Raap

I might just expand the entry zones for them even further so you can enter them from above, i.e. if you eject from a helicopter and land on top. Whether that's worth sacrificing the hindbow you need in order to actually do that is up to you. Subs sink when unmanned and cannot be accessed. Instead of allowing Soviets to claim Destroyers in this way, why not create a script instead that auto-destructs unoccupied vehicles after two minutes or so? This would also clean up the naval transport storage yards. Edit: Oh look, that's what I said in my old post that you quoted. Don't expect me to remember what I wrote more than a day ago.

Well then, good work detective Pushwaffles. One of the unmentioned concerns I originally had was "friendly" ships sailing backwards into the spawn areas and blocking the spawns, this is why I put so many safety-nets in place... Same with the Soviet sub pen. Ideally however, I would have had these vehicles auto-move on player entry until they were out of the spawn zones. But that wasn't really achievable. For the sub pen I always had the option of adding an underwater gate for the same reason, but I figured that submarines are a lot less likely to panic back into the pen when they leave the pen relatively safely (depth charges aside), and if sub pen camping ever became an issue, then a protected multi-exit underwater extension was on the drawing board already. The naval yard was much more challenging to solve in this way, and I confess some mistakes were made, after all, these were untested waters. ( )

Afaik XWIS still runs it. It seems they no longer have a "proper" website, just a page with a few links and a forum, which has a few recent posts in it. Not to be the usual doom prophet, but consider approaching them with some consolidation in mind. What's left of the broader C&C community is too little to be kept fractured like it is. But then again, I've always been in favor of more actively attempting to move things around. Why is there even... 3? Different C&C match hosting services? Why does everyone always have to be so bloody stubborn and refuse project cooperation?

Sounds like you will risk opening a major can of worms for such a relatively minor and marginally useful ability (vehicle stacking). If it becomes a real problem, then add an invisible cone mesh with vehicle collisions above the naval transport - not part of the worldbox. Even the slightest bit of uneven surface will eliminate this tactic since you wouldn't be able to control the vehicle.

I did a quick test just now in 3.0.7.4 (hotfix version), the bridge correctly model swaps. What causes some confusion here perhaps is that I never verified or specified (I think) in which version the bridge stopped functioning as intended. I just know that it worked in my own builds and then due to ini changes, it eventually stopped working, until now. Which still means that 3.0.7.4 - the hotfix - fixed the problem and therefore an FPS increase has been gained compared to (an unspecified number of-) previous public releases, which lead to me asking for another feedback round.

If you applied the fix as per patch notes correctly then it should in fact result in an FPS increase, that's the simple truth. The persisting draw calls and particles were an unnecessary and unintended burden, caused by the warhead displacement magic (don't do magic, kids). Seeing as I am never able to catch a live round myself, feedback is critical.

Apologies for the bump, but I'd like to ask for another round of feedback on the performance (FPS) on Siege, following the 3.0.7.4 update. This update should have resolved a notable problem that may have impacted performance in live-play when both scaffold bridges were destroyed. If performance remains on the rough side, nothing will change. If it has helped a lot, I might still do an art revision (I may also do an art revision for HW down the line).

I'm not sure what's more disturbing, the fact that W3D network code didn't push you into the water, or the audio modifications... Anyhow, this is why naval transports don't carry vehicles (properly) in APB, it's a concept that the bases aren't balanced around.

Just an FYI: The server once again fails to report server status to the launcher.

We discussed it yes, but it doesn't change the fact that something changed somewhere past the point of when I tested the mechanic, to which I can confidently state that the cause was displacement magic. Ya gettin'?

This should fix some of the performance complaints on Siege as well, since the net result of the damage state not transitioning properly, was a minor 300 or so draw calls bonus, along with persistent particle effects. For what it's worth, this issue never existed in my own local tests. We'll have to dump the cause on the pile of mysteries that can seemingly occur when files change hands.

Cheers for the Windows 10 patch tips, if I need a nostalgia fix I'll look them up. (Besides running those old games, I do wonder if anyone is looking to improve them performance-wise as well.) Edit: C&CNet seems popular. Why don't C&CNet and W3DHub cooperate? Both provide a similar service, access to fan-driven C&C content (fan-driven also including service operation for older games). And C&CNet doesn't support Renegade (W3D), so it's not like the games would compete. Edit2: Actually, who even runs the Renegade server listing service these days? I know W3D projects like APB and Reborn have disconnected from that service, but how about Renegade itself, does it even have players left playing it?

If in doubt, shoot it.

A lot of the older RTS games no longer function on modern operating systems and hardware. Try running Tiberian Sun or Red Alert 2 on Windows 10, it's not going to happen.

And you know just as well as I do that it's useless for what we're talking about and shouldn't count I actually made it get to a different location once. But yes, it doesn't really impact the transport vehicle matter.

Fun fact for those who forgotten about it; The original Mobile AA Gun vehicle (not the current re-rig) was a neutral capturable vehicle (3 of them) in Siege's 2008 QA iteration. For this reason I toyed with the Soviet counterpart, a Mobile SAM Launcher, in the Siege development thread. I axed the Mobile SAM Launcher but if a desire for it exists I can certainly finish the model/rigging/presets, then Pushwall would have two anti-air vehicles to throw into various maps, which is a little more worthwhile than generic Supply Trucks. Edit: Referring to this 30 minute duct-tape job. If given more time, I could do a lot more with it of course. Edit2: FYI there is actually already a vehicle hidden somewhere in Siege, I figured I'd drop that hint now since nobody figured that one out yet... And some people kept telling me players find all secrets in less than 24 hours, hah!

I can't be of any assistance, but I wish you luck with it. How big is the Generals modding community these days anyhow? I confess to not having kept up with any of the C&C RTS projects.

Something certainly changed. I know the emitter is "permanent", but the animation that it was originally part of only lasted about 8 seconds, then a model (preset) swap occurs that changes the destroyed parts into a less demanding static model, without any emitters. So it seems the effect is remaining for some reason. Perhaps it wasn't caused in this patch, but it certainly did not occur in my personal in-dev version... But we now both know that our development environments are different in a number of aspects (see the black water issue, that I could not create using the same files). Quite possibly this is just another side effect of not using the same environment or even tools.

That updated water effect still isn't quite the same as what I used in my in-dev version, but it'll do. A new minor Siege bug surfaced in this build: The destroyed scaffolding has persisting smoke emitters, while previously they did not. Said smoke emitter is placed at the "destroyed" model's origin position, which means it is floating in the air in-game. Previously, smoke would only trail behind the destruction animation, which lasts about 8 or so seconds. Did you touch these W3D files? If not, then something might be broken in the used scripts... Don't try to re-set those scripts however, it's a messy and undocumented maze of scripts and parameters (note for future LE iteration: script editor documentation space per preset, so other/future project team members can figure out why things are done).

Since it still isn't new-topic worthy I'll briefly mention here that I've had a chat with Pushwall recently about my final contribution to APB Delta, and we decided that it would be easiest for me to simply go ahead and work on my final map, Frostburn Cove. So after a short period of putting that project in ice, I will soon begin to set up a schedule and plan to resume work on, and deploy this level. Worth noting is a few key changes compared to HostileWaters and Siege development. Due to me taking a step away from W3DHub (for various reasons I won't publicly discuss). The level will be publicly available for testing, but will not be featured on a test server, will not be available through the W3DHub launcher, and will not be added to the official server until sometime after I share the final versions development assets to Pushwall. Neither W3DHub testers or server infrastructure will be used during development, and I'll add that this is my decision. In the recent past I commented that development progress updates will be kept limited for this level, I now revised that strategy and will provide transparant development goals, design, and progress updates in a dedicated forum thread. Since I no longer have certain W3DHub staff members to bounce idea's back and forth with, the W3DHub community will be able to get involved instead. File storage/sharing logistics are presently a hurdle to overcome, but that's a bridge I'll cross when I get there. I'll make a new thread dedicated to the level once I finalized my development plan and set up a schedule for it. This thread will contain level design documentation (in reader-friendly format!), and various previews will be posted in it over time. As with my previous levels, Frostburn Cove will absolutely be departing from core gameplay slightly via the addition of map specific gameplay elements, objectives, and even a completely new vehicle (To give a hint: I always thought the Soviets lacked a support role vehicle, when the Allies have plenty of choice here already). EDIT: I almost forgot - I'm not providing any ETA for the ETA, sorry folks, some patience will be required.

I suppose it's different for me, as English isn't my first language. I often write fast, whatever is in my head at the time. When proof reading I then find a lot of sentences that can be improved to make them more easily understood by someone without the proper knowledge. More often than not the results of my writings are tied to the time of the day, as my brain is practically non-functional in this regard in the morning (and due to my inconsistent sleeping pattern, "morning" does not have a solid definition for me)... Then there is giving your text the right formatting as well...

Writing tutorials can be tiresome and often under appreciated work. It's usually not the writing that causes problems or delays, it's the editing and proof reading (followed by more editing).

I've stated this before, but folks tend to view "the old days" with rose-colored glasses. The old days are overrated and there were really a lot of days with no players then too. To be fair I mostly thought about the peak days where we pulled in awards as well. EDIT: Going waaaay off-topic here now, though!

Perhaps in the coming year, W3DHub will appoint a proper marketing and/or community manager, something that their current roster of staff has no experience with. The BHP days were far from perfect, but at least nobody can say that there was a lack of publicity and players back then.

All the things.