Future version of DGIII

[Atom]

Really Doc!?!? I thought you could download a patch that stopped that from happening. You can also download one of thousands
of security updates that stops hypnotists hacking into your brain and corupting your memories. Hehe. And my brain is not M$,
I got my brain from AtomCo.

[freespace2dotcom]

I think I got mine from McBrain Inc.

[DocHoliday]

Yup, this sigi definitely hurts the eyes

[McBrain]

freespace2dotcom wrote:
I think I got mine from McBrain Inc.

[freespace2dotcom]

DocHoliday wrote:
Yup, this sigi definitely hurts the eyes

Hehe,, I'm not into heraldry..

[Scrooge McDuck]

Ehhh...
I'm dreaming about script for DG-x. For create multi-ships mission and storyline.

For example:
Scenario "Outpost". You de-burn, start descent.... and on 176 sec fuel tank start a leak...
Or in "Bad day" you take off normaly and on 4000m left engine malfunction...

Good idea, will think about it.


regards,
McDuck, author of DG-X

[Scrooge McDuck]

hmm, or if i'm wrong you meant DG-III+ with DG-X
sorry


regards,
McDuck, author of DG-X

[reekchaa]

Still.. if that kind of complex scripting could be done and implemented using the .cfg, I know a many excited scenario
writers who would give their right testicle for it.

maybe you and Dan could share the profits?  

[Shirson]

Scrooge McDuck wrote:
hmm, or if i'm wrong you meant DG-III+ with DG-X
sorry
regards,
McDuck, author of DG-X

I mean just DG-III+

[DocHoliday]

Say McDuck, I didn't get a chance to try out the DG-X. Did you make it based on stock DG or DG-III?

Cheers,

[Atom]

Well that's a TransWorld skin so i suspect it's a DGIII?

[DocHoliday]

That's not actually proof. Just a matter of adjusting the .dds files.. I was fooling around with Shuttle-A's stock skin in
this way.. Also tried it with Shuttle PB but lost the window transparency along the way.

Well my next question was if it's DG-III, did he use Dan's code, or came up with his own?

[Atom]

The DGIII is longer than the stock DG. I looked at them docked and the DG is definately stubby. But that has nothing to do
with this so I'll shut up.

[DocHoliday]

Interesting, I never noticed that. It's quite possible and it doesn't interfere with the textures. They might just get a
little "stretched"... if that's what you meant...

[Krytom]

Although that might have been something to do with field of view or perspective.
To find out for sure try flying the DGIII inside a stock DG.

You know the issue about the size of the moon when you'r on Earth, yeah, well most people say that it's bigger in real life.
I have found that if you put the FOV down to 10° the moon appears to be the right size.

[DocHoliday]

heh, did you know an interesting phenomenon the brain plays on you. If the moon is high in the sky and you look at
it by tilting your head up (normally that is) you see it as you see it. But if you were to lay down on the ground, so you
would look at it with your head level, you would percieve it to be of different size. Smaller I think.

It has something to do with the brain judging distance. If something is on the horizon it is deemed to be further than
if it is overhead.

I don't remember the details, but maybe someone else here can.

[Shmi]

There is a startling increase in the apparent size of the Moon when it lies close to the horizon, this is called
the 'Moon Illusion' and was first noted by Aristotle over 2,000 years ago.
The most plausable explanation is that when we see, say, a bird on the horizon,we know it is a long way away, so
we expect it to appear smaller than usual.  However, the true size of celestial objects like the Moon is pretty much
the same wherever they appear in the sky.  When they are on the horizon our brains expect them to look smaller.
The only way to reconcile this with the fact that the size of the moon hasn't changed at all is by fooling our eyes that
they have grown in size, to compensate for being 'further away'

or so it said in the science magazine Focus last month

[DocHoliday]

Thank you Shmi!!! Give credibility to my ignorant blunders even thought I remembered it the other way around.

You might possibly also explain this by breaking of light as it has to travel a greater distance to get through all the
atmospheric layers to get to the ground, than it needs to when an object is in the zentih..

[Shirson]

Hm...
What about atmsphere thickness and curvature? At horizont line, then observer looks to Moon, atmosphere thick for
more times, against Moon at apogee. And lens-effect of atmosphere  - too.

Some experiment:
At night, measure angular size of Moon at apogee and  gorizont line. Or photo Moon with digital camera and compare
results.
The size of the moon hasn't changed at all is by fooling our... camera?

[DocHoliday]

What about atmsphere thickness and curvature? At horizont line, then observer looks to Moon, atmosphere
thick for more times, against Moon at apogee. And lens-effect of atmosphere - too.

Yes, that's what I was talking about.

But I'm pretty sure the moon would look the same on a camera shot, so natural "optical" tricks are cancelled out. The
problem though would still exist if you look with the naked eye, which means it must be in a persons head. Matter of
brain perception, not objective reality..

[Shirson]

Did anyone digital camera and good weather with full Moon?

[Shirson]

Offtop
>DocHoliday
are you find Visio?

[DocHoliday]

Nope, not yet

[Shirson]

[DocHoliday]

Yeah yeah, I'll get it on monday now quit chasing me!