Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The poor bloody infantry!


  • Please log in to reply
105 replies to this topic

#81 thedudeWG

thedudeWG
  • Posts: 764

Posted 13 February 2014 - 17:57

Definitely make a few mechanics and/or pilots for pacing around the airfields in PWCG!
  • 0

#82 PatAWilson

PatAWilson
  • Posts: 3381

Posted 13 February 2014 - 19:23

Definitely make a few mechanics and/or pilots for pacing around the airfields in PWCG!

As soon as I do that they are going to end up on the runway. :(
  • 0

#83 Dutch2

Dutch2
  • Posts: 4367

Posted 13 February 2014 - 19:28

But pat what about trucks that are moving before taking off, like in the missions of Klemtovics.
  • 0
If I wrote something in this forum that is hurting or abuse a member, organisation or country? Let me know by pm for the corrections, please do not react back by bashing/trolling/flaming or other personal attacks!

Yep I’m an 2009 Rof pre-order buyer and one of the few that did buy the Sikorsky game.

#84 PatAWilson

PatAWilson
  • Posts: 3381

Posted 13 February 2014 - 19:58

Making things move is easy if everything is had placed in well defined scope of a single mission. A little more difficult when it has to happen on any airfield, with any configuration, with any plane type, with any number of planes, …

I put the objects onto the field by painstakingly mapping each airfield type, calculating relative offsets to usable open space from the Cartesian coordinates of the field. Now I would have to calculate paths across open space. It's possible, but not easy. I would have to
1. Determine appropriate destinations for each airfield type (has to be an open space that the ground crew can get to without going through an object or aircraft).
2. Determine appropriate offsets on a per plane basis ((i.e. ground crew around a Gotha will be different than ground crew around an Albatros).
3. Put the ground crew down onto the field (depends on data from #2).
4. Make them do things or just sit there for awhile.
5. Move them to the predetermined clear space (depends on data from #1).
6. Change the takeoff sequence to wait for the ground crews to clear.

If somebody else wants to do #1 and #2 I can probably do 3-6.
  • 0

#85 =Fifi=

=Fifi=
  • Posts: 10329

Posted 13 February 2014 - 20:23

Hm…is it really worth it?…of course would be nice, but such a crazy work :shock:

I believe i'd rather see at first moving troops on the battle field, or along roads!
And what about the horse carriages?
I remember Vander nicely realised them, they could be added as well :)
  • 0

#86 thedudeWG

thedudeWG
  • Posts: 764

Posted 13 February 2014 - 21:10

I get your point, Fifi, but remember one thing. You "might" get close enough to the troops to catch a glance of them crossing NML every once in a while, but you see the action going on at your airfield, up close, once or (hopefully) twice every single mission. I don't want to see mechanics prepping a line-up or wheeling AC in and out of the hangars, just general milling about. Personally, the frozen staff we have now is a minus, but about 4 or 5 waypoints could chart a safe path in front of our hangars for a few groups of airfield occupants and that could really bring an airfield to life.
Anyway, amazing work. :S!: I can't wait to see it in any form.
  • 0

#87 PatAWilson

PatAWilson
  • Posts: 3381

Posted 13 February 2014 - 21:44

Horse carriages are already in PWCG. They get used along with trucks, sometimes one and sometimes the other.

I too feel that infantry attacking is a priority. Also much easier to realize in PWCG right now.

I can do the moving things on the airfield, but that is harder.
  • 0

#88 =Fifi=

=Fifi=
  • Posts: 10329

Posted 13 February 2014 - 22:07

Horse carriages are already in PWCG. They get used along with trucks, sometimes one and sometimes the other.

I too feel that infantry attacking is a priority. Also much easier to realize in PWCG right now.

I can do the moving things on the airfield, but that is harder.

Oh, that's already in there? :shock: …never saw the horses yet :?

Dude, you get a fair point.
But IMO, moving troops would be easier to spot than actual static troops.
Could help us ;)
  • 0

#89 Dutch2

Dutch2
  • Posts: 4367

Posted 14 February 2014 - 19:12

Horse carriages are already in PWCG. They get used along with trucks, sometimes one and sometimes the other.

I too feel that infantry attacking is a priority. Also much easier to realize in PWCG right now.

I can do the moving things on the airfield, but that is harder.


Indeed I must admit the moving infantry is maybe better then a moving truck before take off signal.
  • 0
If I wrote something in this forum that is hurting or abuse a member, organisation or country? Let me know by pm for the corrections, please do not react back by bashing/trolling/flaming or other personal attacks!

Yep I’m an 2009 Rof pre-order buyer and one of the few that did buy the Sikorsky game.

#90 SYN_Vander

SYN_Vander
  • Tester
  • Posts: 4709

Posted 15 February 2014 - 13:44

Not sure about marching soldiers on an airfield, but how about this? :)


  • 0

#91 josef_baran

josef_baran
  • Posts: 81

Posted 15 February 2014 - 17:17

!! LOVE IT !!
  • 0

#92 =Fifi=

=Fifi=
  • Posts: 10329

Posted 15 February 2014 - 21:02

Not sure about marching soldiers on an airfield, but how about this? :)


Excellent! :shock:
  • 0

#93 PatAWilson

PatAWilson
  • Posts: 3381

Posted 15 February 2014 - 21:06

Looks great. Let me know when they are available.
  • 0

#94 LordNeuro_Srb

LordNeuro_Srb
  • Posts: 990
  • LocationNovi Sad/Serbia

Posted 15 February 2014 - 21:32

Amezing work SYN_Vander :o . And when u manage to do all most inposiol stuff how about the two mehanics working on alby move there hands or somthing like they relly work on plane.
I know it is to much but seing how amezing things u make there is no immposibol for rof.
S!
Cannt weit to see all thise marching kolons of solders and horses cariege and thise in Pats campainge.
  • 0

#95 SYN_Vander

SYN_Vander
  • Tester
  • Posts: 4709

Posted 15 February 2014 - 22:43

The soldiers you have seen in the previews are all vehicles and all animation is based on their forward speed. I have no idea how to animate them whilst standing still???
  • 0

#96 Avatar

Avatar
  • Posts: 888

Posted 15 February 2014 - 23:01

Just spotted this, bloody wonderful! Can't wait to see it in my own game. :S!:
  • 0

ASUS Maximus VII, i7 4970K @ 4.8, GTX 970 SSC, 32GB G.Skill DDR 2133, Win 7 Pro, Track IR5, Warthog, CH Pro Pedals, CH Throttle Quadrant, 2 MFCDs, 32" Bravia & 2 19" Syncmaster monitors


#97 ParachuteProne

ParachuteProne
  • Posts: 498

Posted 16 February 2014 - 01:57

Horse carriages are already in PWCG. They get used along with trucks, sometimes one and sometimes the other.

I too feel that infantry attacking is a priority. Also much easier to realize in PWCG right now.

I can do the moving things on the airfield, but that is harder.



Would it be easier to place the odd ground crew tinkering inside an already defined area - a hanger ?
  • 0

#98 thedudeWG

thedudeWG
  • Posts: 764

Posted 16 February 2014 - 04:07

Not sure about marching soldiers on an airfield, but how about this? :)

Excellent! And the static mechanics look much better wrenching on something - other than air! :lol:
  • 0

#99 J5_Rumey

J5_Rumey
  • Posts: 1180

Posted 16 February 2014 - 09:15

Sweet!
  • 0

#100 Dutch2

Dutch2
  • Posts: 4367

Posted 16 February 2014 - 09:32

Looks great. Let me know when they are available.


Pat, but if you could included this on the airfield than a running truck driving away from the planes should also not a be problem. :?:
  • 0
If I wrote something in this forum that is hurting or abuse a member, organisation or country? Let me know by pm for the corrections, please do not react back by bashing/trolling/flaming or other personal attacks!

Yep I’m an 2009 Rof pre-order buyer and one of the few that did buy the Sikorsky game.

#101 ParachuteProne

ParachuteProne
  • Posts: 498

Posted 16 February 2014 - 12:43

For airfields would it be possible even to make objects with no collision detection ?
Then planes could pass right through them if they were in the way.
  • 0

#102 SYN_Vander

SYN_Vander
  • Tester
  • Posts: 4709

Posted 16 February 2014 - 13:05

For airfields would it be possible even to make objects with no collision detection ?
Then planes could pass right through them if they were in the way.

Yes, that is possible. Quite simple even, it saves the bother of creating damage models :)
  • 0

#103 Jason_Williams

Jason_Williams
  • Producer
  • Posts: 3467
  • LocationLas Vegas, NV USA

Posted 16 February 2014 - 18:47

Good work as always Vander.

Jason
  • 0

#104 ParachuteProne

ParachuteProne
  • Posts: 498

Posted 16 February 2014 - 19:35

For airfields would it be possible even to make objects with no collision detection ?
Then planes could pass right through them if they were in the way.

Yes, that is possible. Quite simple even, it saves the bother of creating damage models :)


Since these troops are mostly for atmosphere perhaps it would be the way to go then ?
I personally wouldn't mind flying through the odd soldier at the start of my takeoff run if it meant having a busy populated aerodrome around me.

Seeing animated troops is a great advance in the game :)
Thanks for doing it !
  • 0

#105 ParachuteProne

ParachuteProne
  • Posts: 498

Posted 17 February 2014 - 13:27

Another thought would be to enable collision detection and simply have them disappear when they come into contact with anything - plane or bullet etc. Then you could still strafe them as well and no safe zones to place them would be needed.
  • 0

#106 PatAWilson

PatAWilson
  • Posts: 3381

Posted 17 February 2014 - 15:26

Looks great. Let me know when they are available.


Pat, but if you could included this on the airfield than a running truck driving away from the planes should also not a be problem. :?:

Same issue as posted above for all moving items on an airfield. I have to know where I can put them. I have to know where they can go. I have to wait until they get out of the way (the no collision mesh is a nice fail safe but IMHO counting on it should not be option A).

It is possible and I would like to get there, but not completely trivial.
  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users