New EV Override port

Trowel: Did you receive the 1.5 GB compressed folder of files whose names end innocuously with .pdf I sent you?

MartiNZ : This is about EVO, not EVN.

Geek : Guy isn't the one to ask about that. But I'm betting the answer is no.

GodzFire : As I said earlier, wait and see.

Qaanol : is that related to the files you sent me?

I'm afraid of what the Atlanta law firm might say if I answered that. Let's assume that since yours have different file extensions and hence can be opened directly that they are totally and utterly unrelated.

Heh, fair enough. 'Twas just curious.

Q: Belum.

Geek, I (or someone else) could always pass them on. If I agree with them. But it's quite late in the game so as Mack said, the answer will probably be no.

Er, what does Belum mean? :huh: Have you opened that letter yet? I couldn't help but think it was a bit extreme, even for XxXxx.

G: Counsel informs me that I can answer you as follows:

"Yes, I have opened the letter."

"The weasel walks at midnight"

"Tuppence more, and up goes the donkey."

This topic intrigues and mildly confuses me.

Okay, a small update at last. I've been busy with other things lately and everything seems to be taking a lot longer than expected (especially this port).
Mack, I managed to track down the pricing issue as an engine bug which I've reported and will be fixed in the next engine release (whenever the hell that may be).
Qaanol, my alternate method of removing pers shield modifiers fell through but I did manage to write a simple, generic script that works for all perses. Also, what I plan to do is create a separate plug containing all scripts and things that effectively disable EV4 features simply to make the game behave more like the original. This way users can choose if they want the exact same behaviour or if they want to see things like the new AI in EVO.

@semi-colon, on Jun 5 2008, 11:38 PM, said in New EV Override port:

This topic intrigues and wildly confuses me.

Fixed

Thanks for the news (I think). Guess this means I'd better sell as much as I can before the issue is fixed with the next release.

This reminds me of the Marathon 4 thread at the IMG forums.

i am Pretty sure that this is a fake EV4. because guy has said that there will be multi player and 3d which most of the forum members have said that they didn't want.

however i will believe merely so i can have some hope for EV4.

of doom : you've got it backwards... most forum members want multiplayer and 3D. And just because people don't want something doesn't mean it's fake.

:huh: people want it 3d??????
multi player is fine but why 3d?

This post has been edited by of doom : 09 June 2008 - 05:28 PM

You can do everything in 3D without changing the camera. That is, with 3D ships and other objects from a top-down perspective. 3D ships can potentially save you space over a set of pre-rendered sprites. They can face any angle, instead of being limited to 36 or 72 or 144 angles. They can bank and have firing or hyperspace animations 'for free,' again without having to render out more sprites. If the engine's lighting is sufficiently advanced, you can have engine flares, weapon flares, and explosions cast light onto the ships convincingly. You could make the shipyard pic more interesting, for example, by putting the same ship model on a background and rotating it, instead of a static image. You could allow the camera to zoom in and out, and the models won't get pixellated like sprites. Antialiasing is less of a problem. And lastly, there's somewhat of a bandwagon with games going 3D. Remember, when EV:O came out, some people didn't even have graphics cards. The technology is there, now, where there are few reasons not to go 3D when your game already requires creating 3D models.

The last thing with pixelation, you may need different textures for different distances. It's called LODding for different levels of detail.

Just to clarify, we're talking about 3D graphics only, not 3D gameplay. This is what users want.

This post has been edited by Guy : 10 June 2008 - 03:05 AM

OK good. thanks for clarification.