re:Sounds (was Re: Environment variables of client)

["tuan (t.) doan" <tdoan@bnr.ca>]

In message "Sounds (was Re: Environment variables of client)", 
'Raphael.Quinet@eed.ericsson.se' writes:

>The first improvement would be to re-write the syntax of the "lib/sounds"
>file which defines which sound has to be played when some event occurs.
>Instead of relying on the entries to be in a fixed order, I would use symbolic
>names for each type of event.  For example, the new file could have lines
>like these:
>  hit door = crush.au, 80         # <Event type> = <sound name>, <volume (%)>
>  hit ennemy = tap2.au, 100
>  small fireball = Whoosh.au, 70
>  large fireball = Whoosh.au, 100
>It would then be easier to maintain this file, and it wouldn't be a problem
>if the number of spells changes.

I would like to added to the format the number of times (or looping).  For
example,

magic missiles = 3, Whoosh.au, 50

or better yet, able to specified as many sounds to a particular action

comet = Whoosh.au, 70; Boom.au, 100

>Another improvement would be to use "environmental" sounds; that would add
>a lot to the atmosphere.  Those who have played games like Hexen know what I
>mean.  It should be possible to add some new "sound" archetypes that can be
>placed on a map and play sounds from time to time.  For example, a player
>could hear the water dripping if he/she comes near a pit, owls crying in the
>forest, bells ringing in the church, etc.  The new proposal for "weather
>effects" would also be a great way to add environmental sounds: a storm could
>make a lot of noise.  And of course, the monsters could be noisy too.

This would be great; but make sure that the volume is low (or at least settable
by the user)

>I have several other ideas and I know how to add some of them to the code,
>but I don't want to add this to the current code.  It would be much easier
>to write and to maintain the new sounds code if CrossFire was really split
>between a client and a server, like this was discussed some time ago.  Will
>this ever be done?
>
>-Raphael

It's great to see that proposals for "better" crossfire comes in many 
directions.