project reality header
Go Back   Project Reality Forums > Developer Blogs > Rhino
02 Dec 2023, 00:00:00 (PRT)
Register Developer Blogs Project Reality Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Rate this Entry
Developing the CSBs from the Idea Up
Posted in: Other
Posted 2010-06-13 at 04:24 by [R-DEV]Rhino

[SIZE="4"][COLOR="Red"][B]NOTE:[/B] Before you start reading this Blog you should read my main Highlight Post on these Close Support Bridges Here: [url][/url][/COLOR][/SIZE]

Hey all.

First of all I would like to apologies for all the pictures being in links, I went over the limit of images in a single post (157 images, 35 max :p) so until I get the admins to up the limit they are all going to be links for now but will replace them with full pics once they have changed it so check back :)
You can how ever view this blog with pictures here: [url][/url]

This is a new type of blog I'm going to try here giving you guys a slight insight into what goes on behind the scenes and what it takes to really put a idea into the game which I also hope will make you guys layout your posts and your ideas in a more constructive manner when making your suggestions as well :D

[SIZE="6"][B][U]The Basic Concept[/U][/B][/SIZE]

We all started talking about the idea of "deployable bridges" in fact as long back as July 2007. Deployables back then was something very new to PR, v0.6, the first version with deployable objects had just been released and many of the devs including myself where at Bovington Camp (more info here: [url][/url]).
I can remember that we had just finished looking at a load of British Army vehicles on display for us, including a bunch of engineering vehicles like the TROJAN etc and we went off to have our lunch. We ended up having our lunch on some Close Support Bridges that had been left out in a yard which made perfect seating positions and this is where the idea started getting thrown around the team of how we could get them in etc.


We talked over the idea quite a bit and even on the forums after we had got back but we couldn't think of any real way that we could have work well and also not be exploitable, with also bridges still being repairable back then the idea also faded away, but not fully ;)

[SIZE="6"][B][U]The Refined Idea and Plan[/U][/B][/SIZE]

11 months ago I made a post in the "Ideas Generator", which is basically like the suggestions forums for the Developers other than the few topics that do go in there are well thought out ideas for the most part :p

My posts contained a full outline of how I could see us getting deployable bridges working with also covering all the angles I could think of at the time. This isn't something we would normally do but since all the stuff in this post is pretty much out in the open now and I think some of you could really benefit from seeing it I'm going to make an exception :)

[QUOTE='[R-DEV]Rhino']Hey guys, this was something I've been cooking up in my head for a few months now and think its time to put my ideas fully on the table :)

Basically this is about Close Support Bridges (CSB) or Assault Bridges, which will be most likley known ingame as simply "Deployable Bridges".


With Bridges being no longer repairable ingame it is vital IMO that we get this ingame as soon as possible, so I would like to see this ingame and fully working for v0.9

Anyways to give a quick overview, in r/l CSB are set down to cross a river at a unexpected location or because a bridge they where going to cross was cut or w/e. Also they are sometimes used on more than just rivers, often you find them used to cross big ditches etc. They are normally in r/l deployed by a specialized vehicle, normally a modified version of that army's Main Battle Tank such as the TITAN which is a modified version of the Challenger 2:

Thou Trucks are also known to deploy bridges too but this is not as common since they are not armoured.

In PR I see them pretty much working the same way as it dose in real life thou with a few differences to allow it to be workable with the BF2 engine, PR's gameplay and not putting too much resources into making this happen, at least not in the short run but we can always expand on it later.

[B][U][SIZE="6"]What Needs To Go Ingame[/SIZE][/U][/B]

[B][SIZE="4"]Bridge Types[/SIZE][/B]

So to start off, although there are many different types of CSBs out there made by different countries, IMO we need to start off with one set of generic bridges for all the factions. As such I'm going to propose that we only make the British CSBs to start off with and then in the future we can look at making Russian CSBs etc. So the Bridges I propose we make are the British BR90 Bridge Family which consist of the No 10, No 11 and the trestle attachment for the No 10 bridge. Not going to do the No 12 bridge since its basically the same as the No 11 bridge and it dosen't use the common BR90 sections.

[QUOTE][B]No 10 Bridge[/B]
The No 10 bridge is a scissor bridge that can be quickly launched.
22m long, 4m wide

[B]No 11 Bridge[/B]
The No 11 bridge is an 'up and over' bridge. It can be launched quickly and is made up from 2 ramp sections of BR90.
16m long, 4m

[B]Trestle Attachment[/B]
An attachment for the No 10 bridge called a trestle can be used to enable greater spans to be achieved. Using a trestle multiple bridges can be used in combination.
When fitted increases overall length of the No 10 bridge to 26m long.[/QUOTE]

Overall, this kit gives us a very wide range and flexible options for spanning from short to long gaps and they are all basically the same bridge so they can all use the same model base and with any luck textures too. We also have many good refs of these bridges from Undies etc who could also get more if we need :)

This dose not require that much work to make them, the model itself is not overly complicated and a basic version could be ready in a few weeks thou a detailed version from a high poly normal map baking etc will take quite a bit longer which IMO this model really needs since its got soo many little details its best to do them with a good bump map :)

[B][SIZE="4"]Bridge Launchers[/SIZE][/B]

With the Bridge Types out of the way now I'm going to move onto the bridge launcher (the vehicle that carriers and deploys the bridge). IMO it is not worth making any new vehicles of any kind with there only single purpose to deploy a bridge even if it only means modifying one of our current models a little such as the Challenger 2. Why? The main reason for why is of course, we only have 32 players a side to do everything required on the battlefield including the new Logistics role in PR which is already eating up many valuable players and we can not afford for anouther player or 2 each side to be sitting in a vehicle that can only deploy bridges, when realistically a bridge is only going to be deployed a few times a game, I doubt they will be made up all the time (possibly in the first few days of them coming out they will be thou :p)
The other big reason for why not is of course the time and energy required to model these new vehicles for every faction would be vast. We can easily get away with using the same bridge for every faction but we could not get away with using the same bridge launching vehicle for every faction, I mean a TITAN (modified CR2) just simply wouldn't work on the MEC or Chinese side :p

As such, I propose that we simply use the current Logistics Trucks ingame to fulfil the purpose of Bridge Laying as well as its current tasks. This will encourage even more use of the Logistics trucks and make Logistics an even more important feature to the game. This will mean no more players need to be eaten up by the new role since we are only expanding the current logistics role and we do not need to make any new vehicles for the task so its a win win situation all round. I will get more into how they will be deployed and the rules etc later on.

Work wise, really none required since we are just using what is already there, with possible the exception of maybe some extra coding work but that is to be expected :)

[B][U][SIZE="6"]How Its Going To Work[/SIZE][/U][/B]

Now on exactly how this is going to work I'm still not 100% on some of the small details but I believe the overall concept below will work and should not run into any "Hard Coded" stuff :)

From a gameplay perspective we need to keep this as simple as possible with also not opening it up for exploit. We can not use the current deployable system where the asset is deployed 5m in front of the player as 1, it would be very hard to make a usable bridge that you could cross since it would be sunk into the ground, or floating above it, or wouldn't meet the other side of the river etc and 2, because it would be very simple to exploit and would lead to some odd stuff such as people placing sections of bridges between roof tops etc.

As such, I'm proposing a slightly different deploy method for just these bridges that will be a little limited into where you can place bridges but will ensure that all placed bridges are in a good location, that they are crossable and that they can not be exploited (in terms of how they are placed).

[B][SIZE="4"]Pre-Defined Deployable Locations[/SIZE][/B]

In order to ensure that these bridges are deployed in the correct way, are usable as in tanks etc can drive over them after deployed and they can't be exploit as to where they are deployed, the simplest solution that I can think of is we setup lots and lots of potential locations for these bridges to be deployed in. Now I'm sure many of you at this point are rolling your eyes and thinking I'm completely mad etc but there is logic to this madness I can assure you ;)

The idea I have is to basically litter all the maps with loads and loads of potential places where a deployable bridge can be deployed. Across all the rivers at every section possible, across every ditch, etc etc like so on this quick example on a small stretch of river on Al Basrah which I've done a quick export of a basic CSB, No 10 bridge to show you (note most have been placed badly as this is just an example).


I'm not so sure about the one over the destroyed village bridge would have to see what the MAs think about that but ye, just an example.

So just think of this across the entire map, across any location of river or ditch that could possibly have a CSB deployed on it. This keeps options open for quite a number of possible locations while also keeping the locations realistic and so they can not be exploited.

Now as I'm sure you have guessed ingame, the river etc will not have any deployed bridges on it (at least to start off with) but the Python will know one way or anouther all the possible, pre-defined locations for these bridges, will get into possible ways of letting the Python know these locations later but need dbs feedback on that part to see what's best.

This of course will take quite some time for a mapper or auditor (preferably the mapper who made the map as they will know it like the back of there hand) to go all over the map and place these bridges in every possible location they could go. Of course this will take some time and will need them to toughly check and test many of the bridges to see they are working properly (they can easily be tested by doing camera.onvehiclemode in the bf2 editor and driving over them in w/e vehicle you like, much easier than doing it ingame) but IMO well worth it and a lot of maps will not need any of these CSBs put on them.

From a gameplay perspective, of course there will always be prime spots for setting up CSBs that will over time become predictable locations but that's pretty much the same as Firebase deploy locations, everyone knows if the Train Yard flag on fools is up, the Militia will most likley deploy a firebase just to the east of it in that little clearing just off the road :p

Thou with CSBs this isn't so unrealistic as you can predict before a battle in r/l where the enemy may try to use them to gain an advantage as there isn't that many places where they can be used and as such, you send scouting parties to scout out potential locations, same should be done ingame.

[B][SIZE="4"]Python Code[/SIZE][/B]

Now we all know that all deployable code is all done by python pretty much and the same will apply here. Like mentioned above, the bridge deploying system will most likley be based on the current deploy code if possible, with some tweaks here and there to allow it to cope with things such as pre-defined potential locations for the bridges.

As such, my main concern right now is how to let the python know all of the potential locations for the CSBs.

From what I can see, there is 2 options.

1. We define all the locations in some file by simply listing all the X,Y,Z coordinates for all potential locations. This will be thou very hard to update and will easily screw up with miss types etc.

2. We some how define it in the GPO.con file, we perhaps have all the bridges as spawnable objects, the problem with that is they would all be required to be networkable objects which will bump up the networkable count which is bad due to making servers more likley to crash due to running out of networkables. Perhaps we can put in dummy objects spawns to do it thou I'm not sure if they will also be counted as networkables too? The + side with this is that they can easily be tweaked ingame much like the Cache locations at the moment.

db what do you think? really need your input here please since your the expert in this department :D

[B][U][SIZE="6"]Ingame Perspective[/SIZE][/U][/B]

What I mean by "Ingame Perspective" is how this will work ingame and how the player will see it. Some of this has been mentioned a little before but going to fully expand on this part now.

[B][SIZE="4"]CSB Deploying Rules[/SIZE][/B]

Of course like with every deployable object, it needs rules in order for it to not be exploited etc. I'm not 100% sure on what the rules here should be so if you disagree with anything I say or have any better ideas please state below, this is just what I'm thinking at the moment.


So ye, what I'm thinking is that first of all, we could either use Supply Crates or a new type of object that is dropped off the back of a logistics truck to deploy bridges off of (that could also be mag linked to the supply crates?).

The problem with using supply crates is that it will most likley mean that a Firebase and a birdge will be deployed at the same time with the same crates and also helicopters could drop crates on the ground and bridges could be made off of them too when its kinda silly to think a CSB could be carried by a chopper (apart from possibly the smaller ones might be possible to be carried by the Chinook, thou unlikely and dose not happen in r/l, thou there are Air Portable Ferry Bridge (APFB) that are carried by choppers but I'm not going to go into that now.

The other idea of using some other object (maybe a small section of bridge, thou isn't really small, talking like 13m long at the minimum!) that is deployed out of the back of the truck that is a different weapon and is mag linked to the supply crates so a logistics truck can only drop supply crates or, lets call them bridge building crates for now IMO is a more workable idea thou might slightly complicates things a little and some players might get a little confused at first but I'm sure they will work it out quickly enough. If it was to look like a bridge section would probably look something like this, IMO, not really workable due to its sheer size, and if we needed to deploy 2 at once, hummm:

Anyways from which ever of these we go with, IMO once the bridge has been deployed, the crate(s) needs to be some how deleted so that it can not be used to deploy a 2nd bridge in the same rough location off of it. To do that they should have the logistics truck RTB, reload and bring back a new "bridge section" so to speak ;)

Which brings me onto my next point. IMO if the bridge is very long and as such, is using the Trestle Attachment as talked about above, IMO it should require 2 loads of crates to build it, ie, 2 bridge sections so either it needs 2 logistic trucks or more there at the same time to build it in one go or the 1 logistic needs to RTB and reload and return to deploy the next section. As such, the longer the bridge, the more time it takes to make which is realistic ;)

So just imagine this bridge here had a trestle in the middle, you would have to have 2 loads of crates to be able to build this bridge since it requires to large bridge sections of the No 10 CSB.

If we wanted to complicate it some more we could say that small sections of bridge (ie, No 11 CSBs) would only need 1 crate and large sections of bridge (ie, No 10 bridge sections) would need 2 crates as in r/l, a truck, TITAN or w/e could only carry one No 10 bridge or 2 No 11 bridges at any one time so the crate setup would be realistic, but most likley confusing epically since you can't really tell what section(s) of bridge you need apart from guessing via the width of the gap which aint that good. Anyways moving on.

[B][SIZE="3"][I][U]"Building" / "Shovelling"[/U][/I][/SIZE][/B]

IMO, there should be no need to get your shovel out for this job since the thing is already constructed, it just needs to be placed in the correct location. As such, what I think is best is when its deployed, there is simply a 10 to 30 second delay before the bridge actually appears and is usable to simulate the bridge unfolding into position etc :) Although the truck could be long gone by then after its dropped its crates but still better than nothing. The other option is to have a large "fire delay" on dropping the crates from the back of the truck but IMO, deploy delay is better? either or would work, thou the deploy delay would be confusing for the driver, he might think he's deployed it and start driving off and then have it deploy 1/2 way back to base :p. Just the deploy delay allows the truck to go back to base and rearm sooner.

[B][SIZE="3"][I][U]Distance Rules[/U][/I][/SIZE][/B]

There needs to be some kinda distance rules, such as the crate needs to be say 10m or so away from where the bridge is going to be deployed etc. Exact distances etc can come later but just putting this up there.

[B][SIZE="3"][I][U]HUD and Deploying[/U][/I][/SIZE][/B]

Much like all other deployable, once the crates have been dropped, the SL would need to get a build order from the commander (if there is one) and then once he has his build order, he then has a new button in the T rose to deploy a CSB :)

Or maybe if possible, have the python pick up the action of the bridge building crates being deployed and once they are deployed, that deploy tells the python it needs to build the bridge.

[B][SIZE="4"]Ingame Example[/SIZE][/B]

So just to fully clarify you have all understood the concept I'm going to do an ingame example of how this might play out :)

The British team wishes to deploy a bridge on this location of the river since all the bridges in this area have been destroyed:

As such, they need to build a bridge consisting of 2 bridge sections and as such will need 4 crates. They bring 2 logistics trucks too this location and deploy there crates:

Both sections of bridge are deployed by the SL and the crates instantly deleted by the python on each deploy.

Logistics trucks RTB and the CR2 happily crosses the river :p

[B][U][SIZE="6"]Quick Review[/SIZE][/U][/B]

IMO CSB/deployable bridges would add a new dimension of tactical gameplay to PR and would really help with the current bridge system. All in all its not that hard to do, providing everyone is in agreement on this and everyone is willing to work together from different departments.

Any thoughts you might have on any of this please say, cheers! :D[/QUOTE]

As you can see, not that much has changed from the original design to now but some key areas have changed along the way and that brings me onto the next part :)

[SIZE="6"][B][U]Developing the Concept[/U][/B][/SIZE]

First thing to do after the idea and plan was laid out and everyone had agreed with it was to get someone working on making the CSB models. At the time we had no one available to work on it, everyone was really busy with there current projects and really nothing had changed there. As such I decided to go down a rout I had tried a few times [URL=""]in the past with the QJC-88[/URL] and had turn out well which was a "Mod Contractor" system, where basically you get someone in from outside the mod team who wants to bulk up the portfolio while also getting there work into a mod/game and getting ingame screenshots (which really helps when it comes to getting a job in the Games Ind).

As such, I made this post here to see if I could interest anyone in the prospect of making us some CSBs, which I know some of you have seen this post and been wondering what its about for ages hehe :)
[url=][MC] Close Support Bridges for Project Reality - Game Artist Forums[/url]

[QUOTE=Rhino]Hey all.

The [URL=""]Project Reality[/URL] Modification for Battlefield 2 is looking for a modeller and/or texture artist to run under a "Mod Contractor" system. This is where basically people from outside of the mod can contribute to it in return for some experience in modelling and/or texturing, as well as getting your work into a successful modification where players can interact with it ingame, with full credit to the individual(s) who worked on it. This allows you to post ingame screenshots of your work along side renders into your portfolio which will seriously help to impress employers when trying to get a job in the games industry, as this not only proves your work was good enough to get into a good modification, but also shows that you can take direction, work as part of a team, and many other things which employers are looking for.

This system also allows individuals from outside of a mod team not to become tied down to a mod (unless they wish to be afterwards) so once the work is finished, you can move onto what ever you want ;)

You can also publicly show your progress to anyone you wish without having to worry about breaking any NDAs as we want to keep this as open as possible to allow anyone to learn from it :)

For this particular task we are looking for someone to model and/or texture a Close Support Bridge (CSB) for us. This is basically a bridge that is deployed on the battlefield via an engineering vehicle to bridge rivers, anti-tank ditches and many other obstacles that lay in the way of an attack.





[url=]YouTube - Bovington 2008 Titan (bridge layer deploying) Saturday[/url]

[url=]Close Support Bridging (CSB) - British Army Website[/url][/CENTER]

Now just to clarify before I go any further, all we need is the bridge itself, not the vehicle that deploys the bridge.

We plan on using this bridge as an asset that players will "deploy" via the logistics trucks currently ingame to allow vehicles to cross rivers and other obstacles when there is no other route, as shown in this very quick "proof of concept" picture which was taken in the editor (note that the picture below is missing the "Trestle", centre support for the bridge):


We have plenty of first hand, high resolution reference images and information straight from personal in the British Army. The above pictures/information is only a tiny sample of what we have to offer in terms of references and information so you will not have to look around for it yourself.

We are looking for someone with knowledge and experience of high poly modelling (aka sub-division modelling, next generation modelling), UVing and texturing to take on this task. If multiple people want to work on this, with one doing the high poly modelling and UVing and another doing the texturing, that is fine, providing the job gets done to a high standard :).

Please note, the high poly model will only be used to bake the normals off for the low poly model, which goes ingame.

So for anyone who is interested in this please post below or PM me on these forums with a few examples of previous work if possible, and I will fill you in with the rest of the details on exactly what we need, and we will take it from there :cool:.

[I]- The Project Reality Team.[/I][/QUOTE]

From this Post we managed to recruit a talented game artist called [URL=""]cnflkt[/URL] to do this task and we got him working on the project pretty much right away :D

[QUOTE='[R-DEV]Rhino']Hey cnflkt.

Your work looks good and we would like to give you the opportunity of making this Close Support Bridge :)

Now basically what we need is in fact two bridges, but both of these bridges are made out of the same bits just one of them is basically fitted without the hydraulic scissor bit in the middle so its shorter basically, with also an extra attachment called a Trestle that enables multiple bridges to be fitted together over a long stretch of river to make a big bridge :)

So what we excatly need is the No. 10 and No 11 Bridges with also the Trestle attachment.

[SIZE="4"][B]No. 10 Bridge[/B][/SIZE]
This is the main bridge we need, which is the scissor bridge that unfolds when deployed. Have this set out so that its unfolded but try and have it so it can be folded up if we wish to use it ingame like that :)

22m long, 4m wide, 0.66294m [I](2.175 feet)[/I] tall, track width (each side) 1.5m.
The Ramp Sections are 8m long each and the Hydraulic Section is 6m long.


There is a folder in the .rar of references below labelled No 10 Bridges thou here are a few just encase:

[SIZE="4"][B]No. 11 Bridge[/B][/SIZE]
This is basically a smaller version of the No. 10 Bridge, which is made up of two ramp sections of the No. 10 bridge fixed onto each other with no hydraulic centre.

Ramp Sections:

Minus this Hydraulic Section:

16m long, 4m wide, 0.66294m [I](2.175 feet)[/I] tall, track width (each side) 1.5m.
Each ramp section is 8m long.

There is a folder in the .rar of references below labelled No 11 Bridges thou here are a few just encase:

[SIZE="4"][B]Trestle Attachment[/B][/SIZE]
This is an attachment for the No 10 bridge called a trestle can be used to enable greater spans to be achieved. Using a trestle multiple bridges can be used in combination.
When fitted increases overall length of the No 10 bridge to 26m long.

At the moment I dont have many refs on this but with any luck one of our Military Advisor should be taking a few pics of it in the next few days :)

For the moment concentrate on the main bridge since this simply slips on the end afaik.

There is a folder in the .rar of references below labelledTrestles thou here are the pics that are on the British Army Site:
[url][/url] [url][/url]

As always there is more info on these bridges and more here: [url=]Close Support Bridging (CSB) - British Army Website[/url]

There is also the No 12 bridge that exists thou we do not want you to make that since it dose not use the parts off the No 10 or No 11 bridges and its basically the same as the No 11 bridge so we have no use for it. Thou do feel free to look at its reference images we have provided of it as they might help you on the little details :)

[SIZE="4"][B]Model & Texture Requirements[/B][/SIZE]

Overall we basically need both these bridges using both the same UVs and textures to save on memory. So we literally want the ramp sections off of the No. 10 Bridge to be taken strait off the No. 10 Bridge and fitted together to make the No. 11 bridge. The more texture and UV space you can save the better, it will probably be best in fact to just make one single Ramp section that uses the same UVs and texture to do both the front and back ramp instead of using twice the texture space to do both. With texture space your limit is a 2048x2048 texture for the diffuse, spec and normal map thou if you can do a smaller texture than that like a 1024x2048 that would be really good!

For the poly limits on the low poly model for the No. 10 bridge we are looking at around 3,000 triangles thou tell me if this is not enough as you can never really tell until you come to making it how many tris you need, just try and keep the low poly as low as possible with keeping the details but try and get most of the details via the high poly model and the normal map :D

[SIZE="4"][B]Reference Images[/B][/SIZE]
Got a big pack of refs here thou more should be on the way for the Trestle :)

[B]Download:[/B] *removed*

Any more information or anything you need don't be afraid to ask.

Cheers! :D

And soon we started to get some WIP pics from him of his high poly model :)


Once he had finished his High poly model we then started to get some WIP pics on the low poly model :)



And I also managed to get some WIP test models exported to see how they where looking ingame :)


And then finally the completion of the trestle section and the other parts, which took longer than expected since it was much harder than we anticipated to get ref images of the trestle.


[SIZE="6"][B][U]A little Development on the Idea and Concept before export[/U][/B][/SIZE]

Not much really changed with the solid outline of what we where planning to do from the first post until 11-30-2009, where the model was in its advanced development, really only finishing off the main model and crating the trestle section was left.

[QUOTE='[R-DEV]Rhino;1195120']Right guys been thinking a little bit more about how this is going to work etc and pretty sure the idea of having all the pre-defined locations done via Object Spawns in the map is not an option. Not only because of the potential networkable limit problems we might face with it as highlighted before, but also because with Object Spawn Points, you can only define the "X" axis rotation, if you try to rotate the object on the "Y" and "Z" axis, they wont be recoded in the save and while the side rotation axis might not be so important, being able to tile this bridge forwards and backwards is pretty damn important as the bank on one side of the river can easily be higher than the other and when laying down multiple bridges with trestles, they all slant onto each other like you can see in this pic:

I've also been thinking about how to set the bridge section models up all the types of bridge sections we are going to need. I've come to the conclusion that we are going to need around about 8 different unique sections, possibly 6. 5 for the No. 10 Bridges and 3 for the No. 11 Bridges, with possibly getting rid of a section off both, thou if we really needed to we could cut it down to only 4 sections, 3 for the No. 10 bridges and 1 for the No. 11 bridges, can go more into that in a bit.

First of all the No. 10 bridge sections, the first off just being the Bridge on its own, which can be used over destroyed sections of bridges etc where all you need is the clean bottom.

The next one being one with a single dirt end support, which you may want to use if one side of the river is fine and didn't need a support and the other did, or you would use this section on the end of a bridge using the Trestles, where the final end bit doesn't need a trestle attachment but dose need a bit of dirt at the end so it can sit on the bank nicely. Note the dirt support will be much like the dirt base on the Firebase and other deployables.

Next is a section where both ends have the dirt support, where this can be used where you only need a single stretch of bridge to cross the river but each bank needs to have a dirt support to make it sit nicely.

Next is a clean section of No. 10 bridge, with the Trestle attachment on it. This would be in the centre sections of bridge where you need the section to sit nicely on the last section of bridge but also to have a trestle support there.

Next is a No. 10 bridge, with a dirt support and a trestle attachment on it. This section would be used to start off a bridge that required multiple sections, where the dirt bit sits on the starting bank of the river and the trestle sits somewhere in the middle of the river.


Then the No. 11 bridges, first one is just a clean section, with the next a single section and the last one with both sections with dirt, used in much the same way as the last set of bridges. Note that the 2nd section down with only one end with dirt might be used to as the end section on a trestle bridge where a No. 10 section would be too long.


Now I see the issue with using so many different types of sections that the python will need to work that much more harder so really need to know from DB if its workable to have all these different sections or not?

We could possibly get rid of some of the sections, mostly the two sections with only a single end with a dirt support (thou we would need to keep the Trestle version with only one end with a dirt support) brining it down to 6 sections total but think we really need the others.


[SIZE="6"][B][U]Getting the CSBs Ingame[/U][/B][/SIZE]

Once the Trestle Section was completed I started getting all the bridges ingame :)

[QUOTE='[R-DEV]Rhino;1333792']Right since its been raining I've had a few days off work and as a result I've got these mostly exported now with LODs and COLs with just a few things left to do, mainly with the wrecks and coding left before they need to go for python coding :)

As previously talked about in this topic I made the 8 versions of these bridges as you can see here:

First got the row of the No 10 CSBs on the top row, with the normal No10 bridge, which will be used on areas where it dosen't need any dirt support such as when its going over a broken section of a bridge. The next being the "sds" version of the No10 bridge, sds standing for Single Dirt Support, ie, its only got one dirt foundation on one end (best name I could come up with :p), which is to be used on the end of combination bridging etc, then got the "dds" version of the No 10 bridge, with dds standing for Double Dirt Support, ie, it has foundations at both ends. This version is to be used for bridging a smallish river or gap etc with one single bridge.

Next row down is the No 10 bridges with the Trestle Attachment, used for combination bridging. I've got a foundation under the trestle so it can be used in pretty much all depths of water. Dunno how realistic this is but its the best I could come up with and think it works quite well. Got two versions, first version has no end foundation (other than under the trestle itself) and to be used ontop of other CSBs etc, then got the one with a dirt foundation which is to start off the bridge. I think I'm going to also need to tweak these a little because I've realized after I've placed them all down that I forgot to compensate for the slant needed to stack them on the trestle itself, and it would be best if I exported them with that slant to start off with so the mapper dosne't need to slant them and if we do it the GPO way of placing them where we only get the X axis of rotation, and not the Y and Z as well then it wouldn't be possible to place them as they are :p

Next down got the smaller No 11 bridges, which are the same as the No 10 just smaller.

I've done a few examples of how they can be used on my little test map here :)








excuse the screwed up textures on the map and on the static bridge, photoshop crashed and the editor got a little screwed up for some reason I'm not sure why but you can still see the bridges fine etc :p

Driving over the bridges takes a little skill as I mentioned ages ago in the first pages of this topic. The hardest things I've found to drive over them are the jeeps, simply because there wheels are so close to the middle that if you get it a little wrong you can just find yourself falling down the middle of the bridge but if you tread carefully its all good, but I can see a load of nub cakes wasting assets on these :p

Now I've got a small question on the Wreck models / Destruction effect for these bridges.

Currently I've not made a wreck model for them and I think it will be pretty tricky with making a wreck model for these because how they are placed and how they are setup in r/l makes them quite hard to make a decent traditional wreck model.

What I think might be best is instead of having a wreck model, we can have a dummy wreck model but when these are destroyed we can spawn a few destruction effects of little bits of it, could possibly mangle up a few of them too, and let BF2's crappy physics engine take over with dropping them in the right place. I'm not sure how well this will work since I aint played around with this kinda thing much before. We might be able to get it done really nicely with having each major part simply dropping down or w/e with also being throw about a little by the explosion force of w/e destroyed it, and then it settling down in w/e it lands for a bit but might run into problems with overloading the game server or w/e so might have have to make them be destroyed instantly after much like the vBF2 wreck effects but I think I should be able to get this working pretty well. w/e the case I think a dest effect and a dummy wreck model is our best bet since I can't really see a wreck model working tbh.

Also I think we are going to need the Y axis (vertical rotation axis) when placing them w/e the case, without it we are going to be really limited in what we can do with them, since on thous pics above even the last No 11 bridge I used on that combination bridging I needed to rotate on the vertical axis in order to get it sitting nicely and these pics show where we can use vertical rotation for other kinds of setup:



But ye I'm almost there with these things now, thoughts :D[/QUOTE]

[SIZE="6"][B][U]A little Development on the Idea and Concept just after export[/U][/B][/SIZE]

After I had pretty much doing the bulk of the exporting, db had a major brain wave on how we could do the wreck models and also how we could possibly get these to "deploy" without going though python :)

[QUOTE='[R-DEV]dbzao;1334071']Just had an idea. What if they were like the destructible bridges, but without a visible wreck model? They will always be there in a wreck mode, no spawning required, and exact placement by mappers. You will have to come with a special "repair crate" that you need to put close to repair it.

The crate could be some metal plates piled up or something not too big, the size of a foxhole or something. This way you would also need to keep dropping them in the bridge as it builds part after part. We can make the radius of that crate not that big so you can't repair the full bridge at once. This would mean it would take some time to get the bridge completed and some skill to keep placing the repair crate. We could make it that the crate needs to be rearmed or maybe just auto rearms like the current repair crate, not sure.

You can add a destruction effect when it gets demolished, but no visible wreck after that. I think that could work pretty well, what you think?[/QUOTE]

[SIZE="6"][B][U]Destruction Effects[/U][/B][/SIZE]

Once the export had been finished I set to work on making the destruction effect. Since these bridges didn't have any wreck model like a normal bridge, other than maybe a little pile of dirt, my plan was to rely completely on particle effects to make it look like the bridge has just fallen apart with the explosion and the idea seemed to be working very well, leaving no wreck model but not just having the bridge "vanishing away" without some nice dynamic effects to go with it :D

[QUOTE='[R-DEV]Rhino;1334511']ye but my one's modern and it can ferry tanks over without needing multiple ones to make a complete bridge :p

But anyways made some progress on the dest effect for the bridge using partials effects etc. Still needs a little work and I hope ingame that each part will interact with each other, physics wise, ie so they dont all clip into each other but dont think that will be a huge issue if it dose :)


I can also get the parts to stay around for longer etc if needed :)

Also still need to look around for some better sounds unless some new ones could be made possible, also probaly should add a few spark effects etc.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE='[R-DEV]Rhino;1334920']Some ingame test vids for you to see. Dont think each part is interacting with each other but still looks good, epically over water where they fall in then disappear so you can't see them going :D




[SIZE="6"][B][U]Even More Development of the Idea and Concept[/U][/B][/SIZE]

Some brain storming between me and db :)

[QUOTE='[R-DEV]dbzao;1335107']Looking very nice Rhino. :)

You need to think about a "bridge repair crate" object. I know these things are one big thing, not assembled like in the past, but we need something related to bridge building. Maybe a couple of trestles piled up sideways on the ground or something like that.

The idea would be to deploy these from the logi trucks, with only one deploy available and you need to rearm it (like the supply crates). The problem is how we gonna shoot it out of the truck. We might have to switch to using weapon slots to shoot different stuff, like (#1 = horn, #2 = repair crate, #3 = bridge crate) and keep the supply crate as right-click. Or maybe put all crates on weapon slots to keep it standard.

Unless we just use the repair crate for bridge building? The issue is that it won't require a rearm, so you could place it quite easily and fast, maybe too easy in comparison of what it requires to be destroyed (big explosives). Requiring a rearm and some trips from main to get the big bridges deployed sounds better in my view.

What you think?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE='[R-DEV]Rhino;1335127']Ye, in the OP of this topic this is the main bit on what I had on that:

[QUOTE]The other idea of using some other object (maybe a small section of bridge, thou isn't really small, talking like 13m long at the minimum!) that is deployed out of the back of the truck that is a different weapon and is mag linked to the supply crates so a logistics truck can only drop supply crates or, lets call them bridge building crates for now IMO is a more workable idea thou might slightly complicates things a little and some players might get a little confused at first but I'm sure they will work it out quickly enough. If it was to look like a bridge section would probaly look something like this, IMO, not really workable due to its sheer size, and if we needed to deploy 2 at once, hummm:

Thou there's more on that on the OP, that's just the main idea I had down.

But ye a more updated idea on this would be first to modify all the logistics trucks to have each crate in a different slot. What I think would be best is for the logi trucks to have this kinda setup:
[B]Primary weapon (LMB):[/B] Horn
[B]Secondary Weapon, Slot #1:[/B] dummy, drops nothing and avoids accidental crate dropping which happens a lot, epically with me :p
[B]Secondary Weapon, Slot #2:[/B] Normal Supply Crates
[B]Secondary Weapon, Slot #3:[/B] Normal Vehicle Repair Crate
[B]Secondary Weapon, Slot #4:[/B] Bridge Building/Repair Crates (mag linked with the supply crates if workable)

Now to get there I think this is one of thous situations where we would want the scroll wheel menu on the left hand side, like infantry weapon selection active in vehicles since there is no HUD etc to tell which weapon you have active etc and this is the best way IMO.

Noiw with mag linking the supply crates with the bridge crate, I would kinda like to see 1 bridge crate = 2 supply crates of ammo, but I dont think that's workable, or is it? That would solve a lot of problems if it was. If not we need to some how make it so players must drop two bridge building crates in order to "build" a bridge but that might confuse some players at first.

Now with the "bridge building/repair crate" itself, who says it needs to be anything visible? How about having a dummy mesh and just a sound of hydraulics working [I](we might even be able to get the guys going to Bovington to get a recording of the TITAN deploying a bridge if possible?)[/I]. I think that would be the best bet since any kind of crate would just seem odd in proportion and these things are simply just slapped down and ready, nothing more so I think a sound as a cue to it being done, both 1p and 3p sound, is the best bet.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE='[R-DEV]dbzao;1335142']Not sure if we can have different second fire modes, but we might be able to change the primary weapons to shoot by right-clicking, so the end result would be the same.

Maglinking to different values I really doubt is possible, and I don't think we need to maglink it. I don't think it would be too much to have both "crates" on. But, if we decide to only have one, we could just make the amount of repair that a single bridge crate does, do not make it go over the bridge section's critical hitpoints level, so you need both, but I agree it might be confusing, too technical.

Your idea of it not being visible is not that bad, but it may cause issues if it falls on the water or slides somewhere where it doesn't repair your bridge, or not enough. If you don't see it, you don't know what happened and may cause a lot of frustration. To solve that we could remove the collision and the mobile physics of that crate, so they just stay "floating" in the air where they were dropped, and players need to place them close enough to the bridge sections to repair it. You would be able to move through it, and we just make it bleed for a certain time (enough to repair one section) and disappear.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE='[R-DEV]dbzao;1335147']Oh, I was thinking about the bridge crate, and how you would be able to just drop it, and while it repairs by itself, you could just go get rearmed.

To force the truck to stay until it's fully deployed, we could consider an automatic fire, that shoots small "bridge crates" over and over, that only last for a few seconds. So you need to keep the truck there until the hydraulic sounds ends, that means the bridge is fully repaired, because you shot enough repair crates to do it. Kinda like the flares, but slower. We just need to decide on a time to repair it fully and make the sound and the repair speed match it.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE='[R-DEV]Rhino;1335150'][QUOTE='[R-DEV]dbzao;1335142']Not sure if we can have different second fire modes, but we might be able to change the primary weapons to shoot by right-clicking, so the end result would be the same.[/quote]

Well jets have missiles, bombs etc on different slots while keeping guns on pri fire was what I was thinking of?

[QUOTE='[R-DEV]dbzao;1335142']Maglinking to different values I really doubt is possible, and I don't think we need to maglink it. I don't think it would be too much to have both "crates" on. But, if we decide to only have one, we could just make the amount of repair that a single bridge crate does, do not make it go over the bridge section's critical hitpoints level, so you need both, but I agree it might be confusing, too technical.[/quote]

ye what I was thinking. Actually, here's an idea, can we make it so when you deploy the crates you have to fire them in like a 3 round burst mode, so it drops both the bridge crates at the same time, but the normal supply crates is still in "semi-auto fire" mode?

[QUOTE='[R-DEV]dbzao;1335142']Your idea of it not being visible is not that bad, but it may cause issues if it falls on the water or slides somewhere where it doesn't repair your bridge, or not enough. If you don't see it, you don't know what happened and may cause a lot of frustration. To solve that we could remove the collision and the mobile physics of that crate, so they just stay "floating" in the air where they were dropped, and players need to place them close enough to the bridge sections to repair it. You would be able to move through it, and we just make it bleed for a certain time (enough to repair one section) and disappear.[/quote]

ye, I think you idea on having it without physics etc is the best idea, nice and simple :)

EDIT: [QUOTE='[R-DEV]dbzao;1335147']Oh, I was thinking about the bridge crate, and how you would be able to just drop it, and while it repairs by itself, you could just go get rearmed.

To force the truck to stay until it's fully deployed, we could consider an automatic fire, that shoots small "bridge crates" over and over, that only last for a few seconds. So you need to keep the truck there until the hydraulic sounds ends, that means the bridge is fully repaired, because you shot enough repair crates to do it. Kinda like the flares, but slower. We just need to decide on a time to repair it fully and make the sound and the repair speed match it.[/QUOTE]

That's an idea, thou would most likley mean we need more than 2 repair crates?[/quote]

[QUOTE='[R-DEV]dbzao;1335153']Yea, it wouldn't be maglinked, but would keep the truck there for the entire build. I don't know what is more important. I guess forcing the player to go back and rearm is enough waiting time than having to actually stay next to it waiting for the truck to stop spitting out invisible repair crates.

As for the jets, I guess they do what I said. The primary weapons are the bombs/missiles, but they use the right-click to fire, while the cannon (that is common to all weapons) is the actual secondary fire, but with the left-click to shoot it. So yea, it's possible to have your scenario there, and probably put the weapon selection icons to help telling what is you are going to shoot.

The ones that are dirt in the end are fine to have them in wreck, like we talked about as a visual cue. But some lumps of dirt all over the water passage is weird and could lead to exploits like you said.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE='[R-DEV]Rhino;1335223']ye, I think the mag link is more important than the keeping the truck there, thou we can have the repair crates at a low rounds per min so that it takes the amount of time to fire both weapons as the sound plays for, holding them down.

What do you think about the "burst fire mode" idea I talked about in my last post for dropping the bridging crates btw? dont think that would work with a low rpm etc but could be an idea to making sure both crates are dropped?

For the dirt foundations under the trestles, when in the water I doubt they will ever be above the water line, would look really odd and for ones just covering ditches etc I would hope to only have them only slightly above the ground etc :)[/QUOTE]

[SIZE="6"][B][U]Later CSB Ingame Development[/U][/B][/SIZE]

[QUOTE='[R-DEV]Rhino;1335861']Right made some progress, got all the bridges with wreck models (or dummy wreck models) and dest effects now, thou still got to test they all work since for some odd reason when I just tried to detonate some C4 with a CR2 ontop of the bridge at the same time, the game crashed, dunno if its related to the bridges or not yet but we'll see.

Anyways got some screenshots here and some vids for you of driving over these bridges in a CR2 :)











[QUOTE='[R-DEV]dbzao;1336598']I thought you could change the repair material per object, like the wrench abilityMaterial, but I guess I was mistaken regarding objects that are not handheld weapons. Just wondering when did we make normal bridges not repairable by repair crates. Maybe it was a 1.5 thing like you said, not sure. I thought it was something intended to remove gamey behavior of repairing bridges.

What would be the problem if they were PCOs? You wouldn't be able to place them with precision?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE='[R-DEV]Rhino;1336634']Can't place them with as much precision and more importantly, you can only rotate them on the X where it is really important you can rotate on the Y and Z too, not so much the Z but the Y is a must.

EDIT: yep, can't place it in the staticobjects.con as a PCO :p

EDIT: well got some good news and bad news. Good news is if I do make it a PCO I can repair it with the repair crate. Bad news being it might be a little tricky making it not be repairable by the normal repair crate and only make it repaired by the "bridge building crate" (with also making that crate not repair vehicles).


Would still much prefer placing these as statics and not PCOs thou since loosing the Y rotation axis is a big one IMO. Like I wouldn't be able to do this last bridge bit in this screen I posted above (other than the middle sections are gone since I blew them up) because that had to be rotated to do that and otherwise that bridge I couldn't have made really.


EDIT: I'm wondering if it is at all possible to make an explosion material repair an object? If it was then we could drop an object out the back of a truck, that would explode and when it explodes, dose no damage to anything at all and all it dose is repair a special material which the bridge uses?

EDIT: well an explosion with material that dose a negative value of damage dosen't seem to repair it unfortunately like I had hoped. :(

explored a few other things but nothing seems to work to get anything but a handheld weapon to repair a destroyable object dosen't seem to work.

Also from what I can tell supply crates in vBF2 never use to repair bridges at any time but have yet to 100% confirm this and if they did, it was most likley something to do with the engine and not a bit of code.

I'm hoping Mosquil might be able to come up with something here otherwise we might have to just go down the GPO rout :(

EDIT: Well it is possible to have the Y and Z rotation axis via the GPO rout, problem still is I had to input the rotations manually into code.... I'm 95% sure if you try to rotate it in the editor then save it, it will only save the X rotation but I need to double check that to be 100% sure. If we go down the GPO rout and have to manually put in the rotations its going to be a huge headache for anyone placing these and then all there work could easily be undone by a small editor save of any object change on the map...


[SIZE="6"][B][U]And when the Repair Crate Idea didn't work...[/U][/B][/SIZE]

[QUOTE='[R-DEV]Rhino;1337756']bumpy. Still no luck with getting a vehicle/crate to repair a dest object and there appears to be no way of doing it from what I can see (as a dest object and without a hand weapon), other than one possibility.

Someone posted on the BFeditor forums that it is possible to repair and destroy dest objects purely though python. I'm not sure excatly how but db, can you shed any light on this? Can we tell python in any way to repair a dest object upto max hp if it detects two "bridge building crates" being dropped next to it?

To me this sounds like the best option if its possible, unless we can find anouther way of doing it, otherwise it looks like the only thing we can do is work though it being a PCO which I really can't see working at all well if I'm going to be honest for the reasons I've listed in the last post.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE='[R-DEV]dbzao;1340915']The only issue I see is that BF2 is sometimes buggy with the damage values, the reason why the vehicle damage system is random. Sometimes you can get the hitpoints of a vehicle and sometimes you can't. I know this happens with PCOs, but maybe with destructible objects it's different, specially since it's loaded only once at round start and stays there as wreck for the entire round, it may behave better.

Since you already tried everything else, and looks like we won't be able to make special repairing crates like we hoped, I guess we could try the python repair thing. It sounds better to me than python having to spawn and position these things.

I will do some tests with the current destructible bridges and will get back to you on that.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE='[R-DEV]Rhino;1341015']cool cheers db, sounds good :)

The only way we might be able to get the repair crates way to work is to have them as PCO and then try and think that they are jets/choppers/boats (which I couldn't do for the other deployable assets) and then we have the problems that I mentioned with doing it the PCO way.

Having them spawn in via python would mean we would loose the dirt base before the bridge was deployed, loosing that small visual que there thou that wouldn't be too bad IMO, would also need to remove it off the wreck models too. If we did go down that rout I could pretty easily place all the bridges as statics on the map, save them into the staticobjects.con and then remove them from there, take all the x,y,zs etc and then paste them into a file the python can read for each map. Still not quite as good as having them in the staticobjects.con, but doing it this way would probably save on networkables a lot, epically if we limited how many bridges each team can place.

But ye see how repairing them via python goes first :)

Cheers! :D[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE='[R-DEV]dbzao;1354194']Yes, sorry for delay, finally got to it today.


So it works fine in both local and dedicated to get and set the damage of destructable objects, yay :)

On the video, the supply crate would be the invisible "bridge crate", the bridges wrecks would be invisible and there will be no need for a command to be executed like I did (just for testing). We would have a timer checking for these objects every 5-10 seconds or something.

Once the invisible crate is spit out, it would last for a few seconds and disappear (we put a bleed on it), and would be enough time so the recurrent timer would get it only once. That crate should only work for a single piece of bridge that's why I need it gone or else people can deploy it in positions that would fix 2 bridges and so on.

The crates would be 2 projectiles and spit out in slow rate burst fire. This way we can work it so the bridges have criticalDamage at 300 hitpoints (max 1000) then the first crate heals it to 299 and it starts a slow hitpoints bleed. Once the second crate is deployed (firing sound should help with the timings so players know when it's ok to leave), my check will see if the bridge is above 0 hitpoints and bellow 300 and will repair it to 1000. That way he's obligated to have both crates for a single piece. A nice metal "twisting" sound effect on the bridge when it's critical would be nice so he knows it's going down eventually. He can use new crates to repair damaged bridges as well.

That's it, I'm thinking this will work great, we just need to finish the objects. :)

I just need the repair crate and the bridge parts template names so I can update my code. I will also do a preload of the bridges objects and their positions on round start since they won't move, that way it's better for perfomance on each check.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE='[R-DEV]Rhino;1354301']Cheers, no worries on the delay was able to work on the Z-9 etc :)

Sounds really good, one thing that might work better is instead of having one crate only repair it upto 299, for the python to check that there is two crates in proximity at the same time and have a really fast "burst rate" (or what I'm thinking is we have two barrels of the same object so two are fired at excatly the same time). Can also have it on a firing delay so that the player has to wait until the end of the sound until they are actually "fired" as having look like its built with one crate, but then blowing up a few secs later could really confuse players if they where doing it wrong IMO.

Also I take it the code checks for the crate(s), and checks that its in a certain distance of a bridge and then if its in that distance, it picks the closest bridge to the crates to repair correct? :D

Anyways all sounds really good, will make the repair crate etc in the fullness of time, right now I'm working on finishing the Z-9 and also working on a design for converting a shed into a farm shop hehe but I'll try and find some time to do this :)[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE='[R-DEV]dbzao;1354303']About the burst fire, my initial idea was that just so you would stay there for a little bit of time, not an instant repair. The delay would be the time it takes to fire both crates, that's it really. Either way for me could work, coding wise.

Yes, it checks for the distance to the bridges and picks the closest one.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE='[R-DEV]Rhino;1354308']Yep sounds good, just to me having the bridge look like its repaired when its only 1/3 repaired could really confuse players rather than having a delay until its fired I think the players can grasp more easily :)[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE='[R-DEV]dbzao;1354311']That's why I suggested the metal twisting sound on the bridge when it's critical damaged.

But instant repair should be fine as well if you want that.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE='[R-DEV]Rhino;1354331']Ye I just dont think a sound on its own is enough, epically if its got to be heard over the engine of a logi truck etc.[/QUOTE]

[SIZE="6"][B][U]And Armed with the new idea for Deploying the CSBs![/U][/B][/SIZE]

[QUOTE='[R-DEV]Rhino;1362779']Right started working on this again, got the basics laid out so far and got both CSB crates (bridge building crates) to drop at the same time and also got a delay in before they are dropped, but right now you have to hold down the fire button until they are dropped and you do not get any sound until they are dropped, and then the 3sec hydraulic sound, sounds.

The holding down of the fire button isn't really an issue other than will probaly confuse people who aint read the manual etc. Its also a good thing to make sure the crates are not accidentally dropped (IMO might be a good idea to add a short fire delay onto the normal crates and repair crates for the same reason?) and also has the delay to make sure people wait there for a bit (thou a player could drive and hold it down at the same time, timing it right to drop the crate just as he gets next to the bridge but unlikely). The no sound que is a little bigger, really just from a usability POV but at least you know the crates have been dropped by when you hear the sound.

I did try adding a dummy weapon on the same weapon index that has no fire delay, and all it dose is sound the hydraulic sound as soon as you press the fire button, but that didn't really work :p

I've also managed to mag link the weapons even thou the supply crates and the csb crates are both being loaded though .con files and are not all inside the same .tweak, which seems to work fine in the editor but we will need to heavily test this to make sure there are no errors ingame on a dedicated server with multiple players manning multiple logistics trucks just encase there is any problems. On local with multiple logi trucks it seems fine thou.

Also managed to get the selection icons working, just need to make ones for each crate.

At the moment I have the fire delay for dropping the CSB crate at 3 seconds, should I make it longer than that? Also currently I have the CSB crate lasting for 5 seconds before it self destructs, would 6 or 11 secs be better?

Also do we want to go down the rout of a "dummy projectile" in slot 1, so that when you get in the truck there is no type of crate selected and you have to select what type of crate you want to drop when you want to drop one and do we want to give a very short fire delay on dropping supply and repair crates too?

EDIT: also had anouther idea. How about we change the vehicle repair drop into not having you "drop a crate" at all (at least not a visible one), but instead just have the truck "firing" a invisible supply object that has a short time to live, and only dose a tiny bit of repair and having this "crate" on automatic fire, which basically means the truck needs to sit by the damaged vehicle while its repairing it, until its repaired unlike what we have now with the truck just dropping a crate and leaving. Thoughts?

EDIT: got some new icons, thou for some reason the alpha didn't save when I saved them as a .tga? NVM saved in 24bit instead of 32bit was the reason hehe, files going into the repo have alpha :)


[QUOTE='[R-DEV]dbzao;1363121']I intend to make a 10 second timer to check for the crates, so at least make it last 15 seconds to be sure.

Fire delay sounds interesting, specially with the accident keypress problem, but also concerned with usability because of the sound delay. I think we should try and see how it works.

Having dummy weapon at #1 slot is good idea, so people learn about the new crates positions.

The repair crate I don't think it's a good idea. Nobody wants to sit there holding the button down shooting the small repair droplets. Also I'm afraid of people exploiting it by driving along side vehicles and shooting this stuff while retreating or something stupid like that. Would kinda be like the vanilla way of placing 2 vehicles next to each other with engineers inside. BUT I do like the idea of not having that weird crate, but hopefully that could be improved with a new model (hint ;)).

The icons look great.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE='[R-DEV]Rhino;1363347']rgr sounds good, will make them last for 10.1 secs since if they are 15secs it could be caught twice by the check.

Will add the fire delay and the dummy projectile, will need to make a new "Safe" icon or something hehe, anyone got any ideas what it could be called?

and rgr on the repair crate, will leave it as it is. Would be good to replace in the long run but I have enough on my hands, + no ideas to what we could replace it with :p

Cheers :)

EDIT: also might be an idea to do the delay for dropping crates and the dummy weapon on transport choppers too?

EDIT: also as noted in the repo logs, I've replaced the old "null_staticmesh" with a new, 100% insensible one so you now will not see a small floating white square in the middle of the firebase or deploying an object etc.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE='[R-DEV]Rhino;1363571']Right got the British Logi truck fully setup now and repoed, just need to do the rest of them too. If anyone wants to test it and see what they think about the fire delay settings etc you will need to rebuild the menu atlas first unless someone dose between now and when you come to test :p

Just need to tweak all the other trucks/crates now.

Also new selection icon layout with dummy weapon, best name I could come up for it :p


Also anouther point, should we allow the Militia logi trucks to deploy bridges? IMO they shouldn't since this is a pretty advanced bit of engineering equipment.

Also db, the bridge building crate name the python will need to search for is called "csb_crate" For all factions, located in \objects\common\supply\, and it lasts 10.1 secs before it self destructs :)

EDIT: also on anouther note, the logistics version of the m113 for the IDF, do we really want that deploying CSBs too? IMO should just be supplies?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE='[R-DEV]Rhino;1363641']ye rgr, also in order to have some vehicles not deploying CSBs and others do, I've moved the repair crate to slot 3 and the CSB crate to slot 4 so there aint a missing gap between the supply and the repair crate if the truck dosen't have CSB crates.

Also is there any reason why the IDF M113 logistics has its crate .tweak inside its main .tweak and isn't loading the "supply_drop_truck_idf.tweak" like the logi truck? From what I can tell they are both excatly the same settings?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE='[R-DEV]dbzao;1363865']Give it 11 seconds TTL Rhino. We have a delay of 1 or 2 seconds before an object can be found by python.

Yes, I will work on my python part now that we have the working assets in repo.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE='[R-DEV]Rhino;1363877']yep rgr will do :)

EDIT: Done, now has a TTL of 11.1111111 :)[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE='[R-DEV]dbzao;1364125']:D :D :D


Video is unlisted, but if you want to post a highlight with it, go ahead. I will only make it public when it's public by you.

After almost one year of work, we finally have it in :)[/QUOTE]


There you have pretty much all the main stuff that went on with the CSBs, although the topic did 183 replies in total and a lot of posts where made outside of that topic like also PMs from me to cnflkt you can get a pretty good picture even so of the process of developing a new gameplay mechanic from an idea to ingame.

I hope you have found this topic useful and you have learnt some stuff from it and have a better understanding of what goes on behind the scenes :D

Cheers! :mrgreen:
Updated 2010-06-13 at 12:00 by [R-DEV]Rhino
Views: 11337 | Comments: 12

« Previous Entry  |  Main  |  Next Entry »

Total Comments: 12
  1. Old Comment
    Silly_Savage's Avatar
    My God man!

    After reading through both your highlight and this journal entry about the CSBs, I feel as if I've just finished reading through a college-level term paper over the steps it takes to take an idea off of paper and apply it in-game.

    Mind blown.

    Posted 2010-06-13 at 05:49 by Silly_Savage Silly_Savage is offline
  2. Old Comment
    Excavus's Avatar
    Congratulations, you just finished your resume for a job at any video game company you want.
    Posted 2010-06-13 at 07:17 by Excavus Excavus is offline
  3. Old Comment
    richyrich55's Avatar

    Awesome and LONG ass read. Thanks
    Posted 2010-06-13 at 08:07 by richyrich55 richyrich55 is offline
  4. Old Comment
    Z-trooper's Avatar
    I think it is a nice move to show all the thought, considerations and development iterations ideas go through. Often people just see a shiny new picture - it must be hard to fully appreciate that hard work behind it if you never see blogs like this.
    Posted 2010-06-13 at 10:05 by Z-trooper Z-trooper is offline
  5. Old Comment
    KingKong.CCCP's Avatar
    China called, they want their wall back.

    No, seriously, I got tired of scrolling, maaan... And at the end of this page you can see that ...MORE... link.
    I was like... nooooooooos!!!1!!11!!!
    Posted 2010-06-13 at 10:10 by KingKong.CCCP KingKong.CCCP is offline
  6. Old Comment
    Engineer's Avatar
    Interesting to read how it was done.

    This needs to be the standard template for all suggestions.
    Posted 2010-06-13 at 10:47 by Engineer Engineer is offline
  7. Old Comment
    Rhino's Avatar
    Originally Posted by KingKong.CCCP View Comment
    China called, they want their wall back.

    No, seriously, I got tired of scrolling, maaan... And at the end of this page you can see that ...MORE... link.
    I was like... nooooooooos!!!1!!11!!!

    haha, Can't China learn to share?

    I'm really surprised so many people have read it already tbh that its soo long hehe
    Posted 2010-06-13 at 12:02 by Rhino Rhino is offline
  8. Old Comment
    hx.bjoffe's Avatar
    So.. how many man hours you reckon've been put into this? :s
    Posted 2010-06-13 at 13:18 by hx.bjoffe hx.bjoffe is offline
  9. Old Comment
    Rhino's Avatar
    Too many to count
    Posted 2010-06-13 at 13:21 by Rhino Rhino is offline
  10. Old Comment
    Amazing work.

    Commendable effort, fixes so many in game problems.
    Posted 2010-06-14 at 16:14 by Truism Truism is offline

All times are GMT. The time now is 21:57.