Author Topic: DogfightState development  (Read 53693 times)

Offline michal

  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 629
    • View Profile
Re: DogfightState development
« Reply #15 on: July 29, 2012, 11:32:08 am »
Once again, I apologize. My first PR and already messed up :-|.

Don't worry, it's easy to broke linux when you're working on Visual - it happened a lot before ;) Daiky had such problems too - AFAIK he started using some linux under virtualization to check if it still works.

Bright side is that such issues are quickly discovered and can be fixed.

Offline d2uriel

  • Sergeant
  • **
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
Re: DogfightState development
« Reply #16 on: July 29, 2012, 11:42:58 am »
Yeah, that's a good idea. I'll install a Linux distro under a VM and I'll check my changes there as well before making a PR ;-).

Offline SupSuper

  • Lazy Developer
  • Administrator
  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 2162
    • View Profile
Re: DogfightState development
« Reply #17 on: August 11, 2012, 04:27:17 am »
PR

https://github.com/SupSuper/OpenXcom/pull/102

Probably it could be nice features to include in 0.4, but maybe it would be better to wait.
I ended up changing my mind and adding this to 0.4, as it's a nice addition and doesn't make much sense to have Very Large UFOs that can't kick your ass. :P

Btw a bug I noticed is that shots fired from the Cannon always seem to go through the UFO and out of the screen. In the original game any shot would always stop at the UFO, even if it missed.

Offline moriarty

  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 1421
    • View Profile
    • Luke's OX mod site
Re: DogfightState development
« Reply #18 on: August 11, 2012, 09:55:52 am »
actually, I'd keep the "missed shots going through past the UFO" as a feature :)

although, perhaps, it would make sense to have them "fade out" after reaching their maximum (read: maximum effective) range?

Offline d2uriel

  • Sergeant
  • **
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
Re: DogfightState development
« Reply #19 on: August 11, 2012, 01:23:31 pm »
I'm gonna fix that today in the evening. Been busy lately but this is going to take less than 5 minutes ;-).

Offline SupSuper

  • Lazy Developer
  • Administrator
  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 2162
    • View Profile
Re: DogfightState development
« Reply #20 on: August 11, 2012, 05:01:55 pm »
actually, I'd keep the "missed shots going through past the UFO" as a feature :)

although, perhaps, it would make sense to have them "fade out" after reaching their maximum (read: maximum effective) range?
I think the only problem with that is with such a fast-firing gun like the Cannon, it makes your pilot look like it has really lousy aim (or really wasteful with ammo). :P

Volutar

  • Guest
Re: DogfightState development
« Reply #21 on: August 11, 2012, 10:46:13 pm »
and how do we suppose to determine if missile hit target if it's at exact missile range? when missile either way disappears at max distance.. only by ufo flash? okay

Offline SupSuper

  • Lazy Developer
  • Administrator
  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 2162
    • View Profile
Re: DogfightState development
« Reply #22 on: August 12, 2012, 02:15:05 am »
and how do we suppose to determine if missile hit target if it's at exact missile range? when missile either way disappears at max distance.. only by ufo flash? okay
Well in the original X-Com the sprite, sound and messages at the bottom were enough to indicate whether the shot hit or miss.

Don't get me wrong, I think having missed shots bypass the UFO makes sense, but it just doesn't work right with the original dogfight design, you'd need a new design like Xenonauts or XCOM Enemy Unknown. If you try it out yourself, all the shots going up to the top of the screen look really out of place.

Volutar

  • Guest
Re: DogfightState development
« Reply #23 on: August 12, 2012, 08:13:03 am »
i'm not saying about going to the top of radar screen, just little bit farther than ufo - for example 2 pixels out.

Offline moriarty

  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 1421
    • View Profile
    • Luke's OX mod site
Re: DogfightState development
« Reply #24 on: August 12, 2012, 10:34:57 am »
I think the only problem with that is with such a fast-firing gun like the Cannon, it makes your pilot look like it has really lousy aim (or really wasteful with ammo). :P

which is not far from the truth. the cannon has a terrible hit-to-miss-ratio, after all :)

I'd opt for having the "projectile" pixels fade out after reaching maximum range. to me it makes no sense to have them always continue to the top of the screen, but neither does it make sense to have them disappear immediately when reaching the maximum range.

if we want to add a little more eye candy, we could even make the "projectile" pixels go off-course after reaching the "maximum range", in a random direction (maximum 15°), although it would probably only really be visible when using the cannon (but who uses the cannon anyway...?)

Offline moriarty

  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 1421
    • View Profile
    • Luke's OX mod site
Re: DogfightState development
« Reply #25 on: August 27, 2012, 01:34:45 pm »
noticed another thing that's not right, although rather rare: I was chasing a small scout, and it had just gotten into the range of my Stingray Launcher. The moment the missile was fired, the UFO started outrunning my interceptor, and was almost getting away (and therefore way beyond the range of the sidewinder) when the missile caught up with it and destroyed it.

I'm okay with missiles catching "outrunning" UFOs, but only inside their operational range. so either the missile has to disappear completely at the range limit, or at least it needs to be "disabled" in some way, which should then be marked by some visual change, in order to avoid confusion.

I guess the easiest way is to have it disappear at the range limit.

(My preferred way would be to have it fade and deviate from the original course, though :) )

Volutar

  • Guest
Re: DogfightState development
« Reply #26 on: August 27, 2012, 02:44:55 pm »
missile/ufo hit condition doesn't include distance check. that's the reason.

Offline d2uriel

  • Sergeant
  • **
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
Re: DogfightState development
« Reply #27 on: October 11, 2012, 07:38:05 pm »
The above issue has been fixed (not submitted yet).

I have a free evening/night today so I'd like to fix all issues found in dogfights. Volutar, some time ago when we were talking on IRC you mentioned 8 points that need to be fixed:
Quote from: Volutar IRC
1. crash animation  2x slower
2. hit animation 2x brighter for 3 frames
3. hit animation starts with size+3 and ends with size+0 and lasts for 3 frames
4. crash animation 2x brighter for 8 frames (all the time until blob disappears)
5. crash animation starts with size+3 and ends with disappearing (shrinked under size 0)
6. radar animation must not include palette manipulation
7. blaster ray drawn without paying attention on radar wave. ie instead of +16/+8/+4/+2/+1 of intensivity, it replaces radar colors with one value
8. missile projectiles drawn as ordinary sprites replacing radar colors too

Since I wanna do some stuff today here's my comments:
  • Done.
  • What do you mean by saying 2 times brighter? I'm using the brightest green color in the 7th group found here.
  • Done.
  • As point no. 2 - please explain what do you mean by brighter?
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • You mean I should draw it and take into account radar waves?
  • Same as above?

Apart from that, any other issues found?

Volutar

  • Guest
Re: DogfightState development
« Reply #28 on: October 11, 2012, 09:02:00 pm »
2. it means direct blob values should be multiplied by 2, before adding to wave (background) color (with saturation cap).
4. see 2
6. actually it doesn't matter. it shouldn't affect final picture.
7. sure. see for yourself (attached).
8. see 7.

« Last Edit: October 11, 2012, 10:04:18 pm by Volutar »

Offline d2uriel

  • Sergeant
  • **
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
Re: DogfightState development
« Reply #29 on: October 11, 2012, 10:38:05 pm »
2. Done.
4. Done.
6. You asked for it ;-).
7. Done. Actually I haven't noticed that until your screen shot. Hehe ;-).
8. Done.

I should start coding "minimizing" the interception window and doing synchronous interceptions. Don't think I'll finish today, though.

I'll send another PR with the current changes so everyone can check if they are good or not.

Edit: Actually I should create Interceptor damage visible. This is what I'll do!
« Last Edit: October 11, 2012, 10:45:06 pm by d2uriel »