Page 11 of 27

Posted: 19 Aug 2007, 14:44
by smoth
Image
levels 1-5

Posted: 19 Aug 2007, 16:11
by 1v0ry_k1ng
the flames dont look that nice from that screenshot, i dont know how flamethrower types are done but the xta v9 pyro flames look alot slicker

Posted: 19 Aug 2007, 18:40
by Decimator
Looks like the thing that's missing is expansion of the flame particles.

Posted: 19 Aug 2007, 22:05
by Zoy64
So what is the estimated time of completion for the mod?

Posted: 19 Aug 2007, 22:53
by Guessmyname
When it's done, probably

Posted: 20 Aug 2007, 00:38
by smoth
The problem is that flame throwers do not look like this:
Image

There is no cone just a large tongue:
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

The smoke can be added since you guys seem to want the part you guys perceive as a cone(which is really where the flame is just spreading out at impact or the very end of it.

Posted: 20 Aug 2007, 01:29
by AF
Actually I disagree.

I think the flames texture just needs to be smoother so its less obvious where each individual particle is. That would give it a prettier more arcade look than an XTA cone look, which should lend itself to the style already in place.

Im liking the strong bright colours smoth and I agree that the cone is totally unnecesary.

I also think from a graphical point of view that dark black smoke or the usual gray white/smoke/black smoke isnt the best effect and it might be good to instead show some other sfx on impact with the bright colours already in place. Such as a bright white spark glow for example.

Id rather have a fun, pretty work of art than a gritty replica of real life drudgery.

Posted: 20 Aug 2007, 01:32
by Decimator
Well, look at those real pictures again. It does indeed look like a cone, just not as ridiculously wide as that Charlie's Angels picture. Part of the problem is that the flame coming from the nozzle is far too wide to look like it is actually exiting the nozzle rather than simply popping into existence.

Posted: 20 Aug 2007, 01:52
by Argh
Part of the problem is that the flame coming from the nozzle is far too wide to look like it is actually exiting the nozzle rather than simply popping into existence.
Bingo. Lower the initial size, then limit the size of the expansion over time, so that it isn't as exaggerated. Also, I'm working on a fast flame FX script, for fiery goodness at the strike point without too much lag, so I may have something to contribute there, when it works right.

Posted: 20 Aug 2007, 01:59
by AF
In TA style flames its note a cone its an arc, those lines drawn around the flame? Theyre not straight, theyre curved.

And apparently what we cant see is that the flames arent continuous, they're spat out in thin bursts then expand.

Posted: 20 Aug 2007, 02:03
by smoth
You would have to see the effect in action but it is not a constant wall of fire, it starts as a small thin burst and expands out.

argh, I got this covered.

Posted: 20 Aug 2007, 04:57
by REVENGE
smoth wrote:You would have to see the effect in action but it is not a constant wall of fire, it starts as a small thin burst and expands out.

argh, I got this covered.
lol

I disagree a little with the coloring though. I think the red should be lowest level while blue the highest since it implies increasing amounts of energy.

My 2 cents, bash me biatch. :P

Posted: 20 Aug 2007, 05:00
by smoth
HA HA but you are not doing the effect :P

I added a bit of blue flame to the fire now also. looks really cool
Image

Posted: 20 Aug 2007, 08:31
by REVENGE
smoth wrote:HA HA but you are not doing the effect :P

I added a bit of blue flame to the fire now also. looks really cool
Image
Sweet. :o

Posted: 20 Aug 2007, 09:43
by KDR_11k
I think the particles are too hard-edged but otherwise it's good.

Posted: 20 Aug 2007, 12:08
by 1v0ry_k1ng
just double the amount of projectiles and halve the damage projectiles do and then you'll have thicker, richer looking flames

Posted: 20 Aug 2007, 12:15
by smoth
just double the amount of projectiles and halve the damage projectiles do and then you'll have thicker, richer looking flames
What you see...



What I see:
just double the amount of particles and halve the damage projectiles do and then you'll have thicker, more blob looking flames that eat more fps
Ivory, I am going to say this once, the spring flames are not good looking and fyi, those who have seen the effect in tower defense are thoroughly impressed. I don't care if you have a hardon for the spring flames, I find them horribly unattractive. I am doing better with LESS particles. There are only about 16 particles per burst my way.

So again, no.

Posted: 20 Aug 2007, 16:35
by smoth
ok, this is the first day of my last semester in college so for the next two days I will not be working on tower defense. I have graduation applications to fill out and other items to do. This also will give me a break as I have currently modeled 19 turrets back to back and slavishly worked on the effects you people are whining over. So I will recontinue work on the 22nd.

Posted: 21 Aug 2007, 01:09
by SwiftSpear
Swift's to do's: PM spam smoth 12:01AM 22/08/07 demanding work gets done :)

jk, don't worry about being so accountable to us, in development timeline two days goes by in a flash, only idiots would rage if you said you were too busy at school to work at the ridiculous pace TD has been going so far for the most part, and they deserve to be ignored either way. It's not like we can't bug mael about stuff in the meantime!

Posted: 21 Aug 2007, 01:46
by REVENGE
smoth wrote:ok, this is the first day of my last semester in college so for the next two days I will not be working on tower defense. I have graduation applications to fill out and other items to do. This also will give me a break as I have currently modeled 19 turrets back to back and slavishly worked on the effects you people are whining over. So I will recontinue work on the 22nd.
Very nice, but take care of RL first, mmkay? :-)

Speaking of which, what degree are you graduating with exactly?