Hard Light Productions Forums

Modding, Mission Design, and Coding => FS2 Open Coding - The Source Code Project (SCP) => Topic started by: Starman01 on November 11, 2004, 05:01:04 pm

Title: Request a small change in Targeting-Code
Post by: Starman01 on November 11, 2004, 05:01:04 pm
Hello Guys,

this is annoying feature-requesting starman again :)

But seriously, I , or better my team-mates and me have a problem. Most of you know, that one big feature in Wing Commander were always the huge fly-through-hangars on the  big carriers.

In order to make them look better, I already started to build boxes in them, but still they need parked fighters and stuff.

Currently I'm placing fighters in it, but this works only if the carrier stands still the entire mission, and does not even warp out. (and If you or someone else ramm it, it floats around somewhere).

But the perfect solution for this hangar-stuff would be, making them subobjects or docked objects. Both solutions are currently unusable.

1) Multi-Docking is not supported and leads into funny ship-behaviour (I once tried a transport with 6 docked containers, strange reactions where the result :wtf: ) Changing this would certainly be a lot of work (but still something that could be used good).

2) So the second Idea would be the subobject-stuff. Easy to build, mostly implemented in the code, but has one major negative effect IMO.

Why are destroyed subobjects targetable :confused: :wtf:

I mean, I can see a small sense, when there is this standard-freespace-subsystem like "communication" somewhere on the ships hull, and is destroyed and can be targeted with 0%.

But it will be very strange when I have huge grey target-bracket for a "dralthi-fighter" within an absolut empty hangar-bay, and can switch to even more when cycling through them (for example when I first rampage the hangar and then look for the engine-subsystem).

Turrets are different, they aren't targetable once destroyed, besides the very last one, this is also targeted with 0 %. But this turret-issue gives me the hope, that you might be able to change this part of the code.

Can you make destroyed subobject un-targetable ? This would be
a really important feature for us, pls give it a try.

Thanks a lot.
Title: Request a small change in Targeting-Code
Post by: SadisticSid on November 11, 2004, 05:31:54 pm
Slight problem with that (I think), in that you can scan destroyed subsystems on capships; this would break that functionality.
Title: Request a small change in Targeting-Code
Post by: Goober5000 on November 11, 2004, 05:58:29 pm
We might be able to add a checkbox or sexp to make a specified subsystem untargetable.
Title: Request a small change in Targeting-Code
Post by: Nuke on November 11, 2004, 07:01:57 pm
i want an ils so that players can follow waypoint paths (including those to fighterbays). that way you can model a tunnel inside the carriar, and if you recess the fighterbay subsystem deep enough inside the ship you can have a realistic docking ending the mission with the distance subsystem sexp. you would use your comm menue to request docking clearance and the ils could be triggered by sexp. the hud gauge itself being the hardest part. oh how i miss aproach and landings.
Title: Request a small change in Targeting-Code
Post by: StratComm on November 11, 2004, 10:35:45 pm
On an unrelated note, I want untargetable subsystems anyway.  Not untargetable-when-destroyed, (which would be useful for Starman and co) but a complete "not targetable" flag so that we could have damage debris built in to our ships.
Title: Request a small change in Targeting-Code
Post by: Nuke on November 11, 2004, 11:16:05 pm
i second that! id like invisible subsystems for damage effects. so you can blow off armor plates and stuff from ships without overloading the already cluttered list of subsystems. i can think of a million uses for it.
Title: Request a small change in Targeting-Code
Post by: Starman01 on November 12, 2004, 10:31:09 am
Quote
Originally posted by StratComm
On an unrelated note, I want untargetable subsystems anyway.  Not untargetable-when-destroyed, (which would be useful for Starman and co) but a complete "not targetable" flag so that we could have damage debris built in to our ships.


This will be even better. I don't want that the parked fighters (and upcoming trucks and crates :D ) are targetable anyway. I only thought it would be easier to change this the way I  explained it :)

Also a "request landing" would be fun, but beside the comm-function we have already a communication-dialogue and land-in-fighterbay (or launch). I'm sure you will love the demo ;7
Title: Request a small change in Targeting-Code
Post by: kasperl on November 12, 2004, 01:31:24 pm
I'd love to see non targetable subsystems, since you could pretty juch approximate geomodding with it.
Title: Request a small change in Targeting-Code
Post by: Starman01 on November 14, 2004, 03:13:22 am
Makes me happy to see, that more people want this feature, this raises our chances for getting it :)

Will you guys do it ?  *big puppy-eye please*:p
Title: Request a small change in Targeting-Code
Post by: Lynx on November 14, 2004, 10:54:14 am
PLEASE!

(http://www.chazhound.com/pictures/data/501/1960candid.jpg)

 :D
Title: Request a small change in Targeting-Code
Post by: Black Wolf on November 14, 2004, 10:58:56 am
Quote
Originally posted by Goober5000
We might be able to add a checkbox or sexp to make a specified subsystem untargetable.


That would own. And, you know, puppy.
Title: Request a small change in Targeting-Code
Post by: Carl on November 14, 2004, 03:36:24 pm
but please don't make it standard. if an objective in a certain mission is to take out a subsystem then if it's already destroyed it'll be hard out if it was destroyed or not.
Title: Request a small change in Targeting-Code
Post by: Roanoke on November 14, 2004, 04:30:10 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Lynx
PLEASE!

<>
:D



try posting naked lay-dees and see if that gets a better response
Title: Request a small change in Targeting-Code
Post by: SausandMush on November 14, 2004, 05:48:54 pm
For what it's worth i'll add my bit

pleasepleasepleasepleasepleaseplease:)

Geomod may be nearly impossible, but this would prove a pretty good substitute for it.
Title: Request a small change in Targeting-Code
Post by: aldo_14 on November 14, 2004, 06:34:51 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Nuke
i want an ils so that players can follow waypoint paths (including those to fighterbays). that way you can model a tunnel inside the carriar, and if you recess the fighterbay subsystem deep enough inside the ship you can have a realistic docking ending the mission with the distance subsystem sexp. you would use your comm menue to request docking clearance and the ils could be triggered by sexp. the hud gauge itself being the hardest part. oh how i miss aproach and landings.


Why not just FRED in some modified navbuoys?  Minor issue in placement and ensuring the capship is in position, but defo can be done in a fairly comprehenisve way.
Title: Request a small change in Targeting-Code
Post by: Nuke on November 14, 2004, 09:01:56 pm
now that takes all the fun out of landing on a moving carrier deck :D

most of the stuff could be set up in fred, however i think a hud gauge that displays path points and such would be better, perhaps a variable path that will change with the ships movement. the cheap solution would be to add a set of glowpoints indicating a docking path. then activiating them via sexp at the end of the mission. however it doesnt indicate complex flightpaths, such as flying into a lateral hanger while a capship is at full speed.
Title: Request a small change in Targeting-Code
Post by: karajorma on November 15, 2004, 03:43:45 am
Quote
Originally posted by Nuke
however it doesnt indicate complex flightpaths, such as flying into a lateral hanger while a capship is at full speed.


Why wouldn't that work using glowpoints? Get them to blink in the right order and they sound perfect for that.
Title: Request a small change in Targeting-Code
Post by: Starman01 on November 15, 2004, 12:17:28 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Nuke
now that takes all the fun out of landing on a moving carrier deck :D

most of the stuff could be set up in fred, however i think a hud gauge that displays path points and such would be better, perhaps a variable path that will change with the ships movement. the cheap solution would be to add a set of glowpoints indicating a docking path. then activiating them via sexp at the end of the mission. however it doesnt indicate complex flightpaths, such as flying into a lateral hanger while a capship is at full speed.


With the autopilot-function you can display the waypoints on your hud, and below each waypoint is a distant counter. However, after reaching a waypoints (which gets green when within 1000 meters) you have to select the next manual.
Title: Request a small change in Targeting-Code
Post by: Moonsword on November 15, 2004, 12:47:57 pm
Quote
complex flightpaths, such as flying into a lateral hanger while a capship is at full speed


Otherwise known as an ouch moment.

Damn, that's not something I really want to try, personally, let alone trying to get the AI to enter or exit from a moving vehicle off the axis of flight...
Title: Request a small change in Targeting-Code
Post by: Nuke on November 15, 2004, 07:55:04 pm
navy fighter pilots do this all the time, landing on an angled deck on a moving ship. ah what fun :D
Title: Request a small change in Targeting-Code
Post by: Trivial Psychic on November 15, 2004, 10:36:50 pm
Yes, but Navy fighter pilots far exceed FSO AI in intelligence and skill.
Title: Request a small change in Targeting-Code
Post by: Starman01 on November 18, 2004, 01:32:27 pm
Can we continue this discussion ? Would it be possible to expect
this feature comming in the nearer future (let's say 4 to 5 months maximum ? )

I'm not sure how you guys in the SCP are organized, so that is why I rather ask twice.

Thanks.
Title: Request a small change in Targeting-Code
Post by: Goober5000 on November 18, 2004, 02:15:10 pm
Advice: Asking twenty times in the space of one week tends to be more than a little annoying.  Schedules don't change much over that short of a timespan.  We're likely to ignore requests that are spammed like that.

We're much more receptive to requests that are posted once and perhaps bumped every month or so.  Polite reminders are welcomed.  Shrieking demands are not.  Contrast my response to your post and PMs vs. my response to Gregster2k's post in the other thread.

Historically, reasonable requests tend to be implemented a maximum of six months after they're first requested.  Persistent variables, extended electronics flags for weapons, and ballistic missiles fall under this category.  More often, they're completed in two months or less.

Hm.  Methinks this post should be Wikified under the SCP FAQ page.  Redmenace, kasperl, karajorma, anyone? :)
Title: Request a small change in Targeting-Code
Post by: Starman01 on November 19, 2004, 11:51:13 am
Hm, actually I had not the intention of being annoying to you or anyone else. :nervous:

I'm just asking again, simply because I want a straight answer, since our mod-work in the near future is affected by  this answer. If you won't do it, we will have to lead the mod-work in another direction and not "hope" a few months that you guys might gonna do it, and will then be dissapointed in the end and wasted lot's of time.  Also I'm asking, because I (and most others) have no real idea how the SCP is structured.

For the same reason I PM'ed you, (since you once stated interest in the requested feature but I had not a real usable answer). If I would have get a "No", I had to direct our Fredders (5, including me) in another direction to get around the missing vital feature. But since you give me a "Yes" and a eventually ETA, I can now direct them in a different direction, which will save us dozend of work hours and will improve the mod much more in the end.

I get a few replies in this one here, which looks like some other people are interested, but this was a request to the SCP team, and because we have work to plan on our own I only want an answer like:

- Yep, we will do this in a short time
- Yep, we will put it on the to-do-list, but can't give you an ETA now
- Nope, no chance, we are all to busy or it aint possible (technical).
- @!"ยง%@'* (which I'm not really expecting from you guys :) )

Fact is, I cannot (and will not) force you guys into anything, but I need to know where it goes so I can plan our own work. (like I'm doing it in real life work too, this may be a little difference between me and some other users around here),

Again, I'm sorry if someone thinks I'm annoying, I just hoped to receive a straight answer. (Also the size and quality of the wc-mod requires some sort of planing, since we are a rather big team)