Post Your Current WIP V.3!: Tutorials, Tools and Model Packs Galore (GM13 googogogo)

[Uzkanda]

[QUOTE=ShadowPhoeni;36616219]An aiming/cam E2 for anyone who still doesn't have one. The pod can oriented at any angle and should be able to work fine so you can place it in the hull. It also allows for much lighter turret bases (1/5 to 1/10 of the gun weight) without any significant wobbling (just don't complain when the turret base dies).

@name Gun Aiming Chip w/ Cam Controller - poheniks/phoenix
@inputs Active Driver:entity Object:entity
@outputs [WorldVector]:vector 
@outputs [Angle]:angle [Position]:vector 
@persist RD:ranger [Target Current]:quaternion [DAng]:angle [GunLength]
runOnTick(1)
#----------------------------------------------
#----------------------------------------------

    ##Default is 180. Increase if the crosshair is inside the gun    
GunLength=180


    ##This chip uses a cam controller & advanced hud indicator
        #[ the settings for the adv hud indicator are:
            Show in HUD - unchecked
            World Coordinates - checked
            Vector Inputs - checked
            Pixels
        ]#
   
    ##To Wire:
        #[ for the E2:
            Inputs:
                Active and Driver:entity to the pod controller
                Object to an ACF gun or entity marker
        
           for the cam controller:
            Inputs:
                Activated to any desired key on the Pod Controller
                Angle:angle to E2's Angle:angle
                Position:vector to E2's Position:vector
           
            for the adv hud indicator:
             Inputs:
                WorldPosition:vector to E2's WorldVector:vector              
        ]#
    ##Don't forget to link all components to the actual pod!
    

#----------------------------------------------

    ## Don't bother with the stuff down below unless you know what to do

#----------------------------------------------

WorldVector = (RD:pos())
RD = rangerOffset(100000,Object:pos()+Object:forward()*GunLength,Object:forward())
Angle = Object:angles()
Position = Object:pos() + Object:up()*100 + Object:forward()*-215
DAng = Driver:toLocal(Driver:driver():eyeAngles() * ang(1,1,1))
Target = quat(angnorm(ang(DAng:pitch(),DAng:yaw(),DAng:roll()))) * quat(ang(0,0,0))
Current = quat(Object) 
if(Active) {
    Object:applyTorque(Object:inertia() * 16 *((Object:toLocal(Object:pos()+rotationVector(Target/Current)))*15-Object:angVelVector()))
}

[/QUOTE]

The camera lag can be reduced by taking angles not from gun but from eyeangles.
Instead of this:

...
Angle = Object:angles()
...

Using this:

...
Angle = Driver:eyeAngles()
...

[battlefronter]

[QUOTE]@name Gun Aiming Chip w/ Cam Controller - poheniks/phoenix
@inputs Active Driver:entity Object:entity
@outputs [WorldVector]:vector
@outputs [Angle]:angle [Position]:vector
@persist RD:ranger [Target Current]:quaternion [DAng]:angle [GunLength]
runOnTick(1)
#----------------------------------------------
#----------------------------------------------

##Default is 180. Increase if the crosshair is inside the gun
GunLength=180

##This chip uses a cam controller & advanced hud indicator
#[ the settings for the adv hud indicator are:
Show in HUD - unchecked
World Coordinates - checked
Vector Inputs - checked
Pixels
]#

##To Wire:
#[ for the E2:
Inputs:
Active and Driver:entity to the pod controller
Object to an ACF gun or entity marker

for the cam controller:
Inputs:
Activated to any desired key on the Pod Controller
Angle:angle to E2's Angle:angle
Position:vector to E2's Position:vector

for the adv hud indicator:
Inputs:
WorldPosition:vector to E2's WorldVector:vector
]#
##Don't forget to link all components to the actual pod!

#----------------------------------------------

## Don't bother with the stuff down below unless you know what to do

#----------------------------------------------

WorldVector = (RD:pos())
RD = rangerOffset(100000,Object:pos()+Object:forward()*GunLength,Object:forward())
Angle = Object:angles()
Position = Object:pos() + Object:up()*100 + Object:forward()*-215
DAng = Driver:toLocal(Driver:driver():eyeAngles() * ang(1,1,1))
Target = quat(angnorm(ang(DAng:pitch(),DAng:yaw(),DAng:roll()))) * quat(ang(0,0,0))
Current = quat(Object)
if(Active) {
Object:applyTorque(Object:inertia() * 16 *((Object:toLocal(Object:pos()+rotationVector(Target/Current)))*15-Object:angVelVector()))
}[/QUOTE]

Can someone please tell me wait I´m doing wrong ?
Every time I try to activate the turret it just spazes out.

[ShadowPhoeni]

There's usually a sharp snap of the turret when you first enter the seat depending on how it's angled, but other than that it should be stable. You could try lowering the inertia multiplier on the second to last line.

So far the camera lag isn't much of an issue to myself, and since the camera angle and position are based off the gun I'll always know the aim point is almost center with my screen. I've noticed when you use the parent input on the cam controller, if you glitch the camera into a brush or skybox it'll set the position to (0,0,0) of the map.

[battlefronter]

Thanks I will try that when I come home. :)

[RedReaper]

[QUOTE=Amplar;36630089]i have a chip that does this, but the input lag is a huge deterrent. when the server gets laggy, you can't be precise anymore.

I heard someone speak of a clientside camera control mod, is this true?[/QUOTE]

there is none, i lied, unrezt is just trolling

lol parenting to a holo? that sounds crazy enough to work. Not sure why it would have any advantage, if anything parenting holo to an entity and then parenting the cam to the holo would be (in theory) same speed or even slower. I must try this. Need clientside cam.

[editline]5th July 2012[/editline]

[QUOTE=ShadowPhoeni;36616219]An aiming/cam E2 for anyone who still doesn't have one. The pod can oriented at any angle and should be able to work fine so you can place it in the hull. It also allows for much lighter turret bases (1/5 to 1/10 of the gun weight) without any significant wobbling (just don't complain when the turret base dies)[/QUOTE]
Or you could just make a pintle mount. Or even use fancy magical applyforce to just hold the gun up in place, and say "fuck the turret".
I should post mine, since ppl keep asking for it on youtube, but I just can't be bothered. I'm lazy.

[shadowscion]

[QUOTE=RedReaper;36637119]
lol parenting to a holo? that sounds crazy enough to work. Not sure why it would have any advantage, if anything parenting holo to an entity and then parenting the cam to the holo would be (in theory) same speed or even slower. I must try this. Need clientside cam.[/QUOTE]

No, because when you parent to a hologram and set everything [i]once[/i], the camera basically becomes a static, it isn't taking inputs. With a traditional third-person cam controller you are positioning the camera on a 'sphere' made by the eye angles local to the seat, and angling it along that direction. With the code I provided it makes an aim-able hologram and parents/positions/angles the camera on the back of it.

[RedReaper]

I'll give it a shot.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8qc6GaA6zI&feature=youtu.be[/media]
6x6 staff car and its apc derivative. Steers like a tank.

[karbine]

when i try phoenix' chip, the camera controller doesn't follow the gun.

[editline]5th July 2012[/editline]

in fact it doesn't move at all.

[battlefronter]

Amplar thats exactly what I just thought.
I dont want to be a dick but for me Simple Tank Chip V4 is still the best aiming chip.

And Redreaper your are the greatest wizard of all time even greater than Gandalf.
Please post your chip:) and before I forget it please be my Bronie

[karbine]

[QUOTE=battlefronter;36638833]Amplar thats exactly what I just thought.
I dont want to be a dick but for me Simple Tank Chip V4 is still the best aiming chip.

And Redreaper your are the greatest wizard of all time even greater than Gandalf.
Please post your chip:) and before I forget it please be my [b]Bronie[/b][/QUOTE]

[i]what[/i]

[king pancake]

a bronie is one of those weirdos that are way too old but still like a little girls pony cartoon

[editline]5th July 2012[/editline]

you know that rite?

[shadowscion]

[QUOTE=king pancake;36639390]a bronie is one of those weirdos that are way too old but still like a little girls pony cartoon

[editline]5th July 2012[/editline]

you know that rite?[/QUOTE]

Tell me more.

[karbine]

phoenix y u release broken chip

[Cinnamon]

Probably the same reason I released my broken ACF autotrans chip.

[editline]5th July 2012[/editline]

Shows me where the interest is :v:

[RedReaper]

[QUOTE=battlefronter;36638833]Amplar thats exactly what I just thought.
I dont want to be a dick but for me Simple Tank Chip V4 is still the best aiming chip.

And Redreaper your are the greatest wizard of all time even greater than Gandalf.
Please post your chip:) and before I forget it please be my Bronie[/QUOTE]

wat

[skeligandrew]

I want more ships

[Balto-the-Wolf-]

[QUOTE=Amplar;36639770]phoenix y u release broken chip[/QUOTE]

I was using Pheonix's gun code long before the release, everything's fine on my end.

[karbine]

I was having a brainstorm for acf, something that would be fun for those who like challenges, and annoying for children who can't stand change.

basically: cam controlled aim is bullshit. you can nest a pod in the back of your tank. this isn't very realistic.

I was thinking about using crew in tanks- crew being entities in the general shape of a dude, as compact as possible (with a few different positions for the crewmen possibly, standing, sitting, etc)

You'd have the driver, gunner, loader, and the commander would be player. Amount of crew would be scaled by armament, kind of like how gearboxes have torque limits, and require a bigger gearbox to use a more powerful engine.

So if you had a 50mm gun, you'd probably only need 2 dudes, driver, and yourself. Commander would handle the gunning and loading himself.

Get to a 75mm gun, and you'd need 3 men, of which the gunner can handle loading and shooting, same for 100mm guns.

At 120, 4 men. Dedicated loader. At 140mm and above (howitzers included), 5 men, as you'd need two loaders. Obviousy autoloaded guns wouldn't need loaders.

Mechanics to damage are simple. Based on the amount of health lost by what they're hit by (shell, spalling, HE, etc) they would drop efficiency of their correlated actions (a driver wounded would cut engine power, or delay responses to the drivetrain.) If a hit would take all of the health (mind you these entities would probably not be destroyable unless ammo goes off), the crewman dies, and their responsibility would not be functional, but not forever. Probably only between 10 and 30 seconds. So if your gunner is shot, your gun won't fire. Driver dead? Tank won't move. Loader gone, you can't load your gun. If you die (commander), your vehicle is knocked out.

It's just a brainstorm. It could even get more advanced as to placement of the crew in relation to each other. If you've got a 120mm gun, loader, gunner, and commander next to each other, another crewman could take over his responsibility, at a reduced rate, like world of tanks. Might even have a certain crewman take over a dead crewman's position until he is healed; for instance, if your driver is dead, you can put the loader or gunner in the driver's seat so you can escape to cover.

Of course this would probably give tanks less room for ammo and armor; ammo storage will probably be increased (more shells per box) to compensate. Crewmen would weigh around 70 kg each.

Things that are not powered by an acf engine, or do not contain an acf gun, would not require crewmen, so things like static emplacements and regular vehicles are unhindered.

you'd still be able to use camera control stuff- but you'd just have crewmen to protect.

[Balto-the-Wolf-]

[QUOTE=Amplar;36643863]I was having a brainstorm for acf, something that would be fun for those who like challenges, and annoying for children who can't stand change.

basically: cam controlled aim is bullshit. you can nest a pod in the back of your tank. this isn't very realistic.

I was thinking about using crew in tanks- crew being entities in the general shape of a dude, as compact as possible (with a few different positions for the crewmen possibly, standing, sitting, etc)

You'd have the driver, gunner, loader, and the commander would be player. Amount of crew would be scaled by armament, kind of like how gearboxes have torque limits, and require a bigger gearbox to use a more powerful engine.

So if you had a 50mm gun, you'd probably only need 2 dudes, driver, and yourself. Commander would handle the gunning and loading himself.

Get to a 75mm gun, and you'd need 3 men, of which the gunner can handle loading and shooting, same for 100mm guns.

At 120, 4 men. Dedicated loader. At 140mm and above (howitzers included), 5 men, as you'd need two loaders. Obviousy autoloaded guns wouldn't need loaders.

Mechanics to damage are simple. Based on the amount of health lost by what they're hit by (shell, spalling, HE, etc) they would drop efficiency of their correlated actions (a driver wounded would cut engine power, or delay responses to the drivetrain.) If a hit would take all of the health (mind you these entities would probably not be destroyable unless ammo goes off), the crewman dies, and their responsibility would not be functional, but not forever. Probably only between 10 and 30 seconds. So if your gunner is shot, your gun won't fire. Driver dead? Tank won't move. Loader gone, you can't load your gun. If you die (commander), your vehicle is knocked out.

It's just a brainstorm. It could even get more advanced as to placement of the crew in relation to each other. If you've got a 120mm gun, loader, gunner, and commander next to each other, another crewman could take over his responsibility, at a reduced rate, like world of tanks. Might even have a certain crewman take over a dead crewman's position until he is healed; for instance, if your driver is dead, you can put the loader or gunner in the driver's seat so you can escape to cover.

Of course this would probably give tanks less room for ammo and armor; ammo storage will probably be increased (more shells per box) to compensate. Crewmen would weigh around 70 kg each.

Things that are not powered by an acf engine, or do not contain an acf gun, would not require crewmen, so things like static emplacements and regular vehicles are unhindered.[/QUOTE]

Well there is also that a lot of standard vehicles use ACF engines, though I'm not too sure how you plan on implementation in that area.

In general it sounds a little over-complicated to me, and perhaps a bit impractical. If you look at the interiors of most tanks thus far built, they're pretty closely packed. I have a feeling that in doing this, we'd wind up with a lot of people running out of ammo mid battle with no victor. Such a stipulation would also hit mechs very hard. Interestingly, though, It would somewhat balance ships, submarines, and aircraft against conventional land vehicles. It would not be a tall order for me to carry a crew of three in the Declination for its 75mm, the same goes for ships and subs. It would be much harder for a tank to do that though, and near impossible for most mechs to.

I'm beginning to wonder if we're barking up the wrong tree in trying to stick WWII era. Firstly there's no such thing as a proper combat mech even now. There's a reason for that, and a big part of that reason is what we're discussing now. Mechs are as combat inefficient as inefficient can be. I'm no expert on tanks, but it seems to me a lot of the tanks that are built are well ahead of their weaponry and propulsion in time. That's to be taken with a grain of salt though, as X Russian tank looks much like Y Russian tank in my eyes. Overall it seems to me that this kind of thing is best left to the player challenging himself. I know iwan has built a tanks that make such allowances, among a few other people.

I think a more viable and simpler option would be to just set up proper damage modeling for the engines themselves. Right now engines are invincible and, by extension, [I]fantastic armor[/I]. It would be nice for there to be another avenue of destroying something, especially planes. At present the only reason planes go down is the pod being destroyed unless the assailant is using HE and the plane is very light.

[karbine]

Like i said, things that don't have an acf gun, OR don't have acf drivetrain, won't require crew. So mechs, which are not engine powered, are not affected.

[acooper]

The one thing that would simplify things greatly would be to have the actual ACF gun set up and do the aiming itself. Aiming power could go on what type of gun it is or maybe have sliders (If it's a static gun a tickbox or something saying it does not aim.) Not quite sure how hard this would be to do though.

[Balto-the-Wolf-]

[QUOTE=Amplar;36644449]Like i said, things that don't have an acf gun, OR don't have acf drivetrain, won't require crew. So mechs, which are not engine powered, are not affected.[/QUOTE]

Oooh, okay, missed the or. Makes sense, if on the complex side.

[ShadowPhoeni]

that's odd. my e2 works fine even if I copy and paste directly from the code posted here

battlefrontier, i noticed when you quoted my code on the second to last line, there's a space on +rotationVector(Tar get/Current)

double check your pod links maybe??

[karbine]

this bullshit trend with people putting everything in the hull and turrets being useless has got to stop. Kaf originally thought it wise to disallow camera control for competitive tanks for this very reason. we're considering not allowing camera control for tanks/forcing it with acf. HOWEVER, we're also thinking of making ACF viewports that work like WAC's pod cameras; they basically tear off your head and put it whereever you put the camera model. ACF viewport would work like that, probably have a gunsight and an observation camera, of which both you would need to protect.

[acooper]

[QUOTE=Amplar;36645442]HOWEVER, we're also thinking of making ACF viewports that work like WAC's pod cameras; they basically tear off your head and put it whereever you put the camera model. ACF viewport would work like that, probably have a gunsight and an observation camera, of which both you would need to protect.[/QUOTE]

That's a great idea!
I'm sure in real life if you took a shell to a viewport you would have a bad time as well.

[karbine]

pretty much. probably have varying types of viewports; less armored ones would have higher fields of vision, more armored ones would have less.

[FokkerBoombass]

[quote=Amplar]brainstorming[/quote]

World of Tanks: Gmod Edition

Also, add several armor kinds to the ACF, like ERA plating and whatnot.
(that's what one idiot on our server keeps yelling about )

[Frankess]

Yeah... I agree somewhat with that "idiot". That would be awesome if we had different types of protecting materials. Like Physical Properties Tool, you chose what fits you mostly and you put on your tank. Different material = different armour to weight ratio.

[Jake2149]

[img_thumb]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/40739406/Vaper/2012-07-06_00001.jpg[/img_thumb]
I have no clue what to do with this.

[acooper]

Made the DH2 using Gigabytes model pack
Mine isn't the most realistic version seeing as it is missing the bottom wing flaps and has an 8cyl instead of a 9.
But nevertheless I had fun building it and flying it. Still needs some tuning, some wing pylons and smoother controls.
Happy with my hydraulic engines now though :)
[video=youtube;RtsCMsr_eGo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtsCMsr_eGo&feature=youtu.be[/video]