Author Topic: Aurora II?  (Read 6888 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Elim

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • E
  • Posts: 5
Aurora II?
« on: September 21, 2011, 10:26:58 AM »
Hello, new one here.
So, what about Aurora II? Do you Guys know something about it?
 

Offline Dutchling

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 173
  • Baby Snatcher!
Re: Aurora II?
« Reply #1 on: September 21, 2011, 10:33:04 AM »
here is the thread.
Steve is working more on Aurora  (I) FTL than this one though iirc.
How did you manage to get an Aurora II board here anyway?
 

Offline Erik Luken

  • Administrator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 5159
  • Thanked: 117 times
  • Discord Username: icehawke
Re: Aurora II?
« Reply #2 on: September 21, 2011, 10:46:57 AM »
here is the thread.
Steve is working more on Aurora  (I) FTL than this one though iirc.
How did you manage to get an Aurora II board here anyway?

I did that late last night, but was too tired to move/copy the threads.
 

Offline Elim

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • E
  • Posts: 5
Re: Aurora II?
« Reply #3 on: September 21, 2011, 02:00:59 PM »
Quote from: Dutchling link=topic=4103. msg40046#msg40046 date=1316619184
here is the thread.
Steve is working more on Aurora  (I) FTL than this one though iirc. 
How did you manage to get an Aurora II board here anyway?
Thank you!
I feel stupid for not finding that Thread.
 

Offline Antagonist

  • Pulsar 4x Dev
  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • *
  • A
  • Posts: 124
Re: Aurora II?
« Reply #4 on: September 22, 2011, 09:35:31 AM »
I have VERY mixed feelings about Newtonian Aurora.

On one hand it is an excellent idea and a system that I would love to see work and play around with.

On the other, it is time not spent on Aurora II, which even if the FTL elements were not added, represents an immense improvement of the base game.

But, as a developer of hobby projects myself, I understand it since the best way to ensure you are interested and keep working is to keep doing interesting stuff, implement new features, while the boring, long and annoying process of porting tends to sap excitement and time, while essentially landing you feature-wise exactly where you are now.


Hmm, I wonder if Steve would ever accept community aid on this, or if donations improve CONSIDERABLY, professional assistance?  Just to get the code ported.  I understand he does not wish to open source it but I can still hope.


Though... on the open source side, I am reminded what ToadyOne of Dwarf Fortress did with the OpenGL code.  He basically posted source of a MUCH older unrelated game which uses the same drawing engine as DF.  The community stepped in and OpenGL'fied the code, fixing it and improving its performance considerably, after which he took the resulting product and merged it with DF source, in the end keeping DF closed but still getting help from the community.

I wonder if that is possible with the Aurora and Aurora II UI?  If there isn't too much game logic in there is it possible to post it and have the community help and pretty it up, while keeping the backend (the interesting stuff) closed?  Particularly, I am thinking of the system and galaxy views.  This is a decisively non-artist game, but those two can still do with some love.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7195
  • Thanked: 2254 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: Aurora II?
« Reply #5 on: September 22, 2011, 03:54:57 PM »
I wonder if that is possible with the Aurora and Aurora II UI?  If there isn't too much game logic in there is it possible to post it and have the community help and pretty it up, while keeping the backend (the interesting stuff) closed?  Particularly, I am thinking of the system and galaxy views.  This is a decisively non-artist game, but those two can still do with some love.

Interesting idea. At the moment the 'graphics' are handled by each object. So a planet knows how to display itself for example and a star knows how to tell its planets and moons to display themselves. Most of the work is not done within the actual window code so it may be possible to send that information to another program somehow. I was considering one path to Aurora II as developing the graphical side first and running VB in the background for most of the code until I could change it over. So the galaxy map would be a C# program for example that would request information either directly from a VB program or via information placed in a database by the VB program. Of course, the problem is that if someone else was involved in the graphics side then I would have dependency on that person for anything I needed to change and I really don't like that idea.

As you mentioned, the real obstacle to Aurora II being developed is not the technology but the maintainance of my own enthusiasm for the project. At the moment that enthusiasm is firmly directed toward newtonian Aurora. At least I am programming a lot more lately :)

Steve
 

Offline waresky

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1461
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Alpine Mountaineer..ohh Yeah!
Re: Aurora II?
« Reply #6 on: September 23, 2011, 10:43:58 AM »
Am love Aurora NEWTONIAN..
and Hope u,Steve,going firmly in this project:)).

Hope am understandable..eheh..

Am waitn with "hungry" ur new Newtonian Dream..

(ehy,..have u listen a CERN discover?..Neutrino's FTL ...)

eheh..u r an "precursors" of Reality
 

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54