Home » MODDING HQ 1.13 » v1.13 Idea Incubation Lab  » New Attachment System Alpha
Re: New Attachment System (In Development)[message #250271] Sun, 25 April 2010 14:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CptMoore

 
Messages:224
Registered:March 2009
What about the G36?

The rail or built in scope are implemented via merging, did that already change for NAS so its just a normal attachement added?

Could you implement the ability to show different gun pictures based on the attachements added? Or even overlay pictures directly on the gun picture?

That way some of the G36 art doesn't get lost, and you could even show the effects of different attachements directly on gun picture.
Re: New Attachment System (In Development)[message #250273] Sun, 25 April 2010 14:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Logisteric

 
Messages:3274
Registered:December 2008
Location: B
CptMoore
What about the G36?Could you implement the ability to show different gun pictures based on the attachements added? Or even overlay pictures directly on the gun picture?

That way some of the G36 art doesn't get lost, and you could even show the effects of different attachements directly on gun picture.


he can't - guns are not drawn to the same scale (think of a common scale for the russian sniper-canons and a .38 special) - you needed layers of any attachment for every gun :sadyellow:
Re: New Attachment System (In Development)[message #250274] Sun, 25 April 2010 14:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
DepressivesBrot

 
Messages:3733
Registered:July 2009
Isn't the groza gl normally inseparable? But thats not the point.

I think the possibility to have several default attachments should be there (if it's not to complicated to implement) and the choice to what degree he wants to (mis)use them should be left to the individual modder.
In most cases they would probably be used to replace integral (aka 'hidden') attachments with actual, but inseperable default attachments.
The benefit of one or the other system can probably be argued to death, but at least to me these 'hidden' atachments always seemed like a workaround for the limitations of 4 slots and 1 default attachment.
Lets see what others would use them for.


Re: New Attachment System (In Development)[message #250275] Sun, 25 April 2010 14:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Faithless

 
Messages:442
Registered:October 2009
Location: The safe end of the barre...
CptMoore
Could you implement the ability to show different gun pictures based on the attachments added? Or even overlay pictures directly on the gun picture?

I do not think this is within the scope of NAS, for guns like this it would be best if there were inseparable default attachments.

Come to think of it, I could make ALL default attachments inseparable. That would solve problem #2.
Would that work for you guys?

EDIT: We could make a convention of not adding separable attachments, too, but I already know nobody will listen to that.

[Updated on: Sun, 25 April 2010 14:27] by Moderator

Re: New Attachment System (In Development)[message #250288] Sun, 25 April 2010 17:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wil473

 
Messages:2841
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
Defaults being inseparable would kill off my folding stock concept (three mods in various states of release), as I need at least one removable default attachment for that. Moreover it is largely redundant, aside from grenades, for if you wanted to make a default foregrip or optic "inseperable" the modder simpily applies the stats of the attacment directly to the gun. This is what is done in the basic G36's. Merger with the G36 RAS kit changes the stats of the weapon so it lacks the built-in scope/sight, but gives the player more attachment options (non-NAS, I didn't check to see what Warmsteel did in the NAS attachment definitions). In this regard, "built-in" is not a workaround, but a necessary part of portraying the G36 vs. G36 RAS kit.

The only reason I suggested multiple attachments is for a very small number of guns that have both a folding stock and something else attached that normally should be detatchable. Otherwise, the increased use of default attachments may already be enought to make this a moot issue with at least one gun in my projects.

EDIT:
More opposition to making default attachments inseperable in the .exe (instead of on a the current attachment by attachment basis) is that it would also kill off special items I have such as the RPO-A Napalm launcher, Groza conversion system, FN Minimi Dual ammo feed, and Bushmaster ACR. Effectively I see this proposed "feature" as limiting the ability of the modder to be creative with attachments.

[Updated on: Sun, 25 April 2010 17:38] by Moderator



Re: New Attachment System (In Development)[message #250291] Sun, 25 April 2010 17:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Faithless

 
Messages:442
Registered:October 2009
Location: The safe end of the barre...
How would it work if default attachments just fell under the normal drop chance system.
This means they'd have a chance of being removed when the weapon is dropped.

You could still buy guns at Tony's just for the attachments, though. Oh well.
Re: New Attachment System (In Development)[message #250294] Sun, 25 April 2010 18:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wil473

 
Messages:2841
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
From my perspective, that is the point of the default attachment, something which is there when an item appears in game for the first time (as NPC/RPC inventory, when a merchant sells it to you, when BR's shipment arrives, when someone else ships it to you, and after battle pickup). It is a feature that I seem to have used (abused) more than any other modder.

Like I said in the other thread, I should really look into that new drop system, it sounds like it will take care of at least one weapon that could use more than one attachment (I think I only have less than a five that would take advantage of multi-default attachments if available).

Otherwise, I cannot think of any other attachment related features that do not breech the scope of this project.

[Updated on: Sun, 25 April 2010 18:45] by Moderator



Re: New Attachment System (In Development)[message #250306] Sun, 25 April 2010 21:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Faithless

 
Messages:442
Registered:October 2009
Location: The safe end of the barre...
I'm just afraid of modders overusing default attachments, screwing up the balance.
We both know it will happen eventually Smile

I'll look into my last suggestion sometime to see how it works out.

Also I think I shall look into an xmlized option to make these default attachment inseparable.
Otherwise you'd have to make an inseparable version of many attachments.

[Updated on: Sun, 25 April 2010 21:45] by Moderator

Re: New Attachment System (In Development)[message #250311] Sun, 25 April 2010 22:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wil473

 
Messages:2841
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
As long as there is an off switch please. As I've noted, a blanket "inseperable" flag on attachments will kill off several features in the UC-1.13 Hybrid which have been in place for quite some time now. To be honest, we only have a few dozen attachments at most (notwithstanding DBB/IOV, and they seem perfectly happy editing XML's the hard way), creating duplicate attachments (with the inseperable flag set individually) is on a handful of clicks in the XML Editor, the rest is copy and pasting in the NAS XML's. I'd like to leave this aspect of balance in the individual modder's hands.

[Updated on: Sun, 25 April 2010 22:59] by Moderator



Re: New Attachment System (In Development)[message #250313] Sun, 25 April 2010 23:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Faithless

 
Messages:442
Registered:October 2009
Location: The safe end of the barre...
I was thinking of creating a new XML with default attachments.
It would not be hard to add an extra flag "inseperable" to it.
Never mind it though, because reading from that xml would be significantly more difficult than it is now.

I would suggest just bumping the amount of default attachments to 5.
Using a variable size would create yet another XML while 5 default attachments should be more than enough.
5 would be enough, right?
Re: New Attachment System (In Development)[message #250322] Sun, 25 April 2010 23:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wil473

 
Messages:2841
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
Do you mean adding four more columns to items.xml? On reading the details, I like the seperate XML for default attachments so as to avoid the can of worms that changing items.xml is.

Otherwise I'm good with five or so. Just need someone to do graphics for "The Gun" from "The Man from U.N.C.L.E." (Only four attachments needed for that prop.)

EDIT: Has anyone checked with any of the other XML based modding types for their input (such that there are here these days)?

EDIT2: One thing I did notice when modifying Renegade Republic for XML Editor compatibility was that there was a 2nd Default Attachment field. I just deleted it as the XML Editor only had the one, but perhaps the XML's are already setup for multiple defaults?

[Updated on: Sun, 25 April 2010 23:34] by Moderator



Re: New Attachment System (In Development)[message #250438] Tue, 27 April 2010 07:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kaerar

 
Messages:2044
Registered:January 2003
Location: Australia :D
Got a question Smile

Does this allow the method of barrel swapping to be altered dynamically?

For instance with guns that are able to take a different barrel, they come with the current barrel in a large slot already attached (but removable). When the barrel is removed the gun becomes a non-weapon item. Each barrel can have specific attachments allowed for it, for instance a high grade sniper barrel for the SCAR may not allow Auto-Fire, and limit it to semi-auto. Changing the barrel on the AUG to make it an HBAR would alter what could be attached and so on.

Is that possible with your system?


Re: New Attachment System (In Development)[message #250443] Tue, 27 April 2010 09:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
usrbid

 
Messages:1535
Registered:December 2008
As far as I understand it Kaerar the current barrel swap is a merge to another item ID.

Warmsteel's NAS does strictly attachments only, so you couldn't make a gund with a different caliber. However of course merging still works, so when attaching a barrel you simply execute the merge code (not NAS).

However it is possible in NAS to make a "base" gun e.g. AR 15 upper and attach barrels to it which modify the gun's range etc. via the attachment item ID bonus / penalty.

However this is also possible under the old system e.g. same style as the gun barrel extender, but in NAS it won't use up one of the attachment slots.


Re: New Attachment System (In Development)[message #250444] Tue, 27 April 2010 10:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kaerar

 
Messages:2044
Registered:January 2003
Location: Australia :D
Yes so basically what I am asking for is calibre to be disconnected from weapon id. Hmm I guess I had better ask Headrock Wink


Re: New Attachment System (In Development)[message #250450] Tue, 27 April 2010 12:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
usrbid

 
Messages:1535
Registered:December 2008
Yah, I wish so too, you know me Kaerar, I want mags separate, oh and I want to be able to fill them with individual bullets too, something like AP, AP, HP, AP, Tracer, AP, AP, HP, AP, Tracer etc. - serious sweetness!!

But I rather have Warmsteel work on SMP where we fix this stuff for good.


Re: New Attachment System (In Development)[message #250454] Tue, 27 April 2010 14:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Faithless

 
Messages:442
Registered:October 2009
Location: The safe end of the barre...
Quote:
Yes so basically what I am asking for is calibre to be disconnected from weapon id.

Nope, that's not possible in NAS. It can probably be done but it would be alot better if this feature was done in conjunction with "ammo attachments".
Re: New Attachment System (In Development)[message #250457] Tue, 27 April 2010 15:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Headrock

 
Messages:1774
Registered:March 2006
Location: Jerusalem
A) It's theoretically possible for an attachment to change the type of the item it's installed on. In other words, possible to have a "receiver" item that is considered a "misc" item and only becomes a weapon when a barrel is attached to it. However, this would open up the possibility of so many things going wrong, that it's a very undesirable solution.
B) It's possible for an attachment to change the caliber of the weapon without a merge taking place. That would require a tag for the attachment. However, it would probably cause a problem with compatible magazines, the way they work currently. Still, I am hoping (as Warmsteel commented) to separate caliber from weapon ID by turning magazines into attachments and using a dedicated ammo slot for weapons. In such a system, each weapon has a "magazine well type" value which refers to an XML detailing all magazine wells possible. Each magazine well accepts a single caliber and a range of caliber sizes listed. That should remove modders needs to match each magazine item with the weapons it can be installed into. It also means that attachments can dictate to the weapon which magazine type to use, effectively changing the types of magazines it can accept, thus allowing variable-caliber weapons. You could even make magazine well types that aren't used by any weapon by default, and an attachment that causes a weapon to use that magazine well type only when installed.

Implementation of "ammo attachments" will only come once NAS is completed, of course. And naturally it'll have to wait until I'm done with the New CTH system, which is pretty much eating up all my spare time at the moment.


Re: New Attachment System (In Development)[message #250463] Tue, 27 April 2010 17:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kaerar

 
Messages:2044
Registered:January 2003
Location: Australia :D
Oooh that sounds really good HR Smile

Though can you allow modders to add multiple magazine wells, therefore allowing things like OICW, Underslung Nade/Shotty and so on without fumbling about so much Smile


Re: New Attachment System (In Development)[message #250465] Tue, 27 April 2010 17:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Headrock

 
Messages:1774
Registered:March 2006
Location: Jerusalem
In theory, that's possible either by attaching those magazines to the attached Under-slung weapon itself, or by having some way to tell the under-slung weapon which of the parent weapon's slots to look at when pulling ammo data. Both are quite complex, and possibly just beyond my abilities at the moment.

BTW, as to loading magazines with different types of bullets - that is also possible in theory, but in execution is mind-bogglingly complex, especially due to the interface this would require (which doesn't currently exist).


Re: New Attachment System (In Development)[message #250470] Tue, 27 April 2010 18:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Faithless

 
Messages:442
Registered:October 2009
Location: The safe end of the barre...
Headrock
That's possible either by attaching those magazines to the attached Under-slung weapon itself, or by having some way to tell the under-slung weapon which of the parent weapon's slots to look at when pulling ammo data.

It would not be that hard, methinks.
You can:
- Use slots with different kind of tags in NAS. Such as grenades have right now (specialized grenade slots).
- Make a new tag with "ammotype" simply stating whether this ammo is launchable, regular bullets or something entirely different.
- Use existing tags to identify if something is launchable or normal ammo.
- Use the function IsValidLaunchable() or something.

The one with using tags in NAS is probably easiest, but won't work in the Old Attachment System, creating more management of keeping the two apart. Sad
I don't believe this project will start too soon, though.

[Updated on: Tue, 27 April 2010 18:36] by Moderator

Re: New Attachment System (In Development)[message #250485] Tue, 27 April 2010 20:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Faithless

 
Messages:442
Registered:October 2009
Location: The safe end of the barre...
New version, most notably with more default attachments.
To add them just use the *your items index* tag as many times as you want attachments.
Basically it works the same as it did before, but you can add more tags.
They're limited to 10 max, but that should be plenty. If not it's not that hard to change.
Re: New Attachment System (In Development)[message #250512] Wed, 28 April 2010 00:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Faithless

 
Messages:442
Registered:October 2009
Location: The safe end of the barre...
New version with new and improved less buggyness.
Re: New Attachment System (In Development)[message #250571] Wed, 28 April 2010 18:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wil473

 
Messages:2841
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
While fixing the SVD-S I added a second default attachment, and it works great in-game. The only problem is that multiples of the same tag per item throws off MS Excel when I reopen up items.xml. MS Notepad has no problem with attaching the tag, but the tags are already a jumble in there anyways.

May I be asking too much to have the additional DefaultAttachment tags changed to DefaultAttachment1...DefaultAttachment9? Otherwise, I can wait for NAS to be incorporated into the main 1.13 project, with the hope that someone will eventually get around to updating the editor to accomodate the new XML's.

EDIT: odd, my attempt to splice in a column into items.xml seems to have resorted the entries into a nicely tabbed list. Doesn't actually allow me to set a duplicate tag name, it kept adding a 2 to the end of the name so it doesn't work in-game, but the new items.xml didn't crash the game, or XML Editor. The problem is the XML Editor is responsible for jumbling up the tags.

[Updated on: Wed, 28 April 2010 18:25] by Moderator



Re: New Attachment System (In Development)[message #250582] Wed, 28 April 2010 18:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Faithless

 
Messages:442
Registered:October 2009
Location: The safe end of the barre...
Excel for this?
I prefer notepad++ or notepad for editing.
Anyway, it's in an array making it easily expandable in the future, and keeping it simple to use for other people.
This means it will be reading from the same value, there are some workarounds I could do but I don't think it would be very appreciated in general Smile

Inserting 10 different values would make the code look something like this:

if(Item[index].deffaultAttachment1 == usItemIndex || Item[index].deffaultAttachment2 == usItemIndex ||
Item[index].deffaultAttachment3 == usItemIndex || Item[index].deffaultAttachment4 == usItemIndex ||
Item[index].deffaultAttachment5 == usItemIndex || Item[index].deffaultAttachment6 == usItemIndex ||
Item[index].deffaultAttachment7 == usItemIndex || Item[index].deffaultAttachment8 == usItemIndex ||
Item[index].deffaultAttachment9 == usItemIndex || Item[index].deffaultAttachment10 == usItemIndex))


You'd also have to change it everywhere in the code every time you change the maximum number of default attachments.

So I don't think it's a good idea to make separate attachment tags.

[Updated on: Wed, 28 April 2010 18:49] by Moderator

Re: New Attachment System (In Development)[message #250584] Wed, 28 April 2010 18:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wil473

 
Messages:2841
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
Fair enough, I see where that would cause problems.

I'll give Notepad++ a try later. I've been using MS Excel 2003 for years since Madd Mugsy's original XML generating Excel file was in use (that was a long time ago at the dawn of 1.13).

EDIT: by the way, when you mentioned moving the project to Beta, does that include integrating NAS with the current code base?

EDIT2: Ok, so it looks like I was doing the attachment XML's the hard way in MS Notepad. I can see myself switching over to Notepad++ unless I am doing a lot of fill down type mass edits. (I don't expect to be changing the folding stock system anytime soon...)

[Updated on: Wed, 28 April 2010 22:02] by Moderator



Re: New Attachment System (In Development)[message #250607] Wed, 28 April 2010 23:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Faithless

 
Messages:442
Registered:October 2009
Location: The safe end of the barre...
Before moving to beta, I will try and update the current code to the MP 1.13.
Would be the first time I do something like that so I hope it will work Smile
Re: New Attachment System (In Development)[message #250621] Wed, 28 April 2010 23:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
steelfallenangel

 
Messages:28
Registered:May 2007
Hey guys I finally got it working correctly. Thanks for the clarifaction on the install process.

The last stage I'm working on now is incorporating the DBB mod into the UCNAS mod.

Now would the process I would go be something like dropping the Bigitems and other folders into the UCNAS mod directory and editing the WeaponsXML and other files to include the DBB items so that both sets of guns are ingame? Or is there a cleaner method that I can use for this method.
Re: New Attachment System (In Development)[message #250626] Thu, 29 April 2010 00:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Faithless

 
Messages:442
Registered:October 2009
Location: The safe end of the barre...
I really wouldn't advice using DBB with NAS, none of the DBB items will be able to take attachments.
That's assuming you can even get it to work at all.
And no, there's not a cleaner method, just make sure all the files every mod needs are there.
Re: New Attachment System (In Development)[message #250634] Thu, 29 April 2010 00:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Minty

 
Messages:112
Registered:July 2009
Location: UK
Both UC113NAS and DBB HEAVILY alter the item-files, both the XMLs and the graphics.

For example, if you simply overwrite UC's graphic-files with DBB's, you'll have a LOAD of errors, like LBE gear with weapon graphics, and suchlike.

You need to use the STI-Editor to merge the two, and that's going to be a whole HEAP of work..

[Updated on: Thu, 29 April 2010 01:16] by Moderator

Re: New Attachment System (In Development)[message #250638] Thu, 29 April 2010 01:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wil473

 
Messages:2841
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
Even without the NAS XML's to worry about (and what follows applies, but more so as it must be done without the benefit of a "change item index to" capability); merging DBB/IOV into UC-1.13 will be a nightmare:

1) Graphics, probably the easiest one, but I have lately been using the old pocket armour item slots for many items. Using the P3Items set to the Guns colour pallette wasn't giving good enough results (will move everything here when I fully move to PNG graphics). The Guns graphic libary is more or less untouched, so if it is guns you want, sure, you may simply dump all gun related graphics from BigItems, Interface, Tileset/0

2) item order
- original Urban Chaos had different items in the original 350 indexes than original JA2; so right there you have a missmatch before I even got involved, as I've replicated the original Urban Chaos index where possible and appropriate
- Beyond what I like to call the holy 350, I've reordered the items for no better reason than my semi-regular attempts to group everthing together into some kind of order
- Once again if it is just guns, you may add them in, but that means building complete stats

3) weapon and other stats
- DBB/IOV and UC-1.13 have significantly different stats for common items
- Folding Stock System, see last note but more so

At most, I've considered using DBB/IOV as a graphics libary, though like many I find many items a bit too garish.

EDIT: now the above does not include having to build stats in the NAS XML's.

[Updated on: Thu, 29 April 2010 01:14] by Moderator



Re: New Attachment System (In Development)[message #250639] Thu, 29 April 2010 01:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
steelfallenangel

 
Messages:28
Registered:May 2007
damn. Figured it wasn't going to be easy. Was hoping for a kinda melding of the two. For example UCNAS weapons would be using the new system ingame while DBB weapons used the old. Of course I realize with that sort of mechanic that the any DBB attachments would likely be incompatable with UCNAS weapons. Im just someone that loves variety

Got chose now between a intiutive system thats fun to use with a smaller gun and attachment catalog for more options than I can count but a remarkable dull attachment system.

Love the new system though. Hope it finds its way into the other large mods so i can experiment with more combinations later on.

[Updated on: Thu, 29 April 2010 01:13] by Moderator

Re: New Attachment System (In Development)[message #250640] Thu, 29 April 2010 01:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Minty

 
Messages:112
Registered:July 2009
Location: UK
Well, there is a ray of hope.. I've been tinkering around with the old Possum v5 mod, which was based on DBB910, I think. It's nicely stable, and the more recent IOV seems to just add a load of unnecessary clutter.

SLOWLY working my way through Items.XML, getting the NAS XMLs into line with DBB's massive amount of attachments. I'll probably get distracted at some point, fixing Ingrish, and converting some armours into LBE (Blame Wil for that. An officer's coat is NOT armour, and I seem to share that opinion with him.)

That being said, it STILL won't be compatible with UC113, as I'm not going to touch THAT merge with a bargepole. I value my limited sanity too much. Very Happy
Re: New Attachment System (In Development)[message #250646] Thu, 29 April 2010 02:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
steelfallenangel

 
Messages:28
Registered:May 2007
Yea alot of the items are kinda funny like the coat and marine uniform but the vast majority give nice variety.

As for the mod did you ever consider making older weapons have more permanment attachments? I mean for my knowledge until the 1990s most attachments to a firearm were fairly hard linked into the gun. Like old M203s that required army gunsmiths to attach instead of just a swap in swap out system. Newwer guns it wouldn't be a problem but older firearms would have a number of options like that.

But thats only if you wanted to try and make it realistic in that manner. Wouldn't really jell well for gameplay overall IMO though
Re: New Attachment System (In Development)[message #250647] Thu, 29 April 2010 02:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Minty

 
Messages:112
Registered:July 2009
Location: UK
It's certainly something I'm considering. If not making attachments permanent, at the very least giving them stupidly high AP costs to attach/detach. So you're not going to be hot-swapping non rail-attached kit in the middle of a firefight.

I'll also be having a look at semi-standardising the whole DBB attachment-system, as even in Possum's mod, which I'll be basing mine off, it's a big mess. With weapons in the same family taking different attachments, most notably the AK-family, as I recall.

I may also stea.. Er, be inspired by Wil's folding-stock system, if he doesn't mind. And I'll definitely be taking a look at his implementation of the MGL and RG6 revolver-GLs.

But as I say, this is all very embryonic at the moment. Ask for no timescales, and I'll bite off no heads. Wink
Re: New Attachment System (In Development)[message #250653] Thu, 29 April 2010 04:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wil473

 
Messages:2841
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
You are free to replicate the Folding stock system, however, once NAS becomes mainstream (ie. part of the SVN base code) I think there may be a better way to do it (involves reversing all the merger entries). Just remember what you are getting yourself into: two or more pairs of folding stocks, a pair of mergers per gun, and in the current revision, two guns for Machine Pistos (one for each stock state).

Back to the subject of NAS, one thing I found, and probably the only reason I finished a basic mini-mod in a week, is that there are overall less attachments to define. Better still, once you have it right for a family of guns, all you have to do is copy the entry and change the index, making any minor changes as you go along. The hard part is getting that first one in the family right. I spent the most time getting the Barrett REC7 (screen shot somewhere) right as it was the first gun in my ordering to have a quad rail (RIS) fore end. I also ended up doing a few things that Warmsteel didn't expect, but that's all been documented here in this thread.

[Updated on: Thu, 29 April 2010 04:57] by Moderator



Re: New Attachment System (In Development)[message #250656] Thu, 29 April 2010 06:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Minty

 
Messages:112
Registered:July 2009
Location: UK
Believe me, I know what I'm getting myself into. Which is why I'm intentionally trying to limit myself to a narrow field, in that I'm going to *just* try and sort out the NAS compatibility of Possum's mod.

Of course, I know myself rather well, so I don't doubt I'll get distracted by shiny things on the way.

Balancing, re-jigging, Ingrish-fixing, etc.
Re: New Attachment System (In Development)[message #250762] Fri, 30 April 2010 23:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
steelfallenangel

 
Messages:28
Registered:May 2007
I gotta say overall as i get deeper into the system I like it more then any other gun attachment system in games like this that ive played. Brigade E5 had something like this but the overall execution of that game was horrible.

I was wondering though. Why are some weapons able to get the rod and spring but not others? I mean I thought I began to understand why some weapons were chosen and not others but then I'd come across one that didn't fit my mold.

What was the prereq that you chose to determine whether they could use it or not?
Re: New Attachment System (In Development)[message #250764] Sat, 01 May 2010 01:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Faithless

 
Messages:442
Registered:October 2009
Location: The safe end of the barre...
Beats me, ask whoever made the guns Very Happy I just copied that.
Re: New Attachment System (In Development)[message #250776] Sat, 01 May 2010 08:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
usrbid

 
Messages:1535
Registered:December 2008
Hi steelfallenangel, initially the rod & spring attachment was meant for all weapon platforms with a "standard" upper receiver, where standard is meant in a very broad sense (for example the gas system for AK type guns works differently from AR type guns).

In the computer game the rod & spring is meant to decrease the cycling mass to increase fire rate. In real life you would for example with an AR type upper adjust the buffer strength instead.

To demonstrate that real life "equivelents" exist, here is a link for upper receivers from the Lewis Machine & Tool Company, where you can see Full Auto and Semi Auto versions for sale for the same upper assembly.

Here is the list of weapons which have burst or auto fire but do not allow for a rod & spring attachments in SVN 1203 build 3287:

Ruger Mini-14
Auto Rocket Rifle
Calico M-950
SR-2 Veresk
Metal Storm Surf Zone
ColtCanada C7CT
AKMSU
Steyr ACR
Owen .45
MAT-49
SIG MP41/44
AR57 16"
AR57 11"
AR57 6"-Silenced

Most of these guns are not considered to have "standard" upper receiver in a very broad sense.

The AR 57 is new in the SVN and whoever added the gun probably forgot to add the rod & spring attachment. Brownells is selling a good 5.7 x 28mm conversion kit for an AR-15 / M16 here. The kit comes with a correct-weight recoil buffer (and I bet it is heavier than the 5.56 buffer, at least the 9mm conversion kit buffer is heavier).

The Diemaco Colt Canada C7CT designated marksman rifle has a two-stage match trigger and weighted stock to counterbalance the heavy 20-inch free-floating barrel surrounded by a tubular forestock. As far as I can tell the weapon system uses a buffer which could be adjusted. However the JA2 designer of the gun probably didn't allow for the rod & spring attachment as the weapon allows for a Sniper Scope, 10x attachment and is viewed to be more of a Sniper Rifle.

Not sure why the AKMSU doesn't allow for a rod & spring, as most / all of the AKM weapons do, maybe also game balance or simply modder forgot to add it.

The Steyr Mannlicher ACR uses 5.56x45mm SCF ammo in game. The rounds consist of a carbon steel flechette for a projectile that used a four part spindle sabot packaged in a telescoped arrangement with propellant packed around the projectile. Here is a pic of how these rounds are supposed to look like (as far as I know this gun is not in service similar to e.g. the G11). As a result rod & spring do not apply to this weapon system.

Hope this helps, enjoy! --Dieter

[Updated on: Sat, 01 May 2010 08:22] by Moderator



Re: New Attachment System (In Development)[message #250824] Sat, 01 May 2010 22:26 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
steelfallenangel

 
Messages:28
Registered:May 2007
thanks for the clarrification. It was the Colt Canada and the AKMSU that were the ones that had me scratching my head wondering why they weren't there.

BTW Ive repeatadly come across a crash problem but due to my inexperiance in UC I don't know if its tied to UC or NAS I just know it wasn't occuring in original 1.13 or DBB.

On several occasions when trying to consolidate first aid kits so that I didn't have a ton of 25% kits the game will quite often crash.

It only seems to occur with First aid kits. Locksmith, repair, medkits, and canteens don't have the problem at all.

The process is nearly always done from the field map screen when viewing a sectors inventory. Its happened enough i felt i should mention. I just wasn't sure if it was NAS or not. Could just be a inherent problem with the mod system itself.

[Updated on: Sat, 01 May 2010 22:27] by Moderator

Previous Topic: WF6.06-Mod_beta_english_for_JA2_1.13NIV2112 and higher
Next Topic: Combo Mod Loader for 1.13
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Sun Jul 12 13:59:13 EEST 2020

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02570 seconds