Our ReVolt Pub

I don't think this feature is currently in the game...

My idea is for track makers utilizing 1.2. I think it would be nice to have an option when you are in MAKEITGOOD mode editing farce fields that allows you to make "static" push fields (not relative to car body weight). This would open up the doors for all kinds of new tracks.

Good or bad idea?

I thought of something like that years ago as well but forgot the idea 5 minutes later. I approve.

Bump... (one positive comment, nothing else for a month) Any other feedback on this idea? I can think of many amazing things you could do with something like this added to the game.

Im not track maker but for sure this could help to this "type" of people.

Mandolin @ Feb 26 2013, 02:45 AM wrote: Bump... (one positive comment, nothing else for a month) Any other feedback on this idea? I can think of many amazing things you could do with something like this added to the game.

Perhaps if you would have explained a little more, it might've gotten more feedback. Some of us are absolute ZERO with track making.

I just read about this and it sounds not bad (like most of the suggestions )

But I would prefer to have a field type that simply overrides every gravity related values in the game with the one specified instead of just ignoring the car's body weight (or were you talking about such a field?).

However, farce fields seem to be the most ignored feature of Re-Volt I have seen so far (like 80% of the custom tracks don't use them and even in the stock tracks they are pretty much only used outside the race line).
A reason for that could be that the AI doesn't cope well with force fields or track makers are just too lazy to do trial and error to find suitable values for the fields...

Actually I believe that there is room for lots of improvements in the MAKEITGOOD mode (as well as a few fixes).
For example (like I already mentioned in RVL) we could also add a specific type of pos nodes that don't need to be connected to a circle but can end at one position. That way you would (hopefully) be able to make one-directional tracks without any side effects like the ones I mentioned in the according thread.

But keep in mind that any of those changes (or actually additions) would result in complete backwards incompatibilities for all the tracks that use such additions.

edit: actually I believe the incompatibility problems could be solved by using the the "custom" folder feature of the tracks.
If I understood the changelog correctly all the track files (or game files) will be ignored if files with the same name are in the "custom" folder located in the level folder.

That should also count for all the edit mode specific files so a track maker would have to make files in the old format and put it in the level root folder and the same file with new features and put it in the custom folders.

@ Platform:

@ RacerBG: It would allow track makers new possibilites for tracks (like tracks that allow racers to drive on walls like in the track Antigravitation, but with better consistency, and tracks like old Magnet where your car is lifted into the air, bu again with better consistency between light/heavy cars. Which would give us non-trackmakers new challenges in racing if trackmakers decide to use static farce fields!

@ Platform: That's completely offtopic, and a checkpoint race wouldn't work because we have such a big difference in car speeds. One car would blow by the checkpoints with time to spare while others would be physically incapable of reaching them in the amount of time given. And nothing new is ever, EVER going to be "unlocked" in this game, as people have previously replied. Please don't give that suggestion anymore... especially in unrelated topics.

@ Skarma (and anybody that didn't quite understand what I was proposing): The farce fields in MAKEITGOOD are mostly used to make gravity-altering effects, like the pool in Toytanic or stream in Nhood2, or more dramatic alterations like the gravity lift in Magnet. The problem is that these farce fields were originally intended to be solely used for cars driving in water (to produce the floating effect), but now there are some custom tracks that use them for other purposes that I listed. The reason that farce fields are not currently suitable for all tracks that use (or would use) gravity changes is because the farce fields are based off of the weight of a car. You can see this by driving R6 Turbo into the Toytanic pool and then driving Bertha Ballistics or Panga into the pool. In tracks like Antigravitation, a lightweight car will fly up when you try to ride the wall, whereas a heavy car will fall to the bottom and will not ride the wall. Not as fun as it was intended to be. I am proposing that a static farce field (one that is not relative to the weight of the car) be added so that these types of tracks are better supported, as they can be a lot of fun.

But I would prefer to have a field type that simply overrides every gravity related values in the game with the one specified instead of just ignoring the car's body weight (or were you talking about such a field?).

@ Kenny: I don't think I quite understand what you're saying here. From what I read, it seems like you're saying that all the farce fields should be exactly the same and not be individually customizeable? And the car body weight would still factor into the gravity? That seems to me like it would take away from trackmaking rather than add to it. I'm not sure if I get what you're trying to say though...

However, farce fields seem to be the most ignored feature of Re-Volt I have seen so far (like 80% of the custom tracks don't use them and even in the stock tracks they are pretty much only used outside the race line).
A reason for that could be that the AI doesn't cope well with force fields or track makers are just too lazy to do trial and error to find suitable values for the fields...

It really isn't incredibly difficult to do farce fields. I can do them, and I'm not even a track maker! All I do is start from the values given for the Toytanic pool and then edit them to fit my needs. After a small amount of trial-and-error, you can really just know what approximate value you need and then fine tune it as need be. I think 1.2 actually allows live MAKEITGOOD editing (where the user can test things out as they are being edited), am I correct? That cuts down a lot on the time as well. And AI has always seemed to cope fine to me given what they are expected to do. The reason farce fields are not found on 80% of custom tracks is because they are not appropriate for 80% of custom tracks. They are only appropriate when there is water, a gravity change incorporated (like Stunts on the Moon or Zero G Moon Base Alpha (which I wish someone would upload to RVZT as I miss the track a lot)) or some other creative use. There are farce fields on Nhood2 in the stream, which is part of the racing line.

For example (like I already mentioned in RVL) we could also add a specific type of pos nodes that don't need to be connected to a circle but can end at one position. That way you would (hopefully) be able to make one-directional tracks without any side effects like the ones I mentioned in the according thread.

So, that would be kind of like a sprint race? That would be cool to have. New possibilities!

But keep in mind that any of those changes (or actually additions) would result in complete backwards incompatibilities for all the tracks that use such additions.

The way that I see backward compatibility is this: We don't have these features now. Right now, these features are not compatible with any Re-Volt version. All that is being done by adding these features is making them compatible with the new version of Re-Volt. There is nothing being lost to the old version by creating new options, other than the fact that tracks that otherwise wouldn't have existed at all would not be playable in 1.1. But at least the tracks would exist and be able to be played using 1.2, which is a much better version anyway. Plus, it is free. Anybody can upgrade at any time, or even run both versions side-by-side. After 14 years, you have to start thinking like Microsoft: "Why would people want to buy anything new from us if they could do all the same things with our old products?" With Re-Volt 1.2, you have to think, "Why would people want to download our new version if they could do everything they can in it with the old version?" I honestly can't think of a single reason why anyone would want to keep 1.1, even with "the retro experience" taken into account.

Mandolin @ Feb 26 2013, 10:41 PM wrote: @ Kenny: I don't think I quite understand what you're saying here. From what I read, it seems like you're saying that all the farce fields should be exactly the same  and not be individually customizeable?  And the car body weight would still factor into the gravity? That seems to me like it would take away from trackmaking rather than add to it. I'm not sure if I get what you're trying to say though...

No, I only talked about a new type of farce field (not something that applies to all types of fields) that would override the gravity force of the game so you can manipulate the force and the direction of the normal game gravity.

For example (this is how I imagine it) if you would create such a field in a level with a force = 0.0, it would be like a zero gravity field.
Or a force of 1.0 in the left direction would result in something like you said, that the cars could drive on the left wall.

However now I'm not sure what you mean with your suggestion
Because if you had a field that creates a "static push" which is absolute for all cars then that means all cars have the same weight if they are in that field.
Also there is still the gravity involved here so you would not only need to figure out how to set up that field so it pushes in the desired direction but you also have to work against gravity (and this is where the body weight comes in again).


I know farce fields are not difficult or take long to make but only as long as you only do simple fields (also isn't live editing possible in 1.1 as well?
btw: Zero_G_Moon_Base_Alpha).
Also the farce fields in the stream in nhood2 are hardly noticable and have little to no effect in a normal race.

Maybe you know already my RVL thread where I played around a little with farce fields.
Not only is the section where the cars only drive on the ceiling completely unusable for the AI (they permanently reset their position) but also the (3rd person) camera is moreless useless when you drive on the ceiling (and you can see through the floor in 1st person but that could be due to bad collision files).

I didn't try to do a smooth transition for driving on the ceiling but I kinda doubt that the result would be a different one for the AI (perhaps they can drive on the vertical walls though)...
Also the camera problems would still be present.

And regarding compatibility:
Track makers want as many users as possible to play their tracks, otherwise all their work would be only for the people with the latest version and not all players constantly check if there is one available.
So why would they try to make their track which only works on the latest version and not some later ones?
But anyway like I said, this problem can be solved with the custom features so any more discussion in this direction is useless.

I see what you're saying now. Sorry for the confusion!

What I figured would be done if static farce fields were implemented is that users would combine a static farce field going up to cancel the vertical gravity with a farce field relative to the weight of the vehicle going left or right to allow vehicles to drive on walls. That way, the weight of the cars would still take their toll, but they would not slide up or down unrealistically.

But either way would work. Your suggestion would probably be simpler, I would imagine. What you're saying is that the new field should replace the current gravity instead of adding gravity to it, correct?

Maybe the new farce field could also be set to automatically tilt the camera appropriately for the direction of gravity. That would fix camera problems. It may also be possible to manipulate the AI to make them only reposition themselves when they are "upside down" relative to the direction of gravity. The only thing with that is that we would have to think of an AI workaround for longer gravity lifts going up (unless we just always use the old farce field type for those, which does work).

And thanks for the link! Btw if it isn't obvious, Probe UFO is a beast at this track because of the farce fields! Such a fitting track for it too.

What you're saying is that the new field should replace the current gravity instead of adding gravity to it, correct?

Yes thats basically what I'm saying.

Maybe the new farce field could also be set to automatically tilt the camera appropriately for the direction of gravity. That would fix camera problems. It may also be possible to manipulate the AI to make them only reposition themselves when they are "upside down" relative to the direction of gravity. The only thing with that is that we would have to think of an AI workaround for longer gravity lifts going up (unless we just always use the old farce field type for those, which does work).

I think both of these suggestions would be difficult to implement because many things have to be changed/added for that.
Not to mention that it is a lot easier to "fix" the camera problems by switching fo 1st person view (and I think custom car camera should work too).
As for the AI problem...well maybe they can't drive upside down but perhaps sideways? I never tried it so one would have to do an experimental track for that.

Maybe we should just accept that Re-Volt's engine is not made for these kind of things, it would probably be easier to redo the engine and implement some stuff that some of us would like to have (like water tracks, one directional tracks and "4dimensional tracks" (where you can drive on the left/right walls and ceiling, couldn't find a better name for that )) than adding feature by feature to the current engine (where half of those features are somewhat limited because of the engine).

Now Next Is New Car Will Come

Sorry, Platform. I know that you don't speak English (Chinese?), but you are going to have to rephrase. I haven't the faintest clue what you are trying to say unless you are asking (again) for a new car to be put in with the stock cars. In which case I too give up all hope in trying to reply to you.

Maybe we should just accept that Re-Volt's engine is not made for these kind of things, it would probably be easier to redo the engine and implement some stuff that some of us would like to have (like water tracks, one directional tracks and "4dimensional tracks" (where you can drive on the left/right walls and ceiling, couldn't find a better name for that  )) than adding feature by feature to the current engine (where half of those features are somewhat limited because of the engine).

Just an idea to throw out there, and it might sound stupid or just unreasonable, idk, but there is really a lot of diverse talent in this community. We have programmers, graphic designers, 3D modelers, people who are good with track layouts, car designers, musicians (and maybe there is someone out there who makes soundtracks and/or sound effects? I am not the best (yet) at doing computer-based music, but I do have a good amount of experience with stringed instruments that I'd be willing to offer for this), possibly some business people and buttloads of testers. But right now, all of that talent is just being used to make a very old game a little better for a relatively small number of people. Wouldn't it be neat if this community could come together and produce a modern "Re-Volt"? It wouldn't have to be called Re-Volt 2 (I don't know whether or not that would infringe on any copyrights that WGI owns), but maybe it could allow easy conversion of cars and maybe tracks (but that really wouldn't be completely necessary), and then we could put in whatever features we want. Throw in all kinds of cool stuff, like RC boats/RC submarines/RC aircrafts (even changes from boat to car or to aircraft, like in RC Revenge Pro also released by Acclaim), better game physics, longer/better written storyline, a story mode similar to Championship mode, but more drawn out and interesting, creative new weapons, game modes, vehicle "abilities" (jumping, turning into a "ghost" car, idk what else), a frontend where you actually drive to what you want to do or anything else that tickles our fancy. And there would be no backward compatibility to worry about. Instead of just being enthusiastic fans of some game that was released fourteen years ago (nothing wrong with that, of course ), we could actually release a real game that could potentially draw a lot more attention. Again, I have no earthly idea if the commitment is there for something like this. It would take everybody here to accomplish, but wouldn't something like that be amazing?

Of course it would be neat and probably everyone would like to see such a thing become reality.

But there are of course problems that make this just as unrealizeable as everything else:
- We have programmers but I dare to say that most of them are not as experienced as they needed to be for such a thing.
Do you know that there is even have an own developer forum for Re-Volt? (not related to development for 1.2) No? Well thats because its practically dead since 1.2 development has started and it will probably stay that way.

- Time. Everyone of us has their reallife and dedicates some of his free time to play and talk about Re-Volt. And like with every big projekt, people need to get together to do some stuff and if we all do this in our free time then there is only a slim time frame where everyone has time.
Not to mention such a project would take a big amount of time to realize, and that a lot of planning needs to be done if we want all the features we want (which leads to the next point)

- One cannot implement everything. Sure we can make endless discussions about features we would like to have without going anywhere but fact is we cannot fulfill everyone's wishes.

And probably some other points I can't think of now

I fully agree with you, such a projekt would be totally awesome. But lets be realistic, if such a thing would be easy to realize then we would already have a ton of fanmade sequels to (old) games that had a big fanbase instead of people trying to make fixes to "keep them alive".

@ Platform: Maybe you should read the topic that Kenny talked about earlier:

For example (like I already mentioned in RVL) we could also add a specific type of pos nodes that don't need to be connected to a circle but can end at one position. That way you would (hopefully) be able to make one-directional tracks without any side effects like the ones I mentioned in the according thread.

That is what you are asking for. It has already been thought of, tested and proven to be (somewhat) compatible with Re-Volt even now. Huki/Jig may already be trying to come up with complete fixes for these types of tracks, idk. Yeah, it is a good suggestion.

@ Kenny: I was aware of that (about the dev forum), but yeah it's not used much at all like you said. Yeah, I highly doubt as well that their is enough commitment in this community to make a new game (from everyone who would need to be involved). Just a little dreaming, haha.

Mandolin @ Mar 1 2013, 06:24 AM wrote:Just an idea to throw out there, and it might sound stupid or just unreasonable, idk, but there is really a lot of diverse talent in this community. We have programmers, graphic designers, 3D modelers, people who are good with track layouts, car designers, musicians (and maybe there is someone out there who makes soundtracks and/or sound effects?  possibly some business people and buttloads of testers. But right now, all of that talent is just being used to make a very old game a little better for a relatively small number of people. Wouldn't it be neat if this community could come together and produce a modern "Re-Volt"? It wouldn't have to be called Re-Volt 2 (I don't know whether or not that would infringe on any copyrights that WGI owns), but maybe it could allow easy conversion of cars and maybe tracks (but that really wouldn't be completely necessary), and then we could put in whatever features we want. Throw in all kinds of cool stuff, like RC boats/RC submarines/RC aircrafts (even changes from boat to car or to aircraft, like in RC Revenge Pro also released by Acclaim), better game physics, longer/better written storyline, a story mode similar to Championship mode, but more drawn out and interesting, creative new weapons, game modes, vehicle "abilities" (jumping, turning into a "ghost" car, idk what else), a frontend where you actually drive to what you want to do or anything else that tickles our fancy. And there would be no backward compatibility to worry about. Instead of just being enthusiastic fans of some game that was released fourteen years ago (nothing wrong with that, of course ), we could actually release a real game that could potentially draw a lot more attention. Again, I have no earthly idea if the commitment is there for something like this. It would take everybody here to accomplish, but wouldn't something like that be amazing?

This brings back memories of old.
Many statements very similar to this where put forward on the long lost site "ReVolt Downloads" over 10 years ago, before we even got our hand on the source code.

I sincerly hope that a culmination of ideas and skills will produce what we are all looking for. But that would mean stepping into the realms of new game creators and big business.
Who would like to be MD ?
I think the current tweaks to the original game are fantastic and show there is still an active fan base.
The whole "RE-Volt II" project is something I don't feel will ever happen.

I think the current tweaks to the original game are fantastic and show there is still an active fan base.

I do too but there is just so much more I would like to see become reality in the "good old" Re-Volt

However as a hobby programmer I know that there are just certain limitations that prevent us to make more extensive modifications to the game (or at least it would require a lot of work to implement them).

Not to mention that maybe not everybody in the community would be happy with "big changes" (for whatever reasons).

Platform @ Mar 3 2013, 03:57 AM wrote: Re-Volt II Has Features

New Frontend
New Cars (40 Car Total)
New One Track (Toy House) Smillar To Toy World 1 And 2
No Give Up Try Just Straight Through Next (After You Get 4th Or Last Positon)
Visible Ghost Car's Challenge Time
Can Visible Locked Car's Requiredments (Maybe Winning Championship And Winning Track In Single Race Mode Even Stunt Arena)
Diamond Cup Added As Championship (Maybe Toy House M As Stage 3)
New Battle Tag Maps (Toy World Battle And Ghost Town Battle)
New Sprint Mode (Just Point To Point)

First... why did you quote Manmountain quoting Mandolin, when you are not answering them?

Second, why do you suggest things which are already in the game (like 1v1 race, and visible ghost car)?

Third, why do you always want random cars and tracks to be included in the game as stock ones? They are not STOCK, they are usermade, they are not in the original game. And things like "New Frontend"... do we need that?

Fourth, you are not making sense.


EDIT: Not to mention that the whole thing has nothing to do with static farce fields.

EDIT by Huki: I've removed your post as it doesn't contribute anything useful and also for insulting language. Please continue discussing about collision issues in it's dedicated topic found here.

@ Platform: No more replies for you. Either you just made it a point to post the dumbest and most unrelated things to the topic or you have a severe language barrier because whatever software translates your posts is full of crap. But sorry, they just don't make sense and aren't worth responding to. If you post something meaningful and related to the topic, I'll change my mind.

@ Dolo: Uhm... what? And please edit out the language before the admin does it for you...

Dolo @ Mar 3 2013, 01:23 PM wrote: there is only one important thing today, this fu collisions

Uhm what?

I agree with you that this topics content has gone a little "riotous" (is this the right expression? ) but I can't really see any important post talking extensively about collisions... (or am I misunderstanding you?)

Also the topics title is "I have another idea" which I would see covering a rather large area where the discussion is "on-topic".

[offtopic]
@everything Platform related: seriously, either you are a troll or completely ret**ded, I have no other explanation for your behaviour in this and every other forum topic I saw you in (and I doubt the translator you're using is the source of the problem).

I just hope you'll get a permanent ban one day because 98% of all your posts are completely useless (and take up a lot of room since you only seem to be able to reply with quoting the whole post before yours), the other 2% are somewhat on topic as long as one can decipher their content.

I'm sorry for being so harsh but a behaviour like yours is unacceptable (at long sight).
[/offtopic]

@offtopic

Just ignore Platform as much as you can, he doesn't even seem to take notice at things we tell him. Let's just leave him be.

Dolo is talking about the collisions in 1.2, they're different from previous versions and cause problems also, but this is being discussed in one of the other threads, I believe.

Kenny @ Feb 28 2013, 04:45 AM wrote:

What you're saying is that the new field should replace the current gravity instead of adding gravity to it, correct?

Yes thats basically what I'm saying.

Maybe the new farce field could also be set to automatically tilt the camera appropriately for the direction of gravity. That would fix camera problems. It may also be possible to manipulate the AI to make them only reposition themselves when they are "upside down" relative to the direction of gravity. The only thing with that is that we would have to think of an AI workaround for longer gravity lifts going up (unless we just always use the old farce field type for those, which does work).

I think both of these suggestions would be difficult to implement because many things have to be changed/added for that.
Not to mention that it is a lot easier to "fix" the camera problems by switching fo 1st person view (and I think custom car camera should work too).
As for the AI problem...well maybe they can't drive upside down but perhaps sideways? I never tried it so one would have to do an experimental track for that.

Maybe we should just accept that Re-Volt's engine is not made for these kind of things, it would probably be easier to redo the engine and implement some stuff that some of us would like to have (like water tracks, one directional tracks and "4dimensional tracks" (where you can drive on the left/right walls and ceiling, couldn't find a better name for that )) than adding feature by feature to the current engine (where half of those features are somewhat limited because of the engine).

Everything after this post (February 28) is off topic. Let's pick up from here.

Another use I thought of for either my idea or Kenny's idea is to create force field boundaries that are consistent. Heavy cars wouldn't be able to break through the boundary. Another biggie is for tracks like Fool's Mate, the Lava and Spike Track (I think that's the name of it), and any other track that uses farce fields to make long jumps. Heavy/slow cars cannot make the jumps, which makes some tracks impossible to complete in a lower powered car. A farce field that is static or that overrides the game's main gravity would be a better way to handle these types of jumps. There are probably other creative uses that haven't been thought of just because the feature isn't in the game yet.

Actually that reminds me of an idea that I had completely forgotten:

An advanced trigger system for Re-Volt.

Afaik the current triggers only activate if the players car drives through it but imagine the possibilities if you could set triggers that activate only if you are at a certain speed or have a certain weapon/weight.

But thats not all, what if we could link a trigger to other game specific objects.
An example would be what Mandolin described: You are driving in a track that has a rather large gap and you can't jump over it with your car (normally).
However due to a trigger that activates because your car has a certain speed/weight, a linear farce field gets activated that gives your car the required push to make it over that gap (this field would not be activated for cars that can make it over that gap).

An opposite example would be if you drive in a track where you can choose between taking a shortcut or a longer way but if you drive the longer way you could activate a trigger that slows down your opponents at a certain location in the track with a farce field (you could build a fan or something like that in the track to make it look plausible).

Or you could (de)activate lights or spawn pickups/stars at certain locations if you drive through such a trigger (though I'm not sure if the latter one is possible with an object thrower?).

Mandolin @ Mar 4 2013, 05:42 AM wrote:Another biggie is for tracks like Fool's Mate, the Lava and Spike Track (I think that's the name of it), and any other track that uses farce fields to make long jumps. Heavy/slow cars cannot make the jumps, which makes some tracks impossible to complete in a lower powered car. A farce field that is static or that overrides the game's main gravity would be a better way to handle these types of jumps. There are probably other creative uses that haven't been thought of just because the feature isn't in the game yet.

Kenny @ Mar 4 2013, 08:07 AM wrote:But thats not all, what if we could link a trigger to other game specific objects.
An example would be what Mandolin described: You are driving in a track that has a rather large gap and you can't jump over it with your car (normally).
However due to a trigger that activates because your car has a certain speed/weight, a linear farce field gets activated that gives your car the required push to make it over that gap (this field would not be activated for cars that can make it over that gap).

Without trying to go off topic, I would argue that such tracks require an obvious yet slower alternate route or an alternate route which has farce fields to benefit heavier/slower cars.
This to me is down to logical track design and layout rather than a WOW factor at a specific point in the track.
I would try to exhaust all possible options of current available triggers and fields before requesting the need of new ones for occasional use.

Other Idea To Add?
Example:Other Features?

It is possible to do most of the same things with the current fields, it's just that a new one might be better suited for certain tasks where an alternate route is not possible/wanted. idk, its up to the programmers.