|
Pages: 1 [2] 3
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: 0.7.0 (Read 9762 times)
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
 |
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
Posts: 8
|
|
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 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Novus
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1938
Fot or not?
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
pendell
Zebranky food
Offline
Posts: 17
|
|
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
Posts: 2847
|
|
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?
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.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vee-R
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 176
|
|
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
Gender:
Posts: 111
|
|
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
Posts: 9
|
|
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
Gender:
Posts: 1938
Fot or not?
|
|
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.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
psydev
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 136
Why don't all races have point defense lasers?
|
|
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
Gender:
Posts: 701
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
Aya Reiko
Zebranky food
Offline
Posts: 36
Bewitching Smile Amethyst
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
