Search the Community

Sorry to resurrect a relatively old thread, but I have a question about the 'impaired hearing' property of rooms that Springheel mentioned, and some possible suggestions. Is the hearing impairment in an environment going to be a 'dynamic' variable that can be turned off and on (or ramped up if it's an analog scale), by scripts during gameplay? Or is it a map property that's set upon loading and stays at that value? I think you could do some interesting things with that if it were dynamic, for example: If ambient sounds were scripted to start and stop periodically, the hearing impairment could be linked to that, so you could time your movement to when the generator turns on or something. In a social gathering environment with multiple rooms, one could have a script that counts noisy party guests entering/leaving the room and adjusts the hearing impairment based on that. So if you KO all the guests or they leave the room, guards will be able to hear you better. If a character makes a lot of noise while moving (like the combat bots), that could also increase hearing impairment. If you wanted to get really fancy, you could build it into the audio system, so that guards close enough to hear your noises (the 'signal') would do some sort of signal to noise test comparing your signal to the other non-suspicious sounds they can hear. That might eat too many CPU cycles though, since you'd have to propagate both the Thief's 'suspicious' sounds and all nearby ambient sounds to all nearby guards, then run the signal to noise test on each guard (some might be better at picking out noises than others.. combat bot vs drunk Benny ). Maybe that would be feasible if you're already propagating all the sounds to the guards, and the signal/noise test is fast CPU-wise. I'm guessing that right now (and in previous Thiefs), only suspicious sounds are propagated to the guards? Anyway, just some suggestions. Good luck with the Mod!

I sent you several mails without response and you never really participated in the forums. From the task that I set you I have seen nothing up until today. So the question is: What exactly do you want to help us now all of a sudden?

I created a sticky just for that. You should attach your postings there, because the design section is for agreed and approved ideas, while the idea thread is just a collection of loose ideas we shouldn't forget.

AND THE OUTCOME AND REASONS WHY ARE ALREADY DOCUMENTED!! READ IT, PEOPLE!! BTW, in case you missed it, this IS a direct link to the Noise Arrow Outcome post. And here it is again, just in case. I think "The Grand Desicion Thread" is the best kept secret on the entire forum. This thread is called "Noise Maker Concepts". Any discussion as to the usefulness or workings of the noise arrow should be started in a new thread, AFTER reading this policy first. Back onto Noise Maker Concepts, HOPEFULLY... As much as I appreciate the thought (and illustration time) that has gone into Springheel's ball bearing one, I really think that the original clockwork concept from T2 is great, and doesn't need to be changed. It could be loud, it's re-usable (we can assume it's wound up when retrieved or before firing), and it's beleivable. The only valid question raised against this concept, that I can remember, was by sparhawk, that it wasn't confusing enough to warrant the guards attention for so long. (Ball bearings wouldn't be any different.) But with the recent idea of elite guards not paying so much attention to them, and the fact they worked so well in T2, I don't see why the concept should be changed.

(Go the burricks thread!) Desicions made, with summaries of the discussion, are different than design documents, which have explicit instructions on how things are done, right? What I'll do for now, is seperate each idea into posts. That'll make way more sense. I can't edit Springs and do the same with his, so unless I re-post his, I'll have to let him do it himself.

god_is_my_goldfish, and anyone ELSE who decides to quote from memory, should read the Desicions Thread (totally readable, even though its currently pending a re-format). I took the time and effort to summarise the discussions so that the outcome was CLEAR AND CONSICE, even providing a link for each topic to the thread where the discussion occured. Noise arrows are re-usable, or they're worthless. And a wind-up clockwork noisemaker (the kind found in the ORIGINAL T2 game), is the best option, since it's totally reasonable to assume Garrett winds it up again, when he picks it up, or before he fires it. And it would be loud. I don't see the point in changing this concept. And one more thing - sorry, but I find it annoying that people who don't even USE noise arrows at all, let alone as exclusively as I do, think that they can make well-informed statements on how noise arrows should work. Good stuff. I like it.

Back in the old thread, we argued about it for a bit, then it was just generally agreed that they should not be reusable. It was before you got on-board i think.

Oh, another thing. Could you please post what you are doing etc in the Developer Journal thread? It makes it easy to see what everyone is working on at the moment.

Ah, the big day finally came Congratulations New Horizon, to you and your new wife. (A photos thread huh? I have photos. My self portrait is my avatar there.)

dear Spar Actually we should show ourselves..Lets make a TEAM photos thread.. (*) I mean when i get mad i can at least see who im dealing with!!! BEST (no nudity please)

I wonder why eveybody is opposed to using the design section. People complain that postings are to long and blablabla and now THIS is better??? Everything not even in one single thread but in one single posting!

very nice I'm already thinking about, which textures would fit into that hallway.....dave can you start on that ? Then you can tell me, what kind of textures are missing BTW I'll start a thread about windows in the Dev Chat, we have to discuss that !

This is the thread I'm always updating; http://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?showtopic=708

No I need to upload, If your interested i will do this presently and post the link in this thread. Pete

Unfortunately, 3DS Max can't export to LWO - ASE is the only useful export format (by useful, I mean relevant to Doom 3). In another thread, I believe we decided to do ASE (for possible conversion at a later date).

Yeah, there seems to be an issue with ASE and the bounding boxes. I don't know where the thread is but I am pretty sure I read somewhere that .lwo was chosen as the format of choice.

I found this post over at ISA (http://forums.ionstorm.com/index.php?showt...ndpost&p=342075). Are there any desires here in DarkMod to make multiple versions of Burricks?

It can only see the public forums, right?

It's the Google searching engine....crawling through our public posts so when someone types into google: "Just What the Hell is GoogleBot by God is my Goldfish", they find this exact thread.

http://www.mindplaces.com/darkmod/models/models.htm If you are a new modeler or have been gone for a while, check this list to see what has been done already. If you are looking for models to skin, check this page. Please don't post in this thread; I'll be using it simply to record updates to the page. Last update: December 30th, 2004.

It already is posted. http://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?showtopic=782

If we could keep a discussion about one topi in one thread it would certainly be easier to rehash it. Since there seem to be quite an urgent need to rehash everything at least twice, keeping a single thread would help a bit. And if we would write design documents everybody there would be even less need to rehash everything several times. Where is the lot of work? It was not a lot of work to create already three lightgems. And I already said, that we need the compass and the gem to be seperate objects anyway.

This is not a FM author decision, becuase it is a PLAYERS preference. It is in the same class as which button should be the forward key. This is not decided by the author or anybody else except the player itself. And why would it be an FM author decisions? In most FMs the authors forgot to include the compass. They usually didn't leave it out on purpose they simply forgot it. If you don't believe that then go and look up the appropriate thread where I asked why in so many FMs there is no compass.

To quote Domarius on Dec 23rd There were not many more posts after this, leading me to believe that everyone who had something to suggest had already done it. Hence, a vote. And I just reread the thread. Nowhere (in the last four pages, anyway) did it say that tilting would be optional. In fact, it sounded quite the opposite: If tilting is made optional, then that's a valid compromise, although it seems, going by what oDDity said, that it's a lot of work for our modelers and texturers.

No they aren't, although it's difficult to word them in the space provided. Option 2 means: I do NOT want it to tilt if the lightgem/compass is combined, but if it's an inventory item I don't care. Option 6 means: YES, I want it to tilt if it's an inventory item, but if it's a combined lightgem/compass, I don't care. The difference allows me to get a sense of who wants the gem to tilt only in certain conditions, or definitely NOT in certain conditions. Of course, that only works if people understand the options.... Problem is, we haven't really come to any decision, NH. The lightgem thread had a definite division of opinions on the issue, and I think some people were assuming the issue was decided because no one had posted anything new. But when I reread it, I didn't see any agreement. Voting for WHICH lightgem we want to use is premature until we can get this tilting issue out of the way. As for suggesting that the tilting can be switched off, I didn't see that written anywhere, though it's possible I missed it. I saw options that the *compass* could be switched off, and I saw "it's going to tilt, period".