Messages

46

Design / Re: Psi-amplifier concept

« on: January 26, 2013, 07:07:37 pm »

I think you are looking for the 'decimate' modifier.

Thanks. Let's admit please that it was not trivial. This modifier would have a good place in the Edit Mesh section. Whatever for the others noobs like me, here a pic attached for showing where is this nice tool.

47

Design / Re: Psi-amplifier concept

« on: January 26, 2013, 05:04:06 pm »

The screenshots are a hi-poly model which will be used to bake a normalmap for a low-poly model.

Thanks.
I had no idea of this tech. I will look around and see if I can apply this. For the moment I tried a lot of mesh editing in blender and I'vn't found the "simplify" tool.

48

Discussion / A quick overview on my first launch of 2.5dev

« on: January 26, 2013, 04:03:34 pm »

I was on 2.4 which was very stable, but in order to have a look over the new features I've decided to change for the 2.5 dev version. A lot of work has been made, a lot of tweaking and introduction of new stuff. This game + his boards are a very huge machine indeed. Ok so here come some remarks about the 2.5 --> the version I've precisely played is the January10th's one.

LOADING
1st remark. Exactly like for the 2.4 (under XP), there was no display (black screen) at first launch. Solved at second attempt. The problem is the need of a process kill when the first attempt fails, that can perturbate some people if no prevention made (a readme?).

The other remark is that when windowed, I don't see the progression bar at bottom at the loading screen. I would have prefered this bar to be at top, because the loading is long for me so this bar is really needed ;-)

SETTINGS
The initial settings pop-up is a great idea. Maybe a first language question may be really appreciated before to have to read the set up, but anyway that's good.

About the overall settings a few things.
The mod (frame window) would require a mod small description text (or author, or goal text...).

About the tips when you're about to check a setting box. It is really nice to have put extensive text to explain what are the consequences of checking such or such box. But it would be really great to add a comment about the effects on the perfomances. For instance, "Precache models" : tips = "means having faster menus" ; but about perf. does it imply "but will eat more memory"..?

About the video, choosing the best setting would be easier with an immediate test. But I imagine that wouldn't be easy to add. Anyway just a remark.

About "Flares" , there is only 2 check box, low and high if I remember well. What about the medium option :-) ?

In general showing more tips about performance would be my only wish indeed.

Menu GLSL. Disabled for me.

In the gameplay settings, I've seen some new HUD choices. I dont think so, but isn't there the Homonculus one? or not yet ?

TUTORIAL
I decidedly wouldn't call that a tutorial. Just a question of good naming, I would prefere this to be entitled "Get started overview" or something like that.

BATTLESCAPE
I tried the alternate HUD, and unless I missed something, I dont get centered on my char when I double-click on the head.


Last remarks are put in attachments. I think some remarks have already been made around here, it is just as to complete this chart of first impressions.

One is about eclipses. I find that there are too many. I just show the 1st I've met, as a curiosity lets say ;-). Then comes a tiny problem of heads that look a little too big. Third thing is rather a bug, and unless already reported I will post about it in the bug section if not solved at 2.5 release.

49

Design / Re: Psi-amplifier concept

« on: January 26, 2013, 03:23:53 pm »

Hi,
While remodeling the "tank" vehicle, I've made a quick concept of a suggested psi amplifier. I know its a late game content, but its good to have something to discuss.

It looks fragile as it suppose to.
It hasn't any weapons system.
Long legs gives a good movement capabilities
And I think it associate with psi abilities.

P.S. I made two "brain" surfaces and I think it looks better without any texture.

Hi,

Very nice artwork you made here. I would like to make a few remarks .

As alrady said, do you think that psi-amplifier, which is related with psi so, should be more organics or mechanics ? But it was already asked.

Second thing how much poly does your sphere take? I dont exactly know what is the count we should not reach, I ask just in case.

Third thing, you joined a soldier for comparison, and apparently your model is tall, above all if legs unfold. Doesn't it exceed a level ? Just in case also.

50

Discussion / Re: Tiny poll about what do actually contributing mean

« on: January 21, 2013, 08:59:30 pm »

I didn't hear about this HUD. You didn't mention the link so here it is : http://ufoai.org/forum/index.php/topic,6398.30.html. It apparently has been completed since Febuary 2012, nearly one year so. I agree that it's all a mystery this affair. Is it the first time you talk about it? ...

(...)
Some questions could be (hidden in the previous post in a less obvious way):
do you get benefits from contributing to ufo:ai in other fields in rl?
do you get useful feedback even if what you do is crap?

like i tried a campaign in wesnoth, and got constructive negative feedback, the result of which was improvement of the campaign, and also a considerable increase in my writing skills which was useful in real life.

Thanks, this is good questions.
Hopefuly I will add your contribution to my poll or you'll think that you are cursed...

51

Feature Requests / Re: Base Improvements

« on: January 21, 2013, 08:11:01 pm »

Thank you. I translated your sentence, that's humorous when we know how much all of this has turned into an affair of rocks

Anyway, that was not a true definite proposal. I wanted more to question about the fact to know if it would be or not one the way to look at things. This comes from the fact that a file from the code has been displayed where the interactions were more likely a question of tests.

52

Discussion / Re: Tiny poll about what do actually contributing mean

« on: January 21, 2013, 07:38:39 pm »

Thanks krilain. Too bad there weren't very many respondents.

Thanks.
This will give some time for polish it.

other than some useless translation contributions the only thing i have done is a hud that goes against the intentions of the real developers in that it enables dragging a grenade from belt to hand in battlescape.
so, how would i answer that poll, like a black sheep?

Eheh, I can imagine the accidents if you release the grenade by error while dragging it.
Anyway, if you see a question that you would have agreed to answer, let me know, I will take care of making additions accordingly.

unwillingness to develop it (or anything else) further comes from:
1)
2)
this might have sounded extremely negative, but really i have a lot of other things to do, and some things failing is natural and there is no need to feel bitter about a failure now and then.

I hear you. But the code remains open so there is always the possibility to make a change by yourself. I've often read a sentence that I've found convincing. The active developpers often say : make it yourself, if it is good, it will be integrated. It means by there, if you failed on the ticket side, you still have a second chance by hand.

53

Feature Requests / Re: Base Improvements

« on: January 21, 2013, 04:36:12 pm »

What if there were those several ways to build the base intoducing some simple questions :


• Does the nation where I want to build agree with that ?
• As a related question, could an unpleased nation decide to stop further bases implementations on his territory?
• Do I want to wait for an invitation from a given nation (maybe for a reducted cost)?
• Do I want to put immediatly my base on the geosphere (as today, if you can pay the price as already implemented)?
• Or do I want to prospect the ground before, implying a delay and/or an additional cost, in order to know if there will be a low or strong probability of rocks (I don't even say that we should turn this probability to 0)?

All of this is questions that could in my opinion be introduced as simple additional tests in the current system by adding some checks of the game state.

For instance at this moment when the player click the "build a new base" order, and try to push it on the map, there is already some checks:


• Is the monney needed existing ?
• Doesn't the player try to build in the oceans?

For the nations there would be "only" to add the other checks :


• Check the state of happiness at the position at which the player tries to build, and accept or reject the demand.

For the prospection, it is a little more complicated but could also work with the same system tweaked around. For instance, when you prospect, the cpu generates the base but doesn't validate. After a given time it announces to the player that it could be more or less rocky there (in fact the computer would already know exactly how will be the base). If the player accepts, the base is generated :


• Player : Choose "Build with Prospect"
• CPU : takes the monney for prospect, and generate a base but don't build it - defines a event dates on when to give feedback to the player.
• Player : accept ---> the base is built if the monney exists
• Player : reject ---> no problem, the base is never built.

Would all of that be in the style, some correct maneer to improve some of the aspects that have been discussed - like the rocks affair ?

ps : I join a scheme where shown this addition as a new interaction in the context of the already existing ones.

54

Discussion / Re: Tiny poll about what do actually contributing mean

« on: January 21, 2013, 01:36:14 pm »

Here is the new results. Thanks for the comprehensive comments left (Anarc in particular who was verbose enough to make it useful, and Wolf also). The poll remains open.

55

Artwork / Some tech pictures - proposal

« on: January 21, 2013, 12:00:14 am »

Edit : i've transferd my propagand posters at my poll website finally. So recycling this room for other stuff ;-)

So Edited for cleaning purpose.
There will be 2 tech pictures proposed (if needed, and complying the licence hopefully):

• Alien infiltration tech
• Vaccine tech

In order to let the topic be readable, I will spare those elements in edited posts.

56

Discussion / Re: The Strong Taman (Minor spoilers)

« on: January 20, 2013, 07:15:06 pm »

I've understood something else. Maybe I'm wrong, but the problem is also that it is unexpected that the tamans shows themselves able to use and carry the heavy weapons. Taman looks more psi oriented (big head), and as they come in the early battles, we tend to associate them to the easy battles.
But as a provisory tweak, why not.

57

Discussion / Re: On promoting secondary characters, e.g. the staff when base is under attack

« on: January 20, 2013, 02:12:17 pm »

I did for the most part. Surely I missed some parts for vocabulary problems. But about the visibility I was more evocating the effect of the lightmap than the cameras. There is also a wiki about that.

The alive containment, and so making an animated character for it, could be funny and scarying too. I've thought about somrthing like that in attachment.

58

Discussion / Re: The Strong Taman (Minor spoilers)

« on: January 20, 2013, 01:35:52 pm »

Isn't that due to the lack of new races?

59

Discussion / Re: On promoting secondary characters, e.g. the staff when base is under attack

« on: January 20, 2013, 01:32:32 pm »

I think you bit off a bit more than you can chew this time.

Enthusiastic maybe

The reduction formulas are unnecessary. 60 people seems to be a pretty full base

The question here is simple. I don't know why there is no staff at all at the base. I figured out that it could be to save memory or to make the turns faster (imagine 60 civilian's turns to wait). So I imagined this reduction that allow to get a little number of civilian without sacrifying at realism.

Simply add the spawn points to the lab, etc. and let the map generator add workers/scientists semi-randomly like it does civilians. It'll be capped at the number of spawns or your total workers.

I would really like this option.

Now I don't actually think you need any bonuses for those workers. 

In fact, I class this in the same familly as "visibility", "psi reenforcement", and in general modifiers that change your characters according to some context. Here, my point of view was to say that we cant do like if the base was not populated. That's a context. And to traduce it if we cant display the staff, why not introduce a modifier that "shows" his presence. Ok, that's a point of view indeed.

The reactor and containment stuff will be good but I think just making the workers and scientists "base civilians" would go a long way.(...)
The extra soldiers, the armoury, maybe. A bit much but I could see it. The armory would be waiting on the dropship inventory system to be implemented first I'd think.

• aliens visible in containment and psi-activated when theirs brothers arrive is cool
• worker, scientist, as civilians --> would be perfect
• armoury --> just solve the problem of equipment for base defense when you are low in funding - in counterpart it's an invest
• extending armoury to dropships sound quite nice, at least for putting medikit in this

My prefered wish anyway, would be to introduce self behaving soldiers. In general I think there could be some guards and policemen in many maps.

60

Artwork / Re: UNO mark on armours and uniforms

« on: January 20, 2013, 12:07:57 pm »

Hi there. I think this would worth test on some armors.

About your demo, the piece added at the "rotor" is not centered too much. If I can permit another little remark, maybe you could apply a light effect and some rust or something, that would make your piece a shape yet better integrated.