Hard Light Productions Forums
Modding, Mission Design, and Coding => The Modding Workshop => Topic started by: Akalabeth Angel on September 26, 2008, 03:18:03 pm
-
I haven't checked out BtRL that much so don't know if there's already something in place.
But has anyone thought of ways to implement the different forms of fighter launching? Like in Galactica the ships rip down a tube. In something like Gundam, (or even modern aircraft carriers) the mecha are fired down a catapult before taking control themselves. Though personally I don't know either one would be implemented. Especially if in the case of Gundam, the catapult was visible or extended somewhat down the exterior hull.
One crazy idea I had, was what if a person made a turret which basically fired mecha-shaped dumfire rockets out of it instead of the usual missiles, but with a short lifespan. And after it's fired, somehow, get the spatial co-ordinates of the rocket (some number relative to the ship) and bring the real fighter in at the exact moment that the missile disappears? Or could a person just have a third way of entry into a mission. One subspace, one pop in, and one fired from a turret. (Though the turret is in fact the launch bay)
Any thoughts?
-
Can't you create the illusion of that by using the set speed SEXP with Newtonian dampening activated in ai profiles?
No warp the ship you want to launch, then set its speed to some really high number once it arrives (it "warps" inside the launch tube. It'll shoot out of the launch bay.
The same can be done for the player by doing that, and locking steering until the player is a certain distance away from the "runway".
-
Can't you create the illusion of that by using the set speed SEXP with Newtonian dampening activated in ai profiles?
No warp the ship you want to launch, then set its speed to some really high number once it arrives (it "warps" inside the launch tube. It'll shoot out of the launch bay.
The same can be done for the player by doing that, and locking steering until the player is a certain distance away from the "runway".
Yeah that could work, but also in the case of a Catapult typically the fighter being launched will accelerate in speed until it's clear of the end of it. So not sure how that would work exactly. I mean, that's a minor detail, but one worth mentioning. I suppose firing the ship out of a turret wouldn't exactly work either. It would have the same effect as the set speed SEXP. With no build-up in velocity.
So setspeed might be the best choice, that is, assuming that it's possible to get the proper positioning and orientation from a moving ship. I haven't played much with FSOpen (I've never touched the thing pretty much) so not sure of all it can do.
-
You know what FS2 needs? Trebuchets. Better yet, Trebuchets (the medieval weapon) which launch Trebuchets (the fs2 anti-bomber weapon). Because, y'know, Trebuchets work in space, right?
Obviously they don't. That's a joke.
-
You know what FS2 needs? Trebuchets. Better yet, Trebuchets (the medieval weapon) which launch Trebuchets (the fs2 anti-bomber weapon).
Can't a person basically do that? Rotate the arm of the weapon, have a fixed firing point where the projectile is released.
So what are you waiting for? Build it. Give the Bravos something to fight against.
-
No, a Trebuchet is gravity-powered.
-
No, a Trebuchet is gravity-powered.
Yeah, I know what a trebuchet is, bucket of rocks on one end to pull the arm up and over. thing you can still do it at the moment I think. Except for perhaps if it uses a sling. That part might look odd.
-
This is relevant to my interests, plus it would be nice to get a working catapult in FSO. Could make for some pretty funny suicides.
-
This is relevant to my interests, plus it would be nice to get a working catapult in FSO. Could make for some pretty funny suicides.
Alpha 1: "If I fly close to the hull, the turrets can't even target me, stupid ship."
[Moments later, a launching ships slams into him at 200 m/s]
Probably wouldn't go boom, but it would be a rude awakening.
-
Alpha 1: "If I fly close to the hull, the turrets can't even target me, stupid ship."
[Moments later, a launching ships slams into him at 200 m/s]
Probably wouldn't go boom, but it would be a rude awakening.
:lol:
Hell of an awakening.
Heh. If he keeps hanging around infront of the catapult, they could always launch Helios' down the catapult. :P
-
I once proposed a fighter launching system that was rather cumbersome, but probably doable now that things like scripting exist.
The first thing you need is a properly set up capital ship. In addition to a launch tunnel, it would also need a series of linked submodels using the animation code. Now, while subobject translations (that is an animation where the subobject moves in a straight line rather than the rotation effect we're bound to right now) are not currently possible, it can be faked by attaching hinging submodels together and have them trigger rotation animations at the same time. As an example, if you hold your arm out straight, and then pull it in to touch your shoulder, your forearm and upper arm fold together, rotating around your shoulder, wrist, and elbow for both. The result is that your hand has moved in a straight line towards your shoulder. If you can simulate this with a series of submodels, then you can effectively cause your catapult to move in a straight line towards the end of the launch tunnel. The cool thing is that the submodels, with the exception of the catapult itself, can be made invisible and non-colidable, so they have no effect on anything themselves.
The next step is to attach a dockpoint to the catapult and set the player's initial status as being docked to the catapult. The tricky thing is the timing. The swinging of said linked submodels has to be very fast to get the kind of speed you'll want to simulate launch. Also, a jettison-cargo (or a scripting equivalent) has to be timed to release the player craft from the dockpoint a microsecond before the catapult would reach the end, so it wouldn't pin the player to the catapult when it hit the end. Submodel animation code also has fields to control acceleration and deceleration (IIRC) of triggered animations so the launch would appear to speed up towards the end of the tunnel, rather than go instantly to max speed and maintain that for the full launch. Of course, the player would also need to have the controls disabled until the fighter has exited the launch tunnel.
The main reason that I support this kind of launching (for all its cumbersomeness) over simply using the sexp that nudges an object in one direction, is that the later would require that the vessel doing the launching would have to be stationary during the process. Otherwise the player would deflect off the hull during launch. Also, I seem to recall problems with that sexp when attempting to use it down the central axis of an object. It wasn't working for this.
-
Sounds . .. complicated, though cool. Though I don't really understand the process. I mean, rotating objects is cool, but how would the dock point actually progress down the catapult that's what I don't really understand. Oh wait, the arm idea. Right . . . hmmn. Yeah sounds complicated. So, I suppose, technically you could get away with what . . . . 3 subobjects including the dockpoint itself.
Player aside, I presume it can be used effectively with AI as well??? I guess if they have a dock order until launched they won't do anything. Or some sort of scripting order.
Yeah, very cool. Though cumbersome :). If I ever put a suitable ship together I'll see if I can get this thing working.
-
Cheat......
Make it a cut scene...
:D
-
Cheat......
Make it a cut scene...
That works for the player, but what about all the other non-player ships that might launch mid battle? And while cheating would look cool, getting it to work would BE WICKED cool. (in my opinion)
-
Well if you look at the first training mission in BtRL you can have the pilots controls locked out until a specific time and simply ramp their speed up on a given moment down the specified path I would think then return controls upon clearing the tube?
I don't think there is much more to the animation aspects required for it?
Push the afterburner button to begin the sequence and voila you have a tube launch?
-
Problem...
They mentioned MOVING ships.
See we had this little issue a while back when you started in a carrier. unfortunately the carrier was in a battle.
We got dinged into the sides randomly from the ship AI moving it. You had to start the mission turning first to find a safe 2 sec path out then hit after burners...
Since the NBSG cariers have side 90 deree tubes apparently you'll side plant even faster... -->/
That's why for times the ship is moving I would go with a cut scene over an in game complete launch.
-
I wondered if the, lets call it $LaunchPath would function as part of the cap ship and move with it?
Contrails don't have any problem following a wingtip so why not $LaunchPath?
-
Cutscenes wouldn't be a very good solution for multiplayer especially respawns.
-
Admittedly thing like cockpit view would seem a fairly easy to turn into a toggle for the show on and off
$Name: Colonial Viper Mark II
+nocreate
$Flags: ("show ship")
and alleviate peoples concerns of when and when not to enforce them.
Whether that would be entwined in the interface or the HUD I haven't found yet.
But this is just from a lamens perspective just reading through the little table in the newcockpitmod_fixed directory.
The problems noticed engaging that little mod has all sorts of bugs on the backend with the latest 10 build.
Thruster animations are stuttering with motion, ship framework overhead when I pan my view up stutter as well.
Afterburners are disabled.
I haven't investigated how complicated the separate 3D cockpit models are yet though either.
Separating them presents potential detail increases for immersion without impacting the 3D ships appearing on our screens outside the ship. Mainly since the 3D cockpit being separate is just on the FPS interface and not the 3D environment sarrounding you.
Back on to topic though, using the $LaunchPath approach presents similiar issues with regard to sideward motion.
The sarrounding Cap Ship/Launch Tube would have to be separated for a period of time to read as static while the environment outside of it can remain Kinetic. Whether that would be read as static in the physics model or a separation of the model environments I'm not sure yet.
-
As indicated in your first post, I'd take this over to BTRL forum, as IIRC they re working on these issues...
(including the suggestions mentioned, sounds intriguing)
:D
-
Yeah BtRL is my main point of focus with this stuff.
It would be a bit of a mess of arrays and triggers.
I read through the thread Nuke did on array's and got a bit walleyed trying to follow it.
I'll pick up on it again...
-
A Trebuchet could work in FS2 (or similar) since they have gravity generators. :nod:
Perhaps someone could make a ship move outwards (out of tube) and sideways (velocity) so that it doesn't crash into the wall of the tube?
-
We have gravity generators now?
Wasn't that a feature of the TI mod that is almost comatose?
-
Are you meaning in-game ones where your ship is attracted by gravity? I'm not sure about that...
I meant since in the cutscenes, the species' are usually standing upright inside their craft and are not floating around, they must have gravity generators, so a trebuchet could "have its own one" which you could use to explain how it works where there is "supposedly no gravity".
Just in case people were confused... :nervous:
-
I never paid attention to the diff between the particulars between TOS and TNS launching but that's aside from the point.
The point is: "Can we do this in the engine as gameplay and NOT a staged cut scene."
meaning the active game engine not the pre-recorded visual.
You can have any type of background or explanation you want, but that won't keep you from smacking into the wall regardless, unless the coders do something about it.
By your post I thought you were mentioning something that was related to the GROUND MOD, ie GRAVITY GENERATION. or, "How tanks can travel on geometry and not simply float or fly off AI and ruin the illusion of non-space movement. That break through would have helped so many mods including BSG and my own...
That's what I meant...
Once more, I stress, people should look at how these issues have been discussed BY the BTRL team as I remember something about this has been posted over 2 years ago at least.
"Will we be able to launch in tubes?"
ect,,,
[EDIT]
I just did the research for you nuggets:
--------------------
Trivial psychic: on 12/28/2006
"The launch tube thing (when Galactica is available) will be a bit tricky as far as I've heard. For example, launching from the tubes requires that the Galactica is stationary, otherwise your fighter will bang into the sides of the tubes as the ship moves. I had come up with a way to simulate launching, but its somewhat complex and requires some features that haven't been implemented yet.
It requires translating submodels for one. We currently have submodel animation in rotation form only, but this would require submodel translation (A-to-B). There would be a small catapult submodel placed within the launch tube, with a dockpoint on its top. Then, a script of some form (either events or actual scripting.tbl use) would trigger the submodel to move rapidly to the exit end of the launch tunnel. A split second before reaching the other end, a jettison-cargo-delay sexp would cause the Galactica to release the fighter just before the catapult reaches the end of its motion. That way, the momentum will carry forward to the fighter, and the fighter won't be banged around within the launch tunnel when the Galactica is in motion."
-----------------
I searched 4 pages of results and that was the last definitive word/idea on how the team is going to handle it. If that has changed, they have not made it clear where that information is located at.
Otherwise, as Karajorma mentioned, Currently the AI can only handle a stationary launch. A player would be pancaked also at different points of the launch.
Just like TV-war mission by RYX inside the moving Carrier (splat!).
-
You know, I'm not sure about the player ship launching, but I think you could probably simulate an AI catapult launch by using "fighterbay" paths and setting an absurdly high entry speed for the ship.
I mean, this would be a decent way of getting a launch from a moving ship, right? Say a launch from an Orion, but with the fighters having a very high (say 200m/s) arrival speed.
Would this work?
-
No, the problem is that when the Orion turns, like it would when engaging enemy capital ships, the ship will go SPLAT! on the inside of the Orion or somewhere along the way. Although I wonder if launching from the Hecate while moving might be easier ... tho its hard to blast out from such a small launch bay.
-
MOI has a lot to do with the rotation speeds and null MOI's make the latest versions very unhappy.
Many of the current asteroid pof's in BtRL have null MOI's or set to zero MOI's to remain static.
Add an MOI to it and it begins rotating oddly in missions.
I was getting slammed by the rotations of the (I beleive Scar asteroid) with all of the open holes inside it.
It was rotating at a rate over 400 so you were pretty much hosed if you made it inside you could only hope it would rotate back enough on exit that you werent stuck. But I was creating
I know the BtRL guys had stated they had Launch Tubes and some video for it.
But I imagine it was a static cap ship launch.
Whether they looked at the launch tube as a separate model to act as a static placeholder for the sequence or not I don't think they posted that info.