Hard Light Productions Forums
Modding, Mission Design, and Coding => FS2 Open Coding - The Source Code Project (SCP) => Topic started by: Mobius on December 29, 2006, 12:54:35 pm
-
Mefustae(probably it was him)told me that you coders accept suggestions and proposals. I'm not a coder so I don't know if something is easy, difficult but possible or impossible to do.
1)I have already talked about it elsewhere. Increase the max number of asteroids;
2)Milliseconds. Many interesting issues(like Axem's play a specific sound in 1/2 seconds or a great nanojump effect)could be solved;
3)Karajorma's team loadout option. I found it interesting and I guess he needs some help with it;
4)More cutscene SEXPs. You know that there is a flood of threads dedicated to cutscenes, expecially to the lack of zoom-in/out effects and camera movements;
5)Remove some FRED limits. The max numer of ships is 100. Can you increase that limit? It's not just for BoE missions. There are blockades, where the number of ships arriving is progressive, and I'm limited on it. The are Space Installations in full activity, where I can only put half the number of cargo units,freighters ad sentries I want;
6)An option that allows me to modify not only the hitpoints but also other specs of a ship,like the max speed. It could be useful;
7)INF SCP uses 250 ships. Shouldn't FS Open?;
8)This one is really stupid...something that allows you to select which microsoft voice use for a specified message or persona;
9)Supernova-start. Cool, but I would like to change the text that appears in the screen with something else, if possible. What a planet or gigantic warship is destroyed, there's a similar effect. I would like to change the text with stuff like 'shockwave incoming' or "massive energy release spotted";
10)The show-subtitle SEXPs can show up only a sentence limited in length. It could display a normal message from the message box that could be longer;
11)Fix the problems with the show-subtitle SEXP. Even if I select the center of the screen as coords, the subtitle appears elsewhere. I know that this problems is connected to a normal screen option, but...;
EDIT:I made a terrible mistake....move this thread please. I'm sorry. :blah:
12)I'm having problems with add-background-bitmap. Some bitmaps don't appear while others do. Why? Is this problem related to a SEXP bug?
-
As Taylor has often said, many if not all limits within FSO will be made dynamic by 3.7, so the ship limit thing won't matter.
In regards to FRED limits, there's a few things I'd like FRED to stop *****ing about. One, is the number of ships per wing. I'm not saying, let it make 12 or something, but FS can handle 6 ships in a wing, it just complains if there are more than 4 in a player wing (Alpha, Beta, Gamma, or custom). Also, it would be nice if it let you select "NONE" as an option for player primaries or secondaries, without a warning message. There's also the thing about starting wing orders. If Alpha wing has orders to do one thing, FRED will complain if Beta wing has different orders.
Another cool option would be (I know, I've said this before) variable density nebulae. Now, this can be accomplished through one of 3 ways, each bringing a greater degree of flexibility to mission design capabilities, but also an increasing load on the coder for the feature. For starters, thanks to objecttypes.tbl, we can designate the fog obscuring distance, but this will affect all nebulae in all missions bound to that objecttypes table file. What I'd like to see, is perhaps a slider in FRED, which adjusts the nebular density within that mission only. The slider would control a multiplier which either increases or the density factor, applied to to all ship classes. For example, if set to 2, all nebular draw distances (even if its going off the hard-coded defaults) would reduce by half, so things would get obscured at half the distance, as number 2 indicates twice the density of the nebula. On the other hand, setting it to 0.1 would mean that the nebula is only a tenth as dense as the default, as applied to all classes. To take it up a notch, if this were to be accompanied by a set-nebular-density sexp, one could set up a series of waypoints, and calculate the player's distance from them at any one point in time, and have it stored in a variable, which would be used to constantly increase or decrease the nebular density depending on where the player is within the nebula. Add to that use of ship-invisible and lightning sexps, and one can create some more sensor obscuring regions. The third level, of this request, would be a more involved system of controlling in-mission nebular density changes, but with something in the background editor, so its more like the often-requested definable parameters to nebulae, making them fully enter and exit capable, without complex events and waypoints. Personally, I thing the 2nd level is at least more easily doable, as the 3rd level would also require significant changes to the background editor interface.
-
yay my turn!
Could we get an option to "Use models for ship selection" without using the weapon models for weapon selection? i kinda prefer the little videos and images over the rotating models :nod:
oh and an option to put boxes around all ships on screen, selected or not. just reckon it would be a cool effect, even have a key for "highlight ships" that shows boxes around all ships in view (within a certain range?) when held down or toggled.
cheers!
-
You can use the hotkeys for that last one. So many people ignore that feature :)
-
Guess I'll add a few.
How about a better server interface. Its nice to see the server name, ping, and game being played but how about IP, version / build, players, rank allowed, open/closed, password. Maybe a highlight or right click info box?
Same on FS2netD side
Is there a random sexp that is actually random during mission not just determined before?
That knock option that was in 1.3. Of course it should be an option on the server side.
Configurable info screen when you join the server. Something where you can put the general rules so you don't have to type them for the newbies every time. Would also be good for standalone so you could put host server/squad name and website info.
Only valid missions flag. Another good one for standalone. You can keep your other missions and test stuff but only allow the server to show the valid missions to prevent crashes.
Wow thought I had more than that. Will probably think of them as soon as I hit the sack.
-
I'm not ignoring the rest. They're pretty interesting ideas :)
Is there a random sexp that is actually random during mission not just determined before?
Yep. Rand will spit out the same number every time it's used but rand-multiple will give you a new one every time. In addition for playtesting purposes you can seed both SEXPs so that they spit out the same sequence of numbers. Makes playtesting a lot easier
-
Add to that list: Thrust vectoring subsystems aka the WC Vampire and Panther :D
-
Well, I think this thread can now be rightfully called "Wish List for Freespace Open Development". :p
-
5)Remove some FRED limits. The max numer of ships is 100. Can you increase that limit? It's not just for BoE missions. There are blockades, where the number of ships arriving is progressive, and I'm limited on it. The are Space Installations in full activity, where I can only put half the number of cargo units,freighters ad sentries I want;
I ran into this recently too. The mission is not really a BOE and just has a lot of cargo containers and other inanimate objects in it.
It might be better to have a limit on the submodels instead of the number of ships (there might be a limit on those already, not sure), which will for the most part take varying ship sizes into account.
2)Milliseconds. Many interesting issues(like Axem's play a specific sound in 1/2 seconds or a great nanojump effect)could be solved;
To add to this, all we really need is a variant of is-event-true with a delay specified in ms.
11)Fix the problems with the show-subtitle SEXP. Even if I select the center of the screen as coords, the subtitle appears elsewhere. I know that this problems is connected to a normal screen option, but...;
Agreed. The subtitles are currently quite useless since they appear in different sizes and places depending on what resolution you're using.
Since this looks like a general feature request thread, I'll add a few things that have been on my mind recently:
1: Modifying play-sound-from-file to support multiple sounds at once. Even a maximum of two simultaneous sounds would be very useful.
2: A way to override some of the model parameters in the table files, specifically the mass, FOV and MOI values. Currently, the only way to edit these is to alter the model file itself, which becomes fairly clumsy when you need to do it for several ships and end up with many duplicate copies of models with only these things changed.
3: get-primary-weapon and get-secondary-weapon operators. Pretty self-explanatory, although they would return string variables unlike most of the existing sexps. I tried to simulate this for specific missiles using get-secondary-ammo, but haven't been able to make it fully work.
4: Text color tags in debriefings. I think I brought this up once in the past, but IIRC one of the coders said it was surprisingly hard to do. In any case, I might as well throw it in here. :p
-
3: get-primary-weapon and get-secondary-weapon operators. Pretty self-explanatory, although they would return string variables unlike most of the existing sexps. I tried to simulate this for specific missiles using get-secondary-ammo, but haven't been able to make it fully work.
The problem is we don't actually have a string return type. The game largely fakes it when you use string variables. Adding a proper string return type is something I want to do now that 3.6.9 is out.
-
Add to the list :p
Power up primaries, like for beam weapons...
Uses: big cannons like WC's Fleet plasma cannon, the Dragons fusion cannon and phase transit cannon, Homeworlds Siege Cannon, and couldn't forget Descent's Fusion cannon.
-
The problem is we don't actually have a string return type. The game largely fakes it when you use string variables. Adding a proper string return type is something I want to do now that 3.6.9 is out.
That's something I want to do too, but we would have to be really careful about how we do it. :) Regardless of whoever does it, we'd probably have to talk about it a bit first.
-
It's fine with me if you want it.
I won't have time for it for at least a month or so anyway.
-
Other suggestions (they were been built up by Backslash but there's no news about them):
+ Adding distance info and aiming points in HUD for multitargets. Backslash even posted some beta exes (which also included a handy "Multitarget Target's Wing" command).
+ Enhacing multitarget system as explained in this thread (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,39259.msg803526.html#msg803526).
-
Yeah...getting rid of some limits is a must.
Half of my ships don't appear in FRED (the last few in the file), as the ship.tbl appears too big..and I didn't even add that many ships.
This is frustrating....
-
I have quite a few requests, but most have to do with the lua scripting system. I guess I could bug WMC personally with those. :p
But here are some non-lua related scripting requests.
- Allow the player ship to send messages without FRED yelling (its slightly annoying)
- Have an arrival delay between ships in wings. Like how raiders arrive in BSG. Its sorta silly seeing 3 fighters arrive in unison.
- Make a ship fly to an offset of a waypoint. So you could have a convoy of 5 ships using only 1 waypoint path
- A SEXP subobject animations trigger
-
Hmm...
1) Burst-firing weapons... xD
2) Allow non-beam primary weapons to use looped sounds? (Comes in particularly handy for people doing Minigun-type weapons in my opinion)
3) Secondary weapons obey energy consumption figures, if a value other than zero is set? (Kinda forgot what this was for... :nervous:)
4) MW4-styled sticky beams (might be tricky to use though)... and generally make the beam weapons obey energy consumption figures in a simple manner, perhaps either per 'tick' or per 'shot'. Direct drain from the gun energy...
5) Salvo launch? Someone made a build that made this possible but I never tried it... and I never managed to find it. And perhaps restrict its use in a way or another, to stop making bombers too uber? (ALPHA STRIKE!!!!)
I second Scooby_Doo's powered-up primaries too... as well as the dynamic ship list.
That multitarget thing looks interesting... would that "increase" the usefulness of swarm/corkscrew weapons via distributed fire? Like an Infyrno or a Piranha, only you don't launch a starter bomb, and you can choose what targets you want the individual missiles to track perhaps? But it seems complicated when put into practice... :shaking:
Just my input. :)
-
I have quite a few requests, but most have to do with the lua scripting system. I guess I could bug WMC personally with those. :p
But here are some non-lua related scripting requests.
- Allow the player ship to send messages without FRED yelling (its slightly annoying)
- Have an arrival delay between ships in wings. Like how raiders arrive in BSG. Its sorta silly seeing 3 fighters arrive in unison.
- Make a ship fly to an offset of a waypoint. So you could have a convoy of 5 ships using only 1 waypoint path
- A SEXP subobject animations trigger
1- Can be done by placing a "#" before the player's shipname. Its the same way that Command doesn't actually have a ship listed as sending its messages.
2-I could see this being useful
3-Definitely agree. I hate it when a wing of freighters get all up-close and personal with each other because they're trying to follow a single waypoint. The only way I've gotten around it is to have the ships stop or warpout some distance back from the final waypoint, but that tends to screw up the "time to waypoints" display thing. For warpouts, it might also help if there was an option to disable pre-waypoint-completion slowdown. Then, if a wing is supposed to warpout at the end of the waypoints, they'll still be going top speed when they warp. Might also be useful if the departure cues allowed for the option of replacing the wing name with "each ship in wing", so as they reach the end of the waypoints (or the point adjacent to it as dictated by their wing offset position), the lead ship will warp out, followed by the 2 ships behind that, and so on. It would look something like this:
this:
are-waypoints-done-delay
-Omega
-LetsGetOuttaHere
-0
becomes this:
are-waypoints-done-delay
-<each ship in wing> (which is automatically assumed to be the wing to which the departure cue is being applied)
-LetsGetOuttaHere
-0
4-I haven't really gotten into scripted animations, but I assume that'd be very useful.
-
how about giving waypoints a "distance buffer" property? ('x' for this discussion) the engine then checks if the ship going to that waypoint is with in 'x' units of the waypoint. that way if you needed 1 ship to go to a very specific point in space you could set 'x' to 1, but if you've got 5 fighters going to 1 point you could set it to 50 or 200 for capships (keep in mind these are throwaway values, i have no idea what the units of measurement and scale are in FRED)
-
1- Can be done by placing a "#" before the player's shipname. Its the same way that Command doesn't actually have a ship listed as sending its messages.
Yeah, that's what I've been doing. But its just a minor inconvenience that I'd like to see gone. Especially when you're making a campaign with a chatter box Alpha 1.
-
Perhaps we could request that the game automatically add a #whatevertheplayershipis to the list, kinda like #command is there by default.
-
How about adding a flag for weapons that lets you charge up a weapon by holding down the fire button?
Hmmm, or is that too impractical?
-
How about adding a flag for weapons that lets you charge up a weapon by holding down the fire button?
Hmmm, or is that too impractical?
Thats my power up primaries suggestion :)
There was another one I just thought of and now I can't remember it :confused:
Edit: This wasn't it but how about shootable secondaries, not just bombs?
Edit: I rememeber now.... how about AVI or transparent video for shield hud rather than that bland greyscale?
-
*thwacks self on forehead*
D'oh!
:lol:
-
Edit: I rememeber now.... how about AVI or transparent video for shield hud rather than that bland greyscale?
Taylor will introduce a jpg-based compartmental file system (similar to eff, but it actually combines all the images into a single file), which is primarily intended for things like command briefing animations, but I think he said that it would also work for HUD stuff. I assume he'll be here to correct me soon enough.
-
Another suggestion:
++ Enable different turret names in Target Window ++
IIRC turret names are hardcoded and they are just: Laser Turret, Flak Turret, Beam Turret and Missile Lnchr. And moders can't change them, the game shows each one based on the loaded weapon.
It could be very useful for special MODs or quality mission design, being able to change them. As examples, You could make differences between "AAA Beams" or "Capital Beams", or you could mark **Target** in turret you have to destroy. Maybe, this could be achieved coding the next features:
1. A Change-Turret-Name SEXP. It would allow dynamic ingame name change.
2. Adding an optional '$Default Turret Name' entry in weapons.tbl, to override the hardcoded one. If you add this command to a weapon, the turrets that use it would show that name.
3. Adding (somehow) a new feature to the fs2 mission file. In this way in FRED > Ship Editor > Weapon Editor, there would be a new field for each turret, where you could put its name. It would allow overriding the harcoded or weapons.tbl one.
I've posted these additions in the desired order:
1. You get no more fixed names. But default name changes all over your ships can be a PITA.
2. You easily get default name changes.
3. An extra, not really needed. If you just need one or two changes in a ship, you could use the SEXP.
-
I'd like to agree with the idea of pre-charging weapons that are not beams, this may only be aesthetic, bit opens the door to whole new types of weapons.
I'd also like to see mines implemented, basically something that checks for enemy IFF within a certain range and detonates if true. It doesn't have to be particuarly smart, but adds to mission flexibility and creates a new kind of craft for Modders to create, the minelayer. It's also a good way of blockading a node without wasting ships and crew. I know they can be created through Sexps or Scripting, but it'd be nice to have it as a main feature, since you could have anti-bomber mines, anti-capship mines, static mines, mobile mines, EM mines etc :)
-
Just got this out of my head.
In every mission, #Command is never "removable", although you can shut it up. I was thinking, what if Command is actually in the mission, perhaps in an installation or a destroyer? An SEXP to change the #Command to a designated ship in the mission perhaps?
A wilder idea would be to have Command messages pop out from multiple ships in a mission, but I have no idea what purpose that will serve - probably a super-duper-special case that hardly anyone would encounter. :lol:
If this is possible already I'd like to know how. It'll come in handy should I FRED anything later on.
-
Well you'll see that feature real soon. ;)
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,44447.0.html
-
++ Enable different turret names in Target Window ++
Already on my to-do list. Although if another coder fancies doing it I have no objection as I won't be able to get to it for at least a month and probably longer.
3. Adding (somehow) a new feature to the fs2 mission file. In this way in FRED > Ship Editor > Weapon Editor, there would be a new field for each turret, where you could put its name. It would allow overriding the harcoded or weapons.tbl one.
My plan is to have it work this way.
You can specify the turret name in weapons.tbl. You can specify a turret name in ships.tbl. You can change the name with a SEXP. You can specify a name in FRED (Haven't decided if I can be bothered with this one as it's the most work. The others appear relatively trivial in comparison).
The priority list would go SEXP > Ships.tbl > Weapons.tbl
In this way you can specify a beam to show BRed instead of Beam Cannon in the weapons table but can also edit the Ships.tbl so that any Lilith in the game automatically has Main Beam Cannon appear instead. And if you wanted you can then change in mission to Priority Target.
Bear in mind that this is on the basis of a 3 minute look at how the code works. It seems like it's easy enough to do but I've not studied in any depth how it works.
-
In every mission, #Command is never "removable", although you can shut it up. I was thinking, what if Command is actually in the mission, perhaps in an installation or a destroyer? An SEXP to change the #Command to a designated ship in the mission perhaps?
I have just opened this page because I wanted to propose it. :lol:
-
You can specify the turret name in weapons.tbl. You can specify a turret name in ships.tbl. You can change the name with a SEXP. You can specify a name in FRED (Haven't decided if I can be bothered with this one as it's the most work. The others appear relatively trivial in comparison).
The priority list would go SEXP > Ships.tbl > Weapons.tbl
Very good idea the ships.tbl one. I would forget (at least for now) about the FRED one. As you say, it is probably the hardest one to code and you would always be able to use the new-to-come SEXP in its place.
-
For the target-priority turret thing, would it also be set up so that the turret auto-selector sets these to maximum preference? For example, if you target a Sath, even from behind, it selects one of the forward BFReds first. Even as you cycle through, it tends to prefer these. Perhaps the sexp could be fitted with a 1-5 number, indicating turret priority.
Regarding mines, I proposed a minefield system in the Collaboration Forums, which would use something like the asteroid code as a basis, in that the FREDer doesn't have to place all the mines they want on the grid, taking out of the 100 ships-placed-ships-on-the-grid limit. It would use either a new section in the asteroids table, or ships table, or perhaps an entirely new minefield table file, allowing many properties to be applied to mine types, such as yield, stealth, defenses (turrets), proximity detonations, target class preferences, swarming, etc. The minefield mission editor would also allow the FREDer to specify the size and density of the field (just like with asteroids), as well as any drift or motion of the mines, and also arrangement. For example, you may want an apparent randomly dispersed mine layout, or perhaps an ordered system, like grid, tetrahedral, etc. Having the mines themselves as part of the ships table file however, would allow the mission designer to place plot-strategic mines, rather than relying on the asteroid-based code to do what he/she wants. Thats not to say that anyone agreed to my proposal, just that I put it up... with perhaps a few more minor refinements here.
-
Well you'll see that feature real soon. ;)
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,44447.0.html
So that's what that thread meant! Thanks. :)
@ LGM: LOL
A wilder idea would be to have Command messages pop out from multiple ships in a mission, but I have no idea what purpose that will serve - probably a super-duper-special case that hardly anyone would encounter. :lol:
And I think I figured this part out :lol:, but obviously the situation is a rare case - some sort of large-scale operation where more than one ship has authority over the mission? Or in case the first Command vessel gets fragged or jumps out, and another vessel takes over as Command (and so gives all those "Enemy wing has just arrived!!!" messages and stuff...
-
I don't know if this is even remotely possible, but anyway...
Could be possible to make more than 1 support ship arrive via the comm menu? I know that with FRED it would be possible to make more than 1 support ship arrive from subspace, but that would be only a scripted event. It would be nice to have at least a support ship per wing, so you don't have to wait in line when during a bombing run you deplete the secondaries at the same time other wingmen do. After all, for real mission involving a lot of attack airplanes, in case of air refueling there is more than 1 tanker...
In a similar way, could be possible to make also the enemy use support ships without the use of scripted events? It would be fun to see a wing of bomber rearming instead of attacking the target with primaries...
-
One more, one more! xD
For power-up primaries, while the weapon is charging, could we have the charge-up effect as seen on beam weapons? Perhaps make it a feature that can be turned on or off to suit mods. The sound playback structure can be copied off the beam weapon logic too (with the exception of the beam shot sound)...
This should also allow people making power-up primaries for capships to see them primaries charge up, BANG!!! and watch the projectile fly...
Blame the two arcade games Crisis Zone (stage 1 boss tank) and Time Crisis 4 (the anti-tank rifle dude) for this idea... :lol:
Though now I'm interested in the way these power-up primaries work - would we have some new tags like "Minimum Damage", "Maximum Damage", "Overcharge Damage" or similar? Descent Fusion Cannon logic... the longer you hold, the more damage, but too long and you injure yourself. (Another idea would be a tag that denotes the Minimum and Maximum damage values while Overcharge Damage is in effect... I tend to overcharge the Fusion way too much whenever I got pissed... :lol:) If modders don't want some of these tags, they can either set them to zero values, or turn them on and off via a weapon flag?
EDIT: whoops. On the same topic, how would Mass and the Shudder tag behave on these weapons? :confused: More charge, more shake? Or... :confused:
@ Darth Dysko
Enemies deplete their secondaries too? I didn't notice that. :)
-
I want SEXPs like "percent-ship-arrived" and "destroyed-or-disabled-delay".
Also, I noticed that FreeSpace takes note of the kills achieved by wingmen.
It could be useful. If you have characters in your campaign, you can add messages like "Hey, Alpha 1! I have just killed a bandit!". Also, this SEXP could be useful in different situations. The player is supposed to destroy an enemy warship but there's at least one allied warship engaging it. If the hostile warship is killed by the player, Command sends a message. Command will send a different message in case the warship has been killed by another allied unit.
I also want "Campaign SEXPs" valid for every mission. If I want, for example, that warships with the weapons subsystem destroyed do not fire. I have to create an event with every-time argument in every mission...
-
Also, I noticed that FreeSpace takes note of the kills achieved by wingmen.
It could be useful. If you have characters in your campaign, you can add messages like "Hey, Alpha 1! I have just killed a bandit!". Also, this SEXP could be useful in different situations. The player is supposed to destroy an enemy warship but there's at least one allied warship engaging it. If the hostile warship is killed by the player, Command sends a message. Command will send a different message in case the warship has been killed by another allied unit.
I was thinking that something like that would be useful myself. That said, I was also considering that it could be done through the messages.tbl system. The problem is, I believe that we'd need a new message name type to use for it, and the message names are hard-coded from what I can gather. Oddly enough, there's a few message names in the retail tables that I've never seen used before, but I don't play Multi so maybe that's where they're used. Also, the Wiki has one message name that is listed as not having code support... "permission". There's no description for what it does either. I'm guessing that adding support for some commands would be feasible for coders, but there might be more headroom if the message function could be dictated in LUA scripting.
On the other hand, doing the same thing via SEXPs would probably look more like this:
every-time-argument
-any-of
--Enemy ship1
|
\/
--Enemy ship9
-has-destroyed-delay
--Delta 4 ;; the ship that's doing the destroying
--<argument> ;; the ship that got destroyed
--0 ;; the delay, obviously
-send-message
--Delta 4
--I got him!
--normal
That would mean that every time Delta 4 takes out an enemy from the argument list, he sends a "I got him!" message. A send-message-random would improve this, so more than one generic message can be sent. This of course, leads to the suggestion of creating has-disabled-delay, has-disarmed-delay, and has-destroyed-subsystem-delay.
All this said, something that would also improve this example and many situations, would be multiple arguments per event:
every-time-argument
-any-of
>list of friendly fighters<
-any-of
>list of enemy fighters<
-has-destroyed-delay
--<argument1>
--<argument2>
--0
-send-message
--<argument1>
--I Got Him!
--normal
While I'm on the suggestion of advancing Arguments, how about "persistent" arguments. I'm not saying that they are remembered from mission to mission, but that they can be remembered from event to event. Perhaps the identifier for persistent arguments would be placed in the type of argument list. "any-of" would be joined by "any-of-persist" or something like that. That of course means that we'd need a way of naming argument sets, like we do with variables. Or could persistent arguments be achieved by tying arguments with variables? That's more Kara's court.
-
Good. Except the "kara".
-
Couple of more multi player suggestions:
A way to show ping in the "forming" state. As it is now you have to exit and go back in to see it.
Host status. Like AFK, back in 5 minutes, and my favorite getting a beer. Something that would show when players join so they know why they don't get a quick reply when they say hi.
Some way to switch players between teams after loading game but before starting. Right now if you have say a 4v4 and 3 players drop on the same side drop you can only balance it out by restarting the game.
-
That last one would probably require a large rewrite of the briefing code. The other two might be easier though.
While I'm on the suggestion of advancing Arguments, how about "persistent" arguments. I'm not saying that they are remembered from mission to mission, but that they can be remembered from event to event. Perhaps the identifier for persistent arguments would be placed in the type of argument list. "any-of" would be joined by "any-of-persist" or something like that. That of course means that we'd need a way of naming argument sets, like we do with variables. Or could persistent arguments be achieved by tying arguments with variables? That's more Kara's court.
Actually it's more Goober's since he came up with the whole argument system and all I've done is tinker with it a little :)
On the occasions where I've needed to persist an argument I've always just written it into a string variable. That's not exactly a perfect solution cause you can only persist the last one used that way. What we basically need working here is a system where FRED has its own equivalent to the vector class or arrays (huge preference for the former!).
As for the has-destroyed-delay SEXP I'm not certain how easy that would be to implement. I looked at the relevant code when I was working on Team Loadout and IIRC the game only currently stores information on who did the most damage in the log and doesn't record who actually dealt the deathblow at all.
I am however planning some changes to the way the game handles ships which have exited or been destroyed so that the information on who damaged what is better preserved. It may be possible to add a field to say who did kill the ship and store that information so that the SEXP can later retrieve it.
-
I've got one more, this one is to do with drone pilots. (Vasudan FS1 support ship anybody?)
I know one way would be to do up a mechanical voice and use that as a wingman, but what if you were in a mission where you had authority over the people at the drone control centre or something? Would it be possible to have messages from drone ships come from another source? Say, Command or #Whatever or some other ship / installation in the mission? Maybe apply it to built-in messages as well. Drones probably have cameras too, so the drone controller guy can definitely inform the player of any incoming hostiles...
Only problem is, if the drone control centre gets blown up, then I have no idea as to what happens next... :doubt:
-
Only problem is, if the drone control centre gets blown up, then I have no idea as to what happens next... :doubt:
The drone can remain blocked in space, not responding to any order. Or it may have a self-destruct device to prevent capture by enemy forces.
-
I actually have another idea right now [absorb a (single ship / group of ships) into an existing wing], but my explanation of its uses isn't very good. :doubt:
@ Darth Dysko
I forgot what my argument was when I said "no idea as to what happens next"... I think it has something to do with messages... ugh, I should've mentioned it when I made the post. Now I can't remember it... :blah:
-
One more multi I forgot to post last night. Player version display in forming state on host screen. If that's too hard maybe a red/yellow/green indicator by the name. Red being old version. Yellow being same version older build. Green being same version and build. Just hit me. Right where the CD indicator is would be a good place. Would really help in determining if errors are caused by version incompatibility. Hate asking every person that joins what version they are running.
-
Good idea :)
-
One more multi I forgot to post last night. Player version display in forming state on host screen. If that's too hard maybe a red/yellow/green indicator by the name. Red being old version. Yellow being same version older build. Green being same version and build. Just hit me. Right where the CD indicator is would be a good place. Would really help in determining if errors are caused by version incompatibility. Hate asking every person that joins what version they are running.
Seconded.
-
Wondering if it's possible to add this:
select-ship SEXP
A SEXP that selects a specific ship for the player.
change-ship-name SEXP
A SEXP that changes the primary name of the ship. Another idea would be to allow string variables for naming ships so we can use the modify-variable SEXP for changing the name.
-
Wondering if it's possible to add this:
select-ship SEXP
A SEXP that selects a specific ship for the player.
What do you mean selects a specific ship? I'm not certain what you want the SEXP to do.
change-ship-name SEXP
A SEXP that changes the primary name of the ship. Another idea would be to allow string variables for naming ships so we can use the modify-variable SEXP for changing the name.
Haven't looked at the code but based on the poking about I did earlier this one is not easy.
Unfortunately the game is seeded full of places where it uses the ships name. For instance if you can't have any SEXPs use the new ships name as a trigger as that would cause the game to complain that the ship doesn't exist on mission load (You may or may not be able to get away with using when-argument etc. though). In addition the ships name is also used in the events log and can't easily be altered as it is used by SEXPs like has-departed-delay and is-destroyed-delay.
What may be possible is to add an alt shipname field and have the SEXP change that (along with having the HUD display it). However the event log would still refer to the ship by the original name you gave it.
-
What do you mean selects a specific ship? I'm not certain what you want the SEXP to do.
You're right, "select" wasn't the best word. I think target-ship is better to understand. Perhaps it helps a little bit if I explain what I want to do. I have two ships with exact the same coordinates and heading, one is called GTS Hygeia and the other one is, let's say, Baltazar. The idea was that you shouldn't know that the Hygeia-class vessel is the Baltazar until you scanned it. When scanned, the GTS Hygeia departs without warp while the Baltazar arrives without warp at the same position.
Of course the player loses his target and obviously realizes the triggering behind that event. I want the target-ship SEXP to target the Baltazar at arrival so it looks like the GTS Hygeia's name changed to Baltazar. I thought of this work-around because I realized that a change-name SEXP would be hard to implement although it sounds easy.
-
Hang on a sec. Is it the name of the ship or it's class you want to change? Cause the latter can be done by simply changing the ship's class with the change-ship-class SEXP instead.
Targeting would be retained. The ship class would update automatically.
I can see why you might need it if you want to change the name though.
-
The name, not the class. Always the more difficult one. ;)
-
I suggested a change-alt-ship-name sexp, which would change the name displayed of that ship, as far as the player is concerned, although for events and scripting the original name would still be used by the game.
-
As I mentioned before one problem is the event log (there may be others but I definitely know that the log is one). Any player can call it up by pressing F4 and we can't change the name of a ship on it without breaking SEXPs.
-
How about setting x and y dimensions of briefing icons? Also, changing the asteroid field density and coord limit would be ok.
-
How about shootable missiles?
-
We have those. They're called bombs and torpedoes. Just make a fast one with faster lock time so that it's like a normal aspect seeking missile, only targetable, so it can be shot down, if you can shoot fast enough, anyway.
-
No we don't. The difference between a shootable missile and a bomb is largely that the B key becomes useless if every single missile is targetable with it.
What presumably needs to happen is to split the bomb tags effects into two separate flags (One for targeting and another for being destructible) and simply make the original bomb flag equivalent to having both.
-
Point...
But then there'd be a need for a new targeting key. OTOH, who would have time to target a missile before shooting at it, so...hrm...I don't know...
-
Correct torp/bombs and missiles should be handled slightly different, bombs taget big ships, missiles target figheters (preferrably).
A seperate key would be needed. Perhaps just have a button for missiles targeting you?
-
I brought this up a while ago. One might also want to add that apparently the AI doesn't like to use weapons with the bomb flag against fighters.
-
I think shootable missiles makes it too X2/X3ish IMO.
Oh, the frustration in unloading 100+ missiles at a transport, only to have them collide with each other upon launch and killing your own ship (this doesn't happen in FS)... And those that actually survive the launch get shot down, making the missiles pretty much useless.
But who am I to say, every modder has his/her own ideas... Maybe make it a toggled function, on/off via a weapon flag?
Just my two cents... no offense intended to Scooby_Doo... :)
-
If this goes in, it will be a weapons flag.
-
Actually I was thinking X-Wing ;)
Whats stopping your own missiles from colliding with you now? Besides shotting down missiles shouldn't be easy.
-
How about setting x and y dimensions of briefing icons? Also, changing the asteroid field density and coord limit would be ok.
Um, you can already do that, not that it does much. Select the briefing icon in the briefing screen in FRED, then select Object Editor from the drop-down menu.
-
Cant really remember if i have proposed this earlier but how about using more or less 'dynamic FOF' values for ai accuracy. That is so that they would be used quite like beams use their +Miss Factor:. That would be added to the basic fof value according to the difficulty level. Similar addition to the ai.tbl (one value per ai skill level) and there we have it... AI with 'real' accuracy and not with just reduced firing rates.
As the ai.tbl option 'accuracy' as well as the whole ai accuracy is handled rather oddly in freespace this might provide alternate solution for mods atleast..
-
I've just thought about VERY useful features specially for testing. All are additions to the F3 renderer.
+ Showing Ship Debris under each ship rendering. Ie you'd have LOD0, LOD1, LOD2, LOD3, Debris1, ...
+ Adding another Species to Ship Classes to show every "hardcoded" item: Asteroids (ships and rocks), warp, jump points, subspace backgrounds, shockwave, unknown question mark and so on.
More additions, although less important:
+ Adding an option in Render Options to show engine glows.
+ Adding an option in Render Options to show engine glows but with Afterburner.
+ Adding an option in Render Options to show afterburner trails
+ Maybe, adding renderers to show weapon effects, not only models. For example under laser weapons you'd have Weapon bitmap, weapon glow, weapon impact...
(@Taylor: as you are playing with the F3 renderer code right now, this should be no work at all ... ;) )
-
Just on a note as to destructible weapons....
Tachyon did have pretty much every weapon type destructible,
missiles - rockets - charged energy balls...
The way it was handled was basically slow rockets (you'd call it a bomb)
such as the Helios was mainly used for cap ship and base wars bombing -
so the other side could attempt to kill the incoming attack.
Fighter rockets could be killed - but really with as close range as the dogfights
are there was really no point in trying to shoot them unless you opponent fired a volley
from a distance and you were gliding. Close range you either miss or hit - and don't worry about
it either way.
Fighter missles could only be killed by someone quick with a laser or a very precise
railgun (beam) - mainly that was for when you played as a larger ship that could not
outrun the missiles. Again - using the glide and rotating around you can line em all up and
knock out a few without too much trouble. Swarm missiles there's no point in trying to shoot -
too erratic, so they were mostly outrun or they killed you. There's another type that's fairly fast,
so again there's little chance in trying to shoot it.
Charged energy, we have a ball producing weapon... which acts much like a bomb or slow rocket.
Travels in a straight line - no seeking ability. Only problem is you get hit with four of them in any combination
and it kills pretty much anything fighter size. These can be shot at with lasers or rockets - but they appear
to have a higher damage value as they can take more hits before disappearing.
Most of this lines up with the weapon types already mentioned, but this is just another example of how
the hard destructible weapons are used else ware gameplay-wise. Other than one fighter attacking another's
fired item - I've not seen where any weapon collided with another one to cause an issue. Time delay, item speed, and position when firing pretty much prevents a majority of that.
-Edit -
Is there a way that AI fighter ships could be set to use more lateral thrust when within a certain range of their taget (a player)?
The goal would be to have the two ships oribiting each other in a sense - while dogfighting. This sounds more like a AI overhual, but just asking. This was used in Tach as well, but only by human players - the engine couldn't grasp "latting" and thus made the AI easy to pick off.
I can make up a graphic to illustrate if it would help.
-
How about an upgrade to the add-remove-escort sexp so it actually used the value as the escort priority? Right now all it does is put the ships in the list in any old order.
-
How about a debug feature that lets you manually force LOD levels? That way you can see if the levels are setup correctly and are useable.
-
Old TBP requests:
1 - Disable Warp Vortex for arrival and/or departure, but retain the accel/decel of the ship. Would require additional checkbox in arrival/departure cues, which would be grey-ed out by default, unless the pre-existing don't-show-vortex option is enabled, at which point the default would be unchecked, if the name is something like "preserve warping deceleration" for arrivals and "preserve warping acceleration" for departure.
2 - What I used to call "convergence firing", until WMC implemented non-standard gunpoint normals. I now refer to my request as "multi-source weapon charging". Basically, subsystem data for a turret can include a series of "secondary" (not meaning secondary weapons) firepoints. Then, a weapon such as a beam (which is intended to be mounted to said turret) will also include a set of beam data for the secondary points. The result... when the turret fires, the secondaries begin beamglow charge-up, then fire their "secondary" beams at the main firepoint, which begins its beamglow charge-up, then fires the main beam (which would be larger in size than the "secondary" ones) at the target. The visual result is an attempt to simulate the charge effect of Vorlon craft from B5, or for non-B5 fans, the Death-Star beam from SW. This may require that the turret be restricted from having multiple firepoints in the pof, unless each firepoint in the table is set up with its own set of "secondary" source firepoints. Note, no normals would need to be set up for the "secondaries", since they'd point at the main firepoint by default. Furthermore, the additional beam data for the secondaries in the weapons table, would include all the same beam data sections, so the size of beams, duration of the beamglow, etc. can all be specified.
-
How about an upgrade to the add-remove-escort sexp so it actually used the value as the escort priority? Right now all it does is put the ships in the list in any old order.
Try this (http://fs2source.warpcore.org/exes/karajorma/Freespace-Add-Remove-Fix.rar). I haven't tested it but it should fix the problem for you. This is a HEAD build BTW not 3.6.9. Although I suppose this could be counted as a bug fix rather than a feature :)
-
I was wondering if it would be possible to implement a way to rotate the external view so you can actually look at the ship from an off-angle viewpoint - basically just let you bank the camera, rather than just controlling it's raw and pitch. Any way that's possible? :)
-
If it's really easy to do, I support this request.
It would be really nice for screenshots. ;)
-
Try this (http://fs2source.warpcore.org/exes/karajorma/Freespace-Add-Remove-Fix.rar). I haven't tested it but it should fix the problem for you. This is a HEAD build BTW not 3.6.9. Although I suppose this could be counted as a bug fix rather than a feature :)
I'll give it a try later tonight when I'm on the computer with a joystick. I almost put it in Mantis but since the docs stated 0 removes the ship any other value adds it to the list and nothing about the number meaning priority I tossed it in here. Besides I keep tossing this stuff in Mantis they're going to need a bigger hard drive. :D
-
How about a debug feature that lets you manually force LOD levels? That way you can see if the levels are setup correctly and are useable.
You can already do that in the Lab (F3 on the mainhall). The only thing it doesn't show you is the debris, but that is on the todo list already.
-
How about a debug feature that lets you manually force LOD levels? That way you can see if the levels are setup correctly and are useable.
You can already do that in the Lab (F3 on the mainhall). The only thing it doesn't show you is the debris, but that is on the todo list already.
Another suggestion about the Lab. Make it show rotating parts rotating (and if possible adding an option to disable it, ie show them fixed as it happens now).
-
+ Showing Ship Debris under each ship rendering. Ie you'd have LOD0, LOD1, LOD2, LOD3, Debris1, ...
Done. Took about 5 minutes. It does just show all of the debris peices at once though. That is a little annoying, to me at least, but it's something quick to do now, and I can go back and make it better later on if that's required.
Another suggestion about the Lab. Make it show rotating parts rotating (and if possible adding an option to disable it, ie show them fixed as it happens now).
* added to the list *
-
I'll throw in my 2 cents, how about distance/movement blur? I'm more interested in movement or focus blur, so that far away objects are blurred a little, and ships not in your center retical are blurred a bit more than those inside it.
Anyways, really looking forward to the next version no matter how little has changed, you all seem to have done alot already.
-
Try this (http://fs2source.warpcore.org/exes/karajorma/Freespace-Add-Remove-Fix.rar). I haven't tested it but it should fix the problem for you. This is a HEAD build BTW not 3.6.9. Although I suppose this could be counted as a bug fix rather than a feature :)
Works like a charm. :yes: :yes:
-
Another suggestion about the Lab. Make it show rotating parts rotating (and if possible adding an option to disable it, ie show them fixed as it happens now).
Done. And the rotating, rotating Knossos was rather neat. :D
-
How about a debug feature that lets you manually force LOD levels? That way you can see if the levels are setup correctly and are useable.
You can already do that in the Lab (F3 on the mainhall). The only thing it doesn't show you is the debris, but that is on the todo list already.
Well I was hoping ingame...
-
Something else I'd like to re-propose... Muzzle Flash Upgrades:
I propose that muzzle flashes be configured for three possible methods of effects: Animation, Pulse, and Particle.
Now, animations as muzzle flashes is basically what we have already, though it could use a few improvements... for example, a translation capability. This means that the effect will appear to move away from the firing source, in the direction that the weapon shot took. If you've ever seen heavy cannons firing from naval warships, you'd see the explosion effect translating away from the barrel. Another upgrade is a little more complicated. Lets say that you have 2 different weapons that are in fact quite similar, just one is larger than the other. Correspondingly, you'd want the muzzle flash explosion to be larger on the larger weapon. I propose that a scale option be added within the weapons.tbl file, right after the muzzle flash is called. The figure used in this would multiply the size of the effect referenced in mflash.tbl, and either enlarge or shrink the size for that weapon specifically, and would also affect the translation distance (proposed above) by the same factor.
In mflash.tbl:
+name: bang
+blob_name: bang1
+blob_offset: 1.0
+blob_radius: 6.0
+blob_translation: 5.0 ;; distance in meters the effect will move away from where it started, in the direction that the turret normal is facing for that shot
In weapons.tbl:
$Muzzleflash: Bang
+Scale_factor: 1.0 ;; as default, which keeps the animation the same size as that in mflash.tbl. Larger numbers make it bigger, small numbers make it smaller :lol: negative numbers give error.
The second method, is something akin to beamglows, but would be partially hacked to use some of the laser code. The downside is that it would pretty much need to be in the weapons table, rather than the muzzle flash table. This may require an additional entry so that the mflash.tbl call can be overridden. Basically, it seems to me that if I just want a brief pulse as my muzzle flash, rather than having to include an animation, what about using the same code which generates beamglows for beam weapons? For the most part, it would behave exactly like the beamglow in beam weapons, but it would work for pulse weapons. That said, it would greatly reduce the number of effects needed to be loaded, if instead of requiring the pulse effect to match the color you want, you could simply have an RGB line so that this can be specified by the game. Also, instead of simply using one figure to dictate the entire lifetime of the pulse, I advise that we retain the separate figures for pulse warmup and warmdown. For your typical flash, these two figures would be the same, and incredibly short, on the order of say a tenth of a second, but I've seen some people express the desire for a charge-up effect prior to pulse weapons firing. This would allow the modder to designate say a 3 second charge for the muzzle pulse, followed by a near instantaneous disappearance of the muzzle pulse, as the weapon discharges. Note, for this to occur, the release of the weapon has to be timed to coincide with the transition between pulse-up and pulse-down of the muzzle pulse. Anyway, for those who are trying to do the "charge-up" effect, retaining the particle effects from beamglows would be useful. So now we have:
$Muzzleflash_type: Animation ;; can be animation, pulse, or particle - this line is optional and will default to animation if not present
$Muzzleflash: Bang
+Scale_factor: 1.0
$Muzzleflash_type: Pulse ;; as you can see, you can have more than one type of animation in use on a weapon, greatly imprioving your options
+warmup: 100 ;; time in ms - note that "$Muzzleflash:" is only necessary if its an animation. If its "pulse" or "Particle", its not
+warmdown: 100 ;; time in ms
+radius: 1 ;; size in meters
+length: 1 ;; kinda borrowed from @Laser Length, incase you want your pulse to appear somewhat elongated rather than completely circlular.
+PCount: 10 ;; particles spawned, as with beamglows
+PRadius: 1.5 ;; size in meters
+PAngle: 180 ;; angle in degrees
+PAni: sparkle ;; filename
+warmupsound: 128 ;; for the charge-before-firing people
+muzzlepulse: pulse1 ;; filename
+MPulse_Color: 128, 128, 128 ;; RGB of how pulse1 should be adjusted for this particular weapon.
+MPulse_Offset: 1.0 ;; distance in meters, borrowed from the mflash.tbl for use with animations.
+MPulse_translation: 1.0 ;; distance in meters, not sure if you really want this one
Now, we move on to particles. We may have had particles in with the beamglow sfuff, but those are ones drawn into the beamglow as it charges, not as it discharges. The particles I'm proposing would be spewed outward from the muzzle. Its pretty straight forward:
$Muzzleflash_type: particle
+count: 20 ;; number of particles released when the weapon fires
+spew time: 0.7 ;; time in seconds it will take for all the particles to be spewed
+end time: 1.5 ;; how long the particles will last before they dissipate
+radius: 1 ;; distance in meters that the particles will travel away from the source - note, combining +end time with +radius will determine how fast the particles move.
+angle: 90 ;; angle in degrees from the direction the normal happens to be firing from at the time
+offeset: 1.0 ;; again, borrowed from mflash.tbl
+bitmap: twinkle ;; filename - could be +animation though.
All these would immensely improve the caliber and type of muzzle flashes available to moders. Furthermore, the use of the "pulse" type should reduce the load on memory, from having to store all the different pulse animations for each weapon, along with all the different color iterations depending on the weapon its associated with.
-
Another suggestion about the Lab. Make it show rotating parts rotating (and if possible adding an option to disable it, ie show them fixed as it happens now).
Done. And the rotating, rotating Knossos was rather neat. :D
Another suggestion about the Lab. Make it show rotating parts rotating (and if possible adding an option to disable it, ie show them fixed as it happens now).
Done. And the rotating, rotating Knossos was rather neat. :D
WOW, you are REALLY fast... :eek: :eek: :eek:
-
This may change gameplay drastically, and add many hours to the coders' work, but if at all possible, I'd like to see at some point in the future, the option to switch to newtonian physics, (I.E. inertia) and the addition of reverse thrust for ships. I have this great vision of leaving a dogfight in full afterburn, killing my engines, rotating my ship 180 degres and opening up on anyone tailing me as I fly into the open docking bay of my command ship (or whatever lol) for repairs or just plain landing. Would be useful in time-critical missions (I.E. cap ship repairing its malfunctioning nav system for a jump while being attacked by an opportunistic Shivan battlegroup. Is there any way either of these (reverse thrust or inertia) would be possible?
-
from what i can gather from older threads requesting/suggesting newtonian physics, they are possible, but putting them in would open up a huge can of worms/ ie teaching the AI how to handle them, how weapons would work, collision handling etc etc etc basically its a gameplay/realism question and honestly i can't see it adding *that* much to the game... especially considering the effort it would take to program.
*edited to make sense*
-
is-ship-facing-object sexp. Would eork exactly like the current facing sexp (the training one) but apply from any ship in the mission rather than just the players. I remember someone saying they were doing this ages ago, but it may have been forgotten.
-
Bob added that last one about 2 weeks ago actually :D Here's the thread (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,44618.0.html). I think he just needs to commit it to CVS.
Try this (http://fs2source.warpcore.org/exes/karajorma/Freespace-Add-Remove-Fix.rar). I haven't tested it but it should fix the problem for you. This is a HEAD build BTW not 3.6.9. Although I suppose this could be counted as a bug fix rather than a feature :)
Works like a charm. :yes: :yes:
I'll add it to CVS then.
-
How about sexps:
set-directive-priority
Will allow directives to be ordered by priority
value = 0 to 50 (or something ), -1 will remove directive entirely.
-
How about sexps:
set-directive-priority
Will allow directives to be ordered by priority
value = 0 to 50 (or something ), -1 will remove directive entirely.
Wow, I just wanted to suggest this because I need a directive priority. :eek2:
Whatever, my idea was adding some box where you set this value in event editor. Well, do the one that's easier (if it's possible at all).
-
Well, I want this because I've got situations where completed or failed directives are taking display priority over active directives. I also sought to rectify this by asking if there was a way via the hud_gauges.tbl to augment the number of directives displayed, but WMC has abandoned further development of hud_gauges.tbl, focusing his attention on scripting, which is beyond me, and which I don't have time to learn.
-
Here's a good one for FRED. Any chance of a built in spell checker for briefing, debriefing, mission specs, and messages at some point?
-
If FRED itself could be compiled with Voice Simulation, then a button to play the selected text would be useful, if just to test how long it takes to be read, for message timing. In the meantime however, using the Sim Speech test window in the FSO Launcher does the trick.
-
Some minor suggestions for the F3 viewer.
1) Scrollable boxes for the ship and weapons, possibly both for lists and descriptions.
2) Show gun/missile points option (Maybe add docking paths+normals in green colour to this too? Have a feeling this is already possible though).
3) MS Sam can be turned on and off for ship and weapons descriptions XD
-
Here are two more things I had in mind:
1: Show the player's score somewhere in the pilot statistics and singleplayer debriefing screens. There is currently no way to determine what your score is and when you're going to be promoted. I believe the pilot score is shown in the multiplayer debriefing screen, but not anywhere else.
2: Add a variant of add-remove-escort (or perhaps modify the existing sexp with a true/false parameter, like is-event-true-delay) so that the number you put in becomes the escort priority.
-
2: Add a variant of add-remove-escort (or perhaps modify the existing sexp with a true/false parameter, like is-event-true-delay) so that the number you put in becomes the escort priority.
That change is already in the latest CVS builds. No true/false parameter though. It just uses the number as the escort priority.
-
What does a value of 0 do? It's used to remove the ship from the list, but can also be an escort priority value.
-
How about ambient or rotation sound for subsystems? Like Homeworlds turrets
-
What does a value of 0 do? It's used to remove the ship from the list, but can also be an escort priority value.
It removes it from the list. I couldn't change that without breaking the SEXP or making a new one.
On a side note if you use 0 as a priority for ships you're an idiot anyway. I'm not spending time coding to help you be an idiot :p When adding escort priorities you should never set them to the lowest or highest values possible. You shouldn't really be giving anything a priority lower than 10 as that means you can still add ships in with 9 lower priorities if need be.
-
You have a point there, but I tend to do it a lot anyway since I know exactly which ships need to be the escort list at all. :p Should be easy enough to change it, though.
-
It's always wise to plan for the eventuality that you'll have a better idea or change of mind later.
I tend to use multiples of ten or 5 simply because I started out programming in Basic and you were always encouraged to use multiples of 10 for line numbers so that you could add more code if need be.
-
New suggestion - how about a "behind ship" option to go with the "Near Ship" and "In front of Ship" options we currently have in the pull down menu for the arrival cues in FRED 2?
-
You shouldn't really be giving anything a priority lower than 10 as that means you can still add ships in with 9 lower priorities if need be.
You've got that backwards. Higher number = higher priority.
-
You shouldn't really be giving anything a priority lower than 10 as that means you can still add ships in with 9 lower priorities if need be.
You've got that backwards. Higher number = higher priority.
No I haven't. I know which way the priority scale goes but say I've assigned a ship a priority of 10. I have 9 numbers left I can assign for ships less important than it is.
Say you have a mission with 4 capships with priority of 50 and a freighter with priority of 0. If later in the mission you want to add a ship with lower priority than the freighter (either while FREDding or using this SEXP) what do you do? Your only choice is to go back to the Ships Editor and set it to a higher priority and then give the newer ship something lower than that.
My whole point was that you should have done that in the first place rather than painting yourself into a corner by giving it a priority of zero.
-
More suggestions :)
A "bomb only" weapon flag. Some capital ships in my mod use a short range defensive laser (beam weapon) to destroy incoming bombs. Atm I'm using the "small only" flag and the weapon doesn't deal much damage to fighters anyway, but I would prefer if the weapon doesn't shoot at fighters/bombers at all.
New suggestion - how about a "behind ship" option to go with the "Near Ship" and "In front of Ship" options we currently have in the pull down menu for the arrival cues in FRED 2?
Additionally, I would really like to have a "Near Location" (or "Near Waypoint") option. This would really help me in one of the Machina Terra missions.
-
No I haven't. ... I have 9 numbers left I can assign for ships less important than it is.
Whoops, I'm sorry. You didn't actually have it backwards; I misread your post. :)
-
Yeah I figured that was the case but I also figured if you had misread it I'd better explain in more detail for anyone else reading :)
-
A MUST HAVE OPTION IF NOT ALREADY PRESENT:
+ A launcher flag or any other way to turn off muzzle flashes for the player ship (at least within internal view).
While testing new vps, I can swear that the own ship laser muzzle flashes ARE UNBEARABLE. If we are going to have this improvement, we must have some way to turn them off.
Sorry for the initial red capital letters but if you don't believe me, ask DaBrain a copy of the in-progress vps and check yourselves. (PLEASE, don't do it if you are epileptic or if you are on the edge of going mad ... ) :mad: :snipe:
-
Considering my "AI latting" post one page back - is that something
feasible, simply out of the question, or am I posting in the wrong area?
-
Is there any way you can teach the AI to use the Shield Equalize function at all? And while you're at it, can you also get them to use their afterburners to catch up when given the "Form on my wing" command?
-
Is there any way you can teach the AI to use the Shield Equalize function at all? And while you're at it, can you also get them to use their afterburners to catch up when given the "Form on my wing" command?
Also something like evade or divert power to shields when shields are low.
-
Is there any way you can teach the AI to use the Shield Equalize function at all? And while you're at it, can you also get them to use their afterburners to catch up when given the "Form on my wing" command?
Also something like evade or divert power to shields when shields are low.
Totally. Every mission I find myself screaming "STOP EXPLODING, YOU COWARDS!" since they die so damn quickly, especially in heavier fighters like the Herc or INF:A's Antaeus. They all get ripped to shreds by Valkyries and those INF:A fighters that look like flying dongs because they don't know how to manage shields (or evade in any way, for that matter).
-
Probably not too many interested in this one but since I'm getting tired of forgetting to copy files every time I make changes thought I'd throw it out here anyway. Any chance of configurable directories for missions and pilots? Say C:\games\freespace2 is your install directory you could tell FS2 and FRED to look at T:\fs2\missions for your mission files and t:\fs2\players for your player files.
-
Any chance of configurable directories for missions and pilots? Say C:\games\freespace2 is your install directory you could tell FS2 and FRED to look at T:\fs2\missions for your mission files and t:\fs2\players for your player files.
Nope, not gonna happen. :)
-
Well that smile probably means you already did it.
Ok off to the next request. Wings or lists in the escort list? Kind of like what you have on the directive side but gives you the ability of using escort targeting. Also since I believe the current limit is 3 escort ships on the list at one time something like this might be a way around that. Say you have a group of 7 misc transports/cargo ships and a friendly cap and a wing of 4 attacking ships. If you wanted them all on the list you could flag the cap in ship screen then add the following event
when
-->has-arrived-delay
---->0
---->transport1 (assuming all have same arrival cue)
-->add-remove-escort-list
----->10
----->GTVA Transports (whatever you want to show up in the escort list)
----->transport1
----->transport2
----->cargo1
----->freighter1
----->cargo2
----->freighter2
----->transport3
when
-->has-arrived-delay
---->0
---->attacker1
-->add-remove-escort-list
----->5
-----><escort name>
-----><wing name>
So after all the ships show up escort list would look like this:
<cap ship>
GTVA Transports (7)
<escort name> (4)
I would expect this to probably be limited to lists of single ships or wings with only 1 wave. Pressing escort key would target first ship in list or wing.
What do you think? Good idea or waste of time. Wrote this down at the bar last night so I'm not even sure what I needed it for. :D
-
I was trying to read up on turret and ship size limits and an idea came to mind...
If the turret limit is up in the 130's now (as is somewhat indicated) and if you needed more -
would it be possible to split your ship design in two - to make 2 ships in effect. Like splitting it top/bottom. Doubling
the amount of sub objects/turrets you can use. Then you'd have to have them fly in synced formation
to pull off the look that they were one complete unit...
Is that something that would work, or take that idea and build on it to expand the capabilities?
Perhaps I'm just coming up with something that'd be too much work - there's supposed to be a variable
system being worked on sometime to replace this correct?
-
I was trying to read up on turret and ship size limits and an idea came to mind...
If the turret limit is up in the 130's now (as is somewhat indicated) and if you needed more -
would it be possible to split your ship design in two - to make 2 ships in effect. Like splitting it top/bottom. Doubling
the amount of sub objects/turrets you can use. Then you'd have to have them fly in synced formation
to pull off the look that they were one complete unit...
Is that something that would work, or take that idea and build on it to expand the capabilities?
Perhaps I'm just coming up with something that'd be too much work - there's supposed to be a variable
system being worked on sometime to replace this correct?
I can see targetting becoming a problem and what if one section is destroyed?
I'd like to see the multipart turrets go dynamic, but that looks like that'll be 3.7.0 for that.
-
Gah computer ate my original post...
Targeting:
I would think that the targeting would be an issue with the degree of firing range the turrets
had and the placement of turrets. The type of turret would likely matter as well. You'd have to
make the "ship part B" as a friendly signature obviously... You wouldn't have any turrets on the "interior"
sides of each part that faced each other. On the other hand I've never understood why a cap ship can
shoot through itself.... to hit me on the other side. Yet the cap does not at least receive damage.
Destruction:
Well the best idea I can think of - is that you'd have to have some sort of time/event marker.
So when "ship part A" begins it's destruction sequence - the other section is told to do the same.
-
An option or flag to allow mission objective and event scoring to work in multi player coop would be nice. Currently it looks like all scoring comes from kills and objective and event scoring is ignored. I'd like to be able to award points for doing things right not for killing the most caps.
-
How about state saving stack?
For example:
Save ship state
Disable afterburner
Do stuff
Pop ship state
It should save on several fredding commands.
Also have individual state changes, a few exist already (max ship speed) but like afterburner, no afterburner, shields, no shields
-
Arrival locations of ships or wings relative to the coords of other objects.
Using number variables to change the wave delay of wings(good)...the same for events.
-
Arrival locations of ships or wings relative to the coords of other objects.
To be honest I think allowing the user to move waypoints and set the arrival location based on that would be the easier thing to do as it wouldn't require GUI changes. This is now on the list of things to do. Unfortunately it's a long list.
Using number variables to change the wave delay of wings(good)...the same for events.
*Karajorma daydreams about replacing every instance of parse_int() in missionparse.cpp with parse_int_or_variable()*
This is actually one of those cases where people should ask for the effect that they want not how they think it should be implemented. :) Setting the delay between waves based on a SEXP variable would be an incredibly complex thing to do. I'd have to add code to parse in the number variable correctly, I'd have to change the GUI to deal with variables and I'd have to get FRED to correctly save those changes. Since you no doubt want to be able to change the wave delay during the mission rather than just at mission load I'd have to come up with a system for doing that too. We're talking about hours if not days of programming.
or
I could add and test a sexp to do it in 30 minutes. :D
As for altering the delay between events I think
Event Name <----------------- suitable repeat count and delay
when
->
-- +
---LastEventTime[0]
---VariableDelay[1]
--mission-time
-Do-whatever
-modify-variable
--LastEventTime[0]
--mission-time
or some variant of it is much easier to understand than any amount of faffing about with the delay value.
-
How about changing the engine thrusters on multi-engine ships so that each engine glow corresponds with the subsystem integrity of each engine? ie, currently, if engine01 gets destroyed, it still burns on; next you take out engine02, still you have three engines burning, and finally, when the last one is destroyed, they all go out at once. I'd like to see the engines go out as they are each destroyed/disabled.
While I'm on that thought, what about the possibility of changing the engine glow to off, or to a very, very faint glow (think 15 watt incandescent bulb compared to a 150 watt) when the throttle is at zero?
What do you guys think?
-
How about fixing the AI so that disabled fighters actually CALL SUPPORT.. :lol:
Seriously, I was just playing some campaign a hour ago and my whole wing got disabled..they just sat there during the whole mission while I was busy blasting shivans...sheesh.
-
How about fixing the AI so that disabled fighters actually CALL SUPPORT.. :lol:
Seriously, I was just playing some campaign a hour ago and my whole wing got disabled..they just sat there during the whole mission while I was busy blasting shivans...sheesh.
Very true and very irritating. Please fix. :)
-
How about changing the engine thrusters on multi-engine ships so that each engine glow corresponds with the subsystem integrity of each engine? ie, currently, if engine01 gets destroyed, it still burns on; next you take out engine02, still you have three engines burning, and finally, when the last one is destroyed, they all go out at once. I'd like to see the engines go out as they are each destroyed/disabled.
While I'm on that thought, what about the possibility of changing the engine glow to off, or to a very, very faint glow (think 15 watt incandescent bulb compared to a 150 watt) when the throttle is at zero?
What do you guys think?
Actually this is possible to do already now.. Using separate engine submodels as subsystems like the mediavp GTCv Deimos does.
-
...
Actually this is possible to do already now.. Using separate engine submodels as subsystems like the mediavp GTCv Deimos does.
So you'd have to redo the model for every multi-engine ship in the vps? There's no way to get the engine to work on the current ones? Waaaa! Although, I'll have to try that out on the Deimos... thx :)
-
I've run into an odd effect. I have extract a sound from Heretic as a wav, I'm currently using it as a plasma turret sound. The turret has swarm 3. The sound effects from shots get cut off as the next shot is fired.
-
Scoring or a way to count defensive things like bomb kills and asteroid defense. Currently there is no way I know of to award a player for shooting down incoming warheads instead of getting kill happy.
-
I said this before.. Ejection Pods.
In the Edit Ship you could add another bottun called Ejection/Escape Pod. When you click it you get a window where you select the pof model to be used for it and the ejection normal (from the center of the ship to where).
An when the fighter in question goes *booom* a pod named <fightername> escape/pod jets out :D
-
I said this before.. Ejection Pods.
In the Edit Ship you could add another bottun called Ejection/Escape Pod. When you click it you get a window where you select the pof model to be used for it and the ejection normal (from the center of the ship to where).
An when the fighter in question goes *booom* a pod named <fightername> escape/pod jets out :D
And you can shoot it for extra points !
-
Now, now, would that be in accordance with BETAC? :D
-
The main use of this would be for WCS, but ejecting around the Kilrathi probably isn't a good idea.
-
Now, the main use for this would be to have wingman that survive without it looking stupid...
-
How about a "sucker" missile like the Black Shark in D3?
Missile flies, either detonate at max range or remote detonate, initial damage-causing explosion/shockwave (can be turned or off if need be to skip to suction immediately), gravity suction effect begins, then everything either gets sucked to it and disappears forever, or gets pushed out with a mega-damaging explosion after getting sucked in...
Me wonders how the Armageddon bomb in INF R1 would fare against capships with this sucker behaviour... maybe make the suction effect scalable too, so that if it's an ultra-heavy anti-cap weapon, capships can also get sucked in, but at a slow rate initially... (speed increases the more it gets sucked in)
Got influenced after watching an old show with a similar weapon... well actually I have another suggestion of my own right now but I'll save that for another time... :nervous:
-
Now, the main use for this would be to have wingman that survive without it looking stupid...
seconded
-
would be nice, if u could review the mission objectives during the mission (the last page of the briefing)
-
Press F4 in-game.
EDIT: Just realized:
:necro:
But that's ok, the topic is still valid, I guess. Right? :nervous:
-
Necromancy, eh? :nod:
Thanks, anyways. I will translate the title of this thread, I don't like Barba...ehm, English. :lol:
-
Thanks, anyways. I will translate the title of this thread, I don't like Barba...ehm, English. :lol:
Which basically makes the thread useless as a suggestions thread.
So locked.