Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 2      Prev   1   2
LoB

Registered:
Posts: 44
Reply with quote  #16 
Awesome, thank you Ayelis! Are there multi-ship missions in the pack?
Ayelis

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 31
Reply with quote  #17 
To the best of my knowledge, of the missions included in the 2017.08 Portland pack, Countdown Detonation, and (GM) Neutron Trap are optimized for multi-ship play. Some of the others may also work, but I don't usually play with multi-ship crews so I haven't tested them.
LoB

Registered:
Posts: 44
Reply with quote  #18 
Thanks again, I will check them out!
Dave Thaler

Registered:
Posts: 392
Reply with quote  #19 
What do folks think about creating a Mission Pack specifically for 2.7-compatible missions?  There's been enough changes in mission scripting that most old missions require conversion in order to work correctly on 2.7.  I've been making the Artemis Mission Editor detect problems, and be able to automatically fix a few of the issues.  RyleyRA has fixed up some of the built-in missions, but there's a bunch more missions that could be fixed and re-released.  I'm thinking it would be useful to create a GitHub repository that allows multiple people to contribute missions and fixes, and from which a release of the pack can be built.

Assuming people think that would be good to do, here's some questions:
* Any issues with people making fixes to another author's mission?  Seems like this is happening already but wanted to check.
* What about large files like WAV files or videos?  Should missions that require large files be included?  I'm thinking it's probably fine to include them.
* Some places recommend setting the "version" attribute on the <mission_data> node to the Artemis version that the mission works with, others ignore this and just set it to say 1.0.  If a mission is converted to work with 2.7, should the version attribute be updated?  Should it say "2.7" or something else?  (Artemis itself ignores it, but it is visible in the stats shown in the Artemis Mission Browser that comes with Artemis Bridge Tools, and is shown on the TSN Nexus website in the detailed stats for a mission.)
ryleyra

Registered:
Posts: 2,799
Reply with quote  #20 
My two cents worth on the topic:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Thaler
What do folks think about creating a Mission Pack specifically for 2.7-compatible missions?  There's been enough changes in mission scripting that most old missions require conversion in order to work correctly on 2.7.  I've been making the Artemis Mission Editor detect problems, and be able to automatically fix a few of the issues. 


This would be very helpful. Automatic conversion would allow players to convert their own missions or ones they find, while the posted versions could tweak the scripts manually to clean up things that are messy after the auto-conversion. Plus, bug fixes of course. 😃

Quote:

RyleyRA has fixed up some of the built-in missions, but there's a bunch more missions that could be fixed and re-released. 


Yeah, I am intentionally working on updating ONLY the missions that are included stock with the game. Of course, even if they're included in the actual 2.7 release, they will still become obsolete once a new version comes out, but I am trying VERY hard not to think about that. 😃

Quote:

I'm thinking it would be useful to create a GitHub repository that allows multiple people to contribute missions and fixes, and from which a release of the pack can be built.


I really like this idea. Of course it goes with the next question:

Quote:

Assuming people think that would be good to do, here's some questions:
* Any issues with people making fixes to another author's mission?  Seems like this is happening already but wanted to check.


I don't think there would be issues, but I would assume it would be as easy as anyone who doesn't want to be involved in the project making it explicitly clear that we are not to use their scripts in the Mission Pack. If you post your mission to GitHub, I assume it's implicit that you are asking for contributors to help maintain your script.

Quote:

* What about large files like WAV files or videos?  Should missions that require large files be included?  I'm thinking it's probably fine to include them.


I think we're pretty much stuck with WAV files for voice acting as long as play_sound_now doesn't take the OGG or MP3 format. I have been kicking around the idea of including VLC or some other file player in a mission installation so it can use custom file formats with spawn_external_program. I think that any mission that includes video or spawns external programs should probably come with a disclaimer letting the user know, though.

I would put the same disclaimer on scripts with audio just for consistency.

Quote:

* Some places recommend setting the "version" attribute on the <mission_data> node to the Artemis version that the mission works with, others ignore this and just set it to say 1.0.  If a mission is converted to work with 2.7, should the version attribute be updated?  Should it say "2.7" or something else?  (Artemis itself ignores it, but it is visible in the stats shown in the Artemis Mission Browser that comes with Artemis Bridge Tools, and is shown on the TSN Nexus website in the detailed stats for a mission.)


I've been kicking around this, too. I think there are a couple of places where both the version of the script (if it is likely to have multiple versions) and the version of Artemis it runs on should be noted.

- In the script itself
- In the Readme file
- Possibly, in the mission_description block. (Such as, "The Waning Dark (v1.0) presents a simple exploration mission, with a small amount of voice acting to build immersion")

This may be typical, but I usually update the version attribute to the Artemis version, and then use the 2.x.1, 2.x.2 tag for revisions to the actual script, if any.

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.