Hard Light Productions Forums
Hosted Projects - Standalone => Diaspora => Topic started by: Rebound on December 12, 2008, 12:38:07 am
-
I was curious as to the progress of the implementation of fully pilot controlled launches and landings. I hope to be able to either bring her in nice and easy (ala Apollo in the miniseries) or full on combat landings and bounce all over the place if we have to ( when ya gotta jump ya gotta jump :p ) I've always loved the aircraft carrier aspect of BSG and the launches and landings are an integral part of that.
-
We've made some progress. Landings are handled by Turey's landing code (which I believe Swifty is improving at the moment). Unfortunately the big problem isn't making it possible to do a combat landing on a battlestar. The big problem is making the landing gear come down.
We've got some progress on that too (which would also affect launches) but we need someone to finish off the code and at the moment no one seems to be volunteering.
-
So it's possible and it's happening? Awesome! The only game I can do any sort of carrier landing is on IL-2 and I loved how tricky it is, as there is always a huge sense of satisfaction at bringing home a badly shot up plane.
-
So how is landing going to work? I mean I read something about it years ago on the btrl site, but obviously lots has changed since then...
Is there like a Fly into landing area and be caught by a coded Landing-Box area and then auto landed via BSG control? or a fly in and on users command, initiate a auto landing (think magnetic clamp to floor), or is the intention to allow people to actually land on the deck themselves (in which case I'd end up just floating around watching landings all day LOL the stackups will be brilliant!)?
Did you guys ever get over the collision problems in the launch tube whilst galatica was moving?
Good luck getting someone to work over xmas Kara :)
-
If you played the Wind Commander Sage Demo, you will find that the landings there are mostly done on the flight deck, so I am confident that Diaspora team will do a even do a better job on it.
A suggestion tho, as you may know, in WC demo, when we go though the landing bay the mission ends immediately if objectives are complete, is there an alternate to that? Like pressing another button to actually end the mission. I personally would like to be able to "bounce around" on the flight pod without having the screen change to mission end debriefing.
And I also want to know if the launch tube collision problem is solved when Galactica (or wherever your bird is at) is moving.
-
Good luck getting someone to work over xmas Kara :)
Historically Christmas has been a fairly productive time for us actually. Although people do get more family commitments they also have time off work. Which for a hobby projects can often result in more, not less work getting done. :)
If you played the Wind Commander Sage Demo, you will find that the landings there are mostly done on the flight deck, so I am confident that Diaspora team will do a even do a better job on it.
WCS did things slightly differently from how we'll have to. But yeah they're good proof that we can do landings and take-offs in some form in R1.
A suggestion tho, as you may know, in WC demo, when we go though the landing bay the mission ends immediately if objectives are complete, is there an alternate to that? Like pressing another button to actually end the mission. I personally would like to be able to "bounce around" on the flight pod without having the screen change to mission end debriefing.
Basically that's a point that will depend on how much work we get done between now and the release date. Ideally we'd want to have combat landings where the mission ends when you finally come to a halt on the Battlestar deck. But that means doing several things the engine isn't currently set up to handle. Progress has been made towards fixing this but the question is still open as to whether we'll have it done when everything else is. And if it isn't done we'll face the choice of waiting for it or just releasing with whatever we have and then getting it working for R2.
So a WCS style ending is the very least you'll see in R1 but with luck you'll get something even more impressive.
And I also want to know if the launch tube collision problem is solved when Galactica (or wherever your bird is at) is moving.
Nope. But we currently have two possible ways to solve this one (using a lua script to compensate for a moving battlestar during launches or getting sub-object translations working in time to have fighters docked onto a catapult for their launch). Right now I can't say which one (if either) will make it into R1.
-
I'm not sure in Wing Commander was the same as X-Wing vs Tie, but it sounds similar when a mission was over, you could fly back into the landing dock and set the ship back on the deck but the mission wasn't done till the 'E' end mission key was pressed. I spent hours of my teenage youth trying to land that x-wing perfectly on the landing bay time after time.
On the lauch tube problem, Can an object say... a Viper... be reassigned once it's left an other object. By this I'm meaning, treat the launch tube like a fixed torpedo tube to the battlestar, assign a viper shape model to the torpedo model and bind the player camera to the viper shaped torpedo. The viper when 'fired' should track the tube with the battlestar since it's made to think it's a weapon ordinance and physically bound to the battlestar, and once the viper is clear of the tube, reassign the torpedo back to player control?
Again, don't shoot me if it's a dumb idea.... just sometimes dumb ideas work and thinking outside the box/tube :) I built a career on them :)
-
And sometimes it's better to leave it up to people who actually know the engine to come up with the dumb ideas. :p
-
Historically Christmas has been a fairly productive time for us actually. Although people do get more family commitments they also have time off work. Which for a hobby projects can often result in more, not less work getting done.
Correct, I'm certainly planning to do some relaxing over Xmas, and that means putting away the Uni work for a few days and playing with Cakewalk instead ;)
-
And sometimes it's better to leave it up to people who actually know the engine to come up with the dumb ideas. :p
T'was a harsh comment, especially since it was an enquisitive post rather than a factual one... Thats my opinion of karoke too, but doesn't mean it'll stop people enjoying it....
-
In the Wing Commander games I've played, you fly into the bay and once you get to a certain point, with your speed reduced to a reasonable point, the game cuts to a cutscene of you landing. WCS does things similarly, minus the landing cutscene as I recall.
-
T'was a harsh comment, especially since it was an enquisitive post rather than a factual one...
I'm not trying to be harsh but there are times when the fans can help us and there are times when it is better to leave it to "The experts" to solve a problem. Now I'm not arrogantly trying to say that the Diaspora team are the only experts on this subject. Anyone who has spent some time working on the engine could probably come up with a decent idea on how to solve the problem. But in order to think outside the box on a problem as complex as this one you have to have a vague idea what the box actually is. :)
Spawning a viper as a weapon and then changing it to ship would be so fraught with problems that it's really not worth exploring. For a start it would almost certainly **** up when the player was being launched as trying to put the player in a weapon will almost certainly crash the game without major code changes. And that's before we get to the fact that a torpedo tube of that length would almost certainly be prone to the same issue that prevents Vipers from working in the first place. Someone who has modded the engine enough to able to give insight into the problem would quickly realise that the idea wasn't going to work and probably wouldn't have wasted their time writing it up. Which means I wouldn't be left with a choice between rudely ignoring their post or spending my time on a detailed answer explaining why it's impractical. That's why I don't think it's unfair to say that when a problem is purely down to technical issues with the game engine only people familiar with that engine are going to be able to give a sensible opinion on how to solve it. It's very easy to look in from the outside and say "Why not do x?" but without a thorough understanding of how things work what seems easy could actually be incredibly difficult.
This board is full of people who really do have in-depth knowledge of the game engine but don't have access to the internal. As the home of the SCP and several major total conversions we're likely to be visited by people who can come up with good, practical ideas. Which is why I'd like to be able to post the problems the team face openly on this board rather than have to keep them on the internal. I have no desire to stop a free and frank exchange of ideas with the fans but the team don't want to have to plough though reams of impractical "dumb" ideas in the hope of finding that someone who knows the engine has posted a good one. That sort of thing simply leads to all this sort of stuff being dragged back into the internal and simpler "Yes, we've solved it" or "No, we're still deciding" messages being posted instead. I'd rather openly tell the fans about the challenges we face in making this game work than hide behind simple PR answers. But if I say that we haven't decided what to do yet or that we're weighing our options up, it doesn't mean that we don't have a clue. We do. And that brings me on to the other issue.
Feeling the need to post "dumb" ideas displays a lack of faith in the team to solve the problem without your input. And the fact that you don't actually know the engine makes that a little bit insulting. Especially since we never said that we didn't know how to do it and simply said that we had more than one possible way of doing it and simply had to decide which one was the best.
Now I know you're only trying to help and I doubt you actually mean to imply that but it could easily be read that way. Diaspora isn't one of those projects that says "STFU N00b" to any and all user suggestions but it would be nice if the fans trusted us to find a solution to our problems. :p
If we ever are completely stuck for an idea and do need suggestions no matter how stupid we'll say so. ;) And if you want to find out more about how the engine works, both Wing Commander Saga and The Babylon Project are free and use the same basic engine we do.
-
Ouch :o
Anyway, is it possible to have the Battlestar move only after the player shoot out of the launch tube or is X range away from it? It might prevent the collision problem.
-
Ouch :o
No nastiness intended. I simply find it best to put cards on the table rather than getting quietly annoyed. :)
Anyway, is it possible to have the Battlestar move only after the player shoot out of the launch tube or is X range away from it? It might prevent the collision problem.
Of course it is. But who'd want that? :D
-
Fair call Kara, I understand that you and others like you who've been running these projects have a vast experience and expertise that can only be compared with Ron Jemermy's expertise to porno. And that the average fan would never hope to achieve anywhere near that status.
No offense was intended, and I most certainly don't have a lack of faith in any of your ability what so ever. I ask to be excused for what may have been a dumb suggestion, not because I thought it was dumb, but knowing that I have no knowledge of FS coding at all was inquisitive if weapons bound to a ship also carry the lateral inertia when fired and could it be applied in this way.
I'm an R&D electronic enginneer by trade and my coding is done at low level assembly language. I respect that you may get hundreds of kids requesting stupid things also and in a stressful time like christmas, patience will and does grow thin.... But "And sometimes it's better to leave it up to people who actually know the engine to come up with the dumb ideas." is as close to saying STFU-noob as it gets.
I appreciate you taking the time of your day to explain why the idea was dumb. But put simply, I'd have been happy with "Unfortunately for technical reasons, that solution is frout with problems... but thanks anyway"
Now I'm going to get back to my xmas cheer it's been a hell of a year and the next 3 weeks are mine to enjoy! All the best to all of you and your families over xmas.
Don't Panic anyone... it's all under control :p
-
I'm an R&D electronic enginneer by trade and my coding is done at low level assembly language. I respect that you may get hundreds of kids requesting stupid things also and in a stressful time like christmas, patience will and does grow thin.... But "And sometimes it's better to leave it up to people who actually know the engine to come up with the dumb ideas." is as close to saying STFU-noob as it gets.
It was 1am for me so I didn't notice it came across that way and took the time to write a more detailed explanation the next morning. :)
As for the detailed explanation, I find it better to explain once why something won't work than repeatedly have to say it won't. :)
-
Well cards on the table is fine, and as long as people aren't trying to upset eachother, direct and frank discussion should be quite acceptable. So, from that point, would you consider views from a layman that has no idea of coding, and can abrely install a game, doesn't want excessively complicated and completely pointless functions, and perhaps, from their user only perspective, may see things a little differntly?
As far as launches go, having the Vipers rattle down the tubes would be a wonderful way to start the missions, really helping with the tension and feel of the show. Arriving in theatre already well away from the launch platform was terrible in the Star Wars games, and recovering to within 1km, rather than landing, left each mission with a sense of incompleteness.
However, having the Viper "playable" in the tubes serves no purpose - what exactly are people proposing to do in there? An animation would be perfectly adequate, and would solve all the collision problems that seem (from my limited understanding) to be the main sticking point.
Launching Raptors from the landing decks and recovering all spacecraft would be "fully playable". The gear gould perhaps be automatic, once within a short distance from the pods, so you don't need to add landing gear key strokes to the engine, and perhaps setting up the deck with localised "gravity" would help, if that's possible. Damaging collisions with the pod walls would be enabled, just like the rest of the game, but not with the landing deck, if it's feasible to make them distinct in the engine.
I'm sure it's not something you haven't considered already, but as I understand it, a lot of effort seems to be being expended on making the vipers flyable in the launch tubes, which is not how it would work in the show - they'd either have a physical inhibit for the thrusters or would have proceedures to ensure the pilots didn't use the controls until clear, and a luanch animation would cover that perfectly well.
-
Well cards on the table is fine, and as long as people aren't trying to upset eachother, direct and frank discussion should be quite acceptable. So, from that point, would you consider views from a layman that has no idea of coding, and can abrely install a game, doesn't want excessively complicated and completely pointless functions, and perhaps, from their user only perspective, may see things a little differntly?
Of course. Anyone can comment on gameplay. I've never said that they couldn't (and wouldn't ever dream of doing so). There's difference between saying that the music wasn't dramatic enough for a part of a movie and saying that the composer should have stuck some semiquavers in it. :p
As far as launches go, having the Vipers rattle down the tubes would be a wonderful way to start the missions, really helping with the tension and feel of the show. Arriving in theatre already well away from the launch platform was terrible in the Star Wars games, and recovering to within 1km, rather than landing, left each mission with a sense of incompleteness.
However, having the Viper "playable" in the tubes serves no purpose - what exactly are people proposing to do in there? An animation would be perfectly adequate, and would solve all the collision problems that seem (from my limited understanding) to be the main sticking point.
Nope. It wouldn't solve the problems. You're making the assumption that this is all about the player. Let me give you a scenario. You're given a mission where you're sent out on CAP. After a minute or so of flying about listening to banter and maybe having to scan a ship or something the Cylons jump in. Galactica launches the alert fighters. You happen to be flying past the pods. Now what happens?
1) Break out of the mission to play a cutscene?
2) Have the Vipers mysteriously appear at the end of the viper tubes even though you could see that they were clear seconds earlier?
See the problem now? :) The issue isn't just that the player needs this system working. Every single AI launch needs it too. And the situation becomes worse if some 3rd party FREDder wants to make some mission where you're the Cylons flying against a Battlestar.
Now given that we absolutely have to have working tube launches for the game to look good it would be rather silly to then not let the player experience them for himself. :)
Launching Raptors from the landing decks and recovering all spacecraft would be "fully playable". The gear gould perhaps be automatic, once within a short distance from the pods, so you don't need to add landing gear key strokes to the engine, and perhaps setting up the deck with localised "gravity" would help, if that's possible. Damaging collisions with the pod walls would be enabled, just like the rest of the game, but not with the landing deck, if it's feasible to make them distinct in the engine.
Yeah. We've already considered most of that. Exactly what we'll do is still up in the air somewhat. Making the landing deck non-damaging isn't enough obviously cause you have to consider what happens if during a dogfight someone decides to fly into a flight bay while inverted. :D Making the skids undamagable also results in the danger of canny players exploiting this during multiplayer games. I'm not going to say how we are going to solve it because we can't say for certain yet. It depends on if we get enough coders to come up with the best solution, have to jury rig one or simply have to hold off on proper combat landings till R2.
-
These things are invariably more complex than i see them because I have no idea of what the wizzard is doing behind the curtain, but what I had in mind was for the launch cutscene to be for the launching player only - they'd see the pilot's perspective of the launch and would be spawned at the exterior end of the launch tube with an appropriate velocity, but the other players would see nothing but another Viper appear from a tube. Presumably, the AI could cope with that. We as pilots wouldn't be able to see up the tubes from a fly-by to know which have a Viper ready to pop out, so the sudden spawning of the Vipers at the end of the tube wouldn't be unrealistic. The AI would know that a Viper was about to spawn and where, so it should cope with that.
As I said, this is all conjecture on my part - it may be impossible to code it, or there may be some other issues that I have no idea about, so please don't think I'm telling anyone how to do things - I'm just trying to make simple suggestions that seem plausible from a non-programmer's perspective.
-
Except that the AI can't cope with flying down the launch tube. And it certainly can't cope with flying down the launch tube of a moving battlestar.
If it were that easy we'd simply stick the player under AI control for the entire launch and there wouldn't be any problem.
-
Except that the AI can't cope with flying down the launch tube. And it certainly can't cope with flying down the launch tube of a moving battlestar.
If it were that easy we'd simply stick the player under AI control for the entire launch and there wouldn't be any problem.
That's what I mean - to the AI and as far as game play is concerned, the new player would be spawned on exiting the tube, having watched a cutsceneof the launch immediately prior to spawning. The AI would only have to know that a new Viper was about to appear in space t the end of the tube with a preset velocity. I'm guessing that the technical issue here would be to seamlessly blend the cutscene into game play - I have no idea if that can be done or not.
-
You're still in the mindset of thinking this is about the player's launch.
How are you planning to cope with the fact that the player can now quite plainly see any ship being launched from the flight tube suddenly wink into existence? And don't tell me we can put the AI ship far enough into the tube to counter that, if we could, we wouldn't have this problem.
And that's before we get to the numerous difficulties with an animation.
1) On a slowish PC you'll definitely get a delay between animation and going in-game. Which looks ****. How long the delay is on really fast PCs is I don't know.
2) A single animation can't compensate for what is at the end of the tube. If we render the animation with the launch tube facing open space we can't ever do a mission where the tubes face a planet, a nebula or another ship. We'll have to make certain that the battlestar launching the player is always facing open space or render a different animation for each possible outside environment.
3) We have more than one viper and more than one cockpit. So you're basically making the case for having to have a different animation for each different ship class that could possibly be launched out of the tubes. That means a different animation for the Viper II, VII, VIIe, Adder, Blackbird just for R1. Unlike solving the launch tube problem which we only have to do once, we're now forced to sit Lt. Cannonfodder down and render a new cutscene for every single fighter we make which can launch from a tube.
Not to mention that 3rd party modders are now **** out of luck unless they also have a professional animator.
4) Animations simply won't work in multiplayer. So much for missions where you respawn on the Battlestar and get to launch again.
Finally, a mission where you can sit in the cockpit of a Viper, turn your head and watch the tub wizz by you on either side ****ing rocks. I have no idea why anyone would be trying to talk the team out of doing that.
-
Like I said, I don't understand the technical stuff, so was only trying to make suggestions that seemed a possibility. One thing I know from my career in the services and in aviation is that an outsider can sometimes come up with a solution because they're not constrained by conventions or experience within the field inquestion. As such, I'll always consider solutions from others, regardless of who they are. That's the only reason I brought it up - obviously there are technical reasosn that you have already discounted it, and they make sense now that I understand them. Being able to look around during a launch would be nice, but not as important as finding a timely solution to having any launch at all in game. Priorities can sometimes need to be assessed or reassessed, just as BTRL proved.
-
I've got to say that launching from a battlestar's launch tubes and combat landings(which would turn into combat crashings and dying with big, pretty explosions in my case) would be ****ing sweet, as everyone knows. However I'm not that bothered if it comes included with R1 or have to wait for a later release. There are other things I'm looking forward to more, ie seeing a battlestar in action and crapping my pants if/when flying against one. If the dev team release everything in one go, what is there to look forward to afterwards? :P
-
More ships and more missions. :D
-
Just one thing from me - do it good or don't do it at all (AKA don't include in R1, Gods forbid abandoning this completely :D )
-
What makes you think we can't do this properly in R1? :p
-
But that means doing several things the engine isn't currently set up to handle. Progress has been made towards fixing this but the question is still open as to whether we'll have it done when everything else is. And if it isn't done we'll face the choice of waiting for it or just releasing with whatever we have and then getting it working for R2.
:P
-
He didn't actually say it won't be in R1 either :)
Some bridges we don't exactly know when we'll cross until we get to them.
-
Would it be possible to have a sub-object, which can move and is dock able (ie the catapult), be put on the Battlestar. When the viper is docked with the catapult, it would follow it, like docking on a ring of a station. That may point you in a possible solution and you would also be able to integrate this to FRED, since there is already a "docked" starting position, which will be easy for 3rd party FREDders to use.
-
It's possible if we can implement sub-object translation. At the moment all we have is sub-object rotation.
-
I know I've seen it suggested before that you could just have two large invisible 'arms' hinged together, and then if you get the rotation set up correctly the end of the second arm would translate.
-
You would need three arms to get it straight some only the third one haveing hit boxes make it like a reverse piston i dont know how much lag it would cause though.
-
I have been thinking about this and i realised there are plenty of ways to turn rotation into lateral motion asuming you can do hinges simplest would be a crank we all know how that works most acurate but posibly quite laggy would be a lipkin linkage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaucellier-Lipkin_linkage
It converts rotation into perfect lateral motion this would solve the problem of the viper hitting the sides of the tube
Might be worth looking at other types of linkage depending how acurate it needs to be and what you can do i know you can rotate subsections and hence make hinges.
can you make guide rails without damaging the ship and can you make subsections not interact with parts they arn't atached to.
-
I had had another thought the lifts that vipers and raptors land on are they going to be the docking point for non combat landings if they are going to decend you could use this mechanism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarrus_linkage
Could also be the way raptors spawn the lift comes up you fly off the lift being the docking point
Apologies if all this isn't posible but the sarrus linkage sounds like it is quite doable
-
Well, it does sound interesting, but I'd really like to hear a yes or no from the team.
-
Or we could just add proper translation to the engine instead of trying to fake it in a number of increasingly more complex manners. :p
-
Due to my limited understanding, it seems like a solution to launching would come in the form of an "integrated SEXP," which would probably need to be added to the engine. FRED2 already allows for a ship arrival from a launch bay/hangar. Since I've not experimented with doing those operations yet in FRED2, I'm not entirely sure of what the absolute capabilities of that arrival cue are (thankfully you are... why am I talking?).
The problem with the Galactica or any other Battlestar is that it has multiple launch tubes. I assume for a MOVING Battlestar/other ship, the arrival cue (linked to an event in the "events editor" or merely a timed sequence) would have to slave a given ship/wing to the capship in question; these fighters, bombers, etc. would lauch from and appear from the ship the ship in question regardless of where they might be placed in the FRED environment. Next, the launch type would be selected; this would be dependant on the ship class (the carrier vessel and the ship being launched). If "catapult" would be selected in the SEXP, then a further condition to set would be the catapult number (this would be an inherent programming factor in the ship model itself and would determine which catapult the craft in question would launch from). Finally, one would select the "acceleration factor" I suppose this would take care of the "arrival cue" part of the "integrated SEXP." Note that this is primarily referring to launches from the 'cat as well.
Next, for the second part of this "integrated SEXP," there would be certain factors used in the operator which FRED already is capable of that the user would not be capable of changing. This would be in the form of XYZ-programming, except that the arithmetic would be automatic. From the capship already selected to launch the fighters in question, the speed of the capship in any particular direction would be translated to X, Y, and Z velocites. The fighter would be held as a rigid body along the line of the catapult, unmoving in the capship, perpendicular to the capship's XYZ-velocites. Similar to some training missions, the player as well as the AI would be unable to move the ship until free of the tube (this could be managed by an inherent factor determined by the launch ship). When launched, the "automatic arithmetic" of the operator would use the capship's perpendicular XYZ-velocites (you would have to use rotational velocities as well) along the line of the catapult to accelerate the fighter away from the ship's insides along a straight (though possibly turning) vector. Once the ship was free of the carrier, the player/AI would regain control of the ship. The ship would decelerate as neccesary (if neccessary) and compensate for any sliding movement from the vessel turning. If I could DO something, I think this would be my approach.
Of course, if it is possible to do the same thing with velocites along a pre-determined line (or if the possibility exists for such in the future), it may possibly be more simple to create a line (which is not drawn in-simulator) along a catapult of the capship to which a fighter would adhere from its axis by some offset. The craft would not be able to move until free from the tube and would accelerate along that path until free. This might be that translational movement as implied before...
-Thaeris
-
Well caps ships already have arrival paths for ships launching from them so that part is already in the code.
-
Hate to necro this, but is there a system in place for which we will be able land on/in a ship for R1? Well, besides the mission ending upon reaching a certain proximity to the hangar...
I assume it will take much longer to devise an effective "tube launch."
-
It's the other way round that's harder actually.
-
After looking through the previous statements/speculation pertaining to launch, I find that statement quite surprising, Kara. Thank you for the swift response, by the way. :yes:
-
After looking through the previous statements/speculation pertaining to launch, I find that statement quite surprising, Kara. Thank you for the swift response, by the way. :yes:
isn't the tube lauch like WC's autopilot, and just spawn player in tube, force them to fly straight for 5s, then give player control?
maybe some trick FREDing could make it so to launch from moving ship, the Left or right thruster is also on in 'launch mode' to keep it from hittting the ship's sides?
-
i presume difficulties when tube launching amount to aligning the launching fighters and getting the speed/acceleration right
where as landing you have the crucial proximity trigger to get round
-
It's the other way round that's harder actually.
So are you getting close to any decent ingame solution for this matter?.
IIRC, a series of tricks as the fighter gets spawned in the tube could fill the gap... tricks like temporarily disabling collision effects, blocking the user's control during the launch, working out FRED scripts for the dynamic path along the tube, and yada yada.. did you guys tried those and were'nt worth?.
BTW, hello there. Long time no "see" you guys! =)
-
Nice to see you back Deckard :)
-
It's the other way round that's harder actually.
So are you getting close to any decent ingame solution for this matter?.
IIRC, a series of tricks as the fighter gets spawned in the tube could fill the gap... tricks like temporarily disabling collision effects, blocking the user's control during the launch, working out FRED scripts for the dynamic path along the tube, and yada yada.. did you guys tried those and were'nt worth?.
BTW, hello there. Long time no "see" you guys! =)
doesn't he mean that the landings are harder to do than the takeoff's
-
How about using a Camera instead of the actual player ship for the launches? Extreme accelerations and lack of clipping may be helpful. But I wouldn't know how to attach a cockpit to it though. . .
-
The biggest problem with tube launch in galactica is that they're placed laterraly and not in front of the ship.
When the tube launch are in the front of the ship the launcher and the launched may follow the same waypoint.
-
Nice to see you back Deckard :)
Hey there Sidestep! =)
/* doesn't he mean that the landings are harder to do than the takeoff's */
Nopers
/* The biggest problem with tube launch in galactica is that they're placed laterraly and not in front of the ship.
When the tube launch are in the front of the ship the launcher and the launched may follow the same waypoint.
*/
That's why I asked on whether scripts may fill the gap or not at correcting the launching path.. or something. Anyways I'm pretty rusty actually. It has been almost an year without getting involved into this prj.
Hope Kara or the others throw some bone on this matter =)
-
No bone.. np.. :) although after reading the other forum for a while I pseudo-realized on that seem to be engine based issues