Hard Light Productions Forums
Hosted Projects - Standalone => Diaspora => Topic started by: Jackal on December 07, 2008, 11:04:29 pm
-
Hi I'm new to this board watched the BTRL project for a long time glad you guys split off to make a better game. I was wondering is hitting your target in Diaspora even when leading properly in the circle going to be as hard as it is with the BTRL demo campaign/multiplayer? I don't believe i ever read a post about this so i figured I'd ask. The BTRL guys seem to be more concerned with how good things look than game play. Your project looks more player friendly than BTRL.
-
The FreeSpace 2 lead indicator is a time honoured concept of putting a piper where you should be aiming. The issue isn't so much the piper but the speed at which things happen in BtRL versus standard FreeSpace 2. I can't remember if anyone working on the Source Code Project (FS2) or the Diaspora folks have looked into a different kind of lead lead indicator but there aren't too many ways of making that work.
There is the modern fighter jet method which to be honest I find kind of confusing or we could use the World War II indicator method which has the piper based on your aim reticle and then it moves around as you maneuver but I think thats even harder.
What were you hoping for?
-
A friend suggested making the bullets move faster if possible and make the guns fire in unison. I'm no expert on making games but i would think making the so called "hit box" a bit bigger or, making the rounds themselves bigger in the coding or w/e, but don't make them larger visually this would allow the player to land more shots easier and quicker instead of engaging in a 10 minute dogfight with an AI unit and barely landing any shots. Like i said I'm no expert but maybe someone who is could drop a comment on this and give a solution.
-
You might be having problems with the gun convergence, Jackal. There's an optimal range to attack at, and it's actually pretty short.
-
Ive gottin close enough to to kiss the rear end of the enemy and still missed. If its the convergence then they must be converging like right in front of the viper/raider which wouldn't really work in a space combat sim that great in a WW2 sim sure but putting the converging point so close just doesn't make sense. Space combat sims tend to have fighting further apart than in atmosphere fighter sims with the exception of missiles.
-
At that distance and firing position, the enemy is showing it's smallest target profile and the wing root cannons tend to shoot under the Raider and the top cannon shoots over the Raider. The converging distance isn't surefire shot either because the shots cycle rather than fire simultaneously, and the dispersion spreads the rounds a bit too much to my tastes - actual 20 mm cannons are typically very accurate, they just have big recoil which means that it would be more realistic to configure them firing simultaneously which would produce an even recoil. I believe that the series depicts one out of three tracer round configuration which was also typical in WW2 fighter plane ammunition - not all round needs to be visible. I just don't know how feasible this would be to realize - meaning the ammunition loadout types, which would be awesome to configure yourself along with the convergence distance...
Having chance to put in two HE rounds, then one incendiary armour-piercing tracer round... with slightly differing damage/armourpiercing qualities. And convergence distances would be very good to have configurable by player, since people tend to have different flying styles. In IL-2, convergence distances of 100-200 metres are the most functional ones.
Practical help to hit the Cylons where it hurts: roll, and use your left/right/up/down maneuvering thrusters while following the Raider to aquire an advantageous firing position from it's upside or bottom, where it presents largest target area. If you manage to get into a position where the Raider is not moving very fast through the reticle, you can pretty much shoot straight at it.
Also, I personally turned the lead indicator off and use glide mode extensively in combat. The lead indicator isn't always exactly right and I can actually do a better job myself. Deflection shooting is a skill you just need to learn, though... playing IL-2 Sturmovik helps surprisingly lot. Basically to begin, take twice the amount of lead you initially think is necessary, then fire a short burst and observe where the rounds go. Learn to anticipate the Cylons' trajectories and your rounds' velocity.
Multiplayer is another ballgame entirely, and scoring hits with primary weapons requires extraordinarily good response time conditions or being the host... Secondaries are in much more important role than in single player (largely since the single player minicampaign didn't have missiles, but whatever :lol:)
-
I use to play IL2 loved that game still play it every once in a while.
-
I believe that the series depicts one out of three tracer round configuration which was also typical in WW2 fighter plane ammunition - not all round needs to be visible.
The series uses all tracer. I've actually had to watch the firing sequence in Scar and match muzzle flash to visible round in order to prove this. :p
-
The series uses all tracer. I've actually had to watch the firing sequence in Scar and match muzzle flash to visible round in order to prove this. :p
Ok, I'll take your word for it. Does it also use cycling weapons? If it does, it's IMO retarded but if they do it in the show, changing it into more sensible solution in the game is obviously something to think twice and hard...
The weapon cycle would obviously offer better rate of fire but reduce accuracy since the recoil would be unsymmetric. An ability to switch from simultaneous to cycled fire mode would be welcome. :nervous:
-
It would make sense the option to link the launchers is there, if the option was there for the guns that would be cool. Really if you think about it that is how they should work if the guns fired one by one the fighter would be unstable since the rounds use some type of explosive to fire as indicated by the muzzle flashes. This option would be better for the game anyway since you would be able to put more rounds on target when scoring a hit. IMO the rounds appear to be rather slow considering your fighting in a zero G environment.
-
I always loved BtrL and it's approach to weapons. Felt very real and very close to the show.
It suffered from problems in multi of course, since lag had a massive impact then. But still, please Kara, don't chance that formula :nervous:
-
I found I got a huge increase in hit percentage by slip sliding left/right (depending on the enemy movement, whilst firing on him. I actually learnt that in a training mission!
-
We're operating with somewhat lower speeds for our fighters than BtRL did, which tends to make fights happen at slightly closer ranges, and in turn makes hitting a bit easier. But not much. Also, our guns have no spread (at least currently)... the bullets go where you aim. That said, trying to hit a raider from the front or rear is still an exercise in futility - The target profile is just too small from that angle. But hey, that's why we have things like glide.
-
:sigh: :sigh: :sigh:
how much slower?
-
In terms of gameplay, not really. In terms of physics, a lot.
BtRL used a ve ry strange scaling system where 1m was actually 2.5m. The result being that ships had to travel much faster in order to keep things believable. Getting rid of that was one of the first things Diaspora did because it was completely screwing up our attempts to make anything with capships in.
-
Yeah, gameplay wise it's only a bit slower. It does make hitting things a tad easier though. That said, the feel of it isn't far from BtRL.
-
BtRL used a ve ry strange scaling system where 1m was actually 2.5m
lol wut :wtf:
-
I had much the same reaction after I joined the project and found out. Followed by a lot of banging my head against the desk until our models were finally reconverted to a sane scale. FREDding when each ship uses a subtly different scale and weapon ranges etc. are based on something completely different is... not fun. With just fighters around it's possible to get by, but add in a capital ship or two and things quickly degenerate into insanity.
-
:sigh: :sigh: :sigh:
how much slower?
I hope not much guys, I loved the speed felling on those vipers of BtrL.... also I have the idea that the environment on the missions helped a lot to figure out the actual speed of the fighters..in freespace you know you are going fast, but there's little things that tells you that, btrl somehow cracked that and actually felt faster (maybe the idea of striding or something like that).
-
So scoring hits isnt going to be retardedly hard due to slower speeds?
-
It'll be hard. But it's not going to be ridiculous to the point of frustration. Well... maybe on insane difficulty :D
-
Thanks to UT's work BtRL got the balance pretty correct I always felt. I certainly don't want to make it harder to hit anything in Diaspora.
Balancing is one of those things that takes time and lots of testing. We're still tweaking at the moment so we can't say much about the final mix.
-
Personally I loved the way that BtRL didn't feel at all like Freespace. It felt like a BSG game. That's a pretty amazing achievement and I imagine everyone would be much happier with a game that continues that tradition as opposed to becoming Freespace with BSG models.
-
I dont know about you guys but it is pretty frustrating to me especialy the last mission of the demo when you get to the final fight took me 30 minutes to kill that frakker and i was playing on medium. I dont even want to try insane i think it would make me lose my mind and bash my head into the monitor.
-
Personally I loved the way that BtRL didn't feel at all like Freespace. It felt like a BSG game. That's a pretty amazing achievement and I imagine everyone would be much happier with a game that continues that tradition as opposed to becoming Freespace with BSG models.
once again, IP speaks with my voice and oppinion :lol:
-
I dont know about you guys but it is pretty frustrating to me especialy the last mission of the demo when you get to the final fight took me 30 minutes to kill that frakker and i was playing on medium. I dont even want to try insane i think it would make me lose my mind and bash my head into the monitor.
come on, it's not that hard... and well that's what dogfighting should be like in real life.
besides that one was a toaster ace... so I'm guessing that the normal combats will not have plenty of those around to keep you spinning
-
come on, it's not that hard... and well that's what dogfighting should be like in real life.
besides that one was a toaster ace... so I'm guessing that the normal combats will not have plenty of those around to keep you spinning
Dogfighting in real life is a good bit different not like you see on TV or in the movies. They tend to exaggerate fights quite a bit for a better scene. In reality dogfights end quicker either taking a missile shot or being shredded from behind by cannon after being quickly being out maneuvered. Dogfighting in the past may have been slower but this was majorly do to not having as great a difference in capabilities as modern craft.
-
come on, it's not that hard... and well that's what dogfighting should be like in real life.
besides that one was a toaster ace... so I'm guessing that the normal combats will not have plenty of those around to keep you spinning
Dogfighting in real life is a good bit different not like you see on TV or in the movies. They tend to exaggerate fights quite a bit for a better scene. In reality dogfights end quicker either taking a missile shot or being shredded from behind by cannon after being quickly being out maneuvered. Dogfighting in the past may have been slower but this was majorly do to not having as great a difference in capabilities as modern craft.
Yeah, and actually, dogfights in Galactica don't tend to be very protracted either. With the possible exception of Starbuck vs. Scar, which was two ace pilots going up against each other, most pilots die rapidly to unexpected attack from behind. (Even Scar went out that way.)
-
I dont know about you guys but it is pretty frustrating to me especialy the last mission of the demo when you get to the final fight took me 30 minutes to kill that frakker and i was playing on medium. I dont even want to try insane i think it would make me lose my mind and bash my head into the monitor.
There's a reason why the game defaults to Easy rather than Medium. :D
-
Not that you should expect to get much as far as medals in multi go if all you play on is easy :p I'm cruel like that. You'll have to work for it. And work hard :D
-
retardedly hard
Somehow that sounds like an oxymoron or some other miscarriage of phrasing no matter which definition of retarded you use :P
-
This is the only space sim Ive ever had trouble with and i always beat every one on its highest lvl. This has to be the hardest space sim Ive played never had any trouble with any others. If you have some suggestions to improve my aim then please tell me what im doing wrong all mighty Diaspora gods.
-
all mighty btrl gods
That would be... someone else. We're now the almighty Diaspora gods. Therefore, we must give you a test. Firstly, you must answer... is this MP or SP that's giving you trouble?
-
Both i put the crosshairs dead center in lead circle and dont get **** for hits. Multi is more difficult since the fights arent dumbed down like the campaign fights.
-
In multi you do have a big problem, since BtRL is based on Freespace_open version 3.6.9, which has a rather inefficient networking backend, which in turn means high lag. Basically the lead indicator is off in MP, and the higher the lag you're experiencing, the further ahead of the lead indicator you have to aim to actually hit things. It takes some practise to get right, and even then it's still much harder than SP.
In SP, the lead indicator is correct. However, it doesn't take into account the positions of your guns, only the time it'll take the rounds to travel the distance to the target. This means that on a Mk-VII, for example, with a gun in each wing and one in the tail fin, you can be aiming perfectly at the lead indicator and yet have your shots go above, to the left and to the right of the target instead of connecting. Try using the rounds themselves as tracers and walk the fire from at least one of the guns on your ship onto the hull of the enemy, instead of blindly relying on the lead indicator. Sometimes just rolling your ship a bit will also be enough to bring round onto the target. Finally, try not to attack head on all the time - Ships present a very small profile from that direction, so try to target them while they're in a turn so you can get them from above or below where their profile is mugh larger.
-
Both i put the crosshairs dead center in lead circle and dont get **** for hits. Multi is more difficult since the fights arent dumbed down like the campaign fights.
you are playing with the cockpit view or the fighter view??
-
Cockpit view i tried external the lead circle dosent seem to adjust correctly for that view.
-
Cockpit view i tried external the lead circle dosent seem to adjust correctly for that view.
the cockpit work better close and far range, the external seems to have trouble with the close combat, but since you are using the cockpit... then I don't have a clue :S
try slowing down when shooting and getting close.. like from 200 - 500 meters.
when it starts running away don't try to keep up, stay in your position and when it comes back to get you he will approach right straight to you, so you can fire a couple of shots and get some hits, but remember to dock also.
-
Approximately what speed should i slow down to?
-
The target marker shows you the point you shall fire at IF the target moves in a straight line with steady speed...given the actual speed vector. That's why you are dead in seconds if you fly steady! Of course your target wont fly like that. The marker is just a guide. You have to "add head calculation" to that, taking in count the change in speed and direction of your target. In FS2 ships were much bigger and much-much slower, so the marker was closer to the real hit. Also, FS2 did not have thrusters and glide, which complicates the things even further. There is one solution: practice.
-
Approximately what speed should i slow down to?
I don't remember, I only slowed down because I was almost onto him, So i just slowed down to prevent me from passing him, that gave me enought time to land a couple of hits, the best that could happen to you is getting him while it's turning and showing it's whole shiluette (when you see the "bat" shape), but that doesn't happen a lot of times.
I would take the advise of Meleardil, practice will get you through it, you just have to play it a couple of times and then you get it easier.
-
In terms of gameplay, not really. In terms of physics, a lot.
BtRL used a ve ry strange scaling system where 1m was actually 2.5m. The result being that ships had to travel much faster in order to keep things believable. Getting rid of that was one of the first things Diaspora did because it was completely screwing up our attempts to make anything with capships in.
Yeah, as i converted some ships for the intro video i noticed that a 1.6km long Battlestar isn't 1.6 km long ingame.
Of course, i noticed it after i converted all the ships. My first thought on that was, i should reset the fov - i played with it a bit, but that didn't work.
My second thought was, i did something wrong during conversion, 'cause the BtRL Miner was almost as long as the BS.
As i made a new cockpit for the MkVII i noticed, that the ship is more then twice as long as it should be.
Thank the Lords, you don't use that system, 'cause flying over larger objects ( Capships, large Asteroids ( larger then the ones from the BtRL Demo ) landscapes - with mountains...) makes you feel like flying through bubblegum, i mean it's like you don't move at all.
-
Jackal, if you already have IL-2 experience then you should be working your way up to being a very good deflection shooter. That is key in FreeSpace 2 and in BtRL as enemy fighters are rarely going to just roll over and present their six for an easy shot. Sounds like aiming or control input may be a bit of an issue...definitely worth doing a little reading on the subject if need be and applying that to IL-2 and this game. The techniques are the same.
If you want a suggestion for a good practice aircraft in IL-2...the Hurricane IIb with its 12 .303 machine guns is brilliant as the sheer wash of tracer fire will help teach bullet trajectory while the gunsight and good over the nose view of the Hurricane is good for deflection shots.
-
Also, our guns have no spread (at least currently)... the bullets go where you aim.
Actually, the KEWs do have spread, but the value is set to be incredibly low so it only takes effect at long ranges (past convergence and then they're effective dogfighting weapons). So, the spread is more asthetic than gameplay in nature.
-
Personally, I did like the spread, especially the shaking of the fighter, in BtRL. Let's not forget that we are in space and that the force from shooting the guns, the RCS trying to compensate for this, and the new slightly imperfect position of the ship whilst shooting another volley is REALLY going to knock a starfighter and its weapons around, especially if those guns are not in line with the center of mass in the z-(forward) axis; the guns on any viper are most definately not. So to me, the "spread" really gave BtRL a sim-quality feeling, a most admirable trait for what most would probably call an "arcade sim."
-Thaeris
-
I don't know if I should say anything or not due to the fact the devs are trying to make a scifi sim based on real world weapons and weapon systems in a way,but I will try to help in away. Ok the weapons are railguns there is NO oxygen in space so to get a round down range you have to use electro magnetic force..Now the weapon of choice for the F18,F14,F16 and so on is the M61a Vulcan Cannon...This big momma is a multi-barrel gattling gun that uses an electric engine to spin the barrels to an extremely high rpm.So much so that it fires 20mm rounds at a rate of any where between 4,000 to 6,000 rounds per minute. Yes thats right a literal wall of steel. Now most fighters use what is called a historical sight on the hud of the fighter craft to aim the weapon. I could explain this but it woud take more posts than this one.
I could give a more detailed tech read out for you guys if you want. Maybe it could help in a way..Also I do have an Idea for maybe weak spots on fighters like the cockpit and engines..
-
I don't know if I should say anything or not due to the fact the devs are trying to make a scifi sim based on real world weapons and weapon systems in a way,but I will try to help in away. Ok the weapons are railguns there is NO oxygen in space so to get a round down range you have to use electro magnetic force..Now the weapon of choice for the F18,F14,F16 and so on is the M61a Vulcan Cannon...This big momma is a multi-barrel gattling gun that uses an electric engine to spin the barrels to an extremely high rpm.So much so that it fires 20mm rounds at a rate of any where between 4,000 to 6,000 rounds per minute. Yes thats right a literal wall of steel. Now most fighters use what is called a historical sight on the hud of the fighter craft to aim the weapon. I could explain this but it woud take more posts than this one.
I could give a more detailed tech read out for you guys if you want. Maybe it could help in a way..Also I do have an Idea for maybe weak spots on fighters like the cockpit and engines..
The BSG guns aren't necessarily railguns. It's possible to make chemical weapons fire in vacuum (since the propellant carries its own oxidizer.)
-
Thats what I was thinking too someting like symtec or C5 (yes there is a C5) but I thought they were caseless until I saw on episode about
the sabotage of the rounds well any ways if I can help with something let me know
-
I would think they would be made using a solid fuel source like the solid rocket fuel we use in rocket booster in real life. A railgun system really would make sense to use in space but isn't, considering its rounds much higher speed. Also it would have little to no recoil sense there is nothing pushing the craft back (explosive force of propellent).
-
By definition explosive material carries the oxidizer within it so they all work in space assuming rest of the gun is designed to work in space (no point using gas-operated reloading - like common assault rifles). Of course the heating would be a big issue but then again given the required energies so would it be magnets as well.
Also though the vulcan has mightily high rate of fire the aircraft generally carry ammunition for rather short bursts... Say with 6000 rps the F-15 can fire (900 and then some) for a tad less than 10 seconds while F-18 has ammo for something like 5 or 6 seconds. Well.. it would definitely be almost continuous stream of shells but also rather short lived one.
-
The vulcan weapon system has the option to use different rates of fire pilots are generaly told to use the lower rate unless doing strafing runs on ground targets so they could put as many rounds down as possible on the target befre pulling out. Least thats what they always told my dad when he was a pilot (f-15).
-
Well I have some old vids on some of the air strikes I called in when I was in the Marines also if the dev team wants I might be able to dig up some old audio on explosions gun fire and radio chatter what do you say? you game?
-
Is the third person view goin' to be as accurate as the first person view ? ( i mean aiming and shooting)
-
Is the third person view goin' to be as accurate as the first person view ? ( i mean aiming and shooting)
that's related to game engine itself, so if it's not fixed by the SCP members then it will still be as it is right now.. I'm guessing the Diaspora team is selecting a build from SCP to run their mod just like BtRL did.
Anyways it's not that big issue either, the aiming get inaccurate when at close combat, for me it seems to be working fine on the medium-long distance.
-
Personally I loved the way that BtRL didn't feel at all like Freespace. It felt like a BSG game. That's a pretty amazing achievement and I imagine everyone would be much happier with a game that continues that tradition as opposed to becoming Freespace with BSG models.
Yes! It avoided a great deal of the "airplanes in space" feeling that FS has. The gameplay was NEW! (at least it got me by surprise).
With a price, of course, but I never felt hitting to be too hard in single player. MP is another story.. but so it is in FS.
-
When I played BtRL I initially felt 'Eh? Why does this feel weird?' but it took a relatively short time to acclimatise myself to. Aiming was fine after a few minutes and I usually fly point-blank regardless; if I can't read the serial-number on the engine bell I'm not close enough for my liking. (Note to self: Too close for bombs, switch to guns).
I would say though that those ****ing stupid protect-the-convoy-from-the-bastard-asteroids worked even less than in FS2. I believe I might be lighting the blue-touch paper and not really retiring to a safe distance in making that comment though.
-
I would say though that those ****ing stupid protect-the-convoy-from-the-bastard-asteroids worked even less than in FS2. I believe I might be lighting the blue-touch paper and not really retiring to a safe distance in making that comment though.
NO PROTECT FROM ASTEROID MISSIONs FOR THE LOVE OF GODS
-
What about protect asteroids from convoy missions?
-
I would say though that those ****ing stupid protect-the-convoy-from-the-bastard-asteroids worked even less than in FS2.
Ummm. Why?
-
When I played BtRL I initially felt 'Eh? Why does this feel weird?' but it took a relatively short time to acclimatise myself to. Aiming was fine after a few minutes and I usually fly point-blank regardless; if I can't read the serial-number on the engine bell I'm not close enough for my liking. (Note to self: Too close for bombs, switch to guns).
I would say though that those ****ing stupid protect-the-convoy-from-the-bastard-asteroids worked even less than in FS2. I believe I might be lighting the blue-touch paper and not really retiring to a safe distance in making that comment though.
It was impossible to keep the Monach completely safe, but that was not an issue with the engine, I guess the mission was freded with a heavy asteroid bombardment and combining with high-medium speed of the rocks that made the mission quite a punch... but even so, it was almost impossible to loose the Monarch to that rain of rocks.. even being as dense as it was.
-
Ummm. Why?
I felt that unfamiliarity with the feel of the the fighter, the wide, flat shape of the miner and the response speed of your wing made it even more of a chore than in FS2.
It doesn't make a lot of logical sense either; detonating a large explosive or series of explosives along the line of travel prior to entering such a field sounds far more plausible. Potential cover from enemy combatants only really applies to cap-ship bombardment from outside the field and it would need to be a significant force for risking a path through the unpredictable asteroid field. Also, an enemy detonating a warhead close to the location of the convoy is going to turn said asteroid field into a pretty effective blast-bomb. FS2 had armed cap-ships that could have mashed up the field from within and had shielding. Contrast this to the convoy which is unshielded, has a tiny contingent of fighters and has no armament (IIRC). It just struck me as a crazy scenario, needlessly risky and harder to defend than in open space or above/below the asteroid field which kinda kicked the suspension of disbelief. There are a lot more reasons why it doesn't make sense than why it does.
It did give me deja-vu though as I had been used to command making weird decisions. ;)
-
Ummm. Why?
I felt that unfamiliarity with the feel of the the fighter, the wide, flat shape of the miner and the response speed of your wing made it even more of a chore than in FS2.
It doesn't make a lot of logical sense either; detonating a large explosive or series of explosives along the line of travel prior to entering such a field sounds far more plausible. Potential cover from enemy combatants only really applies to cap-ship bombardment from outside the field and it would need to be a significant force for risking a path through the unpredictable asteroid field. Also, an enemy detonating a warhead close to the location of the convoy is going to turn said asteroid field into a pretty effective blast-bomb. FS2 had armed cap-ships that could have mashed up the field from within and had shielding. Contrast this to the convoy which is unshielded, has a tiny contingent of fighters and has no armament (IIRC). It just struck me as a crazy scenario, needlessly risky and harder to defend than in open space or above/below the asteroid field which kinda kicked the suspension of disbelief. There are a lot more reasons why it doesn't make sense than why it does.
It did give me deja-vu though as I had been used to command making weird decisions. ;)
I concur. I hope there are no asteroid defense missions at all in Diaspora.
It's been canonically demonstrated in Galactica (Home, Part I) that Vipers attacking asteroids with missiles and guns simply turn them into enormous, hazardous minefields. I just don't think it fits with the feel of the show.
It doesn't seem to make too much sense for those teeny-caliber KEWs to be shattering asteroids into dust anyway.
-
Oh God, the asteroids were the BAND of my existence in the BtRL demo. I only ever managed to get past that part 3 times out of probably 12-15 play throughs. I frustrated me to no end. Then One time I reached the ace and ran out of bullets :|
-
It was not terrifically difficult to just fly ahead or behind the mining ship, then match speed (and direction), let it stabilize, then engage Glide and start tracking the asteroids traveling towards the mining ship. Also, as it only required about three rounds or so (?) to destroy an asteroid, destroying them isn't exactly ammo-consuming... :nervous:
-
It was not terrifically difficult to just fly ahead or behind the mining ship, then match speed (and direction), let it stabilize, then engage Glide and start tracking the asteroids traveling towards the mining ship. Also, as it only required about three rounds or so (?) to destroy an asteroid, destroying them isn't exactly ammo-consuming... :nervous:
But it was silly, and onerous, and inordinately difficult on higher difficulties.
-
Yep, those protect-ships-from-active-asteroid-field missions are extremely dependent on your difficulty seetings. The amount of roids thrown at the ship increases to a frusttrating amount even at the medium setting, and it only gets worse from there. I had to lower the diffculty to very easy to beat that mission with my sanity intact.
I wouldn't miss this type of mission even the slightest bis if it were omitted.
-
Altering the AI Profile would stop that happening. And Asteroid defence missions are about as realistic as heavy asteroid belts are in the first place :D
-
Altering the AI Profile would stop that happening. And Asteroid defence missions are about as realistic as heavy asteroid belts are in the first place :D
What? You're telling me there are no fields of large floatie-rocks in space?!? I've been lied to so many times by video-games and bad sci-fi.
-
Altering the AI Profile would stop that happening. And Asteroid defence missions are about as realistic as heavy asteroid belts are in the first place :D
Except for Chapel Perilous:
http://homeworld.wikia.com/wiki/HW_Campaign:_Chapel_Perilous
-
What? You're telling me there are no fields of large floatie-rocks in space?!? I've been lied to so many times by video-games and bad sci-fi.
You were... There are huge fields of floating rocks in space, but they are not that dense, and could not be as dynamic as you have seen them in TV shows. It is possible, but only if the field is "freshly created" by a cataclysm., and not as something which exists in equilibrium since billions of years. In solar systems asteroids tend to group around the Lagrange points. Around planets rings usually created and smoothed by the tidal forces of the fellow moons.
-
What? You're telling me there are no fields of large floatie-rocks in space?!? I've been lied to so many times by video-games and bad sci-fi.
You were... There are huge fields of floating rocks in space, but they are not that dense, and could not be as dynamic as you have seen them in TV shows. It is possible, but only if the field is "freshly created" by a cataclysm., and not as something which exists in equilibrium since billions of years. In solar systems asteroids tend to group around the Lagrange points. Around planets rings usually created and smoothed by the tidal forces of the fellow moons.
I was being somewhat (i.e. very) facetious but thank you for the information. :)
-
What? You're telling me there are no fields of large floatie-rocks in space?!? I've been lied to so many times by video-games and bad sci-fi.
You were... There are huge fields of floating rocks in space, but they are not that dense, and could not be as dynamic as you have seen them in TV shows. It is possible, but only if the field is "freshly created" by a cataclysm., and not as something which exists in equilibrium since billions of years. In solar systems asteroids tend to group around the Lagrange points. Around planets rings usually created and smoothed by the tidal forces of the fellow moons.
In solar system we have one asteroid field which is between Mars and Jupiter as I remember. I don't know about the density, but I think you're right - they aren't very dense. The density should be a problem only if the ship is travelling at high speeds. Anyway, the NASA launched two "pioneer" satellites and they didn't bother about that field.
-
What? You're telling me there are no fields of large floatie-rocks in space?!? I've been lied to so many times by video-games and bad sci-fi.
You were... There are huge fields of floating rocks in space, but they are not that dense, and could not be as dynamic as you have seen them in TV shows. It is possible, but only if the field is "freshly created" by a cataclysm., and not as something which exists in equilibrium since billions of years. In solar systems asteroids tend to group around the Lagrange points. Around planets rings usually created and smoothed by the tidal forces of the fellow moons.
In solar system we have one asteroid field which is between Mars and Jupiter as I remember. I don't know about the density, but I think you're right - they aren't very dense. The density should be a problem only if the ship is travelling at high speeds. Anyway, the NASA launched two "pioneer" satellites and they didn't bother about that field.
I'm pretty sure you could float something the size of the Earth through our asteroid field without hitting anything of note. Its not that dense at all.
-
You might even get lucky and acquire a few extra moons if you do that :D
-
BTW I liked the asteroid defence mission in the demo. It added some "realism", made me feel as the pilot who is not only fighting, but also does something "routinic".
-
I too thought the miner asteroid defence mission had lots to offer; and some here might be too quick to berate it.
If you want to develop an engrossing story, you've got to have some believable characters. Of course, when the 'characters' appear as all relatively similar ships on screen visually, you've got to use the comm chatter and other methods to flesh out each personality. When you're fighting in the thick of a dogfight, let's be honest, we miss most of the comm chatter.
These quieter misions - insights into what the everyday life for a Viper pilot of sensor sweeps, CAP picket duty and riding shotgun for Colonial One is like - gives that opportunity. Take a look at Blue Planet, which uses whole missions where you don't fire in anger to build their characters and the story.
-
Right, quiet missions are great, but frustrating and inexplicable asteroid defense missions aren't.