That video genuinely made my day - it looks incredible so far.

I particularly like the particle effects on laser hits - subtle feedback to the player that the shot was accurate and stops enemy ships feeling like laser sponges. Also, the mini status indicator under the targeting box showing the ship stats and distance is really nice - less having to glance downwards to the main display on a big screen, very useful :)

Even as placeholders, the explosions are pretty great - the only thing I noticed was that ships seemed to stop on exploding - if they carried their momentum, this would sell the effect. The shield display is really nice. I like the way you've implemented it - if you think of the shields as having a front and rear emitter at 0 and 180 degrees, the display is showing the relative strength output from each. I agree that it's a big improvement over the original.

In terms of the colouring options (and I'm just thinking aloud), have you considered keeping all of the lamps the same colour (black / red / yellow / green) and just changing the colour based on threshold values? E.g. front shield at 10%, the colour is red and only 2 lamps active. As front shield charges to 50%, more lamps are illuminated and the colour changes to yellow (either at a specified threshold, or gradually).

Potentially you could keep the threshold values at the default X-Wing parameters so that existing players can 'transfer' their intuitive gauging of damage levels from the vanilla game (e.g. "I see my front shield is red, so I know that I can only take one or two hits on that side...")

I suppose it's fair to say that the aim is to give the player the most accurate information in the shortest time, so that even the quickest of glances will be enough to understand current status. I wonder if option 2 could lead to confusion, if you glance down and see green (or in your peripheral vision) and mistakenly think the shields are more charged than they actually are? (Or maybe that's part of the challenge? :) )

Not everyone agrees with you on the "mini status indicator". I have been toning it down the since I uploaded that video so that it is not so big at longer distances. Yes. I will eventually fix that somehow. The exploding parts need to keep the same velocity as the ship had, and it will look more natural. Thanks! That is a third option I didn't consider, but I think it's going to be the best.
First I implemented option 1 (every single light transitions from black to red, to yellow, then to green before the next lamp starts all over). But it didn't look really useful.
It was like my first implementation, only with extra festive coloring at the currently charging lamps. Not much useful either.

Then I implemented option two. Oh, boy! It took looong time for me to figure out the numbers for that!
Lamps would transition first from black to red one after another until all are red, then from red to yellow, and when all are yellow, from yellow to green.
I spent two evenings only for implementing that and... meh. It looked not so great. Look at the attached image.
Well, it's not like it looks positively ugly. It's just that it becomes confusing. Now you have 4 colors at the same time: black, red, yellow, and green, and you need to mentally figure out how much shield you have left by looking at the amount of one color that is left.
I don't know. It doesn't provide information as quickly as just black versus green.
Besides, I am a little bit color blind and I had real problems to tell apart the yellow and the green when in the middle of combat.
That is why I made it more orangeish than yellow. But it didn't help much.
The positive aspect of this option is that this is the most granular depiction of the shields, and you can see the lamps changing color at a quite noticeable pace, which defeats the bad impression of shield charging looking slower than laser charging.

I don't like it, but I have spent so much time implementing it that I am not ready to delete the code. So I will just disable it and try your proposed option 3. Maybe I let the player choose their preference in the options panel in a later stage of development. Nah. I don't think challenge should come from lack of information or bad quality of the information at reach.
Many regard X-Wing as the most challenging game in the series, but it's not because the missions are particularly hard (those in X-Wing versus TIE Fighter are the hardest in the whole series), or because the AI is top notch (the AI in the first game isn't so fancy).
It is because the player has the least and worst information. Unclear objectives, zero radio messages giving instructions during flight, inability to track critical ships, worthless map, lack of message log, almost worthless targeting computer, lack of threat indications, inability to know what a ship is targeting, inability to know the current threats to a ship, etc.

Having a shield charge display that provides a confusing colorful reading of a value (that could be done perfectly with a 0%-100% figure) serves no purpose other than to artificially complicate the user interface.

So I will try to program option 3, consisting on every layer of the shield charging lights transitioning one after another from black to red, untill 33% of the layer is charged, then transitioning from black to yellow (all those that were red already, transition to yellow too) until 66%, and finally the last third of the layer transitions from black to green (and all the previous two thirds transition from yellow to green.

I will upload a screenshot or video when it's done.

I implemented option 3 shield display, and I think I like it the best. Look at the attached image.

The advantage I see in this one is that the player can get a quick assessment on the state of the shield in two different ways:
- By the amount of "black". The more black, the worse.
- By the color of the shield. Red is under 33%, yellow is under 66%.

Another advantage is that it is colorblind-friendly. You could play this with that dysfunction (I have a light colorblindness myself) or in a black and white monitor, and still get the right information from the shield display.

Finally, this "Black versus Color" mode is high contrast and easier to get a fast glimpse of in the middle of the combat than a percentage number.
And as a bonus, we keep the color coding of the original game in the remake.

Opinions?

I think the shield indicator looks great, though perhaps the shades are a bit too bright? I find it a bit painful to look at.

FWIW, I do like the status indicator. Anything to provide useful information quickly and in the right location is appreciated. (It's what I like about Star Citizen's "lag indicator": it gives you an indicator to overlap with the target--helping you to keep your eyes on it--instead of a more erratic lead indicator that keeps your eyes off the target itself. The game overall has a lot of UI flaws, but at least that feature is nice. I'm also fine with X-Wing's invisible lead indicator, and did miss it when later games removed the individual cannon tracking indicators.) Heh, I had originally misread one of your original options as the #3 style, and then reread it correctly. Then i dismissed it because the other two options were fancier and looked better on paper. Sometimes you just have to work with a prototype to find out which one really would be the best. I think this was option 2 in your original post (the one which I had expected to prefer). But no matter. Yeah, whatever gives the player a good indication of his/her situation at a glance is probably the best UI. Extra detail is nice, but not if it gets in the way of that goal. And the actual dogfighting itself isn't too bad so long as you're not in a bomber trying to fight a TIE Advanced. (And not triggering the "pushback" bug; the AI seems to like "hiding" there so you can't shoot it. Not sure if that's devious programming from the original developers or just the AI picking an axis to fly on, including the buggy one occasionally.) Definitely preferred compared to the "overcharge" version. Probably also more useful out of the corner of your eye than the "each lamp fully cycles before the next" version, even if that one would be the natural extension of the 2 lamps for each hemisphere implementation--usability trumps aesthetics and (a form of) consistency here, IMO.

For the "pushback" bug, you mean when you try to aim at a particular direction (world's up and down directions) and you cannot totally aim there without your ships drifting away from there?

That is a known bug in many flight sims over the years. It's not a bug of the game itself, but of the 3D math applied.
It's called "Gimbal Lock", and it happens when the rotation of a ship is stored internally as 3 values: roll, pitch, and yaw.

This game engine doesn't have that problem, because it internally uses a more advanced math to represent rotations that isn't affected by gimbal lock: quaternions.

Yes, that one. I wasn't aware of the term for it. I remember you mentioned you had addressed this earlier (and don't recall offhand if you mentioned the name at the time). I had always attributed it to bad joystick calibration. (Nevermind that it persisted even with modern joysticks in X-Wing Alliance. I am amused that they "addressed" it in XWA by often putting stars and lens flares there to make the effect less noticeable.)

Really looking forward to playing a version of the game without those kinds of implementation problems, by the way!

I took the liberty of posting your video on the Hard-Light forums.
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=78128.msg1824783#msg1824783

One of the comments in that forums says:
"Mind you, this seems to be a mostly-pure remake... urgh, lack of a lead indicator and decent targeting controls, plus bone headed AI."

I understand the first complain about the lack of lead indicator.
However I am not sure about the other two.
Lack of decent targeting controls? What problem with targeting seems apparent in the video?

Assumptions.

The lack of a lead indicator hasn't been a problem for me, but I also basically started PC gaming on X-Wing. Honestly, I find the traditional lead indicators in more "recent" games like FreeSpace misleading, because they don't work as well. Other seem fine with them so maybe it's just me and what I' used to. (As mentioned, I find SC's "lag indicator" much more useful.)

Lack of decent targeting controls is because the original X-Wing was basic on that front. But the Windows version added additional functionality (at least, it added "cycle through enemies targeting me"). FreeSpace did have better targeting controls than X-Wing, but based on your methodology, it seems you wouldn't be opposed to adding optional convenience commands at some point if they could be helpful. The fact that you have consciously chosen to improve certain elements (and make them optional) proves that you aren't holding yourself beholden to only what appeared in the original game. (No guarantee you'll want to implement any given feature, of course, but you aren't going to stick with something sucky just because the original version did it that way.)

Lastly, the only reason the AI would need to be the same is for balance (if the AI is different, the delicate balance of some of the missions would change). You've already gone over how you want to support community-created rebalanced missions, so it seems to me you would have no objection to the idea of having a feature that allows improved AI, either (finding the time or additional developers to assist notwithstanding, of course; I'm a software developer who also has a small amount of experience with Unity 3d myself and might be able to help out with the project at some point, BTW.).

Also, regarding the "remake TIE Fighter" comments: TIE Fighter had a number of the improvements already in place. X-Wing is much more dire need of a remake. But, also, redoing the X-Wing engine paves the way for adding support to TIE Fighter at some point, since that's an enhancement to the X-Wing engine.

About the lack of lead indicator:
I always considered it not a shortcoming of the X-Wing engine (actually, as I explained before, it is there, only invisible), but a component of the gameplay.
Laser fire in X-Wing (or star wars in general) isn't insta-hit. It takes it's time to fly to the target. So aiming at the target ship itself will not hit it, most of the time.
This comes from the fact that X-Wing is a World War II flight sim disguised in space clothes (because it is so in Star Wars). And one of the main skills that must be acquired by the player is to predict where the target ship is going to be in the time it takes your laser to reach there.
Our reflexes take their time to learn that (the computer needs to solve a second grade equation for doing so, so it is understandable). But once you get the hang of it, it is the most distinctive feature of X-Wing.
I mean, that is the core foundation of the dogfight gameplay. Otherwise, if it automatically showed were you are supposed to aim, the player would only only need to line up the reticule with the lead indicator and press fire.

Adding a visible lead indicator subtracts not only from the difficult, but also from the gameplay. The game stops being a game of skill, and starts becoming a game of "do as I am told" or "chase the lead indicator".
I have not played Star Citizen, but Elite Dangerous is exactly like that. At the beginning it's cool, but soon it becomes a game less about fighting other ships and more about lining up the interface widgets.

That said, it takes almost no time to make the lead indicator visible, so I could add one that can be toggled on in the options.

About additional functionality:
As you said, the reason I am remaking X-Wing and not TIE Fighter is that the only thing I find lacking in TIE Fighter is a graphic update and better input support.
TIE Fighter is much more advanced than X-Wing in all aspects. In fact, I would say that the differences between TIE Fighter and X-Wing are much bigger than the differences between X-Wing Alliance and TIE Fighter.

Not only X-Wing is in much more need of a remake than TIE Fighter; also, we aren't funded neither work on this project 8 hours a day, a team of 20 people. TIE Fighter is a huge game in complexity to tackle on as first step.
X-Wing is much simpler and the foundation of TIE Fighter. It make sense that we start by the first game in the series, the one that has fewer moving parts, and the one that can be used to build on.
There is no guarantee that this project will ever be finished, but at least the chance of that happening increases the simpler the project is.

Regarding additional functionality, I guess the commentator didn't really pay attention to the video. There is already a lot of additional features that didn't exist in the original X-Wing. The Message Log, the icons on the radar scopes, the granularity of the shield display, the targeting computer. That is what startled me about that comment. X-Wing 98 was a mostly pure remake. This is not at all that.
Most features in X-Wing Alliance wouldn't seem out of place in X-Wing, either. Like cannon convergence, or linked multi-weapon fire. Those seem like features that would have been included in X-Wing and TIE Fighter if the developers had thought on them.

About the AI
I am finding that the AI is one of the hardest things to do right in this remake. I am tweaking here and there, and little changes lead to greatly different "feeling" of the AI. It still doesn't feel much like the AI in X-Wing.
Not that I am purposedly trying to make it useless ort "bone headed".
That can be improved. But at least I would like it to move and react like the one in the original game. Then improve from that point.

For example, in the test mission you appear on a Y-Wing with other 2 Y-Wings in front of you. There are 2 flights of 3 TIE Fighters each in the proximity.
Well, in the original game, these TIE Fighters engage the Y-Wings and they dogfight for many minutes, leave you more or less alone to deal with the shuttles and the incoming waves of TIE Fighters from the frigate.

In the remake, however, the two Y-Wings blow up the 6 TIE Fighters in less than 5 seconds.
Why? I guess because they are better at aiming or something.
Is this good? Not really. It basically destroys the mission if your AI pals steamroll the TIEs for you.
It is also bad because the TIEs only lose because of their lack of durability in a face-to-face fight. As soon as the reinforcement 9 TIEs arrive to where the Y-Wings are, the Y-Wings are totally destroyed.

The AI is too deadly. But then the commentator says that it is as "bone headed" as in the original. I don't get it. Is it supposed to do fancy tricks or something?

I am trying to pin down how the AI behaves in the original game to try and keep the game balance. It is really hard because I can only work from intuition and observation. And all the time that I spend observing, is time I am not programming.

Personally I prefer not having the lead indicator, since it's redundant anyway (lining up the reticle on the correct vector turns it green, which I always felt was plenty) and adds an element of skill. But as you say, nothing wrong with having a toggleable option based on user preference.

Quite a few of the functional additions from TIE Fighter and beyond are already present, with the targetting computer and message log significantly impacting the friendliness of the experience - I always struggle when going back to X-Wing because of the lack of these, and having them present takes a lot of the needless stress away and allows focus on the actual mission.

The AI is a difficult tightrope to walk, and your example highlights this. Based on my own gameplay memories, I wonder if a lot of the reason craft stick around for a while in the early games is due to (deliberately) bad accuracy on the part of the AI. The best example I can think of is looking out of the rear view when being chased by a small flight group of TIEs going at roughly the same speed - while a few shots are likely to connect, there seem to be a lot of them that fly (closely) by on the sides.

To take your example, the lack of TIE durability is an issue if the AI is too accurate, but if surrounded by a 9 ship enemy flight group, it doesn't matter if a craft has full shields if the initial shots from all 9 end up connecting.

(Also - the shield display looks fantastic :) )

I will explain a little bit here how I am creating the IA. I have explained it before, in general, for following their assigned orders. But now I will focus on the combat AI.

There are a few cases where an AI ship decides to enter combat. Ignoring capital ships for now, a smaller ship enters combat when:
- It has to attack some flightgroup as for their orders, or all enemies, or escorts.
- It has to escort some other ship, and some enemy gets closer to that ship than a particular distance.

In any case, the ship follow these steps:
1 - Target an enemy. It selects the closest threat relevant to their orders. Yesterday I implemented that the flight leader targets the enemy flight leader, while the different wingmen target their matching enemy wingmen, if any. Before yesterday, all ships in the flight group targeted the enemy flight leader, and that lead to incredibly low chance for that poor guy to survive. I think the original game is closer to my current implementation.
2 - Fly to combat range. So far, only lasers are implemented, so the ships fly until they reach the distance where lasers are effective.
3 - Fly to dogfight range. Even when a laser blast can reach up to 1500 meters, it's not the best distance to actually hit with them to a moving target. I need to provide my own numbers here, so I have set a range between 300 and 600 meters where the ship feels confortable to be withing to actually dogfight its target.
4 - Aim at the lead indicator and shoot weapons. The AI can calculate where the lead indicator should be and aims there while shooting their laser cannons non-stop. I have noticed that in the original game AI likes spraying their laser like this, rather than performing potshots. Also, I noticed that some times the AI in the original game switch to dual fire (or quad fire in case of interceptors) when they have a particularly good shot. So I have implemented that when the ship detects a deviation from the target leaf of less than 1 degree, it shoots dual fire mode.
5 - Pepare another attack run. If closer than 200 m, disengage and prepare another pass by going back to the comfort range. Jump to Step 3


Two problems with this:

Until yesterday, ship don't care how much incoming fire they are suffering. They were basically kamikazes.
Last evening I programmed something I call Combat Reactions, that I hope will improve the combat system.
Combat Reactions are checked for being triggered all the time, and if they are, make the ship perform actions outside of the list above.
The first combat reaction I added is the Evasive Maneuvers one.
When a ship is "in pain", it disengages and performs evasive maneuvers until it is no longer in pain, or 3 seconds have passed, whatever happens first.

Then concept of "pain" is based on the accumulated damage over the recent time. This damage fades with time, and above a certain threshold, the ship is considered to be "in pain".
This helps making dogfights more interesting. No longer will a ship just take all the damage to the face while jealously holding the trigger, mutually destroying eachother in matter of seconds.
Now TIE fighters will swerve afte the first incoming shot, and Y-Wings will take 2-3 shots to their shields, then perform evasive maneuvers before retaking their targets and trying again.

However, there is still the second problem: lots of precise laser fire.
All ships shoot when they have the opportunity to do so. That sounds normal. But in the original game it was not so. There is a maximum of ships shooting at the same target allowed. Some sources say that actually there is a maximum of ships per side that can shoot at the same time, and it's around 3.
So no more than 3 imperial ships will be shooting at the same time, and no more than 3 rebel ships will be shooting at the same time, etc. Each turret from a capital ship counts as a different ship, by the way.
If this source is right, then this should really limit the amount of incoming fire a particular ship can suffer at the same time.
We have, in the test mission, the situation that up to 9 TIE fighters can be attacking the same Y-Wing. This, of course, leads currently to a swift death for the Y-Wing.
If we implement this "shooting quota", though, only 3 ships will be shooting at the same target, tops. The rest will keep on aiming at it, but no lasers will come out of their cannons.
This should help making dogfights last longer.

Also, there is another problem with the current AI: it is deadly precise. The AI can calculate where the lead indicator is, aims there and shoots. Only by swerving like crazy can another ship avoid that shot.
While this sounds okay for Top Ace AIs, I think the lower ranked AIs should somehow be worse at aiming.
There are several ways to accomplish this, (like adding an intentional error to their calculation, that is inversely proportional to their AI rank), but I needs to experiment with it.

Finally, I have detected that in the original sometimes AI ships swerve when you start shooting at them. Even before they are hit. I guess they detect the precision of the opponent's aim, and react by evading. I guess I could program that also, but I would like confirmation from other people before doing this. Only Aces and Top Aces seem to perform these preventive evades, though.

I'd like to throw out a few things on the AI. This is all in regards to the Collector CD version of X-Wing, which I've played through completely several times recently.

First, the AI don't "spray" their fire. In fact, they don't lead at all. The reason dogfights last so long is that the AI must be directly behind or ahead of a ship to hit, or close enough to where the speed of the lasers makes up the difference. You can observe this by getting a few TIE Fighters behind you and pushing the nose slightly up or down. The lasers will all pass just below or above you.

Second, more than three AI can attack something at once. In the missions where you need to defend cruisers, for example, flight groups of up to six TIE Bombers will shoot at the target if left undisturbed. You can also, of course, order a flight group of more than three to attack a target, which they will. There's also that mission in the A-Wing where the Rebel freighter gets ambushed by ISD Badi Dea - in the beginning you go up against nine basic TIEs, many of which can be shooting you at once. There are countless other examples.

Anyway, these are just my observations as a seasoned player.

Thanks a lot for that evidence!
So I guess the restriction was lifted from the floppy version to the CD version?
Do ALL ships aim at the target ship instead of at the target lead? Even the higher ranked AIs?
If that is so, then indeed it would lower the difficulty quite a lot.

Can you please tell what is taht mission about defending cruisers? I would like to see the 6 bombers thing.
Are you sure that it is not the case that they are taking, like, turns to shoot?