SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997 |
|
02-29-08, 06:01 PM | #1 |
Naval Royalty
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 1,185
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
|
Mining
Hi Guys!
I wanted to create a mission where the goal was to mine an area to a certain level of effectiveness. I didn't see any triggers, though, that would trap the placement of mines in a certain area. Has anyone had any luck with this sort of thing? |
03-01-08, 01:35 AM | #2 | |
Silent Hunter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Along the Watchtower
Posts: 3,810
Downloads: 27
Uploads: 5
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
03-01-08, 05:35 PM | #3 | |
Naval Royalty
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 1,185
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
|
Quote:
|
|
03-01-08, 10:32 PM | #4 | ||
Silent Hunter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Along the Watchtower
Posts: 3,810
Downloads: 27
Uploads: 5
|
Quote:
The sure way to do it is more labor intensive. You copy the trigger 15 times, and place every trigger in its own dynamic group that spawns only when the previous trigger is completed. An aggregate goal trigger would be used to test for the completion of all 16 destination triggers. Edit: no, wait, that doesn't solve the uniqueness problem...hold on, still thinking. ...I don't think there is a way around the uniqueness issue. Assuming the first technique doesn't work, there are no conditions that can be used to distinguish the first mine, e.g., from setting off the second trigger, with the possible exception of speed. But speed doesn't get you very far. So, I think the method you might be stuck with is having to specify places where the mines would be placed rather than just designating a large area. This doesn't necessarily have to be precise coordinates, but could also take the form of intervals, as long as the "line" upon which they will be placed is known to the player. The idea would be that the player is required to spread the mines out a certain amount, stacking them on top of each other would only count for one mine deployed.
__________________
|
||
03-01-08, 11:04 PM | #5 | ||
Naval Royalty
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 1,185
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
03-02-08, 12:42 AM | #6 |
Silent Hunter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Along the Watchtower
Posts: 3,810
Downloads: 27
Uploads: 5
|
I know how you feel. As many features as the editor has, it just feels like they never "filled out" all the possibilities that should logically (to me anyways) follow the features they implemented. If you have the capability to test for the presence of an object, why not have an argument that allows you set the # of those objects to test for? If you can test for the presence of an object in a circular area, why not be able to test for one in a retangular area? If you can test a platform for relative position, why not include an argument to restrict its bearing? I can go on..... It's really frustrating because inevitably any great idea you get will probably have to be dumbed down in some way to get it to work, and even then it only works so well. We just have to do the best we can with the tools we have.
__________________
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|