dragonwolf
Pukovnik
Howling with delight!
Posts: 363
|
Post by dragonwolf on Sept 22, 2014 4:58:01 GMT 1
Oh, I have no qualms about autos being captured, . . . none at all.
And the fuel system sounds cool, . . . but if most of you hated it, why even go there?
And even if you incorporate the capture of tanks and the fuel system, could these options be turned on and off somehow? Possibly in LUA? Or maybe it could be a patch, where some do, some don't.
|
|
|
Post by Major Pain on Sept 22, 2014 5:26:10 GMT 1
Each one of the New Functions could be controlled in the map setup.
Examples: CaptureGun = 0 / 1 CapturedArmor = 0 / 1 CaptureTruck = 0 / 1 Fuel = 0 (off) or 1 (on) Moral = 0 / 1 Medic = 0 /1 Crews = 0 / 1
Further... each model could be adapted for specific functions in the Command Binary.
So there is much to work on and several ways that it can be applied.
|
|
|
Post by ariete on Sept 22, 2014 12:09:03 GMT 1
fuel as part of the support system is a great new MP ... how many history and stories about the fuel in afrika for italians, it should add a new infantry unit, called the traitor officer, who subvert the correct support system sending useless resources or nothing rather than what the soldiers need
|
|
tedi88
General
Blitzkrieg State Prosecutor
Posts: 1,228
|
Post by tedi88 on Sept 22, 2014 12:58:29 GMT 1
I agree with Ariete fuel system needs to be implemented.
However I have my doubts about capturing tanks. Trucks - that's fine and it often happened.
Tanks however IMHO are another story. While it certainly is cool to actually capture T-34 and use it (in 1941.) I highly doubt if tank crews could adapt that easily to "different" control systems.
|
|
|
Post by Quintaxel on Sept 22, 2014 12:59:34 GMT 1
Just a thought on the different seasons. If I'm correct the new gen II skins are now about 512x512 pixels making them about 1MB (uncompressed). It's unlikely that a unit will have a different skin for each season but nevertheless, the number of skins per unit will increase. Also the plan is to have 5 HP status files where BK has only 2 per skin. This will significantly increase the data files. Will this not be a problem? For making a skin a size of 512x512 is ideal, but do skins have to be that size in the game?
|
|
|
Post by Major Pain on Sept 22, 2014 14:02:53 GMT 1
You raise a very good point...
Skins can be any size... as long as they can be factored by 64: 128 x 128 / 256 x 256 / 512 x 512 / 64 x 128 / 128 x 256 / 256 x 512.... and even 1024 x 1024.
Obviously, the larger the skin, the better the detail. The game itself does not care what size the skin is... but your hard drive might care if you do not have a large one. And download time is another factor of course.
But even with this system, it would still be less total overall space than having several specimens of the same tank with different IDs or experience.
Models and their Skins are called when the game loads... and only for the units used in the game and the skins for that season... so I don't expect any lag issues.
On the other hand... all models and objects are loaded into the MapEditor.
Once the season is flagged, then everything is loaded for the appropriate skins only.
So far, I have not yet solved every issue about multiple skins and individual IDs. I'm still trying to resolve some conflicts in the master file that controls each model folder. What I'm getting is the correct skin but incorrect data for a replication of a model. Example: I'm tracking the first tank but getting the tank 2 data in the game. I tried to account for zero being the first number in the sequence, but that does not seem to be the issue. So there are still some issues to solve.
Also, I am still working out some of the command functions. When I get a several new ones working, I find a new conflict in the binary. While it should not logically occur, there is still something I am missing. Even with the entire table overhauled, all commands should function on their own without regard to any others... I have overwritten the hard-coded tables and cannot detect any possible link... so again... it is still early with some things to work out.
About Cmd/Qmd commands... if anyone noticed, there are several Cmd Functions that are dedicated to aircraft. I am having to avoid these... and re-assign some of the others. So the Cmd table may get a few changes from the LUA standard. Since part of the projects is the creation of some new LUA Functions and Commands... a new tutorial or help file system will have to be created.
|
|
|
Post by Quintaxel on Sept 22, 2014 14:54:56 GMT 1
... Obviously, the larger the skin, the better the detail. The game itself does not care what size the skin is... but your hard drive might care if you do not have a large one. And download time is another factor of course. ... I understand that more detail can be added to a larger skin but regardless the size of the .dds file of the skin, the skin will always be reduced to the size of the unit so loss of detail is unavoidable. Is it correct to say that less detail is lost when the BK engine works with a larger skin than is the case when the skin file has already been reduced in size ? So having a 512x512 skin in the unit's folder will look better in the game than would be the case if that same skin already had been reduced in size, say to 256 x256 pixels ? Assuming that a good algorithm for resizing was used to reduce the dds file from 512x 512 to 256 x 256.
|
|
|
Post by Major Pain on Sept 22, 2014 16:02:07 GMT 1
A 512 x 512 would actually lose a lot of detail when scaling down. The reason is the 256 x 256 skin is 1/4 the size of the 512 x 512. So any further reduction just gets worse. A 128 x 128 is 1/4 the size of 256 x 256. It does not matter what the algorithm is that is used... You are going to lose lines and columns of pixels...
The opposite occurs when enlarging from 256 x 256 to 512 x 512. Now you have blotches or blocks of color about 4x4 in size and in a large field of one color... it can be pretty plain. Algorithms work well when scaling very large images but not so great on skins that we are concerned about.
But having said that, you can rework a 256 x 256 and still get some decent detail if you spend enough time on it. Think about the original Bk work... they detailed everything on the skin itself... the models didn't have much of anything.
But for the most part, skins in many ways are a matter of personal preference and sometimes style.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2014 0:24:25 GMT 1
For my recreations will not be problem, as these are of a resolution of 1024x1024. Today it is no problem for today's computers, since the capacity of graphics cards today are poised for higher resolutions. What we I wonder, for this new version of Blitzkrieg I Generation II would there be the possibility to increase the resolution to 2048 ?. Greetings. blitzsrbija.proboards.com/thread/1654/wittmanns-haus?page=19&scrollTo=36170
|
|
|
Post by Major Pain on Sept 24, 2014 1:16:32 GMT 1
Wow 2048 x 2048... what's that about 16.5 mb per skin. Yes you could do it, but I doubt the extra size and weight would be of real benefit. The game won't care, but the person downloading it might.
Imagine just all 6 season skins we use currently... the skins would increase the folder size by 30 mb alone.
Even 1024 x 1024 (4.1 mb) is huge... but is currently used on very large models.
Bear in mind each step up in the image size increases 4 times over the next lower, both in the size of the image and file size.
Sometimes I question if .dds is the best image platform:
A 512 x 512 .dds is about 1 mb (1025 kb)
A 1028 x 1028 .dds file is about 4.1 mb (.psd is about the same) A 1028 x 1028 .tga file is about 2.6 mb. A 1028 x 1028 .png file is under 1 mb.
Since we are not using layers... png files could be employed, but we'd have to change the game and tanks viewer to support .png. One additional consideration is making sure any image type does support the alpha channel (transparency), so that is pretty much tga, dds and png.
|
|
|
Post by Churro on Sept 27, 2014 6:55:01 GMT 1
once again MP you impreesed me
From Darkness
|
|
|
Post by Quintaxel on Sept 27, 2014 7:54:08 GMT 1
... Sometimes I question if .dds is the best image platform: A 512 x 512 .dds is about 1 mb (1025 kb) A 1028 x 1028 .dds file is about 4.1 mb (.psd is about the same) A 1028 x 1028 .tga file is about 2.6 mb. A 1028 x 1028 .png file is under 1 mb. Since we are not using layers... png files could be employed, but we'd have to change the game and tanks viewer to support .png. One additional consideration is making sure any image type does support the alpha channel (transparency), so that is pretty much tga, dds and png. ... If it is possible to use an image format with a smaller file size then this would be a very good idea. Adding more seasons to BK:Gen II is a great featurers but I'm concerned about the file size of the game, even if this does not influence the gameplay. Now there must be a reason why Nival chose .dds and .tga files but that reason may no longer be valid today. fdfddf
|
|
|
Post by Scyooff on Sept 28, 2014 19:25:45 GMT 1
Just a little suggestion, maybe you're already think to this, do you think that the capability to "fire on/ fire off" could be added to the commands panels or to a shortkey ?
|
|
|
Post by Jagged Steel on Sept 28, 2014 20:38:07 GMT 1
I have not read this thread thoroughly, so I am just commenting on the last few things posted. In my opinion, skin size in BK becomes counterproductive beyond 512x . Most units actually look best in the game when using a 256x or smaller skin, because the game engine runs into problems displaying larger skins correctly and you end up with awful Moiré patterns and such that ruin the immersion of the unit into the scene. 1024x skins look great in the Tanks Viewer, but generally not so in the game. I am a big fan of being able to capture enemy gear of all sorts, so I am looking forward to that, regardless of whether it is 100% historically accurate or not. I had always dreamed that someone would have acquired the game engine used by Monte Cristo for Desert Rats vs Afrika Korps and the other related games they made, as manning the equipment was an integral part of the game and added a lot to your options. I think the addition of fuel would be simply fantastic, but there will likely be squawks from the Multiplayer crowd about anything that complicates things. Many Multiplayers will LITERALLY call you a cheater if you even use your resupply trucks. They just want "Bunch-O big tanks vs Bunch-O big tanks" types of battles , which I find absolutely boring and pandering to the lowest skill level players. I am of course primarily a Multiplayer, and I have the opposite mindset than most, and enjoy extra complexity. I feel it gives me an edge as I am a good multitasker and enjoy the minutiae involved in not only ordering complex attacks, but keeping my men properly supplied, reparied , and replaced when lost in battle. Great work as always, MP, looking forward to seeing this project progress.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2014 21:55:55 GMT 1
I have not read this thread thoroughly, so I am just commenting on the last few things posted. In my opinion, skin size in BK becomes counterproductive beyond 512x . Most units actually look best in the game when using a 256x or smaller skin, because the game engine runs into problems displaying larger skins correctly and you end up with awful Moiré patterns and such that ruin the immersion of the unit into the scene. 1024x skins look great in the Tanks Viewer, but generally not so in the game. Sorry to contradict his words say that if it works for me perfect 1024 actually looks perfectly in the viewfinder as you say, but also looks perfectly good in fluid game. blitzsrbija.proboards.com/thread/1654/wittmanns-haus?page=20The capacity of my PC is simple, but is above the needs of the game. Greetings.
|
|