This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Jules
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1
« on: July 18, 2017, 05:00:52 PM »
Never got em'. I just double checked. I'll PM you my email though, that's the best way we can talk.
2
« on: July 16, 2017, 11:08:08 PM »
You can scroll back a few pages for something playable.
I'm currently doing all the boring / difficult stuff that needs to get done to lay a framework for the game to be good, as opposed to getting 'something playable.'
It is no fun, but that's the way it is.
3
« on: July 16, 2017, 06:30:51 PM »
This is not 'very dead'  but I have been pretty busy with other projects. I'll have a building and saving/loading 'teaser' up in the next week or so. Beyond that, my next goal is to get a chassis building system working.
4
« on: March 15, 2017, 03:34:18 PM »
looks nice, would you consider a rack-and-pinion piston setup, like the VDMA bursts in DSL 2.2?
You should consider joining the GTM discord, I know a little bit but Apanx is really an expert who is always willing to help.
Rack and pinion? Forgive my ignorance, but is that basically a spinning motor with gears that ends up pushing a piston? Something like that should be possible. But for now I'm going to focus on getting the building system up to snuff before I worry about implementing more stuff. I'll check out the discord.
5
« on: March 15, 2017, 12:45:17 AM »
If it's one component then it is essentially the same thing as a burst motor. Yes?
Allowing one to build a mechanism like this out of components also allows the different parts to break / take damage separately.
6
« on: March 14, 2017, 10:40:26 PM »
I get what you're saying about that, but burst motors have a special place in my heart haha It will be possible to build complex piston mechanisms eventually, but it will require more work out of my saving/loading system - which I don't have a ton of experience with. Here's an example of what I hope to be possible simply by attaching various components in game. Right now it's clearly possible, but the in game building / saving systems aren't designed for it yet. 
7
« on: March 14, 2017, 04:47:18 PM »
Short answer - I haven't really been working on this because I've been busy with school. Long answer - No, but that isn't a terrible thing because I'm a computer science and game design student. I do plan on making a full fledged robot combat game eventually, but I don't know when I'll have the time to put tons of time into it - especially considering I am working on it alone, Yesterday and today I've started from scratch to redo some systems. Yesterday I made a system that allows robots to be saved and loaded from a text file (along with user set parameters - like burst motor angles and key bindings) I plan on working on this more over the next few days, and should have a full bot-builder complete that I could post if you guys wanted to try it out. Today I'm working on tweaking the physics to avoid the problems that I and many others have faced while trying to create a game like this. Right now I'm working on the wheels by implementing a system similar to what was in RA2, but avoiding the quirks and weirdness that was seen in it. Because of the weirdness that occurs with spinning objects and torque, etc that happens in Unity it's not as simple as using a spinning joint - especially with large mass differences between the chassis and the wheels. Here's an example of a robot with a chassis of around 110 kg and wheels of about 1 kg each. The bricks are 3kg each and the big yellow box is 200 kg (It's a big file. It may take some time to load) http://i.imgur.com/rdHp0nK.gifv
8
« on: August 11, 2016, 01:42:21 PM »
Checked it, looks nice.
Sadly some imgur users just have to be retarded, "omg it's beseige except without textures" because how dare someone creates his own physics sandbox creation game for fun.
Ha thanks for defending me. Internet jerks are gonna be internet jerks though *shrug*
9
« on: August 10, 2016, 10:03:00 PM »
I stopped working on it when Robot Arena 3 was announced and was materializing.
I assumed I wasn't going to be able to do anything close to what that dev team could do. (I was wrong lol)
In a few weeks, when I head back to school, I may start working on it again. It depends on how tough my course load is.
I also happen to be a tester in a closed beta for a physics system which is glorious (I'm not sure I'm allowed to say which) but I would implement that.
10
« on: August 10, 2016, 07:12:30 PM »
I've been working on this again over the past couple of days. Here are a few show-off gifs. (They are technically GifVs, so I'm not sure I can embed them) http://imgur.com/gallery/EZZZBEDIT: The build that is posted is not current
11
« on: August 06, 2016, 06:36:45 PM »
Cool. I am 99% sure it is total mass.
For example a 10x10 cube with a mass of 1 would weigh the same as a tiny cube with a mass of 1
12
« on: August 06, 2016, 05:36:15 PM »
I dig it.
Do you happen to know what weights you have the chassis, the wheels, and the weapon set to?
13
« on: June 06, 2016, 09:57:28 PM »
I posted an updated build. Same URL. I had to clear my cache to get the new version to load up.
You will probably have to use fullscreen to get the entire build toolbar to show. (and the strange over bright effect has something to do with the web build. I don't know why it's happening.
The physics are a bit better - or at least different... The tires are still not working great.
I added a cannon, which can fire once per 'play mode'. It has a lot of recoil - which I find fun.
-It is fired with C
I added a servo (which is a fast moving elbow joint)
- It's controlled with Q and E
- The speed and angle limit is already programmed to be modified, so once the keybinding is in, that will be possible.
I added a ski part which is used for sliding (two wheeled creations)
And a pole, which is lighter than the standard cube, but also less 'stable.' - I added it in to have lighter objects to swing around on spinning motors and the servo
The main usability problem at this point is the objects can't be rotated once placed. The next placed object's orientation is based off of the last placed part, so... it's confusing.
Next up I'm going to work on the object rotation along with a visual indicator of what object and where it will be placed when the user clicks.
14
« on: June 06, 2016, 06:11:54 PM »
This is pretty cool man. Using the jet engines I made something that stuck to the ground a bit better:
(Image removed from quote.)
I'm definitely looking forward to seeing anything else you make 
Ha! That's very cool. I didn't even think of something like that. I've been working on it more today - Tuning stuff up and it's working out well. I will probably post a new build tonight.
15
« on: June 05, 2016, 11:24:14 PM »
I coded this up yesterday and today for fun and to try to tame the Unity default physics system a little better. (I ultimately want to make a robot combat game) There currently aren't rebind-able keys, although that's half implemented. Left click on an object type and then select an attachment point to place it. There currently isn't any way to rotate a placed item or switch the attachment point. Hover over an object and press X to delete it. (a glitch currently allows you to delete the 'base cube,' If you do that then you have to refresh. Middle mouse button changes the camera focus. Click and drag or use WSAD to rotate the camera. Arrow Keys for the motors (hence the L/R) Hold space for thrust on the jet (It builds up over time) http://cheesegames.net/games/468/index.php?gameDataId=468As you'll notice, the wheels don't work great. They effect the vehicle's rotation too much and during collisions, even at relatively low speed they have a tendency to freak out. I'm working on a way to fix this.
16
« on: June 01, 2016, 07:31:10 PM »
It's using the Unity engine
Did some poking. I did not know much about unity. I assumed it was like unreal where you use different physics engine extensions, but unity has its own physics engine
Unity uses PhysX and as far as I know it isn't difficult to switch to other physics systems and continue to use Unity. For example, the Bullet Physics System, which is thought to be better by many can be easily implemented
17
« on: May 28, 2016, 04:13:23 PM »
Do we know if anyone's asked the dead WHY whatever's broken is broken? Like, for example, are issues such as wedged chassis not registering as such collision-wise or the lack of any sort of speed the result of developer oversight, or are they inherent in the engine?
I am fairly experienced with Unity. I even created a robot combat prototype thingy. This is the developer's fault.
18
« on: May 26, 2016, 11:37:08 PM »
I think it's because the dev are using convex collision hull generator for the bot's physic. They'll need to develop concave collision hull generator or use direct body-to-hull mesh from the botlab.
Give them time.
Time? This wasn't early access up until a few days ago and they have stated they plan on moving out of early access within a month. They stated the reason for early access was to fix 4 player online mode. That seems to mean that they think that the online is the main problem with the game.
19
« on: May 26, 2016, 09:03:23 PM »
-Cash Grab-
I'll jump off a building if they actually implemnt the chassis system as it should be. They won't
The motors all having he same stats isn't a mistake.
Half of the ai bots being unskinned isn't a mistake.
No weightclasses isn't a mistake.
It isn't this way because they don't know any better. They are handing us a sh** a sandwich and expecting us to eat it.
Let's not forget, they plan on staying in early access for a month.
They got a bunch of sales today. They don't have much of a reason to continue.
20
« on: May 26, 2016, 07:18:14 PM »
Welp if the dev's don't fix it we certainly have enough brilliant minds here on GTM to fix it don't we guys?
Short of this game becoming open-source, I doubt that will happen.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
|
Show Posts