Hard Light Productions Forums
Modding, Mission Design, and Coding => FS2 Open Coding - The Source Code Project (SCP) => Topic started by: Turnsky on February 28, 2005, 07:17:28 pm
-
okay, since my last ideas thread was a potenial hit..i think :nervous:
i figured i'd try and make a "realistic" ideas thread, some of these for sheer ****s and giggles, however.. let's start with..
lens flares :D, i know what you're thinking, but, consider this.. to have support for such things would be cool, as it could be used for other things, perhaps even rain-off-visor effects, etc.
non pixel shader water effects... can be done, i know. this would be for the skybox missions, naturally... i mean, what could be better looking than a dogfight over a sparkling sea?.. or, a stormy, wavy one for that matter... (lighting is already supported)
or, lightening strikes.. and i mean -direct- strikes.. for balance's sake, it should only take your shields out, and give an EMP effect, it'd be downright scary during a dogfight, tho... a rare thing, but it'd be a nice touch.
i've said this once before, but heck, i'll say it again.. bigger chunks of debris, i personally want to see the burnt out remains of the foward section of an orion class starship after its engines/reactors detonate..
skeletal animation support ( a gigantic ask, i know).. for 3d people models..add that to the somewhat burgeoning support for externally available cutscene ability, and what one would get, is what freelancer is capable of with its engine, and, it would help add a dimension of depth to any fully fledged campaign with the works :)
some of these might give the ferrium team some ideas, too.
feel free to share your ideas, too. :)
-
Bobboau has some prototype animation code in the works, so that's already on the way. I've also heard that lens flares were experimented with, but no one provided any suitable graphics for testing.
-
Ok, how about a simple one: Muzzle flashes working with non flak weapons (laser guns). Or is this already done and i'm just using it wrong?
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
lens flares :D, i know what you're thinking, but, consider this.. to have support for such things would be cool, as it could be used for other things, perhaps even rain-off-visor effects, etc.
I've got the .tbl code all figured out:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/Carltheshivan/pst02.gif)
-
Because it's been in there since pre 3.5?
-
nothing depresses a coder more than asking for a feature they implemented ages ago
-
I thought it was in there. Wasn't sure, since I haven't seen anyone use it.
-
So we had lens flars all along yet noone to use them? hmm..
-
Actually, what tbl does that go in to? Stars?
The SCP is in dire need of a comprehensive features list, including links to how to get them working. Because I would have no idea where to start looking if I wanted to set something like this up.
-
I suggested a random feature thingy/list for the main SCP site but no one seemed to like the idea.
-
the thing about lens flares is that, while cool, they are an artifact of a camera lens, they don't actually exist. that and it's added stuff to render that could go somewhere else.
-
Since you're looking through a glass cockpit, lens flares aren't necessarily impossible to have. They can come from any curved lense-like surface, including glasses or car windshields, so I don't see why the cockpit dome would be any different. I personally don't like them, but they are in already and since someone asked for them they should be getting used. But they aren't, and therein lies the problem.
-
Lensflares are gonna get used, trust me.;7
And who cares if if it'S not realistic, it's cool, that's all that matters.
-
Originally posted by Lynx
Lensflares are gonna get used, trust me.;7
And who cares if if it'S not realistic, it's cool, that's all that matters.
Second that, it looks pretty good :)
@Lynx : Though I think you should give them a little more transparency, you think that's possible ?
Hope you don't mind if I post a picture :)
(http://www.scifi-3d.de/wcsaga/Starman/lensflares.jpg)
-
Now what about muzzle flashes on non-flak guns. Would that be a hastle to do?
-
Lens flares were done a long time ago. Someone needs to take a PS lens flare and take each individual part and give it its own bitmap to use in FS. That might look good. plus people need to remember to have flares on BOTH sides of the sun. Meaning you need to have flares with negative distances.
The big bad list:
-OVEREXPOSURE!!!
-motion blur
-More and better looking stars
-3d displays (being able to map gauges on to textures)
-true reflections (probably too much to ask)
-good physics including engines that turn off when max (limited) speed has been reached and when the ship is decelerating (except engines in the front that would push the ship back)
-muzzleflashes that work on fighter mounted weapons
-dynamic lights and lighting
-nebulas that you can enter and exit (there are several ways to do this)
-
Technicaly a nebula you can enter and exit would be unliely. Those things are massively huge.
-
Why would engines turn off at max speed? :wtf: I don't want my fighter sputterring around the cosmos.
-
Newton's First Law
-
But since there are no thrusters bringing you to a stop, that doesn't follow Freespace universe law. Nevermind that this whole thing is extremely not Newtonian.
Also, I think someone has improved the stars recently. I was just noticing the other day that they are subtly color shifted from white, which looks oh-so-much cooler :)
-
Seriously... because FS is so big on newtonian physics... :doubt:
-
*cough*modifications*cough*
-
But you don't change basic behavior to support a mod. It should be built on top of the engine, not in spite of it.
-
*cough*flag*cough*
-
It's unfortunately nowhere near that simple. The physics controls a lot of stuff, and to incorporate true Newtonian would involve negating some of what's already there. At absolute best, you'd have to find someone to reprogram the physics engine, and then have it only active via a command line argument.
-
yeah, i know, i'm jsut being anal. last few posts i posted obnly for the sake of posting them, cause i was bored.
-
Fair enough :) I just see so many requests for true Newtonian from people who don't understand what a big undertaking it would be for a feature that would not normally be used.
-
-Translating animation support.
Either as a true implementation or as hack of the current rotational code - though I think the first will be better in the long run.
-A dive into the turret code: It would be the next wonder after multiship docking - I don't request anything new, just the a dive itself into that portion of the code so it can be understood/optimized.
-
Originally posted by Flaser
-A dive into the turret code: It would be the next wonder after multiship docking - I don't request anything new, just the a dive itself into that portion of the code so it can be understood/optimized.
It's really not all that monstrous. A turret basically:
- Finds something to shoot at
- Aims at where it will be
- Shoots at it
Most of the code involves figuring out what to shoot at who.
-
Than why wouldn't anyone touch the code with a 10 foot long pole?
BTW some more efficient targeting algorythms may help the AI immensly.
What do I mean?
Instead the current, pick a target and fire at its lead designator, the AI could merly shoot in the general direction of a fighter/bomber wing.
Turrets would immensly benefit from this - they will be able to truely unleash hell in a curtain of lead as point defense weapons are meant to be.
On another issue: is it the AI that's so horrendous then?
-
Because it's still big/complex, especially when there are missions that depend on the AI being a certain way. Ex: escort missions through an asteroid field. If capship turrets went all out, there wouldn't be an asteroid field. ;)
'Fire in the general direction of a wing' wouldn't work too well, because shots would be continually ending up behind ships or you'd have to get the average predicted position for all the ships in the wing, and if one flew away, the turret would end up firing at nothing.
Anyway, there's also a bunch of stuff to make turrets less accurate. Flak is always slightly randomized, if the weapons system is below 70% turret performance is degraded, in a nebula range is degraded (unless the ship is tagged), and of course the AI class plays a part in things as well.
And actually base newtonian physics wouldn't be that bad either. You just need someone good at physics, but most of the code is contained in a couple of functions that are applied globally. What FS2 does is set a desired_velocity variable, and then has the object try to match that to the best of its ability. All the throttle really seems to do is set that variable.
-
I can't help but wonder if you could rewrite some of the dogfighting AI to use a set of 'rulebooks' that can provide simple escape solutions... i.e. if enemy on 6 and enough space clear, then do an Immelman turn. Simple, deterministically called (but random enough to be predictable) strategies that complement existing behaviour.
(this is something used for chess playing AIs, for example, but i'm not sure how useful or feasible it is for real-time games. I am curious about it, though)
Unfortunately, I've heard the current code for AI is a complete and utter bastard, so I'm scared to even contemplate looking at it. And, to be honest, I dont even have the first clue how it's stuctured or the behaviour is setup on the top level anyways.
-
3d brifings would be teh ****. I'm not talking about 3d icons, but a real 3d briefing room. The ability to insert custom pictures or animations in the briefing, like a pilot asking something, or a target profile being magnified. Kind of like the briefings for Star Trek: Elite force. Immersion, baby!
3d mainhalls. You could have multiple rooms, look at it from different perspectives, and so on.
-
Originally posted by Lynx
3d brifings would be teh ****. I'm not talking about 3d icons, but a real 3d briefing room. The ability to insert custom pictures or animations in the briefing, like a pilot asking something, or a target profile being magnified. Kind of like the briefings for Star Trek: Elite force. Immersion, baby!
3d mainhalls. You could have multiple rooms, look at it from different perspectives, and so on.
Custom mainhalls and in effect, several custom places to go around are already possible AFAIK.
-
so can anyone say somthing about non-flak muzzle flashes?
-
Originally posted by FireCrack
so can anyone say somthing about non-flak muzzle flashes?
i reckon that's quite doable, since it's already quite possibly present in the original code..
it's nice to see people discuss, brainstorm, and whatnot.. i generally mean these kinds of threads to be just a brainstorming platform for either the SCP or Ferrium..
and Lynx, My point exactly, if you could have character modeling in the game (may or may not be possible with the SCP...i won't speak for Ferrium, however) but that's the kind of thing i was talking about, that, and the possible use of more immersive cutscenery as a game progresses.. i mean, who wants to see the bosch monologues all kitted out in-engine, with all the SCP goodness to boot at high res without the video graininess..
or better yet... Hallfight. :drevil:
-
Ok, many of the guy's here would like to have a more Newtonian Flight Model. But you don't see that in the most space flight simulating computer games. [1]
But why is that?
The Answer is quite easy: The way of controlling a ship within a Newtonian space-environment would be to different from the effects you have in Air[2]; You would fly straight ahead with current speed if you turn of your engines[3].
This means that if you want to make an ideal 90° turn you have to turn by 180° trottle your engines to the max until you stop, make a -90° turn and trottle your engines until you have reached the speed you want - Nobody can really control that in 3D.
A possible solution might be the NASA one: use some kind of flight computer - you say you want to turn by 90° and the flight computer makes the needed engine stuff.
I think the current flight model shoul'd be kept in the most part from the view of the user[4] - therefore the arcarde like input need to be preserved as much as possible
--------
The effects of an newtonian model would be:
(1) destroyed ships would fly straight ahead and the wreck hits other ships or falls into planets, stars and black holes
(2) "nozzle-engine-exhaust-stream"[5] effects like you know them from the film Apollo 13 or from Babylon 5
(2.1) engine stream only at accelerating; stream goes to front at decellerating
(3) turning of the ship around axis with an change of the flight direction will be mostly slow
(3.1) a possible solution would be to let ships only flight slow so that there is not to much decellerating work to do
(3.2) to let ships flight also fast there could be a kind of booster - but than the ship could only turn to engage enemys - not to change the flight direction
(4) there needs to be an indicator for the distance of the point-of-no-return when being in the near of black holes[3] - such high-gravity objects will change the way of flight dramatically because flight to them in will lead to faster speed; flight from them to slower speed
(5) last but not least - the whole physics engine need a complete redesign - this is a very heavy stuff!!!
--------
[1] As Exceptions see: Asteroids, Moon Lander, etc.
[2] The same problem with sound - in space there is none, but that don't matches your all day experience (turn of your speakers - you won't like that)
[3] not so with warp engines ;)
[4] an exception might be that accelerating is faster than decellerating
[5] not sure about the translation :confused: - hopefully the meaning is clear
-
MovGP0, some of what you write of is completly irrevelant, while for others there are already tried and prooven methods to counter.
First off: Play some I-War. Than play some more I-War. Then play I-War 2: Edge of Chaos and then play it some more.
They have a perfectly working newtonian physics for all intentions and limits of a game engine.
////////////////////////////////////////
As for your suggestions:
What you didn't write about is the tendecy of true bodies in space is to start uncontrollable spinning.
The next true problem is that there is no speed limit in a true newtonian engine. The common mistake of a beginner space pilot is overshooting his target - even I-War hadn't had good enough readings / help to counter this problem.
Moreover in such a "realistic" environment, the only likely form of engagement is BVR - beyond visual range - with missiles as your primary arnament. At that point the game will be more of a game of Tycondera or Harpoon, a chess play of radar hide and seek. That can be fun, but most hardlighters don't come to us to do so.
So if you want a true newtonian engine in a space shooter you have to:
1) Make sure the engagement takes place at visual range (30-15 km max).
2) Provide the pilot with a control system that automatically stabilizes the ship's spin.
3) Provide a control system or accurate readings that help the pilot do a good merge on his target without unintentionally overshooting.
////////////////////////////////////////
The things that is irrevelant for a game engine or as you put it is Gravity. Forget the Buck Rogers physics.
Take a physics book look at the equation of gravity:
F = g * m * M / r^2
F = Force in [N]
g = gravitic constant a very small number
m = mass of one object in [kg]
M = mass of other object in [kg]
r = radius or distance of objects in [m]
There is no distance limit to the effect of gravity! I cold be half a galaxy away and the sun will still pull me. The effect will be minimul, but there will be. All objects pull me in this manner.
Therefore forget about falling into blackholes, suns, planets meteors. There isn't a thin line or border where they suddenly start to pull me.
In mission therefore such an effect will be already present from T- minus zero and throughout the mission.
In actual space battle the only gravity I will take into account is a stellar body I'm orbiting.
Nothing else will have a considerable effect within the timefram of a mission! Stellar travel takes months without going at relativistic speeds.
////////////////////////////////////////
To clear things up I will do my best to put togheter the 101 of convenional space-travel in a different thread.
(I will also use a lot of stuff from the Wikipedia since they're better at giving simple and clear representations).
-
I'm missing the way of docking from X - Beyond the Frontier or Wing Commander - you had to flight into a given region of an ship/station to land and therefora accomplish the mission.
When you look at Star Trek all ships have the ability to warp-out. but to always warp-out has 2 drawbacks:
(1) warping out to land on a ship 100 meters away looks strange
(2) warping of ships witch normally can't warp looks strange, witch is not a problem in Star Trek but in Babylon 5 and some others.
In the Babylon 5 example jump-gates (or big ships) opens a jump-hole and then all the ships have to flight into them. There is no way for the ships to jump without jumpgate -- A behavior that is more docking than jumping.
This would also lead to more tactical deep - because if the jumpgate is destroyed or closed there is no way to escape
-
I don't want to say any different than yours - and right, I've didn't played I-War.
But give me a change to explain:
Stability Problem:
not so if you have perfect balanced ships (simplified physics model) and a good auto-pilot that helps you - I call it "flight-computer", you call it "control system" - the meaning is the same
BVR-Problem:
therefore I suggest to limit the speed or at least make it overproportional harder to accelerate for high speeds.
For big distances there is the afterburner-idea
-- I think this is a problem where we should avoid to much realism...
Infinite Gravity:
right, but when gravity is low you don't model it; just wanted to say that in the extreme near of very heavy objects like black-holes you need to respect a special behavior[1] - and right, during the mission the gravital effect doesn't change
[1] there is a thin line where the player doesn't has a change to fly away from the gravital object - you model it that the player will fall into the object and die when he is to near
But it will be interesting to be in the near of black holes when shoots doesn't go straight ahead but makes an bow
-
The only real difference IMHO between I-War 2 physics and FS2s, is that you have momentum to account for. It's actually pretty cool, but I'm not sure it's as suited to a more action packed game like FS....
I-War battles are quite a lot like a dance, circle strafing the enemy. FS is more of a fast, shooty affair. Because of the physics, to a degree, but also because of the weapons and whatnot.
-
Originally posted by MovGP0
I'm missing the way of docking from X - Beyond the Frontier or Wing Commander - you had to flight into a given region of an ship/station to land and therefora accomplish the mission.
Already possible now, with the subsystem-distance-sexp. You'll specify, like, if you are 3meters away from a certain subsystem the mission ends, in this case it'd be the docking ring or hangar.
As for 3d movies, it'd be cool to merge it with a free shooter engine, like QuakeSource or something. You have the normal FS engine and the other engine for cinematics. There's some project called vegastrike which uses something similar IIRC, and also a fan game called UFO...something(a X-Com style game) that uses a custom programmed 2d engine for base management, trade and so on and the Quake engine for combat.
-
there is an old space sim that actually did use true newtonian physics. you could turn it on and off; if you didnt like the inertia, you could turn dampers on and movement would become much more FS2 like. if you had a dude on you six, you could swich dampers off, rotate, and fire into the dudes face.
-
How's that games name?
-
i forget
-
An intro idea:
Have the game search for a mission file called intro.fs2 or something on startup, so that you can create an ingame cutscene as introduction movie.
-
As for ideas, a respawn counter in multi would possibly be a good idea; something like the kills counter, just that it displays how many respawns you have left.
-
Key-mappable primary/secondary banks.
e.g. keys x,y,z as fire from bank 1, bank 2 or both.
-
A totally and completely impossible request (ive asked it before, doubt anyone actually read it):
Have an option or side-build specially for cutscenes. This would take the mission directly from FRED and play through it. However, the mission would have a seperate flag that identified the player as a camera and non-movable. The mission would play through as normal...BUT, you'd never see it. Instead, it would render each scene at a certain FPS and output it as part of an AVI. This will make it a true cutscene, and with it outputting each frame, FPS issues will vanish forever, although like another renderer, it would take time to finish the entire scene/mission in this case. But hell yes, it'd save a lot of trouble!
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
or better yet... Hallfight. :drevil:
Damn man! I want to see a shivan in-game like that!
No, wait...correction: I want to FIGHT one in game! Now THAT would be simple, sheer coolness and terror combined to make something incredibly attractive :D
-
Originally posted by Singh
A totally and completely impossible request (ive asked it before, doubt anyone actually read it):
Have an option or side-build specially for cutscenes. This would take the mission directly from FRED and play through it. However, the mission would have a seperate flag that identified the player as a camera and non-movable. The mission would play through as normal...BUT, you'd never see it. Instead, it would render each scene at a certain FPS and output it as part of an AVI. This will make it a true cutscene, and with it outputting each frame, FPS issues will vanish forever, although like another renderer, it would take time to finish the entire scene/mission in this case. But hell yes, it'd save a lot of trouble!
Haven't you played STL?
-
adding a FPS engine to the SCP sounds rediculous. the differences between the two engines are just crazy. SCP does not have a truly optomized open ended code as an FPS engine like Unreal
-
Originally posted by Trivial Psychic
Haven't you played STL?
STL?
Edit: if you mean shrouding hte light, then no.
What I was asking for is a bit different. In-game cutscenes are fine...IF you have hte FPS. The request is for an actual rendering outputted to avi. This skips every limitation that comes with playability almost completely, allowing for some incredibly impressive eyecandy without FPS lossage (since it would render the entire thing according to the required FPS).
-
Originally posted by Drew
adding a FPS engine to the SCP sounds rediculous. the differences between the two engines are just crazy. SCP does not have a truly optomized open ended code as an FPS engine like Unreal
yeah, an FPS portion of a space combat game would feel rather odd... this is freespace, not mace griffin: bounty hunter ;)
that said, the ability to model even simple human figures (they need not speak, or be that articulate), it could be for such a use as like... a carrier launch crew milling about your vessel as they prep for launch..
just to add an extra dimension to freespace..
that, and for ****s and giggles, you can add the odd guy in a space suit "flipping" you the bird as he gets out of his crippled fighter. :p
-
On the rendering idea: why not just render the cutscene properly? With only a little more setup, you'll get a much better end result.
-
Originally posted by StratComm
On the rendering idea: why not just render the cutscene properly? With only a little more setup, you'll get a much better end result.
Because MAX or lightwave dont have SexPs.
-
(FRED) I wanna put variables in the arrive cues...
-
Eh, it's simpler to set up but not as robust. Basically you're letting the AI do a good bit of the setup for you, which may or may not act like you want every time.
To willy_principal:
Event: Variable Arrival
When
-Arrival conditions
-do-nothing
Arrival Cue:
When
-isEventTrueDelay
-Variable Arrival
-0
-
Originally posted by StratComm
Eh, it's simpler to set up but not as robust. Basically you're letting the AI do a good bit of the setup for you, which may or may not act like you want every time.
I know...but then, sometimes simplicity is best. It's not like im asking for total control or anything, just enough for the camera. The AI can be manipulated by...'other' means in FRED and elsewhere, but at the least it'd make the entire process simpler and easier, not to mention more accesable to the masses :D
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
yeah, an FPS portion of a space combat game would feel rather odd...
id be cool, but the engines just dont line up together. it would allow new modes to convey the FS universe, but its just to complex to happen. the code would need to be guuuuuuuutted, and redone to match an engine like unreal where stuff like this is already possible.
-
stop trying to make Freespace into more than one game, people.
-
hmmm, freespace with a FPS engine, that reminds me of something (http://www.werewolves.org/~follies/desktop-commander.wmv) but I'm quite sure what...
-
Thank you Bob, the similarities were becoming quite eerie.
In short, if you want to play a FPS, do it in an FPS. There's no place for it in a flight sim, and games that try to do a combination of the two inevitably suck at both.
-
Can we please get bumpmaps, and for the love of god can someone please fix the stars so they look nice?
-
FPS or not, it'd be immensly useful for cutscenes, though. It's a difference if you have 50 mb of cutscene models and levels isntead of 500mb rendered cutscenes.
Of course it'd be cool if the FS engine itself had the ability to pull that off, but right now it hasn't.
-
Originally posted by Carl
stop trying to make Freespace into more than one game, people.
i agree with carl here, Freespace is a space sim, pure and simple..
if you wanna get "FPS-y" with freespace, the best one could do, is a launch sequence from a destroyer, like, from the flight deck, carried by that arm, to the launch area.. that's about the limit of it, i think.. and with those little low-poly figures milling about like ants below you.. like i mentioned before, it'd add dimension to it all.. but having an FPS, would be a bad idea..
the best use of an FPS theme would be a POV shot of the pilot as he/she walks to the briefing room, and takes a seat, ala starlancer.
and bob hassa point, it's freespace, not derekspace :p
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
i agree with carl here, Freespace is a space sim, pure and simple..
Read.my.post.
I didn't say anywhere that I want an FPS, but it'd be very useful for making cutscenes of any sort, á la Freelancer for example, without the downside of rendered cutscenes that take up loads of space. This way you could fit many character based cutscenes into the game without them taking up as much space as prerendered ones; and you wouldn't be limited to a certain resolution for them too.
As for other ideas, a killboard would be cool for character based campaigns. Not what we have now, but a real killboard where you could look how you compare with other pilots.
-
hmmm... if it wasn't a colosul amount of work I'd like the ability to skelitaly animate subobjects. the ability to have charicter models in game would own, the best we can do now is just have a static charicter sit there motionless,or animated as a serese of subobjects.
it would be cool to fly up to a window on a ship and see people wlaking along. all we can do right now unfortunately is have them sitting there.
but this has given me an idea. one day I will use my subobject detail code and add in rooms and people to my Deimos model that you'd be able to see through the windows, they wouldn't do anything, the'y be to engrosed with there desk work to notice the massive space battle going on outside there window, you know you've seen one confrontation to save all humanity from certan doom you've seen them all.
-
Well, now that you've said that, Bobb, I feel a little more comfortable about making this post. :p
What is an FPS. It's basically a big fat model that other smaller models move around on top of. We can make big models. We can make small models. We can make a skybox, and we can make small models that move around.
Next you have the classic gun and HUD that's been around since Doom. Yep, we can do that with the ingame cockpit code, make a model and set the eyepoint correctly.
Now you have to make the stuff walk around, jump, shoot, die, etc. This is the part that Freespace can't do (along with gravity). If something gets hit, it has to disentegrate in a ball of fire. :p
For walking, you need some sort of looping skeletal animation with start/stop segments.
For jumping, same thing.
For shooting, you need an animation that plays when the gun shoots. Bobb's submodel animation code?
For dying, you need to have another skeletal animation.
Gravity- objects need to fall at a certain rate until they hit another object below them. Messy.
Now for the controls. A 'jump' is a lot like hitting the afterburner once, while sitting still and facing 'up'. That's easy enough - replace the afterburner sound with a grunt, make its duration extremely short and only recharge it once you hit the ground again.
Moving forward is like going to full speed with a really fast acceleration/deceleration time, while you hold some key. Okay, that's doable - again, replace the sound and make full speed only apply when you hold the '\' key.
Moving left and right? Hell, that's already in!
Moving backwards? Duplicate the forward motion. Since FS operates with 'desired velocity' and not 'desired forward speed', it should be as easy as copy-paste and changing a bunch of positives to negatives.
Looking up-down-left-right is a bit harder. The mouse has to be changed to move the eyepoint and gun, not the whole 'ship'.
Make all those changes, and you have a basic FPS. :p
Anyway, I'd like to see submodel animation code as well, 'twould be awesome to have cutscenes with ingame characters, but it'd be pretty difficult, I imagine.
-
you mean skelital animation, we have submodel animation.
-
Wow Bob, that announcer must have been on some uppers. HOW DARE THEY "PAN" Deus Ex!!!!
I was planning to model a deck crew (frozen in time) once I finish the BSG's lower hangar deck.
-
windows would just extentuate the obscene scale problems FS2 has.
-
Originally posted by StratComm
Eh, it's simpler to set up but not as robust. Basically you're letting the AI do a good bit of the setup for you, which may or may not act like you want every time.
To willy_principal:
Event: Variable Arrival
When
-Arrival conditions
-do-nothing
Arrival Cue:
When
-isEventTrueDelay
-Variable Arrival
-0
That's what i ussually do...
the problem is when i reorder the events...the arrive cues don't actualize.
Here is an example of what is happening...
Willy's mission Before:
events:
- Start secuence
- Enemy arrive cue
- Enemy has arrived
- Enemies destroyed
- RTB
enemy's arrive cue:
- IsEvent TrueDelay
-- enemy arrive cue
-- 0
Willy's mission After:
events:
- Start secuence
- Start chat
- Convoy arrive cue
- Convoy has arrived
- Enemy arrive cue
- Enemy has arrived
- Enemies destroyed
- Convoy departs
- RTB
enemy's arrive cue:
- IsEvent TrueDelay
-- start chat
-- 0
-
this might be an interesting idea, radio chatter among pilots.. event based, or general..
like, amongst all the usual "incoming subspace signature, hostile configuration" you have the more quieter, and sometimes garbled "alpha 2 seeking targets" or "damage control on decks 12 and 13.. we've got wounded" just general radio chatter.. and in the midst of a larger mission, where the combat is intense, such things add to the atmosphere of the mission, and make the pace hectic..
-
geomodding :p
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
this might be an interesting idea, radio chatter among pilots.. event based, or general..
like, amongst all the usual "incoming subspace signature, hostile configuration" you have the more quieter, and sometimes garbled "alpha 2 seeking targets" or "damage control on decks 12 and 13.. we've got wounded" just general radio chatter.. and in the midst of a larger mission, where the combat is intense, such things add to the atmosphere of the mission, and make the pace hectic..
That is possible, to some extent, but it would be a real pain to FRED.
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
That is possible, to some extent, but it would be a real pain to FRED.
i forgot about that..
mind you, it could be under a tag, like have a selection of files attached to each ship class.. like "enemy destroyer scalped" or some other random thing.. not specifically attached to each ship, just a general class..
also, having garbled radio chatter coming from your target/escort when damaged, or just general panic.. think of the potential amount of radio chatter between vessels during a pearl harbor situation...
it'd be cool, really, but yeah, could be a problem for the fred stage.
could give a nice effect, however.
-
You want Freelancer-esque radio chatter then... God, I loved that.
-
What would be nice would be for each ship to have a chatter editor window available from ships editor that allowed you to turn the persona messages on and off in the same way you do with player orders etc.
Then you could add other types of chatter to this via a table.
Never gonna happen though. :(
-
It would be even better to have the chatter defined in messages.tbl for each persona.
Also good would be an entry that controls the verbosity of each persona. This way you could have hotshot newbie pilots that gab all the time and die-hard vetarans that rarely talk, for example.
-
Originally posted by Lynx
An intro idea:
Have the game search for a mission file called intro.fs2 or something on startup, so that you can create an ingame cutscene as introduction movie.
Methinks mission loading times are a little long for this to happen.
-
Really? Loading time is system dependant(it takes about 20s for me btw), but I think most people will tolerate that if they get a cool intro afterwards.
-
That's what concerned me. And if the intro got a bug in it, you'd be pretty much screwed.
-
My "ideas":
Fighter beams that fire until you release the trigger
Fighter beams with auto-targeting
Turret AI that does not try to shoot through the hull of the ship
Rotating turrets placed on non-horizontal surfaces
Ship AI which uses the equalize function (not only fighters)
Can't think of anything else now...
-
Originally posted by StratComm
That's what concerned me. And if the intro got a bug in it, you'd be pretty much screwed.
IIRC WMCoolmon's in cutscene stuff you can abort them by keypress.
-
Originally posted by Lynx
Really? Loading time is system dependant(it takes about 20s for me btw), but I think most people will tolerate that if they get a cool intro afterwards.
(Assuming you were replying to WCM and this was timewarped...)
I think there might be mission-stuff which is precached as part of the game starting up, and then a secondary load for the specific mission assets.... so you'd still need to wait for that on top of the load time you see loading a mission in campaign/techroom.
-
Originally posted by Lynx
IIRC WMCoolmon's in cutscene stuff you can abort them by keypress.
All the cutscenes SEXPs I've written just modifies a certain aspect, eg fade-in, set-fov, set-camera-position. The player still has full access to the controls, but shouldn't be able to change anything with the cutscenes. It's up to the FREDder to provide an 'exit' key, because there's no way to account for what ships should be where after the cutscene.
I think there might be mission-stuff which is precached as part of the game starting up, and then a secondary load for the specific mission assets.... so you'd still need to wait for that on top of the load time you see loading a mission in campaign/techroom.
The stuff that's loaded on game start are mostly the tables. The loading time could be cut down because only ships, weapons, and effects used in the mission would have to be loaded. No need to load all the HUD gauges for example. Thanks to taylor's work on -loadonlyused the loading time's been reduced a fair amount, but it's still pretty large.
So it'd be a little less than the normal loading time, but yeah, it'd basically be the time to get to the pilot screen plus the time to load a mission.