Announcing New Horizons Remastered - Bringing our best work to Unity

[Homo eructus]

Do you aim to have greater character customization? Being able to change clothes or hats without having to switch to a different character model?

 

[Thiil]

I just want to point out that there is no use in reporting anything regarding thoughts on the current graphics or looks. That is not the focus atm, and wont be until later in the development.
Tuning such things is never the focus while in such a stage of development. Any real wish for beautification can be held off til we ask for it

The current focus is ONLY mechanics, and working on the assets/locations

As for mechanics:
- Not being able to jump in 2017 is dull
- Ship speed?!?!?! How does it take 5 minutes to get out there? (Sure sure, "realism" and stuff, but it's unfun with current ship speeds)

 

[fjx]

Wonderful news, I have a problem though. After unzippping the archive and trying to run the exe file, it says this application won't run on my computer and I should contact the software publisher (I have win 10)

 

[Jones]

Wonderful news, I have a problem though. After unzippping the archive and trying to run the exe file, it says this application won't run on my computer and I should contact the software publisher (I have win 10)

Is this a compatibility problem?
If so, try using the following method:
Right click on the Program
Click on Properties
Click on Compatibility tab
Select Run this program in compatibility mode and select Windows Vista or whatever operating system the program was running successfully.

 

[Pieter Boelen]

Is all the story line from POTC & NEW HORIZON included in it? Or any new? I had read the details but little confused. And full version?

This is still a very basic version.
No quest content yet.

Do you aim to have greater character customization? Being able to change clothes or hats without having to switch to a different character model?

First step is to replicate PotC functionality.
Improvements such as that may eventually be added if somebody makes it happen.
But it isn't the focus for now.

As for mechanics:
- Not being able to jump in 2017 is dull
- Ship speed?!?!?! How does it take 5 minutes to get out there? (Sure sure, "realism" and stuff, but it's unfun with current ship speeds)

My brother noted the same two things.
He really missed the "time compression" button and I can understand why.
I'm sure this will be improved on soon enough.

 

[fjx]

Is this a compatibility problem?
If so, try using the following method:
Right click on the Program
Click on Properties
Click on Compatibility tab
Select Run this program in compatibility mode and select Windows Vista or whatever operating system the program was running successfully.

Thanks, it was failed download's fault.

 

[Armada]

As for mechanics:
- Not being able to jump in 2017 is dull
- Ship speed?!?!?! How does it take 5 minutes to get out there? (Sure sure, "realism" and stuff, but it's unfun with current ship speeds)

Jumping wouldn't serve any purpose in the current locations, since they weren't designed for it. Unless we want to include platforming, I don't really see a point to including jumping, but that's not to say it won't be included eventually.

As for ship speed, that's just down to the low wind speed in the demo. It currently uses a very crude calculation so that a ship will reach its maximum speed when the wind speed is double that and coming from behind. The demo ship has the same stats as its PotC:NH version (top speed of 13 knots), but it can't reach that with the fixed wind in this release. We'll be making improvements to this system in subsequent releases, including a time compression option.

 

[ELDYLO]

I will be watching this Game's development with great interest.

 

[Captain Murphy]

I'll be real blunt here, ANY mechanic that does not strictly exist in the current game design for PotC and NH will not be added to the initial build of the game. No jumping, no climbing, no swimming, no uber-awesome-feature-that-will-make-the-game-great, etc. We are NOT repeating HoO and the massive scope creep that plagued the project. Until this is at 1.0 with all of the base locations, base quest mechanics, and base combat mechanics we will not be putting anything on the board that does not currently have a place in the original games.

 

[Hylie Pistof]

I tried the demo and it is pretty good for a start!

It seems to be locked at 60fps, which is fine for now. It does look smooth enough.

There is one thing that POTC is very good at and that is how the characters go up and down stairs. Most AAA games aren't very good there at all and POTC really shines there. How hard would it be to add that animation?

For some reason I could not get onto the ship. I could walk to the end of the pier and the icon would appear but no button I tried did anything. It has been a long time since I played and I might have simply forgotten which button it is.

The music is pretty loud in my system.

 

[Captain Murphy]

I tried the demo and it is pretty good for a start!

It seems to be locked at 60fps, which is fine for now. It does look smooth enough.

There is one thing that POTC is very good at and that is how the characters go up and down stairs. Most AAA games aren't very good there at all and POTC really shines there. How hard would it be to add that animation?

For some reason I could not get onto the ship. I could walk to the end of the pier and the icon would appear but no button I tried did anything. It has been a long time since I played and I might have simply forgotten which button it is.

The music is pretty loud in my system.

F3 is the button to travel somewhere in the hotbar. We mimicked the PotC controls for now until we can rewire them a bit better.

 

[Pieter Boelen]

F3 is the button to travel somewhere in the hotbar. We mimicked the PotC controls for now until we can rewire them a bit better.

Just so you know, thanks to @Jack Rackham, PotC does now accept the Spacebar for such reloads too.

I'll be real blunt here, ANY mechanic that does not strictly exist in the current game design for PotC and NH will not be added to the initial build of the game. No jumping, no climbing, no swimming, no uber-awesome-feature-that-will-make-the-game-great, etc. We are NOT repeating HoO and the massive scope creep that plagued the project.

Very, VERY wise.
The smaller the scope, the higher the success!

PotC does have swimming though, but just on the water surface.

 

[Homo eructus]

True. As my fencing instructor says: A small target means a small error margin.

 

[Pieter Boelen]

We are coming to a point that we need to decide if we are going to go open or closed source on the project and I can see advantages and disadvantages to both routes. Any discussion on that?

Just to clarify:
- "Closed source" does not necessarily mean "commercial/pay-to-play", right?
- To what extent can "closed source" still be moddable by anyone? And how much complexity does modding support add to the development?
- Switching TO "closed source" is an easy thing to do, right? But I imagine going back to "open source" would be far more difficult, if not impossible.
- What would be the main advantages/disadvantages of both scenarios?

Is that correct?

Just an idea:

Spoiler

Maybe it is an option to remain "open source" for a period of time, to get more people actively involved in development.
Then if that seems to work out, the game can remain "open source" for the foreseeable future.
But if I understand correctly, going "closed source" allows using more pre-made assets, which could speed up development.
So if "open source" development is too slow, then a (mostly irreversible) decision can be made to go to "closed source".
Hopefully that "open source" period would establish a team of people who are willing to work together to so what needs to be done.
Those actively contributing people can be the ones who maintain access to the "closed source", while other people would end up being "locked out".

To make this more specific, perhaps it would be worthwhile to set milestones with accompanying dates.
For example:
v0.1 to include AI for the enemy ship and ships sinking - To be ready by 30 Sep 2017
v0.2 to include a second Sailing Mode island and a WorldMap linking the two - To be ready by 31 Oct 2017
v0.3 to include some measure of dialog system - To be ready by 30 Nov 2017
v0.4 to include some measure of quest system - To be ready by 31 Dec 2017

Maybe even define TWO sets of milestones:
One set (#1) that can be accomplished with the current development team and another that relies on extra people (#2).
Count every time the deadline for #2 is not reached because the needed external support did not materialize.
If #2 is not met 10 times in a row, decide to go to "closed source".

If the above is defined well in advance and known in public,
hopefully that gives an incentive for people to focus primarily on that set plan.
Especially this early in development, it is very important to do what needs doing and get all the base functionality working.
Once all that is in place, people could start working on "what they feel like". But not before.

I'll be real blunt here, ANY mechanic that does not strictly exist in the current game design for PotC and NH will not be added to the initial build of the game. No jumping, no climbing, no swimming, no uber-awesome-feature-that-will-make-the-game-great, etc. We are NOT repeating HoO and the massive scope creep that plagued the project.

Bonus thought:

Spoiler

I imagine the ideal situation would be for a small team to focus on replicating the current game design for PotC and NH.
But I imagine that if somebody else decides to try something out of scope and manages to do that, it can be included too.
So we don't necessarily rule out "uber-awesome-feature-that-will-make-the-game-great", but their inclusion would be conditional on the person suggesting it finding somebody to actually make it happen.
That "somebody" would, by definition, NOT be somebody on the "small base team".
The responsibility for the inclusion of bonus features therefore lies on the person suggesting them and NOT the development team.

Would that sound reasonable?

 

[Carl]

I'll be real blunt here, ANY mechanic that does not strictly exist in the current game design for PotC and NH will not be added to the initial build of the game. No jumping, no climbing, no swimming, no uber-awesome-feature-that-will-make-the-game-great, etc. We are NOT repeating HoO and the massive scope creep that plagued the project. Until this is at 1.0 with all of the base locations, base quest mechanics, and base combat mechanics we will not be putting anything on the board that does not currently have a place in the original games.

This sounds wise. I would be totally happy to be able to play the "original" New Horizon in a more modern shape, nothing else, nothing more. And if I see it right, then the new engine is capable to improve things later on. And if I look to the development of New Horizons - well, there aren´t many teams out there, who worked for such a long time on a mod than the New Horizon team. I am totally trustful, that this new project will become the most exiting naval game ever! Keep it on, guys, it´s simply awesome since years!

 

[fjx]

Well, another thing, stuff works and, graphics are sharp, game runs smoothly, but I can't seem to get any option to board a ship at any pier (no icons). The thing I like the most is the ability to scale the terrain objects which were impossible to walk on in POTC like carts, boats, beach in port or grass areas, that really adds an open world feeling. Hope to see more of this brilliant stuff in the future, much respect and thanks to all contributing.

 

[Pieter Boelen]

Well, another thing, stuff works and, graphics are sharp, game runs smoothly, but I can't seem to get any option to board a ship at any pier (no icons).

The location where the player is loaded should be the spot where you can reload to sea.
I only tested it for a very short time and don't remember if a reload icon appeared.
But try to walk on/off that pier a few times and press F3 at the edge to see if you can convince it to work.
Feedback on the sailing part would be welcome too, I think.

 

[Captain Murphy]

Just to clarify:
- "Closed source" does not necessarily mean "commercial/pay-to-play", right?
- To what extent can "closed source" still be moddable by anyone? And how much complexity does modding support add to the development?
- Switching TO "closed source" is an easy thing to do, right? But I imagine going back to "open source" would be far more difficult, if not impossible.
- What would be the main advantages/disadvantages of both scenarios?

Is that correct?

Just an idea:

Spoiler

Maybe it is an option to remain "open source" for a period of time, to get more people actively involved in development.
Then if that seems to work out, the game can remain "open source" for the foreseeable future.
But if I understand correctly, going "closed source" allows using more pre-made assets, which could speed up development.
So if "open source" development is too slow, then a (mostly irreversible) decision can be made to go to "closed source".
Hopefully that "open source" period would establish a team of people who are willing to work together to so what needs to be done.
Those actively contributing people can be the ones who maintain access to the "closed source", while other people would end up being "locked out".

To make this more specific, perhaps it would be worthwhile to set milestones with accompanying dates.
For example:
v0.1 to include AI for the enemy ship and ships sinking - To be ready by 30 Sep 2017
v0.2 to include a second Sailing Mode island and a WorldMap linking the two - To be ready by 31 Oct 2017
v0.3 to include some measure of dialog system - To be ready by 30 Nov 2017
v0.4 to include some measure of quest system - To be ready by 31 Dec 2017

Maybe even define TWO sets of milestones:
One set (#1) that can be accomplished with the current development team and another that relies on extra people (#2).
Count every time the deadline for #2 is not reached because the needed external support did not materialize.
If #2 is not met 10 times in a row, decide to go to "closed source".

If the above is defined well in advance and known in public,
hopefully that gives an incentive for people to focus primarily on that set plan.
Especially this early in development, it is very important to do what needs doing and get all the base functionality working.
Once all that is in place, people could start working on "what they feel like". But not before.

Bonus thought:

Spoiler

I imagine the ideal situation would be for a small team to focus on replicating the current game design for PotC and NH.
But I imagine that if somebody else decides to try something out of scope and manages to do that, it can be included too.
So we don't necessarily rule out "uber-awesome-feature-that-will-make-the-game-great", but their inclusion would be conditional on the person suggesting it finding somebody to actually make it happen.
That "somebody" would, by definition, NOT be somebody on the "small base team".
The responsibility for the inclusion of bonus features therefore lies on the person suggesting them and NOT the development team.

Would that sound reasonable?

Good questions, I'll clarify what I mean with open and closed source and try to outline their advantages (A) /disadvantages (and risks) (D/R).

Open source - Code freely available on a repository that allows for free and open usage (under a license) and contribution

• A - Anyone can download the base code
• D/R - Anyone can download the code and sell the end result under their own name, we all know someone WILL do it
• A - Possibly more input on the code from community coders/asset makers
• D - Limited number of assets available, limited to free versions of assets or ones with no licensing
• D - Slower development, all systems have to be written from scratch
• D - High risk of malicious code added to project and released as an 'official build'.
• A - the 'official' build could be a closed source version that is just built on top of the open source base, so we can have paid assets in the 'official' build and leave the rest open for users to play with.

Open source sounds great in theory but can become problematic. It also opens the code up to be taken and used by anyone that wants to. After having been immersed in the game dev world for the past couple of years I see it all the time with an asset flip where they change a few details of an open source project and sell it until they get caught. A downside is it can end up with tons of splinter versions too. You will see a thousand knock offs that use the same base but convert the game to their own style and pass it off as the original.​

Closed Source - Code is behind a wall of some sort. Only 'authorized' users are allowed to have access to the 'core' of the game through community/moderator approval.

• A - Code structure can be kept up to specific standards
• A - Code can be obfuscated to minimize theft of IP
• A - Allows access to my considerable library of assets
• A - Rapid development, I have everything needed for the game in asset form
• D - Possibly less direct contribution
• D - Less transparent development process
• A - Pieces of the core code can be left open source, while the rest of the project is still closed source.

Closed source means faster development, more varied asset possibilities, tighter control over the code base, and more direct control of the project. It also means less contribution to the 'core' of the code, which I will explain in shortly.
​

Now, what does Open vs Closed source mean for modding?

Open - Modders can simply add their code to the codebase and build their own game. Could mean some impressive mods made for the game, but also allows modder to break everything and require more support from core developers to get it working.

Closed - Mod development would be done through a modding system built into the core. It would be much more limited (can't do things like delete the hard drive or such). Adding things like ships, locations, characters, items, etc would be through a framework of code that gives them access to all of the existing items already there plus allows for adding new items in, including limited code support.
​

My thought it to do a hybrid of the two. We make a version that is entirely open source, can be built as is using all open source assets and code. But the 'official' version can use paid assets in place of the open source assets for a more refined and 'clean' look as well as being branded the 'official' build. This way we still let people put their mods and code into an open project with git pushes but have more control over what is added to the 'official' version that gets pushed out on the mod sites under the PA! name and logo.

 

[Pieter Boelen]

Thanks, @Captain Murphy.

Then some more questions:
1. How easy/hard is it to add "modding support" to the 'official' version? How much modding would be possible?
2. How much extra work would it be to maintain two code bases at the same time, one "open source" and one "'official' closed source"?
3. For "closed source", how would it be decided who gets access and who does not?

You definitely have a lot of very valid points there.
It actually matches relatively well with what I had hoped to get going with PotC:NH,
to have one person in charge of sticking all experimental code into an "alpha" mod
and have another person in charge of a more polished official version.
I do believe that could make for a very workable situation, but does rely on having the manpower to pull it off.

To clarify on my other question: If I read your answer correctly, "closed source" has nothing to do with "commercial/pay-for-play".

 

[Legendary_Spider]

That input problem sounds familiar. Did you have that problem playing an old HoO build, or possibly the NH mod?

As for the cannons, does that only apply to the bow chasers, or all sides?

Only the bow. Didn't test the stern. And I never played any of the HoO builds.