- April 13, 2016 at 9:39 am #7095
A projectile collision shape that more closely matches the ship would be nice, a fairly flat cuboid instead of a sphere. It could provide the same frontal profile area as a sphere, just in a different shape. Some ideas from sushicw (copy paste, a clickable link would simply take you to the start of the thread)
In those narrow corridors in Descent one could try in vain to alter their orientation to help dodge incoming fire, such as providing a lower profile in the direction of incoming fire. Also you’d land more laser shots on an enemy if you’d match your roll angle to their roll angle (in Descent it didn’t matter with the sphere collision shape.)
Retaining a sphere collision shape for walls I’m sure would work well, though it could be interesting if that was a flat cuboid as well, having to roll over to fit through tall but very skinny hallways. Imagine a chase through a maze of alternating vertical and horizontal and diagonal skinny hallways! Or a skinny hallway that twisted as you traveled along.April 13, 2016 at 10:38 am #7099YoshimitsuKickstarter BackerTopics: 57
This could be a contentious topic for people who have played Descent: Underground since the early days of their pre-alpha. D:U had exactly what you are suggesting for several months and it helped lead to gameplay so bad that a large part of the population disappeared. Part of the issue there was that the ship designs in D:U are so flat that when viewed from the front they are next to impossible to hit while in motion. They are also tiny compared to their environment which doesn’t help matters. In the days when hitboxes matched the ship you flew I (a mediocre multiplayer pilot) could dodge some of the best players for minutes at a time and a single kill was arduous, often requiring several stops by an energy center to refill.
Eventually D:U was changed to have larger hitboxes and it is much better to play now but I wouldn’t be surprised if the idea of realistic hitboxes caused a lot of people to have horrible flashbacks
The idea isn’t necessarily doomed but it would require a design for the ship that provides a big enough target in multiplayer otherwise the gameplay will suffer.
In terms of the hitbox that interacts with the environment. It would definitively want to be a spherical shape. Anything with edges or corners frequently catches on things in ways that are purely annoying even if it is more “realistic.” I certainly don’t mind the idea of a flattened sphere so that there are areas that you have to roll to traverse though.April 13, 2016 at 11:18 am #7100
Ya Sergeant Thorne mentioned that as well, that’s why I mentioned equal area frontal profiles. So the front rectangle profile of the cuboid would be same area as the front circular profile of the sphere.
I believe a cuboid to map collision is a lot harder to deal with than a sphere. Quake had a cuboid, but the orientation of that cuboid was always fixed (it didn’t turn with the player) hence you could fit through narrow hallways going east/west or north/south, but you could not fit through a hallway of the same width that went in a diagonal direction.
A flattened sphere (ellipsoid) sounds interesting, though that could prove difficult to calculate at various orientations as well.April 13, 2016 at 11:59 am #7102YoshimitsuKickstarter BackerTopics: 57
I think in depth discussion of a lot of this will depend on the design of the ship. I’m eager to see what Revival come up with for us to fly and once we see it, then a lot of these questions will be answered and more will be raised.April 13, 2016 at 12:12 pm #7103SiriusKickstarter BackerTopics: 9
I know I might seem overly conservative right now, but this is one of those ideas I’m happy to leave to D:U. Being adventurous and having ship roles and ships that behave slightly different in flight is their kind of thing – it’s had its problems but they stuck to it and improved it – increased hitboxes and all.
Overload got off the ground by sticking to classic stuff that we already know works – that seems to be its niche. It’s ultimately up to Revival, but that’s my take on the issue.April 13, 2016 at 2:28 pm #7107
Of course, Descent with the design and control of space simulator it is very interesting and is close to Descent 3 V2.0 and even Descent 4.
But despite the fact that D:U have the right to make new beautiful Pyro, Phoenix, Magnum, Guide-Bot, weapons, ammunition and other devices and use their original names, the developers are unwilling or unable to do it. While all the others want and can, but do not have the right. Theatre of the Absurd 😀
Although the beauty of textures in D:U of course is amazing.April 13, 2016 at 3:05 pm #7108TwoCablesKickstarter BackerTopics: 118
No Sigma, Descendent Studios does not own the Assets to create and use the Pyro among other things (similar to what you listed). The things they will never do that we all want them to do are things they aren’t legally able to do because they don’t own the Assets – and in some cases, the Intellectual Properties. They have said that if they were legally able to have the Pyro, then they would. That’s why their version of the Pyro is called The Torch.
There is still a huge amount of development time left for them, so be patient. There’s a lot more to come. Their development style is MASSIVELY different from Revival Productions’ style. I am still confident that the retail product (their final product) of Descent Underground will be extremely impressive.
It’s not absurd. They are simply doing everything they can. They have made every attempt at getting the full rights and all the Assets and whatnot, but certain parties are being extremely stubborn and difficult and are flat-out refusing to give Descendent Studios what they are asking for.
Prepare for Overload…April 13, 2016 at 5:53 pm #7110MarleyMooParticipantTopics: 0
I wouldn’t mind an ellipsoid hitbox that sort of mimics the proportions of the ship shape. It can be scaled bigger to simulate an energy shield. Pretty much what Descent had, just ellipsoid.April 13, 2016 at 8:01 pm #7112
I could be wrong, but I think a cuboid would be easier to program for than an ellipsoid would. Either way would work though, yield the same effect. It would provide yet another reason to roll your craft, which I think would spice up the game. Get more lasers to hit when you match the target’s roll angle. Ambush your target’s top or bottom side for a huge profile area to hit.April 13, 2016 at 8:54 pm #7113
TwoCables, this is from the very beginning it was one can see that they conceived a global project, so that it sometimes seems development will last five years at least. In my opinion, they gathered all possible requests and wishes in one game. If judged by the criterion of conceptual ideas, I believe that D:U is on the first place among other projects.
But now, regarding to the implementation of these ideas, I see as many successful solutions, as and much controversial, in my opinion. Of course in dealing with the guys sometimes I say what I like and what don’t like in a particular game or project, but in D:U they gave me a clear message that don’t need to criticize their on their forums))) I think, I will not disturb them with my stupid opinions, they are professionals, and they have their own view. However, I am far from thinking to jump to conclusions about the game, I watch with interest their development and are always happy when I see something that I like.April 13, 2016 at 9:23 pm #7114TwoCablesKickstarter BackerTopics: 118
TwoCables, this is from the very beginning it was one can see that they conceived a global project, so that it sometimes seems development will last five years at least.
Yeah, Descendent Studios does have a 10-year roadmap for Descent Underground. The retail release will start with a Prologue SP campaign that consists of 8-12 levels. After that, they will use the money they get from sales to build up their SP campaign into their promised epic SP campaign that has 5 chapters (over 30 levels).
In my opinion, they gathered all possible requests and wishes in one game.
Oh no they didn’t; they rejected a huge number of ideas and requests, many of which were their very own. This game is still in development and testing. Be patient. What we are seeing today has the potential to be completely different from what we will see when they are ready to release it to retail stores.
If judged by the criterion of conceptual ideas, I believe that D:U is on the first place among other projects.
But now, regarding to the implementation of these ideas, I see as many successful solutions, as and much controversial, in my opinion.
Yeah, they’re nowhere near being done yet. Their current estimate is they will probably finish this November or December. Maybe. A lot of what we are seeing today could end up being tossed before retail release. Not everything is set in stone. That’s why they have the Proving Grounds and that’s why they have the Early Access (the Production Environment). They have decided to involve the entire community in the development process. Just because something is in the Production Environment, it doesn’t mean it will be in the final retail release.
The development process we are seeing right now with Descent Underground is usually what the public NEVER sees – and for very good and obvious reasons. Think about games from the major giants like EA. Do we ever get to see this development process? No. If we’re lucky, we get to have very limited beta access in like the last month of development before the release date – but by that point, they’re mostly done and are just testing the finished product to see if they have any small bugs to work out. Descendent Studios is FAR from that stage of development. Very far. They are still creating the game. They’re still developing it. So, just wait and see.
Of course in dealing with the guys sometimes I say what I like and what don’t like in a particular game or project, but in D:U they gave me a clear message that don’t need to criticize their on their forums))) I think, I will not disturb them with my stupid opinions, they are professionals, and they have their own view. However, I am far from thinking to jump to conclusions about the game, I watch with interest their development and are always happy when I see something that I like.
They don’t ban people for giving them constructive criticism, and they don’t ban people for disagreeing with what they are doing and creating. THEY WELCOME IT. So you obviously did something far worse than you realize. After what you did to me on THIS forum, I’m not surprised in the least bit that you were banned from the Descendent Studios forum.
Prepare for Overload…April 13, 2016 at 10:15 pm #7116SiriusKickstarter BackerTopics: 9
On simplicity: for a sphere you get a vector, magnitude, and do a simple scalar comparison. For an ellipsoid, you’d have to do I think a couple matrix multiplications (rotation, scale) on top of that; for a cuboid, you’d do one (rotation) and six scalar comparisons, I believe.
That’s for point collisions. If you’re talking cuboid-cuboid or ellipsoid-ellipsoid there are a few more steps (two spheres is still dead simple). Though none of the above is particularly difficult or computationally expensive – that only becomes much of a problem once you start throwing more complicated collision geometry into the picture (multiple boxes or irregular meshes etc).
I suspect this kind of stuff is already built into the Unity engine anyway, you wouldn’t need to do it from scratch. It’d be more of a question of whether it meets the design goals.April 13, 2016 at 11:49 pm #7117MarleyMooParticipantTopics: 0
Nowadays collision detection performance is an unnecessary worry. There are loads of FPS’s that do bullet vs humanoid hit detection, and a humanoid hit box is much more complex than whatever cuboid or ellipsoid. D:U had ship shaped hit boxes even, and our computers ate it up easily.April 14, 2016 at 12:55 am #7118
Ya, looks like Unity is capable of mesh to mesh collision (at least convex meshes.) http://docs.unity3d.com/Manual/CollidersOverview.html
I wonder if the Unity physics engine could handle something like: you clip your wingtip on a corner causing the ship to spin around a bit. Though that probably wouldn’t add much to the gameplay. Also perhaps the shield protects your wing from such encounters, the shield being the collision hull.April 14, 2016 at 5:18 am #7119
TwoCables, Well, since now their plans become more clear, I think I’ll try to make my modest contribution to help the development of D:U. So far, at least I’ll buy the game in the early access.
As for the incident with the ban, I have nothing to hide, the reason was in this topic IIRC.
In my opinion, the most ordinary discussion. In other forums, sometimes happen much more heated debate. And usually you can cool the hot heads just a call to focus on the topic of discussion or warning. So when I was banned, of course, I was furious because of the fact that I did not understand the reasons for the ban. Where there is trolling? Even if in their opinion there are signs of trolling, it is still not a reason for the ban. I myself sometimes are admin of game servers online shooters with a enough large number of players and I think there is no need to tell you how players often expressed in relation to each other, and for such nonsense as a trolling I did not even kick, not to mention the ban.
Now I can log in on forums Descendent Studios, but still don’t really want.
As for the possibility of a new mutual altercation with you, I think you also could use the extra time to weigh words before saying, because it easy to strike a match, and then put out the fire difficult. We can not fix our characters, but to communicate normally, I think we are quite capable.
Forums are currently locked.
Previous Topic: Damn It… Next Topic: Controls: Bank On