Hard Light Productions Forums
General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: nunix on March 20, 2006, 06:12:43 pm
-
What are they? Other than hitting the Engines to make a ship stop, I've never been able to 100% verify any other subsystem-destroy effect. I hear that if you blast the Weapons then it'll have a harder time locking on.. but I also hear that about Sensors. And killing a Fighter Bay certainly doesn't stop reinforcements coming in!
-
They are of limited effect when you're talking about non-player ships. Destroying comms prevents that ship from sending messages (including orders, except for calling for support), destroying sensors makes sensors go out (radar and the like) and destroying weapons disables primary and secondary weapons. The effects on turrets (and AI/capital ships in general) aren't so clear cut, but in theory destroying weapons should reduce the frequency of fire from any given turret system.
-
Disabling the engine subsystem is pretty clear cut. :P
-
Actually it's not. The AI can still warp while disabled.
-
It depends on how the warp order is given.
Weapons subsystem damage also affects accuracy, and I think the sensors subsystem may also have something to do with beams.
-
It depends on how the warp order is given.
Yep. Exits via departure cues will still happen but exits via AI goals won't.
-
Weapons subsystem damage also affects accuracy, and I think the sensors subsystem may also have something to do with beams.
I'm pretty sure that destroying the weapons subsystem stops a capship from targeting incoming bombs, and the firing frequency of all turrets is slightly lower.
-
Can a coder verify this. Is it true or just myth? Also, what happens if you have multiple subsystems named "weapons01","weapons02" etc...?
-
It depends on how the warp order is given.
Yep. Exits via departure cues will still happen but exits via AI goals won't.
What if you destroy Navigation? Does that have any effect on AI ships?
-
Weapons subsystem damage also affects accuracy, and I think the sensors subsystem may also have something to do with beams.
Destroying either one of those systems will bring down power and accuracy. Its the equivilant of fireing a set of tornado missiles without a target lock
-
It depends on how the warp order is given.
Yep. Exits via departure cues will still happen but exits via AI goals won't.
What if you destroy Navigation? Does that have any effect on AI ships?
There's an option in FSO now to set that when an AI's nav is disabled, it can't jump out.
-
Where?
-
See FSwiki, Ai_profiles.tbl (http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/Ai_profiles.tbl)
-
hmm, interesting. That's exactly what I have been using the navigation subsystem for in my missions for the last several years, but I don't think I ever told anyone about it. :D
-
Ah. If it's not in FRED I tend to miss it and simply code it in myself :)
I suppose I should look into this one though :)
-
Destroying a capital craft's weapons subsystems doesn't just reduce its fire wait, but also its accuracy. (Beams still don't miss, but it's noticible when you bore straight in on a Deimos and the blobs all miss.) It's a reasonably close approximation of firing in local control as opposed to through the director, which I thought was a nice touch.
-
Another weird thing about subsystems- why do they always seem to be near the OUTSIDE of the hull, right where all the fighters can get to it?
-
Another weird thing about subsystems- why do they always seem to be near the OUTSIDE of the hull, right where all the fighters can get to it?
Lets face it, only realistic scifi ship design is a Borg cube. All others are full of wings, spikes, towers and such. That not only are complete waste of materials and structurally weak, but also make the ship look bigger than they really are. They usually look nice though...
Anyway. When examinig FS ships, the actual useable space inside the ship is quite narrow (rest being those spikes and wings). There is also the thick hull, or "armour", that protects the ship from harm. And it also protects the crew from all the radiation that space has, so the crew shouldn't be anywhere near the outside of the hull where they will die. So there simply isn't space to place those vital systems in to the interiors of the ship.
It is also possible that the actual systems are tucked inside a closet somewhere in the core of the ship, but something vital is in a voulnerable place (the sensors need something to "sense" trought).
-
Another weird thing about subsystems- why do they always seem to be near the OUTSIDE of the hull, right where all the fighters can get to it?
Lets face it, only realistic scifi ship design is a Borg cube. All others are full of wings, spikes, towers and such. That not only are complete waste of materials and structurally weak, but also make the ship look bigger than they really are. They usually look nice though...
Anyway. When examinig FS ships, the actual useable space inside the ship is quite narrow (rest being those spikes and wings). There is also the thick hull, or "armour", that protects the ship from harm. And it also protects the crew from all the radiation that space has, so the crew shouldn't be anywhere near the outside of the hull where they will die. So there simply isn't space to place those vital systems in to the interiors of the ship.
It is also possible that the actual systems are tucked inside a closet somewhere in the core of the ship, but something vital is in a voulnerable place (the sensors need something to "sense" trought).
Your explination is nice but; let me mention something. I recall a cutseen of Bosch next to a window wich was 5 feet from space. The one where he watches the new star being created. Bosch was not affected nor near death being near the outer hull (aka space). Anything to say?
-
Do we have any clue what type of barrier was seperating Bosch from space? No. Maybe it's like the Star Wars Transpareisteel or whatever that's stronger than hull materials and completely transparent to visible light.
In reality, spacecraft of today have windows that do not overly expose their crew to the hazards of space. They just aren't pure silicon glass.
-
:nervous: Umm... That window wasn't being hammered with harpoons now was it? Would Bosch been anywhere near that room had there been GTVA forces nearby? Hell no!
-
Or maybe it was just a nice flat screen monitor.
-
He was playing FS2 on it. :D
-
Or maybe it was just a nice flat screen monitor.
He was playing FS2 on it. :D
More like he was playing FS2 in HI DEF on a 100 inch Hi-Def Plasma TV WITH ALL the Extra vps uploaded into his Iceni's Computer systems, using His own Operating System!!!
-
I thought we all agreed that Bosch was a sucessful beverage entrepenure, most famous for his personal brand of beer. :nod: Brewing and programming seldom go together.
-
I thought we all agreed that Bosch was a sucessful beverage entrepenure, most famous for his personal brand of beer. :nod: Brewing and programming seldom go together.
what are you talking about? they ALWAYS go together! How do you think Windows was coded?
-
Picture if you will: Bill Gates in a beer comercial.
-
Lets face it, only realistic scifi ship design is a Borg cube.
Actually, Star Destroyer general design is pretty good too. It can concentrate all of its forward firepower in its forward arc, yet still deliver more % of its firepower on a broadside than a cube (assuming firepower is evenly distributed).
-
Hey WMC, could you share a coders insight on the original questions and our wild guessings, pretty please ?
-
Actually, Star Destroyer general design is pretty good too. It can concentrate all of its forward firepower in its forward arc, yet still deliver more % of its firepower on a broadside than a cube (assuming firepower is evenly distributed).
True. But the "bridge" kinda ruins it. It evens has shield generators placed in the most voulnerable place there is! But that minor detail aside, Star destroyer is one of the greatest designs there is merging therotically working, simple design with scifi extensions and still looking good.
-
True. But the "bridge" kinda ruins it. It evens has shield generators placed in the most voulnerable place there is! But that minor detail aside, Star destroyer is one of the greatest designs there is merging therotically working, simple design with scifi extensions and still looking good.
hi,
yeah, shooting down a star destroyer is really easy with a Y/B-Wing.
Blow up that stupid shieldgenerators, 3 or 4 pronton-topedos for each, disable the destoryer with the ion-gun and easy going *g*.
if you doesnt have Y/B-Wing a wing of X-Wings are good enaugh too, but the turrets make so a lot more trouble.
i dont understand why they doesnt see so a big bad mistake ...
Mehrpack
-
@Mehrpack: Try playing on the "hard" difficulty setting. Then you'll have to bring down the shields first, before you can destroy subsystems (like shield generators), which makes a tad more sense.
-
Picture if you will: Bill Gates in a beer comercial.
HAHAHAHA...
I so can picture that, Bill gates in a Bud Light Commercial....
-
@Mehrpack: Try playing on the "hard" difficulty setting. Then you'll have to bring down the shields first, before you can destroy subsystems (like shield generators), which makes a tad more sense.
hi,
ok thats sounds better, as i had play X-Wing and co. i hadnt try the highest level.
but i dont understand why it not as default so was in the games.
i mean so isnt a star destroyer not a real star destroyer.
Mehrpack