|
Re: The neo-standard thread- Standardising additional hull sizes.
Here are more ideas for ship sizes, borrowed from MOO2/3, Stars!, my imagination, and other sources (sorry if some have been suggested before):
REGULAR SHIPS lancer cutter scout heavy cruiser dread cruiser (serious, they were going to use this in MOO3 but changed their mind!) superdreadnought titan behemoth colossus leviathan nubian SPECIAL PURPOSE SHIPS (don't bother including them in any standard, but they might be cool in a mod) privateer (built in cargo space) rogue (see privateer) galleon (see privateer) mini colony ship midget/mini/(regular)/maxi/ultra miner (how about giving these mining ships a special robominer mount that reduces its size by 50%?) fuel transport (built in supply storage and solar supply generation) super fuel transport mini/super mine layer (for special racial traits like "Space Demolition" - special mount reducing minelayer component size) BASESHIPS doom star death star death egg (OK, maybe if you are doing a Dr. Robotnik shipset with eggmobiles as fighters http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ) STARBASES orbital fort space dock (built in SYD ability?) star fortress ultra station |
Re: The neo-standard thread- Standardising additional hull sizes.
Quote:
Ed, we have a number of those things in the neostandard already: FOr example, death stars could (and do) use the worldship image. THe heavy cruiser is in, and so is the superdreadnought (heavy dreadnought). But yeah, some good ideas. Basically it depends on what the modders will use. |
Re: The neo-standard thread- Standardising additional hull sizes.
We should try to make the standard work for the most popular mods and add more ships to it as the mods require.
But if the standard gets too long artists will never get to make all pic sizes, 70 sounds like too much. We should try to unify image names a little as we did for the original 20 names. Let's forget about their names, we don't want to force modders to use the name of the picture in all mods, but just as a standard name for the pictures. Normal ships: 8 from the stock game pics + 5 from current NS = 13 Fyron seems to need more than these total 13, 4 more to get a total of 17 or can we unify some pic names? Baseships: The "Baseship" pic has achieved in Gold the status of optional stock file + only 1 more from NS = 2 Carriers: 3 stock + 2 NS = 5 Colony ships: 1 stock + 1 NS = 2 Transports: 3 stock + 1 NS = 4 Adding a 5th one wouldn't be too bad Bases 3 stock + 1 NS = 4 BTW The Starbase is a stock pic, not neo-standard. I don't know if the ones Fyron proposes should be here or in a special type. Sats & Mines: 1 stock each I like the idea of adding 2 more to have one pic for every stock size. The sock names "Satellite" and "Mine" should be the medium one just like the "Carrier" Fighters: 3 stock + 2 NS = 5 Does Fyron proposes 6 more because he needs 11 pics? Or only needs 6 in total or 6 + the 3 stock? Troops: 3 stock + 1 NS = 4 Weapon Platforms: 3 Stock a 4th one is not such a bad idea Drones: 1 stock And these are "special" types, what mean they can't be counted as additional ships in any of the categories above. Special ships (planet sized - Worldship): 1 NS Special ships (starliners) 2 proportion proposals Special ships (Stellar Manipulation) 1 NS Special Ships (resources) 1 NS Special Stations (resources) 1 NS Special Troops (Infantry) 1 NS I guess that as many mods add a second infantry we should add it, I propose to call the pic "TroopInfantryHeavy" |
Re: The neo-standard thread- Standardising additional hull sizes.
Quote:
Images which become really popular with modders can be bumped up to the main list, and vice versa. >We should try to unify image names a little as >we did for the original 20 names. Of all the new sizes listed, the ones which really grab my attention for inclusion in the main list would be the starliners and cargostation(perhaps merging them somehow under S_J's "civilian" suggestion), the 4th weapon platform the second infantry pic and the satellites. I agree with the troopinfantryheavy name, although PvK is already using eliteinfantry. The beauty of the satellites is that they can be included in any mod- even in the standard game- because the original image can be used as a default for all 3 and no-one will notice the difference. The same could be true of mines and drones. I'm torn on the 5th transport size: There's always the barge image to act as a backup for massive transports, but on the other hand the barge is a distinct class. What do ppl think? I'm not sure what Fyron had in mind with the fighters. His vehiclesize.txt has 6 fighter hulls, but calls for a lot of new images, despite 5 images being available in the neostandard. That was an early Version of the file though, I know he updated it but I don't have the updated Version on this machine. He may have wanted the bombers to look very different from the fighters. I'm tempted to say that the extra warships are overkill, but some ppl probably said that about the destroyer heavy etc. They could certainly go onto a secondary list, if that ever came into being. [ January 14, 2003, 14:35: Message edited by: dogscoff ] |
Re: The neo-standard thread- Standardising additional hull sizes.
For anyone stumbling into this thread and wondering what the hell we're on about... here are two links to bring you up to speed.
Encyclopedia Malfadorica neo-standard entry and the neostandard home page. |
Re: The neo-standard thread- Standardising additional hull sizes.
Good idea, but I hope you can see what hulls are being used in which mod.
Damn, 70 pics! I have a lot of work to do. I realy hate it when the same pic is being used for two or more shipsizes. So I started work on my Ipsha shipset. It's my first, but I wanted to make it right in one go (as far as the different pics concerned). That goal will surely be a longhaul. I thought I was well on my way with almost half the pics they use in the standard game and in the B5Mod. But now it seems I'll have to make more and more different shippics. A daunting task indeed. |
Re: The neo-standard thread- Standardising additional hull sizes.
OK! For my two cents. As an artist, not a modder (and some will say not much of an artist, either), I would prefer more images. The more the better. All artist like showing off their work. That said, the modder's should say what images (if any) they want added to the Neo set. It is after all up to them to assign images in their mods.
I like the; troopinfantryheavy name as well. But since PvK is already using Elite Infantry in his mod why not adopt that as the Troop Infantry Heavy. Or make the Elite Infantry and Troop Infantry Heavy additions to the Neo set. I like the ladder idea. I also like SJ's idea of "Civilian type Images". Like the cargo station (civilianstation, or both), "civilianship" or "civiliantransport". Like Ferries (Ferryboats) or Starliners with special Quarter's for VIP travel! If you make them Starliners then Pvk will get his images for his mod and the Neo set will get 2 or 3 additions. Alright, I got more than two cents worth! mlmbd http://www.shrapnelgames.com//ubb/icons/icon6.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif |
Re: The neo-standard thread- Standardising additional hull sizes.
Timstone, 70 images! Daunting indeed! But, I did not hear form you that it was not something you absolutely relish the thought of! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif More of my work for people to see!
mlmbd http://www.shrapnelgames.com//ubb/icons/icon6.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif |
Re: The neo-standard thread- Standardising additional hull sizes.
Quote:
I'm like you, I like to do loads of extra images for a shipset, but not all shipset artists are the same:-( |
Re: The neo-standard thread- Standardising additional hull sizes.
I don't like to make too much extra images. Not because I don't like it or because I can't. But it's the time that's involved. Now it takes me a full two days to make one completly new reasonably detailed model. I don't work every day on a new model, so I would take me aproxemately 200 days to make acomplete shipset. That's a long time to wait on an exelent shipset, isn't it?!
|
Re: The neo-standard thread- Standardising additional hull sizes.
Perhaps instead of
Sub Set 1 Sub Set 2 Perhaps "Themantic Sets" Pirates Rock Paper Sissors or by Catagory Fighters, Troops, etc... |
Re: The neo-standard thread- Standardising additional hull sizes.
Timstone, just release the stock shipset first! Then make updates to that set. Like dogscoff is doing with Neo set!
Just a thought! dogscoff, tis true not all ship artist are the same. But real artist (no offence meant) are the same. They want more of their worked shown all over! mlmbd http://www.shrapnelgames.com//ubb/icons/icon6.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif |
Re: The neo-standard thread- Standardising additional hull sizes.
Mlmbd: That's a good idea. Not bad at all. But how may pics are that?
|
Re: The neo-standard thread- Standardising additional hull sizes.
Timstone - thie thing to remember about the neostandard is that it's all optional. You can do all the images, some of them or none at all for your shipset. It will still be compatible with all mods, but the more images you do, the nicer it will look=-)
|
Re: The neo-standard thread- Standardising additional hull sizes.
The stock set 36 images, if I am not mistaken. So 18 or so ships with mini's. Plus 20 images, for the present Neo-Standard! Not to bad!
<font color=purple>mlmbd http://www.shrapnelgames.com//ubb/icons/icon6.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif </font> |
Re: The neo-standard thread- Standardising additional hull sizes.
Okay, I'll concentrate on the stockset first. Then I'll move on to a complete set compatible with most mods. Btw, is it possible to give each ship it's own pic? So a large mine has the pic of a large mine and the small mine has a pic of a small mine.
|
Re: The neo-standard thread- Standardising additional hull sizes.
Timstone; Sure, you can select any background you want for the portrait. As long as you make the mini with a Black background. And if you make an image of a large mine, you just need to name it that. Same goes for the small mine. Different images for each.
<font color=purple>mlmbd http://www.shrapnelgames.com//ubb/icons/icon6.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif </font> |
Re: The neo-standard thread- Standardising additional hull sizes.
Quote:
Extra mine pics would be good, as would sats and drones for reasons I've mentioned below. |
Re: The neo-standard thread- Standardising additional hull sizes.
So far I've got 3 different mines, sats and drones. I'm beginning with the bases now. I'm planning 5 different bases (the B5Mod has 5 kinds of bases).
Thanks for the advise guys! |
Re: The neo-standard thread- Standardising additional hull sizes.
Normal ships:
8 from the stock game pics + 5 from current NS = 13 Fyron seems to need more than these total 13, 4 more to get a total of 17 or can we unify some pic names? No, they can't be unified. A light destroyer, destroyer and heavvy destroyer are not the same ship, just like light, medium and heavy cruisers are not the same ship. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Bases 3 stock + 1 NS = 4 BTW The Starbase is a stock pic, not neo-standard. I don't know if the ones Fyron proposes should be here or in a special type. SpaceFortress would definitely go in here. CargoStation could, or could be a CivilianStation or something. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Fighters: 3 stock + 2 NS = 5 Does Fyron proposes 6 more because he needs 11 pics? Or only needs 6 in total or 6 + the 3 stock? Not sure, but I will probably use Small-Medium for Attack Fighter, Interceptor and Heavy Interceptor. Orbital Fighter is supposed to be a fighter that can't move on the strategic map, only in combat. It is smaller than Small Fighter. The Bomber and Heavy Bomber are larger than Large Fighters. They should look a bit different than the other fighters though. Troops: 3 stock + 1 NS = 4 For Troops, I have Infantry, Light Mechanized, Heavy Mechanized, Small, Medium and Heavy Battle Mechas. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I think that the normal troop pics can be used for the Battle Mechas, and some new pics would be needed for Light and Heavy Mechanized. They can be named Small and Large if you really want, it doesn't matter too much. |
Re: The neo-standard thread- Standardising additional hull sizes.
I think that more than twice the stock number of normal ships is ovekill.
But if we're going to add so many maybe it's a good idea to add one in between each pair of stock pics, to have a better gradient (you can then name pics however you like). We cannot worry aobut every detail in every mod. Do you need one or two more fighters in the 5 fighters scale (the smallers can have one role and the bigger other), or need another familily of special fighters. And pictures for almost all SE3 troops, why not up to the apocalypse tanks? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif About the name of the larger infantry, I think we should keep the same naming convention we're using now. Remember I had suggested it to use just "Infantry" Last time, and I was already using that name in my mods, but you insisted that it should start with "troop" to be easier to find when ordering names alphabetically. I never liked the use of the name "Civilian" meaning a hull that cannot be used as a warship. All ships in SE4 are part of a military force commanded by the emperor/player. A civilian ship should be something else used by civilan members of the population an empire's population and not under direct control of the player, something that cannot be modded into the game, unless you turn its ministers on and pretend that it's controled by civilans. That said I like the idea of adding a series of small/med/large "NonCombat" ships and stations. Those pics can be used for the starliners in proportions, but Perhaps even the Barge can be changed to the massive noncombat ship. Another detail I think we should emphasize more in the site is that that we like variety in hull sizes and names. If for example we refuse to add a picture called "cutter" that does not mean that we don't like the idea of mods adding a hull named cutter, perhaps it should use the "scout" pic. Timstone The even if we minimize the new inclusions NS pictures will be nearly as many as the stock ones. Perhaps it'd be better to start a 2nd shipset instead of making twice as many pictures for one. |
Re: The neo-standard thread- Standardising additional hull sizes.
That is a good point. Change "civilian" to "noncombatant" in my Posts and/or suggestions. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
|
Re: The neo-standard thread- Standardising additional hull sizes.
Personally, I think we should have more base hulls... seems kind of silly to have 8 ships (plus all the "special purpose" ships like carriers, transports, and colony ships) but only 3 bases... surely you can construct bases in a variety of sizes as well? I guess it's just that bases aren't all that important in SE4 with the introduction of Units - weapons platforms and satellites take over much of the work that bases performed in SE2/3 - but still, I do like the idea in MOO3 where there are 14 ship sizes and 14 base sizes, the bases simply having more space available...
|
Re: The neo-standard thread- Standardising additional hull sizes.
I agree with Andrés Lescano. I think that we should to images in sets of three. IE, Small/Medium/Large and Light/Stock/Heavy were it is applicable. Would consider adding 'apocalypse tanks' as he suggest, as well.
I agree with fyron as well. I would also add that the fighter catagorey should be like this: Fighter Small/Med/large Fighter Attack Fighter Bomber Light Fighter Bomber Heavy Fighter Bomber Regular Fighter Huge Fighter Interceptor Light Fighter Interceptor Heavy Fighter Interceptor Regular Fighter Massive Fighter Orbital Troops: Troop Small/Med/Large Troop Apocalypse tank S/M/L or L/H/Regular Troop Huge Troop Infantry Troop Infantry Elite Troop Mechanized Heavy Troop Mechanized Light Troop Mechanized Regular Troop Mechanized Battle Large Troop Mechanized Battle Medium Troop Mechanized Battle Small Normal ships: All with 3 'Grades' Non-Combatant Starliner Large Non-Combatant Starliner Medium Non-Combatant Starliner Small Non-Combatant/what ever? Bases: Non-Combatant/what ever ? SpaceFortress Large SpaceFortress Medium SpaceFortress Small OR SpaceFortress Heavy SpaceFortress Light SpaceFortress Regular I don't feel the modder who isn't an artist should be penalized for that. It seems unfair (IMHO) to make the modder use images that already exits, because of that. He has every right to ask for the images he wants for his mod to be different. If I was a modder I sure the heck would. I know I got in on the end of this. I don't want to piss anyone off. You all asks for opinions. So, I supplied mine. I know that some shipset artists are going to be annoyed at me. OK!! I am a shipset artist as well. I just think that this is the right thing to do. Even if it means 3x more work for me to put out a Shipset. I am now getting off the 'box'! <font color=purple>mlmbd http://www.shrapnelgames.com//ubb/icons/icon6.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif </font> |
Re: The neo-standard thread- Standardising additional hull sizes.
Regarding the small/ medium/ large sats/ mines/ drones: I've just mailed malfador and asked to have distinct pics added as an option to the standard vehiclesize.txt
I know moddable changes don't tend to take a high priority in patches but this doesn't affect game balance and it won't require any testing of any sort, so I thought it might make it in. |
Re: The neo-standard thread- Standardising additional hull sizes.
Quote:
|
Re: The neo-standard thread- Standardising additional hull sizes.
There is absolutely no reason why you can't call for more images than the neostandard suggests.
That's what the secondary image name is for http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif |
Re: The neo-standard thread- Standardising additional hull sizes.
Of course not! But I can still try to get them added to the neostandard so that they will be used! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
|
Re: The neo-standard thread- Standardising additional hull sizes.
Fyron how many "normal" ships you have?
I think it will be more reasonalbe to add another pic between some larger ones than another below the escort. The only thing that really matters for the standard is the final number of pics, and I think you artists can balance pics better that way. Ed, Adding more bases doesn't sound like a bad idea. We're actually talking about 13 ship pictures and only 4 base pics. But so far modders have not requested many more base pictures. The neo-standard is not a mod to add new hull sizes. It is not even a mod by itself. It is a tool, based on existing and projected mods designed to help "modders" and "artists" use the same picture names in mods. And also help minimize the number of those extra pictures by dictating common pictures names The fact that many mods copy the vehicle names from the pic name, is an unwanted side effect. It's so boring that all mods add the same vehicle sizes. I wish we would have used a code or number for the pic names. Quote:
Should we all insit? Quote:
Actually I don't really like that idea. Different shipsets have troops that look like infantry, atmospheric fighters, hover vehicles, tanks, war-beasts, other type of mechas, ect. Do you want to remove all that by forcing all shipsets to have first infantry, then mechanized troops, then mechas and finally finish with massive tanks would be against the originality of different shipsets. But if you're gonna add SEIII troop categories into SEIV you should go all the way. BTW IIRC their names were "Blight Tanks" "Eradication Tanks" and "Apocalypse Tanks" Perhaps the best way would be 2 or 3 infantry and then just many "normal" troops (including stock ones) shaped like the ground attack vehicle of each race. I agree that the current 5 fighter pics may be too little (but better than only the 3 stock). But I'm still not sure what is the best way to handle fighter pics. A long gradient of 10+ fighters? 2 or 3 different looking "families" with 3 or 4 sizes each? |
Re: The neo-standard thread- Standardising additional hull sizes.
Here is the *VehicleSizes.txt* of the mod I am making. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Quote:
Quote:
[ January 16, 2003, 00:37: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ] |
Re: The neo-standard thread- Standardising additional hull sizes.
Andrés Lescano:
Quote:
<font color=purple>mlmbd http://www.shrapnelgames.com//ubb/icons/icon6.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif </font> |
Re: The neo-standard thread- Standardising additional hull sizes.
About the naming of Troops, Fighters, and Mabye Weapons plats,
Perhaps name the sizes after military unit sizes: Fire Team > Squad > Platoon > Company > etc.. |
Re: The neo-standard thread- Standardising additional hull sizes.
Hmm. I wonder if maybe the "tons of ship sizes" thing ought not to be its own standard, or an extended Version of the Neo Standard. The Neo Standard is really nice as it is, mainly in that there is a good amount of overlap in use, and a good number of sets that support it, especially with the recent additions to the original shipsets.
Fyron's mod isn't the only one to offer a large range of ship sizes, but I don't know of any ship sets that offer different images for so many sizes. In fact, many of the existing shipsets have some very similar-looking ships. If the Neo Standard added three or more times as many sizes, the matrix would mainly get harder to read. Is anyone actually planning to provide shipsets with so many sizes? PvK |
Re: The neo-standard thread- Standardising additional hull sizes.
My opinions on what should be added:
4 troops + 2 infantry is enough. 5 fighters is enough. Maybe add an orbital fighter at the bottom, but I think that would definitely be enough. A few more bases would be a good idea. the non-combat vehicles are a great idea. Only one or two more warship sizes are necessary. Perhaps light & heavy frigate? mlm: I don't think anyone meant any offence. PvK: I'm planning a fully neostandard compliant set and i know mlmbd is keen, but I don't think many others will bother, especially if we extend it by another 10 or 20 images. Take a look at the list of compliant sets on my webpage: there are about half a dozen sets with more than 2 images, and that's more than a year after the neostandard was first defined. It's not all that popular with shipset makers after all. For this reason I think a drastic expansion would be a bad idea. Therefore I think we should split the neostandard: I think any additons we make now should be "neostandard 2" or even better, divorce it completely from the neostandard and call it the "ultrastandard" or something. This would just just be a marketting trick to make it less daunting to shipset makers. If we did this, however, we could really go to town and make the "ultrastandard" (or whatever name) as big as the neostandard or bigger. Edit: Just realised that PvK suggested this Last point before me. Soory mate, didn't want to steal your ideas=-) [ January 16, 2003, 08:42: Message edited by: dogscoff ] |
Re: The neo-standard thread- Standardising additional hull sizes.
PvK, your idea about any further expantion to be it's own standard, or an extended Version of the Neo Standard is excellent. When I started to help dogscoff that idea crossed my mind. Dogscoff and did so much talking trying to get me up to speed on the NXP that I may have even mentioned it. Maybe not. Either way, it is a great idea.
Dogscoff, if you decide to use the multiple Neo set idea. Why not make it like: Neo Standard (first 20 images added) Neo Standard 2 - the next + 20 or 30 images Neo Ultra Standard 1 - the next + 20 or 30 images Neo Ultra Standard 2 - the next + 20 or 30 images Neo Ober Standard 1 - the next + 20 or 30 images Neo Ober Standard 2 - the next + 20 or 30 images Of course these are just names. They could be 'anything' you chose to call the next generation of the Neo set(s)! This would make it even less daunting to shipset makers. It would also give modders the oppurtunity to do exactly what the want in the form of images they would like or feel they need for their mods. It might even bring Modder and Shipset Builder closer together! Just a thought! dogscoff, by the way, that is why I wanted the text file setup the way I mentioned. For me being able to keep track of images needed/done. When we first started talking about the NXP! <font color=purple>mlmbd http://www.shrapnelgames.com//ubb/icons/icon6.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif </font> |
Re: The neo-standard thread- Standardising additional hull sizes.
mlmbd, Dogscoff, image modders - have you ever made a ship called a large starliner? I don't think anyone has, as it's a pretty obscure ship. So I'm going to change the primary image for it to Barge, unless someone has ever made one.
Also, on the Neo-Standard web pages, I notice that the UkraTal Corvette image isn't labelled, and there is a broken link from http://www.sandman43.fsnet.co.uk/neo...ondownload.htm to "Neo-expansion main". PvK |
Re: The neo-standard thread- Standardising additional hull sizes.
In the Last discussions we mention the possibility of adding starliner or "noncombatant" pictures to the standard.
|
Re: The neo-standard thread- Standardising additional hull sizes.
PvK,
Quote:
<font color=purple>mlmbd http://www.shrapnelgames.com//ubb/icons/icon6.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif </font> |
Re: The neo-standard thread- Standardising additional hull sizes.
Ah, shipsets. In some ways, this is the hardest thing about modding, for us non-artists anyway. So I think I'll start by saying that anyone who Posts new ship graphics is one of the good guys in my book.
I haven't looked as closely at the neo-standard shipset as I probably should have, and maybe this has been done since I downloaded, and Lastly, it's not exactly on the topic, but what would help me most would be if those extra categories of stadard ships were flehed out for the races from the original SE. And maybe the TDM guys too. And an order of fries. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif |
Re: The neo-standard thread- Standardising additional hull sizes.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: The neo-standard thread- Standardising additional hull sizes.
Yeah, I got this stuff, and it is good. Very good. But just like everyone's favorite orphan, I want some more, please. Not more categories, after thinking about it, I decided that the neostandard already has plenty for my needs. Just filling in those categories for all of the races would be excellent.
By the way, I'd like to plug the image archive, while we're talking about images. That stuff is awesome! Plus, I had no idea how many pictures in the original games files were unused. Amazing. Not too sure about the space bunny, though. |
Re: The neo-standard thread- Standardising additional hull sizes.
orev_saara, we are working on closing out 'ALL' the SEIV standard races with 'All' the images.
I don't know when dogscoff has his next release to the NXP scheduled. But you will see a lot of 'new' images. I even think that one race will be complete. <font color=purple>mlmbd http://www.shrapnelgames.com//ubb/icons/icon6.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif </font> |
Re: The neo-standard thread- Standardising additional hull sizes.
*BUMP*
<font color=purple>mlmbd http://www.shrapnelgames.com//ubb/icons/icon6.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif </font> |
Re: The neo-standard thread- Standardising additional hull sizes.
dogscoff, Hey 'Boss'!
<font color=purple>mlmbd http://www.shrapnelgames.com//ubb/icons/icon6.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif </font> |
Re: The neo-standard thread- Standardising additional hull sizes.
dogscoff, can we pickup this dicussion, again? I am getting ready to release 'my' first shipset. It will not only be NeoStandard. But, it will include all of the images for PvK's Proportions Mod (plus ones he is planning to add) and about 1/2 of the images Fyron wanted.
I was thinking of calling it NeoStanard ++. Any comments? <font color=purple>mlmbd http://www.shrapnelgames.com//ubb/icons/icon6.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif </font> |
Re: The neo-standard thread- Standardising additional hull sizes.
OK... well, that sounds good to me. From the discussion on this thread I think the neostandard should be left as it is, but a second set of ships would be an excellent idea, and I don't think anyone will have a problem with the name "neostandard ++"
It sounds like you've already made a list. What sizes do you have in there? I'm planning to go beyond the neo-standard with my KanesS set, so I'll probably fall into line with you. [ March 12, 2003, 16:25: Message edited by: dogscoff ] |
Re: The neo-standard thread- Standardising additional hull sizes.
Thought it was about time this thread had a name change=-)
|
Re: The neo-standard thread- Standardising additional hull sizes.
Here is the neo-standard++ list:
neo-standard++.txt <font color=purple>mlmbd http://www.shrapnelgames.com//ubb/icons/icon6.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif </font> |
Re: The neo-standard thread- Standardising additional hull sizes.
mlmbd
That is a great list, thanks. Um, would I be a jerk if I aksked you to: Identify which goes with wich mod What the expected sizes are. Well, would I? |
Re: The neo-standard thread- Standardising additional hull sizes.
Gryphin,
Quote:
In fact, anyone that knows the Mod/Modder and or the size (in kilotons) of the images, post it here! Thanks! <font color=purple>mlmbd http://www.shrapnelgames.com//ubb/icons/icon6.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif </font> |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:13 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.