Chronic Logic

Quote: from beaujob on 7:29 pm on Oct. 27, 2001
I do believe the purpose of the HAV is to simulate trainview for your own amusement.I want the ability to place the HAV where I want before I start the simulation.  Perhaps a pause mode for the "world," but for the HAV it is same as usual.  I'd really like to be on top of my Tower level when I start the simulation.  It'd be neat riding the structure down.

Maybe I should put this in a new thread so that others (not interested in Ships) will see it too?

Done: Go http://www.chroniclogic.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/topic.cgi?forum=6&topic=57" target="_blank">here to comment.

(Edited by baggio at 11:57 pm on Oct. 27, 2001)

Quote: from beaujob on 10:04 am on Oct. 27, 2001
I wouldn't mind doing kung-fu in the shadow of a bridge that I built while death and a clown get it on in the bathtub next door, but that's a long ways off.I think I've found my new signature. http://www.pontifex2.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'>

Quote: from pulsejet5 on 4:21 pm on Oct. 27, 2001
it would also be better if the sun moved when you hit the sun+ or sun- instead of it just getting brighter or darkerIt does... the lighting changes from the left side of the screen (-) to the right side of the screen (+). If you move the sun far enough, it becomes night. I found that there is one place where the bridge lights will come on, but there is just barely enough light to see the links too. It'd be nice if "twilight" were eaiser to find.

Quote: from beaujob on 7:40 pm on Oct. 27, 2001
... Just have a static array, and pretend it's a ring, then keep a pointer to the most recent step.  As you undo/redo, you can move the pointer backwards and forwards....Sounds a lot like a circular queue ;)This is something they teach every sophomore CS student.  (like me last year.)  :PThey also keep teaching it to 5th year EET seniors like me.  Not so much that they keep reteaching it, but we keep using it in our projects.

Quote: from beaujob on 7:29 pm on Oct. 27, 2001
I do believe the purpose of the HAV is to simulate trainview for your own amusement.I want the ability to place the HAV where I want before I start the simulation. Perhaps a pause mode for the "world," but for the HAV it is same as usual. I'd really like to be on top of my Tower level [ftp://chronic:logic@24.20.221.2:100/-%20original%20creations%20-/Baggio/Twist.pxb] when I start the simulation. It'd be neat riding the structure down.

Quote: from beaujob on 4:06 pm on Oct. 27, 2001
That's a clever idea, and as long as you mention the HAV, how about making the HAV neutrally buoyant, or at least not a slippery helicopter.

Trying to make the HAV go around is kind of hard.  It has no friction with the ground when you want to turn or stop, and the controls make it function somewhat like a helicopter i.e. counterintuitively.

In my opinion, it needs to either be a blimp, i.e. maintains whatever altitude you have it at, or an aeroplane, i.e. flies in the direction you are pointing, not upwards.

If you want to drop the HAV suddenly, then you could press some button to drop your gondola, or use an ejector seat or whatever and just have the HAV plummet into the ground at maximum speed.Hahaha...I actually like the helicopter design. I think it needs to be improved some, joystick support for instance would rock http://www.pontifex2.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'>, but I like the idea of different flight models for the HAV.

There are times that a blimp would be a better mode, times when a plane would be a better mode, but with the current design, and some fancy key pressing, I can hover like a blimp, or fly around like a gyrocopter.

I've posted some additional HAV ideas http://www.chroniclogic.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/topic.cgi?forum=6&topic=57" target="_blank">here. The short of it though, I'd like to position the HAV before simulation starts. See the other thread for full details and to respond.

Quote: from beaujob on 7:40 pm on Oct. 27, 2001
That said, are we going to forbid our children from playing "Bomberman?"SMB2 also has bombs... guess I'm taking my GBA back to the store.  Well, not until I've messed it up trying to add a frontlight using a CCFL. Extended warranties are good like that.

Ok... I just copied Pontifex to my local machine and can now give a better response.

1 or 2, 3, 4 complex levels teach you everything you need to know I think. Levels 1 and 2 require that you learn how to slope the deck. 3 requires that you learn how to build using "sky hooks" out of the typical plane, and 4 requires "sky hooks" and a bridge with a suspended deck.  The guide would only need to walkthrough levels 2-4 to give you a sense of everything.  This obviously puts complex level 1 out of place and maybe that should be removed from the game.  I'm in favor of adding a new "level 17" to round out the complex levels.  Perhaps for future releases?

I'm in agreement with mendel.  I think complex levels 1-3 encompass all the major hurdles when trying to solve the levels.  I'm not able to load the levels right now to verify, but I think level one requires you to build on a slope. Level two requires you to build .... [Don't try to run Potifex over a Remote Desktop Client in Windows XP, there is a problem in tracking the mouse cursor, and you will not be able to exit... http://www.pontifex2.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'> makes finishing this thread a little difficult] I'm going to try it a different way. I'll come back and edit this when I get the chance.

What I was going to try and establish was that I thought Complex Levels 1-3 would be enough to base a tutorial on. Something like the introduction level in Black & White. (Didn't Sid Meyer write that :cheesy:)

Quote: from beaujob on 11:29 am on Oct. 26, 2001
Yeah, I've noticed that a train will be able to go up a steeper slope in hard mode than in normal mode...Didn't realize that the skill level played into it.  Doesn't that just make the train 2 times as massive?  Seems as if some inertia is taking place.  Besides, the CG of the train moves futher back with added cars.

If we assume that there isn't a moment associated with the inertia, then that means that the train with 2 cars will accelerate as fast as a train with 10 cars, but the train with 10 cars will have a momentum to carry it further up a slope.  This would also mean if you doubled the mass, it would also carry further.

Quote: from falkon2 on 2:34 am on Oct. 26, 2001
Maybe all the cars have engines tooWhy am I still up? No, I know that isn't true.  I've had bridges where only the engine has fallen off. Then the rest of the cars started backing down the slope with the engine hanging off the bottom.

Quote: from Entroper on 12:10 pm on Oct. 25, 2001
The HAV does seem to be able to go faster than trains, but a 10-car train seems to be about as slow as a 1-car train when running down a slope.
Have you tried seeing the difference going up a slope... the 10-car train seems to do a better job.  Momentum maybe?

Quote: from mendel on 5:31 pm on Oct. 24, 2001
In original BB, getting rid of the cars makes the engine accelerate to infinity... or close :-)That was cool.  In god mode, I broke the engine from the rest of the train, and I got it going about that fast in Pontifex. http://www.pontifex2.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'>

It also seems odd to me that you can't test a level with 0 cars. Why can't I just use the engine. Lilke the HAV, but with an ability to run on its own?

Quote: from falkon2 on 2:31 am on Oct. 26, 2001
Only problem would be getting someone to maintain the server. Gray maybe? He's got waay too much time making cheap bridges ;)Great! we found a way to handicap him. Now something to keep you busy...

I don't remember seeing it mentioned, but what if when a level is completed, your score is submited.  There could also be an option set in the level design that would allow the bridge design to be submitted too.  This would make contests eaiser, and for the "official levels" you would have a constant running score of levels to beat.

If a user is not on-line at all times, there could be a way to submit it at a later date, or if it was done through email, you could submit a hashed score.  This would also authenticate the design.  The number of broken links could be another paramater that is sent when the score is sent.

Anyone for or against this?  What are other benifits or flaws about this design?