Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
Graphics Update / Re: CHAP
« Last post by White Claw on October 22, 2017, 10:22:44 AM »
Good point out. It's actually the same texture, but the bottom two are a bit taller (mainly because the blue glowing section is shrunk). That results in more wall space, so the fact that there's some texturing there is apparent.
Computers & Programming General / Online JavaScript Course
« Last post by Hooman on October 21, 2017, 03:19:50 PM »
There is a free Intro to JavaScript course on Udacity, in case anyone is interested.

It's a beginner course, for those with no experience programming. I've noticed from time to time there are people on the forums that want to get a start in programming. Maybe some people will find it useful. The syllabus seems to cover all the programming basics.

Disclaimer: I haven't actually done this course myself. I only read the syllabus and skimmed through a few sections. I've done some of the more advanced JavaScript courses on Udacity though, and found the quality of those courses to be excellent.
Outpost 2 Divided Destiny / Re: Outpost 3 Alpha Testing Commencing
« Last post by Hooman on October 21, 2017, 04:08:06 AM »
It's important to remember that assets made for Starcraft 2 can be reused in UE4 or Unity. Not that I WILL be doing that anytime soon, but perhaps someone down the line will want to do that.

That's good to know. People keep mentioning those two engines.

I'm kind of curious about the assets. Did you need some kind of conversion step? If so, how involved was it?

Outpost 2 Divided Destiny / Re: Outpost 3 Alpha Testing Commencing
« Last post by Zhall on October 20, 2017, 09:34:34 PM »
The link should take you directly to the map in

I don't think they can be formatted correctly on this site, so try these

Outpost 3 is for lack of a better name.

StarCraft 1 got a "remaster" and so is age of empires 1. Perhaps Outpost 2 "remastered" would be better.

I don't really care, Outpost 2 Remastered seems good to me.

No one has played it since I played with fistoz, which has led me to back burner this project behind a ton of other ones.

As far as I'm concerned I completed the 1 month push because I got it to a playable alpha version.

It's important to remember that assets made for Starcraft 2 can be reused in UE4 or Unity. Not that I WILL be doing that anytime soon, but perhaps someone down the line will want to do that.

Outpost 2 Divided Destiny / Re: Outpost 3 Alpha Testing Commencing
« Last post by lordpalandus on October 20, 2017, 11:59:06 AM »
Well according to the video Zhall posted, it appears that you can only get the download link for the game demo by having it sent to you via Discord. I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that Zhall set the link to private-invite only and to get that invite you need Discord.

Yes, it is a surface level reason. A diplomatic or polite one.

Well, there are three parts to it:
1) I want to complete it as quickly as possible, without burning myself out, so that my time is free around December to focus on other things, like family and friends.
2) There is a gal I met back in August/September that was very busy in August/September, but is likely to be much freer with her time around December, and would like to see if she'd be up to dating then; can't very well do that if I'm swamped in game making.
3) I believe I know what I did wrong with UE4 and with my newfound knowledge of mechanical system design, programming knowledge, and troubleshooting skills, I am very interested in going back to UE4 and trying to build a video game in it. However, knowing my creative energy limits, I know that trying to do two major projects at the same time won't work. I also know that I'll have to spend a lot of time learning and doing tutorials, which is somewhat less demanding on creative energy. Thus, I want to complete CoC and be free in December to start working on learning UE4.

I don't find playtesting tedious, when it comes to my own project. I actually kind of enjoy it. I also have been implementing some rather huge systems lately, so the changes aren't all that small yet. I'm sure once everything is in, and I'm on the hunt for grammatical errors, typos, linebreaks, and minor logic error it might get tedious, but I'm not at that point yet. The only playtesting that I find tedious is when I identify a problem, the developer acknowledges it but doesn't do anything about it, and I run into the problem over and over again as I play, and that makes the playtesting tedious.
OutpostHD / Re: OutpostHD - An Outpost Redesign
« Last post by Hooman on October 20, 2017, 09:02:26 AM »
Ahh, sounds kind of like the "Future Tech" in the Civilization series of games. Once you've researched the entire tech tree, you just continue researching numbered "future techs", with each one adding to your overall score. There was no actual in game benefit to doing it though. It just affected the high score rankings.
Outpost 2 Divided Destiny / Re: Outpost 3 Alpha Testing Commencing
« Last post by Hooman on October 20, 2017, 08:56:48 AM »
Mine are the fact that I don't like testing multiplayer demos, as I rarely play the multiplayer for a game

Ahh, interesting. I get that too actually. That's for pointing that out.

And I don't think you need Discord to play.

I'm busy enough as is, developing my own game and testing it, to test someone else's game... as fun as it looks ...
This one strikes me as a surface level reason. I would bet if you really focused on that answer, and really dug into the why, you would find deeper more meaningful reasons.

Though one of those could simply be priorities. Your own game might be your priority, and not testing other people's games. I kind of get that. But still, I suspect if you really thought about it, there's probably more to it than that.

It is hard to ask others to test your work if you don't take the time to help others' test their work.
Indeed. There is truth in that. It's hard to ask for something when you find yourself hesitant to do the same for others.

Though I suspect this comment won't feel very convincing, and I suspect it won't feel very convincing because there are other reasons hidden beneath. If those deeper reasons are not addressed, it won't change how someone feels about something.

I'm not keen on hearing a port of Outpost 2 to the Star Craft engine being called Outpost 3

That is a very keen observation. Now that I think about it, the name kind of bothers me too. It doesn't really feel like an "Outpost 3". It's more like an OP2: SC2 project. A rough clone of the original in a new game engine.

It's a pretty awesome clone so far. I'm impressed by how much went into it. But yeah, it doesn't quite feel like it should have the title "Outpost 3".

I'm curious, how would other people describe this game? I'm not very creative, so I'd just go with "Outpost 2: Starcraft 2", or describe it as a remake of Outpost 2 in the Starcraft 2 engine.

As for playtesting, it does get progressively tedious as you iterate to a final version, as the changes tend to get smaller and smaller. Once you've played it once, you already know it. The novelness wears off. Though in terms of changes, hopefully the need for feedback should also decrease. In terms of motivation, well..., that's the hard part.
Graphics Update / Re: Terrain Tiles
« Last post by singthemuse on October 20, 2017, 08:10:38 AM »
Thank you for the warm welcome! I LOVED Outpost when I was a kid so its awesome seeing it being reworked like this!  :)
OutpostHD / Re: OutpostHD - An Outpost Redesign
« Last post by singthemuse on October 20, 2017, 08:07:12 AM »
I think theoretical physics would be a fun end game research tier. Not necessarily for new technology gains or anything but as a mile marker. My thinking is that if a person's colony has the time/resources to support the study of theoretical sciences, then the colony is likely VERY stable and has enough extra supplies and colonists to support that, rather than something more immediately necessary to survival like housing, mining, morale, etc..

Perhaps "theoretical physics" could be an option that would continuously study thus tying up the facility forever unless it is canceled. It could be a large drain on resources too meaning that if players choose it too soon, they would endanger the colony. It could open the door for creating the new starship maybe (after enough cycles of it being studied)? Or perhaps just gives bonuses to other facilities (universities??) while it is being studied.

Just a thought!
Projects / Re: OP2MapImager Development
« Last post by Hooman on October 20, 2017, 03:12:18 AM »
If we go that route, would that mean that both the OP2Utility MIT license and the FreeImage GPL license both need to be distributed with the final OP2MapImager executable?

For the binary distribution, I'm a little unclear on the details. I don't know if you're required to include a copy of the MIT license with a binary distribution. Though it wouldn't be wrong to give proper attribution in a binary distribution, and I would encourage that for third party libraries. I believe the GPL is required to be either distributed alongside a binary, or have a way for the binary to output a copy of the GPL.

For the source code, yes, you should include both licenses, and it would need to be clear what sections are covered by each license. In particular, the MIT license would not apply to FreeImage or the project as a whole, while the GPL will apply to the whole project.

I looked over the licenses a little. It seems that the MIT license is considerably more popular than the BSD license. So I would probably chose MIT over BSD since it would be more familiar. I am happy to use the MIT license for both OP2Archive and OP2Utility.

Sounds like they are all nearly equivalent. I think due to the similarity, short lists will include only one of the three. That might result in one becoming more popular than the others.

Don't worry about the history of the project. I don't think it's that important. It's easy enough to discover, and a note can always be added about where it came from. To fix the history now would require rewriting history. If other people have cloned copies of the project, it would cause update issues.

The license you included is the one I'm thinking of.

As for the BSD license, there are 3 of them. The original 4-clause license, the new/modified 3-clause license, and the simplified 2-clause license.

Here are some licenses for reference:
BSD 2-clause
BSD 3-clause
(The BSD 4-clause license is considered by some to be restrictive, and not compatible with GPL. Didn't find a reference to it on the same site)

The GPL licenses are considerable longer than the others.

One difference I read noted about MIT, is the right to sub-license as the licencee, which is supposedly different from BSD and zlib.

I rather like the wording of zlib actually. It's very clear about what is required versus appreciated, and they are clear about source as opposed to binary. I think I still prefer MIT, but wish it was a little more explicit about those things.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10