[Dragon]

 
I promised to remind you about this once Antipodes 8 is in. I do not forget about my promises, and though 3.7 RC phase took longer than I expected, it's finally here.
Now that the new pilot code is in, how about re-visiting this idea? Is MAX_RED_ALERT_SUBSYSTEMS still a problem, or did the new pilot code got rid of that? I think that additional subsystems could be useful for a variety of purposes.

[docfu]

On one hand, I completely understand the need for FSO to comply with retail versions of Freespace and for developers to shift the need of additional subsystem management from code to SEXP's or scripts...

And I just said I completely understand, so there is no need to explain otherwise or give reasons.

But it is a damn...damn shame that Freespace isn't growing beyond it's Lego 1.0 model to make room not only for subsystems, but actual working ship systems that can be turned on and off to make for a more realistic simulator.

And to repeat, I completely understand the way code works and how important it is to maintain retail compatibility, but realistically, shouldn't FSO eventually move beyond it's 640k memory limit?

[Goober5000]

And I just said I completely understand, so there is no need to explain otherwise or give reasons.

No, you completely do not understand.  Your post makes no sense.

Now that the new pilot code is in, how about re-visiting this idea? Is MAX_RED_ALERT_SUBSYSTEMS still a problem, or did the new pilot code got rid of that? I think that additional subsystems could be useful for a variety of purposes.

I'm still familiarizing myself with the new pilot code.  I'm currently in the process of removing MAX_MEDALS, so if that works successfully, it's likely that MAX_SUBSYSTEMS will be similarly painless.  On the other hand, the red-alert code does need a bit of an overhaul.

[The E]

On one hand, I completely understand the need for FSO to comply with retail versions of Freespace and for developers to shift the need of additional subsystem management from code to SEXP's or scripts...

Uhhh, no. All of the things discussed here would be additions (slightly complex though they might be) to the code; they would not impact retail compatibility in the slightest. The reason why we were arguing for this to be implemented in scripts or sexps is that these sort of additions require rather a lot of work that won't be used much. It's work to set up the gameplay logic for this, it's work to test it, bugfix it, and maintain it. If these were features that would make a big improvement for many mods and campaign authors, it would be easy to justify spending the time and effort, but if this is going to just be used by a small subset of mods, then the question is if adding these functions via scripting isn't a better choice.

And I just said I completely understand, so there is no need to explain otherwise or give reasons.

It seems that you don't. Also, you're not the only one reading this thread; explaining our reasoning is never a bad thing.

But it is a damn...damn shame that Freespace isn't growing beyond it's Lego 1.0 model to make room not only for subsystems, but actual working ship systems that can be turned on and off to make for a more realistic simulator.

See, it's for these kinds of things that the scripting API was made for. Small details that enhance the gameplay of a specific mod, but that are useless to the majority of mods and somewhat tricky to maintain and balance properly. Now, if the scripting API is unable to fulfill these functions, then we'd have to change the API (grant access to specific internal variables, for example), but that would be a comparatively small change that we can easily justify making.

And to repeat, I completely understand the way code works and how important it is to maintain retail compatibility, but realistically, shouldn't FSO eventually move beyond it's 640k memory limit?

I am not quite sure where you get this idea that we're in any way memory-limited (I mean, technically we are, we can't allocate more than 4GB of RAM no matter what we do, but noone has gotten close to that yet).

[Goober5000]

I think he was alluding to the "640k ought to be enough for anybody" quote.

[The E]

Maybe. Not that it makes any more sense even if read that way.

[Dragon]

I'm still familiarizing myself with the new pilot code.  I'm currently in the process of removing MAX_MEDALS, so if that works successfully, it's likely that MAX_SUBSYSTEMS will be similarly painless.  On the other hand, the red-alert code does need a bit of an overhaul.

That's great news. Red alert needed overhaul since retail, TBH. I haven't had the old Red Alert Bug since the new pilot code introduction, but then, I didn't play all that much since then.

[Bobboau]

the pilot file has a version number in it somewhere, right?

[niffiwan]

the pilot file has a version number in it somewhere, right?

Yes, one number in the .plr, and another independent one in the .csg's

[docfu]

Maybe. Not that it makes any more sense even if read that way.

I was alluding to the idea that Freespace needs more than just updated code that makes the engine work, it needs an idea of what "Freespace 3.0" should include if the game is to truely involve and not just be more mods or patches, but a new level of space combat.

Sure 1941 on the NES is fun to play once in a while, but there's a reason I have DCS: Warthog.

[Goober5000]

I was alluding to the idea that Freespace needs more than just updated code that makes the engine work, it needs an idea of what "Freespace 3.0" should include if the game is to truely involve and not just be more mods or patches, but a new level of space combat.

Have you played Windmills, or the latest release of Blue Planet, or Bem Cavalgar?

[docfu]

I was alluding to the idea that Freespace needs more than just updated code that makes the engine work, it needs an idea of what "Freespace 3.0" should include if the game is to truely involve and not just be more mods or patches, but a new level of space combat.

Have you played Windmills, or the latest release of Blue Planet, or Bem Cavalgar?

Last I checked, all have normal primary and secondary weapons, normal subsystems and normal shields. If there are any bonuses, like stealth, they feel 'put on top' of an existing ship, not part of the initial design.

There are no ship start-up sequences, no take off procedures, no interactive cockpits, no partial system usage(i.e. turning off weapons, shields, or engines completely). No realistic targeting features(the targeting system lets you target anything you want, anytime you want, there are no penalties or bonuses for having an AWACS present unless it's programmed as part of the mission story). There are no field-of-vision radar style systems except for scanning. No ship weights, no bonuses to flight/movement for being fully loaded versus empty. No fuel systems, no afterburner limits, no shield limits, no oxygen limits, no communication system irregularities(i.e. you either get the message as it's programmed in the mission, or you don't...as it's programmed.)

Or, in short, nothing to make the aircraft any more realistic than its 2D R-type or Gradius counterpart.

This is why I made the comparison to 1941. Sure you change the ship speeds, shield power, hull power, weapons, and turn speed, but for the most part, there is nothing that actually gives the model any depth to the play.

This is what I am looking for in the next iteration of Freespace. I don't care about other games, they all failed to make the mark. Freespace is the only one that has a decent chance of getting the simulation/combat/story balance right.

[MatthTheGeek]

Why would you possibly want realism. That sounds highly counterproductive.

[The E]

There are no ship start-up sequences, no take off procedures,

I guess Diaspora's start sequences don't count?
Thing is, these are gameplay elements that, at least for me, do not add anything to the gameplay, but rather make the process of getting into the game a whole amount of Not Very Fun. Also, these can be done via scripting if you really feel the need to torture your players with what amounts to a fancy quick time event.

no interactive cockpits,

Define "interactive" in this context. If you want Falcon 4.0-style "The cockpit model is the menu" interaction, I think you're in the wrong game.

no partial system usage(i.e. turning off weapons, shields, or engines completely).

Can be done easily in scripting.

No realistic targeting features(the targeting system lets you target anything you want, anytime you want, there are no penalties or bonuses for having an AWACS present unless it's programmed as part of the mission story).

Why would we hardcode this stuff? Why shouldn't we leave this up to mission and campaign designers? I think you're looking at this the wrong way.

Also, realism? Really?

There are no field-of-vision radar style systems except for scanning.

And missile lock-on. Also, you cry realism and then expect me to believe that spaceships centuries from now won't have more advanced sensor systems?

No ship weights, no bonuses to flight/movement for being fully loaded versus empty.

You could model this in scripting, but the fundamental brokenness of FS physics will get you. So why not start rewriting the physics system? Can't be that hard, can it?

No fuel systems, no afterburner limits,

I could swear there's a limited Afterburner option that was used by WCS, for example. Oh well, I must have been imagining things.

no shield limits,

What does that even mean?

no oxygen limits,

The average mission in FS2 has a duration of up to 30 minutes. There is no fighter plane in the world at this moment with that low an endurance.

no communication system irregularities(i.e. you either get the message as it's programmed in the mission, or you don't...as it's programmed.)

That's what mission scripting can provide.

Or, in short, nothing to make the aircraft any more realistic than its 2D R-type or Gradius counterpart.

....and that's bad?

This is why I made the comparison to 1941. Sure you change the ship speeds, shield power, hull power, weapons, and turn speed, but for the most part, there is nothing that actually gives the model any depth to the play.

This is what I am looking for in the next iteration of Freespace. I don't care about other games, they all failed to make the mark. Freespace is the only one that has a decent chance of getting the simulation/combat/story balance right.

Then I am sorry to disappoint you. FS isn't, never has been, and never was intended to be a hardcore Falcon 4.0-style simulation. If you can convince a coder to implement those features for you, or you implement them yourself, great. Just be aware that we have our mission scripting and lua scripting systems for a reason, and that is to allow people to change the gameplay without having to change the engine.

[MatthTheGeek]

No fuel systems, no afterburner limits,

I could swear there's a limited Afterburner option that was used by WCS, for example. Oh well, I must have been imagining things.

TVWP did it looooooong before WCS. And you could do it with retail if you wished.

no communication system irregularities(i.e. you either get the message as it's programmed in the mission, or you don't...as it's programmed.)

That's what mission scripting can provide.

One word. EMP.

[docfu]

Then I am sorry to disappoint you. FS isn't, never has been, and never was intended to be...

I have intentions, and I am looking for those who have ones similar to myself.

[The E]

You still haven't made your case as to why we would have to hardcode a lot of the behaviour you want into the engine.

Let me repeat my point from earlier in this thread:

1. Adding features to do more "realistic" simulations takes time and effort if done in the engine, increases code complexity and thus makes maintaining the code harder.
2. We have very powerful scripting systems that can be used to model this behaviour without making the engine more complex
3. Most of what you want to do can be done in scripting.
4. So why insist that we have to do this in the engine? Why not build it in scripting?

[mjn.mixael]

You most hardcode all the things... so that modders can be lazy.

Actually, I have a feature request. Can you code FS to mod for me?

[docfu]

Sorry, I never meant to insist that they be hard coded a-in in the source, I meant that a framework be set up and a standard set to make a next level sim.

But you are right. I shouldn't have posted in this discussion because the feature requests and ideas I have in mind don't need to be talked about here.

[Dragon]

We already have a "Falcon 4.0 in space"-suited game on this very forum. Starshatter could, with enough effort, turn into this. Even now, it's around the level of Novalogic's F-22 sim when it comes to realism. It could use a bigger community and more coders, though. My intention when posting this thread was something along the lines of Wing Commander. It had a lot more things that could get shot off in a fighter. I'd like to see that in FS, too. WCS could benefit from this, as could Diaspora (which also aims for a realistic feel) and perhaps FoTG (XWA also had quite a few subsystems on it's ships, IIRC).