devilslayersbane
-
Posts
205 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3 -
Donations
0.00 USD
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Documentation
Bug Tracker
Downloads
Posts posted by devilslayersbane
-
-
I am just asking if VR is simply getting hardware plugged into an existing FPS game, or does there need to be significant software in the game to complement it. If it's the latter, of course it won't be doable.
It is the latter. While it would be a neat feature, NVIDIA and Oculus have both released SDK's in order to help developers create new games for the HTC Vive and Oculus Rift. From what I've seen, the Oculus rift also takes advantage of motion controls as well. That would mean an entirely new animation system, as the current one is so rigid it requires button presses to change animations. While I don't doubt the skill of the guys at tiberian technologies, I seriously doubt a complete, VR-ready animation system is in the works or even in the scope of their scripting knowledge. And if it was to favor the HTC Vive as opposed to the OR, you would want to make sure that the motion controllers could give feedback if used. Shit, I'd like to see a limited, adjustable aiming deadzone put in place (not that I would use it, but it's a nice feature).
Long story short, while definitely possible, it would take too much development time. Without some sort of grant from EA to start working it, there would be no reason to do it.
0 -
That would require a lot of work, especially considering you'd have to separate the camera from the player character direction. Typically that's only reserved for sims. It'd be a challenge just to put in head-tracking support.
0 -
https://www.twitch.tv/devilslayersbane/v/58869903
New Highlight from today's stream!
Edit: And Another!
https://www.twitch.tv/devilslayersbane/v/58870812
Edit 2: Last one!
0 -
What about a heavy tank against a medium tank?
0 -
I'd like to see an objective based map similar to RA_seamist, but it be a D-Day style assault (not necessarily amphibious, but the soviets have a ton of bunkers and cover for infantry on large cliff-faces) where the allies have to assault the weakened soviet base (building wrecks welcome) and the soviets have limited resources.
1 -
Don't worry, I just have low viewer counts. I don't really know why and the feedback that twitch gives is kinda shitty, as it doesn't tell me where my viewers are or if I have any repeat visitors.
0 -
I will be starting a stream soon!
0 -
Streaming right now!
0 -
Hey, guys I will be doing an APB stream later tonight. Possibly from 8pm CDST to 10pm CDST
0 -
You're going to have to bear with me with me here, but let's look at it like this:
Comparison to other infantry roles in APB:
Grenadier (old):
Small splash
low damage
only good in really tight spaces
hard for new players to really get on to (not such a bad thing, but I've never used a grenadier effectively)
Not really worth the money on any map that has a ref larger than 100m2, because other units do what he does better
cheap
Good against 2-3 infantry (alone)
Grenadier (new):
Large splash
large damage
good in medium sized spaces and open ground
needs to lead a target well.
Useful inside larger building (I.e. ref, wf)
more expensive
Good for early infantry rushes if used right
Still provides a decent challenge for new players (veteran players get this challenge as free DLC).
Good against 3-4 infantry (potentially)
Kapitan:
Good against 1-2 infantry
poor at most CQB
cheap
Large ammo per mag
stays after barr death
Sergeant:
CQB expert
Decent at medium range engagements due to slugs
good against 1-3 infantry
stays after barr death
cheap
Flamethrower:
Medium splash
Medium damage
more expensive
explodes on death
fire retardant
Good on all maps
Good against 3-4 infantry (basically a better old grenadier)
So, if that's not enough, let's take some inspiration from real-life:
F1 grenade (old grenadier)
Can be thrown super far
Can be thrown up close
no kill radius
damage radius small
F1 grenade (new grenadier):
Can be thrown relatively far (for a handheld grenade)
High damage
3 second timer
Large radius (still no guaranteed kill radius)
F1 grenade IRL (soviet):
3.5-4 second fuze (generally)
30m effective radius, 200m possible damage radius (the latter is a bit extreme for a game not based on simulation)
Thrown up to 30-45m out away from the user
Overall the new grenadier has more use (imo) and is more believable
Impact grenades did not see very wide use until more modern times in our timeline and older models often ended up causing more harm than good (see the T13 Beano)
While you may have to limit somethings usefulness in order to get more use out of it in another area, lets see how this plays out.
Talk is cheap. We need an effective script that can log kill messages on the server so that we can see how often grenadiers are used and how effective they are.
I'm interested in seeing results.
1 -
Since you are using an old game engine are you able to tweak it for multi threading or are you stuck with just 1 core? Its not too much of a problem because CPUs now can really clock up with just 1 active core.
You may have to wait for an informed answer on the multi-threading/one core question.
By default, the engine does not support this at all, as it was built when single core processors still reigned supreme. I believe, ECW is the only project here that makes use of more than one thread, but ECW is really a thing unto itself anyway. Its not fully multi-thread aware, but rather just a few operations have been assigned to an additional thread. Jerad2142 is the one to ask for more info on this. Also jonwil and Saberhawk could shed more light on the internal workings surrounding this.
Most games even today have difficulty dealing with multiple cores/threads. Arma 3 came out in September of 2013 and has a big CPU bottleneck which will kill your framerate (this is mostly due to AI). Using multiple cores/threads in consumer-grade products is mostly a pipe-dream atm, with what limited multiple core support available being limited to uneven distribution of loads on the separate cores (typically with one core taking the brunt of the work). Multi core rendering is definitely more viable these days (and pretty much required) but a lot of that is done driver/api side, not program side. But you also have to look at consumer-grade CPU's. The best one available right now (for the price) on Intel's side is the Pentium G3470 dual-core at 3.6 Ghz. For the average consumer, it's a great processor. It's fast and reliable, but for advanced consumers it lacks a ton of features that many of us talk about on here: Overclocking, hyperthreading, etc. Until those become more mainstream and normal, we're probably not going to see games that use much more than that without becoming inaccessible to those who can't make the paywall. We have to remember that PC enthusiasts are not the "norm" for pc gaming. We're a minority. Vocal, sure, but we're still a minority. I just happen to be a pc enthusiast who has gotten very lucky (literally had a six-core rig gifted to me). Most people don't have the money or time to invest in picking out PC parts for what their particular situation is. That's why I'm trying to make a side-business doing just that. I like pc parts and I like putting pc's together. If you pay for the parts and the time I take to put them together, I will be more than happy to put it all together for you. Back on topic, Single and dual-core processors are still relevant, even if they no longer hold the title of top-dog. Some people just can't afford any better than that but still want some entertainment. They want to be able to download a game and play without all of the hassle of picking out parts or what-not. That's why consoles are still relevant.
1 -
Oh, just BTW, the GWWII allied victory screens in the RA2 installation explicitly show German Leopard 2's. That being said, While much of the equipment is indeed from our own vietnam era, a lot of it is also Korean era tech as well, such as the M1carbine (listed in the game files), the M24 chaffee (which also saw service in WWII), and the AK-47.
0 -
I personally like the fact that the RA universe has a 155mm M110. It does give a bit of uniqueness to the universe that does help separate it from our own.
0 -
So, I used to play this extraordinarily fun game called battlezone. Originally developed and published by Activision (back when the "vision" in their name meant unique and awesome games). I still play the singleplayer on it from time to time, as it is by far my favorite RTS of all time. It is also my favorite RTS/FPS hybrid of all time. In fact, it set the bar so high for me that I was really disappointed with renegade for not having a base-building mechanic. That being said, I do still like renegade, I just knew nothing of doom and quake then, and Red Alert was definitely my second favorite RTS (and is my favorite CNC). I really enjoyed both. So, I am happy to say that Rebellion announced a Battlezone HD remake, dubbed Battlezone '98 Redux. I feel like this is a good move since Rebellion's main focus with the Battlezone franchise is going towards Sony's VR system and is not going to be related to the 1998 versions alternate 1960's space war. I'm hyped. Please enjoy the Trailer.
1 -
Also, my sister took Mirror's edge. Thanks.
1 -
Thank you for Burnout!
1 -
I played the Alpha, but haven't been able to play anymore due to lack of funds.
0 -
Auto-leveled,
Posterized,
Colors inverted.
1 -
How do you explain the Arizona memorial and the Iwo Jima statue in Red Alert 2, then? I know that it would've essentially been suicidal to attack Pearl Harbor, but evidence shows that it did happen. The question is why, and how did it end?
Other issues addressed for RA2 and RA3 are not present
Also
It's possible that Japan may have formed an alliance with the USSR during the GWWII in the Pacific in order to try and expand again
0 -
I like the idea of removing the RPG Soldier and merging it with the Grenadier in some aspect. Would give it more use for certain.
I would rather see a GP-25 on the rifle soldier than this. I still support my suggestion, and pushwall's further comments help reinforce any doubt I had that the changes I proposed (and that he amended) would be overpowered or underpowered. The point of this thread was to determine whether or not the grenadier had use outside of infantry only maps, doing away with him would change the feel of the game significantly and remove a good portion of nostalgia (which is the reason I came to this game).
3 -
See, I was thinking of making the grenadier a bit of a an Anti-infantry, anti-building unit. So, essentially a soviet arty. That's on foot. That costs less. And while doing substantial damage to buildings with direct hits (slightly less than the RPG trooper), he wouldn't do as much to infantry (without a direct hit). However, his splash radius would be rather large (like, 20 meters or so). So while you may not die from a single grenade, you will take damage. I mean, most grenades have a kill radius of about 15 meters. This would also deter grenadiers from entering buildings due to the threat of self-harm.
0 -
In my personal opinion, it went very similarly to our WWII, but since the US didn't have to dedicate very much to Europe (aside from supplies and a small support force), they had much more reserves to throw at the Japanese, ending the war sooner. Also, presumably the US didn't invent the A-Bomb in this timeline, which means that they had to use a less destructive form of winning the war. My guess would be a complete blockade of Japan. I'm probably wrong, though, so keep the discussion going, of course.
Again, I disagree. With the fact that U.S. involvement in the pacific theater of WWII was directly related to the attacks on Pearl Harbor. However, before this time, we were weary of Japan and knew that if China did not win the war, then Japan would have very little stopping it from taking over other American and Western European holdings in the Pacific. In essence, we supported China. However, the U.S. was already in combat with Italy and with Germany in Northern Africa at this time in our WWII. Even still, Japan's upper echelon military knew that they would not win a war with the U.S. However, the threat of U.S. intervention in the RA timeline would have been much, much greater. The U.S. would not have been fighting a war on two (or three, really) fronts, and it while Japan's Generals would have wanted those holdings, they would also had to have recognized the fact that the U.S. would have an unfettered response. The Attack on Pearl Harbor was supposed to be a preventative measure by the Japanese in order to discourage war with the U.S. by crippling our fleet. A move like this in the RA timeline, without the guarantee that the U.S. is already fighting somewhere else would have been absolute suicide. Pearl Harbor was very calculated, but they missed a few variables in our timeline. In RA timeline, it would not have mattered whether or not they missed a few variables, they would have been defeated one way or another. Japan's Generals weren't stupid, they most likely would not have instigated a war with any Western power in the RA timeline.
0 -
I'm sorry I didn't see your response before. That is an incredibly well thought out response, and I consider it very viable.
I only posted it a few days ago.
0 -
Many of you may be familiar with this post at the BHP forums. It somewhat boiled down to a discussion on the rather incomplete political and economic climate that would have enabled Red Alert to take place (I mean, sure, we know the basics: Hitler dies before coming to power thanks to Einstein, the arms race happens considerably sooner, war breaks out between the Allies and Soviets). But really, that doesn't explain all of it. It leaves out important notes on the political climate of China and the Orient, Africa, South America, and other such factors. It fails to explain how Poland is a Communist country by the beginning of the GWWII.
I happen to be a bit of a history nut. I don't like discrepancies like this, so I did my best to answer some of the questions raised in the linked thread. Here's what Cat5 asked and what I wrote (respectively):
Here's my answer:The only concern, really, is what Japan, China and America would have responded with, but since Westwood pretends those countries don't exist...Actually, it's a good question. What happens to those three in a Hitler-less history? China and Japan are at war before WWII even begins without help from Germany, so that would have happened anyway. What would have been the result of that war? Would China have emerged with victory by the warlords, the communists, or would Japan have succeeded given that they did not attack the Allies as in the historical WWII? Westwood's worldbuilding was good enough to be believable when I had a Middle School education, but now it's just absurd. Why do Poland, Finland, and Romania start as Communist? Why doesn't the Asian and African theatre matter? I feel like they built their alternate-WWII world using a 1991 diplomatic map limited to Europe while somehow trying to have an atmosphere of 1950s, and it gets worse as the series goes on. RA2: How does Italy lose Libya as a colony if WWII doesn't happen? How does Britain lose Iraq? How does Korea fight for the Allies in RA2 if Japan doesn't lose the war against China and operates as a separate faction in RA3?
Also keep in mind that my explanation is just one of many plausible possibilities based on what I know of history and the political climate that surrounded the times.This is how I've come to interpret it:
China and Japan would have been in a war that probably would have been somewhat equivalent to what we saw pre-WWII in our own timeline. Meanwhile the rest of the world's major economies would have been pretty downtrodden due to the Great Depression and the fact that many countries would have still been recovering from WWI. The U.S. would have probably remained ultimately neutral in terms of this second Sino-Japanese war, but would have supported China during this time with equipment and supplies as much as they could, because Imperial Japan would have been a threat to the U.S.'s and other allies holdings in the Pacific. The outcome of this war would have determined the practicality of the Soviet Union's potential aggression in the theater as it would cost a lot of money to move troops across the Urals and Siberia. Considering this, it's most likely that this war did eventually come out in China's favor, with China successfully pushing out the Japanese and forming a peace with Japan. Stalin, at this point would consider it a good point to move troops to the Eastern Coast of Russia in order to begin some expansion there. China probably would have backed away from the USSR and communism, due to the massive support of the U.S. during the Second Sino-Japanese war and the fact that the Chinese Warlords would probably have gotten more direct support. That point out there, the Warlords would have re-established the Chinese government back to the Republic of China (or the existing goverment of the Republic of China would have gained much more power than it had pre-war). Thus, Soviet influence in the Pacific would dwindle unless Stalin decided to go military. It's possible that Japan may have formed an alliance with the USSR during the GWWII in the Pacific in order to try and expand again, though this is never mentioned and wouldn't really have an effect on the outcome of the Pacific theater as Japan wouldn't have much to offer post-war. Going back to the European theater, you have shambling Eastern European countries that are suffering from the Great Depression. The USSR, due to decreased trade to these countries thanks to the reduction in global trade, offers jobs and security to these nations that are unable to recover from WWI economically. One by one, they are assimilated as "sovereign" states that answer to the Soviet Banner. Technically, they are allowed to keep their borders and governments, but they are very much ruled by communism, mirroring our timeline's Warsaw Pact Nations.
Edit: Keep in mind, this explanation is limited only to the start of RA1. Other issues addressed for RA2 and RA3 are not present.
1
help installing Path Beyond!
in Help & Support
Posted · Edited by devilslayersbane
Hey, I build pc's as a side-job. If you live in Dallas, TX area I could probably hook your buddy up. I have Builds that will run Fallout 4 for $400 (not including labor/shipping).