The Ur-Quan Masters Discussion Forum

The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release => General UQM Discussion => Topic started by: ErekLich on February 28, 2003, 07:38:00 pm



Title: Starcon with UQM ships
Post by: ErekLich on February 28, 2003, 07:38:00 pm
Okay all,

I've thought a bit about how this should work if people ever create one.  Ideally we should just take the UQM battle code and put it inside another application, one that runs like Star Control did.

(As an aside to the devs, is it possible to tweak the battle code to allow ships with non-standard crew, fuel, etc values as provided by the precursor artifiacts?)

My basic thought is that the teams would still be 2 players with 7 available ships each, with up to 7 ships in play.  What would change is that in addition to the "classic" teams you could draft teams or select randomly.  The 11 ships not picked would be neutral.  Perhaps as an option, players could purchase neutral ships at higher prices?

The new ships would have a few on-map abilities (just like in Star Control)

Kohr-Ah: Destroys fortifications alone (just like the Kzer-Za)
Orz: When an Orz "destroys" a colony they take it over
Slylandro: "recruit" at mines instead of colonies.

I would also reccomend that the starmap NOT be 3d...

my basic thought was that to create the starmap in C you could have something like a "struct star" with varables for what type of star it is, what facilities, etc, and an array of pointers to other stars for the connections.  (sorry all you non-programmers, but anyone who knows C understands me!)

I know the developers are way to busy with the UQM port to do this right now, but does anyone have any comments on this?


Title: Re: Starcon with QUM ships
Post by: Death 999 on February 28, 2003, 09:21:44 pm
It is a good idea. Is the code for SC1 still around????


Title: Re: Starcon with QUM ships
Post by: ErekLich on February 28, 2003, 09:40:04 pm
Nope.  I asked the developers and they said not even Paul and Fred still have the code.  We'd have to start from scratch (except that we already have the melee code and all teh ship data thanks to UQM)


Title: Re: Starcon with QUM ships
Post by: OHHDEAR on March 01, 2003, 01:55:16 am
That would be supremely l33t if you made specific allowances for SC1 only ships.

Reconstructing the AI would be hard. Of course, nobody liked the spinning star map, so you don't have to try to remake that.

Of course, I'd rather the UQM guys stick to UQM. I have Starcon for the Genesis rom.


Title: Re: Starcon with QUM ships
Post by: ErekLich on March 01, 2003, 02:01:03 am
Erm, didn't I say you could use the "classic" teams?  And we'd only have to write the "stratecig" AI, the "tactical" AI already exists and works just fine in UQM!

I too would rather see UQM finished, but I'm just trying to lay possible groundwork for after UQM is "finalized"


Title: Re: Starcon with QUM ships
Post by: Chad on March 01, 2003, 07:39:24 am
I'm all for this...  Star Control 1 Strategy Element rocked.

I think the first thing to do would have someone who knows C and the UQM code to assess if this can easily or not easily added...

You know, a whole "level of effort".


Title: Re: Starcon with QUM ships
Post by: Deathy on March 01, 2003, 01:18:25 pm
Ooh, yeah.

SC1 for the Genesis was my all time favorite 2 player game. Good balance, varied scenarios, fast paced action and hefty strategic requirement.

Man, a pumped up SC1 would be really great. Hell, a semiplayable SC1 would be great.......(My DOSbox just died).


Title: Re: Starcon with QUM ships
Post by: Lukipela on March 01, 2003, 05:31:50 pm
That sounds like a supreme idea. With all the ships availalble as an option, such a tactical game would be well.. sweet. If necessary a few more rules could be introduced to make it a bit more complicated, but I'm not even sure that that is necessary.


Title: Re: Starcon with QUM ships
Post by: Mead on March 01, 2003, 10:28:44 pm
Wouldn't the logical thing to do if you wanted to introduce the strategy element would be to use the SC2 starmap as the basis for strategic play? like just take (probably the bottom left hand quarter or so of it in which the battles in SC1 were all supposed to have been fought in, and then, assuming u stuck with the turn based thing, assign routes between stars as in SC1. Add the old things about constructing starbases, forts, etc, and whatever creative stuff can be thought of, write scenarios specifying what ships can be built and the objectives for whichever time period you're playing, and bobs your auntie. Figuratively speaking.


Title: Re: Starcon with QUM ships
Post by: guesst on March 02, 2003, 12:19:11 am
Quote
Of course, nobody liked the spinning star map, so you don't have to try to remake that.


Is anyone going to back me up at calling this guy nuts?

I loved the 3-d map, and was good as just seeing the connections between the planets. I've often thought that having the connections drawn between the planets might help the novices, but still I thought it was cool and inovative.

Am I the only one?


Title: Re: Starcon with QUM ships
Post by: Death 999 on March 02, 2003, 12:27:57 am
I kind of liked it, but it was awkward. You needed to wait a little while to see how far apart two points REALLY were, and then if you were lost in thought you had to find the system over again. Maybe if it would rotate around the system you had selected, so that at least it wouldn't wander off... but then it would be swinging back and forth, really weird.


Title: Re: Starcon with QUM ships
Post by: ErekLich on March 02, 2003, 08:23:10 am
I do not like the spinning starmap.

It is too hard to figure out what stars connect.

That is bad.


Title: Re: Starcon with QUM ships
Post by: Deathy on March 02, 2003, 10:21:19 am
I don't know about the pseudo3D aspect of the map, but controling the "chokepoints" was the essence of strategy. How do you have the same linear LOC in the SC2 starmap? You'd have to have funky interweaving starlanes that isolate entire starclusters..........

The 3D map may have annoyed some people (not me), but I would be worried that anything else would change the game drastically. And not explicitly for the better.


Title: Re: Starcon with QUM ships
Post by: Lukipela on March 02, 2003, 01:17:56 pm
Well, as to how that would change the game startegically, there is a simple solution. Don't put Starlanes between all stars (i.e no roaming around freely like in SC2. Make it so that there is a fair number of lanes inside a constellation, but when you want to travel between constellations there is only one or possibly two routes out of it, conenctiong that constellation to others. That way, you retain the choke points as well, and even though the method breaks with SC2, you could make up some xplanation about how smaller ships need to stay to tactical starlanes, or get lost in hyperspace storms or whatever.


Title: Re: Starcon with QUM ships
Post by: Censored on March 02, 2003, 07:54:23 pm
Ereklich would you mind just editing your first post to change the topic? this "QUM"->"UQM" is bugging me :P

I always loved Star Control 1.. I do think it'll work great if internet multiplayer had been added to it.

So..

Let's get to work!
:P


Title: Re: Starcon with UQM ships
Post by: ErekLich on March 02, 2003, 07:56:43 pm
Whoops, I didn't even notice that...

it's fixed now.

As far as getting to work goes, I'd like to hear from the developers on the feasability of this first...


Title: Re: Starcon with UQM ships
Post by: Mormont on March 02, 2003, 10:54:44 pm
I dunno...I'd rather not have the Kohr-ah just have a copy of the Ur-quan's ability. How about the kohr-ah can destroy mines and colonies defended by fortifications always, but the fortification remains there?

Also, how about more than 7 ships? I think a good number would be you can select up to 8 ships on your team, but you can have up to 13 in play.


Title: Re: Starcon with UQM ships
Post by: Death 999 on March 02, 2003, 11:13:35 pm
First Question - were the old starbuck costs the same as the new melee values???

Second Question - should we have another 'standard' team of 7 to be a fair match for the Hierarchy or Alliance teams? Well, let's see:
Okay - now, we have 25 ships to divide up into some ideas for official teams.
25 is not a multiple of 7, so we aren't going to be able to split them up into four teams. Anyway, if you look at this distribution of the ships that are left over, it's awfully top-heavy. I also point out plot difficulties.

30 - Kohr-Ah (Unlikely to be part of a team), Chmmr (no sense against original alliance).
23 - Orz
22 - Utwig
20 - Pkunk
18 - Melnorme (unlikely to engage in an all-out war)
17 - Druuge, Slylandro (no sense)
16 - Supox
10 - Thraddash
06 - Zoq-Fot-Pik
compare this to the 30-21-18-15-12-10-7 of the Hierarchy and 28-23-19-16-13-11-5 of the Alliance, and we see we're missing something in the low teens slot.

So it looks like that's not going to happen.
Then I guess we should build some customized teams for specific scenarios. No longer a limit of 7 ships, and of course further restrictions could apply.

General Purpose:
Expanded Alliance:
Old Alliance + Pkunk + ZFP
VS
Expanded Hierarchy:
Old Hierarchy + Druuge + Thraddash


Scenario: The VUX have had it with our deformed bodies and are on a mission of genocide of all humanoids. They balance out their side with a few folks who find the idea amusing. So the VUX are *dancing* in the *middle* to the tune of "HAR HAR HAR". They have also managed to
Orz (23), <<Mycon(21)>>, VUX(13), Thraddash(10), Umgah(7)
VS
Utwig(22), Arilou(16), Androsynth(15), Syreen(13), Earthling(11)
Problem: all the humanoid ships do well against Mycon - especially the Syreen, Androsynth, Arilou, Utwig, and Earthling. Oh, wait! That's all of them.
If we scratch the Mycon, we're left with few options that could plausibly go up against any of the humanoids in the right point range, unless we have them reprogram the Mmrnmhrm

Scenario: The Kohr-Ah are coming! The Utwig and Supox are in the way. The Kohr-Ah have a lot of starting ships and a starbase, but the dauntless duo have some mines and colonies.

Scenario: The acceleration of the Process has irrevocably damaged the Chmmr, who all go a little nuts. Some of them realize this and revert. However, the Chmmr deny this and maintain their political hegemony. Then they commit some sort of weird and probably act which convinces several races that they must side with the Chenjesu. This prompts the Chmmr to declare war.
Chmmr, Orz, Spathi, Earthling, Shofixti
Chenjesu, Utwig, Mmrnmhrm, Supox, Syreen, Zoq-Fot-Pik (who always wanted to be with the Chenjesu to begin with)


Title: Re: Starcon with UQM ships
Post by: Mormont on March 02, 2003, 11:29:33 pm
Just let people design their own teams, although some scenarios can require preset ones.  More options = good.


Title: Re: Starcon with UQM ships
Post by: ErekLich on March 02, 2003, 11:34:12 pm
I agree, I think the best option is to have people draft their own teams.

Whoever drafts first will move second in the game.  The first player picks a ship, then the second player, then the first again and so on until they have picked the number of ships they'll get on their team (7? 8? more?).  The remeaining ships are neutral.

Players start with X Starbucks and a starbase, that sort of thing.

As an alternative, you could have an option to generate random teams.


Title: Re: Starcon with UQM ships
Post by: Lukipela on March 03, 2003, 08:44:54 pm
I think both the option to generate random teams and to pick one ship per player and then one more are good ideas, and will work beautifully in multiplayer.

Another idea I came up with (which people probably wont like, but I'll give it a try any way) is a two player story mode. you know, instead of just making a scenario, make a baiss for the whole game. the Quan start with all their old Thralls and the Traddash on their side, whereas the alliance starts with their original ships, possibly the Pkunk as well. Each side controls roughly what they controlled on the Starmap in the SC2 Map. Then it's up to you and your friend to duke it out. Depending on how big this starmap is, you'd be able to recruit the Utwig and Supox (or conquer them), and while the alliance could buy Druuge favours, the Ur-Quan could force a trading contract on them to supply a certain amount of ships. After that, it's just tactical battles til one side manages to push through and defeat the other. Alternativley, in multiplayer you could have one person commanding the Supox-Utwig alliance, with the Druuge at heir side.

I konw, this would be a HUGE job, and there are a lot of balancing issues to work out, but imagine how cool the ready product would be! And when you don't want to play this, you customize your own scenarios, in which all races are available.


Title: Re: Starcon with UQM ships
Post by: Mormont on March 03, 2003, 08:49:12 pm
I can understand having preset teams for some single-player scenarios though, so the story will make sense. But in multiplayer, you should definitely be able to pick your own teams.


Title: Re: Starcon with UQM ships
Post by: Death 999 on March 03, 2003, 11:22:55 pm
Well, of course people should be able to mix and match team!  I was just bringing up the question of the teams for the scenarios that would be 'shipped' with the game.

by the way - the scenarios apply to multiple player as well as single player - the game is exactly the same if there are two players as if there are zero players and the computer is playing against itself.

I think that draft is a nifty idea - but we don't need to build it into the game since it's so easy to moderate in person. Anything goes as long as the players agree to it.
Remember the scenario which pitted one Ur-Quan with no starbase against several shofixti, a few colonies, and a starbase? That's a good scenario, but it's nothing like balanced.


Title: Re: Starcon with UQM ships
Post by: Lukipela on March 04, 2003, 01:29:08 am
IAnd there could be cameo scenarios where Sc2 races make their appearance during the War, like a joint Chenjesu ZFP battle against Quan forces, where it is imperative to destory the enemy lest they find out bout the ZFP, or a Pkunk mission where you first encounter the Ilwrath...


Title: Re: Starcon with UQM ships
Post by: guesst on March 17, 2003, 09:07:17 pm
I still say use 3-d on the darn map. Those of us who were good at seeing our way around the systems could really screw with novices who couldn't.
I think it's significant to note that SC1's full game battles did not take place in hyperspace. They were purely within systems of planets. Sure those systems had somewhere in the vicinity of 25 to 60 planets and no sun, but every spot on the SC1 map was a planet, not a star system.


Title: Re: Starcon with UQM ships
Post by: guesst on March 22, 2003, 07:29:36 pm
Man, my last post got shot off the bottom of the page so fast with someone who posted like 20 reply posts in one day.

However, I have a question that I believe goes in this thread.

To make  a sc1 3-d randomly generated map, How? See, how do you make the stars so that they are close enough to each other without crossing into other planetary lanes? Am I making sense.

What I'm asking is on a technical level how would one generate a 3-d planetary map like in Sc1? As the code for sc1 is gone I suppose the answer is "any way that you want," but as my programming expertiese is rusty and wasn't that good to begin with, I need someone else to go "It was probably done like ...." And that's what I'm asking for.


Title: Re: Starcon with UQM ships
Post by: Death 999 on March 22, 2003, 11:43:49 pm
I would simply create a rectangular grid with the right topology, then apply repulsive forces to the nodes, and apply a relaxaion algorithm it until it was nice and smooth.
Note that we wouldn't need to cook these up, as there are standard, free libraries which will do this kind of stuff in microseconds.



Title: Re: Starcon with UQM ships
Post by: zixyer on March 23, 2003, 10:50:37 am
You know what would be kind of cool?  If you were to build it into the original game to at certain times go to a SC1-like scenerio that's currently taking place in the game; like the Pkunk vs Ilwrath, Ilwrath vs. Thraddash, uhm, Utwig and Syreen vs Kohr-Ah (as previously mentioned), Pkunk vs. Yehat.  And at the end of the game, New Alliance of Free Stars + Chmmr vs Ur-quan and Kohr-Ah and remaining Heirarchy.

Well I guess that would totally ruin the plot of the game depending on if the player wins (since I guess you'd want to put the player on the 'good' side each time, and in SC2 up to the end the good side is always losing).  Just an idea.

Or maybe it could be like "Great battles of ungoing conflicts" intermission-like thing.  Like after you just completed a section in the game it would come up with a splash screen with the aformetioned text and them show the scenerio description and then let you battle.  If you won it wouldn't make much of a difference since it was just one battle.

I'm rambling, sorry. :)


Title: Re: Starcon with QUM ships
Post by: chmmravatar on March 23, 2003, 11:07:05 am
Quote

I think the first thing to do would have someone who knows C and the UQM code to assess if this can easily or not easily added...

You know, a whole "level of effort".


Well, I can give some insight on this...as I've been recently working on a lot of bug fixes and such. I would say the "level of effort" would be pretty high. Several of the core systems could probably be used with modifications (battle, sound,  graphics, input, etc), but there's *a lot* of other code that would be needed to be written that's specific to the Star Control 1 strategy game. Not to put a damper on the whole idea, but at least from my viewpoint it's an extremely non-trivial task. But hey, if you can get dedicated and skilled people to work on it, it can be done...it'll just take substantial time and effort.

Also, I won't put words in the mouth of the developers/core team, but the idea is "no gameplay additions until after stable 1.0", so I doubt any of the core guys will be able to work on such a project at this point, since right now there's a lot of work being done on some of the core systems. But you know, after 1.0, who knows what will happen.


Title: Re: Starcon with UQM ships
Post by: Lukipela on April 06, 2003, 04:23:07 pm
So, did anyone ever start anything on this? it'd be a shame to see it go, it was an awesome idea....


Title: Re: Starcon with UQM ships
Post by: Death 999 on April 07, 2003, 03:02:42 am
Quote
Well I guess that would totally ruin the plot of the game depending on if the player wins (since I guess you'd want to put the player on the 'good' side each time, and in SC2 up to the end the good side is always losing).  Just an idea.


Well, you could do it so that the number of Kohr-Ah you destroy minus the number of Ur-Quan you destroy delays the onset of the rampage by that many weeks, or days, or something. And the number of your own ships you got blown up would affect the decrease in the size of the sphere of influence.

But that would be an awfully long game...


Title: Re: Starcon with UQM ships
Post by: Lukipela on April 07, 2003, 03:07:16 am
And it still needn't ruin the plot of SC2. I mean, you can still play SC2 according to the official stroy line, this could be a game of what might have been. Especially if all races join in, seeing as that'd be impossible in SC1 as well.


Title: Re: Starcon with UQM ships
Post by: guesst on April 10, 2003, 03:13:54 am
Quote
So, did anyone ever start anything on this? it'd be a shame to see it go, it was an awesome idea....


I personally so love this idea that I am trying to learn to program again. I have so much catchup work to do. Would anyone voulenteer their programming time if I promise to do all the graphics? (I suppose I better prove to myself that I can do the graphics in the first place.)


Title: Re: Starcon with UQM ships
Post by: Culture20 on April 10, 2003, 05:20:31 am
Quote
Man, my last post got shot off the bottom of the page so fast with someone who posted like 20 reply posts in one day.

However, I have a question that I believe goes in this thread.

To make  a sc1 3-d randomly generated map, How? See, how do you make the stars so that they are close enough to each other without crossing into other planetary lanes? Am I making sense.

What I'm asking is on a technical level how would one generate a 3-d planetary map like in Sc1? As the code for sc1 is gone I suppose the answer is "any way that you want," but as my programming expertiese is rusty and wasn't that good to begin with, I need someone else to go "It was probably done like ...." And that's what I'm asking for.


I'm using the following evil/naive algorithm (which isn't even complete:
Code:

//generate navpoints
loop for (the amount of nav points)
    generate random navpoint in 3D space
    loop while (navpoint just created is outside max_radius)
                  remove navpoint
                  generate random navpoint in 3D space
    end loop
end loop

//then, connect all navpoints within range of each other
//every navpoint is assured to be within range of a group,
//so that all navpoints will be connected by one or more edges. TODO

loop for(the amount of navpoints (a))
         loop for(the amount of navpoints (b))
                       if(navpoint in loop (a) is not same navpoint in loop (b)
                                    AND if navpoint(a) is within range of navpoint(b)
                                    AND if they aren't already connected) then
                                                  add (b) to (a)'s connection list
                       end if
         end loop
         if it's not near enough to any other stars, then
                        connect it to the nearest star
         end if
end loop                      


Just noticed this thread.  Orz from the Timewarp project had an SC1 knock-off he named TACT that used the most recent unnofficial timewarp beta (0.05u5) for its melee engine.  That beta's quite old, so we're in the process of updating TACT (sporadically).  It's embarassingly incomplete right now since I sort of gutted it and started over for the graphics stuff last December.  It's using a GL library that allows openGL functions within allegro (allegroGL).  For anyone who's concerned that the 3D starmap will hurt their head again, let me assure you that in its current state, you can twist the starmap any way you wish, zoom, and turn off and on the auto-rotate.  You can also cause all of the starlanes to become visible or invisible at will (there are plans to create fog-of-war and explorable starlanes).  
I don't have anything publicly available yet (because of the "embarassingly incompleteness"), but if anyone who knows openGL and/or C++ wants to help, hop onto http://www.classicgaming.com/starcontrol/timewarp/, click the Channel44 link, sign into our forums, and message Baltar2002 or one of the other Teammembers.  We always appreciate new coders.  Now that I know that graphics work, I can work on using good algorithms and incorperating Orz's old code.

Quote
I would simply create a rectangular grid with the right topology, then apply repulsive forces to the nodes, and apply a relaxaion algorithm it until it was nice and smooth.
Note that we wouldn't need to cook these up, as there are standard, free libraries which will do this kind of stuff in microseconds.

I have no idea what you're talking about since I'm not a 3D programmer.  Do you know which libraries might be better than others (is this stuff already in GL, GLU or GLUT)?


Title: Re: Starcon with UQM ships
Post by: Death 999 on April 10, 2003, 08:58:01 pm
Your algorithm has the possibility of creating two nav-points very close to each other.

Also, the libraries I'm talking about are not graphics libraries, they're number crunching. Essentially, you say, "I want this board to be equivalent to this graph"
say,
Code:

1-2-3-4
|   |
5-6-7
 | |
 8-9

and then you tell the library to 'relax' this graph until it's a nice, natural-looking arrangement of stars in 3D rather than a rectangular grid in 2D. Of course, initial graphs need not start off with neat 2D representations.

Once the grid has been relaxed, the library returns a series of X,Y,Z coordinates. Put a star at each of those coordinates, and send THAT to the graphics library.


Title: Re: Starcon with UQM ships
Post by: guesst on April 10, 2003, 10:18:07 pm
Death_999, my man, who are you? You have all the answers I'm looking for.
You're "grid relaxed to a 3-d map is what I believe SC1 did. To support my hypothesis, try finding ANYWHERE on a SC1 map that let you go more than 4 places. Eh? can't find one. What would blow this out of the water is if you find a triangle of stars.
However, I feel this solution would work perfect as far as allowing random maps or purposefully designed space maps.
Tell me, in your opinion, what's the best compiler for making a game in (Windows, 3-d?).


Title: Re: Starcon with UQM ships
Post by: ErekLich on April 10, 2003, 10:20:20 pm
Um, actually Guesst I have found many many triangles of stars...

I also think (but am not positive) I have found stars with 5 destinations...


Title: Re: Starcon with UQM ships
Post by: Azzizi on April 10, 2003, 11:47:50 pm
Quote

Tell me, in your opinion, what's the best compiler for making a game in (Windows, 3-d?).


I would go with MSVC 6.0. Two reasons:

First, windows. MS, given that they sort of own Windows, makes a very good IDE/Compiler for Windows apps. (I mean, who wouldn't expect that?) In my experience, you tend to get a bit better performance and stability out of MSVC apps under windows, because it was specifically designed to build them.

Second, because if you plan to do a game, given the sorts of hardware on the market(especially for 3D work), it's best to give the user as many options for taking advantage of their hardware as possible. Which, to cut to the chase, means that ideally, you really want to offer the choice of OpenGL, Direct 3D, and pure software rendering if possible. Some cards just work better under OpenGL or DirectX, and some heavy-processor systems will get best results out of software rendering, though that's probably the least necessary (and hardest) of the three to implement. So, MSVC is a good choice at that point because the DirectX API was designed to work with it, and OpenGL isn't really any worse off than anything else.

Finally, MS or no, it's just a very nice IDE. Say what you will about Microsoft, but there are a few places where the company turns out very, very nice products, and their developer tools are generally one of them.

I will admit to a slight touch of pseudo-hypocrisy here, because I do all my code in DirectX but not OpenGL. This has more to do with the fact that getting good at using two different APIs at the same time is confusing and vaguely foolhardy, though.


Title: Re: Starcon with UQM ships
Post by: chmmravatar on April 11, 2003, 01:18:26 am
I would go with VC++ .NET (7). In general, the GUI is a little more intuitive, and plus it has some nifty run-time checks when debugging. Of course, DON'T use managed C/C++. That's just an all-around bad idea. DX versus openGL, I'd just say openGL because it's portable. Anyhow, if you haven't programmed in a long while, you're in for quite the ride. Console apps are one thing, but this isn't a console app ;).


Title: Re: Starcon with UQM ships
Post by: Culture20 on April 11, 2003, 04:21:37 am
Quote
Your algorithm has the possibility of creating two nav-points very close to each other.


Yup, I know; I told you it was evil.  ;)  I just wanted something that I could use for my testing.  I suppose I could have added a minimum nav point distance that I checked against the other points along with the max_map_radius, but that algo would still be very naive (N squared complexity).


Title: Re: Starcon with UQM shiip
Post by: ScreamingTemporalDoom on April 11, 2003, 04:56:29 am
I would NOT suggest MSVC or .Net. Both of these are horrible compilers in my experience. First off, they're very expensive. Secondly, their standards support is extremely lacking. They also have a whole heap of compiler bugs which are difficult to detect and work around. MSVC IDE sucks in a big way. .Net is better, but not by much. In addition, both of these are INCREDIBLY HUGE for a compiler and IDE. And .Net requires a multi-megabyte runtime file which only comes with Windows XP and above, meaning you'd have to distribute it with the exe if you plan to have the thing work with Win95, Win98, WinME, and Win2000.

In my opinion, the Dev C++ compiler from www.bloodshed.net is far superior. It uses GCC for the compiler and the MingW windows libraries to link to Windows. It doesn't produce quite as fast code as MSVC, but it's still no slouch and will probably be undetectable to most people. It is also 100% Free, both in code and in cost. Dev C++ also comes with an integrated CVS client as an added bonus (although you must still get the CVS exe elsewhere).


Title: Re: Starcon with UQM shiip
Post by: chmmravatar on April 11, 2003, 06:12:25 am
Quote
And .Net requires a multi-megabyte runtime file which only comes with Windows XP and above, meaning you'd have to distribute it with the exe if you plan to have the thing work with Win95, Win98, WinME, and Win2000.


Actually, this is only if you use Managed C/C++. If you compile a normal win32 app, you don't need the .NET runtime. You do however, need a more up-to-date MFC dll if you plan on using MFC (but you can just choose not to, and in the case of a game you probably don't want to use MFC, anyhow).

Yes, they are expensive (if you have to pay for them, in my case I didn't because it's free through my school), but I disagree that they're "horrible" IDEs. DevC++ is free, but that's really the only thing it has on Visual Studio .NET. My install of .NET IS about 1.5gb. But almost all of that (about 1.2gb) is the MSDN stuff. You can find almost anything you need to know about all the windows API functions, all the directX stuff, basically everything you need to know to do successful windows programming. Granted, most of that you would not need for the game, so then just don't install it.

Also, the speed issue is a big deal in the case of a game, because you want to have optimized code. Also, the compiler "bugs" you refer to are almost always not really "bugs", per se, but just a different, not really ANSI C/C++ standard. The only time I've ever had problems is when I'm messing with #pragma directives, which I really don't recommend doing anyhow.

Anyhow, if you plan on doing any sort of actual windows programming, you really need to use a Visual C++. I don't think UQM even compiles with Dev C++.


Title: Re: Starcon with UQM ships
Post by: guesst on April 15, 2003, 07:45:23 pm
Okay, since this has become a programming discussion, I have a graphical question. The graphics on Timewarp are basicly the same as SC1/2 except higher res with more rotations. The advantage of this, though, is that the ships can be really pretty like with shadows and everything.
If 3-d graphics were employed for the ships (and I've seen a few projects that do this) why doen't they ever have a dynamic shadow map casting the fins shadows on the body of the ship or the like? Is that sort of thing really that processor intensive?


Title: Re: Starcon with UQM ships
Post by: guesst on May 19, 2003, 06:56:20 pm
Time to resurect another thread.

Hey new guys? What do you think of this idea. Would you like to play SC1-type full game with UQM ships?

What about adding converstions and goals other than kill all enemy? What goals would you add? What do you think of the ones already mentioned?


Title: Re: Starcon with UQM ships
Post by: Death 999 on May 19, 2003, 08:32:50 pm
Goal: Recovery. Take a ship to a particular (known) planet, then get it back to your starbase.

Goal: Rendezvous. You start off with split forces; get all forces back to your starbase.


Title: Re: Starcon with UQM ships
Post by: Culture20 on October 30, 2003, 05:30:58 am
Quote
First Question - were the old starbuck costs the same as the new melee values???

Sorry for reviving this thread, but if the TW ini files are any indication (and I'm sure The Fly did his homework) , only the earthling cruiser changed in price (it went up):

$ grep -i cost timewarp/ships/sc1/*.ini |grep -v TW
shpandgu.ini:SC1Cost = 15
shpandgu.ini:SC2Cost = 15
shparisk.ini:SC1Cost = 16
shparisk.ini:SC2Cost = 16
shpchebr.ini:SC1Cost = 28
shpchebr.ini:SC2Cost = 28
shpearcr.ini:SC1Cost = 9
shpearcr.ini:SC2Cost = 11
shpilwav.ini:SC1Cost = 10
shpilwav.ini:SC2Cost = 10
shpkzedr.ini:SC1Cost = 30
shpkzedr.ini:SC2Cost = 30
shpmmrxf.ini:SC1Cost = 19
shpmmrxf.ini:SC2Cost = 19
shpmycpo.ini:SC1Cost = 21
shpmycpo.ini:SC2Cost = 21
shpshosc.ini:SC1Cost = 5
shpshosc.ini:SC2Cost = 5
shpspael.ini:SC1Cost = 18
shpspael.ini:SC2Cost = 18
shpsyrpe.ini:SC1Cost = 13
shpsyrpe.ini:SC2Cost = 13
shpumgdr.ini:SC1Cost = 7
shpumgdr.ini:SC2Cost = 7
shpvuxin.ini:SC1Cost = 12
shpvuxin.ini:SC2Cost = 12
shpyehte.ini:SC1Cost = 23
shpyehte.ini:SC2Cost = 23