*viKKing* Posted Apr 29, 2012, 10:24 am	IMHO best for Sam would be to cut efforts on trying to implement stuff already existing and try to reach an agreement with a company offering games with some of physics needed in DW. Battlefront Combat Missions series are from my side very interesting to dig in : Turn Based and Real Time options, Internet games (2 players), hot seats, etc. Engine is available for Windows and Mac computers. Based upon military stuff it already has a lot of projectiles and damages system integrated as well as building damages, armor, morale (from which DW system as been setup on my suggestion ), fog of war (depending of chosen level of difficulty, morale system as well). Combat Missions serie games are delivered with terrain and scenarios editors, meaning anyone can integrate its own scenarios. Though the terrain editor is far from getting as easy to use than Torque's. I'm certain Sam could try to reach an agreement with them even if it requires DW2 to be distributed through Battlefront store, which is in the end, not a bad thing as he would benefit from their advertising. The most challenging task would certainly be to integrate a campaign management system which is currently not existing. PS: sorry for mistakes or syntax problems, I'm not using english a lot at the moment. I'm quite rusted. Edit: just figured out today Combad Mission is available for iPad as well!
*viKKing* Posted Apr 30, 2012, 7:21 am	Not promoting CM:SF although I love it since early days of CMBN. Combat AI is integrated, modding can already be done for testing and prototyping, mostly on sounds, textures etc. Not sure about objects though it can certainly be done. There are numerous resources available on battlefront website. I gave a quick look at terrain and scenario editor and it is not that much difficult, just getting used to it. Prototyping a post apoc. terrain wouldn't be very long, base CM:SF already includes pick-ups with rear mounted machine guns.
Karz Master Posted Apr 30, 2012, 7:58 am	What about physics? Do the CM games have them?
*Tinker* Posted Apr 30, 2012, 8:43 am	what about system requirements, i downloaded CM Battle for Normandy DEMO for mac, and it runs crapy on my high-end 2 y/o mac laptop, (almost melted my video card after following their instructions, got weird screen artifacts after force quiting the app), but maybe i screwed something up..
*viKKing* Posted Apr 30, 2012, 8:55 am	Karz Master said: What about physics? Do the CM games have them? Yes they do have  a lot of ballistic physics (armor penetration, ricochets and so). I will perform tests while modding it with current DW textures and posts screenshot. About configuration, CM:Normandy certainly requires a better computer than CM:SF. I play the last one a two years old Asus laptop and it runs quite one with balanced settings. My 6 years old iMac is certainly a bit outdated for anything else than DW.
*sam* Posted Apr 30, 2012, 10:42 am	I'm strongly leaning towards Shiva (www.stonetrip.com) at the moment; I have been using this game engine for about 1.5 years now and I'm quite efficient with it at this stage. It's not open source (unlike Torque) unfortunately, but that brings both benefits and drawbacks. I have already prototyped the concept of "on/off" car physics and it's working fine (although getting a 'ghost' working may be hard). I'll be able to re-use the DW vehicle models, and some of the buildings/walls/etc. but none of the terrains or maps.
Serephe Posted Apr 30, 2012, 10:54 am	Don't reuse the models imo. Better off getting it done properly if you're gonna do it; get some real post apocalypse stuff done.
*StCrispin* ce.services.mh@gmail.com Posted Apr 30, 2012, 12:00 pm	Combat Mission:Beyond Overlord was a great wargame and the terrain editor was easy to work with. But i don think that engine would be suitable for DW. Might be wrong though since I havent played it since CMBO. and CMBO wont work on newer computers. (little trivia here... one of the guys I beta tested that SSI tank game Panzer Commander with, had a hand in the armor penetration modeling of CMBO. Fionne Kelly of Ireland. very nice fellow.) As for DW car models, some are quite nice IMO. The one gripe I have is that there are so many muscles. You look at the streets IRL and you dont see that many. I would find the suspension of disbelief easier if it was more closely a mirror of actual variety. or even a mirror of the historic production quanity. I doubt that even 1/3rd of all cars made are Cameros and such. But in DW you see 60% to 75% of those types. Yes, speed/power is life but that should only skew the rates slightly. But on the other hand, its just a game.
Karz Master Posted May 1, 2012, 3:24 am	Serephe said: Don't reuse the models imo. Better off getting it done properly if you're gonna do it; get some real post apocalypse stuff done. Yeah I second this.
*viKKing* Posted May 1, 2012, 7:20 am	StCrispin said: Combat Mission:Beyond Overlord was a great wargame and the terrain editor was easy to work with.  But i don think that engine would be suitable for DW.  Might be wrong though since I havent played it since CMBO.  and CMBO wont work on newer computers. I was talking about the new engines used in CM:SF and CM:Nornamdy. But never mind.
JS Posted May 1, 2012, 10:54 am	Karz Master said: Serephe said: Don't reuse the models imo. Better off getting it done properly if you're gonna do it; get some real post apocalypse stuff done. Yeah I second this. I like the recognizable models, with we had a bunch more.  I'm not really into the post apocolypse stuff a-la "Thunder Dome", perhaps a mix is in order?
*sam* Posted May 1, 2012, 11:45 am	JS said: Karz Master said: Serephe said: Don't reuse the models imo. Better off getting it done properly if you're gonna do it; get some real post apocalypse stuff done. Yeah I second this. I like the recognizable models, with we had a bunch more.  I'm not really into the post apocolypse stuff a-la "Thunder Dome", perhaps a mix is in order? Yeah, personally I think the existing car models, and *some* of the other models, are good already. They're perfect polycount for 'slightly zoomed back' viewpoint, and mostly have good textures at this stage. My concept of them looking like regular cars with rusty metal plates attached hasn't changed. I don't like futuristic-looking designs. The alternative is to spend $10,000 on getting a new bunch made, and for what purpose? -- realistically, 3D models are either designed uniquely for a game, which costs a lot, or else they're bought in from sites such as turbosquid. I took the latter approach in DW and would aim to do so as much as possible in the future too. -- re-texturing existing models however is relatively cheap, and this could certainly be done
Karz Master Posted May 1, 2012, 12:40 pm	*sam* said: -- realistically, 3D models are either designed uniquely for a game, which costs a lot, or else they're bought in from sites such as turbosquid. I took the latter approach in DW and would aim to do so as much as possible in the future too. The tricky thing about this is that you'll have to convince people what you'll be using $20K for, and you MUST specify that you've acquired 3D models from a 3rd party source. If my experience on forums is anything to go by, people don't take too kindly to projects using immediately obvious 3rd party resources, even if they're not free. Alternatively, if you reach a stretch goal of, say, $30K, then you can consider using that money for new 3D models.
*sam* Posted May 1, 2012, 12:55 pm	You don't think paying for software development time/effort/tools, plus original 2D artwork/GUIs (and some 3D) is enough? -- it seems a bit silly making original models just for the sake of it, if you get me.. Let's say my indiegogo goal was $50k. That's still only a fraction of what my own development effort cost would be. However, it would convince and motivate me to work hard at a project that I otherwise might be skeptical as to whether there was enough interest in.. kinda like pre-orders
Karz Master Posted May 1, 2012, 1:12 pm	*sam* said: You don't think paying for software development time/effort/tools, plus original 2D artwork/GUIs (and some 3D) is enough? -- it seems a bit silly making original models just for the sake of it, if you get me.. Let's say my indiegogo goal was $50k. That's still only a fraction of what my own development effort cost would be. I don't know, I'm not a developer. I'd supposed that $20K was what you needed, but looks like I'm wrong. Btw you should also specify that you're paying out of your own pockets. That helps in the marketing process.
*sam* Posted May 1, 2012, 1:19 pm	Here's something funny: I have just noticed my new habit of using two dashes for an appended idea: -- like this -- and that this is because this indicates a comment in Lua code, which I have been using a lot
*viKKing* Posted May 1, 2012, 1:28 pm	Would you consider improving existing models by adding external mountpoints to add stuff making them looking less conventionnal cars?i.e. turrets (who said turrets? ), or mounted weapons on roof, rear mounted weapons on tripod in pickups, fuel drums sidemounted on the top (extra fuel), external armor (steel plates, etc.)... This is in fact what post apoc. cars look like, normal cars with extra stuff.
*sam* Posted May 1, 2012, 1:30 pm	vikk: yes, definitely. And new ped models of course.
FireFly Posted May 1, 2012, 1:36 pm	What sam, you dont like our action men™?
Ender Card Posted May 1, 2012, 3:12 pm	I'm really getting excited! Hearing Sam talk about this is making me think there is a actual chance this could happen! I think thinking about some stretch goals, specifically in game content would help. Orge kickstarter balloned when SJ set the stretch goal of having a PC game version as a stretch goal. Finding a way to reach out to old car wars fans and start looking for what they would most like to see would surely help build excitement in the extended community/target audience! Maybe set up a dedicated site. Talk about how DW offline will improve over its predecessor could widen the draw. Then actively seek inputs from the community and take the easy/popular ideas you feel that would fit. Stretch goals like an editor, fully voiced over story, and new models could be fun, if they are feasible. Not a designer, so not sure how difficult those could get to impliment...
*sam* Posted May 1, 2012, 3:59 pm	I have some stretch goal ideas in mind already, and a mission editor is definitely one of them. With a website where you can upload/trade/discuss them.
FireFly Posted May 1, 2012, 4:01 pm	The, this is reminding me of that simple game critical mass I put so much time into for some reason... The reason for all the time put was that pretty much everything was randomly selected based on your rank, and if you got killed (You could eject to safety) your characther was dead and you'd have to start over. I was so proud the evening Commendore Kazhim survived 44 missions, with only 6 of them failiures... He was finished off by friendly fire Anyway, I really like that sort of game design. You play till you die then you start over and try to do better yourself, with some missions being unwinable due to the randomness. So you better just retreat instead of dying. Also, the ability to "Fail" a mission without a game over is really good, games used to do that more in the past if I remember right.
Juris Posted May 1, 2012, 9:31 pm	*sam* said: vikk: yes, definitely. And new ped models of course. Don't care as long as we get cycles What would be the DT on a new version of DW?
Large Marge Posted Aug 26, 2015, 5:43 am	I haven't played it, but doesn't the Free to Play World of Tanks have physics, terrain and combat? Maybe that engine is avail?