Anyone actually want this feature as-is?

Poll: Do you want unfolds-to-land removed, leaving only unfolds-to-jump? (32 member(s) have cast votes)
Do you want unfolds-to-land removed, leaving only unfolds-to-jump?
No, my plugin depends on the unfolds-to-land part!
(2 votes [6.25%])
Percentage of vote: 6.25%
I have no convictions on the matter.
(7 votes [21.88%])
Percentage of vote: 21.88%
Yes, having only unfolds-to-jump would be much more useful for me!
(23 votes [71.88%])
Percentage of vote: 71.88%

A thought some other plugin developers and I have had tossing around for a while is the seeming uselessness of the unfolds-to-land functionality as it stands in Nova - having a ship both unfold when jumping AND when landing actually hinders its usefulness for us in significant ways. A great many interesting effects would be made possible by having that option only cause a ship to unfold when jumping, and we believe that having that feature changed in the engine would present an overall benefit to the plugin developer community at large.

I'm hesitant to actually ask if the Nova coding team would be willing to make this small feature change, however, because some developers out there might want the functionality as-is, and I'd be uncomfortable potentially sabotaging too many peoples' ideas if there isn't a majority who would want it the same way we do.

That's the purpose of this poll. Vote away, guys.

(On a related matter, I've heard rumblings that 1.0.9 is nearly out and so they're probably not likely to implement any other changes in this release; whether this change is already in 1.0.9 despite our not officially submitting it (it has been discussed on the forums before) or whether there will be a 1.0.10 in which it could be included is unknown.)

I vote 'yes'. As I've stated in the past - maybe a little too strongly - that either unfolds-on-land or unfold-on-jump would be infinitely more useful than both bundled together.

This post has been edited by Hudson : 07 November 2005 - 06:59 PM

I can hardly see how a real space vessel would do the same range of motions to either land or enter hyperspace.

I voted yes because I've seen what Hudson wants to do but can't because of this "feature"

Hudson, on Nov 7 2005, 03:58 PM, said:

I vote 'yes'. As I've stated in the past - maybe a little too strongly - that either unfolds-on-land or unfold-on-jump would be infinitely more useful than both bundled together.
View Post

Yes, but seeing how it's already a stroke of luck if we can get an existing feature changed (that isn't a bug), adding a new feature that would require its own flag is pretty much right out.

Thus, this poll is more about the removal of "unfolds to land" (which I feel is far, far less useful than "unfolds to jump") than separating them.

Unfolds to land is especially useless as you can't see it when the player lands.

Weepul 884, on Nov 8 2005, 01:34 AM, said:

Yes, but seeing how it's already a stroke of luck if we can get an existing feature changed (that isn't a bug), adding a new feature that would require its own flag is pretty much right out.

Thus, this poll is more about the removal of "unfolds to land" (which I feel is far, far less useful than "unfolds to jump") than separating them.
View Post

...yes, I know. I just outlined my rational for saying 'yes'...

I vote yes. How would be realistic if a ship ran through the same drill to land as it did when it hyperjumps?

EV, in general, is noted for it's strikling true-to-life accurate treatment of real space travel and combat conditions...

rmx256, on Nov 8 2005, 12:55 PM, said:

EV, in general, is noted for it's strikling true-to-life accurate treatment of real space travel and combat conditions...
View Post

Which is entirely beside the point.

I agree... with a hypothetical aside

if the unfolds to land were done using the same coding used to determine if a hypergate should be open (ie, after pressing l on a targeted stel, and being within range, the bits fold, when out of range, or untargeting of the stell, the bits are unfolded), this would make it look much nicer. And work for the player.

But yeh, just get rid of it. Though it matches Xwings exactly (clearly what the creators had in mind)

NebuchadnezzaR, on Nov 8 2005, 06:35 PM, said:

Though it matches Xwings exactly (clearly what the creators had in mind)
View Post

slaps forehead Oh yeah, huh. I never could figure out what existing ship they had in mind when they made that feature...

NebuchadnezzaR, on Nov 9 2005, 01:32 AM, said:

Though it matches Xwings exactly (clearly what the creators had in mind)
View Post

Wait, I thought that X-Wings unfolded for combat. I'm pretty sure they didn't unfold for hyperspace. And I don't think they unfolded for landing, either, now that I think about it. Though, I could be wrong on both accounts; I'm no Star Wars expert.

Eh, It doesn't matter I suppose. Regardless, my vote is to remove the landing bit.

Desprez, on Nov 13 2005, 08:50 AM, said:

Wait, I thought that X-Wings unfolded for combat. I'm pretty sure they didn't unfold for hyperspace. And I don't think they unfolded for landing, either, now that I think about it.View Post

That's exactly what I thought...

Desprez, on Nov 13 2005, 12:50 AM, said:

Wait, I thought that X-Wings unfolded for combat. I'm pretty sure they didn't unfold for hyperspace. And I don't think they unfolded for landing, either, now that I think about it. Though, I could be wrong on both accounts; I'm no Star Wars expert.
View Post

That's right, but if you don't want the ship unfolding and refolding when it's firing, the next best thing is to make the "unfolded" state visually the "folded" state, so it folds for hyperspacing and landing, and in "attack position" when just flying around.

Any more votes, anyone? Seems like a pretty unanimous call for the feature adjustment to me.

Weepul 884, on Nov 13 2005, 11:05 AM, said:

That's right, but if you don't want the ship unfolding and refolding when it's firing, the next best thing is to make the "unfolded" state visually the "folded" state, so it folds for hyperspacing and landing, and in "attack position" when just flying around.
View Post

:blink: Oh yeah. Duh. heh.

If this one thing were done, It would make my upcoming TC (yes thats right TC) a hell of a lot easier to make. So please. Strike unfolds-to-land down with a mighty lightning bolt! (do it)

Guy, on Nov 7 2005, 07:43 PM, said:

Unfolds to land is especially useless as you can't see it when the player lands.
View Post

The irony of that feature hurts me especially.

rmx256, on Nov 8 2005, 11:52 AM, said:

EV, in general, is noted for it's strikling true-to-life accurate treatment of real space travel and combat conditions...
View Post

Don't get started with one of your spherical fighter-craft rants

Maybe the engine should be tweaked a bit so you have to unfold before you land. Then again, that makes a mess of the possibility of using the X-Wing as a blockade-running courier, unless you can dodge missiles and still move slow enough to land.

Maybe we should report the uselessness of "unfolds to land" as a bug.

This post has been edited by The Apple Cřre : 13 November 2005 - 12:37 PM

The Apple Cřre, on Nov 13 2005, 04:33 PM, said:

Maybe we should report the uselessness of "unfolds to land" as a bug.
View Post

It isn't a bug though. Was it not intentionally programmed so that it would unfold for both hyperjumping and landing? It was a deliberate feature incorporated into EVN's engine for the Argosy (which ended up never using it) and developer use.