[INFO] Proposal-Thread

User avatar
Shadow
Masterful
Posts: 719
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:00 am
Personal rank: mad scientist
Location: Halle (Saale), Germany
Contact:

[INFO] Proposal-Thread

Post by Shadow » Thu Dec 17, 2009 8:33 pm

Sitting here this evening (@ germany) developing yet another day I thought about a proposal thread, where interested users can make proposals what to (probably) add/implement into the SDK what hasn't been said already.

So... I'm curious, throw in any (useful !) suggestions you can think of, what hasn't been realized already !
Then I think about it and say if I'm going to implement it or not, or if it's already in development.
Image

User avatar
Saya-chan
Adept
Posts: 445
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 10:46 am
Personal rank: Former UT99 modder
Location: Vigo, Galicia
Contact:

Re: [INFO] Proposal-Thread

Post by Saya-chan » Thu Dec 17, 2009 9:50 pm

I wonder... Is it possible to scale meshes/sprites non-uniformly? I mean, like just stretch them through one axis or something.
"Not only is UNIX dead, it’s starting to smell really bad" -- Rob Pike

User avatar
Shadow
Masterful
Posts: 719
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:00 am
Personal rank: mad scientist
Location: Halle (Saale), Germany
Contact:

Re: [INFO] Proposal-Thread

Post by Shadow » Thu Dec 17, 2009 10:07 pm

Well, you mean like SetDrawScale3D() in UnrealEngine2.x ? Yes it is possible, but it would require new Render-Primitive Classes from scratch, speaking of: a New Mesh Class, New Sprite Class and so on, that supports this Functionality, so it cannot be done via UnrealScript without Native Code. I was always thinking about a Component-vise smooth scale of a 3D Object...
Image

User avatar
UT Sniper (SJA94)
Masterful
Posts: 573
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 10:35 pm
Personal rank: noob programmer
Location: England
Contact:

Re: [INFO] Proposal-Thread

Post by UT Sniper (SJA94) » Thu Mar 10, 2011 2:53 pm

:?: :???: would it be possible to make a unreal Kismet like thing, because it would add a lot to mapping.

:loool: just seen the date of this topic.

JackGriffin
Godlike
Posts: 3766
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 1:53 pm
Personal rank: -Retired-

Re: [INFO] Proposal-Thread

Post by JackGriffin » Thu Mar 10, 2011 9:14 pm

How about actor-specific gravity? Not Z axis adjustment, but true per-zone or per-actor adjustable gravity. Escher type maps would be incredibly good, as well as adding magnetic elements to actors via gravity adjustments, the list is endless.

Can you imagine a slew of off-axis planes all shooting at each other? Man the things you could do...
So long, and thanks for all the fish

Myth
Inhuman
Posts: 973
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:57 pm
Personal rank: Low Poly Freak

Re: [INFO] Proposal-Thread

Post by Myth » Wed Mar 30, 2011 10:11 pm

Some thing you should consider in the future if you haven't already.

After all these years of you appearing and disappearing people have been losing their interest in this SDK.
So unless you can't get a release with a huge bang in (at least) the unreal community this SDK will have quite a limited lifespan.
The last thing you want is that after all these years you finish it and upload it to don't have enough mappers and modders interested in this. Modders that make some bigger mods will use it anyway if they want because they already distribute a huge pack. However it mappers won't really use it unless it gets accepted by most mappers as a great expansion to the currently available tools in unrealed. It must also run smoothly on servers and have as less compatibility problems as possible. For example when a server normally serves maps that use features included in this SDK serves a map that doesn't use this it should allow players that don't have this pack.
If there will be maps then there will be a set of players who will first come in contact with this SDK by not being to play on a server or their favorite server because the lack of a SDK.u.

User avatar
Creavion
Godlike
Posts: 4497
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 7:23 pm
Personal rank: About to be non-act.
Location: Germany, Lower Saxony

Re: [INFO] Proposal-Thread

Post by Creavion » Thu Mar 31, 2011 11:56 am

Yep, Myth got the point. I fully agree. UT does not get any younger at all. The oldunreal patch 227g suffers the same problem, since Epic does not reply at all, a release seems impossible atm (specially with the point of view it got asked about the fate of UT as well) , the risks of getting in trouble seem to high. I know, it really sucks, but thats just how it is.
About to be non-active
My very last UT map project: CTF-FacePalm (tropical CTF-Face remake)
Why do I leave? click here
What I want to do next: Joining an UDK team (uncertain however) and improve 3D modelling and texture editing skills
Thanks to those who visibly supported me until/at the end!
My reactivated account on indiedb.com.

User avatar
Shadow
Masterful
Posts: 719
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:00 am
Personal rank: mad scientist
Location: Halle (Saale), Germany
Contact:

Re: [INFO] Proposal-Thread

Post by Shadow » Mon Apr 04, 2011 4:28 pm

Yep you`re right guys, but what shall I do? exam time was going from february to april and now I also have issues concerning my new flat (yes I moved location), this time it was just because I had just no time, not no motivation, development goes on during april, as planned - the new particle engine is most time consuming and will be the "only" new feature for the next release
Image

User avatar
Wises
Godlike
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 10:59 am
Personal rank: ...

Re: [INFO] Proposal-Thread

Post by Wises » Wed Apr 06, 2011 12:41 am

not sure what version this SDK refers to but I am wondering , this is the concept that I tried to build in UnrealED2.0 which was not possible;

basically if there was a cube and a player was inside this cube... and they walked up to a wall , It would be nice if the player_pawn could change so that they could walk up the wall , other players could spawn on the roof with heads facing down and hence would appear to be walking on the roof from players on the floor and players on the walls. It was inspired by a dream that I once had and I could not build it for the limitations in the engine (currently)

Also ... probably unrelated but... Netcode is there a better way of communicating with clients after all these years that would allow for players with 200-300ms pings to play smoothly on international Servers.. for example http://sauerbraten.org/ , this game with a ping of 300ms feels like ut @ 80ms.

Another thing that was recently discussed was the Ability to to be able to set up portals that could peer like looking through a window into other parts of the map (in real time) and / or Server's in cases of Portal to Server type scenario's.

thats about all I can think of atm.
:arrow: There's a reason why Epic allows the use of Aliases... Deal with it.

User avatar
Shadow
Masterful
Posts: 719
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:00 am
Personal rank: mad scientist
Location: Halle (Saale), Germany
Contact:

Re: [INFO] Proposal-Thread

Post by Shadow » Wed May 04, 2011 9:33 am

The gravity feature you mentioned is realizable but in my opinion not that important for the whole process finishing the SDK. Currently I focus on my c++ particle engine... which is not just a bunch of work, it is a hell of work

Concerning portals... there integrated since Unreal, but it's not possible to make such portals as mentioned by you, communicating between servers or clients to see other maps, they just work simultaneously within one and the same map, for good example simply check out Unreal or some bigger SP Campaigns for Unreal Tournament (Operation Na Pali)

Any other suggestions concerning the SDK?
Image

User avatar
Saya-chan
Adept
Posts: 445
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 10:46 am
Personal rank: Former UT99 modder
Location: Vigo, Galicia
Contact:

Re: [INFO] Proposal-Thread

Post by Saya-chan » Wed May 04, 2011 2:45 pm

I'd like to see something regarding getting positions and orientations of bones from an actor's skeletal mesh in real-time. I've had no luck myself trying to find a way to do it. -_-'
"Not only is UNIX dead, it’s starting to smell really bad" -- Rob Pike

JackGriffin
Godlike
Posts: 3766
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 1:53 pm
Personal rank: -Retired-

Re: [INFO] Proposal-Thread

Post by JackGriffin » Wed May 04, 2011 2:59 pm

UT doesn't really have that feature like 2k3 on does. It's system of animation is much more primitive and relies on actor orientation versus the skeletal rigging information in the later engines. I'm not sure this could ever be "fixed" since the information isn't really included in the mesh to the degree that you'd need.

So Shadow, I'm not really up to speed on this whole SDK thing, but what are you actually working on? Is it pretty much a visual system or do you plan on hacking engine things too? Is there a page demonstrating what you are attempting?
So long, and thanks for all the fish

User avatar
Shadow
Masterful
Posts: 719
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:00 am
Personal rank: mad scientist
Location: Halle (Saale), Germany
Contact:

Re: [INFO] Proposal-Thread

Post by Shadow » Wed May 04, 2011 4:58 pm

Saya-chan wrote:I'd like to see something regarding getting positions and orientations of bones from an actor's skeletal mesh in real-time. I've had no luck myself trying to find a way to do it. -_-'
Well saya-chan there're several build-in function for reading mesh and bone information out of a mesh, but I can't currently name them exactly, I'm not at home, thus I don't have the source right at hand^^ The SDK has since Build 120 I think some mesh functions, maybe take a look at them, they should be in the new object or actor class, nevertheless I myself DO want a better mesh support... so this one is definitly on my list..

JackGriffin wrote:UT doesn't really have that feature like 2k3 on does. It's system of animation is much more primitive and relies on actor orientation versus the skeletal rigging information in the later engines. I'm not sure this could ever be "fixed" since the information isn't really included in the mesh to the degree that you'd need.

So Shadow, I'm not really up to speed on this whole SDK thing, but what are you actually working on? Is it pretty much a visual system or do you plan on hacking engine things too? Is there a page demonstrating what you are attempting?
I do not know yet if a better animation system is possible, since that relies on the mesh / model format, which again falls back on the not really existing extensibility of the UED

Concerning your second statement I'm working on a C++ / OpenGL based Particle Engine. Since I found out how sprites and stuff is drawn on C++ site I was able to start coding a fully C++ based Particle Engine for our beloved old Game. Othern than previous particle systems by me and others, naming Raven's cool Particles system for example. Most of the concepts are nearly finished, but it's difficult to bring things together... It's main advantage relies on the factor that it's not spawning one single actor... and even not one single object! It simply draws sprites, meshes etc. at an imaginary calculated point... On the top of it, the particle engine has numerous performance settings from the emission rate, to recycle algorithms (a simple invention: already spawned particles are just reset...), to multiple visibility checks the engine will render a lot of particles very smoothly.

Currently I can promise following features:

- C++ / non-actor / non-object based rendering of particles
- numerous performance settings
- numerous emitter types (sprite, mesh, trail, beam emitters etc.)
- in-Editor Realtime Preview Support aka What-You-See-Is-What-You-Get
- Dynamic Color Support
- Module Support (only fill out preferences that are needed)
- combinable Emitters to form complex Particle Systems
- Emitter Interactivity
- Sound, Collision, Force and Physics Support
- Attach, Trigger and Movement Support

I still do not fully understand how meshes are rendered... if that's managed, I'm able to program even mesh, trail, and other emitter types.
Image

thomgil
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:12 pm
Personal rank: Ktulu

Re: [INFO] Proposal-Thread

Post by thomgil » Tue Jun 21, 2011 5:15 pm

Shadow wrote:Currently I can promise following features:

- C++ / non-actor / non-object based rendering of particles
- numerous performance settings
- numerous emitter types (sprite, mesh, trail, beam emitters etc.)
- in-Editor Realtime Preview Support aka What-You-See-Is-What-You-Get
- Dynamic Color Support
- Module Support (only fill out preferences that are needed)
- combinable Emitters to form complex Particle Systems
- Emitter Interactivity
- Sound, Collision, Force and Physics Support
- Attach, Trigger and Movement Support

I still do not fully understand how meshes are rendered... if that's managed, I'm able to program even mesh, trail, and other emitter types.
that sounds promising

User avatar
Dr.Flay
Godlike
Posts: 3243
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 9:26 pm
Personal rank: Chaos Evangelist
Location: Kernow, UK
Contact:

Re: [INFO] Proposal-Thread

Post by Dr.Flay » Thu Aug 04, 2011 9:38 pm

The Infiltration mod for UT, has the option to make certain scenery (decorations) destroyable.
Can this be built in, or become a standalone mutator or mod for the SDK, to give this property to standard UT game-types ?

I can highly recommend a stealth type match with the Thievery (hiding in the shadows) mutator, in the stunning jungle Deathmatch map "DM-UTR-Kamah" with this option on, as you have to make the compromise of giving away your position, by having to blow-away the trees or shrubs, that now are solid & block your path.
(also good with this is the use of any bloodtrails mutator).

Post Reply