Tech Icons

Message

Obiwan · #16 Post by **Obiwan** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 9:23 pm

Yes all is clear. Ill work my way thru my icons and simplify them.
Those descriptions give a good mental image.

#17 Post by **Geoff the Medio** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 9:32 pm

pd wrote:btw, do you know already when you can finish the descriptions? they are really well written and helpfull.

I won't dispute that you might find them useful, but I can't in good conscience accept them being called "really well written"... They're more like "not horrible"...

Anyhoo, despite being merely "not horrible" they do take quite a long time to write... and I don't have a whole lot of time right now unfortunately. That doesn't mean I won't do anything though, so if you have specific questions about what a particular theory is about, feel free to ask... But it does mean I won't be able to really start writing more at any reasonable rate for a month or two at least, though, let alone finish them all...

You might want to check out this page:

http://www.freeorion.org/index.php/Talk ... n_progress

which has brief bullet-point-like lists of things about most of the theories (though not all unfortunately...).

pd · #18 Post by pd » Thu Mar 10, 2005 9:57 pm

okay, thanks. once we encounter unclarity with some theories, we'll let you know.

#19 Post by **Tyreth** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 1:39 am

The content like this will be reviewed, edited, and probably changed once work on the back story, races and setting is made a priority. So for now descriptions are nice but not important to get perfect. They are fillers.

Obiwan · #20 Post by **Obiwan** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 2:34 am

* Nanotech Cybernetics
Quote:
After applying nanotechnology to internally correct defects or injuries, the next step is to augment or replace natural biochemical systems with superior artificial replacements. Rather than merely regrowing lost limbs or repairing damaged organs, augments are able to quickly grow new ones to suit their needs at any time. Antiquated biological systems, from muscle tissue and tendons, down to organelles or enzymes may also be replaced, affording greatly increased strength, endurance and flexibility.

Cybernetics gives me the impression of mechanical and electronic augmentation, whereas the discription seams biological.
Just looking for clarification.

#21 Post by **Geoff the Medio** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 4:47 am

"mechanical and electronic augmentation" replace or enhance fairly large and visible biological systems or parts (limbs, organs, tissues). Nanotech augmentation replaces or enhances smaller scale biological parts, like individual cells or enzymes, in effectively the same way.

The two are equally "biological" (or not) when viewed in isolation, with the main difference being the gross scale of the things that are added or replaced.

However with nanotech, the individual replaced parts can also self-modify and replicate and adapt and repair somewhat better than mechanical or electronic replacements... in a way that is more similar to how biological systems self-replicate or repair. This applies both to the augmentations themselves, and to the body they are placed in... So a big arm replacement could have a few retractable tools in it, but wouldn't be able to regrow itself if destroyed or grow a new tool that wasn't built into it from the start, whereas nanites could reproduce to replace losses, and could alter the makeup of the replacements to adapt to new situations. As well, the nanites can do much more much better, including regrowing entire lost limbs, or perhaps adding the previously missing ability to grow new tools on a prosthetic big arm with retractable (regrowable) tools.

Basically, as the scale of the augmentations gets smaller, their effects are more like those of a biological system, so describing what they do will sound more biological as well. They are still "artificial", "mechanical" or "electronic" though...

#22 Post by **Tyreth** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 8:43 am

These icons are good. Hopefully we can have them all complete for the 0.3 release, it would be good if we didn't have any missing gaps.

Obiwan · #23 Post by **Obiwan** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 12:47 am

All gaps filled.
Really going to need some assistance here.
I dont mind battling on with the learning catogory, which is rather difficult being abject in nature.
Is someone good for the Construction and Production groups?

Thanks for the clarification Geoff, it was helpful.

noelte · #24 Post by **noelte** » Fri Apr 01, 2005 7:37 am

Nice.

Can i have those icons zipped as png's (our default format)? Using jpg is a little bit odd when handling non-natural pictures.

I will try to implement it hopefully the next days.

Obiwan · #25 Post by **Obiwan** » Fri Apr 01, 2005 9:17 am

Can do,

Im afraid it'll have to be next week. Im just about to go away for the weekend.

noelte · #26 Post by **noelte** » Fri Apr 01, 2005 9:30 am

Again into the outback? Don't let a kangaroo bit you.

Next week is just fine.

#27 Post by **Tyreth** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 9:44 am

Noelte has implemented the code to display these category items now. He has limitted net access so I'm posting this on his behalf.

#28 Post by **Geoff the Medio** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:29 pm

Tyreth, how are those images associated with particular techs? (I figured a new optional XML flag <tech-icon> in tech descriptions in techs.xml to indicate the applicable file name would be best...)

Artists, I asked Yoghurt and he said he'd make a downloadable compiled version of the program. This should let artists can see their stuff in-game without having to figure out how to compile for themselves.

noelte · #29 Post by **noelte** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:40 pm

Where did you find the <tech-icon> element? The new element which is used for assigning a tech icon to a specific tech is called <graphic>.
<Tech>
...
<graphic>icon\pop.png</graphic>
</Tech>

#30 Post by **Geoff the Medio** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:47 pm

noelte wrote:Where did you find the <tech-icon> element?

That was just a suggestion before I knew what you'd done (which I discovered here and was about to edit my post, but you replied first) <graphic> is good (better, actually).

Edit: Obiwan, can you link to or email me a file with all the current tech icon files in it? If I get that, I'll edit techs.xml to associate all techs with the appropriate icons (that have them...)