| Re: Item.Mass - should this be an abstract property? |
Tue, 14 February 2012 13:32   |
|
 Daniel |
 | |
Messages: 179
Registered: April 2006
Location: Nowra, Australia | |
|
I am thinking of something like this: https://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/stars-nova/index.php? title=File:Nova_game_object_proposal.png
I have left out all the component/component properties as that seems fine to me (but then, I built that.)
I am also not concerned with Hull, HullModule or StarList.
That leaves the current objects: Item, Design, ShipDesign, Ship, Fleet, Star, MineField.
I think we need to keep Star, ShipDesign, and Minefield in much the same form they are currently.
I think that Fleet could take on a couple of extra properties to track shield and armour damage in order to get rid of Ship. Damage is not managed per ship in Stars! However an argument could be made for keeping Ship in order to allow for future expansion. In that case it would descend from GameObject.
I have retained Design, however I put a question mark over it because the only things that use design appart from ShipDesign are planetary installations. Mass and key are not really relevant to these and the planetary installations could be refactored as properties of Star.
I have split Item into GameObject and MappableObject. This removes the Mass property from Star, Fleet and MineField. Whilst all these things could have a mass, it is irrelevant for Star and MineField and is calculated for Fleet (can not be set). This scheme also removes position from those objects which are not tracked on the map.
Ideas/recommendations?
Have fun.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
