[petmar]

I've been talking to 'Emperor again, and we've decided that the only real problem with weapon systems is the anti-fighter beams.  Imagine you're looking at a laser pointer. The only way to see it is by reflection off its target or by pointing it through particles, i.e. dust and/or fog. The beams just need to not be visible on the side.

And, also, let's not get into a realists/arcadists rift in this thread, k, people? I don't want two camps on any given issue... I'd like to all take objective perspectives.

[Stryke 9]

Beams aren't lasers.

[petmar]

I am presently working on slightly modifying the physics library to account for newtonian and keplerian physics...  Calling all coders interested in helping!

[phreak]

IIRC, if you were to change around the physics so it would be real, you would also have to change around some of the ai code.  the ai doesn't seem to like making head on passes as opposed to a turning fight and the former would be seen much more often in such an environment.  a semi-skilled pilot could pull some maneuvers that would make it real easy to kill hordes of maras on insane

[petmar]

Well, why don't we try the mods first, then we'll see what changes propagate outwards that we need to fix?

[phreak]

seems reasonable.  just make sure there is an option somewhere to make it use arcade physics again

[Galemp]

The best thing to do, it seems, is to make another branch. After 3.6 is out with all the bugfixes, Petmar can start on his own version with Real™ physics.

[WMCoolmon]

Originally posted by petmar
I am presently working on slightly modifying the physics library to account for newtonian and keplerian physics...  Calling all coders interested in helping!

Woah, hold on there a minute. When you say "to account for", do you mean you're replacing Freespace physics with newtonian physics, or making it toggleable between the two? I haven't seen much support for your ideas so far (Out of a community of 500). I don't see anything wrong if you're making everything optional and off by default (More options are good ), but actually changing the physics engine wholesale is almost certainly going to spark protest.

Oh, and a while back there was some discussion on making it possible to have turrets face sideways...IIRC, there was some major physics reworking that would be needed in order to make it work. Since you'll already be digging around in the physics code, you might be able to modify some stuff to make it easier for a more determined attempt. (WARNING: I have done almost no research whatsoever on this. )

Edit to replies: Actually, IMHO, realistic physics should be toggleable on a per-mission basis

[Starks]

Wasn't there a www.freespace2.com code in the game for Descent physics?

[petmar]

Excellent ideas, all! I'll definitely sortie one of my minions to look into the turret rotation thing, and I'm going to want to be able to both toggle realPhys as a set, but also by separate attributes, such as weapon visibility and gravity, etc. Does that sound good to everybody?

[petmar]

Originally posted by petmar
Does that sound good to everybody?

Huh? Does it? Huh? Don't MAKE me do a poll!

[Stryke 9]

Weapon visibility is a mod thing, not a source thing.

[petmar]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
Weapon visibility is a mod thing, not a source thing.

I should probably move this into general fs2, then, because this aspect will take on dimensions of both modding and coding... any suggestions about this, anyone?

[Stryke 9]

Separate things. You make your own invisible-gun mod, or get someone to do it for you, and I think the gravity and such are already on the to-do list, but leave that here anyway.

[Starks]

This should have its own project forum.

[Bobboau]

wait a sec are you offering to code in newtonian physics code you're self,
oh hell yes!
just make it posable to swich between the 'normal' physics and the 'corect' physics, preferably on the fly, defanatly with a comand line option

[Starks]

The name of this topic sounds just like SETI@Home.

[petmar]

Originally posted by LLivingLarge
The name of this topic sounds just like SETI@Home.

physics@work... seti@home... Coincidence? We think not.

As for the coding, I have finals this week, so I can't really do that much, but I hope to have an .exe for the physics engine by the end of the month.

[Alan Bolte]

Hmm, interesting. I was thinking about this recently.
For some games currently under development which try to combine more realistic physics with great gameplay, check out Homeplanet and Starshatter.
As to FS2, changing the physics engine significantly will essentially create an entire new game. By the time you're anywhere at all I suspect you'll havesomething half original. Not that I know anything about coding. Anyway, just wanted to say that realistic can be fun, and if you're going to go realistic, you may as well go all the way. I look foreward to hitting full thrust and going nowhere, then burning for too long and shooting past my enemies without exchanging a hit.

[petmar]

You know, it's always way more fun that way.