Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 8:37 am Post subject:
Voxel Infantry
This can't be really hard... voxel building, voxel vehicles, and voxel aircraft are already admitted.
The game can generate infantrytypes with vehicle settings
(even automatically did it on the first vehicle paratrooper bug)
but they came with no image, because .vxl infantry art is not allowed.
Anyways, .shp vehicles are, and even air... (so one could theoretically use an infantry image to make a vehicletype, but not the reverse)
This could be changed.
And it would make me the happiest of modders ever (?)
- 3D infantry (also with voxel animations)
- Transformations with DeathWeapon and MakeInfantry (described on the link, message with the facepalm) that use voxel art. [<Thus>]
- Turreted infantry?
- Vehicles created from barracks and such (Bikes, motorcycles, anyone? Also trikes, buggies, whatever)
- Infantry aircraft
- And much, much more!
Doesn't sound TOO hard to make, only make the game accept it as it does with the other 3 "big" types as they are called.
And even if it takes a little work and testing, the features are huge!
This is absurd; buildings can have 1x1 base and PlaceAnywhere tag, furthermore thwy can have naval = yes , etc. also this does not adress all the other methods, and I have already proposed a way to greatly enchance the transform infantry one: http://www.ppmsite.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=477583 of course this is up to Ares developers but it seems reasonable enogught and not hard...
Above quote from here. I posted my reply here because it's more relevant to the contents of this thread.
I disagree with your proposal of voxel graphics for infantry being reasonable to implement. Game has been tailored for infantry to use multi-frame SHP graphics with different frame sets for all the different animations that infantry need. Voxel graphics currently support only one set of animations, strictly speaking. Implementing this would either mean rewriting the HVA format and editing all the tools to support the new one, or game using several voxel files for one infantry and swapping them on the fly during the game when needed. Either way I think you're naively assuming that just because voxels already exist in the game, that extending their functionality in this way would be trivial task. And then there's additional things like turrets and what not to consider...
Plus then there is the whole questionable benefits part of this logic. I mean, voxel animations are usually rather stiff due to the way the things work. If you add more frames, the animation becomes slower and there is currently no way to speed it up in the game INI code. SHP's are just plain out superior choice for all things organic in this game. Even WW admitted that by making several organic vehicle units use SHP's, such as Dolphin & Giant Squid in RA2.
Btw, voxel buildings do not exist. Only thing on the buildings that can use voxel graphics is the turret (and barrel), and that's a special case, more of a separate piece of graphics slapped on the building to be fair. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
The game cannot generate infantrytypes with vehicle settings. It's either one or the other. And only the settings for that type are used (and they aren't always valid on the other). What type it is defines how it behaves. It cannot be mixed-typed.
Voxel infantry would not benefit many modders, and not much. Infantry does not support all the logics that voxels would need, like slopes, tilting and rocking. Infantry support 8 facings, but even if they would support 256, they are too small to really make a difference on the screen.
Turreted infantry: Infantry doesn't support turrets. Supporting VXL would not magically enable turrets on infantry.
Infantry aircraft: What is this supposed to mean? Aircraft with infantry sequences? Then it would be a totally different feature, because aircraft has to be extended, not infantry. Infantry that support voxels would not automatically support all the other aircraft features, like the ability to crash.
Voxel support for infantry would just be that: an optical effect. Aside from that, it would not allow you to do more than you can do today. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
This forum needs subforum for "Bad, unrealistic and ridiculous ideas" where things like this can be moved. _________________ SHP Artist of Twisted Insurrection: Nod buildings
Sounds like 75% of ideas we got since RockPatch...
(iow, this is exactly the forum I'd expect them in) _________________ #renproj:renegadeprojects.com via Matrix - direct link QUICK_EDIT
Voxel infantries wqould NOT use sequences for actions. They would just be a normal voxel. Think of it as an infqantry with vehicle graphics. Clear enough now?
All those "challenges" are absurd because it was not part of the blueprint that there be "voxel sequences". It was nowhere in my intention or words and completely fabricated as a claim.
Current voxel functionality is more than enough.
And by "infantry with vehicle parameters" I meant that the tags are valid in both. Copy V3 code to an infantry and it will still work. Etc. In fact the game, as I detailed, did this; when you commanded the vanilla game to a paradrop to use a vehicle, it would create an infantrytype with the properties of the vehicle, but of couse as infantry coudn't use vehicle image, it would be invisible.
The ONLY requirement is that infantry could be given a voxel, turret would be perhaps an extra, but no t necessary to begin with. Is this that hard to do? Since all other types can have a voxel, and actually air voxels work as vehicles, vehicle voxels work as air, and both can work as structures, I don't think adding it to infantry is actually that hard.
Just make
"Image=" on infantrytypes handle properly being directed to a voxel art.ini entry, as it would so with a vehicletype. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Just extend SHP support and make everything look good instead of reducing the quality further with more voxels. Voxel infantry would be appalling. QUICK_EDIT
@NimoStar: I don't want to be a dickhead or anything, but your idea isn't really useful. Can't you see that from all other opinions posted before me? Ares devs do not have the source codes, so coding them is not as easy as typing all your useless suggestions. There's a reason why even Westwood didn't use voxels for infantries. _________________
Team Black wrote:
interesting seeing your voxel work. They're still better than Aro's!
Joined: 22 Nov 2010 Location: Iszkaszentgyorgy, Hungary
Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 3:32 pm Post subject:
@NimoStar, listen up kid.
Infantry need sequences. Infantry are heavily linked to sequences, so even voxel inf would need those to be used.
There are tags that apply to both, but there are many which doesn't. Consult with ModEnc and stop talking out of your ass and thinking that you speak the truth when you have no idea how the game is set up internally. _________________ "If you didn't get angry and mad and frustrated, that means you don't care about the end result, and are doing something wrong." - Greg Kroah-Hartman
=======================
Past C&C projects: Attacque Supérior (2010-2019); Valiant Shades (2019-2021)
=======================
WeiDU mods: Random Graion Tweaks | Graion's Soundsets
Maintainance: Extra Expanded Enhanced Encounters! | BGEESpawn
Contributions: EE Fixpack | Enhanced Edition Trilogy | DSotSC (Trilogy) | UB_IWD | SotSC & a lot more... QUICK_EDIT
I believe that voxel infantry is possible. If its a segway trooper that is. _________________ Free Tibed!
EA for worst company of the decade! QUICK_EDIT
voxel never good to everything that need animation. if you just want to use this feature to make unit like mini vehicle in infantry tab it should be better to capture render view from vxlse frame by frame and use xcc mixer save them to be shp. [but truely i think vxlse should have feature to convert voxel to shp it's very benefit for people who want to make SHP vehicle and building by using their voxel skill instant ]
sequences for Shp vehicle is more useful IMO from what i see in Ra2YR infantry unit can do nearly everything that vehicle can except turret feature and deploy to another unit. QUICK_EDIT
They're not that bad IMO but shp is a lot more versatile...
I actually converted this vxl to shp & have been using it in D-day for awhile now. _________________ Last edited by Mig Eater on Sun Mar 10, 2013 12:20 pm; edited 1 time in total QUICK_EDIT
206UE made voxel infantry. animated them and took screenshots then shp. Sorta. _________________ Free Tibed!
EA for worst company of the decade! QUICK_EDIT
@Mig: Is this for some kind of vehicle infantry hack, e.g. a mechanic, or were you just bored and up for something weird? _________________ #renproj:renegadeprojects.com via Matrix - direct link QUICK_EDIT
Voxels can be seen from many more angles than infantry. They can also go into the air, etc. and even blow up as debris. They can tilt on slopes and have like 32 while turning facings at least.
As for voxel sequences, voxels have sections so they can be made to refer to voxel sections.
And even then, as I would want to make infantry-vehicles, I would just use the same voxel section for everything if needed.
As you have seen, voxel infantry doesn't have to be bad quality as you can see.
You can even use Voxel Bounds as to make a very high quality voxel infantry and still be small.
But my point was none of this even, just that you could produce vehicles (both land and air) with infantrytypes. From barracks, MakeIntoInfantry, etc. because that would allow transformations from infantry to vehicle, barracks-factory (like in some RA3 features), etc. _________________ Last edited by NimoStar on Sun Mar 10, 2013 8:43 pm; edited 1 time in total QUICK_EDIT
VXL infantry is a bad idea. They'll walk unnatural a bit on the slopes. Did you think about that? But why the hell I say unnatural?! They'll become askew!!! QUICK_EDIT
Does anyone ever listen? I mean that they will be vehicles made on infantrytype... unnatural would be that they don't become "skewed" when going up, as happens with .shp vehicles.
Furthermore, when people climb a mountain, they do become "skewed" _________________ QUICK_EDIT
I mean that they will be vehicles made on infantrytype...
a bad approach in the first place.
Keep infantry infantry and vehicles vehicles.
Bad to mix them.
What you want is that the few spawner logics like paratroopers don't set an object to become treated as infantrytype. They should handle the object as it is. Nothing more.
There is absolutely no reason to completely mess up the separate unittypes only because of a few keys that are restricted to one or another type.
Instead make clear, which key exactly you want to be able to handle VehicleTypes and don't beat about the bush!
You want smaller/custom selection boxes for vehicles? Ask for it.
You want vehicles support for paratrooper? Ask for it. (which is iirc already implemented, as i've seen already paradropped tanks)
You want deploy logic to work from Vehicle to Infantry and vice versa? Ask that.
NimoStar wrote:
But my point was none of this even, just that you could produce vehicles (both land and air) with infantrytypes. From barracks, MakeIntoInfantry, etc. because that would allow transformations from infantry to vehicle, barracks-factory (like in some RA3 features), etc.
Why don't you set Factory=VehicleTypes on that barracks building, if you want vehicles to be produced there?
Make clear what you actually try to achieve/want and there might be a chance we can follow and help you. _________________ SHP Artist of Twisted Insurrection: Nod buildings
The only application I can see for this, imo, is drones being built from the barracks instead of the WF. But that would be best fixed in some other manner, keeping the vehicle shaped units behaving like vehicles and keeping infantry functioning like infantry. QUICK_EDIT
NimoStar: I think you are to some degree misunderstanding what you are requesting here. It's not like only a few changes need to be made, to "enable" infantry being drawn as voxel vehicle or aircraft. One cannot switch types like that, and as infantry does not support voxels, drawing would have to be created from scratch.
The problem is not the sequences or all the other stuff that's there -- it can just be ignored. The problem arises from the data that is not there. If the game doesn't keep track of rocking, tilting, slopes and the like, this data cannot be used to draw a voxel. And as Graion said, infantry bases many decisions on sequences, like delays until a seqence finished playing. Thus they still have to be defined. Infantry does not accelerate or slow down. It would move uphill while still appearing to not move uphill, because infantry does not tilt. It can be fixed, but it won't come for free. And the voxel infantry would most likely "behave" like ordinary infantry, with the same turning and movement pattern. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
Voxel Infantry
