Jump to content

Home

RenegadeOfPhunk

Members
  • Posts

    733
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Personal Information

  • Location
    UK

Contact Information

  • Homepage
    http://homepage.ntlworld.com/richard.hart4/
  • ICQ
    253305779

RenegadeOfPhunk's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

10

Reputation

  1. Just for the record, this is incorrect. In MB, M-blocks only disarm if you hit the opposing saber within 'X' milliseconds of starting the M-block. So there is most definately timing involved. ..it's been that way since M-blocks existed.
  2. cNumSubclasses isn't to do with what you're after. cNumSubclasses is an MBII specific thing (having several classes attached to one 'slot'). So you'll need to 'discect' that stuff back out of the code. And sure, I'll look up MAX_SIEGE_CLASSES_ON_ONE_TEAM for you when I get home - and I'll specify the changes in the relavent structures...
  3. ensiform, Sorry - forgot about your request to see the changed .siege loading code in MBII. Unfortonately, we have all kinds of changes in there, but I think I've isolated the important parts (but you'll have to be aware that other changes may be mixed in)... Anyway: bg_saga.c BG_SiegeLoadClasses() changed to the following: void BG_SiegeLoadClasses(siegeClassDesc_t *descBuffer) { char filename[MAX_QPATH]; int i, j, k; char chPath[MAX_QPATH]; char chExtension[16]; int iDescCount = 0; bgNumSiegeClasses = 0; strcpy (chPath, "ext_data/mb2/character/"); strcpy (chExtension, ".mbch"); for (j = 0; j < bgNumSiegeTeams; j++) {// Go through registered teams for (i = 0; i < bgSiegeTeams[j].numClasses; i++) {// Go through classes & subclasses for that team & parse //for (k = 0; k < MAX_SIEGE_SUBCLASSES; i++) for (k = 0; k < bgSiegeTeams[j].cNumSubclasses[i]; k++) { if(!bgSiegeTeams[j].classnames[i][k]) { return; } strcpy(filename, chPath); strcat(filename, bgSiegeTeams[j].classnames[i][k]); strcat(filename, chExtension); if (descBuffer) { BG_SiegeParseClassFile(filename, &descBuffer[iDescCount]); } else { BG_SiegeParseClassFile(filename, NULL); } bgSiegeTeams[j].classes[i][k] = &bgSiegeClasses[bgNumSiegeClasses-1]; iDescCount++; } } } } later on in that file, this bit of code: while (success && i <= MAX_SIEGE_CLASSES_ON_ONE_TEAM) { //keep checking for group values named class# up to MAX_SIEGE_CLASSES until we can't find one. strcpy(lookString, va("class%i", i)); success = BG_SiegeGetPairedValue(parseBuf2, lookString, parseBuf); if (!success) { break; } bgSiegeTeams[bgNumSiegeTeams].classes[bgSiegeTeams[bgNumSiegeTeams].numClasses][0] = BG_SiegeFindClassByName(parseBuf); if (!bgSiegeTeams[bgNumSiegeTeams].classes[bgSiegeTeams[bgNumSiegeTeams].numClasses][0]) { Com_Error(ERR_DROP, "Invalid class specified: '%s'", parseBuf); } bgSiegeTeams[bgNumSiegeTeams].cNumSubclasses[bgSiegeTeams[bgNumSiegeTeams].numClasses] = 1; bgSiegeTeams[bgNumSiegeTeams].numClasses++; i++; } ...becomes... while (success && i <= MAX_SIEGE_CLASSES_ON_ONE_TEAM) { //keep checking for group values named class# up to MAX_SIEGE_CLASSES until we can't find one. strcpy(lookString, va("class%i", i)); success = BG_SiegeGetPairedValue(parseBuf2, lookString, parseBuf); if (!success) { break; } //bgSiegeTeams[bgNumSiegeTeams].classes[bgSiegeTeams[bgNumSiegeTeams].numClasses][0] //= BG_SiegeFindClassByName(parseBuf); strcpy(bgSiegeTeams[bgNumSiegeTeams].classnames[bgSiegeTeams[bgNumSiegeTeams].numClasses][0], parseBuf); //if (!bgSiegeTeams[bgNumSiegeTeams].classes[bgSiegeTeams[bgNumSiegeTeams].numClasses][0]) if (!bgSiegeTeams[bgNumSiegeTeams].classnames[bgSiegeTeams[bgNumSiegeTeams].numClasses][0]) { Com_Error(ERR_DROP, "Invalid class specified: '%s'", parseBuf); } bgSiegeTeams[bgNumSiegeTeams].cNumSubclasses[bgSiegeTeams[bgNumSiegeTeams].numClasses] = 1; bgSiegeTeams[bgNumSiegeTeams].numClasses++; i++; } BG_SiegeLoadTeams() becomes... void BG_SiegeLoadTeams(const char* team1name, const char* team2name) { char filename[MAX_QPATH]; char tcPath[MAX_QPATH]; char tcExtension[16]; bgNumSiegeTeams = 0; strcpy (tcPath, "ext_data/mb2/teamconfig/"); strcpy (tcExtension, ".mbtc"); //Team 1 strcpy(filename, tcPath); strcat(filename, team1name); strcat(filename, tcExtension); BG_SiegeParseTeamFile(filename); //Team 2 strcpy(filename, tcPath); strcat(filename, team2name); strcat(filename, tcExtension); BG_SiegeParseTeamFile(filename); } g_saga.c InitSiegeMode (bottom 3 lines added): void InitSiegeMode(void) { vmCvar_t mapname; char levelname[512]; char teamIcon[128]; char goalreq[64]; char teams[2048]; char objective[MAX_SIEGE_INFO_SIZE]; char objecStr[8192]; int len = 0; int i = 0; // int j = 0; int objectiveNumTeam1 = 0; int objectiveNumTeam2 = 0; int iTeam1Score; int iTeam2Score; int iStoredStartTime; fileHandle_t f; [b]char team1name[1024]; char team2name[1024]; char teamloadbuf[2048];[/b] ..and then further down - find this bit: //Load the player class types BG_SiegeLoadClasses(NULL); if (!bgNumSiegeClasses) { //We didn't find any?! G_Error("Couldn't find any player classes for Siege"); } ...and add this code above it: [b]//Load teams needed for this map. if (BG_SiegeGetValueGroup(siege_info, team1, teamloadbuf)) { BG_SiegeGetPairedValue(teamloadbuf, "UseTeam", team1name); } if (BG_SiegeGetValueGroup(siege_info, team2, teamloadbuf)) { BG_SiegeGetPairedValue(teamloadbuf, "UseTeam", team2name); } if (!team1name || !team2name) { //Couldn't find team name G_Error("Couldn't find team config reference in .siege file."); } //Load teams BG_SiegeLoadTeams(team1name, team2name); if (!bgNumSiegeTeams) { //We didn't find any?! G_Error("Couldn't find any player teams for Siege"); }[/b] //Load the player class types BG_SiegeLoadClasses(NULL); if (!bgNumSiegeClasses) { //React same as with teams. G_Error("Couldn't find any player classes for Siege"); } cg_saga.c: CG_InitSiegeMode (bottom 3 lines added): void CG_InitSiegeMode(void) { char levelname[MAX_QPATH]; char btime[1024]; char teams[2048]; char teamInfo[MAX_SIEGE_INFO_SIZE]; int len = 0; int i = 0; int j = 0; siegeClass_t *cl; siegeTeam_t *sTeam; fileHandle_t f; char teamIcon[128]; [b]char team1name[1024]; char team2name[1024]; char teamloadbuf[2048];[/b] ..then further on down - this: //Load the player class types BG_SiegeLoadClasses(NULL); if (!bgNumSiegeClasses) { //We didn't find any?! CG_Error("Couldn't find any player classes for Siege"); } //Now load the teams since we have class data. BG_SiegeLoadTeams(); if (!bgNumSiegeTeams) { //React same as with classes. CG_Error("Couldn't find any player teams for Siege"); } ...becomes this... //Load teams needed for this map. if (BG_SiegeGetValueGroup(siege_info, team1, teamloadbuf)) { BG_SiegeGetPairedValue(teamloadbuf, "UseTeam", team1name); } if (BG_SiegeGetValueGroup(siege_info, team2, teamloadbuf)) { BG_SiegeGetPairedValue(teamloadbuf, "UseTeam", team2name); } if (!team1name || !team2name) { //Couldn't find team name CG_Error("Couldn't find team config reference in .siege file."); } //Load teams BG_SiegeLoadTeams(team1name, team2name); if (!bgNumSiegeTeams) { //We didn't find any?! CG_Error("Couldn't find any player teams for Siege"); } //Load the player class types BG_SiegeLoadClasses(NULL); Hopefully that shoudl at least point you in the right direction
  4. I'll look into that for you - sure. Dont' remember the details off-hand, but I'll look into it tomorrow... Hey Hockey - sure, understood. And no problem Understood. What'd I'd think is ideal is if you can at least take advantage of some of out stuff, but still go on a unique path somehow. Have you considered some kind of mix between MBII and FMIII? Donno - just shouting out ideas. I know many people have asked for an FFA version if MBII. And as I'm sure you know, we're not likely to be making one of those anytime soon Could be a 'gap in the market' for ya... ...although saying that, I know full well why MaxState is pushing for some element of LMS in the game. As far as I'm concerned, LMS is such an essential feature. It changes the dynamics and the experience of the game in so many different ways. ...but of course LMS is MBII's trademark. So if you want to avoid being MBII-like... Or you go in a completely different direction. But then you can't take advantage of much MBII code. It's a tough choice really... Oh - and one more point about Siege implemetion. I'd actually say the objectives stuff is a much bigger deal than the class system. As I say, we actually had to do quite a bit of work to get a customisable class system into Siege. You could get a similar thing in other gametypes with similar effort I think. But if you want to get objectives into other gametypes!! Now that would be a job I think... I really should give it a try when I have a chance. And I promise I'll make an effort to do so. I like a lot of the things I've heard about it. And of course Razor was always the saber system 'guru'...! No doubt I'd be impressed with what's been achieved... No probs man! And thanks. Once the hotfix went out, it all turned out alright
  5. Hey UMD And no problem. But I just want to be clear about this - MBII code has been avaliable for OJP to use since B17. Some people don't seem to realise this... I'm not suddenly helping out more than I have done in the past - MBII's code has always been avaliable for OJP to use whenever and however it likes (within reason).
  6. Ok - cool. And sorry I went on a bit If you want the B18 code, no problem. Just holler... And if you want assistance in porting any MBII features into OJP, just give me or another MBII coder a shout... I don't know that any of us will have time to do all the porting ourselves, but we can certainly assist. ...oh - and that counts for assets as well. (At least to an extent that makes sense - it's something we can talk over...) Good night to you too.
  7. OK - well if your taking back much of what you said, then that's fine. And perhaps this is all besides the point. But anyway, I'll respond to your post. This is all still relavent really, because this is also about where OJP goes from here... I don't care that that is you're aim. I care that it's your aim whilst suggesting that MBII could help OJP out. My ideal would be to have MBII and OJP players of equal amounts happily playing on servers. If this is not a vision you share, then - again - fine. But I'll humbly ask you don't elude to our helping you towards that goal! And you bet I have every right to talk against that idea publically on these forums. I've personally contributed to OJP, I've never said anything bad about it, and I've made all MBII code avaliable to it. I think I've earned my floor-space - don't you? I'm not afraid you're going to steal players. I'm pointing out the irony of talking like you want to, then talking about assistance from us in practically the same breath! As far as where OJP goes from here, I see the pro's and con's of both arguments. If you do want to go for a class-like system, then yes - making it a siege mod gives you a lot of stuff for free. It makes sense. But we have done a lot of coding on the siege side to be honest. Especially for open mode. (Base jka siege is 'fixed' classes. It takes a bit of effort just to break that and have a bit of cutomisability...) We've done so much now that, if you were to put the same effort into other gametypes, you could still have a very good class-based system. So you can do it either way I think. But you're right to say that going the siege root will get you there a bit faster. And I still think you can distinguish yourselves from MBII in various ways. ...the other advantage in going the siege route is that you can more easiely port MBII code over - which is freely avaliable to you. Well, we must both have different definitions of ranting I guess. And 'in your opinion' it falls on deaf ears. I don't really think there is a rivalry now - not a general one. But OJP <-> MBII comparisons have always been around since they both existed. You're just one of the more vocal ones. At least you used to be (if your change of attitude is genuine...) Nor do I. It means you're voicing a personal opinion. Thankfully, you don't (or didn't) speak for OJP as a whole. You talking trash about MBII doesn't make anything worse for OJP. I'd still give out the B18 code to OJP even if you had 'Death to MBII' in your signature Again, this isn't a complaint about OJP as a whole... Yeap - ok. Just the same way you could have taken off-topic MBII stuff to PM in the past I suppose... So am I really. If your saying it's all in the past, then fine. So maybe just lay of comments like 'OJP could be played far past MBII ever will', and we'll all be happy. So if you're so sick of the OJP <-> MBII talk, why do you continue to do it? Your first post in this thread wasn't 2 months ago... You're not a bad person for disliking / hating MBII. But it's hypocritical to talk down MBII while also talking about possible help from MBII. Make a choice please. I'd hate to think a critism of a few posts would make you think you should stop posting altogether!
  8. Before I start, hi OJP peeps. It's been a while, but B18 has bought me back to the world of JKA temporarily. It's great to see that things are thriving here. I'm trying to look at a better way to restart rounds for the LMS system in MBII. Currently, it's laggy. If I can work it out, OJP is more than welcome to the new implementation - if you want an LMS system that is. I guess it depends on where you guys are planning to take OJP. But anyway - the offer is there... Maxstate, I'm only going to say this once. You said these two things within the same post at the start of this thread: So let me get this straight - after all the flat-out insults you've poured out against MBII in these forums over various posts, you still expect some help from us? Don't get me wrong, I couldn't give a flying toss what you think of the mod. But this double-standard is vile. I consider both OJP and MBII great mods in their own right. And I'm very glad to see OJP doing so well. I'll talk with the current team and make sure OJP has access to B18 code if it can be of any help - depending on which way you want to take the mod. I'd even like to think that MBII members would help out with porting anything over if it doesn't take up too much time. But I'd ask - in return - that the next time you feel like an anti-MBII rant, bring it to the MBII forums, rather than wasting bandwidth here. I have no idea why you are obsessed with OJP 'toppeling' or 'outdoing' MBII - that's your deal. But don't do it and then mull over the possibility of help from us in return please. (Thankfully most other peeps here have a bit more tact - regardless of what they think of MBII). Thanks. P.S. Heh - just realised I still have mod status here...
  9. False alarm FI is now back up and running, as is the http://www.moviebattles.com domain.
  10. Half-life 2 / Source. On and off. But in a fairly casual manner at the moment... Whether I get back into modding in any big way remains to be seen. Glad to see OJP is still going strong
  11. Ahh yes, I see. Well, the animation thing should be possible without any coding changes. Just set the animations to run to be the ones you wish to run. ...but making the player model visible - from what I can remember - will probably require code changes. ...if the next question is - will I do them? I'm afraid not. I'm not doing any JKA modding anymore...
  12. Well, it sounds like the VH_WALKER class in the OJP code will do what you want. ...so are you asking for advice as to how you use the VH_WALKER class in OJP?
  13. Hey Razor. Hey guys. Haven't been back in here for a while! So anyway - is the idea that you want some of the 'extra' VH_WALKER features, but applied to a 'speeder'-like vehicle?
  14. No worries Slider I've seen the latest preview video of JA+, and gotta say, looks like you've got some nice new stuff in there. Congrats. And I like the new direction your trying to take with the mod as a whole... Let me assure you that MB2 also has plenty of code modification. Lots and lots of it. The only thing is a lot of it is in the gameplay, which you can't really see straight away from screenshots, so you'd really have to try it out to see the extent of it... ...we are NOT just a bunch of siege maps ...and I'm actually good mates with Azymn (when I see him around that is). We've shared code and ideas on many occasions. I've always been impressed with his work, and I think if you were to ask him, he'd tell you your first comment on MB2 in this thread wasn't accurate P.S. Razor, the 'source' code' will be on your way shortly, probably tonight...
×
×
  • Create New...