Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Terrain Editor => Topic started by: ghostdancer on August 06, 2017, 08:04:05 AM

Title: Placing Ships statically in Terrains (Pearl Harbor)
Post by: ghostdancer on August 06, 2017, 08:04:05 AM
Unfortunately we do not have the objects for the CA and DD anymore (dumbca and dumbdd) and I don't have any AC3D skills to create my own objects. So I have been experimenting with other things to see if I can place ships statically at harbors.

I have upload a test terrain I call gdtest which is a 0.9:1 scale version of my Pearl terrain. This is what I have come up with:


You can not place the BB or CV objects since both of those will have a tower object associated with it and will cause an error of having the field that owns them having two towers. Outside

Now what happens with a build is this.


I created this as a test terrain since I need to check out several things on it.

Questions

I.E. if you try to use more the a few in one area, you will very quickly overload the system.

HiTech

So as said this is an experiment to see how stable this method is and really it is a SEA and AvA type of things since only time you would place ships at Port would be for events ... attack on Pearl Harbor, ships at the port of Rabaul, attack on Taranto, etc.

(http://dgideon.org/aceshigh/ghostdancer-pearl-ships.jpg)


Title: Re: Placing Ships statically in Terrains (Pearl Harbor)
Post by: Easyscor on August 06, 2017, 03:44:05 PM
I thought I'd see if I could find an answer for this.

I set an out of the way vBase as owned by the same country as the Port and I set the ships as owned by that vBase.

Now I have a separate port icon and a bb icon which is actually kind of neat in this application. If you click the bb icon you go to the invisible vBase but since it's invisible, it can be set anywhere you like including nearby so you don't end up out in the boondocks off map.

The vBase country can't be changed in-game with .sfield, so care must be taken to check that the ownerships are correct after it's uploaded. I suspect you'll still be able to rotate countries but I haven't check that.

 :cheers:

Oh, I set a dd as a vhanger and it made no difference to the ack. I figure bb's should be harder to sink then one of the bunkers but the ship object may override this. IDK
Title: Re: Placing Ships statically in Terrains (Pearl Harbor)
Post by: ghostdancer on August 06, 2017, 03:53:40 PM
Okay so I will go and try that ... place a base off on the corner of the map so that we have the BB icon and Port icon over at Pearl / Ford Island. That should also allow players to man the guns of the Port to (right now they can't).

Gotcha, so I should be able to set the ships to bombable so that the CM can increase or decrease the hardness for them without affecting the ships in the carrier fleets on the map if they want.
Title: Re: Placing Ships statically in Terrains (Pearl Harbor)
Post by: Easyscor on August 06, 2017, 06:20:22 PM
Here are some suggestions you might consider.

You can add a fighter spawn (entpnt) on Ford Island by rotating A1, the Large Airfield, 90 degrees. This is so the entpnt can face east or west with the runway, and assign it as fighter spawn just like an airspawn.

Also, next to the Port tower, place one of the "dumb ships" so the ambient sound of the ship engines will make sense in this configuration.

I tried using the TE to assemble a nearby base for the ships instead of a prebuilt vBase but so far, it has crashed the game every time. imo It would be good to have such an invisible base (no icon) without guns overlooking the north side of the bay. It could act like the Fleet HQ if someone clicks the ship icon. Perhaps adding a second fighter spawn on Ford Island as well. If you like the idea let me know and I'll try to make some time later in the week and see if there's another way to do this.

ps
Oh, I also set one ship as a struct, pretty fragile, and another as a fuel bunker for fire and smoke. Setting as a vh would require much more damage but maybe for the BBs. Don't go crazy with the fire and smoke, it's a frame rate killer.
Title: Re: Placing Ships statically in Terrains (Pearl Harbor)
Post by: ghostdancer on August 06, 2017, 08:59:31 PM
Per captain1ma request and Easy's feedback following items have changed:


I did several flybys even running down the middle of battleship row and my FR held consistent at 59.

I am a little worried about smoke from damage things so if gets to be to much will start to yank out the placed hangars.

At this time I did not add a Fighter Spawn entry at Ford island since I having an issue leveling the ground by hand.
Title: Re: Placing Ships statically in Terrains (Pearl Harbor)
Post by: Easyscor on August 06, 2017, 10:06:57 PM
Quote
... Spawn entry at Ford island since I having an issue leveling the ground by hand.

For that one, Disable Ocean and show Wireframe, then hit your verts.
Title: Re: Placing Ships statically in Terrains (Pearl Harbor)
Post by: ghostdancer on August 07, 2017, 07:11:25 AM
The issue I had was I could flatten things BUT since the island is so small I kept wrecking its coast when I did so.
Title: Re: Placing Ships statically in Terrains (Pearl Harbor)
Post by: Easyscor on August 07, 2017, 02:22:58 PM
btw, I did notice one static plane is partly underground. A list of elevation and angle settings for Static Objects (planes) is indexed in the current TE thanks to Hitech.

You have my sympathies over the shorelines and beach elevations moving, it can be a pain.
Title: Re: Placing Ships statically in Terrains (Pearl Harbor)
Post by: ghostdancer on August 07, 2017, 02:58:10 PM
Yeah I think I addressed the planes being underground with the build I did last night (roughly), will fine tune those later.