Re: AT-AT Body.

Canadiens1160 wrote:
zanth91 wrote:

It should be better. GC did a horrible job on the ATAT. Wasn't it just a static until v.5? The walking part, well. It looked like it was moon walking! But you have to geive them credit. It's very hard to get that to work in the BF1942 engine.

That's the dumbest thing I've read in ages.  Considering the game engine, and the horrible ATST walking animations, they did an amazing job with the ATAT.  Having two fully crewed walkers lumbering towards Echo Base was amazing during games on Hoth.

But you have to give them credit. It's very hard to get that to work in the BF1942 engine.

^^ as in my above post

http://www.usfbf1942.com/forums/image.php?u=158&dateline=2006

Re: AT-AT Body.

generalandrew wrote:

Ok, so the AT-ATs were ok in GC, but I found a lot of things missing. For example, isn't there a small bridge in the tube t that connected the body to the head? And also, it'd be great if you could actually go into the cockpit and see all of the controls instead of having them being blocked off like in GC.

What makes you think the ATAT model would be like GC's ?

Nothing we have made has had GC in mind when we made/make it. GC is not a reference point.... Star Wars is.

"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavours to live at the expense of everybody else."
Frédéric Bastiat

Re: AT-AT Body.

You know people aren't always thinking that Bandu... Sometimes they just need something to base there suggestions from...

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a202/ty2d2/fsprsig2.gif
"Munchkin: One who, on being told that this is a game about politics and intrigue in 17th century Italy, asks to play a ninja."
Andrew Rilstone

18 (edited by generalandrew 2006-11-26 16:38:47)

Re: AT-AT Body.

TY2D2 wrote:

You know people aren't always thinking that Bandu... Sometimes they just need something to base there suggestions from...

Exactly. I'm not trying to insult anyone's work here or anything like that, but I definitely cannot compare FS to any of the Battlefront series so GC is the closest thing to use. And I use GC because it's the only other time that I've seen AT-ATs in the Battlefield series and seeing as this is going to be a vast improvement over what was done in GC, I'm just listing points that would, in my opinion, help to make it better based on what wasn't accomplished in GC. sad

Hey, you got your Star Wars in my Star Trek!!
Generalandrew = FS's Offical Band Geek!!
"I'm gonna kick you in the balls through TCP/IP!!!" - Andrew_Kirk_25
<SpecterWolf>    That's ok.. I blew him as well as a few of his buddies up that ditched an apc.. Explosions ftw!

Re: AT-AT Body.

Whatever the reason , im just sick to death of hearing about GC...whether that be praising it or bashing it.

Wanting a cockpit in the ATAT has very little to do with GC imo.

"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavours to live at the expense of everybody else."
Frédéric Bastiat

Re: AT-AT Body.

GC is going to get filtered out of the forums sooner or later....

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a202/ty2d2/fsprsig2.gif
"Munchkin: One who, on being told that this is a game about politics and intrigue in 17th century Italy, asks to play a ninja."
Andrew Rilstone

Re: AT-AT Body.

No-one minds bringing up GC on stuff that was part of GC  eg. jumping into droids , like they were vehicles.........    As that is a feature of GC.

Thats a viable suggestion or basis of a suggestion.

"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavours to live at the expense of everybody else."
Frédéric Bastiat