Tree control? - Page 2

Tree control?

Discuss game development here, from a distinct game project to an accessible third-party mutator, down to the interaction and design of individual units if you like.

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
AF
AI Developer
Posts: 20687
Joined: 14 Sep 2004, 11:32

Post by AF »

Thats terrible justification
Small (1x1) units become ten pixel blobs when zoomed out enough to see a worthwhile section of the map
so do AKs

The same is true if you increase the size of the map or zoom out to view the entire map on a medium sized map. This sint something you can fix by keeping the units at OTA sizes then ramping up the trees. For one it'll make most maps very very ugly while not actually solving the problem at all.

You also realise that you cant really use trees as cover anymore than you can use a hill as cover in spring?
User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22309
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Post by smoth »

It would be possible via a patch nemo for the trees to be scaled by the mod. I want smaller units as a possibility though. The trees are procedurally generated. I have said that for some time. AF even posted the code in the FGJL forum. If someone wrote a patch they could auto-resize the trees. However, I am not sure if a full replacement would be an option as I am unfamiliar with the map format.
User avatar
Nemo
Spring 1944 Developer
Posts: 1376
Joined: 30 Jan 2005, 19:44

Post by Nemo »

AF wrote: so do AKs
Which is something I dislike, and would like to fix in my own mod by scaling things up. I'm not sure what your point is here.
The same is true if you increase the size of the map or zoom out to view the entire map on a medium sized map. This sint something you can fix by keeping the units at OTA sizes then ramping up the trees. For one it'll make most maps very very ugly while not actually solving the problem at all.
What are you talking about? If a map is 8x8, folks generally play at a certain zoom distance so they can see what is happening on a worthwhile portion of the map and so they can see an entire conflict at a time. On a bigger map, you might zoom out more. Great. However, I want my units to be more visible than they are right now, because even when zoomed in to the point where you're looking at perhaps 5% of an 8x8 map, they're hard to see. I would like to change that by scaling everything up, while keeping '44 compatible with the majority of maps. Thus, I'd like to make the trees bigger to match the increase in unit size.
You also realise that you cant really use trees as cover anymore than you can use a hill as cover in spring?


Er...you can use hills for cover..not sure what you're getting at here. What I would do is make the trees very tough and then ensure that most weapons collide with them so infantry could hide among them and be somewhat protected.
User avatar
AF
AI Developer
Posts: 20687
Joined: 14 Sep 2004, 11:32

Post by AF »

as it is, bulelts would rip through the trees, and most other items would destroy or set the trees alight.

As it is I dont think people in northern countries where granted temporary invincibility by the nearby trees during war.
User avatar
Nemo
Spring 1944 Developer
Posts: 1376
Joined: 30 Jan 2005, 19:44

Post by Nemo »

that's my issue as a modder, not a reason to give mods control of trees or not.

And for the record, no, actually, very few bullets were (or are) capable of 'ripping through' two-three feet or so of solid wood and killing someone on the other side. Explosive shells are an entirely different matter, but they'd still certainly detonate on the first one they hit, protecting anyone who was further back from the tree that was struck.
User avatar
FLOZi
MC: Legacy & Spring 1944 Developer
Posts: 6241
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 01:14

Post by FLOZi »

Surely a modinfo.tdf tag such as 'featurescale=1.0' would do noone any harm... Although scaling all features would be trickier as you have to deal with footprints as well as collision spheres. Hmmm.
User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22309
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Post by smoth »

yeah but it wouldn't be too bad as tree has to be generated with a hitsphere and footprint.

Seriously a patch to do that is not impossible.
User avatar
Nemo
Spring 1944 Developer
Posts: 1376
Joined: 30 Jan 2005, 19:44

Post by Nemo »

how hard would it be to allow a mod to overwrite the default tree stats (footprint,health, blocking, whatever) with a trees.tdf or something similar?
User avatar
aGorm
Posts: 2928
Joined: 12 Jan 2005, 10:25

Post by aGorm »

If you were just to scale the inbuilt trees... thjen OK, fine. However you could end up with tree in a tree problems if they got to big (as they overlap). However scalling all features is just ... wrong. I mean, if you make a feature you make it for "There" at that size so it fits.

Personly I think Mod's SHOULD have there own maps. Mappers can then make better map's becasue there not catering for everyone.

What maps need is a system like mod dependacys. IE, you make teh map, and then make adjustments for the differnt mods.
Mods can then have a list of prefered map types, IE if map has an EE version play that, else, the BA version, Else the basic Version.

That way you could have adjusted resorce layouts to. And differnt features were apropirate.

Just some thoughts anyway

aGorm
Warlord Zsinj
Imperial Winter Developer
Posts: 3742
Joined: 24 Aug 2004, 08:59

Post by Warlord Zsinj »

I think maps specifically designed for a mod are good, but as a modder, I need to ensure that my mod plays on the majority of Spring maps out there. If my mod plays crap on most Spring maps, (not including silly ones like speedmetal), then I believe it is my fault as a modder, not the mapping community at large.

For example, SWS used to have low metal costs for many things. It was balanced for TA maps, which are typically low-metal. Moving to Spring maps, which are typically high-metal, meant that SWS often devolved into a slugfest of ATST's and the like.

Initially I blamed Spring maps, but really, I think my potential mod players should be capable of playing SWS on most maps, and my mod should be designed to increase the amount of maps they can play on (and thus increase the variability, interest and lifespan of the mod), not be specifically designed to work perfectly on two or three maps.

But, as Nemo mentioned, the one thing that makes this difficult for me (using infantry as the base scale) is the trees. I'd love to be able to generally scale the trees up, which means I can scale everything else accordingly.
User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22309
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Post by smoth »

smoth wrote:It would be possible via a patch nemo for the trees to be scaled by the mod. I want smaller units as a possibility though. The trees are procedurally generated. I have said that for some time. AF even posted the code in the FGJL forum. If someone wrote a patch they could auto-resize the trees. However, I am not sure if a full replacement would be an option as I am unfamiliar with the map format.
User avatar
Forboding Angel
Evolution RTS Developer
Posts: 14673
Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43

Post by Forboding Angel »

Agorm, you know as well as I do that the problem with mod specific maps is mainly the resource system. We can't do crap with it, and thanks to a lot of things (no possibility of harvesters, radius showing to enemies, and a million other things) pretty much maps HAVE to be along a certain mold, which means that in a general sense one map will play as well in one mod as another.

I tried mod specific mapping for some time now and have come to the conclusion that until I get better control over resourcing and possibly a third resource, there is no point except for landscape reasons.

This engine was made for TA and the mindset seems to be that if it doesn't go for TA first and foremost it's not important. TBH I'm very sick of the lack of control that I have over maps. In the same way that modders are pissed off that they have so little control over their mods.
User avatar
aGorm
Posts: 2928
Joined: 12 Jan 2005, 10:25

Post by aGorm »

Well yes, but thats why I'm saying we need improvments.

Last time I didn't realy have time to out line what I ment, but I was thinking about the whole "map/mod" issue, and thought maybe I should try and think up a solution.

Problem is solutions, as always, require changes (which means they require devs... :( )

Currently spring has one resorce moddel, and to be fair I think thats the way its gonna be for some time.

Thing is moder want certain things.
1) Maps for there mod's. (well duh)
2) Maps to play well with there mods.
3) Maps to look right with there mods.

The problem being that cause all the mods are differnt the maps will never suit each mod, so none of the above can be meet by any one map.

So, what I was sugesting is that maps become modable. IE, the mapper can (or another mapper can) mod a map so it works with a particular mod. Just having all maps have there trees adjusted in size for certain mods is a crap solution, as it would
1) probabily look bad
2) would not effect things like rocks, ruins, skelingtons that poke out the ground, folagie tahts not built into the game.

Were as if you could mod a map with say a new feature set and feature map you could easily adjust it to a mods style and it would still look good, play right.

For example... say you had a map like small divide.
You'd have the map as it basicly is.

Then say SWTA wanted it to have bigger trees, and an adjsuted resorce layout (which could just mean more resorces on the spots, or maybe a complaet change). The map could then be modded to have such a setup. In an ideal world the lobby would jsut look for these mods as you picked teh map and install as nesecery.
Then say WD thought... hay small divide looks daft with small trees... infact all the maps look daft with small trees... It can then either
1) have its own mod for maps like SWTA
2) if no mod existed specify to use teh SWTA one as preference over original
3) if no moded map exists then just use the original map.

This way all mods can use all maps (with there default setup), can use a specific version for there mod (if one exists) and use one from a mod thats similare if they don't think a bespoke one is needed.

Surly that would be a good way to go? rather then rush in with mods being able to scale the trees... which is a sux solution in my opinion. (maybe just me there...). This way if we ever to get different resorce systems ect... they can use the same method to say remove metal patches and add in tiberium, or such.

Of course as pointed out this would require somthing of an overhaul and probabily lots of dev time, but I think it would be a better solution.

Ill quit rambeling now...

aGorm
User avatar
Pxtl
Posts: 6112
Joined: 23 Oct 2004, 01:43

A proper solution

Post by Pxtl »

Here's my ideal solution:

1) Make features robust enough that "trees" can be defined as if they were any other feature (that is get LOD, Alpha, and all the other abilities trees have into being defineable for any feature).

2) Section off a chunk of the feature-list-space to be "mod-defined", particularly the space that involves trees and geotherms.

Then, modders can substitute the trees in their mods for whatever would be more appropriate (eg. tall trees and short shrubs in a mod where the scale is not TA-sized).
User avatar
aGorm
Posts: 2928
Joined: 12 Jan 2005, 10:25

Post by aGorm »

Yhe, but then your expecting what teh mods want to fit with every map? Which wont work...

aGorm
User avatar
Pxtl
Posts: 6112
Joined: 23 Oct 2004, 01:43

Post by Pxtl »

aGorm wrote:Yhe, but then your expecting what teh mods want to fit with every map? Which wont work...

aGorm
A modder would have a good idea what each feature should be like, since they've the defaults original to work from. If their custom features aren't exactly compatible with the same maps as the default features, then that's their own fault.
User avatar
aGorm
Posts: 2928
Joined: 12 Jan 2005, 10:25

Post by aGorm »

Yes, but a moder isn't going to wan't to run around redoing all the maps with new fatures so they fit with his mod, id he? And while its more work, i woundn't want a modder overiding my maps designs, Id rather do it myslef or another mapper. You solution only works assuming there gonna just replace the 8 trees, not anything else that exists.

aGorm
User avatar
Pxtl
Posts: 6112
Joined: 23 Oct 2004, 01:43

Post by Pxtl »

aGorm wrote:Yes, but a moder isn't going to wan't to run around redoing all the maps with new fatures so they fit with his mod, id he? And while its more work, i woundn't want a modder overiding my maps designs, Id rather do it myslef or another mapper. You solution only works assuming there gonna just replace the 8 trees, not anything else that exists.

aGorm
Hence my point on it being only a small chunk of the feature-list space (the 8 trees and the geotherm), not the entire feature-list. Don't let modders override any map-specific features, only the general Spring ones. That, and I'd add some general Spring rocks that can be similarly overridden.
Post Reply

Return to “Game Development”