Havoc89

Developers
  • Content count

    67,656
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

16 Good

1 Follower

About Havoc89

Personal Information

  1. I still remember the day we launched the first release. We had over 300k within 24 hours.
  2. Yeah please dont make the game behave so randomly. Its hard enough for developers to balance the game as is, we don't need another variable in the mix (especially one that we have no control over). If you want to play custom games then setup a secondary server for that purpose. This server is the most popular because it is well maintained and offers a good balanced experience. Making drastic mods will only complicate things.
  3. Appreciate the whole investigating, but we've done the exact same thing for... well since we first got the humvee ingame in the ut3 version. Vehicle physics, and physics in general cannot be compared, especially in older engines like w3d, and a not as old engine being ue3. Neither use "real" physics, they both use simulated physics that are less computational heavy and thus easier for the engine to handle. And depending on the requirement, simulated physics can be extremely simple (w3d), or a bit more realistic (ue3), granted udk did update vehicle physics a tad bit. Simulated physics are custom mathematically derived equations that are far less complex and have less variables then real world counter parts. Thus the math behind the physics in w3d and ue3 will be completely different. To compare the two is like comparing mario kart vehicle physics to halo 1 vehicle physics. They are VERY different. You actually can indeed edit vehicle properties in the editor while playing in game, by looking at the vehicle and typing in "editactor trace". This is what we used to dial in vehicle physics. Originally when I brought in the humvee into the ut3 mod, I did exactly what you're doing which is comparing every little detail to from w3d ren. Trust me when I say this, it is not possible to achieve ren's vehicle physics since in udk. At the same time I would argue that ren's physics aren't all that great. They feel extremely floaty and do not give you the feeling of driving around in a vehicle capable of blowing shit up. I personally like the more grippy more weighty, and more responsive vehicle controls in renx. The only problem with them is that they are entirely server side and thus lag like no tomorrow, and they can climb up 90 degree walls. I do like the idea of having a more "bouncy" approach to collisions since that forces the vehicle(s) to separate and not adhere to each other like glue. I'm sure we can work that part of it into the physics, but might be at the cost of other elements of the vehicle physics we may not want to remove/edit. Only way to replicate ren's physics is to create an entirely custom simulated vehicle physics system, which means it wont run natively and hense may be just as expensive to process even if it is less complex. But like I said, I don't agree with replicating ren's vehicle physics 1:1 I think renx vehicles are successful in other means, and the biggest draw back for me is the adhesion and server lag problems. If those two could be addressed then we'd be far more successful with how they operate and feel.
  4. You should combine it all into one geo, and use the skin modifier to skin weight all of the different components to the different bones.
  5. Chances are your order is reversed. In 3DS Max you have to use the link tool and drag from child to parent. The hierarchy should be the following: Root -- Wheel_Physical -- Suspension ---- Wheel_Visible
  6. You can actually place the dummy (Physical) wheel directly on top of the cosmetic (visible) wheel if you want to. Its more of a case by case scenario. Sort of depends on the arc your vehicle will have if you want. Usually having them directly on top will be just fine and no one will notice any subtle inaccuracies. I've setup example diagrams, however I have exaggerated the position of the physical wheel bone for the purposes of explanation. Hope it helps!
  7. Oh, thats pretty simple. Just use the manta blade skeletal controller in the anim tree. It is the same one we use on the artillery, and also the helicopter rotor blades. It automatically revs up when the vehicle has a driver.
  8. What do you mean by ventilators? As for the suspension, the rear tires are pretty straight forward. The only thing a little bit tricky would be the front tire suspension. I did something like this on the TS recon bike which you can check out. Or even the Stealth tank suspension. Essentially you want to use an invisible physical wheel a couple units in front of the front tire. This will be the actual wheel that is interacting physically, you will also need to make sure the radius of that wheel matches the wheel radius of the front. The visible wheel will need to be a child of the suspension component, but will not be a physical wheel, instead it will only inherit the rotation from the invisible physical wheel which will solve the issue of the wheel spinning correctly. To get the suspension to shift up and down correctly, you will need to apply a "Look At" skeletal controller so that this suspension bone is looking at the bone of the invisible wheel. Do this in max first so that you get the perfect alignment before doing the same in unreal. With the look at constraint applied in unreal, the suspension bone will always point at the invisible physical wheel which will shift up and down based on it's location. This trick works 100% of the time, and can give you some really convincing results.
  9. I certainly haven't seen a bunch of the leaked footage they showed in this clip. I had no idea it had a top down commander style map view. Pretty interesting. I think I can speak for us all and say that we would love to see a reboot of the franchise, but I have a feeling that C&C has been a bit too tough on EA's wallets to see it as a potential money maker in the future. One can hope though... better yet... Let us do it
  10. There was indeed a MP version of Scorpion Hunters, it was one of the last maps made in the UT3 version. If you can find the UT3 version of RenX, the map files are all uncooked and completely accessible. So it absolutely is possible for a port. It may even end up being a decent gameplay map since it was our largest map at the time (probably the size of Arctic Stronghold), if not bigger. We don't have any of the old files lingering around any more unfortunately. So if someone wants to port it, then go for it!
  11. Seems like Reborn server doesn't work, but APB's does... So... If this does happen I think it can only be APB, unless someone can host one for Reborn.
  12. @Redarmy Yeah the vehicle thing could be a bit much. I wasn't a 100% sure on the recon bike/ tow humvee idea. I forgot to add a question mark to it. But if it was to be done, I think it could be fine if it was included in the base vehicle options when not destroyed. I feel like the biggest problem right now with the air drop system is the fact that you can spit out APCs, and when time isn't much of a factor (which in marathon is certainly the case) a team can end up filling up their entire vehicle limit with APCs (hence also the reduction to vehicle limit). They are pretty tricky to take down for any vehicle since they have too much armour and speed. It also makes them ideal for preventing rushes from rolling in by just parking them in bottle necks. Hence why I think APCs should be very restricted if WF/Air is down. At the same time a limited APC means it forces the team to be much more careful when trying to use it to rush. The reason I didn't include any tier characters in bar/hon destruction is because infantry already have the ability to purchase equipment, so it seems like a much better alternative than giving access to the purchasable classes. It certainly wouldn't go well with the combined free infantry class idea either since then they could end up having way too many weapons all at once. Having access a good anti-infantry and anti-tank weapon when bar/air are gone is definitely invaluable. But the added bonus of a character class perk such as addition health/armour/speed gives them more of an APC style effect. They become too useful to stop attacks. For example, people would often get a bunch of rocket soldiers and plant AT mines at base entrances and simply camp in the base. Chaingunner and Flak/Chem become far too useful at preventing infantry infiltration on the count of their damage and speed. I believe restricting infantry classes is more important when bar/hon are taken down. The combined infantry idea was something that was discussed during black dawn development where instead of having 15 classes, we were thinking to reduce the numbers down to something like 8. Just thought I'd throw it out there since people do find them very boring. However when you say it makes 1st tier characters less relevant certainly applies. But that could be compensated for in other means, perhaps making the free weapons lesser versions of their current state. As per the tiberium gadget, having it be personal only means it forces a member of the team to be some what out of the action. The team would be forced to do this carefully since it can cause a hole in the defences if too many people are trying to generate credits at the same time giving room for attackers to strike. It works more like a trade off. And when you say get a grenadier/flamer to get some quick credits, well that's not always possible. Half the times you'll have a couple of snipers picking off anyone trying to leave the base, or get intercepted by enemy vehicles.
  13. The problem with tech buildings hank is that usually the offensive team would have the upper hand and would likely be the ones with map control and thus holding onto the tech buildings. Redarmy has a good point where the major factor is the map itself. However it is far too much work to completely re-invent all maps at this point. I like the idea of having a personal harvesting tool, it seems like it could work pretty well without negating the reward for the winning team. A lot of great ideas here but the one thing I am noticing is that people have mixed ideas on the kind of access you get with a destroyed bar/hon and wf/air. I personally don't think there should be more options to chose from. If anything I feel like you should have less options but more accessibility in that whatever the options remain are more attainable. I feel like having access to tanks or artys/mrls would only slow down the game even more making it that much more difficult for the winning team to finish off the game. I've been thinking about this since the last PUG and here are some ideas that I've come up with. My intention here is to reduce frustrations by reducing the strain caused by crippled economy, and instead shift the focus of the penalties into limitations. So as stated about, less options but more access.
  14. Not true. The tiberium used in the ut3 mod version is actually a blue crystal that came with UT3 which we just made green. That asset was not in the UDK so we had to make new Tiberium. Also I dont think the ut3 mod version tib looked closer to the original TD tiberium.
  15. Thats pretty cool. How will it function as oppose to the standard PP? Or is this just supposed to be the same purpose but the option of having an Adv PP?