Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
DFD-R3: 741 vs. 1009, 510 vs. 488
#5
(11.08.2010, 13:34:47)Blade Wrote: Edit 2:
Damn it, I keep forgetting that the cliff one isn't what I think it is. Still I don't support it because I don't agree with modders who insist on creating vehicle units that are .shps, I don't care how nice they look. If you want to make them, fair enough, but deal with the limitations. Same way I don't agree with the 32 facings which got veto'd or would have been out in the smack down or the seqences for .shp units (which are already available in a limited fashion as the cyborg reaper uses and is carried into RA2). Also, the most implemented vehicle .shp type, the bipedal mech, wouldn't tilt on a slope anyway or it would loose its balance and so looks okay as it is.

You forget that tanks, trucks and the others could be implemented too.For some its annoying that YR is limited to being 2.5D and not simply 2D.

Multiple turrets on the other hand could be tricky since I bet that a lot of issues will come out of this.


Messages In This Thread
DFD-R3: 741 vs. 1009, 510 vs. 488 - by Renegade - 11.08.2010, 01:40:27
RE: DFD-R3: 741 vs. 1009, 510 vs. 488 - by Blade - 11.08.2010, 13:34:47
RE: DFD-R3: 741 vs. 1009, 510 vs. 488 - by Deformat - 11.08.2010, 14:50:49
RE: DFD-R3: 741 vs. 1009, 510 vs. 488 - by Blade - 11.08.2010, 16:42:35
RE: DFD-R3: 741 vs. 1009, 510 vs. 488 - by mt. - 11.08.2010, 17:58:57
RE: DFD-R3: 741 vs. 1009, 510 vs. 488 - by AlexB - 18.09.2010, 17:38:43



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)