Hard Light Productions Forums
Modding, Mission Design, and Coding => FS2 Open Coding - The Source Code Project (SCP) => Topic started by: an0n on January 23, 2005, 02:17:53 pm
-
Any chance of getting some way to reduce the turning speed of a given type of ship in proportion to it's speed?
How it works in FS-Retail is too unrealistic; And I don't like semi-gliding as it's cliched and doesn't look as good.
-
Originally posted by an0n
Any chance of getting some way to reduce the turning speed of a given type of ship in proportion to it's speed?
How it works in FS-Retail is too unrealistic; And I don't like semi-gliding as it's cliched and doesn't look as good.
That's utter bull****!
Turning is actually one of the few things, that do act realistically - your speed in space has no what so ****ing ever effect on your turn rate - only your exiting spin.
If only, thrust was used properly: full thrust applied for full setting / the a - button, and navigational speed limits. Instead setting the speed you would set the thust.
3 flightmodes:
Restrained - auto-stops spinning and slowly (as fast as the currently awailible lateral thrust) corrects lateral speed until it is zero.
2 submodes: map and target oriented. Map oriented works compared the the nodes/stationary points in the map (which would be in fact moving at the pre-set speeds to maintain current orbit). Target oriented corrects speed compared to the target.
Retarded - same as above, but no lateral speed correction.
Unrestrained - no whatsoever correction, full manual.
Speedlimits are always given in map-oriented mode - and still apply in target oriented mode.
//////
That would be a more "realistic" flight model.
However if you're looking for a flighsimish flight model, where the turn-rate has a max on a speed graph for gamplay reasons that's fine with me, just don't think that would be any more realistic than the current model.
//////
Newtonian extension: Limits can be switched off.
Results: if you hit the limits and go too far from the fleet, the radar will show less and less signals, and you may be lost.
Once, lost you will have no whatsoever indication of your speed and unless you rejoin with the fleet.
You're probably screwed, since you'll have to be within a given area with a given speed to jump sucessfully - fighters probably don't have the computing capacity of their own to initiate jumps as precisely as bigger ships so you may misjump compared to your fleet's destination.
Fighters are given a set of jump coordinates and readings before going on a mission so they can jump safely by updating their data with minor scans. A fighter pilot may still make a sucessfull precise jump, but he has to spend quite some time, acertaining his position relative speed in the system and then wait for his computer to churn out the new jump parameters - which will take a while and he will probably have to make orbit changes to make it so that said parameters are within the capabilities of his subspace drive.
This is the reason why command always yepps: Only jump out when given a permission. When you recieve you traitor debrifing you've already wandered for half a day at least trying to correct your last blind jump with which you escaped from the fray.
-
Originally posted by Flaser
That's utter bull****!
Turning is actually one of the few things, that do act realistically - your speed in space has no what so ****ing ever effect on your turn rate - only your exiting spin.
There's no point in having realistic turning if the speed is still stupid.
As it is, movement in FS is simply: Woosh-Stop-Woosh-TurnWithoutSlowingInTheSlightest-Woosh
You can just go zipping around at max speed without a care in the world.
And Newtonian movement is stupid because it's impractical and hard to control. All battles are reduced to ****ty ballets where you've got to plan everything 10 moves ahead or go spinning off into oblivion.
-
I gather you sucked at Iwar? :p
-
**** you.
And, yes.
-
the flight in FS is quite realistic, :V: just forgot to tell us that all FS fighters and cap ships use the Inertal damper. Which lets them jump with out killing everyone on board, but also constantly slows the ships down relitive to the jump nodes, which as far as astrophisicysts(sp) can diterman are relitive to the position and rotation of the galaxy.
-
Originally posted by an0n
**** you.
I'm working on it :p
Bah, personnally, newtonian physics are the only thing I really wanna see in FS. The game in it's current state just doesn't excite me enough so I wanna mod it anymore.
-
2 things:
One, this thread would have appeared much more civil to an outsider if the first sentence in the first replie wasn't "That's bull****!!!111"
Be nice to everyone, inlcuding anon.
Two, Nico, maybe your are bored because you have been modding it for 5 years ;)
-
Can't say I've done much last year. Nah, but I just ended up modding and not playing, coz, well, the gameplay, no matter how you mod the game, stays the same. I love all the visual improvements, I'm sure fredders couldn't live w/o the new triggers etc anymore, but what I long for is new gameplay elements, not just another occasion to say: "look, with reflection maps, my new ships looks ubber, no?"
And it seems the things that really blow me away with spacesims, lately, are real time traffic ( you know, ships doing their random, daily stuff on their own ), newtonian physics ( coz you really pilot, you don't just aim at the next target ), multiple locations ( you feel like you're in a complete, coherent universe ), stuff like that. But I know it's not possible and that makes poor Nico sad, and Nico's FS2 CDs dusty :(
-
About the ONLY thing on that list that is remotely-likely, is the physics (please note my use of the word remotely), FS2 seems best at telling stories, more linear gameplay. So you might be stuck ;)
-
Personally, as far as FS1 goes, all props to the ingame mechanics and ass kickage, but I had a hell of a lot more fun out of command briefings/briefings/ship selection/debriefings.
The stuff you do in a mission is just a pass/fail rate for everything else. The game really knows how to tell a story if you let it tell an awesome one.
Anyway...
As far as I'm concerned, the in-game movement is good enough as is. It takes skill to master it completely (especially on insane, since that's where it's at), unless you're a pussy playing on very easy or easy...hell, or medium.
-
Originally posted by Inquisitor
About the ONLY thing on that list that is remotely-likely, is the physics (please note my use of the word remotely), FS2 seems best at telling stories, more linear gameplay. So you might be stuck ;)
I know, it was not a wish list, don't worry :)
On that regard ( the story telling, linear thing ), the only thing that FS2 lacks is ingame cutscenes ala wing commander 5/ prophecy. That said, I know I've seen mentions of something more or less like that being possible, so maybe I'm wrong and it's already there.
-
It's a bit of a shame really. I'd really like to be able to play the trader game in the FS universe.
Nico: Play Blaise Russel's Shrouding the Light campaign. Has some very awesome in game cutscenes.
-
Originally posted by Inquisitor
About the ONLY thing on that list that is remotely-likely, is the physics (please note my use of the word remotely), FS2 seems best at telling stories, more linear gameplay. So you might be stuck ;)
I must digress Sir!
Take a look at Goober's Freespacelancer - though it is a bit slow right now, with some loading optimalization said aims aren't so far fetched.
With persistant variables a lot of consistent multi-mission - ergo multi-are- stuff are already possible.
IMHO random traffic may be generated by using an extended database to spawn all the traders, and an extended species / IFF options - which Goober already works on AFAIK.
I'm exited to hear though that you believe the physics change possible - I'm a fan of I-War's gameplay.
Also sorry for the hard up-beat at an0n, I'm just a bit sensitive to scientific proof, that's all.
-
Goobs FSLancer was done, as I understand it, with totally retail level sexping. If the SCP could simplify and streamline the process, and a few FREDders would contribute some semi generic missions, we could probably get a basic but fun trading sim going.
-
Hmm, about the traffic thing, don't spank me coz I'm a complete beotian whe it comes to code, but:
Is there some kind of "random" Sexp? With that, I assume you could get something like that
1) the game selects a few "nodal points" ( subsapce nodes, stations, something set as nodal point in fred, dunno, expend )
2) it randomly takes into a traffic list that features the ships you'd want to see in that traffic. Everything civilian, for exemple. Use a min/max entry to set the intensity of the traffic.
3) It makes those ships go round randomly between the nodal points, say, ships jumps in from the node, goes to the station, docks, waits 2 minutes, undocks, goes to another nodal point. If the other nodall point is a station, it does the same again, if it's a container ( and the ship is a freighter ), it picks it up, etc. If it picks up a container, it'll drop it near the next nodal point, unless it goes to a subspace node, then it'll just jump out, container or not.
Ok, that was useless rambling, I know, just thought it was a funny idea, so why not post it? Dismiss it at will :)
-
You'd need to give the game a lot more detail to do it properly, but the idea is sound.
-
ShadowWolf is doing something like this for Mercenaries, and we're actually building off of the proof-of-concept stuff in Freespacelancer. :)
-
I've been meaning to do an open ended campaign since PVs were introduced. :) If I can get SoR and either MG or TMA under my belt before Mercs is ready I might try one myself :)
-
No offense to anyone, but don't change a thing about Freespace's physics. I don't care if it doesn't follow Newton's laws; I just want to be able to fly the damn thing. :p I played a demo of Home Planet, which features Newtonian physics, and absolutely despised it; unless you were using the Newtonian inertial mode, your ship speed was grossly limited. With it on, however, the whole thing consisted overshooting your target by 20 kilometers, turning around, and overshooting it in the opposite direction by another 10 kilometers. Repeat ad nauseam. Freespace's controls are the best I've ever seen; there's no mucking about with "real" physics. Just turn, aim, and shoot. Keep it simple, stupid. :p
-
Originally posted by terren
the flight in FS is quite realistic, :V: just forgot to tell us that all FS fighters and cap ships use the Inertal damper. Which lets them jump with out killing everyone on board, but also constantly slows the ships down relitive to the jump nodes, which as far as astrophisicysts(sp) can diterman are relitive to the position and rotation of the galaxy.
lol, i'd love to see a ship slow down/ exit hyperspace and everyone on the bridge just flys forward and hits the viewscreen
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
No offense to anyone, but don't change a thing about Freespace's physics. I don't care if it doesn't follow Newton's laws; I just want to be able to fly the damn thing. :p I played a demo of Home Planet, which features Newtonian physics, and absolutely despised it; unless you were using the Newtonian inertial mode, your ship speed was grossly limited. With it on, however, the whole thing consisted overshooting your target by 20 kilometers, turning around, and overshooting it in the opposite direction by another 10 kilometers. Repeat ad nauseam. Freespace's controls are the best I've ever seen; there's no mucking about with "real" physics. Just turn, aim, and shoot. Keep it simple, stupid. :p
Uhmm....I guess you just accelerated the whole time? Right...meh.
What I find lacking in this department is adequate sensor readings though - in a newtonian environment most fights would be BVR (Beyond Visual Range). That wouldn't be too exciting for most die hard furballers (syn ~ dogfight) especially since that won't lead to any possible manuevering tactics.
So for an "EXCITING" space-sim we need Close-Range battles fought within visual range.
In Freespace the reason behind doing so could be Free/Subspace itself - with an availible FTL you'd just jump out by the time anything hits you.
(Off course you could say that lasers/bullets would be fast - but you've got to lock on to your target with a radar first, and that has enough tell tale signals to detect + you must burn through ECM --> must be within an acceptable distance.
Moreover an operating radar gives off your location twice as far as you can effectivly detect.
(A signal coming from you hits something then comes your way - it makes the distance twice - so it will be just as strong twice the distance from you if nothing reflected it).
With subspace availible active long range radar scanning is a definite no-no against moving targets.)
So you'd probably already jump in close enough to fire your weapons ASAP.
So we have close-range engament (for more or less properly explained and good reasons) in a newtonian environment.
OK, back to the issu: What am I lacking for sensors data? The relative speed of a craft is already given in Freespace as is it's orientation - what I need is further analysis that would tell the parallel and lateral speed of my target.
It may be just a bar for relative parallel speed and an arrow that shows the lateral.
With those two facts you can make a good approach - you want to close so fast, that you will be able to negate the speed in a shot time.
That time depends on your style: If you prefer frontal-then-circling approach you take your front thruster reading to base the speed on. If your enemy keeps accelerating you'll have to do as well just backwards - if he is faster (accelerating or you can't decelerate fast enough) he'll overshoot and you'll have to think of a different approach.
Another mehtod is to turn with your rear towards him and decelarate full throtle - if he overshot you otherwise, you'll have an adventage since he will have to turn around to reduce his speed and bear his weapons on you while you're already on his 6 and catching up fast. - Though if he doesn't overshoot you just handed him your ass...
We can dubb such engagements one-pass.
Fast and well accelerating crafts should force their opponents into this type of engaments since their better thrust will give them the upper hand.
You accelerate toward the target until the parallel speed difference is too great for him to get rid of in time - then reverse and decelerate the entire time while he will overshoot.
In the defensive situation with a lesser accelerating craft you'll have to make a lateral escape so he will have to waste his momentum to change course - moreover the pass will take place with more room for you to move around.
OK - that's the parallel speed reading and its effects.
In an engagement between veteran and equal pilots probably they'd end up in weapons range with both of them facing the other and or in a 3-9 position where both of them turned his craft 1/2 toward the enemy.
This is when the lateral reading becomes crucial - it tells you in which direction you have to accelerate to keep him from getting in a high-aspect position (towards your sorry rear thruster).
2 basic manuevers exist - power pursuit and turning pursuit.
In power pursuit you keep accelerating (laterally) as him to keep him in your reticle. This is recomended when you have the upper hand in firepower and/or armor and the adversary has an adventage over you in turning.
In turning pursuit you let the enemy out of your sight and instead keeping up with him in a lateral move you turn onto him and apply forward thurst effectivly orbiting him and taking adventage of your superior turn-rate.
From what I wrote I think it should be obvious that Newtonian battle should be fought definitly different than the gunner approach that fits so well Freespace.
You plan ahead - though that's not so true. Instead just turning and accelerating toward your target you keep your eyes on the readings from the target for those tell your odds against him.
After the merge (initial pass) it will boil down to a similar madness that is common in FPS - sidestepping madness in 3D.
IMHO it is not as frustrating as some make it out - if you learn to "DECELARATE" once you see the magic number combo as readings (a speed + distance value) the intial approach won't be that hard any more and you'll avoid the nasty overshooting.
What makes the later phase seem hard is that some ship in I-War have ridiculous turn rates so battle was sluggish.
However a with better turning ships (a must for non-one-pass engagements) doing so is a must, therfore the Gundamish jumping around spinning around each other type of battles are a likely possibiity.
So to sum up my thoughs on the difficulty and playability of newtonian space figh:
-It is more TACTICAL than REFLEX, so LAY OFF THE GAS pedal and familiarize the BREAK.
-With proper readings (2 ques - frontal overshoot, rear overshoot for setting the right speed) it is possible to make a good approach and not overshoot.
-Once close and personal it is a lot more intense and rewarding than the current turn and dive.
Just as quake revolutionized FPS when mouselook became a standard freeing up the hand to do sidestepping this kind of battle would be more rewarding.
Another notion: As you see what made the game tactical was the inertia and lack of speed limits. What made it intese was the lateral moving once close.
If we just want to make the game more intense gamplay wise we should finally desing ships with better strafing capabilities, so the players / AI can skip around each other instead the montone ZOOM-SHOOT-OVERSHOOT-TURN-ZOOM gameplay we have now.
The later can be done without a physics overhaul so I see it as a good compromise between the N-purist and those who just want some new and more tactical/clever gameplay.
PS.: You read that meging is a crucial point in this sort of engagement and you often won't be facing the direction your foe comes from.
Therefore for a newtonian gameplay looking around and/or padlock is a must!
For a stafing enagament that ability would be also welcome - it could be time to properly use the HAT on our sticks.
-
Originally posted by Nico
Can't say I've done much last year. Nah, but I just ended up modding and not playing, coz, well, the gameplay, no matter how you mod the game, stays the same. I love all the visual improvements, I'm sure fredders couldn't live w/o the new triggers etc anymore, but what I long for is new gameplay elements, not just another occasion to say: "look, with reflection maps, my new ships looks ubber, no?"
And it seems the things that really blow me away with spacesims, lately, are real time traffic ( you know, ships doing their random, daily stuff on their own ), newtonian physics ( coz you really pilot, you don't just aim at the next target ), multiple locations ( you feel like you're in a complete, coherent universe ), stuff like that. But I know it's not possible and that makes poor Nico sad, and Nico's FS2 CDs dusty :(
Well, I did implement a 2D mode a little while back. It's not too exciting, but it looks pretty good and is a significant departure from the normal gameplay of Freespace. The hard part is designing stuff that can shoot at you, but you can also shoot back at. :p
-
You can simulate newtonian physics with the current tables.
I've played it. I know. It's hard as hell...
-
It's not newtonian physics, it's "whaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!! the stars are rotating in every direction so fast I don't even know how I'm flying!!!!"
I know, I've tried that too years ago :p
-
No, it's closer to newtonian... if you do it right.
-
Well...? How does one do it right?
-
by tweaking a lot with the -damp or whatever it was called- entry of the ship. It's supposed to increase momentum, but the game just can't deal with it. Well, the AI does, surprisingly, and that makes them damn accurate too.
-
Damp just makes ship response time suck, it doesn't really help with making physics better.
-
Maybe wasn't damp, but that was one of the first entries, iirc. Last time I opened a tbl file was waaaay too long ago.
-
Your thinking of damp, but FS is currently incapable of Newtonian style physics. (looks in direction of FSO staff)
-
How about engines that turn off? No more 'huge engine exhaust visible kilometers away while the ship is AT REST' rubbish. Especially with docking transports. Lame lame lame lame.
-
Do you (or anyone in your family) turn off your car when you stop at a stoplight?
-
Don't be inane. My car's engine isn't throwing relativistic particles out the back ALL THE TIME, is it? Its got a transmission, right? Brakes? A bloody ion drive DOESN'T, if its burning there is reaction force pushing the ship forward. Y'know, like rockets?
The glow is reduced when speed=0, but I don't think it's small enough. Replacing it with any effect other than the 'thrusting storm of ions' effect would make more sense, since there shouldn't BE a huge plume out the back when they're not moving.
-
I agree, maybe just like a little diffuse glow coming off the back of the ship.
But i think thrusters need some big re-doing anyways. Its hard to get whts in my head onto the computer, though. we need to get rid of that modeled thruster effect with that .ani on it. I hate it, it needs to go, maybe if it were replaced with a blank texture, or gotten rid of altogether. its just so ugly. then we need way for the thrusters not to intersect the ship, then we need some spiffy new art to shut up all the people who cant really see the difference.
i suppose that kind of has to do with ship movement...
-
Yeah, after hearing LS and Bobboau's discussion in the priv forums, I think what we should do is have some sort of thruster model, or use particles instead. That would take care of the clipping errors that occur when using the billboarded (is that the right term?) textures now.
-
We already have something to scale back the plume when a ship isn't operating at maximum thrust. It just needs to do the same when the ship's engines are idle.
-
Yes, but that doesn't change the numerous clipping errors with the current method. Almost anything would be better than the current method, if it didn't clip badly.
-
Originally posted by Nico
I'm working on it :p
Don't choke on it. Although, knowing an0n, he probably hopes you will.:p
The FS model is no less realistic than an0n's proposal. Ships don't have to slow down, bank, or even change the direction of movement while rotating in space.
Oh, and an0n, when you go out of control in a newtonian-physics simulator, try firing the thrusters in the OPPOSITE direction of your travel.
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
Do you (or anyone in your family) turn off your car when you stop at a stoplight?
Uh, to decelerate in space, no only do you have to cut off your engines, but you have to fire thrusters on the opposite side of the ship. Not only would you have to turn off your car, but you'd have to push it from the front.
-
I thought Bobboau already added a method of using particle thrusters?
this thread
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,28489.0.html
-
Hmm, forgot about that. Bears closer investigation, methinks...
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
Uh, to decelerate in space, no only do you have to cut off your engines, but you have to fire thrusters on the opposite side of the ship. Not only would you have to turn off your car, but you'd have to push it from the front.
But it's long been established that the Freespace universe doesn't use Newtonian physics.
-
And if you would really implement newtonian physics (which I hope you will not) you would have to do a secend physics model for ne nebulars (if thats even possible) because there is enough matter to slow down a ship with shut off engines. After all theres enough matter for those turbulences that fast ships make.
-
Originally posted by -Norbert-
And if you would really implement newtonian physics (which I hope you will not) you would have to do a secend physics model for ne nebulars (if thats even possible) because there is enough matter to slow down a ship with shut off engines. After all theres enough matter for those turbulences that fast ships make.
No there's not.
On a side note: why do you hope they wouldn't implement it? Like everything, it would be off on default, so why do people are always hoping stuff will not be done when THEY don't like it?
:doubt:
Anyway that's useless rambling, it won't happen.
-
I'm curious to know what alternate thruster concepts have been thrown around - my comment was actually prompted by the awful thrusters on the Lucy (flat plane + 20 meters of empty space + teardrop-shaped red shape = stupid). Movies etc seem to lean more towards glows (probably to avoid the other issue; the Aeolus or Deimos superimposed thruster 'concept'), Homeworld just uses little ribbon things, etc.
With the superimposition, I'm not sure particles would look good (we'd all see how stupid it is to put a part of your ship behind an ion drive). Some fighters (herc2) look crazy during battle, being visually 50% thruster glare. A proportional exhaust flare based on acceleration, giving fighters longer trails, capships short ones, and leaving its intensity tied to current speed, maybe?
And I was too tired to notice the broken analogy; turning off my engine at the lights would be like a spaceship shutting its powerplant down; having the thrusters buring would be analogous to my tyres turning, which they certainly aren't when I'm stopped. Engine = engine, thruster=tyre, etc etc noone cares but me :)
-
Actually, having the thrusters burning is like having exhaust coming out of your tailpipe. As long as the engine is on, both will happen.
-
AFAIK we all agreed that from the little data we have it seems FS ships use fusion engines: A fusion reactor is used to generate heat which forces the propellant to expand and leave the ship.
The propellant isn't travelling by any means near lightspeed.
2 possible variations:
-The propellant is plasma itself from the reactor (I think this is what's used on capships)
-The propellant is stored separatly and the reactor gives off just enough heat to keep the reactions going.
(I think fighters would use this, although it is not as efficient as the first solution it is safer - the engine output doens't force a complicated thermo-nuclear reaction to adapt - and offers a longer operations - though less thrust).
OK - we have a reactor and an engine.
I want to switch the engine off - I close the valve from the propellant - no propellant ejected, no thrust.
OK - but what do I do with the heat that the engine would normally take out of the ship?
1. Lower the reactor output - risky, reactors are not known to like instable changing reactions. May be done to a limited degree only.
2. Let it burn on as regulated as I can keep it, and release the rest of the heat onto heat-sinks.
Now, where do I put these heatsinks? They would be an obvious target and getting them knocked out could endanger the ship.
Remember! These are heatsinks used only when the engine's off and the reactor running - how about putting them in the exhaust of the engine? Protected, and that way you can already take care off the cooling of the exsthaust since wihtout that it would melt under the extreme punishment the hot propellant deals it.
So if things happen as I put in my scenario, then when a capship or a fighter comes to a halt, the 'normal' thruster effect will cease to be and instead a low-wavelenght radiation (heat) ergo a reddish-orange shimmer will come from the exhaust.
-
That'd actually be pretty cool.
Too bad we don't have the pixel shaders to make the shimmer possible.
-
Originally posted by Turambar
lol, i'd love to see a ship slow down/ exit hyperspace and everyone on the bridge just flys forward and hits the viewscreen
you're "escorting" a big ship through subspace that has a weakness in its inertial dampers...when in fact you're part of a scheme to pillage the ship...you waste its inertial damper system in subspace just before it exits the tunnel...
out of tunnel: *screams of those aboard the ship* BLAM, "Play dead" SEXP, bring in the boarding ships!
LOL
That said, ANY mission where the power goes offline in a ship, and that ship gets smacked during the mission, must have some sort of "handling for casualties-caused-by-crewmen-bludgeoned-against-walls."
Boy, I wonder how much insurance benefits GTVA officers get due to inertial drive failure...
-
/Phicysics purist mode != ON
Fot the thousands time: their is no such thing as inertial drive or anti-inertia systems.
All you can do is use anti-thrusters in normal space. Beside that you need some sort of field or gas to interact with if you want to slow down: either magneric, gravitic or just an atmosphere for to do aerobraking.
-
There's no such thing as artificial gravity either yet FS2 seems to have that already.
-
Hyperspace is fake, so are beam cannons, and I've never met a vasudian or a shiven.
/Phicysics purist mode != OFF
Never never NEVER forget to close your tags. Bad stuff happens