Search the Community

Erm...I'm not sure what program you need to read .ASE files. Anyone? For most textures we'd need a diffuse and normalmap. A specular is really only needed if the surface is particularly shiny, like metal or cermamics. You should also check out this: http://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?act=announce&f=4&id=1

Trouble is, WIndows Vista isn't a huge paradigm shift like the previous OS upgrades you mention. Windows 3.1 added a graphical interface on top of DOS. Windows 9x added a usable graphical interface on top of DOS. Windows XP leveraged the now-mature Windows NT technology while still being mostly compatible with Windows 9x (esp. for games and so on), making it more stable, and it eventually delivered improved security with SP2. Windows Vista isn't particularly more secure than Windows XP with SP2, adds extra shiny, and more than compensates for the shiny by being a slow, incompatible monstrosity with way too much DRM, and a EULA that actually manages to be more restrictive than XP's. Even if/when the problems are fixed (and you can bet the DRM and EULA won't be going anywhere), what have you gained on top of Windows XP? Shiny is not exactly unwelcome, but it hardly justifies the price tag, and Windows XP isn't actually ugly. Especially if you theme it (which is, guess what, free!). And I personally find Windows Vista's interface much harder to navigate than XP's, though this might just be because I'm familiar with XP. Admittedly there are other benefits in Vista - there are a couple of features which look pretty nice. But they're hardly earth-shattering, and could easily have been delivered as a service pack to XP. In fact, some of them are already being backported. DirectX 10 is weird. It was supposed to be a Reason To Upgrade, but Vista is so unpopular that DX10's exclusivity has instead become a reason to not develop for it. AFAIK there's still only one DX10-only game, Halo 3, and it's a Microsoft game, so file that in the "of course they'd do that" bin. Everyone else is at least providing a DX9 option, and that's not likely to change for some time. Anyone developing for DX10 only right now is shooting themselves in the foot.

Or... If you'd rather, you could work on the Objectives gui. It's quite easy and I can give you all the relevant graphics. You'll have to import a new font though (but wait until we're sure which one). http://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?showtopic=3808 What's your preference?

After you have patched it to 1.3, you can apply my patch to update the functionality of the Doom e inspectors window. Just a simple fix to let you minimize it. http://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?showtopic=3086

Well, you could work with Ishtvan on the Mission Statistics gui. I posted the concept in that thread. http://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?showtopic=3800 It uses the same background as these main menus, but you won't really need the graphics in order to start it, right? edit: Don't you have ftp access? I think that's where drumple is posting the menus.

I prefer to work on a low poly level from the beginning. On the one hand it's cleaner and on the other, it's much easier to optimize it later on. Also I think over all you still save some time, 'cause you woun't run into nasty problems that could possibly be caused by such a triangle reducing feature.

I don't have any particularly clever GUI ideas right now for a Mission Stat screen. I think once upon a time we had talked about doing something similar to a pirates-style summary, complete with graphics: http://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?showt...=618&hl=pirates That might be a little overly ambitious now. edit: Actually, scratch that. I DO have a clever idea. I'll put a mock-up together shortly. Ish, what mission statistics do we record?

I have no problems admitting that. Don't know where you got that idea from. In fact I also even read children books sometimes, if I enjoy them. There are some which are still fun to read, even though they are targeted for children. I justify it, because it mean it, which is quite a difference. Since I don't play professionally hockey, only as a hobby, I only have one hour per week for actual training. And yes, it helps a bit to play hockey on the playstation, see how the strategies are implemented, try some things, and then try them on the ice when we have training again. For the same reason even professionals watch videos, which is not THAT different as well, which I try also to do. Only problem there is that you don't get to much videos, because most reports only show the goal sequences, and not much else beside it. I already asked our local icehockey team if they wouldn't consider to release their videos for a small fee, because they record their plays anyway for training purposes. This is just one example, where a computer game actually help me, but I'm sure there are others as well, if I bother to think about it. After all, it's just another source of information, just like other medias.

Here's the original thread that shows the comparison shots: http://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?showt...roadhead++arrow None of the screenshots showed the fletching of the new arrows which was why I missed them. I do like the shape of the head better, but I'm more comfortable with the size of the original arrow model. Resizing Dram's model might be the best option.

FYI, we got a response from Randy in the other forum: http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?...488#post1462488 I've (or at least a post of mine) never gotten a direct response from a dev, so sort of cool. Sounds like he's not as bitter in retrospect as I had expected. E.g., he recognized that other guys had gone on to do successful things, so it wasn't so much an inevitable clash of personalities but more situational. (I get the feeling he's maybe talking about Spector here? I'd agree it's hard to pin that guy down.) Sounds like a healthier attitude, anyway. He really does come across as sounding like he was going to bat for the fans and the situation soured against him. Something to keep in mind, I guess. I get the feeling the team we have here, for as boorish as it can be at times, has a much healthier environment than was the case for TDS (not a high bar to top, maybe). Not having the market/time pressure and having such a better engine to work with I'm sure helps, but probably also not letting your ambition run away to lose track of what you're doing.

I'll take it!! Still, it's not like I dislike any FPS, it's rather that I need to see real innovations. Maybe I just played HL2 way too late. I really enjoyed Prey, and you can imagine why. That game was really innovative, as was Portal, which can hardly be acknowledged a first person shooter though. Neither a FPS but a genre close TPS was Gears of war, which absolutely rocked my world, no matter it is a big console title. I played it through twice. This game is rather simple either, but it's a whole different experience in coop, besides its architectural beauty, massive graphics and evil characters. (Let's forget the crappy story for a moment) If you hate console games like I normally do, I'd still give this shooter a chance. So as a conclusion let's just say we demand different things of a Shooter... And I must support Oddity's oppinion as well. If there will be a thief 4, it'll be bad, because of the consolisation, which in my eyes means nothing more than simplifying every gameplayelement to that extend that every nut can finish the game without any problems in a couple of hours, or days.

Currently there is a problem with implementing items like torches as prefabs because names are preserved, thus messing up triggering. See: http://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?s=&sh...indpost&p=70114 Even if the torch problem is fixed in a programmatic way (*crosses fingers*), it would still be useful for other, non standard items, if DarkRadiant had logic built in to preserve assocations/relations, instead of names. E.g., a prefab made up of: torch_trigger_1 torch_light_1 would be "intelligently" duplicated as: torch_trigger_n torch_light_n Where I suppose n could be consecutive numbers within the map (perhaps the first lowest instance among all items within the prefab could be determined), or failing that, perhaps just a random number or string. For instance, "torch_trigger_356a" would rarely collide with another entity of the same name. If it did, the user would only need to generate another. Disclaimer: I don't know for sure this isn't already in GTKRadiant, as I don't currently have it installed.

Actually I might be wrong about the clipping - it's possible that the no frob code tests to see if the origin is inside the clip of the no-frob zone - I'd have to check to make sure. But I do recall the problems when the zone was too big.

You can't rely on placement being low nor on you can only 'sometimes' frob right through the chest - it has to be reliable. The no-frob zone works well and is well tested. Read the thread for details. It was well noted that putting frobbable items in front was not reliable. I had a wall of frobbable panels lining a chest and still I could frob the loot through the walls of the chest. I had a lot of problems with Den until the no-frob zone cured it. Admittedly I have the loot high because I put an extra blanket below it. I found if I put the loot low enough and lowered the frob distance so it could not be reached through the chest walls then it could not be reached from above either when the chest was open. Have you examined the test map? I could frob items through the glass until the no-frob zone was perfected. Different items and positions and frob distance all have their effect. Don't be too hasty to dismiss the no-frob zone. The no-frob zone should NOT take up the whole interior of the chest. I did a lot of testing to find the optimum. I think the reason is that it relies on 'clipping' so if too big then an object dropped at the side of the chest can lose its frobbability when the lid is closed because its clip model intrudes. We are right this moment having the exact same problem with an objective location brush which also uses clip detection.

Just for pak, the two ambients I posted in the Team forums: http://208.49.149.118/TheDarkMod/audio/amb..._greenhouse.ogg http://208.49.149.118/TheDarkMod/audio/amb...s_cementary.ogg

I must say that the drivers for the 8800 GTS were nothing but a disappointment... First the scaling doesn't work properly, so I can't use any other Resolution on my TFT besides the native 1680x1050. Then I tried a fix, which disables hdcp support, but no luck here either. Also when I bought this gfx card, there weren't even drivers out for it for vista and since then they didn't manage to bring up a decent driver at all... I prefer XP anyway, so that's not that much of a problem for me. Though I must say, that I have been using the 169 driver generation since about one and a half months and I got no gfx bugs in any games, including Gears of War, CoD 4, MoH:Airborne, Stalker, which are supposed to be games that have problems with that driver. Didn't check Doom 3, Thief 2 and Timeshift though. I only had gfx bugs on some alphamaps in Soldier of Fortune 3, which is hilariously worse by the way (yes, I know I used the comparative wrong here, but it just reflects the quality of this fabulous game the best way).

No it wasn't...I took it while playing around with the AI. (and it's there to show AI in action, not the map) There's discussion about head-turning here: http://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?showtopic=3705

For anyone that doesn't know, Fingernail -- the guy at the top of the team listing here (ok, everyone should at least know that much, although I haven't seen him post so much in the public part of these forums lately, but anyway...) -- Fingernail valiently represented the UK guitar-players in fine style yesterday at the European UK young musicians competition and only missed winning by a clearly fixed vote , everyone I know that saw it agreed he was tops (all biased, of course) . He also happened to play some of my very favorite music in the world, manoche genteel aristocratic style classical guitar. So I thought I'd pop in the OT forum here to give a good shout out: Good show Fingernail!

Excuse me? Sorry, but that ticks me off a little bit. This is a Thief inspired toolset, and we appreciate fan input, but I personally don't appreciate people coming into our forums with an agenda and trying to force us to incorporate ideas, that we've already discussed and voted down years ago, in hopes of just being able to walk in after we've done all the hard work...just so you can 'test' some ideas. The Doom 3 SDK is openly available...and for that matter, the full Quake 3 source code is now available. You could gather your own team and create the technology by rewriting the engine with your own team...instead of pushing ideas on us. We've got a big enough workload without this crap. Sorry, I don't mean to be rude...but it really upsets me.

Just wanted to say, the TTLG staff has been granted an interview with Irrational and is collecting questions for them in a thread in the BioShock forums.

Aww. http://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?s=&sh...indpost&p=62289

I've posted some concept art for this: http://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?showtopic=3760

Welcome to the forums (8?]=

There's no shame in accepting that an L shaped chair is the best we can do for now. Yes it has problems, but is the cost of trying to get a perfect chair worth the time lost on other things? I'd rather have a functioning stealth game with chairs that things can't roll under than a perfect chair simulator that's lacking gameplay. Let me ask some rhetorical questions: How much time is the player going to spend sneaking around AI? How much time is the player going to spend rolling things under chairs? So what should we work on first? So many new ideas have been put off until "post 1.0" release in the interest of releasing within the decade, and it really seems like "perfect concave moveable object physics" fits into that group. I'm glad we tried it, but again there's no shame accepting that it's more work than it's worth right now.

I know. And of course we would plug in a open-source engine instead of writing it. But even then it would be lots of work. In any event, it is an option and it would solve a lot of problems with the collision models and their restrictions. Just in case this wasn't clear: no, I do not think we manage this, but don't let me stop someone from doing it (inserting a physics engine I mean)