[Starman01]

Hello Guys,

this is annoying feature-requesting starman again

But seriously, I , or better my team-mates and me have a problem. Most of you know, that one big feature in Wing Commander were always the huge fly-through-hangars on the  big carriers.

In order to make them look better, I already started to build boxes in them, but still they need parked fighters and stuff.

Currently I'm placing fighters in it, but this works only if the carrier stands still the entire mission, and does not even warp out. (and If you or someone else ramm it, it floats around somewhere).

But the perfect solution for this hangar-stuff would be, making them subobjects or docked objects. Both solutions are currently unusable.

1) Multi-Docking is not supported and leads into funny ship-behaviour (I once tried a transport with 6 docked containers, strange reactions where the result ) Changing this would certainly be a lot of work (but still something that could be used good).

2) So the second Idea would be the subobject-stuff. Easy to build, mostly implemented in the code, but has one major negative effect IMO.

Why are destroyed subobjects targetable

I mean, I can see a small sense, when there is this standard-freespace-subsystem like "communication" somewhere on the ships hull, and is destroyed and can be targeted with 0%.

But it will be very strange when I have huge grey target-bracket for a "dralthi-fighter" within an absolut empty hangar-bay, and can switch to even more when cycling through them (for example when I first rampage the hangar and then look for the engine-subsystem).

Turrets are different, they aren't targetable once destroyed, besides the very last one, this is also targeted with 0 %. But this turret-issue gives me the hope, that you might be able to change this part of the code.

Can you make destroyed subobject un-targetable ? This would be
a really important feature for us, pls give it a try.

Thanks a lot.

[SadisticSid]

Slight problem with that (I think), in that you can scan destroyed subsystems on capships; this would break that functionality.

[Goober5000]

We might be able to add a checkbox or sexp to make a specified subsystem untargetable.

[Nuke]

i want an ils so that players can follow waypoint paths (including those to fighterbays). that way you can model a tunnel inside the carriar, and if you recess the fighterbay subsystem deep enough inside the ship you can have a realistic docking ending the mission with the distance subsystem sexp. you would use your comm menue to request docking clearance and the ils could be triggered by sexp. the hud gauge itself being the hardest part. oh how i miss aproach and landings.

[StratComm]

On an unrelated note, I want untargetable subsystems anyway.  Not untargetable-when-destroyed, (which would be useful for Starman and co) but a complete "not targetable" flag so that we could have damage debris built in to our ships.

[Nuke]

i second that! id like invisible subsystems for damage effects. so you can blow off armor plates and stuff from ships without overloading the already cluttered list of subsystems. i can think of a million uses for it.

[Starman01]

Originally posted by StratComm
On an unrelated note, I want untargetable subsystems anyway.  Not untargetable-when-destroyed, (which would be useful for Starman and co) but a complete "not targetable" flag so that we could have damage debris built in to our ships.

This will be even better. I don't want that the parked fighters (and upcoming trucks and crates ) are targetable anyway. I only thought it would be easier to change this the way I  explained it

Also a "request landing" would be fun, but beside the comm-function we have already a communication-dialogue and land-in-fighterbay (or launch). I'm sure you will love the demo

[kasperl]

I'd love to see non targetable subsystems, since you could pretty juch approximate geomodding with it.

[Starman01]

Makes me happy to see, that more people want this feature, this raises our chances for getting it

Will you guys do it ?  *big puppy-eye please*

[Lynx]

PLEASE!



 

[Black Wolf]

Originally posted by Goober5000
We might be able to add a checkbox or sexp to make a specified subsystem untargetable.

That would own. And, you know, puppy.

[Carl]

but please don't make it standard. if an objective in a certain mission is to take out a subsystem then if it's already destroyed it'll be hard out if it was destroyed or not.

[Roanoke]

Originally posted by Lynx
PLEASE!

<>

try posting naked lay-dees and see if that gets a better response

[SausandMush]

For what it's worth i'll add my bit

pleasepleasepleasepleasepleaseplease:)

Geomod may be nearly impossible, but this would prove a pretty good substitute for it.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Nuke
i want an ils so that players can follow waypoint paths (including those to fighterbays). that way you can model a tunnel inside the carriar, and if you recess the fighterbay subsystem deep enough inside the ship you can have a realistic docking ending the mission with the distance subsystem sexp. you would use your comm menue to request docking clearance and the ils could be triggered by sexp. the hud gauge itself being the hardest part. oh how i miss aproach and landings.

Why not just FRED in some modified navbuoys?  Minor issue in placement and ensuring the capship is in position, but defo can be done in a fairly comprehenisve way.

[Nuke]

now that takes all the fun out of landing on a moving carrier deck

most of the stuff could be set up in fred, however i think a hud gauge that displays path points and such would be better, perhaps a variable path that will change with the ships movement. the cheap solution would be to add a set of glowpoints indicating a docking path. then activiating them via sexp at the end of the mission. however it doesnt indicate complex flightpaths, such as flying into a lateral hanger while a capship is at full speed.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Nuke
however it doesnt indicate complex flightpaths, such as flying into a lateral hanger while a capship is at full speed.

Why wouldn't that work using glowpoints? Get them to blink in the right order and they sound perfect for that.

[Starman01]

Originally posted by Nuke
now that takes all the fun out of landing on a moving carrier deck

most of the stuff could be set up in fred, however i think a hud gauge that displays path points and such would be better, perhaps a variable path that will change with the ships movement. the cheap solution would be to add a set of glowpoints indicating a docking path. then activiating them via sexp at the end of the mission. however it doesnt indicate complex flightpaths, such as flying into a lateral hanger while a capship is at full speed.

With the autopilot-function you can display the waypoints on your hud, and below each waypoint is a distant counter. However, after reaching a waypoints (which gets green when within 1000 meters) you have to select the next manual.

[Moonsword]

complex flightpaths, such as flying into a lateral hanger while a capship is at full speed

Otherwise known as an ouch moment.

Damn, that's not something I really want to try, personally, let alone trying to get the AI to enter or exit from a moving vehicle off the axis of flight...

[Nuke]

navy fighter pilots do this all the time, landing on an angled deck on a moving ship. ah what fun