[Goober5000]

Originally posted by Trivial Psychic
Broader support for Multi-species, with additional options.

All the species-specific stuff is now in species_defs.tbl; nothing is defined in the code anymore.  What were you thinking of?

Broader support for multi-docking.

Broader than what we have now?

[Galemp]

I'd really like to have the ability to use Nebula Lightning effects in Subspace missions.

[StratComm]

Originally posted by Goober5000

Originally posted by Trivial Psychic
Broader support for mulit-docking.

Broader than what we have now? [/B]

A Fred build that supports it would be nice if one doesn't already exist, but more importantly something should probably be done about the fact that when 2 or more powered ships are docked to another one, the whole mess wiggles around like there's no tomorrow.  Or do I need to take that to Mantis?

[Goober5000]

Originally posted by StratComm
A Fred build that supports it would be nice if one doesn't already exist

In the works.

but more importantly something should probably be done about the fact that when 2 or more powered ships are docked to another one, the whole mess wiggles around like there's no tomorrow.  Or do I need to take that to Mantis?

That's really rather impossible to fix, and you run into this in retail too.  Just use sexps to ensure that only one ship is powered at a time.

[Mongoose]

Originally posted by Trivial Psychic
TBP could use a method of simulating the focusing effects for the Vorlon ships and the Victory.  I had 2 ideas on how to simulate the effect, but I much prefer the 2nd idea.  I explained my ideas in THIS thread.  It uses a system of secondary beamglows and beams focusing towards the main beamglow, with a bit of a delay between the two, so the secondaries warmup before the main one does.

It strikes me that this sort of effect would be of particuar importance for a certain vessel in the Star Wars mod, as well.

[StratComm]

Originally posted by Goober5000
That's really rather impossible to fix, and you run into this in retail too.  Just use sexps to ensure that only one ship is powered at a time.

Which is strange, because if I dock a bunch of ships in-mission to one "carrier" there's no jitter.  It's only when they start out that way that things go crazy.

[Goober5000]

Originally posted by StratComm
Which is strange, because if I dock a bunch of ships in-mission to one "carrier" there's no jitter.  It's only when they start out that way that things go crazy.

Oh, well initially docked ships aren't quite set up yet.  Maybe you're experiencing that bug instead.

[StratComm]

Ah, ok.  That would explain it then

[Trivial Psychic]

Originally posted by Goober5000
All the species-specific stuff is now in species_defs.tbl; nothing is defined in the code anymore.

There's still things like default iff.  I recall during the early days if multi-species introduction, Kazan was trying to setup a matrix to allow a system of relative iff, to designate how each species should handle each other by default:  species C is hostile to species E and friendly to species B, and species E is considered unknown to species B... that sort of thing.  Also, color designation, from how they should be colored in the FRED drop-down ship selection, and if there should be any special species colors on the hud (and escort list, etc.)  Also, the abilty to designate a different warp effect to a different species.

Of course, in the short term I'll settle for getting it stable.

[karajorma]

That really should be handled based on IFF changes rather than species_def changes though. All the species_def should do is set the default default iff.

I presume that's what you mean but it's a little hard to tell.

[aldo_14]

Do we have multiteam support yet?  Like A and B can be hostile to both each other and C, etc. So the player could have 2 enemies that are hostile to each other.

[karajorma]

Teams work like this AFAIK.

Friendly.
Hostile  (hates everyone except unknown)
Neutral (Hates Friendly - ignores hostile even when attacked by them)
Unknown (Won't attack or be attacked by anyone unless specifically ordered).

In addition to that you have all teams at war where everyone tries to kill everyone else.

The situation Aldo describes could be done using all teams at war but if you want something more specific than that you've got to do a lot of complex SEXPing using the AI-Chase-Any-Except SEXP.

[aldo_14]

[q]
Neutral (Hates Friendly - ignores hostile even when attacked by them)[/q]

Was it not that Neutral ignores friendly?  I'm sure we used that for a mission in CoW (the one with the cargo convoy).

[Galemp]

Neutral was used for the HoL in FS1--they hate Friendlys (attack GTA and PVN) and ignore Hostiles (Shivans)

[Goober5000]

Originally posted by Trivial Psychic
There's still things like default iff.... Also, color designation.... Also, the abilty to designate a different warp effect to a different species.

Ah, I forgot about FRED.  Yes, those will be added.

As far as the IFF matrix goes, that as karajorma says is in the IFF department.  I've been planning an iff_defs.tbl for some time and now that the code freeze is done I'll start working on it.

Originally posted by Galemp
Neutral was used for the HoL in FS1--they hate Friendlys (attack GTA and PVN) and ignore Hostiles (Shivans)

Indeed; they should have called it something more descriptive than Neutral.

As far as IFFs are concerned, I think only the following need to be specified.  Does this sound correct?

Team X:
--Attacks Y
--Attacks Y Only When Ordered [by add-ai-goal or comms]

I'd have to look in the code to double-check, but if that's the case we can specify iff_defs.tbl like so:

$IFF Name: Friendly
+Attacks: ( "Hostile", "Neutral" )
+Attacks Only When Ordered: ( "Unknown" )

$IFF Name: Hostile
+Attacks: ( "Friendly", "Neutral" )
+Attacks Only When Ordered: ( "Unknown" )

$IFF Name: Neutral
+Attacks: ( "Friendly" )
+Attacks Only When Ordered: ( "Unknown" )

$IFF Name: Unknown

[karajorma]

One suggestion. Add the colour for the team to the IFF_Defs. It will would be really useful for missions with traitors in them to have them appear as the same colour as friendlies when they first attack rather than having to switch them to red as soon as they begin the attack run.

That way you can specify ships that seem to have friendly IFFs right up until command figures out that they are attacking cause they've gone rogue.

It also gives you a way to allow the player to kill traitors as soon as he figures out who they are without having to make it open season on everyone by using the no traitor flag.

[Goober5000]

Right, good idea.

So

$IFF Name: whatever
$HUD Color: ( r, g, b )
+Attacks: ( "iff" )
+Attacks Only When Ordered: ( "iff" )
+Cargo Known By Default: [YES | NO]

It just occurred to me that I might be able to allow either "color" or "colour". Same for $FRED Color in species_defs.

[Trivial Psychic]

Other suggestions:

Either Gunship AI, or poor-man's-gunship-ai... ie, the use of "target big" and "target big no bomb" flags, so that heavier anti-cap weapons will target the bomber or fighter craft using it.

The ability to select specific ship fighterbays for arrival or departure.

change-skybox-pof sexp

That's all for now.

[Edit]
I forgot about bank-specific cycling and varied cycling.  Basically, as we have it righ now and flag is used to enable cycling between primary fire-points, but it will enable it universally throughout the model.  Furthermore, all firepoints will cycle in series.  For example, if you have a bank with 4 firepoints, it will fire 1, 2, 3, 4 and then repeat.  I'd like the ability to fire 1 and 3 at the same time, then 2 and 4, and repeat.  I'd like to see the ability to select how many firepoints in a bank will fire at once, a numeric sequence to indicate which ones should fire together, and of course, a way to indicate which banks you want to cycle, and which banks you may not, or may wish to cycle in a different pattern.
[/Edit]

[WMCoolmon]

Why not add it to species_defs.tbl?

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Trivial Psychic
change-skybox-pof sexp

Ummmmm. That one's already in FRED. Have a look at the Change>>Special SEXPs