Hard Light Productions Forums

Community Projects => The FreeSpace Upgrade Project => Topic started by: Hades on July 15, 2011, 10:04:36 pm

Title: Beam Sizing
Post by: Hades on July 15, 2011, 10:04:36 pm
EDIT: Please see THIS POST (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=77109.msg1531920#msg1531920) before Voting!


Sup. Just as the poll and title suggest, and I'll post pictures for reference, as any released version of mine are outdated.
Retail-sizing
Sgreen:
(http://meta.filesmelt.com/downloader.php?file=sgreen.jpg)
Bgreen:
(http://filesmelt.com/dl/bgreen.jpg)
TerSlash:
(http://filesmelt.com/dl/terslash.jpg)
lTerSlash:
(http://filesmelt.com/dl/lterslash.jpg)
Sizing for all races is pretty much the same.

Hades-Sizing
Sgreen:
(http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm56/HLPHades/FreeSpace%20Shots/screen0063.png)
bgreen:
(http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm56/HLPHades/FreeSpace%20Shots/screen0068.png)
Terslash:
(http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm56/HLPHades/FreeSpace%20Shots/screen0066.png)
lterslash:
(http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm56/HLPHades/FreeSpace%20Shots/screen0069.png)
vslash:
(http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm56/HLPHades/FreeSpace%20Shots/screen0064.png)
bvas:
(http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm56/HLPHades/FreeSpace%20Shots/screen0061.png)
lred:
(http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm56/HLPHades/FreeSpace%20Shots/screen0060.png)
(from Lucifer)
(http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm56/HLPHades/FreeSpace%20Shots/screen0048.png)
sred:
(http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm56/HLPHades/FreeSpace%20Shots/screen0058.png)

I'll need to try and get/find pictures for each beam on each size.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: sigtau on July 15, 2011, 10:10:34 pm
I hear so many complains about the resizes, and I say they ('they' being the new beams you have here) ought to be retained.  The resizes look fine, Hades. :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Droid803 on July 15, 2011, 10:16:14 pm
I like everything except the BGreen, which looks fine under the regular settings IMO. Bigass hoking inefficient beam it was.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Qent on July 15, 2011, 10:16:42 pm
I prefer Retail size for two reasons: First, big beamz are awsum no matter how ridiculous (lol Lilith). Second, it is better for visual compatibility with mods that assume Retail sizes.

Still, nice work, it looks great. :)
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: NGTM-1R on July 15, 2011, 10:29:51 pm
I think you went a little too far shrinking the glows, but I can bear it.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Hades on July 15, 2011, 10:31:53 pm
A little reminder, can people actually vote in the polls too? They're there for a reason. :P

I think you went a little too far shrinking the glows, but I can bear it.
Well, it was meant for the beam to flow out from the glow, instead of the glow looking, well, irrelevant to the beam as it did in previous mvp versions.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Mars on July 15, 2011, 11:12:51 pm
A applaud this. It always seemed strange that the LTerSlash looked quite similar to the TerSlash.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: bigchunk1 on July 15, 2011, 11:25:13 pm
This is just my straight up opinion, but certain large ship beams as well as slash beams ought to maintain their retail size.

The way freespace2 was, capital ships had a feeling about being large, and when you were in a battle you were part of something important. The size of the capship beams (corvette and up) were meant to dwarf your fighter and make you feel small. 'Let the warships do their job, you do yours' kind of a feel. I think this kind of feeling is important, and part of what sets freespace2 appart from freespace1 or, say the Descent series.

Particularly for slash beams, they make wild swipes at their target which cause damage to a large area of a target ship. With retail sized beams you have an impression of this effect as the massive stream of plasma dances along its destructive path. This sort of attack used to instill fear in me when I was in middle school, when I played the fs2 mission 'The great Hunt' for the first time.

When playing the fs2 campaign with these updated mediavps, you can really see the difference. Missions such as: 'surrender belisarius', 'feint... parry... respite...', 'High Noon', and 'Their Finest Hour' all have their most dramatic moments augmented.
(http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x380/Brandon_Rehayem/BeamTables1.png)

The new mediavp widths are an interesting change, putting an emphasis on precision and density, but from the perspective of someone who more or less grew up to this game, they have a very unfreespace like feel to them. I advise restoring retail beam widths or at least an update which compromises by restoring the beam widths of larger vessels. I am currently experimenting with potentially new table values that do the ladder.

Lastly, respect to Hades for posting this topic and being open to opinions about his work.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Kolgena on July 15, 2011, 11:46:42 pm
I have to agree that the beam glows need to be bigger. It's decidedly freespacy to have a giant glob of energy being channeled into a smaller-sized beam. It's a little strange (almost looks uprooted) to have cores almost the same width as the beam. Part of it also has to do with the fact that bigger beam glows almost suggest a lens flare/corona-like effect, where everything white is not all plasma, but a lighting "effect".

Vasudan beams seemed to have gotten bigger. Whether or not that's true, they look good in the resizes.

Personally, I think terslash, bgreen, and bred need to be thicker, so I do look forward to what bigchunk comes up with. That's just me though. Sgreen and lterslash are _massive_ improvements.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Hades on July 16, 2011, 12:28:16 am
Actually, all beams got smaller, even the Vasudan ones. Also bigchunk1, I've been playing both games since I was six, just by the way.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Kobrar44 on July 16, 2011, 02:38:34 am
IMNHO, Sgreen looks better in Hades' version, but, for instance, TerSlash looks better in retail scaling. Every beam should be treated individually.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Asteroth on July 16, 2011, 02:57:09 am
I prefer the retail sizes,  the beams seem too small not only for their damage, but especially their sound implies something somewhat more impressive looking. If you wanted different sized beams a simple table edit would suffice.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Dragon on July 16, 2011, 04:24:52 am
BGreen and BFRed, most likely also other "B" and larger beams should stay closer to "retail" size. Slashers should be shrunk, but not as much.
Also, I have a feeling that 3.6.10 Mediavps sized the beams up from real retail size, due to new bitmaps.
I think that on every beam, it should be attempted to bring it close to retail "feeling".
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Angelus on July 16, 2011, 07:15:05 am
Hades sizing.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Kolgena on July 16, 2011, 08:53:15 am
There should probably be a third voting option, which is "Conditional (See my post)", rather than just all or nothing.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: MatthTheGeek on July 16, 2011, 09:16:55 am
Retail sizing. Definitely. No discussion possible. Not gonna enter the troll feeding any more than that.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Rodo on July 16, 2011, 09:25:11 am
Rodo has voted.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Nyctaeus on July 16, 2011, 09:37:59 am
Retail sizing, maybe a little bit smaller. Hades' beams are too small in my opinion. Looks weak, especialy strong beams like BFRed or BGreen.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Lester on July 16, 2011, 09:38:09 am
Retail sizing except for the SGreen. That thing looks plain stupid.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Vertigo 7 on July 16, 2011, 09:40:55 am
they've been fine for years, leave em be.

*edit for clarity

Since posting on topic is confusing for some people. The beams don't need to be altered. I've enjoyed them the way they are for many years. The proposed size of beams will take away prosepctive and not add to the game in a postive manner.

In other words:

Quote
they've been fine for years, leave em be.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Droid803 on July 16, 2011, 10:57:04 am
I do hope that the SGreen is changed no matter what happens. The retail one looks retarded.
And its a piss weak beam anyway (lol absolutely **** DPS), so looking dinky is fine.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Spoon on July 16, 2011, 11:26:31 am
I'm the only one that voted Snuffleupagus? This topic must be srz bzn!

I do hope that the SGreen is changed no matter what happens. The retail one looks retarded.
And its a piss weak beam anyway (lol absolutely **** DPS), so looking dinky is fine.
The beam itself does good damage, the **** dps comes from its absurd fire wait time. So that's no reason for it to look dinky
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Hades on July 16, 2011, 11:28:58 am
It only does 2,888 damage per pulse which is pretty wimpy. Even if the fire wait was cut down to svas levels of around 25 seconds, it'd still be a fairly crap beam. Also, try voting something else, as I will not allow a snufflepagus option be on my poll since people tend to only vote it when it's there.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Zacam on July 16, 2011, 11:35:05 am

Added (a bit late) the "Snuffleupagus" option. Shame on you for missing that Hades (Or, better, an alternative for people to register that they've expressed a posted opinion or mixed opinion, rather than an "all or nothing"). (I also probably would have sorted the images in such a was as to show old/new directly in compare to each other, but that's probably just me.)

So, it seems to be relatively neck-and-neck on the opinions. I do see that a lot of people are, at the very least, comfortable with the change to the SGreen, with all the others being the biggest points of debate.

It also seems, to me, that the beams that most people have an issue with are the bigger ship beams, potentially specifically in regards to the Shivan "Awe and Terror" inspiring aspect.

I'll be running a check based on the Retail Weapons.tbl and viewing what the max beam width was for each section and seeing if there is any adjustments that can be made. I will collaborate on these changes with both Hades and bigchunk1 as well as posting "testing" WIPs. I'll also be making sure to test on current Nightlies as well as Valathil's newer Enhanced Beam Lighting builds.

The other factor to bear in mind, is not only the size of the beams themselves, but also the size and scaling of the beam-glows as well in relation to them. And the fact that, at the current moment, it is not possible to have -a- beam scale itself based on what size ship it is mounted to.

To address the mention 3.6.10 beams: I would like to advise that people not revert to those. A: they were actually larger than Retail beams, and worse yet, they were re-sized in such a way that they altered the AI calculations for determining targeting and hit locations. 3.6.12 allowed for the ability to adjust the beam section size widths without altering the targeting/fov.

Addendum: Also, while I love the work that VA did on our beam graphics, now would also be an ideal time if anybody can think or come up with any alternatives. Obviously, changing the colors is out of the question, but how those colors mix, the graphics used and the order they are mixed in are all vital components to a beams appearance. I know that up until recently, Shivan beams had a bit of an issue (due to inverted additive blending) that made them pinkish/purple, but if anybody happens to feel they are not red enough or so, or if the various Green type beams should have better distinction (while still being Green), then I'm all ears (and eyes).
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: jr2 on July 16, 2011, 11:41:26 am
A little reminder, can people actually vote in the polls too? They're there for a reason. :P

I think you went a little too far shrinking the glows, but I can bear it.
Well, it was meant for the beam to flow out from the glow, instead of the glow looking, well, irrelevant to the beam as it did in previous mvp versions.

I agree with NGTM-1R... remember, the glow effect has particles flowing into it... it's like there is some sort of weird reaction visibly noticeable between whatever generates the beam and subspace or something.  :nervous:  So Iyeah I think the glows need to be shrunk, but not that much.... it's not a lightsaber.  ;)

EDIT: BTW I voted Hades sizing as there is a lack of a third option.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Spoon on July 16, 2011, 12:18:17 pm
I'll be the first to vote the mixed reaction option then!

I feel each beam should be looked at individually, big beams can be retail big. Cruiser beams can be hades small
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Commander Zane on July 16, 2011, 12:55:45 pm

or if the various Green type beams should have better distinction (while still being Green), then I'm all ears (and eyes).

This would be good I think, in the same way that the BFRed is pure red and white while the other beams have that faint purple / pink blending, having maybe a minute trace of blue (Not so much that it becomes cyan), as I recall some 3.6.8 beams used.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Kolgena on July 16, 2011, 01:55:39 pm
@ Spoon: That works for the most part, except when we talk about the Lilith and the LRed. I think it should be kept huge, since the Lilith is basically a mobile Mjolnir.

Speaking of which, I'd prefer if mjolnir beams got treated as if it were retail size or similar. Sure, the beam glow is the size of the sentry gun, but I like to think that those spinny bits actually do something, like contain the massive ball of plasma that is generated at its tip.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Mongoose on July 16, 2011, 02:00:11 pm
I went with the mixed reaction myself.  There are certain situations, like the forward slash beams on the Deimos/Sobek and most cruiser beams, where I think the shrinking works well, since the larger sizes tended to overwhelm half of the ship when they fired.  However, I also feel like the destroyer-caliber beams need to be kept bigger, by virtue of the raw power output that they represent.  That shot bigchunk posted of the Sathanas looks nothing short of anemic...the BFRed needs to be as "BF" as the name suggests.  Even the Big/Large variants should stay on the bigger side...while the LRed did look a bit goofy on the Lilith in particular, I think that look actually worked for it, since the Lilith essentially mounts a super-overpowered beam on a ship that you'd never expect it from.  It's a shame that we can't define beam sizes on a per-ship basis, since that would give much more control over what's appearing where.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: pecenipicek on July 16, 2011, 02:03:56 pm
Retail sizing. Definitely. No discussion possible. Not gonna enter the troll feeding any more than that.
I agree.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Timerlane on July 16, 2011, 02:08:01 pm
I voted Hades, but do think/agree that the biggest beams could stand to be a little oversized. IMO, the Sathanas should carry a certain amount of shock and awe when it powers up the BFReds, and to a perhaps lesser extent the Colly when it overcharges its BGreens into BFGreens(yes, technically LRBGreens :P ).
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Commander Zane on July 16, 2011, 02:57:04 pm
Even the Big/Large variants should stay on the bigger side...while the LRed did look a bit goofy on the Lilith in particular, I think that look actually worked for it, since the Lilith essentially mounts a super-overpowered beam on a ship that you'd never expect it from.  It's a shame that we can't define beam sizes on a per-ship basis, since that would give much more control over what's appearing where.
I think the resized LRed fits on the Lilith very well going by the screen, the beam is contained within the ends of the two arms, and the beam remains fairly large compared to the rest of the ship itself.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Hades on July 16, 2011, 03:46:18 pm
Speaking of which, I'd prefer if mjolnir beams got treated as if it were retail size or similar. Sure, the beam glow is the size of the sentry gun, but I like to think that those spinny bits actually do something, like contain the massive ball of plasma that is generated at its tip.
No. I will never, ever let the Mjolnir return to the old size, it was worse than the sgreen. It didn't even look as if the spinny bits contained the ball since you couldn't actually see them when it fired

(http://filesmelt.com/dl/screen00361.png)
In this picture, the beam is still big, it's at least 50, if not much more, meters in diameter, but it's big enough yet small enough to look as if it's contained by the spinny bits. I still need to make the beam itself (but not the outside haze part) larger.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Qent on July 16, 2011, 03:53:32 pm
No. I will never, ever let the Mjolnir return to the old size
Do you speak for FSU in this matter? The way you said it it sounds like that's the case. Just curious, not accusatory or anything.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: pecenipicek on July 16, 2011, 04:17:03 pm
No. I will never, ever let the Mjolnir return to the old size
Do you speak for FSU in this matter? The way you said it it sounds like that's the case. Just curious, not accusatory or anything.
Hades, sorry about this, but it has to be said, you have a serious case of not listening to others. Your opinion is NOT fact. You DO NOT decide how the beams will look like in the end. You can put in the effort to make them smaller, to make them leaner, not "glaring balls of whiteout boom", whatever. But please, DO NOT push your opinion on to others, DO NOT state your opinion as if it were universal fact, and above all, please DO NOT go rageing over this again.

You done good there, kiddo. But accept the fact that some of us want our "HUGEASS BEAMS OF DOOM!", and that we wont trade them for anything in our lives :p
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Hades on July 16, 2011, 04:46:54 pm
Hades, sorry about this, but it has to be said, you have a serious case of not listening to others. Your opinion is NOT fact. You DO NOT decide how the beams will look like in the end. You can put in the effort to make them smaller, to make them leaner, not "glaring balls of whiteout boom", whatever. But please, DO NOT push your opinion on to others, DO NOT state your opinion as if it were universal fact, and above all, please DO NOT go rageing over this again.

You done good there, kiddo. But accept the fact that some of us want our "HUGEASS BEAMS OF DOOM!", and that we wont trade them for anything in our lives :p
Waaah waaaah waaaah because I don't agree with you. I was listening, that's why I'm making the beam bigger, durr durr durr. I didn't state my opinion as fact, nor did I push it on others in a way to try to change theirs. I don't put 'IMO' in front of everything just to please you, dumbass. Nor do I expect anyone else to either, it's implied that it is an opinion, and I don't see you yelling at anyone else for it, you huge, double-standard prick.

EDIT: Okay, I went a little bit over the top due to something else that happened that really upset me, but the point stands. I don't see you yelling at anyone else for what you yelled at me for, and there are tons of people who do it. Extremely sorry, pecenpicek.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: mjn.mixael on July 16, 2011, 05:03:22 pm
Here we go again...

Let's keep this civil please?
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Dragon on July 16, 2011, 05:08:46 pm
IMHO, glow on Mijolnir could use an increase in size, so the "main glow" part would touch the outer ring (about 1.3 to 1.5 of the current size). And of course, beam resized accordnigly.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: bigchunk1 on July 16, 2011, 05:15:39 pm
Yes, please do not turn this into an Ad hominem(fixed) thread. Debate the issue, not the person. It's difficult to make progress otherwise.

I made a test mission to illustrate the difference between beam size updates.
Mvp3612:
(http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x380/Brandon_Rehayem/BTMVP2.png)
Retail: Mvp pre3612
(http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x380/Brandon_Rehayem/BTR2.png)

You can get the mission here (http://www.mediafire.com/?ydjiw72chew0acx). Feel free to play around with it to see all the beams animated in game. The table with the size change is in the MV_Effects.3612.vp in the mediavps3612 folder. You can temporarily rename or move it to see the difference.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Dragon on July 16, 2011, 05:18:08 pm
Ad hominem, not ad homonim. [/latin nazi]  :)
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: mjn.mixael on July 16, 2011, 05:22:24 pm
My two cents.

Make sure when you are comparing to retail, that you are truly comparing to retail and not older MediaVPs. Word around town is that 3.6.10 beams were much larger than retail.

EDIT: Also, I'm pretty sure the MediaVPs effects vs retail effects make a noticeable difference in visible size. The point being that simply turning of the resizes in the tables probably won't give you an accurate view of what retail looked like. You should switch to the retail effects as well.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Commander Zane on July 16, 2011, 05:24:15 pm
That is a very significant difference in sizes once you actually see every single beam in the same place all at once.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: mjn.mixael on July 16, 2011, 05:27:38 pm
I would like to see that screen comparison again, except this time with just retail (not MediaVPs effects).
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: bigchunk1 on July 16, 2011, 05:46:27 pm
Mvp3612:
(http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x380/Brandon_Rehayem/BTMVP2.png)
Retail:
(http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x380/Brandon_Rehayem/BTR3.png)
Mvp pre-3612:
(http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x380/Brandon_Rehayem/BTR2.png)
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Hades on July 16, 2011, 05:59:35 pm
Yeah, as you can tell, my beams are mostly the same size to retail, aside from the glows, and in the latest updates in the FSU SVN (not released), some are bigger...

I can't help but laugh now at everyone saying that they miss the retail's size when it's been right there the whole time.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Kolgena on July 16, 2011, 06:34:13 pm
The thickness of the white part (which is mostly what determines apparent beam thickness, since the rest of it is haze/glare) is still thicker in true retail than in yours, which is why lots of us FEEL that the beams got skimpier. Also note that the beam glows themselves are pretty consistent between retail and 3.6.10. They're legit balls of plasma, and not something that looks like a muzzle flash.

But yeah, you're mostly right. The 3.6.10 beams are wtf huge compared to retail. Much more than I thought, at least.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Hades on July 16, 2011, 06:37:27 pm
The thickness of the white part (which is mostly what determines apparent beam thickness, since the rest of it is haze/glare) is still thicker in true retail than in yours, which is why lots of us FEEL that the beams got skimpier. Also note that the beam glows themselves are pretty consistent between retail and 3.6.10. They're legit balls of plasma, and not something that looks like a muzzle flash.

But yeah, you're mostly right. The 3.6.10 beams are wtf huge compared to retail. Much more than I thought, at least.
Actually, the only beams, judging from the above shot, that have while in the middle that differs in mine are the Shivan beams, which I'll admit are a little smaller, though they've gotten bigger since any last released tables of my resized beams.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: mjn.mixael on July 16, 2011, 06:39:43 pm
Yeah, I need to agree with Hades here. The reds coming off the Sath seem to be the only ones I would question, the rest look nearly identical in size. The Vasudan ones look different since we actually have them colored and not all white.

Hades should note how, contrary to his suspicions, I don't shoot down everything he does...
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Skarab on July 16, 2011, 07:21:49 pm
If you did shoot it down, how thick would the beam be?  Hopefully not as thick as the cables on the mainhall... that'd just be overkill.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: bigchunk1 on July 16, 2011, 07:29:34 pm
Yeah, as you can tell, my beams are mostly the same size to retail, aside from the glows, and in the latest updates in the FSU SVN (not released), some are bigger...

I can't help but laugh now at everyone saying that they miss the retail's size when it's been right there the whole time.

Why not just restore retail data then?


Maybe the difference is in the way the beams are colored. Retail is more or less solid, while mediavps have an outer core and an inner core. From the 3612 table, some inner cores are a little as 3 meters thick, while the outer cores are more wispy and dark. Maybe my mind's eye focuses on the inner core. which makes the beams appear more thin than they used to be.

Also there is still a noticeable difference in the bulb that forms at the turret end.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Mongoose on July 16, 2011, 07:36:53 pm
Heh, it's crazy how much those 3.6.10 VPs have affected all of our perceptions. :p I think the previous MediaVP versions were probably similar to those as well, though, which means we've become used to seeing those sizes over the past few years.  In light of that retail shot, most of the beams look pretty good as-is, with maybe only the BFRed needing a bit of a bump.  I agree with taking another look at the glows, since I think the smaller size on them when compared to retail is a big part of the perception that the beams themselves are too small.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: mjn.mixael on July 16, 2011, 07:39:55 pm
Why not just restore retail data then?

Maybe the difference is in the way the beams are colored. Retail is more or less solid, while mediavps have an outer core and an inner core. From the 3612 table, some inner cores are a little as 3 meters thick, while the outer cores are more wispy and dark. Maybe my mind's eye focuses on the inner core. which makes the beams appear more thin than they used to be.

Also there is still a noticeable difference in the bulb that forms at the turret end.

You can't be serious..

The Mvps effects look far better than the retail effects....

If you did shoot it down, how thick would the beam be?  Hopefully not as thick as the cables on the mainhall... that'd just be overkill.

Wha.. Why... I... Hmmm... Yeah...
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: bigchunk1 on July 16, 2011, 07:49:28 pm
I mean retail beam size data in the tables, of course.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Zacam on July 16, 2011, 08:09:36 pm

bigchunk1: They are. Many of our sections for $Section: +BeamWidth: are actually even BIGGER than the Retail settings.
And you can't compare $Section: to $Section. We have more of them and they are sorted differently to mix the effects for blending and layering.

In short: The complaint was that the MediaVPs beams needed to be "more Retail". Well, apparently, they already are.

We are not reverting the beam-glow warm-up/cool-down to Retail. And I see no point in having them look like the 3.6.10, which would be over-sized compared to the Retail sized beams. That said, we seem to have reached a consensus that the beams off the Sathanas arms could use a slight tweak, which will be accomplished.

More than happy to play around with some of the section widths to make a few minor modifications (and make the smaller Shivan beams a little more Red while we are at it), but the -original- complaint is now shown to be null and void, so I'm satisfied that we were able to pre-emptively accomplish it. FSU: Now with Moar Psychic!
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Asteroth on July 16, 2011, 08:39:30 pm
I think it should be noted that when some people said "I prefer retail sizes as opposed to Hades sizes" they may have meant MVP sizes by 'retail', especially since the poll choices are retail and Hades, and not MVP and Hades. There seems to be a fair amount of miscommunication because of this.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Zacam on July 16, 2011, 08:45:34 pm

If people confused 3.6.10 (or earlier) sizes with "Retail", that can be an understandable POV.

However, if people want a restoration of the 3.6.10 sizes, aesthetically, I can't readily agree to that.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: bigchunk1 on July 16, 2011, 09:05:46 pm
But they are not the same, that's the entire point. I tried to make a facetious remark about changing something that does not need to be changed and it backfired. I am concerned now with the realization that a beam with a wide dark outer section looks like a thinner beam compared to one with a full core, like what retail was. As Zacam and Mjn both remarked, the game changed when the beam sections were changed.

Please also check the BFgreen. The beam went off late and I didn't catch it in the screen but it is quite thin. The Bgreen and Bred could also use a look.


...
We are not reverting the beam-glow warm-up/cool-down to Retail.
...

Why not? This is as noticable as any other part of the beam.

I would prefer not to shut this conversation down in a single post, or at least so quickly. It's kind of important.  ;7

Edit: grammar
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Zacam on July 16, 2011, 09:53:14 pm
Quote from: #hard-light
Jul 16 [19:13:15] <bigchunk1> Why not?!
Jul 16 [19:13:17] <bigchunk1> http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=77109.40
Jul 16 [19:13:36] <Zacam> Gimme a moment, and I'll answer.
Jul 16 [19:24:11] * BW_ ([email protected]) has joined #hard-light
Jul 16 [19:32:16] <Zacam> K. By the beam glow warm-up, what I mean is that we are not returning back to the Retail version of the effect, and the effect that we have currently will be appropriately scaled to the beam size of the beam it is firing. As for why we are not reverting to previous MediaVPs sizes, because it's ugly. As for "the beam looks thinner cause the white core is skinnier", that is irrelevant. +BeamWidth: for damage and targeting is already set to the Largest
Jul 16 [19:32:16] <Zacam> Retail section width, so the visible effect of either the core or the haze is irrelevant to the damage. That being said, the aformentioned beams (EG: The Sathanas, BFGreen and Mjolnir beam) will be investigated and adjusted if deemed necessary by consensus.
Jul 16 [19:34:59] <bigchunk1> "the effect that we have currently will be appropriately scaled to the beam size of the beam it is firing" what do you mean by this? 3612 size or retail size?
Jul 16 [19:36:59] <Zacam> I mean that the warm up "bulb" size will be sized to the scale of the beam so that there is a seamless transition of one to the other. Also keep in mind that for the shivan beams specifically, the Retail beams used the thruster-glow effect and scaled it well past the durable size of the actual projected beam.
Jul 16 [19:37:24] <bigchunk1> 3612 or retail?
Jul 16 [19:37:45] <bigchunk1> So you mean 3612 stays?
Jul 16 [19:38:49] <Zacam> Considering that the 3.6.10 warmup/beam-glow was scaled to the beam size, but over all both were larger than retail, the .12 beams -for the beam section widths- are the same as retail, and so the scaling of the beam glows will match to the beams themselves.
Jul 16 [19:39:34] <bigchunk1> Lol, I can't decrypt you to get the answer I want
Jul 16 [19:39:50] * Zacam sighs
Jul 16 [19:39:56] <bigchunk1> You want to keep hade's bulb sizes then?
Jul 16 [19:41:17] <Zacam> I want to keep the scaling that they have, yes. If we adjust or increase a beams width (see again, Sathanas, BFGreen, Mjolnir) then the warm-up bulb will adjust to compensate, but having a warm up effect that is 3 times the size of the outer edges it a bit ugly.
Jul 16 [19:41:53] <bigchunk1> Right, then that's what the thread is about
Jul 16 [19:42:05] <bigchunk1> I think the bulb should be larger than the beam
Jul 16 [19:42:13] <bigchunk1> Because that's how retail was
Jul 16 [19:42:22] <Zacam> It is. It's just not gigantically larger than the beam.
Jul 16 [19:42:41] * Antares is now known as v_Zalem
Jul 16 [19:42:49] * v_Zalem is now known as Nu_Zalem
Jul 16 [19:42:50] <bigchunk1> It's prettywell scaled down, and that's a big change in their design
Jul 16 [19:43:03] <bigchunk1> Feels kinda moddish
Jul 16 [19:43:32] <bigchunk1> You want to post that in the thread?
Jul 16 [19:44:26] <bigchunk1> Look at the split on the poll btw, you gota believe something's up
Jul 16 [19:44:39] <Zacam> The actual beam section widths are the same as retail. That the "inner core" doesn't seem as large should actually make the edge color sections cause the beam to stand out. And the beam-glow (again, on the previously mentioned larger beams that are still in process of being adjusted) will see a slight update to them. But the beam-glow/warmup does nothing in terms of anything at all regarding the beams width, it's targeting or it's damage.
Jul 16 [19:45:43] <bigchunk1> I'm not talking beam width anymore, i'm talking bulb size
Jul 16 [19:46:19] <bigchunk1> The bulb/width ratio has been drasticly decreased from retail or media vps
Jul 16 [19:46:25] <Zacam> And the poll had it's LARGEST collection of results PRIOR to the screen shot actually showing that Hades' beams were actually spot on to Retail sive, but now this is a discussion about the beam-GLOW (the warm up/bulb effect) which wasn't clearly dileniated in the OP or conversations until now, as it was all previously just how "the beams" (in general) were "Not Retail" which tells me your nostalgia glasses need a new prescription or you should learn
Jul 16 [19:46:25] <Zacam> the semantics of constructing your arguments better.
Jul 16 [19:47:31] <bigchunk1> Well i'm not good at arguments, I'm just trying to get a fair consensus
Jul 16 [19:47:59] <Zacam> Fair also requires being able to deliver a solidly constructed statement.
Jul 16 [19:48:10] <Zacam> At which point.
Jul 16 [19:48:14] <bigchunk1> Ok, so the bulb thing.
Jul 16 [19:48:30] <bigchunk1> Why so small? that's a design change
Jul 16 [19:48:32] <bigchunk1> and for what?
Jul 16 [19:48:35] <bigchunk1> People are split on it
Jul 16 [19:48:42] <bigchunk1> you can see arguments in the thread
Jul 16 [19:48:46] <bigchunk1> most are against it iirc
Jul 16 [19:48:52] <bigchunk1> and it's against retail
Jul 16 [19:48:53] <Zacam> The only sensible thing to do, is to close up the current thread, and make a new one with a poll that specifically targets (no pun intended) the beam-glow/bulb/warm-up effect size.
Jul 16 [19:49:14] <bigchunk1> Well, give it a day or so
Jul 16 [19:49:21] <bigchunk1> we just posted not a hour ago
Jul 16 [19:49:59] <Zacam> Invalid. I cannot take the results from a poll or a post that started about the "general" beam sizes and then have it turned around to being about the warm-up sizes when that was not -clearly- marked as being the significance of the conversation.
Jul 16 [19:50:13] <bigchunk1> I mean don't lock the thread
Jul 16 [19:50:18] <bigchunk1> So people can respond
Jul 16 [19:50:34] <bigchunk1> Say their piece and all that

With that in mind, I am resetting the poll results back to 0.

What people will be voting on now are the Beam Glow/warm-up/bulb sizes themselves.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Kolgena on July 16, 2011, 10:14:18 pm
Going with mixed. The retail beam glows were massive and fugly as hell (see aeolus, fenris), but Hades' glows look more like muzzle flashes than the plasma source of the beam. I'm hoping for a little hike in size for all beam glows relative to their beams, but nothing obnoxious. Perhaps beam glow size could be slightly correlated to charge up time and/or beam duration?

(Oh, and BFRed/BFGreen and Mjolnir beams really need to stay/be made beefy, because their per-pulse damage is insane compared to the other beams. They still need to be smaller than 3.6.10 versions, I suppose)
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: pecenipicek on July 16, 2011, 11:05:58 pm
Retail or bust. Still.


Spoiler:
Hades, be fair to me, i dont shoot down everything you do. :D
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Timerlane on July 16, 2011, 11:37:28 pm
As long as the mentioned extra consideration is given to the BFGreen-LRBGreen/BFRed/Mjolnir overall sizes, I'm still fine with the current/new-style size scheme rather than retail.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Mongoose on July 17, 2011, 03:41:10 am
For the beam glows specifically, I'd come down much more strongly on the retail side of things.  Having the beam glow be significantly larger than the beam width has always been a trademark of FS beam weapons, at least in my mind.  Based on those screenshots of Hades' effects in action, you can barely see where the glow ends and the beam begins.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Dragon on July 17, 2011, 12:21:06 pm
Actually, I think that this was the idea behind the new effects, glow "flows" into the beam instead of being detached.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Snail on July 17, 2011, 12:33:25 pm
For the beam glows specifically, I'd come down much more strongly on the retail side of things.  Having the beam glow be significantly larger than the beam width has always been a trademark of FS beam weapons, at least in my mind.  Based on those screenshots of Hades' effects in action, you can barely see where the glow ends and the beam begins.
I agree, they look like Star Trek phasers or generic laser weapons now.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Commander Zane on July 17, 2011, 12:40:44 pm
Out of the screens shown I think the VSlash looks the best in terms of glow / beam size ratio.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Hades on July 17, 2011, 12:56:32 pm
Most of them ARE the same ratio, but such as the BVas or BGreen, the haze was too big when I took those shots.

For the beam glows specifically, I'd come down much more strongly on the retail side of things.  Having the beam glow be significantly larger than the beam width has always been a trademark of FS beam weapons, at least in my mind.  Based on those screenshots of Hades' effects in action, you can barely see where the glow ends and the beam begins.
I agree, they look like Star Trek phasers or generic laser weapons now.
They've always been generic. The lasers used on the Omega in Babylon 5 had the exact same ratio of the glow ball and beam as retail, just the entire thing was smaller overall.

Actually, I think that this was the idea behind the new effects, glow "flows" into the beam instead of being detached.
Exactly. Before, the beam ball is so big it just looks irrelevant to the beam, as if it's an afterthought. It's ****ing ugly. So I made the beam flow from the beam ball itself, so it actually looks like there's a reason for the ball.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Snail on July 17, 2011, 01:59:52 pm
They've always been generic. The lasers used on the Omega in Babylon 5 had the exact same ratio of the glow ball and beam as retail, just the entire thing was smaller overall.
Subjective
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Raven2001 on July 17, 2011, 02:50:45 pm
I kind of like the mvp12 beam sizes, but with a bigger glow.

There's also another thing that's been bugging me over the years, and I think this is the right topic to call on it:
I always prefered retail's Shivan beam glow color. The white\blue gave those beams a sense of being very very concentrated light, and thus very powerful. I don't know how everyone else feels about this, but I'd personally would love to have those colors back.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Kolgena on July 17, 2011, 03:11:58 pm
Exactly. Before, the beam ball is so big it just looks irrelevant to the beam, as if it's an afterthought. It's ****ing ugly. So I made the beam flow from the beam ball itself, so it actually looks like there's a reason for the ball.

The ball's there because the turret has to gather plasma together in a reservoir before it shoots it off into space. It makes no sense for a tiny ball to sustain a beam that's basically the same width as it. Like I've said before, it looks more like a muzzle flash with Hades's resize than a plasma ball (which you can die by flying into, even before the beam shoots--try this in Bearbaiting)

My opinion is just as subjective as yours, so take what you will.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Hades on July 17, 2011, 03:40:03 pm
The ball's there because the turret has to gather plasma together in a reservoir before it shoots it off into space. It makes no sense for a tiny ball to sustain a beam that's basically the same width as it. Like I've said before, it looks more like a muzzle flash with Hades's resize than a plasma ball (which you can die by flying into, even before the beam shoots--try this in Bearbaiting)

My opinion is just as subjective as yours, so take what you will.
Actually, the pulsating nature of the beam glow, even after the beam fires, would suggest it is continually gathering plasma. Either way, that's as dumb of an explanation of the workings of a beam as argon only being in Sol is dumb, it's about the same level.

And since I believe that was taken from BP canon, can you tell me why you do not complain the same about the BP beams, even though their glows are very similar in ratio to the beams as mine?
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Kolgena on July 17, 2011, 03:52:04 pm
As dumb and explanation as it is, if it can be demonstrated to be canon, then we should try to follow it. Just because the verse has non-Newtonian flight and subluminal lasers does not mean that we can't be consistent within it.

Ice beams from BP are an entirely different class of beams from crypt hammers, evident in that most of them have big tubes behind the emitter dishes (and they're sort of different colors). Either way, the point is moot, since I never said I liked or disliked the size of BP glows.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Dragon on July 17, 2011, 05:34:37 pm
BP will most likely adopt to Mediavps once the dicussion is over.
In general, Hades sized glows to "flow" together with the beam. Looking at the bitmaps, you could see that this could have been the intention of the one who created them. Also, the width is closer to retail, though some beams (like BFReds) are too small. I didn't introduce this "flow" in blue BP beams for consistency with Mediavps, but if Mediavps would change, BP will most likely also do that.
That's why the size of the entire beam should, IMHO, be discussed. Size ratios are perfect on all Hades beams.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Mongoose on July 17, 2011, 07:29:01 pm
For a more non-technical view of the beam glows, I always thought that the "chargin' mah lazor" part would kind of necessitate this big honkin' ball of energy, since you were gathering together a whole bunch of pewpew to fling across space once you got to "firin' mah lazor."  Having the glow sort of just flow right into the beam kind of negates that effect.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: bigchunk1 on July 17, 2011, 08:31:56 pm
Personally, it does not faze me what the scientific explanation is or if one exists at all. Freespace2 is a game, and beams had a very specific design in that game. The ball would amass at the turret point to a noticeable size, and a relatively smaller, more focused beam, would shoot out from the turret tip. The previous mediavps didn't really do much to change that design except make textures more detailed and make the weapon's overall effect larger. Mediavps3612, however, changed the design of the weapon by shrinking the warm-up bulb to the point where it's practically negligible, pretty much in my mind erasing one of the characteristic features of beam weapons.  This to me is a design change, and I am not convinced by the arguments that have been presented in favor of that change. It comes off as unnecessarily moddish and unfreespace like. 
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Spoon on July 17, 2011, 08:56:04 pm
There's also another thing that's been bugging me over the years, and I think this is the right topic to call on it:
I always prefered retail's Shivan beam glow color. The white\blue gave those beams a sense of being very very concentrated light, and thus very powerful. I don't know how everyone else feels about this, but I'd personally would love to have those colors back.
I personally disagree, I feel the blue into red feels really wierd and out of place and looks 'retail ugly'
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Luis Dias on July 17, 2011, 10:27:29 pm
lol @ the variety and rigor of nitpickity for what is just a kamehameha.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Hades on July 17, 2011, 11:46:31 pm
lol @ the variety and rigor of nitpickity for what is just a kamehameha.
(http://www.hard-light.net/forums/Smileys/HLP/welcome2hlpbb.gif)
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Valathil on July 18, 2011, 12:31:20 am
Quote
For a more non-technical view of the beam glows, I always thought that the "chargin' mah lazor" part would kind of necessitate this big honkin' ball of energy, since you were gathering together a whole bunch of pewpew to fling across space once you got to "firin' mah lazor."  Having the glow sort of just flow right into the beam kind of negates that effect.

SHOOP DA WHOOP
(http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/8237/baaaaaaah.png)

Seriously though, im going to qoute tv-tropes here:
The Cool Ship needs an equally cool weapon. If it's a sufficiently humongous Cool Ship, it will be equipped with a Laser Beam on steroids: the Wave Motion Gun — an enormous Ray Gun that fires a massive energy beam capable of blowing away an enemy ship (in the "blow a battleship in half" sense), sometimes an entire fleet, with one shot, and maybe even blowing up an entire planet.
Wave Motion Guns usually require a significant charging period before firing and re-charging/cooldown afterwards (occasionally depicted by "Sucking In Lines")
Sucking in Lines in this case refers to the cool warmup particle insucking muzzle glow we're having. So this must be prominent, IT MUST. And it makes no physical sense ( haha physical sense in beam weapons) that the glow is less or equal in size of the beam. You have a central ball of plasma that glows outward the beam should orient its beam size towards that, therefore the brightest part of the muzzle flash. However the beam also radiates outwards but its a less concentrated form of energy so it should be less then the total glow of the plasma ball. like so =O. The overall size of the beam irregardless of what should be a fixed beam to muzzle glow ratio should be oriented toward the power level of the beam. Is it OVER 9000? Do a motherfriggin wide beam. Is it a AAA? Small beam suffices. Thus the player can easily distinguish the epicness of the beam simply by looking at its size. It is also irrelevant what ship the beam is firing. If the lilith can fire a beam that powerful LET it, it only shows how much danger a little ship like that can pose.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Droid803 on July 18, 2011, 12:44:42 am
oh god that horribad beam clipping into the hull.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: pecenipicek on July 18, 2011, 01:22:11 am
Quote
For a more non-technical view of the beam glows, I always thought that the "chargin' mah lazor" part would kind of necessitate this big honkin' ball of energy, since you were gathering together a whole bunch of pewpew to fling across space once you got to "firin' mah lazor."  Having the glow sort of just flow right into the beam kind of negates that effect.

SHOOP DA WHOOP
(http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/8237/baaaaaaah.png)

Seriously though, im going to qoute tv-tropes here:
The Cool Ship needs an equally cool weapon. If it's a sufficiently humongous Cool Ship, it will be equipped with a Laser Beam on steroids: the Wave Motion Gun — an enormous Ray Gun that fires a massive energy beam capable of blowing away an enemy ship (in the "blow a battleship in half" sense), sometimes an entire fleet, with one shot, and maybe even blowing up an entire planet.
Wave Motion Guns usually require a significant charging period before firing and re-charging/cooldown afterwards (occasionally depicted by "Sucking In Lines")
Sucking in Lines in this case refers to the cool warmup particle insucking muzzle glow we're having. So this must be prominent, IT MUST. And it makes no physical sense ( haha physical sense in beam weapons) that the glow is less or equal in size of the beam. You have a central ball of plasma that glows outward the beam should orient its beam size towards that, therefore the brightest part of the muzzle flash. However the beam also radiates outwards but its a less concentrated form of energy so it should be less then the total glow of the plasma ball. like so =O. The overall size of the beam irregardless of what should be a fixed beam to muzzle glow ratio should be oriented toward the power level of the beam. Is it OVER 9000? Do a motherfriggin wide beam. Is it a AAA? Small beam suffices. Thus the player can easily distinguish the epicness of the beam simply by looking at its size. It is also irrelevant what ship the beam is firing. If the lilith can fire a beam that powerful LET it, it only shows how much danger a little ship like that can pose.
You are my hero and you know what i mean.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: mjn.mixael on July 18, 2011, 01:33:40 am
My two cents.. I'd like to see the glows (ball of energy) at least slightly larger than the beam width itself... Not a whole lot.. just enough to see it.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Hades on July 18, 2011, 01:38:27 am
They are, actually. Aside from the LRed which I need to make a bit larger.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: mjn.mixael on July 18, 2011, 01:45:50 am
Then I'm good. I haven't checked in quite some time... been too busy debugging FSPort...  :nervous:
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Flipside on July 18, 2011, 02:00:04 am
I prefer the more discreet Hades sizes for the main part, particularly in the case of the SGreen in the first shot :) Possibly the Shivan ones could be a bit larger, since their beams are considerably more dangerous?
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: bigchunk1 on July 18, 2011, 05:13:05 pm
I... just... don't... get it.
(http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x380/Brandon_Rehayem/FlowerRed-1.png)
(http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x380/Brandon_Rehayem/FlowerRed-1.png)
I don't know how to reason.

Then I'm good. I haven't checked in quite some time... been too busy debugging FSPort...  :nervous:

They're in the previous pages of this thread :wtf:

Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: mjn.mixael on July 18, 2011, 05:23:47 pm
Um.. based on the dates in the thread and the dates on SVN.. I don't think those pictures are the most recent.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Commander Zane on July 18, 2011, 05:34:43 pm
I... just... don't... get it.
*BIG*
*small*
I don't know how to reason.
My mind broke.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Retsof on July 18, 2011, 08:43:59 pm
Uhm... I think you lost me there.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: bigchunk1 on July 18, 2011, 11:05:45 pm
Well, I mean it's like taking something beautiful and making it smaller the the point where it's hard to see. That's what I was trying to show. I underestimated the power of lvlshot, but anyways... If you don't get it, just take it as bad comedy.

Um.. based on the dates in the thread and the dates on SVN.. I don't think those pictures are the most recent.

How can we all be talking about the same thing when only team members have svn access (if i'm not mistaken), especially if that thing is always changing? I would like to consider only the released Mediavps3612 for reference and make commentary based on that. However, someone can post more recent tables/screenshots as proposed solutions of course.

Consider taking another look at the screenshots on this thread, the warmup effect has undergone quite a change in size. To me, it seems small enough to the point where the bulb effect isn't really part of the beam anymore.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: mjn.mixael on July 18, 2011, 11:30:12 pm
What's the use in even discussing this is we can't discuss what we are working on?

We can talk about the past (3.6.12) all you want.. it's not going to change what is in 3.6.12. No, what we are discussing is what will be in the next MediaVPs. So it stands to reason that we can talk about what is in the current SVN as a form of release candidate.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: bigchunk1 on July 19, 2011, 12:39:23 am
No no no, (as we discussed on IRC).

You can discuss whatever you want, who am I to say otherwise? If you change anything from Mediavp3612 just introduce it as a change from Mediavp3612. As far as I am aware, the poll is about beam sizes in Mediavp3612 vs retail. If that were not the case, the poll will be inconsistent since we would be voting on something which constantly changes. Also, the SVN is not public, so people would be discussing two different things which would really start causing confusion.

So, if some change is made to the tables and one wants to talk about it, introduce it as a change up for discussion in this thread. That's all.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Zacam on July 19, 2011, 09:13:53 am

(now has Hammertime playing in his head, thanks guys!)

The discussion. As it stands from my point of reason it thus:

   :: The MediaVPs as there are released (including the 3.6.12 Update VPs which is the latest Official version for 3.6.12), have differently sized beams vs 3.6.8/3.6.10.

   :: While the 3.6.12 sizes are not the same as the 3.6.8/3.6.10, the beams themselves are more a match to the Retail beam sizes.

   :: The sizing of the Retail Beam-glows/beam warm-up effect (especially for the Shivan beams, we will ignore the Retail effect calling for using the thrusterglow bitmap) is more about what people were apparently complaining about being broken. (We will forgo the fact that some people interpreted it as the beams in general, we'll also forgo that some people were under the impression that 3.6.8/3.6.10 were thought to be Retail sizes when they were not).

   :: The current consultation that the FSU is gathering, and what this poll is about (from again, my point of understanding) is whether or not people are okay with (by majority) the fact that the Current 3.6.12 beam-glow/beam-warm up effect, in being aesthetically scaled to the beam width, is acceptable or not.

   :: Most of the feedback seems to indicate, with the exception of a few of the larger beams, that it is. The preference seems close to almost split between "Mixed Reaction" (those that are maybe okay with the current sizes, but that some adjustments are necessary) and the "Hades Sizing" (indicating that the see no problem with how things are at all) with a -really- close follow up on "Retail Sizing"

   :: At the current moment, modifications are taking place in the FSU SVN to try and address many of the issues covered by the posts made. Once we are Internally satisfied with the results, those results will then become available for public testing to use with the Released 3.6.12 MediaVPs. Further adjustments will be done based on provided feedback until a majority consensus can call them as close to done as they will get, at which point those settings will become the Beams in our next Release.

   :: In order for Internal satisfaction to take place, some results will be showcased -prior- to release by screenshots in order to gather feedback to ensure that the right understanding and direction is being taken, and as such they are just as valid a point of comparative discussion as the "Retail vs 3.6.12" screenshots.

...===...
Personal Opinion Statement: (not to be read as "Official Declaration" or as a directive or direction for FSU at large) I abhorred the sizes as the existed in 3.6.10. Yes, they were big scary beams of DooM, but having the front end of an Aeolus cruiser completely get engulfed by it's beam-glow was just utterly asinine. I kept expecting the front of the ship to melt off into slag. I also don't get having a beam-glow /warm-up effect look like it's about to blast out a beam that's 2 to 3 times larger than what it does, but if we scaled the beams so that the flow and the core were a respective size to the beam-glow (and did it in a way that did not break things like they did in 3.6.10), then we're right back at 3.6.10 sizes. And it's not like we can simply adjust or change what ship is carrying what kind of beam, or start making alternative beams for different ships to use, as that cuts in on the limits the engine currently has and we've already cut into that a bit just adding shivanized secondaries.
...===...
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Retsof on July 19, 2011, 10:39:36 pm
 :nervous: Erm... the Hades sizing was the smaller ones, right?
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: bigchunk1 on July 19, 2011, 11:27:53 pm
Yes, Hades sizing is the Mediavps3612 update with the smaller beam and warmup bulb sizes. Everyone who voted should know that!
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: castor on July 20, 2011, 06:39:46 am
Mixed.. While I agree "Hades beam glows" look better than the retail ones visually, they are lacking on the "psychological effect" side of things. I mean, when a capship beam nearby your fighter is powering up, you should get the "Better get the hell out of here! NOW!" feeling. I'd be surprised if that was not the effect :v: was after when they sized them.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: TacOne on July 20, 2011, 07:20:56 am
I like Hades' beams/-glows.
The massive glows are just corny. I always imagined the beams more scalpel-like.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: jr2 on July 20, 2011, 09:58:55 am
Mixed.. While I agree "Hades beam glows" look better than the retail ones visually, they are lacking on the "psychological effect" side of things. I mean, when a capship beam nearby your fighter is powering up, you should get the "Better get the hell out of here! NOW!" feeling. I'd be surprised if that was not the effect :v: was after when they sized them.

Yes.

The massive glows are just corny. I always imagined the beams more scalpel-like.

Maybe that might be the slasher beams; I never thought that about the other ones.  (Besides maybe AAA.)
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Valathil on July 20, 2011, 12:03:06 pm
I wont get into a deep physical discussion here cause, you know BEAMS FROM SPACESHIPS, but it should be obvious that More powerful Beam = More Energy = wider Beam cause the amount of energy per volume should somewhat stay constant ( something about containment energy requirement increasing exponentially blablabla you get my drift )
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Zacam on July 20, 2011, 02:37:54 pm

And with the amount of energy per-volume already established, the correlation (to my mind) means that the warm-up effect should be at an appropriately discrete scale to the beam that is being generated.

The more powerful beams are larger than the weaker beams. But the big issues is that the "visual sense" of power (to some people) isn't present unless we have Michael Bay style warm-ups for our beams which, with the beams staying near their Retail sizes, means that they are grossly over-sized. (In my opinion)


*sighs* To clarify here, this is an entirely tongue-in-cheek post. And as evidenced by the ending of (in my opinion), it should NOT be construed as an "official" verdict or declaration, please.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: bigchunk1 on July 20, 2011, 03:56:06 pm
As difficult as it is to reason with the "I just think they look better" argument, it makes more sense to me than trying to come up with some kind of scientific explaination for why beam weapons work the way they do. This game is set 100s of years in future, where science is ubdoubtably advanced well beyond our understanding of what is possible and what is not. Furthermore, arguing against the design of a weapon in the game based on pseudoscience to me sounds like people are saying 'canon is wrong'. It is within the ability of FSU to abandon freespace canon in favor of a game which people want to play more, but I must ask: What is the purpose of FSU? Is it an improvement on freespace2, or the manufacturing of a different game entirely? This decision I believe, especially after continually hearing the pseudoscience arguments, is leaning toward the ladder latter.

Edit: Ladders are for climbing houses
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Zacam on July 20, 2011, 05:58:15 pm

Latter. Not ladder.

And you're wrong again. FSU lends itself to retaining Retail Playability (in terms of the mechanics and most definitely the story line) of the Campaign (especially in terms of maintaining it's balance), while providing upgrades to the visual or model experience. By the logic of your argument, changing the colors of the Subach is a game breaking floodgate. Making a bitmapped weapon use particles, would be a game breaking change.

The beam-glows as a visual representation of the beam impact nothing save for visual aesthetic. Not only is the effect different than retail, but it's sizing is in accordance to preference and aesthetic taste. And that is something that can and will differ from person to person.

Nothing stops anybody from deciding to plug in the retail numbers for the beam-glow radius into an TBM and having fun. But for us, and for me, those sizes just don't work with the current effect or the beams that are in the MediaVPs. And we've already established that the beams themselves are retail sized and that (unlike 3.6.8/3.6.10) behave in retail fashion.

Any psuedo-science conversation is exactly that, merely side conversation that is not in fact actually having any bearing on the decision, because the decision was made based on visual aesthetic, not psuedo-scientific notions. Those I only just came up with in a response to Valathils not-so-serious post and as such, is a not-so-serious answer and is further ended with a (In my opinion), which I am able to keep personal opinion separate from professional direction, so don't read so much into it and assume that it's driving the professional mandate of the rest of the team, k? Especially when you then follow with your own in citing that it's "set 100s of years in the future" and then make a conjecture as to where it's science will stand at that point in time.

And no, canon is not wrong. Nobody ever said it was. But if canon was the only thing to go by, and if was never to be touched, this project wouldn't exist because there would be no updated higher poly models or effects to play with. How they get played with, and what the end results are, the opinions will vary from person to person and that's not really something that can be argued. All we can do as a team is try and incorporate all the suggestions and all the feedback and all the submissions that are made and try to ensure they they are playable by one and all. And not everybody is going to be happy about it. We're not trying to make everybody happy. Just so long as at the end of the day, it works and that the largest number of people are willing to deal with it (and preferably enjoy it), then we've made our goal.

So, basically, if it comes down to you as a solitary individual not liking what the end result of the collaboration is, you're free to make and post your own works based on your opinion that those that are like minded can enjoy. But we ARE trying to take your feedback into account as much as possible and we HAVE listened to you, so try not being so dramatic with the reaction, okay?
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: sigtau on July 20, 2011, 07:52:47 pm
Looking back at these posts, I'm starting to air more on the side that the BFRed, BGreen, BFGreen, and BVas need to be enlarged a good bit from the Hades sizing, but other than that, the adjustments made to the other beams (slashers, SRed, LRed, SVas, and if applicable, AAA) are perfectly okay.

Not necessarily saying that they need to be sized back to retail, but as long as the Sathanas and Colossus beaming each other to death looks as impressive as the respective ship models do, there's absolutely nothing wrong with these changes.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: bigchunk1 on July 20, 2011, 08:00:20 pm
First off...
Quote
...
We ARE trying to take your feedback into account as much as possible and we HAVE listened to you, so try not being so dramatic with the reaction, okay?
...
Let me be absolutely clear when I say this... I think you guys are the best! Zacam speant hours late one night debugging models for my mod as well as showed me a fiew tricks, Hades helped me out on bp multi when it was just getting started, and mjn well... does what mjn does which is awesome so I hope that proves my point. I just feel strongly about this ya know... I love this game. This thread is like... uh... court or something, but we can still party after.

Next
Quote
...
Any psuedo-science conversation is exactly that, merely side conversation that is not in fact actually having any bearing on the decision, because the decision was made based on visual aesthetic, not psuedo-scientific notions.
...

That's really what I was getting at. I believe we understand eachother then.   :D
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: headdie on July 21, 2011, 03:14:43 am
My 2p worth of opinion is.

Bgreen, Bred, BVas and the other direct fire anti-cap beams need to be big, lots of glow showing that they have lots of power.  Slashing beams be big or small, they can be justified either way.  Anti-fighter beams need to be thin and surgical looking as befitting their use.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: bigchunk1 on July 23, 2011, 02:13:01 pm
Ok, I completed a possible update for the mv_effects-wep.tbm and tested it using the beam test mission. Here are the results.
Mediavps3612:
(http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x380/Brandon_Rehayem/BTMVP2.png)
Proposed changes .tbm:
(http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x380/Brandon_Rehayem/Beamresize1.png)
Retail:
(http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x380/Brandon_Rehayem/BTR3.png)

The tables are available for download here (http://www.mediafire.com/?bezog34dap791si). Just put them in freespace/mediavps_3612/data/tables to try them out. Recommend trying them with the beam test mission I made a few pages ago in this thread.

Changelog:
1. Restored retail beam sizes, both width and warmup radius for the bfred and the bfgreen
2. cut down on particle count for the bfred and the bfgreen by roughly 1/3
3. used the mathematical average between 3612 and retail's warmup bulb sizes for the bgreen
4. Reduced the lred's relative size of the 2nd largest beam section to create a cleaner looking beam.
5. pcount and pradius reduced slightly for the lred and bgreen (1/3)
6. used weighted mathematical average (2*hades + retail)/3 for the terslash and vslash warmup bulb
7. reduced particle size by roughly 1/3 on the terslash
8. used weighted mathematical average (2*hades + retail)/3 for the LTerSlash and Sred warmup bulb size
9. Retail radius restored for the LRed warmup bulb
10. Reduced particle count and radius for the BVas and Svas and Sred by roughly 1/3
11. used weighted mathematical average (2*hades + retail)/3 for the BVas warmup bulb size
12. Sgreen, SVas and  all AAA beams have been left untouched from Mediavps3612
13. MjolnirBeam has been left untouched, with intent to resize it later.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Valathil on July 23, 2011, 02:25:23 pm
This actually looks pretty close to perfect imho
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Dragon on July 23, 2011, 04:37:33 pm
Sathanas beams stilll need sizing up a bit, try increasing them by about 1.3 .
Otherwise, looks great.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Hades on July 23, 2011, 05:01:33 pm
Yuck, I frankly think they look too big. Really before you propose any changes, you'd need the most current table of them, which is on the SVN. I'll see if I can get that for you.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Mongoose on July 23, 2011, 05:17:32 pm
Those revised glows look much better.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: headdie on July 23, 2011, 05:43:46 pm
My only issue is the Ravana is firing pink puke, otherwise pic 2 looks good
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Lester on July 23, 2011, 05:53:03 pm
snip
This is the way to go.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Kolgena on July 23, 2011, 11:08:40 pm
BFRed needs to be bigger than BGreen, but otherwise, I like this direction more. See how much refining can be done with the SVN table though.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: FreeSpaceFreak on July 24, 2011, 06:20:56 am
I like the bigchunk sizing, IMHO it's a good compromise between retail and make-sense.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Commander Zane on July 24, 2011, 07:00:53 am
I think the LRed glow could be a little smaller, it gets close to engulfing the front half of the Lilith again. I could deal with the other changes.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: bobbtmann on July 26, 2011, 05:43:26 pm
I like the bigger beginning glow in the mediavps. Especially on the Ravanna, the small glow doesn't make for a very good junction between the ship and the beam. Other than that, I don't mind the smaller beams. They do look a bit weaker though.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: pecenipicek on July 29, 2011, 01:32:05 pm
snip
This is the way to go.
oh yes.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Veers on July 29, 2011, 09:23:06 pm
Looks fantastic atm imo, the colour might be slightly off but that shouldnt be a major problem right now. but the sizing is definately looking more realistic, not swallowing up some of the ships when they fire.  :yes:
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: fightermedic on August 04, 2011, 12:32:36 pm
the ones from bigchunk1 look the best!
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Dragon on August 04, 2011, 03:46:16 pm
They're indeed the best ones so far.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Vasudan Admiral on August 04, 2011, 09:23:59 pm
I like it. :)
The tiny glows just look too much like little star trek phasers to me. Beam cannons have always been BIG!
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Sololop on August 20, 2011, 09:22:34 am
Great improvements. Though, I still like the blue-white warmup glow for the Shivan beams as shown in retail ';..;'
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Luis Dias on August 20, 2011, 09:25:42 pm
Hades changes I can bear except for the beams of the Sathanas. I mean by Lords what the hell is that? It may be a lot of things, but surely it is not a Sathanas attack.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: jr2 on August 25, 2011, 02:07:36 pm
Hmph... maybe make a new beam class for SSJD or w/e the Sath is?
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: bigchunk1 on August 25, 2011, 06:12:44 pm
It already has its own beam class. It's called BFRed. Changing BFRed is the same as changing the 4 forward beams on the Sathans.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: jr2 on August 26, 2011, 12:35:16 pm
No other Shivan ships use BFRed?
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Commander Zane on August 26, 2011, 12:42:37 pm
No other ship that isn't from a mod.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Ulala on August 27, 2011, 03:15:26 pm
I thought the Lilith had a single BFRed.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Hades on August 27, 2011, 03:21:34 pm
I thought the Lilith had a single BFRed.
No. It uses a LRed.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: MatthTheGeek on August 27, 2011, 03:49:52 pm
LReds are just that OP that you don't need anything better unless you're a big scary sath.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Qent on August 27, 2011, 06:16:35 pm
I thought the Lilith had a single BFRed.
:shaking:

Don't scare me like that.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Ulala on August 28, 2011, 02:23:27 am
Oh, my mistake.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Mars on August 28, 2011, 02:46:03 am
That would be insane. The LRed is already insane.

I like the changes to be honest, but I do think the BFRed would look better if it were bigger.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Hades on August 28, 2011, 04:17:21 pm
That would be insane. The LRed is already insane.

I like the changes to be honest, but I do think the BFRed would look better if it were bigger.
Don't worry, I'm going to be making it larger.
Title: Re: Beam Sizing
Post by: Mars on August 28, 2011, 05:56:04 pm
That would be insane. The LRed is already insane.

I like the changes to be honest, but I do think the BFRed would look better if it were bigger.
Don't worry, I'm going to be making it larger.
W00t! Excellent! I'm so stoked for this next release

That would be insane. The LRed is already insane.

I like the changes to be honest, but I do think the BFRed would look better if it were bigger.
Don't worry, I'm going to be making it larger.