Topics

1

Artwork / New Rocket Launcher

« on: June 22, 2010, 02:31:29 am »

The old rocket launcher model looks somewhat unwieldy for a short ranged tactical launcher loaded and fired by just one man (as opposed to a team of two, which is usually the case) and maybe a bit outdated as well. So I started on a new one, based loosely on a few modern day systems from real life.



So what do you think, good, bad?

If approved, I'll continue on to the UV/textures/LoD work for it. I usually release my work under the GPL.

2

Discussion / A couple issues with off-base installations.

« on: June 20, 2010, 01:47:13 am »

First off, I want to say I like off-base installations, I think they're an interesting and flexible addition to the geoscape gameplay. They could just use a couple of tweaks, IMO.

#1

It is a good strategy to build UFO yards close to bases for defensive reasons. But unfortunately, this makes it more obnoxious trying to access you base from the geoscape, because the UI keeps asking you if you want to look at the base or the close by UFO yard or SAM site, unless your click was exactly on your home base (which from high orbit, it often isn't). The same thing applies to close by SAM sites.

So I think it would be better if the new off-base installations were on a "lower layer" than bases, so that if you clicked in the general area of both, it would open up the base, not the UFO yard, since 9 times out of 10, it's the base you want to access, not an external depot or autonomous defensive structure (both of whose interfaces are not yet implemented anyway).

#2

The other issue is with radar installations-- they're simply too inferior to base radar to really be worth buying and defending. Methinks players are much better off just building a skeleton radar base than a radar installation.

So I'd suggest giving them a serious range buff, even if you need to limit them more in other ways for balancing reasons.

3

Artwork / Non-Anthropomorphic Taman, Shgaar and Ortnok?

« on: June 20, 2010, 01:28:12 am »

"Humanoid" aliens are kind of cheesy looking and not especially realistic, at least when you have more than one (in this case three) from entirely different origins, imo. I thought I saw one of the lead devs say something to a similar effect a ways back while lurking on these forums.

So my question for those in charge is, would you prefer content representing truly alien but practical morphologies over greys, dinosaur men and space orks if the content was available to you?

4

Coding / 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.