Warzone 2100 Forums

.

effigy wrote:Oh dear, it seems I made a typo: the 2nd body should be "TransporterBody" not "MP-SuperTransportBody". I think that makes it the Cyborg Transport.

Ahhh, K. That makes sense now. Thanks.

Does not change the mod approach.

effigy wrote:Also, I think the "type" is just an indication of how many modules you need on the factory to produce it.

K. That too makes sense.


------------------------->

Long and short here.

(SEE my last post on Page 2 for the weight change protocol here - viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7068&start=15 )

Think that the modification testing-tweaking can proceed henceforth (by all interested in this) to gather the data-experience that will inform suggested changes to Buggy before Buggy makes those changes for the next binary release.

As far as modding - it doesn't get any simpler or quicker than this.

Change weight in "Body.txt" - run in game - see the diff it makes.

Here is the editing key link:

http://developer.wz2100.net/wiki/TxtEditing

The change is made in base.wz

Soup to nuts, for even the inexperienced, 5 minutes for each iteration done.

Really, just about anybody can mod and test here.

The more folks that do and share their results & thoughts, the better, IMHO.

Any questions, do post 'em.

And for dang sure post your testing results !

- RV

.

.

Did a number of modification variants and in game tests over the course of 15 minutes. It was enough for me to determine that there looks to be some other factor at play here making the Super Transport so slow beside the weight and power output combo. What it is I don't know. Guess we'll have to wait for Buggy to pop-in and let us know what else he may have changed that could be at work in producing the result.

BTW- any of you folks interested in optimizing this situation do any mod-testing of those 2 variables to validate (or invalidate) my tentative conclusion here ?

- RV
.

.

Not really on the validation point.

Anyway, moving on....

Buggy, when you get a chance, let me know what other changes (besides weight & power output) may be impacting the speed and I'll be able continue modifying and testing with my CO GDA buds to endeavor to get at the optimal state.

What I also need to know is if the payload for the CAM Transport (aka, "Super Transport") will be fixed to a new configuration ? and what would be the payload config for the other 2 Transports as in this previous query / proposition ?:

1.) 10 Tanks (any Body Weight Mix) as the upper limit is just fine, I think, for the CAM Transport. Bumping up the speed some of this CAM Transport looks to be the common thread here. KISS.

2.) Keeping the Borg Transport at 10 Borgs is fine. KISS.

3.) Adding a 3rd Transport Type sounds promising - and ambitious enough on the evolutionary continuum for WZ. What parameters ? I think perhaps a payload trade-off for speed. Again a 10 unit limit but a mix: 5 tanks max / 5 Borgs max. KISS. Speed faster than the CAM Transport and slower the Borg Transport.

And this comment:

Within that simply presented matrix of 3 differentiated transports (and no UI changes) there is significant complexity of a Janus nature: it expands tac-strat GP in interesting ways but also places demands on finding an optimal integration balance. Thought experiments will be of limted utility. Ultimately, implementations to play test extensively will really be the only way to get at that optimal state within the complete, and dynamic, GP complex.

But then your comment:

BTW, for the UI stuff, I might just shrink the size of the buttons down, and fit more of them on panel.

This implies you are considering a payload greater than 10.... so, how would that play-out with the 3 different transport configs specifically ?

Then there is this:

The more transports that are added, it would also be nice to have different sounds for each of them. Not quite sure how to pull that off.

Creating new engine SFX is not a biggie... but getting 'em in-game has been problematic in recent times.

As for distinguishing names, what do we have ?

1.) Super Transport

2.) Cyborg Transport

3.) Transport X (No name, as of yet.)

..... even more ?

Here's another critical consideration as far as adding more Transport Types to the 2 Pumpkin originals (Well 1 is a Pumpkin original, the other was added at the suggestion of a fan by the name of Toricat some months after retail release, in point of fact.)

Piece-meal balancing is gonna be tricky at best. I would suggest squaring away the 2 original transports first.... then figuring out just how to add a distinct 3rd one - where it would fit a practical, interesting, niche and then how to balance within the matrix of the other 2. And so on...

- Regards, Rman.
.

Rman Virgil wrote:.

Not really on the validation point.

Anyway, moving on....

Buggy, when you get a chance, let me know what other changes (besides weight & power output) may be impacting the speed and I'll be able continue modifying and testing with my CO GDA buds to endeavor to get at the optimal state.

What I also need to know is if the payload for the CAM Transport (aka, "Super Transport") will be fixed to a new configuration ? and what would be the payload config for the other 2 Transports as in this previous query / proposition ?:

Ok, looking over the code, all transports should act the exact same as any other transports.
There was no extra code added in that area, only some additional checks on the transport type.

At this point in time, I am not sure why you have the results you have.

1.) 10 Tanks (any Body Weight Mix) as the upper limit is just fine, I think, for the CAM Transport. Bumping up the speed some of this CAM Transport looks to be the common thread here. KISS.

2.) Keeping the Borg Transport at 10 Borgs is fine. KISS.

3.) Adding a 3rd Transport Type sounds promising - and ambitious enough on the evolutionary continuum for WZ. What parameters ? I think perhaps a payload trade-off for speed. Again a 10 unit limit but a mix: 5 tanks max / 5 Borgs max. KISS. Speed faster than the CAM Transport and slower the Borg Transport.

And this comment:

Within that simply presented matrix of 3 differentiated transports (and no UI changes) there is significant complexity of a Janus nature: it expands tac-strat GP in interesting ways but also places demands on finding an optimal integration balance. Thought experiments will be of limted utility. Ultimately, implementations to play test extensively will really be the only way to get at that optimal state within the complete, and dynamic, GP complex.

But then your comment:

BTW, for the UI stuff, I might just shrink the size of the buttons down, and fit more of them on panel.

This implies you are considering a payload greater than 10.... so, how would that play-out with the 3 different transport configs specifically ?

There really is no reason for the limit to be 10, well, apart from balance.
The only issue is GUI display, and the added code for that.
Each transport could have their own GUI, but that adds much more work.

Then there is this:

The more transports that are added, it would also be nice to have different sounds for each of them. Not quite sure how to pull that off.

Creating new engine SFX is not a biggie... but getting 'em in-game has been problematic in recent times.

Right, just more work.

As for distinguishing names, what do we have ?

1.) Super Transport

2.) Cyborg Transport

3.) Transport X (No name, as of yet.)

..... even more ?

I am still open to have new names, nothing is written in stone, everything is very fluid.
Anyone care to suggest more names ?

Here's another critical consideration as far as adding more Transport Types to the 2 Pumpkin originals (Well 1 is a Pumpkin original, the other was added at the suggestion of a fan by the name of Toricat some months after retail release, in point of fact.)

Piece-meal balancing is gonna be tricky at best. I would suggest squaring away the 2 original transports first.... then figuring out just how to add a distinct 3rd one - where it would fit a practical, interesting, niche and then how to balance within the matrix of the other 2. And so on...

- Regards, Rman.
.

That sounds as good of a plan as any.
There are just so many things to do in the codebase, and time is so short.

I was really hoping that we would get more transport styles, but it appears that people have given up on doing anymore, and I am not really sure why.

Perhaps someone can jump start this up again, with some new designs / ideas ?

Well... this is very plain of me, but I don't see a need for cryptic or overly descriptive names for any type of transport.

How about if the transport:

• transports cyborgs => Cyborg Transport
• transports tanks => Tank Transport
  
• transports tanks and/or cyborgs => Transport

effigy wrote:Well... this is very plain of me, but I don't see a need for cryptic or overly descriptive names for any type of transport.

How about if the transport:

• transports cyborgs => Cyborg Transport
• transports tanks => Tank Transport
  
• transports tanks and/or cyborgs => Transport

That makes perfect sense to me.

Buggy: Glad your back in the mix with this.

Thank you for the info - leads me to believe I screwed up somehow.

Since I believe these transports in MP hold a lot of promise for fresh & interesting tactical game play I will make some time to go back & play around with speed modifications on the new comp I just finished building. (This will get me back under the WZ hood before I start forgeting too much internal workings stuff because of my present focus & involvement in a VRG project that has taken me far away from WZ.)

Following up on Effigy's thought.

3 new transport models that share the same aesthetic as the rest of WZ's style & make visual & logical sense between them (organically in the same family) seems the best creative course to pursue.

While undoubtedly there may be other artists around who can achieve those aesthetic ends, the AR Team have already demonstrated they can create to those exacting standards. Also, these would be models put in-game ASAP & would not have to await completion of a whole host of other models before being incorporated in an official distro which could be an inspirational factor as well a perfect, & practical, preview in-game of a GFX revolution to come.

- Yebo sanibonani, RV
.

.

I was really hoping that we would get more transport styles, but it appears that people have given up on doing anymore, and I am not really sure why.

I'm starting to wonder if there is still a strong interest from the community at large in making any of this a reality.

And if there is a general loss of interest, what would be the underlieing reasons ?

- RV
.

So you have a cyborg transport and a tank transport, but you need an intermediate model too?
And this should be larger than the cyborg transport but smaller than the tank transport?
Does anyone have any sketches or ideas of what it would look like?
I can create 3d models but someone else will have to export them into the .pie format and get them ingame...

For reference, as far as I have seen, the transport changes in 3.0 are the following:
http://developer.wz2100.net/changeset/1 ... c7e1a9d4a/
http://developer.wz2100.net/changeset/b ... 5213b72c8/
http://developer.wz2100.net/changeset/f ... 50818bec2/
http://developer.wz2100.net/changeset/9 ... c38e4a918/

The last one is in master but not 2.3, not sure why.

Jorzi wrote:So you have a cyborg transport and a tank transport, but you need an intermediate model too?

And this should be larger than the cyborg transport but smaller than the tank transport?

Yes to all.

Jorzi wrote:Does anyone have any sketches or ideas of what it would look like?

I can create 3d models but someone else will have to export them into the .pie format and get them ingame...

Cool beans.

Perhaps RW concept art will work as well as sketches.... but first, some brief context.

Like Olrox (& others, no doubt) I take inspiration in these matters from RL engineering and, almost a couple years ago now, Lav_Coyote brought to our attention the Walrus Military Air Transport of the future that was commissioned by DARPA and developed by a company called Aeros. Military budgets being cut to the bone the last few years the Aeros company was granted permission to adapt their work to commercial ends which look as promising as they are revolutionary.

Here are a number of the Aeros Aeroscraft artist concept works:

http://www.aerosml.com/images.html

You will also find interesting specs on the technology on the site.

Another Aeroscraft artist concept that is no longer on thier web site that specifically portrays a deployed military version from the work they did for DARPA:

http://64.19.142.12/images.gizmag.com/g ... 100027.jpg

ALSO - last years Paris Air Show on the future of aviation had an interesting design that could also be a source of inspiration. Reminds me of a whale and I find the design of the "tail" especially intriguing...

http://64.19.142.11/images.gizmag.com/g ... nverte.jpg

I have some other future air transport concepts that are a "flatter" design but I'll hold off for the moment because I believe the more "rounded" fits the WZ Pumpkin tradition better (goes to show-off their foresight as well with the Campaign Transport's design).

cybersphinx wrote:For reference, as far as I have seen, the transport changes in 3.0 are the following:

http://developer.wz2100.net/changeset/1 ... c7e1a9d4a/
http://developer.wz2100.net/changeset/b ... 5213b72c8/
http://developer.wz2100.net/changeset/f ... 50818bec2/
http://developer.wz2100.net/changeset/9 ... c38e4a918/

The last one is in master but not 2.3, not sure why.

Excellent. Thank you for that consolidated update from the dev side.

In keeping with the principle value of consolidation & seminal reference....

Every now and then there is a generative & extensive discussion on these boards full of insights and practical applications and such a one on the subject of Transports took place about a year and a half ago here (still very much a valuable reference, IMHO):

Enable vehicle transport on multiplay/skirmish

- RV
.

Rman Virgil wrote:So you have a cyborg transport and a tank transport, but you need an intermediate model too?
Here are a number of the Aeros Aeroscraft artist concept works:
http://www.aerosml.com/images.html

Lol,the first vessel was exactly what I planned to post as an inspiration for Jorzi. +1 for the first vessel.

what was your gamespy tag Rman?

I got the first link but the second two appear down to me. Anyway I've read about those aeroscraft and they are a nice idea, streamlined slightly heavier than air zeppelins with that can actually move pretty fast, resulting in less power required to generate lift.
However, if i'd make them to scale, they would be even larger than the tank transport, and a severely downscaled version would risk looking like a toy rather than military hardware...

mefy wrote:what was your gamespy tag Rman?

Didn't have one. When MPlayer was assimilated I didn't move on.

On MPlayer I was Rman Jack.


Jorzi: Hmmm. Tried the links on 3 diff devices with 3 diff IPs, 3 diff OS & 3 diff browsers - all worked. Strange. Beats me.

There is a solar powered design by another company with the same basic shape that carries a handfull of guys.

Which scale ref ? WZ doesn't have one uniform scale. Pumpkin cleverly fudged scale throughout the CAM and Tech Levels. They mainly banked on stuff not being seen side by side and also that the player would be so engaged in all aspects of battle that scale anomalies would not be a terrible distraction to getting off on the game play.

In looking at scores of future military airship transport images I've noticed the designs being inspired by marine life. Besides the already mentioned walrus & whale forms, there are 2 other marine critters: the sea turtle and the manta ray. Interesting stuff.. The postulated intermediate transport would obviously be bigger than the Troop Transport, shorter in length than CAM Transport and perhaps not bulbous at all like the CAM Transport.

Also of interest is that this direction in aviation has been evolving since the early '70s & that John McPhee wrote about beautifully in his book entitled "The Deltoid Pumpkin Seed".

Maybe the unavailable links have something to do with me being in Europe.
Anyway, the manta ray got me kind of inspired...