Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10
71

My apologies to anyone caught in the middle.  This coming build will break anything you have created using the A40-300 or F30-400 with the 15February2020 build.

PS -  I fixed the mass on the ME0708.  I have no idea what happened, but it suddenly became a 35 kg motor. :)
Yay so my etek thwack will survive AND be in the correct weight class!
72
Robot Rumble 2.0 / Re: Robot Rumble 2.0 - Robot Combat Simulator - Under Development
« Last post by cjbruce on February 16, 2020, 10:17:24 AM »
The motor reversion looks like it is working flawlessly.  I'm hoping to have a rough cut out in the next 12 hours.  The new meshes are missing for the new versions of the A40-300 and F30-400, but I'm hoping to have that fixed before we publish the build.

The old versions of the motors will no longer be visible in the list of motors, but will still exist in the game so that the old robots don't break.

My apologies to anyone caught in the middle.  This coming build will break anything you have created using the A40-300 or F30-400 with the 15February2020 build.

PS -  I fixed the mass on the ME0708.  I have no idea what happened, but it suddenly became a 35 kg motor. :)
73
Robot Rumble 2.0 / Re: Robot Rumble 2.0 - Robot Combat Simulator - Under Development
« Last post by cjbruce on February 16, 2020, 08:30:37 AM »
I'm really enjoying this new build!  I made a couple test robots and noticed the following:

-Mobility kills are definitely a real deal now with the wheel building tools.  It doesn't take too much effort to use my bar spinner to remove tires from my 4-wheeled drum spinner to immobilize it, just like in real robot combat.

Awesome!  Its good to hear that immobility is starting to feel right.  Mobility is key to the entire fight in real life.

-I love that chassis panels can now break off.  I think it's safe to say that the health bar can go away as KOs are effected by smashing the other robot to pieces in some manner IRL.

That's what I'm thinking too.  I'm just wondering if anything should go there.  Gas?  A robot tree status showing what remains?  Nothing?


-It seems that material resilience is still pretty high compared to what I see on TV.  Shouldn't a bar spinner with 100 kJ of energy absolutely destroy polycarbonate almost regardless of realistic thickness?

I can vouch for this.  In our real-life robots, the 1/2" polycarbonate we used as side armor would just explode the instant it was glanced by a spinner.  We stopped using polycarbonate last year and haven't looked back.

-I think the bottom of the chassis should be destroyable.  Any components mounted to the destroyed bottom of the chassis go with it.  So if the bot controller is mounted to the bottom of the chassis and that panel goes away, so does the controller and the bot is KO.

Roger.  It is pretty simple to make the effect happen mechanically.  Just need to write a few lines of code.  I wanted to see how everyone feels first though.

--Building on that thought, perhaps the tree structure of building bots is too limiting in the way these things can actually be destroyed?  IRL bots keep going until they can't, either though mobility issues or complete dismemberment.  I remember seeing a battle between Warhawk and Hydra where Hydra literally dismembered Warhawk, but Warhawk's individual components kept moving based on operator inputs.  The bot got counted out because it was immobilized.  Another example was a fight between Tombstone and some kind of pushbot.  But Tombstone's bar spinner nailed a corner of the push bot and broke the bot in half diagonally.  Yeah, that bot was down for the count.

With that being said, if the way the game works could be converted from the tree structure to some kind of universal interconnectivity, the ways stuff could be destroyed would be less limiting.

The tree structure that we came up with has been 3 years and thousands of development hours in the making and is the core of the whole game.  It is a pretty sweet (and complicated) bit of tech at this point.  If we are going to change anything about it at this point I want to be darn sure it is worth it. 

@something, please correct me if I'm wrong, but Battlebots robots are actually multiple robots in a single chassis.   They use multiple people running independent transmitter/receivers, each controlling completely isolated electrical systems.  If one system breaks, the rest can still work.  Multibot battles are already in the works.  Maybe down the road we can think about making 2 multi bots into a single robot?


-How fine can destruction be made?  Is it reasonable to believe that computers can simulate panels shredding or shattering to some degree based on the materials and type if impact involved?  Realistically, panels may do more than just break off - they may be ripped in half or shattered to pieces too.  Then the bot can puke out batteries, motors, etc.

Maybe.  In a traditional game a professional artist manually goes in and creates two versions of every part, an intact one and a broken one (or multiple broken ones depending on time and budget). In our game it is a MUCH harder challenge.  YOU are the artist who made the part in the first place.  We can't put it on the players to make a bunch of broken version of parts, and developing the tool set to do this is extremely involved.  The price tag of our game will pale in comparison to the $1500/year that Adobe charges for 3ds Max.  They can hire A LOT more programmers than we can to make the tool set good, and they have been iterating since the 1990s. 

Whatever broken versions of shapes exist in our game must be made by a computer-generated algorithm.  I haven't seen/found/developed one that meets our needs yet.  Hopefully with the larger team we will be able to put our heads together and come up with something.

EDIT:  Totally destroyed this robot, but even with the side panels gone, it took awhile for the bar spinner to eviscerate it of its motors and batteries.  The damage slider is turned all the way up to 200%, so perhaps it needs to be 400%?

Motors need to be a lot less robust than they are now.  The casing on an Ampflow A28-150 is reasonably thick, but it doesn't stand a chance against a direct hit from a spinner in real life.  Thats why motors go on the inside.  (I'm looking at you, Nightmare! :))

 [ You are not allowed to view attachments ]

New version of this arena coming soon!  The lighting only shows up correctly on a mac.  I mistakenly assumed it was working on Windows before I published it.  I promised the real version is much more colorful!
74
Robot Rumble 2.0 / Re: Robot Rumble 2.0 - Robot Combat Simulator - Under Development
« Last post by cjbruce on February 16, 2020, 08:00:20 AM »
Future compatibility really shouldn't be something we worry about.  We should expect robots from previous patches to lose viability every now and then.
I'm honestly surprised this is the first time anyone's complained about this.

For you its not a problem, but for me with again, over 80 robots, i feel like i dont wanna refix them all because its too much work and hassle

I was already in hell when i had to redo most of my bots once when they wouldnt show up

I will see what I can do today. 

Guldenflame is right.  You can not expect a piece of software in the Alpha state to remain static.  If so that is bad because it means that the software has been abandoned and will never reach release and maintainance.  There are times when we are going to have to change or remove things that are going to completely invalidate some robots.  Case in point: the flail.  It is broken.  There is no easy way to get it working without a LOT of effort.  This isn't effort that is worth the time considering how many other higher-priority things we have to do.

You are also right.  It absolutely sucks to see hundreds of hours of work become deprecated by a software decision someone else made.  If there are any Flash developers still out there, they know what I'm talking about.

With that being said, I'm going to try to restore the AmpFlow motors to the way they previously worked, but hiding them in the process.  If I succeed, they will still exist in your old robot and still work, but will no longer be available in the list.  If you accidentally delete the motor, it is gone and you will need to use the new version.
75
Existing Games / Re: Robot Wars:Arenas of Destruction
« Last post by SkullKid2000 on February 16, 2020, 07:08:34 AM »
Jozin from the Swamps facing Beast of Bodmin.
76
Robot Rumble 2.0 / Re: Robot Rumble 2.0 - Robot Combat Simulator - Under Development
« Last post by Arcane on February 16, 2020, 05:59:55 AM »
Okay, so I’ve had a good amount of time to play around with this build of the game and I have to say the changes to mobility with these new motors have improved drastically. Bots that drove somewhat okay in previous builds have become a lot more mobile. The AP of the Ampflow motors are a little funky but overall I’m really happy with the direction you guys are taking this. Also, the new models for the motors look great.

The LED lights are a great addition to the workshop, I was half expecting them to tank my FPS but I haven’t had any issues at all. The changes to the hot keys are greatly appreciated too.

I’m liking the new arena, especially the camera placement as it allows for some nice screenshots. I’m excited to see what can be made possible now that you guys have an arena building tool.

One thing I would like to ask is if there are any plans to remove the damage scaler from the settings? It’s a small thing but I do occasionally reduce the damage to 10% or 0% to mess around and I would miss that setting if it was removed.
77
Robot Rumble 2.0 / Re: Robot Rumble 2.0 - Robot Combat Simulator - Under Development
« Last post by kix on February 16, 2020, 02:59:57 AM »
Future compatibility really shouldn't be something we worry about.  We should expect robots from previous patches to lose viability every now and then.
I'm honestly surprised this is the first time anyone's complained about this.

For you its not a problem, but for me with again, over 80 robots, i feel like i dont wanna refix them all because its too much work and hassle

I was already in hell when i had to redo most of my bots once when they wouldnt show up
78
Future compatibility really shouldn't be something we worry about.  We should expect robots from previous patches to lose viability every now and then.
I'm honestly surprised this is the first time anyone's complained about this.
79
I'm really enjoying this new build!  I made a couple test robots and noticed the following:

-Mobility kills are definitely a real deal now with the wheel building tools.  It doesn't take too much effort to use my bar spinner to remove tires from my 4-wheeled drum spinner to immobilize it, just like in real robot combat.

-I love that chassis panels can now break off.  I think it's safe to say that the health bar can go away as KOs are effected by smashing the other robot to pieces in some manner IRL.

-It seems that material resilience is still pretty high compared to what I see on TV.  Shouldn't a bar spinner with 100 kJ of energy absolutely destroy polycarbonate almost regardless of realistic thickness?

-I think the bottom of the chassis should be destroyable.  Any components mounted to the destroyed bottom of the chassis go with it.  So if the bot controller is mounted to the bottom of the chassis and that panel goes away, so does the controller and the bot is KO.

--Building on that thought, perhaps the tree structure of building bots is too limiting in the way these things can actually be destroyed?  IRL bots keep going until they can't, either though mobility issues or complete dismemberment.  I remember seeing a battle between Warhawk and Hydra where Hydra literally dismembered Warhawk, but Warhawk's individual components kept moving based on operator inputs.  The bot got counted out because it was immobilized.  Another example was a fight between Tombstone and some kind of pushbot.  But Tombstone's bar spinner nailed a corner of the push bot and broke the bot in half diagonally.  Yeah, that bot was down for the count.

With that being said, if the way the game works could be converted from the tree structure to some kind of universal interconnectivity, the ways stuff could be destroyed would be less limiting.

-How fine can destruction be made?  Is it reasonable to believe that computers can simulate panels shredding or shattering to some degree based on the materials and type if impact involved?  Realistically, panels may do more than just break off - they may be ripped in half or shattered to pieces too.  Then the bot can puke out batteries, motors, etc.

Looking forward to more progress  :thumbup

EDIT:  Totally destroyed this robot, but even with the side panels gone, it took awhile for the bar spinner to eviscerate it of its motors and batteries.  The damage slider is turned all the way up to 200%, so perhaps it needs to be 400%?

 
80
Guest Section / Re: Won't let me register with this name
« Last post by aConfused on February 15, 2020, 09:31:21 PM »
That would be nice. Thanks!
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10