Topic: Opinion for Gaming (Read 45229 times)

d4v1ks · « **Reply #100 on:** May 15, 2013, 01:32:26 pm »

Even more... its a good way of abstract the ship's object when development a IA agent, for example. It only require a vector3 to store its size.

[UFP]Exeter · « **Reply #101 on:** May 15, 2013, 01:39:17 pm »

actually a couple of them, one for the shields as we are discussing and another for the bounding shape for collision.

EschelonOfJudgemnt · « **Reply #102 on:** May 15, 2013, 04:52:47 pm »

Just thought I'd throw this out here, seeing someone mentioned Andorians...

The TNG/DS9/Post universe has been explored a lot with Star Trek games. But the Enterprise setting/pre TOS has been pretty much left alone as far as I know. I for one think it would be cool to see an Enterprise-era game for a change of pace. Especially since the Gorns and Tholians, and of course the Klingons all made appearances in that series.

I'm sure this era has been given lip service in some of the latest Star Trek games, but I'd love to see it given a fair shake in SFC terms!

[UFP]Exeter · « **Reply #103 on:** May 15, 2013, 05:07:29 pm »

I actually like that idea, we would be able to do what we wanted, and freedom for the modelers.

Lepton · « **Reply #104 on:** May 20, 2013, 08:27:32 pm »

Said it before and I will say it again. There is already a 3D Star Trek ship combat game well under development. That is Star Trek:Excalibur. Rather than reinventing the wheel, it would make more sense to extend that project to meet the demands of SFB-styled systems and rule sets. At the rate these kind of projects progress it will be 10 years before there is a final product which is more than likely never to come.

SFC:CE is a great achievement. The game we love can be played for many more years to come, but I simply don't see the sense in creating yet another independent fan-created project that may never see the light of day. The best chance for something to be released is for people who love the franchise to be pulling in one direction on the same weight, not to create another Sisyphean boulder to push up a hill all on your own.

Everyone hates when I say it, but I have said it.

Fire away.

[UFP]Exeter · « **Reply #105 on:** May 20, 2013, 08:52:54 pm »

My goal in starting this was a 3D version of the SFC series. I tried to get the SFB ruleset and was denied. I am not making a 3D arcade style game such as excalibur, sto etc. I want the graphics to look realistic. It will use the "hex" style galactic map. So much of it is improvements.

It is from scratch to utilize the better technology or today. For performance.

the speed of combat in SFC II will be maintained so we do not get into the arcade, joystick.

knightstorm · « **Reply #106 on:** May 20, 2013, 09:55:54 pm »

Well, if you ever do decide to change your mind on the 3D thing, I'll dance like this guy.


YOU ARE NOT THE FATHER!!!!

[UFP]Exeter · « **Reply #107 on:** May 20, 2013, 10:01:50 pm »

LOL That just might be worth it.

Lepton · « **Reply #108 on:** May 21, 2013, 08:10:27 pm »

Yeah, graphics are not realistic in the slightest.


Launching the Enterprise


NanoFX Graphics Renderer 1.7 Preview


Excalibur \| Deferred Lighting

Why you so arcadey??!!!


Excalibur \| Systems Overview Previs

No physics!!!!


Excalibur \| UI, Physics & Camera Demonstration

Whatever.

[UFP]Exeter · « **Reply #109 on:** May 21, 2013, 09:24:10 pm »

Interesting videos.

But, I never did say Excalibur does not have something, as I have not seen anything but demos.

Arcade style. Check out the combat demo. When any combat gets to the point of fast action, rapid movement it is becoming arcade style.

And I am not tring to push my point of view. Rather solicit others, including ones I disagree with.

The Dyna community is free to do as it wishes. If it prefers something else, then do it.

What I cam with was my concept, proof concept completed, verification of library performance and a game ending itself maybe 75% complete.

It is not my intent to belittle or insult any idea, and I will discuss, and based upong presented facts I will change my mind.

As I said, if the community (Dyna) does not want my concept, I will be glad to go my own way.

EschelonOfJudgemnt · « **Reply #110 on:** May 22, 2013, 01:08:10 am »

The Star Trek Universe isn't very Newtonian, but a particular Newtonian sim I've seen is the B5 one the Russian guys did (Babylon 5: I've found her, Danger & Opportunity)... Alas, doing the Google thing, it looks like they've lost their website; ifhgame.ru is now down/for sale.

I did find some 'transitional' forums:
http://ivefoundher.forum-free.org/

I took a spin with the Star Furies, and I have to tell you, getting a handle on the whole matching course and speed thing to get a 'tail/rear' shot, in three dimensions when Newton in the driver's seat, and you are on an intercept trajectory, well THAT was a challenge. Especially when you separate facing from direction of travel. They had a couple of conventions where the thrusters would attempt to kill velocity and then increase to a set velocity in the direction you were pointing, but this is WAAAAAY different than most space sims I've played.

My point is that 3 dimensions shouldn't automatically mean atmospheric style dogfighting... which is something that a lot of space sims ignore in the quest of simplicity/keeping it comfortable for players. Unfortunately, Star Trek uses 'Cinematic' space combat, not Newtonian...

Captain Adam · « **Reply #111 on:** May 22, 2013, 05:35:46 am »

[UFP]Exeter · « **Reply #112 on:** May 22, 2013, 09:29:34 am »

It can get frustrating, but I have gotten some great suggestions from others.

I also understand the desire for something similar to SFC2 EAW etc, but unless we get the ok from ADB not going to happen.

2D vs 3D, well the idea of ships automatically avoiding each other cause the helmsman is good, to me does not fit with the rest of the game.

And I dislike BS and Legacy so even thought 3D the game will not play like them. So combat will be similar to SFC2, with some of the good ideas from SFC3 and BC.

Captain Adam · « **Reply #113 on:** May 22, 2013, 11:35:40 am »

[UFP]Exeter · « **Reply #114 on:** May 22, 2013, 11:58:31 am »

I have collected loads of information. As soon as some discussion regarding models and moding are resolved I will consolidate the changes into the design doc and freeze it for the first release. No real changes to what I have done except possibly remove one library and that will make it easier.

Czar Mohab · « **Reply #115 on:** May 23, 2013, 09:39:56 pm »

Seriously just make it functional. This is all the graphics I need:

Fed: O-Ξ
Kling: o-{
Rom: this thing since all their ships are bird related anyway. And they can be quite mad.
Gorn: Ɑ+Đ-
Thol: ˂¤
Mir/Kzin: ˂ж Ξ
Lyran:
«ȹ--
«ȸ--
Card: (backwards from the others) ><D
Borg: 
Andromedan: Œ
Starbase: *
Listening Post: .
Plasma Torp: ●≈

Had more but forum ate them. Bad translation from Word. Seriously. Had hydran, alternate Tholians and Roms, base and battle stations, dominion, better cardies, etc. etc.... oh well.

Kidding aside, 2D or 3D i can go either way. Era does not matter to me (Between the Ent-B and TNG would be awesome, there's at least 6 decades of mostly untouched stuff there) as long as it is not in JJ's timeline. The #1 thing I have as an "I wish it gets in" is the ability to be played on the laptop I use for work. Because sometimes... well... you get the idea. Which is one of the reasons I posted some alternate "models" above

. If it isn't lappy happy, I'll still play it, though.

The Czar.

TheStressPuppy · « **Reply #116 on:** May 23, 2013, 11:29:28 pm »

When you say SFC 4 the first thing you think of is.. SFC. Specifically SFC EaW, and OP.

If you create something totally different from SFC then it shouldn't be called SFC. You don't have to use any of the ADB rulesets, IP, Ship classes, etc. etc. You can make up your own rules, and IP specifically for this game, and still have the game play similar to SFC. Especially if you plan on using 3D movement which ADB has absolutely no license on. It will be our own IP (Except for the Paramount owned canon material) Any similarity to what ADB put out will be purely coincidental, and the burden of proof would be on them.

Excalibur has been in development for far too long, and IMO it is becoming Vaporware. Excalibur is pretty much a spiritual successor to Bridge Commander, and i don't see the people with the IP on Bridge Commander breathing down their necks with cease, and desist letters. Just as Supreme Commander is a spiritual successor to Total Annihilation. Remember, Similar to, but NOT the Same. If we keep that in mind ADB can not touch SFC 4.

Starfox1701 · « **Reply #117 on:** May 24, 2013, 12:17:33 am »

To me the core of SFC 3rd person perspective, having to do all the system management and having little ship squadrons and a moderately paced combat system. These are in my mind the central components that a new game must accomplish to earn the title SFC. Some things like the free form short campaign need to be changed but I could see a Galactic conquest type mode as part of the single player game and could serve as the basis of the online game.

[UFP]Exeter · « **Reply #118 on:** May 24, 2013, 09:10:23 am »

I do not care for BC or STO, nor Legacy. My vision is based on SFC (Not SFB) even though based on it, SFC3 even less so. I also would like a galactic arm map that as different races are played and win or lose battles the state of the galaxy changes. Multiplayer would be awesome with each combat affecting the control of space. Starbases and planets assaulted with armadas of player reams.

As for running on laptops,, I am developing on a laptop. The game will run its best with a modern GPU, dual (or greater) core and DX11. But will run on DX9, single core, but slower.

Starfox1701 · « **Reply #119 on:** May 24, 2013, 11:10:29 am »

I think we will still good ram and a passable video card

News:

Topic: Opinion for Gaming (Read 45229 times) var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};

Topic: Opinion for Gaming (Read 45229 times)