Topic: Opinion for Gaming

[Captain Adam]

.

[[UFP]Exeter]

Javora

First apologies, a typo, it should be SFC4.

While it's been 20 years or more since I took Assemblers, let alone Fortran, Pascal, Basic etc.  I do understand the idea of speed, portability and performance...  I also understand the idea of maintenance as well.  How much time are you willing to spend on maintenance after the game is released and are you willing to spend more of that maintenance time with C++ ?  Ok let me ask this, how long would it take to convert a full game from C# into C++ ?  What's stopping you from coding the game in C# and then making a conversion copy in C++ as soon as your are finished?

I do this for fun as I enjoy programming more than gaming itself.  I will spend time after it is finished, probably looking at enhancements etc.  However, by ensuring we have a design document, the code is documented, full source for everything, others should be able to come along and maintain this.  The intent is store the full source, build projects on Dyna's Repository.  As for conversion, right now I have no plans to write this in one language and convert.  Libraries used will be different, so some rewrite will be needed.  As I have a job, I will not have te time to maintain and do rewrite.  My desire after the game is built is to ply it, make improvements and enhancements as suggested by the players.

I also think you might want to consider other platforms as well.  These other platforms, Android based tablets for example might not have the horsepower of a PC but might bring in more of a fan base.  I'm throwing this in only because of how many people are moving away from PC's toward other platforms.  But if you do consider other platforms, what language will you need then?

Using my current c++ design, there will be some port issues, but generally ready to port to OS X and Linux.  Additional work would be required for consoles, included licenses and the SDKs.  A little more work and it can be ported to mobile devices including android, iPhone and windows devices.  C# on the other hand, is only Windows, Xbox and some work to port to Windows mobile devices.  The entire code-base would have to port to work in Mono, then we add additional platforms.  However Mono is still no there yet as far as performance, so I would not count on a good port to there.  Bottom line, if we want to port this to other platforms, the best option is C++.

Oh and one more thing, of the 32% that had some background in development, how many preferred faster development?

Of the developers I have talked to, only 1 preferred c#, and he is a c# developer.  But of the last year and a half he has contributed maybe a few hours.  That wold be less that 20% of the developers.  The nice thing about c# is if somebody wanted to contribute, the language is easy enough for the to learn and assist fairly quickly, but with boxing and garbage collection etc, there are many areas that can drag performance down quickly.  And s they are features of the language they are hard to track down.   The big issues with C++ is memory leaks and ghost pointers but these are not features so there are easy ways to track them down.

[Starfox1701]

So what you are saying is that from the programers point of view C++ turns out the best product.

StarFox

I am unfamiliar with Armada's ODF/Classlable file system.  Is this a Mod method used?  Although how SFC4 will be modded is uncertain I am leaning toward LUA for scripting for mods and missions.  XML is also under consideration, and that is used for base configuration data.

From reading your post it seems it is very similar to the capability of LUA.  LUA adds the capability to actually run code from the script.

As for the models, I am not planning on designing our own custom format.  I will use standard formats.  I currently have tested using .3DS, .ms3d and .OBJ formats.  Blender formats are not supported but it can export into supported formats.

I don't know what language was used; the basic moding in A1 and A2 involved adding or altering the ODF files. Other modable files included the .CFG files, .TT which represented the tech tree and build able ships and structures, .sprite files for sprites and other billboard animations, and .AIP files which where the AI personalities and build priority lists. I am including 2 dropbox links; 1 is a highend (for A2) ship pack mod for the game for the Constitution Class and the second is a PDF of Westworld's Big Book of Modding which is the A2 moders 101 book.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3697428/Constitution%20Pack.zip
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3697428/Westworldsbig_book_of_modding.pdf

Look it over and see if any of this helps explain what I am talking about. .ODF files should open in word pad or notepad

[[UFP]Exeter]

So what you are saying is that from the programers point of view C++ turns out the best product.

Alot has to do with microsoft, regretfully.  Over the lat number of years since C# came out the party line was use C#, you can do anything with it you can do in C++.  In the last 2 years has been, "OOPS, we were wrong."  For performance use C++, for productivity use C#.  In some cases use C++ with a wrapper and pull together in C#.  They also indicate good performing games in Win 8 should be C++ with direct x.  This includes 3D games.  For lowe end games C# and XAML.

And I finshed my evaluiton of what I consider the only viable options.  Pure C# for everything is not an option, XNA is already not supported so I will not consider pure C#.


C#, using wrappers for graphics and physics.   Base performance

C++, usiing same libraries without wrappers.  3.1 % faster

C#, multithread libraries for physics and graphics.   4.2 % faster

C++ myltithread physics and graphics 5.6 % faster

C++ multithread graphics and AMP (GPU) physics, 12.7 % faster

Graphics does not run on AMP yet, but based on evaluation C++ AMP(GPU) physics and 3D rendering, about 15-17% faster.  To put in perspective this means more detailed models in the game with no loss in performance.

In theory, the new physics could have a wrapper and we gain its performance.  However, that has  not been done and will probably be months away.  So we lose the the development advantage.  Also to do our own wrapper, will add 6 months to the development time

Personally, I think the choice is obvious, C++, with multithread and utilizing the GPU via AMP.   But this means the game will NOT fun on XP.  But this will allow for a great high performing game as we do not have to add compatibility for slower systems.  And if the new drivers for the Graphics finish soon, we may not support DirectX 9 and require DirectX 11.

[Starfox1701]

I vote for what is going to produce the best game.

[Captain Adam]

.

[Starfox1701]

do we at least know what era the game will be set in?

[[UFP]Exeter]

Not really.  The constraint is the models.  If we get the appropriate models it would be easy to pick an era, and have a long term campaign that developed the tech through the eras.  Right now I am thinking of 7 classes of ships for each of the races:  Federation, Klingon, Romulan, Cardassian and Pirates (privateers) though the pirates would not have the larger capitol ships.  A wide variety of the smaller classes and other races would have them, but only the major "empires" would have capitol ships.

[Starfox1701]

We will need to pick a time frame before ship selection and construction can move forward. There are literally hundreds of classes to chose from over 300 years of history. That far to many to just start building blind.

[Javora]

Using my current c++ design, there will be some port issues, but generally ready to port to OS X and Linux.

For that reason alone I would stick with C++.  WinXP is going to die out so I wouldn't worry about that.  I think writing this program with tablets in mind would be the best way to go forward.  As tablets is where you're going to see the most people playing this game.

Good luck!

[[UFP]Exeter]

God, I hope not.  I do not like the idea of Microsoft trying to direct the industry.  Win 8 is great for the amateur, but for development, or business it sucks.  Granted you can get an add to bring back the start menu, but the idea you need to put an add on  a new OS to make it usable is ridiculous.  I really hope Win 8 bombs and maybe this time Microsoft will listen.  The big money comes from those that use computers for business, not random users.  I also tool a well performing laptop, wiped it and installed Won 8 then wiped and installed Win 7.  Win 7 is faster.

It is difficult enough to deal with keyboard and muse, but to add touch screen would be a mess.

[Captain Adam]

.

[[UFP]Exeter]

I hope to only prvide general guidelines for the modelers.  There are different series but if we set it tow 3, TOS, TNG and future, and 6 models each, then that would be 18 for each race.   But this is key,  And  a reason to start this discussion.  And I hope to display some screenshots with the used models.

The same for the 2D graphics.  There is even more here.

Once I can get a forum for SFC4 I will start posting what is needed etc.  Right now the forums are focused on SFC2 CE.

[Starfox1701]

I think TNG time frame is best. It will allow for the inclusion of the greatest number of ships from the start. I think too that not all the races will follow the traditional SFC rout of using the same hull for multiple variants. Starfleet certainly shouldn't. Between cannon, semicannon, good fanon like the master com ships and some of the Jackill's classes and SFC classes there's what 60 to 80 different classes that should still be in service in 2380 that we know. If we can't fill out the Fed list without reusing a hull we're doing something wrong. There are a large number of Cardassinan ship and station designs in A2 that could be reworked to fit a new game as well as several fan made new classes. There is also the 2 classes from the Dominion war game, on of which is a D'deridex size dreadnought. Klingon and Romulan fleets are a bit more sparse but between Klingon Academy, all 3 SFC games, A1 and A2 and Dominion Wars we actually have a huge number of designs to chose from. Of course all these guys will need new models and textures so their are no IP problems.   

[[UFP]Exeter]

A good synopsis of the model situation.  I have quite a few but many need textures.  I have some non trek models to use for other races and the additions I made for bad guys.  The races and the classes of ships is arbitrary, and based on the number of models I could get my hands on.  If we get more models then we can expand the list.

If we had the models I would like to see Federation, Romulan, Klingon, Cardassian, Jem'Hadar, and Pirates as playable races.

And for ships classes:  Fighters, Corvettes, Frigates, Destroyers, Light Cruiser, Cruisers, Heavy Cruisers, Battle Cruisers, Dreadnoughts, Battleships and Carriers.

The games design does not care how many of each, depends on the models and graphics.

[Starfox1701]

So with that in mind we can tentatively narrow the focus down to the late 2370s post war at least.

[[UFP]Exeter]

I would like it to be when there were some open hostilities.  After the Dominion wars it was too peaceful.  Why I would like some Jem'Hadar models, but not part of the Cardassian race.

[EschelonOfJudgemnt]

OK, just going to throw this out here.  Are you guys ready for the headaches in getting a Star Trek license for your endeavor?  I hear those aren't cheap...


On another note, while I fully understand abandoning ADB (because SVC isn't interested or whatever), the balance that he struck with SFB is rather hard to recreate.  If I had to boil it down, the things that really make SFB work are how the DAC works, how well energy is balanced (attack versus defense, and the imposed energy limits), the shield mechanic, and most importantly, the weapons ranges and that overload thing.

Not to mention tractors, shuttles/fighters/pf's, missile/drone defenses, T-Bombs, and marines.  These 'extras' really flesh out SFB/SFC quite nicely.

How overloads work is the one thing that makes SFB and SFC unique, in that you have that 'Range 8' decision to make.  Do you dare float into overload range?  Do you overload yourself?  Do you try dancing outside that range, frustrating your opponent's attempts to use his overloads?

Yes, a lot of other games have range brackets, and damage curves and such, but SFC is the ONLY game where I find myself really trying to hit the optimal range for whatever direct/seeking weapon system I am using, instead of just closing to point blank and beating the enemy senseless most of the time (Hydrans being the exception) and adjusting things on the fly when the opponent tries to foil that by closing/opening range or whatever.  In some other designs, it's pretty much load, fire, reload, fire, etc., and while I still try to hit optimal ranges, it isn't nearly as important as it is in SFB/SFC

Finding that tactical balance with a new game, in such an immersive fashion, is going to be tough, and I would highly encourage that everything gets playtested EXTENSIVELY, and is not rushed.  Otherwise, we will end up with a less interesting game, and a lot of people will still be longing for the SFC II sequel we always wanted (with Andros and Tholians)...

[[UFP]Exeter]

Using SFB is something Frey has to worry about.  When I contacted them about 18 months ago it was no.  So we will see.

For the moment I have worked out some math for the initial combat dynamics.  And yes it will require testing.  If we can get the people to work on this, I was thinking a test version, 2 ships to test the copmbat dynamics and fix them while the rest of the game is being worked on.

Frey also has a plan for CBS as far as contacting them.

There are also other options.

[Starfox1701]

So you want to do a game set during the Dominion War? That's doable but it is also possible to do another conflict as an original story. BC, A1, A2, and SFC3 are all set after the Dominion war, and cannon trek pretty much stops after the war. All you have are 2 or 3 years of Voyager and Nemesis for cannon stories.