Back to combat

Web log of development issues.

Back to combat

Postby adamsderk » Mon Jun 02, 2008 5:21 pm

Greetings,

With the addition of six new clan mech models, I have finished putting in the models prepped by SandMan. And I have asked him to NOT hurry for more. :)

It's funny how what you are not working on is more interesting than what you are working on. When I was first doing the combat engine, all I wanted to do was the campaign code. And now that I have done the campaign code, I just want to work on the combat engine.

Well now I get to.

The short line up is to look at infantry damage, track down a bug with water and jumping, completely redo the jumping mechanism, change the targeting for direct fire weapons, add cockpit sounds, and hopefully move the terrain generation to before combat so the player can see where they are going and perhaps select their drop point/ target.

Fun times ahead :)
Image
adamsderk
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1404
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 11:52 pm
Location: Western Washington

Postby Stormwolf » Mon Jun 02, 2008 7:17 pm

Nice, I finally got to play a couple of my own mechs :wink:

Cudos to Sandman 8)
Image
Stormwolf
 
Posts: 374
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 12:22 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Postby SandMan » Mon Jun 02, 2008 8:08 pm

Thanks, Stormwolf. Just trying to do my part to speed things up.

Derk,

Sounds good. What do you have in mind for the change in direct-fire targeting systems? I think they're pretty good as they are now.

//SandMan
For Davion!
ImageImage
SandMan
 
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 4:48 pm

Postby adamsderk » Mon Jun 02, 2008 8:50 pm

Sandman,

One of the big sticking points is grouping the various weapons. Now, I'm of the mind set (like current military weapons) that weapons should be selected by types and range (how I currently have it).

But in previous games, since everything fired similarly, you could group dissimilar weapons. You could fire your RAC with your ERLL, but they behave differently. You could group your ML with you LL, but that would be a waste of heat at long distances as well as short.

So, one of the ways I am going to "show" that direct fire weapons are different is by having the reticule lead the target to show you where you have to fire to hit the target. This calculation is currently done in code, I want to expose it to the player. This would also make it impossible to fire your lasers with your autocannons, well, if you want to hit with them. I think it will also add some visual interest to the hud.

Thanks.
Image
adamsderk
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1404
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 11:52 pm
Location: Western Washington

Postby SandMan » Mon Jun 02, 2008 11:21 pm

Derk,

This could be really cool or really a pain, depending on the velocity of the shells. While I think the computer should be able to take care of this for the MechWarrior, I'll roll with it and see how things go before I pass judgement. So, I have to ask:

-What shell velocity are you using?

-Are you considering reducing the CoD for ballistic weapons, since it will now be harder to hit a moving target? (Currently, I just have to point and click. With a delay, if the enemy reverses direction, I have to move my cursor around to the other side. Furthermore, unless the target lead is a wireframe projection of the target or something, aiming at specific locations will involve a lot of guesswork).

Thanks,

//SandMan
For Davion!
ImageImage
SandMan
 
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 4:48 pm

Postby Smoking_Mirror » Mon Jun 02, 2008 11:57 pm

I'm assuming it'll be a lot like the targeting computer effect from Mechwarrior 3. That used a small circle which moves around in relation to the enemy targeted showing where to fire if you want to actually hit the thing.

Will displaying this be linked to actually having a targeting computer, like in Mechwarrior 3? That sure was 1 ton of equipment worth adding to your mech when first starting out, but later when you got the hang of targeting, you didn't really need it any more and you could use the extra weight for extra ammo or something.

Personally I like the grouping system as it is. It's the same way I set up my mechs in MW3 and MW4, who wants to fire their LRMs at the same time as their SRMs anyway? ^-^
Smoking_Mirror
 
Posts: 370
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 2:38 pm
Location: South Korea (English)

Postby felderup » Tue Jun 03, 2008 1:22 am

i liked the grouping in mw4 quite a bit, the ability to fire srm's/s lasers/ballistic, long range lasers, ballistic, missiles, all as separate groups, like, my fave, argus in mw4, for close in i'd use lbx and long lasers, long range would use long lasers, missiles separate, 3 groups.
felderup
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 1:29 pm
Location: dartmouth, ns

Postby adamsderk » Tue Jun 03, 2008 4:42 am

Sandman,

Just wait and see, it will be as easy to use as the current one, just different from the targeting/instant weapons. The velocities are already in the game, so they won't change.

Smoking_Mirror,

The targeting computer reduces the cone of fire. What I'm talking about will be there all the time, but only when direct fire weapons are selected.

The current grouping will stay the same as I like them separate also.

Thanks.
Image
adamsderk
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1404
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 11:52 pm
Location: Western Washington

Postby SandMan » Tue Jun 03, 2008 5:23 am

Derk,

But, just because I have to know... what is that speed?

//SandMan
For Davion!
ImageImage
SandMan
 
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 4:48 pm


Return to Development Blog

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron