Messages

1

Artwork / Re: Need background image for tactical radar

« on: June 13, 2008, 10:17:47 pm »

the hud is completly hidden - the image should have dimensions of 1024x768 (i will later scale it down to 512x512 - but we need the 4:3 ratio.

Did you make this non-sequitur reply because you didn't read my post, or because you read it, disagree, but don't choose to explain why?


I know the original intent was to completely hide the HUD.  My point is that this is not necessarily a good idea.

At the very least IMHO you need the controls that raise/lower the level of the camera, or else you won't be able to see into buildings as in the example... or at least you won't be able to choose the floor.

2

Artwork / Re: Need background image for tactical radar

« on: June 13, 2008, 08:58:36 pm »

What we now need is a nice background the radar is rendered on. That's where you can help.

An idea:
A table plate with things lying on it like a compass or something like that. But the radar map size can differ from map to map - so it would be nice if you could work with layers and send in the source image, too. Maybe we will create more than one background out of them.

Rather than create the appearance of a fake photorealistic desk, or command station, i would recommend something simpler and more flexible like the attached. I.E. a dark grey metal texture.

I don't know how much you want to allow the player to do from this view, but many (if not all) of the controls and info normally available would be useful in this screen too. For instance the control that changes the camera level, and (when you click on a unit) the normal info about his health and readiness.  The simplest thing would be to keep the combat UI and simply "grey out" any function you don't want used from this view mode.


The ability to pan and zoom would be very useful especially on large maps, and when you don't try to make a photorealistic background, it's might not be very hard.

[attachment deleted by admin]

3

Artwork / Re: Need background image for tactical radar

« on: June 13, 2008, 04:19:35 pm »

What we now need is a nice background the radar is rendered on.

So is there any need for that stuff that's shown ghosted? Or is it the only thing on the screen?

4

Design / Re: About Antarctica colonies (population)?

« on: April 01, 2008, 09:28:25 pm »

80 years in the future, i think it's much more likely that we'll be colonizing the shallow temperate ocean than seriously putting population in Antarctica.  If you weren't engaged in Antarctican science why would you choose to live somewhere where the outdoors are fatally cold even in summer?


But why do you have to have Antarctican cities to have missions there?

Antarctica would make a great site for hidden alien bases.  Since there are practically no people  they aliens would feel more secure against detection.

5

Artwork / Re: Display of Radar Fog-of-War

« on: March 17, 2008, 05:06:59 pm »

I still have some ideas to improve that, this is work in progress. But I'm not going to commit this radar stuff if I don't manage to get better performances.

I understand that a lot of ideas that look and sound good can be a major pain or simply impractical to implement.

However, i have some hope since (i think) only the alpha mask needs to be recalculated.  And visually you can probably get away with a lower-res mask if you keep the green radar-circles (per my mock-up) which will help convince the eye that "circles" are round, even though the underlying texture is pixel-jagged.

You mean like what we already do for 2D geoscape ? This would be another alpha map to calculate on every frame. I'm not sure that current night texture is worth the job: it doesn't look really nicer on 2D geoscape than on 3D geoscape, no ? Have you any idea to improve that ?

You're saying you don't think the night-texture makes the 2D geoscape look better?
IMHO it looks a lot better than a plain black shadow.

Of course there are ways to make the 2 textures work together better (in either a 2D or 3D context).  I was working on that and other aspects of the globe-textures, but many of my questions where never answered on the ML.

6

Artwork / Re: Display of Radar Fog-of-War

« on: March 17, 2008, 05:24:57 am »

I never said 'black'. I said 'darker'.

*shrug* similar problem.  A dark grey starts to look like just another shadow over the land, especially in the "detection" zone, and there's just not enough contrast to see what's what without increasing the opacity of the overlay, and thereby causing more issues.
See attached. i changed the mask color half way from the grey it was to black.  Notice the "detection" zone above Russia.  You couldn't hardly see the difference if it weren't for the faint lines i left in.



Of course, there's no obvious reason for the ocean to be so nearly black, nor for the night to be so absolute.

Personally i'd like to see rather than a shaded sphere, one that used the nigh-lights texture on half with a narrow zone of blending.  It would look more attractive, and with the proper adjustment (lighter oceans) allow a black radar fog-of-war to work.

[attachment deleted by admin]

7

Artwork / Re: Display of Radar Fog-of-War

« on: March 16, 2008, 09:03:34 pm »

Hmm. Okay, I can see your point, but I'm still not sure I'm entirely happy. The grey of the areas without coverage just seems . . . not quite right. Maybe making it a little bit darker would help, make it more intuitive. Right now the areas with the most radar visibility are darker than the areas with less visibility, which speaking as a gamer throws me for a bit of a loop.

Sure black would be a more idea choice, but it doesn't work in our situation... when pretty much an entire hemisphere of the planet can be solid black at once (pacific at night), a black overlay would be nearly invisible, and thus useless

The pic looks cool, but I don't really see the use of it... either you discovered the ufo or you didn't.
Everything what seeing the radar is usefull for, is when building a new base. But even then you will have to aproximate, because you can't see the radar circle for the new base.

.

IIRC types of events things for later releases will not automatically pop up on your map... they might remain hidden... but radar  coverage and fly-overs will help to reveal them.  Thus it's relevant to the player where he has coverage and how much.... not just when there's a UFO around.

Being able to toggle the filters is fine... but i believe they should be independently toggle-able, so they player can display all the information he wants at once.

8

Design / Re: UGV Control Facility

« on: March 16, 2008, 02:33:09 am »

My first reaction is... "what another thing i need to cram in my base?".

But what i consider base overcrowding could be relived by such things as increasing the capacity of labs and quarters.

9

Discussion / Re: Weapons jamming

« on: March 16, 2008, 12:29:48 am »

Wesnoth has a saying: "Options are Bad".

It's pretty reliable, whenever it's clear that an idea doesn't have enough support to become "mainline", someone will suggest that it be included as an option.  In rare cases that's a good idea, but every option has a downside.  With every option you add, the difficulty of maintaining, learning, and debugging the code increases.  The amount of time it takes to learn the game increases too as each option should (or might be) considered by the player, in combinations with all others.

Anyway, adding optional modes of play makes a lot more sense

10

Artwork / Re: Display of Radar Fog-of-War

« on: March 15, 2008, 11:36:59 pm »

Personally I'm not a fan of your way of doing it, it just seems like you're overthinking it, making it less straightforward. Why de-fog the geoscape when Kracken's simple green overlay does the job more intuitively whilst also looking better?

I don't agree that the green-overlay radar is so obviously superior.  Not that i'm criticizing Kracken's work.  I'm glad he's working on it... But as a graphic designer, it's something i can profitably contribute ideas to.

With my version, you'll eventually have a globe that's nearly all clear and crisp.
With the green version, you'll eventually have a globe that's nearly all greenish--- that's  the wrong progression.

... assuming that the new radar display is going to be on all the time... which i think is worthwhile

Kracken's method is more obvious to think of, but not more obvious to use... especially when you start adding the national and IVX overlays.  A green overlay will muddy the colors, and make it harder to distinguish national colors...  A neutral grey will dull the colors, but it won't shift them to something else.

Every game i can think of indicates vision by dulling or darkening the area you can't see, rather than putting a color overlay on the area you can see in.  And with good reason:  It's the more intuitive method.

11

Artwork / Display of Radar Fog-of-War

« on: March 15, 2008, 08:53:45 pm »

I saw on IRC that KrackenO was working on improving the radar display.

But rather than placing an overlay where the radar reaches, it could be more clearly displayed by letting the radar visually punch holes in the fog of war.  The places where you can see are now crisp and clearer than the rest of the world, rather than dulled by a green haze.
The radar circles are still included, but at a lesser opacity, due to their decreased importance, though they still have some usefulness in seeing which base causes what.

Recipe:
fog of war color: Medium Grey
fog of war opacity: ~45%
intermediate opacity:  ~33%
radar circle opacity: ~33%

Of course, in actual use, somewhat different numbers may prove better, but i messed around with different settings, and these should provide a good start.

[attachment deleted by admin]

12

Discussion / Re: Weapons jamming

« on: March 15, 2008, 12:30:29 am »

@ Serrax: Your own argument proves that while mainline troops don't really carry secondary weapons, special troops do.

No.  He's simply provided evidence that not all "mainline" troops carry secondary weapons.

So, it all boils down to whether PHALANX is a covert organisation fighting the Unknown Threat, or an elite army unit that is a part of the Big Picture.

I don't see why that is important to this question.

What it really boils down to is weather the player finds secondary weapons worthwhile.  If he doesn't, he's free to ignore them, and save the space and money.
Personally i've found them to be useful... not necessarily in every mission, but frequently enough to consider them worthwhile... especially for troops that carry TU-hungry or area-effect main weapons.

As long as secondary weapons aren't totally useless, there's no compelling reason to change the rules so they become more important.  After all, they are by definition "secondary".

13

Feature Requests / Re: troop numbers and ranks.

« on: March 14, 2008, 11:25:13 pm »

it would be nice to have more troops in each aircraft

that's planned for the future.

also the troops dont seem to increase in rank, is this a feature that hasnt been added yet, or is the amount of missions required to increase the rank set way too high.

vehicles will be a great addition to the game especailly when your troop levels are low.

The next release will probably have a new experience system, and un-manned vehicles.

14

Discussion / Re: Weapons jamming

« on: March 12, 2008, 09:22:05 pm »

Secondary weapons already have a use.

First they can be used when the primary is out of ammo, or for close fighting when the primary has an area effect (bazooka, grenade launcher).

More importantly They generally require fewer TUs, and thus can be used when low on TUs and will be a much better reaction fire choice with the new reaction fire rules. IICR, you will need to save as many TUs for reaction fire as it would normally take to fire the weapon.

15

FAQ / Re: Character names

« on: March 12, 2008, 02:57:37 am »

Quick question -- what is the difference between columns D, E, and F? Being Russian I understand the need for male and female surnames, but I'm not sure what is happening when "surname", "male sur", and "fem sur" are present?

Scandinavian languages don't necessarily use a gender-specific surnames, but they do sometimes.