Hard Light Productions Forums
Modding, Mission Design, and Coding => FS2 Open Coding - The Source Code Project (SCP) => Topic started by: AndrewofDoom on July 29, 2010, 06:39:00 pm
-
I really believe that the film grain event should not be controlled by the mission designer, but by the user. So instead of it as a type in the set-post-effect SEXP, it should be a command line just like bloom.
-
No! No more command line options! :shaking:
And it absolutely should be able to be controlled by the mission designer.
-
I really believe that the film grain event should not be controlled by the mission designer, but by the user. So instead of it as a type in the set-post-effect SEXP, it should be a command line just like bloom.
I have to disagree.
Campaigns/ Missions, where certain mission/cutscenes use this ( or other PP ) effects to enhance, would be ****ed up if you allow the player, to enable or disable it via flag. While Bloom ( in its current implamentation ) is something that should be player controlled, the other PP effects aren't.
-
Every modern game has film grain as a check box option in the options menu. It should absolutely be an end-user control.
The more control you take away from the end user, the less enjoyable it is.
Yes, I understand from the perspective of the designer that it should utilized as and artistic enhancement for the mission. But it should not be something available ONLY to the designer. What if the player wants to have it turned on in other moments throughout the game?
The checkbox (in our case, a commandline flag), should function as an additional option to afford the player more control over their playing experience.
I would merely suggest that the commandline be included as something that works in additon to the spex.
The fact that all of these neat effects are available only to the developer, and not the end user is, in my not humble opinion, selfish.
-
I would merely suggest that the commandline be included as something that works in additon to the spex.
That makes some sense. What probably spawned some of the counter-argument was this:
So instead of it as a type in the set-post-effect SEXP, it should be a command line just like bloom.
Andrew seemed to be requesting that the ability to turn on this functionality be completely removed out of the mission designer's hands, and enabled 'only' as a command-line option. Which wouldn't make any sense, because this "all or nothing" implementation would (as was argued back) essentially ruin the mission scripting.
However, the other argument for an option to either have this function invoked only when triggered by the mission designer, or just to force it on at all times if desired does make a bit more sense.
-
No more ridiculous command line settings, please.
If I want to convey that a given cutscene is a recording taken from a probe, I need to be able to use film grain (or an analogue) without worrying that the player has disabled it. If Axem wants to force desaturated colors across Vassago's Dirge he should be able to.
We've been trying to cut down on command line options for years. Adding another batch just seems unwise. If we had an in-game graphics menu it might be a different matter.
Requesting that control be taken from the mission designer, however, is totally unacceptable.
-
I'm simply saying the nothing should be exclusively controlled by either party.
This feature request was written up by Andy through my behest, but I should have probably written it myself.
The fact the matter is this, not a single effect should be controlled by a single party. Any good game (or good engine for that matter) allows the end user control over their experience. In terms of mission cut scenes, yes they should over-ride the the end-user's settings. But at the same time, if you were the end user, and there was a cool effect feature, and you wanted to use it but you couldn't, wouldn't that make you angry?
-
The user already has the ability to turn it off by disabling PP.
-
I don't want to turn it off.
I want to turn it on!
For missions that don't have it.
-
No more ridiculous command line settings, please.
If I want to convey that a given cutscene is a recording taken from a probe, I need to be able to use film grain (or an analogue) without worrying that the player has disabled it. If Axem wants to force desaturated colors across Vassago's Dirge he should be able to.
We've been trying to cut down on command line options for years. Adding another batch just seems unwise. If we had an in-game graphics menu it might be a different matter.
Requesting that control be taken from the mission designer, however, is totally unacceptable.
:yes:
Even IF someone would add the ability for the player to enable or disable PP effects ( and i seriously hope no one bothers with that), either via commandline option or ingame menu, the via SEXP-enabled PP effects like filmgrain and saturation, set by the Mission designer, should ALWAYS override player settings.
EDIT:
I don't want to turn it off.
I want to turn it on!
For missions that don't have it.
Hm, then you have to edit the missions. It takes only one event that can be copied into the mission file in Notepad.
-
I just can't imagine any scenario where a user would want to turn on film grain and wouldn't be able to do it in FRED.
-
I DON"T WANT IT TURNED OFF IN FRED!!!
I just want the player to have the option to TURN IT ON!!!
-
I just want the player to have the option to TURN IT ON!!!
Just give an example of a situation where you might want to use this.
-
Right ****in now. I want to play FSO mods, with Bloom and film grain, on all the time.
-
But if the mission don't have it then turning it on will do nothing anyway.
-
Right ****in now. I want to play FSO mods, with Bloom and film grain, on all the time.
Playing with film grain all the time seems a bit strange .. but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Anyway, isn't post processing disabled in trunk (because it was never really finished)? I wouldn't expect anything like this to happen until the feature is completely polished.
-
Right ****in now. I want to play FSO mods, with Bloom and film grain, on all the time.
Then edit mission files or tables. :P
-
I DON"T WANT IT TURNED OFF IN FRED!!!
I just want the player to have the option to TURN IT ON!!!
Then why did the original feature request, which was apparently written at your behest, ask for it to be disabled in FRED? :confused:
Let's get postprocessing working as a feature. When that is done we may have more options to discuss this.
-
You want all film grain, all the time?
Use a script to call the SEXP on the mission start hook.
Enjoy. No more additional commandlines options are going in for post processing until it is out of Experimental. Period.
Don't like that? Then help us code it so that it can be a complete feature.
-
You people are thick.
He doesn't want to change existing missions. He wants film grain in WHATEVER he plays.
-
You people are thick.
He doesn't want to change existing missions. He wants film grain in WHATEVER he plays.
Yes, he wants it nao, and the only way to get it nao is to either edit missions or to edit the table.
-
Enjoy. No more additional commandlines options are going in for post processing until it is out of Experimental. Period.
Don't like that? Then help us code it so that it can be a complete feature.
This was posted on IRC (including the 'help us code it' suggestion) but didn't seem to go over well.
-
I believe our requester is thinking of a very different type of film grain than exists. The games that have film grain on all the time (Mass Effect 1 and 2, Alien Swarm, Just Cause 2) look good with them. If I'm not mistaken, film grain as it is now in FSO doesn't give nearly the same effect.
But I could just be plain wrong. I've only seen screenshots of the effect.
-
You people are thick.
He doesn't want to change existing missions. He wants film grain in WHATEVER he plays.
And you MUST think we are thick if you don't think we didn't get that. It still isn't going to happen, no matter how many all caps or font size increases are used.
So, if he want's flim grain, it is either a mission edit, or a script. That's it.
-
I believe our requester is thinking of a very different type of film grain than exists. The games that have film grain on all the time (Mass Effect 1 and 2, Alien Swarm, Just Cause 2) look good with them. If I'm not mistaken, film grain as it is now in FSO doesn't give nearly the same effect.
But I could just be plain wrong. I've only seen screenshots of the effect.
Oh, I experimented with it a month and a bit ago, it looks kinda samey.
Anyway though, has the OP got the point?
-
One thing that I should mention is that until we get post-processing implemented correctly, nothing like this will be contemplated. Without a coder to maintain the post-processing code, there really is no point in trying to implement something like this (hence why post processing has been moved to the experimental features section).
-
Never once did I say I wanted it "nao" nor did I ever imply I wanted it "nao". I merely wanted it to be considered for future implementation. Instead myself and AoD received a massive amount of instant nay-saying from a bunch of nay-sayers. Quite frankly, it was a response not at all needed or called for, but it happened.
-
Somehow, I think you're taking this too seriously.
The only reason this isn't done is purely technical, as I said above.
Also, from a design perspective, effects like film grain should be in the hands of FREDers and scripters (and, as Zacam said, enabling those effects via LUA is trivially easy).
-
Never once did I say I wanted it "nao" nor did I ever imply I wanted it "nao". I merely wanted it to be considered for future implementation. Instead myself and AoD received a massive amount of instant nay-saying from a bunch of nay-sayers. Quite frankly, it was a response not at all needed or called for, but it happened.
Well, you just have to be careful about saying that things should be easy. The fire-turret SEXP should be easy. It's not. There are many things that seem 'easy' that aren't.
Furthermore the original request (see first post) was apparently botched which didn't help matters.
I'm inclined to consider the whole thing a misunderstanding rather than anybody's fault, but you can't characterize everybody who said 'no' as a 'naysayer' - people are not going to instantly understand what you really mean. You have to explain it.
If what you're asking for are end-user postprocessing options in the future in the context of a new graphics menu, and with the understanding that they can be overwritten by the FREDder, then I'm all for it. But it was not clear that this was what you wanted, especially given the unfortunate first post.