OpenRA

[Jacko]

I agree, OpenRA is something totally different to RA, while most of the running graphics and stuff suggests otherwise. The main difference being of course the totally different engine, and that everything is run differently.

 

I am a prime example of what funky said but I think super extensive modding of Red Alert (like rewriting engine and hardcoded logic) could probably be done through OpenRA.

[Chimas]

Honestly, I think the discussion derailed a little bit. There is no need for this or that project to be better, they can have their features and even smaller or greater number of players. CnCnet is in its shape now after years of development and awaitings. OpenRA will have this stage too if it didn't have it yet.

[psydev]

What "basic RTS features" doesn't RA have?

 

The people who play on CnCNet are people who prefer to play the original games, OpenRA and its mods are currently too different compared to the originals. Many people on CnCNet are also running the game on hardware OpenRA does not support such as the Intel GMA chipsets and tons of older hardware.

 

I can't see any reason for anyone to play CnCNet. The old C&C Gold for example is very limited in map size and type.

 

There is no reason to play CnCNet anymore. You can simply use the OpenRA engine and make a mod which has the exact same unit values as the original C&C/RA. Then you will have the exact same game you have, but better.

 

There are many advantages to OpenRA. A simple feature is "attack-move". Another good feature is command queuing. The game also has higher resolution and a better interface generally. It also has FOG OF WAR (toggleable), a truly wonderful modern RTS invention. The map editor is also excellent, and allows for very large maps. It is also relatively rich in scriptability and can be used to make custom games within map files. The interface in general is just much smoother and more modern, and exactly what you'd expect from an RTS, instead of a clunky old design from 1995.

 

Most of the work has already been done for creating a "classic mod" that will have all the same unit values as the original. The gameplay will naturally be slightly different since you are using a modern interface and can use things like attack-move, but that's not a bad thing.

[Jacko]

Because sometimes you get those tiny tweaks that, to some players, remove the image that you are playing the game that has been 'remade'. A 'modernised' UI doesn't mean its a better UI, the slightly different controls or command options and strategies that most on-off and or amateur players would simply ignore and/or accept could have quite an impact on those who know the original Red Alert well. (except for Q logic, PLEASE get rid of that). You could never create an exact replica of a game and have every fan love it, because if you wanted a 100% replica with all UI and features as you want them, then you might as well play the Original RA anyway.

[Myg]

You can't make an external replica of something and say it is better, as well that it is worse. Though only when they speak out on it can you say it is worse:Maybe silence is the only way to feed that dissarangement.

 

We are on the high-ground on this issue and Matt and the other guys know this. We preserve C&C and RA as best as we can, though I do think I do the best job at it. OpenRa and its crowd are always welcome to be a part of cncnet's endavours and we welcome all openra evangelists because we understand their desire for purity of experience in hopes of preserving nostalgia for those who want an image of the past in context of their own lives.

 

This is inspired from our own lives of course (and mine) where we are constantly on a journey of self re-discovery through awareness so that we can defeat awareness.

 

Cncnet is just an exercise in bringing people together so they can move on. It is not about making a better future trying to remake the past, but by exploring it. This is my mandate as a Catholic and my stance as a Christian and why I am better at it then some you may meet here.

 

[Allen262]

but it may be the future for C&C, RA1 and TS.

That's rather impossible, seeing as it isn't any of these games. It's just a game that happens to use the graphics of the C&C games.

 

Father time is undefeated and it will get C&C, RA1 and TS sooner or later. OpenRA may not be the same engine but it may be the future afther C&C, RA1 and TS are no longer playable.

[Tore]

 

I can't see any reason for anyone to play CnCNet. The old C&C Gold for example is very limited in map size and type.

 

There is no reason to play CnCNet anymore. You can simply use the OpenRA engine and make a mod which has the exact same unit values as the original C&C/RA. Then you will have the exact same game you have, but better.

 

There are many advantages to OpenRA. A simple feature is "attack-move". Another good feature is command queuing. The game also has higher resolution and a better interface generally. It also has FOG OF WAR (toggleable), a truly wonderful modern RTS invention. The map editor is also excellent, and allows for very large maps. It is also relatively rich in scriptability and can be used to make custom games within map files. The interface in general is just much smoother and more modern, and exactly what you'd expect from an RTS, instead of a clunky old design from 1995.

 

Most of the work has already been done for creating a "classic mod" that will have all the same unit values as the original. The gameplay will naturally be slightly different since you are using a modern interface and can use things like attack-move, but that's not a bad thing.

 

A modern interface is not necessarily a better interface,. The C&C3 type interface which OpenRA based it's interface on can get more complicated than original interface, especially when you have multiple factories. Original RA has "fog of war" you just enable "shroud regrows", and you can use Q to attack move, though it isn't the modern select a few units press A and select the enemy base attack move of modern games it's different.

 

As for resolution....well...http://tore.cnc-comm.com/stuff/ra95-2560x1440.png

 

Both C&C1 and RA1 has good map editors too.

 

But the main point still stands OpenRA doesn't run on older hardware. It doesn't even run smooth enough on my system with a HD5870 and an i7 930, I get about 30 to 47 FPS with delayed unit reaction, on C&C1 and RA1 this is not an issue and without limiting the framerate of those games I can get up to 500 FPS and above using cnc-ddraw, FPS might even go into the thousands if I didn't use cnc-ddraw, but that isn't an option on Windows 8 currently.

 

Then there's also the fact that most of the time people prefer the original over the reimagining. When I'm feeling nostalgic I go back and play the originals if I want to play a modern RTS I go play a modern RTS, such as Planetary Annihilation or WarGame Red Dragon. If OpenRA was exactly like the originals with a few bug fixes then your point of CnCNet and related projects being irrelevant might hold some merit, but OpenRA isn't and was never meant to be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[pchote]

All this talk of high ground and high horses really misses the point, and IMO just makes people come across as assholes (including me, with this statement).

 

The primary objective for OpenRA is to build a cross-platform, open source, and extremely moddable RTS game engine.  The primary objective of cncnet is to preserve and promote the original games.  I find the suggestion that we "drop what we are doing" to join cncnet to be pretty insulting, because it completely ignores this distinction and casually dismisses the hard work that around 100 people have put in to OpenRA over the last 6 years.

 

The (close) secondary objective of OpenRA is to build a set of games that live inside the C&C universes on top of our game engine.  The guiding philosophy is "what would Westwood have done, if they knew everything that we know now".  This is convolved with the opinions of our active player and developer base, however.  The gameplay of our C&C and RA mods have evolved over time (and will continue to evolve) based on feedback and discussion.  Our community is mainly filled with players who have played more than just the early C&C's, and so this evolution has invariably been towards adding improvements to the UI and gameplay inspired by these other games.

 

The majority of these gameplay changes are intentional.  If people honestly wanted an OpenRA mod that was a faithful recreation of the original games, then that is completely doable.  There remain a few quirks that would need to be implemented in the engine or mod code, but the majority of it can be done in the yaml mod rules.

 

Our experience when Matt tried to start up "classic" RA and C&C mods was that the bitching and hate from this part of the community only intensified.  What we took from that was that these requests are not genuine, but only a convenient vehicle to carry "it's not the original, so it will never be good enough" sentiment.  If we were to restart these projects then they would detract from our main efforts, and we expect that the hardcore original players would just find another reason to dislike it.  We are unlikely to restart these projects in the foreseeable future, but we would welcome any modders who would like to work on this.

[Myg]

It doesn't matter how much work you put in if its worthless. There is highground, and its source, we are nearer. Coming in here and defining us with things like you said reveals the kind of actions which support things like OpenRa: Delusional redefinition. Honesty with self is the first step to a clear mind.

[pchote]

It doesn't matter how much work you put in if its worthless. There is highground, and its source, we are nearer. Coming in here and defining us with things like you said reveals the kind of actions which support things like OpenRa: Delusional redefinition. Honesty with self is the first step to a clear mind.

 

Wow.  This response sums up, better than anything I could write myself, why we consider this community to be so unreasonable / crazy. Wow (i'm honestly shocked).

 

I'm happy to engage in a logical discussion about OpenRA, if anyone has any specific points they would like to me to comment on.

[Tore]

That is Myg being Myg. I wouldn't mind coming with suggestions for OpenRA mods that attempt to recreate the classic experience and I'm sure there are others in this community would too if such a project is presented to them. If such a movement existed why wasn't it announced anywhere?

 

Though I would have more to say about C&C1 than RA1.

 

That being said this community sees yours as unreasonable. With suggestions being dismissed as being wrong, archaic or "unbalanced". Such as the early refusal (saying "code it yourself" to non-programmers is the same as saying no) to add proper C&C style mouse commands (now added, but buggy). When people tried to refer to the originals the reply was "OpenRA is not C&C/RA" and I took that as OpenRA not wanting to have anything like the originals. So hostility does not only exist on this side of the community, but yours as well.

 

This community contrary to what OpenRA devs may think is open to differences, but the gameplay has to have the original flow. Dawn of the Tiberium Age was popular on CnCNet once, despite it not playing much like C&C1 or RA1, but the flow and pacing of the gameplay was reminiscent of those two games.

[pchote]

That being said this community sees yours as unreasonable. With suggestions being dismissed as being wrong, archaic or "unbalanced". Such as the early refusal (saying "code it yourself" to non-programmers is the same as saying no) to add proper C&C style mouse commands (now added, but buggy). When people tried to refer to the originals the reply was "OpenRA is not C&C/RA" and I took that as OpenRA not wanting to have anything like the originals. So hostility does not only exist on this side of the community, but yours as well.

 

This is certainly true. Both sides are misinterpreting the statements of one or a small number people as the opinion of the community as a whole, and this is counterproductive for everyone.

 

I expect that much of this misunderstanding comes from cultural differences: in a closed source project (like the original games or cncnet) the feature list is controlled by a small group of people, and if those people don't want to spend time adding a feature then it won't be included.  In a project like OpenRA, just because we (the main developers, who each have their own plans and goals and may not be speaking for the project as a whole) don't want to spend time on something doesn't mean that it will never happen.  It is important to distinguish between "We don't like this, and don't want it in our project" versus "we don't plan on adding this, but will accept a patch that adds it". The latter is a statement of fact rather than a rejection.  Saying "do it yourself" is very much not the same as no to us. Would you prefer that we said "Yeah, sure... we'll add that eventually" while knowing that we had no plans to actually do it?

 

The left-click mouse orders is a good example of this: while I expect that the original responses to this request may have been harsher than necessary, it reflects the fact that we consider the left-click scheme to be outdated and less useable than the now-standard RTS right-click scheme.  We were stating a harsh truth that we had no plans on adding a feature that we would never ourselves use, but I don't think anyone ever said that we would reject left-click orders completely.

 

Somebody eventually took up our offer of adding this feature themselves, and it was merged into the main project (#2579).  There were unfortunately a few usability issues (#3153) which really should have been caught during the code review (we are stricter with code reviews now, and work with the author to help resolve these kind of problems before their patch is merged).  These haven't been fixed by the main team because we ourselves don't use this scheme, and again nobody wants to spend time fixing something that doesn't affect them personally (remember, we are all volunteering our time and effort).

 

We started using bountysource a while back, which gives non-developers a way to help incentivise features that they would really like to see included.  I hesitated before mentioning this, because I don't want this to be interpreted as "we will only add X if you pay us".  The bounties were introduced as a way for people to constructively donate towards the people actively working on the project, while sidestepping some of the issues about receiving money from another company's intellectual property.  It also means that a developer or outside contributor might decide to implement feature X with a bounty instead of feature Y that they would have otherwise worked on.

[FunkyFr3sh]

What "basic RTS features" doesn't RA have?

 

The people who play on CnCNet are people who prefer to play the original games, OpenRA and its mods are currently too different compared to the originals. Many people on CnCNet are also running the game on hardware OpenRA does not support such as the Intel GMA chipsets and tons of older hardware.

 

I can't see any reason for anyone to play CnCNet. The old C&C Gold for example is very limited in map size and type.

 

There is no reason to play CnCNet anymore. You can simply use the OpenRA engine and make a mod which has the exact same unit values as the original C&C/RA. Then you will have the exact same game you have, but better.

 

There are many advantages to OpenRA. A simple feature is "attack-move". Another good feature is command queuing. The game also has higher resolution and a better interface generally. It also has FOG OF WAR (toggleable), a truly wonderful modern RTS invention. The map editor is also excellent, and allows for very large maps. It is also relatively rich in scriptability and can be used to make custom games within map files. The interface in general is just much smoother and more modern, and exactly what you'd expect from an RTS, instead of a clunky old design from 1995.

 

Most of the work has already been done for creating a "classic mod" that will have all the same unit values as the original. The gameplay will naturally be slightly different since you are using a modern interface and can use things like attack-move, but that's not a bad thing.

 

Did you ever thought about that people are playing the old games for a reason? Pretty much exactly cause they dont want all the new stuff that exists in new games!

 

[Matt]

I guess people are confused, because other successful re-implementation projects united the community like OpenTTD which also improved and added to the original game a lot and made binary hacks like the Transport Tycoon Drexler patches redundant. People are now modding OpenTTD instead which has an advanced content distribution system that inspired us in crafting our new http://resource.openra.net/ custom content exchange that integrates with the game via auto-map-download.

 

It is a little sad that we are faced here with open hostility here and that you feel my bug tracker moderation is impolite and unprofessional. That was never intended. To my excuse: English is not my mother tongue, this is the first big Open Source project I ever helped maintaining and the amount of feedback and support requests we receive via all communication channels including social media is sometimes overwhelming. With only limited free time to work on it, I tend to answer people quickly as most players ask stuff covered by our FAQ or report http://bugs.open-ra.org without searching for duplicates first.

 

I also got a lot of private messages that promoting OpenRA is not welcome here and I better stop doing so. It is understandable that you want to keep hacking and modding the originals separate. Maybe you should open up an OpenRA sub-forum here and simply move all posts there.

[hifi]

Lol, all of you.

 

The reason why I started working on CnCNet was the hack value of getting shit working, more regarding CnCNet 5. Some OpenRA folks know me of hatred against their chosen project name (because it is misleading) but that's about it. I don't mind people liking OpenRA over original games, that's their choice, but god damn stop comparing them all the time and fighting about it on our forums. RA is the original, OpenRA is a reimagination like they currently state on their FAQ.

 

I know *this* community is very easy to provoke and moderation of the actual CnCNet has proven very hard to do effectively. This is why we mostly ignore what happens in our lobby as moderating these people will just cause more issues than solve. No hard feelings though, it's what I've accepted CnCNet as: bad mouths and tank rushing.

 

And I concur Myg is Myg, don't mind him. The only official word you can currently get from the CnCNet/cnc-comm is staff is from Tore, Funky and me. We aren't aggressive towards OpenRA at all, but we don't prefer the gameplay either.

[Nyerguds]

I can't see any reason for anyone to play CnCNet. The old C&C Gold for example is very limited in map size and type.

 

There is no reason to play CnCNet anymore. You can simply use the OpenRA engine and make a mod which has the exact same unit values as the original C&C/RA. Then you will have the exact same game you have, but better.

This is just plain wrong. A lot of the feel of the game comes from the handling of random values, used for things like projectile inaccuracy, and speeds; not only units, but also harvesting speed, build speeds, etc. OpenRA simply doesn't feel like C&C1, and just modding the unit stats won't change that.

[Blade]

I guess people are confused, because other successful re-implementation projects united the community like OpenTTD which also improved and added to the original game a lot and made binary hacks like the Transport Tycoon Drexler patches redundant. People are now modding OpenTTD instead which has an advanced content distribution system that inspired us in crafting our new http://resource.openra.net/ custom content exchange that integrates with the game via auto-map-download.

 

Problem is that openra isn't a successful reimplementation, its a completely different engine that does things in completely different ways so comparing it to OpenTTD, which on the face of it appears to have initially reimplemented the game as it was, is disingenuous. If openra had been developed along the lines of initially being a drop in replacement that was configured by the existing ini files and used algorithms reverse engineered from C&C and RA and was then expanded with additional optional functionality then I could see your confusion. That isn't the case however and even if someone went to the trouble of making a mod of openra to make it act like ra or c&c, that still wouldn't make all the mods that currently exist for these games compatible would it? That to me would be one test of a correct reimplementation.

[Matt]

OpenTTD also uses a higher level programming language and adds new file formats such as NewGRF so I guess it is comparable.

[pchote]

If openra had been developed along the lines of initially being a drop in replacement that was configured by the existing ini files and used algorithms reverse engineered from C&C and RA and was then expanded with additional optional functionality then I could see your confusion. That isn't the case however and even if someone went to the trouble of making a mod of openra to make it act like ra or c&c, that still wouldn't make all the mods that currently exist for these games compatible would it? That to me would be one test of a correct reimplementation.

 

OpenRA was originally developed along these lines, and this is where the name originated.  We chose to abandon original-rule compatibility in ~2010 and migrate to our current actor/trait system because we (the developers at the time) were more interested in exploring ideas relating to RTS game design than at creating a bit-compatible recreation of somebody else's game.

 

The key-value system of rule definitions used by the original games was too restrictive for what we wanted (and in any case, it would have been infeasible to remain rule-compatible with multiple games at the same time), and so we adopted a modular system strongly inspired by the 3D-era C&C games.  This split has increased further over time as we have generalized parts of the engine to support multiple file formats (we can use sprites from Dune 2 through to RA2), multiple tiles sizes (24x24 px for TD/RA, 32x32 px D2K, 48x24 px for TS), multiple perspectives (rectangular vs isometric for TS), voxels, dynamic palette changes (for the arbitrary player colors), etc, etc...

 

Time has shown this to be the right choice, because OpenRA is still alive (with a larger player and developer base than we have ever had), while all the "pure" RA/C&C clones have died out from lack of developer interest.

 

[Myg]

Here is why I am the authority around cncnet: OpenRa is like a CD of RA that has been eaten and pooped out, due to rage quit. RA on cncnet is just the CD.

[Jacko]

OpenTTD does have a very good development base but the point of OpenTTD was it was supposed to be a 99% copy of the original (non-freeware/opensource) game, but it is coded more efficiently to allow more user-compatible modifications (yes, mostly newgrfs) whereas OpenRA is about a different take on what RA was and an attempt to 'improve' and tweak the game. I'm not aware of moddability and customisation of OpenRA, but some of Irans and other devs new fancy tools and functions that have been added to vanilla and cncnet5 show that RA itself has changed a bit since original release.

 

A lot of the 'pure' C&C clones have died because they got less followers than the actual game themselves, and because the originals were free anyway (well they are now).

You could list RA and OpenRA as very similar games, but they are programmed and run (and played as a matter of fact) very differently to each other.

[Matt]

I just updated the https://github.com/OpenRA/OpenRA/wiki/Traits documentation which shows every game-play rule you can add and customize via editable text files in your mod. Many still lack description as this project is developed with few active contributors running on constantly low man power. Have a look at the files in https://github.com/OpenRA/OpenRA/tree/bleed/mods/ra/rules as an example how it is stitched together to craft a game.

[pichorra]

If OpenRA gameplay were EXACTLY the same as RA, then probably we wouldn't still be playing RA. Look with what happened with other old games through.

[pchote]

A lot of the feel of the game comes from the handling of random values, used for things like projectile inaccuracy, and speeds; not only units, but also harvesting speed, build speeds, etc. OpenRA simply doesn't feel like C&C1, and just modding the unit stats won't change that.

Harvesting speed, build speeds (both as cost multipliers or override values), etc, are all defined in the actor rules. They can be changed as easily as anything else.

 

Projectile inaccuracy is implemented in OpenRA by adding a random offset to the target position.  The maximum-offset at maximum-range is set in the weapon definition, and the game will choose a value within this limit by sampling a triangular probability density function (so the inaccuracy is more likely to be small than large). I suspect that the original game probably uses an unbiased sample (flat PDF) instead, which would give a different feel.

 

I wouldn't be opposed to adding a "classic inaccuracy" option, but I would need to know the details of the original calculation, and know that it would actually be used by someone (either our own mods -- we aren't opposed to making things more like the original if it makes sense), or by other mods.

 

that still wouldn't make all the mods that currently exist for these games compatible would it?

 

The RA rules.ini keys map directly into properties of our traits.  If there were a demand for it, then it would be a relatively simple task for somebody to create a converter that parses rules.ini (modded or vanilla), and exports an OpenRA mod. I'm far from convinced that this demand exists.

[FunkyFr3sh]

Summary:

 

OpenRA got the aim of modifying the original game behavior and might be more interesting for people who like modern games

 

CnCNet got the aim of keeping the games original with the same game-play and unit stats the games had back when they came out and might be more interesting for people who don't like modern games and played the originals back then

 

therefore, a comparison/fusion of the original red alert/tiberian dawn and openra is not possible at all

 

amen.