Hard Light Productions Forums
Modding, Mission Design, and Coding => FS2 Open Coding - The Source Code Project (SCP) => Topic started by: JC Denton on February 08, 2005, 02:13:59 am
-
Since there's no other way I know of to tell a flight of fighters not to use their missile loadout when attacking a target, I stumbled upon the fact that the good-secondary-time sexp has a numerical limit on the number of missiles the fighters can use against the listed target.
Thinking my problem solved by setting the missile cap to 0, I started putting the expression together, only to discover that the only missiles listed as valid for the sexp are those with the 'bomber+' and 'huge' flags in their TBL entries. I shrug it off, manually punch in 'Hornet' and 'Harpoon' in the weapon name field, naturally Fred gripes at me, and I go to test it in game. Started loading the mission, and up popped the error dialog, of course. I hit Cancel, FS2 neatly crashed, and I come here to regale my woes.
So, could there be a modification to the good-secondary-time sexp such that it can be used with any type of missile? (I also would like to note that beam weapons were also in the list of valid weapons). As it is, the structure is:
+ good-secondary-time
- 1. - ( Team name the sexp affects )
- 2. - ( Max num. of missiles team can fire )
- 3. - ( Weapon Name the team can fire )
- 4. - ( Individual ship name team can use aforementioned weapon on )
In my opinion, this sexp could do with some rather extensive modification, and the altered model doesn't seem to have any backwards compatibility problems from my point of view:
+ new-secondary-time
- 1. - ( Team, wing, or ship name the sexp affects )
- 2. - ( Max num. of missile rounds affected team/wing/ship can fire)
- 3. - ( Weapon name affected. No delimiters should be listed, since this sexp can feasibly be used to, for my example, prevent a wing of Perseus from wasting their Harpoons and Hornets in clearing out a handful of Watchdog sentries )
- 4+. - ( Target ship(s)/wing(s) the team/wing/ship listed in field 1 will be (or not be, as the case may be) attacking with the aforementioned weapons )
Yes, that is a '4+' there. All additional entries are simply more targets, to condense what could be several separate entries for a team-wide instance down to a single sexp.
It'd be neat if the original had an optional field for a specific subsystem to be targeted, which would be the only breaking factor between the two. Although there's quite possibly another sexp or three that covers that, which I've obviously yet to discover.
So, what say you?
-
That's a great idea, I fully support that. WCS would reallyreally need that. Right now, we had make all sorts of tbl stunts to make our missiles feasable without making them appear too different from WC and it's still not too good. The AI is especially stupid in that particular brand of AI stupidity.
With the normal behavior, the AI shoots his missiles 100% predictable away as soon as it's in target range and doesn't stop until it's depleted and that's especially bad when there's no support ship.
That'S especially bad since as soon as you're in range the AI shoots missiles at you as if there'S no tomorrw which is especially bad when your ship can only take two hits but you have ten missiles coming at you.
-
Originally posted by Lynx
That's a great idea, I fully support that. WCS would reallyreally need that.
There you go again with "need". Pick what you really "need" and leave the rest as "want". You have to prioritize. Don't be greedy and grab for everything, or you may end up with nothing.
-
Originally posted by JC Denton
+ new-secondary-time
- 1. - ( Team, wing, or ship name the sexp affects )
- 2. - ( Max num. of missile rounds affected team/wing/ship can fire)
- 3. - ( Weapon name affected. No delimiters should be listed, since this sexp can feasibly be used to, for my example, prevent a wing of Perseus from wasting their Harpoons and Hornets in clearing out a handful of Watchdog sentries )
[/B]
And the ability to set 0 for number of missiles if I don't want them fire missiles at all at a certain point. Right now it chokes if 0 is set.
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
There you go again with "need". Pick what you really "need" and leave the rest as "want". You have to prioritize. Don't be greedy and grab for everything, or you may end up with nothing.
Calm down, Goober :) Lynx wasn't aware of this "need" and "want" thing.
This here is actually a "want", and IMO so much down the list, that I will not even put in our list.
I already have problems because I run out of SEXP-Nodes, so the last thing I need is a SEXP for Missile-Behaviour for each ships.
Besides this SEXP-Problem it would be certainly convinient, but we cannot use it at the current point of development. If it will be made someday, we will think about it again.
-
Well, now that Goob's dispensed his hate upon us... :p
From a coder's point of view, how much trouble would it be to effect these changes?
-
Hey, Goob really does hate us all :p. And while it's a decent request, I fear it's ties to the AI system could hold it up for a while.
-
Originally posted by Starman01
Calm down, Goober :) Lynx wasn't aware of this "need" and "want" thing.
This here is actually a "want", and IMO so much down the list, that I will not even put in our list.
I already have problems because I run out of SEXP-Nodes, so the last thing I need is a SEXP for Missile-Behaviour for each ships.
Besides this SEXP-Problem it would be certainly convinient, but we cannot use it at the current point of development. If it will be made someday, we will think about it again.
Okay. :)
And we can probably bump the MAX_SEXP_NODES a small amount. But this will be the last bump. We'll try to convert it over to dynamic allocation, but until we do, we don't want to waste memory.
-
Originally posted by StratComm
Hey, Goob really does hate us all :p. And while it's a decent request, I fear it's ties to the AI system could hold it up for a while.
That's basically it. In fact I've been thinking of imposing a ban on new feature requests until we finish everything we're working on. We're pretty backed up at the moment.
-
Wow! A code freeze so soon after an official release. So the next official build would be 3.6.6?... 3.6.7?... 3.7.0? ;7
[Edit]Just saw Goob's other post so I can answer my own question... 3.6.6[/Edit]
-
3.6.6: We Really Do Have Working OGG Code in This One...Right?
-
:lol:
... For The Most Part, I Guess.
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
And we can probably bump the MAX_SEXP_NODES a small amount. But this will be the last bump. We'll try to convert it over to dynamic allocation, but until we do, we don't want to waste memory.
That would be awesome, 10 % more (or space for 25 additional simple events) should be enough (and you would get finally rid of me in this ;7 ) And making dynamic allocation would be even the cream on the cake.
(Hm, I have to make sure that you are mentioned in the WCS-Credits :) )
-
We should name ship after him. TCS Goober5000. Well, that sounds.....meh.:D
-
TCS Goober will do it. And I agree, Goober hates us all :D *editing signature* :cool:
-
But he hates us the most.:cool:
-
I disagree, from us all, he hates Starman the most :)
-
:lol:
I'm not so sure about that anymore, he's now actually doing my most wanted personal request :p