I searched, nothing showed.

Well the game has particles that are generated (blood, shells, ect.) but you can't access that feature in the maps.
I think it would be interesting to see what people could do with an emitter.

A quick example would be (useing Polyworks for example)
Object: Emitter
Properties: Sprite; Velocity; Effected by; Effects; Color; Random Color.....

With this you could create active waterfalls that move against geometry and players, Smoke Plumes for an apocolyptic scene or chimney smoke, water fountains, box factories, gumball machines...so many uses I'm surprised no-one has done anything like this before.

Wow; I don't know how I never thought of that! Full support, if it's not impossible to implement...

good thinkin' dude! u could make ''active'' volcanoes with that!

Mmmm, that's a great idea, wonder why noone ever thought about that.. Ofcourse this would require a new map format...

Wow.. good idea~

Oo this caught my attention. I demand michal to implement this, along with the other 291 implementation demands. (But especially this)

quote:Originally posted by KeFearMmmm, that's a great idea, wonder why noone ever thought about that.. Ofcourse this would require a new map format...


since the game already supports this stuff (though minorly), it won't be that hard to implement...


excellent idea! and density properties (of the fluid) so less than 1 would make it less dense than the air and float (chimney smoke) and how long it stays 'alive' and then make it fade away...

If he added the animated scenery he could do this while hes at it. My imagination cant think of things id like to change with it though blood should be blood and shells shells.

yep defintly this and animated scenery. imagine a volcano that smokes and then explodes ...of course itll be smoking all through it. or a fountain of blood, sounds good.

quote: Ofcourse this would require a new map format...
Not nessisarilary (yes, sp). You would need a new version of Soldat and to change the version number of the maps to something different so that the map doesn't have compatibility with previous versions, but yes, sounds like a good idea.

Yes, there would have to be a new format. Well, really just an addition. Otherwise how do you define a new object on the map without changing something else, and then old maps would be screwed up, blah blah blah.

no it's just a quick if statement.

includes...
int emitters = 0; //the number of emitters in map

...

if (emitters = true || emitters > 0); //check if there are emitters
; //none or done? next job.


It's all no different than not having a player start, flags, anything. If it isn't there allready, no need to change it.

Seriously guys, stop assuming everything, especially those who have no idea what you're talking about.
What you would need is a version of Soldat that will load and operate the new entity and an editor (probably Polyworks) that can change those values. that's it. "Easy" to implement, all the old maps still work, end of this little uselss discussion. I seriously doubt anyone here (as in this thread) has even seen level code for any type of game of this or higher caliber.

*bump*

So I guess this is pretty much a no-go then.
I would have really liked to see this happen, but oh well.

i thought it was a good idea....

quote:includes...
int emitters = 0; //the number of emitters in map

...

if (emitters = true || emitters > 0); //check if there are emitters
{
load emitters; //load emitters
}; //none or done? next job.

somones been coding school! good for you.

I'd rather see scenery that can be animated than objects that shoot out pixels. But yeah, more or less the same idea.

^not nessessarily. the idea is that the particles use sprites.

secondly, the map format doesn't have to be changed. maps that use this new feature could have another map file trailing it, how about a .PMT file?

thirdly, damnit why do people always post my ideas before i get the chance to?! go to hell attn deficit disorder!

totally support this idea......:D

quote:Originally posted by rabidhamster^not nessessarily. the idea is that the particles use sprites.


Sorry, I meant to say sprites, not pixels.

let me add some to the list of options:

your idas: Sprite, Velocity, Effected by, Effects, Color

my ideas:
Direction, colorS, densitiy (+ variety), size (+ variety), interactive (1/0 (yes/no)) (whether to interact with players, nades, gun fire, etc.), speed (+variety), lasting time (+ variety), rate of emission, areal friction (how quickly it slows down), layer (infront ppl, behind everything, etc.), bouncyness, self-interactive (1/0 (yes/no)) (whether it interacts with other particles) (<- this way you can make actual 'water'), and lastly, how long it'll be on or how many particles to emit (could range from 100 to 1,000,000 maybe) to create adequate sized pools

Waterfalls, volcanoes, electrical sparks, broken pipes, smoke, packaging peanuts... An idea that offers so much cannot be ignored, in my opinion. This is right up there with the animated sceneries and shadow ideas.

.gif in new version and this = same!

That would make for some very cool map effects. I'm sure some people could do a really good job with that.

Sweet idea, as sweet as animated sceenery.

Interactive water is teh pwnzor!

quote:Originally posted by YoMammasMammaWaterfalls, volcanoes, electrical sparks, broken pipes, smoke, packaging peanuts... An idea that offers so much cannot be ignored, in my opinion. This is right up there with the animated sceneries and shadow ideas.


lol yea, those are some good uses of this emitter... i especially like the waterfall. this would work even better if the computer could realize that a dense amount of particles is just as good as a polygon in that it blocks your view in real mode. this way you could jump through it and see who's behind it.

quote:Originally posted by Sk8er .gif in new version and this = same!


i really have to disagree on this one. particles has a LOT more advantages in many ways over .gif images. esp. well for having realistic randomness occur.

quote:Originally posted by zyxstandi really have to disagree on this one. particles has a LOT more advantages in many ways over .gif images. esp. well for having realistic randomness occur.


At the same time, .GIF images can do a lot of things particles can't. realistic waves in water, swinging ropes, flashing lights, you name it.

Anything particles can do, .GIF's can emulate or do better.

I can see some really ugly waterfalls...

quote:Originally posted by zyxstand
i really have to disagree on this one. particles has a LOT more advantages in many ways over .gif images. esp. well for having realistic randomness occur.


I think it's safe to say that the roles animated sceneries and particle emitters would play are different enough that neither one is "superior" to the other; the real power comes in combining them, making things like fires with sparks flying into the air, or electrical conduits that flash and shoot out sparks, or even trees that shake with the wind and have several leaves blow away in the process.


Additionally, a little something off-topic:
Gif files aren't gonna happen--it's pretty much confirmed, by MM himself no less. Animations would most likely use series of bmps, as described by Anna in another thread. And if support for an animated file type were implemented, it'd probably be a better idea to use the mng format, which is basically the png's answer to gif animations, but better:
they have 24-bit color support,
transparency,
supports a frame delay ten times faster than gif (1/1000 vs 1/100 seconds),
and (most importantly) the format isn't owned by any corporation--whereas Compuserve holds the rights to the gif format.


...Anyway, in the end it just comes down to me saying that the two ideas compliment each other nicely, and that neither would be as strong without the other. Yeah, it's not a statement that's really important to the ideas themselves (and it's the kind of opinion that doesn't really matter anyway), but for some reason I just had the urge to express it.