Hard Light Productions Forums
Modding, Mission Design, and Coding => FS2 Open Coding - The Source Code Project (SCP) => Topic started by: Jakey on April 25, 2010, 05:36:32 pm
-
I apologize if I am being blind, but I could not easily find a good description of the engine features and the game features that FS2O project provides.
I am in the stage of choosing an engine/game environment and I am interested in these points :
Graphical aspects of the renderer (bloom, motion blur, HDR, normal mapping, etc)
Physics engine limitations (the project will employ small ship sizes moving at considerably faster speeds, i.e. 10m length ship would fly on average at 1-4 km/s)
Network code limitations (how well is multiplayer supported, what are the issues, does it support "unlagged" and would there be any latency issues with the setup described above?)
If someone would kindly direct me to a place where I could find this information, or give me a brief description, I would be really grateful,
Thank you.
Jakey.
-
I apologize if I am being blind, but I could not easily find a good description of the engine features and the game features that FS2O project provides.
I am in the stage of choosing an engine/game environment and I am interested in these points :
Graphical aspects of the renderer (bloom, motion blur, HDR, normal mapping, etc)
Motion Blur and HDR are not implemented, normal mapping is stable, bloom supported, but not yet implemented in a way that can be considered stable.
Physics engine limitations (the project will employ small ship sizes moving at considerably faster speeds, i.e. 10m length ship would fly on average at 1-4 km/s)
FS ships generally move at around 100 to 200 m/s max. Higher speeds are possible, but not a good idea, as handling becomes problematic.
Network code limitations (how well is multiplayer supported, what are the issues, does it support "unlagged" and would there be any latency issues with the setup described above?)
Netcode is not the best, honestly. However, if you do get it working, even a fast mod like that should work.
-
Could you elaborate on "handling becomes problematic"
How exactly? what is the issue?
What are the problems with netcode?
-
Well, the engine isn't really built to handle objects that fast that aren't weapons; Collision detection may become weird.
Problems with the netcode.....Well, it's not as efficient as modern games are. Lag times are usually in the 100 ms range, which is workable for base FS2, but is something a player needs to adjust to. In addition, it takes a lot of applied black magic to get a server set up correctly. The matchmaking service FS2 employs (homebrew system called fs2netd) has some bugs with regards to correctly forwarding server adresses (at least, that's my understanding; taylor or Karajorma can give better info in that regard).
-
You might also want to consider the fact that modding using FS2O is most of the time a highly annoying and retarded process. You have to work with a crappy mission editor, a very crappy model conversion tool as well as nonexisting tolerance for mistakes of any kind combined with a crappy lack of useful error messages and a lack of or just poor documentation.
Of course that's not what you were asking about, but it seems irresponsible not to mention. :sigh:
And no, I'm not attacking anyone here so spare the flames.
-
<IssMneur> chief1983: you may want to chime in about your experience with highspeed ships in FSO, http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=69250.msg1368017#msg1368017
<chief1983> dont' really have much
<chief1983> FotG is a little faster than normal, but so far it's not been a huge problem
<IssMneur> FotG uses fast ships doesn't it?
<chief1983> it's more that they're fast and small
<chief1983> and the weapons can be difficult to make contact with
<chief1983> but larger ships or autoaim help
<chief1983> although autoaim can be detrimental in multiplayer since it prevents lead shooting
<IssMneur> I think that would be useful information to chime in about
<chief1983> 4km/s is an entirely different ballpark
<chief1983> it's going to make my issues seem insignificant with what it exposes
<chief1983> that's an order of magnitude faster
-
You might also want to consider the fact that modding using FS2O is most of the time a highly annoying and retarded process. You have to work with a crappy mission editor, a very crappy model conversion tool as well as nonexisting tolerance for mistakes of any kind combined with a crappy lack of useful error messages and a lack of or just poor documentation.
Of course that's not what you were asking about, but it seems irresponsible not to mention. :sigh:
And no, I'm not attacking anyone here so spare the flames.
Very true, I wouldn't call FRED (as the only tool that I have actually used) an intuitive tool, but it does work and the SCP is slowing improving both the engine and the tools. Every version of FS2O does get better at giving error messages (especially with debug builds) that are helpful, or giving error messages in general.
That being said unless the bug or deficiency is brought to the attention (http://scp.indiegames.us/mantis/login_page.php) of the coders we will not be able to fix them.
-
I'd certainly not call FRED a crappy mission editor. It can be hard to learn, but that's because once you have learned it, it is a very powerful and versatile editor.
-
You might also want to consider the fact that modding using FS2O is most of the time a highly annoying and retarded process. You have to work with a crappy mission editor, a very crappy model conversion tool as well as nonexisting tolerance for mistakes of any kind combined with a crappy lack of useful error messages and a lack of or just poor documentation.
Of course that's not what you were asking about, but it seems irresponsible not to mention. :sigh:
And no, I'm not attacking anyone here so spare the flames.
try modding freelancer and im sure that view would rapidly change. :D
id say of all the major issues with the modding tools, its the model importer. having had several model converters and export utilities since fs modding kicked off, the thing that bothers me most is that we can get satisfactory conversions only by using one model format, namely cob, a proprietary, rarely used format for a modeling program that cant even do the kind of modeling that works best for freespace. i did not mention collada because the only pcs2 builds that support it (i believe there are only two), would be considered by most programmers to be unstable test builds which are full of bugs and annoyances.
granted there have been exporters for other formats and plugins for modeling programs have been made. i was a big fan of styxx's max plugin even long after it got its reputation for chewing up a model's collision detection data. direct conversion is really the only way to produce a reliable polygon format for the converter as the artist originally intended. using intermediary formats, polygons get stored in oddball ways which can lead to data misinterpretation at the parser. its like playing telephone with polygons. the ways a format stores polygons can be very different, where the polygon is stored as a single entity, verts, uv coords, normals, etc. another program/format may want to lump all the verts into a section, all the polygons in another section (using an index or reference to another set of data). a format may store polygons without regaurd for what its connected to, adding an element of guesswork to a conversion process. avoiding unnecessary imports/exports to intermediate formats is critical to maintaining stable geometry.
instead of trying to find a jack of all trades format to use as a conversion source, what we should be doing is supporting as many formats as possible, through import code, plugins for a wide range of modeling software, etc. granted pcs2 was a big improvement over the tools we had at the time, i just wish it would evolve beyond its current state. on the bright side it was a hell of a lot better that the kinda tools freelancer had :D
-
For an experience of what it might be like to go faster try going above 4x in time compression and see how well you can play.
-
I would just like to make sure if I get this right. Is the problems with fast speeds related to the collision detection, or are they related simply to the pilot not being able to hit the target? Since the latter one is non issue to me (I am interested in the engine limitations, not the player ones :) ). I.e. is it just going to let the bullet pass through the hitbox of the ship, or not?
Does FS2O have unlagged supported for networking code?
-
10m ...4km/sec?
I would humbly offer that I am not actually sure I could SEE these things while they're within standard weapons range let alone hit them...
The sensitivity required would prevent fine control/aiming, and the keyboard would just be useless...
Unless you expect relativistic combat distances to be extended by a similar factor, weapon projectile speed almost infinite and missiles basically massively tuned up, it's not a practical speed you're talking about.
IF You do those things, then you'll end up with combat similar to Freespace anyway.
Though I guess I'm not that interested since what you're discussing is often the first exclamation of Newtonian phailsycs...
-
From memory, the space shuttle does about 34,000km/h whilst on orbit (not sure what altitude).
Wikipedia says that at 120km during the descent it's doing about 30,000km/h, which is approx 8km/s (~Mach 25).
8km/s is about 1/2x10^5 the speed of light (so no relativity required!)
I might point out that whilst that is still an incredible speed, the space shuttle and the space station are still able to meet up and dock - a procedure requiring incredible accuracy.
Jakey: I can't remember why, but I have some recollection that the physics engine doesn't like things a long way from the origin, which could potentially happen at those speeds - hopefully someone else can fill you in on this one.
-
instead of trying to find a jack of all trades format to use as a conversion source, what we should be doing is supporting as many formats as possible, through import code, plugins for a wide range of modeling software, etc.
The source is out there and it's a fairly simple matter to integrate support for new formats, so why don't you add support for your desired format(s)? Unless of course by "we" you mean "other people".
-
10m ...4km/sec?
I would humbly offer that I am not actually sure I could SEE these things while they're within standard weapons range let alone hit them...
The sensitivity required would prevent fine control/aiming, and the keyboard would just be useless...
Unless you expect relativistic combat distances to be extended by a similar factor, weapon projectile speed almost infinite and missiles basically massively tuned up, it's not a practical speed you're talking about.
IF You do those things, then you'll end up with combat similar to Freespace anyway.
Though I guess I'm not that interested since what you're discussing is often the first exclamation of Newtonian phailsycs...
Although I was not discussing the content of my project here, and, instead, was just asking about the limitations of FS2O, Ill clarify it up a bit.
The project is mostly inspired by an unknown to most game HomePlanet (made by a russian company) the uniqueness of the game was the ability to implement an interesting gameplay while preserving the newtonian physics genre.
My project is aiming to achieve similar and improved game experience while adding variety of other features, such as ship boarding and in-ship combat.
I saw an IRC log, but I have tried to join the #fs2source channel on the maxgames and there was noone there at all. Could someone give me the new discussion room for the project please?
-
Chatrooms are #hard-light (the general community channel) and #scp (for the Source Code Project), both on irc.esper.net.
My project is aiming to achieve similar and improved game experience while adding variety of other features, such as ship boarding and in-ship combat.
Then FS2 is not the engine for you, as FPS-style gaming is definitely impossible with it.
-
I might point out that whilst that is still an incredible speed, the space shuttle and the space station are still able to meet up and dock - a procedure requiring incredible accuracy.
Their relative speed at the time of docking is more like 1 m/s slowing to 0.1 m/s, though. The speed you referred to is relative to Earth and as such irrelevant to the docking operation. Just as the speed of an aircraft relative to the sun (about 30 km/s) is irrelevant when it is "docking" with a jetway.
Being able to fly at up to 4 km/s would mean relative speeds of up to 8 km/s, which is flat out impossible for a human to fight at unless said fighting takes place at bvr distances and all actual targeting is handled by computers.
-
Chatrooms are #hard-light (the general community channel) and #scp (for the Source Code Project), both on irc.esper.net.
My project is aiming to achieve similar and improved game experience while adding variety of other features, such as ship boarding and in-ship combat.
Then FS2 is not the engine for you, as FPS-style gaming is definitely impossible with it.
Thanks for the information,
I realise that FS2 engine is not suitable for FPS action, and ship boarding is a very far-fetched plan, which, undoubtedly, will be scrapped due to time limitations/etc. Hence I am still interested in other aspects of the FS2O
-
I think the game you want to make has already been tried (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Combat).
-
I think the game you want to make has already been tried (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Combat).
omg you linked a thing by he who shall not be named ..............
:eek2:
-
He wasn't named, just linked :p
-
instead of trying to find a jack of all trades format to use as a conversion source, what we should be doing is supporting as many formats as possible, through import code, plugins for a wide range of modeling software, etc.
The source is out there and it's a fairly simple matter to integrate support for new formats, so why don't you add support for your desired format(s)? Unless of course by "we" you mean "other people".
first off: i dont think its something i have enough skill or patience to do at the moment. and even if i did my main interest with the freespace engine is with scripting. im not an active modder and havent made a serious attempt at modeling anything in years. but i was putting models into fs1 before fs2 even existed (and descent 2 before that). ive probably used every fs model conversion tool that ever existed. lots of good ideas have been cast aside. the cob based tools have been around forever so there has been a lot of improvement there, and pcs2 can convert a cob exported from any version of truespace just fine. this works fine if your program of choice is truespace. if not then converting your model is a very complicated, very frustrating process. collada was a step in the right direction, but development of modeling tools seems to be stalled. give people more input options and they will use them.
-
I might point out that whilst that is still an incredible speed, the space shuttle and the space station are still able to meet up and dock - a procedure requiring incredible accuracy.
Their relative speed at the time of docking is more like 1 m/s slowing to 0.1 m/s, though. The speed you referred to is relative to Earth and as such irrelevant to the docking operation. Just as the speed of an aircraft relative to the sun (about 30 km/s) is irrelevant when it is "docking" with a jetway.
Being able to fly at up to 4 km/s would mean relative speeds of up to 8 km/s, which is flat out impossible for a human to fight at unless said fighting takes place at bvr distances and all actual targeting is handled by computers.
/me wonders how you'd go about docking 8km/s without doing serious damage
Relative speed was the point I was trying to make (couldn't think of the word before - think before you post :P)
-
Hit M to match speed with the ISS!
...yeah. :nervous:
:p
-
You might also want to consider the fact that modding using FS2O is most of the time a highly annoying and retarded process.
You have to work with a crappy mission editor, a very crappy model conversion tool as well as nonexisting tolerance for mistakes of any kind combined with a crappy lack of useful error messages and a lack of or just poor documentation.
I beg to differ in some points.
FRED isn't a crappy mission editor. It's a powerful tool, once you get used to it ( this might take time...).
With the clever usage of SEXPs you can circumvent some of the limitations of the engine.
By crappy modelconversion tool you mean PCS2? Yes, some versions aren't very stable, but the latest versions produce good results,
and it should be recommended to use the .DAE export/ import anyway.
The SCP works on the error messages, just compare the builds from 3.6.9 to 3.6.12.
Documentation: Yeah, that's a big one. In most cases the Wiki can help, but not in all.
Of course that's not what you were asking about, but it seems irresponsible not to mention. :sigh:
And no, I'm not attacking anyone here so spare the flames.
No flames, just my opinion :D
-
By crappy modelconversion tool you mean PCS2? Yes, some versions aren't very stable, but the latest versions produce good results,
and it should be recommended to use the .DAE export/ import anyway.
Except when they're crashing for no apparent reason, fail at importing models even from .pof, or other weird little things. Seriously, if you try to work with some of Steve-O's models, for example, you'll be running up against PCS2 being indescribably weird sooner or later.
Its crappy UI (why do I have to keep the mouse pointer over a number field to make entries into that field again?), its unhelpful error messages (Flaming OGL error of Doom says hello!), its weird incompatibilities with some systems do not exactly help either.
-
Than you all for your time, but I regret to say that FS2O engine does not really meet my requirements (after speaking over on IRC channel we cleared up some questions I had)
Best wishes,
Jakey.
-
You might also want to consider the fact that modding using FS2O is most of the time a highly annoying and retarded process.
You have to work with a crappy mission editor, a very crappy model conversion tool as well as nonexisting tolerance for mistakes of any kind combined with a crappy lack of useful error messages and a lack of or just poor documentation.
I beg to differ in some points.
FRED isn't a crappy mission editor. It's a powerful tool, once you get used to it ( this might take time...).
With the clever usage of SEXPs you can circumvent some of the limitations of the engine.
All of FRED's crappiness comes from the UI which is downright horrible at a couple of places and the fact that about a hundred checkboxes and other widgets lack tooltips or any other documentation explaining what they're supposed to do or if they do anything at all (some don't, but they're still there). Other than that, sure, it's ok.
By crappy modelconversion tool you mean PCS2? Yes, some versions aren't very stable, but the latest versions produce good results,
and it should be recommended to use the .DAE export/ import anyway.
Most of what I get by using PCS2 is crashes, freezes, completely unhelpful error messages or more commonly no error messages at all and a horrible UI to enjoy those with. Pretty much what The E just said.
-
Being able to fly at up to 4 km/s would mean relative speeds of up to 8 km/s, which is flat out impossible for a human to fight at unless said fighting takes place at bvr distances and all actual targeting is handled by computers.
Now I want to try that. :nervous:
-
4,000m/s?
Psha, that's easy. None of you noobs have ever gone on a strike run on Laminar Research's Space Combat?
:lol:
-
Tried it and didn't like it when I couldn't do anything but move. :P
-
No one mentioned that at those speeds you'd hit the mission boundary 'box' in a few seconds...
-
Actually I've gone as far as over 3,600km in one direction without being destroyed, and at four kilometers per second it would take 15 minutes to traverse.
-
The project is mostly inspired by an unknown to most game HomePlanet (made by a russian company) the uniqueness of the game was the ability to implement an interesting gameplay while preserving the newtonian physics genre.
I think I tried playing the English demo for that once, but I was pretty terrible at it; I never managed to get my head wrapped around the full-Newtonian flight model. Like I'm sure the SCP team members said to you, the FS2_Open engine doesn't really support that type of gameplay in its present form...though with all the crazy stuff Nuke's been doing with scripting, who knows? :P