Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Yankes

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 145
1
This is right now not possible

2
OpenXcom Extended / Re: [improvement] Inventory priorities
« on: February 13, 2020, 02:09:40 am »
nowhere, this is code patch you need recompile it to make it work.

3
Offtopic / Re: What happened to Blizzard?
« on: February 12, 2020, 10:31:36 pm »
They will be forced to publish back all the changes, and they can't easily link GPL code with proprietary code. For example, EA has their proprietary Frostbite engine, and they can't really integrate any GPL code with it. Same with Unreal and Unity. That leaves only open source 3d engines, which are just a mess and fall behind from commercial engines. Ideally you want some team to secure funding and license, then integrate OpenXCOM with Unreal or Cryengine, with modern graphics pack and improved UI to play on smartphones/tablets, but without touching any game logic.
What is point adding 3D engine to it? This would need doping half of source code to make it work, especially everything that touch `Suface` or `SDL_Surface` classes. Probably easier would be write it from scratch.

Overall my idea was simply they drop current dos exe and dosbox and use OXC exe instead. They even could use it verbatim without changing any thing.
I do not expect they would plan do lot of work for OXC to even consider that pushing upstream would be business loss in any way. If they would want do something bigger, better would be do it from scratch.

4
Offtopic / Re: What happened to Blizzard?
« on: February 12, 2020, 12:31:21 am »
Dosbox is GPL https://sourceforge.net/p/dosbox/code-0/HEAD/tree/dosbox/trunk/COPYING
And its sell by Steam or GoG, this mean they could use OpenXcom in same way.
This could be similar to Id did and releasing source code of Q1 or Doom as GPL.

(And I would be honored if my code was in official release. Publishers! please choose OXCE :D )

5
Offtopic / Re: What happened to Blizzard?
« on: February 09, 2020, 02:00:41 am »
Probably best balanced summary of this blizz fail:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQq8aB77VCI

(and the mention that Blizz will have couple of NEW mobile games...)

6
OpenXcom Extended / Re: Light cover fork
« on: February 05, 2020, 11:44:34 pm »
IF some time in future I would make some refactor of this function this code would only obstruct me, not mentioning still supportig this options after that.

Another is: https://openxcom.org/forum/index.php/topic,6498.0.html

7
OpenXcom Extended / Re: Light cover fork
« on: February 05, 2020, 09:01:10 pm »
Even as modder option is not worth it as all new code add cost do codebase.

8
OpenXcom Extended / Re: Light cover fork
« on: February 04, 2020, 10:16:52 pm »
  • Make rolled misses always miss (no 100% hit chance with a sniper rifle point blank range), by changing lines 420-422 to have 40 guaranteed deviation when missing, rather than possibly having 0 deviation.
  • Make rolled hits always hit (and partial cover is totally ignored) by decreasing hit deviation on line 416 to 0.
  • Make partial cover more relevant and less binary by setting hit deviation on line 416 to 20, or to 10-50 depending on how high your roll was.

Looking on this code of this function I could rewrite it in may way, but none of them would include any thing from this list. This is things that I do not like and I do not want be added to OXCE. This go in opposite direction that should it go. Even as modder option is not worth it as all new code add cost do codebase.

9
OpenXcom Extended / Re: Light cover fork
« on: February 04, 2020, 08:29:50 pm »
Ignore the artificial thing then. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem interested in adding the approximation function, which is good for vanilla. If you do that, "subverting the functions" would be as simple as letting modders change the (accuracyRoll->deviation) formula, so not much reason not to do it.
Could you rephrase what you mean? Because I have feeling that we speak about something different.

My stance is that NO change will be made to shoot accuracy or any mechanic in it. Only add helper function that will calculate approximate of real accuracy of given shoot.

10
Offtopic / Re: What happened to Blizzard?
« on: February 04, 2020, 12:59:26 am »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T37a8y5SRz8

He mention rumor that it is even not Blizzard "product" but outsourced one.

11
OpenXcom Extended / Re: Light cover fork
« on: February 03, 2020, 11:22:50 pm »
Yankes, plz keep responding. What I want to do is b)Teach AI to avoid obstacles when shooting and maybe when moving. It is my opinion that the best way to do this is the following:

  • When in setupEscape(), the AI will consider enemy units against which it has cover as only a fraction of a spotter.
  • When in findFirePoint(), the AI will prefer not to shoot at targets it is unlikely to hit.
  • For the player's convenience, UFOextender accuracy should show the chance that the shot will actually hit. Otherwise, a realistic partial cover system will just be confusing as you have no idea how good cover is.

I consider all three elements of this essential to a decent realistic partial cover system. They are all fairly easy to implement, but in all three I am missing one key component: a function which determines a shot's actual chance to hit. The key is surely in applyAccuracy(), but I don't understand the math in applyAccuracy(), so that's where I need your help. I can implement everything else and give you the tools to balance it further.

Imo vanilla hit deviation isn't big enough for partial cover to matter (do some tests in debug mode if you like), and that's why the AI works well without understanding partial cover at all: it doesn't matter. But vanilla should stay vanilla. Which is why I also suggest allowing modders to add hit deviation between 10-50, but that is a secondary concern and pretty trivial to implement, albeit possibly difficult to balance.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The difficulty of that final component is the main reason I originally went with the "artificial" method. If the function is impossible to implement, I would like to resume my work on the "artificial" method, because having artificial cover is better than the vanilla approach of having almost no partial cover. At least as a modding option, assuming it doesn't cause glitches in the engine. However that won't mean much if it's a separate fork that never gets updated while the main branch gets all the updates, so I won't do it unless there's a chance it will be merged into the main branch.Also keep in mind that the "artificial" method is used by FiraxisCOM and Xenonauts, but the "realistic" method has only successfully been implemented by Phoenix Point. 96COM  and by extension OpenXCOM does not really have partial cover, so it gets away without the AI knowing about it. So if you can't implement the "realistic" method of accuracy prediction, please support my attempt to implement the "artificial" method by merging it once it is complete (if it is not buggy).
First of all, cover in OXC is multi layer, not only that you stay behind but every thing in between. Each object "cast shadow" that can protect you from some of attacks. And this is realistic and it now working, to make AI aware of this do not need adding any "artificial" logic to fix it. You need:
a) Calculate it (using montecarlo methods, probably hard and will require refactor to cache voxels in some hierarchical structure)
b) Approximate it (each object and wall have predefined "shoot difficulty" and your ask AI to choose easy shoots). You can add this info to UI too. And this will not affect in any way result of shoot. This could be simple number of filled voxel in tile.

Overall neither I or Meridian are interested in "realistic cover", improving current functionalities ok, subverting them no.

12
OpenXcom Extended / Re: Light cover fork
« on: February 02, 2020, 08:10:49 pm »
In not currently working as realistic as possible? If there clean LOF then unit can be hit, if not, object will be hit. If unit is only partially covered, this mean something is in between then some hits hit cover and some could hit unit. This mechanic could have some tweaks and improvement but basic premise is sound. Adding artificial roll that cause miss is neither of this two.

Thinks that could improve current mechanic:
a) Allow AI to kneel
b) Teach AI to avoid obstacles when shooting, and use them when moving
c) Maybe allow better targeting to not shooting into mass center of target

13
OpenXcom Extended / Re: OXCE (OpenXcom Extended) main thread
« on: February 02, 2020, 04:39:50 pm »
This should be fixed already

14
Help / Re: Remove Weight Encumbrance (edit: and Item Destruction/Removal)
« on: February 02, 2020, 03:06:17 pm »
If overkill is set to very big number no damage will touch inventory or corpse of that unit.

and I was referencing to OBDATA, OXC or OXCE do not use it and all config is in `.rul` files.

https://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php/Ruleset_Reference_Nightly_(OpenXcom)

15
OpenXcom Extended / Re: Light cover fork
« on: February 02, 2020, 02:48:52 pm »
I do not think that arbitrary altering bullet trajectory is good thing, it look more like force shield that catch incoming bullet than hitting obstacle.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 145