FreeOrion

Last multiplayer game revealed that the molecular cloud could use clearer borders, so I thought I'd rework the field icons. Attached are two versions for a new molecular cloud (inspiration aurora borealis) and one new version for the ion storm (should look dangerous). Originals 2048x2048 px. Ideas, suggestions, comments etc. welcome.

These images are great. Kudos!

The second molecular cloud has some kind of warping effect, as if it is collapsing? That made me think the image can also give the player some sense of it growing (when the tail of each point is closer to the centre of the cloud) or shrinking (when the point is closer to the centre and the tail is away from it).

Oberlus wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2019 9:59 amThe second molecular cloud has some kind of warping effect, as if it is collapsing? That made me think the image can also give the player some sense of it growing (when the tail of each point is closer to the centre of the cloud) or shrinking (when the point is closer to the centre and the tail is away from it).

Doing an "expanding" graphic will be simple, do you have an idea if/how it can be scripted?

Mc2 and mc1 graphics are supposed to be either/or, any preference?

Attached an first attempt at a graphic for a nebula that may turn into a star.

The Silent One wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2019 5:09 pmDoing an "expanding" graphic will be simple, do you have an idea if/how it can be scripted?

Not really. I don't now how the appearance (creation), grow phase and shrink phase of field effects is done. Assuming the system is aware of the current phase (growing vs shrinking) of the field effect, then it should use one model or the other depending on that.
Anyway, it is quite a minor detail. I think it would be more relevant for gameplay to know the current direction of the field effect. But for simplicity I would leave it as it is: you know the direction and phase of the field if you pay attention to it when you press next turn (problem for multiplayer games when you are not connected when turn advances).

Mc2 and mc1 graphics are supposed to be either/or, any preference?

As per above (simplicity), molecular_cloud2.jpg (the one without the warping effect).

Attached an first attempt at a graphic for a nebula that may turn into a star.

How does it look like in an actual map? Also compared to current nebula graphic. I'd say this image looks to me as if the star is already there?
Looking at actual nebula images in Google, this one is quite different.

I know we aren't supposed to argue from realism here. So take what I say with as much salt as you like.

Molecular clouds are typically the dark nebulae you see, like the "pillars of creation" in the eagle nebula, or the head part of the horsehead nebula. So maybe something darker with a back-lit appearance might be good.

Also, something reminiscent of the Orion nebula might be nice for the star-forming nebula. As that's an IRL star-formation zone. Maybe a swirling proto-stellar disk in the center where the star might form.

labgnome wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 1:28 amMolecular clouds are typically the dark nebulae you see, like the "pillars of creation" in the eagle nebula, or the head part of the horsehead nebula. So maybe something darker with a back-lit appearance might be good.

Like you said, realism is not the most decisive factor. My priority is that the graphic conveys some sense of what it does game-play wise - the ion storm damages ships and gives a stealth bonus, so it needs to look dangerous and intransparent; the molecular cloud nullifies shields, so I aimed at something that looks electric/energized, so the player will be able to imagine it interacts with ship shields. Most recent version below (as far as I'm concerned it's final).

Oberlus wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2019 5:56 pmI'd say this image looks to me as if the star is already there?

Agreed - the star should probably look less matured. Will continue work on that.

Oberlus wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2019 5:56 pm I think it would be more relevant for gameplay to know the current direction of the field effect.

Maybe one could render multiple fields using coordinates of last/current/next turn?
Not sure what FOCS provides.

Ophiuchus wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2019 12:26 pmMaybe one could render multiple fields using coordinates of last/current/next turn?
Not sure what FOCS provides.

Previous positions of UniverseObjects are not tracked by the engine, so FOCS cannot expose them to scripting. If the movement of a field is scripted deterministically, then the previous position could be calculated. This wouldn't matter though, as there's no way in FOCS to tell the engine to render some extra textures on the map. Possibly something complicated involving multiple fields, with extras there just for rendering purposes could be done, though.

The Silent One wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2019 10:47 amLike you said, realism is not the most decisive factor. My priority is that the graphic conveys some sense of what it does game-play wise - the ion storm damages ships and gives a stealth bonus, so it needs to look dangerous and intransparent; the molecular cloud nullifies shields, so I aimed at something that looks electric/energized, so the player will be able to imagine it interacts with ship shields. Most recent version below (as far as I'm concerned it's final).

I can see that. I'm just a big astronomy nerd. After all, my first post on these forums was about simulating stellar evolution in the game. I'd still like to see dwarf and/or giant stars in the game.

The designs do look nice, but I would like to echo the criticism of the protostellar nebula, that it looks like a star is already there. Although the flash effect might be nice for the supernova.

labgnome wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2019 1:37 pmThe designs do look nice, but I would like to echo the criticism of the protostellar nebula, that it looks like a star is already there. Although the flash effect might be nice for the supernova.

Definitely agree here, gonna work on that one.

Before I go on pause mode, an update for the ion storm though

Ohhhhh... SHINY!!!

Do you have separate layers for components of the images? They could be rendered layered and slowly animated, such as by rotation or fading or tinting or scaling...

Geoff the Medio wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 5:48 amDo you have separate layers for components of the images?

Positive. This image consists of five layers: blue nebula, red nebula glow, red nebula, "ions" glow and ions blur.

Geoff the Medio wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 5:48 amThey could be rendered layered and slowly animated, such as by rotation or fading or tinting or scaling...

That'd be great, art-wise I can provide whatever is needed. Code-wise, my past attempts with OpenGL were somewhat discouraging.
If such a thing were implemented I could also take up my work on the (animated?) sidepanel stars again.

Alternative version for ion storm, more lighning-y.