Tank transport

[Rman Virgil]

Let's wait for his answer.

BP

Coincidentally, I saw him read this thread 17 hours ago.

- RV
.

[chekwob]

Yes, I modified the source code.

[Rman Virgil]

Yes, I modified the source code.

Cool. Thank you for clarifying.

Hopefully the devs here will do likewise at some point and all modders can have a common play binary to create mods off of.

- RV

[KukY]

Yes, I modified the source code.

Would you share how you did it with us?
I'm searching for the code that handles that for like fifth time, and I just can't find it

[chekwob]

I never found anything about whether a certain transport droid is cyborg-only or not, but I never looked. My intent was to put tanks in transports in multiplayer and have it be compatible with servers and other clients running the official WZ release, which it (mostly) is.

[Buginator]

I never found anything about whether a certain transport droid is cyborg-only or not, but I never looked. My intent was to put tanks in transports in multiplayer and have it be compatible with servers and other clients running the official WZ release, which it (mostly) is.

This is so not cool.
For the record, we (and many other players) don't appreciate people cheating in games, and yes, that is exactly what this and other exploits are.

If you want to make a patch, that is fine, submit it to http://developer.wz2100.net/newticket and wait for it to be in the codebase.

I don't know what the fascination is of trying to ruin games with silly hacks / exploits just because it can be done. All you are doing is pissing people off, (some even will never try warzone again), making warzone even more unstable, then we get bogus bug reports which in turn pisses us off.

I already said that official support for this wouldn't be that hard to accomplish, but time is the enemy.

[Rman Virgil]

I never found anything about whether a certain transport droid is cyborg-only or not, but I never looked. My intent was to put tanks in transports in multiplayer and have it be compatible with servers and other clients running the official WZ release, which it (mostly) is.

This is so not cool.

For the record, we (and many other players) don't appreciate people cheating in games, and yes, that is exactly what this and other exploits are.

If you want to make a patch, that is fine, submit it to http://developer.wz2100.net/newticket and wait for it to be in the codebase.

I don't know what the fascination is of trying to ruin games with silly hacks / exploits just because it can be done. All you are doing is pissing people off, (some even will never try warzone again), making warzone even more unstable, then we get bogus bug reports which in turn pisses us off.

I already said that official support for this wouldn't be that hard to accomplish, but time is the enemy.

So glad you confirmed and made this all explicit in no uncertain terms.

I had my suspicions but my know-how in this area is weak so I couldn't back it up & was tip-toeing around it not wanting to unjustly point a finger, recognizing I could be grossly in error.

- RV

.

[Buginator]

Was making it so in MP games, it will be, a heavy unit takes 3 slots, 2 for medium and 1 for everything else, however, I am unsure what to stick in the UI to show that the spot is occupied.
Does it matter much ?
Ideas ?

I also would like to have a new transport model, if at all possible, though we could use the SP one with the gun disabled.
Also, I am not sure where to stick this, should it be made available when the cyborg transport is ready, or should it require more research ?

[Zarel]

I'd make 2 for heavy/medium, 1 for light/cyborg. It would make light bodies marginally more useful, since otherwise they're fairly useless once you get medium bodies.

Then, to show the spot is occupied, you can just make them double-width.

[Buginator]

I made it so you need a vtol factory (duh) and a cyborg transport before you can use the super transport.
Not sure what stats to use for it though.


BTW, I was really hoping someone would make a new transport model for this ...

[JDW]

BTW, I was really hoping someone would make a new transport model for this ..

The Artwork section is my favourite on the forum. Drop in a request , pweeze...

But on a more serious note, you don't mind if the appearance of this super transport will be different from the one in the campaign and video sequences?

EDIT: Oh, and awesome job for implementing this for us. Thank you.

[Rman Virgil]

wz2100-20100914_183934-Sk-Rush.jpg

I made it so you need a vtol factory (duh) and a cyborg transport before you can use the super transport.

Not sure what stats to use for it though.

Stats... hmmm... that's tricky... subject to play-testing no doubt such that they are not awfully useful to spam as defensive structures.

A Stat line something greater than the Borg Transport would make sense but how much ? Perhaps an amalgam of the Wyvern and Vengence stats - again subject to MP testing between experienced players.

EDIT: Oh, and awesome job for implementing this for us. Thank you.

Second that.

Have a Mountain Promontory Urban design in the shop already in which their use will make for some very fresh & excellent GP (within my metrics, natch).

- RV
.

[Rman Virgil]

.

Saw this in Flail 13's flaME thread:

I was asking, since we are changing things around, and I didn't want you to work on this stuff before we have a 'final' version done.

Basically, there will be no more updates for 2.3.x, (at least, I am 95% sure of that) and we are moving on to the newer rendering engine.

I have externalized support for the textures / tiles, so the way things get drawn is a bit different from how 2.3 handles things.

That is why I wanted to check with you to what your plans are.

I would say hold off a bit for this stuff, and I'll let you know when we have the new releases out.
Sorry about the confusion.

Was wondering Buggy if that meant that MP support for the Big Tank transport of this thread's discussion would only be available for v.3.0 and NOT for v.2.3.x ?

Thanks, RV

.

[Buginator]

.

Saw this in Flail 13's flaME thread:

I was asking, since we are changing things around, and I didn't want you to work on this stuff before we have a 'final' version done.

Basically, there will be no more updates for 2.3.x, (at least, I am 95% sure of that) and we are moving on to the newer rendering engine.

I have externalized support for the textures / tiles, so the way things get drawn is a bit different from how 2.3 handles things.

That is why I wanted to check with you to what your plans are.

I would say hold off a bit for this stuff, and I'll let you know when we have the new releases out.
Sorry about the confusion.

Was wondering Buggy if that meant that MP support for the Big Tank transport of this thread's discussion would only be available for v.3.0 and NOT for v.2.3.x ?

Thanks, RV

.

The new 3.0 is not trunk, and it is not the current 2.3, however, everything that works in 2.3 will work 'as is' in the new branch, minus the new texture stuff of course. It is based on the 2.3 codebase, + parts from trunk and some trac tickets.

Did you have more concerns about this ?

[Rman Virgil]

.

Rman Virgil wrote: "Saw this in Flail 13's flaME thread:"

Buginator wrote: "I was asking, since we are changing things around, and I didn't want you to work on this stuff before we have a 'final' version done.

Basically, there will be no more updates for 2.3.x, (at least, I am 95% sure of that) and we are moving on to the newer rendering engine.

I have externalized support for the textures / tiles, so the way things get drawn is a bit different from how 2.3 handles things.

That is why I wanted to check with you to what your plans are.

I would say hold off a bit for this stuff, and I'll let you know when we have the new releases out.
Sorry about the confusion"

Rman wrote: Was wondering Buggy if that meant that MP support for the Big Tank transport of this thread's discussion would only be available for v.3.0 and NOT for v.2.3.x ?
Thanks, RV

The new 3.0 is not trunk, and it is not the current 2.3, however, everything that works in 2.3 will work 'as is' in the new branch, minus the new texture stuff of course. It is based on the 2.3 codebase, + parts from trunk and some trac tickets.

Oh. I see. Still the new Terrain Renderer, which is what I was thinking v.3.0 would be.

Thanks for the detailed break-down.

Did you have more concerns about this ?

As far as the Transport - nope. It will be available along side the New Terrain Renderer, as I am understanding it here.

I have no problem running Trunk and I do like the New Terrain Renderer - but for one thing. Don't like how Cliff Face comes through.

The old renderer does Cliff face much more to my liking - greater visual demarcation between passable and non-passable at a glance..... plus, in making maps, you can create far, far, far, greater Cliff-face visual geometric + texture variety that comes through as a fabulous aesthetic range of differences with the old renderer than comes through with the new one.

Call me eccentric, but I love rock formations in RL (Pinnacles Utah, anyone ?) and like making a broad variety of such in WZ maps and all that effort-work at creating Cliff-face variety gets lost with the New Terrain Renderer so I rarely run my WZ Maps in Trunk / New Terrain Renderer - too disheartening for me personally. But, like I said, everything else about the new Terrain Renderer is good.

- Regards, RV
.