Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[FlashFrozen]

Just another suggestion allow, engines to be able to be rendered under the sprite, negating all the additive lighting effects and place it under the sprite sort of like this quick photoshop demonstration

Spoiler

Instead of

[close]

Code

 
     "angle": -180,
      "contrailSize": 39,
      "length": 7.5,
      "location": [
        32.5,
        89.5
      ],
      "style": "CUSTOM",
      "styleId": "TronEngine",
      "renderUnder:" "True"     <--- Maybe?
      "width": 39

I think this has been sorta suggested for weapons and layerable ship sprites, but it would be a nice thing to have.

and sorta wonder how to reduce all that glowiness in that custom engine style xP

[Okim]

I second this.

[Sproginator]

Agreed, +1

[Rowanas]

A simple but sensible suggestion. +1

[CrashToDesktop]

Yup, +1

[LostInTheWired]

I could definitely see that being helpful.  I can't imagine changing it in the draw order would be terrible.

[hydremajor]

Just would like to ask real quick, does the ship REQUIRE engines/exhausts or is it only cosmetic ?

[Sproginator]

Just would like to ask real quick, does the ship REQUIRE engines/exhausts or is it only cosmetic ?

You pose a very good question...

[K-64]

IIRC it's a bit of both.

If mission-only, you can have a ship without engine flares fine enough with no problems. If campaign, not including them causes the game to crash, I think. Though you could just put the alpha down to 0 (The last number when you're choosing the colour, in case you're wondering what I'm talking about), theoretically that should work

[Aleskander]

I remember wanting this a while ago

[LostInTheWired]

I remember wanting this a while ago

I think I saw that thread.  I think it had an answer from Alex, too.  This is after my earlier comment.

Supposedly, trying to change this draw order would cause some "unforeseeable issues".  I can speak from experience when I say that, in developer speak, this means "I coded it too deep into the engine, and would take an absurd amount of work to change it".  XD  I don't know if I can see this happening.

[FlashFrozen]

This has been suggested in a sorta offshoot way, I made a topic about it, but that was was for completely layerable ship sprites

http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=2844.0

You know, this is actually something we considered early on in development. In the end, decided against it - adds too much complexity for not enough payoff. In most cases, a weapon rendered partially under a ship looks bad, anyway. It's a case of trying to make something look 3d-ish but only emphasizing that it's actually 2d in the process.

Also, there are lots of "fun" things to consider. For example, when do you draw missiles after they launch? If the launcher is between layer 1 and 2, the missile has to be rendered there, too, so that it doesn't just show up above the ship when it takes off. But if you do that, what happens when a guided missile flies *over* a ship with layers 1 and 2? It'll seem to pass between those two layers.

What about particle effects and such (for example muzzle flash, smoke, etc)? All those things become very problematic to get right - there are lots of edge cases to consider, and just rendering in the "right" order often isn't good enough. For example, if you do a flash or glow effect below a solid layer, it has to bleed onto that layer (that's above it), otherwise it looks terrible (again, emphasizing that something is 2d).

Most of these issues could be resolved with enough effort, but it didn't seem to be enough value to be worth it in the first place - and certainly not when you run into all the complications/implications.

But This suggestion is a simplified method and only pertaining to engines, of just rending everything under and not worrying about the additive glows and etc.