[OPTing] texture limits

Need help editing the game? Check for help here!

Moderators: Darksaber, General_Trageton, Forceflow

Re: [OPTing] texture limits

User avatar
keiranhalcyon7
Cadet 2nd Class
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2018 6:41 am

Post by keiranhalcyon7 » Tue May 22, 2018 6:11 am

ual002 wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 2:14 am
Question... are there examples of different models attached to seperate flight group colors or does it only affect textures?
Examples? Maybe not in circulation, but see viewtopic.php?p=154280#p154280.

JeremyaFr
Lieutenant JG
XWAU Member
Posts: 701
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:52 pm
Contact:

Post by JeremyaFr » Tue May 22, 2018 12:03 pm

With a geometry selector (flight group color), the ship stats (in the exe), descriptor, hardpoints and engine glows (in the opt) are shared between the different elements in the switch node. Only the rendered geometry is affected.

User avatar
ual002
Cadet 1st Class
Galactic Empire
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 2:23 am

Post by ual002 » Tue May 22, 2018 6:35 pm

So there would be no class consolidations... just minor model detail changes for existing ships.. more in line with my YT series freighter suggestion.

User avatar
Driftwood
Lieutenant Commander
XWAU Member
Posts: 1140
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 11:01 pm
Contact:

Post by Driftwood » Wed May 23, 2018 2:53 am

ual002 wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 2:14 am
Question... are there examples of different models attached to seperate flight group colors or does it only affect textures?

I ask because if multiple models and textures can occupy a single slot, then we have the ability to condense specific groupings of like ships into a single slot. ISD I and ISD II occupying the same slot for instance with multiple livery variations of each. VSDs, calamari classes, etc.

Now I am realizing a few limitations... first, an editor that can select beyond the standard 4 FG colors, and second, variations in ship stats, specifically shields and engine speeds... and finally the tech library.

This is mainly a thought exercise but the potential to have the same ship with minor model details and colors is very exciting. For example... a YT1300 model with and without nose cone, with variations of color scheme. Artistic and unique interpretations of smuggler and trader models of YT2000s, 2400s and even murian transports.
The ISD and VSD would likely be easy enough to change visually, but the stats and weapon loadouts would be identical. I personally have no issue with this.
The Calamari cruisers would only work with the two that share the same base hull. I personally have no issue with this.
The Interdictor/Enforcer would be easy enough also. I personally have no issue with this.

Beyond those I fail to see the point as offhand besides the few TIE packages and the custom X-Wing skins I can't think of anything that would be viable to convert. Just those 6 ships, would net us an additional 4 shipslots.

If "we" were feeling ambitious the First Order TF, and TI could be rolled into the base model and the 181st skin, and the TD, TB, RGInt, could also likely as well. Plus the Mining Guild TIE.

And I guess the TFA Falcon also.

Fundamentally I believe it'd be a massive quality of life upgrade, BUT does anybody really want to take the time to do it. The big question is, IF "we" (I could try myself if DS had no issue with it, when / if, I have the time.)

Actually, this explains how the Escort Transport uses a different model for the control ships now that I think about it, but I don't know how it was implemented in the missions offhand.

I think long term though, having an easy way through a mission editor to change the FGs beyond 0-4 would likely be a necessity to make this functionality relatively easily accessible for the end user. Lets face it, with some of the mission hooks, while easy enough to use, is going to put off a super casual, non-modder, period.
Image
R.I.P RSF_Zjon1, RSF_Mac, RSF_Vasquez

User avatar
ual002
Cadet 1st Class
Galactic Empire
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 2:23 am

Post by ual002 » Wed May 23, 2018 3:15 am

Yea... it is just mainly a thought experement. But your additional mention of potential consolidations does provide us space for things like those incorporated into the RebCP that are aproprate to inclusion in DSUCP if that is both acceptable and desired.

Yogme will be our best bet going forward unless someone has a line on Troy. More advanced users could use the newly available hook but I definately understand consolidation pretty much requires both an easily usable editor and massive changes to vanilla campaigns.

So yes. Consolidation seems like well more work than it is worth to open a few ship slots. It can definately help consolidate similar add on ships lesser used.

User avatar
Driftwood
Lieutenant Commander
XWAU Member
Posts: 1140
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 11:01 pm
Contact:

Post by Driftwood » Wed May 23, 2018 3:36 am

I can't imagine changing a handful of fg and then the colors would take very long, but it would be tedious to go through every mission.

The hard part is adapting the models.

That's what's daunting to me...
Image
R.I.P RSF_Zjon1, RSF_Mac, RSF_Vasquez

User avatar
keiranhalcyon7
Cadet 2nd Class
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2018 6:41 am

Post by keiranhalcyon7 » Thu May 24, 2018 3:45 pm

No on the ISD/VSD. The VSD is much smaller and has a much lighter armament. Additionally, consolidating the Interdictor and Enforcer would probably give the interdiction property to the Enforcer (though this might be fixable with a hook).

The Cal cruisers are a neat idea. On top of consolidating the two that differ only in the wings, additional variations could be introduced to reflect that each ship is theoretically supposed to be unique. That's still canon, right?

IIRC, there are several Falcon variants, differing mostly in the pilots, that could be merged. Also Lady Luck/Luxury Yacht. I'd love to have a visibly pilotless version for that mission where K'Armyn Viraxo's ship turns out to be on autopilot. Most ships with multiple install options are candidates, really.

As for updating the existing missions - It's possible to build custom programs on top of Yogeme's back-end to automate just about anything. Like, iterate over all flight groups in all missions looking for specific ships and altering them. It's not as straightforward as just using the editor, since you have to learn the coding api, but would be less tedious than doing it by hand. (That said, I haven't gotten such a custom program working yet, so the idea is a little theoretical.)

User avatar
Driftwood
Lieutenant Commander
XWAU Member
Posts: 1140
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 11:01 pm
Contact:

Post by Driftwood » Thu May 24, 2018 4:20 pm

There are two ISD and vsd models, occupying4 slots. Why on earth would one assume we'd switch the isd with the vsd, rather than consolidate within the same class to net 2x more slots.

The luxury yacht displays a base, not exterior models when controlled by AI outside your flight group. No changes are needed.
Image
R.I.P RSF_Zjon1, RSF_Mac, RSF_Vasquez

User avatar
keiranhalcyon7
Cadet 2nd Class
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2018 6:41 am

Post by keiranhalcyon7 » Thu May 24, 2018 4:32 pm

Oh you meant the ISD/ISDII and VSD/VSDII. Duh. Still a no, though, since their armaments & other stats are quite different.

Ok, I give. Where can I find an explanation of the difference between the base and exterior opts?
ual002 wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 8:36 pm
Yogme isnt set up for it but if the hook exists you can throw a ticket into the Yogme github to request support.
Done: https://github.com/MikeG621/YOGEME/issues/21

Rich C
Lieutenant JG
Posts: 724
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2001 12:01 am

Post by Rich C » Thu May 24, 2018 6:54 pm

keiranhalcyon7 wrote:
Thu May 24, 2018 4:32 pm
Where can I find an explanation of the difference between the base and exterior opts?
Base OPT is used for AI craft; Exterior is used when you view your own ship, in flight and in the hangar. Exterior models usually have a bit more detail, and a cockpit interior.
"If you're going through hell, keep going."

User avatar
keiranhalcyon7
Cadet 2nd Class
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2018 6:41 am

Post by keiranhalcyon7 » Fri May 25, 2018 12:07 am

Question (for Jeremy, I guess): is there any way to embed in the opt a descriptor string for each fg color?

JeremyaFr
Lieutenant JG
XWAU Member
Posts: 701
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:52 pm
Contact:

Post by JeremyaFr » Fri May 25, 2018 8:04 am

Hello,
You can set a name (or any text) for each node (not only textures) in the opt file. But for now, the only way to do that is by code. Then you can view the string associated with the nodes with OptStructure (part of XwaOptEditor).

User avatar
keiranhalcyon7
Cadet 2nd Class
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2018 6:41 am

Post by keiranhalcyon7 » Sat May 26, 2018 3:52 am

Hmm. Ok. My idea was to have some standardized labeling scheme for the fg colors that a hypothetical opt-aware mission editor could display in the fg color field instead of making assumptions like "red" and "gold".

JeremyaFr
Lieutenant JG
XWAU Member
Posts: 701
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:52 pm
Contact:

Post by JeremyaFr » Wed May 30, 2018 4:08 pm

UPDATE

Hello,
I've fixed a crash with OPTs that have a FaceGroup with more than around 1024 3d vertices. I've increased the size of the execute buffer to fix the buffer overflow. The limit is now around 32768 3d vertices.

Please redownload xwa_hook_opt_limit.zip

Post Reply