Messages

1

More Forks / Re: Higher resolution mod

« on: March 23, 2014, 07:12:21 pm »

Hey Xracer

Some more questions. 

You talked about a 'flat png' and the 'source png'  Where is the difference? Is the image just a single layer image with a black (0,0,0) background or does it need something special that I need to do?

Is the correct way to download the images: 1) Opening up the individual image on the git. Then 2) Right click > Save image as... ?

Are all images on the git already stretched out and ready to be edited?

I might be a little nitpicky here, but I just want to make sure I don't do some unnecessary  mistakes.

Thanks

2

More Forks / Re: Higher resolution mod

« on: March 23, 2014, 12:34:20 pm »

Hey Racer.

Good to know that you like the changes.  I'll try to make the changes to the source files. Some questions:

Firstly I can't seem to find the source files for the pictures.  If you could link them it would be great.  Secondly: I have the source files of the original TTS graphics.  Should/Could I work from them?  Thirdly:  What HD pictures is still needed?  I could try my hand to make them from the original graphics of Xcom.  Lastly: Must I save the graphics as .png or .psd and where must I post them?

Thanks

3

More Forks / Re: Higher resolution mod

« on: March 22, 2014, 04:55:22 pm »

Here is something I did in my spare time.

I feminized the females in pic posted above and slightly changed the postures to something a little more natural.  If you people like this I can attempt to do the same with the other posture pics.

4

Suggestions / Re: Reported Sightings

« on: February 26, 2013, 07:04:56 am »

I thought the newspaper idea was more of an eye candy thing. 

1) It shows up after the ufo has left because it takes a day to be printed. 
2) It shows up after you have done a terror mission and applauds/scalds the player on his success/failure.

Making news reports warn the player of an UFO is a different idea altogether.

5

Suggestions / Re: Reported Sightings

« on: February 24, 2013, 07:32:20 am »

This is a fun idea! It would liven up the game a bit. 

6

Programming / Re: UI updates?

« on: January 21, 2013, 08:11:01 am »

I do think however that you could make the resolution a slider also to keep it uniform, it could de done with like set points and placed on the bottom.

Rather then a slider, I would make it a drop down list.  Also some features must be selected at the start of each game and shouldn't be changed during the game for gameplay reasons.

Other then the details how each feature must be represented, the concept of updating the options screen has merit.  But keep in mind that it is for post 1.0 and the head developers still have to decide what direction openxcom will take after completing their main goal:  Creating an open source reimplementation of xcom 1.

7

Open Feedback / Re: Next version number (0.5)

« on: December 08, 2012, 11:36:59 am »

I'd go for 0.9.  If there exist a need for a extra version before 1.0 we can still make a 0.10 in an emergency. 

Edit: Version 1.0 is a complete version of a Xcom game and I think the openxcom must present the community it as a standalone open source game that faithfully represents the original one.  After that is done, the openxcom team can decide what new project they plan to start based on v1.0 for v1.0+. Be it an editor for openxcom, multiplayer or whatever.

8

Programming / Re: Research developement

« on: January 28, 2012, 07:45:48 am »

IMO the number of needed items can be coded in, but should not be part of the stock OpenXcom.  It is a feature that's included for modders to use if they wish.

9

Suggestions / Re: Autocombat

« on: August 01, 2011, 12:10:55 pm »

So you will play interesting battles and skip boring ones. But that, if you are not satisfied with autocombat result?
It is a bad feeling, when autocombat system just lost half of your squad for no reason. Such situation annoys. Even more annoys, if you cannot fix result.

The idea behind auto combat, as you have pointed out, is to skip boring (Easy) missions.  Missions with low risk where rarely you will lose a soldier.  If you try to use auto combat with a risky mission, where you could lose half of your squad, then it should be costly and risky!

But no combat results before you even started a mission.  Remember:  The play style of Xcom should be serious and scary.  You should walk into/out of a mission sweating.  It should feel like an uphill battle, where humans gradually start to turn the tide of the war.

We can, as a compromise, add a new gameplay feature to help the commander (you) measure the risk of a mission in the Endgame.  For example you research scouting (or whatever) to give you, as the commander, an evaluation of the mission.  Put a Risk tag of low, medium and high on each mission. We can also add terrain, weather or whatever reports to the evaluation.  Then you can decide if you wish to use auto combat knowing the risk.  

But stop. You can fix autocombat results by save/load!

This right there is what we should avoid.  To give people a reason to cheat.   Saving is there to help a person save his process in the game.  Saving should NOT be used as a cheap way to reduce the risk of a game.  If a person has reason to continually save and load then there is a problem with the game.

Edit: Lol! As i was typing two replies!  Both of them I agree with.

10

Suggestions / Re: Autocombat

« on: July 31, 2011, 09:38:47 pm »

it wont work, this is because you cant replace easy your solders. you will probably not glad when your Jon Rambo MIA in attack on small scout

Additional brainstorm idea: If the Auto combat calculates that 1 or more of your soldiers must die, let the soldiers experience be used in the calculations to decide which soldier dies.

For example: Soldiers with low experience has a higher chance to be selected as the KIA soldier and vice versa.

This will help lessen the chance of players losing their Jon Rambo. 

Also I propose to give player choise to reject autocombat results and compleet a misson himself.

Not sure of this. If the player is always given autocombat results before he plays the mission it might hurt gameplay.  The player must feel the consequences of his decisions.
I hope my soldier experience suggestion helps address/lessen the possible frustrations that auto combat entails.

11

Suggestions / Re: Autocombat

« on: July 30, 2011, 08:04:47 pm »

One brainstorm idea:  Keep track of player play behavior/success rate.  If the circumstance is x what result does the player usually get. 

For example:  (4 Sectoids with 4 plasma rifles) vs (6 soldiers with 6 laser rifles) = (4 Sectoids dead) vs (2 soldiers dead)

Then do some calculations based on that.

12

Suggestions / Re: more ufo variety ... without adding any!

« on: July 30, 2011, 08:24:43 am »

I don't think there is a 'easy' way to add more variety of ufos.

The best solution that I know of is to do what TTS did.  Make more then 1 internal ship design and then randomize between them.

13

Suggestions / Re: Instant Battle Option

« on: July 30, 2011, 08:12:20 am »

Brilliant idea!

+1

14

Suggestions / Re: Ground Elevation

« on: July 20, 2011, 12:40:26 pm »

Hmm. So putting SMAC aside, we can add lower angle tiles? Excellent!

Then I would like to put that in as a suggestion for later implementation.

15

Suggestions / Re: Ground Elevation

« on: July 19, 2011, 10:07:34 pm »

Well what i have found on the web it seems it's a foxel system. (Some of these words are over my head.  )

Alpha Centauri employed (isometric) 3-D rendering for both the terrain and units. This was made possible by the "Caviar" voxel library by AnimaTek International (now Digital Element), which renders the voxel models and terrain geometry using self-modifying assembly language routines.

What i could gather from playing SMAC again it seems to layer textures over a voxel base.  First it renders a plain brown texture. Then it layers upon it trees, rocks, ect.

Upon closer examination on the ground elevation, it seems that it uses not one, but at least two different gradient elevations.
To illustrate how the map has a smooth appearance see attached image. (Top = Xcom. Bottom = SMAC)



Next to any flat area there must be a low gradient block. This smoothes the appearance.  In between low gradient blocks, you may get a higher gradient block.
One thing that I don't know is how you render the different gradient blocks. Is it 3 rows or 6 rows in the attached picture?  Is it possible to implement different gradient tiles? That I hope Daiky can answer us.

I don't have the required voxel know how, so please excuse me if I made some wrong assumptions.

Everything standing on such "distorted" ground will be hanging above, touching ground only with one corner.

Minor dear Watson, or Xcom would have had such problems.

- In xcom every ground tile is a true isometric object - you can see that clearly if you destroy a part of a mountain with blaster bombs.

The majority of SMACs gameplay is through shaping the map.  Making it higher and lower.  You also can blow mountains away with a super H-bomb thingy.

Planetbuster missiles blast holes in continents.

Fun times.

Which part of the square are we supposed to lower?

It shouldn't be too different to how xcom handles it.

So it should not change the game's tactics.  It is for appearance.
How easy it is to implement I can't say.  Hopefully it is not too hard and worth the effort.

Here is a screen-shot to help illustrate SMAC's tiles:
https://img9.imageshack.us/img9/7808/screenshotpqp.png
Note: The water is tiles beneath ground level.

R