7 replies to this topic

[Da Bad Adder]

can somebody put together a list of what needs doing to be fixed/added to ufo2k? I know theres all the stuff on mantis, but its not clearly ordered. just a simple plan of action would be nice if anyone wants to do it?

[Kratos]

There really is no plan. There really never has. It's always what the developer (programmer) tries to achieve at that given time. For example, TwilightOwl wanted a panic system, so he added it. Serge wanted lua scripting for easy customizable units/equipment/map expansions. So make what you want. The bug tracker has it's own way of organizing issues. If it's a severe bug, it's mostly likely going to be marked urgent and be fixed first. Though like I said, it's only up to the developer to actually take action. I don't know if you know c++ or have any prior programming knowledge in general, let alone look at the hairy source code, but there really is no need to have a list on the forum rather than the bug tracker. Most developers of all calibers "do something" rather than get stuck in dreamland. If you're too busy dreaming about a feature, it just won't happen. Likely you're the one that wants it bad enough to develop it...or learn how if you don't know how already.

But if you're intrigued on an interesting plan that never has been planned / attempted and failed for years is the Geoscape portion of UFO2K. Everyone has their own perspective on this, so it's hard to pin point. But to be honest, it's kind of hard, since this is a MMO tactical simulator and that's all it has been known for. Geoscape would kind of defy its gameplay if not cautious when implementing such a huge daunting feature.

Not trying to be negative or anything, I'm just saying, as a game developer (not for ufo2k), this is what I've seen of UFO2K and it will not likely change. There are too few developers to really turn down your developing changes. And since the source code is open source, if there EVER comes a time when no one really agrees on the changes, they can fork it and create a new project with the current features. It's legal and perfectly ok.

[Da Bad Adder]

Ahh. Ok Geoscape, got some crazy ideas for this. and a different lobby where you can actually move your character around with unlimited TUs. these ideas can be (mesily) found here

[Serge]

As Kratos replied, there is no global plan or roadmap.

At least I'm currently primarily interested in:
- bugfixes, proper linux packaging, usability fixes (UI which is more intuitive to use, plus maybe in-game tutorial)
- AI and singleplayer mode
- improvements to extending the game via lua scripts: customizable units, customizable mission scenarios

Also an interesting things to try would be the support for 3D graphics (should make the game mostly screen resulution independent).

[Kratos]

Also an interesting things to try would be the support for 3D graphics (should make the game mostly screen resulution independent).

To what extent? The globe? Or are you insisting we create 3D objects manually? If you are serious about full 3D support, might I suggest a 3D graphics engine like Ogre or Irrlicht?

I'm sure you just meant the globe, though. So I'll assume you're not asking for another Xenocide. Though I noticed your interest in crossing the projects in earlier years...

Edited by Kratos, 07 May 2010 - 09:34 PM.

[Serge]

To what extent? The globe? Or are you insisting we create 3D objects manually?

3D battlescape. Just try to add an alternative way to render the map view (use 3D models instead of sprites). No other changes to the game mechanics at all, and maybe even make 2D / 3D modes switchable at runtime. Some kind of very schematic 3D view might be even possible by just using 16x16x12 shape data (which is available for every map object), so it would be compatible with the existing ufo2000 map data files.

If you are serious about full 3D support, might I suggest a 3D graphics engine like Ogre or Irrlicht?

Sure they can be evaluated. But only if these 3D engines are not intrusive and do not try to take control over how the things have to be done. Various 3D engines try different clever tricks to reduce amount of work for GPU hardware (elimination of non-visible parts of the scene, etc.), this sometimes introduces extra unwanted limitations (non-destructible terrain, etc.). But 3D hardware has improved a lot during the last few years. I think that a very simple and straightforward 3D frontend might do the job quite fine on modern hardware (just push all the polygons to the GPU and hope that it does not crumble under load).

So I'll assume you're not asking for another Xenocide. Though I noticed your interest in crossing the projects in earlier years...

Well, back in 2002 I really had a hope that we could join our efforts and work on the same game together (considering their initial focus on geoscape part and ufo2000 focus on battlescape). But xenocide goals were way too ambitious and ufo2000 engine was considered to be not good enough, so it was rejected. Also if I remember correctly, initially xenocide was a c++ project under GPL license just like ufo2000. But later xenocide started to change programming languages, 3D engines and license wildly. So nowadays any cooperation is technically impossible even if we wanted.

[Kratos]

3D battlescape. Just try to add an alternative way to render the map view (use 3D models instead of sprites). No other changes to the game mechanics at all, and maybe even make 2D / 3D modes switchable at runtime. Some kind of very schematic 3D view might be even possible by just using 16x16x12 shape data (which is available for every map object), so it would be compatible with the existing ufo2000 map data files.

Sounds good. I wouldn't mind rotating the map. As long as it doesn't scramble the pixels horrendously...though I haven't seen any 3D map using sprites as textures do so bad, so I'm sure it would work fine.

Sure they can be evaluated. But only if these 3D engines are not intrusive and do not try to take control over how the things have to be done. Various 3D engines try different clever tricks to reduce amount of work for GPU hardware (elimination of non-visible parts of the scene, etc.), this sometimes introduces extra unwanted limitations (non-destructible terrain, etc.). But 3D hardware has improved a lot during the last few years. I think that a very simple and straightforward 3D frontend might do the job quite fine on modern hardware (just push all the polygons to the GPU and hope that it does not crumble under load).

I personally never used them myself, though I have some interest in experimenting with them in the future sometime. Though I never been a 3D fanatic really...

Just saying if you're wanting actual 3D models implemented from Blender or 3DSMax or some other 3D rendering program that it might be wiser to choose an engine. Doing all this by hand could prove difficult manually.

Well, back in 2002 I really had a hope that we could join our efforts and work on the same game together (considering their initial focus on geoscape part and ufo2000 focus on battlescape). But xenocide goals were way too ambitious and ufo2000 engine was considered to be not good enough, so it was rejected. Also if I remember correctly, initially xenocide was a c++ project under GPL license just like ufo2000. But later xenocide started to change programming languages, 3D engines and license wildly. So nowadays any cooperation is technically impossible even if we wanted.

Ufo2k's engine was actually rejected? I didn't know it was up in the air at the time.

I haven't checked their status lately, are they even active anymore? I checked the graphics which seems to be but the programming is? Yea the changes with programming, licenses, was too ridiculous. I think working together might have gotten all of us somewhere by now. But who really knows.

[Serge]

Ufo2k's engine was actually rejected? I didn't know it was up in the air at the time.

Well, it's not surprising at all and has a good logical explanation: xenocide was going to be a 3D game from the very start, ufo2000 was not using 3D at that time (and still is not using it). But there is no point discussing something that happened ~8 years ago, we have what we have now

The point is that making use of 3D in ufo2000 is not "asking for another Xenocide" (regardless of what you mean in this statement). If it happens, 3D graphics support is going to be done in such a way that best fits the existing ufo2000 engine. And it's not even strictly planned yet, but would be just an interesting experiment. In any case, if 3D in ufo2000 turns out to be crap, it will be dropped