+- Renegade Projects Network Forums (https://forums.renegadeprojects.com)
+-- Forum: Inject the Battlefield (https://forums.renegadeprojects.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=60)
+--- Forum: Old RockPatch Discussions (https://forums.renegadeprojects.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=59)
+--- Thread: The ETS Thread (/showthread.php?tid=347)
The ETS Thread - pd - 07.08.2006
Similar to the http://forums.renegadeprojects.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=19 thread, which is the main discussion thread for RockPatch development related topics, I think there should be a corresponding thread for the ETS.
Especially TS users are welcome here, since they probably know best.
To prevent a request flood:
This is not a thread to request features but to discuss the development of planned features and work in progress, as in how they are going to be working and looking like.
The first I'd like to mention here is CnCVK's latest update of the status page.
CnCVK (on the ETS:Status page) Wrote:Plans for future versions
(...)
*New armors
I'm pretty confident that the ImmunityTypes logic I introduced with RockPatch v1.08 makes new armors obsolete, so IMO, ETS should introduce that as well.
@CnCVK: basicly, you can just copy-and-paste the code I wrote for YR
RE: The ETS Thread - Bobingabout - 07.08.2006
pd Wrote:I'm pretty confident that the ImmunityTypes logic I introduced with RockPatch v1.08 makes new armors obsoletenew immunities does not make new armours obsolete. new armours can be used for a lot more than simply making certain units "Immune" from a unit, in any case, armours that do no dammage maake the unit un-attackable, where immunity makes the weapon simply do no dammage. with tirtiary and quatinary, new armours will be a extramly usefull, because we are going to need to write in ways of making certain weapons fire only against certain units.
this applies both to TS and YR, so...
RE: The ETS Thread - VK - 07.08.2006
Better add FireOnBuilding=[yes/no] tag and another tags
And about armor... in which INI form add it?
RE: The ETS Thread - DCoder - 07.08.2006
Why do you insist on adding FireOnBuilding and similar? Verses are perfectly sufficient to set what can be attacked...
RE: The ETS Thread - VK - 07.08.2006
Number of Verses= small and you can see in TS RULES.INI:
all armors used by different units.
RE: The ETS Thread - pd - 07.08.2006
the verses data would have to be enlarged and there'd have to be additional names saved, while adding CanAttackBuildings/Infantry/Aircraft/Unit tags would just require a few bools to be dealt with... much easier (for us, and it doesn't really make life harder for modders either).
RE: The ETS Thread - Bobingabout - 07.08.2006
as long as i can set CanFireAtBuilding=no to state that this weapon cannot fire on a building called "GRSEGDF" then sure, it'll accept it. but it seems easier to me to set a unique armour type on GRSEGDF and have verses 0 on the weapon i want to not be able to fire at it.
RE: The ETS Thread - ZombyDragon - 07.08.2006
With the four weapons you would need verses, it also choses the order of weapons without making a unit immune to the cell spread od the one before it. The FireOnXXX ones are easier to use for us too, but it will cripple the use of mods that use the Tri/Quad weapons.
RE: The ETS Thread - Blade - 07.08.2006
New armors and corresponding versus entries give finer control than simply what can hit what. I may want to give a unit a specific armor that most weapons treat the same as heavy, but for certain units is treated as much stronger/weaker to make certain units suited to anti-other unit functions.
RE: The ETS Thread - Tratos - 08.08.2006
pd Wrote:the verses data would have to be enlarged and there'd have to be additional names saved, while adding CanAttackBuildings/Infantry/Aircraft/Unit tags would just require a few bools to be dealt with... much easier (for us, and it doesn't really make life harder for modders either).
Would all this be necessary if it was to be done like new actions, i.e. with it's own corresponding section in rules.ini/firestorm.ini
Would that not negate the need for the armor-types names to be saved in the exe and allow far far greater control for the modder than could be achieved by adding an extra 3 or 4 armor types to the exe.
I have to say im not very fond of a canattack tag, it really is quite limited, i think the extra effort to expand the armor-types and versus' would be worthwhile.
RE: The ETS Thread - VK - 08.08.2006
Adding new armors is easy
for example: Special_3,Special_4,Special_5,Special_6,Special_7,Special_8
So adding only new armors in ETS and RP and 2 new weapons
RE: The ETS Thread - ZombyDragon - 08.08.2006
Sounds like fun
RE: The ETS Thread - Bobingabout - 09.08.2006
ZOMG.... hunty already has plans for this new armour stuff...
RE: The ETS Thread - DJBREIT - 09.08.2006
Some things to add to the list as they are figured out
3rd maybe 4th bridge sets.
And extension on existing bridge sets.
Additional destructible cliff sets.
Additional terrain types
One additional tunnel sets.
added to list