Talk:Scripted AI Objects: Difference between revisions

:: 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)