TDM flame particle options

[Baddcog]

With 1.08 coming up TDM has some new content.

 

One thing is new flame particles. People (the team) (as usual) are on the fence. Some people prefer the old particles (1.07 flames) and some people prefer the new ones. It's actually probably 50/50.

 

Quite the conundrum. While TDM is a mod, and a fairly open one at that it leaves us with a few choices.

---------

1- Players Choice

 

To continue on how TDM has been up to now. Include one flame in the mod as 'stock'. Most likely it would be the 'new improved' flame.

This in no way limits players or mappers choices as to which flame they actually use. It simply makes one flame standard for all maps with base TDM resources installed.

That way when you see a torch, the fire looks the same as the fire in the fireplace. There will never be any mix/matched particles. All fire will look the same.

 

It will mean that when mapping you will simply place a torch. Or a fireplace. Particle intact. And all particles throughout the map (every map you ever play) will be the same.

 

IF however, you prefer as a mapper to install the old flames because you'd rather have a player see them in your map you would simply include a folder of particle textures in your zipped map. It shouldn't be very large. This would over ride the standard flames.

 

As a player, you also get a choice. If you prefer the old flames you just unzip the same particle folder into your TDM install. This way you would always see the particles YOU prefer. Just like the T2 flame particles mods.

So TDM stock textures are default> mapper can override them> but players choice always trumps (if the player even cares).

 

This is backwards compatible, so YOUR (players) choice of flames will work in all maps past/present/future.

 

The alternate particles would be included in the TDM install, just in a side folder. So no alternate DL's are even required. Just unzipping a folder into your map/TDM folder. That's it.

 

--------

2- Mappers Choice

 

Would be to have multiple flame textures not only included within the TDM DL. But actually as a choice in the editor.

 

This would complicate mapping (if even only a hair) by making the mapper always choose which torch had which effect on it. It would be harder to be consistent and require more testing before map release.

It would also almost guarantee that some maps will be released with two different flame types in them. So one torch looks like 'real' flames, another looks like 'particle effects' (how they look is debatable - the fact they look different is not).

 

This would allow the mapper to 'force' their preference of flame types on the player as it would be within the map file. As a mapper it will make you feel powerful and important.

As a player, it will make you feel weak and impotent. 'I hate these flames, but I guess it doesn't matter, the mapper wants me to see them'. This can be good, for example a mapper wants blue flames for magic torches, that's mood, atmosphere, etc.. But for a regular flame, who should choose what the player looks at? The mapper or the player?

 

It is still in debate as to how to implement it.

 

a- have alternate light entities for every flame light. Will double the amount of entries, making it harder to map. More stuff to dig through, more chances you pick the wrong one. More fixes.

 

b- Do it through code. Which means if flame 1 is default but you like flame 2, then every time you create a flame entity you have to set a spawn arg to 2. More time mapping, more room for error, more testing.

 

This is NOT backwards compatible. Whatever is chosen as the 'stock' flames for 1.08 will be stock flames for all maps. The optional flame will ONLY be for new maps in which the author decides to use them.

 

This also doesn't completely lock you into mappers choice. You can copy the flames you like over into the directory and rename all the files to force the ones you like to always be seen if we go this direction. It's just a bit more of a pain, could be dl'ed as a 'fix' but won't be included with TDM. And basically chooses the mappers prefs first and the players second as a 'hack fix' so they see what they prefer.

 

========

 

As the team is on the fence I figured I'd put it out for the public to weigh in on. This doesn't guarantee the poll results make the decision, they are simply for the team to see how the players/map authors feel about it.

[Sotha]

Could you please provide a couple of videos to show the different flame particles and how they are different?

 

I'd really like to see the difference before voting anything...

 

Not all flames are always the same, the burning material and the environmental conditions affect how the flame looks. How the particles under debate are different influence fully how they should/could be used.

[Mortem Desino]

First of all: I don't prefer one torch flame over the other. Both look dang good to me.

 

Next: In the interest of keeping most/all FMs working indefinitely, how about not giving excessive modding powers to Joe GamePlayer? We Thief fans love excellent storytelling, and we love missions with good visual storytelling. As soon as a dev allows Joe GamePlayer to addon the hell out of his game, you're simultaneously allowing him to potentially break bits and pieces of every FM he tries to play.

 

In the worst scenario, this turns into FMs that "require TDM Super Pack 1.52, ModelTweakTDMMod 2.1, AddOnOrganizer v1.1, TDMSwimmingMod0.22, and only works on TDM version 1.10". It's a mess. Give that power to those people who are capable to make missions work for everybody, and not break for some unfortunate few: Viz. the mappers.

 

Do not think that I'm panicking over some rinky-dink torchflame particle. That's no big deal. The danger is allowing and encouraging Joe GamePlayer to addon the hell out of his game. That creates nightmares for devs and mappers.

[Sotha]

The above is an excellent point! I endorse it fully.

[DeTeEff]

I'm all in for adding ALL particles into the mod and the mapper can chose whichever he/she wants, as is now. The player shouldn't have mandate to change the looks in the missions. More often than not, when I'm adding lights/torches, I prefer to add the flame afterwards, and not use the lit thing entity...

 

One downside to this is that old FM:s will need an overhaul to change to the new lights...

[Tels]

I'd like to see a video, too, side-by-side of old and new.

 

Just my points:

 

* The player can *already* install add-ons:

 

http://forums.thedarkmod.com/topic/12336-add-on-black-light-aka-pimp-my-visuals/

 

So I see nothing bad about this, as the "super many add-ons too choose from" simply hasn't happened - and it doesn't look like it will as virtually nobody else bothers to do some.

 

* I think prefer the old ones over the new ones (but need to see them side by side)

 

* neelessly complicating life for mappers isn't good - the point is that if one is clearly better than the other, use the good one. But if both are equally good, but just different, still use only one. The reason is that otherwise the consistency is completely lost. Why have torches look that in one miisson, and otherwise in another mission? What next, AI looks like that in one mission, and completely different (but not better justdifferent) in another mission? Trees? Grass? Water? The sky?

 

* The "lets have old and and new side-by-side" breaks my add-on (the add-on doesn't know about the new particles). After I have fixed the add-on (more work for me *sigh*), I have to choose wether my add-on will: replace all flames with the old, OR replace all flames with the new OR keep old and new (and just enhance the new ones). In the end, this again forces the decision on the player, and whats worse, the decision can (or could) be completely different from what the mapper had in mind...

 

 

I think if the new flame particles aren't such an enhancement to the old that they can replace them, we should simple leave them out and provide tham as optional add-on.

[Springheel]

I was going to post a slightly less polarizing poll, but I see I was beat to the punch.

 

This would allow the mapper to 'force' their preference of flame types on the player as it would be within the map file. As a mapper it will make you feel powerful and important.

As a player, it will make you feel weak and impotent.

 

Sorry, but this is ridiculous hyperbole. Do players feel "weak and impotent" because big scary mapper "forces" all their preferences for textures and models and sounds and entities and readables on them? I don't know what makes flame particles the tipping point.

 

What next, AI looks like that in one mission, and completely different (but not better justdifferent) in another mission? Trees? Grass? Water? The sky?

 

This sums up exactly the argument that has been boggling my mind thus far. All those things already are different from map to map. Different maps use different types of trees (particle vs static mesh vs animated), skies (static vs portal), etc, etc.

 

 

 

To provide some back-story to this thread:

 

Acrturus created a few new flame particles a while ago. You can see them below at 0:20

 

At first, I wasn't sure I liked them, but after seeing them in-game I thought they looked much better than our current ones. Some other people disagreed, however, so I thought the most reasonable thing to do was add the new particles to SVN so that mappers who liked the more realistic flames could use them, while those that preferred the original could stick with them.

 

Apparently this decision has now created some controversy. There are, as I see it, 4 options:

 

1. Remove Arcturus' new flame particles from SVN. If mappers or players want them, they can download them separately from a repository somewhere and install them themselves.

 

2. Include both particles on SVN and let mappers decide which ones they prefer for their map.

 

3. Include both particles on SVN and let players decide through some menu choice which particles they see.

 

4. Remove our existing flame particles and replace them with the new ones.

 

 

 

I support option #2, but I'm already tired of arguing about it, so I'll support whatever the majority decides.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErA4GDzViR0&list=FLoZ6lbYiCQqhF8xVlYfAfmQ&index=16&feature=plpp_video

[jay pettitt]

Yes.

[nbohr1more]

The new flames do look good but they need to be tweaked a little proportion-wise (bigger) and (perhaps) made more bright. I'd like to see them in the traditional torch holder vs the holder in the Grass demo.

 

Once you've got them closer to approximating the older particles in brightness and size then I think they'd be an excellent upgrade.

 

I think mappers should have the choice to use whatever particle effect they like so an additional flame choice is not necessarily a bad thing. If you are worried about consistency then you could keep the undesirable version in a different entity directory where it would be less likely to be found (like misc particles)?

 

Tangent: Rather than give players override choices for flames, I'd rather that players be given control over saturation levels for lights kinda like the Bloom slider. The de-saturation effect in the new Post Process works well for some maps but others clearly are missing the warmth of v1.02 (and need it). A slider would allow players to adjust that flavor to taste.

[SiyahParsomen]

left: current torch

 

middle: Arcturus torch1

 

right: Arcturus torch2

 

video:

http://minus.com/mApAEU53i/

[Springheel]

Thanks, Siyah.

[SeriousToni]

Wow that's really a matter of taste..

[jay pettitt]

...in that case, I'm your man.

 

#3 for the win.

[Baddcog]

Once again the debate is side-tracked.

This ISN'T about WHICH particle we use. That's why I didn't include pics/videos. Now we have everyone looking at videos to choose which particle they want.

 

This is about either leaving the mapping simple and letting the player have the choice which flame they prefer.

Again, it is NOT the same as which trees a mapper uses, or which cobblestones they use.

 

It's about flames, so don't go there please, and don't start showing videos of the trees.

 

So far we have had mappers chose the option to force their opinion on players. But we haven't had any players speak up.

--------

Like I said in the other thread. When you add a mod to Skyrim do you add the better flames pack YOU like? Or do you add the one someone made you use?

 

This mod has always been about giving the player choices, so why is this different? It's something that is less complicated to give the player a choice, and yet we don't want the player to have the choice? We'd rather go with a more complicated set-up, a heiarchy that is overrun with choices that are barely different and will most likely cause confusion, and that doesn't give the player a choice when it would be so easy to. Mind boggling at the least.

 

Spring, you brought up the candles issue. We don't need 3 types of candles. Now we are trouble shooting a new issue and you DO want multiple versions.

 

Next: In the interest of keeping most/all FMs working indefinitely, how about not giving excessive modding powers to Joe GamePlayer?

I guess you didn't read my post very well.

 

Giving the player the choice of flames actually makes it EASIER to keep all maps past and present consistent to players viewing preference. By forcing a particle by mappers choice means all old FM's will have one particle style. And all new fm's will be mix matched.

 

Wow that's really a matter of taste..

Exactly, it's a matter of taste. Shouldn't the players taste be accounted for? Does it really matter if the mapper wants #1 or #2? When it's the players that have to see them?

[SeriousToni]

Couldn't there be a menu option like for the bow aim helper?

[nbohr1more]

Couldn't there be a menu option like for the bow aim helper?

 

That's what (part of) the debate is about.

 

Whether the flame appearance should be menu controlled or mapper controlled.

[SeriousToni]

Yeah but that's really a personal prefference thing if I want the flames to look more gloomy or more realistic. It doesn't affect gameplay. So I don't get why the mapper should control this

[Baddcog]

That's what (part of) the debate is about.

 

Whether the flame appearance should be menu controlled or mapper controlled.

 

Actually no it's not.

 

The team has already said that would be ludicris. It would require even more coding than having two choices for the mapper (depending on if it was cvar'ed), or just more entities for the mapper to choose from. (Either way it could be a lot of work and testing involved for TDM AND mappers while completely leaving the players choice out of the equation)

 

But in a similar vein what I suggest (#1 choice) is that there is a folder with the other particles (same names). If you want them you just drag/drop to appropriate folder. So it's not a menu item but it is a 10 second swap out. (same for a mappers choice, 10 seconds and they configure their entire map to the particles they like)

-----

This is why I don't understand why certain people cling tooth and nail to it.

 

hours of work and constant trouble shooting.

 

or

 

10 second drag/drop.

 

Either was both flames will ALWAYS be available.

[jaxa]

It's not as if mappers can't add their own custom flames/particles or whatever so it's up to them to perform quality control AND TAKE THE HEAT for what they use in their missions (lololol).

[SiyahParsomen]

I don't see reason for polarization that's why I didn't vote. I think both option is not implemented yet. If so then, amount of manhours can be used for combining both particles into one with some artistic touch (including different colors) which can satisfy both sides. In this way we'll continue to use single torch particle again. Everything is solved.

Edited April 15, 2012 by SiyahParsomen

[grayman]

#3

 

Edit:

 

Ha! I see I wasn't supposed to vote. Nor ask for tree videos.

 

Since mappers spend far more time on a FM than players ever do, I'd vote for anything that makes life easier for the mapper, not harder.

 

As a player, I think there are way way more choices in the menus than I care to deal with or care about, but that's my own opinion.

[Springheel]

Just so I'm not getting this wrong:

 

You voted for #3 ( "player chooses from menu" ), but everything you said after that seemed to argue against that option. Did you really mean #3?

[nbohr1more]

I think that some folks are selecting "#3" from the video rather than the "#3" from your comment

[Springheel]

Ah, that makes sense. Though those two flames from Arcturus are different versions of the same particle...one is for smaller torches and one for larger.

[OrbWeaver]

As a player, I think there are way way more choices in the menus than I care to deal with or care about, but that's my own opinion.

 

+1

 

I don't much care about the flame particle debate itself, but adding extra items into the menus to cover such trivial issues is not only a waste of developer time but poor usability too. Players want to get on and play the game, not spend their time making minor design decisions that the artists should have done for them already.

 

There would be no problem with it being in a menu in some separate optional application for advanced users, like "TDMTweak" or something, as long as it's not dumped into the main game interface.