Search the Community

It is actually a very good design - using the game's own render code to process animated textures rather than having to re-implement everything and attempt to match what the game is doing. The drawback is in the implementation, due to an underlying limitation of the game code which only allows the rendered image to be passed back over a local socket (which is not a high-performance way of doing things). It doesn't seem to present any problems so far though, in fact for me the lightgem feels a lot more responsive in TDM than in any of the Thief games.

Can someone explain in really simple terms what the system is now and whether that's good or bad? Does that mean you can't have animated lights in TDM or something? :S

I never said it was the dev's role, infact it would be better that they didn't have much if anything to do with it so they can spend their time on TDM and be considered a wholely seperate entity incase the shit hits the fan. The whole idea of that system is to centralise and assess items, so a module author could either just browse the highly rated ones, or search by category and arrange by rating.

Are you planning on some sort of offical system / policy for adding new content to TDM from 3rd parties? ie someone makes a new texture for their map (or a new texture in general), a group reviews it asks the author if they can add it to the stock resources and then standardises it (naming and the like).

If Domarius doesn't like it, he can split off his own personal copy of TDM and see wether this important feature is so important that it's wrth discussing for several weeks. If it is FM authors will certainly download his tree much more often just to get this important feature built in.

Welcome, public eyes, to the stuff which is squabble studios. It's so exhausting that this goes on 24/7. Aren't opinions a wonderful thing? There should be an internal rule set for TDM: Whenever the team descends into multi-page debates over completely unimportant, minor, stupid things, (i.e., every day) that the action taken is to implement the "most normal or expected (real world)," or "precendented (as in Thief)," or "most user-friendly (least thought/work required of users)" design. In this case it would be: blackjacks can be dropped, but should be undroppable by default. If an FM author prefers it droppable, he/she need only change one default value. It's dummy-proof and not limited in functionality at all. It can't be expected that everything will always make everyone happy, and sometimes it's better to just decide on something and move on. So... debate over? (doubtful )

You seem to forget that that there were missions where you had to pickup the blackjack. So even though you can't drop it, it means that the mapper has SOME influence. And the same can be done for TDM as well. There IS a non-blackajable alternative already built in, remember? It's called ghosting. So it's not strictly impossible to NOT win just because your blackjakc would be gone. It just makes it easier. Apparently you think that we should anticipate all kind of stupidities and prevent them. this IS the problem of the author and the player (depoending on the actual action). So an author screwed up and made an impssoibie way because he didn't properly test? No way! We must ensure that the player can succeed in all cases and must implement an automitc geometry updated to make sure that no impasse exists in a map where the player could stuck in case the author doesn't pay enough attention. The player doesn't find all loot? No way! How can this be? We must ensure that at the end of the map the player really has all loot, so we should make a button for this as well.

Why does TDM need its own keyboard handler? Is the standard D3 functionality not sufficient? I have also set up GtkRadiant so it compiles and builds properly under Eclipse, which would actually make parallel development very streamlined, especially with the really tight CVS/SVN integration.

I am just using the vanilla D3 SDK at the moment, I don't have the TDM source code. I would like to get into a state where "hacking" on the D3 source is easy to do with Eclipse, which I find a particularly user-friendly IDE.

Don't know if anybody paid much attention to the linux port yet. There are some parts in the code that need to be ported anyway, so TDM will not work out of the box on Linux and Mac.

In Casing in TII I found the HUD went bright when I saw or was near the ghost in the library. I know you say there is dynamic light changing but the way you say it, and the fact no-one seems to back you up particularly only engenders scepticism in me, not that you are lying, but maybe that you play in a dark room and your eyes or monitor do it for you. I have never heard anyone else mention it, and the way you say it doesn't sound very authoratitive. The lantern should be droppable: why would anyone drop it in lava? However the dropping down a chasm to see what's there, couldn't that be done better with a torch they nicked off the wall? And don't forgot holding a drawn fire arrow will do the job. It will punish people though because it's so slow walking like that. They could complete the mission but they would learn to not lose their torches. But how to avoid problem with torches, that you may as well use them, not the lantern? So that you had to use the dim creepy lantern in the caves maybe it could be programmed that the torches go out after a while, or you could code that the damp creepy caves put them out, too much moisture. Either players should notice the lantern after playing a few "OMs" which introduce the concept, come with TDM, and think "caves! Don't lose it!" or the FM author should hint beforehand that it'd be best to keep the lantern.

Upon reading Slash's curious questions, I thought of the object interaction in TDM. Does it work similar to the original Thief games (model brightness)? If so, is it already implemented? On another note, are there some kind of global variables in the Doom 3-engine - variables which can modified and accessed in every map of the whole campaign? This could decimate linear gameplay greatly. edited (typo)

Well you should be able to see a latern if you drop in a cavern. Because you know, it's like a lantern. Which gives off light. Hence you can see it. And I think it's only going to be dropped in places where the player wants to see what they are doing while holding something else, like a rope arrow. And I'm pretty sure Thief I does not have brightness adjustment. Maybe it's your eyes and the monitors brightness or the way the lighting/textures looks, but if TDS lacks it, and if I found myself without any idea where I was due to a constant pitch blackness., it's looking pretty unlikely. And the key difference with the mushrooms is that they don't really fit in very well, in my opinion, with TDM style, and also they die after frobbed as the idea was put above. Laterns have infinate fuel.

Unless it's a medical problem, that sounds... female! AFAIK, TDM has no female members yet (unless someone is playing intarnet gender switcheroobies! ). Probably a direct result of all the rugby that goes on behind the scenes. Disclaimer: Actual gender has nothing to do with consideration. And I'm not in sound. Checks will not be honored. I've used Reason at a friend's... I think it was version 3.0 or something, the newest one. I don't understand why they don't put in a staff. I'd figure that is one of the most important tools to a composing musician; I just can't comprehend leaving that out, even if just as a user option.

Doesn't he look a lot like the TDS model? But maybe it's just the stance that reminds me of it, because I haven't played TDS since I started work on TDM. The model looks cool though.

I don't see much need to complicate the system much beyond the original. The player will be able to use weapons up to a certain point, I'm not sure where that cut off point is at the moment, but I'll check it out. If you're carrying a bunch of equipment...it's not very likely that you're going to be able to stay afloat long enough to use anything if your feet can no longer touch the surface. For a person not carrying an arsenal, it wouldn't be a problem. But this guy is dressed in fairly restrictive clothing from head to foot. He needs all his resources geared towards swimming when he's completely underwater. If an FM author absolutely 'must' have it...they can find a way to put it in, but I don't think you'll see anything too outrageous supported natively in TDM.

I noticed it all the time I played the original games, although I always wondered if it's because of special programming or because my room is pitch black and I'm staring into a monitor with an extremely high contrast and low brightness (which by the way makes up the ideal monitor for playing thief). The glowing carryable mushrooms always were present and I'm planning on having them in my mission in TDM. The lantern sounds like a very good idea, but it should not be droppable, it should be gently placeable. And If the back is covered with leather, it should still allow an unobstructed way for the hot smoke and the leather should not dry out from excessive heat. Something like a carriage lantern with a 1/4" round wick made from brass with one side glass sounds most appropriate. I have a lantern collection, tell me if anybody needs pictures and i'll snap some. I wonder if you could eat those mushrooms after you're finished lighting the way with them.

Well i made that guess based on that it's nice and simple and with a little physics knowledge it would provide you with a method of determining how much light would be reaching an object. The line of sight test to check if the light can shine on you and a distance check to determine the brightness of the light at the distance it is away from you. Of course you'd probably have to do this multiple times for different sections of the body so the head can get a seperate lumination result from the foot. Also you'd need to factor in ambient lighting too. It seems that it is how it's done in your simple yet innacurate version, so i'm partially right, perhaps if multiple measurements were taken you could improve it's accuracy and reduce load. T1/T2 never had dynamic shadowing, there pretty much isn't any other way to determine how lit up something is in those engines. Also TDS had horrible framerates, using dynamic shadowing would fuck em over even more, though i guess it may be possible that they used the TDM accurate method (which could be why the framerates suck ass). I hope you noted that i asked sparhawk to provide more info dave, I was never sure about any of that nor did I say I was, so go read non existant meanings into someone elses post please.

The Optimal Way Post #1: "Hey guys, it would be more convenient if the arrow laid down flat, for mappers, you know? So it's in a natural state to use from the start." Post #2: "Good point, okay. There, it's changed and CVS'd." The TDM Way Posts #1 to n: ...

Dave the gameplay code would not be THAT processor intensive that it reduces frame rates a significant amount. dyanmic shadowing would be considered graphics code and not gameplay code, and the testing for how illuminated the player is in the world would simply be a line of sight and distance test just like in T1/T2. I'm assuming that this is also how it's done in tdm (paging dr sparhawk for more information)

well this is all good feedback, kinda what i was hoping to hear actually. I'm glad a lot of progress is being made. I really hope to see a gameplay video of all this new content soon, so far i'm more than impressed with TDM however.

@The1wayman: I used a picture of a gramophone (with perspective, well) for the texture. I will probably use several different textures instead! The current texture has also too many shiny parts. Unforeseen Consequences? A really strange project. I watched the foaming and roaming posts in the TTLG boards with a bit of astonishment. Most likely, I will create a TDM campaign with a collegue of mine, but we will not do the very same mistake the UC guys made. To whom can I send the finished model?

We already implemented a big Yellow Arrow pointing to the nearest loot location. This works fine already, so all those people who find it hard to get int Thief should have no problem with this aid. For hardcore ghosters the arrow can be toned down to a dark brown. After all, we want TDM to become as accessible as possible.

Well, those one shot missions tend to be based on the thief world playing as garret (and even if they aren't it's hard to dispell that notion). So in that respect looting makes sense and you could also implement rpg/skill rules in a big and popular setting (ie the main campaign). Where by people will pretty much do the same as with the thief one shot missions and base it on the most official and biggest world. But that said, you are a thief, and the game is entirely engineered around that, so any rpg/skill system would be oriented around that, and where rpgs tend to provide a variety of playstyles you would be limiting the player to a specific play style which would have the result of players choosing the thief stats. I'm an avid rpger, i'm currently in a d&d campaign that has 9 people including the dm (an adventurer army). But i don't like dnd rules system, sure it's the most developed but it is the least thought out and can be quite tricky. The latest editions are better, but it seems the whole system is oriented around getting people to buy books (which we don't really do ). The problem i have with fps games and sword/archery combat where your chances of hitting are determined by random chance is the whole visual aspect. you face the target and swing, the weapon looks completely like it's hitting, but then you hear some dodgy 'your weapon missed' noise. that said there are plenty of areas other than aiming where you can implement rpg style rules, like damage and different attack types. If I were to put rpg style things into TDM i would do it through items. You'd have daggers that would hit for more damage, or bows with a greater draw strength on them allowing more damage and range, or specially made boots that are quieter on hard surfaces like marble. Then offer them in the usual buy your items before mission style format (and if in a campaign make them permanent acquisitions). ohh yeah why don't we have any friggin crossbows?

I've been wondering. You know how in real life, windows act kind've like mirrors? -- when it's dark outside, yet light inside, you see your reflection in them, as well as other things inside. Do we want to try to achieve the same sort of effect in TDM? If so, it would make a lot of windows act like mirrors when the thief is inside a building, and the the player model is then more important. If you got really close to the window, only then would you be able to see outside very well. I think this would be cool. But would this be too big of hit to engine performance? Either weay, I foresee this effect happening in games some day soon, if it's not already out there in some. I've personally never seen it.