project-navigation
Personal tools

Author Topic: What features are still missing for UGVs?  (Read 20348 times)

Offline Flying Steel

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 99
    • View Profile
What features are still missing for UGVs?
« on: June 20, 2010, 01:01:53 am »
Is it only that the pathfinding for 2x2 units is not working or would a lot more coding need to be done in other areas as well to make UGVs an operational feature?

I ask because, if that is the only or primary hold up for UGVs, then I'm curious if 3D content for 1x1 combat UGVs could fill the gap while waiting on the pathfinding code for the larger UGVs?

It seems UCGVs such as this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SWORDS.jpg

or slightly taller designs could easily fit inside a 1x1 square and thus circumvent the pathfinding issue.

P.S. If content for such units would be desirable, lemme know.

Offline BTAxis

  • Administrator
  • PHALANX Commander
  • *******
  • Posts: 2607
    • View Profile
Re: What features are still missing for UGVs?
« Reply #1 on: June 20, 2010, 01:45:46 am »
Actually, I just wrote up a preliminary TODO list on Duke's talk page, since he basically asked the same question. This is something to be further explored and expanded.

Offline Flying Steel

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 99
    • View Profile
Re: What features are still missing for UGVs?
« Reply #2 on: June 21, 2010, 07:29:02 pm »
Quote from: Duke
skirmish minimum

    * automatic assignment of one UGV as the 8th soldier
    * some default equipment for the UGV
    * NO turning turret, NO correct origin for firing

. . .

full support

    * 2x2 spawnpoints on all maps

Expanding on what I said earlier and taking this into account, it is totally realistic and graphically doable to have some combat UGVs that are:

1) 1x1 units, just like soldiers, and utilizing the same spawns.
2) Have no turret (they turn to train their aim left or right).
3) And position weapons the same way as soldier models, supporting both upright and crouched weapon origins, if desirable.

The unit would look like those real life, compact, weapon wielding UGVs I linked a picture of above, plus a folding (or telescoping) arm coming out the top of it, wielding the weapon system (allowing it to shoot from soldier height or lower, depending on what's called for by the current situation).

I don't mean a replacement for the ares and phoenix, those are heavier, though probably less versatile (due to their size) designs that will greatly enhance depth and balance when the engine supports them. But this is a concept for a complement to them and the human soldiers, that we will see, without a doubt, in the near future of real life.

And it sounds like it is something that the engine will support sooner, probably a lot sooner.

Offline Flying Steel

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 99
    • View Profile
Re: What features are still missing for UGVs?
« Reply #3 on: February 03, 2012, 06:52:05 am »
So according to the TODO it looks like the UGV implementation has been pushed back again (to v2.5). Has progress been made on this feature? And any progress on hovering units?

It would be quite nice to see more variety in the kinds of units you both field and face on the battlefield in the next version. As interesting as battlescape combat is in the early game, after so many missions the campaign begins to feel more like endless room clearing. Combined arms forces on both sides of the fight would do a lot to diversify the experience.

If fully implementing this feature as planned requires too many engine additions to be ready for the next release, I'd like to suggest again that an intermediate solution like the one described above could be desirable.

Offline H-Hour

  • Administrator
  • PHALANX Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
    • View Profile
Re: What features are still missing for UGVs?
« Reply #4 on: February 04, 2012, 11:16:31 am »
You're a modeller, help us make more aliens! Have you seen the alien bestiary?

Any 1x1 aliens we have modeled and animated can go in right away. 2x2 pathfinding is still not there, and I think that's the big thing preventing UGVs.

No progress on hovering units, either. I think it is a really difficult problem to solve, and our battlescape doesn't get a lot of attention.

Offline MCR

  • PHALANX veteran
  • ******
  • Posts: 1244
    • View Profile
Re: What features are still missing for UGVs?
« Reply #5 on: February 04, 2012, 12:39:15 pm »
AFAIR, the last time I tested, UGVs were already working on the battlefield.
They were spawned on the battlescape, you could even move them, but not fire with them.

I guess technically there is not much missing except for spawnpoints on the various maps and some code to make the guns (which are seperate models mounted on top of UGVs) work.
The code to make the guns work should not really be complicated, but if the guns should animate independent from the UGV (turning a gun will not turn the UGV), which would ofc. look better and more professional, more work regarding code and UI would be necessary.

Offline MCR

  • PHALANX veteran
  • ******
  • Posts: 1244
    • View Profile
Re: What features are still missing for UGVs?
« Reply #6 on: February 04, 2012, 12:42:50 pm »
@Flying Steel: We need you ! We currently have no real modeller on board. Join the project ! ;D

Offline Flying Steel

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 99
    • View Profile
Re: What features are still missing for UGVs?
« Reply #7 on: February 06, 2012, 06:16:38 am »
If UFOAI doesn't mind using open content also used in one or more other projects, then I might be able to supply you with more alien models/textures/animations in the future.

No progress on hovering units, either. I think it is a really difficult problem to solve, and our battlescape doesn't get a lot of attention.

That's too bad. The battlescape is where you spend most of your time and apply most of your attention and skill.

AFAIR, the last time I tested, UGVs were already working on the battlefield.
They were spawned on the battlescape, you could even move them, but not fire with them.

I guess technically there is not much missing except for spawnpoints on the various maps and some code to make the guns (which are seperate models mounted on top of UGVs) work.

Hmm, if they can move I wonder if that means the pathfinding problem has been solved. Unless 'pathfinding' refers to an AI issue with planning rather than executing 2x2 unit moves.

Fully functioning gun turrets aren't immediately essential IMO, many tanks and tankettes from the world wars had swivel guns that could only be trained in a narrow forward facing arc. It seems like the 2x2 spawn points wouldn't take long to place either.

Offline H-Hour

  • Administrator
  • PHALANX Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
    • View Profile
Re: What features are still missing for UGVs?
« Reply #8 on: February 06, 2012, 09:23:57 pm »
If UFOAI doesn't mind using open content also used in one or more other projects, then I might be able to supply you with more alien models/textures/animations in the future.

All UFOAI content is required to be open content. That's our philosophy and I don't think we're too proud to use working aliens similar to other games, though they may be the first to be replaced in that mythical utopian future when we have all the artwork we need. :)

That's too bad. The battlescape is where you spend most of your time and apply most of your attention and skill.

Agreed!

Offline Flying Steel

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 99
    • View Profile
Re: What features are still missing for UGVs?
« Reply #9 on: February 07, 2012, 06:17:36 am »
I'd only release content under a permissive license if I felt it was 'original' in the legal sense. And by other projects I meant open projects, including at least one of my own but also any other games that felt like using the content that I created and released (probably using CC0).

It's like if Vega Strike or Pioneer started using your open licensed interceptor and UFO models as content for its own spacecraft or vice versa. There could be no legal issues with that but you might still choose to try to avoid using content used by other open games purely on artistic grounds or simply not care. Which is why I mentioned this; if you don't mind sharing content I might be able to supply you with original alien artwork that I will probably need for my own open game projects.

Tangentially, you'd then also want to keep an eye on what content licensing TremZ (a fork of Tremulous) ends up using, as they might be a gold mine for alien artwork.

Offline H-Hour

  • Administrator
  • PHALANX Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
    • View Profile
Re: What features are still missing for UGVs?
« Reply #10 on: February 07, 2012, 03:29:03 pm »
Our current Stiletto interceptor came from and has been given back to the open source community at opengameart.org. It'd be great if we could have all original content. But, as your post about the lack of new aliens indicated, it is more important for us to have the content itself. If you're making aliens and able to animate them as we need, it could be very useful! :)

If you're looking for material you might be able to use for your own projects, you can always check our data source. I know of at least one alien there that is modeled but not animated.

Offline zapkitty

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 56
    • View Profile
Re: What features are still missing for UGVs?
« Reply #11 on: February 07, 2012, 05:37:59 pm »
Attempting a simple approximation of UGVs for base defence. Emphasis on gameplay rather than art or models.

I'm operating on the assumption that some or all of this makeshift stuff will be tossed out as UGV work continues. That's fine. I just figure it won't hurt to toss in some bot-like things now :)

For this scenario simply say that ubiquitous alien EW rendered presumed future battlefield 'bots unreliable in the field, but heavily modified bots in direct contact with the base can still work even during alien incursions into that base. As discussed upthread these Base UGVs or BUGVs would be simplified versions of the full UGV concept... the idea being that the simpler the systems on these prototypes the less the alien EW can fritz things up.

(and if any of this concept survives in the game perhaps they could be the base from which battlefield-capable UGVs are redeveloped after combat experience and some alien tech is researched)

So no big rollout of story or art. These experimental bots are simple gun platforms with cameras but without turrets. When a base containing BUGVs is attacked your Phalanx troopers don't magically beam in from a dropship halfway around the world... instead the bug-v's roll out of the building labeled "Base Defense UGV Bay" and into action.

building building_botbay
{
   name         "_Base Defense UGV Bay"
   image         base/botbay
   fixcosts      ?0000
   build_time      5
   varcosts      1000
   map_name      "quarters"
   pedia         rs_building_botbay
   type         botbay
   capacity      8
   starting_bugvs:     4   
}

The BUGV advantages are real but should be matched by their disadvantages.

Advantages:

are rigged to accept any human handheld weapon. this is more of a desperation measure at first but will turn out to be very handy when alien weapons are acquired and researched.

are dual-wielding - the default configuration  holds a machine gun and a flamer and can use either at will... but cannot reload either of them.

are armored better than humans

(this is the reality of future robot combat... robots are strong... and that's why the player only starts out with 4 of them)

built in IR scan (still costs TUs but not as much as humans)

are fast on the straightaway but they slow way down on cornering, are even slower on ramps and are like molasses on stairs... or maybe stair-stuck? (dalek syndrome)

copied living quarters as the bugv hq and presume that 4 units are unpacked when the building is finished. As with current living quarters the "building finished" flag signals that the base is now available for attack. 

When an attack happens the player gets a chance to choose bot weapons from available stock and the fray begins. Afterwards the bots either do a victory dance and return to the botbay for reloading and repairs... or the bots are scrap and so is the base.

obviously the option of adding human guards to the mix hangs over this but i'm going for all-bots at first just for the fun of it. It can all be justified later one way or the other if someone wants to take the time to do so :)

attached find simple prototypical bot idea... this concept isn't something to spend 70,000 hours baking normalmaps on...
« Last Edit: February 07, 2012, 05:50:19 pm by zapkitty »

Offline zapkitty

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 56
    • View Profile
Re: What features are still missing for UGVs?
« Reply #12 on: February 07, 2012, 05:44:46 pm »
the inverse crouch... slows the bot down and renders it a bit less accurate but enables it to shoot over tables and such.


Offline zapkitty

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 56
    • View Profile
Re: What features are still missing for UGVs?
« Reply #13 on: February 08, 2012, 06:31:38 am »
here's some gun clarification:

first is the default machine gun and flamer. these are supposed to be the same weapons the troops use. me no artist so sue me :)

second is the bot sans guns. the idea is that the weapon grips go into the green boxes.

third has the flamer replaced with the grenade launcher. a bit hazardous, no reaction fire, no close-in use and the bot still can't reload anything... but it is a grenade launcher. 

yes, that's the grenade launcher... just turn your head sideways and close your eyes... see? my world and welcome to it :)

Offline zapkitty

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 56
    • View Profile
Re: What features are still missing for UGVs?
« Reply #14 on: February 11, 2012, 04:37:30 pm »
apparently no objections yet :) ... onwards...

Some background and support stuff comes up first....

guns and magazine capacity: is there any objection to having magazine capacities defined by the magazine instead of the weapon? cf:
http://ufoai.ninex.info/forum/index.php/topic,4509.msg34597.html#msg34597

Should not affect balance much. If someone wants to load their assault rifle with a custom 100 round dual-drum magazine then just let them take the TU and accuracy penalties for it.

I'd make all the needed ammo transitions and test it of course but I wanted to check on the concept's general viability before trying to code it.