Messages

46

Linux / development version compiling problem

« on: February 03, 2008, 11:02:23 pm »

Hi!

Current snapshot from subversion gives error on compiling in both of my machines (Ubuntu Gutsy AM62 and x86 versions):

Code: [Select]

Assembler messages:
Fatal error: can't create debug-linux-gnu-x86_64/client/client/menu/m_actions.o: No such file or directory
make: *** [debug-linux-gnu-x86_64/client/client/menu/m_actions.o] Error 2

47

Mapping / Re: Error when loading new self made map

« on: February 03, 2008, 04:08:34 pm »

Okay, thanks! I was not aware that exact number of spawn points was very needed. For testing in-work maps or map parts having fewer spawn points is good thing.

I was using downloaded 2.2 release package before (same error was on compiled version with Ubuntu AM64 month ago also). I'm now compiling maps on my old Barton 2500+ box with Ubuntu x86 because mapping tool (Radiant) has some trouble with 64 bit OS.

48

Mapping / Re: Error when loading new self made map

« on: February 03, 2008, 02:49:17 am »

I was not aware that team should be assembled, but base was (automatically) set up. Now I checked with team assembled too (click to assign soldiers in dropship screen) and still problem persists. This is in moment just a simple map of what should be center part of cargo ship, such ship could probably be even assembled from map parts? So it has only huge loading area and stairs. I started some small maps and in beginning they are shown in game but after adding levels (which is essential in building ship) they start to give aforementioned error.

[attachment deleted by admin]

49

Mapping / Error when loading new self made map

« on: February 02, 2008, 03:37:17 pm »

Hi!

I tried to make new map and after compiling it when I'm running it from game (console: devmap mapname) game starts to load map, but drops back to Geoscape with such error:
"Game Error: G_ClientTeamInfo: unknown fieldSize for edict (0)"

What can I do to fix this?

50

Feature Requests / Re: Menu systematics & management

« on: January 27, 2008, 05:59:37 pm »

And we should be able to change easily base from production and research screens. Buttons for next/previous base or drop down for choosing base. Its especially needed for research.

51

Feature Requests / Re: Some bugs in 2.2

« on: January 15, 2008, 03:08:47 am »

I was annoyed about same trouble with Harvesters some weeks ago playing 2.3 development edition. Seems that this trouble is still there with new ships and new type of alien plating armor on ships also, I think ship armor system is not implemented? Harvesters are only alien ships with real teeth in moment, all interceptors will be shot down by them. Sometimes before interceptor shots down Harvester also. Even if interceptor will turn 160 or 150 degrees back - alien missiles have too good homing. It's nice, but at least one hit should be survivable with armor or alien plating armor. EMC is also not working, maybe we could have "chaff and flare" dispencer's like military crafts today?


At same time missile firing was strange because in most cases when missiles are fired one is fired directly to target (in Harvesters moving direction) and two are fired in 45 decrees left and right from Harvester. So two useless missiles not homing and one useful.

I wont complain that we have frontal intercepting with Harvesters now - because Harvesters should be able to survive at least one or more hit's (like our interceptors) and are heavily armed and have radar covering in all directions (unlike modern fighters like Mig-29 or F-22), that they should turn to target, probably make evasive actions also, not to fly really out, but to intercept interceptor's. Stiletto and our other fighters should also make evasive actions at same time when intercepting Harvester. For hunting bigger ufo's like Harvester we should probably use more interceptors from different angles coming in, so Harvester will be overrun. But our interceptors should have ways to survive too still!

52

Discussion / Re: Base Number Maximum and Antimatter Amount Indicator?

« on: January 05, 2008, 03:38:18 am »

You cannot get antimatter from ufo's you have shot down. If ufo  is shot down then aliens have lost or blown up antimatter. That's why they are stranded and wait you. You get it from ufo's you find in other missions - sometimes in terror missions are also intact alien ufo on map, then you get antimatter.

I was not aware of base limit 8, but I think it was quite possible to cover almost all land with radars from seven bases. Its probably more important to cover land because if you shot down ufo over land you got crashed ufo mission. Possibility to improve relations with countries, to get equipment and so on.

53

Discussion / Re: Building extra labs and workshops - is there a point in 2.1?

« on: January 05, 2008, 03:22:48 am »

Probably hire more scientists? They should be in hire list, you should have a review and check choose who you want to hire. In moment there is no science skill, I don't know if any skills will change research output by scientist yet, but sure it will in future.

54

Linux / Re: unable to install on AMD64 Ubuntu 7.10

« on: January 02, 2008, 02:44:29 am »

I have also last Ubuntu Gutsy (7.10)  version for AMD64 processor. Game works fine (compiled dev2.3 from trunk), but there is mess with GtkRadiant. I was able to unpack and run a compiled version from site of UFO AI beta versions, but it will crash in doing anything related in save or load/import. Downloading from radiant official repository and compiling gives errors also after installing needed dependencies. Or maybe I have still missed omething, because it claims:

Code: [Select]

sh: xml2-config: not found
In file included from contrib/shaderplug/shaderplug.h:25,
                 from contrib/shaderplug/shaderplug.cpp:22:
libs/xml/xmltextags.h:31:26: error: libxml/xpath.h: No such file or directory
libs/xml/xmltextags.h:32:30: error: libxml/xmlwriter.h: No such file or directory
Do you or anyone has working order GtkRadiant in Ubutu 64 bit version? It's so ugly to change between Vista and Ubuntu for this.

55

Design / Re: UGV Control Facility

« on: December 29, 2007, 08:31:43 pm »

Okay, sorry that I have missed it - just someone mentioned tens of old obsolite UGV's staying at base just, if I'm not mistaking.

At least is needed UGV management screen, it would be bad to stuck it together with producing which may have very high priority jobs at moment too.

Warzone 2100 is good example how tank bodies, tracks (or wheels or hover skirts) and turrets are put together, make it all changeable and add additional slots for electronics and add-on armor and system would be nicest it can!

56

Offtopic / Re: X-FORCE(not good)

« on: December 29, 2007, 05:57:07 pm »

I think strategical part was quite okay there - management of research and production screens were even better then UFO AI, but tactical game is left to last and was almost missing when I tried it two years ago. Okay - it was present, but random maps with only very few parts. I think its worth of try in developmental idea search, but unfortunately not written in popular language, not playable in linux, but still quick and nice working in windows.

If you were talking about X-Force: Fight For Destiny, not come comic super heroes team. So name is also confusing and wont lead people to it.

57

Design / Re: UGV Control Facility

« on: December 29, 2007, 12:27:21 pm »

If we have different UGV designs control center would be probably good. Maybe UGV's could have also exchangeable/upgradeable parts - we could uparmor it or change gun system or "radar" to show around in longer range. Then UGV's can only be modified in base, not in field just before battle like soldiers can be equiped in next versions.

58

Discussion / Re: Soldier models

« on: December 29, 2007, 02:55:26 am »

In Takai picture there is small space between chin of one face and highest point of helmet and helmet makes head bigger, bigger helmet looks like higher protection, if it is made of kevlar or something really strong but not heavy at all material. So body of Karen is not 4,5 head's but at least 5 or 5,5 still. This is not so big difference with normal random nature of such dimensions in real life. We can tell that 7 should be right, but still there are normal persons around who have bigger head and they are still not handicapped freaks. Or smaller heads, if you like. We should allow at least difference 6-8, but I think when considering psyhological aspect to gameplay we could start from 5 and go not over 8. Probably Karen has one of biggest heads in here, but some soldiers have sure smaller heads also - at least big body and then better dimensions. This head problem would be real problem when we have Super Mario like guys wondering around, but Karen is much-much-much better and - most important issue - we have really-really much more important problem giving issues here - for example - does soldier screen shows how much any skill have grown from beginning? I think statistics and number background are much more important for game play side.

59

Discussion / Re: Soldier models

« on: December 28, 2007, 02:15:55 am »

I don't think its a problem - somewhat bigger head will make use of "cuteness" factor. People are used to look at faces, so player looks also to face of soldier and feels emotion. Soldier or scientist will have more human feeling even if head is not realistic in size but some bigger, this addicts to game also!