1. Post #41
    fishface60's Avatar
    May 2007
    430 Posts
    And if I had to hazard a guess, it looks like he just duplicated the prop and increased its scale/added a new material. Although he probably used renderx for merging it all into one seamless figure (which is badass).
    That would be a horribly inefficient way of doing it, the ghost is only a virtual entity, all it needs to do is appear to exist, you could think of it like the shield generator projecting the ghosts, which would be possible by iterating over every entity the shield covers and calling the shielded entity's draw method after changing the scale and stuff.
    It should also be possible to add some form of hook so that it would draw the shield ghosts after it's drawn everything else.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply United Kingdom Show Events Friendly Friendly x 1 (list)

  2. Post #42
    Gold Member
    ralle105's Avatar
    October 2005
    4,648 Posts
    That would be a horribly inefficient way of doing it, the ghost is only a virtual entity, all it needs to do is appear to exist, you could think of it like the shield generator projecting the ghosts, which would be possible by iterating over every entity the shield covers and calling the shielded entity's draw method after changing the scale and stuff.
    It should also be possible to add some form of hook so that it would draw the shield ghosts after it's drawn everything else.
    I think that's what Morcam meant
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Sweden Show Events Friendly Friendly x 1 (list)

  3. Post #43
    Gold Member
    Morcam's Avatar
    September 2008
    1,537 Posts
    I think that's what Morcam meant
    Indeed it is.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply United States Show Events Friendly Friendly x 1 (list)

  4. Post #44
    Maximosa's Avatar
    March 2009
    26 Posts
    This looks really nice.

    Here's a suggestion:

    You could Manually choose the contraption's health or leave it automatically.

    Another one:

    Shield Health
    After a certain amount of damage,the shield breaks.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Canada Show Events Disagree Disagree x 1Late Late x 1Funny Funny x 1 (list)

  5. Post #45

    November 2009
    30 Posts
    LOVE the idea. Keep it up.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply United States Show Events Late Late x 2 (list)

  6. Post #46
    Arania's Avatar
    November 2007
    57 Posts
    Say a shield has 50 points and a weapon does 100 points of damage, do the remaining 50 points of damage get through to the contraption?
    If not then the regeneration rate would have to be wide enough that people could get hits through the shield. Or have a down-time after depletion when hits can get through.
    The shield WILL entirely stop the shot that depletes it, however, once it's depleted, the shield will drop offline and only restart once it fully regenerates.


    Kinetic, Energy and Plasma?
    Normal (Damages both shields and props), Anti-Shield (damages shields only), and Destructive (damages props only). Anti-shield and Destructive both do double the damage of Normal, but are limited in what they do damage to. I went for a more simplified naming scheme so it's a bit more obvious what does what.


    The new shields look great.

    And if I had to hazard a guess, it looks like he just duplicated the prop and increased its scale/added a new material. Although he probably used renderx for merging it all into one seamless figure (which is badass).
    That is pretty much how it's done. It's an effect overlaid on the original prop at 1.1X scale and a blue shader material. Renderx isn't involved for that particular effect (i've only used the renderx functions on the shield domes for the overlapping, and the dome impact effect). The weird intersections are caused by adjacent effects overlapping (a problem i'm still trying to work around). I'm planning on re-writing the code that renders the effect to try and remove some of the problems it has at the moment.


    How is the health of a contraption determined?

    Is it number of props, weight, size, or some combination of them?
    Health is determined by the cumulative mass of all the contraption's components.

  7. Post #47
    Gold Member
    Xion21's Avatar
    May 2007
    1,173 Posts
    I think it'd be cool to have weapon modules, something like an interface that allowed you to assemble your munitions. Say, if someone made a small vehicle, with heavy shields, you could make a two stage missile that would cluster off into an anti-shield missile, and an explosive or kinetic missile to hit right after the shield is ousted.

    I'm not trying to overload you with requests, I am actually just throwing ideas out for inspiration, just trying to voice random ideas! Keep up the great work. :cheers:
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply United States Show Events Artistic Artistic x 2Agree Agree x 2Friendly Friendly x 1Disagree Disagree x 1 (list)

  8. Post #48
    DVD Player's Avatar
    May 2008
    172 Posts
    My interest has been expressed.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Canada Show Events Informative Informative x 1Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  9. Post #49
    Darkling's Avatar
    November 2008
    48 Posts
    This is absolutley epic. I can't wait!
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply United States Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  10. Post #50
    Gold Member
    amitakartok's Avatar
    September 2008
    1,061 Posts
    Say, if someone made a small vehicle, with heavy shields, you could make a two stage missile that would cluster off into an anti-shield missile, and an explosive or kinetic missile to hit right after the shield is ousted.
    I suggested a similar weapon in the SBEP thread once. My idea was a missile that, prior to impacting a target below a certain size, would separate into about a dozen smaller missiles, each capable of selecting it's own target.

    Another possibility would be a missile that briefly envelops the target with it's own shield prior to detonating, distributing damage across the whole surface - useful if the target has more than one shield.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Hungary Show Events Friendly Friendly x 1Disagree Disagree x 1 (list)

  11. Post #51
    Gold Member
    Hemroid_Man's Avatar
    July 2007
    1,194 Posts
    wouldn't this technically mean that any wire entities would be vaporized instantly?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply United Kingdom Show Events Bad Reading Bad Reading x 7Disagree Disagree x 1 (list)

  12. Post #52
    Gold Member
    cbale2000's Avatar
    May 2007
    576 Posts
    The shield WILL entirely stop the shot that depletes it, however, once it's depleted, the shield will drop offline and only restart once it fully regenerates.
    Waiting for a full regenerate seems a bit harsh, what about something like 25%? That way it's still offline for a while and when it comes back on it isn't at full strength but give the user a chance to avoid some incoming fire.


    Normal (Damages both shields and props), Anti-Shield (damages shields only), and Destructive (damages props only). Anti-shield and Destructive both do double the damage of Normal, but are limited in what they do damage to. I went for a more simplified naming scheme so it's a bit more obvious what does what.
    What about a system where instead of setting it up so that a weapon would only do damage to one type (shield or prop) it would just do MORE damage to it's type, so if you were firing anti shield weapons it would still have an effect on the props but not nearly as much as the alternative? Might make it a bit more balanced.


    On a somewhat related note would it be possible to have a shield with the option of forcing the shield to stay up so long as it has a lot of RD2/LS2 energy (so the amount of energy required for the shield to run would be proportionate to the incoming damage, more damage, more energy needed).
    Even if it was just a console option I think it would be neat, it would mean that you would have to supply a lot of energy to keep a shield running, and server admins with Black Hole Caches could keep their shields up almost infinitely.


    wouldn't this technically mean that any wire entities would be vaporized instantly?
    No, he's saying that with current systems like CDS and Gcombat they would, with this system small items like wire would only die when everything else on the contraption does (one of the best things about this system in my opinion) because the ENTIRE contraption uses one combined health instead of individual health for all the parts.

    Now that I think of it, this might actually reduce lag too cause you're only keeping track of one set of health instead of the health of each part. Neat if it works out that way! :)
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply United States Show Events Disagree Disagree x 1 (list)

  13. Post #53
    Gold Member
    amitakartok's Avatar
    September 2008
    1,061 Posts
    Even if it was just a console option I think it would be neat, it would mean that you would have to supply a lot of energy to keep a shield running, and server admins with Black Hole Caches could keep their shields up almost infinitely.
    That could backfire. What about: if a BHC is connected, the shield will regenerate slower while under fire?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Hungary Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  14. Post #54
    DarkMonkey's Avatar
    January 2009
    3,939 Posts
    Ooh, looks nice. I have an idea, though. I'm guessing you're using constraints to determine what constitutes a contraption. Well, why not just welds? That way, things like wheels and turrets can be destroyed separately from the main body and whatnot. Maybe make it an option or something.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply United States Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  15. Post #55
    Gold Member
    LimEJET's Avatar
    November 2007
    1,734 Posts
    Darkmonkey has something epic going on there. I'd say, if you implement that feature, you should also add the option to designate "weak spots" yourself.
    Say, for example, that your jet fighter is being fired upon (and here I'm assuming we're using the Fin tool :biggrin:). Firing on the wings would cripple the plane if you were using GCombat, CDS or SPD, but here the damage would just distribute evenly.
    An earlier request was to pass some of the damage directly onto the hit entity, although like you've said yourself, that would get troublesome with Wire stuff.
    So, instead, the wings have been chosen as weak spots in advance, and take damage before the rest of the contraption does.

    Say, that gave me another idea!
    Create a mode where you designate your own "damage groups" that would be off by default. Possibly, you could make it so that the player sets one "parent" group and several "child" groups, and when a child group (the wing, in this example) hits zero health, it gets destroyed (perhaps even pushed away from the parent a bit? for spaceships). All without dealing lethal damage to the parent.
    Of course, the parent would still be damaged, and it would pass out damage to all the children, but they would receive maybe 10% out of the 20% that the parent received.
    If the parent was hit, the damage would be spread evenly across all of the children.

    Edited:
    Woah, wall of text.


    Edited:
    Ok, reviewing this a couple of hours later, I say why is the "part hit receives most damage" so bad, anyway? The only people who put their wire stuff on the outside of their ship are pretty stupid in the first place, might as well make them suffer for it.

    Speaking of wire stuff, in the SBEP thread there has been talks of extruding bits and bobs on ships, like antennae and stuff like that.
    Now, if I'm not mistaken, the following are true:
    [indent]1) CoDE (really catchy name, by the way) renders shields for all shielded props in a contraption
    2) All shields, no matter how small, uses up system resources.[/indent]I'm thinking, is there a way to stop this from happening?
    Say, for example, you have a SBEP Smallbridge piece. Then you have a wire emitter or something on the outside of that. Regularly, this would have a shield effect drawn and it would look shit.
    Would it be possible to create a rectangular parallelepiped (a non-cubic... er, cube) with roughly the same dimensions as the hull piece, check whether any other entities are inside this "box", and put these entities in some sort of "render shield effect-blacklist"?
    Or maybe you've already implemented that...
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Sweden Show Events Disagree Disagree x 2Agree Agree x 2 (list)

  16. Post #56
    DarkMonkey's Avatar
    January 2009
    3,939 Posts
    Well, the big issue with damaging the entity that's hit is when things like area affect weapons are used. I may put the wire inside, but if there's an explosion and they take damage, it's all over.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply United States Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  17. Post #57
    DVD Player's Avatar
    May 2008
    172 Posts
    See if you can implement splash-damage or internal blast-shielding somehow that would make Wire stuff only to be damaged when hit directly, or when behind light-armoring.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Canada Show Events Disagree Disagree x 1 (list)

  18. Post #58
    Gold Member
    Mooee's Avatar
    June 2008
    1,131 Posts
    Those look sexy.

  19. Post #59
    HonorGuard's Avatar
    April 2008
    781 Posts
    The Contraption shields will be wonderful for ships, but the dome shield would be perfect for Atlantis style shields!
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply United States Show Events Agree Agree x 2 (list)

  20. Post #60
    Arania's Avatar
    November 2007
    57 Posts
    I think it'd be cool to have weapon modules, something like an interface that allowed you to assemble your munitions. Say, if someone made a small vehicle, with heavy shields, you could make a two stage missile that would cluster off into an anti-shield missile, and an explosive or kinetic missile to hit right after the shield is ousted.
    More customisable weapon parts ARE planned for a bit further on (stuff like being able to pick and choose missile warheads, projectile weapon barrel lengths and calibres, stuff like that), but it WON'T be included in the initial beta release


    Waiting for a full regenerate seems a bit harsh, what about something like 25%? That way it's still offline for a while and when it comes back on it isn't at full strength but give the user a chance to avoid some incoming fire.
    It's not as harsh as you think. The shields tend to regenerate fairly quickly (usually between 20 and 60 seconds for a full recharge, depending on settings). This also has the side-effect of making the shields fairly durable in combat


    What about a system where instead of setting it up so that a weapon would only do damage to one type (shield or prop) it would just do MORE damage to it's type, so if you were firing anti shield weapons it would still have an effect on the props but not nearly as much as the alternative? Might make it a bit more balanced.
    As I mentioned above, more customisability on weapons IS planned for later on, including the ability to mix-and-match damage types on weapons. I'm just keeping the weapons fairly simple for the beta release


    On a somewhat related note would it be possible to have a shield with the option of forcing the shield to stay up so long as it has a lot of RD2/LS2 energy (so the amount of energy required for the shield to run would be proportionate to the incoming damage, more damage, more energy needed).
    Shield domes have the option that they can be put into 'Reinforced' mode, which doubles the shield's regneration rate, and gives it a 25% resistance to damage inflicted on it, at the cost of increasing energy demand by 500%


    Ok, reviewing this a couple of hours later, I say why is the "part hit receives most damage" so bad, anyway? The only people who put their wire stuff on the outside of their ship are pretty stupid in the first place, might as well make them suffer for it.
    Wire components weren't the only thing i was referring to in regards to that (Practically anything that could be called 'small' would be included as well: Parts of an external turret, hoverballs, thrusters, antenna...). That being said, I WILL most likely be including an option to make the prop hit take damage first (as it would only take a minor modification to the code as-is, anyway), but it won't be turned on by default.
    I DO like your damage groups idea (reminds me of the parentingn system in Battleships Forever), but that would take me a while to work in. It's certainly something to consider for a later release, though.


    Speaking of wire stuff, in the SBEP thread there has been talks of extruding bits and bobs on ships, like antennae and stuff like that.
    Now, if I'm not mistaken, the following are true:
    [indent]1) CoDE (really catchy name, by the way) renders shields for all shielded props in a contraption
    2) All shields, no matter how small, uses up system resources.[/indent]I'm thinking, is there a way to stop this from happening?
    That is one of the more major problems with the contraption shield at the moment. As each prop causes a shield effect to be drawn over it, and each effect is a semi-transparent shader, it can cause a noticable performance impact (typically a loss of 5-15FPS on a Geforce 8600). I'm still trying to find a solution to the problem (My current solution is to have a clientside setting allowing clients to turn down the effect by drawing less of the effects and using a less demanding shader, or to turn it off entirely)


    Ooh, looks nice. I have an idea, though. I'm guessing you're using constraints to determine what constitutes a contraption. Well, why not just welds? That way, things like wheels and turrets can be destroyed separately from the main body and whatnot. Maybe make it an option or something.
    Yes, the contraption is 'found' by finding everything attached through constraints. The only thing stopping 'weld-only' contraption finding is because CoDE uses one of two pre-existing functions to 'find' a contraption:

    [list][*]Gmod's built-in duplicator.Copy() function[*]Or, if TAD2020's Advanced Duplicator is installed, the A-Dupe AdvDupe.GetAllEnts() function, which has a better response time and lower performance impact than duplicator.Copy()[/list]
    In order to do weld-only contraption finding, I would need to write my own finder function. This IS going to be implemented eventually however, as there are a number of minor problems with the system as-is that being able to filter constraints would fix (That, and i've had my beta-testers have suggested the exact same thing to me plenty of times)
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Australia Show Events Friendly x 2Lua King x 1Optimistic x 1Useful x 1Informative x 1 (list)

  21. Post #61
    Gold Member
    amitakartok's Avatar
    September 2008
    1,061 Posts
    See if you can implement splash-damage or internal blast-shielding somehow that would make Wire stuff only to be damaged when hit directly, or when behind light-armoring.
    Splash damage only applies if explosion is in line-of-sight, maybe?

  22. Post #62
    DVD Player's Avatar
    May 2008
    172 Posts
    Splash damage only applies if explosion is in line-of-sight, maybe?
    Yeah, that sounds good.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Canada Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  23. Post #63
    Gold Member
    LimEJET's Avatar
    November 2007
    1,734 Posts
    Yeah, that sounds good.
    Wouldn't that mean doing a fuckton of traces, though?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Sweden Show Events Agree Agree x 2 (list)

  24. Post #64
    Exitus's Avatar
    January 2005
    56 Posts
    Looks very nice, I look forward to using it.

    You mentioned that you used certain functions for determining what a contraption is - in a similar situation, I've had luck using this:

    -- where prop is an entity
    
    for k,v in pairs( prop.ConstraintSystem.UsedEntities ) do
    	if ( v:IsValid() ) then
    		print( tostring(k) .. " | " .. tostring(v) );
    	end
    end
    
    

    Not every entity has the ConstraintSystem member, so you have to check that it has it ( to avoid errors ) but I'm fairly certain that it's faster than using any other function ( I haven't done benchmarks, but it did seem much faster ). Plus, you can stop when you've found what you're looking for, further improving performance.

    The other thing I might suggest is looking into the stencil buffer for rendering prop shields - but I'm not entirely sure exactly how you'd implement it. Looking at things like the iVision post processor and the Left 4 Dead style "cloud" posted by Jinto could provide some clues.

  25. Post #65
    Gold Member
    amitakartok's Avatar
    September 2008
    1,061 Posts
    Wouldn't that mean doing a fuckton of traces, though?
    Only one per prop in the area of effect would be enough.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Hungary Show Events Agree Agree x 2Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  26. Post #66
    Pass along
    commander204's Avatar
    May 2008
    4,065 Posts
    That would look irrealistic, lets say the center of the prop is behind a wall but half of the other side is showing outside, and it doesnt do it any damage.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply France Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  27. Post #67
    Gold Member
    cbale2000's Avatar
    May 2007
    576 Posts
    See if you can implement splash-damage or internal blast-shielding somehow that would make Wire stuff only to be damaged when hit directly, or when behind light-armoring.
    You mean like every other damage system around (essentially)? :P

    Personally I like the idea of wire stuff having more resistance using the "group health" method, Wire, Thrusters, and LS die WAY to easily with current damage systems in my oppinion. I would much like to see them last, especially if a ship is dependent on it to run, otherwise you just get people building ships without wire and having an advantage over people that do use it.


    It's not as harsh as you think. The shields tend to regenerate fairly quickly (usually between 20 and 60 seconds for a full recharge, depending on settings). This also has the side-effect of making the shields fairly durable in combat
    Alright, that sounds fairly reasonable then. I was just concerned mostly that having no sheild, then waiting 30 seconds and all of a sudden having full shields turn back on might be a bit cheap, but I guess only time and testing will tell for sure. :)
    As I mentioned above, more customisability on weapons IS planned for later on, including the ability to mix-and-match damage types on weapons. I'm just keeping the weapons fairly simple for the beta release
    That's cool, initial releases of course do take precedence over extras, and it's awesome that you seem to be trying to get this out so quickly (sooner we get to play with it!) :D
    Shield domes have the option that they can be put into 'Reinforced' mode, which doubles the shield's regeneration rate, and gives it a 25% resistance to damage inflicted on it, at the cost of increasing energy demand by 500%
    Heh, someone's been playing EVE no? Sounds good, and again, settings like that could always be tweaked later on depending on how they work out in multiplayer settings. Cool feature to have regardless. :)

  28. Post #68
    LokiSan's Avatar
    July 2008
    795 Posts
    Not as yet. Everything i've coded thus far that uses it uses RD2 as I was under the impression that RD3 is still pre-beta. Once RD3 gets closer to release, i will more than likely add support for it.
    RD3 has barely been touched for years and likely will not be improved upon for some time yet. RD3 is also backwards compatable with RD2 (for the msot part) so you shouldn't need a massive recode to get it working under RD3.

    Also, additional: I didn't give the thread a proper read so this may have been suggested, but consider increasing the time it takes for a ship to die depending on the amount of HP it had originally - I say this because you would expect a bigger ship, even one at critical integrity, to take a little longer to actually completely explode. Wouldn't mind the extra time to get to an escape pod in such a ship ;)
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply United Kingdom Show Events Agree Agree x 3 (list)

  29. Post #69
    Gold Member
    amitakartok's Avatar
    September 2008
    1,061 Posts
    Shield domes have the option that they can be put into 'Reinforced' mode, which doubles the shield's regneration rate, and gives it a 25% resistance to damage inflicted on it, at the cost of increasing energy demand by 500%
    Reminds me of the Fortress Shield from Nexus: a big-ass spherical shield that is extremely resistant to damage, yet friendly units can fire outside and fly through. Downside is, it can only be mounted on REALLY big ships due to power requirements and units inside can't even charge their own shields until they leave the shielded area.

  30. Post #70
    Gold Member
    cbale2000's Avatar
    May 2007
    576 Posts
    RD3 has barely been touched for years and likely will not be improved upon for some time yet. RD3 is also backwards compatable with RD2 (for the msot part) so you shouldn't need a massive recode to get it working under RD3.
    What is backwards compatible? RD3 itself or RD3 coded entities? If RD3 is backwards compatible with RD2 addons then why bother changing anything?

  31. Post #71
    Gold Member
    LimEJET's Avatar
    November 2007
    1,734 Posts
    What is backwards compatible? RD3 itself or RD3 coded entities? If RD3 is backwards compatible with RD2 addons then why bother changing anything?
    Well, it's not compatible with RD2 addons, that I can tell you.
    In fact, I've never even heard anything about RD3 being backwards compatible AT ALL.

  32. Post #72
    mbainrot's Avatar
    August 2008
    178 Posts
    That is one of the more major problems with the contraption shield at the moment. As each prop causes a shield effect to be drawn over it, and each effect is a semi-transparent shader, it can cause a noticable performance impact (typically a loss of 5-15FPS on a Geforce 8600). I'm still trying to find a solution to the problem (My current solution is to have a clientside setting allowing clients to turn down the effect by drawing less of the effects and using a less demanding shader, or to turn it off entirely)
    Maybe as another option for the player to choose from is that shielded props are tinted a specific color, i know it will be problematic with some contraptions (due to them being coloured etc) but it would be a good performance safety :)

  33. Post #73
    DVD Player's Avatar
    May 2008
    172 Posts
    That would look irrealistic, lets say the center of the prop is behind a wall but half of the other side is showing outside, and it doesnt do it any damage.
    No, you could do like eight maximum for each prop, one at each relative corner/edge.

  34. Post #74
    Gold Member
    amitakartok's Avatar
    September 2008
    1,061 Posts
    Well, it's not compatible with RD2 addons, that I can tell you.
    In fact, I've never even heard anything about RD3 being backwards compatible AT ALL.
    Maybe he's confusing RD with SB. SB3 is backwards compatible with SB2 and SB maps.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Hungary Show Events Agree Agree x 3 (list)

  35. Post #75
    There's only one person in this whole world like you. And people can like you exactly as you are.
    Lambda 217's Avatar
    March 2008
    4,553 Posts
    It's good that you can turn it to "GCombat" mode, because annoying as the fact that this could lead to your ship being a floating chair with a plate with a hoverball attached welded nearby, it was pretty cool to see a massive hole being blown in the side of your cruiser :unsmith: .
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply United Kingdom Show Events Agree Agree x 3Disagree Disagree x 1 (list)

  36. Post #76
    wirusass0's Avatar
    April 2009
    414 Posts
    If wiring and/or no-coliding is cosidered constraints, what would happen if you no-collide one part of your fighter to your massive base? Wouldn't that count as cheating? And what do you do to prevent it?

  37. Post #77
    DVD Player's Avatar
    May 2008
    172 Posts
    Ok ok ok, I gots a better idea.

    For splash damage, you could have a layer-tool that involves you selecting props on the lowest layer (wiring), and props on the highest layer (armor). To get the props on the lowest layer, you would need to destroy the higher layer that has a total health that damages all props on the layer so you can't have some random can hidden away that has to be hit first. Which would also lead for a minimum-prop limit for each layer that gets larger the higher the layer.

    Not all props would be selected, so it's not totally stupid for the weak-point props, unless you made a prop designated as a weak-point prop that damaged all others/screwed the whole ship over.

    Oh, and lower-layer props would have to be beneath higher-layer props.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Canada Show Events Disagree Disagree x 3 (list)

  38. Post #78
    LokiSan's Avatar
    July 2008
    795 Posts
    Maybe he's confusing RD with SB. SB3 is backwards compatible with SB2 and SB maps.
    I am indeed, sorry it was rather late when I made that post and I was knackered to all hell.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply United Kingdom Show Events Funny Funny x 1 (list)

  39. Post #79
    Hates Ayn Rand
    1239the's Avatar
    December 2005
    836 Posts
    An anti-personnel damage type would be nice too, to take out those pesky infantry who assault you on foot. Further on that subject, SWEPs dealing anti-armour damage for CoDE would be pretty ace too. Good memories of one of the few good GCombat battles I engaged in, where I was given a GCombat RPG and loaded into an APC with a few others, when the APC got pulverized we hopped out and took out the attacking tank on foot.

    Also, will weapons have depleting ammunition? Call me old-school, but it was kind of fun to have to manually load artillery and cannons, or pitstop and replace munition crates on-the-go. Perhaps another toggleable option.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Australia Show Events Agree Agree x 5Disagree Disagree x 2 (list)

  40. Post #80
    Arania's Avatar
    November 2007
    57 Posts
    For those still following this project (A few of you, it seems. I'm rather surprised i got this much attention!): I have recently completed a proper multiplayer beta test, and should have a set of screenshots and a demo video uploaded and posted within the next few days for your viewing pleasure.


    Splash damage only applies if explosion is in line-of-sight, maybe?
    As is mentioned by others, this would act unrealistically in situations where the line-of-sight trace is blocked by something else, and attempting to perform multiple traces for each of the affected entity's bounding box corners would get very computationally expensive, very quickly (eight traces per entity, and even a small explosion will hit 3-5 entities, for 40 traces. It would get even worse for larger explosions, where entire contraptions can be hit by the explosion, typically 15-30 entities, resulting in 240 traces in a single frame. I'm not comfortable putting a server under that much strain). Currently, the blast damage function will affect everything in the specified radius regardless of visibility (With objects towards the edge of the explosion being affected less).


    Heh, someone's been playing EVE no? Sounds good, and again, settings like that could always be tweaked later on depending on how they work out in multiplayer settings. Cool feature to have regardless. :)
    Reminds me of the Fortress Shield from Nexus: a big-ass spherical shield that is extremely resistant to damage, yet friendly units can fire outside and fly through. Downside is, it can only be mounted on REALLY big ships due to power requirements and units inside can't even charge their own shields until they leave the shielded area.
    Yes and Yes. Nexus (One of my personal favourite games, for the record), EVE Online, and Supreme Commander all influenced the design of the shield dome to some degree.


    Also, additional: I didn't give the thread a proper read so this may have been suggested, but consider increasing the time it takes for a ship to die depending on the amount of HP it had originally - I say this because you would expect a bigger ship, even one at critical integrity, to take a little longer to actually completely explode. Wouldn't mind the extra time to get to an escape pod in such a ship ;)
    There is a convar setting that does exactly that (I think i mentioned it elsewhere) that delays final contraption death proportional to its original health. It IS quite handy for large spacecraft (especially those made with SBMP), they usually take 20 seconds or more to die after reaching 0 health.


    If wiring and/or no-coliding is cosidered constraints, what would happen if you no-collide one part of your fighter to your massive base? Wouldn't that count as cheating? And what do you do to prevent it?
    Yes, this is a rather glaring problem that i have yet to fix. I would encourage server admins and responsible players to be on the lookout for this sort of behaviour until i manage to get rid of the problem.
    Also: Wiring isn't a constraint, thankfully, so wire parts on different contraptions that are connected is fine.


    An anti-personnel damage type would be nice too, to take out those pesky infantry who assault you on foot. Further on that subject, SWEPs dealing anti-armour damage for CoDE would be pretty ace too. Good memories of one of the few good GCombat battles I engaged in, where I was given a GCombat RPG and loaded into an APC with a few others, when the APC got pulverized we hopped out and took out the attacking tank on foot.

    Also, will weapons have depleting ammunition? Call me old-school, but it was kind of fun to have to manually load artillery and cannons, or pitstop and replace munition crates on-the-go. Perhaps another toggleable option.
    Normal and Destructive damage types can both be used in an antipersonnel role, and a specific anti-personnel damage type is planned for a later release. CoDE SWEPs, however, aren't on my list of things to make quite yet.

    All the weapons i have at the moment use energy to some degree, and future releases MAY have the option to include ammunition manufacturing and storage for weapons (for those who like having the need for a supply chain and logistics). Manually-loaded weapons aren't something I’m planning to make (I’m going for a more futuristic feel with the built-in equipment, as you can probably tell), but I’m not stopping anyone from making their own (Weapons are very easy to make for CoDE, as everything inherits from eight base classes which contain all the core code. Actual weapons typically only have 5-7 lines of code describing their relevant statistics: damage, blast radius, projectile speed, refire rate, energy usage, damage type, and the class name of the projectile it fires)
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Australia Show Events Friendly Friendly x 3 (list)