ONS-ArtilleryHill-beta1

[Pegasus]

[...]Either way, I would not have released [an improved edit] without permission from whoever built the map.[...]

And that mentality would only be liable to leave you chasing ghosts n' digital shadows to no effect, to leave any community you were hoping to contribute to (and already have the necessary skills to do so) indefinitely waiting, not to mention set the same unproductive example for other new editors still active nowadays. Wishing to do right by previous creators/authors active in such special interest communities through their freely volunteered, user-generated content is the right instinct to follow, morally speaking, but what "doing right" actually entails is neither immutable over time n' context, nor does it make sense for it to be assessed in isolation, and separately from, say, what a current modder's optimal contribution to said communities could potentially be. Put shortly, insisting on honouring a departed and potentially disappeared author's wishes with regard to treatment n' acceptable adaptation of their creations (whether expressed or just presumed) could carry the actual implication of preventing a greater benefit to the remaining population from being realized, all because of misplaced good intentions or moralism. That is why observing the chain of attribution in places like filename tags, LevelInfo properties and Uscript comments remains the more sensible, realistic and sustainable method of preserving history, honouring departed benefactors in communities like UT's as well as inspiring new members to continue trying their hand in the various modding disciplines, and why I believe CEONSS has been following that particular modus operandi since its inception instead of refusing to ever touch any map or other piece of custom content until or unless staff or affiliate editors received explicit permission from the entire chain of its previous author(s) n' editor(s).
I can't presume to tell you (or anyone else) how you should act regarding an issue as sensitive and multi-faceted as non-profit modification of other's previous work, but I'd at least hope you can consider the above points in the process of your views' evolution down the road.

Oh, and welcome to the msg. board!

[Lightning_Hunter]

I released three big "UT Classic Packs" for UT99 way back in the day that converted around 50 maps from Unreal to UT, and I was able to track down nearly every author that required permission in the readme file (which was around 15 of them). All you usually need to do is google the authors name or e-mail, and you can find them - even if they have not been active for years (which was the case with the UT Classic Pack). That being said, it usually isn't an issue to edit maps for a sever, as long as they aren't uploaded to big sites like Mapraider. The original author should be asked permission for a big release. I would be happy to upload the map here to a forum, but I think the original readme file should at least be included. Does anyone have it?

The bot paths are basically perfected now, except for a few small issues that cannot be corrected due to flawed bot AI. Namely, the bots will occasionally try to use Jump Pads with Jeeps and Hovercrafts, despite all my best efforts to stop them. I have tried interrupting their paths with Jumpspots, SpecialVehicleObjectives, and bvehicledestination = False, but they still refuse to exit vehicles. If I set a "VehiclePathName" to the ONSPowerNodeSpecial (linked to a pathnode BEFORE a jumppad), the bots will simply drive around that pathnode without actually exiting the vehicle. Strange that this method stops the bots from using the jumppad, but they still don't exit the vehicles. Instead, they drive around the named pathnode indefinitely. If anyone knows any scripts that might work (or hackjob ideas), let me know.

[GLoups!]

Hey Lightning_Hunter, the only case i remember to have seen a bot in a vehicle taking a jumppad is if the jumppad is a ForcedPath from the previous pathnode, did you try to give a ForcedPath to an another pathnode near it (or more simple just make the jumppads a ProscribedPaths), it's difficult to imagine the situation without a screenshot.

[Lightning_Hunter]

Nope, there are no forced paths going to the jumppad. Just two white lines and a green line. Here is the best screenshot I could get for you. The red circle is the jumppad. The green circle is the pathnode it is forced to. The white circle is a cave leading to the power node. The bots will drive jeeps and hovercrafts repeatedly over these jumppads indefinitely, trying to get to the top. The game even tells me they are trying to reach the pathnode on top (PathNode58) to get to the objective (the powernode in the cave) while STILL in the vehicle. If you see the green path leading to the cave, I already tried replacing those pathnodes with jumpspots, SpecialVehicleObjectives, and more - but the bots still refuse to get out of their vehicles. Of course, bvehicledestination is set to false for all these actors.

You know, I haven't tried breaking the path with a liftexit/liftcenter combination. That might work.
Edit: Even with a LiftCenter and LiftExit between those pathnodes, the bots STILL try to use vehicles. It seems that the type of navigation point I use has no effect whatsoever. bots will try using jeeps and hovercrafts as long as there is a connected path to that powernode. I may just have to delete those path nodes completely, and only allow the bots to access the cave powernode by jet. This means the bots will not use these powernodes as often, however (there are two such powernodes only accessible by jumppads).



And here is a screenshot of the bots caught in the act:

[GLoups!]

Try to only keep the green path to the jumppad, make the three others ProscribedPaths/Red ( one orange, two white).

I believe bots wants to go on top, by the two entrances with the ladders.

nodes2.jpg (269.77 KiB) Viewed 12841 times

[Lightning_Hunter]

Try to only keep the green path to the jumppad, make the three others ProscribedPaths/Red ( one orange, two white).

I believe bots wants to go on top, by the two entrances with the ladders.

nodes2.jpg

Unfortunately, I can't change the white paths, because one of them is from a vehiclefactory. You can't modify a NavigationPoint generated by UED on a vehiclefactory; it reverts back to default once a path rebuild is done. Besides, that would not stop jeeps and hovercrafts anyway; they will even drive on blue paths (I have thoroughly tested this in other maps in the past). Tanks do not attempt to use the jumppads, so that's not an issue. In fact, I think even the Hellbender in that screenshot was not trying to use the jumppad; it simply got stuck on the other vehicles laying around.

The bots are not trying to get up to the top of the cliff, because I broke the path up there (while testing). The path dead ends. Besides, they would use other jumppad if going that way, because it's closer (which they do if I block/delete the closer jumppad in the screenshot).

There is another strange anomaly I've noticed. The "VehiclePathName" in the power node properties works, but the bots refuse to exit their vehicles. In theory, when I assign the vehiclepathname to a pathnode before that jumppad, the bots should get out of their vehicle and walk the rest of the way. The bots WILL stop at the pathnode, but they just stay in their vehicles indefinitely. I've seen this issue in several other maps as well - so it's either a bug in UT2004, or it's a bug with the ONSPowerNodeSpecial (I have not tested this with a normal ONSPowerNodeNeutral). I was modifying some bot paths in ONS-StarReach last night, and noticed the bots were not exiting their vehicles upon reaching the pathnode assigned to VehiclePathName with several nodes, so this is not unique to ONS-ArtilleryHill.

[fors]

Oh.. I have no right to prohibit and authorize it. The main edit of course I did, but we did it together) a dozen people in word or deed, but had a hand in this map. For this reason I wanted to after the title map was the designation of ceonss. You make a good point, man!

P.S. When you make version 3, be sure to let me see that.)