What this game needs??

[K.B.] Napalm Cobra · Post by **[K.B.] Napalm Cobra** » 08 Oct 2005, 10:30

I reckon it needs more than a dozen, theres probably that already if you count side projects like ai and tinkerers

AF · Post by AF » 08 Oct 2005, 17:24

ahem, tri based unti mdoels are possible, the changes needed are to be made to 3D0 builder not spring.

[K.B.] Napalm Cobra · Post by **[K.B.] Napalm Cobra** » 09 Oct 2005, 00:38

No changes, just rewrite it. Its far too crappy to just be changed.

aGorm · Post by **aGorm** » 09 Oct 2005, 00:46

SJ wrote:What spring really needs is a dozen programmers to implement everything.

Had me laffin on teh floor for 10 mins....

aGorm

Post by **jcnossen** » 09 Oct 2005, 03:47

Hehe, I was wondering when SJ would react on one of the many wish lists

, "what this game needs", "feature request",.... Generating wish lists seems to be a hobby of this community

Sheekel · Post by **Sheekel** » 09 Oct 2005, 04:46

well, im trying to learn C++ so i can help. Its confusing

! But i have the compiler and i have been messing with the source. Maybe some people in the community could work on smaller projects (this has allready been done, with the lobby icons and new rocket kbot) while the devs work on more important things, like how bullets look

Seriously though...

Warlord Zsinj · Post by **Warlord Zsinj** » 09 Oct 2005, 07:10

It is quite clear what we have to do to hurry spring up.

We have to clone all the SY's.

Preferably several times over.

(we should take out any preference to enjoying "life" above Spring while we are tinkering with the genome)

FizWizz · Post by **FizWizz** » 09 Oct 2005, 09:22

oh yes, that does sound like a brilliant idea. But what about 20 years down the road, when the Swedes initiate their plans for world domination?

I think it's best that we invent time-dilation technology that will let the SYs do 10 times the work in 1/10th of the time. We will have the game finished in no time, and the SYs will be too aged to dominate the world =P.

[K.B.] Napalm Cobra · Post by **[K.B.] Napalm Cobra** » 09 Oct 2005, 11:03

20 years? Such foolishness, they've already started, spring is just the first offencive of a huge campaign.

zwzsg · Post by **zwzsg** » 09 Oct 2005, 14:00

SJ wrote:What spring really needs is a dozen programmers to implement everything.

So true!

Justin Case · Post by **Justin Case** » 11 Oct 2005, 11:19

weather would be so friggin cool. I'd like to see units kick up dust also and moving water (shorelines like AoE)

TARevenger · Post by **TARevenger** » 17 Oct 2005, 10:57

sand/mud traps to stop unit's in there tracks (excluding hovercraft that is) to free them you have to airlift them out

BlackLiger · Post by **BlackLiger** » 17 Oct 2005, 12:53

Uber optimised (200 lines of) code

Pxtl · Post by **Pxtl** » 17 Oct 2005, 15:20

TARevenger wrote:sand/mud traps to stop unit's in there tracks (excluding hovercraft that is) to free them you have to airlift them out

Any hazardous terrain is a problem because it creates microing. Say you have a "lava pit" that hurts a unit to walk through. Either (a) units are smart, and avoid it - in which case it's practically a wall and you wasted the coders' time making a pointless location. Or, (b) units are stupid and walk through it, in which case players are annoyed because their units are retarded and you have to micro-order them around every hazard.

Therefore, locational hazards are _bad_.

Better hazards are monster hazards. Imho, WarWind was the only game to get monster hazards right, and that game sucked in every other respect.

Pxtl · Post by **Pxtl** » 17 Oct 2005, 15:21

Alantai Firestar wrote:ahem, tri based unti mdoels are possible, the changes needed are to be made to 3D0 builder not spring.

A 3rd-party model type could be supported, like MD3s. Hell, MD3 models are already very similar to K-Bots in layout, with the lower-body, upper-body, and head as seperate models. Then you'd have access to existing model databases, tools, etc.

SinbadEV · Post by **SinbadEV** » 17 Oct 2005, 17:12

I think that an XML based model format that conforms to some kind of open standard would be good... know any of those? I'm talking source files that you can edit with notepad if neccessary...

Pxtl · Post by **Pxtl** » 17 Oct 2005, 17:36

SinbadEV wrote:I think that an XML based model format that conforms to some kind of open standard would be good... know any of those? I'm talking source files that you can edit with notepad if neccessary...

Too much information for that. A robust model system will include concepts of animation, high polycounts, etc. Text-based model specs would be painfully bloated. While the metadata and animation information could be text (it is in Q3) the actual vertex, poly, and UV mapping information work better in a more compact bytecode form.

Weaver · Post by **Weaver** » 17 Oct 2005, 20:48

SinbadEV wrote:I think that an XML based model format that conforms to some kind of open standard would be good... know any of those? I'm talking source files that you can edit with notepad if neccessary...

Like this?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cbbc/bamzooki/make/zook_kit.shtml

Desiged for kids to use but good fun for dads too. Not sure how open it is though.

AF · Post by AF » 17 Oct 2005, 21:05

The problem isnt with the format, it's with the fact 3d0 builder cant render tri's, only quads. If you used another program to create a tri based model instead then spring would accept it fine, but 3d0 builder would want nothing todo with it. Thus 3d0 builder needs editing to support tri's aswell as quads.

Either that or you write a new program to replace 3d0 builder

FLOZi · Post by **FLOZi** » 17 Oct 2005, 21:43

3do doesn't support UV mapping or skeletal animation

Spring RTS Engine

What this game needs??