The Bears Pit: v1.13 Coding Talk » (New) Common Attachment Framework (new title; was The NAS Receiver)

Home » MODDING HQ 1.13 » v1.13 Coding Talk » (New) Common Attachment Framework (new title; was The NAS Receiver)

Show: Today's Messages :: Polls :: Message Navigator

Re: The NAS Receiver[message #303907]

Wed, 25 April 2012 18:51

Wil473

Messages:2815
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada

A Quad Rail handguard would cover a large chunk of Attachments.XML. Technically I would suggest two: lite and full length (allows RIS launchers). I was toying with the idea of using NAS' attachments-adding-attachment capability to pull this off. No AR-15 would have RIS attachments that fit the hand guard, instead any AR sold with a RIS Quad would include a RIS Quad Rail as a default attachment.

If you want an idea of how many attachment "families" are possible in-game, take a look at AFS/UC's RIS adapter system. I've got receiver adapters (Optics slot) for most major weapon types, as well as hand guard adapters that add RIS quads or tri-rails (G3 & MP5 adapters). Semi-related is the modular stock attachment system (covers 3 attachments).

One idea would be use a bitmask, and the attachment list is built up from whatever number it represents:

0000001 = RIS optics
0000010 = RSA optics
0000100 = Scope Rings
0001000 = RIS Quad Handguard
0010000 = RIS Tri-rail Handguard

0001001 = weapon that could attach all RIS optics and all RIS Handguard attachments
0010001 = weapon that could attach all RIS optics but only RIS Handguard attachments that fit side and bottom rails

EDIT: on rereading the first post, I think this is what Madd Mugsy was suggesting.

My only concern is that this system still allows attachments to add attachments to the base item.

EDIT2: why is this suddenly looking like the NAS Layout Class XML, we couldn't directly use the NAS Layout Class as it defines what slots appears and where, but in my case at least slot location and attachment usually have a strong correlation. Then again, I went out of my way to try and replicate what I did with NAS 0.6 with NAS 0.7 in my projects... adding to DepressivesBrot's impression that we're replicating NAS 0.6.

One of the nice things about NAS 0.6, was the lack of a large Attachments list. Attachments went into slots and slots were then assigned to guns. The old NAS 0.6 slots act sort of like the Receivers being proposed here just with smaller lists of attachments.

EDIT3:

Summary, is the following how the system will work for BR display of attachments and in-game use:

Total Attachment List = Attachments defined by proposed Receiver System + direct to item in Attachments.XML + attachments-added-by-attachments (can attachments make use of the Receiver System?)

If the above is correct, then I do not see a problem with exceptions like the MP5SD5, as there are options:

1) just divide barrel attachments among muzzle "Receiver types" that can be added together as needed
2) all suppressors attach directly in Attachments.XML
3) exceptions like the MP5SD5 does not use the receiver system and just have attachments directly assigned in Attachments.XML

[Updated on: Wed, 25 April 2012 19:35] by Moderator

Report message to a moderator

Lieutenant

[Message index]

		(New) Common Attachment Framework (new title; was The NAS Receiver) By: Madd_Mugsy on Wed, 25 April 2012 01:27
		Re: The NAS Receiver By: Flugente on Wed, 25 April 2012 01:45
		Re: The NAS Receiver By: Madd_Mugsy on Wed, 25 April 2012 02:21
		Re: The NAS Receiver By: Flugente on Wed, 25 April 2012 02:49
		Re: The NAS Receiver By: DepressivesBrot on Wed, 25 April 2012 18:40
		Re: The NAS Receiver By: Wil473 on Wed, 25 April 2012 18:51
		Re: The NAS Receiver By: Madd_Mugsy on Wed, 25 April 2012 20:21
		Re: The NAS Receiver By: dinglehopper on Wed, 25 April 2012 23:41
		Re: The NAS Receiver By: Madd_Mugsy on Thu, 26 April 2012 09:44
		Re: The NAS Receiver By: dinglehopper on Thu, 26 April 2012 10:05
		Re: The NAS Receiver By: Wil473 on Thu, 26 April 2012 10:07
		Re: The NAS Receiver By: dinglehopper on Thu, 26 April 2012 10:16
		Re: The NAS Receiver By: DepressivesBrot on Thu, 26 April 2012 11:31
		Re: The NAS Receiver By: dinglehopper on Thu, 26 April 2012 16:17
		Re: The NAS Receiver By: Wil473 on Thu, 26 April 2012 16:48
		Re: The NAS Receiver By: Madd_Mugsy on Thu, 26 April 2012 18:11
		Re: The NAS Receiver By: Wil473 on Thu, 26 April 2012 18:16
		Re: The NAS Receiver By: Madd_Mugsy on Fri, 27 April 2012 09:20
		Re: The NAS Receiver By: DepressivesBrot on Fri, 27 April 2012 10:32
		Re: The NAS Receiver By: JMich on Fri, 27 April 2012 10:50
		(New) Common Attachment Framework (new title; was The NAS Receiver) By: Wil473 on Fri, 27 April 2012 18:19
		Re: (New) Common Attachment Framework (new title; was The NAS Receiver) By: Madd_Mugsy on Fri, 27 April 2012 19:26
		Re: (New) Common Attachment Framework (new title; was The NAS Receiver) By: Gambigobilla on Fri, 27 April 2012 23:54
		Re: (New) Common Attachment Framework (new title; was The NAS Receiver) By: Madd_Mugsy on Sat, 28 April 2012 02:46
		Re: (New) Common Attachment Framework (new title; was The NAS Receiver) By: Madd_Mugsy on Sun, 29 April 2012 21:46
		Re: (New) Common Attachment Framework (new title; was The NAS Receiver) By: Wil473 on Sun, 29 April 2012 23:20
		Re: (New) Common Attachment Framework (new title; was The NAS Receiver) By: Madd_Mugsy on Mon, 30 April 2012 06:11
		Re: (New) Common Attachment Framework (new title; was The NAS Receiver) By: Flugente on Sun, 03 June 2012 14:24
		Re: (New) Common Attachment Framework (new title; was The NAS Receiver) By: Wil473 on Sun, 03 June 2012 18:14
		Re: (New) Common Attachment Framework (new title; was The NAS Receiver) By: Madd_Mugsy on Sun, 03 June 2012 21:58
		Re: (New) Common Attachment Framework (new title; was The NAS Receiver) By: Flugente on Mon, 04 June 2012 01:40
		Re: (New) Common Attachment Framework (new title; was The NAS Receiver) By: Madd_Mugsy on Mon, 04 June 2012 03:52
		Re: (New) Common Attachment Framework (new title; was The NAS Receiver) By: Flugente on Mon, 04 June 2012 21:08
		Re: (New) Common Attachment Framework (new title; was The NAS Receiver) By: Madd_Mugsy on Mon, 04 June 2012 21:57
		Re: (New) Common Attachment Framework (new title; was The NAS Receiver) By: Flugente on Mon, 04 June 2012 22:08
		Re: (New) Common Attachment Framework (new title; was The NAS Receiver) By: Madd_Mugsy on Tue, 05 June 2012 00:25
		Re: (New) Common Attachment Framework (new title; was The NAS Receiver) By: Flugente on Tue, 05 June 2012 00:29
		Re: (New) Common Attachment Framework (new title; was The NAS Receiver) By: Madd_Mugsy on Tue, 05 June 2012 00:34
		Re: (New) Common Attachment Framework (new title; was The NAS Receiver) By: DepressivesBrot on Tue, 05 June 2012 00:36
		Re: (New) Common Attachment Framework (new title; was The NAS Receiver) By: Flugente on Tue, 05 June 2012 00:38
		Re: (New) Common Attachment Framework (new title; was The NAS Receiver) By: Madd_Mugsy on Tue, 05 June 2012 00:43
		Re: (New) Common Attachment Framework (new title; was The NAS Receiver) By: Flugente on Tue, 05 June 2012 01:00
		Re: (New) Common Attachment Framework (new title; was The NAS Receiver) By: Wil473 on Thu, 07 June 2012 22:38
		Re: (New) Common Attachment Framework (new title; was The NAS Receiver) By: Madd_Mugsy on Fri, 08 June 2012 00:20
		Re: (New) Common Attachment Framework (new title; was The NAS Receiver) By: alwaysfirst on Sat, 01 August 2015 19:35
		Re: (New) Common Attachment Framework (new title; was The NAS Receiver) By: Wil473 on Sun, 02 August 2015 01:44
		Re: (New) Common Attachment Framework (new title; was The NAS Receiver) By: Wil473 on Sun, 07 April 2013 19:19

Previous Topic:	New Stealth Mechanics
Next Topic:	[IDEA] New Magazine System

Goto Forum:

-=] Back to Top [=-

Current Time: Fri Jan 10 10:32:39 GMT+2 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01628 seconds