Spring RTS Engine

The Ekranoplane doesn't fly per s├â┬®. It's more of a water-only hovercaft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekranoplan

wikipedia wrote:Once moving at speed, the ekranoplan was no longer in contact with the water, and could move over ice, snow, or level land with equal ease

.
*picks nits*

TA fans made one.
See...http://www.unituniverse.com/?p=u&v=1835
Vongratz

Ekranoplan needs water to start, but once airborne, it can travel over anything that is flat enough. It has to maintain speed over land, however, because safe landing is only possible in water. Because of this, the Ekranoplan is regarded more as a ship than anything else.
Such a movement type can probably be modelled in Spring as a hover that kills itself if it ever stops NOT in water. The unit will probably be too suicidal to have any real use, however.

Small christmas present for VonGratz.

I'll submit a patch if somebody adds an "amphibious" tag to unitdef.

Strategia wrote:The Ekranoplane doesn't fly per s├â┬®. It's more of a water-only hovercaft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekranoplan

true but Russian ekra such as orlynok can 'hover' up to 300 meter on emergency mode and 20-30m on normal mode unlike hovercraft it can pass over other ship

Kloot wrote:Small christmas present for VonGratz.

I'll submit a patch if somebody adds an "amphibious" tag to unitdef.

Lets go to a political movement..."WE WANT BOTH TAGS"
Only a correction..not is a small present, but Its a big gift for me and a lot of people
VonGratz

Kloot wrote:Small christmas present for VonGratz.

I'll submit a patch if somebody adds an "amphibious" tag to unitdef.

Can't you add a tag yourself?
Or maybe reuse something that is used for amphibitious units? (maxWaterDepth & minWaterDepth maybe? Possibly that would make all planes in current mods seaplanes tho...)

What does actually determine whether an unit is an amphibitious unit or not? If possible that should be reused for seaplanes..

Tobi wrote:Can't you add a tag yourself?
Or maybe reuse something that is used for amphibitious units? (maxWaterDepth & minWaterDepth maybe? Possibly that would make all planes in current mods seaplanes tho...)
What does actually determine whether an unit is an amphibitious unit or not? If possible that should be reused for seaplanes..

minWaterDepth is related - in TA - to the minimum depth of water necessary to build something in water.
maxWaterDepth is the maximum depth a unit can go, or a building can be built.In the unit case, Moveinfo file in Spring do it.But this not include planes of any kinds.
VonGratz

At the end of the FBI of the Core Contingency Seaplanes from Cavedog, there is:
maxwaterdepth=255;
amphibious=1;

The radar planes from Core Contingency from Cavedog (so planes, not seaplane, and released at the same time as seaplane) use:
MaxWaterDepth=0;
(and no amphibious tag)

Obviously we want both planes that land underwater, on the seafloor, and planes that land on the sea surface.

I hoped that I could say you should use amphibious=1; for seaplane that submerge and floater=1; for seaplanes that floats, but in that same Core Contingency, pelican use floater=0; and no amphivious trag, and hovercraft don't even have niether the floater tag nor the amphibious tag. It makes no sense to me that pelican have floater=0; I guess what TotalA.exe really used to determine if hovers and pelican can travel over the water is the absence of MaxWaterDepth tag in their movement class. And they have those MaxWaterSlope=255; and BadWaterSlope=255; which make little sense. I mean, a unit that float on the surface shouldn't care about the slope nor depth of the sea floor, right?

So I guess the best way to handle that without breaking old units would be:
By default all units can go in the sea, and they float on the surface.
But if they have the MaxWaterDepth tag in their FBI and their movement class (like most units have anyway), then they can't go deeper than that.
If a unit has amphibious=1; then it rolls on the sea floor instead of floating.

TBH I'd rather have a new tag (preferably "submergible") than reuse existing ones in some hackish manner that might break mods in all kinds of weird ways. It'd mean far less work for mod authors to make them compatible, too.

So would submersible sink when idle then move to its cruisealt when moving?

zwzsg wrote:By default all units can go in the sea.

All units can land in the watersurface was worse than none.
It will mess the game
The implement of one or both options - seaplanes that float, and/or submerge, are to create an unique parameter to justify the existence of "seaplanes" AND a better gameplay with new tactical & strategical options, not to allow all planes to amerize.The next chapter after this would be kbots walking thru the water Im kidding
Merry Xmas
VonGratz

Kloot wrote:TBH I'd rather have a new tag (preferably "submergible") than reuse existing ones in some hackish manner that might break mods in all kinds of weird ways. It'd mean far less work for mod authors to make them compatible, too.

I agreed, its very important to create a new way out of TA, without forget the fantastic game it is, but with the eyes in the future.
VonGratz
Merry Xmas for All

It would not mess the game since currently all normal planes have MaxWaterDepth=0;

New tags should be used only where there is none already existing.

And there can't be less work for modders than none.

zwzsg wrote:It would not mess the game since currently all normal planes have MaxWaterDepth=0;
New tags should be used only where there is none already existing.
And there can't be less work for modders than none.

In the case of undersea landing I understood what you wrote, but the mess would exist if all planes with MaxWaterDepth=0; could land in the water surface, and it is what I understood :idea:
VonGratz

zwzsg wrote: It would not mess the game since currently all normal planes have MaxWaterDepth=0;

New tags should be used only where there is none already existing.

And there can't be less work for modders than none.

1) Not in XTA where about half (and not just the seaplanes) have an MWD of 255, and I'm willing to bet not in AA/BAA either. IOW, it's not simply a matter of checking that variable if you want to get any sort of consistent airplane behavior.

2) Or where the existing ones don't really suffice.

3) See 1.