1.9 map changes

JeffM · Post by **JeffM** » Tue Jul 01, 2003 10:25 pm

for 1.9 there have been some changes wit the maps.

1) Pyramids above Z0 now collide normaly, no more drive thru pyramids just cus they are off the ground.

2) The map parser is now case insensetive, and a more tollerant to objects it dosn't know about. If it sees a field or an object it dosn't know about, it just skips it.

3) Boxes, Pyramids, and Teleporters can now have 2 optional fields "drivethrough" and "shootthrough" put these in any of those ojects and make them able to be shoot thru aor driven thru. These are real features, no more of this negitive scale stuff. Since these are real features they won't be broken in the future, unlike the bugs that were being used as features.

JeffM · Post by **JeffM** » Wed Jul 02, 2003 12:24 am

I allso just added the ability to put a 'flipZ' option on pyramids to make them 'upside down'. this makes a proper upside down pyramid, that collides properly. ( note we sill need to fix shots that bounce "down")

the map parser will no longer accept a negitive object scales.

here is a pathetic sample map that shows the new features

Post by **purple_cow** » Tue Jul 08, 2003 4:18 am

pat, tim says no to flipZ, and to just treat -Z as that

JeffM · Post by **JeffM** » Tue Jul 08, 2003 2:43 pm

that is lame,

Post by **purple_cow** » Wed Jul 09, 2003 12:56 am

lame? not really
if -Z is treated correctly, there's no difference other than the fact that flipZ increases the world download size by a byte/pyramid

Dervish · Post by **Dervish** » Wed Jul 09, 2003 6:47 am

Yes, I agree with Tim and captain_proton. It doesn't make sense to have a "flipz" boolean value when +/- Z already works. Besides, it would break existing maps by ignoring all -Z value items.

larsl · Post by **larsl** » Wed Jul 09, 2003 1:19 pm

I don't know exactly what Patlabor221 is doing with the world code, but I think old maps that used the negative Z hack probably will break anyway since they also had to use a negative number in one other dimension to make it render correctly, which isn't allowed now (right?).

JeffM · Post by **JeffM** » Wed Jul 09, 2003 3:51 pm

well Derv, Neg Z didn't work in 1.9 because we turned on collisions on pyrmaids that were above Z0, you would get stuck in them cus all there collision code didn't handle a neg scale.

My flip Z is difrent then a Z neg scale, Z neg scale puts the "point" of the pyramid at the Z of the pyamid - the Z scale. My flag is realy a "rotate 180" flag, where the point is at Map Z and the Flat is at MapZ + Z scale.

I also feel that a neg Z is not intutiive of what will happen. My flag does not reverse the polys and makes it so you can drive on the bottom of the pyramids, it is VERY difrent. I'd like to know what is not liked about the flag? And what is good about a neg scale. Optimaly what is needed is a second rotation but that has a larger scope then just a simple flip.

I'm just trying to think big picture here not small hack. But it seems that noone elese cares about that ether.

Dervish · Post by **Dervish** » Thu Jul 10, 2003 2:50 am

ahhhhh, I see... said the blind man.

Thanks for the info!

Spaceman Spiff · Post by **Spaceman Spiff** » Thu Jul 10, 2003 4:14 am

Drive on the bottom of the pyramids??? I think that could be one of the coolest things to ever happen to BZ maps!!

Dervish · Post by **Dervish** » Thu Jul 10, 2003 4:26 am

Hmmm, I think even cooler would be to get tanks to drive on the sides of pyramids. hehehe, I guess I'll settle for driving on the bottom of pyramids.

Post by **DTRemenak** » Thu Jul 10, 2003 2:15 pm

pat, tim says no to flipZ, and to just treat -Z as that

Patlabor: I think what is being suggested is that you use the negative bit on the z value to trigger your flipz code rather than a new value, e.g. pyr.setZFlip() when z<0 rather than when whatever flag you used is set. It doesn't seem as clean, but it is more effecient (byte/pyramid binary and 6 bytes/pyramid text) and has the potential to save mappers some work.

JeffM · Post by **JeffM** » Thu Jul 10, 2003 3:03 pm

I hooked up something like that yesterday, Neg Z scale trips the flip flag.

It's all stored in a single bitmask now with all the object options, so no extra space wasted.

Spaceman Spiff · Post by **Spaceman Spiff** » Thu Jul 10, 2003 5:22 pm

Yay! I love it!!!

And Dervish... I think it's easier to keep BZ on a vertical/horizontal level... diagonal stuph would sorta mess the game up for newbies and the like (although I'd like to try it).

Dervish · Post by **Dervish** » Thu Jul 10, 2003 6:08 pm

Spaceman Spiff wrote:And Dervish... I think it's easier to keep BZ on a vertical/horizontal level... diagonal stuph would sorta mess the game up for newbies and the like (although I'd like to try it).

Of course. You can't spot a timid joke?

Post by **Fiberchunks** » Thu Jul 10, 2003 6:49 pm

ramps, man, ramps. and vertical aiming hopefully coming soon to a tank near you (like 2005

).

Spaceman Spiff · Post by **Spaceman Spiff** » Thu Jul 10, 2003 9:35 pm

Dunno. Those would be cool features and all..... but they'd make BZ too much like other first person shooters.

Dervish · Post by **Dervish** » Fri Jul 11, 2003 2:59 am

It would actually be cool, but to implement such code would be a major project. So major, I bet the lines of code for collision detect in BZFlag would at least double if we ever got around to it. Hence my joshing.

JeffM · Post by **JeffM** » Fri Jul 11, 2003 3:21 am

As allways ramps are more then even just collision detection. They would cause a masive change to the game play and I don't think Tim wants that. BZ is suposed to be a simple game. Collisions are easy, it's just math. Ramps imply a lot more ( tank tilts ). and tilts change aiming. And that means verical aiming. and that means an entirely new controll sceme. And then it's not simple tanky tanky. Remember kids this isn't quake, you arn't a point in the world, your a recteliniar parallela-pipid.

But then I get bored a lot. Time to think outside the box ( horible pun intended ).

"pay no atention to the man behind the curtan"

Spaceman Spiff · Post by **Spaceman Spiff** » Fri Jul 11, 2003 4:20 am

You just said (in more complicated terms) exactly what I did, Patlabor. LoL! I like BZ because it's simple..... but at the same time... I'm itchin' for a shot at (hehehe) Screamers.

Is that a future Screamers map or something?

JeffM · Post by **JeffM** » Fri Jul 11, 2003 4:34 am

it is what it is.