Talk:Vessels and Installations

Namespace

• Wouldn't it be better to have the ships in an extra namespace like this Vessel:Acrotatus as it is with the Terminology right now ? pontiac 01:22, 2 Mar 2005 (PST)
  • Of course it would be quite easy to move the pages to this new locations (there are just alot of them ;) ) pontiac 01:38, 2 Mar 2005 (PST)

Sounds like a good idea. I'm sure we can move slowly them as we edit them for content. jackS 02:20, 2 Mar 2005 (PST)

• jackS 19:38, 2 Mar 2005 (PST) see Vessel:Acrotatus

• jackS 23:11, 2 Mar 2005 (PST) See also Category:Vessels:Civilian and the accompanying talk page for a potential issue with renaming everything

also, see Vessel:Admonisher for another look at a ship page (this one actually being in-game-- it needs a picture :) )

• Silverain 16:11, 4 Apr 2005 (PDT) I linked to the hud.png at sourceforge as a temp measure to see how it looks. Short of getting larger screenshots and storing them in the gallery somewhere, this is all I can think of.

• jackS 23:30, 3 Mar 2005 (PST)Well, moved all of the pages, but haven't updated this page to reflect that (only works right now because of re-directs). Also, still need to fix all the next and previous fields to not be "FIXME" (of course, I also have to put in entries for all but 3 of the articles, but I try not to depress myself too much :)
  • pontiac On a sidenote: Do you think that a previous/next link is a good idea with this many vessle/installation-entries? Sure it's possible, but is it maintainable? Maybe we should limit this nav-menu to the manual and the linking between big topics (e.g vessles->installations->weapons->...) and maybe the subsections of them. .. just a though :)
    • Silverain 16:11, 4 Apr 2005 (PDT) Maintainable? Difficult but yes, since JackS has put most names in already. I would say have the side links to the next ship, that way people browsing for entertainment can read ship to ship, rather than having to go back to the main page first.
      • Pontiac 06:47, 5 Apr 2005 (PDT) I'm not against the previous/next links, but i still think it's too much effort... especially if you see most of the existing prev/next links, which still have the Ship:xxx prefix and the top links points to Ships. To make it clear that needs to be changed to the Vessel: prefix etc... Further just think about name changes and new Vessels. For each change you need to change two other pages (alphabetical prev + next) to reflect this change/addition. But maybe there will but less changes then i am imagine right now.. in this chase my arguments nullify. Just my 2c ;)
  • pontiac 23:55, 3 Mar 2005 (PST) Maybe we could just use something like this: Template:Parent_link to link to the parent (e.g Vessels & Installations) page.

Vessels & Installations

{{Parent_link | parent=[[Vessels & Installations]]}}

• • • Pontiac 12:28, 30 Jun 2005 (PDT) On a second note i think that the manual prev/top/next nav-bar would be better here.

Blueprints

• TykeiL June 29th 2005 hey, i have added some blueprint style images to some of the pages, hope you like. i really think that on the main page the names of the ships should be accompanied with there HUD image. that way people will get a peek at what they will be looking into.
  • jackS 18:07, 29 Jun 2005 (PDT) @Tykeil - check your PM inbox
    • TyKeiL 19:50, 8 Jul 2005 @jackS - read and replied.
      Sorry about the delay, im not used to checking on these types of things, im used to mailing lists.
  • Pontiac 12:28, 30 Jun 2005 (PDT) I like the blueprints, they are pretty cool 8)
    Using the HUD-images of the ships/stations as a preview is a very good idea, i thni nobody will be against that :D
    • TyKeiL 03:23, 8 Jul 2005 (PDT) @Pontiac - excellent.
  • TyKeiL 03:23, 8 Jul 2005 (PDT) - These images are half sized the originals which were 1024x768, so i can supply them if needed.
    I also want to put information on the images like lables for different things, ie engine types, gun specs, speed, cargo capacity, aerodynamic info(for flying in atmosphere) anything that will spruce up the images making them look more professional and nice.
    • Pontiac 07:13, 8 Jul 2005 (PDT) I really like the idea, but you have to keep in mind that the infos may change in the future (position, numbers, names, etc...) so providing the graphic source files to the community (ask the devs for upload) is a necessity.
      • TyKeiL 07:57, 9 Jul 2005 (PDT) - that was also one of the things i was going to ask sometime(someplace i can upload the image source) which consists of 1 .blend file 4 .tga files(not completely necessary) and 1 .xcf file, i will also provide instruction along with them to get the exact same look so to keep consistancy, im not exactly sure how the cvs tree's are organised so i will have to wait for someone else to help me with that.

Layout of a Vessel or Installation page

• Pontiac 12:28, 30 Jun 2005 (PDT) I wonder if we could move the model and texture-info into the development section (i suggest the Development:3D Models page). and put in a header like "Blueprint" or "Ship Design" or something like that.
  • TyKeiL 03:25, 8 Jul 2005 (PDT) - I agree to move the model and texture info to the dev section, but people still need there pictures so as jackS said to me in the PM before make both link to the same image.
    • Pontiac 07:08, 8 Jul 2005 (PDT) I was a bit unclear in my statement above. I meant to move all the development bits (textures, status of the modes, etc..) to the development section, but keep the 'finished' images and such (e.g your blueprints/pictures) on the 'Vessel'-pages. :D
      • TyKeiL 07:57, 9 Jul 2005 (PDT) - dont warry it was clear, i was just stating the obvious. :O)