Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2013 12:34 pm Post subject:
fixing
how about fixing something like the prism shot can go through a cliff or a building..... and its not suppose to _________________ I am authorized to send out the TMP Studio, PM ME IF YOU WANT IT And check this out, these were sent to me for help with terrain and zdata help along with TMP Studio/Builder
I like Red Alert 2 and Yuri's Revenge to bring back the game speed option in single-player mode (other than MP/skirmish mode) because they are not available in-game. Also Ares should come with a tool used to configure RA2/YR and even Tsun/Firestorm for resolution, graphic, game and keyboard settings.
Another thing to add is to limit the FPS for RA2 and Tsun, because no matter if I changed the game speed in MP/skirmish, the game speed is turned to default in SP mode. During a SP mission, even the timer countdown is too quick and not in real-time. _________________ RIP PurpleScrin (2007-2010) QUICK_EDIT
or maybe he can read the documentation that came with the new ARES
Radar Jammers
Red Alert-like Radar Jammers, where the mere presence of the jammer within a certain range of the radar causes an outage (i.e. no weapons firing, no deploy, etc. needed), are now possible again (Request #305).
The jamming will only affect the radar functionality of the building, no other functions.
The building will not go offline.
The jammer will only jam the radars in range; should the enemy player have unjammed radars elsewhere on the map, he will continue to have radar through those structures.
The jammer will not work on allied countries, including the player himself.
Ares‘s jammers also jam the SpySat Uplink.
[TechnoType]►RadarJamRadius= (integer - radius in cells)
Specifies the radius around the jamming object within structures with Radar=yes or SpySat=yes will be jammed.
New in version 0.2. _________________ I am authorized to send out the TMP Studio, PM ME IF YOU WANT IT And check this out, these were sent to me for help with terrain and zdata help along with TMP Studio/Builder
For Ares 0.6 I would prefer one of the following options.
Option 1: Fix all errors with Importance=HIGH
Option 2: Implementation of the functions of the branches of outdated-0.3, outdated-0.4, outdated-0.5. Last edited by Glukv48 on Wed Jan 01, 2014 6:00 pm; edited 1 time in total QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 22 Nov 2010 Location: Iszkaszentgyorgy, Hungary
Posted: Wed Jan 01, 2014 5:33 pm Post subject:
Rewriting the entire game into a sandwich with bacons and salami shouldn't be aim of 0.6, Gluk? _________________ "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
Graion Dilach, What do you mean speaking of sandwich? I do not understand.
Aslo, in YR (in TS and RA2 this restriction not was) on MovementZone=Fly extends hardcode limitation, VehicleTypes having MovementZone=Fly shows NoCursor when trying to dock to the building.
ONLY VehicleTypes with MovementZone=Water\Amphibious can be repaired at the Shipyard.
My dream is to be able to disable this restriction, at least through the [General], but that was better option for each individual unit. QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 22 Nov 2010 Location: Iszkaszentgyorgy, Hungary
Posted: Wed Jan 01, 2014 6:24 pm Post subject:
You did got it in a way because you switched your AND condition with an OR condition. Sandwich was the first nonsense thing came into my mind to turn the project into as impossible amount of workload pushed into a next release.
Either way, we'll see what 0.6 will bring. I aim Bounty into it, but we'll see what happens. _________________ "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'm not making 0.6 a pure bugfix release. And I won't do arbitrary feature groups like "Do only features starting with the letter A". _________________ QUICK_EDIT
[...] And I won't do arbitrary feature groups like "Do only features starting with the letter A".
Wouldn't work anyway. People would simply name all new requests "Advanced ...". _________________ #renproj:renegadeprojects.com via Matrix - direct link QUICK_EDIT
32 facing shps support would be hot stuff for modders like they've hacked TS to work with but if only could have it optional in ARES with an toggle. QUICK_EDIT
32 facing shps support would be hot stuff for modders like they've hacked TS to work with but if only could have it optional in ARES with an toggle.
that sounds like a lot of work _________________ I am authorized to send out the TMP Studio, PM ME IF YOU WANT IT And check this out, these were sent to me for help with terrain and zdata help along with TMP Studio/Builder
Now I have time on my hands, people could do is send me their requests, I would gather them up and after say 2 weeks I would pick say 15 random and those would be it..... or I could post them up in one topic and people can send me their votes and then post the results after 2 weeks _________________ I am authorized to send out the TMP Studio, PM ME IF YOU WANT IT And check this out, these were sent to me for help with terrain and zdata help along with TMP Studio/Builder
yeah, I know. Im just offering my assistance to him. When I have nothing to do Im playing RR or NCAA 14. It can be overwhelming to have 100 requests come in. _________________ I am authorized to send out the TMP Studio, PM ME IF YOU WANT IT And check this out, these were sent to me for help with terrain and zdata help along with TMP Studio/Builder
I would like to have more than eight directions, I would have used this for some units (or for all if it will not cause problems or lags).
Also I would like to have a tag:
[Side]►Sidebar.GDIPositions=(boolean)
The fact that GDI hardcode positions buttons on the sidebar. They are located above and have larger dimensions. Achieve a similar result by editing SHP - I could not. I want to have the same positions buttons for others sides. QUICK_EDIT
I have revised my 16 and 32 facings code to no longer require editing of the SHP (using an internal array to correct that) and have given the details to AlexB, but i am sure he would do it much simpler than i have. QUICK_EDIT
I have revised my 16 and 32 facings code to no longer require editing of the SHP (using an internal array to correct that) and have given the details to AlexB, but i am sure he would do it much simpler than i have.
So if it gets worked out it would be like say I have a 32-Facing SHP I can set it to either use 8,16 or 32 Faced Settings? _________________ ~ Excelsior ~ QUICK_EDIT
if you add more facings it means more work to make a shp, not sure if i like that idea. Ok, there are 32 facings out there...anyone got some video to show? curious here _________________ I am authorized to send out the TMP Studio, PM ME IF YOU WANT IT And check this out, these were sent to me for help with terrain and zdata help along with TMP Studio/Builder
So if it gets worked out it would be like say I have a 32-Facing SHP I can set it to either use 8,16 or 32 Faced Settings?
In HP, i have coded it so depending on the Facing= key, you can use 8, 16, and 32. And you have have multiple Units using different facings entries.
Nikademis Von Hisson wrote:
if you add more facings it means more work to make a shp, not sure if i like that idea. Ok, there are 32 facings out there...anyone got some video to show? curious here
DTA??? The Dawn of the Tiberium Age? _________________ I am authorized to send out the TMP Studio, PM ME IF YOU WANT IT And check this out, these were sent to me for help with terrain and zdata help along with TMP Studio/Builder
for people who able to crate SHP from 3D program frame number isn't their problem anyway. while people who edit it from photoshop it will be hell for them. it's good to have 32 facing shp but i hope just limit for vehicle is enough and it'll be better if you give option to turn it off in INI since some people may not want to use it.
but personally i'm more like to have real gunship than this but it'll be perfect to have both and it'll be nothing for me to ask more from NPatch.
people who make new unit mod may not see benifit for 32 facing SHP but it really benefit to modder who made total conversion since it give them more choice of graphic. QUICK_EDIT
i don't know how you create you shp infantry but 32 means roatating your model a lot of times in a model. I would think 16 would be tops, i down loaded The Dawn of the Tiberium Age what i hope to be dta, ill check out to give more complete opinion _________________ I am authorized to send out the TMP Studio, PM ME IF YOU WANT IT And check this out, these were sent to me for help with terrain and zdata help along with TMP Studio/Builder
Yes, the hack is in DTA, but it was sloppy and something I did a long time ago.
It required Bittah to edit SHPs and use a combination of keys to make it work.
I'm not sure you understood my question: I was not asking about the ability to add more facings to the SHP, I was asking about the number of facings actually used by the game.
When an SHP-based unit moves across the map, will it use one of the additional facings to traverse cells in an angle that is not a multiple of 45°? _________________ #renproj:renegadeprojects.com via Matrix - direct link QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 05 Sep 2013 Location: LocationNotFoundException at RealLife.Location.find() at line: -1
Posted: Fri Jan 03, 2014 3:45 pm Post subject:
When I was doing some Firestorm modding today, I just remembered the splitting logic the cyborg walker had in his QuadLauncher weapon, would it be possible to recreate that with Ares?
It seems like it could have many uses in weapon technology today.
I don't want to be one coming with just stupid/impossible things here, but want just to say my ideas, thinking maybe something useful might come from them. QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 18 Jun 2005 Location: Dordrecht, the Netherlands
Posted: Fri Jan 03, 2014 6:15 pm Post subject:
Agent Z wrote:
When I was doing some Firestorm modding today, I just remembered the splitting logic the cyborg walker had in his QuadLauncher weapon, would it be possible to recreate that with Ares?
It seems like it could have many uses in weapon technology today.
I don't want to be one coming with just stupid/impossible things here, but want just to say my ideas, thinking maybe something useful might come from them.
Different branches, so I doubt it would be easy to replicate. QUICK_EDIT
Before I even start to list off ideas, I gotta thank the devs of Ares for sticking with it this long, as well as putting out all these great changes and bug fixes which enhance the experience of Yuri's Revenge. Hat's off to you devs behind Ares, keep up the good work!
Now, I agree with the bug fixes bugs above needing a fix - mostly and especially the Free Infantry Exploit. Stealth Aircraft Carriers should probably come after that on the list of Bug Fixes, but that's how I think.
As for features to add to 0.6, my ideas aren't very different from the suggestions above.
TechnoType to TechnoType Transformations. When I first suggested the idea on the Ares GitHub, it seemed as if it wasn't a widely wanted concept, and that it likely wouldn't be done. Now that I see that a wide majority of people want it, I'm going to push for the concept again. Such a mechanic would allow for newer and more interesting things to arise from it, and it would also make the "Transformer" method obsolete (TType1-Building1-TType2;TType2-Building2-TType1).
I suppose I could mention this, even though it is possible already, but it'd remove an additional step: Proper Mobile Gap Generators. Currently only possible by deploying a VehicleType into a BuildingType with the Gap Generator tag, but this method would remove the need to have such a step. I assume, though, that such a thing would be possible, but it would create complications. What complications? No clue, but I'm sure there'd be something.
This is one I personally would like to see, but maybe not for Ares 0.6 because it'd seem like a daunting task. Against better judgement, I tried out Tiberian Twilight a few weeks ago (My opinion was that it should never have been a C&C game in the first place). One of the things I did like from that mess of a game was the concept of the Crawlers, and how you could have Offense, Defense, and Supportive bases, and all the technology would be based on what Crawler you chose (Honestly, the Crawlers were the only interesting thing about TibTwi). My suggestion is to add in a similar, if not exact, concept to the Crawlers, as well as have the AI take proper advantage of it.
As said above, the Flying Aircraft Carrier would be an interesting addition to see. Aircraft Carriers in a futuristic setting would not be limited to the ground or sea, and would eventually take to the skies. Such ideas are not terribly unheard of - afterall, we have the SHIELD Carrier seen in The Avengers, as well as those ships (I forget what they were called) in Battlefield 2142, which you could fly aircraft out of.
Another concept I'd be curious in seeing, because I think right now the only way to do it results in Complications (At least, it was the last time I tried back in Vanilla YR) is Expanded Naval Warfare ala Red Alert 3-style: The ability to build structures on both land and sea would be very interesting, and allow for some, in my opinion, new and fresh blood to be pumped into the art of warfare in Yuri's Revenge. The addition of these mechanics would make the Naval Battle gamemode a bit more interesting than "Build Dreads/ACCs and barrage a base"
A Multi-Dock Refinery would be interesting, as someone suggested above, but I remember asking about such a concept in the Mental Omega IRC Channel when some of the Ares Devs and Mental Omega devs were around, and they all said that such an idea would be a nightmare to get working. While it would be cool to see such a feature, this one is just a suggestion, and I'm not really pressing for it as hard as the others (Like Techno-To-Techno).
That's about all I can come up with. If I do come up with more, I may end up dropping them here for revision and feedback. QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 22 Nov 2010 Location: Iszkaszentgyorgy, Hungary
Posted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 9:06 am Post subject:
Most of these features I find unattractful if not stupid, Derx (crawlers, etc). Crawler logic is IMO useless when you have countries.
The code for Mobile Gap Gens exist, but it lags too much so it's disabled and probably never will be enabled.
RA3 style expanded warfare iow lolz, is totally no thanks. RA2 does a really complicated splitting between naval and nonnaval stuff, getting to circumvent such wouldn't be nice.
I don't see the point of Multi-Dock Refineries. You can already set up a Slave Miner to work as a standard refinery without problems.
What I find worthwhile from that is Techno-To-Techno and Flying Carriers. _________________ "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
BTW airships have been carrying around support aircraft long before sea based aircraft carriers where put to use. So it's not just something for futuristic mods, I've already got an airship in D-day that is lacking its carrier abilities.
I had a thought about cloaked carriers too, what about a tag like Full.Cloak=yes. Which would only let the unit cloak when its pips where full, on a carrier this would mean when all aircraft had returned or been rebuilt. This could also be used on transports, harvesters or units that use ammo to make interesting effects. _________________
since its "post your feature without regarding the difficulty of coding it" day, i want this in Ares
get to work slaves! *ImP_RuLz whips the Ares Dev team*
in all seriousness, this [TechnoType] attached to [TechnoType] can be used for two or more weapons and also all the weapons attacking at the same time but i can imagine it to be a bitch to code. _________________ <----- Clickable QUICK_EDIT
since its "post your feature without regarding the difficulty of coding it" day, i want this in Ares
get to work slaves! *ImP_RuLz whips the Ares Dev team*
in all seriousness, this [TechnoType] attached to [TechnoType] can be used for two or more weapons and also all the weapons attacking at the same time but i can imagine it to be a bitch to code.
Most of these features I find unattractful if not stupid, Derx (crawlers, etc). Crawler logic is IMO useless when you have countries.
The code for Mobile Gap Gens exist, but it lags too much so it's disabled and probably never will be enabled.
RA3 style expanded warfare iow lolz, is totally no thanks. RA2 does a really complicated splitting between naval and nonnaval stuff, getting to circumvent such wouldn't be nice.
I don't see the point of Multi-Dock Refineries. You can already set up a Slave Miner to work as a standard refinery without problems.
What I find worthwhile from that is Techno-To-Techno and Flying Carriers.
Luckilly the only two I really even care about are Techno-to-Techno and Flying ACCs, then. The others were just kinda "Let's see what I can come up with that others may find interesting" sorta concepts. QUICK_EDIT
Take a look at the proposal to fix all V3 missile bugs and limitations here, by making then have a functional weapon that detonates, instead of the current warhead-only handling (that doesn't work right for some tags like preimpactanim):
I don't see the point of Multi-Dock Refineries. You can already set up a Slave Miner to work as a standard refinery without problems.
The only reason I had brought up the multi dock concept to as an Ares feature was because I was tired of harvesters fighting over the dock. It is even worse in C&C 3. The whole slave miner idea is eh. Send a vehicle out get the cash and come back.
When I play and get a WF I tend to make a few harvesters so I can get cash and the fight over the dock starts. I am thinking of a second refinery with no free unit.
I still say fix what is broken first. Flying air craft carrier? Do you know the weight this will have to bear? The amount of engine power you are gonna need to keep it up? I never understood the gap generator it seemed pointless, how about increasing the size of cell damage from 10 to 15 or 20. cloaked aircraft? Sorry I have been seeing a lot of requests that seem not a necessity _________________ I am authorized to send out the TMP Studio, PM ME IF YOU WANT IT And check this out, these were sent to me for help with terrain and zdata help along with TMP Studio/Builder
The only reason I had brought up the multi dock concept to as an Ares feature was because I was tired of harvesters fighting over the dock. It is even worse in C&C 3. The whole slave miner idea is eh. Send a vehicle out get the cash and come back.
When I play and get a WF I tend to make a few harvesters so I can get cash and the fight over the dock starts. I am thinking of a second refinery with no free unit.
I still say fix what is broken first. Flying air craft carrier? Do you know the weight this will have to bear? The amount of engine power you are gonna need to keep it up? I never understood the gap generator it seemed pointless, how about increasing the size of cell damage from 10 to 15 or 20. cloaked aircraft? Sorry I have been seeing a lot of requests that seem not a necessity
Of course, what is broken does need to be fixed. But like Alex said, he doesn't want to make 0.6 a Dedicated Bug Fix version, so regardless of whether or not people want it as such, it's going to have new features - in fact, that's why this thread was made in the first place, so there was a direction to take 0.6 that wasn't just bug fixes.
That being said, what you deem useless or "necessary" is exactly that, your opinion. And conversely, it's also someone elses opinion if it's useful or not. You're going to debate the strength or engine power of holding up a Flying Aircraft Carrier, but you don't question the logic behind technology which can control the weather, or transfer units across vast distances, or even mind controlled genetically enhanced giant squids which can sink ships. Gap Generators are good at keeping a base hidden from enemy view, to keep their strategies secret. It's essentially the same thing as the Stealth Generator, except instead of Stealth it throws a shroud over it. As for Cloaked Aircraft, that is one of the most practical features to exist - with Cloaked Aircraft, you can properly create Stealth Bombers. Basically, these all seem like practical things for a game and not all that farfetched, especially considering the game this is being made for prides itself on being Wacky Sci-Fi Technology. QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 05 Sep 2013 Location: LocationNotFoundException at RealLife.Location.find() at line: -1
Posted: Fri Jan 10, 2014 2:11 pm Post subject:
Maybe seperating the ROT for vehicles might be useful, so turret and body can have seperate ROT?
Just a thing that suddenly attacked my mind when I was on a bus stop... QUICK_EDIT
Maybe seperating the ROT for vehicles might be useful, so turret and body can have seperate ROT?
Just a thing that suddenly attacked my mind when I was on a bus stop...
This also seems like a good thing in my book as alot of people might find use in it. It'll also allow you to make Strafing Units more workable too.
Another thing I'd probably like to get in is probably a tag for ProneFireFLH for Infantry... _________________ ~ Excelsior ~ QUICK_EDIT
The unit that has this type of weapon and projectile fires 5 Bursts no mater if there is "Burst=1 or Burst=99" . Maybe "Burst=x" should be supported even from such projectiles.
Another thing, is there a way to make a fighter to fall but not spin while falling? Like in Generals Zero Hour. It seem a little strange for an aircraft to spin in every direction while it falls, falling without spininig seems right to me.
Maybe a tag:
The unit that has this type of weapon and projectile fires 5 Bursts no mater if there is "Burst=1 or Burst=99" . Maybe "Burst=x" should be supported even from such projectiles.
Another thing, is there a way to make a fighter to fall but not spin while falling? Like in Generals Zero Hour. It seem a little strange for an aircraft to spin in every direction while it falls, falling without spininig seems right to me.
Maybe a tag:
SpinCrush=yes/no (defauts to "yes")
I agree on that about the carpet-like weapon needs more options. It is very limited in use, and requires a specific setup of the projectile...
Maybe replacing that with something that allows the weapon to fire like this regardless of the projectile,
and making the amount of shots and the delay between them be customisable? (well, ROF does decide the delay, but its used for both delay between Bursts, and delay between attacks.) 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
