posted 10-02- 06:09 AM               

Theres a couple bugs in the newest versions still and I'm sure we all want some new features like editing of body points.

Just wondering, I'm guessing your pretty busy latly.

If your too busy do you think you could pass the torch?

------------------
-=Sp@nky=-

posted 10-02- 06:54 AM               

If Bryan does not have time to do all this (plus all the cool ideas I'm sure he has, but not yet implemented) he should open OPS' source. Hippie's plugins are open-sourced, so if Hippie losts interest, the community has a hope to maintain his tools. In contrast, if Bryan leaves now (which he has the full rights to do, he's never been paid for his efforts) OPS will never become the full-featured editor it should be.
Just my .02 EUR.

posted 10-02- 06:56 PM               

I wouldn't have any problems paying a bit for it, except it complicates things. And It makes it inaccessable to younger people with a lack of funds or way to pay. And some of our good builders are young.

posted 10-02- 08:50 PM               

Re:OPS. The problem with OPS is that it was constructed on a 'as we go basis', this means that along the way things were hacked together so that they worked with no real plan, and coupled with the choice of scene render I made at the start mean that things are awfully messy in there.

This is responsible for the new GPF's that happen when a new version is done etc etc. All in all it is just becoming too difficult to add stuff without breaking something else. I'm sure software guys know what I'm talking about.

I've been toying with making a new OPS (OPS2 if you like) I've learnt enough from the old OPS to do things properly this time, and avoid some of the pitfalls I made before. For example, it is very difficult to get the old OPS to display a whole terrain without slowing down to a crawl or even worse crashing, but I could make that happen easily with a new one. There are also lots of hacks in the model loading pipeline, simply because that was a trail and error process, that make some modifications difficult, a result is some of the DOF funnies and parts moving the wrong way.

posted 10-02- 11:21 PM               

Wa sounds interesting, so your talking about a from the ground up rebuild.

I'm sure u need testers and imput on stuff.

I'm ready when you are.

posted 10-03- 05:23 PM               

I do often wonder though... This sim was made Open, for us to build and add to, so where are the damn tools to do it!!!!! MH!?

All other games that are open like Unreal etc have a full editor, whats the point in making an open sim if you aren't going to give us the tools to use it!! MH, I would like you to give us the tools used to build terrain, we can use Bryans OPS (which he was good enough to build although he shouldn't have had to) for aircraft and ground units etc, but we're struggling with terrain in all honesty and need those tools, now be a good boy, you guys made this open with no means to for us to use the function, tools please MH, soonest.

~Nat~

posted 10-03- 10:54 PM               

Open just means open, it implies nothing about tools. It is better, in the end, for the tools to be made by people other than Inertia. Isn't that the point of an Open system? Now we can do it any way we want, we do not have to do it their way.

There is more passion for things of one's own...

An Open system is far more powerful than just an included editor, and the work produced by SDOE is final proof that this is indeed true! I hope MH and everyone involved with creating OpenPlane feel a large sense of victory, they have taken a risk and creating something new and wonderful, and it worked! I include the likes of Bryan, Hippie, all the great initial aircraft designers -and us among the ranks of those who have been invloved in creating OpenPlane.

We rule

What was the question again?

------------------
-Sv =FC=

WWI in SDOE!

posted 10-04- 09:04 AM               

I think there is no differnce between Bryan working on OPS and us working on aircraft. How would you feel if someone said, "Wow Inertia, why didn't include an A10? I feel bad that Nat has to do all that work." You get the idea.

Creating a tool is as fun as an expression as creating an aircraft. I won't speak for Bryan, but I did create a crappy airfoil editor - and I had fun doing it. If Inertia allready had a great one, cool - but if not, no prob, we have the info we need to create it for ourselves, this is the power of an Open system.

I understand that you're not bashing SDOE, but I am just trying to explain why an Open game is better than a closed game with an editor.

Inertia did create a mission editor, but a much better one can be made. In a way, having the existing poor mission editor takes incentive to create a better one away.

posted 10-04- 09:31 AM               

Oh man a new mission editor would rock.

Man i hate the layout and interface in the present ones, Not to mention what you can't do with it but you can do with notepad.