I've just uploaded 2.8.2 to beta (update is 3.7MB compared to 2.8.1, but 100MB compared to 2.7). I'd like a few commanders to give their opinion on building placement on that version, trying out various maps and posting screenshots where they feel something is unreasonable. Note that Nubs may not be updated yet, but anyway it's much easier if you start a local server, you don't need other players to test this. On Saturday we discovered it was still rather hard to place buildings, so I've reduced collision radii of all buildings to fit snugly around the model, allowing the ramps on all buildings to stick out and overlap. I also added OffsetZ of 10 for all buildings to enable placement on not quite even terrain (except for walls, those weren't touched), and added a building_flushscript cheat, to allow you to keep the game running while adjust building collision bounds. With that cheat, you can modify empires/scripts/buildings.txt (the sizes and offsets, defined at the end of each building), alt-tab back to the game and the client will update when you put building_flushscript in the developer console - the server will not reload values, so it will look green but you won't be able to place it. You can use that if you find that I've made it too snug, or still not small enough, let me know what buildings you think need adjustment.
Seems pretty good to me so far. Like how it used to be, but certain spots are more forgiving to place on, like on slaughtered be can place a rax in that intersection between sbend, mid, and south east. It was possible before but it had to be absolutely dead on. I'm just so happy I can place buildings on research again, you really couldn't do anything before.
first things first, you can place stuff on buildings again im going to update this post with images and stuff and my opinions in a minute or two. overall gist though is that its pretty good now. and i didnt really run into any real issues in cyclo (it doesnt really need to adhere to the original placement anyways, there were some real bugged out placements that somehow worked originally) e: theres definitely alot more "give" in building placement. you can easily place stuff together and even cut off an entrance/exit. personally, im fine with this. its just another way of commanding (if you cut off an entrance and make people walk the long way, you are a bad comm) picture 1: any reason why the repair pad at the bottom can be placed closer to the racks than the one at the top? could it be because of rotation? you can also see in the picture above how close be armouries can be placed next to buildings, even closing off entrances. the nf armoury on the other hand, cannot. see below. picture 2: buildings can also bleed into other buildings due to the closeness of placement picture 3: picture 4: racks placement seems to be back on slaughtered. nf can do it too. yay picture 5: no reason why you cant place a turret here. picture 6: something you could do with the original placement that you cannot now. doesnt really matter. picture 7&8: vfs in mid on crossroads picture 9: example of placement on palmbay picture 10: example of placement on cyclo pretty good! one more thing: can i ask why we are increasing version numbers when we never even released 2.8, 2.81, or 2.82?
I like how close those be armories can be put, it's like being able to make a tunnel through a combat zone.
Thank you for the quick feedback. The turret in complete_'s picture 5 is unintentional but not a breaking problem - perhaps I missed one of the turret size updates (they are not 50 instead of 80, so perhaps it should be possible to place there). I don't think the bleeding is a problem, it's not easy to get as much bleeding as you see in picture 3. Really? Screenshot? I increased the version number because we did a public beta test, and I wanted to make clear to any people joining who don't read the forums, that the current beta is a different version than the public beta. Mr.X, could you be a little bit more specific about cyclo problems? The goal is not to go back to 2.6.9 building placement, but to find a good compromise between usability (hence rotation independent bounds checking), aesthetic appeal (how much bleed can we allow?) and compactness for your bases.
The building placement is also now fair, which is why the comments about the difference between the armories are not a bug, to me. The NF armory is smaller itself, but the hitboxes should be the same, so that wherever BE can place building X, NF can too.
sorry, looks like i didnt get a picture. i already reverted back also. but im also sure you can place on buildings, or at least get the green outline. i feel like increasing the version number might confuse more people. we will only have 10 people on at most. i think people are going to wonder what happened to versions 2.71 to 2.84 or whatever
on the other hand its not like you have to go download a specific version somewhere as steam keeps everything up to date anyway, for most it doesnt make a difference i guess?
