[StratComm]

It sounds completely impossible.  There are speed mods out there that address some of your concerns, but in all honesty the problem isn't the tables or the speeds themselves or anything like that, at least not nearly as much as the problem lies in the way the game itself works.  For one thing, AI goes belly-up at speeds of about twice what FS speeds achieve.  For another, colission detection is optimized for much slower speeds (the projectiles are really the issue here, as they have to be the fastest objects in a given mission) and adjusting the max on everything pushes you closer to those limits.  It's not a trivial task to readjust everything (assuming you want to do essentially a TC), and even assuming you got it right there'd still be tons of fairly major problems associated with it.

But, if it really is something you care about, search for "speed mod" and see what you come up with.

[karajorma]

I think the biggest problem is that the AI wouldn't have the faintest clue how to deal with the problem and no one wants to touch the AI code cause we're all scared of it.

[CaptJosh]

Hey, it was just an idea, StratComm. No need to slam the door on me. It's not all I'm interested in. I just thought it would be interesting to see how the game dynamic changed if it could be done. Clearly it can't. At least not as the AI code stands now. Not to mention optimizing collision detection. Plus, at those speeds, if you impact, you'd better hope shields can ward off some of that, or BOOM. No boom today? Boom tomarrow. There's always a boom tomorrow...sooner or later, BOOM!

BTW, thanks for elaborating on why it wouldn't work, kara.

[Goober5000]

CaptJosh, StratComm wasn't slamming the door on you.

[CaptJosh]

The phraseology led me to believe otherwise, Goober.

The first thing he said was, "It sounds completely impossible to me."

This is not constructive. It's a sentence that could have been left out entirely without changing the content of the message.

That said, I did look at what he said other than that and still responded to the actual issues he raised.

Perhaps, given previous posts, I'm not the best person to comment on this. But I am trying to get things straightened out.

[Blaise Russel]

Originally posted by CaptJosh
The phraseology led me to believe otherwise, Goober.

The first thing he said was, "It sounds completely impossible to me."

This is not constructive. It's a sentence that could have been left out entirely without changing the content of the message.

Actually, it's an opinion. See, he's looked at the issue and come to the conclusion that Freespace 2 with increased speeds will not work, is not a possibility - is "impossible". Note also the "It sounds" and "to me," which don't make the judgement sound particularly final or uncompromising (regardless of the "completely").

That, by itself, could be 'slamming the door', yes. However, he took the time to explain his conclusion, laying out why he thought that way. That's an open and honest discussion of the issue; there's no slamming of doors, no vicious attacks on mere ideas happening anywhere.

Your "phraseology" suggests that you seem to be trying to take offence wherever you can, as though the entire universe is constantly trying to take you down. Easy, soldier. Dude was just answering your question, he wasn't trying to make you look bad.

I mean, good grief. We're getting upset over the use of the word "impossible"? What happened to the insults and flaming?

[CaptJosh]

Well, to be fair, I think prohibitively difficult would be more accurate. Just from playing various games I've seen how hard it is to design a good AI, and how easy it can be beak an otherwise good AI with "a minor improvement."

But prohibitively difficult doesn't make it entirely impossible. It just makes it a pain in the ass. I guess I just don't like the word "impossible." It has been my observation that when people say something's impossible, it seems like it's either actually used in place of not wanting to try for some reason or another (difficulty, time, money, etc.), or in place of "I don't believe it." IMO, there are better ways to say something is absurdly difficult.

I am aware that in the realm of mathematics, there are statistical impossiblities, that is, things that are so improbable that they just aren't going to happen in anyone's lifetime, but that's different than claiming a task that is highly difficult can't be done.

All that said, I wasn't trying to take offense. I should have qualified what I said about shutting or slamming the door and I didn't. You called me on it. Fair enough. I apologize.

[Blaise Russel]

Hey, no need to apologise to anyone. This is the Internet; miscommunication is its entire point.

[CaptJosh]

Smartass.

Nice to meet you.

Smartassery aside, I prefer to communicate clearly. It saves trouble. Or saves time making trouble.

[TrashMan]

I tried changing the ship speeds to more realistic levels..It won't work.

Ai is utterly incapable at those speeds and dogfighting is imposssibl. teh ships szip by you so fast that you even have problems getting a missile lock (and udue to their speed, ship evade missiles even easier than before) and hitting them with guns is next to impossible.

Realism is good, unless it break gameplay..in this case it would.


@StrattComm - I see you're down to your ususal "my adversary in this debate is a brick wall and generally a idoit" routine.... hehe
Our of ammo?

By the way - you might want to know that I went trough the retail missions right now and found nothing that can break the mission based on ship speeds..
I even played the whole campaign trough with different ship speeds in the tables.

[CaptJosh]

Did I forget to mention that you have to open up engagement ranges, etc...? You can't increase the speed without increasing the capability of the weapons being used.

[TrashMan]

And that turns into a arel combat simulatr.. played those and they are boring as hell...
 lock target a kazzilion klicks away*
*fire missile*
*wait a few minutes till it hits*
*repeat process*
*eventually miserably try to avoid the missile*

You never see the enemy... I don't recall that I ever - in any of those games actualyl got close enough to use the guns..ever..

[WMCoolmon]

Originally posted by TrashMan
@StrattComm - I see you're down to your ususal "my adversary in this debate is a brick wall and generally a idoit" routine.... hehe
Our of ammo?

No, StratComm elaborated fairly well on why it seemed impossible.

[TrashMan]

About what? Speed mods or the engine modifications?

the first I never proposed, the second I proved wrong by playing tough the fs2 campaign with changed CAPSHIP speeed tables...

[WMCoolmon]

Yes, the speed mod. Considering that's what you were talking about for most of your post, and what everyone else was talking about for the last 20 posts, and you prefaced your contribution to the previous topic with a "by the way"...

[FireCrack]

shift+.

[Goober5000]

All right, enough of this.