Author Topic: Open Outpost  (Read 20698 times)

Offline Hellspawn

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Open Outpost
« Reply #75 on: January 28, 2010, 03:23:34 PM »
So another project probably down the drain. Too bad.  :(

Same thing happened with the Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic 2 restoration project from Team Gizka.

Guess I'll start playing the unmodded game sometime soon. Not interested in part 2. I'm not into the war theme from that one. Original was all about survival without weapons.

Offline meatwad1666

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Open Outpost
« Reply #76 on: February 01, 2010, 09:56:40 PM »
Quote
So another project probably down the drain. Too bad.  :(

Same thing happened with the Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic 2 restoration project from Team Gizka.

Guess I'll start playing the unmodded game sometime soon. Not interested in part 2. I'm not into the war theme from that one. Original was all about survival without weapons.
well i..... well yeah i guess so but iw still love the weps in OP2 i always love the rail gun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tee0uZubcoA


its the only way to describe me and my friends

Offline The_Blight

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Open Outpost
« Reply #77 on: February 10, 2010, 08:52:24 AM »
Hmm. I wonder if there aren't any other means of succesfully resurrecting (and sustaining) this project. As OPU has existed for a long time, perhaps it's better to accept an OP1 remake won't happen at a steady pace, and that there'll be times when the programmer resource pool dries up completely, only to have some new ones show up some months later...

Don't get me wrong, it's a daunting task to begin with, as the original is so buggy it's hard to get what's going on, not to mention programming techniques and hardware have changed considerably over time, and things that were okay back then could be a big no-no today, and vice versa.

Considering the rather volatile lifecycle of open-source projects, wouldn't it be better to opt for a 'high ceremony, low cycles' approach, making documentation the most important artifact ? Thus setting out the prerequisites at the start, making use of Use Cases, and from those generate a Class Diagram, and only after that's all in place start writing code?

Some of you may recognise the Waterfall model in this approach, while it's bloated and slow, it does offer possibilities to 'restart' with new people as its documentation level is much higher. And it doesn't require anyone to go through code to get what's going on.

Also, this would allow 'roll-backs' of certain parts of the project, e.g. if it should be decided that the engine needed to be updated/changed, or that certain modules are to be added/removed.

In short, I respect croxis' attempt very much, and noone is pointing fingers here, everyone has their own priorities, and noone can expect "recreating a game" to be the first on that list.

In short, if I would ever try to recreate it, it would be as vanilla as vanilla  could be, whatever should have been possible in the original, should be possible in its recreation. Mixes with OP2 or other RTS game element are a noble intent, but will almost surely never be implemented and could make the development process even more complicated.


As for the ideas of mixing several game elements into a new one: I really liked how OP1 placed 'Science' first and used 'Science' to generate progress. While I do love certain aspects of OP2, its combat system doesn't make very much sense and makes it look rather cheesy and cartoony IMO. OP1 had a more 'serious' approach, the smallest mistake on your end (and with a little help from the bugs) could cause you to lose it all.

Ofcourse a project is only viable if there are people willing to participate in it!

Offline Simpsonboy77

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 168
Open Outpost
« Reply #78 on: February 10, 2010, 10:25:44 PM »
Interesting post The_Blight

Sure if everyone documented their projects it would be much easier to pick up. The problem is I have yet to meet a programmer who documents the program before/while coding. I'm even guilty of it, I normally finish part of a program then go back and comment it. In my opinion documenting is the most boring part.

Most of these projects are either 1 or a small group of people doing it. Chances are at the beginning they have the intention of completing it. So they go coding, and eventually real life hits, and they can't find the time. They probably don't have a class hierarchy or a description of each method in their program so so its tough to look at it and see what its doing. And they sure don't have time to document it, because they would rather spend their time actually making it.

With all due respect you can't really tell someone to drop their project and document it. They started whatever project because they wanted to. They are driven by their own motives, and documenting it isn't on the list.

I'll probably edit this a few times so don't quote it within the first 30 minutes.
My tutorials
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

Offline CK9

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6253
    • http://www.outpost2.net/~ck9
Open Outpost
« Reply #79 on: February 10, 2010, 11:25:43 PM »
And that's why engineers could never be considered programmers :P

Whenever an engineer creates a program for a process, the following steps are followed (90% of the time, heh):

1) Identify parameters (What do we want?  What do we know?  What equations apply?  etc.)
2) Decide on what actions will always group together
3) Build functions based on 2
4) Identify function use (where in the code the function is called)
5) Put it all together and hope it works the first time (:P)

each step involves a fair ammount of notes specifically so that, if another engineer needs to modify or add something, it won't take much time to find anything.  Of course, we don't code very often, as there are many programs out there that let us do what we need to do (such as ProII, Superpro (two different companies oddly enough, lol), ect.)
CK9 in outpost
Iamck in runescape (yes, I still play...sometimes...)
srentiln in minecraft (I like legos, and I like computer games...it was only a matter of time...) and youtube...
xdarkinsidex on deviantart

yup, I have too many screen names

Offline The_Blight

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Open Outpost
« Reply #80 on: February 11, 2010, 11:22:37 AM »
Quote
Sure if everyone documented their projects it would be much easier to pick up. The problem is I have yet to meet a programmer who documents the program before/while coding. I'm even guilty of it, I normally finish part of a program then go back and comment it. In my opinion documenting is the most boring part.

Fine, but often 'boring' is part of the job. Ofcourse it's blatantly obvious what the code you wrote yourself means, documenting is about making the meaning and structure clear to people who haven't written that code.

Quote
Most of these projects are either 1 or a small group of people doing it. Chances are at the beginning they have the intention of completing it. So they go coding, and eventually real life hits, and they can't find the time. They probably don't have a class hierarchy or a description of each method in their program so so its tough to look at it and see what its doing. And they sure don't have time to document it, because they would rather spend their time actually making it.

In all honesty, that translates into: 'destined to fail, time after time'.

Quote
With all due respect you can't really tell someone to drop their project and document it. They started whatever project because they wanted to. They are driven by their own motives, and documenting it isn't on the list.

Nobody should drop anything. Documenting isn't a punishment. If tomorrow someone feels the need to redo Outpost in pink and glitters, by all means, he/she should do it. I was only saying that if one starts to see a pattern in the interest in a certain project, one could perhaps change course and use it to their advantage.

Some people do document, some even apply Software Engineering principles.
Once again, croxis did a great job, and I have nothing but respect for his efforts.

Offline lordpalandus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 703
Open Outpost
« Reply #81 on: February 25, 2010, 01:58:47 PM »
So Outpost 1 Remake is dead then?

I always thought that Outpost 1 + Outpost 2 could make a great Outpost 3... in that, when you started Outpost 1, you had to choose several different things, like which planet you would go to and resources you have etc etc. I think that system could be applied to Outpost 3... if it was ever made.

Like wouldn't you have chosen a better planet than New Terra? I'm sure some moons would have been more hospitalible.
Currently working on Cataclysm of Chaos, Remade.
Link to OPU page = http://forum.outpost2.net/index.php/topic,6073.0.html

Offline Kayedon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 380
Open Outpost
« Reply #82 on: February 25, 2010, 02:49:39 PM »
Quote
So Outpost 1 Remake is dead then?

I always thought that Outpost 1 + Outpost 2 could make a great Outpost 3... in that, when you started Outpost 1, you had to choose several different things, like which planet you would go to and resources you have etc etc. I think that system could be applied to Outpost 3... if it was ever made.

Like wouldn't you have chosen a better planet than New Terra? I'm sure some moons would have been more hospitalible.
The last part is debatable. As I no longer own any viable 32-bit systems I haven't ever played OP1. However, having the two relate into one awesome game would be a project I would love to adventure into.  
"Trust me, I'm crazy."

Offline Sirbomber

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3175
Open Outpost
« Reply #83 on: February 25, 2010, 03:59:02 PM »
Because nothing screams "exciting RTS" like having to take 15 minutes to find a hospitable planet in the system you want, then pack your cargo, deploy it all once you arrive at your destination, and start with literally nothing.
"As usual, colonist opinion is split between those who think the plague is a good idea, and those who are dying from it." - Outpost Evening Star

Outpost 2 Coding 101 Tutorials

Offline CK9

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6253
    • http://www.outpost2.net/~ck9
Open Outpost
« Reply #84 on: February 25, 2010, 04:46:08 PM »
not to mention that you have to deal with vehicles you can't see suddenly getting oblitered without explanation...
CK9 in outpost
Iamck in runescape (yes, I still play...sometimes...)
srentiln in minecraft (I like legos, and I like computer games...it was only a matter of time...) and youtube...
xdarkinsidex on deviantart

yup, I have too many screen names

Offline croxis

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 147
    • http://croxis.net
Open Outpost
« Reply #85 on: March 28, 2010, 07:24:32 PM »
Well I would like to think I decently documented my code  :P

Sorry for the overtly quiet hiatus. I've been nabbed working on a city builder project which I intentionally designed to be similar code wise to Open Outpost. I'm taking all the things I developed for CityMania (gui code, paged geomipterrain with splatting using some simple shaders, etc). The new gui fit in with very little changed to the code. However the new terrain system is going to need some work to integrate in as they are vastly different systems. The old terrain system I was using did not separate data from presentation.

While the bazarr branch has not been updated in 4 months, work has been done on OO indirectly through this other project. I project getting all the new code in by Wednesday.
David - Proud to be saving the universe sense 1984
Open Outpost developer.  Project Page | Forum Thread

Offline croxis

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 147
    • http://croxis.net
Open Outpost
« Reply #86 on: April 01, 2010, 08:51:01 PM »
Screenshot time!



I didn't even touch the building graphic code, how the heck did this happen!?! May have to pull out each graphic by hand, or think of some UV trickery.

Orthographic camera is currently off (will be back on later), terrain is using the new splatting system, and new gui code (not visible).
David - Proud to be saving the universe sense 1984
Open Outpost developer.  Project Page | Forum Thread

Offline croxis

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 147
    • http://croxis.net
Open Outpost
« Reply #87 on: April 05, 2010, 03:00:19 PM »
Prototype is back to its previous functionality. I am waiting for an issue to resolve in the upstream packing system and should hopefully get alpha 1 offically out the door in the next two days.
David - Proud to be saving the universe sense 1984
Open Outpost developer.  Project Page | Forum Thread

Offline jcj94

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 407
    • http://techfusion-279.com
Open Outpost
« Reply #88 on: December 27, 2010, 08:09:36 PM »
Quote
I'm with woojoo, i didn't read any thing you typed, i just want to play (put this in the readme if you want people to read it :P )
same.. i read the readme, not the download instructions

Offline jcj94

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 407
    • http://techfusion-279.com
Open Outpost
« Reply #89 on: December 27, 2010, 08:15:21 PM »
...... what would happen.. if we ALL, using OP1's backbone and OP2's tech-tree tried to create an OP3?... would it work.. would it look anything right.. or.. I don't know, im just randomly babbling here.

I'd love to see an outpost 3... and I believe IF we get almost everyone working in close tandem, we MIGHT be able to do it, or at least a better, more expansive OP2.. Maybe a *OP3 Colony Game pack*.. maybe a total rehaul.



The only problem.. i think there are going to be a LOT of legal issues...  <_<

Would there? :(  :op2: