Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
ProtecTech mods features (image heavy)
2017-10-12, 08:22 AM
Post: #11
RE: ProtecTech mods features (image heavy)
(2017-10-12 12:35 AM)Richard Dastardly Wrote:  Optimisations, aimpoint, execution order, Lasers/LAMS, the APS features, shield colours built in ( the customiser is a wasted block & I don't notice many people using it ), repairs customiser - in that order I think. The toolbox should go somewhere too, it's just an addition rather than a change for the better of an existing feature. I must admit I haven't tried most of the extra things like the ALBs, because I tend to try and build stuff I can give to other people at the moment. My only issue with the ALBs would be the sheer space everything takes up - they'd be great for tanks, but it's hard work fitting enough ACBs for tank steer & keeping them safe, let alone a logic centre.

You're right about the ALB being too large.
I initially wanted to create a way to pack a set of ALB blocks into one block only (like a micro-chip).
So, you would create your own logic with a lot of blocks, and when you're happy with it you create a custom block containing the full logic.
But that was just an idea and it never really came to life.

And anyway, the ALB is probably too complex.
The ACB AND logic gate is very easy to use and improve the range of things ACBs can do, that may be a better thing.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-10-12, 08:32 AM (This post was last modified: 2017-10-12 08:33 AM by Normal69.)
Post: #12
RE: ProtecTech mods features (image heavy)
Hrmm, the list would be shorter if we would ask which ones we wouldn't like in development testing branch?

I am trying to think about which of Gladyon's mods I would not like incorporated in...

How much work (on a vague noprob/alot scale) is incorporating an already existing mod in-game?

From the Depths english playlist starts here, before that it's hungarian:
https://youtu.be/Ltdx0yVI9cA?list=PLImar...ZokVtdBa73

[Image: 6yFiDvF.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-10-12, 08:55 AM
Post: #13
RE: ProtecTech mods features (image heavy)
(2017-10-12 08:32 AM)Normal69 Wrote:  Hrmm, the list would be shorter if we would ask which ones we wouldn't like in development testing branch?

I am trying to think about which of Gladyon's mods I would not like incorporated in...
Thanks, that's nice.
I have one that shouldn't be included: GCAnalyzer


(2017-10-12 08:32 AM)Normal69 Wrote:  How much work (on a vague noprob/alot scale) is incorporating an already existing mod in-game?
Hard to tell, that depends on a lot of things.
Basically, there are 3 types of modifications:
- blocks addition
- blocks modification
- game core modification

The block addition is very easy to integrate.
Basically it's just taking the mod and copying it as-is.

The blocks modification are a bit more complex because they sometimes require to modify the plugin code to fit better in FtD.
For example, the enhanced shields are using a few hacks because all the functions in this original shields aren't accessible directly from modding. So, these hacks must be removed and cleaned-up.

The game core modification can be very complex to integrate properly.
As FtD do not (currently, it may change...) allow direct core modification by mods, these are all hacks.
And the deeper I had to go, the uglier are the hacks...
That necessitate a lot of cleaning.
It doesn't mean that it's necessarily hard or long, but one must be careful when doing it because it's very easy to introduce bugs...



But anyway, too many changes only add complexity to balance the game.
I haven't really considered balancing when I created my mods, but it's not possible not to think about it when adding/modifying/removing something from the game.
That make it a completely different process, with probably different outcomes.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-10-12, 09:55 AM
Post: #14
RE: ProtecTech mods features (image heavy)
(2017-10-12 08:22 AM)Gladyon Wrote:  You're right about the ALB being too large.
I initially wanted to create a way to pack a set of ALB blocks into one block only (like a micro-chip).
So, you would create your own logic with a lot of blocks, and when you're happy with it you create a custom block containing the full logic.
But that was just an idea and it never really came to life.

And anyway, the ALB is probably too complex.
The ACB AND logic gate is very easy to use and improve the range of things ACBs can do, that may be a better thing.

The EPROM programming on a raft would be nice ( and the idea tickles me ) - wonder how much work that'd really take.

What I'd really like is analog ACBs where you mix input signals ( or even more simply, just redirect them ) instead of gating them - that'd let you do smooth ACB controlled steering for one. Perhaps a generic threshold ACB input also.

Poke my boat! mostly pre-2.0 learning & catalogue thread - Heavy tanks 21/10/17. 6 ships made 2.0 aware. If it's not AotE I can't do it regularily - post processing gives me eyestrain at sea.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-10-12, 10:06 AM
Post: #15
RE: ProtecTech mods features (image heavy)
(2017-10-12 09:55 AM)Richard Dastardly Wrote:  The EPROM programming on a raft would be nice ( and the idea tickles me ) - wonder how much work that'd really take.

Quite a lot I'm afraid, especially if you want to be able to be able to do the opposite in order to be able to modify the EPROM.

In fact, the problem which has stopped me doing it is the fact that you can only save 100 floats in a block.
There's a cheaty way to store more but it doesn't work if the block is prefabed.


(2017-10-12 09:55 AM)Richard Dastardly Wrote:  What I'd really like is analog ACBs where you mix input signals ( or even more simply, just redirect them ) instead of gating them - that'd let you do smooth ACB controlled steering for one. Perhaps a generic threshold ACB input also.
ACBs aren't designed for that, far from it.
The idea for them is to be very simple to use, and that will probably stay like forever.
I remember Nick said that he may add a more complex logic system at some point, but with keeping the ACB because they're so easy and convenient to use for most things.

With the ALB you can mix the signals, as you have access to constants that you define, 120 in-game variables (altitude, heading, distance of the closest enemy, etc.) and most importantly, custom variables.
You can do calculations and store the results in the custom variables, and use these as inputs for about anything, a PID, the shields strength, etc.

Someone made an ALB stabilizer for a gatling powered flying platform.
It had 4 gatlings on each corner, firing toward the bottom, and the ALB logic adapted the RoF of the gatlings in order to keep the platform level.
Very efficient, but it didn't get the authorization to fly over cities... Wink
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-10-12, 11:05 AM (This post was last modified: 2017-10-12 11:06 AM by Richard Dastardly.)
Post: #16
RE: ProtecTech mods features (image heavy)
(2017-10-12 10:06 AM)Gladyon Wrote:  
(2017-10-12 09:55 AM)Richard Dastardly Wrote:  The EPROM programming on a raft would be nice ( and the idea tickles me ) - wonder how much work that'd really take.

Quite a lot I'm afraid, especially if you want to be able to be able to do the opposite in order to be able to modify the EPROM.

In fact, the problem which has stopped me doing it is the fact that you can only save 100 floats in a block.
There's a cheaty way to store more but it doesn't work if the block is prefabed.

I don't think reversing it is a necessity - keep your programming raft around & burn a new block.

(2017-10-12 10:06 AM)Gladyon Wrote:  
(2017-10-12 09:55 AM)Richard Dastardly Wrote:  What I'd really like is analog ACBs where you mix input signals ( or even more simply, just redirect them ) instead of gating them - that'd let you do smooth ACB controlled steering for one. Perhaps a generic threshold ACB input also.
ACBs aren't designed for that, far from it.
The idea for them is to be very simple to use, and that will probably stay like forever.
I remember Nick said that he may add a more complex logic system at some point, but with keeping the ACB because they're so easy and convenient to use for most things.

With the ALB you can mix the signals, as you have access to constants that you define, 120 in-game variables (altitude, heading, distance of the closest enemy, etc.) and most importantly, custom variables.
You can do calculations and store the results in the custom variables, and use these as inputs for about anything, a PID, the shields strength, etc.

Someone made an ALB stabilizer for a gatling powered flying platform.
It had 4 gatlings on each corner, firing toward the bottom, and the ALB logic adapted the RoF of the gatlings in order to keep the platform level.
Very efficient, but it didn't get the authorization to fly over cities... Wink

Smile

Taking one analog input & outputting that to a set of devices isn't any more complicated than the current "if input high, set output high" though ( less even, it's not even a conditional ). I can see mixing inputs being beyond the scope, but analog versions of current digital ones really isn't a complication in gameplay terms.

Poke my boat! mostly pre-2.0 learning & catalogue thread - Heavy tanks 21/10/17. 6 ships made 2.0 aware. If it's not AotE I can't do it regularily - post processing gives me eyestrain at sea.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-10-13, 10:36 AM
Post: #17
RE: ProtecTech mods features (image heavy)
(2017-10-12 08:55 AM)Gladyon Wrote:  Thanks, that's nice.

You've earned it. Smile

(2017-10-12 08:55 AM)Gladyon Wrote:  But anyway, too many changes only add complexity to balance the game.
I haven't really considered balancing when I created my mods, but it's not possible not to think about it when adding/modifying/removing something from the game.
That make it a completely different process, with probably different outcomes.

There is the philosophy not to modify the parts of the game, which would break campaigns and units.
In the development branch we shouldn't care for it (just my opinion) as the game is in alpha stage, where imbalances, freezes, bugs, glitches are usually handled.
Campaigns should be developed in beta stage, altough they attract audience, and provide testing error reports, so they can be kept in the stable branch.

If that is/will be the case, please notify, I think a lot of people would flock over dev branch.
Like myself. Smile

From the Depths english playlist starts here, before that it's hungarian:
https://youtu.be/Ltdx0yVI9cA?list=PLImar...ZokVtdBa73

[Image: 6yFiDvF.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)