Just throwing this out there based on ideas boats post triggered. I know this would require extra coding and new models and reverting long held theories in empires, but here we go anyhow. If we gave the 2nd seat the mg, on a separate pivot than the turret, only if it was available for use. Then, if vehicle didn't have mg component, would function much like it does currently. If second seat was unoccupied, mg would become available back to the driver. If 2nd seat occupied, would not be available to driver. nf's APC would have to be remade with a 2nd seat, and in lieu of that, we would have to give be a 4 seat jeep. Even if its deemed too extreme of a change to give mg to 2nd seat, still think unhinging 2nd seat from turret rotation would make 2nd seat a more viable assist role.
I'm not sure if it's a good idea to force the use of second seat mgs, especially on apcs. However, I do agree with that last sentence. Second seats are pretty much useless if you're not standing still. Edit: Although I guess it would be fine for jeeps.
This would be sick as fuck, but I have a hunch that if it was easy to implement, it would've already been in the game for jeeps, heavy tanks, etc.
I think it was because people didn't want to have to rely on other people for weapons, or for some random person to take control of their weapons away from them. But, with the addition of some sort of vehicle ownership system, I wouldn't see that as being a problem.
Yeah, I'm thinking maybe the use key here for mounting/unmounting the weapon by the 2nd seater would need to be an option, with the same mechanics in force with the unmount.
I know there is some values in the scripts saying what seat can use a weapon, but I have no idea if it works or how it works mechanically. Giving second seat a weapon would be nice. Opens a lot of possibility honestly, not just mg, though I'd like that. You can still be useful on the second seat of an apc or jeep, though the only weapon I had luck with was using the mortar. It's like giving jeeps cannons, lots of fun.
Wouldn't the biggest problem be hitting with a weapon whilst both the point you shoot from and your orientation change out of your control all the time? Even if your orientation gets seperated from the drivers turret control, doesnt the 2nd seat change his location not only with the movement of the entire vehicle but also the erratic mouse movements of the driver?
Well, currently yes, that's what I am talking about. If we remove main turret rotation influence from the second seat and give the second seat its own rotation axis only influenced by the main body, it would become a much more stable and useable platform to fire a weapon from without the spastic unpredictable movements you get now from turret rotation.
Strange that if you look inside the gui for vehicle configuration, and the scripts that you work with, the ownership of weapon has the ability right now to be assigned to second seat and can be set to use vehicle weapons.
Yeah, it looks like it would work, but I'm pretty sure that it doesn't. I believe that I tested it about a year ago when I was learning the scripts.
The second seat is literally attached to the turret, so when the turret moves, he also moves. I literally mean that you define an attachment point in the turret model and that's where he attaches. I've way fix that would be to attach the player to the chassis instead of the player. So his head is still sticking out of the same hatch, but it's defined with respect to the chassis, not the turret. This works when the hatch is exactly in line with where the turret attaches to the chassis. You can let the turret spin independently and everything still looks good. The problem occurs when the hatch is offset on the turret. Now when the turret moves, the player must also move with respect to the chassis in order to still look like he's in the hatch. So that's where that method fails. I suppose you might be able to hack together some code that constantly "corrects" the player view add the turret moves, but it would be hacky at best and unusable at worst. Smithy has investigated this and would know more.
It currently parents the player to the turret, mappers and coders should understand that terminology and understand the problems with unlinking player rotation with the turret. For those unfamiliar, it's basically the player is welded to the tank turret, and there's no simple way to unweld the angle from the turret while keeping the position welded.
I understand currently the 2nd position is welded to the turret. I also never said it was simple, just doable. It is just a simple mathematical correction on seat 2 rotational axis bone to offset turret rotation while maintaining positional information.
You could attach the player to the hull so that he's "floating" where gee should already be for the turret. However, that only works if the hatch is immediately above the point where the turret connects to the hull so the turret can spin "around" the second player. If the hatch is offset slightly, then you can't do that.
Just a reminder for those that say can't be done. Check this post 2007 http://forums.empiresmod.com/showthread.php?t=2629&highlight=2nd+seat
I don't know what the chassis looked like then, but it probably IS possible as long as the second seat is perfectly in line with the turret connection point so the turret can just "rotate around" the second player who is actually connected to the chassis, not the turret. Krenzo outlines the issue in this post:http://forums.empiresmod.com/showthread.php?p=81972#post81972
But then it's not the same thing, you need to reimplement parenting without angles which is difficult because it's kinda deep down in the engine.
It was done once, hard to believe it can't be done now. http://forums.empiresmod.com/showthread.php?t=2629&page=7
