Hard Light Productions Forums
Modding, Mission Design, and Coding => FS2 Open Coding - The Source Code Project (SCP) => Topic started by: petmar on May 06, 2003, 07:56:30 pm
-
Ok... so i'm a newbie... i'm also a physics major. I've got several problems with game physics in FS2 v.1.2 that i was hoping might be worked out...
1. Node collapse: i understand it's a cut scene, but emperor has assured me that this is being revamped to be in-game. This should put out a spacetime shockwave that should destroy anything within at least 5-10 klicks.
2. Asteroid fields: These should all be active. Asteroids are loose mass, and so are attracted to the most massive things in the area. This might include things on your escort list, however, it may not, as well. Therefore, all objects should have swarms of asteroids on them, and the smaller ones are the ones to be concerned about. This is because of the simple fact that small objects brought up to high speeds by massive gravitational fields will induce massive damage. Think rail gun, folks.
3. Stars: I remember this one time i was playing X-Wing... back in the early days... and I flew into a star. Yes, i know it sounds ridiculous, but there was gravity, and it actually incinerated me! Why not make gravity active, and allow star modification?
This is petmar the newbie, signing off. *click*
-
Don't leave! You inspired me and a lot of people. We could use a person like you to steer is in the right direction to for your ideas.
-
Originally posted by petmar
1. Node collapse: i understand it's a cut scene, but emperor has assured me that this is being revamped to be in-game. This should put out a spacetime shockwave that should destroy anything within at least 5-10 klicks.
While this is a good idea, it can be done without using the source code, simple in-Fred explosion change.
2. Asteroid fields: These should all be active. Asteroids are loose mass, and so are attracted to the most massive things in the area. This might include things on your escort list, however, it may not, as well. Therefore, all objects should have swarms of asteroids on them, and the smaller ones are the ones to be concerned about. This is because of the simple fact that small objects brought up to high speeds by massive gravitational fields will induce massive damage. Think rail gun, folks.
Yes, gravity does accelerate all things after all, but gravity is a funny thing to implement. While a shortcut would simply be classifying asteriods as "big" and "small" (the ones that are "big" would take a random direction and the ones that are "small" would home in on the ones that are "big" and or nearby vessels), this would severely alter gameplay and balancing for some current missions that rely on asteriod fields being passive.
3. Stars: I remember this one time i was playing X-Wing... back in the early days... and I flew into a star. Yes, i know it sounds ridiculous, but there was gravity, and it actually incinerated me! Why not make gravity active, and allow star modification?
Stars in FS2 are just bitmaps rendered as background, you're not supposed to be able to get close enough to them anyway and you're supposed to be occupied with other matters ;)
Welcome to HLP by the way :D
-
wait, you flew into a star playing X-Wing? I didn't think that was possible.
-
Is there boundary to each level? For instance, can you actually go to the third Knossos which is over 100 clicks out?
-
yes, there's a 60km box around the Level IIRC. Leave it and Command tells you to come back. Don't do it, and you die.
-
How do you die?
(For the record... IIRC I went over half way to that node before I gave up. I guess command had no way of contacting me or Snipes. Covert Ops remember...)
-
you explode.
and uh, it shouldn't have taken you more than 5 minutes tops. Turn on Time compression and give all power to engines.
-
I'm not stupid yah know... Besides I was doing the multiplayer version of it.
(Does anyone know where I can find the Red "Shivan" Knossos?
-
Originally posted by LLivingLarge
Does anyone know where I can find the Red "Shivan" Knossos?
http://archives.volitionwatch.com - try the Derelict pack if you can't find an individual mod :nod:
-
Originally posted by LLivingLarge
How do you die?78
to be accurate, I'll quote the game:
"Alpha1 died from a collision with Alpha1" ( no, no typo )
isn't that cool? :D
-
Originally posted by petmar
2. Asteroid fields: These should all be active. Asteroids are loose mass, and so are attracted to the most massive things in the area. This might include things on your escort list, however, it may not, as well. Therefore, all objects should have swarms of asteroids on them, and the smaller ones are the ones to be concerned about. This is because of the simple fact that small objects brought up to high speeds by massive gravitational fields will induce massive damage. Think rail gun, folks.
1) In real life you don't ever get asteroid fields that dense anyway so if you're being realistic you should get rid of the entire asteroid field and put 1 single asteroids in the entire mission.
2)As for gravity pulling the asteriods towards ships that's a little unlikely. The size the asteroids are they aren't going to be attracted towards ships by any significant degree. Let me put it this way do you see skyscrapers pulled towards each other by their gravitational pull do you? Yet they are bigger than many of the asteroids.
The idea is that the ship just happens to be in the path of the asteroids orbit. Yep I know that's nonsense considering that the asteroids are all travelling in different directions but asteroid fields look good so I'm using them as is. :D
Originally posted by petmar
3. Stars: I remember this one time i was playing X-Wing... back in the early days... and I flew into a star. Yes, i know it sounds ridiculous, but there was gravity, and it actually incinerated me! Why not make gravity active, and allow star modification?
While you can write a mission where the heat of a star will eventually melt your ship I doubt that the distance you can cover in a FS2 mission would make a difference one way or another. You can only travel a few kilometres before you get blown up for desertion anyway and I really don't think that would be enough. If you're close enough to the instant incineration point that it's 10,000m away then at the point you're at you'd be incenerated after maybe 5 seconds exposure. You simply can't write a working mission that close to a star.
Just move further out and simply do a timed mission
"..Alpha you've only got 5 minutes before the heat sinks on your craft fail and incenerate you.."
The same goes for gravity for planets. Some people want to run missions where if you get too close to planet X or a a black hole X you automatically die cause you're pulled in.
What they are of course forgetting is that gravity doesn't magically start working at a certain distance.
If the gravity at point X is so large you can't escape then the gravity 10,000m away will probably be so large that you're barely moving away.
If you want either of these features and you get someone to add them in (they better be optional though) go ahead but don't kid yourself that they are more realistic cause I really don't think they are.
Anyway welcome to HLP and sorry for the Trial by Fire :)
-
Thanks for keeping the channel open. Also, I've spotted some more inconsistencies which could either be classified as physics violations or game bugs:
1. Thrust: The fighters aren't pushed back by kinetic weapons or missile launches. Why is this?
2. Spin: If you shoot at one side of something with a kinetic weapon or missile, it will be pushed back, but not spin. In this case, why doesn't the target get spun and wind up facing a different direction except if the shots are dead center?
3. Momentum Conservation: Why doesn't the ship keep going after it's given thrust and the engines are shut down? An object in space should keep moving, and not come to a stop until a force is exerted upon it. That's classical mechanics.
4. Reverse: Why can't I back up?
-
1,2,3,4: coz FS2 is an arcade game, not an accurate simulation :)
-
Too bad... I mean, we have the technology... We can make it better, stronger, faster!
But seriously, with even a PII class processor you could probably simulate that stuff. If we have gamers with powerful machines, why not try for accuracy?
-
well, I agree, I think all that would be very cool, I was just stating a fact :)
-
Originally posted by petmar
Thanks for keeping the channel open. Also, I've spotted some more inconsistencies which could either be classified as physics violations or game bugs:
1. Thrust: The fighters aren't pushed back by kinetic weapons or missile launches. Why is this?
2. Spin: If you shoot at one side of something with a kinetic weapon or missile, it will be pushed back, but not spin. In this case, why doesn't the target get spun and wind up facing a different direction except if the shots are dead center?
3. Momentum Conservation: Why doesn't the ship keep going after it's given thrust and the engines are shut down? An object in space should keep moving, and not come to a stop until a force is exerted upon it. That's classical mechanics.
4. Reverse: Why can't I back up?
1: Ever try the morning star? :wtf:
2: You contradict yourself.
3: This has been a Space-Sim standard for years.
It gnerally wouldn't be the same game if it were 'real'
4: I do agree with this. Even freelancer lets you use your thrusters to some degree.
-
That's like wishing all FS2 ships had dorsal and ventral stabilizers.
-
1: The fighter's moving pretty fast, and the projectiles have to be fairly small...thus, the third law isn't going to apply so much
2: It's a small thing, and it would be doubly aggravating for players hit by a Morning Star. It probably just wasn't programmed in due to low priority
3: Freespace-physics ;)
4: It raises a whole slew of questions (Are reverse-engine points needed? Do all ships have it? How fast can ships back up? Can you use your thrusters to brake?) but I'd like to see this...it probably wasn't deemed necessary enough to take the time to code it in for FS2.
-
btw, considering some ships can strafe left/right and up/down, it would make sense they could fly back too...
but all that is a pain to use with a joystick ( hence my mouse control request, btw ).
-
Originally posted by Venom
btw, considering some ships can strafe left/right and up/down, it would make sense they could fly back too...
but all that is a pain to use with a joystick ( hence my mouse control request, btw ).
Ever play Descent? ;7
I think what he was asking in Q1 was, if you're sitting still and firing your Morning Star, why don't you get pushed backwards?
-
We should all be thankful FS2 isn't based on a realistic flight model. Try Elite 2, which has just that, and see just how cumbersome dogfighting is. So from a point of wanting the game to be fun, freespace physics beat real physics. And without a doubt it IS fun, thus it aint broke, and we don't need it fixed :D
-
Originally posted by Exarch
We should all be thankful FS2 isn't based on a realistic flight model. Try Elite 2, which has just that, and see just how cumbersome dogfighting is. So from a point of wanting the game to be fun, freespace physics beat real physics. And without a doubt it IS fun, thus it aint broke, and we don't need it fixed :D
Or try the transcendent Iwar2 where you have a realistic flight model and dogfights are an elaborate and graceful dance.
Of course, most of you arcade pilots don't stand a chance when real physics are in play. ;)
-
Originally posted by GalacticEmperor
Ever play Descent? ;7
I think what he was asking in Q1 was, if you're sitting still and firing your Morning Star, why don't you get pushed backwards?
That's exactly what I meant. Also, about the spin question, i mean that if you fire at the port wing of a seth that's playing dead with a morningstar, the entire ship moves in the same direction, instead of pivoting about its center of mass. This also extrapolates to all other ships and scenarios, except when the ship is already spinning.
-
Your point is valid but moot in context that FS2 uses its own physics.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Or try the transcendent Iwar2 where you have a realistic flight model and dogfights are an elaborate and graceful dance.
Of course, most of you arcade pilots don't stand a chance when real physics are in play. ;)
I agree, but, the main point is that we have clear physics violations that make some parts of the game unbelieveable.
HOWEVER... I also want to congratulate and thank the people involved both with the supernova subscripting and thank volition for its foresight in a few issues, such as the supernova which is totally physically accurate (the first shockwave is lesser in total damage than the second, the first is stellar atmosphere, the second is the fusion core matter, which is mainly superheated superfluidic iron), and also collisions, which actually give the proper reverse velocities.
I didn't start this topic to criticize the game negatively, I just mean to suggest some ways of improving it. So, in that case, please post replies and physics questions as often as you like!
-
I have always been a bit urket at the way the physics is aplyed to rotateing ships, namely that if you hit a ship with some mega wackamatron 5000 and the ship trys to turn rather than flying back in the direction you hit it it will act like a car in revers gear going back in it's frame of reference rather than the global frame
-
Where does it say that fs2 ships don't have reverse thrusters to come to a complete stop? You don't have to see them or control them, it could be automaticly, so.....
If that's the case that there is no physcs violation...
And it does make sense...you could make a space-fighter that moves just like a standard atmospheric one.... you just need a bunch of ai controlled thrusters.....
-
Originally posted by GalacticEmperor
Ever play Descent? ;7
I think what he was asking in Q1 was, if you're sitting still and firing your Morning Star, why don't you get pushed backwards?
well yeah, obviously... never heard about my old Descent campaign for FS2? :p
-
Speaking of Descent... What was that "Use Descent Physics" code that Volition slipped in?
-
Documentation note: Is there anyone out there on the source project who knows where exactly to find the physics engine in this maze of code that we call our beloved FS2?
-
Originally posted by petmar
Documentation note: Is there anyone out there on the source project who knows where exactly to find the physics engine in this maze of code that we call our beloved FS2?
http://fs2source.warpcore.org/guided_tour.txt
- The physics library is pretty well partitioned and lives in its own little
world. If you want to add newtonian motion, that's where you'd start.
Probably in the physics folder.
-
thanks alot!
-
"Sound cannot travel through vacuum. It requires a medium."
This would make the game pretty boring, without sound and all. But realistically, sound in space is non-existent. In nebulas, however, sound can exist due to the presence of a medium (ionized particles).
-
This is true, and I was hoping that someone would point this out.
However, though fs2 suffers from the star wars sound syndrome, I believe that it might be explained by saying that there are optical sensor on the fighters that re-interpret light as sound and put it through to a speakers in the cockpit, so that the pilot could be alerted to something coming from any given side.
-
Most of the gun weapons in fs2 are energy based. Now, since we know that this makes them light-based weapons, that means that we should only be able to see them upon impact. Unless the craft have quantum-interlace sensors that can detect and show things faster than the speed of light, which they probably don't, gun fire should NOT be visible! Also, this might make swerving to avoid anything but missiles a bit more interesting.
While we're on the topic, though, why not try to make the levels of difficulty more and more realistic, since they'd be harder and harder as they approached realism?
-
well, a blop of plasma wqould still be visible, but i know most wepaons should be insvible, but hey, i would a lot rather be shooting something i can see then invisible super realistic wepaons.
and invisible weapons should be easy to make, just a pain in the *** to use though, aiming will be very, very hard.
-
Originally posted by kasperl
well, a blop of plasma wqould still be visible, but i know most wepaons should be insvible, but hey, i would a lot rather be shooting something i can see then invisible super realistic wepaons.
and invisible weapons should be easy to make, just a pain in the *** to use though, aiming will be very, very hard.
That's why I think they should be used under the higher difficulty levels. However, the plasma idea works, as would ion and magnetic field perpetuators (advanced rail gun designs).
-
No.
You ever played a sim with invisible bullets? I bet not. Wanna know why? They suck ass. It's ugly as ****, and that's the kind of **** involving those land whales you see at McDonald's. It looks like the game was done by a four-year-old, makes it hard to aim while in a close dogfight, means that you can't see what's going on at any given minute in combat, and is frickin' hideous. All right? Realism is one thing, but if you want to take it to the extent where it detracts from gameplay, go play Orbiter.
Fact, with a little model tinkering right now you can see it yourself. And it truly is the most godawful looking thing you will ever see in FreeSpace short of an entire TC of untextured superpowerful cubes named "TeH DeStRoIeRR!!!!11!1!"
-
As I had stated earlier... that's why I think they should specifically be said to be rail-based or plasma/ion-based guns.
-
I've been talking to 'Emperor again, and we've decided that the only real problem with weapon systems is the anti-fighter beams. Imagine you're looking at a laser pointer. The only way to see it is by reflection off its target or by pointing it through particles, i.e. dust and/or fog. The beams just need to not be visible on the side.
And, also, let's not get into a realists/arcadists rift in this thread, k, people? I don't want two camps on any given issue... I'd like to all take objective perspectives.
-
Beams aren't lasers.
-
I am presently working on slightly modifying the physics library to account for newtonian and keplerian physics... Calling all coders interested in helping!
-
IIRC, if you were to change around the physics so it would be real, you would also have to change around some of the ai code. the ai doesn't seem to like making head on passes as opposed to a turning fight and the former would be seen much more often in such an environment. a semi-skilled pilot could pull some maneuvers that would make it real easy to kill hordes of maras on insane
-
Well, why don't we try the mods first, then we'll see what changes propagate outwards that we need to fix?
-
seems reasonable. just make sure there is an option somewhere to make it use arcade physics again
-
The best thing to do, it seems, is to make another branch. After 3.6 is out with all the bugfixes, Petmar can start on his own version with Real™ physics.
-
Originally posted by petmar
I am presently working on slightly modifying the physics library to account for newtonian and keplerian physics... Calling all coders interested in helping!
Woah, hold on there a minute. When you say "to account for", do you mean you're replacing Freespace physics with newtonian physics, or making it toggleable between the two? I haven't seen much support for your ideas so far (Out of a community of 500). I don't see anything wrong if you're making everything optional and off by default (More options are good :D), but actually changing the physics engine wholesale is almost certainly going to spark protest.
Oh, and a while back there was some discussion on making it possible to have turrets face sideways...IIRC, there was some major physics reworking that would be needed in order to make it work. Since you'll already be digging around in the physics code, you might be able to modify some stuff to make it easier for a more determined attempt. (WARNING: I have done almost no research whatsoever on this. ;) )
Edit to replies: Actually, IMHO, realistic physics should be toggleable on a per-mission basis
-
Wasn't there a www.freespace2.com code in the game for Descent physics?
-
Excellent ideas, all! I'll definitely sortie one of my minions to look into the turret rotation thing, and I'm going to want to be able to both toggle realPhys as a set, but also by separate attributes, such as weapon visibility and gravity, etc. Does that sound good to everybody?
-
Originally posted by petmar
Does that sound good to everybody?
Huh? Does it? Huh? Don't MAKE me do a poll! :ick
-
Weapon visibility is a mod thing, not a source thing.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Weapon visibility is a mod thing, not a source thing.
I should probably move this into general fs2, then, because this aspect will take on dimensions of both modding and coding... any suggestions about this, anyone?
-
Separate things. You make your own invisible-gun mod, or get someone to do it for you, and I think the gravity and such are already on the to-do list, but leave that here anyway.
-
This should have its own project forum.
-
wait a sec are you offering to code in newtonian physics code you're self,
oh hell yes!
just make it posable to swich between the 'normal' physics and the 'corect' physics, preferably on the fly, defanatly with a comand line option
-
The name of this topic sounds just like SETI@Home.
-
Originally posted by LLivingLarge
The name of this topic sounds just like SETI@Home.
physics@work... seti@home... Coincidence? We think not.
As for the coding, I have finals this week, so I can't really do that much, but I hope to have an .exe for the physics engine by the end of the month.
-
Hmm, interesting. I was thinking about this recently.
For some games currently under development which try to combine more realistic physics with great gameplay, check out Homeplanet (http://homeplanet.revoltgames.com/index.html) and Starshatter (http://www.starshatter.com/).
As to FS2, changing the physics engine significantly will essentially create an entire new game. By the time you're anywhere at all I suspect you'll havesomething half original. Not that I know anything about coding. Anyway, just wanted to say that realistic can be fun, and if you're going to go realistic, you may as well go all the way. I look foreward to hitting full thrust and going nowhere, then burning for too long and shooting past my enemies without exchanging a hit.
-
You know, it's always way more fun that way.:lol:
-
as for invisible weapons, her... no way. I like realism only when it doesn't detract away from the "coolness" factor. invisible weapons are just... well, lame. what's cool in a space battle is to see lasers flying everywhere, not just ships dying for no apparent reason.
-
Theres a a fine line between mechanical physics and gameplay, lets not forget this guys. Perfect example of impractical physics:
By all definitions in physics, fighters would remain accelerating as long as their engines are on. So you'd have to either cut out the thruster flames on fighters and capital ships when they're not acelerating up to speed / maneuvering, or you'd have to allow for constant and continuous aceleration, meaning fighters could go up to 8000ms just be keeping at full burn for a couple of minutes. This is gonna have to apply to afterburners as well.
-
I agree.
I like realism, but everything has it's limits...especially in the game...
-
Originally posted by LtNarol
By all definitions in physics, fighters would remain accelerating as long as their engines are on. So you'd have to either cut out the thruster flames on fighters and capital ships when they're not acelerating up to speed / maneuvering, or you'd have to allow for constant and continuous aceleration, meaning fighters could go up to 8000ms just be keeping at full burn for a couple of minutes. This is gonna have to apply to afterburners as well.
Well sure, why not? It's a hell of a lot harder to manouver when you're going at 8000 m/s, not to mention you'd have to spend just as much time decelerating (or turning around and hitting your burners again) in order to stop. You'd end up going out of control, so it's not like that's an advantage or disadvantage either way.
-
You know what I want to see? I want to see a 60 klick area box stand up to a newtonian physics engine. YEAH! :lol:
-
A bit off topic, but i do believe this is one of the funniest things I've ever seen...
(http://prodtn.cafepress.com/3/3676363_F_tn.jpg)
the Shivan Tote Bag!!! (http://www.cafeshops.com/freespace,freespace2,vasudan,hlp,ntf,holight,gtvi.3676363)
-
Originally posted by petmar
3. Momentum Conservation: Why doesn't the ship keep going after it's given thrust and the engines are shut down? An object in space should keep moving, and not come to a stop until a force is exerted upon it. That's classical mechanics.
Because FS ships have little blue thrusters that slow the ships down.
Don't believe me? Go have a look at the FS1 CBAni where the Poseidon picks up the shivan cargo with the shield technology in it. I couldn't believe nobody had ever noticed this when I first saw it...
BTW - don;t be rude guys - I see two newbs in this topic...
(http://members.cox.net/~wmcoolmon/images/welcome.gif)
There's a whole spil that goes with this, but I can;t be screwed looking for it. Exit, Seats, Shivans Flamethrowers, Hyperintelligent shades of the colour blue etc. etc.
BTW, I'm opposed to newtonian physics myself. 'Twould just screw with the winning FS2 formula, and probably screw up the AI in the process. But if it amuses you, go ahead. Twould make the TBP people happy anyway.
-
YES! We have and answer then! Thanks SO much...
That also explains the full stop option!
I think I'm going to plow through the source to see if there's a way to control that or turn it off.
Thanks again!
-
Originally posted by Black Wolf
BTW, I'm opposed to newtonian physics myself. 'Twould just screw with the winning FS2 formula, and probably screw up the AI in the process. But if it amuses you, go ahead. Twould make the TBP people happy anyway.[/color]
Actually I don't think it would. :) When ever the subject of newtonian physics in TBP comes up they always say "You want newtonian physics go bug the B5:IFH team instead." :)
-
Realism isn't necessarily a good or bad thing... however, I believe it should be an option. We don't have that option right now, but I believe we should, and that's what I intend to do... We have the resources... All I really need is for other people who want to have that option to tell me so, and work with me.
I almost feel like putting in an obligatory "So who's with me?!" *cue crickets* here...:lol:
Either way, though... e-mail me or post to that effect if you're interested in helping... at all.
-
And yes, I realize that though I'm a n00b, I already have some critics... And to them I say that I still enjoy arcade play... it's just that I think things are more... interesting... if they're more real.
-
I've got to ask. Ever tried I-war or I-war II? That sounds like the kind of game you're looking for.
-
Get I-War 1. EoC's purty as all hell, and does some neat tricks, but the main campaign's aggravating in the designed-by-trained-chimps sense, they overimplemented 3D, and it's semi-nonlinear anyway, which makes it kinda incompatible with FreeSpace thinking...
Hmm... I could go for a GTA condom hat, would be at least an interesting conversation piece...:D
-
Anyways... yeah... never played 'em. I just want to see what can be done with fs2 to allow for it!
Don't you love it when your sig is longer than your post? :lol:
-
Generally, if you want to make a game like another game, it's more efficient to just get that other game.;)
Newtonian physics are in the works, but at the moment they're too complicated and too controversial. I wouldn't mind them, either, but then there are lots of ways I'd like to see I-War's type of fighting model implemented better than it was. It would be a change that would require a change of everything else, essentially, and while that's cool it'd also mean enough of a change in gameplay that it would have to be in an optional separate strain of the SCP anyway. And hence, right now I don't think anyone's willing to do it yet. People are still basically exploring the limitations of the code and seeing how radically we can upgrade the game without having to change everything so massively.
And that generally means it's time for a sig shortening.
-
I am teh newbeh.
I have to agree that, for the community as a whole, the focus should be put on making Freespace better - not on creating a new game. Freespace is one type of flight sim, and this is entirely another. I enjoy both, and if we can start with FS2 and expand it so that we get not only some TCs, but indeed spinoff games, that would be a great long-term goal. But the whole source-code thing is still very new, so I emphasize long-term.
Just my $0.02
-
I'm not a noob. I'm a Cadet on HLP.
-
:lol: :lol:
-
there are a few things that better physics could be usefull for (like my example with kenetic weapons) but it should not dramaticly change the feel of the game
-
This isn't creating an entirely new game, this is creating a different physics engine to plug into the game. It will probably change the entire feel of it, yes, but it's not like it's manditory. It's just a fun option. :)
-
well, yeah, would be like checking the subspace or nebula thing in fred, instead, there, you check ( more ) real physics.
-
It would be the first game Ive heard to that switches between real and 'game' phusics by mission....:lol:
-
I'd say do it, and make it so both the player and the mission designer can choose what to use. This could add new aspects to the game.
And no one go into the type of whining that was in the beam peircing thread, or I'm unleashing the Hitchhiker Dude of Justice Mk. II.
-
I would like "real" physics in a space sim, except for one part, at least say the computer automatically stops the ship from turning, or the ship will just start spinning around like crazy if you tell it to turn.
Imagine some of the fun moves you could pull off with more real physics...
-
I'd say that could be prevented with computer controlled thrusters.
-
I seem to recall an earlier post where we had found that there were AI thrusters on the fighters...
I still haven't gotten into the code to find if they can be disabled though...
-
There aren't, that's just an explanation for why ships slow down if you need one. It's the physics model in actuality, that was a rationalization for how it could work.
-
Okay... so then it's the physics that has to be fixed, not the thrusters. So then we just have to implement proper momentum.
-
Weeell... sort of.
-
Actually there are thrusters!
Look at the Violition dev sketches...
One can see small thruster facing on all sides, but they didn't put them on the models (they were small, and high-poly looking)
They are AI cantrolled in the game universe, not really.... But it does explain the fighter movements.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
They are AI cantrolled in the game universe, not really.... But it does explain the fighter movements.
Thats what I always thought. A little bit of thruster control would be pretty cool as long as it doesn't F-up the general feel of the controls.
-
I think the whole newtonian physics idea is something that some people will simply hate, while others will adore it.
Why don't Freespace ships do any I-War like battle?
Subspace.
Who would try to srtike something that can jump out way before anything has a chance to hit it?
So in FS battle would always be more or less "close-quarters".
However the physics would be great, but you would have to regulate the ships movement in more than a single way:
-Spinning was already mentioned
-Inertia: In some cases it would be vey useful if your ship kept going in the direction you were going, in other it would be a pain in the ***.
You should have a fast method for swithching between the two control methods. The first one would be rarely used.
Ingame terms I would love it - it would give ships real inertia instead latency. So I could go around a cruiser by simply pulling the stick next to it, and I would be already facing backwards when I fly past it.
*BTW. check ships.tbl the whole control method is summed up in it*
-Velocity: there should be a system tocap relative vel. so you can fly around more easyly.
Say you have a system to regulate map relative speed, one to regulate target relative acceleration.
Maybe a target approacher autopilot system too. It would accelerate half of the way then decelerate the rest, based on the relative path calculated from relative speed and acceleration, provinding the fastest transition.
If someone watched Macross:DYRL they know what I'm talking about.
The mass of ships - which by the time is only used for collisions - should be the base of the new kinetic system.
Ships will have to accelerations instead speed, as it is already used for rotation. However force shoud be used instead if we want to create a truly realistic model.
With this thrusters would have a certain power and if you got caught in a big ships thrust it could throw you in a direction instead just shaking you!
If it could be implemented on big ships that would be a real pluss - Imagine an Orian speeding at 150 (relative) than taking a "sharp" turn - it would be thrown in a direction while you could play some cool message where the engine off. is complaining about the strain on the sturcture.
I will go back to the weapons issue too:
If we were to use realistic lasers you wouldn't see them, but aiming wouldn't be an issue either 'cause light would reach the target almost instantecously *ever played Mechwarrior ? :)*. It need some matter show it *in MW it's tha air*.
Plasma guns or any thing that fires projectiles should be visible.
That goes for particle projectile cannons as well since charged particles *ions most of the case - so it's an ion cannon in other terms* give off light.
Projectiles will have a latecny to hit - but it depends on their speed so ion cannons should be easy to aim as well.
-
I sorted out a solution for the "space sound" a while back:
There's no medium for sound - but who said you hear the guns' sound?!
Anyone ever heard a plasmagun firing a volley? *Hey what's that buzzing???:eek2: *
Most guns use high amount of energies - that should produce some radio interference - so you hear the radio waves that the guns byproduct during firing and charging.
When they hit something they could create similar interference and could induce your system when passing by.
For missiles it's the same, except when the do a pass-by it's their engines that do the interference.
-
Originally posted by Flaser
I sorted out a solution for the "space sound" a while back:
There's no medium for sound - but who said you hear the guns' sound?!
Anyone ever heard a plasmagun firing a volley? *Hey what's that buzzing???:eek2: *
Most guns use high amount of energies - that should produce some radio interference - so you hear the radio waves that the guns byproduct during firing and charging.
When they hit something they could create similar interference and could induce your system when passing by.
For missiles it's the same, except when the do a pass-by it's their engines that do the interference.
tha would also explain the sound when you're near a shivan vessel.
-
I hate to rain on your parade, but I did an experment a short time ago to get semi-realistic phyiscs in-game....
Had got the TBP v2 release, playing around with the Thunderbolt, and ended up able to circle around a Litith cruiser, pounding it with my gun, with almost unable to hit me!. Yes, I was flying sideways, and there was plenty of sliding going on!
Just play around with the damp, rotdamp, velocity and acc fields and see what happens;).
Was harder to control though, but thats because the logical place for the slide thruster buttons I was using for targeting.
Also, if you define a reverse velocity for your craft, and in game hold hold the reverse thrust key (default 'Z' key) you will go backwards.
-
Originally posted by Raptor
I hate to rain on your parade, but I did an experment a short time ago to get semi-realistic phyiscs in-game....
Had got the TBP v2 release, playing around with the Thunderbolt, and ended up able to circle around a Litith cruiser, pounding it with my gun, with almost unable to hit me!. Yes, I was flying sideways, and there was plenty of sliding going on!
Just play around with the damp, rotdamp, velocity and acc fields and see what happens;).
Was harder to control though, but thats because the logical place for the slide thruster buttons I was using for targeting.
Also, if you define a reverse velocity for your craft, and in game hold hold the reverse thrust key (default 'Z' key) you will go backwards.
I already tried most of that with an SF Mara.
However using plain latency factors as it is now would be a pain when designing ships. If all you had to do was set a mass and a throtle power in each direction and let the physics engine handle everything else would be much easier.
What we can use right now is just a simulation of the effects physics would have on the ships - and it would be still far.
Try I-War and you'll see waht I mean.
-
And now, a slight redirection...
I was just wondering if anyone would know how to do active gravity, as I'm doing a planet-based campaign.
-
Hmm...
You chose probably the most difficult thing to model - well there are more diffucult things, but this is quite difficult as it is.
I guess you know the law of gravity:
The gravitational force between two object is the following.
F=G*m1*m2/R(2)
Note that this can only be used for two objects to truly descript their movement.
Where G is a constant it's value is aproximatly 6.67E-11 N/m(2) so it's a really small value. So the force is very weak - but we're talking about planets, so this mean planets have a huge mass.
Strictly the law above is about centres of mass so when simulating you can calculate with the planet centre as their position.
However we're still not out of the woods yet.
Do you plan to model the motion of planets inside the solar system?
If yes continue, if you plan to model moons continue and replace sun with planet the planet with moon. If not skip this part.
----------------------------------
Planets are orbiting a sun - leave multi star systems for now, this is gona be very complicated even without that -, so they have a velocity and gravitation provides the centripetal force to keep them on track .
*no it's not circular motion, did you know that Kopernicus' model was mainly not accepted because, his model devised planets going on perfect circles - he simply couldn't predict the astronimic events as good as the Ptolemaian astronomers, who used really complex, but very accurate models to show the stars and planets path around the skyglobe*
You could use Kepler's laws.
[list=1]
[1]A planet's path is an elipse, where the sun is in one of the focuses. The planet goes around following the elipse.
[2]During equal times the tangets *between the sun and the planet* cover equal suraces.
[3]There is a correlation between the elipse's big axis:
a(3)/T(2) is a constant for every system.
[/list=1]
The easiest way to model the whole whing would be to make the planet go around a path already created, so you won't have to deal with the varying forces only acceleration.
The path should be a null object, that you can spin around its focus if you want more realism. The planet's speed along the path will have to calculated form Kepler's second law *sorry I haven't taken the effort to do it right now*
---------------------------------
If you want to model the way ships go around a planet, then you should consider that each and every ship would accelerate towards a planet with the same acceleration. (F=m*a and F=m*M*g/R(2) divide with m and you see that that a does not depend on the smaller objects mass)
The tricky part is determining how they would move.
If you have a newtonian physics than it's simply adding an accceleration toward the planets centre.
----------------------------------
In FS terms you're in BIG trouble.
Forget planet movement - that's still way too big.
If you use smaller models and pretend they're really far, you may end up.....
Hmm, maybe there's something that can be done like that, but definitly not the active gravity simulation you're looking for.
If the ship're far enough to do that, gravity wouldn't be an issue either.
If they're close the model's not going to be enough.
Unless you plan to use the good 'ol background images, their data can be calculated accourding to the thigns above.
With such accelerations and speeds your ship's going to leave the spacebox in no time.
So I suggest moving the backround instead the ships, to simulate the speeds. A big planet won't change that much if you go 12.000 ahead and 5000 down.
What needs to be created is an active background, so you can create change background elements during a mission.
A spacesphere wouldn't hurt either. Placing a planet in a box could be a real pain.
You have to ask the source code team for those, I'm not a coder.