How far away from hitboxes are we?

[Caydr]

How far away is Spring from having custom hitboxes, and maybe some way of randomizing where an attack will be directed? (the front rather than the back of a unit, so that all attackers don't hit the same place and look kinda silly)

[Nemo]

Wouldn't moving the sweetspot around via script fix that second problem?

That's if spring makes use of the sweetspot, of course.

As for the first.....hitboxes would be amazing. If you're feeling really fancy, locational damage would be mind blowing >_>

[incidenta5]

Wouldn't moving the sweetspot around via script fix that second problem?

That's if spring makes use of the sweetspot, of course.

As for the first.....hitboxes would be amazing. If you're feeling really fancy, locational damage would be mind blowing >_>

Locational Damage + Mech IK = Awsome

Imagine an orcone that can't move (ala mechwarrior 2) when its leg is blown off. It would add a new element to strategy unseen before.

Would there be some kind of interface tweak to allow for targeting specific areas? (i.e. head, legs, torso, weapons, etc..)

[Guessmyname]

the interface thing would be gui based methinks

As for damage specific areas, I still think fuse-building would be best: http://taspring.clan-sy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3245

[Warlord Zsinj]

I just want hitboxes that can be used to make large, non equilateral units work in Spring. It's the only thing really standing in the way of a SWS War in Space mod, as well as a series of other implementations.

[jouninkomiko]

i completely agree that some sort of hitbox implementation needs to be added. thisll kill performance though... some serious hardware would be needed for large scale combat

[Dragon45]

The problem with 3D hitboxes is that it absolutely kills performance unless a good-sized dev team spends a month or so completely optimizing the code.


HW2 has friggin awesome custome hitboxes; but they had a very well-paid team on it...

[Argh]

Custom hitboxes will only be a major performance drain if we let them be. It all depends on the polycount.

Frankly, though, until all of the things that are making S3O an inefficient file format are fixed, it's kind've irrelevant.

[Warlord Zsinj]

Excuse my ignorance on such issues, but:

Couldn't we just have a system where we can have more than one sphere hit system on a single unit? Ie: if you had two spheres on a unit, you would be able to have a unit that is in a 1:2 ratio (ie: rectangular) at the cost to the system only as much as it would be if you had two units, instead of just one?

Again, my knowledge on the subject is poor, so excuse me if I'm ignoring some fundamental issue.

[ILMTitan]

Excuse my ignorance on such issues, but:

Couldn't we just have a system where we can have more than one sphere hit system on a single unit? Ie: if you had two spheres on a unit, you would be able to have a unit that is in a 1:2 ratio (ie: rectangular) at the cost to the system only as much as it would be if you had two units, instead of just one?

Again, my knowledge on the subject is poor, so excuse me if I'm ignoring some fundamental issue.

Even better, we could have a 3d ellipse (whatever it's actually called) for the same cost of two spheres. The sum of the distances between the shell and the two foci less than a value indicates a hit, rather than the distance between the shell and the center less than a value in the case of a sphere.

[Das Bruce]

Well it already uses a type of box, would it be possible to use that on a per piece basis?

[AF]

We could at least have boxes for those things that're big and long

[Min3mat]

or triangles for ISDs :)