The future of Fleet Operations
posted on March 29th, 2014, 9:41 am
posted on March 29th, 2014, 9:05 pm
Since community building seems to be such a hot topic, if anybody wants to discuss the pros and cons of communication stuff further, please open another topic 
Here are (our and) my thoughts on communication in general -
For community building - things involving getting the community and others excited about Fleet Operations - we favor the community stepping up to that larger role. Got some people who are excited about FO? Why not engage the larger community on what things have been talked about in the forums, etc? That’s in fact how we started off the guide - which was not done in an official capacity for most of its existence. Why not engage other communities about Fleet Ops and bud off other groups . That’s what we mean by ‘community building via the community’ . We want buzz to be by the community, for the community.
We don't want to be constantly involved in hype or responsible for driving it to completion. We provide content, are happy to give input, but don't want to constantly talk about what we are doing. I'm available on TS - not 24/7, but I'm there to chat and help as I can. That's what I offer myself for, so feel free to take advantage of it.
We're a tightly knit team, but we don't communicate constantly about absolutely everything. I spend a lot of time talking to each of the other core members in chat, forums and sometimes Teamspeak, but that doesn't mean any of us knows precisely what each of the others are working on at a specific time, nor what the details of projects might be. From years of knowing each other and having bigger design schemes, we trust each other to get the things done that we need in order to proceed. If any of us wants to know more, we have to go to that person or through someone who knows the details. Extremely often I act as liason and information aggregator. We build our newsposts collaboratively, but often the spark is individual.
A ‘communications officer’ in the vein that is asked for here would basically be a tremendous amount of work for me - I'd have to spend considerable time explaining things, gathering information, ask for consensus, and sign off. I’d still have to vet all posts if it was on the nitty gritty and all team members would want input. That’s not saving any time.
Here are (our and) my thoughts on communication in general -
For community building - things involving getting the community and others excited about Fleet Operations - we favor the community stepping up to that larger role. Got some people who are excited about FO? Why not engage the larger community on what things have been talked about in the forums, etc? That’s in fact how we started off the guide - which was not done in an official capacity for most of its existence. Why not engage other communities about Fleet Ops and bud off other groups
. That’s what we mean by ‘community building via the community’ . We want buzz to be by the community, for the community. We don't want to be constantly involved in hype or responsible for driving it to completion. We provide content, are happy to give input, but don't want to constantly talk about what we are doing. I'm available on TS - not 24/7, but I'm there to chat and help as I can. That's what I offer myself for, so feel free to take advantage of it.
We're a tightly knit team, but we don't communicate constantly about absolutely everything. I spend a lot of time talking to each of the other core members in chat, forums and sometimes Teamspeak, but that doesn't mean any of us knows precisely what each of the others are working on at a specific time, nor what the details of projects might be. From years of knowing each other and having bigger design schemes, we trust each other to get the things done that we need in order to proceed. If any of us wants to know more, we have to go to that person or through someone who knows the details. Extremely often I act as liason and information aggregator. We build our newsposts collaboratively, but often the spark is individual.
A ‘communications officer’ in the vein that is asked for here would basically be a tremendous amount of work for me - I'd have to spend considerable time explaining things, gathering information, ask for consensus, and sign off. I’d still have to vet all posts if it was on the nitty gritty and all team members would want input. That’s not saving any time.
posted on March 30th, 2014, 4:44 pm
posted on March 31st, 2014, 4:15 am
This is indeed a mixed bag. 
While I am super excited for a completely new engine, it is sad to see v4 will never happen, especially when many other mods were waiting on its arrival. Either way, I'm glad to see the dev team is still hard at work on the best Star Trek RTS out there. 
*poof*
While I am super excited for a completely new engine, it is sad to see v4 will never happen, especially when many other mods were waiting on its arrival. Either way, I'm glad to see the dev team is still hard at work on the best Star Trek RTS out there. *poof*
posted on March 31st, 2014, 12:48 pm
I hate being late to the party 
But, I'm happy. Indie games are awesome if you can get them to work. To the devs and everyone else, just hold on a while longer. As a forum vet, I have never seen such devotion to a project save for Monty Oum. Projects like his and FO survive because people recognize quality worth waiting for when they see it.
FO 3.2.7. is not some shabby holdover desperately in need of fixing. It will suffice for the time being. That said, I dare say to the modders it is something to work with. Throwing in prebuilt ships and races is all I've ever been able to do to STA. If I could do more, I would try to keep things fresh in the current FO.
Finally, the devs are asking for patience. Speaking for myself, you have it. And I pray patience for the devs as well. Don't panic if things go wrong with the engine. Take your time fixing it if you can. At the very worst, you have 4.0 to fall back on if it's a complete fail. I will also note, having worked on several IT projects, it is very important that the one hand always knows what the other is doing. I suggest finding some kind of conference where all the devs can be brought up to speed. And document if you haven't already
But, I'm happy. Indie games are awesome if you can get them to work. To the devs and everyone else, just hold on a while longer. As a forum vet, I have never seen such devotion to a project save for Monty Oum. Projects like his and FO survive because people recognize quality worth waiting for when they see it.
FO 3.2.7. is not some shabby holdover desperately in need of fixing. It will suffice for the time being. That said, I dare say to the modders it is something to work with. Throwing in prebuilt ships and races is all I've ever been able to do to STA. If I could do more, I would try to keep things fresh in the current FO.
Finally, the devs are asking for patience. Speaking for myself, you have it. And I pray patience for the devs as well. Don't panic if things go wrong with the engine. Take your time fixing it if you can. At the very worst, you have 4.0 to fall back on if it's a complete fail. I will also note, having worked on several IT projects, it is very important that the one hand always knows what the other is doing. I suggest finding some kind of conference where all the devs can be brought up to speed. And document if you haven't already
posted on April 1st, 2014, 2:03 am
posted on April 1st, 2014, 5:25 am
posted on April 2nd, 2014, 2:56 pm
This is good news! The old engine wouldn't survive the new versions of Windows, if trying to install old Armada II on Windows 8.1 x64 have been a nightmare I can't imagine what it takes to deal with that 15 years old code. You guys have done the incredible with this mod and surely have milked that engine to the extreme but it was about time to move on.
I was waiting version 4 because in 327 the cloak bug was just unbearable even with the latest graphic card the performance was poor at best and very laggy. I never understood how more demanding games were running more efficiently than FO! I guess it have something to do with DirectX, well that no longer will apply and that's great.
It will take a lot to make the whole game in the new NX Engine but the results will be awesome I'm sure.
My only concern is that you try to put too many things in, yes we all have a wish list but you have to start small and with clear objectives or you will end with a failed project.
My only wish is that the first version on the NX engine must be as fun as the current FO 327! without the cloak bug of course!
I wish you guys the best of luck. to the members of this forum: Patience!
I was waiting version 4 because in 327 the cloak bug was just unbearable even with the latest graphic card the performance was poor at best and very laggy. I never understood how more demanding games were running more efficiently than FO! I guess it have something to do with DirectX, well that no longer will apply and that's great.
It will take a lot to make the whole game in the new NX Engine but the results will be awesome I'm sure.
My only concern is that you try to put too many things in, yes we all have a wish list but you have to start small and with clear objectives or you will end with a failed project.
My only wish is that the first version on the NX engine must be as fun as the current FO 327! without the cloak bug of course!
I wish you guys the best of luck.
to the members of this forum: Patience!
posted on April 2nd, 2014, 3:09 pm
Who gave the FleetOps Devs permission on making a standalone Star Trek Game and if we can see that permission in a post from one of the Devs?
The NX Version of FleetOps I have a feeling is going to destroy the other mods, the other mini-mods, especially if the FleetOps Devs change the model format from SOD to something else and somehow inadvertently break the a i laity to used SOD or even ODF files. All old mods then will be forgotten, and all the work put into them won't be able to be enjoyed by anyone. Would be nice if you could offer support for the modding facility for the older mods and for Armada 2.
But would be nice if the Dev Team could just made a version that could be run under Linux or other OS, in my opinion, that would be awesome.
The NX Version of FleetOps I have a feeling is going to destroy the other mods, the other mini-mods, especially if the FleetOps Devs change the model format from SOD to something else and somehow inadvertently break the a i laity to used SOD or even ODF files. All old mods then will be forgotten, and all the work put into them won't be able to be enjoyed by anyone.
Would be nice if you could offer support for the modding facility for the older mods and for Armada 2. But would be nice if the Dev Team could just made a version that could be run under Linux or other OS, in my opinion, that would be awesome.
posted on April 2nd, 2014, 3:10 pm
JeanLucPicard wrote:This is good news! The old engine wouldn't survive the new versions of Windows, if trying to install old Armada II on Windows 8.1 x64 have been a nightmare I can't imagine what it takes to deal with that 15 years old code. You guys have done the incredible with this mod and surely have milked that engine to the extreme but it was about time to move on.
I installed FO on my win 8.1 without any problems... works fine so far.
PS: You can also only copy already instaled FO and run it without instalion, only with CD image mounted, so you can host games.
Edit:
Oh, and if I want to play original Armada II, i play the armada in fleetops, dunno how is the mod called, but its the same game, but running on fleetops version of the engine...
posted on April 2nd, 2014, 4:03 pm
drone971 wrote:
I installed FO on my win 8.1 without any problems... works fine so far.
PS: You can also only copy already instaled FO and run it without instalion, only with CD image mounted, so you can host games.
Edit:
Oh, and if I want to play original Armada II, i play the armada in fleetops, dunno how is the mod called, but its the same game, but running on fleetops version of the engine...
Yes, at the moment is possible to install FO on Windows 8.1 x64 but Armada II not. Its a matter of time before FO won't run on the Windows platform IMO that's why this is the right decision.
miklosgo wrote:
Who gave the FleetOps Devs permission on making a standalone Star Trek Game and if we can see that permission in a post from one of the Devs?
This one is another concern of mine, the legal part but I trust the devs have clarified that part. I guess that as long the mod is for free the honchos at Paramount won't have a problem with the new game
posted on April 2nd, 2014, 6:03 pm
posted on April 2nd, 2014, 8:05 pm
posted on April 3rd, 2014, 5:25 pm
posted on April 3rd, 2014, 6:02 pm
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests