[Raptor]

Just making sure you SCPers are aware of these requests that I'm begging for...

1) Turrets not firing though own ships hull
I know Bobboau was working on this at one point, but it was a bit buggy.  Any progress?

2)Salvo firing turrets (Turrets firing all firepoints at once like fighters, not cycling them)
You got the cycling code to work with fighters, so is it possible to get linked fire to work for turrets?

[Goober5000]

Originally posted by Raptor
Just making sure you SCPers are aware of these requests that I'm begging for...

1) Turrets not firing though own ships hull
I know Bobboau was working on this at one point, but it was a bit buggy.  Any progress?

Nope.  This completely throws off game balance.  What you have to do is test your mods to make sure the turret FOV doesn't intersect the hull.

[Raptor]

Originally posted by Goober5000
Nope.  This completely throws off game balance.  What you have to do is test your mods to make sure the turret POV doesn't intersect the hull.

How so?

BTW, it's FOV;)

[Goober5000]

Because all of a sudden beams won't fire when they fired fine before.  Now you've got many more blind spots.  The most visible example of this is in Feint! Parry! Riposte!, when the Colossus refused to fire any beams at the Repulse.

[Raptor]

Originally posted by Goober5000
Because all of a sudden beams won't fire when they fired fine before.  Now you've got many more blind spots.  The most visible example of this is in Feint! Parry! Riposte!, when the Colossus refused to fire any beams at the Repulse.

Well, the Colossus did engage the Repulse at the worst possible angle... I mean, it is designed for broadside engagements, not head-on attacks. You want head-on charges then get a Sathanas.

Personally, I feel that seeing beam fire slice though parts of the ship mounting the cannon looks just...wrong.

Hell, if it was needed for the Colossus to fire beams at the Repulse with the altered code, I'll gladly alter the mission to fit.

BTW, how about my other request?

[Goober5000]

I'm waiting for whoever did the cycling code to post a response.

[Nuke]

the beam fireing through the ship bug was around in retail freespace. its probbly just something v didnt care to fix as the turret code has been unchanged from fs1.

[Raptor]

I would just like to point out that a certain mod I'm involved with, we are going to need turrets not fiing though the hull of the ship their mounted on.

In fact, the only cannon evidence of turret placement has them placed in recesses in the ships flanks, one on the top, another at the bottom.

[Goober5000]

Then mess with the field of fire until they don't.  I'm sorry, but this would be tricky to fix properly (the original fix was more of a hack) even if it didn't break balance.

[Nuke]

making turret requests is like asking them to rewrite the game engine from scratch. ive seen the turret code and now im afraid to do any programming for the scp.

[Goober5000]

Indeed.  This is why I get annoyed when people say their requests are "small" or "quick" or "easy".  Usually, the smallest, quickest, and easiest response is "No".  What seems easy to the general public is often not easy for the SCP, and what is easy for the SCP often doesn't seem easy for the general public.

The best strategy is to focus on the things you really need, presenting them in a matter-of-fact way without minimizing or exaggerating them or asking us to make exceptions.

[Raptor]

Okay, I admit, these requests may not be 'quick' or 'easy', but IMHO, they are long overdue.

I have heard that the turret code is a mess, and I understand that people many not want to touch it with a ten-foot barge pole, but...

Frankly, I sometimes get the impression that the SCP only listens to effects and graphics related requests.  Now I will agree with the HTL setup, that was needed, but personally, I have to think why do we need support for JPG, TGA and DDS images?

Also, wouldn't it help the system if someone was resolved to sit down and clean the turret code up? I know it wouldn't be easy - nothing worthwhile ever is - but wouldn't it be nice if it was sorted out?



Off-topic, just want a double-check on two things.
1)The max number of submodels in a POF model is 110
2)Multi-part turrets is 25

[Goober5000]

Sometimes I get the impression that the only things people care about are effects and graphics-related requests. I've done ballistic primaries, persistent variables, new ship flags, texture replacement, and a boatload of sexps, to name a few features.  But except for karajorma, I've only heard a smattering of other people say they're using them (though it looks like ballistic primaries are now finally going mainstream).  I'm also working on a few other gameplay related features right now, such as variable- and sexp- controlled ship loadout.

The problem with turrets is that they are part of the AI system, which the SCP coders have learned to avoid like the plague.  We have tried -- several times -- to fiddle with various elements of it, and every time we do it's ended up breaking something or massively screwing up the balance.  So now we stay away from it.

This is why nobody's done anything much with the turrets or the AI.  It's not because we're not listening, it's because we haven't been able to figure out how to work with it without breaking it.  So if you have an AI-related problem, it's best to try to find a way around it.  This is why I'm telling you to look at your models and fiddle with the field of fire.  It's much, much easier than fixing the turret code.

[Trivial Psychic]

Perhaps experience gained in designing Ferrium might allow some of you guys to create a new turret ai from scratch, which isn't as difficult to work with... sometime in the non-near future.

As far as sexps, I know I myself would probably use them more often if FRED itself was in a better state.  I have an older version of FRED on my drive which I'd still be using, if it supported mod directories, but it was the last one submitted before that feature entered the scene, along with the current rendering bugs... but these are for someone like RT to fix... when he gets the time.

Later!

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Goober5000
Sometimes I get the impression that the only things people care about are effects and graphics-related requests. I've done ballistic primaries, persistent variables, new ship flags, texture replacement, and a boatload of sexps, to name a few features.  But except for karajorma, I've only heard a smattering of other people say they're using them (though it looks like ballistic primaries are now finally going mainstream).  I'm also working on a few other gameplay related features right now, such as variable- and sexp- controlled ship loadout.

I'm always sad when I hear you say that Goober.

 As you can guess from the way I've repeated asked for it I'm definately using ship loadout features in TMA and SoR and if it weren't for the way the campaign is set up I'd insist on using them in MG too.

I've not actually touched the persistant variable beyond a few pokes and prods to see how they work but the plotlines for MG, TMA and SoR are full of references to them.  

As for the new SEXPs I've been having all kinds of evil ideas about things I can do with them. Just ask anyone on the MG team what I've done with just the set-ship-position SEXP and you'll see an evil smile spread over their faces  I'm sure that I'm not the only one thinking of uses for them either. Black Wolf's gravity idea from a while back should be proof of that.

Anyway I'm going to continue cheerleading what you've done for FS2_open for a long while yet. (Just don't expect me to put on a skirt and wave pom-poms)


Actually while I'm talking about Persistant variables what happens when you play a mission in the tech room that uses them? Do they simply use the default value like with standard variables? If so can you change the default on a mission-by-mission basis so that you can test the mission for different values of the variable?

Worries over testing are the main reason I haven't added them into a mission yet (at the moment I was planning to add them in last thing but if you can alter them I can start adding them in now).

[Goober5000]

Originally posted by karajorma
I'm always sad when I hear you say that Goober.

Yeah, I feel bad saying it, but I get frustrated.  WMCoolmon's done a bunch of neat stuff recently which has been slipping under the radar too.  The problem, as people have said, is that it's a lot easier to demonstrate graphical enhancements than to demonstrate new sexps or gameplay features - all you have to do is plop a ship in FRED, fire up the game, and take a screenshot.  I think when the SCP-based campaigns start getting released, though, we'll start seeing a lot more enthusiasm... that's why I'm eagerly anticipating the MindGames demo.

As for the new SEXPs I've been having all kinds of evil ideas about things I can do with them. Just ask anyone on the MG team what I've done with just the set-ship-position SEXP and you'll see an evil smile spread over their faces  I'm sure that I'm not the only one thinking of uses for them either. Black Wolf's gravity idea from a while back should be proof of that.

Anyway I'm going to continue cheerleading what you've done for FS2_open for a long while yet. (Just don't expect me to put on a skirt and wave pom-poms)

Hehe, just make a bunch of good missions, with lots of sexps, and I'll be happy.

Actually while I'm talking about Persistant variables what happens when you play a mission in the tech room that uses them?

Nothing, really.  They're part of the campaign data structure so they aren't checked when you're doing standalone missions (one reason is to avoid variable name conflicts).  When I needed to test them I just put together a minicampaign with a few simple missions.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Goober5000
Yeah, I feel bad saying it, but I get frustrated.  WMCoolmon's done a bunch of neat stuff recently which has been slipping under the radar too.  The problem, as people have said, is that it's a lot easier to demonstrate graphical enhancements than to demonstrate new sexps or gameplay features - all you have to do is plop a ship in FRED, fire up the game, and take a screenshot.  I think when the SCP-based campaigns start getting released, though, we'll start seeing a lot more enthusiasm... that's why I'm eagerly anticipating the MindGames demo.

Right now it's a toss up as to which will appear first MG Demo or SoR. At the moment SoR actually has more of your SCP features because I had a little rethink of the plot recently while the MG one is  more set in stone (the really cool stuff appears more in the later missions).

Originally posted by Goober5000
Hehe, just make a bunch of good missions, with lots of sexps, and I'll be happy.

Oh I will but I've always been the type that likes to push the envelope when it comes to writing missions.  If I were a figure skater I'd care just as much about the marks for technical merit as the artistic ones

Originally posted by Goober5000
Nothing, really.  They're part of the campaign data structure so they aren't checked when you're doing standalone missions (one reason is to avoid variable name conflicts).  When I needed to test them I just put together a minicampaign with a few simple missions.

Fair enough. It's not hard to set up a mission that simply sets the persistant variables and then ends I suppose. I'll have to start coding them in to MG and SoR then

[Goober5000]

Originally posted by karajorma
Oh I will but I've always been the type that likes to push the envelope when it comes to writing missions.  If I were a figure skater I'd care just as much about the marks for technical merit as the artistic ones

Good, good... me too. I think you'll be pleased with my next crop of features... now all I need to do is find a computer with both a C compiler and internet access.

[Nuke]

im making extensive use of ballistic primaries. just wait till nukemod release 3 comes out. i got a buttload of models to recompile and missions to make. of the features just arent documented properly. i mean i add stuff to the wiki from time to time, but only features i fully understand. whenever i hear rumors of new features i will spend hours searching the forums for details. dont think that your time is wasted. you are making this game engine more versitile all the time and as a modder i can respect that.

[QuantumDelta]

Goober - it may not mean a lot to you, but to me, smooth FPS, Gameplay, and variability of fred means far more to me than any shallow graphical enhancements.

As far as I can tell so far almost all the graphics enhancements have done is;
Lag things.

Tends to be why I have one install with everything on or 1 thing on at a time for testing;
One install with almost nothing on.