The Ur-Quan Masters Home Page Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 16, 2021, 04:39:06 am
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Paul & Fred have reached a settlement with Stardock!

+  The Ur-Quan Masters Discussion Forum
|-+  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release
| |-+  General UQM Discussion (Moderator: Death 999)
| | |-+  0.7.0
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print
Author Topic: 0.7.0  (Read 8668 times)
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3862


We did. You did. Yes we can. No.


View Profile
Re: 0.7.0
« Reply #15 on: October 31, 2007, 08:36:50 pm »

About the 'alternate Hyperspace tracks'... did you actually have any in mind? There are several already made tracks floating around, and I can imagine some being more appropriate to certain cases than others.
Logged
Michilus
Zebranky food
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8



View Profile
Re: 0.7.0
« Reply #16 on: November 01, 2007, 07:09:41 pm »

On the subject of a netplay lobby,

I've actually started making a simple proof of concept, with both server and client implemented in (wx)Python.
I'm using a simple text-based protocol, pretty much inspired by the Spring lobby protocol. It doesn't do all that much right now, and I only started it to get used to wxwidgets in combination with non-blocking sockets.
Anyway, if anyone is going to start building a lobby, please let me know Smiley
Logged
Novus
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1938


Fot or not?


View Profile
Re: 0.7.0
« Reply #17 on: November 01, 2007, 07:44:01 pm »

As I mentioned, I'm just about getting started on a netplay lobby myself. As far as protocols go, Meep-eep and I were working on something similar, although we don't have an implementation yet. The current plans are, essentially:

  • Protocol text-based over TCP, similar to the protocol you linked.
  • Client side integrated in UQM (written in C)
  • Server side also in C (one thread per client).
  • Initial feature set: connect, specify a name and a fleet (taken from existing fleet choice), add self to list of challenges, update list of challenges, wait for someone to challenge you or challenge someone.

Lots of other features have been suggested, but this is the minimum usable subset.
Logged

RTFM = Read the fine manual.
RTTFAQ = Read the Ur-Quan Masters Technical FAQ.
pendell
Zebranky food
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17



View Profile
Re: 0.7.0
« Reply #18 on: November 02, 2007, 02:44:12 pm »

Here's a suggestion that should actually be easy to implement ...

... provide text-only (no voice) dialog alternative that restores original PC dialog. There were a couple useful hints (such as the location of Syra) in the original dialog that were taken out in the 3DO version.  Would make the game more what it was intended for newbies.

Respectfully,

Brian P.
Logged
meep-eep
Forum Admin
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2847



View Profile
Re: 0.7.0
« Reply #19 on: November 02, 2007, 07:24:53 pm »

Michilus: You may want to read this old thread about the subject, if you haven't already.

As I mentioned, I'm just about getting started on a netplay lobby myself.
What I'm concerned about now is that Michilus decides not to work on this because there's someone who's already announced to be working on it, and then you postponing the project if you don't have the time after all, thus wasting the opportunity, and the momentum.
If you'd both individually work on it, then one person's work is going to be wasted -- we only need one lobby. So it might be best if you two could find a way to work on this together. Perhaps doing the design of the system collaboratively in the Ultronomicon?

Quote
Initial feature set: connect, specify a name and a fleet (taken from existing fleet choice), add self to list of challenges, update list of challenges, wait for someone to challenge you or challenge someone.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "existing fleet choice". Why do you have specifying the fleet as a minimum requirement anyhow? It's something which could be determined after the connection has been established, as it is now.
Logged

“When Juffo-Wup is complete
when at last there is no Void, no Non
when the Creators return
then we can finally rest.”
Novus
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1938


Fot or not?


View Profile
Re: 0.7.0
« Reply #20 on: November 02, 2007, 10:12:24 pm »

If you'd both individually work on it, then one person's work is going to be wasted -- we only need one lobby. So it might be best if you two could find a way to work on this together. Perhaps doing the design of the system collaboratively in the Ultronomicon?
Could be worth trying.

Quote
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "existing fleet choice". Why do you have specifying the fleet as a minimum requirement anyhow? It's something which could be determined after the connection has been established, as it is now.
Yes, that could be left until later. In any case, what I meant was that the fleet shown as belong to a player would be the one he has selected before activating the lobby (i.e. the initial client would not support changing the fleet while in the lobby).
Logged

RTFM = Read the fine manual.
RTTFAQ = Read the Ur-Quan Masters Technical FAQ.
guesst
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 692


Ancient Shofixti Warrior


View Profile WWW
Re: 0.7.0
« Reply #21 on: November 03, 2007, 04:09:00 pm »


Quote
sc1 full game mode
rotating star map  Wink
Not likely in the near future. The rotating star map of SC1 was IMHO the most annoying aspect of it, and implementing the SC1 full game is a lot of work.

The rotating star map was a joke.  sorry for not making that more evident.
No it wasn't. That was real. SC1 full game is a great idea. Best ever. Make it net playable and I'd freak out.

Seriously, people aversion to SC1's rotating starmap is just for those gamers who can't visualize what isn't infront of them. So howabout this, When you select a ship you can see 3 steps away from it the stars that are connected. Would that make everyone happy?
Logged

A new game and it's code each week. Please visit Cymon's Games
Vee-R
*Many bubbles*
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 176



View Profile
Re: 0.7.0
« Reply #22 on: November 03, 2007, 08:11:06 pm »

If anyone is actually planning a serious realization of a SC1-like full game as part of UQM, it would make more sense to integrate SC2 ships and scenarios into it.  And since that would move it away from being an exact duplication of SC1, I don't see why the rotating starmap would be a *must*; such a game could work well with a SC2-style 2D starmap, too (not to mention, that would simplify coding).   That say, I'm not bothered by the SC1 starmap as some seem to be.

[EDIT] - Anyway, another idea for 0.7.0:

• Making modding easier by moving more hard-coded stuff to easily modifiable text files?  I'm thinking about this chiefly in the context of modding the starmap and related stuff, I suppose - homeworld/device locations, event-dependent sphere of influence movements, etc...
« Last Edit: November 03, 2007, 08:13:03 pm by VileRancour » Logged

"Space cannot be measured. It cannot be angered, it cannot be placated. It cannot be summed up. Space is there.
"Space is not large and it is not small. It does not live and it does not die. It does not offer truth and neither does it lie.
"Space is a remorseless, senseless, impersonal fact."
lakota.james
*Many bubbles*
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 111



View Profile
Re: 0.7.0
« Reply #23 on: November 04, 2007, 03:36:02 am »

I liked the rotating map, also, but i knew that most people didnt. so i thought i would make a joke about most peoples dislike of it. also, i didnt even mind it on sc3, i just stoped it when selecting the planet to go to.
Logged
Liquidus
Zebranky food
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9



View Profile
Re: 0.7.0
« Reply #24 on: November 04, 2007, 04:11:21 am »

I would like to see support for 1440x900 resolution. The changelog mentioned something about aspect ratios, is this going to help at all?

If i'm not mistaken, the original SC2 was in 320x200 resolution (or something like that) which IS actually 16:10, the same ratio as 1440x900. So surely it wouldn't be that hard?

Otherwise it looks blurry on my LCD
Logged
Novus
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1938


Fot or not?


View Profile
Re: 0.7.0
« Reply #25 on: November 04, 2007, 12:46:27 pm »

I would like to see support for 1440x900 resolution. The changelog mentioned something about aspect ratios, is this going to help at all?

If i'm not mistaken, the original SC2 was in 320x200 resolution (or something like that) which IS actually 16:10, the same ratio as 1440x900. So surely it wouldn't be that hard?
Already there. RTFM; you want the -r and possibly -k options. As for aspect ratio, UQM follows the 3DO version at 320x240, which matches standard 4:3 monitors and nobody cares enough to relayout the entire screen for 16:10. Besides, PC SC2 had a 4:3 screen at 320x200; unlike your LCD (and most modern displays), the pixels weren't square.

Quote
Otherwise it looks blurry on my LCD
Actually, it probably still looks blurry, because the game is rendering to 320x240, possibly upscaling to 640x480 with some vaguely sensible scaler and then doing, at best, a bilinear rescale to the target resolution. Depending on how your monitor scales non-native resolutions, running at 640x480 may be preferable to running at your display's native resolution.
Logged

RTFM = Read the fine manual.
RTTFAQ = Read the Ur-Quan Masters Technical FAQ.
meep-eep
Forum Admin
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2847



View Profile
Re: 0.7.0
« Reply #26 on: November 04, 2007, 02:23:09 pm »

• Making modding easier by moving more hard-coded stuff to easily modifiable text files?  I'm thinking about this chiefly in the context of modding the starmap and related stuff, I suppose - homeworld/device locations, event-dependent sphere of influence movements, etc...
That's even more or less one of the goals of the UQM project.
Logged

“When Juffo-Wup is complete
when at last there is no Void, no Non
when the Creators return
then we can finally rest.”
psydev
*Many bubbles*
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 136


Why don't all races have point defense lasers?


View Profile
Re: 0.7.0
« Reply #27 on: November 30, 2007, 10:40:43 am »

OK, I actually have a suggestion for 0.7.0 for gameplay:

   I know that there is debate about whether it's a good idea or not to have a "planet warning indicator". I don't think it should necessarily *always* tell you where a planet is. However, I think that if you are zoomed in, and would normally be able to see the planet in the zoomed out battle screen, then you should know where it is while zoomed in. I think this is fair, especially for the post-battle ditty, so you can avoid hitting it inadvertently! (Why should you be so focused in on your ship at the end of battle that you can't see around you? I understand it's good dramatic effect, but it shouldn't cost you tactically. If the planet is within "one screen", then I think it should show up on a scanner as a blip.)
    I think a planet indicator on the side of the screen would work well, perhaps changing in size depending on its proximity.
Logged
Cedric6014
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 701



View Profile
Re: 0.7.0
« Reply #28 on: November 30, 2007, 11:03:24 am »

Sounds like a pretty good idea actually. Except UQM is a port not a mod
Logged

Play online melee here! http://irc.uqm.stack.nl/
Aya Reiko
Zebranky food
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 36


Bewitching Smile Amethyst


View Profile
Re: 0.7.0
« Reply #29 on: December 01, 2007, 06:59:04 am »

The ability to employ random seeds for random maps.

"Hard Mode" (Increased A.I. difficulty, higher RU costs, less time to stop kohr-ah, etc. ...or whatever)
Logged



Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!