Jump to content
The Dark Mod Forums

Springheel

Admin
  • Content Count

    37167
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    314

Everything posted by Springheel

  1. A little necromancy here, but I tested the things in the package and couldn't get any of them to work. Although there were no errors, none of the animations would play (when the AI was supposed to run it just walked, no pain was played when damaged, etc) and the ik didn't appear to do anything (AI bounced up steps as before). I don't know what to make of that, but I've uploaded them to SVN in case anyone else wants to have a look. When opening up the animations that work vs the ones that don't, I see the two have different numerical values for each bone. I suspect that's a problem, but don't know exactly what those values mean. Working animation: "origin" -1 0 0 // "Bone001" 0 5 0 // "Bone002" 1 32 2 // "Bone003" 2 56 3 // "Bone004" 3 56 6 // "HeadBone" 4 56 9 // Non-working animation: "origin" -1 63 0 // "Bone001" 0 63 6 // "Bone002" 1 63 12 // "Bone003" 2 63 18 // "Bone004" 3 63 24 // "HeadBone" 4 63 30 //
  2. So this is the last I can see on the topic. I guess those animations/ik was never tested? edit: Ok, gave it a quick whirl...the ik isn't very convincing at the moment (if it's working at all), and I can't get the included pain or run animations to work. In fact, none of the animations offered by Destined appear to do anything, though I don't see any obvious reason why.
  3. Actually, I just went in and tested this, and the werebeast DOES appear to have a ragdoll--he collapsed when I killed him (though the legs bend the wrong way). So now I'm not sure what's keeping him from being usable, beyond a limited range of animations.
  4. If your primary concern is performance, that's correct. However, TDM has a goal most game companies do not, and that's making assets that are flexible and easily modified by casual users. Using multiple materials is an obstacle to the first goal, but is highly useful for the second goal. Exactly where we should have drawn the line between those two competing concerns is open to debate.
  5. You can probably do that now with what is on SVN, using the ambient AI method. Although if you don't want it to move at all, you might need to hack a new animation by isolating a single frame of the idle.md5anim.
  6. It does have a few animations, though not many. I think it has the basics (idle, walk, run, attack). I remember getting it to move around a map. But the AF is needed in order to create a ragdoll for it. I can't remember now if there were other issues.
  7. Until we can get a working AF for the werebeast, I don't think it's going to be appearing anywhere.
  8. Yes. Can't tell you why, but that's what I've observed.
  9. I've had issues similar to that which I was able to solve by moving the visportal 1 unit forward or backward. Sometimes having two visportals on exactly the same horizontal or vertical plane can cause that problem.
  10. I would suggest revisiting the texture scale of the walls in these shots. The mortar between the stones looks far too thick and it is really distorting the sense of scale.
  11. I enjoy art to enjoy the art, not to endorse the person who made it.
  12. No, we don't have that data. Missions can be spread across multiple mirrors.
  13. I use a notebook too, but it's not convenient when I need a password and I'm out of the house.
  14. Did you move the radius of the light as I suggested? You should be able to move it so that it doesn't overlap the interior room, and the move the light center so that it stays on the torch.
  15. I've been over the custom colour fields and can't find anything that changes that background. I've lowered the default text to a very light grey so at least you can see that there's text there. Can't do more than that without reducing the readability everywhere else.
  16. You could try moving the light radius away from the interior and shifting the light center so it stays by the wall. Or a more complex option would be a script that turns the light to noshadows when you enter the building. edit: Actually, have you tested for internal leaks? If the light is in a visleaf that can't be connected to the player while in the interior, then the shadows shouldn't be calculated.
  17. I was referring to the text you already included under "Mission Changes". No shortening would be necessary.
  18. There are a few ways that this changes the existing menu: 1. There would be no easy way to see the list of missions you currently have selected for download (you only see the "selected for download" check for the dozen or so missions displayed). This might be a worthwhile trade-off. (Solvable if you could sort by any of the title fields, including Selected for Download, but I don't know how hard that would be) 2. Currently the mission names tend to have the "Series" built into the name. I don't love that in terms of name length, but it does ensure that missions from the same series appear in sequence in the mission list, which mappers tend to prefer. So this field would need some discussion--what percentage of missions are part of a series, and is the field worth it if the info is already in the name? I actually like having the mission notes (or at least a snippet) appear on the main menu page, as it gives the player some sense of what kind of mission it is without having to dive deeper into a separate menu. And since that text appears next to the mission when the player is installing it anyway, there aren't going to be spoilers the mapper didn't put there on purpose. Currently "Mission Notes" are read directly from the mission pk4, so any changes to that setup would require changing and re-uploading all existing missions. I don't think that's likely to happen. All of this discussion is a bit moot, however, without confirming the following: 1. Is there someone with the necessary skills volunteering to take on a redesign of the download menu? I can help with the graphic design and image files, but my gui editing skills are fairly basic. 2. Is there someone with the necessary skills volunteering to redesign the mission archive input page to store additional information? Greebo and taaaki are the only two people who know how that works, I think. 3. Is there someone willing to input all the new fields for our 100+ existing missions? It's unclear how much work this would be without knowing how much extra data is being added. 4. Are the people who currently upload missions to the mission archive willing to add this extra data each time a new mission is released? Goldwell and Nbohrmore are the two people who typically handle that job at the moment. This may or may not be an issue depending on how much extra data we're talking about.
  19. I actually don't think any of those are especially relevant. Most would be the same for nearly every mission (98% of missions have briefings and difficulty settings and 98% don't have equipment stores or automaps), or have other issues (a mission may have a "custom asset" that became a core asset after its release). I think our own wiki is the most reasonable place to look for potential extra info.
  20. Yes, we may want to keep some information in the "more details" section, as that would be the place you would expect more spoiler-ish information.
  21. The design isn't really the first thing to worry about. What's more important is figuring out what is involved in tracking the desired* information in the mission archive. We can discuss design after that part is accomplished. *We would also need a consensus on which information to include. Some people want to know if there are monsters ahead of time, and other people would consider that a spoiler, for example. Right now, anyone who wants to avoid spoilers can just not visit the wiki page. If information is going to be put on the main download page (as opposed to "more details") then that is not so easily avoided.
  22. I'm not a fan of that position. It's already a little squished and makes it harder to see the "More" button, and if the date has a lot of larger numbers, it will become even more squished. If there is a general desire to add that to the main download page (rather than the extra details page), I would prefer replacing one of the existing fields. The "Size" field seems like it is the least important at the moment--I doubt anyone is making decisions about which missions to download based on whether a mission is 10mb or 100mb. Moving it to its own line would also eliminate the need to choose a single descriptor. At the moment, missions are uploaded by team-members who have access to the online mission download archive. I don't know what is involved in adding new information to that archive for existing missions.
  23. At the moment those keywords are just added by whoever adds the mission to the wiki. There is no agreed upon system, and there is a lot of overlap and potential for confusion. What is a "tavern" mission? How much of the mission has to include sewers in order to justify designating it a "sewer" mission? On the wiki, you could just add every keyword that applies (this is a city, rooftop, sewer, horror, mission) but that's not going to easily fit on the mission download menu. Currently the mission download menu reads its data from the mission upload page on the TDM website. Reading from darkmod.txt means that the data wouldn't be updated until the next TDM version was released, which isn't ideal. I don't think there is any objection to adding more information to the download menu as long as two issues are successfully addressed: 1. How can the data fit into the existing layout in a reasonable way? 2. How will the data be input, read and/or updated?
×
×
  • Create New...