WC2 Space Station Model

I

Iceman16

Vice Admiral
hey, I was wonderin if anyone had or is willing to make a model of the caernarvon space station we fly from in the first missions of WC2. I need it to be useable in Secret Ops and need it by August so that should be lots of time for any modellers. Thank you very much.
 
well Marc, that is the best one I've seen so far, if you got any time ta spruce it up and stuff I'd love ta use it.
 
well, theres the ships database one which shows half of it, the other sidew is pretty much the same from what I remember, I'll fly that mission and check


BTW, if your plannin on modellin it, could I get a copy of the finished product? thatd be awesome
 
Iceman16 said:
well, theres the ships database one which shows half of it, the other sidew is pretty much the same from what I remember, I'll fly that mission and check


BTW, if your plannin on modellin it, could I get a copy of the finished product? thatd be awesome
Click to expand...

Sure. I will have to find good reference before I model it. I notice you are using Flight Commander. :cool:
 
Ptarmigan said:
Speaking of it, are they are any good refernce pictures of K'tiththrak Mang starbase from WC2?
Click to expand...
These may not be what your looking for, but they give you an idea anyway.
 

Attachments

  • Caernarvon.jpg
    Caernarvon.jpg
    47.4 KB · Views: 101
  • kmang.jpg
    kmang.jpg
    87.8 KB · Views: 100
Ptarmigan said:
Sure. I will have to find good reference before I model it. I notice you are using Flight Commander. :cool:
Click to expand...


awesome, thank you.

actually I'm usin the Vision engine cuz Flight Commander wont work on any of my comps :(
 
Iceman16 said:
awesome, thank you.

actually I'm usin the Vision engine cuz Flight Commander wont work on any of my comps :(
Click to expand...


I am sorry to hear that. Vision engine from what I have heard is kinda hard to work with.
 
Ptarmigan said:
I am sorry to hear that. Vision engine from what I have heard is kinda hard to work with.
Click to expand...
I don't understand where people get this from. The Vision engine is wonderfully easy to work with - the only people that have trouble with it are those that would have trouble with any engine.
 
ya, its not really that difficult to edit, just hard to get it to work properly in my case (so many illegal operations....) but I'll get around that I guess.
 
Quarto said:
- the only people that have trouble with it are those that would have trouble with any engine.
Click to expand...

with all due respect, don't think this portion of your statement is true.

Remember the old misb2? Wish work on that continued, I liked the user interface.
 
Uh...the Vision may not be impossible to work with, but it does take a lot more work to mod. (esp. for one as impatient as I am) :p
 
Quarto said:
I don't understand where people get this from. The Vision engine is wonderfully easy to work with - the only people that have trouble with it are those that would have trouble with any engine.
Click to expand...


Well, any engine you never worked with is hard, but once you get the hang of it, it is easy. I prefer the Flight Commander engine because it is newer and easier to work with. :D
 
eddieb said:
Remember the old misb2? Wish work on that continued, I liked the user interface.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but easy design interface doesn't make fun missions. We didn't worked our arses this hard on UE and Standoff for nothing; everybody can make a 4 nav points patrol mission in 5 minutes (wich is all misb2 could do)... but those quickly become boring. So to make mission interesting you gotta script a few events, tweek the AI a bit so it behaves in the way you want the mission to work, etc. You need to get your hands dirty and code to do that. If the kind of "and easy to mod" with "easy editor" engine would exist, we'd have lots more WC fan games around after 10 years of Prophecy-era (and internet-era) WC fan community.

To me, I feel like people are all bitching at the Vision engine because they'd want to me able to make a mod with Paintshop and a point-and-click editor without having to work and learn the hard way how to do that mod. It's like "Man, Piano sucks; I wish it had a better user interface. I'll use another instrument like, let's say, the triangle. Now that's easy." I mean, these people need to grow some balls and become mens ***. Nothing is easy in this world and everything can be mastered if you take the time to learn and practice.

I agree with Quarto. People who have touble with the Vision engine would either have trouble with any engine or never make anything fun out of them.


*** -> Comment not directed at eddieb here, just disagreeing with him
 
eddieb said:
Remember the old misb2? Wish work on that continued, I liked the user interface.
Click to expand...
I have the misfortune of having to deal with a visually-oriented game editor at work. It is hell - all the clicking keeps getting in the way of the scripting. There are of course things that absolutely have to be done in a visual editor (3d world creation, etc.)... but there's nothing like that in a Wing Commander style game. You're mostly dealing with time-based events rather than place-based stuff, so a visual editor would only slow you down.

Possibly the only advantage visual editors have is that they require less attention to the syntax. It's much harder to screw something up when you're dragging a navpoint onto a map than when you're typing in the code for a navpoint. And IMO, this is only an advantage for experienced users - for inexperienced users, it's a killer, because it deprives them of a necessary education. At the end of the day, no matter how visual an editor is, you still need to be able to code simple programs - and that's much harder to learn when you're used to doing everything via mouse.
 
PopsiclePete said:
Maybe, but easy design interface doesn't make fun missions. We didn't worked our arses this hard on UE and Standoff for nothing; everybody can make a 4 nav points patrol mission in 5 minutes (wich is all misb2 could do)... but those quickly become boring. So to make mission interesting you gotta script a few events, tweek the AI a bit so it behaves in the way you want the mission to work, etc. You need to get your hands dirty and code to do that. If the kind of "and easy to mod" with "easy editor" engine would exist, we'd have lots more WC fan games around after 10 years of Prophecy-era (and internet-era) WC fan community.

To me, I feel like people are all bitching at the Vision engine because they'd want to me able to make a mod with Paintshop and a point-and-click editor without having to work and learn the hard way how to do that mod. It's like "Man, Piano sucks; I wish it had a better user interface. I'll use another instrument like, let's say, the triangle. Now that's easy." I mean, these people need to grow some balls and become mens ***. Nothing is easy in this world and everything can be mastered if you take the time to learn and practice.

I agree with Quarto. People who have touble with the Vision engine would either have trouble with any engine or never make anything fun out of them.


*** -> Comment not directed at eddieb here, just disagreeing with him
Click to expand...


Granted, missions which require lots of customization probably need scripting or a way of designating actions to be taken on events in a gui. Still, not all users want to create an epic, but want to start simple. You guys certainly took advantage of scripting which is great. But if you look at Prophecy for example, not all missions were so complex. Let's assume scripting is needed for timed events, docking, forcing the ai to run away, and alignment changes. Now, if you look at Prophecy or Secret ops, those sorts of missions are very cool and exciting, but make up only about 20% of the game. There are people out there who want to create those other 80% of the simple missions.

Still, most programming languages I know of are both fully documented in terms of syntax and libraries, and spit out meaningful error messages on failure rather than segfaulting. In this way I wish the scripting user experience was friendlier. Trial and error should not be required to figure out what parameters do. "Time and practice" as you say, would be better spent if it were a more documented and user friendly scripting approach.

Also, if you're designing an engine as I am, simple things should be simple to do, while a more complex interface should be available for the advanced users. The user should be able to specify what they want, not how it is accomplished. So I'm going to continue pushing more complex actions into my gui.

There's only a finite amount of things you'd want to do:
Dock to a ship
Change its alignment
Choose between nav points
Refuel
Special comms.
Tell the ai to run away.
Tell the ai to focus on a target.
Time based events: launch next wave, kill enemies by time n, return to base by time n.

You can add more to this list, but really there's nothing preventing any of the above list from being done in a gui, such as misb2. If misb2 could do all of the above, then you could read the pascal coming out of it, and modify that code, it would be a time savings for those less experienced.

Cutscenes are a whole other matter, however.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top