Is it possible to have FO expand further than the stock engi

posted on July 14th, 2009, 7:01 am

Does this thing support the gamut of (special) weapons used in FO? and how about space? FO isnt a ground based game you know...

posted on July 14th, 2009, 10:40 am

there is no need to switch to a newer engine, as the armada engine can do quite everything we need (and we are working on the few things it cant )

an "anti-aging" program is currently on todo, starting with a major special effects and environment object replacement to show what can be done. future upgrades will follow once we finished them. The first steps of those updates should be finished before 4.0. You could take the Interface Upgrades as a very first step

posted on July 15th, 2009, 2:50 am

lol armada is getting a makeover.

posted on July 15th, 2009, 8:57 am

still, the engine could need a few additions. but thats not easy. especially as i am totally unexperienced in that direct3d shader stuff...

posted on July 15th, 2009, 9:17 am

it might be time for a new dev member? who around here has experience with that?

posted on July 15th, 2009, 10:40 am

I can do d3d/shader stuff. I assume it would be D3D8, since thats what A2 uses. I normally use D3D9 though, and have been messing around with 10 recently. 9 isn't too different though.

posted on July 16th, 2009, 8:32 am

yes, d3d8 has some fundamental differences in how the shaders are used. if you think you are experienced enough with direct3d8 you can contact me via email or im if you like. it's less about the coding itself but i have theoretical questions, so i am looking for someone with a lot experience in d3d8 and also d3d9 - especially with that "shader stuff"

posted on July 16th, 2009, 9:39 am

Don't push it too far...Activision could grap your stuff and start developing a new superb game with your anti aged storm engine.
This sounds very good...I'm really keen on seeing how the new graphics will look like.

posted on July 17th, 2009, 4:44 am

Can we put in a request for a new cloaking effect? maybe something more "shimmery" and a little "glowey"? the one now is nice but drab...

posted on July 17th, 2009, 8:55 am

we know the cloaking effect could look better, but currently there is no way to change anything in that direction

posted on July 17th, 2009, 1:49 pm

How about a cloak that makes the ship almost perfectly transparent? So even owners can have a scetchy idea that they know their ship is not visible to the enemy (because of almost not seeing theirs). But cloaking effects should in fact be race specific, or chassis specific if possible. Because no two races build their cloaks the same.

posted on July 17th, 2009, 1:52 pm

Personally I enjoy the current cloaking style and I think it looks very nice. 

Because no two races build their cloaks the same.

The factions all rely on the same technology to cloak their vessels, so I see no reason that the effects shouldn't be the same.

posted on July 17th, 2009, 2:02 pm

but in fact, the klingon cloaking technology is not as advanced as the romulans...
so maybe it could look a bit fizzy when cloaking^^

posted on July 17th, 2009, 2:08 pm

Perhaps, but just because it is not as advanced doesn't mean it doesn't obey the same principles. We already see that it is not as advanced by how long it takes to cloak a vessel (thus indicating a slower computer perhaps or worse integration) and how much energy it takes to cloak the ship.

posted on July 17th, 2009, 4:52 pm

It would be awesom if we could get the cloak to look like it does in legacy.  even this picture doesn't do it justice.