TDM flame particle options

[Mortem Desino]

All your arguements are invalid due to this one single point.

 

The flame model is completely backwards compatiible. It is only a texture change.

Invalid? I conceded this point three times previously.

Your four arguments all point to what if "an add on pack is done wrong". Well, if so then it would screw things up. Which is not the case here so why argue that point?

If someone makes a tree replacement pack it should conform to existing trees but make them better.

If someone makes a book pack it should be a 'better pack' that still matches sizes/colors.

If someone makes a new anim of course they should make it work in game.

If someone makes a new base ai def it should work with the game.

 

Are you seriously arguing that 'what if someone screws up an update/improvement pack and it causes issues' is the same as having a simple flame texture replacement pack? And if it was so broken people would just remove it and not use it anyway.

 

those things don't break consistency, they break the game.

Now that you've stopped using personal attacks (I won't press your straw man in #47), this I can agree with wholeheartedly. Forgive my stubbornness.

[ungoliant]

pretty sure this is why most game dev companies don't operate in an open forum-democracy environment when deciding on features.

that being said, my 2 cents is that particle choice is the most feature-creep-esque idea i've heard in a while, and I'm "enflamed" enough against it that it's re-opening my personal evaluation of the merits of the key-brightener option.

I think the true moral of this story I think, is to keep the number of polls to a minimum regarding minor mod elements. Those that are in-the-know generally know most of the issues at bar with the mod anyways, and opinions will manage to crop up in various threads regardless of if theres a poll or not.

[Baddcog]

Well, the reason for the public poll was to try and get the players perspective.

 

We're going to include both particles as an option in one way or another so do players want to choose which they see? By the looks of the poll obviously not.

 

--------

It's actually surprising results to me.

 

Most of the mappers have said they want the easiest choice. Yet voted for the hard choice.

 

Most T2 players really liked having the choice to choose upgraded flames, yet this poll says players don't want the choice?

 

Also moddable games like Skyrim are leaning more towards player mod choices, so much so that Steam now has a mod hosting/dl function included that Skyrim is the testing ground for.

[OrbWeaver]

Most T2 players really liked having the choice to choose upgraded flames, yet this poll says players don't want the choice?

 

I voted for option 2 because I thought option 1 might include having particle selection options in the menus, which I would not want to see. If we're just talking about an after-market mod which can be downloaded by the player, then that seems fine to me. In fact this will always be possible anyway whether or not mappers choose alternative particles, since a PK4 can always override content in the base map.

[Baddcog]

Well, that's why I typed out huge descriptions

 

Menu choice wasn't in there anywhere. And I felt it was a pretty clear (though lengthy) explanation.

 

And after re-reading through my post I really don't get the comments of it being 'polarizing'. Sans the sentence 'strong and powerful/weak and impotent' lol. The descriptions sum it up very well for the actual choices and their consequences.

Maybe that sentence was an exaggeration, but it really does point to why mappers have discussed that option.

 

Because they want to force the 'artistic integrity' of a particle on the player. That's the only reason to choose #2 and like I said, it wouldn't even be that hard to over ride anyway.

 

It makes me think of a classic movie:

Listen to reason Peewee!

"I'm listening, I don't hear anything"

[Tels]

For some reason, the second thread was locked (w/o actually telling us what the decision was,either

 

Anyway, here are a few remarks:

 

* the glowing embers are part of my black light add-on, they are not in the default particles.

* Likewise, the heat-haze is not in standard TDM.

 

Funny, how everyone seems to love heathaze, but we never added it and the performance test shows, unless you have 100 flames on your screen at the same time, there is no difference with it, or w/o it, anyway.

 

Anyway, I am curious on wether my add-on now becomes superflous, or not.

[Baddcog]

Well, that thread was about which particle EFFECTS people prefer. This one was about HOW they are implemented. (though it quickly got sidetracked to particle effects)

 

Anyway, I think embers would look cool. The heat haze also looks cool. Most likely neither has a big impact on FPS at realistic levels.

[Serpentine]

Just remember that heat haze will mean that the particles will be rendered above glass, so windows etc become a problem.

Edit: Actually, I'm not too sure about that, particles might work fine.

[Tels]

Just remember that heat haze will mean that the particles will be rendered above glass, so windows etc become a problem.

Edit: Actually, I'm not too sure about that, particles might work fine.

 

No, particles suffer from that problem. But nobody has so far complained about this when using my add-on.