Hard Light Productions Forums

Community Projects => The FreeSpace Upgrade Project => Topic started by: General Battuta on August 18, 2010, 10:24:03 pm

Title: Beam fade poll
Post by: General Battuta on August 18, 2010, 10:24:03 pm
see above
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Shivan Hunter on August 18, 2010, 10:37:56 pm
Often, the effect starts [long] before the beam hits a ship (sometimes, at ranges of several klicks, there's no beam effect at all- just an explosion, with a beam that seems to be 'pointing' at it). Honestly, either the beam itself has to attenuate to the point that it's not destroying a juggernaut at the end of its range, or the effect should be removed.

Good effect on paper but at long-range it just doesn't work out well.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Hero_Swe on August 18, 2010, 10:44:38 pm
This needs to be taken out of BP AND the MVPS. I mean who in their ****ing right mind decided this was a good thing?!
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Hippo on August 18, 2010, 10:47:22 pm
awesome when the distance is right, but terrible when it isn't
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Mongoose on August 18, 2010, 10:49:15 pm
Blech.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Klaustrophobia on August 18, 2010, 11:52:43 pm
i didn't even notice this effect was there, so i guess that makes me neutral by default.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Snail on August 18, 2010, 11:58:16 pm
I haven't been a large fan of it.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Rodo on August 19, 2010, 12:07:47 am
Should cut also the range of the beam, if that's not gonna be done then the beam should remain visible.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: blowfish on August 19, 2010, 12:09:30 am
Should cut also the range of the beam, if that's not gonna be done then the beam should remain visible.

In this implementation, beams begin to fade beyond their maximum targeting range.  Damage ends where the beam ends.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Colonol Dekker on August 19, 2010, 02:17:51 am
Does not like.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Qent on August 19, 2010, 02:49:08 am
IMHO the fade effect should be detached from the +Range of the beam.

EDIT: Oh this is BP FSU not SCP. :nervous: Oh well I still want that. :P

EDIT2: Moved.
Title: Re: 3.6.12 MediaVPs Discussion thread
Post by: General Battuta on August 19, 2010, 04:17:11 am
Can someone confirm that beam fade is in the MediaVPs?

If so could it please be removed in a hotfix ASAP? This is a critical compatibility issue.
Title: Re: 3.6.12 MediaVPs Discussion thread
Post by: Fury on August 19, 2010, 04:45:29 am
No it is not, not any less than any other changed tbl or tbm since .10. Beam fade is good, it would be better when we actually can control fading. 30km long beams is ridiculously stupid looking.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Fury on August 19, 2010, 04:48:22 am
IMHO the fade effect should be detached from the +Range of the beam.
This is the only sensible post in this topic so far. Yes, control for beam fading has been requested but no work on it has been done yet.

Alternative to this are 30km long beams, which look even more ridiculous.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: NGTM-1R on August 19, 2010, 05:03:35 am
Alternative to this are 30km long beams, which look even more ridiculous.

Yes, because it's not like any campaign ever relied upon the supposedly limitless range of beams or anything!

Derelict didn't do that at all!
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Fury on August 19, 2010, 05:18:16 am
1. Even without limited beam range, tabling in every major version of mediavps may change substantially enough to break older mods.
2. Derelict has not been checked for compatibility and updated if necessary for mediavps 3.6.12. Therefore any incompatibility with beams or otherwise is moot.
3. Derelict can continue using older mediavps without any issues whatsioever, as long as you yourself bother keeping them around.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: The E on August 19, 2010, 05:23:45 am
Just because the mediavps can break compatibility doesn't mean they should. In cases like these, where the desire to improve the visual quality collides with the desire to keep the gameplay intact, the gameplay should always take precedence.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Fury on August 19, 2010, 05:31:28 am
Yes, but only retail campaign gameplay and compatibility if you ask me. Accounting for every possibility what mods may have done doesn't seem like a sane idea. If mods want to do things certain way, tbm's are there for that.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: pecenipicek on August 19, 2010, 06:47:46 am
if you are asking me about what breaks the game more for me is those thrice damned flashes on EVERY DAMN EXPLOSION!


i prefer my bombs not blinding the **** out of me.





as for the beams at hand, this feature is a needed one for TAP, so yeah :p
Title: Re: 3.6.12 MediaVPs Discussion thread
Post by: Qent on August 19, 2010, 08:41:30 am
/me prefers 30 km-long beams. :nervous:

But I think the "compatibility issue" is that the MediaVPs change balance to create a visual effect (since retail beams did full damage out to 30 km).
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: MatthTheGeek on August 19, 2010, 11:48:17 am
Beam fading is full of win. As long as it's logical with the range of the beam. I am very surprised by the results of this poll.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: -Sara- on August 19, 2010, 11:59:16 am
Beam fade is that the beam fades slowly to being invisible the further you move from the firing source, right?
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: General Battuta on August 19, 2010, 11:59:50 am
Beam fade is that the beam fades slowly to being invisible the further you move from the firing source, right?

Yes. I actually think the implementation in BP is pretty good. But the MediaVPs I'm less comfortable with.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: -Sara- on August 19, 2010, 12:05:14 pm
I've not given it an awful lot of attention. However, if the beam still damages while being faded, that'd not make a lot of sense. I'd imagine quite the opposite to happen: when a beam loses intensity at some point it'll only heat the hull of a vessel without damaging it.
Title: Re: 3.6.12 MediaVPs Discussion thread
Post by: General Battuta on August 19, 2010, 01:10:16 pm
/me prefers 30 km-long beams. :nervous:

But I think the "compatibility issue" is that the MediaVPs change balance to create a visual effect (since retail beams did full damage out to 30 km).

Quite so.

Well I'll look into making a community patch for the 3.6.12s then.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Droid803 on August 19, 2010, 01:10:28 pm
It looks ****ing atrocious, how can you say that it looks good?
You have this near-invisible beam tail scraping ships and cause eruptions.
From afar beams look like these weeny little laser swords with a frayed tip.

It makes beams look utterly underwhelming, unimpressive, and plain silly.

No longer do we have an impressive column of light that extends to infinity, but some puny laser spike that's waved around.
Title: Re: 3.6.12 MediaVPs Discussion thread
Post by: Droid803 on August 19, 2010, 01:12:25 pm
For the record...

30km long beams look impressive.
6km little laser spikes look pathetic.

Energy emission of that magnitude doesn't just...dissipate like that in space :/
Definitely not that abruptly.

It looks silly.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: MatthTheGeek on August 19, 2010, 01:17:59 pm
Ur face lookz unimpressive and silly.

Stupid jokes apart, 30km beam looks silly, period. You're gonna have to pay me big time to change my mind.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: TacOne on August 19, 2010, 01:20:49 pm
Infinetly long beams look worse.
The beams look just fine in BP, I've seen nothing wrong with them whatsoever.
As was said, having more control over the fade would be better, but that's a topic for the SCP or FSU threads.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Droid803 on August 19, 2010, 01:23:07 pm
Oh, it has no problem? try playing The Blade Itself and pay attention the the Trie--eh the Diomede's slasher beams when it tries to attack you from out of range.

IT LOOKS HORRIBLE. You have this beam-like thing pointed at you (but not actually hitting you), and you take damage, there are explosions and such./me pukes all over his keyboard.

Beams don't just MAGICALLY END in space when it's decided its reached its maximum targeting range. If it faded out to infinity, maybe, but it just magically starts fading out at like 4 km and ends completely at 6? WTF?
Extending to infinity (or 30km, which looks close enough for normal missions) is far more realistic than rather abruptly ending at its maximum targeting range.

Nonsensical, nonfunctional, and ugly.
Title: Re: 3.6.12 MediaVPs Discussion thread
Post by: Turambar on August 19, 2010, 01:25:05 pm
Too bad we can't cook up a shader that looks like the beam is losing cohesion and getting fuzzier and dimmer with distance.  Or can we?
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Polpolion on August 19, 2010, 01:26:56 pm
I will say that these visibly shorter beams do look a bit silly coming off of a 2km behemoth destroyer. It honestly just detracts from the awe-inspiring aesthetic beams had without the fade like this. Someone take a picture of an Orion firing its beams from a position ~10km away and you'll understand what I mean. And saying "hurrdurr when are you ever 10km away from an orion firing its beams" is no counter argument. I don't feel that the modders should be forced to choose between A) re-doing all of the beams B)re-doing their campaign plans or C) not offering mediaVP support.

I can understand a matter of opinion like what Matththegeek is saying, but it's just that: a matter of opinion. I honestly don't think this matter of opinion merits forcing everyone to change it whether they want to or not. At most, it should be an option you can choose from.

EDIT: Also, shouldn't this be moved somewhere else if it's not an issue solely with BP?
Title: Re: 3.6.12 MediaVPs Discussion thread
Post by: The E on August 19, 2010, 01:33:51 pm
We can't. Not without a materials system.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Commander Zane on August 19, 2010, 01:34:14 pm
Too bad the beams that fade out 30km away is what you'd be more likely to see in reality.
A directed-energy weapon that blooms out two kilometers away? In space?
What.
Maybe in an atmosphere, but in space there's very little bloom, so there's much less energy dissipation, much greater range.
Title: Re: 3.6.12 MediaVPs Discussion thread
Post by: Mongoose on August 19, 2010, 01:37:04 pm
Yeah, I'm sorry, Fury, but those fading beams look awful right now.  Beams are supposed to look like raw masses of pure energy spewing dozens of kilometers into space, not a tiny little blowtorch flame.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Spoon on August 19, 2010, 01:45:11 pm
Was there a poll about this for the mediavp's that I missed or did someone just decided that beam fade should be in it, opinions of others be damned?
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Fury on August 19, 2010, 01:45:43 pm
Too bad the beams that fade out 30km away is what you'd be more likely to see in reality.
A directed-energy weapon that blooms out two kilometers away? In space?
What.
Maybe in an atmosphere, but in space there's very little bloom, so there's much less energy dissipation, much greater range.
FS is not reality. Missiles and blobs magically disappear when they reach their max range. Beams, despite extending up to 30km only have 1.5 - 8km targeting range.

While we still have lack of control over fading, I'd much prefer seeing extended visual range than 30km long ridiculous beams again. Visual range is currently 1.5 times targeting range, I'd rather double that than look at 30km long beams again.

Was there a poll about this for the mediavp's that I missed or did someone just decided that beam fade should be in it, opinions of others be damned?
There was mediavps beta(s) up for beta-testers and FSU staffers quite a few weeks, nobody said anything during beta-phase.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: General Battuta on August 19, 2010, 01:46:45 pm
Was there a poll about this for the mediavp's that I missed or did someone just decided that beam fade should be in it, opinions of others be damned?

The latter.

FS is not reality. Missiles and blobs magically disappear when they reach their max range. Beams, despite extending up to 30km only have 1.5 - 8km targeting range.


While we still have lack of control over fading, I'd much prefer seeing extended visual range than 30km long ridiculous beams again. Visual range is currently 1.5 times targeting range, I'd rather double that than look at 30km long beams again.

That would be better, but I see no reason to break gameplay for visuals. I know you don't believe the MVPs should support anything but retail but frankly I think that's just kind of silly.

More importantly, though, what you think doesn't matter. If the majority of users dislike this feature it should not be implemented because you want it. That's just insane.

I liked the 30k beams. What makes your opinion worth more than mine?
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Commander Zane on August 19, 2010, 01:49:00 pm
Missiles magically disappearing? You should check your .VPs for missing files or something, my missiles explode at maximum range. :P

At any rate, the best option is a longer fade point, I like the fading beams, but they currently fade to nothingness too soon at most points.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Delta_V on August 19, 2010, 01:55:34 pm
I would have to agree with Commander Zane.  I think the beam fade was a good idea, and I definitely don't want to go back to the 30km beams of retail.  However, as it stands now, the beams fade out too quickly, and this takes away from their sense of power. 

Basically, keep the beam fade, but make it happen more slowly, IMO.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: General Battuta on August 19, 2010, 01:57:01 pm
Beam fade breaks missions. Nobody else has a problem with this?

I know that Fury doesn't believe the MVPs should support mods, but changing a weapon's effective range is huge. The MVPs could not get away with that on something like the Harpoon or Treb. Why can they do it with beams?
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: mjn.mixael on August 19, 2010, 02:00:22 pm
Yeah.. I'm not a fan of breaking missions.. nor the effect...
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: blowfish on August 19, 2010, 02:00:59 pm
Beam fade breaks missions. Nobody else has a problem with this?

This is actually my main problem with it.  It didn't matter in the context of Blue Planet, but now that this is in mediavp territory, it's a serious issue.

The MVPs could not get away with that on something like the Harpoon or Treb. Why can they do it with beams?

Supposedly because beams have a targeting range that is much lower than 30km.  It still breaks a lot of fire-beam sexps and tag scenarios though.

If a solution can be implemented (obviously via code changes) which can cause the beams to fade without breaking balance, then maybe this is acceptable (though then you'd have the problem of beams damaging things beyond where they disappear).  But for now, these types of things should probably stay how they are in retail.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Spoon on August 19, 2010, 02:04:52 pm
I'm with the General on this one.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Fury on August 19, 2010, 02:05:10 pm
MVP's have not changed beams targeting range at all. Hence it doesn't affect retail missions. If some mod missions have just so happened to use fire-beam-sexp to use a beam past its targeting range, is something I don't really think should be of any concern to MVP's. How much FSU is willing to bother themselves over trivial concerns like that, is up to them. But I think it's silly.

Mods on the other hand can easily get around it by extending beam range across the board if they want to, create custom beam weapon entry for the occasion or just keep using .10's.

Not gonna bother with this further though, what FSU does with beams is their business.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Polpolion on August 19, 2010, 02:07:03 pm
Quote
what FSU does with beams is their business.

why the FSU is under the community projects category, again?

EDIT: Maybe I'm just an absolute moron, but I'd hope that FSU would kind of... not disregard users.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: NGTM-1R on August 19, 2010, 02:26:47 pm
To summarize: Fury says **** you community! :P
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: pecenipicek on August 19, 2010, 02:32:31 pm
what disturbs me more than the beams is the flashy deaths on almost everything that blows up with a blast warning.


and i find it utterly unneccesary in the MVP's. BP is okay, but keep fun mod stuff out of MVP's.



(no offense to anyone...)
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Solatar on August 19, 2010, 02:45:23 pm
So mods that make creative use of RETAIL data (fire-beam sexps and tag scenarios) get pushed to the side because they don't use that data in the way that V did?  Making every MOD compatible with mediavps could get tough, but a mission made with retail data should be compatible.  Why should I have to distribute a campaign as a mod folder when it SHOULD work with just normal, upgraded Freespace 2?

I wouldn't have bothered posting, but I feel like I'm seeing the beginnings of a very insular FSU Project in some comments here.  I know for purely logistics reasons - so there aren't too many chiefs and no Indians - much of it has to be done behind closed doors, but completely disregarding community content goes against everything that has made this community last for so long.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Cyker on August 19, 2010, 03:12:50 pm
30K beams looks a bit silly, but the beam fade looks much worse.

Most of the time I don't normally notice the beam fade (Usually because I'm trying not to die :lol:), but when I do it just looks horrible :(

I do hate the bomb flash, but I hate all the white-out effects (e.g. looking at a tiny distant sun and *BLINDED*)
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: NGTM-1R on August 19, 2010, 03:14:09 pm
I have to agree with Solatar. Anything in MVPs that would break a mission that is completely constructed from retail components does not belong.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: The E on August 19, 2010, 03:16:40 pm
I fully agree with Solatar and NGTM-1R on this issue.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: MatthTheGeek on August 19, 2010, 03:22:18 pm
Now that the potential mission-breaking behavior has been pointed out, I have to agree that having those fading beams without a better control of the fade is a bad idea, at least in the MVPs. Not letting ourselves get stopped by constant backward compatibility is good, but that feature seems to have too much of mission breaking potential to be left as-is.

But I still stand on my point that beams MUST fade, and I have yet to read a single argument strong enough to even begin of convincing me of the contrary. SCP guys just have to find a way to have this feature working alongside an out-of-range fire-beam sexp... somehow.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: pecenipicek on August 19, 2010, 03:34:43 pm
simple. fire-beam fires a beam at a target. add an option to the sexp to determine fade length. backwards compatible and works.




now, this is a really nice thing to have in the engine, but we need an entry for beam weapons in the weapons.tbl like such:

Beam targeting range = range at which a beam can acquire a target and fire at it
Beam dissipation range = range at which the beam starts to dissipate
Dissipation length = determines how long the dissipation continues after the beam crosses the dissipation range

the distance of the first two is measured from the firing point of the turret till the end of the beam, the dissipation length is measured from the point where dissipation range ends and continues for how many meters the modder decides to put in.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Qent on August 19, 2010, 03:43:53 pm
simple. fire-beam fires a beam at a target. add an option to the sexp to determine fade length. backwards compatible and works.
I don't feel good about this for some reason.

now, this is a really nice thing to have in the engine, but we need an entry for beam weapons in the weapons.tbl like such:

Beam targeting range = range at which a beam can acquire a target and fire at it
Beam dissipation range = range at which the beam starts to dissipate
Dissipation length = determines how long the dissipation continues after the beam crosses the dissipation range

the distance of the first two is measured from the firing point of the turret till the end of the beam, the dissipation length is measured from the point where dissipation range ends and continues for how many meters the modder decides to put in.
That first one is already in as +Weapon Range. For the last two I think it would be better to mirror the current +Range and +Attenuation values in $BeamInfo: let +Visible Range be the distance in meters from the firing point at which the beam is completely invisible, and +Visible Attenuation be the fraction of the visible range at which dissipation starts.

Still, I like the visual effect of beams extending infinitely into space, except maybe under very special circumstances.

EDIT: I forgot some way to make the visible beam actually extend into infinity. Maybe if the visible range is negative?
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: sigtau on August 19, 2010, 04:02:07 pm
Beam fading is really a weird looking effect, and anyone who says 50k long beams look even stranger is sadly mistaken, because it looks like they're going off into deep space that way and not up close (which, again, looks extremely strange).

My two cents.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Syder on August 19, 2010, 04:08:21 pm
Will somebody please post a pic of this effect, cause I've never seen it/heard about it before.

I think that a beam should dissipate while extending infinitely - well that is a beam after all, thing that consists of tiny little thingies, that use to travel 300 000 klicks per second.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Mongoose on August 19, 2010, 04:13:46 pm
I fully agree with Solatar and NGTM-1R on this issue.
As do I.  Any individual mission designed to run on retail data should work exactly the same way using the MediaVPs.  No exceptions.  I find this whole philosophy Fury has been espousing of the MVPs needing to be compatible with retail missions and nothing else to be rather absurd and potentially dangerous, and we're already seeing the latter concern be justified here.

What I really can't understand is why a decision like this was implemented unilaterally.  The FSU project isn't some sort of benevolent dictatorship.  I can distinctly remember moments in the past where the community as a whole was asked to vote on which version of an effect to include in the MediaVPs, or on different options for an individual model.  Where was that process this time?
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: The E on August 19, 2010, 04:51:23 pm
There's a fine line here. In some cases, MediaVP assets will break with retail traditions. For example, mapping schemes for some models may change when they are HTLed (See Lilith, Cain and Hatshepsut for recent examples). Those are changes that, I think, everyone can accept.

However, when it comes to changes that alter significant aspects of the FS2 gameplay, we as the FSU have a responsibility to maintain retail compatibility.

It's simple, really. As Mongoose said, a mission or campaign made for retail should work, without alterations, when using the mediavps. This extends to stuff like the beam fading under discussion here; the endless beams are a significant aspect of FS2's gameplay (whether the retail campaign uses it or not), and as such should not be altered.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: swashmebuckle on August 19, 2010, 05:17:04 pm
The end has come.  Before the final jump, there was still a hope that it was only our ships or our nodes or our resources that they wanted, not our people, but now that hope is gone.  It slides out of subspace, enormous, engorged with a horrible power pulsating beneath its shining alien skin.  The Lucifer.

It glides lightly towards us.  It is not like a Terran vessel, bound by treaty and ideology and humanity.  It will not hesitate to take everything that we have, everything that we are.  There is nothing we can do but watch as it draws from its bottomless reserves, preparing to end us without thought or meaning.  Blasts of incomparable destruction stream forth from the the vessel's potent prongs, expending the energy of a thousand fusion weapons in a second.  The Emperor, watching from afar, intones the sacred royal funerary chant for his race's lost home. 

Then a miracle happens.  The impossible columns of death peter out a pathetic six kilometers from their points of origin, the energy dissipated long before reaching the furthest reaches of the atmosphere.  Vasuda Prime is saved by free space!  Elated sand eating bookies collect a surprising windfall of cash from gullible Terran gamblers, while the younger generation exchanges high-threes and fist-bups!

The destroyer hangs silently in the void, its glow maps turning a shade of green.  It broadcasts a short signal before slinking back into subspace, never to call again.  Years later a team of Terran and Vasudan cryptographers translate the Shivans' message as "Sorry, we've had a rough week.  You know, this happens to a lot of guys..."
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: NGTM-1R on August 19, 2010, 05:23:36 pm
I award you one Internet. Use it in good health.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Polpolion on August 19, 2010, 05:24:07 pm
Vasuda Prime is saved by free space! 

dohohohoho
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Klaustrophobia on August 19, 2010, 05:27:06 pm
isn't the idea of a BEAM an infinite-length stream of energy?  unless the beam is diverging (i.e. cone-shaped like a flashlight beam) it WOULDN'T attenuate without interacting with something.

if you go with the beams being a stream of plasma approach, which from what i gather is NOT the general consensus, then it's already borked because the range of such a beam would be something like inches before it is completely dissapated.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: General Battuta on August 19, 2010, 05:54:27 pm
MVP's have not changed beams targeting range at all. Hence it doesn't affect retail missions. If some mod missions have just so happened to use fire-beam-sexp to use a beam past its targeting range, is something I don't really think should be of any concern to MVP's. How much FSU is willing to bother themselves over trivial concerns like that, is up to them. But I think it's silly.

Mods on the other hand can easily get around it by extending beam range across the board if they want to, create custom beam weapon entry for the occasion or just keep using .10's.

Not gonna bother with this further though, what FSU does with beams is their business.

As has been pointed out, missions made with retail data should still work with the MVPs; that's what the MVPs are. Change retail data and you've become a mod.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: sigtau on August 19, 2010, 06:49:20 pm

As has been pointed out, missions made with retail data should still work with the MVPs; that's what the MVPs are. Change retail data and you've become a mod.

This.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Shivan Hunter on August 19, 2010, 07:15:56 pm

If some mod retail missions have just so happened to use fire-beam-sexp...

...then there is a nonzero chance that those retail missions will become b0rked (Ravana firing on 'vettes? Sath firing at Psamtik? I don't know the distances involved, and likely those will still work correctly, but the problem is there). Honestly I don't like the idea that a mission that worked with retail and used the fire-beam sexp at a distance will also be broken. Backwards compatibility should be considered for any retail missions, not just retail [V] missions.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Kolgena on August 19, 2010, 07:55:48 pm
+1 for 30km beams.

Right now, they look like blowtorch flames. Do not want, for all the reasons stated before.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: sigtau on August 19, 2010, 10:19:23 pm
+1 for 30km beams.

Right now, they look like blowtorch flames. Do not want, for all the reasons stated before.

This being why it looks funny... especially, the Shivan beams and the SSLBeam look like this.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Bobboau on August 20, 2010, 01:11:55 am
can someone post a pic of what is causing so much controversy, it sounds like the issue is beam length, not fadeing, because the only other option from fading is having the beam abruptly end.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: MatthTheGeek on August 20, 2010, 01:45:45 am
Can people stop arguing that FS beams are real beams ? They are NOT. Stop talking about REALISM in FREESPACE, there is NONE. What are called beams in FS are just a bunch of plasma into a magnetic bottle,. Magnetic bottle that can't be maintained into space indefinitely. That's that simple.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: SypheDMar on August 20, 2010, 02:00:48 am
can someone post a pic of what is causing so much controversy, it sounds like the issue is beam length, not fadeing, because the only other option from fading is having the beam abruptly end.
This is the issue.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Sushi on August 20, 2010, 03:13:37 am
I really like the way beam-fade looks with AAA beams. I'm less enthusiastic about it for the large beams, but it doesn't look awful in the situations I've seen (haven't checked any fire-beyond-range scenarios though).

Couldn't we just modify the code so that if the beam is firing at a target beyond its normal range, it doesn't fade until it reaches that far? That way, in the special case that we're using the "30k beam" it would stretch the full distance, but still have the fade at the end.

Regarding the other effects: I mostly like them, although I agree that the bomb flash is a bit much, especially at close range. I really, really, like the ship explosion effects these days. :)
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Fury on August 20, 2010, 06:46:18 am
To summarize: Fury says **** you community! :P
QFT
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Snail on August 20, 2010, 06:57:04 am
He does it with class though. :P
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: NGTM-1R on August 20, 2010, 08:27:20 am
What are called beams in FS are just a bunch of plasma into a magnetic bottle,. Magnetic bottle that can't be maintained into space indefinitely. That's that simple.

I call bull****, they're referred to as photon beam cannons more than once.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Raven2001 on August 20, 2010, 08:37:50 am
I think that those fading beams only really work well (visually) when they hit a ship and go across it, kind of what happens here:
(http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/2208/screen0258.png)

I also agree with the sentiments regarding backwards gameplay compatibility of mods.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Wanderer on August 20, 2010, 09:16:24 am
I voted 'I detest the effect' as i considered it to have too high potential of causing old missions to work improperly. That is retail beams are of 30 km range and so should mediavp beams be as well to retain compatibility it.

That said i really like the new graphics. And i think damage attenuation would work wonders there as well with the faded graphics. But neither should be in mediavp data .
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: MatthTheGeek on August 20, 2010, 09:27:50 am
^This sums up basically what I think too. Awesome to have in mods, potentially too mission-breaking to stay in the MVPs. A good solution would be to have it in a separate, optional VP ?

*MatthTheGeek has said all he had to say on this topic.

*MatthTheGeek watches from a safe distance his fellow HLPer continue to troll on this.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: BlackDove on August 20, 2010, 10:00:56 am
Holy ****, the Lucifer is dual wielding beam sabers.

No fading please.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Zacam on August 20, 2010, 11:56:37 am
K. Time for this to have a resolution post to it.

While I like a few of the changes to the beam effects, I think the dissipation effect should be more appropriately used as an outside edge width dissipation, not as a length dissipation.

As for the length, I was going to take the stance of "if it can be confirmed to break/kill an illegal Retail beam-fire sexp, but only visually, then we will correct the visual" but then I realized reading through that nobody will find any particular stance agreeable. And since this is not a case of making everybody happy, the Retail +Range values will be restored. What is really funny here though is that at one point in time, the beam-widths that the MediaVPs are using was breaking targeting acquisition on beam usage for where it would hit, but nobody seemed to notice until Wanderer fixed it.

The "fix" for this will be supplied along with corrections to the beamglow values (any body watching an Aeolus firing off in "Kings Gambit" knows what I mean). Though, if it turns out that the beamglow matches the retail size, then the only option there (for the Aeolus, Cain/Lilith and anything else I'm not mentioning), then the idea would be a variant (same range and damage etc) with a smaller beamglow so that it doesn't get minisculed on other ships using the same weapons.

Question regarding the non-static pulse type beams though (AAAF Beams, Slasher Beams), would the effect (the existing attenuation of the graphical effect) be seen as more appropriately used on those, as opposed to the unilateral usage they have now?
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: NGTM-1R on August 20, 2010, 12:30:41 pm
It still contains the potentional to break retail-designed missions with slash beams. The original example I cited from Derelict was of a slash beam using a fire-beam sexp. I honestly have no idea if AAAs adhere to the same 30km ceiling, but if they do, then we're back to the same stance as last time: if it could break a mission constructed in retail, it does not belong.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Woolie Wool on August 20, 2010, 02:20:28 pm
I agree with everyone who hates this effect. I really, really, really, really despise this effect, and there are of course the mission breaking concerns. If Fury wants to break other people's missions, he should just start an FS2 main campaign remake and leave FSU to people who actually care about the original game.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Mura on August 20, 2010, 02:56:01 pm
I'm divided here... i like how it looks when piercing a ship, but it looks silly when it misses, could there be a way to make it fade in the piercing?
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Droid803 on August 20, 2010, 03:11:42 pm
I'm divided here... i like how it looks when piercing a ship, but it looks silly when it misses, could there be a way to make it fade in the piercing?

That would be ideal, and it would fix all the concerns about breaking missions, and it'd only appear when it'd look the best :P
That'd probably be more of a code-side thing though, I'd imagine.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Mongoose on August 20, 2010, 04:16:03 pm
I still think it'd look rather silly to see the beam fading after punching through a dying ship.  I can't help but think all the way back to the FS2 trailer, and how awesome the Colossus's beams looked coming full-diameter out the back of a Shivan cruiser it had pummeled to shreds.  And anyway, from a "realistic" standpoint, that final beam-pierce shouldn't fade off like that, since there isn't really any matter standing in its way anymore.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Droid803 on August 20, 2010, 04:24:08 pm
Have it gradually grow in length to its full length as the blow-through progresses :drevil:
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Bobboau on August 22, 2010, 12:43:49 am
fun fact: beam fading has been hard coded as on for all beams for something like 7 years.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Droid803 on August 22, 2010, 12:52:18 am
Huh? at 30km yes?
We're discussing the new +Range: flag which reduces the effective range of all beams in the mediavps to just about their targeting range.

Clarification: the +Range: flag was newly added to the mediavps tables.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: General Battuta on August 22, 2010, 02:35:05 pm
fun fact: beam fading has been hard coded as on for all beams for something like 7 years.

Definitely not, at least not in the sense we're discussing; I believe I first saw it in TBP.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Mongoose on August 22, 2010, 04:23:06 pm
Man, I just played through the BP:AoA mission "Fallen Angel," and the Sathanas looks awful from long-range when firing all beams.  It's been emasculated. :(
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Dragon on August 22, 2010, 05:43:47 pm
Fade should be controllable and disabled by default.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Slasher on August 22, 2010, 07:11:39 pm
(http://www.starlight.com/images/SearchlightFX.jpg)

Early in-game screenshot from FS2 Open 3.6.13 coming Christmas 2010 with new and improved beam fade.*

* Actual graphics may or may not be represented by above image.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: MatthTheGeek on August 23, 2010, 02:49:18 am
Fade should be controllable and enabled by default.
Fix'd for you :D
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Woolie Wool on August 23, 2010, 09:47:57 am
However cool or uncool you think it is, if it has even the potential to break retail missions, it has no more business being in the mediavps than all-new ships or other mods. Because gameplay-changing effects like this are mods.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Bobboau on August 24, 2010, 03:39:41 am
so what we are discussing here in fact has nothing do do with fading at all, but beam range.

poorly named thread is poorly named.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: SypheDMar on August 24, 2010, 05:23:28 am
Well, the beam fade effect is screwin' with the range.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: X3N0-Life-Form on August 24, 2010, 05:45:48 am
Well at least it forced me to learn how to use tables to implement long range versions of basic beams.

No strong feelings at the moment.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: jr2 on August 24, 2010, 08:22:47 am
I think that those fading beams only really work well (visually) when they hit a ship and go across it, kind of what happens here:
(http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/2208/screen0258.png)

I also agree with the sentiments regarding backwards gameplay compatibility of mods.


That looks ... not FreeSpace.  Really cool, but not FreeSpace.  Beams =/= Lightsabers.  =/

EDIT:  Although fading to 30km might look both cool and FreeSpace.  If so, that would be FTW.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: blowfish on August 24, 2010, 08:28:01 am
Beams DO fade near 30 km currently.  It's just so far out that you don't see it.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Galemp on August 24, 2010, 09:00:30 am
Hmm. I was pro-fade, but I just realized this would nuke any chance of us having planetary-based beam weapons (faked by having a Mjolnir really far away in front of a planet bitmap.) They'd fade out before they hit the battlefield.

We need a compromise; a $Fade Distance:weapons table entry would be best.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: blowfish on August 24, 2010, 09:03:01 am
Planetary-based beam weapons can still work if you set their +Range values appropriately.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Fury on August 24, 2010, 09:03:10 am
Huh? For something like that you can just do a custom beam weapon table entry, which would be required anyway considering how far away you need to put the mjolnir or any other dummy ship with a turret. And +Range entry under $Beaminfo controls visual distance of the beam.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Bobboau on August 26, 2010, 12:53:26 pm
Well, the beam fade effect is screwin' with the range.

you've got that backwards, beam range effect is screwing with fading.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Renegade Paladin on August 26, 2010, 07:45:05 pm
The end has come.  Before the final jump, there was still a hope that it was only our ships or our nodes or our resources that they wanted, not our people, but now that hope is gone.  It slides out of subspace, enormous, engorged with a horrible power pulsating beneath its shining alien skin.  The Lucifer.

It glides lightly towards us.  It is not like a Terran vessel, bound by treaty and ideology and humanity.  It will not hesitate to take everything that we have, everything that we are.  There is nothing we can do but watch as it draws from its bottomless reserves, preparing to end us without thought or meaning.  Blasts of incomparable destruction stream forth from the the vessel's potent prongs, expending the energy of a thousand fusion weapons in a second.  The Emperor, watching from afar, intones the sacred royal funerary chant for his race's lost home. 

Then a miracle happens.  The impossible columns of death peter out a pathetic six kilometers from their points of origin, the energy dissipated long before reaching the furthest reaches of the atmosphere.  Vasuda Prime is saved by free space!  Elated sand eating bookies collect a surprising windfall of cash from gullible Terran gamblers, while the younger generation exchanges high-threes and fist-bups!

The destroyer hangs silently in the void, its glow maps turning a shade of green.  It broadcasts a short signal before slinking back into subspace, never to call again.  Years later a team of Terran and Vasudan cryptographers translate the Shivans' message as "Sorry, we've had a rough week.  You know, this happens to a lot of guys..."
:yes: :lol:
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Shivan Hunter on August 26, 2010, 07:54:03 pm
How did I miss that post?! Swashmebuckle wins the Internet.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Renegade Paladin on August 26, 2010, 08:44:59 pm
At any rate, I haven't tried it yet, but the thing that occurs to me that this is going to break (apart from the obvious of the MTD Auriga in Derelict) is Dilmah G's remake of Their Finest Hour, where the Colossus makes pinpoint beam strikes on a Sathanas' beam cannons from maximum range.  It'll just look ridiculous if the beams fade out and then the cannons blow up anyway.  Besides, beam weapons are supposed to be capable of orbital bombardment; if they flare out a mere few kilometers from the firing point in a vacuum, then the very concept of being able to glass a planet with them is absurd. 
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Snail on August 27, 2010, 08:41:51 pm
I think the point is if you want to achieve something like that go ahead and make a new tabled beam that has a longer +Range: defined.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Droid803 on August 27, 2010, 09:24:10 pm
Which is silly, since people didn't have to do that even with retail data.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: NGTM-1R on August 27, 2010, 11:12:56 pm
At any rate, I haven't tried it yet, but the thing that occurs to me that this is going to break (apart from the obvious of the MTD Auriga in Derelict)

Actually, it'd break at least three Derelict missions by my count. Possibly more; I can't recall whether the blockade against the Demon involves firing outside ranges.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Commander Zane on August 29, 2010, 07:53:20 am
I took a quick look into comparing the beam behavior between the No Mod FS2 and FS2 MediaVPs.

So I find out there is beam fading even when no mod is being used, but it does some really, immensely retarded stuff when being used at maximum (30km) range.
I was 30.5km from the target ship just to make sure that the beam would completely fade, which it did...until I pointed my ship at my target. At this point the beam suddenly extends itself that additional 500 meters to show the beam scratching at the hull (This damaged the target).

What. :wtf:

MediaVPs, the hit range for the beams are heavily cut down to 10km, but in this case, the beam isn't doing that go-go-gadget Extend-O Beam jabberwocky.

Obvious details for most, and my memory in missions that use beams at such ranges is rather poor, though I know the Auriga in Derelict does this, and the Vassago on VD (A custom beam however), but not much else that I can immediately think of.

Since I did this I sure as hell don't want the beams behaving like they originally do, since if I as much as see a beam grow to hit things beyond their intended range it will drive me bat**** insane, and the fact that beams now have short ranges isn't much to look at either. The beam fade distance does need to be higher, maybe 25km for compromise.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: blowfish on August 29, 2010, 10:53:46 am
Sure you didn't move closer to the target?  The beam length shouldn't be anything but constant, whether +Range is defined or not.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Commander Zane on August 29, 2010, 10:58:59 am
Why would I move to test beam ranges? That defeats the purpose of doing it at all.
I was completely stationary, with the exception of changing the orientation of my ship in order to go from missing the target to hitting it, I didn't move any closer to it by a micrometer, the beam then jumped 500 extra meters, when I pulled back up, the beam shrunk again.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: blowfish on August 29, 2010, 12:14:33 pm
How were you measuring this?
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Commander Zane on August 29, 2010, 12:20:54 pm
What?

I targeted a ship, flew 30,500 meters away (Beyond supposed maximum range).
I fired just above the ship on purpose, it faded 500 meters short from the ship.
I put my aim to the center of the ship, this time the beam was hitting it and the beam was visually hitting it.
Then I aimed below the ship as the beam was firing, and the beam suddenly shrunk back 500 meters again.
The view was from the target.

Not saying it again.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Droid803 on August 29, 2010, 12:39:01 pm
IMO that's fine, it makes sure that a fire-beam will always hit.
Which is good.
If you change it you risk breaking missions that worked with retail data! Which is bad. Very bad.

Or, it's just a behavior with player-fired beams (which didn't work in retail), and therefore is of no concern.

Test with a turret-mounted beam.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Commander Zane on August 29, 2010, 12:45:57 pm
How often does a mission actually use the 30km range with the Retail weapons?
Hell, I'd be fine with the beam fade the way it is, but fading at 30km.
The way it does it on Retail though is a mind****, it should not do that.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Droid803 on August 29, 2010, 12:50:54 pm
Now to think of it I don't think any mission uses 30km or more, but there are quite a number that go beyond the 6-10 km of the current mediavps beams.

So I guess if you really wanted to get rid of the extendobeam, it wouldn't break much? I donno, I guess a +Range: 30000 would do the trick.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: blowfish on August 29, 2010, 01:19:22 pm
Err, I have been entirely unable to replicate the behavior you mention.  Beams do fade visually approaching 30km, but they will do their full damage up to that range, and will do no damage beyond it, regardless of where they are pointed.

With +Range defined, the only difference should be that 30km becomes whatever the tabled range is.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: NGTM-1R on August 29, 2010, 05:49:55 pm
How often does a mission actually use the 30km range with the Retail weapons?

In retail? None.

In Derelict, a minimum of three.
In Homesick, a minimum of once.
Technological Superiority, dead as it is, used this trick, as have a number of other campaigns and demos that were designed for retail.

If you're breaking stuff that uses retail data, you're modding. The Upgrade is not a mod.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Kolgena on August 29, 2010, 08:04:30 pm
Could we at least temporarily get instructions on how to restore longer beams (without reverting to old MVPs)? It seems like this debate isn't going to end any time soon.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: General Battuta on August 29, 2010, 08:09:38 pm
you most make an update
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Kolgena on August 29, 2010, 08:15:37 pm
wat i don understand
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: blowfish on August 29, 2010, 08:45:28 pm
Could we at least temporarily get instructions on how to restore longer beams (without reverting to old MVPs)? It seems like this debate isn't going to end any time soon.

TBM attached.  A real patch (fixing some other things too) may be coming soon though, so remember to delete it when that happens.

Put it in mediavps_3612/data/tables

[attachment deleted by ninja]
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: CP5670 on August 29, 2010, 11:17:03 pm
I don't have any preference over the appearance either way, but this is a huge game breaker if it forces fire-beam to use the normal range values. I can think of several missions in PI as well as a number of multiplayer missions (including possibly a Volition one) that would get totally messed up by this. There are enough compatibility hassles with new MVP releases as it is without deliberately creating such problems.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: jr2 on August 30, 2010, 07:11:39 am
Eh, can this be fixed so that the beam fades as normal (whatever we eventually agree the "normal" range is) unless fire-beam is used, in which case it will fade to the distance of the target specified in fire-beam, if and only if fire-beam to target distance is longer than the normal max range (whatever that may turn out to be)?  This seems to be a reasonable compromise.

So:

beam-fade to normal max range unless
a) fire-beam is used AND
b) distance to target specified by fire-beam is more than the max range of the beam weapon
in which case beam-fade stretches to the range of the fire-beam target

Sound good?
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: blowfish on August 30, 2010, 08:35:05 am
That won't work without major code changes :doubtful:
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Sushi on August 30, 2010, 09:52:11 am
Eh, can this be fixed so that the beam fades as normal (whatever we eventually agree the "normal" range is) unless fire-beam is used, in which case it will fade to the distance of the target specified in fire-beam, if and only if fire-beam to target distance is longer than the normal max range (whatever that may turn out to be)?  This seems to be a reasonable compromise.

So:

beam-fade to normal max range unless
a) fire-beam is used AND
b) distance to target specified by fire-beam is more than the max range of the beam weapon
in which case beam-fade stretches to the range of the fire-beam target

Sound good?

+1 :yes: IMO this is the best solution, although it does require a code change. I don't suppose it's possible to ship a 3.6.12.1? :)
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Kolgena on August 30, 2010, 11:24:08 am
That would have the side effect of creating slinky beams. They would dynamically adapt to the target range, which could look odd if target distance changes rapidly. I'm thinking about long range Mjolnir beams + warp speed (120 m/s) destroyers. That, and I think it looks better to have a consistent beam length regardless of what it's shooting. I don't think beam turrets dynamically manage energy output based on target range anyway. (Actually, when Colossus shreds the 1st Sath after bear baiting, what range are those BFGreens shooting at?)

Wait, if you could tell it to check for hull intersection as well, that means we could have short range beam fades on piercing only. That would be quite badass but most likely hard to do.


Edit: Just saw blowfish's attached tbm. Thx!
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: CommanderDJ on September 09, 2010, 08:34:46 am
I haven't read through the whole thread, just posting my view on this.

Frankly, it looks REALLY BAD when a beam fades so much it's almost transparent and then it hits something and there's an explosion effect on the ship that appears to be coming out of nowhere. To me, it really destroys the "holy ****" factor that came with 30km beams (or however long they are). I don't mind the fading AFTER it pierces a dying ship, but beforehand, it ruins prettiness. I am completely against fading before ship piercing. Just my two cents.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Goober5000 on September 10, 2010, 03:12:34 pm
Add my voice to those who hate the new effect. :no:  In fact, when I finally got around to downloading the newest mediaVPs, the very first campaign I played was Derelict.  And I promptly ran into the issue NGTM-1R noted when I played the mission where a Sobek tries to disable a pirate corvette from long range.

This is aside from the fact that visually, the effect looks ridiculous.  It's well-established in FreeSpace that beams are precisely controlled photons, therefore they automatically have infinite length, at least visibly.  Light doesn't magically stop after a certain distance.

And a point nobody has mentioned yet is that this effect doesn't even follow its own rules.  When energy disperses at a distance, it widens.  It does not narrow.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: BlackDove on September 10, 2010, 04:54:20 pm
Who's idea was it to include this by the way?

Any why?
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: General Battuta on September 10, 2010, 04:55:50 pm
It was added to Blue Planet: War in Heaven's tables during development because some elements of the team disliked 30km beams. When the Blue Planet visual effects became a large portion of the 3.6.12 MVPs, the fade was ported over as well. This was not a good thing.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: BlackDove on September 11, 2010, 04:43:44 am
Sounds like some protocol should be created so as to control what goes into the Media VP's.

Because this is really... as you said, "not a good thing".
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: General Battuta on September 11, 2010, 09:42:01 am
Sounds like some protocol should be created so as to control what goes into the Media VP's.

Usually the protocol is a combination of 'common sense' and 'does not break missions'. However Fury believed that the MVPs were only responsible to maintain compatibility with retail campaigns, not mods.

I believe that has been corrected.

It's worth noting that beam fade has already been removed from Blue Planet's beams, so hopefully the MVPs follow suit.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: The E on September 11, 2010, 09:57:08 am
They were removed from the FSU SVN some time ago.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Fury on September 15, 2010, 03:51:49 am
Usually the protocol is a combination of 'common sense' and 'does not break missions'. However Fury believed that the MVPs were only responsible to maintain compatibility with retail campaigns, not mods.

I believe that has been corrected.

It's worth noting that beam fade has already been removed from Blue Planet's beams, so hopefully the MVPs follow suit.
I would appreciate if you do not try to speak for me, since it usually turns out to be wrong or taken out of context.

When merging of BP effects into mediavps took place, I did not even once think of beam ranges or fading thereof. Yes, you may call that an oversight or a mistake, but when you incorporate large changes like that, you rely on feedback of beta testers and involved staffers. The mediavps were tested over several weeks and I received only one response over beam ranges and that was from Axem concerning AAA beams, which was addressed.

If you want to blame someone for beam ranges, you can blame all people involved in beta-testing and development of mediavps. What I think about mediavps and supporting mods, is irrelevant to issue at hand. The fact is that nobody bothered to remind me or anyone else involved in the process that those beam ranges may cause problems or that they don't like it, aside of one issue with AAA beams reported by Axem.

I was in charge of implementing BP effects into mediavps. I did just that, nothing more nothing less. You can keep blaming me all you want, but you really should look into the big picture and who's responsible of what. Beta-testing or development process of mediavps is not my responsibility and never was.

During development of AoA, only Battuta ever voiced his dislike for the beam ranges. The range was never changed back to retail due to overruling by majority vote or Darius. Battuta actually brought up the issue multiple times, but no change was made because he couldn't get support for it. But I guess he finally found a way to get that support he lacked during BP development. It was cleverly played out really, since he even succeeded in getting them removed from BP apparently. Well played, Battuta. You finally got what you wanted even if it took this long.

I spent a lot of time on these mediavps, was thanked only by Zacam and the rest I get for it is a bucketload of ****. Here's a newsflash for you, don't take such work for granted. There are people who make visual effects, models, textures, stuff you can see. And then there are people who put it all together into something you can actually play. The latter crowd hardly ever get any thanks, people take them and their work for granted while the first crowd get "oohs" and "aahs" at every opportunity. Yet it is the latter crowd who shoulder the largest responsibility. Nobody remembers them, probably assuming a mod simply assembles itself via magic.

The bottom line is, development of a mod, even mediavps is shared responsibility and a lot of you come out as ungrateful jerks who never see anything but the small picture in front of your long noses.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: General Battuta on September 15, 2010, 07:25:29 am
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to blame you, that was genuinely my impression of how events played out.

It's a relatively trivial visual effect, not something worth getting too agitated over - or worth conspiring elaborately over either.

You shouldn't take this as a personal attack, I don't think anyone here is anything but grateful to you for your work. And I also believe I've spent many words praising you for all your hard work, both to your face and behind your back.

I have never tried to make this a personal issue about you.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: chief1983 on September 15, 2010, 01:20:07 pm
This is aside from the fact that visually, the effect looks ridiculous.  It's well-established in FreeSpace that beams are precisely controlled photons, therefore they automatically have infinite length, at least visibly.  Light doesn't magically stop after a certain distance.

If the beam was precisely controlled photons, you'd never see the beam because the photons would be traveling to the target, not your eyes.  If you're seeing the beam, it's because energy is being dissipated outward from the beam along its length, meaning at some point the beam would indeed lose both energy and intensity.  Assuming the beam actually behaves logically on any physical level.

You don't see laser beams, you see what they reflect from.  Beams must be something other than aligned photons.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Goober5000 on September 15, 2010, 01:26:31 pm
If the beam was precisely controlled photons, you'd never see the beam because the photons would be traveling to the target, not your eyes.  If you're seeing the beam, it's because energy is being dissipated outward from the beam along its length, meaning at some point the beam would indeed lose both energy and intensity.  Assuming the beam actually behaves logically on any physical level.

You don't see laser beams, you see what they reflect from.  Beams must be something other than aligned photons.
Yes, I'm aware of that, but Rule of Cool (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfCool) and Rule of Perception (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfPerception) dictate that we must see the beam. ;)  You can no more draw a conclusion from that than you can draw a conclusion from explosions having sounds in space.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: chief1983 on September 15, 2010, 01:32:20 pm
If you're going more by that than by science, then we can make them dissipate, fade, or widen, whatever looks cooler, without regard to science.  You just negated your previous argument :P

Where is it said that the beams are aligned photons anyway?
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: General Battuta on September 15, 2010, 01:33:01 pm
If the beam was precisely controlled photons, you'd never see the beam because the photons would be traveling to the target, not your eyes.  If you're seeing the beam, it's because energy is being dissipated outward from the beam along its length, meaning at some point the beam would indeed lose both energy and intensity.  Assuming the beam actually behaves logically on any physical level.

You don't see laser beams, you see what they reflect from.  Beams must be something other than aligned photons.
Yes, I'm aware of that, but Rule of Cool (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfCool) and Rule of Perception (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfPerception) dictate that we must see the beam. ;)  You can no more draw a conclusion from that than you can draw a conclusion from explosions having sounds in space.

I prefer the magnetically confined plasma theory because it allows you to **** around with stuff like beam jamming with slightly more plausibility.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: chief1983 on September 15, 2010, 01:44:31 pm
Yeah something plasma related always made more sense to me.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Rga_Noris on September 15, 2010, 02:14:25 pm
They're made of magic and cinnamon.

Duh.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Goober5000 on September 15, 2010, 08:44:53 pm
If you're going more by that than by science, then we can make them dissipate, fade, or widen, whatever looks cooler, without regard to science.  You just negated your previous argument :P
wat

Then let me fall back on Occam's Razor in its original form, "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity".  If the beam must be visible, let it behave normally in all other respects. :nervous:

Quote
Where is it said that the beams are aligned photons anyway?
"Power up photon beam cannon"?
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Delta_V on September 15, 2010, 09:50:52 pm
Vasudan beams are definitely referred to as photon beams, but, if I remember right, Terran beams were referred to as plasma at least once.  Of course, this doesn't really make sense, because they are both derived from the Lucifer's beams, so you would expect them to be similar in basic function, if not execution.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Solatar on September 15, 2010, 09:55:03 pm
A case can be made for Vasudan's being plasma. "Commence plasma core insertion".

I feel it's all technobabble.  They look cool and kill stuff.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: sigtau on September 15, 2010, 10:40:38 pm
I feel it's all technobabble.  They look cool and kill stuff.

^ That.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Kolgena on September 15, 2010, 10:45:13 pm
That plasma releases photons, which kill stuff.

All of it depends on a sophisticated subspace/phlebotinum array though.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: General Battuta on September 15, 2010, 11:24:02 pm
Quote
Where is it said that the beams are aligned photons anyway?
"Power up photon beam cannon"?

Just like photon torpedoes are made of photons, right?

HA
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: MatthTheGeek on September 16, 2010, 01:00:48 am
ZING

Technobabble iz babble.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: pecenipicek on September 16, 2010, 01:59:40 am
no offense to anyone, but why is this thread even open anymore? the vote is intensely in the "i hate beam fade" camp.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: General Battuta on September 16, 2010, 07:31:26 am
no offense to anyone, but why is this thread even open anymore? the vote is intensely in the "i hate beam fade" camp.

It's already out of the MVPs SVN.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: The E on September 16, 2010, 07:33:27 am
On that note, lock0red.
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: Goober5000 on September 17, 2010, 01:03:16 am
Photon torpedos emit photons. :ha:
Title: Re: Beam fade poll
Post by: General Battuta on September 17, 2010, 08:13:15 am
Photon torpedos emit photons. :ha:

So do beams! :ha: