Jeru Posted April 17, 2011 Report Share Posted April 17, 2011 Needs proper title and description.Done, and I also added some video annotations and publicized via Facebook and Twitter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pureon Posted April 17, 2011 Report Share Posted April 17, 2011 Done, and I also added some video annotations and publicized via Facebook and Twitter.Very nicely annotated BTW Amazing work everyone! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Octavian Posted April 17, 2011 Report Share Posted April 17, 2011 I really wish there was a Mac build D: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeru Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 Very nicely annotated BTW Amazing work everyone!Thanks & agreed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythos_Ruler Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 Ah, that's useful information. I can change the random map scripts to use single mines if we prefer those. Actually I had to guess about what assets to use, since most had been renamed or deleted, and I'm not really a map designer. A good thing would be to just look at some of the custom maps I've made and try to emulate those. But you can also be creative on your own (you don't have to be shackled to my design sensibility). But I think the closer we can get the random map scripts to looking like hand-sculpted scenarios, the better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k776 Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 Personally, I'd like to see different shaped metal mines, so if the smaller ones don't have sparkles, then lets add some so they can be used.Shouldn't all these things be using inheritance anyway?i.e.LargeMetal < MetalSmallMetal < Metal ? I'm not sure how the XML system works for inheritance like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythos_Ruler Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 The smaller mines look horrible (bad UV mapping), so we will need someone to make new ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinoesroho Posted April 19, 2011 Report Share Posted April 19, 2011 I just played around with the textures, here's what i came up with. Should I commit it?Flatulance turned to catastrophe when the bonfire began. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrEmjeR Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 I guess the particle thing is hardcoded right?or is it done with scripts? I wanted to mess with it a little.Effects like Grow and Zhirnk and velocity change over time or sines and cosines would be cool.Also emmition shape (cube, spehere, cylinder) is i nice one.The alpha change time. so the can appear suddenly or just smoothly fade in.I think it's also nice to put a wind constant somewhere in the envoirement editor so there is a single value applyable to all partilces with the <affected by wind> tag or something.and is it also possible to set models as particles instead of only textures? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gudo Posted February 18, 2012 Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 Thinking of using the particle system for boat wake? That would be really cool IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythos_Ruler Posted February 18, 2012 Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 Thinking of using the particle system for boat wake? That would be really cool IMO.Particles could be used for water violently splashing against rock too.I've actually just committed some "Destruction Dust" particles for the Barracks buildings. SVN Update to try them out. Just place a Barracks in Atlas, 'Play' the Simulation, then delete the Barracks to see how it looks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
historic_bruno Posted February 18, 2012 Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 Thinking of using the particle system for boat wake? That would be really cool IMO.Would it? Particle systems have a fixed emitter, which would move along behind the boat maybe, but even if the emitted particles remained static behind the boat I don't see how it would look realistic while moving. If I'm not mistaken, animated textures was an idea thrown around in the past. Kinda moot point if we don't have animated textures Maybe some shading effect? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythos_Ruler Posted February 18, 2012 Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 A water shader effect or animated textures (or a combo of the two) would be needed for wakes and waves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonarpulse Posted February 18, 2012 Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 Particle systems have a fixed emitterWhat about Projectiles, like in that catapult video in the alpha 9 preview thread?Anyways since wakes are the interference of many waves, I think it would look good boats spawned static particles behind them. Those particles would be animated "sprites", i guess, of the two wakes moving perpendicular to the boat's velocity at the time & place the particle was spawned. Hopes that makes some sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iap Posted February 19, 2012 Report Share Posted February 19, 2012 I think we can take the flames off the female heads now, can't we? Hey but what about men getting hit by a burning arrow? What about burning arrows? I love this addition Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongground Posted May 29, 2012 Report Share Posted May 29, 2012 (edited) Hi! I either found a bug in the particle system or I am not doing it rightProblem solved. Sometimes, going away and read the documentation again later can help enormously. Edited May 29, 2012 by Strongground Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pureon Posted May 29, 2012 Report Share Posted May 29, 2012 I saw the smoke experiments you posted on IRC and they looked very good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shield Bearer Posted May 29, 2012 Report Share Posted May 29, 2012 Can you supply a link? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pureon Posted May 29, 2012 Report Share Posted May 29, 2012 Can you supply a link? I'll let Strongground do that when he's ready We need to make sure new particles don't reduce performance any further. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shield Bearer Posted May 29, 2012 Report Share Posted May 29, 2012 I'll let Strongground do that when he's ready We need to make sure new particles don't reduce performance any further.Gah! Curse me for not being active on IRC! D:How would it reduce performance? By using higher resolutions, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pureon Posted May 29, 2012 Report Share Posted May 29, 2012 How would it reduce performance? By using higher resolutions, right?Yep, and also more particles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythos_Ruler Posted May 29, 2012 Report Share Posted May 29, 2012 To be completely honest, I think the smoke in the game now looks more realistic than Strongground's changed smoke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongground Posted May 29, 2012 Report Share Posted May 29, 2012 Its always better to view it in motion. Have this 3mb avi (any better idea apart from spamming youtube btw.?)temple_fires_xvid.aviI dont like the individual particles showing in the original smoke, they're too uniform/round and dont offer any depth.But I see the problem, my particle sprite is better for large pillars of thick smoke, like burning buildings. These fires only produce campfire smoke at most, so it would disperse and easily be scattered by light winds. But it looks too thick at the moment. I'll do another run on that. I'm going to reuse the current particles for the thick black damage-smoke that comes next. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythos_Ruler Posted May 29, 2012 Report Share Posted May 29, 2012 I like the flying embers. I was thinking of doing something similar. I agree it looks better in motion, but you're also right that it doesn't look quite right for a smallish fire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
historic_bruno Posted May 29, 2012 Report Share Posted May 29, 2012 I like the flying embers. I was thinking of doing something similar.It requires another emitter? Doesn't sound good for performance especially for something so difficult to see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.