look down a list of replacements. The choices would be "_massivebaseship", "_planetoidmedium", "_planetoidsmall", "_baseship", and so on.
If all that fails, then the shipset would be left to use the mod's default image. (Note that "_baseship" doesn't exist, but would likely be a good image to copy.

At the end of the process, the shipset would have most or all of your standard image files; the actual pictures would be duplicated, but the ships would retain the colour scheme of the race rather than use mod defaults.

Note: If I write this, you could define your standard shipset to use "_cruiserLight", and not "_lightCruiser".
My program would simply use "_lightCruiser" as the first choice to copy to "_cruiserLight".

[Val]

quote:

---

Point taken, but the SEIV naming system is hardly consistent anyway. IE lightcruiser but transportlarge.

---

As to the point of consistancy, I had noticed that the transports where categorized as Large instead of Heavy as well, but put that down to it generally being meant as a "non-combatant". I have no clue why the LightCruiser is named that way, probably something they accidently did and never "fixed".

quote:

---

As a first approximation, using either mount sizes, or planet sizes would work quite nicely to expand the range of sizes.
{Tiny, Small, Medium, Large, Huge}
{(Light/Small), (Medium), Large, Heavy, Massive}

---

I like the idea of using the mount sizes. Then you have:
FighterLight, FighterHeavy and FighterMassive to add.

Any of those fighter sizes can be made into a fighter bomber. If people planned for the FighterBomber had some unique hull stats or abilities, then it should be added.

quote:

---

PlanetoidLarge -> Battlemoon or Large Death Star
Are you defining the standard name here?
IE. "Planetoid" is a vehicle large enough to form itself into a sphere shape?
Just wondering if that bit is finalized, or up for discussion.

---

Well, if we keep to the Planetoid (or whatever word we use instead) idea and use the Light, Small, Medium, Large, Heavy, Massive designations you can have a range of "Battlemoons" or "Death Stars" to chose from (or for that matter Orkie Rocks or Space Hulks), since the picture is all that is referenced. This might even lead to a craftworld type object.

We can do the same with troops, adding Light, Heavy and Massive.

quote:

---

Like I say, we're naming images, not hull sizes. In other words I don't want to tell the modders what to use these images for, I just want to make the images available for them. I'm not aware of any current mods which use those sizes (although devnull used to have an ark ship) so there's no point trying to standardising them.

---

The extra hulls would be geared towards new ship types that would be common throughout mods, though the exact abilities may differ, as seen fit by the modders (or not used at all). The names are just a generic desription for what they are "best" used for. As you say, the pics are there for the use, if they want them and could be used for something else.

So, we could potentially add:

"ExplorerShip" - made for long range exploration
"ScoutShip" - made for speed and intel
"ColonyShipLarge" - Available before Large Transport but geared for larger colonies
"TransportTroop" - Gives some sort of bonus on planetary assault - can be broken down into sizes
"ProspectorShip" or "ResourceShip - for resource generation
"MiningStation" - for resource mining/generation


and the already discussed:

TroopLight
TroopHeavy
TroopMassive
TroopInfantry
Planetoid(or whatever word)Light
PlanetoidSmall
PlanetoidMedium
PlanetoidLarge
PlanetoidHeavy
PlanetoidMassive
FighterLight
FighterHeavy
FighterMassive
FighterBomber

[This message has been edited by Val (edited 16 November 2001).]

[dogscoff]

Quotes in no particular order.

[QUOTE}
...plan to change the unmodded imagenames...
[/quote]

No way! That would be ridiculous. I was just pointing out that if Malfador isn't going to be fastidious about ship names, why should we? I agree that we should use the shipadjective format (ie transportlarge) rather than adjectiveship (lightcruiser) because it Groups files together nicely when sorted alphabetically. Other than that, I'd rather be a little creative with the names rather than tie ourselves to conventions which may not suit in the future.

But no, I don't want to redefine all the standard images. I just want to make most efficient use of the non-standard ones=-) Trying to reclassify FighterSmall as FighterLight etc would be a bureaucratic idiocy. I see your argument for fightermassive rather than fighterbomber but... I just like it better. I'm not really bothered though, as long as we can get everyone using the same names.

quote:

---

...planetoid?

---

I wouldn't go around defining conventions without consultation... it was just a suggestion. Besides, I can't finalise anything, you're the modders- who the hell am I?=p. It just seemed to me that planetoid is one of the few words that can describe both a Death Star and a Battlemoon. After all, they're very different things- all they have in common is that they're big, grey and round. Fortunately, when you're talking about images, what something looks like is the only thing that really counts.

quote:

---

...utility...

---

This sounds clever, but it's the kind of thing I'd rather see in the game itself. Also, when would you run it? Would it leave all your files with the wrong names if you then wanted to run a different mod?

All this talk would be redundant if the vehiclesize.txt allowed you to specify a secondary image (between the first choice and the generic) if the first choice wasn't found.

quote:

---

...planetoid...Orkie Rocks...Craftworld...

---

Yeah, I think a range of giant death stars would be good. 3 is enough though... anyone modding more than that probably needs to spend more time away from their computer.

quote:

---

...troops...light...

---

I think "infantry" or "troopinfantry" should definitely be used rather than "trooplight". There's a significant visual difference between an infantry unit (guys on foot with guns) and an SE4 troop. (tank, mecha, giant robot etc)

quote:

---

...explorer...

---

Those are all good ideas (I never thought of a specialised troop transport hull=-) but I think it might be an idea to let this thing develop at it's own pace - only define conventions where they are needed. If no mod (or only the one mod) has an "explorer" class, then I don't see much point in standardising it. These standards are only meaningful when you have more than one mod using similar hull types but under different names.

Hey... any other modders want to jump in on this? The more the merrier

------------------
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.