Hey is it possible to make some features for FF? Like little asteroids or a model of a wrecked satellite?
Greetings XCrist
If you want features speak now..
Moderator: Moderators
-
SwiftSpear
- Classic Community Lead
- Posts: 7287
- Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29
He thinks it's OTA scale because he feels like it. If you don't like it feel free to model your own features TBHBBQmother wrote:Smoth I think you're mistaken- what makes you think anything is TotalA scale in Spring right now?
[FWIW Almost everything is in fact 2:1 scale; SWTA and WD units range from much *smaller* to the same size as XTA/UH/AA/etc, not larger.]
Im thrilled with anything you contribute. Thrilled and gratefull- don't get me wrong!
I would personally prefer you made stuff larger [and people could shrink them if needed]. Going the other way (blowing smaller models up) leaves one at risk of less than spectacular results.
As to map scale- they already have vastly differing scales and there is nothing inherently wrong with that. You, naturally, can release your mod however you want! [your features too!] Are these features only intended for use in maps for your upcoming mod? If so I apologize and retroactively shut up.
Now get to work! We want urban map features already!!!
first, chill.... second.. chill.
The only part of the scale arguement I will address is this...
In ota.. a car is 16X24 pixels... which is roughly 1X2 footprint units.
Now, units in OTA move at a speed of X units per second.
That unit size is 16 the same size for ground plates...
So looking at it the corcom is roughly 2 lanes wide... so there you go relative scale. That is how I scaled EVERYTHING in GA... if you do not believe me go look in OTA.
Unless the trees in spring are < 30 feet tall which would mean the game is 2:1.. then my mechs are scale. Otherwise.. no you are wrong.
Xchrist, I'll add those to my list if you pm me with details on size and what you are looknig for.
The only part of the scale arguement I will address is this...
In ota.. a car is 16X24 pixels... which is roughly 1X2 footprint units.
Now, units in OTA move at a speed of X units per second.
That unit size is 16 the same size for ground plates...
So looking at it the corcom is roughly 2 lanes wide... so there you go relative scale. That is how I scaled EVERYTHING in GA... if you do not believe me go look in OTA.
Unless the trees in spring are < 30 feet tall which would mean the game is 2:1.. then my mechs are scale. Otherwise.. no you are wrong.
I am sorry but you are very wrong mother. the model will have just as much detail. Now, if I did a 32X32 texture then scaled the model up. it would look awful but I am not doing that now am I?Going the other way (blowing smaller models up) leaves one at risk of less than spectacular results.
Xchrist, I'll add those to my list if you pm me with details on size and what you are looknig for.
Smoth you do whatever the heck you want! That was and still is my position.smoth wrote:first, chill.... second.. chill.
<snip>
No Smoth I am in fact not wrong. I can take a hint- you don't really care [which is different from me being right/wrong/whatever] about the issue.I am sorry but you are very wrong mother.
I am perhaps the loudest proponent of letting contributors do what they please. So by all means make a kroggie the size of a flea if that is what you want to do. I am not telling you what you have to do, nor do I agree with people bitching about what is given them for free.
You know much more about moddeling units than I ever will.
I know that I am not wrong- and I don't care if you believe me :)
Deal with it (or don't).
Move On.
Do whatever you want.
I'm wrong all the time ffs
@SwiftSpear- You seem to do nothing, and constantly cause trouble. And I know I'm not the first person to point this out to you. This is the second 'Smoth' thread (which I'm aware of) that you've been causing trouble in, yet not actually contributing to.
@zwzsg I like fungii too
so mother wants mushrooms?
Thing is mother I am pretty certan that is the scale if you can show my why you see it otherwise I will reconsider my position. At this moment, Scale is the single most important thing to me. I am trying to establish a spring scale before I start modeling. So DO prove me wrong, it is important.
Thing is mother I am pretty certan that is the scale if you can show my why you see it otherwise I will reconsider my position. At this moment, Scale is the single most important thing to me. I am trying to establish a spring scale before I start modeling. So DO prove me wrong, it is important.
-
Doomweaver
- Posts: 704
- Joined: 30 Oct 2004, 14:14
*sighs* now why would I make buidings out of scale? I want them to be scale for 6 reasons:Doomweaver wrote:I reckon make every feature 1.5x - 2.0x ota scale. Big buildings kick ass, and aesthetics are more important in mods with infantry.
AA
XTA
uberhack
xect vs mynn
tll
Gundam Annihilation
Outside of that I do not play the other mods and since this is no longer OTA the other mods should get in scale with that.
There are only 2 reasons not to conform to TA scale:
WD & SWTA
I really do not want to make buildings with 20-30 footprint sizes because swta has giant dudes. they have GIANT dudes because in OTA a person woul be about 2-3 pixels wide. so in order to see infantry they had to be huge. I omit the existence of SWTA and WD until they get in the line with the rest of spring.
I would rather go with the fact that it would take 2 cars to take up the commanders area VS 1 car taking up the area of a commander.
I want actual Scale information. If I receive none I will go by TA scale which is easier for me.
Shrooms... mmm.smoth wrote:so mother wants mushrooms?
Look, I'm just not going to have the arguement with ya
I'll let someone else do it:
HereA long long time ago someone wrote: Just so everyone knows. Originally, Spring was doubling the size of units.
MiniSpring doesn't half the size of units, it just takes them back to the size TA uses.
So, technically, Spring was twice as big, MiniSpring's scale equals OTA.
Some other bloke wrote: [Minispring is] the size that OTA units where and it doubles the maximum map size, and makes trees more realistic, and making zooming in closer a lot more usefula dn seeing mroe units when zoomed out, aka double zoom out.
etc. etc.The First dude also wrote:"zoom" or camera is irrelevant!!
Minispring should be called OTASpring as it uses the EXACT SAME SCALE as OTA. Spring Doubled the sizes, I mearly brought them back to what they would be in a fully 3d world.
Now a 32x32 map is REALLY a 32x32 map, whereas with Original Spring it was a 16x16 map given the scale.
HOLY CRAP!
(forgive the image quality I save at web so I do not eat too much of FUs bandwidth)
Ok, to clarify. People are telling me double the scale of my buildings when I make them.. I am debating the point because frankly I see it as wrong. Spring has features at 75% of what they should be which means that the units are: 1.25:1 and the trees/terrain is: 0.75:1
Some are saying the scale is 2:1 Spring:OTA and then saying make the buildings double size. I am trying to illustrate that LARGER is not the way to go. In fact if anything I should model to ota standard size but spring its self needs a 25% scale up on the terrain and trees.
According to the information Mother just posted Spring is actually doubling the unit size... but that is relative. all the units I would produce would be scaled to OTA which means they would be bigger then the true scale of spring .75:1. What I want most of you people to realize is that really the units can be 1:1 but the game it's self needs to scale it's relative size down 25%.
at the current scale trees are 30-40 feet with ota trees being 60-70ft. This is just part of it but the easiest to illustrate is the tree difference. I think that the minispring scale down was a bit much but if the SYs opt to raise the game scale(terrain and trees) X1.25 then we will see the units in a more close to true scale. This would even help make the swta units look less gigantic. Even though SWTA and WD need a 50% scaledown
Mother, thanks this answers my questions clearly and I will be be happy with my current scale but prodding the sys about the scalar issue.
(forgive the image quality I save at web so I do not eat too much of FUs bandwidth)
Ok, to clarify. People are telling me double the scale of my buildings when I make them.. I am debating the point because frankly I see it as wrong. Spring has features at 75% of what they should be which means that the units are: 1.25:1 and the trees/terrain is: 0.75:1
Some are saying the scale is 2:1 Spring:OTA and then saying make the buildings double size. I am trying to illustrate that LARGER is not the way to go. In fact if anything I should model to ota standard size but spring its self needs a 25% scale up on the terrain and trees.
According to the information Mother just posted Spring is actually doubling the unit size... but that is relative. all the units I would produce would be scaled to OTA which means they would be bigger then the true scale of spring .75:1. What I want most of you people to realize is that really the units can be 1:1 but the game it's self needs to scale it's relative size down 25%.
at the current scale trees are 30-40 feet with ota trees being 60-70ft. This is just part of it but the easiest to illustrate is the tree difference. I think that the minispring scale down was a bit much but if the SYs opt to raise the game scale(terrain and trees) X1.25 then we will see the units in a more close to true scale. This would even help make the swta units look less gigantic. Even though SWTA and WD need a 50% scaledown
Mother, thanks this answers my questions clearly and I will be be happy with my current scale but prodding the sys about the scalar issue.
For further digestion, armcom, corscout vehicle, dude, tree and mech:
The models(outside of the tree and dude) were imported after being exported straight out of upspring(well I deleted the ground plates and the flare off of the ez-8). The ez-8 is sporting a 2X2 groundplate though.
So, with this CLEAR evidence is it still debatable?
The models(outside of the tree and dude) were imported after being exported straight out of upspring(well I deleted the ground plates and the flare off of the ez-8). The ez-8 is sporting a 2X2 groundplate though.
So, with this CLEAR evidence is it still debatable?
Clearly I did. I still am missing it (in other words there isn't a message on the message board to that effect*)FLOZi wrote:Mother - you clearly missed where SJ told us the scale is the same - resolution is just doubled.
And that makes no sense...
FWIW The only post by SJ on the topic at all* reads:
I'm pretty sure that he would have clearly stated that Spring was to the same scale as TotalA.What I said to Buggi was that we would never make it the default but if someone added an option in the battleroom for it we would add it. There is a few reasons that we dont like it.
1: It breaks pathfinding and there is no easy fix other than to double the resolution of the pathfinding data and then you can as well double the map size.
2: We feel the current size gives a nice balance between ground texture quality and unit quality. When higher res units start comming out the ground quality would rather need to increase rather than decrease.
3: Many other sizes are balanced for the current size of units.
4: We dont really feel the need for the huge maps. Personally i think 12x12 - 16x16 is optimal for a 4 player game and 16x16 - 20x20 for 6 player games. Its seldom that you need larger maps than that and if you do most of the resource usage will come from the units not the map anyway.
5: For those wanting large mountains etc, well scale them up you can make mountains a lot higher in spring than you could in TA.
BTW you are saying he said it was 2:1 scale (that is what double the resolution means!)
*That I can find, Please correct me with SJ's post!
I believe he meant on the terrain map. This would have been done so we could have more detailed maps.
*Edit*
I think that is where you are getting confused with what I am asking.
You are thinking about the terrain map texture. I am talking about the units.. although, now that I think about it.. I wonder if SJ upped the terrain and pathfinding but the trees slipped his mind...?
*Edit*
I think that is where you are getting confused with what I am asking.
You are thinking about the terrain map texture. I am talking about the units.. although, now that I think about it.. I wonder if SJ upped the terrain and pathfinding but the trees slipped his mind...?
It would be Zaphod on the tree thing, and it might be a simple change- but it will break existing maps. Tree features have a 'scale' variable associated with them, but to the best of my knowledge it was never implemented in the engine.smoth wrote:TBH, if they just scaled up the trees that would ease half of my frustration over the scale. After all the texture can reflect the rest of the scalar stuff.
Flozi, thanks for backing me up there man. Do you think it would be hard to get sj to allow the maps & trees to be about 25% larger?
Last edited by mother on 06 Feb 2006, 01:56, edited 1 time in total.
Hrm, you do realise we are in a thread talking about features for maps, right?smoth wrote:I believe he meant on the terrain map. This would have been done so we could have more detailed maps.
*Edit*
I think that is where you are getting confused with what I am asking.
You are thinking about the terrain map texture. I am talking about the units.. although, now that I think about it.. I wonder if SJ upped the terrain and pathfinding but the trees slipped his mind...?
(Just kidding!!)The fact is that a given unit takes up 2x the terrain area as it did in OTA. Spring operates at a 2:1 ratio with respect to TotalA. You can fit 1/4 as many 'things' in the same map area.
The relative sizes between your units won't change, only their sizes in relation to the map. This matters because 'OTA scale' buildings would be half as tall as they 'were in OTA'.
But c'mon Smoth... You're going to scale the units/features until they look right to your eye. Don't worry if they are the 'correct' scale, just as long as they look good.
It just doesn't matter a fraction as much as it should for us to all be spending this much time on the topic
EDIT: BTW You never were talking about making stuff OTA-scale (according to me) but what you thought was OTA-scale(2x OTA-scale according to me)... And so you were already going to make the stuff 'bigger' and there wasn't ever really a problem(according to me). 'eh?
