These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

Graphics for Wrecks and Pods

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
chaosjj
Doomheim
#21 - 2014-01-23 11:48:49 UTC
CCP BlueScreen wrote:
Obviously we don't want graphics glitches on our assets, especially our new or V3 updated content.

When you see graphics errors like this, please file a defect on them, we will get the defect and we will fix it.

I will have a look at the Gallente station with the obviously warped UV's, and the new techno pod (where I coincidentally agree with you on the somewhat over sized blinky).

About the bubbles, I will inquire about the warped poles as well.


Does this include geometry gaps? because Most V3 ships are full of them
CCP BlueScreen
C C P
C C P Alliance
#22 - 2014-01-23 20:26:21 UTC
chaosjj wrote:
CCP BlueScreen wrote:
Obviously we don't want graphics glitches on our assets, especially our new or V3 updated content.

When you see graphics errors like this, please file a defect on them, we will get the defect and we will fix it.

I will have a look at the Gallente station with the obviously warped UV's, and the new techno pod (where I coincidentally agree with you on the somewhat over sized blinky).

About the bubbles, I will inquire about the warped poles as well.


Does this include geometry gaps? because Most V3 ships are full of them


If what you mean by that, are actual holes in the mesh, then yes, that most deferentially include geometry gaps.

Please either file defects on the ships in question, or list them here for me.
Turelus
Utassi Security
The Curatores Veritatis Auxiliary
#23 - 2014-01-23 21:09:42 UTC
Just noticed the Genolution 'Auroral' 197-variant capsule doesn't have a blinking light.

Is this intentional or has it not received it yet?

Turelus CEO Utassi Security
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#24 - 2014-01-23 22:41:18 UTC
CCP BlueScreen wrote:
marVLs wrote:
Ok they look awesome but...

What about that destruction model showed few years ago (i think it was Rokh model), and not so long ago as future thing (hurricane hull)?
I mean instant spawning model on death of another model in place is not something that was promised and not something good for game in 2014...

Is it still planed, if yes why waste time for those models? Eve really need something new and big in terms of astetics, artistic, graphic etc. something like those showed real time ship destruction, and collision model with AoE explosions etc.


This is true.

The dynamic ship damage was and is a thing we very much want to make happen, though not necessarily directly connected to the wrecks themselves.
Actually the 'holes' that a punched in the hulls of the new wrecks (a form of damage decal), is lifted from these ship damage experiments.

Having dynamic visual ship damage is a much more involved enterprise though, we will need to define and visually represent shield, armor and hull damage separately for that to work.

What happens when you run a stable armor tanking Rep. cycle at something like 3/4 to 1/2 armor, does holes, fires and hull breaches just abruptly appear and disappear between each cycle? that could get really old really fast.
Same goes for shield damage, while hull would usually be a very short glimpse of damage before you go belly up.

Not to say we are not still aiming towards having something like this visually represented, we would absolutely love that, but it is a separate and more complicated matter than wrecks themselves.

easy, have little scaffold looking things across the holes for armor/hull once the Hp has been "repped" but they will remain having Holes in them until you dock again (so supers WILL have "battle scarring" over their lifetime)

you know, if thats possible.
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#25 - 2014-01-24 10:36:27 UTC
Any plans to give the golden pod the same new dark reflects than the regular pod had ?

Any plans for non-capital wrecks to have unique wrecks just like these wonderful new capital wrecks ? (Let me dream !)Pirate

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

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

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart
Oberine Noriepa
#26 - 2014-01-24 11:31:13 UTC
Altrue wrote:
Any plans for non-capital wrecks to have unique wrecks just like these wonderful new capital wrecks ? (Let me dream !)Pirate

Yes, please! I imagine it would take quite awhile to do this, though.

∃
Siegfried Tahl
STCorp
#27 - 2014-01-24 16:41:44 UTC
New capital wrecks not previewable (on Sisi so far) from their info tabs *EXTREMELY sad bear* so you gotta go out and find one to spin it, and I dont think they gonna be persistent and stay after been salvaged. So much work done, and most people wont even notice or get a chance.

Improved Preview Tool for Ships, Stations, Gates etc.

Two Rogue Drone Mothers  
Kusum Fawn
Perkone
Caldari State
#28 - 2014-01-24 18:07:13 UTC
Glad to see that the CCP art department is doing this instead of Modular POS designs.

Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#29 - 2014-01-25 02:44:07 UTC
the amar tradehub has a new station model ;) looks awesome but its unfinished. Hope you don't roll it back till tuesday Cool

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
Oberine Noriepa
#30 - 2014-01-25 03:21:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Oberine Noriepa
Kusum Fawn wrote:
Glad to see that the CCP art teamt is doing this instead of Modular POS designs.

Yes. Surely the entire art department is working on this feature alone. Roll

I'm not sure why the lack of content regarding the new POS system immediately makes you assume that no one is tasked to its development.

∃
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#31 - 2014-01-25 10:04:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
Bienator II wrote:
the amar tradehub has a new station model ;) looks awesome but its unfinished. Hope you don't roll it back till tuesday Cool


Definitely! Shocked For years I was looking forward to see this station as real station and not just in this one L1/2 mission! This is absolutely marvelous! Shocked

However, I think the windows should be a bit more yellow than the current orange. They look more like Blood Raider ship's windows than Amarr windows on some stations, like the new Station Hub.. Is the old Trade Post station model used somewhere else?

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#32 - 2014-01-25 16:49:00 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Bienator II wrote:
the amar tradehub has a new station model ;) looks awesome but its unfinished. Hope you don't roll it back till tuesday Cool


Definitely! Shocked For years I was looking forward to see this station as real station and not just in this one L1/2 mission! This is absolutely marvelous! Shocked

However, I think the windows should be a bit more yellow than the current orange. They look more like Blood Raider ship's windows than Amarr windows on some stations, like the new Station Hub.. Is the old Trade Post station model used somewhere else?


last patch reverted it to the TQ model :(

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
Kusum Fawn
Perkone
Caldari State
#33 - 2014-01-25 18:32:20 UTC
Oberine Noriepa wrote:
Kusum Fawn wrote:
Glad to see that the CCP art teamt is doing this instead of Modular POS designs.

Yes. Surely the entire art department is working on this feature alone. Roll

I'm not sure why the lack of content regarding the new POS system immediately makes you assume that no one is tasked to its development.


years of history.


If CCP isnt crowing about it early , its not even on their minds.

Pos mechanics are a big enough mechanic that if they were infact doing something they would have several blogs out

Like they do for the deployables.

Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.
Tykari
The Observatory
#34 - 2014-01-25 22:52:30 UTC
Kusum Fawn wrote:
Oberine Noriepa wrote:
Kusum Fawn wrote:
Glad to see that the CCP art teamt is doing this instead of Modular POS designs.

Yes. Surely the entire art department is working on this feature alone. Roll

I'm not sure why the lack of content regarding the new POS system immediately makes you assume that no one is tasked to its development.


years of history.


If CCP isnt crowing about it early , its not even on their minds.

Pos mechanics are a big enough mechanic that if they were infact doing something they would have several blogs out

Like they do for the deployables.



Assuming deployables aren't going to end up serving as replacements for the current POS system in the long run.

In this dark void we are like brilliant stars, holding within us both the creative and destructive power to bring a new dawn upon worlds or plunge them into eternal darkness.
Oberine Noriepa
#35 - 2014-01-26 00:17:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Oberine Noriepa
Kusum Fawn wrote:
Oberine Noriepa wrote:
Kusum Fawn wrote:
Glad to see that the CCP art teamt is doing this instead of Modular POS designs.

Yes. Surely the entire art department is working on this feature alone. Roll

I'm not sure why the lack of content regarding the new POS system immediately makes you assume that no one is tasked to its development.


years of history.


If CCP isnt crowing about it early , its not even on their minds.

Pos mechanics are a big enough mechanic that if they were infact doing something they would have several blogs out

Like they do for the deployables.


If you bothered to properly keep up on the development of this game, you would know that deployables utilize a system that exists separately from the current POS code, and that this new system allows developers to surmount the horrid legacy issues that prevented any substantial iteration on the feature. (Source)

∃
Kuronaga
The Dead Parrot Shoppe Inc.
The Chicken Coop
#36 - 2014-01-26 11:43:39 UTC
CCP BlueScreen wrote:
marVLs wrote:
Ok they look awesome but...

What about that destruction model showed few years ago (i think it was Rokh model), and not so long ago as future thing (hurricane hull)?
I mean instant spawning model on death of another model in place is not something that was promised and not something good for game in 2014...

Is it still planed, if yes why waste time for those models? Eve really need something new and big in terms of astetics, artistic, graphic etc. something like those showed real time ship destruction, and collision model with AoE explosions etc.


This is true.

The dynamic ship damage was and is a thing we very much want to make happen, though not necessarily directly connected to the wrecks themselves.
Actually the 'holes' that a punched in the hulls of the new wrecks (a form of damage decal), is lifted from these ship damage experiments.

Having dynamic visual ship damage is a much more involved enterprise though, we will need to define and visually represent shield, armor and hull damage separately for that to work.

What happens when you run a stable armor tanking Rep. cycle at something like 3/4 to 1/2 armor, does holes, fires and hull breaches just abruptly appear and disappear between each cycle? that could get really old really fast.
Same goes for shield damage, while hull would usually be a very short glimpse of damage before you go belly up.

Not to say we are not still aiming towards having something like this visually represented, we would absolutely love that, but it is a separate and more complicated matter than wrecks themselves.


Yes, it's a complicated process. But so is everything thats worth doing. Like missiles.

The concept was shown two years ago, talked about far longer than that, and it sounds as if you guys havent even started on it. Why are static wrecks (far less impressive) considered a higher priority? They are pretty, but clearly not what people want. It's nice that we want better ship damage, and you want it, and everybody wants it, but when you say things like "well, we sure are aiming for that one day" when this much time has passed it makes it pretty clear that the actual odds of it ever appearing are that of a snowballs chance in hell. Kinda like modular POS's. Kinda like player-run deadspace pockets. Kinda like meaningful ambulation.

And considering you guys made it a point to showcase and talk about these things in the first place (and at great length), I'd say thats some pretty heavy BS.

If you're going to advertise something to try and hype people up at fanfest, you should be working on it before projects like this contradict it.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#37 - 2014-01-26 11:57:17 UTC
Manage your expectations, Fanfest presentations are not 100% features. They are concepts & idea's that are being thrown around. And it's one thing for an Art department to make a mock up of ship damage, and another for it to actually be coded into the game as a true dynamic event.
Kuronaga
The Dead Parrot Shoppe Inc.
The Chicken Coop
#38 - 2014-01-26 12:13:29 UTC
So you justify having something that is not a 100% feature shown and talked about at great length and used for advertisement, but not the things that actually make it into the game like this? Of course, because the reality isn't anywhere near as exciting and doesn't sell.


Let me put it to you another way.

If dynamic explosions were NOT intended to be put into the game, why the hell was time and money sunk into making the demo in the first place?

Because its an advertisement. Advertisements are the only way you can justify that kind of expense. And it was a deliberately misleading one. That's not ok, regardless of whatever disclaimer they attach to it. People were led to believe that kind of thing was being worked on, and it wasn't.


For the record, I have learned to manage my expectations with CCP and I knew this was something that would never make it into the game. I just think its sad as hell that I can say that kind of thing in advance, and then show up to this thread like clockwork and be proven right about it.

That right there is one hell of a problem.
Nykala
L.L.A.M.A.
#39 - 2014-01-26 17:42:33 UTC
Just saw the capital wrecks on SiSi today. Friggin awesome! :D There is just one concern i have with freighter models. Wouldn't the vast amounts of space they have leave more of an open or hollowed out gap somewhere? I mean, these ships can hold constructed battleships in them. I could say the same for capitals drone/fleet hangars, but the angles, debris, and shading seem to hide enough of those areas where it prolly wouldn't be noticed.

Also, somewhat off topic side note. If these capital wrecks end up becoming a sort of player spawned (upon destruction) DUST 514 pve wreck exploration map, like in deadspace 3s "moonwalk" area... me wuld luff jOO long tiem CCP. ^.^ Drop off a squad of dusties via drop pod, they poke around until its complete or they run out of clones in the drop pod, salvage some form of goodies, pick em up, move on.
Siegfried Tahl
STCorp
#40 - 2014-01-28 15:51:11 UTC
http://imgur.com/a/Ge7E9 Let me repeat that until maybe some Dev comments, capital ship wrecks only have icons, no preview window. Wrecks last 2 hours, or disappear when salvaged. Much effort making them V3 with little result, unless a monument [LANDMARK] TITAN GRAVEYARD will take place.

Improved Preview Tool for Ships, Stations, Gates etc.

Two Rogue Drone Mothers  
Previous page123Next page