Hard Light Productions Forums

General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: Mobius on May 13, 2007, 09:30:14 am

Title: "De Modificationibus FreeSpacis"
Post by: Mobius on May 13, 2007, 09:30:14 am
Simple question.

What do you think about the MODs BtRL is helping to bring to the light of the sun? I have tried some FS2 missions and I loved them.

Would you like them to be used in upcoming campaigns and/ or other MODs? Do you think they might kill FS2 Physics if their use will be extensive? Motivate your opinions. I've actually planned a radical change in Steadfast tables so that new features can be added. DySkO doesn't agree with me because he's sure of the fact that other members will hate modified tables "a la Velocity MOD".

Keep in mind this thread isn't meant to be a discussion about the MOD itself, but what it could represent for the FS community.
Title: Re: "De Modificationibus FreeSpacis"
Post by: Snail on May 13, 2007, 09:37:32 am
I voted 'I don't really care,' because... Well... I don't really care.
Title: Re: "De Modificationibus FreeSpacis"
Post by: Admiral Edivad on May 13, 2007, 09:41:17 am
i think they work well, but for me and my mousestick they make every mission impossible.
for steadfast and other FS2 sequels, they probably would represent an excessive change impossible to justify (too little time has passed to change all fighter's mechanics). however, speed and manouverability improvements would be justified and well accepted as long as the game remains balanced.
BtRL glide is, in my opinion, too much.
remember also that in cutescenes those changes would have a huge impact, probably resulting in the cutsecne to have to be re-fredded.
Title: Re: "De Modificationibus FreeSpacis"
Post by: Turey on May 13, 2007, 09:43:02 am
I LIKE GO FAST!
Title: Re: "De Modificationibus FreeSpacis"
Post by: Snail on May 13, 2007, 09:55:24 am
LGM, man, what's up with you and your freaky Latin names? :wtf:
Title: Re: "De Modificationibus FreeSpacis"
Post by: Dysko on May 13, 2007, 10:01:41 am
LGM, man, what's up with you and your freaky Latin names? :wtf:
That's what I told him :p Latin is useful only for talking with the Pope (so it must be removed from my school subjects. NOW!)

Returning on-topic, there are 2 reasons for me not wanting modified physics in Steadfast:
1) It's set in the FS universe, and modified physics would ruin its FreeSpaceiness.
2) We're far behind schedule. Instead of rebalancing all the tables, we need just to finish the missions and release it. Period. It's useless to add continuously new features, if the campaign will never be released...
Title: Re: "De Modificationibus FreeSpacis"
Post by: shiv on May 13, 2007, 10:09:40 am
Ships aren't monuverable enough...
Title: Re: "De Modificationibus FreeSpacis"
Post by: Mobius on May 13, 2007, 10:49:56 am
i think they work well, but for me and my mousestick they make every mission impossible.
for steadfast and other FS2 sequels, they probably would represent an excessive change impossible to justify (too little time has passed to change all fighter's mechanics). however, speed and manouverability improvements would be justified and well accepted as long as the game remains balanced.
BtRL glide is, in my opinion, too much.
remember also that in cutescenes those changes would have a huge impact, probably resulting in the cutsecne to have to be re-fredded.

I use the mousestick as well, and I found the game still playable. About the impact on cutscenes...I think you're right, something should be changed. Remember, however, that we can use set-time-compression in order to make the fighters go slower(it's realistic in land and take off cutscenes).

About the reasons which could justify the use of enhanced speed values, we simply don't need them. We'll consider them as something normal(keep in mind, however, that 30 years could somewhat justify a partial engine upgrade).

LGM, man, what's up with you and your freaky Latin names? :wtf:
That's what I told him :p Latin is useful only for talking with the Pope (so it must be removed from my school subjects. NOW!)

Returning on-topic, there are 2 reasons for me not wanting modified physics in Steadfast:
1) It's set in the FS universe, and modified physics would ruin its FreeSpaceiness.
2) We're far behind schedule. Instead of rebalancing all the tables, we need just to finish the missions and release it. Period. It's useless to add continuously new features, if the campaign will never be released...

Latin is useful :P

1) But the campaign will be better to play. I love FS Physics and I don't think this MOD will kill them...we're just increasing speed values in order to make everything better. Remember that aces in Steadfast will work better with better physics;
2) I told you, I prefer something well done rather than something released ASAP. If we can make the campaign better, we'll make it better;
Title: Re: "De Modificationibus FreeSpacis"
Post by: Admiral Edivad on May 13, 2007, 12:44:31 pm
I use the mousestick as well, and I found the game still playable.

but i'm a noob... :D

About the impact on cutscenes...I think you're right, something should be changed. Remember, however, that we can use set-time-compression in order to make the fighters go slower(it's realistic in land and take off cutscenes).

it depends on how you make the cutscene. the one i'm making for example is based on the time a fighter takes between waypoints. to make it faster would mean to change all the messages and some events

2) We're far behind schedule. Instead of rebalancing all the tables, we need just to finish the missions and release it. Period. It's useless to add continuously new features, if the campaign will never be released...

 :nod: we'll make a better campaign, if you complete the missions you have and then we work ALL 3 TOGETHER + testers on the "improvements" phase.
of course, forget a precise release date; we don't know when we will finish; probably after the 21st August :lol:
Title: Re: "De Modificationibus FreeSpacis"
Post by: jr2 on May 13, 2007, 02:47:41 pm
Hmm.
Title: Re: "De Modificationibus FreeSpacis"
Post by: Snail on May 13, 2007, 03:16:26 pm
That was seriously one of the most useless posts I've seen.
Title: Re: "De Modificationibus FreeSpacis"
Post by: Mobius on May 13, 2007, 04:02:30 pm
Two useless posts.

Anyways, I should have removed the "I don't care" option. There are concrete changes, "I don't care" is not an option.
Title: Re: "De Modificationibus FreeSpacis"
Post by: karajorma on May 13, 2007, 04:54:25 pm
Yeah it is.

It's not for anyone in the community to decide what can or can't be developed :)
Title: Re: "De Modificationibus FreeSpacis"
Post by: Mobius on May 13, 2007, 05:02:41 pm
I know, bu DySkO doesn't want them in Steadfast because he thinks the others will hate them. That's the point...

For the ones who voted against the MOD...have you tried to play some missions with Joshua's tables?
Title: Re: "De Modificationibus FreeSpacis"
Post by: Nico on May 13, 2007, 06:33:54 pm
I love that kind of stuff, and I don't care if it kills the freespace physics or whatever, since they suck anyway (lol, FS2 physics? :lol: ).
Title: Re: "De Modificationibus FreeSpacis"
Post by: Mobius on May 13, 2007, 07:08:06 pm
I love that kind of stuff, and I don't care if it kills the freespace physics or whatever, since they suck anyway (lol, FS2 physics? :lol: ).

:lol:

Uhm...I should have removed that "I don't really care" option. I assume they support us, the "We Want New Gaming Experiences Dudes".
Title: Re: "De Modificationibus FreeSpacis"
Post by: Mongoose on May 13, 2007, 07:14:30 pm
I honestly wasn't a massive fan of the BtRL demo's physics myself, even though I realize they were a superb re-creation of the combat scenes from the series.  I've always preferred the Serious Sam style of gameplay: get something in your sights and hold down the trigger until it stops moving. :p BtRL demanded the opposite; it's the precise aerial ballet of IL-2 versus the run-'n'-gun missile-chucking style of Ace Combat.  Regardless of my own preferences, I'm certainly curious to see just what can be done with this engine in terms of varying flight styles.  The way I see it, if I try it and don't like it, I just won't play it.  Demanding that people not create modifications like this is rather absurd.
Title: Re: "De Modificationibus FreeSpacis"
Post by: jr2 on May 14, 2007, 01:09:48 am
Two useless posts.

Anyways, I should have removed the "I don't care" option. There are concrete changes, "I don't care" is not an option.

Two and a half!!  (Well, three now, but...

Actually, that's just my way of bookmarking a thread when I don't have time to think of something to say, but I really want to get back and read the rest of the thread.  There's no "Mark as Replied To" button on HLP (or anywhere else that I know of).

I honestly wasn't a massive fan of the BtRL demo's physics myself, even though I realize they were a superb re-creation of the combat scenes from the series.  I've always preferred the Serious Sam style of gameplay: get something in your sights and hold down the trigger until it stops moving. :p BtRL demanded the opposite; it's the precise aerial ballet of IL-2 versus the run-'n'-gun missile-chucking style of Ace Combat.  Regardless of my own preferences, I'm certainly curious to see just what can be done with this engine in terms of varying flight styles.  The way I see it, if I try it and don't like it, I just won't play it.  Demanding that people not create modifications like this is rather absurd.

If I understand correctly, this is just a mod that you select in the Launcher, right?  When it's not selected, everything goes back to default?  What's the big upset about?  It's a MODification... d'uh.  ;)

EDIT: Where's the option for voting to have this MOD be optional for every MOD to implement or not?  For the main campaign, I would love to be able to have it as something you could optionally turn on/off.
Title: Re: "De Modificationibus FreeSpacis"
Post by: Mars on May 14, 2007, 01:13:30 am
I honestly wasn't a massive fan of the BtRL demo's physics myself, even though I realize they were a superb re-creation of the combat scenes from the series.  I've always preferred the Serious Sam style of gameplay: get something in your sights and hold down the trigger until it stops moving. :p BtRL demanded the opposite; it's the precise aerial ballet of IL-2 versus the run-'n'-gun missile-chucking style of Ace Combat.  Regardless of my own preferences, I'm certainly curious to see just what can be done with this engine in terms of varying flight styles.  The way I see it, if I try it and don't like it, I just won't play it.  Demanding that people not create modifications like this is rather absurd.

Takes to long to make a kill...
Title: Re: "De Modificationibus FreeSpacis"
Post by: jr2 on May 14, 2007, 01:15:50 am
Hmm, i think once you master using the slide controls in conjunction with your normal ones, this becomes less of a problem...
Title: Re: "De Modificationibus FreeSpacis"
Post by: Mars on May 14, 2007, 01:18:46 am
Hmm, i think once you master using the slide controls in conjunction with your normal ones, this becomes less of a problem...

With any lag at all, no.

I can't tell you the number of times I've emptied my ammo reserves in a ship, heard the rounds bouncing off, and I never hit according to the server.
Title: Re: "De Modificationibus FreeSpacis"
Post by: jr2 on May 14, 2007, 01:34:52 am
Hmm.  @coders: would it be possible to account a ping apporximation into the lead indicator calculation for MP?
Title: Re: "De Modificationibus FreeSpacis"
Post by: Dysko on May 14, 2007, 07:47:59 am
I know, bu DySkO doesn't want them in Steadfast because he thinks the others will hate them. That's the point...

For the ones who voted against the MOD...have you tried to play some missions with Joshua's tables?
I don't hate BtRL physics and Joshua's modified tables... I don't them in Steadfast because we are making a FreeSpace campaign, not a Battlestar Galactica campaign.

Also, we worked hard to make the tables we already have balanced. Changing the physics will only result in us re-balancing the tables again, and then to remake the missions already done.
Title: Re: "De Modificationibus FreeSpacis"
Post by: Turey on May 14, 2007, 09:34:07 am
Hmm.  @coders: would it be possible to account a ping apporximation into the lead indicator calculation for MP?

There already should be, in the upper-right-hand corner of the screen.
Title: Re: "De Modificationibus FreeSpacis"
Post by: Mobius on May 14, 2007, 12:09:48 pm
I know, bu DySkO doesn't want them in Steadfast because he thinks the others will hate them. That's the point...

For the ones who voted against the MOD...have you tried to play some missions with Joshua's tables?
I don't hate BtRL physics and Joshua's modified tables... I don't them in Steadfast because we are making a FreeSpace campaign, not a Battlestar Galactica campaign.

Also, we worked hard to make the tables we already have balanced. Changing the physics will only result in us re-balancing the tables again, and then to remake the missions already done.

Steadfast is an alternate Inferno R1 campaign which could have BtRL like physics. You know better than me that they should work fine with the aces, Steadfast's most important characteristic.
Title: Re: "De Modificationibus FreeSpacis"
Post by: Nuclear1 on May 14, 2007, 06:17:21 pm
I LIKE GO FAST!

VRRRROOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMM!
Title: Re: "De Modificationibus FreeSpacis"
Post by: Mobius on May 14, 2007, 06:38:01 pm
:eek2:
Title: Re: "De Modificationibus FreeSpacis"
Post by: Mathwiz6 on May 15, 2007, 08:22:37 pm
I like having extra options to motion. Glide, vertical and horizontal movement, all open up tactical potentials for motion.

And I can always be in afterburner by gliding and holding the speed at maximum burn.
Title: Re: "De Modificationibus FreeSpacis"
Post by: Mobius on May 16, 2007, 02:08:11 pm
I was refering to doubled speed values in particular. I don't think glide, vertical and horizontal movements are ok for a FS campaign. I'm mostly interested on high speeds, intertia and momentum.
Title: Re: "De Modificationibus FreeSpacis"
Post by: Snail on May 16, 2007, 02:20:34 pm
Look, LGM. It's DySko's campaign.

If he's saying he doesn't want to, then he doesn't. Or I would go down to Woo and tell him that Alliance should be about The Coming of the Great White Handkerchief.
Title: Re: "De Modificationibus FreeSpacis"
Post by: Mobius on May 16, 2007, 03:20:35 pm
I know, in fact there was some kind of misunderstanding. He thought I want to add all BtRL features(glide, etc )but I only want high speeds and inertia.

He said the AI has problems with high speeds...I have never heard of such a problem. What do you know about this subject? I played many missions of the main campaign and there were no problems(lol, with my wingmen I destroyed two beams of the Sathanas before it could fire on the Phoenicia :) ).
Title: Re: "De Modificationibus FreeSpacis"
Post by: Turey on May 16, 2007, 05:51:31 pm
I know, in fact there was some kind of misunderstanding. He thought I want to add all BtRL features(glide, etc )but I only want high speeds and inertia.

He said the AI has problems with high speeds...I have never heard of such a problem. What do you know about this subject? I played many missions of the main campaign and there were no problems(lol, with my wingmen I destroyed two beams of the Sathanas before it could fire on the Phoenicia :) ).

AI has problems above 300 m/s. I've seen it happen.
Title: Re: "De Modificationibus FreeSpacis"
Post by: Mobius on May 16, 2007, 06:01:51 pm
Most spacecraft can't reach that speed and this problem is easy to fix.
Title: Re: "De Modificationibus FreeSpacis"
Post by: -Joshua- on May 21, 2007, 09:57:21 am
OMG!!! I am being mentioned!

You know, I actually never thought that my tables where so... "popular"...
Title: Re: "De Modificationibus FreeSpacis"
Post by: Mobius on May 21, 2007, 03:00:20 pm
Uhm...play this Simple MissionTM with Joshua's MOD on and tell me what do you think  :blah: