Free Allegiance Forums

Radruin wrote:QUOTE (Radruin @ Nov 13 2007, 02:40 AM) Would appreciate it if you guys would go by these guidelines, please.

I dont quite understand what it means.

I am making my vehicles out of "blocks" as it were.

Do you want me to save each "block" as a model? or do you just want the model to be made out of "blocks" so that they can be substituted for upgrades.

think he means make each part of the vehicle in separate models!

Ill be usin MILKSHAPE but I get the concept of each part seperate heh..

yeah i use milkshape as well

^^^^500 post for veg! gratz!

Cadillac wrote:QUOTE (Cadillac @ Nov 13 2007, 12:14 PM) I dont quite understand what it means.

I am making my vehicles out of "blocks" as it were.

Do you want me to save each "block" as a model? or do you just want the model to be made out of "blocks" so that they can be substituted for upgrades.

QUOTE (Datamine)If you're using Torque, keep in mind that vehicle models should come in several different parts. Separating every vehicle into chassis, shocks, and wheels lets Torque do fairly realistic things (both visually and physically).[/quote]
Chassis (CHASS-ee) is the main body of the vehicle, just in case you don't know. What Datamine is saying is if you can make different models for the chassis, shocks, and wheels, and (I'm guessing) 'parent' the shocks to the chassis and the wheels to the shocks. Like this, the Torque game engine can make vehicle performance more realistic.

Parenting in modeling: the 'parent' cannot move without the child. The child *can* move independently of the parent.
In this case, the Chassis would be the parent of the shocks (shocks go wherever the chassis goes, but they can also wobble around and do shockly things on their own)
and the shocks would be parent of the wheels (the wheels stay attached to the shocks, but can still spin around).

gotcha

i get it

can we introduce cockpits into this game? field of view is something that has huge impact on game-play - it gives some realism and feel, and can be used to balance stuff.

tanks would have ridicilously small fov, while infantry would not be hindered at all (or just barely by their helmets). scouts should have biggest fov from all vehicles, tanks the smallest. now we can argue about fighters/mechs/gunships/ints/etc. but i think cockpits should be used, and that they should play a role in ballanicing just as gun mounts are important in current alleg.

we can avoid the whole issue by stating that there are no acctual see-through panels on any unit. they have long ago been replaced by high-tech sensors that allow better protection for the pilot (better armor placement) and project their readings on the inside of the cockpit, on the helmet visor or right into the soldier's brain.
if we choose that we can stop at that, or we can go through several sensor modes (infra-red, heat detectors, limited x-ray vision or normal vision).
a nice feature that i'd like if we can shamelessly ripoff from mech3+ is their zoom mode (just a limited circle around the reticule zooms, while the rest of the screen remains as it is. the zooming circle (or any other simple shape) is big enough to allow clear vision of target and better snipig, but small enough that you are atill aware of your immediate surroundings (not like in current alleg).

of course, all of that can be researchable and/or specific for a faction or a unit.

But mord, you can easily bypass your limited field of view in the cockpit by simply going into F3 and searching out your enemy on the radar.

yep agreed
and any way it is the future there would be no point for field of view thing!