Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
dkraver

Improved unit editor

Recommended Posts

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hellfish6 @ 30 April 2003,07:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (dkraver @ 29 April 2003,18:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Equipment menu

equipment.jpg

I dont like the idea about only having premade load outs since you wont be able to make a load out with equipment/weapons from different addons makers on the same soldier. But you should still have the opportunity to choose one if you dont want to take the time to select all items.<span id='postcolor'>

Again, I really don't like the idea of a slot-based loadout. I think weight is the way to go. It shouldn't be too much of a burden on addon makers to include weight, either - just have a CPP value for the weight of an object in kilograms.<span id='postcolor'>

Well the way i put it in that editor picture isnt really slot based. You would select the weapon in first box/slot, then push add button. Weapon and weight would then be added to the equipment list, which just show you what is selected.

At the same time as you select the weapon, the ammo field will change to the ammo types for that weapon alone and you can add the the amounts of mags you want with the add button. And again ammo and weights will be added to list. When weapon selection is at none ammo field will not show any ammo. Also reason i made the lines in the equipment field with:

Weapon + ammo (+ ammo + ammo + ammo)

Sec. weapon + ammo (+ ammo + ammo)

Side weapon + ammo (+ ammo + ammo)

Grenades + Smoke grenades + Flares

Equipment.

wasnt to show it like slots. But to show that like now you would only be able to select a main weapon, a support weapon, a side arm and then your grenades and equipment. List could/would then show them in lines after class for a better overview. The Ammo (+ ammo) was if a weapon would have more than one ammo type each ammo type would show insted of one ammo poll alone. I also kept it at those 5 lines becourse i dont think that you should be able to have more weapons selected so you wont have guys running arouns with a weapon poll of 5 assault rifles which i also wrote in the post. But while writing this i think that there should be added a extra line to ammo you wish to carry for other weapons than you have selected.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Under weapons selection you would only be able to choose one main weapon, one support weapon and one side arm so you wouldnt have a guy with 5 rifles.

<span id='postcolor'>

Same selection for equipment field and the premade kits. Find which you want push add and it will be added to the equipment list.

In the backpack menu its same aswell. Only you cant add a weapon (at least i think you shouldnt be able to carry weapons in the backpack) but i put it there to easier find the ammo after the same system as above, where you select the weapon and then ammo will show in window below. Also you have backpack selection consisting of 4 types as i see it. 3 for normal ammo types with different weight abbility. Could be something like patrol, medium and big backpack. Last would only be for AT and you would only be able to choose between AT weapons/AT ammo in the fields below.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Dkraver's editor system is perfect, as it allows for maximum flexibility of the unit and loadout without having to mess around with miles and miles of init code.

Loadout systems need to be weight based, and i'm sure this could be simple to add, simply by adding the line

mass=xx;

in the cpp (and the neccisary game code)

OR by taking the objects defined mass in the p3d (in the geometry LOD)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the explanation, Dkraver. Makes sense to me now. Good ideas!

I'm a bit curious, though - what do you consider secondary weapons to be? Like how DFLW lets you carry an M-4A1 with a secondary MP5 and a pistol? Or are you thinking more like the secondary weapon will be an AT or AA weapon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hellfish6 @ 30 April 2003,19:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Thanks for the explanation, Dkraver. Makes sense to me now. Good ideas!

I'm a bit curious, though - what do you consider secondary weapons to be? Like how DFLW lets you carry an M-4A1 with a secondary MP5 and a pistol? Or are you thinking more like the secondary weapon will be an AT or AA weapon?<span id='postcolor'>

Hmm first i thought of it only as a place for support weapons like the secondary field is now. But now you say it could see the gain for a sniper to have a secondary weapon like a Mp5 or maybe someone in a group to have a shotgun to open doors (if its a thing that can be done in OFP 2) or not having the m79 as a main weapon (thinking vietnam). So i could see one having a weapon for a secondary weapon. It would depend on weight system having a limit where there would considerable loss of weight left for ammo for having two weapon instead of one. So people would have to decide between as a example having a sniper rifle with 10 mags and a berreta with 5 mags or having sniper rifle with 2 mags and a mp5 with 3 mags in their main equipment.

BTW this is just a imaginary example i dont know what the weight diffence would be in real life also what it would be to carry or that it should be the max limit. But should show the consideration to be taken before choosing two weapons instead of one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of having backup weapons. Like your sniper example. Or having an AT weapon.

The hard part is, how do you determine what a secondary weapon is? I mean, what's the difference in having an MP5 as a main weapon as opposed to a secondary weapon? Dkraver mentioned weight, but would that be accurate enough?

I mean, it's possible that an MP5K would qualify as a secondary weapon, as would a LAW or AT-4 or Javelin, but would an MP5SD6? What about an M-4A1?

It's a tough call...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way i thought of it in last post after you asked is that you could choose every weapon as a secondary weapon, so no weapon would be configured as a secondary weapon. It would be so you would "only" have the weight limit to take into consideration as in the example above. So it would all depend on where you put the max weight limit. It should be at a lvl where it would be acceptable to have:

sniper +  submachinegun + mags + equipment

assault rifle + grenade launcher + ammo (+ equipment)

assault rifle + shotgun + ammo (+ equipment)

assault rifle + 1 shot AT weapon + ammo + equipment

assault rifle + reloadable AT/AA launch system + rifle ammo + equipment

Where (+equipment) means that a equipment thing like aone pair of NVG or on binocular would be ok but not more than that.

Where 1 shot aa weapons would be a real 1 shot weapon at not like now where you can reload and have to carry ammo for it.

Where with reloadable AT/AA weapons, which are heavier than 1 shot weapon, you would carry the lauch tube/system but you would carry the ammo in the ammo bag in the backpack menu which is how you carry it in real life.

But it shouldnt be acceptable to carry:

Machine gun + Machine gun + side arm + ammo + equipment

Machine gun + assault rifle + side arm + ammo + ammo + ammo + grenades + equipment

assault rifle + assault rifle + side arm + ammo + ammo + ammo + grenades + equipment

And so on. As said above it will all depend on finding the right max weight limit for the main equipment loadout. What you carry in the backpack doesnt matter if you would have to take it off and take thing out of it, like i surgested in the first post i talked about backpack.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">These backpacks would increase how much you could hold but should also affect your movement and speed. Also it should be so you would have to take the ammo from the packs to your webbing before being able to use it. That way you wont be able to run around with 30 mags or something like that. So it could be something like this in the [ENTER] menu.

Open Backpack

You would then get a pop-up inventory list of the backpack. You could then choose between the items with your mouse and mark/select the things you wish to pick up/move to your webbing or drop them to ground if you dont need them anymore.

A nice features that could be added, that also would add realism, would be the abbillity to take off the backpack, so you could leave it at a gather point before a attack.

<span id='postcolor'>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried messing around with some real life weights to see how it comes out. And it aint gonna be easy to limit the load out for a soldier if you make it a free choice for the two weapon choices/slot and at the same time also have a soldier that can carry a reloadable AT weapon. But i would still keep it at that idea. Based on your info that is at the high end weight scale. At least i think.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I myself routinely had 13 magazines for my M-16, plus a 100-round belt of 7.62mm and, on occasion, an AT weapon as well.<span id='postcolor'>

M16 3.8kg

M16 mag 0.7kg

100 round 7.62 belt aprox. 1.2kg

LAW 2.5kg

AT4 6.7kg

With a LAW it would be 16.6kg

With a AT4 it would be 20.8kg

And after trying some different examples i found that max weight should be around 20kg . And by choosing max weight you would get a considerable negative value to your movement. So it would be a choice between agillity or weaponry.

So here are some examples.

M16 with 6 mags and a carl gustav launcher(no ammo)

= 19.5 kg

M16M203 with 10mag and 20 grenades (found vest that could hold 20 grenades)

= 18.2 kg

M16 with 10 mags and 4 handgrenades and a AT 4

= 19.3 kg

M16 with 10 mags and 4 handgrenades and a LAW

= 15.1kg

M16 with 10 mags and 4 handgrenades

= 12.6 kg

M24 with 10 mags and HK mp5 with 10 mags.

= 16.3 kg

M24 with 10 mags and M4 with 10 mags

= 18.1kg

M24 with 10 mags and M16 with 10 mags

= 19.3 kg

M249 with 4 x 200 round box mags

= 19,7kg

M82A with 10 mags and a M9 pistol with 4 mags

= 19.8kg

M60E3 with 8 x 100 round belts

= 18,1kg

M240 with 7 x 100 round belts

= 19.2kg

This should give a clue to what you could hold at max weight. Also if you wanted other equipment like binoculars or NVG goggles you would have to remove ammo, or if you choose two weapons instead of on it would limited the weight left for ammo and equipment. So i think that a free choice of two weapons and a max weight of 20kg on soldier could work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one helluva nice idea, i really want see that weight system on ofp 2. This surely could come handy on 2 hour no respawn co-op.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Dkraver, I really like the thought you've put into this. And it really makes sense. Anyone who has ever tried to dash from cover to cover during an assault knows that it ain't easy when you've got an M-60 or M-240B/FN-MAG to carry around.

How would we factor such potential equipment as body armor? Should that count?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hellfish6 @ 02 May 2003,02:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How would we factor such potential equipment as body armor? Should that count?<span id='postcolor'>

I think that would be under the model menu where you choose the look of the soldier. Dont know if you in OFp 1 can choose the weight/agillity on the soldier model. If not it could be a idea for ofp 2. Also if i remeber right people have complained a little about the lack off posibility to add "extra armor" at different points of the body to simulate body armor, helmets and such. Think its one big hp poll now but im not sure about it.

Anyways i dont think it should be under the equipment menu since people wearing body armor really dont have less equipment with them. And with that in mind, if you made it under equipment you would have to raise the max weight that again would allow people without to carry even more ammo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been suggested before, and I think it's pretty good.

How about the ability to turn off waypoints/units/etc. On some maps, things can get very cluttered, especially on large-scale battles, so an option to turn off individual types of... things would be good, IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, if the soldier had too much weight on him, running speed would be slower, and if there was the maximum weight, the soldier could only walk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This ideas are great, I would be really happy if they made it for OFP 2... and I think that it should be weight based only, nothing in the way of one primary and one secondary weapon...

Then it comes to the problem with space on the unit, I think that it would be good to be able to pick up an extra M16 from a fallen friend and see it on the shoulder of your self, the same with other stuff, you can probibly put a pistol in your backpack, but for bigger things like laws and similar you must have it on your back... and then we are back to the slot system... tounge.gif

hmm... hard to solve... but I hope that BIS makes it better than in OFP 1 annyway... wink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see all the shit we're given for if we go down in enemy territory, a torch, pistol, whistle, and be able to have good SAR and CSAR missions with downed pilots.

Also a downed pilot usually doesn't have NVGs when he hits the ground, they are usually assimilated into the aircraft or broken when he ejects.

Also give us a lot more accessories, like lasers on guns and infrared lasers and spotting devices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Along the lines of BLue For and Redfor, I think dynamics between forces should be selectable.

i.e. have 5 "sides"

1.blue

2.red

3.green

4.yellow

5white

1 and 2 should be defined as the eternal enemy, so when you place a group in that side, they fight indiscrimately at each other.

3 and 4 can be something like we have as resistance right now. we can choose both to be hostile to either 1 or 2, or 3 goes with 1 and 4 goes with 2. this could bring some interesting dynamics IMO.

5 is for pure neutral civies.

one problem that we might see is that since most addons that we have now are subclass of a side, there needs to be a scheme/engine change so that we can accomodate OFP addons in OFP2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, with what you have here, we'd only really be adding one side. I'd much prefer to be able to customize the hostility of the sides. If I want Red and Blue to fight each other, I should be able to select HOSTILE in their ROE. Same if I wanted them to be friendly. It would also make it very easy to have the US and Soviet forces be on the same side if desired, battling other Soviet forces (for example). Have you seen the Malvinas mod's current conundrum? Where they have really great British units on the East side? If we had units and addons that we could assign sides to, we wouldn't have a problem, because we could just assign those British units to Red or Blue or Green or Pink or whatever side we wanted to, assign them a set of ROEs and play.

It might make for some interesting missions if you don't know who is on your side and who is not. If your squad detects neutral forces like they currently detect hostile forces ("Machinegunner, 12 o'clock, 200") it could make for some extremely dicey situations. Do you open fire on him now, or wait to see if he's just passing through?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like hellfish says there shouldnt be any fixed sides since then you will still have the problems with forces not being able to work together. Like i made in the unit menu you would choose country and then select what side it should be in. Then either at the same place as now (under date and time of day) or in a new selection there should a side menu where you would select what sides that given side should be friendly towards.

sides.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this idea looks really good, like was mentioned would make things a little more interesting when you dont know if they are enemy or not...and that concept image looks really easy to understand...hope BIS take note of this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read every post here but, you should have like a Editor Box (drop down box. much like we have now but more improved and user-friendly) with custom fields like

Side

Unit

Soldier

Gender

Rank

Weapon

Sidearm

Inventory

BDU : (desert, mountain, snow, specop)

Height/Age/Weight (going along with Not all Men are created equal post)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting a bit too RPGish for me, yeah it's nice to know the faces of the guys who get hit in a campaign and feel bad about it if your favourite joker gets it in the head, but do you want his age weight height hair colour and whether he has a dog? No!

I say keep it fairly anonymous in standard form, but allow large customisation through commands in description.ext so you can create cool campaigns with distinctive characters, liek having a short fat officer who shouts at you from your knees being the 7ft monster you are! Also trying to fit private pyle into a small tunnel would be a good mission!

biggrin_o.gif

Food for thought

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, customisation of camo, loadout and weapons. But leave it at that. Any more and it becomes less of a strat sim, more of an RPG...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

agreed there, have the soldiers random instead of micro-organisation, so you place a soldier, and like the faces, they will be random, so maybe once it will be a 6'1 guy built like a brick shit house but next time it could be a 5'6 guy, more athletic frame, next time again it could be a woman...see where im going?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sides.jpg

very nice idea. smile_o.gif reminds me of that old AOEII: AOK editor. my first editing experience. I even made a little campaign which was released on a PC games mag disc. biggrin_o.gif (I wish OFP's editor could be as simple as AOE's wink_o.gif )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×