Spring RTS Engine

yeah and avoid doing it like this:


xDDD

all i see is the nazi flag lol

(the "no image" buildpic has nothing to do with the mod)

PURE did some good job:

although its way too one color. but easily distinguishable objects.

TA excess looks good too:

i think this is what regret wants to make? looks like OTA units but they arent.


looks great and simple

you can learn a lot by just browsing modinfo buildtree feature

Way to post images from 2007. Lossy fail jpeg as well.

whats your point...? the worser the quality, the better you see how a bad design fails...

I like the TA excess ones, they look like oldschool (SVGA) command&conquer.

I Logged in to say that i think this project sucks. BA does not need to be TA-IP free!

I Logged in to say that i think this project is awesome. BA LIBRE!!!

NOiZE wrote:I Logged in to say that i think this project sucks. BA does not need to be TA-IP free!

no u

NOiZE wrote:I Logged in to say that i think this project sucks. BA does not need to be TA-IP free!

Normal BA will carry on, these guys couldn't afford the rent on their own subforum

Its a trap. Once he finishes it, he will switch the name to CA.

Competition does not always prod innovation. Teamwork is greater than the sum of its parts.

Being able to implement your own ideas motivates spring/game/mod development like nothing else can. Creating original content offers this opportunity to people.

point is: There are reasons to liberate BA. For me personally it because BA is the most inbred springmod out there, and intuitive i feel or think that diversity is better.

no insults intended, just sharing some opensource ideology.

and ultimately alot of ca's gameplay is inspired by the artwork

Examples? also: ultimately a lot of ca's artwork is inspired by the gameplay.

There must be multiple ways to make units visually more conform with each other. Ideas like this might be helpful:
http://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.ph ... hilit=lego

I dont really want...

Don't really want What? Don't want to see, don't want to play, don't want to work on? I think the real challenge for most mods is organising those who are willing and able.

All games/mods are traps, some more than others. Get caught in a nice one.

(or better yet: multiple ones)

FireStorm_ wrote:ultimately a lot of ca's artwork is inspired by the gameplay.

erm, no, it isnt

most of ca's artwork is someone logging into #ca and saying 'LOL guys, looks what i made: its a flying toastter!!'

I never saw a flying toaster unit in ca

throw out everything, heres a new unit concept!

Tribulex wrote:

TradeMark wrote:Its a trap. Once he finishes it, he will switch the name to CA.

NOiZE wrote:I Logged in to say that i think this project sucks. BA does not need to be TA-IP free!

I logged in to agree with these posts. Not a very good trap, look at ca and bar, both are pretty much the same goals, with bar wanting to keep ba gampeplay.

Those are completely different. Artwork does not define a game.

TradeMark wrote:you dont need to look at the shape of the unit in OTA models because the textures are so different.

looking at shapes takes lots of brain power. looking at colors takes almost none... same as comparing square root and one bitshift operator speeds...

This image, we are talking about? The one with the identical white tracks, the identical black body, the identical teamcolour on the turrets with the grey barrels?

The only difference is shape: Two barrels vs one, long vs short.

Compare:

Teamcolour and grey patterned body, grey turret with black bands, vs high contrast black and white body, teamcolour collar on turret. The difference is MOSTLY colour, rather than shape.

The problem with .s3o is mipmap compression (muddy texture) and normals (dull colour if rescaled). Its mostly technical. Yes, if a texture artist makes the whole unit grey then puts tiny details all over it, it will be very hard to see those details. For Mr.D's models though, this is a non-issue, his are an improvement over the 3do's.

About unit naming: I'd suggest a category based naming, something like ARM_Power_Geothermal, CORE_Airplane_Bladewing, that could be used for organizing build menus, easier tab completion with /give, etc.

Explosions probably shouldn't have faction-specific names at all (because most of them can be shared for both factions), but should weapons still be kept faction-specific? That causes a lot of duplication, but since the projectiles may need different models and the settings are likely to be different, this seems to make sense.

One specific thing that annoys me a lot in BA is the amount of special damages. They are used on pretty much everything and it is easy to miss that modinfo is showing you incorrect DPS because the damage value is just bogus and the usual target of the weapon has different special damage (e.g. flakkers have 1000 damage that is actually not used against fighters, gunships or bombers, but special damages of only 100-200 depending on plane type).

about naming, just keep the names how they are. Ppl should know them by heart!

Tronic wrote:About unit naming: I'd suggest a category based naming, something like ARM_Power_Geothermal, CORE_Airplane_Bladewing, that could be used for organizing build menus, easier tab completion with /give, etc.

haahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha


ARM_Water_Advanced_Torpedo_Launcher

ARM_Water_Underwater_Power_Fusion_Reactor

gj (good joke)

TradeMark wrote:ARM_Water_Advanced_Torpedo_Launcher

ARM_Water_Underwater_Power_Fusion_Reactor

Including tier designation isn't a good idea I think. It could change eventually or a unit can be in 2 tiers.