I rather enjoy playing around possessing units in fps mode... feels kind of cool to be part of the action as you execute one of your schemes (I'm an old BattleZone II player, so that stuff makes me all nostalgic).
So I was thinking, it would be nice if there was an option within the unit files to add a custom HUD 3d model. It would be completely optional, but if a unit maker felt like it, he/she could add a neat cockpit which would show once you possess the unit.
Also, it would be neat if you could add instruments to the cockpit, such as altitude and speed readouts or whatever, and maybe the ability to lock on to and cycle between targets (great for aircombat).
I guess this kind of thing lands among the lowest of the low priorities, but it would still be kind of cool to see implemented one day.
Well, just a thought
Regarding the FPS "gimmick"
Moderator: Moderators
-
[K.B.] Napalm Cobra
- Posts: 1222
- Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 06:15
a part of the model, that shows up only when in fps mode, and contains an invisible "pilot" mesh that is the camera point of view. (in replacement for current point that is the gun cannon.. erl, shoting sentinels makes my head hurt!).
You can texture it as you like, using the same texturing techniques as for the hole model.
You can even add small "sliding health" bars, coded into the script, or even "clocks" erl... you know what i mean.. that analog clock-like sliders.. (speedometer? !! if get current speed worked :) ).
That script technique can be used to display gun status (ready/reloading aiming) and some random values... like radar? or.. altitude?.. hm.
e: cant wait to see this working!
You can texture it as you like, using the same texturing techniques as for the hole model.
You can even add small "sliding health" bars, coded into the script, or even "clocks" erl... you know what i mean.. that analog clock-like sliders.. (speedometer? !! if get current speed worked :) ).
That script technique can be used to display gun status (ready/reloading aiming) and some random values... like radar? or.. altitude?.. hm.
e: cant wait to see this working!
-
SwiftSpear
- Classic Community Lead
- Posts: 7287
- Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29
-
GrOuNd_ZeRo
- Posts: 1370
- Joined: 30 Apr 2005, 01:10
IMO it's a great idea that deserves to be mentioned until we get our way 
(nahh, I don't want to pester the devs too much).
But I do believe that all these features should be implemented, it's a very popular feature and will definitly only increase popularity of Spring.
I have a wishlist somewhere, but i'll just type it again:
-Cycling between targets, using the ( [, ] ) to cycle would be fine to me.
-Using (W) to cycle between available weapons, shift-W can be used to make all weapons sellected.
-Altometers, ladders, heading and other info in a HUD for aircraft, vehicles could have simple speedometers (analog support speedometer?)
-commanding/building in FPS mode
-Custom HUD and Cockpit 3D model support would be very swell, but not a priority
-Halo-style vehiclular movement, where you move the mouse the turret moves first, then the chassis, in aircraft, the camera will move along accurately with the plane turning so the mouse doesn't go faster than the actual plane
-3rd Person support for those Halo-Junkies
-Engine Sounds/Idle Sounds etc?
Just some stuff :)
Did I mention support for horizontal take off and landing?
(nahh, I don't want to pester the devs too much).But I do believe that all these features should be implemented, it's a very popular feature and will definitly only increase popularity of Spring.
I have a wishlist somewhere, but i'll just type it again:
-Cycling between targets, using the ( [, ] ) to cycle would be fine to me.
-Using (W) to cycle between available weapons, shift-W can be used to make all weapons sellected.
-Altometers, ladders, heading and other info in a HUD for aircraft, vehicles could have simple speedometers (analog support speedometer?)
-commanding/building in FPS mode
-Custom HUD and Cockpit 3D model support would be very swell, but not a priority
-Halo-style vehiclular movement, where you move the mouse the turret moves first, then the chassis, in aircraft, the camera will move along accurately with the plane turning so the mouse doesn't go faster than the actual plane
-3rd Person support for those Halo-Junkies
-Engine Sounds/Idle Sounds etc?
Just some stuff :)
Did I mention support for horizontal take off and landing?
-
Sean Mirrsen
- Posts: 578
- Joined: 19 Aug 2004, 17:38
I know a very important change that is needed for the FPS mode. That is vector aiming. In other words, make mouse control actually shift the aiming vector, bypassing the target processing calculations that allow you to look where you shoot in artillery units, but completely screwing up the rest of the targetting, not allowing to aim at the sky or friendly units are some examples.
Of course, a "cockpit" piece is needed. Along with allowing the unit to be visible when piloting. For the first, you need only add a simple if clause to check if a piece named "cockpit" is present, and if it is, use it as the camera position. Custom HUDs and other things are highly optional, and can be done at a later stage.
Of course, a "cockpit" piece is needed. Along with allowing the unit to be visible when piloting. For the first, you need only add a simple if clause to check if a piece named "cockpit" is present, and if it is, use it as the camera position. Custom HUDs and other things are highly optional, and can be done at a later stage.
I dont really recall this topic being extensively discussed, but agree this is a common place, for almost every new player of spring.
Most of the things GZ suggested, can be "hard build" into the model, we just need some more poligons and scripts.
There is a function, get current speed or something, i know this is not currently supported, but maybe in the future. So, if you had this fuction aviable, you just need to query this value from time to time, and assign it to the "analog gauge" (script/model-parts made) showing the speed.
Health bars and some other as altitude can be done the same way, using get curr health.. and maybe there is a function already to get the heigth of the model?..
This, at least for basic eyecandy and testing purpouses, reliefs the necessity of a new HUD layer. (in the case this HUD thing is complex to get done at spring).
weapons switching and grouping stuff, is very needed in case this is fully functional, but most current units are ok the way that works now, so no need the extra bother..
About popularity.. would kick any newb that joins my game and tries to FPS its way to victory, seriously... . i will die of sickness if we a wave of fps-kids take over the client.. we better dont tell anyone of this.. O_O (until its worth the attention).
If HUD there ever is, I wish it to be fully modellable and scripteable, and not be some sort of generic hud modders have no control on. I mean, I want to make my very own button, which behave like I scripted them. I remember making a lenghty post about that. Ah there it is:
zwzsg wrote:Also, many players seem to like the FPS mode. Maybe with the new model format should come a way to define a cockpit to use with each model? One way would be to have a 2D picture resized to the screen definition, but that doesn't seem that good. A 3d cockpit would allow to turn the head to look through the side window, and that would be much better. Also, for a good looking cockpit, we need to have all sorts of dials, whatever-meters, displays, etc... that indicate values pertaining to the unit, like speed, altitude, health, etc... If we have a limited set of hard coded display, then creativity will be limited, and all cockpits will be forced to look the same. So it would be best if the meters in the cockpit could be scripted, for instance you'd model your dial, and then do something like "turn needle_of_the_speedometer to y-axis (get speed_of_the_unit)*scale now;" On the other hand having to script the hide and show for all the bits of a numeric digital display would soon be very tedious, so having part of the cockpit displays pre-made could be good. Or maybe just a way to print a value on a face with a custom font. Well, that cockpit part is probably going way too far, so do whatever you can.
And this has come up many times befor... many many many...
Anyway, I agree it wouldbe nice to have a hud, and teh controlls need a work over, I can't control anything the way it currently works...
How its should work is... mouse looks around and left and right keys stafe and you walk were you look.
If you think about it, TA's one of teh few games were walking bnackwards and shoting makes total sences, and stafing is just walking sideways or diagonaly...
get what i mean?
aGorm
Anyway, I agree it wouldbe nice to have a hud, and teh controlls need a work over, I can't control anything the way it currently works...
How its should work is... mouse looks around and left and right keys stafe and you walk were you look.
If you think about it, TA's one of teh few games were walking bnackwards and shoting makes total sences, and stafing is just walking sideways or diagonaly...
get what i mean?
aGorm
-
HildemarDasce
- Posts: 74
- Joined: 13 Nov 2005, 12:06
Although, care should be taken that units commanded by players don't become to powerful, just from the fact that they are player controlled.
BattleZone II was a game that circled around the player commanding a vehicle, and the other units you built and controlled functioned more as support and wingmen that you led in battle, rather than a stand alone army.
It was a great game, but I wouldn't like it if Spring took that road (as it has been done before).
But I guess it's not very likely it would turn out that way, seeing as BZ 2 didn't have nearly as many active units on the battlefield at any given time as Spring/TA. So even if a player controlled Bulldog could take out a couple of tanks more than an Ai controlled one, it wouldn't make that much difference.
BattleZone II was a game that circled around the player commanding a vehicle, and the other units you built and controlled functioned more as support and wingmen that you led in battle, rather than a stand alone army.
It was a great game, but I wouldn't like it if Spring took that road (as it has been done before).
But I guess it's not very likely it would turn out that way, seeing as BZ 2 didn't have nearly as many active units on the battlefield at any given time as Spring/TA. So even if a player controlled Bulldog could take out a couple of tanks more than an Ai controlled one, it wouldn't make that much difference.
-
Targ Collective
- Posts: 202
- Joined: 12 Nov 2005, 14:16
Unit control is a gimmick, and the AI is undeniably much better at driving the blasted things.
To make it worthwile a controlled unit would have to have massive stat boosts, effectively giving it 'commander' status.
Which is a shame. It's great fun. But to upgrade it from 'gimmick' status to a piece of game mechanics, the ability must be made worthwile in practical terms. I see no objection to giving a controlled unit at least 1.5* stat boosts, at most 3* stat boosts based on the unit type. Say a Weasel would get *3 while a Krogoth would get 1.5. To make it workable other units would guard our FPS unit, maybe fall into formation around it - might be an idea to make this conditional on whether or not they share a group.
Build menu access in c-units would be nice too, again giving more build speed and resource generation to make it tactically advantageous to encourage people to use it. I can see people starting construction, FPSing to build and then OTAing to set a new location.
This would have caveats associated with it, naturally; FPS would be best used for the tactical dimensions of combat while overhead management views would be best for the strategic.
Might be an idea to add an indicator of some sort, maybe an Arm/Core hologram of the side's colour over the controlled unit/structure.
This is another 'bells and whistles' idea though. Zaphod, you should really see about setting up a dedicated forum for all this stuff.
The Collective
To make it worthwile a controlled unit would have to have massive stat boosts, effectively giving it 'commander' status.
Which is a shame. It's great fun. But to upgrade it from 'gimmick' status to a piece of game mechanics, the ability must be made worthwile in practical terms. I see no objection to giving a controlled unit at least 1.5* stat boosts, at most 3* stat boosts based on the unit type. Say a Weasel would get *3 while a Krogoth would get 1.5. To make it workable other units would guard our FPS unit, maybe fall into formation around it - might be an idea to make this conditional on whether or not they share a group.
Build menu access in c-units would be nice too, again giving more build speed and resource generation to make it tactically advantageous to encourage people to use it. I can see people starting construction, FPSing to build and then OTAing to set a new location.
This would have caveats associated with it, naturally; FPS would be best used for the tactical dimensions of combat while overhead management views would be best for the strategic.
Might be an idea to add an indicator of some sort, maybe an Arm/Core hologram of the side's colour over the controlled unit/structure.
This is another 'bells and whistles' idea though. Zaphod, you should really see about setting up a dedicated forum for all this stuff.
The Collective
not bells and whistles if implemented. i like the idea, FPSing giving u the edge but the opputunity cost would be stopping u from viewing the game as a whole, a 1.5* boost in stats of everything but the krog (i really don't think it needs a boost) would be sweet. however builders shouldn't get better BT or anyting IMO that would be pretty silly and difficult to implement. although i have no idea how the FPS boost would work as well, high poly models should be done first i reckon and preferably LoD models to make it more fun =).
can the engine atm tell if units are being FPSed?
can the engine atm tell if units are being FPSed?
-
Targ Collective
- Posts: 202
- Joined: 12 Nov 2005, 14:16
well zwzsg said it.
and aGorm, ... ever played Mech Warrior 4?, try sepparating torso movement (mouse) from feets (keys), while using.. a Thor i.e. (with 2 c-lbc20 woot).
Completelly against powering up possesed units, let alone mexes
And backwards walking... when asked about this, the SY's said something like it was TA units fault... wonder if that means you CAN walk backwards, but.. the unit must be able to do this first (how?).
and aGorm, ... ever played Mech Warrior 4?, try sepparating torso movement (mouse) from feets (keys), while using.. a Thor i.e. (with 2 c-lbc20 woot).
Completelly against powering up possesed units, let alone mexes
And backwards walking... when asked about this, the SY's said something like it was TA units fault... wonder if that means you CAN walk backwards, but.. the unit must be able to do this first (how?).
-
SwiftSpear
- Classic Community Lead
- Posts: 7287
- Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29
There should be a generic model, but yes, I think modders should be able to tweak it however they need.zwzsg wrote:If HUD there ever is, I wish it to be fully modellable and scripteable, and not be some sort of generic hud modders have no control on. I mean, I want to make my very own button, which behave like I scripted them. I remember making a lenghty post about that. Ah there it is:zwzsg wrote:Also, many players seem to like the FPS mode. Maybe with the new model format should come a way to define a cockpit to use with each model? One way would be to have a 2D picture resized to the screen definition, but that doesn't seem that good. A 3d cockpit would allow to turn the head to look through the side window, and that would be much better. Also, for a good looking cockpit, we need to have all sorts of dials, whatever-meters, displays, etc... that indicate values pertaining to the unit, like speed, altitude, health, etc... If we have a limited set of hard coded display, then creativity will be limited, and all cockpits will be forced to look the same. So it would be best if the meters in the cockpit could be scripted, for instance you'd model your dial, and then do something like "turn needle_of_the_speedometer to y-axis (get speed_of_the_unit)*scale now;" On the other hand having to script the hide and show for all the bits of a numeric digital display would soon be very tedious, so having part of the cockpit displays pre-made could be good. Or maybe just a way to print a value on a face with a custom font. Well, that cockpit part is probably going way too far, so do whatever you can.
How bout a model that is specified in the FBi file. Thenyou could, if you were boring, make only model for your whole army. Or, if you wanted to go into more detail, make a model for each unit, or atleast each unit set. This would need some tweaking, and some uber scripting in the model itself, but it could work.
And I am COMPLETLY against boosting stats for possessed units. They, if used correctly, already own non fps'ed units. Take the commander for instance. If used correctly, DGunning from FPS mode is alot easier and better than from overhead view. A stats boost is really stupid.
Moving in different directions would be good. IMO, which others can dissagree with, I think that the units should move a bit like a normal FPS. That is, press forward, and you move forward. Press sidways, you strafe, and press back to reverse. But to accomodate for the lack of backwards and side ways movment, the legs should actually turn to strafe. So press sideways, and the legs will rotate 90°, and then move 'forwards' in relation to the legs. Press backwards, and the same thing happens, but going 180° around. If the unit can turn on the spot (KBots, gun ships, some tanks), then do so. If the unit cant, then turn while moving.
The camera should also be handled a little differently, to stop the annoying shaking that happens when certain units fire (Peewee, sentinel, ect). There could be a empty peice (or the cockpit peice, if you decide to have cockpicts on a per-unit basis) somewhere in the model that the camera sits at. This peice would behave like a normal peice, but would also be the location of the camera. This unit could also be scripted, to give a bobbing motion while walking in kbots, or a shaking movment while driving a tank, and stuff like that. And the camera, if its not to hard, should have its up-direction in the same direction as the unit. Then, when your flying planes, the camera would loop-the-loop with the plane, barrel roll with the plane, or follow the terrain with the tank, or flip with the unit in an explosion. This alone would add so much more coolness to the FPS mode with such a simple thing.
I know the devs have alot on their plates, and that they are sick of FPS threads, and have bug fixes to do and all that stuff. So this is not a high priorty. But if you ever have a spare moment when there is no bugs (yea right), then something like this would just be so cool.
And I am COMPLETLY against boosting stats for possessed units. They, if used correctly, already own non fps'ed units. Take the commander for instance. If used correctly, DGunning from FPS mode is alot easier and better than from overhead view. A stats boost is really stupid.
Moving in different directions would be good. IMO, which others can dissagree with, I think that the units should move a bit like a normal FPS. That is, press forward, and you move forward. Press sidways, you strafe, and press back to reverse. But to accomodate for the lack of backwards and side ways movment, the legs should actually turn to strafe. So press sideways, and the legs will rotate 90°, and then move 'forwards' in relation to the legs. Press backwards, and the same thing happens, but going 180° around. If the unit can turn on the spot (KBots, gun ships, some tanks), then do so. If the unit cant, then turn while moving.
The camera should also be handled a little differently, to stop the annoying shaking that happens when certain units fire (Peewee, sentinel, ect). There could be a empty peice (or the cockpit peice, if you decide to have cockpicts on a per-unit basis) somewhere in the model that the camera sits at. This peice would behave like a normal peice, but would also be the location of the camera. This unit could also be scripted, to give a bobbing motion while walking in kbots, or a shaking movment while driving a tank, and stuff like that. And the camera, if its not to hard, should have its up-direction in the same direction as the unit. Then, when your flying planes, the camera would loop-the-loop with the plane, barrel roll with the plane, or follow the terrain with the tank, or flip with the unit in an explosion. This alone would add so much more coolness to the FPS mode with such a simple thing.
I know the devs have alot on their plates, and that they are sick of FPS threads, and have bug fixes to do and all that stuff. So this is not a high priorty. But if you ever have a spare moment when there is no bugs (yea right
), then something like this would just be so cool.-
Targ Collective
- Posts: 202
- Joined: 12 Nov 2005, 14:16
The units beat non-FPSd units already. I agree. They don't beat them enough to be counted as more than a feature though. There is not enough incentive to use them.
I'm not suggesting adding an FPS mode to structures. I'm thinking an extra .5 on the Commander's metal production, say, to balance out the boosted build speed.
Units get shredded fast in battle. Huge numbers of units. If FPSing it is to be made worthwhile there should be a way of keeping our FPSer alive just that bit longer. I think scripting units of the same unit group to guard our FPSer, and adding minor stat boosts would do it. Dungeon Keeper made it work.
EDIT: And the flag display would make our FPSer a priority target. Now surely that is enough to be balanced...
The Collective
I'm not suggesting adding an FPS mode to structures. I'm thinking an extra .5 on the Commander's metal production, say, to balance out the boosted build speed.
Units get shredded fast in battle. Huge numbers of units. If FPSing it is to be made worthwhile there should be a way of keeping our FPSer alive just that bit longer. I think scripting units of the same unit group to guard our FPSer, and adding minor stat boosts would do it. Dungeon Keeper made it work.
EDIT: And the flag display would make our FPSer a priority target. Now surely that is enough to be balanced...
The Collective
This is not a feature though! Its a gimick. If you increased the stats, it could to easily be abused. Even if you think its fool proof, someone always finds a way to break it. And if you dont want your FPS unit to die in battle, use a bigger unit. Like a goliath. Or a kroggie.
Other than that, a little icon above a unit would be cool, just so people can target it to be annoying. And having idle units guard your unit would be handy as well. But thats not required, as its pretty easy to implement anyways. And if you walk through an idle army, and pick up lots of stragglers, you will never escape the crowd and wont be able to go anywhere.
The FPS mode could be improved, but it does not need to have lots of little bonuses added on to it. The incentive to use it is that its fun, not that it gives you a bonus. If you really want bonuses, bug Zaphod and dj_oldfeild about the new scripting engine. If that lives up to the hype, it will be able to do this for you. or have it mod dependant, cause only strange mods will wnat this, not things like XTA, UH and AA.
Other than that, a little icon above a unit would be cool, just so people can target it to be annoying. And having idle units guard your unit would be handy as well. But thats not required, as its pretty easy to implement anyways. And if you walk through an idle army, and pick up lots of stragglers, you will never escape the crowd and wont be able to go anywhere.
The FPS mode could be improved, but it does not need to have lots of little bonuses added on to it. The incentive to use it is that its fun, not that it gives you a bonus. If you really want bonuses, bug Zaphod and dj_oldfeild about the new scripting engine. If that lives up to the hype, it will be able to do this for you. or have it mod dependant, cause only strange mods will wnat this, not things like XTA, UH and AA.