maroder

Yeah, I agree, but the opaqueness makes it also harder to read on the very bright old backgrounds... Its a trade-off for sure. But thanks for the feedback, I will keep it in mind for the next version. The idea in the back of my head is to make the color exchangeable by the user though an graphics option (but maybe that would be over the top)

Yeah, this is the best draft at the moment and according to the 80/20 rule the last tweaks to make it look perfect will take me way to much time. (And I'm out of ideas) So if someone has a different nice design idea I would really like to see it, otherwise I will probably only try some smaller adjustments like @Radiotraining mentioned for the next version.

I presume it would work via making new textures and not through a custom shader, so no engine adjustment should be needed? Although a shader would make it much easier ofc

Yeah if you have an idea how it may look better feel free to make a draft. I made so many different versions and wasn't satisfied with any of them, so I'm open to new ideas It's ornamental for now, but the question is rather should something happen? And if yes what?

update to 3.1 based on feedback from @wowgetoffyourcellphone @Stan` @Radiotraining [Logo background is probably still subject to further change]

yeah, I abandoned the minimal approach for this version. Still not happy with it, but I didn't find anything better. So if anyone wants to give me new ideas (preferably with a draft) I would be very interested to see that

I certainly wouldn't mind something like the Homeworld style

@OptimusShepard Thanks again for the report. v3.0 is out now, which should work on widescreens (hopefully) @Radiotraining @Lion.Kanzen As you can see I switched to a rectangular logo background and gave it a bit more space. I hope that looks better now

@Freagarach

But even if the mod would have problems, as long as you're an observer this shouldn't influence the players. From what I know your not actually sending any data that will influence the simulation. And since observer can now actually lag behind (https://code.wildfiregames.com/rP25156), the additional calculations shouldn't slow down the game either.

Actually I don't quite understand the suggestion @dave_k While those tools can incooperate vcs, aren't that mainly project planning or agile development tools? From my quick look I can't find that much information about how making a diff and then discussing/ reviewing/ requesting changes works there. And for the security concerns: I think this is a case of who looks the most finds the most. Generally, Gitlab meets all? of the requirements and has migrating scripts (or at least many useful looking results on google) for the migration from trac and phabricator.

The trailers are very interesting. I also like the look of Homeworld or Iron Harvest the most. Notice how they have a quite realistic scale between the environment / trees and the buildings/ units. And just the ground textures and grass.. or the flame thrower effects.. o_o

I would like to help out more, cause I like the idea of a space themed mod, but since I have never played Star Craft it's hard to suggest something close to it

irc you need access to the repo.

yes I think @Lopess is correct, probably a face has the wrong orientation (The engine only renders one side of a face). See here how to enable this view mode:

I could get used to HUN and SHA (maybe super human android?) But then we should call the aliens ANT to stick with that scheme (and to get that insect connection)

That was my thought process. Would make it easy to give every faction a completely unique look. One classic human, one super organic and one all tech and robots. For names I'm unfortunately not that creative. I would stick to humans, mechas (for the robots or the alien-human-robot hybrids) and to give it the special 0ad flavor, maybe just Gaia for the aliens. And yes gameplay ideas would be good to have

Lol. I was inspired by this idea: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replicating_spacecraft But it seems there is already a (quite recent) RTS doing exactly that: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_Goo

my thoughts (just as inspiration I quite like your ideas) :

not sure, I didn't follow the release that close. And yes he had better videos (posted it before it was live)

I think for either svn or git, there are appropriately easy to use GUI, so imo this should be taken care of either way. I agree, but that could be avoided through better documentation about what patches / art / sound assets are actually wanted and what quality is expected. Having a lower barrier of entry doesn't mean you have to accept anything and it is totally fine to decline patches / pull requests when they don't meet the quality standard. The important thing for people to not get mad about this is: having a proper reason why something is declined and having a place / code of conduct / design document where all the quality standards are described.

oh wow yes that looks bad. Does 32:9 actually work with the original design? I will put in on my list of things to look at for the next release. Can't promise that I will find a solution tho.

@bb_ I agree with many of your points. Sovereignty and the option to be able to switch the platform if anything with a certain provider goes wrong, are important things. Also the stuff @Freagarach and @Lion.Kanzen mentioned about people loosing access due to police changes. That sucks. But then again, what are the odds that actually happening/ having an impact on the currently active team members and also as @smiley said: Despite this point, I think we need a more differentiated discussion on the different aspects that influence the choice of a version control system. (Or create different threads, whatever is preferred). Because it is not only a question of: What system has which features. Other options / question are bound to the choice of hosting solution/ provider: Should the code hosting, documentation/ wiki and project/ feature planning be on one platform? Here I think Gitlab would be the best option. It is actually quite decent in the whole project managing department as well as code hosting and CI. I heard good stuff about OpenProject @Freagarach mentioned, but their focus is more on project management and less on code hosting/ review. How do we want to handle account registration/ third party data collection and stuff you mentioned? I can not argue with that. If that is a heavy concern than there is no way around self hosting. Personally I wouldn't care that much. Just wanted to mention that keeping control means putting in maintenance work and binding human resources. What does the choice of hosting provider mean for the barrier of entry and the possible pool of contributors. This would be the biggest argument for GitHub. It has an extremely large and active community of developers. _________________________________ Something to the cons of svn: to move / rename files is majorly annoying (to me). Git seems to handle that way better.

I've read thew article, but that is still not a pro for me, that's a con With branches you don't have to stop development of new features just because there is a release. You can split the release branch of, feature freeze it and still continue other work. See the blender release process: https://wiki.blender.org/wiki/Process/Release_Cycle _____________________________________ What I generally want from a version control system: Since patches tend to stay uncommitted for quite some time, it should be easy to rebase them. And maybe its my fault, but I never found out how to do that easily in svn. The branching system of git on the other hand does that quite well in my experience. As a windows user I would like to keep the autobuild. ___________________________________ General thoughts not specific to only version control: It hugely annoys me that there are at the moment so many different places (trac, forum, irc, phab) where stuff is discussed and where information is scattered (and more or less outdated). Whatever option is chosen should combine them (probably still +forum +irc). ^ this. huge pro for git. It is just the standard. ____________________________________ General thoughts on self hosting vs relying on third parties: I get the whole point about reducing the dependency on big companies and honestly, at the end of the day I don't really care as I won't be the one maintaining it, but there are a few things to consider imo. Yes the companies may shutdown their platform without any warning and we couldn't do anything about it. But how realistic is that? Self-hosting means that there still needs to be someone in the team who puts in the work maintaining the server, getting new updates, doing other sysadmin stuff.... Sure, this reduces the potential risk, but it binds development resources that are from what I know very sparse right now. So is it worth it? Imo no.