Mandrake on 5/3/2005 at 22:33
Quote Posted by Weasel
A situation like that is not what I'm endorsing at all. I was dumbfounded by those places in TDS. How could they put climbing gloves in the game and not expect every single player to climb to every single one of those places? Heck, I think the game had 10 times as many places you
weren't expected to climb to but could as places that you
were expected to climb to and that were useful.
By the time I reached the end of the game it was pretty clear to me that the climbing gloves were introduced relatively late in the development process, and that a lot of the earlier missions were not designed with climbing gloves in mind at all, and even some of the later missions only had a half-hearted attempt to retrofit some wall climbing into them.
I don't remember one mission from TDS where climbing was necessary to complete the mission, while I remember at least one from TDP (Bonehoard) where use of the rope arrow was mandatory to complete the mission.
They got around that to a certain extent by simply not giving you the gloves until part way through the game, but they forgot that the City sections are the same through the whole game, and yet they were probably designed pretty early on in the development process, before the gloves were a reality.
As a consequence, the city sections didn't really make any use of the gloves, and nobody really checked climbing in every little nook and cranny in the City to see if there were any obvious glitches that should be fixed. Some of them were pretty blatent.
A lot of people critizised the climbing gloves, but I think what really let them down was the lack of USEFUL climbable surfaces that could further the mission progress, far too many invisible barriers to climbing, and nothing to see or do when you did manage to climb up somewhere.
(Due to strange clipping/portalization issues, and shortcuts in geometry design - eg buildings only being shop fronts, like the fake sets used for westerns, which are just a flat wall propped up with nothing behind it :laff: )
I'm sure that FM designers can do a MUCH better job of utilizing the climbing gloves, since they get to start their map knowing the climbing gloves are in the game, while the devs probably didnt get the gloves coded in until a large number of the missions were mostly finished...
The fact that the climbing gloves are an upgrade item adds an interesting gameplay dynamic too - within a single mission it would be possible to start the mission without climbing gloves, and perhaps have to STEAL them from a safe in one part of the mission, and then use them to gain entry into another building needed to complete the mission. (EG make the glove use mandatory to complete the mission, and make obtaining them one of the objectives)
Dark Arrow on 5/3/2005 at 22:38
Quote Posted by Mandrake
Err, you're not a long time Thief player are you :tsktsk:
The first two games are replete with "places you're not supposed to go but can get to if you're smart". Thats part of the charm of the game...TDS was sorely lacking in such places, partly due to level design, and partly due to lack of rope arrows.
And don't forget the lovely physics of the Dark Engine. Crate stacking was never really my thing, but I have seen some really great screenshots from those who could master it (anyone remember the one from Precious Cargo, the one taken on top of the lighthouse).
Krypt on 5/3/2005 at 23:26
Quote Posted by ProjectX
I got a chandelier from the actor browser (default properties, only lightcolor changed) and I've added it to my room, however whenever I start the level or simulate physics for that object it falls through the air. It's inserted into a mesh so It shouldn't do that, no matter how far up I push it.
Below is a screen of the setup (highlighted mesh is top of chanelier)
(
http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs18&d=05096&f=chandelier.JPG) Teh Image
I've tried all different heights (and rebuilding) but nothing's working.
Did you drop this chandelier straight from gamesys? and also, it's a bad thing to have it embedded in a solid mesh or BSP. If the collision hull on a point attachment physics object interpenetrates with anything it'll freak out and jitter all over the place and hang at weird angles. Make sure its collision hull is all free and clear of anything else. Unfortunately I can't remember what the command was to view collision hulls in-game or in the editor, but you should be safe if you place it a few inches down from your ceiling. I think in T-DS we had a small chandelier base mesh with no collision that we would put up at the top to hide the gap.
ProjectX on 13/7/2005 at 20:39
Sorry to resurrect a dead thread, but the problem's back and none of these solutions fixed it,
1) I drop a chandelier straight from the gamesys into my level, I place it several units from the ceiling mesh (a vault)
2) I simulate physics and the thing drops like a stone
3) I try moving the chandelier down a bit
4) Go to 2
5) I try moving the chandelier up a bit
6) Go to 3
7) I try putting the chandelier inside my ceiling mesh
8) Go to 2
9) I try putting the chandelier into the BSP roof
10) Go to 2
11) I put the chandelier back to the original position and set the ceiling mesh's properties to PHYS_NONE
12) Go to 2
As you can see I've tried everything! Why won't the damn point-attachment physics work for me?
Ziemanskye on 13/7/2005 at 20:51
The problem might be the vault roof - some of them just have big boxes as collision hulls, rather than the actual slope of the roof - could try changing the collision hull to exact in the smesh browser for it... (more expensive in terms of collision calcs, but if nothing's hitting it it's just a bit more memory used, I think)
ProjectX on 14/7/2005 at 06:43
nope, still doesn't work.
Ziemanskye on 14/7/2005 at 12:05
Having just read your post again, I'm left with a question - why are you simulating physics on it in the editor? Try not doing that and running it in the game, does it still fall?
I've never needed the in-editor simulation, and always assumed it was for creating nice heaps of stuff, or to drop things onto surfaces they were floating above (so it does the gravity and rotation, but not things like the swinging attachments, which I've had work fine without that feature)
ProjectX on 14/7/2005 at 18:53
heh. I feel stupid.
Ziemanskye on 15/7/2005 at 10:04
Well, maybe you do, but does it work now?
ProjectX on 15/7/2005 at 10:36
Indeed it does.
