Personal tools

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - zapkitty

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Bugs prior to release 2.4 / Re: Harvester Missions Kill Game
« on: February 23, 2012, 02:08:15 am »
That's just "mansion" being "mansion"... huge, elaborate and taking for-fricking-ever to load.

The "error message" on the geoscape is just the default text for a new map. That should be changed by the mapper sometime to reflect the actual map.:)

Feature Requests / Re: Feature: Legacy Campaign/Map Mode (maps & campaign)
« on: February 17, 2012, 09:23:46 am »
The static campaign will have at least the map repeatition fixed. it is more or less the campaign from 2.2 with the new features of 2.4

... when the spiders come down the steps on the far side of the stadium :) ...

Coding / Re: What features are still missing for UGVs?
« on: February 13, 2012, 08:40:54 am »
please also check out this wiki page:

Yes, I've been going over the UGV code available. It seems that by coding for these "protobots" along the guidelines for the fullsize UGV's it would literally bridge the gaps between organic actors and mech units... even if these protobots don't get in or stay in the game.

Also, the setups I'm thinking over would have some applications to the cyborgs even if they can't match the capacities of a fully mechanized unit... with unit capabilities scaling up from human to cyborg to bot and then to UGV.

It'll be still be a jump going from the 1x1 bots to the 2x2 full-sized UGV's envisioned for the game but I can try to do a lot of the groundwork for the big units while working out the small ones.

I'll start putting it together and will check in with ideas and questions... that is, unless you think I'm starting off in the wrong direction entirely :)

... keeping the UGVs as a class of employees should work... minimum wage... mandatory time off... paid maternity leave...

Coding / Re: What features are still missing for UGVs?
« 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:,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.

Coding / Re: What features are still missing for UGVs?
« 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 :)

Coding / Re: What features are still missing for UGVs?
« 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.

Coding / Re: What features are still missing for UGVs?
« 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.


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...

Used make models and ./ufomodel -mdx

Code: [Select]

----------- parse scripts ----------
51 script files                     
47 ui script files                 
Shared Client/Server Info loaded   
...118 items parsed                 
... 32 damage types parsed         
... 79 map definitions parsed       
... 29 equipment definitions parsed
... 10 inventory definitions parsed
... 22 team definitions parsed     
executing keys.cfg                 
music change to van_theme (from PsymongN3)
s_language has no value                   
executing autoexec.cfg                   
"version" is "UFO: Alien Invasion 2.3-dev IA-32 May  6 2010 Linux DEBUG build 29770"                         
ERROR: No mdx file buffer given                       
Error: Error during initialization

... crash to console.

Artwork / Re: GUI Design
« on: May 06, 2010, 03:10:43 pm »
I agree with simplicity, consistent Gui :D

So.. where we start discussion?

Well, my idea greatly simplifies the battlescape GUI by reducing the clutter of actor selection buttons to just 4: "previous" "current" "next" and "all" which can be represented here as ...

                                             < 8 >  V

... with the number 8 representing your current selection.

And if you want to select a character directly rather than paging with the "next" and "previous" buttons you just hit the "all" button and your current list of actors slides out...

                                             < 8 >  V
                                   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

... but this intrusion onto screen real estate is only temporary as this array slides back in when you make a selection.

So say you selected number 2 then your display will now look like this...

                                             < 2 >  V

The one disadvantage is that you need two mouse clicks to select a particular soldier.

The advantages are several, including a simplified GUI and the ability to add actors at will. Also note that this method does not have the main battlescape GUI dictating what actor attributes are displayed or how they are displayed when you hit the "all" button. Variations could have anything from just a number to a portrait with color bars for HPs and TUs to the current weapon to advanced combat stats... modders should be able to work with that idea.

Artwork / Re: GUI Design
« on: May 06, 2010, 09:12:16 am »
re: number of "soldier" buttons... how about a GUI where you have "next soldier", "current soldier" and "previous soldier" buttons etc and an additional button that will tab out an array that shows a button for every soldier? Select a soldier and the array goes away and your selection becomes the "current soldier." button.

That way the battlescape GUI is the same from battle to battle but you will have a button array that slides out *on demand* that shows all of the assets that you have in any given battle... and only the assets that are available for that specific battle.

Add the ability to assign custom hotkeys on the fly for your special units and I think you'd have it covered.

Edited for clarity...

Design / Re: Fusion: not in ten years, but now...
« on: May 04, 2010, 06:19:45 am »
oh, well, another reason to place the game in 1950.

Seems like I erred in the timing. Turns out that the 4/30/10 date was for delivery of the current polywell machine (WB-8), not delivery of the results. Testing should commence sometime thereafter... so while they seem to be adhering to the schedule in the Navy contracts we may not hear any testing news for some months.

Sorry :)

As for 50's... maybe the 70's?... that would still give room for Earth weapons to advance a bit during the game either along current lines or with alternate development possibilities.

The neatest thing, and the hardest to pull off, would be the current time... but in an alternate history that diverged from ours during the cold war... neat!

... Winter, put down that porcupine...

Feature Requests / Re: Melee Weapon: Laser Blade
« on: April 08, 2010, 05:29:08 pm »
I beg to differ. Sure, they may not be militarized, but its obvious that weapons based on these "sci-fi techs" isnt too far from the horizon.
You know why they call "Plasma TVs" plasma? Because thats what they use. Thats why they have to warm up before you can see anything.

You just can't fire high-energy plasma at someone like a projectile without running into a host of problems that seem insurmountable at this point.

Quote from: vedrit
Fusion is a bit trickier. It doesnt exist is the sense I think we are all thinking of, but its happening.

Controlled fusion generators have been available commercially for many decades... but as radiation sources, not power sources.

Controlled fusion of lighter elements into heavier elements in a manner that generates more usable power than the reaction consumes (net power) is the key issue now.

But the fusion of elements heavier than nickel consumes more power than it generates so net power from those reactions is impossible. Particle collision experiments of the type you mention don't generate net power from fusing gold atoms... the researchers are after other things.

Discussion / Re: Winter this is for you
« on: April 08, 2010, 05:09:17 am »
No i meant one like on Fallout 3  ;D

... if it's got rotating barrels it ain't a chaingun...

... and since the poor put-upon aliens are so deprived of new weapons lets give them a new one... a very REASONable one for mid-late game...

... a couple of dozen rotating railgun barrels firing DU needler rounds and powered by a steamer-trunk sized combination ammo pack and power cell...

... an Ortnok would trot along carrying the pack in one hand and the weapon in the other.... when he stops he drops the trunk and takes hold of the weapon with both hands to either pose with it or use it...

(see Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash for details)

Hey, I just had the thought that the aliens would be more vulnerable and far more immediately affected by ionizing radiation than humans. They have more "brain" cells but those cells are spread throughout the body and thus offer more targets for randomized particle hits... perhaps something to hold in reserve if needed for game balance later? Either the aliens get desperate and risk the damage from power packs and weapons that emit ionizing radiation in order to field more powerful weapons... or the humans realize what such can do to the aliens and start using hot stuff to even the odds. Just a thought...

Discussion / Re: Winter this is for you
« on: April 08, 2010, 04:24:16 am »
Can we put a handheld chaingun into the game anyway

First define what a chaingun is...

... if that word brings to mind something out of Doom then I don't think that word means what you think it means...  ;D

Feature Requests / Re: Ability to Rotate Multiblock Buildings
« on: April 08, 2010, 12:01:44 am »
You can't place a Quarters next to a Storage. It disrupts yang.

Quartermaster Yang is not pleased when troops feel free to "just stop by next door" and wheedle her for extra DF cartridges to replace the ones supposedly eaten by an Ortnok....

Pages: [1] 2 3 4