Project Universal Car for Orbiter (UCO)

[astrosammy]

61 files in 55 directory for a uncompressed size of 57.5 Mb (29.2 Mb compressed with UCGO's installer)

Good that I don't have 56k anymore, downloading DG-IV was impossible .

 

[Lucy]

NEWS, DEV UPDATE:
---------------------

I'm cleaning things in files and directory for packaging (using excellent JSGME to keep addons dir ready to pack without any risk of forgetting a file) UCGO+UMMU make yet a total of 361 files in 55 directory for a uncompressed size of 57.5 Mb (29.2 Mb compressed with UCGO's installer)

For the price (free) I think it will worth the download

How on earth do you cram such awesomeness into so small a filesize? That's incredible...

 

[jinglesassy]

he wastes nothing he is awesome at small size universal addons that are awesome

 

[Interceptor]

What a nice XMAS present Dan,Thanks

 

[dansteph]

How on earth do you cram such awesomeness into so small a filesize? That's incredible...

Might be a phobia to waste precious computer ressources !? :lol:

Without laugh I started on VIC20 with 20K of memory and was probably traumatised by the fact that all my first work ran quickly into ressources limit, either due to f... language (basic and such) either by ignorance of basic optimisation. I learned hard way to use ressources wisely and optimize my code. Adding one more 1024x1024 texture on a model really hurt me

Last, wide range of PC performance force me to do that, there is no point to make a "universal" things that run only on high end computer.

For UCGO As usuall I optimised code and model the maximum I could but I "forced" myself to use a bit more than usual on some things, this is the case on Arrow Freighter's VC for example or on the UMmu woman.

Still the Arrow's VC use 80% ressource only of a DGIV and probably 2/10 of most common addons !? ... Maybe I should relax a bit in the future ? Peoples seem to preffers stunning display over high FPS.

But 29 Mb is not nothing. 29 millions bits, ouch ! My first "high end" models on Amiga had 200 polygons and no textures. Probably 1/10 size of one laugh icon :rofl:

Much thanks to all for your support. :thumbup:

Dan

 

[Lucy]

Yeah, there is that aspect I suppose. 29MB... I still remember when that was HUGE.

Interesting tidbit I found the other day: (from http://www.guidebookgallery.org/guis/windows/longhorn ; written before Vista's release.)
The icons for Windows Vista will reportedly convey over 1500 times more data (but not information!) than icons for original Macintosh System (196608 vs. 128 bytes each).

196608 bytes. 192 KiB. Jeez. I would never have made an icon that big when I first started making them.

I'll take high FPS over excessive graphics any day, but there's a balance to it; I'll put up with a little lag if it looks frabjoous.

Edit: That laugh smiley is 1.2 KiB. So it's entirely probable.

 

[jinglesassy]

yeah those old days where 100 lines of code and it uses 10% of the memory today it can be 100,000 lines and use 1% amazing how fast technology advanced

 

[PhantomCruiser]

So long as we are talking about the "old days"... I was the first one in my neighborhood to have a 1200 baud modem. I was Mr. Big. (that's what she said)...

I see many sleepless nights once Tuesday gets here. It looks like the whole project might revolutionize base contruction.
You may be the Chuck Norris of Orbiter developers.

 

[jinglesassy]

why only bases? this could revolutionize all of orbiter

 

[Bj]

Peoples seem to preffers stunning display over high FPS.

Some do, some dont,. My computer right now runs at 60FPS. I honestly cannot tell much of a difference between 60, 120, or 30. 20 is getting quite a bit choppy, but livable of course.

Actually this laptop happens to be the first computer in our house that had a GPU. Otherwise the one before this had a Intel Celeron :thumbsdown: processor. Even Ms word ran at 100% CPU usage. Trust me, anything now was better than
what I had.

A 10 FPS cut is really nothing. Try flying FSX into JFK at 5-8 FPS *(I did once, last time I will ever land there, and as it turns out most of my passengers lived, not happy from 'rough landing,' and I accidentally went off the runway 100 feet. )

Its all a matter of perspective.

 

[n72.75]

Celerons are rough with windows, i have one that is running fedora 10 and it runs much better then it does with windows.

i remember trying to run orbiter on it with [ame="http://www.orbithangar.com/searchid.php?ID=2626"]Celestium 3[/ame], that was like a fast slide show.

 

[kevinvr]

Might be a phobia to waste precious computer ressources !? :lol:

Last, wide range of PC performance force me to do that, there is no point to make a "universal" things that run only on high end computer.

For UCGO As usuall I optimised code and model the maximum I could but I "forced" myself to use a bit more than usual on some things, this is the case on Arrow Freighter's VC for example or on the UMmu woman.

Much thanks to all for your support. :thumbup:

Dan

Stunning work Dan, Can't wait for that Tuesday!! :thumbup:

 

[Evil_Onyx]

code optimisation seems to becomming a lost art, with all those extra resorces programers seem to get sloppy (I have to deal with this alot at work) its nice to see nothing been wasted.

Cant wait for the finnished addon Dan.

 

[Calsir]

uncompressed size of 57.5 Mb (29.2 Mb compressed with UCGO's installer)

Just one extremely minor question that is related: why did you use an installer rather than a zip package, as most addons are? Having used the ummu and dgiv installers I find them slightly inconvenient, mainly because you cannot paste in the path field the location of orbiter. As I said, it is an extremely minor inconvenience, and I expressed it mainly because I was curious about the rationale of your choice.

For the price (free) I think it will worth the download

That is definitely true . We will (im)patiently wait for its release.

 

[n72.75]

I for one like the installer it adds a unique touch.

...and if you don't like it you can always install it to an empty folder, and then copy the files and folders to your root orbiter directory.

 

[Urwumpe]

Do we need a "ORBITER_PATH" environment variable? :lol:

 

[dansteph]

Just one extremely minor question that is related: why did you use an installer rather than a zip package

Because I want all perfect for almost 100% users and a (litle) part of them do nasty things as unziping without folder name or at wrong location and send mail or write in forum to say that "this addon don't work"

Zip can't also present text for docs, infos, config, create desktop shortcut, control Orbiter or addon version etc. For example and outdated install of UMMU 1.5 would refuse to install over a UMMU 2.0 version.

Last the killer argument: peoples that miss THIS button are more likely to make a wrong unzip than others :lol:

It's a win/win situation :thumbup:

Dan

 

[Calsir]

Because I want all perfect for almost 100% users and a (litle) part of them do nasty things as unziping without folder name or at wrong location and send mail or write in forum to say that "this addon don't work"

Zip can't also present text for docs, infos, config, create desktop shortcut, control Orbiter or addon version etc. For example and outdated install of UMMU 1.5 would refuse to install over a UMMU 2.0 version.

Good point.

Last the killer argument: peoples that miss THIS button are more likely to make a wrong unzip than others :lol:

Or maybe, they are too lazy to copy orbiter.exe in another path and do that :lol:. I had seen that option, but I did not find it appealing. My biggest issue with the installer is that I have to browse the whole path to orbiter rather than paste it, which takes approximately 20 seconds, a totally inefficient method .

Thank you for your satisfactory reply. And keep up the good work :thumbup:.

 

[n72.75]

It's hard to miss...it's big...and button shaped...

 

[orb]

My biggest issue with the installer is that I have to browse the whole path to orbiter rather than paste it, which takes approximately 20 seconds, a totally inefficient method .

Enabling keyboard input for installation path textfield without need for browse would improve it.