Project/Idea - Star Trek: Armada III

posted on March 16th, 2011, 5:43 pm

I am aware that there is a Fleet Operations mod in progress called "Concept:  Armada III," but I'd figure I'd post my own ideas about a "Star Trek: Armada III" that doesn't use any of the previous Armada or Armada II systems.

To start, unit sizes (including ships, stations, planets, and asteroids) will be measured in meters.  The size of the map will be measured in AU.  1 AU is the average distance between the Sun and the Earth.  Another thing is that there will be about double the types of resources to use.  Some factions will require some resources, while other factions require other resources.  Some resources will be universal.  You can even have wormholes that jump to different maps.

Passives will actually work correctly because they are defined in a single file instead of in every file.  So if there's a bug in how a passive works, only one file needs to be checked.  If a mod pack is added, the host of the game will actually be able to choose what mod packs to allow.  Although each mod will require a separate mod pack.  You won't actually have to have separate installations to run each mod pack.

Oh, and when there are boarding parties onboard, you can actually see how many enemies are onboard the ship.  When you want to construct a vessel or a station, the station or vessel that is doing the construction must have enough resources in the cargo hold to do the construction.  If it doesn't it will have to go pick up the resources.

That's just to scratch the surface, what do you think?

posted on March 16th, 2011, 7:24 pm

Well, apart from requiring a brand new engine, which would be no small feat, just going on the ideas present, it seems like there would be a hell of a lot of micromanagement necessary for stations and construction. We are talking about an RTS here, right? I would generally consider micromanagement of resources at the level you're suggesting to be both unnecessary and excessive. Players will spend more time ensuring their construction doesn't get derailed and less on fighting their opponents. The idea of knowing how many enemy boarders also doesn't make much sense; it will just be a meaningless statistic that the player can't "do" anything about.

I do like the idea of mod packs, although that will require a lot of planning in the design of both the file structure and how files are read into the game. For example, it would probably require ship cap information to go into the main ship definition.

I don't quite see the point of making everything to life scale. That will make the models very big which will either necessitate or encourage fairly high poly counts. While that's not necessarily an issue for most mid- to high-end computers, one with lower specs would probably struggle. The engine would also have to be able to handle those high poly counts. Maybe it would work if some kind of level-of-detail device was used so that the meshes are simplified when you zoom out. Keep in mind also that the textures will have to be fairly large to get any appreciable detail. Ultimately the physical size of the models/maps doesn't really mater as long as everything is proportional.

I also don't see why you need that many different kinds of resources, although in reality different species might not necessarily use the same metal for their hulls, or the same fuel. But it does seem like it would make the game very complex and hard to balance.

You're not proposing to actually create this game are you? Creating the engine alone would take several years unless you're a programmer skilled in 3D game design and have a lot of free time.

posted on March 16th, 2011, 8:26 pm

yh although some aspects sound good they are just not currently possible in the current FO build plus making things in that scale would make some units way way too small and others too big. having even more resources will just make things too complicated but i would like the more stream lined amount of files but would probely require a lot of coding work as some codes just do not work with certain class lables or other codes hence why there are several files for some weapons

posted on March 16th, 2011, 8:40 pm

yh although some aspects sound good they are just not currently possible in the current FO build plus making things in that scale would make some units way way too small and others too big. having even more resources will just make things too complicated but i would like the more stream lined amount of files but would probely require a lot of coding work as some codes just do not work with certain class lables or other codes hence why there are several files for some weapons

Did you even read my post Blade?  It's not going to use any of the Armada or Armada II engines.  Fleet-Ops is an Armada II engine, therefore it won't be used!

---

Well, apart from requiring a brand new engine, which would be no small feat, just going on the ideas present, it seems like there would be a **** lot of micromanagement necessary for stations and construction. We are talking about an RTS here, right? I would generally consider micromanagement of resources at the level you're suggesting to be both unnecessary and excessive. Players will spend more time ensuring their construction doesn't get derailed and less on fighting their opponents. The idea of knowing how many enemy boarders also doesn't make much sense; it will just be a meaningless statistic that the player can't "do" anything about.

Don't worry, I have plans to cover that and make it easier to manage.  It'll take longer to set up the resources, but once they are set up, it'll be easy to maintain.  Trading will be beneficial because you can trade resources that you don't use to other players involved or non-playable factions that come on the field.

I do like the idea of mod packs, although that will require a lot of planning in the design of both the file structure and how files are read into the game. For example, it would probably require ship cap information to go into the main ship definition..

I've already got the directory structure figured out.  All I need to do now is figure out the file structure (which I'm working on) and then implement it all.

I don't quite see the point of making everything to life scale. That will make the models very big which will either necessitate or encourage fairly high poly counts. While that's not necessarily an issue for most mid- to high-end computers, one with lower specs would probably struggle. The engine would also have to be able to handle those high poly counts. Maybe it would work if some kind of level-of-detail device was used so that the meshes are simplified when you zoom out. Keep in mind also that the textures will have to be fairly large to get any appreciable detail. Ultimately the physical size of the models/maps doesn't really mater as long as everything is proportional.

The ships will have multi-resolution polygons and after they are a certain distance from the camera, they will appear as just a dot on the screen and eventually disappear.  Performance will not be an issue.  Plus, if something is 100% hidden, it won't be rendered at all.

I also don't see why you need that many different kinds of resources, although in reality different species might not necessarily use the same metal for their hulls, or the same fuel. But it does seem like it would make the game very complex and hard to balance.

It would be realistic.  Although every resource would have a "base" resource or be derived from a different resource.

You're not proposing to actually create this game are you? Creating the engine alone would take several years unless you're a programmer skilled in 3D game design and have a lot of free time.

I don't know what I'm going to do right now.

posted on March 16th, 2011, 9:37 pm

Frankly, I'm not sure what to think about this. The concept you outlined is interesting, and contains many features that could make a modern post-A2 RTS game positively fascinating.
On the other side, not using FO means that you will need another engine. Of course, you could pick another game and mod it, but if I understand you correctly, you want to create your own engine. You should, of course, be aware that it takes 2-5 years to make a really good game from scratch, and to achieve this, you would probably need a large team of software engineers and game designers. If you want to do it on your own, you'll need at least a bachelor degree in computer science. Most of the people working for game studios have one, or even a master degree. You could, of course, do 2D graphics, which would make the whole thing a lot easier - 3D requires a lot of knowledge about CG. Again, you can learn about this at university.
I think your best chance would be to do this as an Open Source Project, and find a group of interested developers who can help you.

Anyway, I wish you luck. Let's see how far you get! 

posted on March 16th, 2011, 10:01 pm

Actually, most of the 3D work gets handled by your 3d library, which, if this is to be a Windows game, will be DirectX. However, to really use DirectX you need to know C++ as it's a native library. I suppose you could do it in C# using the .Net managed DX version, but I don't know if it is perfectly equivalent; XNA under C# might work too, but I don't know. Most of the work after setting up the actual 3D render pipeline and physics, such as it will be, will be creating the game logic and that will probably take more time. Actually setting up the 3D might be very easy depending on what model files you use. If you use .x files, which are DirectX's "native" format; basically meaning you can shove a .x file into the default pipeline and shazam: model with textures. If you wanted to use a different format, that would require telling the pipeline how to read the file and then render each face, etc. - a lot more work. But yeah, most of the work will be creating the programmatic representation of the game logic and the interface also. You might also be able to use an open source engine, but you would still have to do a fair amount of customization to suit your needs. A college degree isn't really necessary, but it would be helpful; for a language I'd go with C++, though it's not the easiest or simplest. If you don't have any prior programming experience a task like this could take you 5+ years.

posted on March 16th, 2011, 10:08 pm

Anyway, I wish you luck. Let's see how far you get! 

No, let's not see how far he gets. Another rant of lunacy by TCR. I don't understand how he can say all of this rubbish all the time.

I've already got the directory structure figured out.  All I need to do now is figure out the file structure (which I'm working on) and then implement it all.

So you've made a folder called 'MODS' in the fleet ops folder. Great.
You only just recently cancelled everything except one mod or something and now you're on about making this?
Stop saying all of this crap; you never see it through and then you just argue with the people that disagree with your bluff nonsense. Once you have lost the argument you make a vapid statement saying how the idea has been abandoned, with a hint of cynicism added to the final statement.
Enough is enough already.

posted on March 16th, 2011, 10:27 pm

slightly missunderstood that by a1 and a2 systems u emnt engines thought u mean gameplay systems. even so making a game from scratch will take years look how long fo took and although very advanced its still a mod with a team not a lone project. if this is a mod for another game then it would help cut time and your track record on completing things aint exactly good

posted on March 16th, 2011, 10:31 pm

He does seem to get in over his head and take on too much doesn't he. Fact is, something like this probably wouldn't ever see the light of day without a fairly large team. I know of only two Star Trek game projects that decided to build their own engines, Freelance and Excalibur. Freelance was shutdown recently. Excalibur is still going and may actually come to fruition, but they have a very focused and dedicated team, Freelance didn't have the same dedication.

TCR, if you really wanted to give this a shot, fine, but I wouldn't go making grand statements, or statements of any kind for that matter, until you are well under way, and are 100% certain that you could actually follow through and complete a project of this scope, with or without help.

look how long fo took and although very advanced its still a mod with a team not a lone project.

True, but it's probably harder to hack into the existing A2 engine and change it than building one from scratch where you have complete control from the outset. But without a good deal of programming skill, building it from scratch would be very hard.

posted on March 16th, 2011, 10:33 pm

Well he got attention, and that's what he aimed for, so he's successful I suppose.

posted on March 16th, 2011, 10:59 pm

@Haemoclysm
I'VE HAD ENOUGH OF YOU NOT READING MY POSTS CORRECTLY!  THE VERY FIRST SENTANCE ON THE VERY FIRST POST SAYS IT WILL NOT USE THE ARMADA ENGINES OR ANY ARMADA ENGINE MODIFICATIONS!

I hope I made myself clear on that.  This concept DOES NOT use any of the Armada engines or Armada engine modifications.  Have I made myself clear?

I have too many projects already, so there were bound to be a few cancellations and some projects being abandoned.  The Star Trek games just got hit the hardest with these cancellations.  I currently have 2 projects that I'm actively working on.  One of them has already had a couple of releases with good comments.  But you're not apart of the rFactor community so why would you care.  At least rFactor is modder friendly.

Plus I have released a mod for Fleet Operations that no one seems to play it because it causes a version mismatch.  How dare anyone try to do an online game with a modified file.  It's cheating, even if it does improve game balance.  I guess that's why no one bothered to help me test the Buildable Warp-In mod online, right!?  Do you think that any of this stuff is easy.  Just because I announce that I've cancelled a few projects, you come down on me like a ton of bricks saying that I can't do a thing!

---

@Atlantisbase
For the 3D stuff, I'm probably going to use OpenGL.  It doesn't have as many features as DirectX, but for a game that's going to have around 100+ meshes on the screen, OpenGL will be faster than DirectX.  Then again, if all the model needs is a texture and a few thousand polygons, then DirectX will be fine, but OpenGL would be faster.  I don't have very much programming experience, but I am learning.

---

Well, the racing simulator I want to build comes first, so it may be a while before I start with any sort of Armada III game.  Besides, it'll be easier to program the AI to follow a certain line rather than to have the AI tell ships to take certain paths based on threat level.

---

@Blade
I get my important projects out and that's what matters.  I'm currently doing some last minute tweaking on my NASCArFactor mod to make sure that it's good quality before I release it.  Right now, NASCArFactor is top priority.

[Megadroid]

posted on March 16th, 2011, 11:25 pm

Last edited by Megadroid on March 16th, 2011, 11:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

For the 3D stuff, I'm probably going to use OpenGL.  It doesn't have as many features as DirectX, but for a game that's going to have around 100+ meshes on the screen, OpenGL will be faster than DirectX.  Then again, if all the model needs is a texture and a few thousand polygons, then DirectX will be fine, but OpenGL would be faster.  I don't have very much programming experience, but I am learning.

Where are you even getting this from? I don't know why you think OpenGL is always faster. DirectX and OpenGL are both very capable tools if you know how to use them, but they can easily be misused.  Trying to use OpenGL like DirectX or the other way round is going to give suboptimal results.

I'm not sure what people's obsession with polygons is. Any graphics card from the last decade will laugh at a few thousand polygons. The bottleneck is generally in overdraw, state changes, effects; stuff like that (an non-exhaustive list, before anyone gets picky ).

I was planning to go into more detail, but that's not really the point so I'll leave it there.

posted on March 16th, 2011, 11:35 pm

@Haemoclysm

ouch, that formatting just gave me a stroke, i think you should nudge down the temperature of your posts just a bit.

Plus I have released a mod for Fleet Operations that no one seems to play it because it causes a version mismatch.  How dare anyone try to do an online game with a modified file.  It's cheating, even if it does improve game balance.  I guess that's why no one bothered to help me test the Buildable Warp-In mod online, right!? 

speaking 100% personally, my reason for not playing your mod isnt because it causes version mismatch, its because i dont want to play your mod. i dont like the idea of buildable warpins, i think they would be imbalanced and would reduce my enjoyment level. it has nothing to do with version mismatch/modifying files or whatever you mean by "cheating"

posted on March 17th, 2011, 12:07 am

First off, TCR, calm down man. I'm not defending either side here, but I understand where Heamo's coming from. More than once now you've started some very bold mod projects and not followed through on them only to pick them back up two days later. I'm not saying you're doing anything wrong, but you do have this habit of coming across as having a "why the hell did I even bother with this" sort of attitude when you do make such announcements. Frankly, I think the FO community is one of the nicest ones out there, there are some which I've seen that are very upity and conservative and full of pricks, or at least that's how it seems. Honestly the original A2 community comes across as being that way, although I have never spent time there, only here (FO) so that's just the view of an outsider; and I'm not saying we don't have any of that here, we do, there are a few here who can be real pricks sometimes - you know who you are ... . But on the whole, this is by far the nicest and most open modding community I've seen.

@Atlantisbase
For the 3D stuff, I'm probably going to use OpenGL.  It doesn't have as many features as DirectX, but for a game that's going to have around 100+ meshes on the screen, OpenGL will be faster than DirectX.  Then again, if all the model needs is a texture and a few thousand polygons, then DirectX will be fine, but OpenGL would be faster.  I don't have very much programming experience, but I am learning.

Yeah, I don't think there's any benefit of OpenGL over DirectX, although if you want to use OpenGL directly you will definitely have to learn C/C++. I don't know how much you care about being cross-platform, but OpenGL would potentially give you that capability. Personally though, I'd say go with DirectX.

I also hadn't thought about AI stuff. That will definitely take work to be any good; that's the only part that might you actually need a college degree for. And if you want a single player campaign to be any good, you will need a decent AI.

Plus I have released a mod for Fleet Operations that no one seems to play it because it causes a version mismatch.  How dare anyone try to do an online game with a modified file.  It's cheating, even if it does improve game balance.  I guess that's why no one bothered to help me test the Buildable Warp-In mod online, right!?

While I don't really know the details of how online compatability works - I assume it does a file hash and compares the value to others' to determine compatability, at least that makes the most sense; or is it less sophistocated than that; anyway - most people don't want to have to maintain umpteen million copies of FO just to play every mod. Or like Myles, they just don't like it; that does happen, buildable warpins are one of those topics that can derail a thread around here. 
(DON'T...EVEN...THINK...ABOUT...IT  >:( )

posted on March 17th, 2011, 12:10 am

As it happens I learnt a lot about programming and making games in general by attempting to make a super complicated space RTS games (about 4 times). So you should have a go - even if you don't finish it you'll learn heaps.