Spring RTS Engine

Well for one the units seem to move, not float. The scripting used by spring is TA heritage, AKA outdated.

The overall performance is several times better in SC then in Spring. Airplanes actually seem to be flying, not hanging in the air. Here some major points i have noted. Oh, and i have yet to see a desync in SC.

Please dont make this into a thread about spring vs. SC. I only used SC to compare. They compete in a different league. The other is a commercial product, the other an open source one.

Aircraft flight dynamics in Spring are far better then in Supreme Commander.

Though yes, I'd love to have a skeleton animation system in Spring as they have in SupCom.

Just you wait, we'll have supcom whipped in a year or two

Yeah, technically, Spring is inferior -- but that's actually one of the things that's kept it going. The scripting language is simple, the file system is simple, etc... everything is simple, allowing even the most idiotic person to actually be able to use it and learn it reasonably. Infact, everything I've done with this mod, and AATA before it, I learned while doing it. I've never scripted before, I've never been to computer classes, I've never taken graphics school or anything of the sort.

And another of the best principles of Spring is its open-source nature. We've been able to do a lot of things that would be impossible in Spring because we've been able to write code into the engine ourselves (or get someone else to do it). SC may be technically much better but Spring is by far the more flexible and mod-friendly of the two.

Anyway stop talking about this here!

Here's T-34/76 and T-34/85:


I fixed the writing on the side of the turret to be smaller and look more hand-painted by some Ivan. And to maximize differentiation the /76 has a big white stripe.

Good, good. This mod is going to be one of the best, visually... And perhaps one of the funnest

I hope so. I'm actually very surprised that I seem to have taken to uvmapping and skinning. Though really, my methods are still quite amateur, and I have a really hard time making stuff look real. Usually it looks like a cartoon. But thankfully things like colour saturation, picture sharpness, etc, can be edited.

Here's buildpics of all Soviet vehicles that are completed:



I'm also going to update the first post with every picture I put up, to make it easier to look at them all at once without having to scan through dozens of pages.

Please Caydr, we've had a reason you don't. :P

rattle wrote:Please Caydr, we've had a reason you don't.

Haha, why bother anymore ^_^

AA will be awesome once it runs at 10 fps on everything but an 8950GTX

Nothing there is over 1000 polys!!!

NOTHING!

Hi Caydr, what's up?

Beautiful background pictures, greatly helps the image of showing the unit! Not distracting, yet extremely well looking! A very good choice.

About time someone appreciated my background images. Only taken what, 4 years?

I like them build pics.

FLOZi wrote:About time someone appreciated my background images. Only taken what, 4 years?

Hey!
I never badmouthed them when you showed me ones from TACW etc eons ago!

I think it could be interesting if you either abstracted the buildpics entirely, or, seeing as those BP's do look good, included some more explanatory things on them. Most people don't know their tanks apart, especially at that size/angle; and even if they do, they don't necessarily know the role those tanks were used for, and don't know what role you have planned for that tank in your game.

One way to do this is to include either a text or perhaps a shell type on the BP indicating what it is used for.

f.ex indicating Anti Personal and Anti Tank rounds, etc. (obviously you'd do it a lot better and more specific then that).

The other, and probably better, way to do it is to include the custom radar icon which you have intended for that tank somewhere on the BP. Presumably your custom radar icons will allow players to tell their Tank Killers from their General Armour tanks, etc, so this accomplishes a similar job to the above idea, but has the added advantage of clearly teaching players icons because they will be able to associate the built unit with the build pic.

the AP round looks like a penis, but its a good idea.
also, those build pics are pr0-rly

Warlord Zsinj wrote:stuff and a penis

Nemo has an idea of using the description for something like this. No need to clutter the BPs imo - there needs to be some degree of learning what units are available and what they do anyway.

I understand the x:y:z system, and I'm not sold.

The best and most explanatory way is to do it visually with the buildpics.

And, you saw the penis, not me. The connection between weaponry and the phallus has been made on more then one occasion

You saw the penis.