Messages

46

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

« 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.

47

Design / Re: Brainstorm session: *ALTERNATE* Storylines (framework/synopsis)

« on: March 14, 2011, 04:55:37 pm »

I don't think any dev would be upset if new text was prepared and released as a mod. Though it's not always apparent from the hostility that many new ideas face, I think most devs would be happy to see more modifications developed and released by users. More people just need to make the committment to turn their ideas into a reality.  A strong "unofficial" development scene will only be beneficial to the progress of the game as a whole.

nothing to add here - just talking about changes without ever doing them is...

I think it is worth noting too, that the only chance at seeing "official" plot or story changes, would be through the proactive approach of creating an ultimately more popular, but initially unofficial mod.

At the point that it became noticeably more popular, the UFO:AI writers might amend their plot with the popular changes or they might have already left to pursue other interests anyway or otherwise you'd potentially have the momentum to create your own "official" X-Com type game reusing the same engine. Such is the way of open source development.

But anyone who is actually serious about their ideas needs to consider honestly a few points first:

1) Is my idea really better, more interesting and potentially more popular?
2) Do I really have the motivation to put many hundreds of hours into implementing it?
3) Do I have or will I recruit people with the necessary skills to create this new mod (and its website)?

If you can't give yourself a clear and sure yes to all three of those questions then you should just accept this game for what it currently is and not worry about it.

Also subjectivity could be especially dangerous when asking yourself question #1. Many have complained that the current storyline is quite cliche and unrealistic. And this is true. But so is the basic premise of an alien invasion. It's literally a ~100 year old (heavily exploited) concept and has like number of realism issues that you have to account for and explain. So be extra critical of whether or not your alien invasion concept is truly an improvement. From what I have seen, most are not.

48

Offtopic / Re: Everything is connected about aliens

« on: December 08, 2010, 07:55:01 pm »

Sigh...this thread shown effects of bad "sci-fi" on general population in fullest.

It's the sad truth.

49

Artwork / Re: New Rocket Launcher

« on: December 08, 2010, 07:53:08 pm »

It is indeed motivating. I have much to do right now for another free game, but I'll try to send stuff this way in the future.

50

Design / Re: Police and military

« on: December 08, 2010, 06:47:24 pm »

The soldier models look very good; all they need is to be armed and given a combat AI that targets aliens.

51

Artwork / Re: New Rocket Launcher

« on: December 08, 2010, 06:40:10 pm »

Thanks everybody, I really appreciate all the good work in getting this thing in game.

Do we have source for that, or is Flying Tree still around?

Source files are over here if you want them still: Sources

52

Design / Re: Police and military

« on: December 07, 2010, 06:12:36 pm »

Police and military is absolutely a great idea. I feel it will add more dynamics to the game and make it far more interesting.

Exactly my feeling too.

53

Artwork / Re: New Rocket Launcher

« on: September 24, 2010, 04:36:05 pm »

Should work, though I think the md2's still need to be compiled for correct lighting. (textures might be too bright after this, they were really dark when I tested so i upped brightness 25% for all diffuse textures.)
Edited textures a little to make them stand out more from afar, and I havent tested the normals or specular maps in game, since they dont seem to work for me

Quite a lot of the brightness comes from the specular textures, so if they aren't functional the models will look very dark in game. But if they are working, and the specular reflections are not set too sharp (that is very bright pinpoint highlights = bad) then everything should look good. Putting aside the day/night lighting shift, at least.

54

Artwork / Re: New Rocket Launcher

« on: September 20, 2010, 10:09:28 pm »

Cool, I very much appreciate it.

55

Artwork / Re: New Rocket Launcher

« on: September 20, 2010, 08:15:48 pm »

Okay here is the model in obj format (attached to this post).


@MCR

Actually all the source models are in the one blend file, but on different layers. Even the unfinished guided missile launcher.

56

Artwork / Re: Tractor Upgraded

« on: August 06, 2010, 02:40:38 am »

I like it too; creates a more eerie feeling.

Like something horrible happened so suddenly that everything was just left as it was in that moment.

57

Artwork / Re: New Rocket Launcher

« on: July 03, 2010, 05:07:15 pm »

@ Mattn

Sure, but do you have a particular scale you'd want the gun to be before I converted it to an in game format? Like how many units long should this thing be?

@ H-Hour

The same issue occurred to me, mostly with the antimatter one, but the thing is I am not sure how and where these will appear in game. So the color saturation might be important for making them distinguishable at a distance in low light for example. Or it could still be too much.

Desaturation is really simple though, you can apply it to the whole unlayered diffuse textures and it will only effect the painted areas (the metal parts have no color anyway). It's just a matter of knowing how far to adjust it for the setting.

The same goes for the Roughness map.

58

Artwork / Re: UGV weaponry

« on: July 03, 2010, 07:08:01 am »

Not so. You'll never be able to bring more than a handful of big UGVs to the battlefield due to dropship size restrictions.

But the same restriction would apply to smaller UGVs, if for no other reason than because they aren't that much smaller really. Just enough to get through a doorway. If the firebird dropship will be able to carry 2 ares and/or phoenix max, then it'd be able to carry 4 or even just 2 of these max. The choice for the player here isn't meant to be between more powerful and more numerous, but between more powerful and more mobile.

The way things are currently balanced, that's where you need it anyway. Lasers, the missile launcher, health packs (rebalanced or no) and even bolter and sniper rifles give phalanx the edge on open maps and standoff fighting, versus what the aliens have. The aliens are stronger in close quarters, so that's where you'd often prefer having the help.

And then you have maps where 2x2 combatants won't be that useful, but you can't put soldiers in your UGV pods, so you're otherwise forced to use space slots on things you won't really be using on those missions.

No wishlist at the moment. We have plans for one more UGV, based on alien tech as you said, but that's pretty much it. I can't imagine we'd want more UGVs than that.

So will you be using all 3 versions of the Ares then? And do you have any design details on the Phoenix and this alien tech model?

59

Artwork / Re: New Rocket Launcher

« on: July 03, 2010, 02:20:39 am »

Alright then, here's the Source Files.

The gun and shell models are in different layers of the same blend file. I created a tentative roughness "map" (only 1x1 pixel) for each model which basically just sets material settings to something that I think should look similar to the renderings I've posted throughout this thread, but I really don't know.

60

Artwork / Re: UGV weaponry

« on: July 03, 2010, 01:44:01 am »

Honestly, that sort of thing might (emphasis might) be realistic for future combat, but I can't see it being appropriate for UFO:AI. It would detract from gameplay by either reducing the importance of human soldiers or cluttering up the battlescape with 8-10 of the little bastards. It won't get my vote.

Well the smaller size just means they could fit through doorways, not that you should be able to spam them. Like any UGV, there's only so many that you should be allowed to fit in the UGV pods on the dropship.

As for competing with soldiers, that seems like an issue already on the table, since the Ares and Phoenix (and later, more advanced versions) already compete with snipers and support infantry that fight in the open. Smaller armed UGVs would simply compete with (or complement, depending on balance) CQC focused soldiers. So it seems like the differences between human and machine combatants would have to lie elsewhere of a size difference.

This would just buy you the ability to have something more expendable to spearhead CQ raids on buildings and UFOs, plus something to do with your UGV pod space if your current mission is in a cramped, urban situation.

I don't know what's in SVN, but I know for a fact that Sitters modelled  wheeled, tracked and hover versions of the Ares specifically. If I'd meant the Phoenix I would've said so.  

Yes, that is how the Phoenix was planned.

Do you folks have a wishlist of all the UGV's you'd eventually like to have, plus any descriptions of them?

For example I heard at some point that you had plans for advanced UGVs, partially based on alien technology, for the mid to late game.