20,741
edits
Talk:Scripted AI Objects: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
→Things to keep in mind
Red Leader (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
| Line 125: | Line 125: | ||
:: @5H1N0B1: About point d): I think the reason for not using the SI-system is that most formulas are laid out in the {{wikipedia|Foot–pound–second system#Pound-force as force unit|gravitational Foot–pound–second system}} in US aeronautical engineering textbooks (which are often used internationally in higher education and sometimes also are freely available). | :: @5H1N0B1: About point d): I think the reason for not using the SI-system is that most formulas are laid out in the {{wikipedia|Foot–pound–second system#Pound-force as force unit|gravitational Foot–pound–second system}} in US aeronautical engineering textbooks (which are often used internationally in higher education and sometimes also are freely available). | ||
:: —[[User:Johan G|Johan G]] ([[User_talk:Johan_G|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Johan_G|contribs]]) 19:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC) | :: —[[User:Johan G|Johan G]] ([[User_talk:Johan_G|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Johan_G|contribs]]) 19:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC) | ||
Actually fox2.nas and missile.nas convert Imperial unit in SI unit, do the calculation in SI, and reconvert it in Imperial unit. (seriously gravity in foot-pound-second...o_O' ?) | Actually fox2.nas and missile.nas convert Imperial unit in SI unit, do the calculation in SI, and reconvert it in Imperial unit. (seriously gravity in foot-pound-second...o_O' ?) | ||
Another thing : About bombable. I tried to install it once on missile.nas : I discoverd that the bombable variable is already implemented since fox2.nas, and after testing I rememeber shooting bombable C172 invation with missiles... So if bombable still use the same system it could be easy to keep the fox2 orignal implementation. I never tested it with bombable and multiplayer... | Another thing : About bombable. I tried to install it once on missile.nas : I discoverd that the bombable variable is already implemented since fox2.nas, and after testing I rememeber shooting bombable C172 invation with missiles... So if bombable still use the same system it could be easy to keep the fox2 orignal implementation. I never tested it with bombable and multiplayer... | ||
| Line 132: | Line 132: | ||
: @5H1N0B1: About point e: I think that unguided munitions should be simulated as [[Howto:Add_submodels|submodels]], but unguided weapons (such as the {{Wikipedia|GBU-24_Paveway_III|GBU-24}}) can be simulated using this new system. Because of this, I think that this project should be renamed "AI guided weapons," or something like that. | : @5H1N0B1: About point e: I think that unguided munitions should be simulated as [[Howto:Add_submodels|submodels]], but unguided weapons (such as the {{Wikipedia|GBU-24_Paveway_III|GBU-24}}) can be simulated using this new system. Because of this, I think that this project should be renamed "AI guided weapons," or something like that. | ||
: [[User:Red_Leader|Red Leader]] ([[User_talk:Red_Leader|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Red_Leader|contribs]]) 17:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC) | : [[User:Red_Leader|Red Leader]] ([[User_talk:Red_Leader|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Red_Leader|contribs]]) 17:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC) | ||
:: I don't mind this project/article being renamed - it originally started out with the missile code obviously - and that's what the original contributors were interested in, which is why I chose this name. The question is if we have enough manpower to make this sufficiently generic. I am not concerned about being too broad/generic - in fact, like I said already, it would make sense to not make things highly combat-specific: Under the hood, we first of all need an API for scriptable AI objects. The next iteration would be about script-able airborne objects, from which missiles/bombs might be inherited. In general, it helps to keep different use-cases in mind, i.e. to broaden the pool of potential contributors, which also includes UAV folks, and those not interested in combat. For these reasons, I would probably favor "Scripted AI Objects" over "AI guided weapons". The point to bring across here is that functionality will be mostly scripted - the AI system may be used internally, but most of it remains unused/disabled. Also, the odds of getting this reviewed and committed are much better if it's not too specific to a highly-narrow niche that has no application outside a controversial area like combat support in FG. I would very much like to see this developed further - but without being specific to a single aircraft/missile or weapons system - I am primarily interested in the framework side of this, i.e. refactoring, improving code reuse and so on, and would love to see non-combat efforts also being able to use the same modules (which seems doable).--[[User:Hooray|Hooray]] ([[User talk:Hooray|talk]]) 19:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Merging the latest changes == | == Merging the latest changes == | ||
@Red_Leader: you just reverted all the changes I added to your code in the meantime, you may want to review the last diff to see if you want to merge any of those or not (I've merged everything into the git topic branch now, see the infobox) .--[[User:Hooray|Hooray]] ([[User talk:Hooray|talk]]) 21:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC) | @Red_Leader: you just reverted all the changes I added to your code in the meantime, you may want to review the last diff to see if you want to merge any of those or not (I've merged everything into the git topic branch now, see the infobox) .--[[User:Hooray|Hooray]] ([[User talk:Hooray|talk]]) 21:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC) | ||