Half-life is still selling because of it's ability to be modified, is it not? I'd venture to say that Day of Defeat itself retains such a large player base because of this same versatility. By this logic, it seems to me that the more mod friendly this game is, the wider the player base and the longer it will live.

We all know that sub models are a severe limitation, and that many interesting ideas can't be implimented because the dod code prevents it, so I think we modder-guys should compile a list of things that could be done by the DoD team to make the game easier for us to mod.

Many limitations that have been encountered have come about because of the dod team coding things to work exactly as they envision them to work. This works fine for the game, and makes for a more simplified and streamlined workflow, but can cause severe limits to what can be changed by the community. As an example of how open ended modding is beneficial to this game, take a look at mapping as the paradigm of unimpeded creativity.

Now, I understand that making the game open to creativity by the end user is probably much easier to do with mapping than modeling, I believe that much more power could be given to modelers than we currently have.

So I put it to you, the MSA community; What can the Day of Defeat team do to make things easier for you?

I think no submodels was an issue before.

bring back blood on walls!

lol i hope they listen to me

Originally posted by Foley
I think no submodels was an issue before.


Yupp.. that's my biggest gripe...


also... suppport for different helmet types for each class (not shared) This allows for greater individualizing...


...

Damage skins. Limb loss. Easy addition of models into maps w/o consistency errors (client side map changes, only able to add models into maps, not mess with lighting/essential **** )

Keep dreaming!

Originally posted by engineer
Damage skins. Limb loss. Easy addition of models into maps w/o consistency errors (client side map changes, only able to add models into maps, not mess with lighting/essential **** )

Limb loss is possible.... play Desert Crisis.

Damage skins are too.

First off, I'd say Get rid of the submodeled players and the weapons. There nothing but trouble. Its harder to convert old models for everybody here, its harder to compile (due to texture size limits) and its down right annoying. They only serve to cheapen and limit the moddability of this great game. Just look at DoD EC or Editor321's site. The only player models you'll find for download (with the 3 exceptions of SS v4 and its variants, im not trying to toot my own horn, but i've yet to see a converted model) are just reskins of the defaults. If that doesnt tell you somethings wrong with the system, then you must play an awful lot of counter-strike.

And as for the weapons, that something that I don't mind as much, but something I wish to be gone in the future. Ever since 1.3, I wanted a Mauser c96 for the mp40 class. And they had all those seperate luger models too. So if there had been one, I could have had one. Now that ALL the classes share the same pistol, knife, and grenade model, its much more constricted. I want to see a mauser c96, download the luger replacement, but now EVERYONE has a mauser c96, thats completly unrealistic, so I remove the model, and now its the same boring luger again and again. So what if that like 3 times as many models, I wouldn't mind extra space taken up if I get to see cool stuff like that. And with seperate knives, pistols, and grenades, sleeve textures could be customized per class, I could put camo sleeves on my scoped k98 model, and not worry about seeing a luger with grey sleeves.

Something else that would help, is to let mappers choose what player models the player has to use. They can use custom mapmodels, why cant it be the same for players? an Ardennes or Afrika map just isnt the same with grey clad germans. The moddability of DoD would increase 10 fold is these three changes were made, this community would come alive again. We're crippled now, reduced to mere reskins and gear edits. Its got to stop, lift the barriers and watch creativity run rampant.

Map specific models(including player and weapon models), sprites, skins, and...just about EVERYTHING.

i like gore, and from what ive heard is that CS:CZ has ragdoll physics. now i know that cant be implemented into the DOD coding, because that would require a full DOD update wich the DOD team wont do. but if they did, id also inturn like to see the gib system reworked. i think its rediculous that a man running next to me on omaha beach that gets hit by an artillery shell isnt thrown up into the air, and comes down with one leg and is left a bloody mess all over the floor. instead he trips and falls face first in the sand. i know that sounds like a complaint, but for those of you out there who make the gore packs, i havent seen many of them as of lately. why? there are no gibs form what ive seen, ever scine i started playing 1.0 i havent seen a single arm fly by. this would revolutionize the way gore packs work and the community would in fact have even more of them. of the realistic kind and the unrealistic kind (i.e. schlex) i think that would work as not only easier, but a new modding idea.

sub models should be gone. definately. if they plan on moving to the HL2 engine, they should be prepared to make a game that is actiually going to take up space. i wouldent mind the extra stuff in DOD, for the sake of better utilzing the models I want to customize.

Textures on walls.

My only complaint, I think its the reason for FPS problems.

Alot of these textures are very high quality, compared to original Half-Lifes slobs of nothing paint textures.


Although I think its the mappers option only.

Originally posted by 2ltben
Map specific models(including player and weapon models), sprites, skins, and...just about EVERYTHING.

Is it possible for the mappers to do this already? There must be something in the map the tells it to take player models from brit-inf, us-inf or us-para for example. Can a map be made to access an entierly new model folder, with the 'special' models supplied with the map? (then you could change them to any custom ones you want for that map of course)

And again the submodel thing.... just makes everything a pain in the butt.

Ey, it's a war game. Limb loss and ragdoll death anims.

Not talking about Hollywood limb loss ... it should be subtle enough to blend in with the action happening around the player.

Definitely one area of improvement, IMO.

nope, a mapper can choose between this
country for allied: us - uk
axis paratroopers: no - yes
allies paratroopers: no - yes(you can't get red devils :'()

anyway, what i'm saying is we can't choose the models(the fgd does this for us) 2 bad :(

AND....if we get map specific models, there should be an option for the client to decide whther they wanna be downloading new models for custom maps.

That way ppl can disable them if they don't want their HDs full of custom models.

Originally posted by Devin Kryss
Just look at DoD EC or Editor321's site. The only player models you'll find for download are just reskins of the defaults.

*cough* My 2nd Army, Wolf's airborne, brits with berets *cough*

Ska

Originally posted by Arsenal
Is it possible for the mappers to do this already? There must be something in the map the tells it to take player models from brit-inf, us-inf or us-para for example. Can a map be made to access an entierly new model folder, with the 'special' models supplied with the map? (then you could change them to any custom ones you want for that map of course)

And again the submodel thing.... just makes everything a pain in the butt.

I was just thinking about this today. I wonder if it would be possible to mess with the fgd file to use when you are making a custom map, telling it to use models from a different folder. Anyone know if this is possible?

I really thing allowing mappers to specify which player skins to sue would be great. I mean all your guys works would be seen by everyone then and in snow maps we could have snow players, but on desert masp we could have desert players. It's really needed IMHO. we have ot much varitey map wise to be limited in this aspect. guns would be nifty to but I've really got to strees the player model.

Lister. the .fgd file dosnt cover which model set it uses for a map. the .fgd only tells DOD what items of code to run. You cant specify anything that isnt in the code you cant creat new things form bits of code, a .fgd is very limited. Tthis basically means the .fgd can only run what the dod team codes. the dod team coded para yes/no and allied team american/brit. therefore its all the mapper cna play with.

The lag created by not using submodels would be an even bigger issue... :(

I doubt that using traditional models will cause graphical lag. The minimap and other stuff does. The rain gfx does, the particle engine causes lag and stuttering. But not the traditional models. Lol, 3.1 ran fine on almost any PC, and 1.0 slows down on high end pcs. Concerning that DoD lags on almost every computer now, it really wouldnt matter if you raise that lag a bit more with using traditional models (if they cause low fps after all!).

I asked Waldo about this a while ago,and his answer didn't make much sense to me, but i'm not a mapper so I wouldn't know.

Re: A question/suggestion about the info_doddetect entity

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

klein_mein wrote on 05-29-2003 01:48 PM:
Is it possible that you make an addition to the info_doddetect entity that allows a mapper to select the model for each class. i.e.

detect_axis/models/custom_models/axis_winter.mdl
or
detect_axis_para/models/custom_models/axis_winter.mdl
...etc

As it is obvious this would be excellent for utilizing all those winter/urban/forest/desert/ect camouflage packs that the creative ppl of the community make.

Also is detect_wind_velocity used in the game's physics anywhere?

Hope that wasn't too much..

Thx in advance

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Custom models for maps means that a huge number of models need to be precached into the game engine. Basically it would be too many/too much to start doing customs like that. Who knows maybe DoD 2.0.

I don't know for a fact..

I'm just saying.

You have to load 5-7 models, 5 sets of animation, all the skins and still some submodels. That's not counting the other team.

That's just for one side..... that takes just *abit more RAM atleast in theory then : 1 model (with submodels), 1 set of animations, the skins only once.



You can turn the minimap off, also the rain.


3.1. Didn't use all that many 512x512 skins, and when it did, it was only for the Paratroopers and only 1. The way the models are now they used parts of both 512x512 skins.. so we would need to include both if we stopped using submodels.

Would it be possible to use either type? For example, the default models are have everything in one model like it is now, eg. axis-inf.mdl, but if someone were to put in individual models, eg. axis-light.mdl, they would override the defaults and use those instead.

If it isn't possible, then what about allowing more versatility in sub models? As it is now, all para classes use one body and one helmet, the same with brits, the americans have a few more choices, but are still limited. Would it be possible if each class could have it's own set of sub models for each catagory, they already have their own gear models, so it could be that they each get their own helmet and body models too. The default models could all still use the same sub models like they do now, it would just allow for us custom guys to add our own stuff too.

I don't know if I'm describing that right, so I'll give a little example of what I mean. As it is now, the qc looks something like this for the axis para:

// reference meshes
$bodygroup body
{
studio "body"
blank
blank
blank
blank
blank
}
$bodygroup helmet
{
studio "helmet"
blank
blank
blank
blank
blank
blank
blank
}

Each class has to draw from the same sub-model, meaning that custom people can't easily give different classes different bodies or helmets. What I envision is something like this:

// reference meshes
$bodygroup body
{
studio "body_k98"
studio "body_k43"
studio "body_mp40"
studio "body_stg44"
studio "body_mg"
studio "body_sniper"
studio "body_fg42"
}
$bodygroup helmet
{
studio "helmet_k98"
studio "helmet_k43"
studio "helmet_mp40"
studio "helmet_stg44"
studio "helmet_mg"
studio "helmet_sniper"
studio "helmet_fg42"
}

This way, each class can have their own model for the body and helmet. Of course, to save space or work, the defaults could still all use the same body and helmet groups, something like this:

// reference meshes
$bodygroup body
{
studio "body"
studio "body"
studio "body"
studio "body"
studio "body"
studio "body"
studio "body"
}
$bodygroup helmet
{
studio "helmet"
studio "helmet"
studio "helmet"
studio "helmet"
studio "helmet"
studio "helmet"
studio "helmet"
}