Login [Register]
Don't have an account? Register now to chat, post, use our tools, and much more.
DShiznit wrote:
Well you generally aren't building AND fighting at the same time. I do one and then the other. Now if you're looking to do both at the same time(like to rebuild and re-equip destroyed ships) your system would clearly be the best.


In my conceptualization of the game, I keep envisioning people speed-building space ships or tanks or whatever and hopping into them to rush to the defense of their teammates. Imagine a DotA like game with masses of weak AI players doing the grunt work and players building contraptions to aid in defense/offense. More powerful vehicles would take longer to build, but inevitably be stronger once complete.

KermMartian wrote:
Just to double-check, will Freebuild have some kind of copy-paste, like the old iGob? If I make a cool train car, I'm definitely going to want to be able to resurrect it and 50 copies at a moment's notice.

DShiznit wrote:
The current Free build has the iGob, so I would assume they'd keep it, or rework it to be even better. Hell, calc84maniac made a multi-axis iGob rotator that was to be exclusive to Freebuild.

Pretty much this. There will most likely be a conglomeration of iGob-like behavior with vehicle spawning and the LDraw multi-part model format.
Ah, I didn't remember if Chris/Gobbles had requested removal of the iGob in that whole REMOVE MY COAD PLEEZ debacle.
If the region saveing and loading could be done through an LDraw compatible format that would be awesome, the only issue I see with it is that LDraw doesn't support all weapons and such but I'm sure you have ideas there.
TheStorm wrote:
If the region saveing and loading could be done through an LDraw compatible format that would be awesome, the only issue I see with it is that LDraw doesn't support all weapons and such but I'm sure you have ideas there.
Not only weapons, but all the vehicle annotations we might have added, but I'm sure those would be trivial to store in some kind of description metadata.
KermMartian wrote:
Ah, I didn't remember if Chris/Gobbles had requested removal of the iGob in that whole REMOVE MY COAD PLEEZ debacle.

Well it's going to be re-implemented to make use of multi-part models, and not be named after him anymore, but the functionality will be more or less the same.

Quote:
If the region saveing and loading could be done through an LDraw compatible format that would be awesome, the only issue I see with it is that LDraw doesn't support all weapons and such but I'm sure you have ideas there.

All weapons will be modeled with LDraw pieces, .dts is more or less being abandoned. The weapon attributes will probably end up being stored in embedded torquescript using LDraw meta-commands, or a separate script file.
The longer this topic is going on, the more and more excited I'm getting about playing with trains, so let me know if there are any things I can start thinking about or modeling up.
If you had spare coding time to work on the track-constraint we've been discussing for Bullet (as an extension of one of their demos, not in Torque), that would be a huge step towards trains.
elfprince13 wrote:
If you had spare coding time to work on the track-constraint we've been discussing for Bullet (as an extension of one of their demos, not in Torque), that would be a huge step towards trains.
sounds cool. I'll have to take a look at one of these then, I presume. Smile
Either of the 2.76/2.77 source distributions are probably fine. You'll want to install CMake on your development platform to build the project files for you IDE/build system of choice, and then you should be good to go.
elfprince13 wrote:
Either of the 2.76/2.77 source distributions are probably fine. You'll want to install CMake on your development platform to build the project files for you IDE/build system of choice, and then you should be good to go.
Oooh, I didn't think of that. I guess I'll need to whip out VC++ and Cmake for Windows.
Hey, would it be possible to make a separate gravity for a vehicle? I mean, if you build a huge star cruiser, you would be allowed to move normally inside it while the ship is upside down.
SpaceNinja wrote:
Hey, would it be possible to make a separate gravity for a vehicle? I mean, if you build a huge star cruiser, you would be allowed to move normally inside it while the ship is upside down.
If you built a huge star cruiser I don't think it would be feasible to make that an actual vehicle vehicle. Remember that players have to be attached to mountpoints inside vehicles in order to move with (and control) said vehicles.
KermMartian wrote:
SpaceNinja wrote:
Hey, would it be possible to make a separate gravity for a vehicle? I mean, if you build a huge star cruiser, you would be allowed to move normally inside it while the ship is upside down.
If you built a huge star cruiser I don't think it would be feasible to make that an actual vehicle vehicle. Remember that players have to be attached to mountpoints inside vehicles in order to move with (and control) said vehicles.

Can't you just assign a specific chair that acts as a "controlling chair"?
I think that's the idea, but what Kerm is getting at is that players can't move independently inside vehicles, they have to be attached to a mount-point. One solution that comes to mind is to mount players to a plane, rather than a point, and let them move around that plane, constrained by walls. To change floors/decks you'd just need to move to the next highest/lowest plane. I'm not sure if the calculations required for that are more trouble than they're worth though.
It would require some fairly fundamental engine modifications; if people were free to wander about the vehicle, how would the driver be able to steer the vehicle?
they'd still be mounted to the vehicle, perhaps even to a specific point, but where they appear would be an arbitrary offset from that point.
It's possible, I'd certainly like to see usable capital ships, but it isn't on the immediate priorities list.
elfprince13 wrote:
It's possible, I'd certainly like to see usable capital ships, but it isn't on the immediate priorities list.
And now that I know what a capital ship is, I can agree that it would be cool but non-vital. Smile
Obviously we could have them the way vehicles are now with fixed mount points, but it seems a shame to not be able to maneuver freely inside a vehicle large enough to be an environment all its own.
I never said it was vital, just that it might be more plausible than you'd initially think if you do it right.
  
Register to Join the Conversation
Have your own thoughts to add to this or any other topic? Want to ask a question, offer a suggestion, share your own programs and projects, upload a file to the file archives, get help with calculator and computer programming, or simply chat with like-minded coders and tech and calculator enthusiasts via the site-wide AJAX SAX widget? Registration for a free Cemetech account only takes a minute.

» Go to Registration page
Page 2 of 3
» All times are GMT - 5 Hours
 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 

Advertisement