This topic contains 54 replies, has 0 voices, and was last updated by  Anonymous 12 years, 10 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #12675

    imported_gcamp
    Participant

    Ah yes it is confusing, but it is my fault.

    Internally and externally Scorched3D refers to the different stages of the game as different things. This was changed externally to make it easier for gamers to understand but for historical/hysterical reasons left the same in the engine 😉

    So externally there is:-
    games – The whole game until rounds = max
    rounds – Each different map is a new round
    moves – Each shot a person has is a move

    But internally there is:-
    match – A set of games
    games – Each different map is a new game
    rounds – Each set of everone having a shot is a round
    move/turn – Each shot a person has is a move/turn

    It is kind of shifted out by one. Its because there are more states to hold in the server that is visible to the client.

    I have just added per player games count to mysql. Although you may want to refer to that as rounds to keep the external view in sync. You will need to load statstables.sql again.

    #12676

    Bobirov
    Participant

    Trying to run a server with some bots on it with a build from early this morning and I keep getting multiple occurences of the following error which kills the server:

    Sometimes it happens immediately, sometimes it takes a few turns. It happens without any mods enabled, with or without stats logging enabled. Just thought I’d give a heads up if you haven’t spotted this yet.

    #12677

    imported_gcamp
    Participant

    Cheers should be fixed now. I think it was happening when a missile went through a wrap wall.

    #12678

    Bobirov
    Participant

    My last attempt at a Windows MySQL compile failed. Again, the errors were in StatsLoggerMySQL.cpp, so a regular build compiles without a problem. Here is a link to the build log from the failed attempt.

    Also, a quick observation I have made is that the attribute for the WeaponExplosion primitive now seems to have no effect. Fire a funky bomb and you’ll notice there are no longer the multi-colored explosions, only regular ones. Just thought I would mention it.

    #12679

    imported_gcamp
    Participant

    Just in case you have not noticed, this should all be fixed now.

    #12680

    Bobirov
    Participant

    Yes, build worked like a charm and I checked out the tag and it too is working again. Many thanks for yet another rapid response to my little bug reports. I don’t know what I’d do without ya. I might actually have to like, get a life and stuff.. scary :P.

    #12681

    imported_gcamp
    Participant

    I’ve added a new tag for which tells the explosion textures to be animated as before. It is not quite finished yet as the animation is jerky as it only renders one static texture per frame. I will probably get around to adding a second to smooth the animation

    #12682

    Bobirov
    Participant

    @gcamp wrote:

    I’ve added a new tag for which tells the explosion textures to be animated as before. It is not quite finished yet as the animation is jerky as it only renders one static texture per frame. I will probably get around to adding a second to smooth the animation

    Awesome thanks. I’ll have to check it out. 🙂

    #12683

    Bobirov
    Participant

    @bobirov wrote:

    @gcamp wrote:

    I’ve added a new tag for which tells the explosion textures to be animated as before. It is not quite finished yet as the animation is jerky as it only renders one static texture per frame. I will probably get around to adding a second to smooth the animation

    Awesome thanks. I’ll have to check it out. 🙂

    Tryed it out, loved it. It really does help in the situations where you want to make clouds and not just explosions. Again I thank you for taking to the time to implement solutions to many of my silly requests. It seems that many times when you change something I come back and say that the old way of doing things is still useful in some way. So I hope I am not getting in the way of progress with all my ideas. 😉

    Getting back to the topic at hand, I have noticed a problem with the attribute for WeaponExplosion. It seems to me that the way the mushroom cloud works is that it is always drawn from the bottom of the explosion’s crater. This works fine for smaller explosions and when there is a lot of land around. However, with large explosions and low altitudes (where the radius of the explosion is greater than the altitude of the point of impact) a problem becomes apparent. In this scenario, the mushroom cloud is drawn from a point which is actually below 0 altitude. So it winds up looking like nothing is happening until near the end of the effect when the smoke ring finally creeps above the ground and dispurses.

    I see a few solutions to the problem. First of which would be that if the altitude of the mushroom cloud is determined to be below , readjust the cloud’s starting altitude to the lowest allowed land height. The second solution I can see is to just draw the mushroom cloud from the point of impact (the center of the explosion). I could also see an impractical third solution of increasing the total height of the mushroom cloud itself by somewhere around the explosion’s radius. Any one of those would work, but I tend the think the first is probably the most practical and realistic solution. There are surely other options as well I just thought I’d throw some suggestions out there.

    #12684

    Bobirov
    Participant

    I asked ShoCkwaVe to make a basic house model for me to try and test the newly exposed placements system with and I seem to have noticed a problem. First a picture of what is going on.

    Notice how all the houses are buried halfway in the snow. I have even tried raising the model way off the ground in milkshape and I still get the same result. It seems that Scorched 3D is placing the center of the bounding box at ground level. For buildings and things of this nature the bottom of the bounding box needs to be at ground level. I don’t really know anything about milkshape models though and it could be something related to the model itself. You can download it from ShoCwaVe’s post in the mod forum and test it out for yourself if ya want.

    #12685

    Bobirov
    Participant

    I tryed putting some houses on a more hilly landscape and here is a picture of the result.


    It looks a little better than on a flat surface but there are still plenty of instances where the house is more than half-way buried. This got me thinking about a possible solution to the issue. What if there was an attribute for object placements similar to the attribute for landscapes. When enabled for a specific object, all objects of that type will have the landscape height “welded” to the bottom of the object similar to how tank placement is handled. I think the placement still needs to be adjusted in addition to that though, as objects just seem to be placed too low in many instances as I posted about previously.

    Another thing I think would be helpful if there was a way to prevent the overlapping of objects like in the picture below.

    Maybe a attribute similar to the attribute used in tank placement. There are other options too but I think handling it much like tank placement is probably the best option.

    Another idea I had was to have maybe an optional object placement attribute that would cause all objects of that type to be lined up north to south or east to west (0, 90, 180, 270 degree rotation only). This would go a long way in helping to create city or suburban looking environments.

    Just some ideas I’ve had while playing around with the test house that ShoCkwaVe made. Let me know what you think.

    #12686

    .–.ShoCkwaVe.–.
    Participant

    If this does’nt make you spray coffee all over
    your monitor in absolute histarical laughter then… I guess its just me
    … ❓ daMn gotta get a paper towel & clean that now 😆

    Ok, anyways this is a great ideah ( placing buildings) that bobirov
    has thought up seeing as alOT of people have said “word of mouth”
    that they wanted to see buildings in scorched3d.

    RoCk & RoLL Bobirov good work !! Excellent

    hope gavin thinks the same… & decides to help you on this matter of
    the placements system in landscape objects

    we will be blowing up those innocent peoples homes sooN enoUgH!! 😈 lol

    I think if the houses where lined up with (or) near small road masks as you suggested …from the picture posted above this would complete a nice
    look to that picture in my head

    hmmm maybe I should start on a car test_1 model
    for parking lots & airports lol

    by the way the rubble vesion of test house_1 is complete
    again I loaded it in as a projectile to see if there where
    any texture mishaps and it all worked fine
    let me know when your ready & ill post it.

    #12687

    imported_gcamp
    Participant

    @bobirov wrote:

    It looks a little better than on a flat surface but there are still plenty of instances where the house is more than half-way buried.

    Ok, i’ll have a look at it. Another solution may to be to make the houses have tall walls, that way you could never see the under side if on a slope.

    Another thing I think would be helpful if there was a way to prevent the overlapping of objects like in the picture below.

    I’ve added a mincloseness attribute which is the minimum distance between objects.

    lined up north to south or east to west (0, 90, 180, 270 degree rotation only). This would go a long way in helping to create city or suburban looking environments.

    I’ve added x,y and angle snap attributes. When not set to 0 these will force the x,y or angle of the object to “snap” to the nearest value. A bit like the snap to grid function many drawing packages have. The value is the grid/angle snap size.

    I am also wondering if a different placement type that allows you to actually specify the exact x, y coords and the angle for objects would be useful?? But perhaps this would make the xml too large 🙂

    #12688

    Bobirov
    Participant

    Thanks for all the new features :). I’ll check them out and see what I find.

    @gcamp wrote:

    I am also wondering if a different placement type that allows you to actually specify the exact x, y coords and the angle for objects would be useful?? But perhaps this would make the xml too large 🙂

    Hmm I like the way that sounds. For trying to add a large number of objects you would probably still be better off using a mask or height limits to keep the xml short. But for doing something like adding a few larger objects in specific places on a file-generated landscape, exact placement could be an extremely useful tool. I think that would be a nice feature, but its your call.. 🙂

    One other thing to think about might be a way to adjust the scale of the object similar to the attribute for projectiles. This would allow the same model to be used on landscapes of different scales. Just another thought that could be useful.

    #12689

    poolee
    Participant

    @bobirov wrote:

    Thanks for all the new features :). I’ll check them out and see what I find.

    @gcamp wrote:

    I am also wondering if a different placement type that allows you to actually specify the exact x, y coords and the angle for objects would be useful?? But perhaps this would make the xml too large 🙂

    Hmm I like the way that sounds. For trying to add a large number of objects you would probably still be better off using a mask or height limits to keep the xml short. But for doing something like adding a few larger objects in specific places on a file-generated landscape, exact placement could be an extremely useful tool. I think that would be a nice feature, but its your call.. 🙂

    Just my 2 cents worth – not that I should be telling you guys how to make scorched – cos you’re already doing a fantastic job!! 😀 but this thought occured to me:

    4 specific numbers are all that’s really necessary.
    1) centre of a grid (a flat area on the map?)
    2) number of objects in grid
    3) grid blah blah (bugger, can’t think of the word) like, uniform distance between all objects in the grid… granularity? no, not that… hmm. Ok like tic-tac-toe grid, with effectively 16 points, or 9 squares. Object sits on grid point co-ordinate or alternatively centre of square co-ordinate. All co-ordinates originate from 1) above, so can be calculated by the client – less data to send
    4) object type in grid placement (random from a selection of buildings? With optional “none” or “grass”?) (jetty if next to water?) (occasional high-rise?) (mountain chalets if on hill-side?)

    Anyway, just my thoughts! 😛 Keep up the great work!
    Poolee

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 56 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.