Screenshots thread

[Pieter Boelen]

Not as distinct a look as their "original fictional colours", but it does actually look quite nice like that too!

 

[Grey Roger]

I recommend making the whole lot optional - "HMS_Victory" and the rest. Anyone who prefers the original yellow is likely to prefer it on "HMS_Victory" too - well, most people anyway.

 

[Pieter Boelen]

I recommend making the whole lot optional - "HMS_Victory" and the rest.

For now I added @Armada's new scheme for the Victory by default, mainly with the hope that people might take note and comment.

But it does indeed make sense to group them all together.
So I suppose the only decision left is if we want to make the "yellow-and-black" or the "cream-and-black" the Build Default.
I'm inclined to say the new should be the default, as then at least people are likely to notice.
And if they don't like it, they get the choice of setting it back to what it was.

While the texture of the ships themselves are no problem for an "optional" feature,
the same does not apply to the "Ship Interface Screenshots" because if any changes are made there, they'd have to be applied to TWO sets of files.
If we can think of any way to avoid that, we really, really should.

 

[Grey Roger]

I'd think whichever scheme is the default should be the one for the interface screenshots. If you choose to use the optional alternative colour scheme, fine, but the interface pictures won't change to match.

On the other hand, "RESOURCE\INI\TEXTS\ENGLISH\ShipModels_descriptions.txt" can easily have two versions, one describing ships in "yellow and black" and the other describing them as "cream and black". Or, if that's not so easy, then again have the file reflect the default scheme.

For now I added @Armada's new scheme for the Victory by default, mainly with the hope that people might take note and comment.

The only way they'll see the new "HMS_Victory" is if they choose to free-play as Nelson. Whereas if you make the rest of the ships use their new scheme by default then they'll be seen by anyone playing in "Revolutions" or "Napoleonic" periods, starting with the next person to play "Hornblower" as both "HMS_Bellona" and "HMS_Indefatigable" have the new colour scheme already.

 

[Pieter Boelen]

I'd think whichever scheme is the default should be the one for the interface screenshots. If you choose to use the optional alternative colour scheme, fine, but the interface pictures won't change to match.

That is probably a good, practical approach.

On the other hand, "RESOURCE\INI\TEXTS\ENGLISH\ShipModels_descriptions.txt" can easily have two versions, one describing ships in "yellow and black" and the other describing them as "cream and black". Or, if that's not so easy, then again have the file reflect the default scheme.

For that also, you'd have two versions of the same file. I think just reflecting the default is good enough there too.

The only way they'll see the new "HMS_Victory" is if they choose to free-play as Nelson.

Or if they visit Vanderdecken, which I think at least some people vaguely regularly do.
Maybe....

Whereas if you make the rest of the ships use their new scheme by default then they'll be seen by anyone playing in "Revolutions" or "Napoleonic" periods, starting with the next person to play "Hornblower" as both "HMS_Bellona" and "HMS_Indefatigable" have the new colour scheme already.

Yep, and that is basically the main reason why I think I do want to have the "cream-and-black" as the new Build Default.
I didn't do it like that yet though, because it is still WIP on your part.
But once you have it all done, with Interface Screenshots and updated ShipModels_descriptions.txt, then I think that is indeed the best.

 

[Grey Roger]

French version of "HMS_Unicorn":

 

[Grey Roger]

More British ships.

RN_BattleFrigate, RN_Essex, RN_Sotl:


RN_SteamFrigate, RN_Superbe, RN_SuperiorWarship:


As well as applying the new colour, I thickened the middle black bar on "RN_SuperiorWarship".

 

[Pieter Boelen]

Very nice, @Grey Roger!

Quite noticeable though that "RN_SuperiorWarship" is such a lower quality model.
I think that one was sourced from VCO, so that isn't much of a surprise.

 

[Grey Roger]

"RN_SuperiorWarship" is a retextured version of "Battleship1", one of the original battleships from stock PoTC. You may be thinking of "RN_Warship", whose flat, vertical stern lacks the class of the more detailed stern seen on the superior ship.

 

[Pieter Boelen]

"RN_SuperiorWarship" is a retextured version of "Battleship1", one of the original battleships from stock PoTC.

I admit I wasn't sure anymore if it was a stock PotC or VCO one.
But with stock PotC, the same applies; definitely underdetailed compared to those other ships.
Anyway, it is what it is.

 

[Grey Roger]

Looking at it more closely, I can see that "RN_SuperiorWarship" isn't quite a clone of the stock battleship. Though the general hull design is similar, there are some detail differences, e.g. lanterns over the stern. (Talking of battleships, what happened to the "Age of Pirates" one which used to be in PoTC and was Waulter Tomlison's flagship during the counter-attack on Greenford / Bridgetown in the standard story? I liked that one - if I remember correctly, it was in Build 13. You couldn't berth ships in that version and as I generally had the Mefisto by this point, I could only capture two of Tomlison's three ships, so I made a point of getting the flagship.)

Anyway, more screenshots:

RN_Surprise, RN_Volage, and RN_Warship (if you thought RN_SuperiorWarship was bad, you might not want to look at this one ):

 

[Grey Roger]

And last but not least, the ship which started all this, the new "HMS_Victory":


@Armada: I don't see an updated version of "shipsBL.tga.tx" in the 17th July update, which means there won't be an interface picture of the new "HMS_Victory". If you have a screenshot which you'd like used for the interface picture, please post it. Or I can just use the forward view shown above.

 

[Pieter Boelen]

Looking at it more closely, I can see that "RN_SuperiorWarship" isn't quite a clone of the stock battleship. Though the general hull design is similar, there are some detail differences, e.g. lanterns over the stern.

Probably done with the "_deck.gm" file. A lot of ships were updated like that in the mod.

Talking of battleships, what happened to the "Age of Pirates" one which used to be in PoTC and was Waulter Tomlison's flagship during the counter-attack on Greenford / Bridgetown in the standard story?

Maybe she was removed during the "big ship cleanup" of Beta 2. Originally we added whatever ships we could to the mod, which made for a huge quality difference between them.
So eventually we got rid of most of the ones we considered to be substandard and I think an AoP battleship was indeed removed at that time.
Is that the one with the really square stern and not details on it?

I don't see an updated version of "shipsBL.tga.tx" in the 17th July update, which means there won't be an interface picture of the new "HMS_Victory".

Indeed there isn't one. I asked for it, but it has yet to be done. Which is OK; might as well all go together with your big texture upgrade.

If you have a screenshot which you'd like used for the interface picture, please post it. Or I can just use the forward view shown above.

As per the following post, you can use the first screenshot from the Released - Repainted HMS Victory | PiratesAhoy! thread:

I took the first screenshot above with the interface image in mind, so that can be cropped for the texture.

if you thought RN_SuperiorWarship was bad, you might not want to look at this one

Indeed I don't. I think that is the "Fearless" model which was in the original game, but wasn't even used there.
I think we kept her because she fills a gap in the ship line-up. But she looks.... not so very good.

 

[Armada]

Looking at it more closely, I can see that "RN_SuperiorWarship" isn't quite a clone of the stock battleship. Though the general hull design is similar, there are some detail differences, e.g. lanterns over the stern.

I think that model was slightly modified by someone many years ago with those extra details, though I'm not sure who it was.
I recall changing the UVs on that ship at some point, as well.

I think that is the "Fearless" model which was in the original game, but wasn't even used there.
I think we kept her because she fills a gap in the ship line-up. But she looks.... not so very good.

I wonder if the original developers designed this ship to only be viewed from the front... they seem to have put the most effort into the bow.

 

[Grey Roger]

Indeed there isn't one. I asked for it, but it has yet to be done. Which is OK; might as well all go together with your big texture upgrade.


As per the following post, you can use the first screenshot from the Released - Repainted HMS Victory | PiratesAhoy! thread:

Done. This what I put into the version of "shipsBL.tga.tx" which went into the upload:

It has the "Revolutions" period Blue Ensign whereas all the others I did use the "Napoleonic" period White Ensign (except "HMS_Unicorn" which doesn't exist in "Napoleonic", and "FR_Unicorn" doesn't have the White Ensign or Blue Ensign for obvious reasons ).

 

[Pieter Boelen]

It has the "Revolutions" period Blue Ensign whereas all the others I did use the "Napoleonic" period White Ensign (except "HMS_Unicorn" which doesn't exist in "Napoleonic", and "FR_Unicorn" doesn't have the White Ensign or Blue Ensign for obvious reasons ).

From what I understand, the red/blue/white ensigns could all appear in different situations anyway.
So sounds good to me!

 

[Grey Roger]

Yes, the colour of ensign would depend on the squadron to which the admiral in charge of Caribbean affairs had been assigned. So for our purposes the admiral in "Revolutions" period is an Admiral of the Blue, while the one in "Napoleonic" is an Admiral of the White. "HMS_Victory" is valid in "Revolutions" so the Blue Ensign is valid; the only reason all my screenshots have white ensigns is that my procedure was to start a free-play game as a British corsair and press the year button to rapidly advance to 1800 plus or minus a few years.

The Dutch civilian flag on "SP_Trinity" ("shipsTR.tga.tx", top left corner), is not valid, though.

 

[Pieter Boelen]

The Dutch civilian flag on "SP_Trinity" ("shipsTR.tga.tx", top left corner), is not valid, though.

Uhm.... No it wouldn't. Why is that there?

 

[Grey Roger]

"NL_FWzP", alias Brandenburg Frigate, with Brandenburg flag:


"NL_Convoiship", a.k.a. Escort Ship, a.k.a. Wappen von Hamburg, another Brandenburg design:


The pennant looks reasonable on both, even though "NL_Convoiship" has a shorter pennant so the shield is narrower. The shield is scaled down 50% width relative to height so that when the pennant stretches it out to varying degrees depending on the pennant length, it still ends up not looking absurdly wide.

 

[Pieter Boelen]

"NL_FWzP", alias Brandenburg Frigate, with Brandenburg flag:

Definitely looks very fitting! I like it.

The pennant looks reasonable on both, even though "NL_Convoiship" has a shorter pennant so the shield is narrower.

If you want, it is quite easy to change the size of the pennants.
It would be silly to do so for all ships, but since these ships are MEANT to fly the Brandenburg flag, it might make sense to do it for at least those two.