Hard Light Productions Forums
Modding, Mission Design, and Coding => The Modding Workshop => Topic started by: Mobius on November 13, 2006, 12:00:58 pm
-
I have recently re-started to play with TrueSpace and PCS,moved by some Steadfast needings.
I have some questions for you experienced modellers:
1)I've added a couple of turrets to the Telemus(this number will surely increase).With TrueSpace,I have copied turret number 10(one of the two BFSilv)and attached the copy elsewhere.The turret was composed by the submodel,renamed turret 31/32,and a light(h turret 10 or similar). i couldn't have changed its name,should I create another light and assign it to the turret?
2)I want to add a nameplate with written "GTCa Steadfast",the biggest nameplate evar.Any hints?
3)With PCS I have tried to set all the turret stuff for it. I noticed that every turret as a path on its front,probable connected to the fov.It must be present or I can leave the new turrets without those paths?
4)When I convert a pof to cob,do the changes and then reconvert it,all the fire points are reset. There's an option wich allows me to load global datas from another model,but the firing points are still reset and the subsystems have specular coords(X=1400 when it should be X=-1400). How can I fix that? Is there any version of PCS without this bug?
5)I find the Nemesis turrets cool(they were token from OTT models).I know how to import and attach them to the model,but I don't know if they will be rendered....
-
I thought someone would have answred by now............
Community spirit
-5 ::)
-
I'll answer what I can but I don't even remember half of what I used to know about modding :)
2)I want to add a nameplate with written "GTCa Steadfast",the biggest nameplate evar.Any hints?
Play DEM. You're not even remotely close to being the longest. :p To my mind the best way to add nameplates is the way the Fenris\Leviathan did it. A seperate alpha mapped face. That way you can use the texture replacement system to add a nameplate simply by typing the name into photoshop. Not having to mess around with textures is much better than the way other ships have done it.
3)With PCS I have tried to set all the turret stuff for it. I noticed that every turret as a path on its front,probable connected to the fov.It must be present or I can leave the new turrets without those paths?
Try ordering ships to disarm a ship without paths and you'll instantly see why you need them. If a ship is never going to be disarmed then you can get way without turret paths but generally its a sign of laziness and it will adversely affect your campaign if you don't path your ships properly. It will definitely cut down on people using your model in other campaigns after you release too.
-
I thought someone would have answred by now............
Community spirit
-5 ::)
He's more brainstorming than asking well defined questions, which makes answering a PITA.
So, the condensed answer is "Read Kara's FAQ".
-
Yes,read "Kara's" FAQ :doubt:
Uhm maybe we were talking about two different kind of paths. There are normal gun paths,which of course must be present. I don't know if the other paths,not attached to the turrets,must be there...They are marked with blue in PCS.
-
oh the path-paths.... we really need to find a better name for normal gun "path" it's confusing with paths...
Paths that I'm aware of:
turret path (for targetting turrets)
subsystem path (for targetting subsystems)?
rearm path (for rearming)
launch path (for launching and landing?)
-
They're basically all the same: A help for the AI to approach a given point on a model. If you leave them out, the model won't crash, but AI ships will just face the subsystem/dock point in question and head straight for it (which usually doesn't help much).
-
Rearming path can cause it to crash, as I've found out in the past.
-
I've got a fighter POF that has a working dock point (well somewhat XD), but it doesn't have paths for the subsystems.
Would it affect me much? Since I'm not very good at paths... (in the case of the dockpoint, I copy the data from another model and try and get it to fit... only problem is sometimes the support ship clips through the model and docks on the ship's UNDERSIDE... at least the current support logic ensures you don't crash into the support ship :lol:)
-
From the sounds of it... you need both the docking points and the docking path.
-
Remember that a path needs at least 3 points to function properly, and that a docking point needs 2 points, the 'line' between them decides the orientation of the ship when it docks, so if one dock point is slightly in front of the other, the ship will orient itself to face forwards when it docks etc.
-
Dockpoint's all good and dandy, despite being a hackjob. Pathed already, so it works ingame. It's just the subsystems... Don't know if I can get away with not pathing them, since it's a fighter... but I'm no good at paths... :shaking:
-
Ahhh pathing subsystems on fighters? I don't to that even.
Edit: the quickest way i do pathing for subsystems (turrets)
Create path
then create two vertices for it
the second vertex is the subsystems center point (info can be found in subobjects: offset from parent)
the first is a bit more interesting, I add 100 units or subtract a 100 units.
If the subsystem X is 15 then vertex X is 115... if it's -25 then its' -125. If the vertex is near 0 i usually leave it as is. Repeat this for X,Y and Z cords. Hopefully you'll get a porcupine effect.
-
Subsystem paths are unnecessary for fighters. Fighters would usually be moving fast enough that the ai would never be able to follow the path anyway.
-
Making predictions about what is needed is generally asking for trouble :)
Suppose you have a mission where a ship is playing dead and you want to disable the weapons subsystem before collecting it :) Soon as you tell the AI to destroy the subsystem you'll have some fun on your hands :D
To be honest it might be quicker to convert a lower LOD with subsystems on and use Aurora's autopath feature to deal with it. IIRC PCS can import paths so you should be able to import the info into the proper model.
-
....and use Aurora's autopath feature to deal with it. IIRC PCS can import paths so you should be able to import the info into the proper model.
Does this work on cap ships too? and if so wheres it located?
-
Making predictions about what is needed is generally asking for trouble :)
Suppose you have a mission where a ship is playing dead and you want to disable the weapons subsystem before collecting it :) Soon as you tell the AI to destroy the subsystem you'll have some fun on your hands :D
Making assumptions which limit functionality probably isn't a good idea, but adding subsystem paths for every fighter in case a fredder might someday order a.i. controlled fighters to destroy a subsystem with it playing dead seems a bit wasteful to me. I fully expect trying to destroy subsystems on a stationary fighter would prove a formidable challenge for the a.i. since in my experience no fighters have subsystem paths.
I wouldn't rely too much on the Aurora autopather. The paths tend to be somewhat tacky and it sets the vertex radii the wrong way round.
-
Well I only have PCS and Modelview. The thing that's bugging me is the renderer - if I load a pof that already has paths, they show up in blue, but the path that I've selected isn't highlighted, making it kinda hard to see (all paths/path points are dark blue, don't know which is which).
Adding paths, they don't automatically show up in the renderer. Or maybe I didn't specify enough vertices yet, or didn't save a copy for testing, but bleh. :nervous:
Oddly enough, the dockpoint used by the support ship shows up in BLACK on the fighter... now that's even harder to see :wtf:
@ Kara
What kind of fun? Everyone ramming the subsystem? LOL :lol:
-
Well the new turrets aren't supposed to be targeted...no paths.
-
Well I only have PCS and Modelview. The thing that's bugging me is the renderer - if I load a pof that already has paths, they show up in blue, but the path that I've selected isn't highlighted, making it kinda hard to see (all paths/path points are dark blue, don't know which is which).
Adding paths, they don't automatically show up in the renderer. Or maybe I didn't specify enough vertices yet, or didn't save a copy for testing, but bleh. :nervous:
Oddly enough, the dockpoint used by the support ship shows up in BLACK on the fighter... now that's even harder to see :wtf:
The PCS renderer colours do seem poorly thought out. I find it much easier to see the paths and dockpoints in fred. They show up in a more visible colour.
Well the new turrets aren't supposed to be targeted...no paths.
Now that is irresponsible. Consider what would happen if the player ordered some wingmen to destroy one of the new turrets.
-
Pathing is not fun, however, for full functionality, it IS required. Remember it's not just a question of AI. Always run your new models through debug builds and fix as many reported problems as you can. I'll admit that I've never had a complaint about a lack of paths to fighter subsystems, but those are virtual subsystems, not physical ones. If memory serves me correctly, something that is physically modelled on the ship needs an approach path, not just for completeness but because it can actually introduce more logic errors than merely 'approaching the subsystem', which can creep into other areas. The AI is pretty dumb, lets face it, but anyone who's ever tried to build an Unreal Tournament level and not made Bot-paths will realise the sort of problems you may start to face.
For example, a path leading backwards from the Engine subsystem make it a lot more likely your wingmen are going to disable a ship rather than blow it up because they are trying to disable the engines by aiming through the cockpit etc.
Say you wanted next-gen 'cruise' style missiles that, rather than flying straight towards their target, were actually 'concious' of the shape of the ship and would arc around to the other side for those hard to get targets. Something like that would be impossible to implement if you couldn't be sure that there was a path for the missile to follow.
-
Course if you try that with a fighter, by the time your wingmen lines up to disable it, the fighters way out of the way.
-
Depends, at least they know they have to be behind it in the first place, and it also depends if you're using Interceptors to disable a bomber ;)
I loathe pathing, it's probably the worst possible part of modding, but I do understand why it's neccessary for more than just Dockpoints.
-
True... however on the grand scheme of importance... if you have the time to do it then do it.
-
Pathing becomes truly horrible at somewhere around 50 turrets, but that's mostly due to having to create and label 60 or more paths and set the radii for each and every one. Filling in the coordinates for each point is quite sublime by comparison.
That said, I wouldn't mind doing some pathing if you need it done.
-
Attack the Steadfast? The player attacks the Steadfast? It's impossible unless you are a traitor...and wingmen don't follow your orders if you're a traitor...