Gundam 1.1 - Page 14

Gundam 1.1

All game release threads should be posted here

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Zoombie
Posts: 6149
Joined: 15 Mar 2005, 07:08

Post by Zoombie »

Oh...

Didn't think of that.
User avatar
Neddie
Community Lead
Posts: 9406
Joined: 10 Apr 2006, 05:05

Post by Neddie »

KDR_11k wrote:non-epic coms make it impossible/unfeasible to com rush on smaller maps.
It really isn't that viable WITH Epic Commanders...
User avatar
KDR_11k
Game Developer
Posts: 8293
Joined: 25 Jun 2006, 08:44

Post by KDR_11k »

On small maps, especially in 1.1 with the Gaw vs. fedcom...
User avatar
zwzsg
Kernel Panic Co-Developer
Posts: 7052
Joined: 16 Nov 2004, 13:08

Post by zwzsg »

Factories on your whitebase!

Image

Image
This mods gives Gundam whitebase (fedcom) a factory on their back.

How to use:
* First all, you need to get Gundam 1.1!
* Under Spring74b3:
- type .cheat
- then .give grabbablefac
- then move the whitebase over it
* Under Spring nightly build: a LUA script automatically create the factory
* Drag select the whitebase+factory, then build stuff, such as mexxes, planes, or mechs

Known bugs:
* The factory clips alot, I guess it's because it want to be on the ground
* The whitebase gets speedboost from the unit being built inside its ass that push it
* The building decals appears at the place building started getting built, not where building dropped
* Oh yeah, almost forgot the most important one, the whitebase can't build anymore, "because BuilderCAI and TransportCAI (every CommandAI) are mutually exclusive". If it's a transport, it can't be a builder, and if it's not a transport, it can't execute "attach-unit" in the script.
User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22309
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Post by smoth »

Zwzsg, while it is nice that you made the effort, the bugs make it next to unusable and now I will have to explain to more ignorant players why it is I cannot do the mobile whitebase construction(they ask this often).


However, in lua I can make the whitebase build in air. It is just a resource cost then a call to create a unit at X location. :). Hell I could have the whitebase build up a series of units it in it's cargo hold and have it airdrop them :). It would probably be a bit of work is not on my priority list at the moment.
User avatar
zwzsg
Kernel Panic Co-Developer
Posts: 7052
Joined: 16 Nov 2004, 13:08

Post by zwzsg »

What about fixing the bugs, instead of throwing the baby with the bathwater and murdering everyone who ever saw it?
  • For the pushing of the whitebase, either:
    • Reduce the collision sphere and or the yardmap and or move the pad of the factory and or the factory out of the collision sphere. Very easy to do, and guaranteed to work!
    • That a transport can be pushed by the unit it transport is actually a Spring bug. Fix it! (Or lobby a dev into fixing it).The part of the code that detect collision and plane pushing should discard attached unit, including:
      • 2nd degree attached unit (when a unit hold a unit that itself hold a third unit)
      • nanoframes attached to factory buildpad (I suppose units under construction are considered like attached unit, right?).
      • nanoframes during the first instant of existence (I say that because I noticed whitebase gets a huge pushup when the building starts, then almost no pushing afterward).
      • Planes, they have somehwhat different collision code than ground units, but neither should be pushed by the unit they transports.
      • When the transported unit is actually a building, in case it makes a difference.
    • I tried making the whitebase ultraheavy (Mass=1234567890;) thinking that the amount each unit is displaced during a collision is proporptionnal to their relative weight, but it seemed to make no difference.
    • By the way, did anyone ever noticed regular transport being pushed by what is inside? If conventionnal transports never get pushed by their load, while my unconventionnal ones are, might be an idea to look into what cause that difference.
  • For the loss of the whitebase constructing ability, either:
    • Similarly to how it spawns and grab a factory, make it spawn and grab a mobile cons. That way, when you'll drag select the whitebase, it would actually select three units, the whitebase itself, the embedded factory, and the embedded cons, and when you click a mexx and click ground, it would actually be the embedded cons that would build it. Problem with that, is that if you order the embedded cons to build something a screen away, the whitebase will probably not move there. The player would have to select both the whitebase and its nanolathe unit, then enqueue first a move order, then a build order, which is inconvenient and inintuitive for the player. Maybe LUA magic can be used to make the transproted cons pass its move orders to the whitebase?
    • Edit Spring's source so that even units that aren't transport and don't have a transportcapicity can execute an "attach-unit" command in their script.
    • Edit Spring's source so that builder and transport are not mutually exclusive.
    • Use LUA magic to change on the fly the tag "transportcapacity" and allow "attach-unit" to work, without touching the rest.
  • For the factory clipping between ground and whitebase:
    • First, I though about:
      • making the factory hide all its piece
      • making the whitebase show a piece that looks like the factory
      • giving the factory null footprint, null collision sphere, etc.. so as to ensure it doesn't interfer with anything on the ground.
      That way, the factory would still clip, but it would have no effect neither graphical nor mechanical. Problem is that is that the unit build by the factory would still clip between ground and whitebase. I could try to make the factory drop what i builds, and assuming that works, and that the factory yet still keep on building, make the whitebase regrab the nanoframe, and uhhh ok a bit too complex.
    • Attempt to change the factory into something that build like a factory yet doesn't drop to ground like a building, either by clever combination of FBI tags or LUA modification of that factory property.
    • Fix Spring source so that transported buildings don't clip between ground and transport?
I still prefer to use the normal factory building code, than attempt to simulate the whole building process via LUA. Even if that post may look big, these are still:
  • Few and minor bugs
  • Bugs, which as such should get fixed at their source. I merely put in evidence bugs lying in source, but haven't created them.
While if you attempt to write a buildmenu, that triggers a nanolathing effect with a unit that stays attached while getting slowly build while ressources are used and the building stop when there's no ressources and ..... bah good luck trying to rewrite half of Spring.exe in LUA. Not to mention at the end it probably would still suffer from same bugs.
User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22309
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Post by smoth »

*sighs* zwzsg, if I say I cannot use It I cannot. I will reluctantly say why.

*edits because my post was possibly too harsh. *edit*

Z, there is more then just that to the reason I am saying that it will not work out. I do not have to rewrite as much as you think and no, nanolathes and nanoframes are not going to be a part of gundam for much longer. I have other reasons to say no to that script, believe me I appreciate that you want to help me but I have a larger plan at work. Part of that plan is the federation commander not being a ta-styled factory.

I am not fond of tell people my future plans ans I prefer to keep them a secret so I can surprise players. I do appreciate what you are trying to do for me but it is not going to work out.

As far as me going in and patching part of spring or lobbying the devs, I have other areas I want to see worked on.
User avatar
KDR_11k
Game Developer
Posts: 8293
Joined: 25 Jun 2006, 08:44

Post by KDR_11k »

Just for reference, flying factories are a one-liner in Lua and don't require box dragging to select attached things.

I wouldn't be surprised if the pushing comes from the unit being built since Spring never assumed anyone would load a factory that's building something. I don't expect to see that get fixed since the Lua way is considered the way to go, unless Lua factories get pushed by their contents as well.
User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22309
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Post by smoth »

Drop the whitebase as factory thing please, I do not want to give away more then I have to.
User avatar
zwzsg
Kernel Panic Co-Developer
Posts: 7052
Joined: 16 Nov 2004, 13:08

Post by zwzsg »

Just for reference, flying factories are a one-liner in Lua and don't require box dragging to select attached things.
Well, you don't have to drag select to select only one component. And I always said mobile factory needs two selectable bits, one to give move order to the mobile factory, one to give move order to the unit it builds. Which my way conveniently has, while LUA flying factories don't. Oh, I got idea: Until you can give different move order to what's being built and what's building, LUA based solution are simply not acceptable! Oh and even if you code that, then I'll say it's just a hack, and pretend your whole unit never existed.
I wouldn't be surprised if the pushing comes from the unit being built since Spring never assumed anyone would load a factory that's building something. I don't expect to see that get fixed since the Lua way is considered the way to go.
I fully expect that to be fixed, as this bug probably affects much more than that particular unit. I need some more testing to confirm it also affect regular transports, but, you know, grabbing a unit may have other use than flying factories, and may be done other way than my autograb scripts. And yeah, Spring never assumed anyone would load a factory that's building something, so that bug never was exposed. However, now that someone has, and that the bug was found, it must be fixed!
unless Lua factories get pushed by their contents as well.
No. LUA is magical. It cures all bugs. Especially when you don't really test it ingame.

Anyway, care to make me a mod implementing "LUA flying factories", so we have some actual stuff to comment about? Trepan linked me to his flying factory lua script, but then he talked about how I have to "release control" to move again, and that confused me greatly. Plus it's not fun if I make both side of the issue.
User avatar
KDR_11k
Game Developer
Posts: 8293
Joined: 25 Jun 2006, 08:44

Post by KDR_11k »

I think release control refers to the physics override that lets you set a unit's speed and spin through the script (e.g. force it to move forward).
User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22309
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Post by smoth »

*sighs* rather then this thread turn into a can it be done debate..

decit did flying factories in a nightly build of spring.. it did not take him five minutes.
Last edited by smoth on 02 May 2007, 20:13, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Pxtl
Posts: 6112
Joined: 23 Oct 2004, 01:43

Post by Pxtl »

smoth wrote:*sighs* rather then this thread turn into a can it be done debate..

decit did flying factories in a nightly build of spring.. it did not take him five minutes.
YAY NO PINK!
User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22309
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Post by smoth »

don't get your hopes up, I am tired and forgot the tag.



so does anyone want to actualy discuss gundam?
User avatar
KDR_11k
Game Developer
Posts: 8293
Joined: 25 Jun 2006, 08:44

Post by KDR_11k »

Just one thing: Hurry up with 1.11 already! You keep finding new things to add, most other mods or games would have taken that changelog as a reason to label it 1.2 already. If you want 1.11 to get released and people to play a version that does not reward expansion over base building then try to find a line you can draw where you say "no more changes except minor balancing tweaks and bugfixes" and then you release it. 1.1 has enough flaws that you should've released a hotfix with just those things repaired much earlier instead of leaving people to play a version that's basically Expand & Tankspam. People see what the mod plays like and most people don't have 1.11letter to see the improvements so they think 1.1 is the way Gundam is meant to be. You're giving people an inferior version and they think that's all you can do.
tombom
Posts: 1933
Joined: 18 Dec 2005, 20:21

Post by tombom »

KDR_11k wrote:If you want 1.11 to get released and people to play a version that does not reward expansion over base building
I'm interested; why is this considered desirable? It seems pretty weird.
User avatar
KDR_11k
Game Developer
Posts: 8293
Joined: 25 Jun 2006, 08:44

Post by KDR_11k »

It's just the way Gundam is meant to be. There's no way to completely keep your enemy away from your econ (e.g. loads of AA won't stop a serious bomber attack, defense turrets blow up by the dozen once you field heavy weapons and most mobiles are too slow to catch up with a few specialized dashers) so the way to get a better econ than the enemy is to do more damage to his than he can do to yours.
User avatar
AF
AI Developer
Posts: 20687
Joined: 14 Sep 2004, 11:32

Post by AF »

And econ is so easily rebuilt and blown up anyway.
User avatar
Zpock
Posts: 1218
Joined: 16 Sep 2004, 23:20

Post by Zpock »

KDR_11k wrote:Just one thing: Hurry up with 1.11 already! You keep finding new things to add, most other mods or games would have taken that changelog as a reason to label it 1.2 already. If you want 1.11 to get released and people to play a version that does not reward expansion over base building then try to find a line you can draw where you say "no more changes except minor balancing tweaks and bugfixes" and then you release it. 1.1 has enough flaws that you should've released a hotfix with just those things repaired much earlier instead of leaving people to play a version that's basically Expand & Tankspam. People see what the mod plays like and most people don't have 1.11letter to see the improvements so they think 1.1 is the way Gundam is meant to be. You're giving people an inferior version and they think that's all you can do.
It's better to release one big revolutionery version that everyone gets excited about and d/ls then lots of little patches that people loose/neverhave interest in and then noone bothers after a while. For the people this dosnt apply to, that are really into the mod, they can be closed beta testers I guess.

Also it's a bit annoyering to be told to hurry up... even if it's in a positive way becouse someone is ecited, esp if you add arguments... :roll:
User avatar
KDR_11k
Game Developer
Posts: 8293
Joined: 25 Jun 2006, 08:44

Post by KDR_11k »

But for a 0.01 version change? Usually 0.01 is seen as a bugfix step.
Post Reply

Return to “Game Releases”