151
Mods / Re: Model requests
« on: 28 June 2011, 17:33:19 »
Done 
...
...News:
If you are a developer, please build MegaGlest on your own and get in touch to contribute (or post your patches on the forums).
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
152
Feature requests / Re: Making better looking environments
« on: 23 June 2011, 17:55:36 »
Glest currently doesn't do LOD at all.
I've just tested trying to render a whole 64x64 map and got a frame rate of 36 FPS. My PC is 2 years old and was mid-range when i brought it so nowhere near what a new gaming pc could handle today. The FPS might drop quite a bit once a game really gets going with dozens of extra units and particles being rendered. However if someone was to tighten up Glests rendering properly then whole map views would certainly be possible.
I've just tested trying to render a whole 64x64 map and got a frame rate of 36 FPS. My PC is 2 years old and was mid-range when i brought it so nowhere near what a new gaming pc could handle today. The FPS might drop quite a bit once a game really gets going with dozens of extra units and particles being rendered. However if someone was to tighten up Glests rendering properly then whole map views would certainly be possible.
153
Mods / Re: Military Tech Tree
« on: 23 June 2011, 01:42:20 »The corrupt European Union is trying to remove NATO and make EU a millitary union aswell, you might want to include this in your background story somehow aswell. And what happened to the nukes in NK?
This is getting slightly off topic but the EU is not trying to remove NATO, almost every european country is a member of NATO. The EU is already a military union with a common military policy and an "army" under the direct control of the european parliment called the European Battle Group. However member states are still allowed to act alone if they want to. If any EU country was actually invaded by a foriegn country then it would lead to all EU nations joining in, but then that was the founding principal of the EU, to stop wars in Europe. I suppose you dont know this stuff because you are from a country that is too pretentious to actually join in with Europe.
154
Feature requests / Re: Making better looking environments
« on: 21 June 2011, 22:35:57 »
I noticed that 0ad has a very restrictive camera view similar to most commericial rts games. However since Glest is highly moddable the camera can be set to give the user any view between zooming in on a single unit or viewing the whole map. The spring engine does a similar thing but is more optimised to use LOD models and sprites at long distance and also has far fewer objects on the terrain.
From what I've read on this forum the rendering in Glest has been improved a bit since 3.2.2 but is still criminally wasteful, since both fork teams lack coders with 3d graphics experience. Silnarm recently discovered and solved the problem that all models for Glest were being massively over-rendered, in some cases by 50%!
From what I've read on this forum the rendering in Glest has been improved a bit since 3.2.2 but is still criminally wasteful, since both fork teams lack coders with 3d graphics experience. Silnarm recently discovered and solved the problem that all models for Glest were being massively over-rendered, in some cases by 50%!
155
Mods / Re: Japanese Faction mod [WIP]
« on: 19 June 2011, 09:07:35 »No, how to?
http://www.katsbits.com/tutorials/blender/baking-normal-maps-from-models.php
This a rather old tutorial but should be useful. Blender 2.5x might have newer/better methods but I haven't made the jump from 2.49 yet
156
General discussion / Re: 0.4 beta2 (windows installer)
« on: 17 June 2011, 12:38:00 »
Ok I've narrowed the end game crash error down to the tileset which I am currently working on.
I think this may be due to the fact that the xml references models which don't (yet) exist. In beta 1 the model position would show the orange spotty box instead of crashing. In beta 2 nothing is shown but there is no crash either.
Heres some photo evidence of the other anomalies:
Team coloured tileset model:
Normal model lighting (above) and "burnt out" model lighting with bump map on:
Oh and this shot to show off my new tileset
I think this may be due to the fact that the xml references models which don't (yet) exist. In beta 1 the model position would show the orange spotty box instead of crashing. In beta 2 nothing is shown but there is no crash either.
Heres some photo evidence of the other anomalies:
Team coloured tileset model:
Normal model lighting (above) and "burnt out" model lighting with bump map on:
Oh and this shot to show off my new tileset
157
General discussion / Re: 0.4 beta2 (windows installer)
« on: 16 June 2011, 21:19:40 »
Tested and works good on windows. Unfortunately whenever i end a game it crashes to an error message box and spits this in the log:
Also setting the bump map shader on makes tileset models appear with light and dark patches on them, kinda like the engine is trying to apply a bump without one
Team colour appears to be showing on some tileset models as well. In VG if the modder forgot to set the team colour/transparency switch, tileset models would ignore the team colour and render transparent. Now they show as the players team colour!
(click to show/hide)
Also setting the bump map shader on makes tileset models appear with light and dark patches on them, kinda like the engine is trying to apply a bump without one
Team colour appears to be showing on some tileset models as well. In VG if the modder forgot to set the team colour/transparency switch, tileset models would ignore the team colour and render transparent. Now they show as the players team colour!
158
General discussion / Re: Documenting Widget.cfg
« on: 16 June 2011, 14:16:41 »
Good work Silnarm/Omega 
I've been wanting to play with the widgets more since my initial experimenting. I'll see what I can do with this extra info 
Also someone needs to make a standalone installer for GAE 0.4 for people who don't compile. I'm currently still using the 0.4 beta snapshot which is bolted to an old install thru the addons folder and is really buggy. The wierdest bug is that tilesets only load the first model in each set and align them all in the same way, kinda annoying as I'm trying to design a new tileset atm 
I've been wanting to play with the widgets more since my initial experimenting. I'll see what I can do with this extra info Also someone needs to make a standalone installer for GAE 0.4 for people who don't compile. I'm currently still using the 0.4 beta snapshot which is bolted to an old install thru the addons folder
and is really buggy. The wierdest bug is that tilesets only load the first model in each set and align them all in the same way, kinda annoying as I'm trying to design a new tileset atm
159
Mods / Re: New Dinosaur Faction
« on: 10 June 2011, 20:40:18 »
Wow nice liopleurodon 
. The quality of model and texture work in this mod is awesome!
. The quality of model and texture work in this mod is awesome!
160
General discussion / Re: Problem with Cloak
« on: 10 June 2011, 09:51:50 »
The error is saying that you are missing almost all of the units xml tags. I highly doubt this is the case. This usually happens when you forget to open or close a tag properly somewhere. Unfortunatly the only solution is to hunt down the syntax error manually, recently changed parts first 
EDIT: I just took a quick re-read of your second post.
<group value="cloak"> should be <group value="cloak" />
EDIT: I just took a quick re-read of your second post.
<group value="cloak"> should be <group value="cloak" />
161
Feature requests / Re: Animated projectile models
« on: 10 June 2011, 09:42:06 »
Nice work Will I can't test this because I don't know about compiling or patches but it sounds like a nice addition.
As you are looking at this area of code, how difficult would it be to add models to unit/effect particles rather than projectiles? I've noticed that the <model> tag doesn't work for anything other than projectiles. Adding models to particles opens up a HUGE amount of possibilities for modders and the ability to melt your cpu as it tries to render them
I can't test this because I don't know about compiling or patches but it sounds like a nice addition. As you are looking at this area of code, how difficult would it be to add models to unit/effect particles rather than projectiles? I've noticed that the <model> tag doesn't work for anything other than projectiles. Adding models to particles opens up a HUGE amount of possibilities for modders and the ability to melt your cpu as it tries to render them
162
General discussion / Re: Glest forks to join forces?
« on: 8 June 2011, 23:05:12 »
I have to say I was surprised when the devs originally announced the merge, but I supported it because it would stop the division which we currently have. However, I see that the devs have some very valid reasons for not wanting to go ahead and the community should cease putting pressure on them or else we will have no devs at all
Personally I have plenty of time, energy and enthusiam for Glest related projects but lack the crucial coding skills (please no comments about learning code, i don't have the patience or math skills!).
<off_topic_rant>
TBH I think its time that the Glest community give the devs a break and start working on a truly epic replacement for the aging magitech; pooling all the skills we have (combined with what has already been improved engine-wise) to create something that is a leap ahead. Theres little point asking for more and more features just to play re-textured magitech clones. Whilst I would love to do this alone its just not possible, a full scale TC needs a team.
</off_topic_rant>
Personally I have plenty of time, energy and enthusiam for Glest related projects but lack the crucial coding skills (please no comments about learning code, i don't have the patience or math skills!).
<off_topic_rant>
TBH I think its time that the Glest community give the devs a break and start working on a truly epic replacement for the aging magitech; pooling all the skills we have (combined with what has already been improved engine-wise) to create something that is a leap ahead. Theres little point asking for more and more features just to play re-textured magitech clones. Whilst I would love to do this alone its just not possible, a full scale TC needs a team.
</off_topic_rant>
163
Off topic / Re: Report games here!
« on: 4 June 2011, 10:25:01 »
Not sure I would buy Overgrowth tbh. The gameplay value looks severly limited. Seems more like an enviromental/physics tech demo with punch/kick buttons thrown in. But the enviroments do looks pretty awesome!
164
Mods / Re: Grey Elves faction
« on: 3 June 2011, 12:25:42 »
Thanks for the support guys
@ultifd: The undead faction could use a few tweaks and polish but I plan to merge Grey Elves with Undead and Dwarves to create a Fantasy Pack similar to the Megapack and do a clean-up of all factions at that point.
@Hagekura: Basically the idea behind the Grey Elves is that they were founded by a group of ultra religious elves (monk-like hermits) who went into the mountains. After a while other elves began to follow and small communities formed. The Grey Elves are reclusive and like to keep themselves to themselves in the mountains unless threatened. They live a pretty sparse and semi-nomadic lifestyle and shun the undisciplined pagentry of the "main" elves.
I'm not a huge creator of background fluff for my mods, but that was the basic idea i had in my head when i started creating the faction.
@Will: Thats an awesome idea! I built the unit as a standard hand-cranked repeating arrow firer, but after hearing your idea it would be cool to have the unit as a kind of "death's organ". It fits perfectly with the dark and sombre feel of the faction. Having the weapon play a tune of sacrificial death to the gods whilst making a battle sacrafice of the enemy
@ultifd: The undead faction could use a few tweaks and polish but I plan to merge Grey Elves with Undead and Dwarves to create a Fantasy Pack similar to the Megapack and do a clean-up of all factions at that point.
@Hagekura: Basically the idea behind the Grey Elves is that they were founded by a group of ultra religious elves (monk-like hermits) who went into the mountains. After a while other elves began to follow and small communities formed. The Grey Elves are reclusive and like to keep themselves to themselves in the mountains unless threatened. They live a pretty sparse and semi-nomadic lifestyle and shun the undisciplined pagentry of the "main" elves.
I'm not a huge creator of background fluff for my mods, but that was the basic idea i had in my head when i started creating the faction.
@Will: Thats an awesome idea! I built the unit as a standard hand-cranked repeating arrow firer, but after hearing your idea it would be cool to have the unit as a kind of "death's organ". It fits perfectly with the dark and sombre feel of the faction. Having the weapon play a tune of sacrificial death to the gods whilst making a battle sacrafice of the enemy
165
Mods / Grey Elves faction
« on: 2 June 2011, 02:51:26 »
Grey Elves Faction
This is the offical thread for my new Grey Elves faction. I have been working on this faction for a while and will hopefully be able to post a playable version in the next few weeks. This plan is for the faction to contain 5 buildings, 9 units and a couple of upgrades, making it rather small by magitech standards. Heres a couple of pics of units:
This is the offical thread for my new Grey Elves faction. I have been working on this faction for a while and will hopefully be able to post a playable version in the next few weeks. This plan is for the faction to contain 5 buildings, 9 units and a couple of upgrades, making it rather small by magitech standards. Heres a couple of pics of units:
166
MegaGlest / Re: Rationale behind the mod folder location
« on: 27 May 2011, 10:29:07 »well I'd actually like to stop applications spamming AppData folders,
I agree, I wish microsoft would go back to the way of old windows where everything was in the install folder. Newer windows seem to want to splatter program files all over the HD like linux does
ugh!
167
General discussion / Re: Fantastic work, but a few questions!
« on: 25 May 2011, 22:51:04 »
1) I'm prety sure 2056x2056 might be ok, 1024x1024 definitely is.
2) As stated already MG now has the ability to add cliffs to maps, they also use a 6th custom texture so they don't take up any of the 5 ground textures.
3) Basically all the problems with the map enviroment still exist. The only two major changes are in MG which has cliffs and allows you to add particle systems to tileset objects. The evergreen tileset has some nice fog/mist effects that are worth looking at.
Collision is still done by simple walkable/unwalkable tiles. Objects are still placed randomly from the list and orientated randomly as well.
4) The new normal and specular maps are great, but I don't think dynamic lights are possible atm, although its probably not a huge task to add lights to units so fingers crossed.
5) Apart from changing fog color/density, weather chance and sunlight colour (as in vanilla Glest) there are no changes to global map values.
6) This is possible as stated by John.
7) This is much requested on the forums but difficult to implement. It is slated but will be later rather than sooner.
Also if you pick up a copy of either the GAE or MG map editors you will find them much improved from the VG version
2) As stated already MG now has the ability to add cliffs to maps, they also use a 6th custom texture so they don't take up any of the 5 ground textures.
3) Basically all the problems with the map enviroment still exist. The only two major changes are in MG which has cliffs and allows you to add particle systems to tileset objects. The evergreen tileset has some nice fog/mist effects that are worth looking at.
Collision is still done by simple walkable/unwalkable tiles. Objects are still placed randomly from the list and orientated randomly as well.
4) The new normal and specular maps are great, but I don't think dynamic lights are possible atm, although its probably not a huge task to add lights to units so fingers crossed.
5) Apart from changing fog color/density, weather chance and sunlight colour (as in vanilla Glest) there are no changes to global map values.
6) This is possible as stated by John.
7) This is much requested on the forums but difficult to implement. It is slated but will be later rather than sooner.
Also if you pick up a copy of either the GAE or MG map editors you will find them much improved from the VG version
168
Mods / Re: Project Red: official announcement
« on: 24 May 2011, 18:42:38 »Edit: How do I download the models folder? I can only find one download thing and it's trying to make me download the whole mod?I don't get how this whole git thing works...
Just go to the repository https://github.com/johndh/Project-Red/tree/master/project_red/techs/project_red/factions/magic/units/renewer/models/ and click on the unit name at the bottom of the page, then click the text that says "view raw". This should make the "open with..." dialog box pop up with Blender selected as the default.
169
General discussion / Re: Glestimals
« on: 23 May 2011, 10:25:42 »
Basically things are still at the same stage as I posted a couple of months ago on the last page. Just a couple of animations for the wolf and deer left. I've also done a few tweaks and a better death animation for the bunny but nothing major. We just need to get them implemented, then maybe interest will pick up and we can improve and expand on whats already there.
171
Mods / Re: BETA: Green Dawn Martian Invasion
« on: 20 May 2011, 08:39:14 »
Another nice faction Mr War.
I like the binary particle effects when calling in an assualt tripod and the particle effects look good on all the models. The whole faction hangs together well with a coherent style.
The things that most needs changing is the walking animation for the assualt tripod. It kinda looks like its swimming thru air rather than lumbering like a heavy walker.
Hopefully the next release will be even more awesome!
I like the binary particle effects when calling in an assualt tripod and the particle effects look good on all the models. The whole faction hangs together well with a coherent style.
The things that most needs changing is the walking animation for the assualt tripod. It kinda looks like its swimming thru air rather than lumbering like a heavy walker.
Hopefully the next release will be even more awesome!
172
Off topic / Re: New Dinosaur Faction
« on: 18 May 2011, 08:57:52 »
Humans and dinosuars never existed in the same time period.
Maybe a caveman vs megafauna mod would be more appropriate for them?
BTW, This looks like the best Vbros mod yet!
(click to show/hide)
Maybe a caveman vs megafauna mod would be more appropriate for them?
BTW, This looks like the best Vbros mod yet!
173
Mods / Re: Licensing your mod
« on: 12 May 2011, 12:35:02 »
Thanks for the info
Any future mods by me will be released CC0
This means I will have to be especially careful about using content for textures (I believe burningwell.org is public domain?) since I want to release my models as totally free.
Any future mods by me will be released CC0
This means I will have to be especially careful about using content for textures (I believe burningwell.org is public domain?) since I want to release my models as totally free.
174
General discussion / Re: can't find glestadv-error.log
« on: 11 May 2011, 14:38:45 »
Trying to merge 50 seperate factions into one techtree is gonna take ALOT of work Any factions which rely on a changed resource set (other than gold/stone/wood) will need to be modified.
Any factions which rely on a changed resource set (other than gold/stone/wood) will need to be modified.
175
Off topic / Re: Off Topic - Main
« on: 11 May 2011, 14:31:59 »
I'm from England, its like Australia but colder and with more ugly people
This is what most Americans think England is like
This is what most Americans think England is like
(click to show/hide)
