Hard Light Productions Forums
Modding, Mission Design, and Coding => FS2 Open Coding - The Source Code Project (SCP) => Topic started by: Nuke on February 25, 2004, 07:41:25 pm
-
is it posible to get a d3 style bunining effect. a ship that is on fire should take damage. it would work sorta like emp, with a flame flag, you should also be able to define effect time and damage factor (foctor of the weapon's damage tag). it would be cool. and dont give me that no fire in space bs, this is sci-fi emphasis on fi.
-
'space' ships... fire...
you do know how very very wrong this is right?
-
Originally posted by Nuke
and dont give me that no fire in space bs, this is sci-fi emphasis on fi.
-
Well....if you want something like a reason, maybe there's an atmosphere leak that the fire's being fed off of? Or maybe some other material is reacting/combusting, and can do so in a vacuum?
Either way, think of the Homeworld/Homeworld2 ships when they get lambasted by a wall of Ion Frigates. It's eyecandy, and a better visual aid to know the state of a ship without targeting it to see the hull integrity.
And besides, a ship at 20% hull certianly doesn't look it right now. :p
-
nono, he doesn't want a damage eye candy effect he wants a napalm cannon. a flaim thrower, or something that sticks to the ship, causeing damage. I could hardly buy robots, made of meatal, burning in D3, space ships in space made of thick armor, in space, would just be distractingly wrong, to the point that I wouldn't be able to get around it
-
Ah, misread that post...been doing that an awful lot lately.
Well, in that case, I think the idea's, well....*shrug*
And maybe it'd warrant splitting the thread, but is a HW/HW2-esque damage effect feasible for post-3.6?
-
he wants a smoke 'n fire effect ala freelancer..
-
no, he wants a D3 style stuff burning and dieing from it, effect
-
mm.... particles...
-
I want both. Gradual damage doesn't have to be attributed to fire, y'know, could just as easily claim that some missile's a breacher pod fulla marines that slowly tear up the inside of the ship or some gray goo ubervirus. And some kind of nice damage effect for normal weapons, a significant enhancement on those little particle spews you see now, would be just plain cool.
-
i'm sorry, but the fiction in science fiction doesn't mean go against the laws of physics, dispite what some people believe.
-
and stryke, arn't you one of the people who hates soft sci-fi
-
how 'bout a coolant leak somewhere?..
-
Originally posted by Carl
i'm sorry, but the fiction in science fiction doesn't mean go against the laws of physics, dispite what some people believe.
Which is bull since there's stuff that can burn w/o air, but people here like to blatantly ignore that fact so they can ***** to no end.
-
i'm not saying there aren't things that can burn without air, i'm saying don't throw science out just because fiction told you to.
-
which is, in that case, absolutly irelevant since what he's proposing doesn't go against science.
-
i know, but it is relevent to this:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Nuke
and dont give me that no fire in space bs, this is sci-fi emphasis on fi.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
now that i think about it its not fi. you could mix hydrogen peroxide with napalm and it will work just fine in space, though it may scatter a bit. another thing, metals are a key ingredient in explosives, once an enemy's hull starts melting, it will only make the fire hotter. and medals are slowly becoming obsolete to composites. carbon fiber is becoming a very desirable component in space craft, and as i recal carbon is in the non-metals section of the periodic table. but actually id like to make plasma cannons that make ships burn.
-
Originally posted by Nuke
a ship that is on fire should take damage.
To a limit. Partly the whole damage system is completely ridiculous, you can shoot at a single part of a ship for eons and that will bring the whole ship crashing down in explosions and shockwaves. That said, it would look pretty cool to be on fire, fictional as it would have to be. ;)
-
yeah, for eyecandy's sake.. ;)
-
its mostly about causing damage that lasts after you stop shooting at it. but eyecandy is good too. its good for spraying subsystems, the enemy gets to slowly watch them count down to the point of failure.
-
The only issue would be, it would kinda screw with the balancing for ships in stuff like the main campaign, that are supposed to survive for certain amounts of time but end up being completely slaughtered by the bombers. You'd have to compensate by updating the hull strength of every capship in the game, but it would still be a big gameplay changer.
-
I wouldn't mind seeing fire purely as eyecandy (rather than damage a modifyer), so that when a big ship breaks up the exposed decks burn, even if only briefly while the O2 is used up :nod:
-
You know, you'd think that armor which is designed to withstand plasma beams and nuclear explosions, both of which are many times hotter than any fire (or any chemical reaction), would burn when hit with "mere" napalm.
If it were true, an awesome weapon would be the "oxygen" TAG bomb.
Upon impact, it releases a gel oxydizer and TAGs the target for a single beam attack which sets the ship on fire.
That said, it would look cool.
-
INCOMING CHEMISTRY
actually you cannot "Burn without air" - combustion [burning] is an oxygen specific reaction
you can have other exothermic reactions that don't involve air - but you cannot call them burning
-
naaaah...
But burning atmosphere leaks when badly damaged would own. Screw the whole damage crap.
-
Originally posted by ChronoReverse
You know, you'd think that armor which is designed to withstand plasma beams and nuclear explosions, both of which are many times hotter than any fire (or any chemical reaction), would burn when hit with "mere" napalm.
If it were true, an awesome weapon would be the "oxygen" TAG bomb.
Upon impact, it releases a gel oxydizer and TAGs the target for a single beam attack which sets the ship on fire.
That said, it would look cool.
In fact, those hulls can withstand even anti-matter bombs, but they'll die from a beam ( after some time ) that cannot kill a fighter in one shot, which can be killed by a well placed missile, which can deal no real damage to a capship.
Go wonder.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
INCOMING CHEMISTRY
actually you cannot "Burn without air" - combustion [burning] is an oxygen specific reaction
you can have other exothermic reactions that don't involve air - but you cannot call them burning
Not true Kazan. Any reaction which results in a flame can use that term. A good example is burning hydrogen in chlorine to produce hydrogen chloride.
Check the entry for hydrogen chloride (http://www.eurochlor.org/chlorine/generalinfo/kglossary.htm)
-
Quite right Kara. Not that I care too much - gaining my A-Level in chemistry kind of killed my enthusiasm for the subject :nod:
-
My degree was fine but it was when I did research after that when I lost my interest in the subject. I was always very good at theoretical chemistry but I soon discovered that I couldn't get a practical experiment to work to save my life :rolleyes:
To be fair I still like chem as a hobby but I no longer want to do it as a living.
-
I think it was Babylon 5 that said Terran ships would burn red 'cos of the oxygen present, but the alien ships (I forget the race) burned green (or something) 'cos they had some trippy gas instead.
I don't know how likely that is, but it does seem a bit, uh, "unlikely" ?
*EDIT* I always liked Physics myself
-
why not? if a gaz is burning green, and the ship is full of it, it makes sense it'll burn, well, green.
-
It doesn't have to burn...it could be gas leak.. How knows what those high-tech ships carry...and even in space if you releaase green gas it will look allmost like something is burning green (vacum wull suck it and it will give it that fire effect)
Boy..this explenation sure sucks!:D
-
@magatsu1
You know, some things burn weird colours like purple, green and blue even in oxygen....
-
okay... think star-trek, insurrection, then the Enterprise was venting plasma(i think) via the bussards..
or other countless ST episodes where the ships vented something out into space.
-
yes fire looking stuff is good,
but a blob of burning stuff stuk to your ship burning it, isn't.
-
having it as a dammage effect would be great causing dammage nar waste of time, but it would be great if the ships on its last legs that it would look it. Homeworld 2 dose it pretty well.
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
okay... think star-trek, insurrection, then the Enterprise was venting plasma(i think) via the bussards..
or other countless ST episodes where the ships vented something out into space.
in that case, we already have that. it's called particle spew.
-
Yeah it just needs to be alot cooler if we have the power to do it now.
It'd be nice if a ship was pretty banged up it'd be venting some kind of cooling, plasma, reactor fluid....some kind of stuff. It can be a colored gas...not "fire" persay. Also would be nice if it were somehow textured or something....
-
I'm not against the eye candy of a ship spewing plumes of firelike whatever. but the point of the thread was to have a D3 napalm cannon, a weapon effect, with gameplay issues
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
I wouldn't mind seeing fire purely as eyecandy (rather than damage a modifyer), so that when a big ship breaks up the exposed decks burn, even if only briefly while the O2 is used up :nod:
:yes:
That sounds really cool. :) All this extra atmosphere being burned up by the ensuing flames... :yes:
-
Bob: I dislike unnecessary violation of the laws of physics. I utterly loathe the whole "science=magic" attitude of the techno-fantasy dorks. And anybody who tries to tell me that technically speaking anything is possible so they can do whatever they please in fiction and still be right dies screaming. But when it comes to the pretty explosions and stuff that has a more significant benefit to gameplay than harm to my realist aesthetic, I'll abide it. And, like I said, it's not like there aren't believable reasons why a spaceship would "burn" either way.
That said, I think you've been thinking of something totally different than what I have. What I said is that I want the two things- an external "fire" particle spew and gradual damage to ships- implemented in the game, but separately. That's the way they'd be done anyway, I'd presume. I never claimed I wanted napalm, I wasn't aware at the time that that was specifically what you were talking about, I don't like that idea at all. I don't think that's what most people here are talking about- seems to me that everyone else is talking about "fire" as in an enhanced version of those particle spews you get from weapon hits, like I said. It really doesn't matter what the original post was about, this is what people obviously want. You can stop arguing against something nobody else is talking about now.
-
SO? Shall we have burning or no? Somene post a poll!!!