These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: The Art of Rubicon 1.1

First post
Author
helana Tsero
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#41 - 2014-01-30 00:19:02 UTC
Great Job on all the new art stuff !

GAS CLOUDS.

Its says the effect tickbox is used to toggle them on and off. But what else does the effect box toggle off ?

All i need is to turn the gas clouds off, everything else causes no fps loss and I would like to keep all the other effects.

Can we have a tickbox to toggle on and off gas clouds only ?

"...ppl need to get out of caves and they will see something new.... thats where eve is placed... not in cave."  | zoonr-Korsairs |

Meanwhile Citadel release issues: "tried to bug report this and the bug report is bugged as well" | Rafeau |

Seismic Stan
Freebooted Junkworks
#42 - 2014-01-30 00:50:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Seismic Stan
Vincent Athena wrote:
CCP BlueScreen wrote:
.......

Anyways, seriously nowAttention You are obviously right, what I meant by immersion was rather immersion into the game than into an astrophysical correctly represented virtual reality.
As far as immersion into the game of blowing up massive spaceships in space go, I would hold that the new wrecks is a step in the right direction, i hope you might agree on that.

When I was at Eve Vegas one of the Devs (I forget who) at a round table said there is an unwritten agreement between the players and the developers that the game should make sense. That is when I look at the game what I see at should be what I expect to see and when I do something what happens should be what I expect to have happen.

I do not expect to see a wreck with disconnected parts sitting there with all the parts utterly static. I agree the new wrecks are visually impressive but to me they just look wrong.

It must drive you nuts that the planets and moons don't orbit, or that to accommodate all docked ships, the station hangar would mean busy stations like Jita 4-4 should be the size of a planet, or that docking and undocking just makes ships miraculously appear and disappear in an instant.

My point is that the game engine is full of compromises and reality burps. That's what suspension of disbelief is for. I'm more than happy with CCP Bluescreen's pseudo-science warp core explanation.
Dunkle Lars
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#43 - 2014-01-30 00:56:39 UTC
Very beautiful Work with the stations and wrecks, but can't help but wonder.. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=229521&find=unread You promised us 1 year ago that this was like 99% ready. Everyone agreed that we want this, so can you at least post in the thread what's holding you back? Pretty please

Klingon Admiral
Black Hole Cluster
#44 - 2014-01-30 03:45:45 UTC
I think you have somewhat overdone the amount of small debris , the borders of the debris field look far too well defined.
ORCACommander
Obsidian Firelance Technologies
#45 - 2014-01-30 03:58:13 UTC
damn awesome job but still needs some fine tuning. The extrusion process makes the breaks to uniform in their jagginiess. could use a bit of non uniformity.
Maximus Andendare
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#46 - 2014-01-30 07:02:09 UTC
CCP BlueScreen and CCP Ph00ze GREAT WORK! These wrecks look phenomenal!

I love the story of how this project came to be (and was executed). It's neat to see "behind the curtain" at the wizard pulling the levers. Your work looks fantastic here, and you should be proud.

Are you guys planning on revamping all wrecks like this, or are subcaps doomed to the small wreck debris we have currently?

Enter grid and you're already dead, destined to be reborn and fight another day.

>> Play Eve Online FREE! Join today for exclusive bonuses! <<

James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#47 - 2014-01-30 07:11:28 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
CCP BlueScreen wrote:
.......

Anyways, seriously nowAttention You are obviously right, what I meant by immersion was rather immersion into the game than into an astrophysical correctly represented virtual reality.
As far as immersion into the game of blowing up massive spaceships in space go, I would hold that the new wrecks is a step in the right direction, i hope you might agree on that.

When I was at Eve Vegas one of the Devs (I forget who) at a round table said there is an unwritten agreement between the players and the developers that the game should make sense. That is when I look at the game what I see at should be what I expect to see and when I do something what happens should be what I expect to have happen.

I do not expect to see a wreck with disconnected parts sitting there with all the parts utterly static. I agree the new wrecks are visually impressive but to me they just look wrong.

When you can buy EVE players dedicated PhysX slave cards then you can have your realistically expanding wreckage.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Angelus Ryan
One Ronin
#48 - 2014-01-30 07:57:03 UTC
As a former 3D artist, here's a tip of the hat for some nice, nice work: Thanks, these look great!
CCP BlueScreen
C C P
C C P Alliance
#49 - 2014-01-30 09:18:58 UTC
Mashie Saldana wrote:
Are there any plans to make an animation of the ships breaking up?


No current plans to add this.

This is absolutely something we have considered and we have all the information/animations available and saved already.
Firstly its a question of time and resources, quite frankly, it probably wouldn't be all that hard, from a technical standpoint, to make this happen, but it would obviously take some time.

But the main problem here is with adding the additional resources and load.
For every capital ship blown up, we would be adding somewhere in the region of 30-50 bones, we would have to apply skinned shaders and we would have to load the animation once the wreck is initially spawned.
Now in a fleet fight environment, that might not be a fantastic idea.

Anyways, those are some of the considerations if/when adding a feature like this, doesn't mean it cant or wont be done, just mean you have to be careful with such things.
Highfield
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#50 - 2014-01-30 09:30:25 UTC
CCP BlueScreen wrote:
Mashie Saldana wrote:
Are there any plans to make an animation of the ships breaking up?


No current plans to add this.

This is absolutely something we have considered and we have all the information/animations available and saved already.
Firstly its a question of time and resources, quite frankly, it probably wouldn't be all that hard, from a technical standpoint, to make this happen, but it would obviously take some time.

But the main problem here is with adding the additional resources and load.
For every capital ship blown up, we would be adding somewhere in the region of 30-50 bones, we would have to apply skinned shaders and we would have to load the animation once the wreck is initially spawned.
Now in a fleet fight environment, that might not be a fantastic idea.

Anyways, those are some of the considerations if/when adding a feature like this, doesn't mean it cant or wont be done, just mean you have to be careful with such things.


Just for the sake of argument, could such an animation be scaled clientside to only occur if the engine can handle it? This way there's nice eyecandy in the small ganks/fights but playability in the big fights.
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Einheit X-6
Ushra'Khan
#51 - 2014-01-30 09:35:07 UTC
nice, nice stuff. stations are amazing! Big smile
very much appreciated!!

2 short questions though.
what about symmetrical missile/turrets on ships which got odd launcher/turrets after balancing (TALWAR, Arbitrator)?
(obligatory repost https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2238156#post2238156)


And since we got a new, very awesome Crucifier model, are there any plans to make a slightly modified version for the sentinel?

i know... you give and give but we keep asking for more. as already said, you work is very much appreciated!
CCP BlueScreen
C C P
C C P Alliance
#52 - 2014-01-30 09:53:03 UTC
Seismic Stan wrote:
Fantastic work TriLambda, it all looks amazing (although the Crucifier gives me a disturbing sense of being upside down).

I look forward to seeing some of these wrecks on TQ, although I'll have to venure further afield than I'd usually like for the chance. The devblog was interesting too, it's nice to get an understanding of the work that goes into things that are easy to take for granted.

A couple of questions occurred to me as I read the dev blog.

  • Is the wrecking of the hull animated or does it just appear as a static object once the initial explosion subsides?

  • You wrote that the damage displayed is procedurally generated - is it conceivable that this process be applied on an ad-hoc basis to generate unique wrecks or whould that be a resource/client killer?

  • Are there any plans to apply the same process to sub-capitals? I note that the physical mesh floor experiment was conducted on a Raven hull.


The wrecking of the hull is not animated, it loads as a static object once the original ship mesh is removed, sometime during the explosion.

Unfortunately it is not feasible to have this happen or be generated randomly for specific ship kills. The amount of calculations it takes to just successfully break apart the 3D mesh of an eve ship is far to great for that.
Asides from this and although automation was a huge part of making this happen, there is still considerable amount of manual work in setting one of these wrecks up looking correct.
And, that would be a yes, to even try and emulate just the procedural steps in this process would be a "resource/client killer" as you put it.

So about wrecking the sub-caps, obviously this question has come up quite a bit.
We could obviously do that, and I am hoping some day we will. The floor meshes you refer to and also spawning the additional mesh debris on the broken surface , was in some extend developed specifically for smaller ships and fragments.
again there is a couple of things to be considered here, and again its mainly time and client load.

Obviously there is quite a bit more sub-capital ships in game than there are capitals, and the time we would have to invest to make unique wrecks for all of these would be quite considerable.
now having unique wrecks for all ships would not present any problems in most PvE and even PvP environments, but for larger scale battles the story is quite different.
As it is now, whenever a sub-capital ship is blown up, that ship and its resources will be removed from memory and one generic wreck will be put in place, this asset and its resources is shared for all sub-capital wrecks on grid.
Having all wrecks be unique would mean keeping every single one of these and their resources in memory, which in turn would then mean a very considerable addition to the resource and memory load in any fleet fight environment.

Again, there a pros and cons to this and obviously some of the above issues could be handled by giving the players the option to use these wrecks or not. We will see, hopefully one day...
ChromeStriker
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#53 - 2014-01-30 09:55:43 UTC
.... just a small thing... what happened to the capital weapons?.....

i mean they're quite a big thing to lose

No Worries

CCP BlueScreen
C C P
C C P Alliance
#54 - 2014-01-30 10:01:06 UTC
Sarmatiko wrote:
10/10 would read again.

Quote:
So now that I have this tool, what to wreck next …?

Stations Roll


Quote:
Now were ready to export our wreck and take a look in our game engine tool (AKA "Jessica").

I wonder how complex this thing is. Is it possible to release some light standalone version to the community at some point in the future (like Valve did with Source filmmaker)?
CCP already gave access to Jessica in September 2013 to these guys and results were great.


It is correct that a "Jessica Light" has in the past been distributed to a very limited amount of people for specific purposes.

There are no plans, that I know of, to continue or expand this initiative on a larger scale.
Pirmasis Sparagas
Bullet Cluster
#55 - 2014-01-30 10:26:10 UTC
CCP BlueScreen wrote:


The wrecking of the hull is not animated, it loads as a static object once the original ship mesh is removed, sometime during the explosion.

Unfortunately it is not feasible to have this happen or be generated randomly for specific ship kills. The amount of calculations it takes to just successfully break apart the 3D mesh of an eve ship is far to great for that.
Asides from this and although automation was a huge part of making this happen, there is still considerable amount of manual work in setting one of these wrecks up looking correct.
And, that would be a yes, to even try and emulate just the procedural steps in this process would be a "resource/client killer" as you put it.

So about wrecking the sub-caps, obviously this question has come up quite a bit.
We could obviously do that, and I am hoping some day we will. The floor meshes you refer to and also spawning the additional mesh debris on the broken surface , was in some extend developed specifically for smaller ships and fragments.
again there is a couple of things to be considered here, and again its mainly time and client load.

Obviously there is quite a bit more sub-capital ships in game than there are capitals, and the time we would have to invest to make unique wrecks for all of these would be quite considerable.
now having unique wrecks for all ships would not present any problems in most PvE and even PvP environments, but for larger scale battles the story is quite different.
As it is now, whenever a sub-capital ship is blown up, that ship and its resources will be removed from memory and one generic wreck will be put in place, this asset and its resources is shared for all sub-capital wrecks on grid.
Having all wrecks be unique would mean keeping every single one of these and their resources in memory, which in turn would then mean a very considerable addition to the resource and memory load in any fleet fight environment.

Again, there a pros and cons to this and obviously some of the above issues could be handled by giving the players the option to use these wrecks or not. We will see, hopefully one day...

You forgot one thing. In major fleet battle you already have unique sub-capital ships on grid. So it would be just replace one unique "alive" ship to it's unique wreck ship - no performance lost.

And also if performance is issue, you could just play with LOD. From close up it could be unique wreck, but from far away, it could be bad old generic wreck.

I never been in major fleet battle, but I think a lot of players are playing zoomed out to see all ships, because zoomed in, is just too much chaos. So in this scenario you would only see generic wreck
Billy Hix
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#56 - 2014-01-30 11:14:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Billy Hix
CCP BlueScreen wrote:
But the main problem here is with adding the additional resources and load.
For every capital ship blown up, we would be adding somewhere in the region of 30-50 bones, we would have to apply skinned shaders and we would have to load the animation once the wreck is initially spawned.


I don't know anything about writing code or making games.

Would it be possible to write something that checked TiDi? If no TiDi show animation. If TiDi don't show animation. It would make the small ganks even epic.

One question that has always bugged me. I hear CCP Devs talk a LOT about not wanting to put too much pressure on the client, things like the High Res Texture Pack everyone has been asking for. When you talk about pressure, do you mean it would max out even the biggest baddest setups, or do you mean you can't add it because the people who still run XP on a Pendium D couldn't handle it?

My dream is for the Super computer pack (SCP). Let all the people playing with a crap machine have the crap graphics. CCP can start to work on much better graphics and from then on all graphic updates are only made to the SCP. Say the standard client runs on a Pentium D, but the SCP needs a i3 or higher......just think what you could do with the extra power :-)
Gawain Edmond
Khanid Bureau of Industry
#57 - 2014-01-30 11:32:53 UTC
personally i don't like the new crucifier hull it looks like someone just got that mining frigate and stuck some executioner parts to it but what ticks me off the most is that the sentinel doesn't even get a new paint job! when's it getting painted?
Klingon Admiral
Black Hole Cluster
#58 - 2014-01-30 15:00:11 UTC
Why are Amarr stations grey? =/
CCP BlueScreen
C C P
C C P Alliance
#59 - 2014-01-30 15:23:31 UTC
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:
nice, nice stuff. stations are amazing! Big smile
very much appreciated!!

2 short questions though.
what about symmetrical missile/turrets on ships which got odd launcher/turrets after balancing (TALWAR, Arbitrator)?
(obligatory repost https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2238156#post2238156)


And since we got a new, very awesome Crucifier model, are there any plans to make a slightly modified version for the sentinel?

i know... you give and give but we keep asking for more. as already said, you work is very much appreciated!



Hi Nagarythe, we meet again Big smile

So that Talwar, after contacting the appropriate construction yards and manufacturers, the turret modifications on both the Talwar and Arbitrator has entered production as we speak.

The ship yards in question have committed themselves on delivering these custom modifications no later than Rubicon 1.2.

Sorry for the long wait pilot. o7

Also, there are unfortunately no current plans for a variation on the Sentinel.


Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#60 - 2014-01-30 15:34:14 UTC
CCP BlueScreen wrote:


Also, there are unfortunately no current plans for a variation on the Sentinel.



Not even the color part ? It is very hard to tell the difference between T1 and T2.

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart