Really? With the amount of screen shots you always post, I thought you were just working on a screen shot generating program. I could never figure out the acronyms for that one - now it makes more sense.Demo with full (seamless space+planet environments) multi-player coming soon!
Definitely looks improved.
Now, about those hyper-detailed avionics... do you have ejectable lens caps implemented yet?
Ever thought that maybe it's bad form to pimp your own game on an independent message board?
Not trying to be rude, but most of the people who read these boards are frequent fliers at game news sites. We know about your game already.
I don't see a problem with a board regular putting in a personal plug for a game he designed and implemented. I would, however, object to having PR reps drop by for the sole purpose of plastering press releases on the boards.
If Derek wants to post some links now and then, that's fine with me.
Especially considering that he started a new thread, and didn't try and hijack another thread. . .
Considering the abuse of the forum going on elsewhere, I don't think this is worthy of note.
aw c'mon, you can't be serious!! Coupe of things :Originally Posted by Kool Moe Dee
- I was a bit hesitant at first, then I had an epiphany - right at the point where I said ...oh well, here goes nuthin'
- I noticed a few games as topics here, so I figured, why not? Besides, don't blame me if other game developers don't see it fit to mingle, mill and post. I'm social online - always have been (since I was aroung long before most were old enough to type, let alone park in front of a computer) - which is why, in the past, I've been frequently in trouble.
- Not sure what's independent about the site. Its a forum I like to hang out at - and which just so happens to be frequented by media people who are not foreign to me (maybe that are to you).
As such, I am, not only amongst my peers/friends/foes etc, but amongst people who've seen me go from nobody to egotistical showoff to egotistical game developer - especially since most of them have beat me up at some point or another - and will do so at the drop of a hat if I piss around. pah! I don't know about you, but I know where I came from, where I'm going...and exactly how I plan on getting there. I may get lost once in a while, but the road less travelled is fraught with unforeseen challenges.
- I've been coming here [QT3] since day one and hardly ever create new topics. I only happened to create this one because for some reason, those two lazy gits (Mark and Tom) aren't updating the main news page anymore - otherwise they would've posted the press mailer I sent out this morning (as I do on occasion). At which point, you'd be reading about this there, instead of in the forum. And that happens, even back at the old forum.
- If I wanted to live in a bubble, I'd either stay at my own site's forum or not crawl out of my knickers in the morning.
- If I wanted to post in a meaningless forum, I'd go play whack-a-troll at this forum cesspool where everything goes (unlike here, where trolls are literally shot on sight).
Better yet, I'd just go park on the Usenet and give trolls a hernia without even trying hard.
So, don't hate me because I'm fearless. :D
Doesn't it make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside? You want screen shots? I'll give you screen shots, here's about 1000+ Enjoy.Originally Posted by Chet
Nice try Chet. Better luck next time ;)
The ENTIRE reason I'm betting the farm on BCG is because it will show my mp strategy - albeit on a smaller scale - for my MMOG initiative.
Right now, I have a BCM/BCG environment in which a bunch of players are flying around in space, taking out targets either in space or the planet below (as you can in BCM), while other players on the planet are either flying or driving around, as well as running around in fp mode. In one recent game, I cloaked, entered orbit and nuked an entire base from space. Everyone on the surface died - except for some bastard who happened to be outside the blast radius wearing full body armor and carrying a personal shield unit. That was the same bastard (one of my devs) who happened to be prancing around with a shoulder launched STO (Surface To Orbit) unit and which had breached a hole in my hull armor earlier, during my first attempt at nuking the site from space.
Once I get the mp tech working (all other techs are fine and work as they always have) properly and with minimal lag for dial-up connections, it will be the FIRST game of its kind to offer that sort of gameplay. And given the size of the game's universe - we're not talking some walled-in maps here either.
So yes, I am excited. Wanna feel my nipples?
Thanks. Its getting there. Screen shots don't do it any justice. Just wait for the demo.Originally Posted by *IX*Aszurom
And if you keep prodding me about realism of that scale, I'm going to place the blame squarely on your shoulders. Think you can handle the BC fanbase outcry? :D With complexity and realism (!) like I've got, its a wonder I don't make them put on their shoes before leaving the ship. Its bad enough that they already get to starve their crew. hehe.
Quite frankly, I wish I didn't have to do BCG. I'd just ship BCM Gold, hunker down and not release another title until BCO (since it uses BCG tech and then some, anyway) ships in late 2003 or early 2004. But since I'm a self-funded indie and one game always funds the next one in the series, I have to go through these stepping stones or I won't be able to fund my games. I don't need no steekin' publisher. :roll:
Oh what I wouldn't do with and additional $1m right about now. Meanwhile, entire teams are shipping crap games on $3m+ budgets. *sigh*
Jesus wept.So yes, I am excited. Wanna feel my nipples?
So like, is this an expansion or something? I don't keep up on your games any.
No, its not an expansion. That idea got canned a long time ago. Its yet another title in the series.Originally Posted by MrAngryFace
A bunch of 14 new type 5 station shots are now up.
Also, I have uploaded some shots of the new Combat Assault Buggy, just to give you an idea of the LOD we have in BCG:
cab (bcm ver with 326 polys)
cab (bcg ver with 1677 polys)
btw, the Gamescreenshots crew let me know that : Battlecruiser Generations is our 3rd most viewed PC section of all time
You see Chet, I always have a plan. :D
Can you order the crew members that perform badly to wash the deck, you know like in the old pirate movies.
See, that would rock, I mean the ships look nice n all, but I wanna be able to command my crew around and make them do what I want.
My poor AMD 1.2 w/GeForce 2 MX/400 is going to melt if I try to run this.
Then again, depending on the release date I might have upgraded by then. Looks frig'n sharp.
heh, you've gotta be joking. That level of realism is not only ludicrous, there's no fun in that.Originally Posted by MrAngryFace
HOWEVER, you can order your crew around in BC games.
But in BCTC, you will be able to do it in full 3D. i.e. you'll be able to walk from the bridge down to engineering and tell the Chief Engineer to perform a specific task. In much the same way you do it now using a 2D interface.
You'll be able sit in the bridge - in first person - and bark out orders while the ship hurtles through space. To the extent that if you get boarded, unlike how in existing BC games your ship it at the mercy of mostly incompetent marines, you can run down to the armoury, grab weapons, grenades etc and head for deck where the skirmish is taking place.
....and you'd probably want to look out the window as you race from the bridge, just in case you get to see that last missile which destroys yours ship while your sorry ass was off on a whimsical fight. :D
Actually, thats not true. Your system will run BCM just fine and it meets with the minimum specs for BCG I think.Originally Posted by Jim F.
I am releasing 24 new shots tomorrow, showing off some of the new vehicles, character models etc. But, here is a sneak peak. Your thoughts and comments are always welcome!
These shots are 1280x1024 running on an ATI 8500 with 4x AA
You will catch the first glimpse of the new Mobile Infantry marine (in the UAV) and the Assault Force marine (in the CAB) models. Each of those character models, has approximately 3000+ polys. Compared to the BCM versions which came in at 500
As you can see in the Urban Assault Vehicle, there is a driver, a gunner and some idiot (nice target!) in the back totting an A9 Mag Cannon. NPCs can do that. So can a bunch of mp players.
The shots also show some of the 18 first person weapons. The guy in the UAV gunner seat is holding a DTR4a sniper rifle. That gunner can also man the turret mounted gun, when he's not firing his own weapon. The git in the back is holding an A9 Mag Cannon (when you definitely have to blow up everything you see in front of you!).
doh! I forgot to include the shot links!!
Derek, you're making me all... wet. I mean giddy. ;p
Just kidding, but anyway. I actually am looking forward to BCG. Hopefully you can deliver. You better. ;p
hehe, I ALWAYS deliver. It takes time, but I always doOriginally Posted by Tom Ohle
btw, I forgot to include the image links to my post. Have now done so. If you're giddy, you'd better sit down first. :D
Hey Derek. It all looks really nice. Could you talk a little bit about the interface. More streamlined? More complex? Graphical? etc.
What feedback have you gotten on previous BC games in terms of interface and what (if any) changes are you looking into.
ThanksOriginally Posted by GregB
Well, I did a major overhaul of the interface in BCM and so far, nobody has complained about it. The entire game is 100% mouse driven and everything is more logically arranged.
However, in BCG, I am going to get rid of those icons because they are too cartoonish. I am going to use the same interface as the computer sub-systems by using info boxes instead. It will amount to the same thing, without the goofy icons.
OK, all eighteen shots are up now
Okie, so I match the minimum specs. Happen to have any shots on what it's going to look like with those specs? Seems like minimum specs typically means that the game's going to look like crap, but it at least runs.
I'll most likely still be running my 1.2 Athlon when BCG is released, but I should be running a GeForce 4 by then. Will that let me crank up the graphical detail, or is BCG fairly heavy on the CPU usage?
"Derek Smart: More Reliable Than The Pizza Delivery Company Near Charybdis' house"Originally Posted by Derek Smart [3000AD
*Talk about beating a dead horse :D
OK, I have uploaded 24 new shots
These shots show another of the vehicles. This time a four person Combat Assault Vehicle (CAV).
Also shown are the new Elite Force and Recon Force marines (of the six new marine classes) handling a few of the twelve new weapons. In addition to the seven ported in from BCM, BCG will have about 20 fp weapons in all (excluding a variety of grenades, sensor stations etc etc)
Two station shots show a Type 5 station with simultaneous glow, specular and detail maps, made possible with DirectX 8.1 pixel shader effects.
Your comments are welcome
One thing I noted while playing BF1942 yesterday (on my server), is that someone mentioned (dunno if it was Erik, Dave Long or someone else) that ...this is how you should make BC3K. At the time, I didn't quite get what he meant - but then it hit me that he was probably talking about the ease of use, simultaneous use of air/land/sea vehicles etc.
Well, all that and more are already supported in my mp engine. While not everything planned will be going into the free BCM mp patch, the experience remains the same. There will be use of land, air and space crafts/vehicles (no sea vessels in BCM, only in BCG - and that also includes submarines). And you can already take off as a pilot from the deck of a carrier in BCM. In BCG, in addition to commanding a sub, you will be able to take off from that sub with a twin-seater submersible.
Games like BF1942 and OFP which do this kind of stuff, are fun (when its not crashing) because they are simple and targeted at a specific market. Alas, my target never has been that market - but the more I think about it, the more I find ways to compromise between satisfying the die-hard niche fan base while catering to the casual gamers. I'm not a very good game designer when it comes to bridging the gap, unfortunately, since my roots are entrenched in the hardcore area, but hopefully, I'll continue to learn thru trial and error I suppose.
e.g. I noticed that most all games like this, support the same method of controls for vehicles i.e. simplistic WSAD type movement. This I plan on implementing in BCM and all BC titles going forward. In fact, this is how it already works (for personnel and jetpack use) in BCM, but I never extended that to vehicles - nor did I even think of it.
And for flight dynamics, while I cannot and have no intentions of making mouse flight control a point and click affair, I'm thinking of also extending the WSAD controls to aircraft, since arrow keys for flight is already supported. Of course, joystick support remains as-is.
The only concern I have, is the size of my space and planetary regions. It looks like I'm going to have to do something I didn't want to do. Which is create smaller space/planet regions (similar to how I did the smaller galaxy in the Instant Action scenarios) for mp.
e.g. the size of Earth planet region in my game, is exactly the surface size of the real planet Earth. Same with Jupiter, Mars etc. For the fictitious planets, I just used templates.
In BF1942, OFP, Tribes etc etc you can see the small enclosed map area when you are about to launch a game. heh, in BC games, that entire 45km (I think thats what they said the size was - or maybe I'm thinking of OFP) is like a pebble. With up to 32 players in a BC game, they'd be lucky to see each other in the first hours of game play even they even try to get from one base to another by air, land or sea. And this is why I have Dynamic Jump Pads (teleporters which link all regions on a planet) through which uses can jump in/our of at will.
But even DJPs don't solve the problem; since, at the moment they only support personnel, not vehicles. And they won't support aircrafts at all.
Players who chose a commander career and are space-borne, can access any portion of the planet (e.g. they picked a station as their spawn point) from orbit. For them, thats easy. But for marines and planetary support pilots who are planet bound, they can only get around either on foot, jetpack vehicles, aircrafts, subs or DJPs.
So, I'm going to have to create a smaller pocket galaxy specifically for mp in BCM and BCG (for BCO, the MMOG version, size is not a problem I don't think, especially with over 1000 players roaming around on a server - with *no* zoning whatsoever). Of course, the regions in this smaller pocket galaxy would have to be large enough to support the basics of BC gameplay (e.g. trading) as well as the skirmish of combat. Its pointless creating regions which are so small that only combat is a worthy career. If I did, I know for a fact that I'd get lynched to the barebones.
To give you an idea of what the hell I'm talking about (most of you who have played BCM, have a good idea). Here is some more info with accompanying shots to illustrate the points I'm going to make :
1. This is a typical planet view from orbit. In this case, Earth. See all those
Green boxes? Those are defined regions based on the race/caste affiliations. The Yellow boxes are the mission zones with the planet. You can think of these as areas of interest within a given map.
If you were playing as a marine on a planet, this is the same map you'd have access to. But unlike the commander in space, who can set a waypoint and planetall exactly above the desired region, you have to either leg it, use vehicles etc to get from one area to the next. Imagine being a Terran/Raider (TER/RAI) and wanting to assault a Terran/Military (TER/MIL) base!!
2. Going down one level, you come to thelocal map area. The mzones within that map are also indicated.
3. Going down further one level, you come to the final map level. This is where you are and where you get to see stuff.
See that White line going to the horizon? Thats a waypoint line. I set two waypoints (from orbit) stretching from a friendly (Green) base to the nearest hostile (Red) base. The distance (which spans several maps)? See those White numbers? That reads : 39452 or thereabouts.
Thats in KILOMETERS
And you see this map? Thats me in the middle. Those waypoint lines going from edge to edge, give the distance between each two points on a single map. Again, thats in KM.
The entire surface area of just that one planet, spans enough maps, edge to edge, to map an entire area the size of our real-world planet, Earth.
....and thats just one planet. BC has 145 moons and 75 planets of varying sizes, topology, climate conditions, mzones etc etc.
So, If I wanted to go from my base to that base, I have to figure out how to get there. Now, being planet bound, I could use an aircraft (If I'm playing as a pilot), vehicle (you try driving 34K km in an mp game and see how far you get) or just use a DJP to get there (instantaneous)....and hope that a marine sniper is not camping it from the other end (I have remedies for that).
Of course, since you can't take any sort of crafts through a DJP, you have to find one once you get to your destination. Which is why I now have to ensure that in mp, all bases have an ample supply of vehicles. Not too many, or it will unbalance the game.
Sure, I could leave the regions this large and just create a clone pocket galaxy for mp. Or I could, after creating the mp specific galaxy, go back in and adjust the sizes, placement of mzones etc etc in order to provide more reasonable coverage for up 16 (BCM) and up to 64 (BCG) gamers on a server.
Also, my tech is completely seamless in that I don't have a concept of mp maps. So, there's no map rotation going on. You have an entire playing area (a galaxy as it were) to fool around in and due to the unique nature of the topologies and mzones created, seemingly have this whole concept of mp maps, rolled in one massive playing field. The day/night state, weather conditions etc etc are not specifically coded for a particular map. So, e.g. you could enter a server which just happens to be running at night, bounce off to another base and not only is it day time, but it also happens to be raining etc.
Think the planet stuff is large? This is an orbital view of a space region. The distance between those waypoints is 2124527 KM edge-to-edge.
There are over 200+ space regions (all containing planets and moons) in the main BC galaxy. The IA galaxy has a handfull of regions, but they are all the same size being that I created them from templates of the main galaxy itself.
...and you folks wonder why I still haven't released an mp patch for BCM;since I have no intentions of hacking anything - but rather, have to get it right or I'd have to do it all over again - from scratch - for BCG and going forward.
So, any thoughts you'd like to throw my way for consideration? After all, some of bastards are the ones going to be reviewing this stuff at some point - and wanting to give me an 85 score, then leave it up to the bastard in charge, who then goes and gives me a 75. :D :D
*why create a new topic when one already exists. I don't tolerate that at my site. So, forgive me for reviving this thread - if only to post the latest pimpage. :D :D :D
Wow...that's a lot of verbiage Derek. :)
As for your dilemma...I think for a product more like 1942, you need to focus your game on specific zones on a planet with the express purpose of fighting over very important objectives. I mean, look at Earth...sure, it's big, but some areas you wouldn't ever go to (the Sahara) while others are rich in reasons to acquire and hold them (Persian Gulf for oil, etc.). So building your game's fiction based on that, you have the 16-player zones set in different places on a world with the express purpose of focusing conflict.
I think that given the richness of what you've already created, you'd do well to expand that in two ways. The first is to push for the same level of simulation you always have and focus that into the MMOG game. The bigger the MMOG, the more the minutiae of flying different craft or piloting different vehicles means to the overall experience. If things are too "easy", you get the level race you see in Everquest, etc. Why not pull a Wumpus and focus on sim/skill/training based things to do? If someone wants to play a grunt, that's always going to be easier, but you give them the ability to work up to a Battlecruiser Commander.
Another thing you could do to reduce the scale is simply make planets that are small. Like tiny chunks of rock rather than the lifesize rocks you have today. That might be interesting...if not at all physically possible.
I haven't tried BF1942 yet. How do you steer an airplane using WASD controls? I mean, I've used that control scheme in top-down shooters and isometric shooters - Asteroids and FireFight clones - but I don't understand how it would work in an airplane. The A and D keys are for turning, obviously, but what do the W and S keys do? Pitch? Altitude? Speed?Originally Posted by Derek Smart [3000AD
Um... I almost hate to bring this up, but... the Earth is only about 40074 KM in circumference. So either you misplaced a decimal point, or you took the long way around. :wink:Originally Posted by Derek Smart [3000AD
....against my better judgement, considering our Usenet history....
They are used for speedOriginally Posted by milo
And yes, it sucks and takes quite some getting used to
If you'd spent half as much time disecting my post and allocated that time to actually comprehending it, you'd notice that NOWHERE did I say that the mzones I used for that waypoint test, were on opposite sides of the planet.Um... I almost hate to bring this up, but... the Earth is only about 40074 KM in circumference. So either you misplaced a decimal point, or you took the long way around. :wink:
In fact, the excerpt you yourself posted above, indicates exactly what I was illustrating. The distance from one point to the next. Not the distance from the edge of the planet to the next.
And even better, the first orbital shot of Earth, shows you exactly where on the planet I happened to be. This is clearly indicated by the pop-up menu on the lower left corner. You know, the one that has Derek Smart in it.
FURTHER...and uhm....I almost hate to bring this up, but...my post did clearly indicate that the Earth, like every planet, comprises of several maps which make up the full coverage. Thats how the terrain engine works. Unlike most games which map restricted area based on a single height map.
You might want to go back and read my post again. Slowly this time.
Have a nice day
hehe, I wanted to present a clear picture and minimize the chances of there being too many questions and or fuzzy explanations. ;)Originally Posted by Dave Long
Indeed. And thats exactly how I have it right now. While you can go anywhere on a planet, it doesn't mean you're going to find anything interesting. Unless of course you just happen to be mining for minerals.As for your dilemma...I think for a product more like 1942, you need to focus your game on specific zones on a planet with the express purpose of fighting over very important objectives. I mean, look at Earth...sure, it's big, but some areas you wouldn't ever go to (the Sahara) while others are rich in reasons to acquire and hold them (Persian Gulf for oil, etc.). So building your game's fiction based on that, you have the 16-player zones set in different places on a world with the express purpose of focusing conflict.
Thats the BCO plan - and thats why I'm not compromising it in any shape or form.I think that given the richness of what you've already created, you'd do well to expand that in two ways. The first is to push for the same level of simulation you always have and focus that into the MMOG game.
The bigger the MMOG, the more the minutiae of flying different craft or piloting different vehicles means to the overall experience. If things are too "easy", you get the level race you see in Everquest, etc.
BCM mp and BCG won't have any skill based training. You pick your class and you're off. And I'm not talking classes like you have in other games which present serious game balancing issues. e.g in BF1942, why the heck can a scout enter and fly an aircraft? In my games, if you're a marine, you're not flying anything. Sure, you can cop a ride if the driver is a pilot, but you can't fly an aircraft etc.Why not pull a Wumpus and focus on sim/skill/training based things to do? If someone wants to play a grunt, that's always going to be easier, but you give them the ability to work up to a Battlecruiser Commander.
BCO will have skill based training but thats based more on rank and experience, than the oft abused and boring level tree. My plan in this area is more evolutionary than revolutionary and will benefit both sides of the equation. I will say more about it as time goes by. But generally, if I have some guy paying me a monthly fee to play my game, I'm not interested in putting his ass on a treadmill so that he keeps coming back. As with the BC fanbase, if there is stuff to do - and its cool stuff - and I keep adding more cool stuff, they'd still come back if they can just pick up from where they left off without having to worry about a treadmill skill tree. When someone comes online after two weeks of not playing, maybe he'll come across a new weapon, maybe a vehicle, even a station - or more missions. I want him to logon, play for as long as he likes and log off. If he wants to improve his skills, then there are various ways to do it - without prancing about on a treadmill for months on end.
Sure, it won't be perfect the first time around, but thats what R&D is for.
Reducing the scale is trivial, since I generate my regions using a bespoke script. Its what happens due to the reduced size that concerns me. There's a difference between creating a planet area that is 200km and having one that is 40000+ but with small 200km mzones scattered throughout. Know what I mean?Another thing you could do to reduce the scale is simply make planets that are small. Like tiny chunks of rock rather than the lifesize rocks you have today. That might be interesting...if not at all physically possible.
Hmmn. So I'm guessing that if it's an airplane, it has some default speed (which I hope isn't set to "hover in place") and the W key means faster than the default and the S key means slower. Do they give you other keys for pitch or altitude? Or are you stuck flying level at 5000 feet?Originally Posted by Derek Smart [3000AD
Oh, lighten up. I'm just kidding with you (I even put in a :winky: for good measure).Originally Posted by Derek Smart [3000AD
You'd think thats what they'd do, right? But no, nothing could be that simple. Go try it and you'll see. It sucks dried bones.Originally Posted by milo
I tried flying planes once - even with the joystick (which they *strongly* discourage you from using!!!), it sucked. I just gave it up and stuck to playing as a scout and running around in vehicles.
Yeah right - like I don't you by now Milo; always playing both sides against the middle and what not. :roll: I deal better with people who are consistent with how they feel about me, my shenanighans and my rep. One either likes me or they don't. Either way, I'll still sleep at night better than most people.Oh, lighten up. I'm just kidding with you (I even put in a :winky: for good measure).
Anyway, lets not bring this here. If you want to participate in my discussions, be my guest. As long as you remain civil, I will, in turn, extend the same courtesy. It always is THAT SIMPLE.
I should've clarified "skill"... I'm not talking about getting skill points to make you "better" at what you do. I'm talking Quake 3 skill. Like, I'm a better Quake 3 Arena player than many because I spent a lot of time playing and I'm good with the mouse and keyboard and I know the maps/weapons/power-ups better than you "skill". I like that in BF1942, I can get better at being a tanker or better at sneaking around... but it's all based on my ability as a player, not some arbitrary set of numbers. (pardon my French but... Fuck that)Originally Posted by Derek Smart [3000AD
I'm definitely more interested in games where I can use my head and my hand-eye coordination to be "better" than someone else at a game. Strategy games are a blast and I love playing them, but I don't want every game I play to devolve into a numbers fest. That's my biggest gripe with the MMORPGs. It's all about numbers. I'd love to see a game like BF1942 set in a sci-fi world where I can do lots of different things. But most importantly, I can set the focus on what I want to be. I think BF1942 is pretty darn cool but I'm concerned that it's dumbed down a bit too much. They may not have left in enough of the skill of tank driving/aircraft flying. They also allow a bit too much craziness like leaping from jeeps while at 50 MPH and surviving. The rules of physics should still apply.
Anyway, sorry if you misunderstood that.